it was very violent. not only did the anti-communists rely on violent tactics like terrorism and sabotage, as they never had the support of the people (more on that later), but their coup also lead to mass poverty, starvation, a rise in crime unprecedented in the history of the world, narcomany, prostitution amongst women and children, the restitution of religion and superstition in society, the return of wage theft and -slavery and the reignition of nationalist conflicts. these conflicts led to nearly 200,000 deaths, plus additional deaths from ethnic conflicts and pogroms. from 1990 to 1994, the male life expectancy dropped from 63.8 years to 57.7 years. how is all this not violent?

also, as i said, those “revolutions” did not have popular support and thus werent revolutions at all. they were counter-revolutionary coups directed by american intelligence agencies. the overwhelming majority of the people in former socialist countries still prefer their past governments over their current pro-western puppet regimes, even after decades of capitalist propaganda.

Ghandi’s revolution succeeded through mass noncompliance.

Nonviolence was a luxury Ghandi could afford during the revolution because Indians outnumbered British soldiers by something like 20k to 1. There was no world where the recently weakened UK (after WW2) could hold India once it decided to become independent.