: I may going out on a limb here, but I'd argue that the Indian liberation movement and the U.S. civil rights movement were examples of non-violent revolution.
Taking only the U.S. example, the civil rights movement was a great demonstration of street power. It was also, alas, an example of reformism's limitation: once the blacks got off the streets and into 'changing the system from within,' the gains pretty well stopped.
Stoller: Also: When liberals support gun control, they demonstrate their support for the ruling class. Without guns there can be no revolution.
: That's too simplistic. Liberals and others who favor gun control do so because of a sky-high gun fatality rate, not a pro-ruling class agenda.
Both of our points are correct. Liberals want fatality rates stopped, but banning weapons bans the revolution as well.
: Also, I wonder, at which point does violent revolution become impossible?... When faced with overwhelming firepower, do you just hope for the best, or find another way?
If violent revolution becomes impossible, revolution becomes impossible. If you think 'reasoning' with the ruling class will accomplish anything, then I feel sorry for you.