I started by watching a Useful Idiots interview with Omar Wasow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foyP6tJPspw
The oversimplified gist of his thesis is that violence affects coverage, then the public's acceptance, then the elite's acceptance, and that small amounts of violence is generally productive, but that major violence is counterproductive. Rather than try to analyze him, I'll just point out that he is not old enough to have lived then, so he was relying on media archives.
I was a child at that time, so my analysis should also be taken for what it's worth.
It started with "the civil rights movement". The real cause - racism, not just "civil rights" - was just, and a charismatic leader (MLK) came forward, as he was certain to eventually. In my "five tools" analysis he argued morality, and the truth was clearly on his side. The status quo responded with violence. The media was officially on the side of the status quo, but there were 2 undermining factors - the strategy of broadcasting violent images (reporting on violence) worked against the police, and the reporters were dedicated to the truth, st least they believed themselves limited by the truth. Then Viet Nam was included in, turning the movement into a mass (including middle class whites) movement. King and Kennedy were assassinated, Chicago had a police riot live on national tv, Nixon beat Humphrey (a good man who time had passed by) and we went on to the 70s. The status quo paid lip service to the issues and planned their counterrevolution. Enter Reagan, freeze frame and roll credits.
What does that mean for today?
First, today didn't start in any way the same. The 60s started with a minority oppressed by a generally popular system. Today nearly everyone is oppressed by a generally despised status quo. When our charismatic leader (Bernie) rose he was not assassinated, he gave up. (I cannot forget 55 years of history - he must have seen the limit of his utility and martyred himself for the cause to naturally move on - or not) BLM took over and the pot boiled. The police are exposing themselves, the media has no qualms about following the official narrative, (but everyone knows it) and the court jester in the White House is counterbalanced by a cabal of senile quislings. (there is no white knight, there is no hope to exploit, we're on our own) In short, the status quo will probably assume that they will be able to defuse the movement by lip service like they did in the 1970s, but the conditions that allowed that strategy to work then no longer apply. The evil has become too universal, too blatant. I see only 3 possible results: it will not end well for them, it will ot end well for us, or it will not end well for anybody.