Violence vs. nonviolence, a measure of intelligence?

[DesertShark]

I was listening to This American Life episode 20: From a Distance (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=608) (4.19.1996). It was Act 2: Befriending Your Hero about Miles Davis that got me thinking.

Quincy Troupe ended up being a close friend of Miles Davis and wrote an autobiography with him about his life. He said that Miles was brutality honest with him about his life, including that he frequently hit women and chased his wife around their basement on multiple occasions with a gun and a knife (this happened before he and Quincy became friends). Quincy justified Miles's violent behavior along the lines that 'he wasn't intelligent and didn't have the ability to talk out what was bothering him.'

Hearing that made me wonder, is it true? Is a mark of an intelligent person the ability to reason and discuss over turning to violence? What would this mean in terms of a revolution? If it is true, is violence really a viable option to a revolution then?

[red cat]

Assuming that violence implies low intellect, and considering the number and degree of violent activities the bourgeoisie engages in, is it possible to reason out with such fools? :lol:

[which doctor]

I don't think beating your wife and violently overthrowing capitalism in the name of class struggle have anything to do with each other at all. It's not a matter about the working class "not talking about what's bothering us," because we do that, and nothing gets any better. Remember, the state and capitalism are institutions that are incredibly violent, and the only way to get rid of them is to use violence ourselves. Sometimes meeting violence with violence is the only solution.

[DesertShark]

I don't think beating your wife and violently overthrowing capitalism in the name of class struggle have anything to do with each other at all. It's not a matter about the working class "not talking about what's bothering us," because we do that, and nothing gets any better. Remember, the state and capitalism are institutions that are incredibly violent, and the only way to get rid of them is to use violence ourselves. Sometimes meeting violence with violence is the only solution.
How is one form of violence justifiable but the other is not? What's the difference between hitting a woman and hitting a person? How is killing more justifiable then hitting?

I don't believe the working class has collectively voiced their problems with capitalism because if they had, things would look a bit different. There would be more worker controlled businesses, big business wouldn't have the say it does in government, people wouldn't be against unions, etc.

Can you give an example of when meeting violence with violence has, in terms of a revolution, lead to a positive outcome (ie the formation of a stable positive replacement and a continued positive result)? I think that meeting violence with violence will only lead to a cycle of violence. If a violent revolution takes place, how will the people know that the replacement entity (regime, government, etc.) is not violent and will not be violent towards them?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

How is one form of violence justifiable but the other is not? What's the difference between hitting a woman and hitting a person? How is killing more justifiable then hitting?

Violence is justifiable because of the illegitimacy of Capitalism and the illegitimacy of Capitalist violence. Seen as violence is the only way to fight and destroy Capitalism that seems a pretty justifiable case for using violence.

[manic expression]

How is one form of violence justifiable but the other is not?

Let's say someone tries to stop a man from beating a practically defenseless woman (since that was the original example). Let's say the only way to do this is to use physical force. Are you saying that the man who's beating the woman and the person who's trying to stop the beating are morally the same?

The point is that self-defense against aggressors is more than justified. Not only is it ethical to fight unjust uses of force, but it is practically speaking the best way to make the world a better place. Unless you're willing to stand up for the oppressed with more than just empty words, you won't change much at all.

[DesertShark]

There is a difference between self-defense and violence. And I agree self-defense is justified.

I don't see the revolution as self-defense though. Most of the people you'd fighting would probably have done no more to directly support capitalism then any of us (ie participating in it by buying stuff).

[DesertShark]

Violence is justifiable because of the illegitimacy of Capitalism and the illegitimacy of Capitalist violence. Seen as violence is the only way to fight and destroy Capitalism that seems a pretty justifiable case for using violence.
That seems like circular logic and I don't think it justifies the claim. Could you elaborate?

[scarletghoul]

Pacifism is idiot and illogical.

How is one form of violence justifiable but the other is not?
Obviously if it's in defence, or to free oneself from oppression then it is justified. Only in the warped liberal-pacifist mindset is the violence of the oppressed the same as the violence of the oppressor. Do you really think that a slave attacking his master is the same as the slavemaster attacking his slave? To equate this is to support slavery, bullying, imperialism etc.


I don't believe the working class has collectively voiced their problems with capitalism because if they had, things would look a bit different. There would be more worker controlled businesses, big business wouldn't have the say it does in government, people wouldn't be against unions, etc.
Urgh. So you're saying the reason the capitalists are in power is because they have more logical and good arguments, that they beat us in debate? Nothing to do with them having the whole force of the state behind them, the army, the media, the courts, the pigs, etc (in other words, a monopoly on violence) ?


Can you give an example of when meeting violence with violence has, in terms of a revolution, lead to a positive outcome (ie the formation of a stable positive replacement and a continued positive result)?
A revolution can never be 'stable' haha. Besides, when has non-violence ever led to any revolution at all? 100% of revolutions, no matter how successful, have been due to violence. (and don't pull that Ghandi crap on me; there was a mass movement for Indian independance with a Hell of a lot of violence, not to mention the threat of violence)

[Spawn of Stalin]

Are there really people who think that capitalism will just roll over and bow out on demand?

[scarletghoul]

I strongly recommend that the OP check out this awesome article http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/ghandi-was-wrong-nonviolence-doesnt-work/

[Stranger Than Paradise]

That seems like circular logic and I don't think it justifies the claim. Could you elaborate?

Well you see, I want to bring an end to Capitalism. I want a workers revolution. I want Communism. And violent revolution is the only way these things can happen.

[scarletghoul]

There is a difference between self-defense and violence. And I agree self-defense is justified.
Self-defense is violence. I don't see why you would think it isn't.


I don't see the revolution as self-defense though. Most of the people you'd fighting would probably have done no more to directly support capitalism then any of us (ie participating in it by buying stuff).
Urgh, not more of this liberal crap. The capitalists exploit workers, prop up the state, and generally run the show. I buy food to live. Huge difference bro

[DesertShark]

Pacifism is idiot and illogical.
Could you explain why you think so? Because I think that violence is idiotic and illogical because it shows a lack of thought and creativity.



How is one form of violence justifiable but the other is not?
Obviously if it's in defence, or to free oneself from oppression then it is justified. Only in the warped liberal-pacifist mindset is the violence of the oppressed the same as the violence of the oppressor. Do you really think that a slave attacking his master is the same as the slavemaster attacking his slave? To equate this is to support slavery, bullying, imperialism etc.
I think you missed the post just before yours where I said:

There is a difference between self-defense and violence. And I agree self-defense is justified.




I don't believe the working class has collectively voiced their problems with capitalism because if they had, things would look a bit different. There would be more worker controlled businesses, big business wouldn't have the say it does in government, people wouldn't be against unions, etc.
Urgh. So you're saying the reason the capitalists are in power is because they have more logical and good arguments, that they beat us in debate? Nothing to do with them having the whole force of the state behind them, the army, the media, the courts, the pigs, etc (in other words, a monopoly on violence) ?
No because they have convinced more people that they are right. And then created a situation to dumb down the masses so that they would not know they were being swindled. I don't think they could beat us in a debate, which is why they created a situation where debate isn't feasible until more of the masses are educated.





Can you give an example of when meeting violence with violence has, in terms of a revolution, lead to a positive outcome (ie the formation of a stable positive replacement and a continued positive result)?
A revolution can never be 'stable' haha. Besides, when has non-violence ever led to any revolution at all? 100% of revolutions, no matter how successful, have been due to violence. (and don't pull that Ghandi crap on me; there was a mass movement for Indian independance with a Hell of a lot of violence, not to mention the threat of violence)
I didn't say that the revolution was or could be stable, as its an event to change something. The stable comment was on the outcome. When has non-violence led to a successful revolution? Maybe if it were tried it would be successful...

