Unfortunately he's wrong. Political violence can and does work.

It depends on one's definition of "work."

Howard Zinn on "Just War".

work = achieve one's goals

For instance terrorism in response to apartheid in South Africa. Worked.

I think the basic point the statement makes is a good one and it's something I rarely I see used in argument between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives often site easy examples like the appeasent of the nazis (one of many examples) as an argument against many of the tempered solutions liberals have to big problems in the world. they always are so quick to point to failures, yet the point I always am thinking of is similar to the above statement- conservatives have had it their way for centuries -it fact I would say for all but a fraction of human history)and we still have a world full of conflict and societies full of inequality.

The world isn't made up of just liberals and conservatives you know, no matter how defunct U.S. mainstream politics is.

And I know of a LOT of liberals, especially in the UK and the U.S., who did fuck all to speak out about the invasion of Iraq while simultaneously condemning those who dare to defend Iraq by killing their American and British invaders.

The principle of non-violence, taken to its extreme form in pacifism, is morally corrupt. Imagine for instance your baby child is about to be killed in front of you and your only chance is to use violence to stop the murder. Do you throw your hands up in the air and allow your child to die because you don't believe in violence?

As the example above demonstrates violence has its place and should not be foreclosed. The question is not 'should we use it?' but 'under what circumstances?'

Why do we have to resort to non-violence? Can't we just kick their asses?

— Turanga Leela