a non-violent revolution?

[Tjis]

This is highly debated and depends on who you talk to. I propose non-violent direct-action, student/worker strikes, sabotage, community involvement in local politics to lessen the power of the State on local levels, and the lowering of taxes.

Direct-action will confront the problem; strikes will handicap the economy; sabotage will disarm the State and also handicap economy; community involvement will get people thinking about taking a place in society and as we lessen local-State power we can work our ways up; lowering of taxes will handicap the State's ability to finance itself.




Off-topic but why non-violent? What will you do when the ruling class eventually sends in the army or some other kind of reactionary force?

If they send the army then I say keep non-violent; I dont think soldiers would be willing to fire on non-violent civilians. Even if they do, that brings sympathy to the cause and justification to what we're doing.



Wow, that is the definition of spinelessness.

Do you honestly think for a second, that soldiers will hesitate firing on unarmed civilians, if given the order to?

And do you honestly think, that allowing a military to slaughter non-violent protesters, is going to attract people "the cause"?
All this came up in this topic: http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-do-anarchists-t105203/index.html

Since it's kinda off topic there, lets discuss it here.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I would really like to see how Green Apostle wishes to build upon that sorry excuse for a non-violent "argument".

[Marxist]

Non-violent revolution? In your dreams...(no i don´t like fighting and violence)

[Tjis]

I'm not going to get shot at without doing anything back, even if it attracts sympathy. What good is that if my friends and I are dead?

[Bitter Ashes]

If they send the army then I say keep non-violent; I dont think soldiers would be willing to fire on non-violent civilians. Even if they do, that brings sympathy to the cause and justification to what we're doing.
British Army doctorine dictates that if even one weapon is suspected to be in a crowd then the "correct" action to take it to attempt to disperse the crowd. Where that's not possible lethal force will be used.
So, if just one person comes armed to your peaceful protest, chances are all of them will be fired on.
Defections and mutinys are possible though, so long as the door is not shut to deserters. There's a flaw with every armoured vehicle. It requires a driver, who has a mind of thier own as well as a consience. If you make them hate you though, they will never join us.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I dont remember the date but sometime before the Russian Revolution, civilians marched on St. Petersberg in protest of the war. The soldiers got nervous and opened fire which incited strikes and mass-action all across Russia. I dont think that American soldiers would fire but if they did, the reaction would be 10 times that of Russia.

[Tjis]

I dont remember the date but sometime before the Russian Revolution, civilians marched on St. Petersberg in protest of the war. The soldiers got nervous and opened fire which incited strikes and mass-action all across Russia. I dont think that American soldiers would fire but if they did, the reaction would be 10 times that of Russia.
Well unless you manage to convince the entire world in a short time, you'll get a reaction. And they won't be nice guys. They won't be all like "aww look at the cute unarmed civilians. Let's find an armed rebel to shoot instead!". They'll open fire because you're working in their factories and on their fields without them getting any profit from it.

You mention Russia. Did you forget the Whites?

[mykittyhasaboner]

I dont remember the date but sometime before the Russian Revolution, civilians marched on St. Petersberg in protest of the war. The soldiers got nervous and opened fire which incited strikes and mass-action all across Russia. I dont think that American soldiers would fire but if they did, the reaction would be 10 times that of Russia.

So you literally want to sacrifice people just so we can have some sort of fatalistic plan relying on the reaction to such an atrocity? What a shit tactic.

Mind you that such a crime has been committed in the US before. The Great Railroad strike was put down buy the military (albeit this wasn't the idealistic peaceful protest bullshit that you suggest). What about the Kent State shootings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings)during the popular protest era in opposition to the Vietnam War? Where was the revolutionary fervor among Americans when 4 students were murdered? Or the Orangeburg massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangeburg_massacre), or the Jackson State killings? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_State_killings)

[DancingLarry]

Perhaps those advocating for revolutionary initiation of the use of violence against persons can tell me where in 1917 it was that the Russian workers opened fire on the Tsarist regime or its armed representatives?

[Tjis]

Perhaps those advocating for revolutionary initiation of the use of violence against persons can tell me where in 1917 it was that the Russian workers opened fire on the Tsarist regime or its armed representatives?
Nobody is saying that we should start the revolution with violence.
We're saying that we should defend ourselves against the reaction that will certainly follow it.

[Catbus]

If they send the army then I say keep non-violent; I dont think soldiers would be willing to fire on non-violent civilians. Even if they do, that brings sympathy to the cause and justification to what we're doing.

That's really romantic, but honestly I don't think the results from that could be anything other then many needless deaths.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Perhaps those advocating for revolutionary initiation of the use of violence against persons can tell me where in 1917 it was that the Russian workers opened fire on the Tsarist regime or its armed representatives?
Are you saying that only the "armed representatives" of the Bolsheviks fought against the government, or that only representatives of the Tsarist regimes were shot at. I can't tell what your trying to say.

If you meant the former, given that the Bolshevik party was comprised of thousands of armed workers- yes it was the Russian workers who opened fire on those who wished to preserve the Kerensky government.

[#FF0000]

I don't think a non-violent revolution is out of the question. A state in decline will not necessarily resort to police state tactics. If discontent is especially widespread and the state doesn't take very strong action, then I think the state could very well fall apart before a shot has to be fired.

It might be a little unlikely but it's still preferable.

[F9]

Non-violent revolution is what i call bullshit!This is just an imagination from another world, its impossible.I wanna see the cappies handing there big hotels and companys to us without fighting..Impossible!Some dont count self-defense as "violence", though the people who say that we will achieve Anarchism/Communism, without violence at all, are just dreaming, waaay dreaming.
Basically its not on our hands the violence.I would love a none violence revolution too, why risk my life and whole others comrades, when we "could" do the revolution "non-violent"?But our target is there, and when the revolution comes we will defend it with any way we can, and as the opposition will do the same, violence is sure.

Fuserg9:star:

[Tjis]

I don't think a non-violent revolution is out of the question. A state in decline will not necessarily resort to police state tactics. If discontent is especially widespread and the state doesn't take very strong action, then I think the state could very well fall apart before a shot has to be fired.

It might be a little unlikely but it's still preferable.
Why would the state not resort to police state tactics when its power is challenged?
Even if the majority of the army is on our side, even if (unlikely) the majority of the police force sees the errors of their ways and joins us, there's still a group of people that will not be on our side, but do have weapons and ammo and the skill to use them.

And it's not just the state. There are thousands of private security companies out there. Their customers won't like at all what we're doing.

Then there are the various fascist groups, strengthened by middle class people who see their (borrowed) power disappear and want to protect it at any cost.

Also, unless there'll be a worldwide revolution at the same time there will be many states with an intact army, an intact police force and an intact capitalist infrastructure, all working against us.

Violence is inevitable. I don't like it but I don't see how it could be any other way.

[ZeroNowhere]

Off-topic but why non-violent? What will you do when the ruling class eventually sends in the army or some other kind of reactionary force?
Die or surrender.
In Green Apostle's version, you just die faster.


Perhaps those advocating for revolutionary initiation of the use of violence against persons can tell me where in 1917 it was that the Russian workers opened fire on the Tsarist regime or its armed representatives?
Oh, please, the Russian Revolution has no relevance to modern international revolution.


That's really romantic, but honestly I don't think the results from that could be anything other then many needless deaths.
Not as romantic as insurrection.


I dont remember the date but sometime before the Russian Revolution, civilians marched on St. Petersberg in protest of the war. The soldiers got nervous and opened fire which incited strikes and mass-action all across Russia.
Bloody Sunday, yes. We've had enough martyrs, and if you want people to stand around and be massacred so that people may become revolutionary (hopefully more than those that died), you obviously don't value human life enough. The reason that the peasants of Bloody Sunday didn't fight back was that they couldn't, not so that they could go down into history as martyrs or some bullshit. Also, they didn't do it in protest of the war, they did it for better living conditions, better working conditions, less working hours, etc. Though Bloody Sunday was certainly not as significant to the Revolution as WWI, or, hell, the Tsar deciding to leave for the front. Or Rasputin.
As has been pointed out above, getting massacred is not even guaranteed to work. And really, without a 100% guarantee, or, hell, even anything approaching that, it's most certainly not worth it.