[DesertShark]

Well you see, I want to bring an end to Capitalism. I want a workers revolution. I want Communism. And violent revolution is the only way these things can happen.
I too want to bring an end to Capitalism. I too want a workers revolution. But I want Anarchism.

Why is violence the only way these things can happen?

[robbo203]

Violence is justifiable because of the illegitimacy of Capitalism and the illegitimacy of Capitalist violence. Seen as violence is the only way to fight and destroy Capitalism that seems a pretty justifiable case for using violence.


It is not really a case of having to justify violence on moral grounds. The issue is rather a pragmatic one. Can violence usefully assist the revolution?

I say no. In fact I would go further. The more one feels inclined to use violence for this purpose, the less likely is that the revolutuion will succeed. Socialism (communism) needs a clear majority of the population - it cannot be imposed from above by some vanguard elite - wanting and understading it otherwise it simply cannot be established. If you have a majority where does the need for violence sping from? BY then the whole social climate would have been radically transformed. Even the armed forces will not be immune to the penetration of communist values and ideas. THe implosion of state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe illustrates the point that when the people as a whole are against you there is very little you can do to resist the popular will. Which is why these regimes were toppled relatively bloodlessly

Violence. it seems to me. is indicative of a minority outlook. I am not saying that there will not be any violence at all in a communist revolution and I am not a pacifist in the sense that I would renounce violence in any absolute sense. But you cannot base a revoltionary strategy on the use of violence per se.

Its a cliche, I know, but violence does breed violence. IT certainly gives the state the pretext it needs to crush any opposition and if you are thinking of taking on the state with the use of violence , think again - it would be utter suicidal folly. What worries me also as a libertarian marxist is that violence breeds not only violence but hierarchical power structures and hence, in embryonic form, a new ruling class. History is replete with examples of dictatorial regimes having violently sought to overthrow their dictatorial predecessors in the name of "liberation" having become just as dictatorial themselves if not more so.

Surely any reasonable person would agree that if we can do away with the need for violence this is far better than advocating violence. It will accomplish what we want far more easily and with far less hassle

[DesertShark]

There is a difference between self-defense and violence. And I agree self-defense is justified.
Self-defense is violence. I don't see why you would think it isn't.
Because the definition of violence is:

–noun 1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm. 2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence. 3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence. 4. a violent act or proceeding. 5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred. 6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.
And the definition of self-defense is:

–noun 1. the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant: the art of self-defense. 2. a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack: He shot the man who was trying to stab him and pleaded self-defense at the murder trial. 3. an act or instance of defending or protecting one's own interests, property, ideas, etc., as by argument or strategy.


I don't see the revolution as self-defense though. Most of the people you'd fighting would probably have done no more to directly support capitalism then any of us (ie participating in it by buying stuff).
Urgh, not more of this liberal crap. The capitalists exploit workers, prop up the state, and generally run the show. I buy food to live. Huge difference bro
Liberal crap?...
Yes I agree that capitalists exploit workers. How do you know that most of the people aren't doing it so that they too can buy food? And probably wouldn't do it if they didn't have to?
You don't buy 'stuff'? Clothes? Books? A TV? A radio? A bike? You don't eat at restaurants? Go to movies? Buy supplies to clean your home? Buy gas? Ride the bus? Do you need to me to continue?
Also, not your 'bro'...not a dude.

[manic expression]

There is a difference between self-defense and violence. And I agree self-defense is justified.

Self-defense is a specific application of violence. If someone uses a gun to fend off a bunch of fascists who are trying to kill a Jewish kid, that person applied violence in a positive way.


I don't see the revolution as self-defense though. Most of the people you'd fighting would probably have done no more to directly support capitalism then any of us (ie participating in it by buying stuff).

Then obviously you haven't studied too many revolutions. In almost every case, the ruling class is the first to use violence against working-class movements. The use of violence by the working class is virtually always a response to bourgeois violence, and is therefore self-defense. This usually happens during or in the run-up to revolutionary situations.

For starters, research the endless examples of strikes where bosses called in armed goons to break up workers who only wanted better pay and working conditions.

By the way, most of the people we struggle against directly support capitalism through their opposition to the proponents of revolution. You think the cops don't directly support capitalism? Business owners? Come on.


Why is violence the only way these things can happen?Because the people who DON'T want those things to happen will kill (or otherwise silence) you and everyone like you without batting an eyelash. Hell, they'll probably massacre a bunch of minorities, too, just for good measure. It's happened countless times throughout history, and it will happen again if we're not prepared to defend our cause.


When has non-violence led to a successful revolution? Maybe if it were tried it would be successful...It was tried. Ask Allende and his supporters how that worked out.

[scarletghoul]

Could you explain why you think so? Because I think that violence is idiotic and illogical because it shows a lack of thought and creativity.
Yeah I guess you're right, Marx and everyone else are all just stupid mindless thugs. Boneheads who can't think of a way to take power peacefully so they hit out with thoughtless violence. lol. Just ignore all the 10000s of theoretical documents n shit.

No because they have convinced more people that they are right. And then created a situation to dumb down the masses so that they would not know they were being swindled. I don't think they could beat us in a debate, which is why they created a situation where debate isn't feasible until more of the masses are educated.
Ok suppose we educate the masses and everyone turns communist. Then what? The bourgeoisie go "oh, ho ho, I guess you win! here u go" and hand us the means of production? Its not gonna happen.

Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.


I didn't say that the revolution was or could be stable, as its an event to change something. The stable comment was on the outcome.
The outcome of any rrevolution is hundreds of years away at least.

When has non-violence led to a successful revolution? Maybe if it were tried it would be successful...It has been tried countless times. You just don't hear about these attempts, because they have a 100% fail rate.


I too want to bring an end to Capitalism. I too want a workers revolution. But I want Anarchism.

Why is violence the only way these things can happen?
Because the ruling classes will not give up power voluntarily. They have to be forced.


Can violence usefully assist the revolution?

I say no.
........................................... >_<


In fact I would go further. The more one feels inclined to use violence for this purpose, the less likely is that the revolutuion will succeed. Socialism (communism) needs a clear majority of the population - it cannot be imposed from above by some vanguard elite - wanting and understading it otherwise it simply cannot be established.
Agreed. Still, the majority must use violence to free themselves from the minority.


If you have a majority where does the need for violence sping from?
1 man with a gun can control 100 people without guns.


THe implosion of state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe illustrates the point that when the people as a whole are against you there is very little you can do to resist the popular will. Which is why these regimes were toppled relatively bloodlesslyThere was violence, and more so the threat of violence, from not just the people but also powerful sectors of the state.




Violence. it seems to me. is indicative of a minority outlook. I am not saying that there will not be any violence at all in a communist revolution and I am not a pacifist in the sense that I would renounce violence in any absolute sense. But you cannot base a revoltionary strategy on the use of violence per se.
Dont you think there was majority support in Russia, China, Spain, Cuba, etc? Do you really think it was just some militant minority coup? That's a pretty incorrect view man

Its a cliche, I know, but violence does breed violence. IT certainly gives the state the pretext it needs to crush any opposition
Pacifism permits violence. Pacism gives the state the ability to crush any opposition. :p



Surely any reasonable person would agree that if we can do away with the need for violence this is far better than advocating violence. It will accomplish what we want far more easily and with far less hassleDamn, why did we have to pick the difficult option, when nonviolent pacifist revolution is so easy??! lol

[Spawn of Stalin]

Could you explain why you think so? Because I think that violence is idiotic and illogical because it shows a lack of thought and creativity.
Does it really matter how much creativity we have in a revolution? I mean, as long as it succeeds, that's all that matters right? Maybe you would have us win over the hearts and minds of the capitalist with our creativity, hey, we could do it while the capitalist police are beating us black and blue.

