Fwiw, historically, armed conflict is notably less successful at curbing autocracy than sustained popular protest, including corporate pressure campaigns.
Armed conflict is more successful at removing autocratic regimes. The problem is that the conflict produces a new boss not so much unlike the old boss. I'm assuming this is what you are referring to, and it's a good point.
On the other hand -- and this is something I think about, as someone who admired Gandhi possibly more than any other human who lived -- it's unclear whether peaceful protest can still be effective. When was the last time an autocratic regime was toppled by protests? Egypt? And then the Muslim Brotherhood filled the void, until the military staged a coup. The country is more or less a soft dictatorship at the moment.
What changed? First, I think the autocrats learned how to boil the frog. They preserve the trappings of democracy while slowing eating away at it -- which has the function of blunting opposition. For instance, one wonders how effective the civil rights movement would have been if white southerners could have toned it down a bit. No colored water fountains or black people can't walk on the street or standing in front of the university entrance. I mean, it would still be an unjust society but people aren't going to protest as much if they see their oppression in abstract terms. There's a reason we tell the Rosa Parks story the way we do. Well, several reasons -- but one of them, surely, is that Rosa Parks comes across more sympathetically if she was minding her own business when forced to sit in the back of the bus. It wasn't an abstract harm. They humiliated her. They gave her no choice but to protest, so says the popular narrative.
Second, the folks in charge have to be willing to be shamed. This is the point of truth behind the idea that European colonizers were something less than complete barbarians. Well, the British and French at least. They were barbarians but also invested in the idea of human rights and thus they could be shamed into liberation. The famous scene in the film Gandhi where the Indians line up to get beaten by the soldiers when trying to enter the salt facility -- it's stylized for the screen but is more or less based on the Dharasana Salt Works incident. And what happened is that the British soldiers became uncomfortable and then unwilling to keep beating the shit out of innocent people.
Is that even possible any more? Right-wingers think propaganda is better than apology or reconsideration. Meanwhile, they have gotten better at de-empathizing the regime's goons. I'm not sure exactly what techniques they use (probably a combo of training, fear, and selection), but anyway: do we really think that North Korean soldiers would have any qualms about beating the crap out of 500 people in seriatim? Russian soldiers?
None of this is to say that armed conflict is better, or has become a more attractive option, or is more justified. It's simply to wonder if the days when huge marches had any effect are done.