Wow, that is the definition of spinelessness.
Not quite. It would actually be exceptionally brave. In other words, foolish.


I wanna see the cappies handing there big hotels and companys to us without fighting..Impossible!
A wild Warren Buffet has appeared!
Go proletariat!
Warren Buffet uses Pay Day.
The proletariat uses Tackle.
Warren Buffet has fainted.


Also, unless there'll be a worldwide revolution at the same time there will be many states with an intact army, an intact police force and an intact capitalist infrastructure, all working against us.
What? The proletariat is evolving!
The proletariat evolved into Superman!

[fabiansocialist]

I don't think a non-violent revolution is out of the question.

A "non-violent revolution" is a contradiction in terms. Power has to be confiscated and seized; it will not be peacefully relinquished.

[#FF0000]

A "non-violent revolution" is a contradiction in terms. Power has to be confiscated and seized; it will not be peacefully relinquished.

Depends on what you define as "violence". I think it may be possible to seize and confiscate power without harming a person. Likely? Eh, not so much. Possible? Sure.

[Charles Xavier]

A peaceful transition to socialism would be preferable but illogical. The bourgeoisie will not give up their state without a fight.

[Tjis]

Depends on what you define as "violence". I think it may be possible to seize and confiscate power without harming a person. Likely? Eh, not so much. Possible? Sure.
Initially yes. We might be able to occupy our workplaces without a single incident. But after that, the ruling class will certainly try to get it back.
They will start the violence and we'll have to defend ourselves.

[himalayanspirit]

A "non-violent revolution" is an oxymoron just like "vegetarian Tiger" or "greedy communist" or whatever.

Could the Bolsheviks have revolted against imperialism in a peaceful manner? Could the "revolutionaries" have struggled against Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy in a peaceful manner?

A revolution cannot exist in an imperialist state. The "rulers" wouldn't flinch before ordering their army to slaughter the peaceful revolutionaries if anything like that happens. As such the capitalists have no respect for a poor worker. The proletariat are like pawns for the imperialists and their life means nothing.

So, there can never exist a kind of "non-violent revolution".

[ZeroNowhere]

A "non-violent revolution" is an oxymoron just like "vegetarian Tiger" or "greedy communist" or whatever.
Actually, no, it's not. Neither is 'greedy communist', for that matter, and probably not 'vegetarian tiger' either.


Could the Bolsheviks have revolted against imperialism in a peaceful manner?
I don't remember the bolshies 'revolting against imperialism', whatever the fuck that means. When they took power in November, there wasn't any violence, if that's what you were asking.


Could the "revolutionaries" have struggled against Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy in a peaceful manner?
We're talking about a revolution here, not a lost struggle against a fascist regime.


A revolution cannot exist in an imperialist state.
Of course it can. If you didn't think so, you would be restricted by now.


The "rulers" wouldn't flinch before ordering their army to slaughter the peaceful revolutionaries if anything like that happens.
Or the violent revolutionaries, for that matter. The only difference would be a few more soldiers dying.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Initially yes. We might be able to occupy our workplaces without a single incident. But after that, the ruling class will certainly try to get it back.
They will start the violence and we'll have to defend ourselves.

Yes definitely. There is no way a peaceful revolution could occur. We can take over our workplaces, manage them democratically, set up a libertarian communist society but even so there will always be a response from the Capitalists. I used to believe in Pacifism, but I think I only would call myself an Anarcho-Pacifist was to avoid the stereotypical view of Anarchists. I was naive to think that a peaceful revolution could occur, at one stage or another we will have to engage and defeat the enemy in combat.

[Rosa Provokateur]

So you literally want to sacrifice people just so we can have some sort of fatalistic plan relying on the reaction to such an atrocity? What a shit tactic.

Mind you that such a crime has been committed in the US before. The Great Railroad strike was put down buy the military (albeit this wasn't the idealistic peaceful protest bullshit that you suggest). What about the Kent State shootings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings)during the popular protest era in opposition to the Vietnam War? Where was the revolutionary fervor among Americans when 4 students were murdered? Or the Orangeburg massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangeburg_massacre), or the Jackson State killings? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_State_killings)

No, I want non-violent radicals like myself to meet the military head-on and not run from the fire if it should start... God forbid.

This would be different; if large enough and aired on major broadcast news, this would shake the entire world.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes definitely. There is no way a peaceful revolution could occur.
I didn't expect Nostradamus!


I was naive to think that a peaceful revolution could occur, at one stage or another we will have to engage and defeat the enemy in combat.
The Enemy: Nobody expects Nostradamus!
Me: Wait, so who are you? And yes, it was somewhat disappointing after all of the hype.
The Enemy: The people who you will have to engage and defeat in combat.
Me: Well, that's pretty helpful.
The Enemy: We are actually the bourgeoisie.
Al Gore: I shall crush you with my tables of doom!
Me: Oh, alright then.
The Enemy: Actually, we're an enemy.
Me: Then why are you called the enemy? It implies that you already exist, or are some kind of fixed being or something.
The Enemy: It's only a typo!


No, I want non-violent radicals like myself to meet the military head-on and not run from the fire if it should start... God forbid.

This would be different; if large enough and aired on major broadcast news, this would shake the entire world.What incredibly noble self-sacrifice.
Though you should probably narrow that down to 'non-violent radicals without children or families or close friends who don't mind getting shot to test an incredibly far-fetched hypothesis with no evidence to back it whatsoever'.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I dont think workers should jump into the meatgrinder in the hope it overloads and breaks down. Keep your religious wank fantasies about dieing like jesus at www.jesuschrist.com . In real life there really is a need to defend yourself if your taking on the most powerful people in the world.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I didn't expect Nostradamus!



The Enemy: Nobody expects Nostradamus!
Me: Wait, so who are you? And yes, it was somewhat disappointing after all of the hype.
The Enemy: The people who you will have to engage and defeat in combat.
Me: Well, that's pretty helpful.
The Enemy: We are actually the bourgeoisie.
Al Gore: I shall crush you with my tables of doom!
Me: Oh, alright then.
The Enemy: Actually, we're an enemy.
Me: Then why are you called the enemy? It implies that you already exist, or are some kind of fixed being or something.
The Enemy: It's only a typo!



Sorry for my cultural ineptitude but I don't understand your reply.

[ZeroNowhere]

Sorry for my cultural ineptitude but I don't understand your reply.
Sorry, Monty Python reference. The reference to Nostradamus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostradamus) was to point out that your statement was merely an attempt at predicting the future, somewhat resembling prophecy. We don't know if a peaceful revolution can occur, though it is physically possible. Though technically, it also depends on how peaceful a revolution would have to be to qualify as 'peaceful'.
The second bit was basically that you were referring to 'the enemy', as if said enemy already existed, or was a fixed role or something. So, in that case, 'an enemy' would be better. Though we don't know.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Oh I see. I get it now. But when I said the enemy I meant the Capitalists, the rich, the ruling elite.

[cyu]

Initially yes. We might be able to occupy our workplaces without a single incident. But after that, the ruling class will certainly try to get it back.
They will start the violence and we'll have to defend ourselves.

Yep, that's what we'd have to prepare for, so it would be in the interest of unions to learn to defend themselves.

Excerpt from http://everything2.com/node/1964031

Occupations and Takeovers

These movements often have the potential to result in some violence, even if violence is not the actual intent. In order for an occupation or takeover to work, the occupiers need to be able to make use of whatever it is they are occupying - which means this is usually the employees of a company or organization that are involved.

Non-Violent Occupations
In these occupations, employees assume democratic control over their places of work. If they are unmolested, then they carry on doing the work of the companies or organizations. However, because the companies are now controlled by different people, significant change may sweep the country. If they are attacked, either by police or hired thugs, those engaged in non-violence would either run, allow themselves to be arrested, or allow themselves to be beaten.

Takeovers with Self-Defence
This is similar to the non-violent scenario above, except that the revolutionaries are willing to use self-defence. As long as they are unmolested, they are virtually indistinguishable from the non-violent (except, perhaps, for the presence of weapons on the premises) - they merely carry on changing the behavior of the organizations they now control. However, when attacked, the "revolution" would no longer be bloodless. Thus it falls in the hands of the attackers to determine whether the revolution would be bloodless or not.

