Violence

[Rood]

I'm only just a member of revleft, and i have red a few topic's but why do some of you think that violence is necesarry, i'm member of the dutch socialist party and were the 3de party of the country but never used any violence. I will beat facist when they come in my street or when the police attacks my but not for the revolution..

[The Watcher]

Change is only change if it's accepted.
Revolution brings change.
Not everyone agrees with revolution.
We must teach and show communism to everyone. Those who still oppose it, are evil, stupid, jealous, ignorant, whatever.
They are disruptive influence, their sole being undermines our efforts.
They must be dealt with; forced to accept and co-operate, or terminated.

The ends justify the means.

Also, a revolution is not over an extended time, it is a flash, an eruption, which re-erupts a few times, and which lasts until destroyed or declares victory over the enemy.

[Bandito]

Do you really believe that if you win the "elections", they will say "Hm, ok, it's what the people want" and give all their possesions to society?

[Tjis]

Well since you are a member of a reformist party, you see this from a different perspective than we do. The SP is a reformist party, meaning they believe they can change the system from the inside out by getting elected. They want a gradual change from capitalism into socialism.
We are revolutionaries. We see that there is no way you can change a capitalist system gradually into a socialist one, since they're completely opposed to each other. There's no evolutionary stage where you're slightly capitalist and slightly socialist. It's either capitalist or socialist. That's why a revolution is necessary to achieve a socialist world.

Revolutions might start out pretty peacefully. Workers seize control of the factories, everyone stops listening to the government, all that fun stuff. But the ruling class (the capitalists) are never going to accept that. So there'll most likely be a reaction, just as there has always been so far whenever a workers movement becomes stronger. It's no coincidence that fascism grew in strength at the same time socialism was getting hold all over Europe.
At that point we'll need to defend the revolution from fascists, from private militias, from what is left of the state army (hopefully many will defect) and from the police. And yes, this will be violent.

[el_chavista]

What is the State but an army and a police? And if you want to know what are they for just see what happens when some people upraise against the Establishment.

[JammyDodger]

When the worker revolts violence will be as sure as shit sticks to a blanket.
For a worker to revolt, he can do that by simply not working, it will not be the worker that initiates the violence imho.
I also firmly believe the workers of the world will take far more violence from the state than they dish out.

In instances though for the preservation of self a defence will be needed.

Without work the capitalists crumble, it will be they who employ the violence to try and regain control.

[mikelepore]

You are right, Rood. Support for violence is a fantasy of those who are unwilling to wait until the people become educated and want to emancipate themselves. They imagine that a small group of volunteers can do it for the unwilling people. If the people are educated and organized first, revolutionary change can occur in one day and violence is completely unnecessary, and if the people are not educated first, the revolution is impossible and violence can't accomplish anything.

[Vahanian]

I agree with tjis on this one. the people may become educated but any of the upper class that are going too lose every they didn't have too work but still have will be pissed and will try to used the state to crush us

[Tjis]

You are right, Rood. Support for violence is a fantasy of those who are unwilling to wait until the people become educated and want to emancipate themselves. They imagine that a small group of volunteers can do it for the unwilling people. If the people are educated and organized first, revolutionary change can occur in one day and violence is completely unnecessary, and if the people are not educated first, the revolution is impossible and violence can't accomplish anything.

Are you intentionally misreading what we're saying? We're saying the initial step of the revolution is peaceful. It's done by the entire working class. It's not, as you like to represent our views, done by a small vanguard. After that initial step there will be people that see the privileges they had before disappear. And they'll not like that one bit. These are the capitalists, and also some segments of society that get extra privileges from the capitalists, and therefore profit highly of the status quo.

You might believe that you can educate all these people (capitalist class, upper middle class) into voluntarily giving up their power, and not launching a violent reaction during the revolution, but don't go misrepresent our views intentionally.

[Rjevan]

Well since you are a member of a reformist party, you see this from a different perspective than we do. The SP is a reformist party, meaning they believe they can change the system from the inside out by getting elected. They want a gradual change from capitalism into socialism.
We are revolutionaries. We see that there is no way you can change a capitalist system gradually into a socialist one, since they're completely opposed to each other. There's no evolutionary stage where you're slightly capitalist and slightly socialist. It's either capitalist or socialist. That's why a revolution is necessary to achieve a socialist world.

