How to start the revolution: Peace or Violence (and what Im doing to help)

[Liche]

What do you guys think? Ive been on this site a while, but rarely go on, and would like to see what your guys thoughts are. Are you out for a full scale Army of the Proletariat? Or peaceful revolutions, started in universities, churches, schools and community centers. I prefer the latter, I think the revolution should be started with reform. Get some communists in office, educate the people, then get non profit organizations to start mass civil rights protests, and unions to start protests to make sure workers are getting paid fairly. I think for the US to be come Communist, we need to do some work. The people are far to ignorant, they dont know what Communism is. The CPUSA stands for a lot of hypocritical things. Im currently applying to YCLUSA, and I hope to talk to some people there, and eventually join CPUSA, were I will bring up issues I have with the party.

[Uncle Rob]

This question is going to vary from almost every Socialist you ask. Personally I can't see it happening other any other way then violently. There was a time where the revolution could be achieved peacefully and by reform. Marx mentioned somewhere ( I can't remember the particular work, I think it was the civil war in France) that the revolution would be achieved peacefully in America and in England. This was before of course America became a capitalist superpower that developed a powerful police force and standing army.

The problem with reformism ( the process of achieving socialism through the state) is that the state itself is an organ of class rule. Inserting communists and socialists into an organ of class rule diverts them from class struggle. In other words it forces an individual to take responsibility for the administration and function of the capitalist state. What I despise about the CPUSA is their tendency to proclaim themselves to be revolutionary, and at the same time; kiss Obama's ass and suggest the only way we will see socialism in America is if the working class pay's homage to the Democrats. "Convince them Communism is a good idea!" I feel should be their slogan, for they are more or less saying it in almost all of their publications.

[Niccolò Rossi]

How to start the revolution: Peace or ViolenceFirstly, I think there is a problem with the way you pose the question. Revolutionaries do not make revolution. "The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves". The question of when and where and how the revolution will unfold can only be answered by the working class. Revolutionaries have no crystal ball for this purpose, nor the power to dictate their own will upon the class.

This, however, should not be used as a cop-out for practical inactivity or theoretical laziness. The role of revolutionaries is vital to the task of revolution; it is matter of what that role is.


Are you out for a full scale Army of the Proletariat?

I don't think this is a conception of revolution that anyone has. In a pre-revolutionary situation the level of class consciousness and combativity simply do not exist that would enable the creation of a mass, revolutionary organisation of this type. More than this, the conception of revolutionary as being nothing more than a military war between the state and the forces of the proletariat is completely misguided and ahistorical.


Or peaceful revolutions, started in universities, churches, schools and community centers.

How can a revolution possibly start in a university, church, school or community center?


Get some communists in office

Marx answered these schemes almost 140 years ago following the experience of the Paris Commune:

"But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." - Marx, The Civil War in France


educate the people

This kind of condescending attitude towards the working class is completely alien to the communist movement.


then get non profit organizations to start mass civil rights protests

Again, the logic here is substitutionist. The working class cannot defend its own civil liberties; non-profit organisations (which are firm defenders of the current order and not in the least revolutionary, it should be noted) must do it for them.


unions to start protests to make sure workers are getting paid fairly

Not only is there no such thing as 'fair pay', Marx also responded to this demand in 1865: "Instead of the conservative motto: 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!' they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: 'Abolition of the wages system!'"

More than this, the task of fighting against the attacks of capital on the living and working conditions of the proletariat cannot be the task of the unions which have today become pillars in support of the bourgeois state.


The CPUSA stands for a lot of hypocritical things. Im currently applying to YCLUSA, and I hope to talk to some people there, and eventually join CPUSA, were I will bring up issues I have with the party.

You know, there are a lot of other fish in the sea. The CPUSA is more than hypocritical of its own politics, I would argue it is a thoroughly reactionary and bourgeois organisation.

[Guevara shadow]

hello man
if you askin me what i like i say i like it to start by population so when it start between prolitarians and people give a blood for it they are going to be ready to die for it if enimies tried to fail it
but the communisit party must not be in the front of this must not be so forwarded coz people won,t be with it then
so communisit party must be excatly in the middle of the population predicting what they want in every minute it may goes 1 step forward if it saw that prolitarians ready for this step and than peacfull revolution must use violence so prolitarian can reach the prolitarian dectatory
life long

[Lyev]

Niccolo, or anyone else, I have a few questions about some things your said, not meant as criticism or anything I'm just curious/confused. Oh and sorry if I seem at all ignorant.



