Violence erupted at the University of California, Los Angeles after pro-Israeli counter-demonstrators attacked a pro-Palestinian campus encampment. Bubbling tensions on the campus boiled over following the alleged breach of a “buffer zone” between the rival groups.
Nonviolent protest works when the violence against the nonviolent becomes the impetus for change. That whole Jesus taking the beating to point out the problems in the system has a long history whether you believe in religion on not. Probably why we still talk about non-violent protesters like Gandhi or MLK, too.
That’s not to say that violence doesn’t have its place, like the French Revolution. But that’s the shortcut. You forcefully break the system and rebuild it right now, rather than the long game of changing the system from within.
Checking out the author, he seems much more French Revolution type (even though being an anarchist really puts him at odds with any resulting government), looks like he’s spent a bit of time in jail for some protests, none of them violent.
Pacifism did not work for Ghandi or MLK. They were both murdered by conservatives and the problems they championed persisted long after their deaths.
Conservatives see pacifism as a weakness to exploit and an invitation to attack. In fact, never in history has pacifism defeated conservatism. Action is always needed to cure an infection of conservatism.
While both only directly participated in non-violent protest themselves, Gandhi and MLK both participated in overarching struggles that were most definitely supported by a diversity of tactics, including violent protest.
In my opinion the reason we still talk about these individuals today, without any focus given to the violent action also employed in support of their same cause, is because there is no material difference between complacency and exclusively non-violent protest in the ability of either to manifest actual change.