This. Reformism is just silly and can't work, so there must be a revolution. And that won't happen peacefully, does anybody really think that the capitalists, the government and the ruling class will give power over to us if we ask friendly? It won't work if people send a petition to the capitalists, saying: "Would you please consider handing over the means of production? And it would also be very nice if you could give us some of your million dollars to aid people who suffer. Thank you in advance." The capitalists own the government and the government owns the military and the military will own us, if we are only armed with protest banners and flyers.

[Old Man Diogenes]

They must be dealt with; forced to accept and co-operate, or terminated.

The ends justify the means.

What the hell, if the people don't want it, it won't happen you can't force it on them, and I'm certainly not terminating anyone because they don't agree with me. Violence should only be used in retaliation to voilence from counter-revolutionaries or violence from the State.

[Little Red Robin Hood]

I'm not pro-violence, I'm anti-pacifist. It means I refuse to rule out the possibility of violence, especially defensive violence.

[Manifesto]

The Capitalists will be the first to use violence and we will have to use violence in a revolution. It would be nice though if it were possible to usher in Communism by people choosing it.

[Tjis]

The Capitalists will be the first to use violence and we will have to use violence in a revolution. It would be nice though if it were possible to usher in Communism by people choosing it.
That's what a revolution would be: people choosing communism. A revolution is not done by a small group but by the entire working class (well at least the vast vast majority). If it's a small group, it wouldn't be a revolution but a coup.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What the hell, if the people don't want it, it won't happen you can't force it on them, and I'm certainly not terminating anyone because they don't agree with me. Violence should only be used in retaliation to voilence from counter-revolutionaries or violence from the State.

"Terminate the opposition?" I think the watcher may be a troll.

[crazytaxi]

I fail to see how education of the people can win over the funded capitalist brainwashing of the people via the media. Morally it would be the perfect solution that people realise the injustice of capitalism and reject it and unite to end the regime of corporations. If people don't realise that we are communal creatures who’s co-operation is fundamental to our long-term survival and they don't realise that self serving capitalism and personal greed isn’t the answer then what option is there but violence? I hate violence but i am of the opinion that is the only viable solution. The “what do i get from it” attitude is common place, even amongst my friends, you even see it in political party broadcasts, people will ask “how do i benefit?” instead of “how do we benefit”. We are communal creatures, co-operation is key to our survival. self serving capitalism is a perversion of our nature and it should be eliminated by any means.

[RedStar]

Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?

It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. ...
But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.I also agree with Tjis.
Violence is simply inevitable and those seeking peaceful way for overthrowing capitalism are living in illusion. The closest you will be allowed to do is something like the model in Scandinavia which is still - capitalism.

[Comrade B]

It is about getting representation where you ordinarily cannot. When a country creates elections which exclude the left, reform is entirely impossible, and we can only win if we destroy those that oppress us. In the US you have to pay to be put on the state ballot, for example. By doing this, the US has blocked people who actually represent the workers (because we tend to lack the funding), and made sure that their elections will only be between mid ground puppets.
In other countries, dictators prevent any representation of the people, when protests form, they crush them (in the US you have to get a permit for protest, and they give you a specific location you can protest in, if you do not get it, the police beat the fuck out of you), the only way to protest, and hold your ground, is fighting back.

[Tatarin]

But to play the devil's advocate, reformism hasn't really been shown to work all the way, so really, there is no saying if it indeed could be changed that way.

What is apparent is that reformism has no limits, it simply says that somewhere in the future we will have a completely equal society in where no one suffers. The best example of this, and reformism in general, is the Scandinavian countries. One would think that at least one would be close to achieving socialism soon, or done so in the near past. Obviously, this hasn't happened.

I would say the true "believers", the founders, or whatever indeed had a vision of a future socialist world, only this has been lost since their deaths and replaced with social democracy, which is now moving closer and closer to the other right-wing parties. I think one can see that something is wrong when they sing The Internationale on one meeting and talk about the importance of business after they finish singing it.