[mykittyhasaboner]

No, I want non-violent radicals like myself to meet the military head-on and not run from the fire if it should start... God forbid.

This would be different; if large enough and aired on major broadcast news, this would shake the entire world.
A noble, yet ultimately stupid thing to do. Why the hell would you want to face the military or police with out weapons, or even a willingness to fight?

And your right, it would literally get the entire world pissed off. Just like killing a 15 year old in cold blood got a lot of people in Greece pissed off. But if we want to pull of a revolution instead of a bunch of riots, that's not going to be a good substitute for radical class-conscious organizing and education, which is what we really need to overthrow the capitalists. This is really fatalistic and defeatist; this notion that we must make ourselves martyrs and sacrifice ourselves just so people can be drawn to our cause. Why not drop the whole idealistic non-violent thing, and accept that we as people in the midst of suffering and death will defend ourselves? I doubt there will ever be a bloodless proletarian revolution, because the capitalists aren't exactly willing to give up their wealth; in fact its the opposite, they will do anything to protect that which they hold so dear. Just like we, the working class, will go as far as we need to go to be liberated. So if the working classes expect to win this struggle, then we have to be ready to combat the ruling class.

[Absolut]

My main problem with non-violence is that it is limiting. As a non-violent activist, you cant use violence, but as a militant activist, you can use whatever tactic the situation demand, be it violent or non-violent. Then we have the problem that non-violence generally doesnt achieve anything. Take for example the millions of protestors that went out on the street when the US invaded Iraq. As far as I could see, the result was... Well, there really wasnt any result. Apart from that, I pretty much agree with whats been said earlier in the thread.

Theres a quite good book on the subject, How non-violence protects the state, by Peter Gelderloos, if anyones interested.

[Mike Morin]

A "non-violent revolution" is an oxymoron just like "vegetarian Tiger" or "greedy communist" or whatever.

Could the Bolsheviks have revolted against imperialism in a peaceful manner? Could the "revolutionaries" have struggled against Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy in a peaceful manner?

A revolution cannot exist in an imperialist state. The "rulers" wouldn't flinch before ordering their army to slaughter the peaceful revolutionaries if anything like that happens. As such the capitalists have no respect for a poor worker. The proletariat are like pawns for the imperialists and their life means nothing.

So, there can never exist a kind of "non-violent revolution".

Have you ever heard the term "bloodless coup"? Needs to be plural dudn't it?

My question is, if we can accomplish that, worldwide, then what?

I have many answers, and there is still a sliver of hope that the governments can reform (i.e. substantially reduce (and I don't mean Mussolini again, by the term that in Fretalian would literally translate to "again leader" )themselves, and help us reallocate according to a comprehensive plan. Please inquire, if you are not already familiar with my work.

Now a cheetah would be less afraid of a tiger than a Cheetah. And Tarsands could be renamed Tanzan knee ya?

It always struck me a little weird that WWF (World Widelife Fund not Worldwide Wrestling Federation) out of Warshington DeCeased, could be advocating saving the tiger in far away lands where people lived. Don't get me wrong, I don't want tigers to go extinct, but see the dilemma?

Wolves and wool are a different story, german Shepherds and Huskies are domesticated wolves, (k)no(w)?

That's all I want to write, for now.

Peace.


Mike Morin
www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com (http://www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com)

[Voice_of_Reason]

With enough people a peaceful revolution is entirely possible, but the numbers would have to venture to around %78 of the current population.

That is assuming that part of the military and special forces are also revolting. However, even with a peaceful revolution fighting will still occur after the revolution and during it.

I am guessing by peaceful you mean mostly non-violent according to the number of people revolting such as Number of People/ Number of violent incidents * people revolting against the revolutionaries.

People will always fight back against communism, and in such cases we will of course defend ourselves. Their will be no %100 peaceful revolution but it is possible to have a somewhat peaceful revolution, and even possibly a completely peaceful revolution if you don't count the after effects.

After effects will always occur though, such as us revolting against Capitalism the Capitalists will do the same.

Though that is possible it is very unlikely that a large base of the population such as that will be fighting with us therefore the most obvious choice in my opinion would be direct violence.

[Mike Morin]

My main problem with non-violence is that it is limiting. As a non-violent activist, you cant use violence, but as a militant activist, you can use whatever tactic the situation demand, be it violent or non-violent. Then we have the problem that non-violence generally doesnt achieve anything. Take for example the millions of protestors that went out on the street when the US invaded Iraq. As far as I could see, the result was... Well, there really wasnt any result. Apart from that, I pretty much agree with whats been said earlier in the thread.

Theres a quite good book on the subject, How non-violence protects the state, by Peter Gelderloos, if anyones interested.

We stopped the VietNam War with mostly non-violence, but there was the violence of the Viet Cong, and some "ghetto" unrest, but part of the equation was putting 500,000 people into the streets, on multiple occasions in multiple places with the threat of more violence.

Trouble is, we stopped that war, but we didn't stop Capitalism, which with the Supply Side Revolution grew more toxic than at any previous time in history. Thus, now we find relatively wimpy yet lethal Capitalist Imperialist Aggression (CIA:thumbdown:) trying to assure way past peak fossil fuel supplies for an opulent ostentatious Detroitian/DOT boondoggle.

And it's one, two, three,
what are "we" fighting foil?

Don't ask me, but I tell you it's the oil
next stop is Iraq and Afghanistan, then maybe Iran.

If anybuddy survives such an insanity of possible escalation in hostilities, we'll look back at the war(s) and see nobuddy won.

We want a better place for our daughters and our sons.

(With thanks to Country Joe McDonald and Reggie Wooten).


Mike Morin :(
www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com (http://www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com)

[Voice_of_Reason]

We stopped the VietNam War with mostly non-violence, but there was the violence of the Viet Cong, and some "ghetto" unrest, but part of the equation was putting 500,000 people into the streets, on multiple occasions in multiple places with the threat of more violence.Wait.. What...?



Trouble is, we stopped that war, but we didn't stop Capitalism, which with the Supply Side Revolution grew more toxic than at any previous time in history. Thus, now we find relatively wimpy yet lethal Capitalist Imperialist Aggression (CIAhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/thumbdown.gif) trying to assure way past peak fossil fuel supplies for an opulent ostentatious Detroitian/DOT boondoggle.


...Still kinda lost... what exactly are we talking about here

[DancingLarry]

yes it was the Russian workers who opened fire on those who wished to preserve the Kerensky government.

When? Where?

[Mike Morin]

Did anybuddy and everybuddy notice that they blocked the thumbs down on the CIA, on "Voice of Reason"'s response? What's the raison? Que el raisin? Better than wine!!!

Dionysius sucks!

Who does Leon PanEtta Craig James report to? Eric Dickerson #29, and someone much larger like #68. No, Mean Joe Greene was 75, or he will be someday, "God" willing. The Knight isn't Black, if you know that he's Green(e). Thank you, Old Neil, Maybe they'll read it all the way from Buffalo to the various Springfields. We could be carless and fully loaded. What I mean is that, we eat too much beef, but strenuous physical labor requires a little, to maybe three or four times a week. But Jeremy Rifkin's book "Beef" is better than "The Jungle", and I'm looking forward to seeing the whole show of Food, Inc., including some footage on what an alternative farming and food system could look like. Will look like?

I wonder what Robert Kenner's budget is like. I have laid out very clearly (in words)what an alternative food system could look like, and I have laid out quite clearly the allocation restructuring that would need to occur to start moving towards those goals and towards demand side management, suppy side reallocation, neighborhood redevelopment and transportation planning.

This is your brain.

This is your brain on Capitalism.

Any questions?


Mike Morin
www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com (http://www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com)

[Voice_of_Reason]

Did anybuddy and everybuddy notice that they blocked the thumbs down on the CIA, on "Voice of Reason"'s response? What's the raison? Que el raisin? Better than wine!!!

Dionysius sucks!

