If anything, those sorts of nonrevolutionary improvements, such as with Mandela in SA, are historical aberrations rather than norms.

Under that same logic, democratic governments are historical aberrations rather than norms. So why are you trying to apply a concept of how history 'normally' is to historical aberrations?

The current global superpowers of the United States, China, and Russia were all formed by violent revolution.

Formed by violent revolution against non-democratic polities.

Peaceful adherence to norms and consensus may have arguably established the Nordic model of social democracy and high living standards. However, in terms of global power politics, it seems to leave something to be desired.

Or maybe all the Nordic countries combined have less than a third of the population of the UK alone and didn't even develop into democratic polities until the 20th century?

Nah, it's gotta be because they didn't found their prosperity on violence, not that stupid 'material conditions' stuff.

Violence has consistently led to a change in conditions, and oftentimes, an improvement in those conditions. If we disagree with that then we disagree with the essence of the United States itself - in which case, voting for neoliberal moderation with the Democrats seems to be missing the point entirely

"The US was founded on violence because of the lack of democracy, therefore, voting in a democratic system instead of using violence is missing the essence of America."

Do you even listen to yourself