That's an oversimplified way to understand nonviolent resistance movements that's insufficient to explain their success. In every case where they have been suc

That's an oversimplified way to understand nonviolent resistance movements that's insufficient to explain their success. In every case where they have been successful, a radical movement with the will to violence at their flank is what brings the other party to the negotiation table. The plausible threat of a mutually destructive protest movement with unconditional demands makes the measured compromise of the peaceful group seem acceptable by comparison. Look at the environmental movement for what happens without this. Decades of nonviolent protest and resistance, but without a plausibly violent fringe there is no reason for anyone to capitulate to its demands, and so no one has.