Antifa vs Anticom

[bdbdbd]

Mnementh said:

VGPolyglot said:

It can't be abolished through peaceful means, because those in power are not going to willingly give it up. They are authoritarian for a reason: they like control. There's a reason they have a military and a police force: they need violence to sustain the system. Therefore, the only rid to get rid of it is through violence: you can't be peaceful against a violent opponent.

I disagree. The colonial power of Great Britain over India was removed by peaceful means. While the ANC fought with violence, the actual end of Apartheid was through peaceful means. The change in eastern europe, especially east germany came through peaceful means. The Franco-regime and the regime of Chiang Kai-shek ended peacefully (with their death). Sure, violence seems faster, but it tends to give power to the people willing to use violence. Also change through violence can cause more harm that is avoided.

You're looking at it from a different angle. VGPolyglot is suggesting there would be no centralised government, effectively leaving a power vacuum that nobody would fill, wheras you point out that someone else just filled the power vacuum that the old rule left behind. 

In a civil society, the government has a monopoly on violence (as in forcefully being able to maintain order if needed), in the form of police and military. He's suggesting that the existence of police and military by itself justifies violence against police and military.