[crazytaxi]

(in the US you have to get a permit for protest, and they give you a specific location you can protest in, if you do not get it, the police beat the fuck out of you), the only way to protest, and hold your ground, is fighting back.
This is much the same in the UK, how people can class ours as a democratic society is beyond me. I saw a video where anti-war protesters where campaigning outside a factory that was making weapons for the invasion of Iraq. They where banned from protesting under the "terrorism act" <--lol, yeah, quotation marks! i saw old people (pensioners) hit with police batons, the protesting was completely oppressed and ultimately made illegal by the government. So where the hell is free speech???
I don't feel represented by my government, i feel oppressed, controlled and dominated by them. That makes me pretty fucking mad... Yet most people seem virtually apathetic or completely unaware of the manipulation. That makes me even angrier! :sneaky:

[NecroCommie]

What the hell, if the people don't want it, it won't happen you can't force it on them, and I'm certainly not terminating anyone because they don't agree with me. Violence should only be used in retaliation to voilence from counter-revolutionaries or violence from the State.
You can bet there is a whole segment of nation that profits from capitalism. There is no way in hell they will have workers free from their control. You either neutralize them, or be enslaved by their armies and police. Your choice.

[NoMore]

I'm not a hippie or any thing but I would'nt use violence unless it's for self defense. But when it comes to political movements peace always seems to work. The reason why I think it works is because it makes the opponents look barbarous and unitelligent. I think we should try peace first and if it does'nt work than we can do anything neccassary.

[Tjis]

I'm not a hippie or any thing but I would'nt use violence unless it's for self defense. But when it comes to political movements peace always seems to work. The reason why I think it works is because it makes the opponents look barbarous and unitelligent. I think we should try peace first and if it does'nt work than we can do anything neccassary.

How will making them look barbarous and unintelligent achieve anything? They won't suddenly lose their power because of that.
Also, what do you mean with "peace always seems to work"? The only succes I can think of would be Gandhi's civil disobedience, and the only reason that that worked was because of the threat that it'd soon stop being so peaceful.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Basically, it all comes down to Chile '73 (or Spain '36, for that matter). If you get far enough using non-violent means, the capitalists will use violence against you, at which point you either use violent means to defeat them, or get killed. Ask Allende how well principled non-violence turns out.


I fail to see how education of the people can win over the funded capitalist brainwashing of the people via the media. Morally it would be the perfect solution that people realise the injustice of capitalism and reject it and unite to end the regime of corporations. If people don't realise that we are communal creatures who’s co-operation is fundamental to our long-term survival and they don't realise that self serving capitalism and personal greed isn’t the answer then what option is there but violence? I hate violence but i am of the opinion that is the only viable solution. The “what do i get from it” attitude is common place, even amongst my friends, you even see it in political party broadcasts, people will ask “how do i benefit?” instead of “how do we benefit”. We are communal creatures, co-operation is key to our survival. self serving capitalism is a perversion of our nature and it should be eliminated by any means.
I don't think we need to rely on moralism. When people ask "how do I benefit?", it shouldn't be too hard to explain to them that they'd benefit from having some control over their lives instead of being totally exploited. We shouldn't rely on "educating the people" about how capitalism is morally wrong, we should be pointing to the ways that the profit system is screwing up their lives and their material interests right here, right now, and how much they have to gain from resisting it. I agree that violence is necessary, but it shouldn't be an alternative to persuading people of our views (which you seem to be suggesting), it should be used by the mass of the population once they've already come round to revolutionary positions.


Also, what do you mean with "peace always seems to work"? The only succes I can think of would be Gandhi's civil disobedience, and the only reason that that worked was because of the threat that it'd soon stop being so peaceful.
Yeah, the role of Ghandhi's pacifism is way over-rated. See the Indian National Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army) for an example of the armed force element in the Indian independence movement. More examples here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_independence_movement#Revolutionary_activit ies). (And, of course, you could question how much ordinary working-class Indians have actually gained as a result of independence, no matter who won it.)

[mikelepore]

For the workers to take control of the industries, the capitalists' willingness or agreement isn't needed. Already under capitalism, the working class occupies all locations in the industries and performs all functions in the industries. The capitalist class sends memos from hundreds or thousands of miles away to tell the workers what to do. The workers recognize the capitalists to be the official bosses, read their remote communications, and perform the work as instructed. The workers print the dividend checks and deliver them to the capitalists, and, when the capitalists go out to cash and spend those dividend checks, the workers redeem them. The entire system rests on the assumption that the workers have it in their minds that the capitalists are the official masters. That is what has to change. When the working class collectively issues an announcement that, from now on, the workers' organization shall be the only officially recognized management in every industry, the revolution will be enacted and completed in an instant. It doesn't matter whether the capitalists like it or not. There's no need even to ask the capitalists what they think about it. Their consent will be irrelevant.

