This NPR podcast/article argues different.

"...found that major nonviolent campaigns are successful 53% of the time, while violent campaigns are successful only 26% of the time."

The Protest Tipping Point (podcast): https://www.npr.org/2019/06/25/736007317/the-protest-tipping...

The Magic Number Behind Protests: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/06/25/735536434/the-...

Was the Civil Rights movement in the United States violent or non-violent?

MLK may have been the face of it, but the man that really brought the government to the negotiating table was Malcolm X... Because of the implicit threat that if non-violent resistance won't work, here's a guy that is perfectly happy to have his supporters sit outside congress, armed with assault rifles, exercising their second amendment rights.

Non-violent protest often wins because the powers that be want to avoid antagonising the violent arm of the movement.

It should also be pointed out that while MLK wasn't interested in engaging in violence himself, he had rather harsh words for people who cared more about non-violence than civil rights (see: Letter from a Birmingham Jail).

> Non-violent protest often wins because the powers that be want to avoid antagonising the violent arm of the movement.

Not really a non-violent protest wins because majority move away from a violent group to a non-violent group.

So it makes a violent person who already has fear, more scared of being left alone. Non-violent protests need to be planned and require strategy in such a way, it helps those non-violent protestors to self-defend with the use of non-violent means, i.e. using deterrents which create fear in aggressors mind on use of violence.

That might just mean that violent protests are deployed too widely. It's impossible to say in unique situations whether violence or nonviolence will fare better.

I'll take a look, thanks.