Marx answered these schemes almost 140 years ago following the experience of the Paris Commune:

"But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." - Marx, The Civil War in France

Why can't they 'lay hold of the ready-made state machinery'? Does the whole thing have to be smashed and started afresh?



Again, the logic here is substitutionist. The working class cannot defend its own civil liberties; non-profit organisations (which are firm defenders of the current order and not in the least revolutionary, it should be noted) must do it for them.

What exactly do you mean by civil liberties? And who are the 'non-profit organisations' that defend the working class?



Not only is there no such thing as 'fair pay', Marx also responded to this demand in 1865: "Instead of the conservative motto: 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!' they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: 'Abolition of the wages system!'"

More than this, the task of fighting against the attacks of capital on the living and working conditions of the proletariat cannot be the task of the unions which have today become pillars in support of the bourgeois state.


I'm not sure I understand, what's the alternative to 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!' and wages system?

Sorry if this is derailing the thread, by the way.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Niccolo, or anyone else, I have a few questions about some things your said, not meant as criticism or anything I'm just curious/confused. Oh and sorry if I seem at all ignorant.

Not at all, thanks for asking :)


Why can't they 'lay hold of the ready-made state machinery'? Does the whole thing have to be smashed and started afresh?

Marx goes on in the quote to say:

"The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature – organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor – originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism."

Marx is here saying that the 'ready made state machinery' is forged with definite tasks (in this case, for the struggle to overcome decaying fuedalism and the old ruling class, but also for the struggle against the new rising class, the exploited working class) which are incompatible with the aims and means of the proletarian dictatorship*.

If you haven't read Lenin's State and Revolution, I would recommend it.



Again, the logic here is substitutionist. The working class cannot defend its own civil liberties; non-profit organisations (which are firm defenders of the current order and not in the least revolutionary, it should be noted) must do it for them.What exactly do you mean by civil liberties? And who are the 'non-profit organisations' that defend the working class?

Sorry, what I wrote is actually very confusing, I should have put the second sentence in quotations. This is what the OP seems to be saying (something I very much disagree with!) and I think it speaks for itself.



I'm not sure I understand, what's the alternative to 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!' and wages system?

I'm not quite sure if I understand the question. Could you clarify it?

The point Marx was getting at is that slogans and campaigns for a 'fair day's wage' or a 'living wage' are not immediately revolutionary demands. Communists fight for the abolition of wage-labour in it's entirity. The revolutionary slogan of Marx was "Abolition of the Wages System!"

Does that explain it better?



*e.g. the role of the new state will be for the suppression of the old ruling class, not the working class; the old state had a professional army and police force, the proletariat will replace it with a workers militia; the old state was divided into the legislative and executive, the new will not; offices of the old state where unelected, or elected only on a 3/4/5 yearly basis and were unaccountable during this time, the offices of the new state will be accountable to the working class which has elected them and are immediately revokable, with delegates recieving only the average wage, etc.

[Lyev]

Not at all, thanks for asking

I'm not quite sure if I understand the question. Could you clarify it?

The point Marx was getting at is that slogans and campaigns for a 'fair day's wage' or a 'living wage' are not immediately revolutionary demands. Communists fight for the abolition of wage-labour in it's entirity. The revolutionary slogan of Marx was "Abolition of the Wages System!"

Does that explain it better?


Thanks very much for your answers. And don't worry, I get what your saying. Anyone asking simply for fairer pay and better wages is an opportunist and is compromising true communist ideals.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What do you guys think? Ive been on this site a while, but rarely go on, and would like to see what your guys thoughts are. Are you out for a full scale Army of the Proletariat? Or peaceful revolutions, started in universities, churches, schools and community centers. I prefer the latter, I think the revolution should be started with reform. Get some communists in office, educate the people, then get non profit organizations to start mass civil rights protests, and unions to start protests to make sure workers are getting paid fairly. I think for the US to be come Communist, we need to do some work. The people are far to ignorant, they dont know what Communism is. The CPUSA stands for a lot of hypocritical things. Im currently applying to YCLUSA, and I hope to talk to some people there, and eventually join CPUSA, were I will bring up issues I have with the party.