[ZeroNowhere]

Assuming that violence implies low intellect, and considering the number and degree of violent activities the bourgeoisie engages in, is it possible to reason out with such fools? :lol:
Indeed, Warren Buffet is commonly known to come and beat up children in the slums of Bombay.

[scarletghoul]

Because the definition of violence is:

And the definition of self-defense is:

Among the examples of self defence, it has things like shooting someone. Do you think it is possible to shoot someone non-violently? It would be pretty impressive.


Liberal crap?...
Yes I agree that capitalists exploit workers. How do you know that most of the people aren't doing it so that they too can buy food? And probably wouldn't do it if they didn't have to?
You don't buy 'stuff'? Clothes? Books? A TV? A radio? A bike? You don't eat at restaurants? Go to movies? Buy supplies to clean your home? Buy gas? Ride the bus? Do you need to me to continue?
Also, not your 'bro'...not a dude.Your liberalism is overwhelming, sis.

[DesertShark]

Self-defense is a specific application of violence. If someone uses a gun to fend off a bunch of fascists who are trying to kill a Jewish kid, that person applied violence in a positive way.
I don't agree with your first statement, see the definitions of the two on dictionary.com. And your second statement will only lead into a discussion on ethics - deontology, teleology, etc. and that should be left to the Philosophy forum. If you want to bring it up there I'll discuss it with you, but this is not the appropriate forum, so I will not respond to it.


Then obviously you haven't studied too many revolutions. In almost every case, the ruling class is the first to use violence against working-class movements. The use of violence by the working class is virtually always a response to bourgeois violence, and is therefore self-defense. This usually happens during or in the run-up to revolutionary situations.

For starters, research the endless examples of strikes where bosses called in armed goons to break up workers who only wanted better pay and working conditions.
So are you saying you only think violence is justified if they use violence first? Or are you saying we should proceed with violence because you assume they will use violence?

What about the workers strikes where violence wasn't used at all and the workers got what they wanted? Like those workers in Chicago at the window factory?


By the way, most of the people we struggle against directly support capitalism through their opposition to the proponents of revolution. You think the cops don't directly support capitalism? Business owners? Come on.

Because the people who DON'T want those things to happen will kill (or otherwise silence) you and everyone like you without batting an eyelash. Hell, they'll probably massacre a bunch of minorities, too, just for good measure. It's happened countless times throughout history, and it will happen again if we're not prepared to defend our cause.

It was tried. Ask Allende and his supporters how that worked out.
Yes but do they support capitalism because they don't understand the other option? Or because they actually know the other options and don't agree with them? You should read the response by robbo203 #16 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1584812&postcount=16), as it is more eloquently put then I have been able to.

Allende? As in Salvador Allende? Who "was a physician and the first democratically elected Marxist socialist to become president of a state in the Americas."

[Искра]

Desert Shark you want anarchism, right? Anarchism like anarchistic society which is actually definition of communism as classless stateless society.
I want it also, but I reject pacifism.
Why?
Because, we can't get to this society by developing our state of mind or by personal evolution. We can get to this society, we can create this society only by violent revolution. Why? Because ruling class wont let us create communist (anarchist) society, they'll send armies, police, robocops etc... we need to fight back.

[DesertShark]

Yeah I guess you're right, Marx and everyone else are all just stupid mindless thugs. Boneheads who can't think of a way to take power peacefully so they hit out with thoughtless violence. lol. Just ignore all the 10000s of theoretical documents n shit.
I don't recall Marx describing exactly how the revolution would come about and that violence would be a necessity for communism to come about. Could you point out where he says that?


Ok suppose we educate the masses and everyone turns communist. Then what? The bourgeoisie go "oh, ho ho, I guess you win! here u go" and hand us the means of production? Its not gonna happen.

Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.
So you're saying that millions of people agree with an idea and they can't stop 20-100 people non-violently? Wow...that's pretty sad.
The "political power that grows from the barrel of a gun" is usually a dictatorship, oligarchy, monarchy, or fascist. I don't want to see any of those things come about and I don't think you do either.



The outcome of any rrevolution is hundreds of years away at least.
It has been tried countless times. You just don't hear about these attempts, because they have a 100% fail rate.


Because the ruling classes will not give up power voluntarily. They have to be forced.
Wait so both violent and non-violent revolutions have a 100% fail rate, so we should choose violence? That doesn't logical.
Force doesn't have to mean violence. Why couldn't they be exiled?

[DesertShark]

Does it really matter how much creativity we have in a revolution? I mean, as long as it succeeds, that's all that matters right?
But I don't believe a revolution will be successful if it uses violence or is based on the need to use violence.

Maybe you would have us win over the hearts and minds of the capitalist with our creativity, hey, we could do it while the capitalist police are beating us black and blue.
Or we could kill everyone and start a community of just the revlefters!:thumbdown:

[DesertShark]

Among the examples of self defence, it has things like shooting someone. Do you think it is possible to shoot someone non-violently? It would be pretty impressive.

Your liberalism is overwhelming, sis.
The example they give of someone shooting someone else is an example of the word used in a sentence, don't jump up on that horse too soon.
Liberalism?..."the belief in the importance of individual freedom." Or did you mean something else?


Desert Shark you want anarchism, right? Anarchism like anarchistic society which is actually definition of communism as classless stateless society.
I want it also, but I reject pacifism.
Why?
Because, we can't get to this society by developing our state of mind or by personal evolution. We can get to this society, we can create this society only by violent revolution. Why? Because ruling class wont let us create communist (anarchist) society, they'll send armies, police, robocops etc... we need to fight back.
Anarchism is a political philosophy and communism is an economic philosophy, they are not interchangeable. I'm not a communist because I don't agree with any form of economics/money but that's for another thread.
So you're giving up on the option of a non-violent revolution before it even begins? If you overthrow a group in power violently because you lack the support of the masses, the revolution will not be successful. If you have the support of the masses, there is no need for violence.

[scarletghoul]

I don't recall Marx describing exactly how the revolution would come about and that violence would be a necessity for communism to come about. Could you point out where he says that? Marx was not a pacifist. Christ.


So you're saying that millions of people agree with an idea and they can't stop 20-100 people non-violently? Wow...that's pretty sad.
How would they stop those people non-violently?


The "political power that grows from the barrel of a gun" is usually a dictatorship, oligarchy, monarchy, or fascist. I don't want to see any of those things come about and I don't think you do either.Im not advocating that political power come from the barrel of a gun, I am stating the fact that it does. Where do you think it comes from, the rationality of one's ideology??


Wait so both violent and non-violent revolutions have a 100% fail rate, so we should choose violence? That doesn't logical.
"That doesn't logical." is the best sentance ever.
Anyway, violent revolutions have certainly not had a 100% fail rate. Just look at the rich wealth of revolutionary theory, history, ideas, we have. Just look at the liberation it's brought to people.

Force doesn't have to mean violence. Why couldn't they be exiled?
What if they don't wanna be exiled (which they won't)? You would have to force them into exile with violence

[manic expression]

I don't agree with your first statement, see the definitions of the two on dictionary.com. And your second statement will only lead into a discussion on ethics - deontology, teleology, etc. and that should be left to the Philosophy forum. If you want to bring it up there I'll discuss it with you, but this is not the appropriate forum, so I will not respond to it.

I honestly don't care what dictionary.com says, if you're using physical force in any way, you're using violence. That's really all it boils down to.

