The fixation on non-violent insurgency doesn’t apply to the first item on the list in the article: the democratic revolutions of the early modern. So what is being proposed here? What happened to the term ‘revolution’, and what about the Jan 6, insurgency?
This trashy article never even mentions the French Revolution, Karl Marx, or the Russian Revolution, or the Civil War. The term insurgency is being corrupted here and does not refer to non-violent peace marches. And the reference to Winstanley invokes the English Civil War, one of the seminal movements in the birth of modern democracy. It had proportionately more casualties than the First World War.
Face reality: the capitalist system will not yield to modification through the non-violent method in question. In fact, almost all the so-called non-violent insurgencies failed. The capitalist class knows that it can ignore challenges of this type. The Occupy Movement was a joke.
Let us note the crucial importance of the abolitionist movement, but in the end only the Civil War did the job, not a non-violent movement…
The case of MLK is misleading. His non-violent movement was brilliant but contextual, and had a measure of success. And some help from the US government and army. But the late MLK changed his perspective and as he turned outward to a larger movement challenging capitalism you can sense his changing perspective. And he was assassinated in the end.