I am sorry to say this but you are quite delusional. Revolution is violent and must be. We cannot simply reform into a democratically, worker-run society. The Capitalist class will always defend it's power with violence. Therefore the only way to defeat capitalism is violent, armed insurrection. There is no alternative, reformism does not work, parliamentary politics do not represent our class. Only our class can represent itself and only our class can emancipate itself. Working Class revolution is violent and performed by the working class.

[Muzk]

The problem of reformism is that the people don't know what will be coming, and that socialism will actually lower the consumerism of a lot, therefore many of them get less than before(in terms of useless consum), and might even start a counter-revolution... A vague example is the DDR
And, it HAS to be radical, FFS the oppression won't end because 'some' commies in office want it, they might even take the opportunity and stay in the state (opportunism)

Or am I wrong?:drool:

[CELMX]

Originally Posted by Niccolò Rossi
"You know, there are a lot of other fish in the sea. The CPUSA is more than hypocritical of its own politics, I would argue it is a thoroughly reactionary and bourgeois organisation. "



Sorry if I seem extremely naive, but I don't know much about CPUSA....how exactly is the CPUSA hypocritical? Is it just the communist party of usa that is hypocritical, or are the other communist parties of different countries also reactionary?
sorry, again, if this is off topic...
:)

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Sorry if I seem extremely naive, but I don't know much about CPUSA....how exactly is the CPUSA hypocritical?

It is not a Communist Party. It does not support revolutionary struggle or strategy. It is a Social Democrat party at best.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Sorry if I seem extremely naive, but I don't know much about CPUSA....

Not a problem, thanks for asking :)


how exactly is the CPUSA hypocritical?

It is a fairly widely known fact that the CPUSA is a reformist outfit and little more than Democratic Party tailers. Despite this the CPUSA still declares allegiance to 'Marxism-Leninism'. It's not my business to sort out the confusions of the CPUSA and it's membership. As I said before I think it is a bourgeois organisation, there is no working class content to 'save' or 'recover' in it.


Is it just the communist party of usa that is hypocritical, or are the other communist parties of different countries also reactionary?

I would say that all the so-called 'socialist', 'communist' and 'workers' parties are fundamentally bourgeois (ignoring the often good intentions of their membership). That's not to say real revolutionary groups cease to exist, I do think there is a proletarian political milieu composed of internationalists including the best of the anarchists and some of the elements which broke from Trotskyism, some of the councilists and modernists, aswell as the Bordigists and left communists today.

[The Broke Cycle]

It is entirely dependent on context.

Peaceful means will work sometimes, and violent means will work other times. Those who argue that revolution must be violent are as simpleminded as those who argue that it must be peaceful.

The truth is that everything is subject to "terms and limitations." The American Revolution destroyed formal aristocracy in America, but ushered in the dominance of corporatism. The Revolution of 1919 led to Stalinism and one of the most repressive regimes of the 20th Century. The early labor movements of Canada and the United States created a new era in workers rights and freedoms... but mostly just let the average person spend more on materialistic crap they don't need (or even really want). India's breakaway from the British Empire, a rather peaceful revolution, saw the country split in half violently, with feuds that play out to this day.

In a general sense, it is better to use peaceful means until one has sufficient support to posit a real threat to the system. But sometimes violence is called for, and can in fact increase the support you have.

Like I said, depends on the situation.

[Orange Juche]

What concerns me is that I notice alot of lefties seem to have a bloodlust. Like they just can't wait to slaughter some cappies, violence is the only option for them, because people need to pay. The ends are the direct product of the means, and if we go into creating change with a mindset of destruction and revenge, the new system we put in place will be influenced by that. We need to focus on the society we want, not wasting energy worrying about vengeance. It's childish at best.

I can't predict the future, but I sincerely hope that any revolution would be a peaceful one.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It is entirely dependent on context.

Peaceful means will work sometimes, and violent means will work other times. Those who argue that revolution must be violent are as simpleminded as those who argue that it must be peaceful.

