The only other fast way to fight it is with violence, but without clear national unity and already decent leadership it usually results in some form of autocracy, making the situation worse.
Edit: violent revolution* usually doesn’t work, but violence itself can be rather effective
I think you’ve falsely equated violence with revolution.
There are currently arsonists in Atlanta and elsewhere in the US fighting the creation of cop city and projects like it via property damage. That is violence with no danger of creating an autocracy. I’d argue the Black Panthers, the Suffragettes and the IRA all used violence which posed no danger of autocracy.
I do agree that strong group unity, some form of multistate participation, and good leadership and structure, are all very important for it to yield positive results.
The only other fast way to fight it is with violence, but without clear national unity and already decent leadership it usually results in some form of autocracy, making the situation worse.
Edit: violent revolution* usually doesn’t work, but violence itself can be rather effective
I think you’ve falsely equated violence with revolution.
There are currently arsonists in Atlanta and elsewhere in the US fighting the creation of cop city and projects like it via property damage. That is violence with no danger of creating an autocracy. I’d argue the Black Panthers, the Suffragettes and the IRA all used violence which posed no danger of autocracy.
I do agree that strong group unity, some form of multistate participation, and good leadership and structure, are all very important for it to yield positive results.
Edit: put NRA instead of IRA, fuck me. Fixed now.
Very good point, my bad.