Violence can work, in theory, but under highly specific circumstances. Most political violence that occurs is quite random and aimless, which is why it does not succeed. I also doubt that it can work in the heavily militarized and enormously powerful modern states. And even when it does work, it is rarely the party that engaged in the most violence that ends up prevailing - the SRs committed nearly all of the terrorism in Russia, but it was the Bolsheviks who were better able to channel their violence who took over.
Far better to remain peaceful and to put the onus on them to start violence, which will chip away at their legitimacy. They can justify the murder of an Ashley Babbitt, as they can falsely claim she was an imminent threat, but it will be very difficult to justify firing into peaceful crowds. Many will, but some will not.
Violence can work, in theory, but under highly specific circumstances. Most political violence that occurs is quite random and aimless, which is why it does not succeed. I also doubt that it can work in the heavily militarized and enormously powerful modern states. And even when it does work, it is rarely the party that engaged in the most violence that ends up prevailing - the SRs committed nearly all of the terrorism in Russia, but it was the Bolsheviks who were better able to channel their violence who took over.
Far better to remain peaceful and to put the onus on them to start violence, which will chip away at their legitimacy. They can justify the murder of an Ashley Babbitt, as they can falsely claim she was an imminent threat, but it will be very difficult to justify firing into peaceful crowds. Many will, but some will not.
Violence can work, but it depends on the actual situation on the ground, and who is employing it. The west is not in one of those situations.
My biggest point here is that violence is explicitly an enemy psy-op in our particular case.