Peaceful vs Violent Protest Civil Rights Movement - Which one was more effective?Watch
Which one do you think were more effective and why?
Ultimately, hit the state in the wallet and then they will start paying attention. The IRA figured that one out when they started bombing major financial targets in London, and were costing the British government and economy billions of pounds in damages. The Good Friday agreement, which handed a lot of power to Republicans, followed pretty soon after.
Then again civil disobedience can be more effective in pressuring a government/organisation to do what the protestors asking them to do.
There are advantages and disadvantages to this. A good example of this is the suffragists and suffragettes movement. The suffragettes used a lot more millitant and violent tactics than the suffragists.
There is a simple equation for working out whether protests will succeed:
What causes a bigger problem for those in power:
Enacting the demands of the protestors
unless there is a particular ideological barrier stopping those in power from acting, as long as the protest causes more of a problem then their demands, they will likely win in the long run.
Both a peaceful and non-peaceful protest have the potential to cause major problems. A peaceful protest can change minds, creating a huge problem for those in charge if they are part of a democratic system, the violent protest obviously causes physical and practical problems.
I imagine it's optimal to have both happening