No we just understand that the Capitalist Class will not just step aside and allow us to run our own lives and workplaces and to collectivise the means of production. They will protect their private property with violence, therefore we must respond in the same vein to have any chance of succeeding and suppressing counter-revolutionaries. If we don't then the Capitalist class will win and we will have lost. Peaceful revolution IS NOT an option.

[Orange Juche]

Peaceful revolution IS NOT an option.

Is this based on evidence or conjecture?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Is this based on evidence or conjecture?

Evidence and reality of how Capitalist society functions. Do you simply think the Capitalists will hand over their property without putting up a fight?

[The Broke Cycle]

No we just understand that the Capitalist Class will not just step aside and allow us to run our own lives and workplaces and to collectivise the means of production.

I apologize for seeming crude, but that statement is full of logical fallacies.

You want people to be able to run their own lives, but in the same sentence, state that you should be able to run other peoples lives because you are right and the "capitalist class" (i.e. other people) are wrong.

You seem to think that if labour were put in charge of the means of production, your vision of politics would necessarily arise. That isn't the case. Many people simply do not agree with your politics, and they exist in all classes. But let me guess - they do not get a say?

You state that the capitalist class will not "step aside" (i.e. allow you to use force against them), and then use that to justify why you used force against them in the first place.

It is bewildering.


They will protect their private property with violence, therefore we must respond in the same vein to have any chance of succeeding and suppressing counter-revolutionaries. If we don't then the Capitalist class will win and we will have lost. Peaceful revolution IS NOT an option.

It has to be an option, at least in North America. People here will not tolerate violent insurrection by a small minority - and if they did tolerate it, then the revolution would already be won.

Unless we win the support of a substantial chunk of the population, violent insurrection will only lead to you being thrown into jail and/or killed. You want to go ahead and sacrifice your life for nothing, be my guest. But without the tedious and unromantic political organizing you will have nothing.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Run up to someone and punch them in the face and scream "i am a hairy bastard" that way you are on your way to becoming the next che.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The thing is I never advocated a small minority leading an armed revolt.

[The Broke Cycle]

The thing is I never advocated a small minority leading an armed revolt.

And so you necessarily admit that peaceful means are absolutely necessary for violent means to be effective.

If you are in a group of five people, and one of them decides to do something you are fundamentally opposed to, should you try to reason with him before or after punching him?

The answer is obvious.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

And so you necessarily admit that peaceful means are absolutely necessary for violent means to be effective.

If you are in a group of five people, and one of them decides to do something you are fundamentally opposed to, should you try to reason with him before or after punching him?

The answer is obvious.

When did I say every act has to be violent?

[The Broke Cycle]

When did I say every act has to be violent?

You didn't say every act had to be violent, but you did say that a successful revolution requires violence. People who think that are ignorant: the one thing a successful revolution requires is popular support, plain and simple. And you simply do not need violence to get that.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

You didn't say every act had to be violent, but you did say that a successful revolution requires violence. People who think that are ignorant: the one thing a successful revolution requires is popular support, plain and simple. And you simply do not need violence to get that.

I didn't say you needed violence to get popular support, but a revolution itself cannot succeed if it isn't violent.

[The Broke Cycle]

I didn't say you needed violence to get popular support, but a revolution itself cannot succeed if it isn't violent.

Why do you say that? What part of the revolution requires violence?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Why do you say that? What part of the revolution requires violence?

A revolution is an insurrection where the proletariat attempts to overthrow the bourgeoisie and in turn democratises and collectivises the means of production. Do you honestly believe this can happen without any violence. You seem to think the bourgeoisie and the state we are dissolving all their power.

[Decommissioner]

I believe the revolution will be both peaceful and violent, that is, the revolution will begin peacefully when the workers start organizing and running their affairs separate from the bourgeoisie (workers councils and what have you), and violently as soon as the reactionaries attempt to quell the revolution. The idea of a revolutionary army spearheading a revolution without this worker base seems to be prevalent among the left for some reason. We will deal the first strike economically, not violently. The revolutionary army, and perhaps revolutionary party (if one were to rise from the workers movement itself) will come into play when the state attempts to intervene. At least this is what I've gathered thus far.

