There were a lot of socialists revolutionary who changed the world and the political commitments like Gandhi in India. The non-violence was adopted by many people like Martin Luther King with the black's struggle. There was also the scientific, Einstein, who studied « why the violence? » and « why the wars?». The violence is also efficient to have legitimacy but with some limits and only the states can use it. The commitments violence has always exist in parts of the world. But « should political commitements be necessary to be efficient? »

In some extremer cases, the violence could be efficient if it's used only by the states and if some persons use it the policy can punish them.The violence is synonym of exploitation of citizens by the states to aim to have some legitimacy. With no violence, the states lose his legitimacy. So it's a good system of coercion.

But, sometimes, the violence no use any things and just deteriorate. Infact, for instance in Soudan there was a woman who wore a trouser which is no tolerate in it's country. She was beating up. After that, a lot of womans led a life of combat for some equality and some rights. They organized many manifestations. I think if Soudan no use the violence, the citizens doesn't disobey.

The violence is a « big word », there was a lot of mens who combat for no-violence like Gandhi in India. The violence can be efficient but only in extremer cases for instance the states have an army, it is a violence but use in some cases. The no-violence is better because we need a world of peace and liberty, no with wars and