The problem with the fetishization of non-violence is that it ignores that most transformative non-violent social movements have occurred concurrently with violent co-movements. Ghandi preached non-violence, but at the same time, violent Hindu radicals were running around slitting the throats of every British official they could get their hands on. MLK preached non-violence, but the Black Panthers were waiting in the wings, offering a much more unpleasant option if MLK failed.

Violent social movements have very real tangible value, but their value isn't in the violence itself. We're not going to change the health insurance system through pure violence, no matter how many CEOs lay dead on the streets of Manhattan.

On the other hand, non-violent social movements rarely succeed either. Even the most modest, centrist, and conciliatory of reforms are derided as extreme or "Communist." Look at Obamacare, a reform designed from the ground up to NOT disrupt the profits of the insurance or healthcare industries. This was a modest market-based reform that was originally a Republican reform plan. The right spent a decade going nuts calling it the second coming of Mao. And they still oppose it to this day. In the end it tinkered around the edges, but it was hardly transformative change.

The real value of violence is that it makes modest peaceful reforms much more palatable. The civil rights amendments and acts passed in the 1960s and 1970s would have never passed if there were only peaceful movements behind them. They amended the damn constitution! That took people on both sides of the aisle saying, "damn, we really need to change some things. This is getting out of hand."

And that kind of broad bipartisan consensus that reform was needed was only possible because of the threat of violence. Violent radicals like the Black Panthers made MLK palatable to middle America. Without them, MLK would have just been another radical socialist to be demonized. And even then, they still killed him anyway.

The real value of violent social movements is that they make non-violent social movements possible. In fact, without violence, non-violent social movements rarely succeed. You need BOTH violence and non-violence if you want to make substantial change to the system. The violence puts the fear of God into the placid middle classes and wealthy corporate interests. This allows the non-violent reformers to show up with a solution to the problem that allows these centrist factions to feel that they're not giving in to the violent radicals. Violence and non-violence are two sides of the same coin. And they are both essential.

Non-violence is often and most effectively a direct threat of imminent violence.

Or as a promise for the cessation of ongoing violence.

with plans on what to do afterwards.

True. You always need a plan what to do after success.

Violence is always a valid answer. It's just not always the best answer. The problem with violence is it's been proven time and time again to be impossible to control and hold to a limited use since there are no cool heads at that point. Nor do specific targets exist-- just collateral damage.

And no successful revolutionary has ever had a sound plan for after the victory beyond "I want the power now." And they can either hold the power or not. But the idea of "for the good of the people" gets put to the side pretty quickly.

Source?