Who does Leon PanEtta Craig James report to? Eric Dickerson #29, and someone much larger like #68. No, Mean Joe Greene was 75, or he will be someday, "God" willing. The Knight isn't Black, if you know that he's Green(e). Thank you, Old Neil, Maybe they'll read it all the way from Buffalo to the various Springfields. We could be carless and fully loaded. What I mean is that, we eat too much beef, but strenuous physical labor requires a little, to maybe three or four times a week. But Jeremy Rifkin's book "Beef" is better than "The Jungle", and I'm looking forward to seeing the whole show of Food, Inc., including some footage on what an alternative farming and food system could look like. Will look like?

I wonder what Robert Kenner's budget is like. I have laid out very clearly (in words)what an alternative food system could look like, and I have laid out quite clearly the allocation restructuring that would need to occur to start moving towards those goals and towards demand side management, suppy side reallocation, neighborhood redevelopment and transportation planning.

This is your brain.

This is your brain on Capitalism.

Any questions?

Umm.. Yes, you didn't answer a question you just mumbled off some random shit. So what was the point of what you just said again?

[Mike Morin]

If you don't understand me, Voice, that's your loss.

If you want to discuss, call me at (541) 343-3808. If you are in the US, I can call you back at no charge, so just call, identify yourself as Voice of Reason, give me your phone number, and I'll try to explain anything that you don't understand.

I don't owe you lengthy explanations or any justification of myself and the work that I do, but I am willing to take the time to help any and all of my fellow men.

Peace.


Mike Morin
www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com (http://www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com)

[Post-Something]

Non-violent revolution?

It depends on how you define revolution.

But in the traditional Marxist sense, then no, you cannot have a non-violent revolution.

This mainly stems from the orthodox Marxist view of the state, that holds that the state is nothing more than violence executed by the will of class interests. If one takes such a simplistic view, then naturally, the only way to counter this violent state of affairs is a violent revolution.

[ZeroNowhere]

This mainly stems from the orthodox Marxist view of the state, that holds that the state is nothing more than violence executed by the will of class interests.
What. No, it is not.


But in the traditional Marxist sense, then no, you cannot have a non-violent revolution.
Of course you can.

[Post-Something]

What. No, it is not.

Ok, explain?

The state in the traditional Marxist sense is seen as an organ of oppression controlled by the ruling class, where am I wrong here?



Of course you can.

In the 21st century? Are you insane?

[Voice_of_Reason]

If you don't understand me, Voice, that's your loss.

If you want to discuss, call me at (541) 343-3808. If you are in the US, I can call you back at no charge, so just call, identify yourself as Voice of Reason, give me your phone number, and I'll try to explain anything that you don't understand.

I don't owe you lengthy explanations or any justification of myself and the work that I do, but I am willing to take the time to help any and all of my fellow men.

Peace.

I am not trying to be rude at all. I don't think you understand though there is nothing to discuss you didn't say anything really. First you spouted off about peacefully solving Vietnam which is entirely false, then randomness you decided to make up off of the "Your brain, Your brain on drugs." About capitalism. I was just wondering where your going I'm not arguing.

[Voice_of_Reason]

Non-violent revolution?

It depends on how you define revolution.

But in the traditional Marxist sense, then no, you cannot have a non-violent revolution.

This mainly stems from the orthodox Marxist view of the state, that holds that the state is nothing more than violence executed by the will of class interests. If one takes such a simplistic view, then naturally, the only way to counter this violent state of affairs is a violent revolution.

That pretty much sums it up, at least in our current date and time, theoretically though it is possible.

[ZeroNowhere]

Ok, explain?

The state in the traditional Marxist sense is seen as an organ of oppression controlled by the ruling class, where am I wrong here?
Where does violence come into this?


In the 21st century? Are you insane?
You were saying that it would be impossible for a revolution to be non-violent by definition, it would seem, though it is, of course, possible.

[Post-Something]

I am not trying to be rude at all. I don't think you understand though there is nothing to discuss you didn't say anything really. First you spouted off about peacefully solving Vietnam which is entirely false, then randomness you decided to make up off of the "Your brain, Your brain on drugs." About capitalism. I was just wondering where your going I'm not arguing.

He's speaking shit and pretending to sound smart.

[Voice_of_Reason]

He's speaking shit and pretending to sound smart.

I guessed, I was unsure if I was missing some important thing in that mumble of shit, so I didn't want to engage him and seem like a dumbass.

[Post-Something]

Where does violence come into this?

How does a state oppress? Force and hegemony.
A state is an institution. It's the one organisation in society which successfully manages to maintain a monopoly on coercive force and violence. This, when mixed with a class analysis, gives you the Marxist understanding.



You were saying that it would be impossible for a revolution to be non-violent by definition, it would seem, though it is, of course, possible.

In the Marxist conception of the word, it is impossible.

I'm not a Marxist though.

Anyway, what do you mean "of course"? Do you have proof that it is feasible in this day in age? Has there been a revolution in recent history which you admire, who's non violent attitudes you would like to replicate? If so name it.

But until then, no, of course you cannot have a non violent revolution in the traditional Marxist sense.

And of course a revolution is violent by definition. A revolution is the forcible overthrow of one class by another in the Marxist sense. Can you name one scenario where this hasn't been the case?

[benhur]

Violent revolution against a powerful state like US? Or UK? Germany? Are you kidding? Even normal protests are being crushed with an iron fist, imagine what would happen if the military got involved!

Violence is simply not an option, especially because it leads to a no-win situation. You not only lose your life, you also lose your image, public sympathy and all that. A non-violent revolution at least wins public support, and that might later blossom into something more significant. With violence, you antagonize potential supporters, create a negative image in the minds of public, plus you have absolutely no chance of beating a powerful military either.

With non-violence, the effects may not be immediate, but it does have long-term benefits. Alexander used violence to conquer the world, but did it last? Christ, on the other hand, is remembered even today for his non-violent approach. So if communists can 'do' a Christ, millions will be inspired in the future, and that way, a revolution has a better chance of succeeding due to sheer numbers alone.

[Post-Something]

Violent revolution against a powerful state like US? Or UK? Germany? Are you kidding? Even normal protests are being crushed with an iron fist, imagine what would happen if the military got involved!

Violence is simply not an option, especially because it leads to a no-win situation. You not only lose your life, you also lose your image, public sympathy and all that. A non-violent revolution at least wins public support, and that might later blossom into something more significant. With violence, you antagonize potential supporters, create a negative image in the minds of public, plus you have absolutely no chance of beating a powerful military either.

With non-violence, the effects may not be immediate, but it does have long-term benefits. Alexander used violence to conquer the world, but did it last? Christ, on the other hand, is remembered even today for his non-violent approach. So if communists can 'do' a Christ, millions will be inspired in the future, and that way, a revolution has a better chance of succeeding due to sheer numbers alone.

Very good post.

[Voice_of_Reason]

Violent revolution against a powerful state like US? Or UK? Germany? Are you kidding? Even normal protests are being crushed with an iron fist, imagine what would happen if the military got involved!

Violence is simply not an option, especially because it leads to a no-win situation. You not only lose your life, you also lose your image, public sympathy and all that. A non-violent revolution at least wins public support, and that might later blossom into something more significant. With violence, you antagonize potential supporters, create a negative image in the minds of public, plus you have absolutely no chance of beating a powerful military either.

With non-violence, the effects may not be immediate, but it does have long-term benefits. Alexander used violence to conquer the world, but did it last? Christ, on the other hand, is remembered even today for his non-violent approach. So if communists can 'do' a Christ, millions will be inspired in the future, and that way, a revolution has a better chance of succeeding due to sheer numbers alone.Violence is going to be involved any way you put it. You can pretend that non-violence actually gets through and helps in the long term effect, but the reality is it doesn't.

First off lets say we do have a non-violent revolution do you think the hardcore right wing nutjobs are gonna just sit there and watch? Do you think the government is going to just sit there and watch?