That is why I, especially now during the recession, place importance on organizing the working class into co-ops and councils first. The working class will not embrace the concepts of communism until they have actually experienced a taste of it in their workplace (that is, democracy in the workplace). The question for me is, how do we on the left even attempt to organize these councils with workers?

[The Broke Cycle]

A revolution is an insurrection where the proletariat attempts to overthrow the bourgeoisie and in turn democratises and collectivises the means of production. Do you honestly believe this can happen without any violence. You seem to think the bourgeoisie and the state we are dissolving all their power.

I do not dispute that those with power will defend their position. What I take issue with is your assertion that a revolution must be violent. You said it yourself: "...revolution itself cannot succeed if it isn't violent."

As a leftist, I do not support physical violence. One, because it usually results in nothing more than being arrested or killed. Two, because it doesn't raise morale for anyone other than those already involved. Three, because it is morally reprehensible. And four, because with the nature of our hi-tech society, war can be fought without killing, while still delivering massive blows to the enemy.

Things have changed. The United States could be permanently crippled by one coordinated, simultaneous attack on electrical, sanitary and emergency services. As in, the economy goes down the tank, China calls in their loans, and all of a sudden the US has no money. The government knows this. Why do you think the NSA has such a massive budget?

The point is, violence is only justified in self-defense. And if that is the case, how can you say you have the right to use violence against people you disagree with, but capitalists do not? Where does this mysterious power come from? Why must a revolution be violent? Wouldn't a society that was inclusive to everyone resort to violence only to preserve life, not for political gain?

[robbo203]

I do not dispute that those with power will defend their position. What I take issue with is your assertion that a revolution must be violent. You said it yourself: "...revolution itself cannot succeed if it isn't violent."

As a leftist, I do not support physical violence. One, because it usually results in nothing more than being arrested or killed. Two, because it doesn't raise morale for anyone other than those already involved. Three, because it is morally reprehensible. And four, because with the nature of our hi-tech society, war can be fought without killing, while still delivering massive blows to the enemy.

Things have changed. The United States could be permanently crippled by one coordinated, simultaneous attack on electrical, sanitary and emergency services. As in, the economy goes down the tank, China calls in their loans, and all of a sudden the US has no money. The government knows this. Why do you think the NSA has such a massive budget?

The point is, violence is only justified in self-defense. And if that is the case, how can you say you have the right to use violence against people you disagree with, but capitalists do not? Where does this mysterious power come from? Why must a revolution be violent? Wouldn't a society that was inclusive to everyone resort to violence only to preserve life, not for political gain?

I agree with Broke Cycle. There is no obvious reason why the revolution must be violent in order to be successful. There may be some violence but it does not follow that there must be. How violent was the "velvet revolution" that brought down the state capitalist regime in Czechslovakia? There was hardly any. OK it wasnt technically a revolution - just a change from one form of capitalism to another but still the point is that when people's power stirs on a large scale the writing will be on the wall for the regime in question. If the regime is sensible enough to acknowledge this it will quietly close up shop and submit to the inevitable. Some dont but many do.

A communist revolution in order to be successful requires mass communist understanding and support . By the time a genuine communist movement has reached this position it will have already altered beyond recognition that entire social climate in which capitalism operates. In this twilight period of capitalism, the defenders of the system are most probably going to be liberals or social democratic types - ultra chauvinistic reactionary ideas and movements will by then have long withered to the point of insignificance. At that point in time it will be far too late for the capitalist class to do anything about changing the course of history

What worries me about the advocates of violent revolution - particularly among anarchists who I have far more time for than the state capitalist left - is that they do not seem to see the authoritarian and brutalising implications of their call to arms. You cannot effectively wage a campaign of violence on democratic principles. War breeds hierarchical forms of decisionmaking. It worries me also that advocacy of violence can become a self-fulfilling prophecy allowing the capitalist state to introduce repressive measures to protect what it brazenly calls "democracy"

I say lets give up all this talk of violent revolution. It really is pointless and counter-productive. If there is some violence in the course of the revolution we can deal with it at the time but you cannot arrange an entire revolutionary strategy around the manifestly shaky premiss that violence is unavoidable. Becuase if it was and if it came to taking on the full might of capitalist state, there are no prizes for guessing who will come out on top

[Orange Juche]

Evidence and reality of how Capitalist society functions. Do you simply think the Capitalists will hand over their property without putting up a fight?

