Communism in Relation to Pacfism

[Boblo]

I identify strongly with communist ideals. I definitely consider myself a communist, or at the very least a very left leaning socialist.

However, I am a pacifist. The concept of armed revolution is a difficult one for me to accept. Is it possible for me to therefore be a communist? Are revolution and armed revolution independent beings? Is Pacifism compatible with communism?

[LeninBalls]

Not to me, in Marxist terms. The only way for capitalists to lose power is through violence, they'll never give it up as easy as an election.

Most "communist/socialist" parties who run in elections are just social democrat tits, and if not, then, they usually (actually always in the 3 times its happened) just hold hands with the capitalists and form a coalition government or simply don't implement socialist policies (Nepal, Moldova, Cyprus).

[Glenn Beck]

I identify strongly with communist ideals. I definitely consider myself a communist, or at the very least a very left leaning socialist.

However, I am a pacifist. The concept of armed revolution is a difficult one for me to accept. Is it possible for me to therefore be a communist? Are revolution and armed revolution independent beings? Is Pacifism compatible with communism?

No. Revolutions typically start with peaceful demonstrations and end with violence against the losing side. That's how class war works. Pacifism, utopianism, and liberalism are based in the assumption that there is no necessary conflict, just a fundamental misunderstanding. Revolutionary socialism is based on the concept of classes with opposing interests, that is to say interests that CANNOT be reconciled.

It is not logically impossible to have a revolution without violence if for some reason the ruling class has no recourse to violence, but in practice this is so exceedingly unlikely that hoping for it is an exercise in futility.

Radicals do not desire violence for its own sake, they desire justice and an end to exploitation, and the only way to do this is to overcome the oppression of the ruling class. The power of the ruling class is ultimately propped up by violence, the passive threat of violence backed up by its open use when found necessary. Violence is not an appropriate tactic in all situations, but it is an important one in certain very crucial situations that are necessary to bring about lasting justice and peace. To unilaterally disavow violence is to advocate the disarmament and subsequent slaughter of those who would fight for their rights and the rights of all mankind.

Nonviolent tactics and a desire to see as little bloodshed as possible are very much compatible with revolutionary politics. Pacifism is not. The view that violent revolution is fundamentally aggressive and unjust is a lie pushed by the dominant perspective of the ruling class. In reality radical violence is self defense against oppression.

[Boblo]

I don't deny that the concept of pacifism is flawed, but the problem is, violence is genuinely beyond me. I was once attacked in the street but than even I did not defend myself.

How exactly do I take part in an armed revolution? And how do I do so with a clear conscience?

[Jack]

Check out: How Nonviolence Protects The State

[StalinFanboy]

Pacifism is selfish insanity. Revolution isn't about higher morality and purity. It's about liberation for the working class.

Also check out Pacifism as Pathology by Ward Churchill.

[Bilan]

There'd be few people on here who enjoy violence (though there'd be some, I suppose), but most recognize it as inevitable. A working class revolution, in which the working class seeks to seize the means of production from the capitalist class, and socialise distrubition and production, will have repercussions from the capitalist class - they will fight back, as they always have. It is necessary for us to defend ourselves, lest we want to force ourselves back into our own servitude.

[ZeroNowhere]

I identify strongly with communist ideals. I definitely consider myself a communist, or at the very least a very left leaning socialist.

However, I am a pacifist. The concept of armed revolution is a difficult one for me to accept. Is it possible for me to therefore be a communist? Are revolution and armed revolution independent beings? Is Pacifism compatible with communism?
Regardless of any disagreements (though I don't fetishize violence, but it may be necessary), yes, it is possible for you to be a communist. "Whenever a change leaves the internal mechanism untouched, we have reform; whenever the internal mechanism is changed, we have revolution." The peacefulness or bloodiness of a revolution is irrelevant as to whether it is a revolution, and if you're a revolutionary, then you're a communist.


I don't deny that the concept of pacifism is flawed, but the problem is, violence is genuinely beyond me. I was once attacked in the street but than even I did not defend myself.
So you don't like taking part in violence? I'm sure you're not alone there, I most certainly wouldn't either. It probably wouldn't be necessary for you to do so, IMO. I wouldn't say that that would count as pacifism, however.

