I See No Hope of Overthrowing the CCP Regime Through Non-violent Means

Indeed, I see many voices on the Chinese internet advocating for non-violent anti-communism. For example, they they like to cite some data or research results to prove this point:

"Harvard University professor Erica Chenoweth's research shows that from 1900 to 2019, among 650 movements worldwide aimed {// a bit of the content is missing in the user prompt, but I will translate the rest as provided}

However, there are a few points they want you to ignore.

First, the key to the success of these non-violent movements is that the national army or police forces choose to stand with the people or remain neutral. In the CCP state, however, both the army and the police are firmly controlled by the Communist Party. June Fourth has already proven that, in order to maintain the regime, the CCP is not afraid to use the army to bloodily massacre the people. As long as the army dares to massacre unarmed people, there is no possibility for a peaceful non-violent movement of the people to overthrow this regime.

Second, they attribute the key role of the success of many movements that had both violent and non-violent resistance to non-violent resistance. I do not know how they evaluate which method played the key role. But from my personal perspective, as long as violent resistance occurs in a movement, it should be considered a violent resistance movement. The situation is often that overthrowing a regime requires a long period of preparation within a society, and most of the events leading up to it may limit resistance activities to non-violence. Then, at the final moment, violent resistance activities appear. Immediately after, the regime is overthrown. Should we attribute the victory of the resistance to the non-violent phase, which lasted longer? I do not think so. I believe that the long-term non-violent resistance was preparing the ground for the final moment of violent resistance. Without the final moment of violent resistance, non-violent resistance can never achieve a decisive victory.

It is evident that not only are there few examples of overthrowing a regime entirely through non-violent resistance, but on top of that, they continue to ignore the important prerequisite for non-violent resistance to succeed: that the regime is unwilling or unable to mobilize its violent apparatuses to suppress the people. Therefore, these advocates of non-violent revolution are not only untenable in their views, but their arguments are not persuasive.

I believe that violent revolution is the natural development stage of non-violent non-cooperation movements. When the resistance will and emotion of the oppressed people in a society reach a sufficient amount, violent revolution will naturally occur. At this time, if one still advocates for non-violence and suppresses violent revolution, then these advocates of non-violence become a force of counter-revolution. For example, another set of rhetoric used by these non-violence advocates to suppress violent revolution is: a new regime produced through the barbaric barbaric way of violent revolution will inevitably be another dictatorship government.

However, this rhetoric is a lie that can be easily debunked. An obvious example is the beacon of democracy in today's world, the United States, whose establishment was achieved through the American Revolutionary War.