And there's no need to argue the second part because I'm right and everyone on this forum knows it. The only way you could contradict this is if you argue that the Jewish kid should have been murdered. The use of a gun to fight off fascist hooligans was exactly what the doctor ordered (I'm talking about this as if it happened because it did happen in Paris a few years ago).


So are you saying you only think violence is justified if they use violence first? Or are you saying we should proceed with violence because you assume they will use violence?

Violence is justified if someone is violently trying to suppress you. That's an act of self-defense and it's integral to any participation in class struggle. History proves as much time and again.

"We" (meaning revolutionaries) should proceed with the methods that are most appropriate for the situation at hand. However, it must be understood that while non-violent tactics can be appropriate and effective at many points of class struggle, "push comes to shove" will sooner or later rear its head, and all revolutionaries should remember this. History, again, is my witness.


What about the workers strikes where violence wasn't used at all and the workers got what they wanted? Like those workers in Chicago at the window factory?

That's a positive step for the workers and I am very grateful that violence was not involved. However, if violence or force had been used, then the workers would have been perfectly justified in defending themselves from this, and thus protecting their interests with force.

The fact of the matter is that the introduction of violence is a choice made by the ruling class, and we should not take victories won without force as proof that force is useless altogether. Allende took power without force, but his refusal to organize working-class power to stop the forces of reaction led to the tragedy that befell Chile. Concluding that one successful strike that occurred without violence erases all the other strikes that saw violence is wishful thinking of the worst sort.

Further, according to your position, workers should be at the mercy of their bosses, for it was the decision of the capitalists to not use force.


Yes but do they support capitalism because they don't understand the other option? Or because they actually know the other options and don't agree with them? You should read the response by robbo203 #16 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1584812&postcount=16), as it is more eloquently put then I have been able to.

I don't care what their level of understanding is. They're on one side and I'm on the other. If you've ever been to a single demonstration in which the cops have bullied your fellow participants, you'd grasp this.

I don't know those cops, I don't know their life stories, I don't know their hopes and aspirations; what I do know is that when the chips are down, they will generally defend the ruling class. I operate from that reality, not from some dreamworld where cops are the friends of progressives. Until they join us, they're against us. It sucks, but we have to deal with it.

Dealing with facts, even when they suck, is the first step for recovery from pacifism.


Allende? As in Salvador Allende? Who "was a physician and the first democratically elected Marxist socialist to become president of a state in the Americas."

Yes, as in the Salvador Allende who was shot in his office by fascists. Go ahead, ask him how his non-violent revolution turned out, although I'm afraid the conversation will be a bit one-sided.

[Bill Hadnot]

I don't want to use violence either, but let's hear your plan on how we will place into common ownership the means to produce needed goods? That which is absolutely essential to eliminating capitalism. Off in LiberalLand where you are, how do you see this playing out? The capitalist ruling class and reactionairies are just going to allow us to come into their farms and factories and begin producing goods that are required for us to survive? They'll just peacefully do that? Wake up...seriously. You demonstrate clearly that you have no understanding of the real nature of the capitalist system. There will never be a time when the rich fucks say, here you go poor people, let's sit back and see how you'll run a society.

Your ideology leads to the continued dictatorship of the capitalist ruling class at best, and at worst the wholesale slaughter of countless poor people who attempt to take on this ruling class dictatorship without a strong organized force and leadership with proper vision...another failed revolution that the capitalist ruling class will use to remind people what a horrible mistake it'd be to try anything but capitalism again. Whether or not you use violence, as long as the people on TV said you did is all that matters, and before long even other poor people will come shoot at you.

[scarletghoul]

The example they give of someone shooting someone else is an example of the word used in a sentence, don't jump up on that horse too soon.
Liberalism?..."the belief in the importance of individual freedom." Or did you mean something else?


Anarchism is a political philosophy and communism is an economic philosophy, they are not interchangeable. I'm not a communist because I don't agree with any form of economics/money but that's for another thread.
So you're giving up on the option of a non-violent revolution before it even begins? If you overthrow a group in power violently because you lack the support of the masses, the revolution will not be successful. If you have the support of the masses, there is no need for violence.
Oh, this post says it all.

Sis, I strongly advise you read some more theory and history. How old are you, out of interest?

[manic expression]

Sorry if it seems like people are ganging up on you, but there are so many things that need to be touched upon that it's almost unavoidable.


Anarchism is a political philosophy and communism is an economic philosophy, they are not interchangeable. I'm not a communist because I don't agree with any form of economics/money but that's for another thread.

Holy misrepresentation Batman! Communism is a political philosophy, among other things. What, is the vanguard party an economic concept or something? The act of a group of workers taking control of a factory is very much a political thing.


So you're giving up on the option of a non-violent revolution before it even begins? If you overthrow a group in power violently because you lack the support of the masses, the revolution will not be successful. If you have the support of the masses, there is no need for violence.

Yes, just as we give up on the option of flying pigs "before it even begins".

Non-violent revolution has never "begun" because it's a fantasy, that's the point here.

The Paris Commune had the support of the masses. How'd that end up again?

[robbo203]

Yeah I guess you're right, Marx and everyone else are all just stupid mindless thugs. Boneheads who can't think of a way to take power peacefully so they hit out with thoughtless violence. lol. Just ignore all the 10000s of theoretical documents n shit.

Actually Marx pointed out that it was quite possible that the revolution could succeed by peaceful means in a number of places even in his day - Britain , Holland and the USA




Ok suppose we educate the masses and everyone turns communist. Then what? The bourgeoisie go "oh, ho ho, I guess you win! here u go" and hand us the means of production? Its not gonna happen..

Why not? THey might not like it. But they would have no option. The state capitalist rulers of Eastern Europe caved in when it became clear that the majority of the population were not going to have it any more. The opportunity costs of continued repression simply became too high to make it worthwhile resisting



Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.
..

No it doesnt. This is just a silly cliche. Political power derives from the consent or acquiesence of the majority - we get the government that we deserve as the saying goes. Guns exist in every state of the world but forms of governance can be markedly different



Because the ruling classes will not give up power voluntarily. They have to be forced.


..


Nothing can more effectively force the ruling class to give up than the recognition that it would be pointless hanging on to it any longer in the face of popular oppostion. You try taking on the state now and you will be headed for an early grave in double quick time. Socialists are in tiny minority and we certainly dont have the sophisticated weaponry to take on the state. Conversely once we are in the majority there would be no need to violently take on the state, most of whose personnel in the armed forces etc would already be halfway socialist minded anyway



1 man with a gun can control 100 people without guns.
..


A capitalism that relied purely on naked force of this kind is doomed to fall increasingly behind its competitors in the global market place. The machinery of repression itself imposes a huge cost on the economy and there is the question also of a motivated workforce. You can train a gun on 100 people and possibly stop them from coming forward towards you but can you make them work harder and believe in what you are doing? Can you prevent them from carry out acts of sabotage and petty thefts? I dont think so. Capitalism has to become more and more sophisticated in its approach and this includes, amongst other things, inculcating a conviction that we are not controlled by one person with a gun standing over us, that we are "free" individuals who freely choose to go along with capitalism. IN so doing, capitalism's exposes its Achilles Heel; we should take full advantage of it as workers

[DesertShark]

Marx was not a pacifist. Christ.
Evidence?
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" (1848). Marx and Engels developed the foundation for what became known as scientific socialism and which has become referred to as Marxism. Marx developed his ideas in great detail in Das Kapital (1867). The book The book is the Socialist analysis of capitalism. Marx saw socialism as the stage of history and class structure following the inevitable revolution in which the urban proletariat would seize power. After this the state would "wither away" as an unnecessary institution. Splits developed in the Socialist movement. The main thread in Western Europe were democratic socialists who believed that power could be achieved democratically through elections. Another group believed that capitalists would never turn over power and believed that a violent worker uprising was necessary. They became known as Communists.