Violence is the only route, not severe and complete hostile takeover but if and "when" it would come down to it arms need to be taken up. We would never be stupid enough to go strait up and gun down the Parliment or White House, but taking stragetic points such as revolting as a new law is being passed through even if violence occurs the rest of the nation will see and or hear what we have to say nomatter how negativley the news networks and stations put it. It will get the message across. If people revolt they can get the law abolished and that is a minor, yet significant win. It would show how the people do have a say and that the government doesn't controll us, we controll it. Would you rather stand in a line and get shot down holding signs or get shot on your feet fighting for what you believe in. Well I would rather die doing both if I have to die that is.


So if communists can 'do' a Christ, millions will be inspired in the future, and that way, a revolution has a better chance of succeeding due to sheer numbers alone.Right, that is completely reasonable, we can all be quiet and peaceful and the world will say they must be right they don't bring up arms for their cause.

(I am off for the night, if you need to respond just pm me)

[Martin Blank]

It is necessary to distinguish between the actual act of revolution -- the seizure of power; the takeover of the means of production -- and what comes after. This is necessary not only for understanding the tactics of revolution, but also the strategy.

History shows that the act of revolution itself is relatively bloodless and non-violent. The Russian Revolution, for example, happened with very few shots fired in anger (in spite of what some of you who saw Eisenstein's Oktyabr might think). It was the onset of counterrevolution, which occurred after the seizure of power, that became bloody and violent -- indeed, in the Russian case, became a three-year Civil War.

A non-violent seizure of power can be carried out, but only under the right conditions. For example, if the capitalist order loses not only the conscious support of the majority of the population, but also the inertial support (i.e., those who support the system because there is no existing alternative), it is possible to starve the state and its governing organs.

Mass strikes, general strikes and workplace occupations -- all usually non-violent actions -- can cause a breakdown in these bodies, due to being overstretched and underfunded (after all, mass non-violent upheaval of this type can slow down or even stop the flow of tax revenue extracted from workers by the state via payroll deduction). Community protests and actions can augment this mass activity. In effect, mass, coordinated non-violent tactics (and I stress the word "tactics") can overwhelm the organs of the state and governing bodies, and paralyze them.

But this is only one part of the equation. On the other side is the workers' movement, and its level of organization and political direction.

The advantage of organization is the appearance of strength in numbers, which in turn creates a corresponding level of intimidation in one's opponent -- the more of you there are, and the more organized you appear, the more your enemy has second thoughts about messing with you. This is why the Black Bloc becomes such headlines; the appearance of disciplined organization creates an intimidation level in their opponents. Historically speaking, this is one of the reasons why the Black Panther Party became such a force; when they marched, with or without the guns (even though it was never really about the guns), they marched in line, in unison, moving together and acting as a single unit.

Organization of the workers' movement has to have a high level of coordination and self-discipline in order to succeed. I stress the term "self-discipline" because it has to be something that is mutually agreed upon, not imposed by wannabe managers. Moreover, organization has to reach into every facet of society where workers exist, in every arena of society: politics, economics, culture and social relations. An all-encompassing movement is needed, with organizations that work together in those four areas of societal interaction. A party (or similar political organization) alone is not enough; a union (or similar economic movement) alone is not enough. It requires both, as well as cultural movement and a broader class (social) movement, working together and toward the same goal.

Concretely, this means revolutionary industrial unionism in the economic arena (which is more than a union, which is an organization of collective defense, but also workplace committees, which are schools of workers' control). It means a proletarian political organization (a party, in my view) in the political arena. It means a working people's cultural (not just for art and music, but philosophy and development) movement. It means the building up of our class as a social movement itself. In sum, it means building not only the structures that will allow our class to become the ruling class, it also means laying the social and cultural basis for that ascension. Most importantly, though, it means starting that work now, and building the basis for the new society within the shell of the old.

Once we have the structures and bodies in place, the workers' movement can wrest direction of the essential services of modern society from the grip of capitalism. This can be done through the formation of our own bodies to provide the services, or through direct seizure of existing agencies by the workers themselves. The more this is done, the more that the state and governing bodies of the old order are starved of the resources that maintain their existence -- including the essential resources of reliance and authority.

In short, you force them into the position of becoming a failed state. Once the tipping point is passed (and where that point actually is varies based on material conditions), then the actual seizure of power itself becomes anti-climactic -- almost an afterthought, since the real working of society is already in the hands of the working class. The ultimate fall of the capitalist order can then be ushered in non-violently.

Now, I know what you're thinking: Do you honestly think the exploiting classes are going to sit idly by while we do this?

Daddy didn't raise no fool, comrade. But there is a difference between revolution and self-defense. And this is a key issue. If the capitalist state attacks the organizations, movements and structures working to bring about revolution non-violently, then the propaganda war shifts against the "violent" capitalists. At that point, acts of self-defense, including armed self-defense, would not only be considered understandable by masses of workers, they would be accepted as necessary. Self-defense is universally recognized as a right of an injured party -- and in an all-sided war with an enemy, a propaganda victory is sometimes more important than a tactical victory (ask the Vietnamese about Tet).

But again, organization becomes key for the same reasons stated above. The last thing anyone but a fool wants to get into is an armed confrontation with the state, so it is necessary to instill in your enemy the idea that, even if they did resort to armed suppression, it would not break the movement and it would not break the forces defending the movement. More importantly, though, it is necessary that there is an impression that if they fire the first shot, they will not be the ones to fire the last.

Self-defense is also applicable to dealing with counterrevolution, since at that point it is defense of the revolution itself that is involved. I don't think I need to elaborate on this here.

In the end, non-violent revolution is possible, but only under the right conditions -- both objective and subjective. As always, though, you can hope for the best, but it is prudent to prepare for the worst.

[robbo203]

Non-violent revolution?

It depends on how you define revolution.

But in the traditional Marxist sense, then no, you cannot have a non-violent revolution.

This mainly stems from the orthodox Marxist view of the state, that holds that the state is nothing more than violence executed by the will of class interests. If one takes such a simplistic view, then naturally, the only way to counter this violent state of affairs is a violent revolution.


This is rubbish. Marx himself quite clearly held that the revolution could be carried out peacefully in countries like the UK due to the extension of the franchise. The state certainly embodies violence but the state also requires legitimacy in the eyes of its subjects. When that is no longer forthcoming , states crumble. The fall of the eastern bloc was carried out more or less peacably. Where was the violence of the state at the time to prevent this happening?

Your notion of revolution is utterly simplistic. It is completely dumb to take on the power of the state by violent means. All you will suceeed in doing is getting your head smashed in. The advocacy of violence generates authoritarian hierarchical tendencies that are in any case totally at variance with the idea of working class self emancipation

As the workers gain communist consciousness this will profoundly modify the whole social climate of existing capitalism making the likelihood of violent resistance more and more remote. By the time we are in the majority it will be far to late for the capitalists to do anything. I suspect that many of them, like Fred Engels, would have become communist minded themselves!

[Absolut]

We stopped the VietNam War with mostly non-violence, but there was the violence of the Viet Cong, and some "ghetto" unrest, but part of the equation was putting 500,000 people into the streets, on multiple occasions in multiple places with the threat of more violence.

Personally, Im more inclined to give the Vietnamese resistance the credit for getting the US out of there, but maybe thats just me.

[ZeroNowhere]

This is rubbish. Marx himself quite clearly held that the revolution could be carried out peacefully in countries like the UK due to the extension of the franchise.
I think that the confusion here is between the Weberian definition combined with some class analysis and some random insert about violence, and the 'traditional Marxist' view of the state as an organ of class rule, which is not necessarily 'violent', as much as murder being illegal necessitates violence.

[himalayanspirit]

Actually, no, it's not. Neither is 'greedy communist', for that matter, and probably not 'vegetarian tiger' either.I am not talking about some green revolution to save the trees or some industrial revolution or whatever. These were peaceful of course. I should have been more specific about the kind of revolution. I don't think "non-violent revolution" is possible in the context of Marxism where the proletariat have struggle to stop their exploitation at the hands of the capitalists.



When they took power in November, there wasn't any violence, if that's what you were asking.Oh, you think the Tsar of Russia did not use his "muscle power" to suppress the revolution? And where there was suppression, bloodshed and violence was inevitable.



