Sure, Churchill uses a number of other inaccurate and insulting arguments,
I've read his book...thanks to Maysie for loaning it out. Anyway, I was referring to your attempted linkage with my own comments, which I contend you have misread. On the other hand, I'm not exactly sure how you can fail to detect a quixotic sort of arrogance that says peace is the best way to proceed against a war machine, until we say otherwise. Regarding the Trek and the General Strike, the state tends to view disobedience itself as a violent provocation. Just ask anyone who has ever been assaulted by the police for simply asking why they’re being violently dragged off to jail. Nowadays, proof of servility is required when arranging demonstrations. This is why there are plenty of denunciations to be thrown around whenever a few subjects step out of line to vent their anger. Instead they're supposed to doff the cap and bow their heads, march along and be orderly about it, chant a few slogans, and go home. After all, if unscripted outbursts of that nature are permitted, it’ll likely result in ruining things for everyone if they decide to not grant the requisite permits the next time around.
But I think you're missing my point, which is that the vast majority of positive changes are accomplished without any violence at all. And unless we are seriously considering settling school board budget through urban warfare, I'd say that all other avenues of decision making and protest have NOT outlived their usefulness.
Sure, if one continues to overlook the junction between the minutiae of social struggle, and the larger, systemic issues related to global corporate governance.