[STJ]

I identify strongly with communist ideals. I definitely consider myself a communist, or at the very least a very left leaning socialist.

However, I am a pacifist. The concept of armed revolution is a difficult one for me to accept. Is it possible for me to therefore be a communist? Are revolution and armed revolution independent beings? Is Pacifism compatible with communism?
The cappies will never hand over anything without us useing violence.

[Charles Xavier]

We, the working class, are peaceful whenever possible, violent whenever necessary.

[mykittyhasaboner]

The question of using violence is really answered by the conditions your presented with. If for example, a country were under a military dictatorship/occupation then violence is inevitable; as it is essential that we defend workers and fight for revolution against the capitalist state, or foreign military, or whoever is the enemy. The state already carries out numerous systematic acts of violence aimed directly at workers through the police and military. So really its not even up for debate when bullets, tasers, night sticks, hand cuffs, police cruisers, tanks, helicopters, etc are already being used against the working class, and certainly would be put to great use for the capitalist ruling class when confronted with a militant movement.

[Bitter Ashes]

I identify strongly with communist ideals. I definitely consider myself a communist, or at the very least a very left leaning socialist.

However, I am a pacifist. The concept of armed revolution is a difficult one for me to accept. Is it possible for me to therefore be a communist? Are revolution and armed revolution independent beings? Is Pacifism compatible with communism?
ANYTHING you can do to help workers, or remove the means of production from the bourgeois is vital to the revolution. There will be those who will attempt to belittle you for only occupying a workplace, or only feeding workers, or only increasing class consciceness to pave the way for a better world. THEY ARE WRONG!

As a lot have pointed out, the bourgeois probably will react with violence to retake thier capitalist model that benefits them as individuals enormously and they probably will need to fought off in a similar way. That does not mean that everyone will need to take up arms to defend against thier reactionary force. In fact, the vast majority of workers will not need to fight at all.

You're a worker and you're willing to do your part for other workers. That makes you just as much of an important part of this as anyone else. Never allow yourself to become disheartened, or for your part to be belittled. Good luck with all your endevors and I hope you stay and learn more about the ways that you can play an active part in bringing down capitalism and building this great new world without having to be one of the few with a rifle. :)

[jake williams]

Violence is extremely ugly. When we talk about revolutionary violence we're talking about destroying real human lives. This isn't something anyone should be excited about or totally comfortable with. There's no point at which it's okay to forget this.

But capitalism is itself extremely violent, even outside the context of a revolutionary situation. And while I don't think any of us should be glad about it, we can't reverse that by being friendly and all getting along. As was pointed out, there are fundamentally irreconcilable opposed interests. There are a lot of successes that can be made through non-violent tactics, and whereever that can be done it should be.


ed: I want to add something with respect to the point Ranma makes with respect to there just being so much to do. It is true. If you really can't bring yourself to participate in any sort of violence - and I don't think anyone sane should want to at all (not that sanity is necessarily a fair expectation) - there's a lot else you can do. At the same time, in return for the recognition of that, you have a responsibility to recognize where self-defensive violence, both on a very individual basis and as a class, is necessary.

[Alex Libman]

In theory communism is possible without aggression, but only on a very small scale. Vote libertarian to get the collectivists you don't agree with out of your way, buy or homestead land, start a commune, invite people who are willing to live there voluntarily and pull at least their own economic weight, and don't initiate aggression against others. Is that so hard? Unfortunately for you, only a very small fraction of people are willing to work harder for less reward, and they usually aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, so to speak.

If people are free to choose, they will choose the system that benefits them the most. This means sooner or later all competent people will leave to a more capitalist place, where they would be allowed to keep the fruits of their labor and live as they please, and you'll simply run out of people to tax / exploit.

[Bitter Ashes]

In theory communism is possible without aggression, but only on a very small scale. Vote libertarian to get the collectivists you don't agree with out of your way, buy or homestead land, start a commune, invite people who are willing to live there voluntarily and pull at least their own economic weight, and don't initiate aggression against others. Is that so hard? Unfortunately for you, only a very small fraction of people are willing to work harder for less reward, and they usually aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, so to speak.