We're talking about a revolution here, not a lost struggle against a fascist regime.Is not struggle against a fascist regime or monarchic system or any kind of dictatorship a revolution? My point was to show that the "kind of revolution" depends on the type of political system they are revolting against. No one can revolt against nothing. It depends on the opposition also. For example, India gained freedom from the British rule peacefully - Indians call it freedom movement or revolution - through non-violent struggles. But it was an exceptional case where other factors too played an important role. But I wouldn't go deeper into it. All I am saying is that when people are revolting, they are revolting against "something", and when they are revolting against "something", then there is bound to be violence.

Of course it can. If you didn't think so, you would be restricted by now.

Are you talking about Industrial revolution? Green revolution? As for my example that you quoted, I am not revolting against anything at the moment; so why would I be restricted?

[Pogue]

This is rubbish. Marx himself quite clearly held that the revolution could be carried out peacefully in countries like the UK due to the extension of the franchise.


Marx was wrong then. If we built up a storng workers movement, the bourgeosie would react. We'd be forced to defend ourselves, obviously, and thus we'd have to fight.

[himalayanspirit]

Please inquire, if you are not already familiar with my work.

I am sorry, I am new to this forum and unaware of your work. But I will certainly inquire more. In fact, I am new to the left ideologies too, to be honest.


It always struck me a little weird that WWF (World Widelife Fund not Worldwide Wrestling Federation) out of Warshington DeCeased, could be advocating saving the tiger in far away lands where people lived.

WWF is a corrupt institution and is perhaps doing more for the entertainment of the people, than to really conserve the flora and fauna.

[ZeroNowhere]

Oh, you think the Tsar of Russia did not use his "muscle power" to suppress the revolution? And when their was suppression, bloodshed and violence was inevitable.
Um, during the November revolution... There was no Tsar.


For example, India gained freedom from the British rule peacefully
Not quite, there was a lot of violent uprising throughout the occupation.


I am not talking about some green revolution to save the trees or some industrial revolution or whatever. These were peaceful of course. I should have been more specific about the kind of revolution. I don't think "non-violent revolution" is possible in the context of Marxism where the proletariat have struggle to stop their exploitation at the hands of the capitalists.
Not really, there is no contradiction between the Marxist sense of 'revolution' and non-violence. Whether there could ever be a non-violent revolution is not my point here, it's more that a revolution can be non-violent.


Are you talking about Industrial revolution? Green revolution? As for my example that you quoted, I am not revolting against anything at the moment; so why would I be restricted?
You had said, "A revolution cannot exist in an imperialist state." If one didn't think that revolution was possible, then they would presumably be restricted.


Marx was wrong then. If we built up a storng workers movement, the bourgeosie would react.
How?

[Mike Morin]

Personally, Im more inclined to give the Vietnamese resistance the credit for getting the US out of there, but maybe thats just me.

It was both, by 1971, the majority of service aged men in the USA were refusing to participate. There was no way that the US Military could escalate or sustain their war effort without further high tech bombing the entire country of Viet Nam into oblivion. That would have been met by angry protest here in America, as was Nixon's mining the harbor near Cambodia.

John Lennon wrote in his song "Revolution":

When you talk about destruction
don't you know that you can count me out, in

Like I wrote before we had over 100,000 marching in Boston, close to 200,000 in New York City and 500,000 in Washington DC. There was Chicago in 1968, and Miami in 1972. There was active resistence on campuses in many, if not most parts of the country. Some, if not many understood and concurred with John that to be effective a non-violent movement had to include the threat of violence, but great restraint was shown.

Some of us thought that we were on our way to a Socialist system, but then came the worse actor of all time, our ignorant parents - the Reagan Democrats, and the Yuppies.

I've already written about the supply side economics fiasco and the grave greed driven aggravation of the toxic asset laden Capitalist paradigm. Much damage has been done, and it was in the news this morning that the Clinton's O'bomber killed twenty more people in a missile strike in Afghanistan.

We know that the "socially liberal" Capitalist Imperialist Party (the Democrats) are really no better than the blatant Nazional Fascists (the Republicans). The US Government functions under the unspoken policy of World Manifest Destiny (WMD) and must be stopped.


Mike Morin
www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com (http://www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com)

[Post-Something]

This is rubbish. Marx himself quite clearly held that the revolution could be carried out peacefully in countries like the UK due to the extension of the franchise. The state certainly embodies violence but the state also requires legitimacy in the eyes of its subjects. When that is no longer forthcoming , states crumble. The fall of the eastern bloc was carried out more or less peacably. Where was the violence of the state at the time to prevent this happening?

Your notion of revolution is utterly simplistic. It is completely dumb to take on the power of the state by violent means. All you will suceeed in doing is getting your head smashed in. The advocacy of violence generates authoritarian hierarchical tendencies that are in any case totally at variance with the idea of working class self emancipation

As the workers gain communist consciousness this will profoundly modify the whole social climate of existing capitalism making the likelihood of violent resistance more and more remote. By the time we are in the majority it will be far to late for the capitalists to do anything. I suspect that many of them, like Fred Engels, would have become communist minded themselves!

Maybe you're missreading me. I completely agree with what you have just written. I was simply offering rationale for why violence is often argued as the first and foremost solution. Otherwise, we are coming from the same perspective.

[Post-Something]

I think that the confusion here is between the Weberian definition combined with some class analysis and some random insert about violence, and the 'traditional Marxist' view of the state as an organ of class rule, which is not necessarily 'violent', as much as murder being illegal necessitates violence.

What are you talking about? Would you like to answer my questions sometime soon?

Listen, if you haven't picked up already, I don't subscribe to the Marxist definition of the state, and therefore think revolution can be implemented without much violence.

However, I am arguing that in the traditional Marxist sense, with traditional Marxist strategy, it is impossible to see a bloodless revolution.

[robbo203]

Maybe you're missreading me. I completely agree with what you have just written. I was simply offering rationale for why violence is often argued as the first and foremost solution. Otherwise, we are coming from the same perspective.


Well, if I have misread you my apologies but in your subsequent post you state "However, I am arguing that in the traditional Marxist sense, with traditional Marxist strategy, it is impossible to see a bloodless revolution" . This simply is not the case. Marx himself did NOT say violence was inevitable and specifically pointed out that revolution could be achieved peacefully in some places. Traditional marxist organisations - and you cannot get a more traditional marxist organisation than, for example, the World Socialist Movement (WSM or www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org)) - have for more than a century argued strenuously against the use of violence as a means of fomenting revolution. You are confusing traditional marxists with leninists, Im afraid

[Mike Morin]

Some of you people write and act as if Marx was God...


MM

[ZeroNowhere]

Some of you people write and act as if Marx was God...


MM
He was actually Satan.
\m/

And no, hardly any do.

[Voice_of_Reason]

Some of you people write and act as if Marx was God...

Some of you people write and act as if you know what people write and act as.

[Mike Morin]

Some of you people write and act as if Marx was God...


MM

I am not an expert on Marx, nor do I claim to be even close to such.

I do know that Marx identified the oppression of pre-Marxiam Socialists and I think it was Marx that said that the people would have to win that struggle.

With respect to that issue, all I want to say is that I know where I stand on the issue of non-violence. I am 100% dedicated and committed to it. Now, and probably until the day I die.

[Post-Something]

Well, if I have misread you my apologies but in your subsequent post you state "However, I am arguing that in the traditional Marxist sense, with traditional Marxist strategy, it is impossible to see a bloodless revolution" . This simply is not the case. Marx himself did NOT say violence was inevitable and specifically pointed out that revolution could be achieved peacefully in some places. Traditional marxist organisations - and you cannot get a more traditional marxist organisation than, for example, the World Socialist Movement (WSM or www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org)) - have for more than a century argued strenuously against the use of violence as a means of fomenting revolution. You are confusing traditional marxists with leninists, Im afraid Marx did argue that in places like Britain revolution could come about peacefully, however, capitalism has evolved since Marxs' time. Gramsci managed to point out exactly why the workers hadn't been able to successfully organise and take the means of production into their own hands. I suggest you read the theory of cultural hegemony: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony

[ellipsis]

I'm not going to get shot at without doing anything back, even if it attracts sympathy. What good is that if my friends and I are dead?

