Nonviolent resistance vs violent resistance

[wynn]

It's a no-brainer that those in power prefer that those below them would not resist.

But the pacifists (the Western variety) are often not associated with the government.
So what do those pacifists gain if people do not resist?

Perhaps the pacifists are simply trying to gain control themselves, and they are doing it in a way that seems everything but suspicious of such ulterior motives.

 

[Mircea]

There is a natural assumption that pacifist tactics in the face of tyranny is not only superior but essentially effective. Now as I can agree with the former I am not sure if I believe in the assumption attached to the latter. Is it reasonable to assume that non-violence is only a tactic and not a way of life and that if it fails to work violent resistance is required?

Depending on time-constraints, one is obligated to engage in non-violent means first, before shifting to violence.

However, if non-violence fails, then it must be elevated to violence in order to achieve the desired goal.

If you're referring to Egypt, that is a situation where there were no time-constraints. If you're referring to Romania, peaceful demonstrations were initiated successfully and there were no time-constraints at that point, but once internal security forces began firing on demonstrators and executing military personnel and civilians, time became critical: it was either escalate to violence or fail.

 

[visceral_instinct]

IMO, violence is not immoral if it's self defence.

Nonviolent means should be used IF POSSIBLE, but if you have to fight to protect yourself, I see no wrong in that.