How would they stop those people non-violently?

Im not advocating that political power come from the barrel of a gun, I am stating the fact that it does. Where do you think it comes from, the rationality of one's ideology??
I'd have to be in the situation and discussing ideas with other people (also in the situation) to come up with something, I wouldn't give up before even beginning though.
The society you want to see after a revolution will not exist if violence is used or people are forced to agree with you because you have a gun and they don't. That's how dictators rule. Political power comes from people agreeing with the ideology, the more people who agree, the more power you have.


"That doesn't logical." is the best sentance ever.
Anyway, violent revolutions have certainly not had a 100% fail rate. Just look at the rich wealth of revolutionary theory, history, ideas, we have. Just look at the liberation it's brought to people.
So was your "Pacifism is idiot and illogical." But I didn't feel the need to point it out at the time. Yes, look at how happy everyone is and there is no need for a revolution because the violent revolution of the pasts have left us in a perfect state :rolleyes:


What if they don't wanna be exiled (which they won't)? You would have to force them into exile with violence
See above.


Oh, this post says it all.

Sis, I strongly advise you read some more theory and history. How old are you, out of interest?
Hahaha, you're adorable. Anarchism and communism are not interchangeable and if you think they are then you need to do some more reading.

[bcbm]

i think this bit from the coming insurrection sums up how i feel about this debate pretty well:


Take up arms. Do everything possible to make their use unnecessary. Against the army, the only victory is political.


There is no such thing as a peaceful insurrection. Weapons are necessary: it’s a question of doing everything possible to make using them unnecessary. An insurrection is more about taking up arms and maintaining an “armed presence” than it is about armed struggle. We need to distinguish clearly between being armed and the use of arms. Weapons are a constant in revolutionary situations, but their use is infrequent and rarely decisive at key turning points: August 10th 1792, March 18th 1871, October 1917. When power is in the gutter, it’s enough to walk over it.


Because of the distance that separates us from them, weapons have taken on a kind of double character of fascination and disgust that can be overcome only by handling them. An authentic pacifism cannot mean refusing weapons, but only refusing to use them. Pacifism without being able to fire a shot is nothing but the theoretical formulation of impotence. Such a priori pacifism is a kind of preventive disarmament, a pure police operation. In reality, the question of pacifism is serious only for those who have the ability to open fire. In this case, pacifism becomes a sign of power, since it’s only in an extreme position of strength that we are freed from the need to fire.


From a strategic point of view, indirect, asymmetrical action seems the most effective kind, the one best suited to our time: you don’t attack an occupying army frontally. That said, the prospect of Iraq-style urban guerilla warfare, dragging on with no possibility of taking the offensive, is more to be feared than to be desired. The militarization of civil war is the defeat of insurrection. The Reds had their victory in 1921, but the Russian Revolution was already lost.


We must consider two kinds of state reaction. One openly hostile, one more sly and democratic. The first calls for our out and out destruction, the second, a subtle but implacable hostility, seeks only to recruit us. We can be defeated both by dictatorship and by being reduced to opposing only dictatorship. Defeat consists as much in losing the war as in losing the choice of which war to wage. Both are possible, as was proven by Spain in 1936: the revolutionaries there were defeated twice-over, by fascism and by the republic.


When things get serious, the army occupies the terrain. Whether or not it engages in combat is less certain. That would require that the state be committed to a bloodbath, which for now is no more than a threat, a bit like the threat of using nuclear weapons for the last fifty years. Though it has been wounded for a long while, the beast of the state is still dangerous. A massive crowd would be needed to challenge the army, invading its ranks and fraternizing with the soldiers. We need a March 18th 1871. When the army is in the street, we have an insurrectionary situation. Once the army engages, the outcome is precipitated. Everyone finds herself forced to take sides, to choose between anarchy and the fear of anarchy. An insurrection triumphs as a political force. It is not impossible to defeat an army politically.

http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/

[manic expression]

Evidence?

I'd be delighted:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm

Marx to Engels on April 16, 1856: "The whole thing in Germany will depend on the possibility of backing the proletarian revolution by some second edition of the Peasant War. Then the affair will be splendid"
http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/OR23.html

Engels:

“...That force, however, plays yet another role [other than that of a diabolical power] in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society which is pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilized political forms — of this there is not a word in Herr Duhring. It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of an economy based on exploitation — unfortunately, because all use of force demoralizes, he says, the person who uses it. And this in Germany, where a violent collision — which may, after all, be forced on the people — would at least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has penetrated the nation's mentality following the humiliation of the Thirty Years' War.[4] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#fw04) And this person's mode of thought — dull, insipid, and impotent — presumes to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that history has ever known! (p.193, third German edition, Part II, end of Chap.IV)"

Marx in 1848:

The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm

[red cat]

Indeed, Warren Buffet is commonly known to come and beat up children in the slums of Bombay.

Are you aware of what the world has gone through for the past couple of hundred years? Do you know what is happening in the third world countries right now?

I don't understand the point of trying to reason out with the bourgeoisie.

Every kind of power, be it economic, political or cultural, can be held on to by the use of military force. And that is why, essentially to destroy the bourgeoisie's military power, the proletariat must resort to violence.

[DesertShark]

I honestly don't care what dictionary.com says, if you're using physical force in any way, you're using violence. That's really all it boils down to.
"Well, that's just like, your opinion, man." -The Dude, The Big Lebowski


And there's no need to argue the second part because I'm right and everyone on this forum knows it. The only way you could contradict this is if you argue that the Jewish kid should have been murdered. The use of a gun to fight off fascist hooligans was exactly what the doctor ordered (I'm talking about this as if it happened because it did happen in Paris a few years ago).
Ethical theory blah blah blah...kill one to save many...kill many to save one...blah blah blah. That's why I didn't address it, bring up ethical theory in another forum where it belongs.
A lot of people agreeing with someone doesn't make it right, see capitalism, see christianity.


Violence is justified if someone is violently trying to suppress you. That's an act of self-defense and it's integral to any participation in class struggle. History proves as much time and again.

"We" (meaning revolutionaries) should proceed with the methods that are most appropriate for the situation at hand. However, it must be understood that while non-violent tactics can be appropriate and effective at many points of class struggle, "push comes to shove" will sooner or later rear its head, and all revolutionaries should remember this. History, again, is my witness.
But the outcome you want has never been achieved, so I would say that history is not on your side. I'm glad to know that you would not outright revert to violence as the only tactic.


That's a positive step for the workers and I am very grateful that violence was not involved. However, if violence or force had been used, then the workers would have been perfectly justified in defending themselves from this, and thus protecting their interests with force.

The fact of the matter is that the introduction of violence is a choice made by the ruling class, and we should not take victories won without force as proof that force is useless altogether. Allende took power without force, but his refusal to organize working-class power to stop the forces of reaction led to the tragedy that befell Chile. Concluding that one successful strike that occurred without violence erases all the other strikes that saw violence is wishful thinking of the worst sort.

Further, according to your position, workers should be at the mercy of their bosses, for it was the decision of the capitalists to not use force.
But violence wasn't used, hence why I used it as an example of a non-violent worker's strike. What would have happened had violence had been used is irrelevant because it didn't happen. Violence does not have to be met with violence. How did you get from my position that "workers should be at the mercy of their bosses?" Also, I don't know what you mean by "Further, according to your position, workers should be at the mercy of their bosses, for it was the decision of the capitalists to not use force." Capitalists love violence, that's why they pay for wars. Using violence would only make you look like them in the eyes of the people you are trying to bring to your side.