I second that motion.

[robbo203]

Marx did argue that in places like Britain revolution could come about peacefully, however, capitalism has evolved since Marxs' time. Gramsci managed to point out exactly why the workers hadn't been able to successfully organise and take the means of production into their own hands. I suggest you read the theory of cultural hegemony: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony


The point is though that cultural hegemony cannot be overcome by violent means. As the saying goes "you cannot blow up a social relationship". If anything , the power of hegemony points to the quite opposite response - to change consciousness by positive and peaceful means. Violence virtually always suits the capitalist state; it enables it to crush opposition with ease, impose more more authoritarian controls, co-opt the population by creating the "enemy within" etc etc We should not go down that road becuase there will only be only one winner in the end - the state.

What woirries me about people who advocate violence as a means of social transformation is not simply the utter folly and wasted lives this involves but the brutalising and authoritarian consequences this has on their own thinking. To be effective at all, violence has to be organised on rigidly hierarchical military lines. Is this compatible with a democratic and emancipatory outlook? Not at all. Almost always, yesterday's so called "freedom fighters" become today's petty tyrants. Look at that fascist, Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

Talking of Zimbabwe, I know of and have corresponded with, genuine communists there (one of whom was brutally beaten up by Mugabe's thugs in Bulawayo). Even under the most awful circumstances they persist, peacefully. But I actually think that since Marx's time the scope for peaceful democratic social transformation has widened enormously. If you can organise as a political party or group standing for genuine communism and propagate your ideas relatively freely without state repression then there is no case whatsoever for using violence if there ever was one anyway.

Yes we confront the problem of cultural hegemony but this is not something new since Gramsci wrote about it and it is certainly not something that can be overcome by violent means

[Mike Morin]

The point is though that cultural hegemony cannot be overcome by violent means. As the saying goes "you cannot blow up a social relationship". If anything , the power of hegemony points to the quite opposite response - to change consciousness by positive and peaceful means. Violence virtually always suits the capitalist state; it enables it to crush opposition with ease, impose more more authoritarian controls, co-opt the population by creating the "enemy within" etc etc We should not go down that road becuase there will only be only one winner in the end - the state.

What woirries me about people who advocate violence as a means of social transformation is not simply the utter folly and wasted lives this involves but the brutalising and authoritarian consequences this has on their own thinking. To be effective at all, violence has to be organised on rigidly hierarchical military lines. Is this compatible with a democratic and emancipatory outlook? Not at all. Almost always, yesterday's so called "freedom fighters" become today's petty tyrants. Look at that fascist, Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

Talking of Zimbabwe, I know of and have corresponded with, genuine communists there (one of whom was brutally beaten up by Mugabe's thugs in Bulawayo). Even under the most awful circumstances they persist, peacefully. But I actually think that since Marx's time the scope for peaceful democratic social transformation has widened enormously. If you can organise as a political party or group standing for genuine communism and propagate your ideas relatively freely without state repression then there is no case whatsoever for using violence if there ever was one anyway.

Yes we confront the problem of cultural hegemony but this is not something new since Gramsci wrote about it and it is certainly not something that can be overcome by violent means

Did you all know that the term Anarchist was originally given to the pre-Marxian Socialists/Cooperative Communitarians by the States because they had the audacity to protest conditions and try to fight back when they were brutally oppressed.

By today's , at least esoteric, definition I consider myself an anarcho-syndicalist, a libertarian socialist.

However, I believe that it is fundamental that we radically rearrange the way in which resources are allocated amongst and within economic sectors, and to and within communities.

Bein an "Anarchist", a "Libertarian" does not mean that we don't need a socio/economic plan.


Mike Morin
www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com (http://www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com)

[respectful87]

Non-Violent Revolution can happen. Once conditions get bad enough for a violent revolution a peaceful revolution can occur becuase those whom would defend the opressors would start to defect to our side. If the current ruling class was confronted with this they would back down and the revolution would be bloodless. If we were to go head to head with the current machine we would be crushed. Non-violent is the best way to go.

[Post-Something]

The point is though that cultural hegemony cannot be overcome by violent means. As the saying goes "you cannot blow up a social relationship". If anything , the power of hegemony points to the quite opposite response - to change consciousness by positive and peaceful means. Violence virtually always suits the capitalist state; it enables it to crush opposition with ease, impose more more authoritarian controls, co-opt the population by creating the "enemy within" etc etc We should not go down that road becuase there will only be only one winner in the end - the state.

What woirries me about people who advocate violence as a means of social transformation is not simply the utter folly and wasted lives this involves but the brutalising and authoritarian consequences this has on their own thinking. To be effective at all, violence has to be organised on rigidly hierarchical military lines. Is this compatible with a democratic and emancipatory outlook? Not at all. Almost always, yesterday's so called "freedom fighters" become today's petty tyrants. Look at that fascist, Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

Talking of Zimbabwe, I know of and have corresponded with, genuine communists there (one of whom was brutally beaten up by Mugabe's thugs in Bulawayo). Even under the most awful circumstances they persist, peacefully. But I actually think that since Marx's time the scope for peaceful democratic social transformation has widened enormously. If you can organise as a political party or group standing for genuine communism and propagate your ideas relatively freely without state repression then there is no case whatsoever for using violence if there ever was one anyway.

Yes we confront the problem of cultural hegemony but this is not something new since Gramsci wrote about it and it is certainly not something that can be overcome by violent means

The point of my post wasn't really there to illustrate any sort of advocacy for violence, it was to show that orthodox Marxist thought struggles to find any other solution but violent revolution due to its essentialist nature and out-dated view of the state. I'm sorry that we keep getting this confused. I'll make my position clearer for everyone:

I do not support a violent revolutionary strategy. I am simply arguing that anyone who calls themselves a Marxist, as opposed to anarchist or anything else, has the problems I have outlayed to deal with.

[robbo203]

The point of my post wasn't really there to illustrate any sort of advocacy for violence, it was to show that orthodox Marxist thought struggles to find any other solution but violent revolution due to its essentialist nature and out-dated view of the state. I'm sorry that we keep getting this confused. I'll make my position clearer for everyone:

I do not support a violent revolutionary strategy. I am simply arguing that anyone who calls themselves a Marxist, as opposed to anarchist or anything else, has the problems I have outlayed to deal with.

No I understood fully your position - that you do not support the use of violence. My quibble is with your claim that orthodox Marxist thought "struggles to find any other solution but violent revolution". This simply is not the case. The most orthodox and consistently Marxist of all organisations I know is the WSM ( www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org)). They certainly do not advocate violence and have a well worked out theoretical argument against the use of violence

[Mike Morin]

The Best Love to have
is the Love of life
- Jimi Hendrix

[Post-Something]

No I understood fully your position - that you do not support the use of violence. My quibble is with your claim that orthodox Marxist thought "struggles to find any other solution but violent revolution". This simply is not the case. The most orthodox and consistently Marxist of all organisations I know is the WSM ( www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org)). They certainly do not advocate violence and have a well worked out theoretical argument against the use of violence

WSM clearly isn't an orthodox Marxist organisation. Just look at their beliefs:





claims that socialism will, and must, be a wageless, moneyless, worldwide society of common (not state) ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution.
claims that socialism will be a sharp break with capitalism with no "transition period" or gradual implementation of socialism (although socialism will be a dynamic, changing society once it is established).
claims that there can be no state in a socialist society.
claims that there can be no classes in a socialist society.
promotes only socialism, and as an immediate goal.
claims that only the vast majority, acting consciously in its own interests, for itself, by itself, can create socialism.
opposes any vanguardist approach, minority-led movements, and leadership, as inherently undemocratic (among other negative things).
promotes a peaceful democratic revolution, achieved through force of numbers and understanding.
neither promotes, nor opposes, reforms to capitalism.
claims that there is one working class, worldwide.
lays out the fundamentals of what a socialist society must be, but does not presume to tell the future socialist society how to go about its business.
promotes an historical materialist approach—real understanding.
claims that religion is a social, not personal, matter and that religion is incompatible with socialist understanding.
seeks election to facilitate the elimination of capitalism by the vast majority of socialists, not to govern capitalism.
claims that Leninism is a distortion of Marxian analysis.
opposes all war and claims that socialism will inherently end war, including the "war" between classes.
noted, in 1918, that the Bolshevik Revolution was not socialist. Had earlier, long noted that Russia was not ready for a socialist revolution.
was the first to recognize that the former USSR, China, Cuba and other so-called "socialist countries" were not socialist, but instead, state capitalist.
claims a very accurate, consistent analysis since 1904 when the first Companion Party was founded.