You're evading answering what I asked, and instead replace evidence with what can only be inferred as "well, it seems pretty obvious." Which only makes what you said... conjecture.

I think that capitalists would not have an easy time letting go, and that some violence would likely occur. But I also believe it is possible to have a mostly peaceful revolution, where violence on our part can be reduced to only defensive actions, and very minimal death and destruction. There is no way really to know until it happens, but I'm certainly hopeful.

[Tablo]

I kinda agree with Stranger Than Paradise. I think violence will be necessary for the revolution. Not that I think we should cast aside peaceful approaches. I think we should keep it as bloodless as possible and aim for a peaceful revolution, but I don't think it will turn out peaceful. It just seems unlikely to me.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

You're evading answering what I asked, and instead replace evidence with what can only be inferred as "well, it seems pretty obvious." Which only makes what you said... conjecture.

I think that capitalists would not have an easy time letting go, and that some violence would likely occur. But I also believe it is possible to have a mostly peaceful revolution, where violence on our part can be reduced to only defensive actions, and very minimal death and destruction. There is no way really to know until it happens, but I'm certainly hopeful.

So you have evidence that a peaceful revolution will succeed do you?

Ask any person on this board who is committed to class struggle if they believe a peaceful revolution can occur. No one who is a true revolutionary will answer yes. The revolution will not simply take away all the power of the capitalists in one fatal blow, they will still have defence working on their side and they will not simply let go of Capitalism. Please tell me how you think peaceful revolution will succeed.

[Thirsty Crow]

You're evading answering what I asked, and instead replace evidence with what can only be inferred as "well, it seems pretty obvious." Which only makes what you said... conjecture.

I think that capitalists would not have an easy time letting go, and that some violence would likely occur. But I also believe it is possible to have a mostly peaceful revolution, where violence on our part can be reduced to only defensive actions, and very minimal death and destruction. There is no way really to know until it happens, but I'm certainly hopeful.
I agree almost completely. The basic apsect of this problem is what robbo203 expressed as his worry - the brutal and authoritarian implications of a full blown violent campaign. Although a "revolution" contains destructive notions, I cannot conceive it as positively destructive, but constructive. Whereas violence as a means of self-defense is naturally justified and expected, I don't see how we could build a just and free societly on principles of agression and exclusivity.

[h9socialist]

There is no evidence that any kind of "revolution" will be successful or not. This is beginning to sound like a clairvoyance society. Whether revolution is violent or peaceful is a matter of historical development and not a given methodology. However, peaceful revolution has the advantage of serving as a peaceful genesis of a new society, and establishing the means to be as good as the ends. It also takes far less toll on the productive powers and resources of society --- necessary tools for building socialism. That is why it is to be preferred.

[The Ben G]

I think that the best would be a peaceful revolution. Violence should be used at the very most dire of circumstances. If you use a peaceful revolution, more peole will admire and look up to you.

[The Broke Cycle]

There is no evidence that any kind of "revolution" will be successful or not. This is beginning to sound like a clairvoyance society. Whether revolution is violent or peaceful is a matter of historical development and not a given methodology. However, peaceful revolution has the advantage of serving as a peaceful genesis of a new society, and establishing the means to be as good as the ends. It also takes far less toll on the productive powers and resources of society --- necessary tools for building socialism. That is why it is to be preferred.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say.

Sometimes violence works, sometimes it doesn't. Trying to say whether violence is necessary for success depends entirely on context.

Very well put.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Peaceful revolution is a novel idea that can not work. The governments are controlled by capitalists and get nothing done with their slow bueracratic ways so putting communists into office will not change anything for anybody. Revolution is a tool to overthrow the people who control us, governments, religion, and capitalism. These groups will fight to the death for their power and control and to tamper with it "peacefully" wont damage their control. Instead revolution must be forceful but not brutal, powerful yet not controlling. If we choose to have a revolution peacefully through the halls of congresses and altars then we are doing nothing more than putting ourselves into the power and becoming the oppressors of the proletariat.