If people are free to choose, they will choose the system that benefits them the most. This means sooner or later all competent people will leave to a more capitalist place, where they would be allowed to keep the fruits of their labor and live as they please, and you'll simply run out of people to tax / exploit.
:confused: um....
Well....
I think there may be two options available to you right now, Alex. I'd strongly advise doing more research into socialism on the forums first. If, after that, you cant see how the majority of people wouldnt benefit from Communism, then I guess you may be more at home on the OI board.

[Alex Libman]

So, like the Bush Administration, you would herd your opposition into a "free speech zone" of sorts? I guess all collectivists do think alike... :D

Fine, it's your forum (see how property rights work?), I will try to follow your rules to the best of my ability - but don't pretend you're exhibiting anything but intellectual dishonestly here. I'll see you in the OI.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Unfortunately for you, only a very small fraction of people are willing to work harder for less reward, and they usually aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, so to speak.

That sounds like capitalism. Without capitalist non-labor income and all the unnecessary sectors of the economy that go with it, you'll work less for the same rewards.


If people are free to choose, they will choose the system that benefits them the most. This means sooner or later all competent people will leave to a more capitalist place, where they would be allowed to keep the fruits of their labor and live as they please, and you'll simply run out of people to tax / exploit.
You get the fruits of your labor in capitalism? Are you really going to try and argue that the richest 225 people just worked more than the 2.5 billion poorest? The richest people in capitalism are the people that don't labor. And taxes? I think you're confusing socialism with welfare capitalism. Sweden =/= socialism.


Socialism: The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth.

[manic expression]

So, like the Bush Administration, you would herd your opposition into a "free speech zone" of sorts? I guess all collectivists do think alike... :D

Ho ho ho, what rapier-like wit. Listen, this forum isn't supposed to mirror society at large, it's supposed to be a discussion forum for leftists; were it open to anyone, it wouldn't be "revleft", it would be "regular political discussion forum". It's not really that hard to understand, but then again I doubt your ability to view things rationally.

By the way, the reason your first post in this thread is stupid is because the market inherently centralizes wealth and the means of production. Those idyllic communes you speak of would be snapped up by larger, more powerful corporations in ten minutes, lest they be isolated and irrelevant (funny, that's what they are now). Capitalism, it has been said, is the delusion that the most wicked men will do the wickedest things for the common good.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Nothing wrong for an online forum to restrict people who don't support our goals. If you think thats "property rights", you are wrong. We are not enforcing these rules at the point of a gun, whereas property rights are.

We can't exploit anyone with the forum either. :)

[HoChiMilo]

Forgive me, but I like to be practical wherever possible. In theory, a pacifistic socialist revolution is entirely possible.
Since the dawn of the industrial age, there have always been FAR greater numbers of proletarians in relation to real, bourgeois property owners (5, maybe 10 percent of the population). A bunch of people refusing to work, leave the factories, fight in the wars etc. could do the trick nicely -- like the IWW, for instance. Certain IWW members may have committed acts of violence -- but the overall activity seems, to me, to be civilly disobedient. But, expecting society at large to do things like that when they have families and children who need to be fed is easier said than done.

Also, as a poster said earlier, it depends on the circumstances. When people bring up pacifism, I tend to say "what about the Warsaw ghetto?" That wasn't a class war at face-value but the fact of the matter is the working people of the ghetto were being oppressed by the new ruling class and civil disobedience would have been the least practical idea by all means.

[HoChiMilo]

Reflect: is it possible in America to have a peaceful socialist revolution? I think not.

[GPDP]

While I agree that one may be able to reconcile pacifism with communism (though I would say it would be very impractical), I find that pacifists, for virtue of being pacifists, tend to reject communism. I remember my cousin, pretty much a green-liberal pacifist hippie-wannabe, once told me that the biggest problem with Lenin's ideas was that he advocated the use of violence. While I am not a fan of Lenin, I found that to be an absurd reason to reject his ideas. And while he's all about world peace and such (how we are to get world peace, he does not say, though knowing him, I imagine it has something to do with the power of music), he rejects communism and anarchism out of hand, and refuses to give my opinions the light of day.

That's just one person, of course, but I imagine it's much like that among pacifist left-liberal types.

[Bitter Ashes]

If it's a case of not bieng willing to support something that requires others to commit violence too then it's worth pointing out that capitalism relies on violence on a much larger scale in order to keep running. Guess you've got to go for the lesser of two evils.