I don't care what their level of understanding is. They're on one side and I'm on the other. If you've ever been to a single demonstration in which the cops have bullied your fellow participants, you'd grasp this.

I don't know those cops, I don't know their life stories, I don't know their hopes and aspirations; what I do know is that when the chips are down, they will generally defend the ruling class. I operate from that reality, not from some dreamworld where cops are the friends of progressives. Until they join us, they're against us. It sucks, but we have to deal with it.

Dealing with facts, even when they suck, is the first step for recovery from pacifism.
You should care what their level of understanding is because perhaps you could bring them around to your own side by presenting them with facts, evidence, a solid argument, etc. I've been to demonstrations, I've been tear gassed, blah blah blah give me a cookie? Who cares? It's no excuse to use violence on another occasion with different people who probably didn't even know about the original violence. I hate cops as much as the next person, but I'm not going to go around killing everyone in a uniform when the revolution starts because they're people who could be persuaded. Oh no not facts! Anything but that! I feel them sucking out the pacifist blood from my body :rolleyes: You haven't presented solid evidence to prove your point. If everyone thought like you did, especially the capitalists in power now, everyone on revleft would be dead.



Yes, as in the Salvador Allende who was shot in his office by fascists. Go ahead, ask him how his non-violent revolution turned out, although I'm afraid the conversation will be a bit one-sided.
He committed suicide. And oh hey, spoiler alert: everyone dies. Its the price of being alive. And once you are in power, the revolution would be against you and it was a violent one...


Sorry if it seems like people are ganging up on you, but there are so many things that need to be touched upon that it's almost unavoidable.
Oh no! People disagree with me on a forum, I'm getting ganged up on! Someone save me!:rolleyes: Haha don't flatter yourself, this is an internet forum; none of you know me and would not have the ability to make me feel anything about what is said here, other then humor I suppose.



Holy misrepresentation Batman! Communism is a political philosophy, among other things. What, is the vanguard party an economic concept or something? The act of a group of workers taking control of a factory is very much a political thing.
Communism is an economic and social theory, not a political one.



Yes, just as we give up on the option of flying pigs "before it even begins".

Non-violent revolution has never "begun" because it's a fantasy, that's the point here.

The Paris Commune had the support of the masses. How'd that end up again?
Aren't you the clever one, using a non-argument to disapprove a claim. Sorry, but that actually doesn't work in debates.
I don't know anything about the Paris Commune. Care to share your wealth of knowledge?

[DesertShark]

I don't want to use violence either, but let's hear your plan on how we will place into common ownership the means to produce needed goods? That which is absolutely essential to eliminating capitalism.
If I had an awesome plan that would not fail, I wouldn't post it on a public forum where the people I'm trying to overthrow would know what I'm doing...just saying. I also wouldn't use the internet or phones to distribute such information, big brother is watching.


Off in LiberalLand where you are, how do you see this playing out?
Ouch! Already with the personal attacks and we barely know each other, I mean you're only 10posts into the forum and this is your first post to this thread. Is this really how you think intelligent debate goes on?


The capitalist ruling class and reactionairies are just going to allow us to come into their farms and factories and begin producing goods that are required for us to survive? They'll just peacefully do that? Wake up...seriously. You demonstrate clearly that you have no understanding of the real nature of the capitalist system. There will never be a time when the rich fucks say, here you go poor people, let's sit back and see how you'll run a society.
Well I was going to bake them a bunch of cookies, but your plan is better. What was your plan again? I think you are unaware of how many "rich people" there actually are, just to give you a hint, they're out numbered. So if a majority of the people wanted things to change or knew there was something else it could change to, things would change. It could start by not buying anything from a factory farm, growing your own food, making your own clothes, convincing others to do the same. You choose to be apart of the capitalist society, there are ways around it. You don't have to buy things, but its easier.


Your ideology leads to the continued dictatorship of the capitalist ruling class at best, and at worst the wholesale slaughter of countless poor people who attempt to take on this ruling class dictatorship without a strong organized force and leadership with proper vision...another failed revolution that the capitalist ruling class will use to remind people what a horrible mistake it'd be to try anything but capitalism again. Whether or not you use violence, as long as the people on TV said you did is all that matters, and before long even other poor people will come shoot at you.
You caught me through pacifism I'm trying to continue to slaughter people.:rolleyes: Don't you think that by buying goods, YOU are in fact perpetuating the capitalist system?

[DesertShark]

I'd be delighted:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
Didn't catch in there where he was all, "yay violence!"


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm
Thanks for sharing on the Paris Commune, I'll have to read it at another time.


Marx to Engels on April 16, 1856: "The whole thing in Germany will depend on the possibility of backing the proletarian revolution by some second edition of the Peasant War. Then the affair will be splendid"
http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/OR23.html

Engels:

“...That force, however, plays yet another role [other than that of a diabolical power] in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society which is pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilized political forms — of this there is not a word in Herr Duhring. It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of an economy based on exploitation — unfortunately, because all use of force demoralizes, he says, the person who uses it. And this in Germany, where a violent collision — which may, after all, be forced on the people — would at least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has penetrated the nation's mentality following the humiliation of the Thirty Years' War.[4] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#fw04) And this person's mode of thought — dull, insipid, and impotent — presumes to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that history has ever known! (p.193, third German edition, Part II, end of Chap.IV)"
It sounds like he was sad about violence being used and even thinks that it is bad. "It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of an economy based on exploitation — unfortunately, because all use of force demoralizes, he says, the person who uses it."
And in the next section it seems as though he also agrees with me that violence is uncreative, saying, "And this in Germany, where a violent collision — which may, after all, be forced on the people — would at least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has penetrated the nation's mentality following the humiliation of the Thirty Years' War.[4] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#fw04) And this person's mode of thought — dull, insipid, and impotent — presumes to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that history has ever known!"
Thanks for backing up my point!




Marx in 1848:

The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm
Again, it sounds like the violence was a bad thing, something they didn't want to happen, "purposeless massacres." This next part is metaphorical "the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't recall Marx describing exactly how the revolution would come about and that violence would be a necessity for communism to come about. Could you point out where he says that?
He didn't, Mao however, did, and Mao was much more in touch with the situation we have today than Marx could ever be, because Mao didn't die nearly 150 years ago. And so far, he has been correct, there has never been a socialist revolution devoid of violence, and in a world which gets more and more violent by the day such as this one, I doubt there ever will be.

So you're saying that millions of people agree with an idea and they can't stop 20-100 people non-violently? Wow...that's pretty sad.
The "political power that grows from the barrel of a gun" is usually a dictatorship, oligarchy, monarchy, or fascist. I don't want to see any of those things come about and I don't think you do either.
A dictatorship of the proletariat? Sure!

But I don't believe a revolution will be successful if it uses violence or is based on the need to use violence.
No revolution is based on the need to use violence, a revolution must be principled, once you have your principles you must achieve victory by any means necessary. These days it's not even possible to hold a peaceful protest without the capitalist police beating the shit out of somebody, how are you going to win your freedom without spilling any blood? Non-violence doesn't work!

[Искра]

Anarchism is a political philosophy and communism is an economic philosophy, they are not interchangeable. I'm not a communist because I don't agree with any form of economics/money but that's for another thread.
So you're giving up on the option of a non-violent revolution before it even begins? If you overthrow a group in power violently because you lack the support of the masses, the revolution will not be successful. If you have the support of the masses, there is no need for violence.
1st Anarchism is not philosophy it's political ideology. Philosophy is apstarct while ideology is based on reality.