What does matter very much, however, is that the police and the army receive all of their orders from publicly elected political offices. If it hasn't been politically authorized for the workers to take control of the industries, then the capitalist class would have the police available to suppress the workers, and then there would be only two possible outcomes for each of the participating workers: death or prison. This implies that it must be made impossible for the capitalist to obtain the assistance of the police. That requires that the officials who give the daily orders to the police shall not give the orders to suppress the workers, in other words, that the population has previously elected socialists to the political offices that have control over the laws and the enforcement branches.

Note carefully -- in this chronological order: On Monday, a political mandate enacted by socialists in control of the elected legislature, saying that ownership of the means of production is formally transferred to the workers' industrial organization. On Tuesday, the workers' organization is put into place as the new industrial management.

Try to do it out of sequence -- take control of the means of production *before* a political mandate has authorized the action, or *without* having such a political mandate at all -- and law enforcement will move against the workers, millions of workers will be killed, the revolution defeated, and fascism installed.

The options here are very limited.

A successful socialist revolution has to proceed exactly like this:

1. Begin simultaneously to organize the industrial organization of workers that will comprise the new industrial management, and a socialist political party that be elected to the government offices.

2. Wait however many years, decades or centuries may be necessary for the majority of the people to be persuaded to elect the socialist party into control of the national legislative and executive political offices.

3. Once the socialist movement has political control, they officially declare capitalist property null and void, and legally recognize the workers' industrial organization as the official management in every industry.

4. Immediately, production of goods and services resumes under new worker-controlled management, and the transformation to a classless society has now been completed.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

What does matter very much, however, is that the police and the army receive all of their orders from publicly elected political offices. If it hasn't been politically authorized for the workers to take control of the industries, then the capitalist class would have the police available to suppress the workers, and then there would be only two possible outcomes for each of the participating workers: death or prison. This implies that it must be made impossible for the capitalist to obtain the assistance of the police. That requires that the officials who give the daily orders to the police shall not give the orders to suppress the workers, in other words, that the population has previously elected socialists to the political offices that have control over the laws and the enforcement branches.
Or for the army (who are the important ones here, the police are relatively impotent against a real insurrection) to mutiny. That sounds slightly more plausible than your idea of every single member of the working class achieving an incredibly high level of consciousness except for those workers who happen to wear uniforms.
Oh, and what happens if socialists are elected to political office and give orders, and then reactionary generals give the order to their troops to rise against them? Because, you know, that's just me giving a totally wild guess about something that might possibly happen, and not exactly what happened in Chile 73 and Spain 36?


Note carefully -- in this chronological order: On Monday, a political mandate enacted by socialists in control of the elected legislature, saying that ownership of the means of production is formally transferred to the workers' industrial organization. On Tuesday, the workers' organization is put into place as the new industrial management.

Try to do it out of sequence -- take control of the means of production *before* a political mandate has authorized the action, or *without* having such a political mandate at all -- and law enforcement will move against the workers, millions of workers will be killed, the revolution defeated, and fascism installed. Or the force of the state will break down. Why do you not think that's a possibility? And as I've said above, "law enforcement" is happy to move against the workers even when there's a democratically elected "worker's government" in power. This is a thing that happens. Does the complete lack of contact between your theory and reality not bother you at all?

A successful socialist revolution has to proceed exactly like this:

1. Begin simultaneously to organize the industrial organization of workers that will comprise the new industrial management, and a socialist political party that be elected to the government offices.

2. Wait however many years, decades or centuries may be necessary for the majority of the people to be persuaded to elect the socialist party into control of the national legislative and executive political offices.

3. Once the socialist movement has political control, they officially declare capitalist property null and void, and legally recognize the workers' industrial organization as the official management in every industry.

4. Immediately, production of goods and services resumes under new worker-controlled management, and the transformation to a classless society has now been completed.It's nice that you know the exact details of the One True Formula. And that you can guarantee that the representatives of this socialist party will be utterly unlike all the "socialist" politicians we've ever seen before and will be completely resistant to the prospect of being corrupted by power.

[NoMore]

How will making them look barbarous and unintelligent achieve anything? They won't suddenly lose their power because of that.


