Militancy and armed struggle are not goals in and of themselves, or even desirable. They are also probably unavoidable.
It's a cruel fact that every "peaceful" left wing movement that gained some amount of success was either bulwarked by an armed revolutionary segment or armed themselves, whether King's civil rights movement being the "peaceful" counterpart to armed militant Black organizations like the BPP and Malcolm-era NOI, or the Sharecroppers Union regularly arming themselves to attend meetings.
Part of the difficulty the left has reestablishing itself as a revolutionary force in the west comes down to a round rejection of militancy, with the result that the state can just crush any movement by using force, comfortable in the knowledge that we are, collectively, a soft target. The enemy, whether the formal state enforcers or their fascist paramilitary allies, have no qualms about using whatever force they like. This makes it difficult to impossible even to organize in large ways as we've seen over and over.
This also leads to the perception that western "leftists" somehow fetishize violence, in spite of the fact that we are, in fact, "peaceful" to and beyond a fault. It's an expression of frustration, and an understandable one. When we see ruptures like 2020, where the mildest amount of militancy pushed the state into panic and an inability to respond, and people were actually hurt and serious violence actually occurred only after militancy was abandoned and the liberals had successfully channelled anger and frustration back into useless electoralism, it's hard not to understand why people would be grinding their teeth and thinking along the lines of the French Revolution.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.