2nd I never said that they are interchangeable. I said that communist society (as stateless and classless society) = anarchy.

3rd Economics in general has nothing to do with profit or money. That just related to today's capitalist or state capitalist economics. Economics is much wider term. Economics is way to control production and consumption in society. In communism (not state capitalist society which is related to Soviet Union or Yugoslavia) this is resolved in this slogan: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

4th I'm talking about violent revolution of working class, which means that majority of working class is involved in this revolution not just one vanguard. I'm talking about revolution which starts from workers revolutionary unions (based on principles of revolutionary unionism (http://www.iwa-ait.org/?q=statutes)) as General Strike. So, I'm talking here about majority of working class (or if you want people) and they do need to use violence, because changing of society won't came without violent reaction from privileged class. If you believe that just one day people will say: Oh, let's create an anarchy and that people will just start to change system and that there will be no reaction from capitalists, church or other reactionaries, I'm sorry but you are a hippie.

And don't listen to RedSon and the family. They are just little kids playing Stalinists.

[Spawn of Stalin]

What a stupid comment, not that my age means anything, I am 22 so yes, I am basically a kid, does that make what I have to say any less meaningful? Scan over the topic and read my posts, along with scarletghoul's and manic expression's, we are not saying anything which is even remotely linked to "Stalinism", we are raising valid points about the failures of pacifism. Please, just be a little more kind.

[manic expression]

"Well, that's just like, your opinion, man." -The Dude, The Big Lebowski

Unless you can explain why certain forms of physical force are violence and others are not, "my opinion" is the most valid argument on this point between the two of us.


Ethical theory blah blah blah...kill one to save many...kill many to save one...blah blah blah. That's why I didn't address it, bring up ethical theory in another forum where it belongs.
A lot of people agreeing with someone doesn't make it right, see capitalism, see christianity.

So you think the Jewish kid should have been murdered. Noted.


But the outcome you want has never been achieved, so I would say that history is not on your side. I'm glad to know that you would not outright revert to violence as the only tactic.

The outcome of various revolutions have been greatly positive for the working class. Russia and Cuba are two of many. Socialism is what I want, and that's what every revolutionary will work to achieve. If you are either unwilling or unable to contribute to progress, that is your choice and yours alone.

NO ONE HERE would "outright revert to violence as the only tactic", that's just a mind-blowing piece of misrepresentation on your part. You need to read the posts here and comprehend the context. Where, exactly, did a poster say that violence is the only possible tactic?


But violence wasn't used, hence why I used it as an example of a non-violent worker's strike. What would have happened had violence had been used is irrelevant because it didn't happen.

It's not irrelevant because it has happened many, many times and it will doubtlessly happen again. Pretending that one example disproves far more numerous contrary examples is absurd.

Moreover, it is the mark of a wishful thinker to not plan for further developments. If you refuse to look at hypothetical situations, then you are an ineffective thinker because class struggle takes many turns that demand anticipation. If you don't think future labor struggles will involve force because of this single example, then you're hopelessly out-of-touch and not worth anyone's time.

Most importantly, you say that the workers should be at the mercy of whatever the bosses decide, and that is an anti-worker position. We'll go into this again below.


Violence does not have to be met with violence. How did you get from my position that "workers should be at the mercy of their bosses?" Also, I don't know what you mean by "Further, according to your position, workers should be at the mercy of their bosses, for it was the decision of the capitalists to not use force." Capitalists love violence, that's why they pay for wars. Using violence would only make you look like them in the eyes of the people you are trying to bring to your side.

No, violence doesn't have to be met by violence, but in that case your success rate drops to virtually zero. If failure is what you want, then I suppose you have the right ideas for that end. Again, until you stand up for your cause with more than empty words, you're not going to change much.

You say that workers should be non-violent whether or not bosses become violent, correct? If so, then you are effectively giving agency to the capitalist class, as you are encouraging workers to hamstring themselves, to limit their options in the face of class warfare; in contrast, the capitalists are demonstrating their willingness and fondness for mind-blowing amounts of violence as we speak. So really, you want workers to be peaceful when it is abundantly clear that their enemies are not. If anyone was insane enough to follow your advice (most workers aren't, luckily enough), they would be at the mercy of their bosses. Your politics are anti-worker.


You should care what their level of understanding is because perhaps you could bring them around to your own side by presenting them with facts, evidence, a solid argument, etc.

Yeah. You do know that most cops have their lives invested in the force, right? You DO know that their pensions and livelihood would be revoked and most of their friends (and oftentimes relatives) would turn their backs on them if they ever changed sides, right? You again fail to take into account reality.


I've been to demonstrations, I've been tear gassed, blah blah blah give me a cookie? Who cares? It's no excuse to use violence on another occasion with different people who probably didn't even know about the original violence. I hate cops as much as the next person, but I'm not going to go around killing everyone in a uniform when the revolution starts because they're people who could be persuaded.

Great idea. Let's let the cops tear gas us whenever they want without any sort of effective response (outside of complaining on the internet, of course). What happens when the tear gas becomes bullets? What happens when they become white phosphorous? Why do you think workers should let themselves be brutalized? Your position, again, boils down to the empowerment of reactionaries at the expense of workers.

And no one here wants to kill cops just to kill cops. The argument is for self-defense against things like tear gassing demonstrators.

If you want to go around trying to convince reactionaries to stop being themselves, go for it. The rest of us will be doing work that helps workers, because we don't live in a fantasyland.


Oh no not facts! Anything but that! I feel them sucking out the pacifist blood from my body :rolleyes: You haven't presented solid evidence to prove your point. If everyone thought like you did, especially the capitalists in power now, everyone on revleft would be dead.

I have presented evidence, you're just to obtuse to accept facts. Not only have I posted many examples of instances where working-class violence was undeniably self-defense (see my last post), but I have also cited the lack of successful revolutionary movements that refused to use force in some form or another. Further, I have used the example of an attempted non-violent revolution, which failed directly due to its refusal to adopt violence. You've ignored all this.

So it looks like you should suck that pacifist blood from your body, after all.


He committed suicide. And oh hey, spoiler alert: everyone dies. Its the price of being alive. And once you are in power, the revolution would be against you and it was a violent one...

I'm not letting you side-track this point, which is that Allende's attempts to make a non-violent revolution were extinguished, and this could have been avoided if forceful resistance was adopted. You said no one had tried a non-violent revolution, and when someone points out such an attempt, you give a sarcastic non-response. Typical.

Why do you think workers should let themselves be murdered without a fight?


Communism is an economic and social theory, not a political one.

Then how do you explain the theory of the vanguard party (a question you dodged once before)? That's neither economic nor social, it's political.


I don't know anything about the Paris Commune. Care to share your wealth of knowledge?

Imagine my surprise.

Read Marx's "The Civil War in France". I linked to it in my last post.

The fact that you don't know anything about one of the defining events in the history of the socialist movement validates your opponents quite well.

[Искра]

What a stupid comment, not that my age means anything, I am 22 so yes, I am basically a kid, does that make what I have to say any less meaningful? Scan over the topic and read my posts, along with scarletghoul's and manic expression's, we are not saying anything which is even remotely linked to "Stalinism", we are raising valid points about the failures of pacifism. Please, just be a little more kind.
I'm said that because my comrade to me looks confused with the word communism and I wanted to said to him that this word has nothing to do with Stalinism, and your dictatorship of proletariat. That those things are just deviations.

I could be more kind, but I think that that will kill me.