Of course they won't loose their power right away. The whole point of it is to make people loose faith in their government, thats why ghandi acheived what he did. Also I said we should try peace first until all peaceful methods are exauhsted. If peace doesn't work, use force.
I want a revolution to happen as much as anyone on this site but we should control our emotions and handle it as delicately as possible because I don't know if you know this but there are enough nukes to blow up the earth 3 times.

[the last donut of the night]

You are right, Rood. Support for violence is a fantasy of those who are unwilling to wait until the people become educated and want to emancipate themselves. They imagine that a small group of volunteers can do it for the unwilling people. If the people are educated and organized first, revolutionary change can occur in one day and violence is completely unnecessary, and if the people are not educated first, the revolution is impossible and violence can't accomplish anything.

It doesn't matter if all the workers are 'educated' on the ideas of Marx. That will be almost impossible because one of the ways that the capitalist class reacts to popular uprisings is through false propaganda. Take Fox News and the Republican Party in the US. Thanks to them (and the fucking Democrats) a huge number of working people still are anti-communist, racist, and hold views that are self-deprecating. It's how the bourgeoisie acts before getting violent. Thus, some people in the working class will join the reactionaries.

Furthermore, the capitalist class (being the rulers and oppressors) won't 'educate' themselves. They will always be defending their own positions. I also staunchly believe that a revolution should be a grass-roots movement, with no vanguard revolutionaries to "guide" the workers. But look at reality.

[Tjis]

Of course they won't loose their power right away. The whole point of it is to make people loose faith in their government, thats why ghandi acheived what he did. Also I said we should try peace first until all peaceful methods are exauhsted. If peace doesn't work, use force.
I want a revolution to happen as much as anyone on this site but we should control our emotions and handle it as delicately as possible because I don't know if you know this but there are enough nukes to blow up the earth 3 times.

People lose faith in their government and then what? They'll still be the ones with the guns.
Gandhi's "revolution" was political at most, the transition from one government to another government. It wasn't the end of capitalism, far from it in fact. Our revolution will have to go way further than Gandhi wanted to go. We'll have to expropriate the private property from the capitalist class. When we do that there'll almost certainly be a violent reaction. If we don't do that, we don't even have a revolution to begin with.

It's true, they have nukes. In fact, their force will be superior in every way, except numbers. They'll have guns, tanks, airplanes, nukes, etc. Despite all that, we'll have to defend the revolution with all we got.
The best we can do I think when we are in that stage is to appeal to the ones that'll have to follow the orders, not the ones that give them. The people giving orders are the ones defending their privileges, but nobody likes shooting at their own family, and nobody likes pushing the button that'll launch the nukes. We'll have to make as many of them as possible defect.
But even then there'll be some left to fight us. We should be able to defend ourselves and the revolution by then. Yes that means violence but the alternative is not having a revolution at all.

[NoMore]

People lose faith in their government and then what? They'll still be the ones with the guns.
Gandhi's "revolution" was political at most, the transition from one government to another government. It wasn't the end of capitalism, far from it in fact. Our revolution will have to go way further than Gandhi wanted to go. We'll have to expropriate the private property from the capitalist class. When we do that there'll almost certainly be a violent reaction. If we don't do that, we don't even have a revolution to begin with.

It's true, they have nukes. In fact, their force will be superior in every way, except numbers. They'll have guns, tanks, airplanes, nukes, etc. Despite all that, we'll have to defend the revolution with all we got.
The best we can do I think when we are in that stage is to appeal to the ones that'll have to follow the orders, not the ones that give them. The people giving orders are the ones defending their privileges, but nobody likes shooting at their own family, and nobody likes pushing the button that'll launch the nukes. We'll have to make as many of them as possible defect.
But even then there'll be some left to fight us. We should be able to defend ourselves and the revolution by then. Yes that means violence but the alternative is not having a revolution at all.

Ya I guess you're right. Looking back, all peaceful revolutions only reformed the government and changed laws. Also now that I think about it, I don't think any nukes will be used because it would destroy the land that the bourgeois rule over.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Ya I guess you're right. Looking back, all peaceful revolutions only reformed the government and changed laws.
I also think you'd be hard-pressed to find any "peaceful revolution" where there wasn't also a significant militant element that scared the rulers into negotiating with the peaceful faction.