Both are necessary. The first creates public support. The second "creates government support"

The peaceful protest has a purpose. It is the purpose of due diligence. It is to show an escalation. A point at which other avenues were tried and ignored leaving one with no choice but to try others that are more militant. You try all the avenues. And leave the last resort as a last resort. But historically we know that more often than not real change happens when there is either the threat of violence or the actuality of violence.

People as a whole don't seem to be invested until it impacts them. It's hard to impact people enough with peaceful protest to change their minds. That's why blocking highways or major thoroughfares were threatened with violence. Because the point of protest is twofold. It is to educate. But more importantly it is to inconvenience people. Because without the inconvenience, they do not get invested.

People don't understand that more than protecting people, social policies such as housing, welfare, and medical aid programs protect the capitalist system itself.

If the political pressure was high enough, political powers would buckle. But see who got voted for president? Its clear that the people chose this themselves sadly