That's not true. Most of the time they realise that the powerful often fear losing money more than they feel violence- one of the biggest problems with violent resistance is once you give in to it once, everyone sees that they can just start attacking and threatening you to get what they want.
Gandhi wasn't threatening violence, but he did threaten economic standstill. And if there was no profit, what was the point in British India in the first place?
114
u/TheCharalampos Jul 28 '26
All pacifist movements that achieved great results did have implied violence lending a large hand.