Violence, for a political aim should be cold and calculated, not emotional. It should also play second fiddle to non violence and communication.

The Irish troubles are a good example. The IRA forced the British government to listen to the politicians. The non violent protests and marches gave popular backing to the political process.

In a sane world, politicians know that violence is an option, and pay heed to the non violent methods before it escalates. This is what has happened in a number of non violent political movements. The option of escalation cannot be taken off the table however. It provides the silent bite to back up the bark.

The biggest thing to avoid is emotional violence. Smashing up shops in a riot might feel good but achieves very little. It burns the good will of the public. Instead it needs to be focused on a target, with minimal collateral damage. Particularly collateral deaths/injuries to the general public.

Ironically, the recent burning of a warehouse is a good example. Little to no collateral damage, but significant damage to its target, with a strong, stated reason.

One thing to note. Disparaging non violent protests is a definite bad move. Those protests provide both cover to organise, and a weathervane on public feeling.

Sun Tzu:

In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good.

…

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.

Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk [disrupt, stymie, stifle] the enemy’s plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy’s forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy’s army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.

…

Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. (2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. (3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. (5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.

To give at least some credit to Clausewitz:

War is the continuation of politics by other means.

Non violence is an aim, an ideal, a category of strategies.

Not the whole of strategy.

The overall situation is what dictates the means at hand, the potentially viable strategies.

Unnecessary violence is always sub-optimal.

… It will be up to you, as a strategist, to determine what constitutes unnecessary, in what overall situation.

Here’s your friendly reminder that nonviolence still allows for self protection. If someone is performing violence on you or someone you love, being nonviolent doesn’t mean you just sit there and go “it’d be wrong for me to use violence to protect myself/my loved ones”. Fighting back is acceptable.

I think violence is way more effective in people’s imaginations than it is in reality. Even where it is effective, the ends resemble the means in unintended ways. It inherently promotes hierarchy and control, because it’s a way of solving problems that more than any other does not require listening to or understanding the people you are dealing with.

All of that doesn’t mean violence can never be a good decision, but it’s very strongly biased towards being a bad decision, and people are much too fixated on it and sabotage their own efforts by appraising its utility too highly, especially if their goals are opposed to authoritarian dominance.

Violence is monopolized by heirarchical power structures. Decentralize violence.

Non violence till it become necessary to be violent

What do you have in mind when you state “old school non-violence”?

In France violence is legally defined as harming people. Burning a Tesla shop is technically not violence, so it’s perfectly fine 🔥

Non-violence at best accomplishes one thing: make injustice public, force society to talk about it and position itself on a topic. It won’t be enough to convice, unless you are a victim of publicized harsh violence (think blood is spellt, people get into a coma, or worse). Like all strategies revolutionaries will have, none should be discarded and they are all complementary. What matters is that everyone acts collectively and pushes in the same direction

Inaction is violence

Nonviolence is properly seen as a tool or tactic, rather than some absolute principle. There are cases when a nonviolent approach is suitable for a particular situation. But the issue is when you assume that conclusion before you even begin evaluating the situation. And that goes both ways, you shouldn’t automatically assume that violent tactics will be the most effective or suitable.

Fighting the powers that be is a huge undertaking so you gotta have your eye on the ball. Decisions should be based on tactical effectiveness rather than one’s own proclivity or aversion towards violence.

As a old saying se have here where i live "violence isn’t the answer, violence is the question, the answer is ‘yes’ "

You can only fight violence with violence. Paradox of tolerance and such.

I used to because pacifist. This fucking regime ended that.

Non-violence is very effective when violence is visibly on the sidelines looking for an excuse to step in.

Violence is fundamentally how the far-right thinks, that brings to prevarication and competitiveness. I think anarchy (as opposite on the spectrum) is essentially pacifism, one of the best way you can in fact divide the left cultures is using violence and how much violence you think is enough for the purpose.