The Civil Rights Movement (1954-'68) won, they defeated the segregationist American political establishment with, depending on how you count, anywhere from dozens to a few hundred deaths.
The Iraqi insurgency (2003-'11), by contrast, lost 25,000 insurgents losing to the same government. 7/
The Iraqi insurgency (2003-'11), by contrast, lost 25,000 insurgents losing to the same government. 7/
Comments
Dream of that, that's winning. /end
There will never be accountability for any of the fascists (unless there is an insurgency and the insurgents win, but I repeat myself).
Given the nature of hierarchical power, the gov ultimately needs cooperation from the people. In conflict with people, the gov uses coercion—but it needs resources to maintain coercive power.
So long as the gov can maintain that “supply line,” they can wield coercive power.
But if they can’t, they’re overextended and need to consolidated its projection of force or it has to eat the loss.
Not consciously, but I think people are creating friction to draw the gov into overextending and entering a domain of loss and for another entity to wage decisive battle.
Perhaps saying the movement "won" is premature. There was so much yet to be done (banning first-past-the-post; negating the electoral college).
It doesn't moderate because it doesn't have to. It can win a narrow plurality often enough to do constant damage.
Check relative school segregation rates.