There is a book “how to blow up a pipeline” that talks about most of these figures and how they succeeded only because the existence of more radical and violent wings of their movements. It is a good read.

I can't address the book directly, since I haven't read it, but I'd point out that:

1. There is a vast fucking difference between asserting the flank effect exists and asserting that success is only possible because of the radical flank in all cases.

2. That asserting that no one has ever gotten their freedom via moral persuasion necessarily implies that moral persuasion has never been the prime mover of the grant of rights to oppressed and marginalized groups, which, itself, necessarily implies a level of violence, capacity for violence, and fear of violence that is often vastly disproportionate compared to what the historical evidence actually suggests.

3. That the reverse can be applied much easier and much more consistently in light of the evidence - that violent wings of a movement have never succeeded in the fundamental goal of eliminating oppression without moral persuasion towards oppressors; movements which rely only on violence can only succeed in establishing themselves as an oppressive regime and flipping which side is oppressed. And, for that matter, pointing out that the long history of violent movements by the oppressed do not have any track record of establishing alleviation of the oppressed in the greater polity without substantial moral persuasion; reducing a conflict to balance of power, as was often done historically before modern methods of communication and analysis resulted in more coordinated and universalist approaches towards liberation, simply results in the oppressors waiting for an opportunity to reduce the gains of the oppressed that were won by pure vigilance of arms.

I have been to many Nelson Mandela museums, and spoken with a lot of people who lived through the end of Apartheid. When he took power, both the black and white populations were gearing up for civil war. One guy told me that there were charts up at his school showing the likely kinds of grenades that could be thrown at him. Anyway, Mandela managed to calm things down. He might have been the only guy who could have navigated that exact time period. He did it through a series of policy changes, meetings with key leaders, and speeches. Entirely peaceful, but importantly, there had also been huge amounts of violence leading up to his release from prison and becoming president.

Did the racists change their minds? I don’t know. But the transition to the new government was peaceful.

I would suggest that the oppressors found it no longer beneficial because many of the oppressors' recruitment pool for the instruments of oppression had changes of heart.

I would not count on the 'hearts' of those in power under any circumstances, but if you consider oppression to be imposed by society, then there are many oppressors whose opinions can be swayed, even if violence should not be surrendered as an additional, conditional, or potential tool.

Appealing to moral sense doesn't mean your victory relies on the powerful changing their hearts - sometimes it just relies on their allies withdrawing support.

See, specifically, Ferdinand Marcos fleeing when the nonviolent EDSA protests made him realize he was blockaded on all sides and the CIA would no longer prop him up.

Yes, this is certainly true. Like I said, violence and persuasion are BOTH tools. Sometimes you need more of one, and sometimes you need more of the other.

You mean the man who spent the last year of his life ardently advocating for attempting to persuade the oppressors before breaking out the metaphorical and literal big guns again?

Yes, sounds like he was very opposed to appealing to the moral sense of the electorate.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't catch your edit.

To the point of denying that Mandela, Gandhi, and MLK Jr. engaged in moral persuasion. It's utter insanity.

It's almost like violence and persuasion are BOTH tools with applications in fighting oppression, rather than picking one or the other as The One True Faith(tm)? 🤯

In case reading the title was too much effort for you.

And also literally turned to negotiation and persuasion later in life, with which he successfully achieved what he could not during his paramilitary days.

Sometimes the hammer is the right choice, and sometimes the screwdriver is.

Nonviolent means are not physically violent towards people - it works because of violence all the same though

Nonviolent means can (and often do) work when oriented towards pressuring a population. That's not a reason to discount the value of nonviolent means oriented towards moral persuasion. That's all I'm saying.

There’s always violence. It can be implied, it can be against yourself, it can be against property, it can be against the feeling of normalcy itself - but there’s always some kind of violence. Because ultimately, violence is asserting your will over others, and that’s what a movement does

Is persuasion, then, violence as well?