It is said that a belligerent revolution is not the answer, and my Pacifist proclivity accedes, but my common sense poses this question: what use is peacefulness against a bellicose ascendancy and regime? Will Peace prevail against violence?
Protests, for example, however placid, seem to not garner the attention that truculent ones do. Peaceful protests are customarily ignored. I doubt violence would transmute an opinion, unless you end the person's life, of course, but I would urge against that. However, I do believe that controlling and coercive comportment, for the most part, is a moral malefaction warranting death. Does the end justify the cessation? Can a violent uprise end in tranquility?
A "Please avail us" has never earned a sympathetic hand. Nothing is more clear to me what the solution is, Anarchism. But how we get there? Surely assassination in the denomination of this cause has transpired, and endeavors, anarchist Alexander Berkman attempted to assassinate Henry Clay Frick in 1892. But should we feel deplorable that a monarch was eradicated? And can we sanction more to transpire, and if so, will we be able to slumber at night? No doubt murder is erroneous, but I ask this, is it murder? The killing of a manipulator? Or is it bulwark of others? Regardless, the whole point remains identically tantamount. Placidity does not, has not, and likely will not stop the truculent, it certainly will not stop belligerent ascendancy. As much as a placid revolution sounds ideal, some violence, the right kind, is obligatory.