These guys seem pretty clearly in the libertarian socialist, verging on Anarchist, side of the spectrum.

Anyway, I have no interest in debating this further, but I'm glad that you understand my position. However, I will point out that Engels famously stated that revolution was possibly the most authoritarian and violent act that can be enacted in society.

[robbo203]

WSM clearly isn't an orthodox Marxist organisation. Just look at their beliefs:
[/LIST]These guys seem pretty clearly in the libertarian socialist, verging on Anarchist, side of the spectrum.

Anyway, I have no interest in debating this further, but I'm glad that you understand my position. However, I will point out that Engels famously stated that revolution was possibly the most authoritarian and violent act that can be enacted in society.

But a great many of the basic views held by the WSM are indeed Marxist or wholly compatible with Marxism in its classical sense - particularly on the nature of socialism and the need for majority support. Certainly the WSM openly disagrees with some of the views of Marx and Engels but on balance it can hardly be disputed that they are far closer to orthodox Marxism than, say, the Leninists - all 57 varieties of them - ever were.

True, Engels said some things about the nature of revolution that are questionable but he also said it could be carried out peacefully and that it needed to be carried out by the vast majority. See his 1895 preface to Class Struggles in France

[ZeroNowhere]

True, Engels said some things about the nature of revolution that are questionable but he also said it could be carried out peacefully and that it needed to be carried out by the vast majority. See his 1895 preface to Class Struggles in France
Link here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/03/06.htm) (I presume that that's the piece you were referring to?). He also advocates the use of the ballot here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/05/28.htm#p2), as well as that, "For the full representation of labour in Parliament, as well as for the preparation of the abolition of the wages system organisations will become necessary, not of separate Trades, but of the working class as a body." Interestingly enough, him in that work, as well as Marx in works such as VPP, would be advancing the 'iron law of wages' according to the ICC, or whoever wrote their series on De Leonism and has no idea what the iron law of wages (a theory based on Malthusianism) was. He also said this is a letter to F. Wiesen:
"I do not see what violation of the social-democratic principle is necessarily involved in putting up candidates for any elective political office or in voting for these candidates, even if we are aiming at the abolition of this office itself.

"One may be of the opinion that the best way to abolish the Presidency and the Senate in America is to elect men to these offices who are pledged to effect their abolition, and then one will consistently act accordingly. Others may think that this method is inappropriate; that’s a matter of opinion. There may be circumstances under which the former mode of action would also involve a violation of revolutionary principle; I fail to see why that should always and everywhere be the case.

"For the immediate goal of the labor movement is the conquest of political power for and by the working class. If we agree on that, the difference of opinion regarding the ways and means of struggle to be employed therein can scarcely lead to differences of principle among sincere people who have their wits about them. In my opinion those tactics are the best in each country that lead to the goal most certainly and in the shortest time. But we are yet very far from this goal precisely in America, and I believe I am not making a mistake in explaining the importance still attributed sometimes to such academic questions over there by this very circumstance."


However, I will point out that Engels famously stated that revolution was possibly the most authoritarian and violent act that can be enacted in society.
Technically, he didn't say that revolution was the most 'violent' act that can be enacted, he merely said that, "if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists." Or presumably the working class should just law down arms and not bother with defence and enforcement of the revolution? Revolution is, after all, the 'expropriation of the expropriators', Engels was pointing out that 'expropriation' is an 'authoritarian' act (authority defined as, "the imposition of the will of another upon ours", or anybody else's). Thus my comparison to murder laws; they are enforced by force, but do not necessitate that said force be utilized unless somebody actually commits murder. It is quite likely that there will be some degree of resistance, and, while this does not necessitate killing the perpetrators, one can't really walk up to a rifle with a rose and win unless one is superman (the same applies to taking on the army, interestingly enough).


Certainly the WSM openly disagrees with some of the views of Marx and Engels but on balance it can hardly be disputed that they are far closer to orthodox Marxism than, say, the Leninists - all 57 varieties of them - ever were.
That depends on one's definition of 'orthodox Marxism'. If it is used to refer to Second International state capitalism and doomsaying, as it often is, then the WSM does, fortunately, stand outside this tradition. If it is used to refer to Marx and Engels, then yeah, sure.

Edit: 57? Scheisse.

[Mike Morin]

But a great many of the basic views held by the WSM are indeed Marxist or wholly compatible with Marxism in its classical sense - particularly on the nature of socialism and the need for majority support. Certainly the WSM openly disagrees with some of the views of Marx and Engels but on balance it can hardly be disputed that they are far closer to orthodox Marxism than, say, the Leninists - all 57 varieties of them - ever were.

True, Engels said some things about the nature of revolution that are questionable but he also said it could be carried out peacefully and that it needed to be carried out by the vast majority. See his 1895 preface to Class Struggles in France

Somehow, I think this got deleted, so I am posting it again:

***************************************

Yet some of us, can appear to be quite authoritarian, though we could be mistaking such a perception for confidence in a strong belief set. I, personally, try to be vigilant about not being perceived to be authoritarian.

Anyway, we try hard to respect each other and not to quibble.

What's the difference between Anarchist and Libertarian except that Libertarians were more intelligent in choosing their name?

With respect to Engels, It should be clear from history that Nationalist/Internationalist Aggression is more authoritarian and violent than revolution.

I say, eventually:

C. Neither, unless that revolution can be non-violent.

Also, with respect to WSM, they are very naive about a moneyless system, except as an ultimate goal, and at least one has said that their objectives were to dismantle all governments, which I differ with in that I think in order to peacefully transition, the goal should be to minimize governments, and employ them to help facilitate the transition to an economic democracy.

But remember, we are human, and will never be perfect. Even in the ultimate success of the ideal, there will be need for dispute resolution. To resolve disputes there would need to be explicitly stated and inculcated principles, mission, and there would need to be organization to negotiate and determine policies, planning and the implementation modi operandis of a cooperative ecological economy. Doesn't that in some sense of the word translate into government? Perhaps someone can come up with a less unpopular term...

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

The Best Love to have
is the Love of life
- Jimi Hendrix

You dont have any Life to Love if you were stupid enough to allow somone to slaughter you and your friends because you want to have your corpse on the frontpage of the newspaper.

[Post-Something]

The full Engels quote I was refering to is this:


But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

From "On Authority".

Rifles, bayonets and cannons certainly imply violence.

And ZeroNowhere, by Orthodox Marxism, I'm pretty much referring to Vulgar Marxism. The essentialist, economically determinist stuff that came out of the Second International as you rightly noted.

[Vendetta]

A non-violent revolution would be a nice and rosy end to capitalism, but I really just can't see it happening.

[robbo203]

Also, with respect to WSM, they are very naive about a moneyless system, except as an ultimate goal, and at least one has said that their objectives were to dismantle all governments, which I differ with in that I think in order to peacefully transition, the goal should be to minimize governments, and employ them to help facilitate the transition to an economic democracy....

How do you propose to minimise governments this side of the revolution? How do you suggest the governments should be employed to "faciliate the transition to economic democracy" having minimised them in the first place?

[Mike Morin]

How do you propose to minimise governments this side of the revolution? How do you suggest the governments should be employed to "faciliate the transition to economic democracy" having minimised them in the first place?


While transitioning to a world currency, which for the ideal would be a transition event to a moneyless economy, we would want to keep a Treasury, a Treasury that would be dedicated to allocating resources to and within communities and amongst and within economic sectors in a manner consistent with the mission, principles, policies, and strategies that I have layed out previously.

We would want to keep "safety-net" programs, like un-employment insurance, social security, food stamps, workers' compensation, etc. at least until the time that the economic democracy can assume those roles for aiding the vulnerable.


Mike Morin
peu