It is difficult to see how Gandhi's methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary.
-- George Orwell
There are places on earth where mere non-violent non co-operation just can't work. Basically because no one knows what you are doing, why you are doing and what your actual story is.
If the opponent force is simply too overwhelming, powerful and has too much sway. Non violent non co operation doesn't help much.
When I was growing up, one of the standard places that used to be cited for this line of reasoning was the Eastern Block. And certainly looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring there was evidence that peaceful protest wouldn't work.
But what happened? Oh right. Peaceful protest brought down the Soviet block.
I'm a little young, so I don't have as much perspective of the recent history as you do.
But every instance of non-violent non-co operation(Lets call it with the name Gandhi gave to it - ahimsa/satyagraha) works only because of the opponents get weak after a point of time. Indian Independence movement worked because in the course of WW2 the British lost the gumption they had earlier to control a nation as big as India. They were running out of resources, ideas and means to stay in India anymore. Gandhi's movement gave British too much bad across the world. Plus WW2 and WW1 had really taken a toll on the British. So it was a mixture of all these things + Gandhi's movement that make ahims/satyagraha work.
I guess its the same with USSR too? Didn't this whole cold war thing come too heavy on the Soviets? The way I understand they were in deep financial crisis and were facing an imminent defeat in Afghanistan.
What brought down the Soviet Block in the end was Mikhail Gorbachev deciding that there's enough blood on soviet hands and that they won't react the same way they did in the Prague Spring. He could have decided otherwise, he didn't. Shall the protesters hope the same will happen now? Didn't work so far.
I'm from Eastern Europe. I'm still not sure if we got extremely lucky (e.g. economical situation of Soviet Union being in very bad condition, US getting technological breakthrough with personal computers) or "peaceful" part actually worked out.
The theory I've heard which makes the most sense is that the CIA and Catholic Church had an alliance of convenience. The CIA provided resources (including training materials), the Church had a network to distribute them where they were needed.
They did a trial run with Solidarity in Poland (not coincidentally the home country of the pope at the time) and then rolled it out on a larger scale after that succeeded.
"can't work" is a strong statement. What we have seen in the arab spring is a new dynamic of "whoever shoots first looses".
Assad in Syria actually used Gandhis example to win in the end: He made sure the most rational, less radical and especially the non-violent opposition was crushed first.
All these "ethnic raids" came from basically "nowhere", maybe they were also encouraged by the regime, and then this contributed to more violence. End result: No opposition that can effectively be supported from the outside, and vanishing sympathy or compassion for the most massive genocide in recent history, much less any hope of peace.
In Cuba, on the contrary, Castro is facing a new, well organized and well disciplined opposition, and is finding it ever harder to attack them.
Basic point here: The stronger force has an advantage when the weaker opponent resorts to hatred and violence. That is why in China, Turkey, Syria and Ukraine we see the government's media outlets put a huge effort into portraying any dissidence as violent and hateful...
It's a remarkably complex issue. I would however say that the case that comes to my mind though is not the USSR but Dutch Colonial Indonesia, and the jailing and exile of Sukarno for printing nationalist, anti-colonial material.
This looks on the outside very successful regarding suppressing Sukarno. After all the Dutch succeeded in keeping him contained until the Japanese arrived. However in a closer look you see a slow and steady development of a network of support that Sukarno built in Sumatra while in exile, which was used to support his efforts on his return to Java.
So I am not sure it is so clear.
Another interesting example might be Gorbachev in Russia. Here's someone who was quite clearly a communist and a Marxist, who, nonetheless, was not above critiquing the existing Soviet system in relation to the West and in so doing exposed cracks that caused the whole system to collapse. Gorbachev of course built on Khrushchev in this regard, but it shows that what is important is the alliance and solidarity, and to the extent that non-violence is conducive to that (and it usually is) it usually is helpful.
-- George Orwell
There are places on earth where mere non-violent non co-operation just can't work. Basically because no one knows what you are doing, why you are doing and what your actual story is.
If the opponent force is simply too overwhelming, powerful and has too much sway. Non violent non co operation doesn't help much.