[bcbm]

i think discussions about the use of non-violence and violence when we're living in a largely reactionary time without a strong workers movement and no chance of taking power from the bourgeois is mental masturbation. i think the stance communists should take is one of pragmatism- we'll do what is required for our class to be victorious. if victory can be achieved without violence, i think that is a great thing and a testament to the strength of our movement but we should be prepared for other situations as well. and as much as i find pacifism to be reactionary, i am more troubled by the bloodlust so many communists seem to have. we're revolutionaries, not executioners.

[manic expression]

Didn't catch in there where he was all, "yay violence!"

Marx endorsed the Union cause in the Civil War. 620,000 soldiers died in that conflict. It's quite obvious.


Thanks for sharing on the Paris Commune, I'll have to read it at another time.

You should read it post-haste.


It sounds like he was sad about violence being used and even thinks that it is bad. "It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of an economy based on exploitation — unfortunately, because all use of force demoralizes, he says, the person who uses it."
And in the next section it seems as though he also agrees with me that violence is uncreative, saying, "And this in Germany, where a violent collision — which may, after all, be forced on the people — would at least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has penetrated the nation's mentality following the humiliation of the Thirty Years' War.[4] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#fw04) And this person's mode of thought — dull, insipid, and impotent — presumes to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that history has ever known!"
Thanks for backing up my point!

You didn't comprehend what Engels was saying. Engels was brutally criticizing Duhring, who was reluctant to accept violence as a valid tactic of the working class.

"Dull, insipid, and impotent."


Again, it sounds like the violence was a bad thing, something they didn't want to happen, "purposeless massacres." This next part is metaphorical "the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."

You're trying to see "the violence" as one thing, whereas Marx saw violence as the act of separate classes. Marx, in that passage, denounces the violence of the reactionaries while endorsing and promoting the violence of the workers. "Revolutionary terror" is not metaphorical, it is quite practical, it means that the forces of reaction must be crushed by whatever means necessary.

"Dull, insipid, and impotent." Engels got that part right.

[DesertShark]

1st Anarchism is not philosophy it's political ideology. Philosophy is apstarct while ideology is based on reality.
Wow...philosophy is not abstract (it may deal with abstract things at times but that's different), if it were then things like science wouldn't exist as science stemmed from philosophy. Also, ideologies aren't always based in reality. I'll grant you that I could've used a better word then philosophy, but I didn't...oh well.
Definition of philosophy (dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy)):
"1) the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2) any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3) a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4) the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5) a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
6) a philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances."
Definition of ideology (dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideology)):
"1) the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2) such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
4) theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature."
[the third definition talks about ideology being a philosophy]


2nd I never said that they are interchangeable. I said that communist society (as stateless and classless society) = anarchy.
Anarchy says nothing about social or economic states, where communism does. I think we're on the same page here.


3rd Economics in general has nothing to do with profit or money. That just related to today's capitalist or state capitalist economics. Economics is much wider term. Economics is way to control production and consumption in society. In communism (not state capitalist society which is related to Soviet Union or Yugoslavia) this is resolved in this slogan: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
I didn't say anything about profit. Economics has to do with placing an artificial value on products, I don't want to be bothered with such things because I think its ridiculous. I know what communism is and I also know that communism in its true form does not exist any where today. Thanks though, hopefully that will help someone out.

4th I'm talking about violent revolution of working class, which means that majority of working class is involved in this revolution not just one vanguard. I'm talking about revolution which starts from workers revolutionary unions (based on principles of revolutionary unionism (http://www.iwa-ait.org/?q=statutes)) as General Strike. So, I'm talking here about majority of working class (or if you want people) and they do need to use violence, because changing of society won't came without violent reaction from privileged class. If you believe that just one day people will say: Oh, let's create an anarchy and that people will just start to change system and that there will be no reaction from capitalists, church or other reactionaries, I'm sorry but you are a hippie.
If a majority of the people want the system to change, violence won't be necessary. Violence is used to change people's ideals by force instead of discussion, hence why the original claim that made me start this thread, was violence is a sign of low intellect or something along those lines. I never said that things would change quickly or in the near future. Most people aren't ready for an anarchist society because they don't know how or refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions; also, there's too many people in the world. But none of this is relevant to the original question.

And don't listen to RedSon and the family. They are just little kids playing Stalinists.
I don't condone any type of slander, inflammatory claims, or things similar to them; that's not how a productive discussion takes place. Such tactics are used (like violence) by those who don't know of a better option, are too stubborn or lazy to find one, or are not smart enough to attempt to look for one.

[Искра]

Originally Posted by DesertShark:
If a majority of the people want the system to change, violence won't be necessary.
How's that?


Violence is used to change people's ideals by force instead of discussion,
So you would discuss with capitalists to collectivize their private property? What good would that do?
Yes! We use violence to change peoples ideas and to kill human beings which oppress us. Tell me how would we change system with not using such? I don't approve using violence over working class.


Most people aren't ready for an anarchist society because they don't know how or refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions; also, there's too many people in the world. But none of this is relevant to the original question.
I agree, this is not relevant to the original question.
Still it's our job to talk with those people and make them know what are basic principles of anarchist ideology.

[CELMX]

How's that?


If the majority of the people wanted anarchy/communism whatever, there will still be the minority of capitalists. This doesn't mean the minority is weaker than the majority. I believe that one man armed with powerful weapons, which the police/capitalist government has an enormous supply of, is much more powerful than about 50, or more, people, unarmed.
The workers are not going to be able to take down these few, powerful capitalists and brutal police without being armed.

Capitalists will never ever agree with us. To agree with our ideology is literally self destruction. We can never negotiate with them, convince them to collectivise and make everyone equal. The only way to defeat these dirty pigs is to use violence.
If you think that since we use violence in a revolution, the new society will be violent as well, you are wrong. There will be no need for violence in a new society. Everyone would be equal, so what's the point? There won't be any oppression, so no violence basically.
The only thing violent would be the revolution and after that, I think most people would be pretty pacifist.

And, yes, I agree that self-defence is justified. Self-defence, meaning using force to protect yourself. What if someone was beating you up? Would you just stand there and do nothing, because you are a pacifist? That seems pretty illogical to me. The only way to counter unjust force is through moral, and just violence.

[Искра]

ComradeLenin nice one :)

[DesertShark]

Unless you can explain why certain forms of physical force are violence and others are not, "my opinion" is the most valid argument on this point between the two of us.
I did, using the commonly excepted definitions of the words we were using. You were the one basing your meaning of the word from your opinion. Language use comes from a collective understanding, which would make my argument more valid then your opinion.


So you think the Jewish kid should have been murdered. Noted.
Wow quick to judge aren't we? I said I didn't want to discuss ethical theories outside of the philosophy forum, nothing more nothing less. You make a great logical conclusion don't you? A pacifist thinking someone should have been murdered...good job.



The outcome of various revolutions have been greatly positive for the working class. Russia and Cuba are two of many. Socialism is what I want, and that's what every revolutionary will work to achieve. If you are either unwilling or unable to contribute to progress, that is your choice and yours alone.

NO ONE HERE would "outright revert to violence as the only tactic", that's just a mind-blowing piece of misrepresentation on your part. You need to read the posts here and comprehend the context. Where, exactly, did a poster say that violence is the only possible tactic?
Because I don't want to use violence to convince others I'm right, I am unwilling to contribute to progress? Again, you've done a great job coming up with logical conclusion.
I believe the one who was advocating it the most adamantly was scarletghoul; saying things like political power comes the barrel of a gun, etc. But you know that because you read the posts and comprehended them right?


It's not irrelevant because it has happened many, many times and it will doubtlessly happen again. Pretending that one example disproves far more numerous contrary examples is absurd.
I didn't say that one example disproves numerous other examples, all it proved was that non-violent worker strikes are possible.


Moreover, it is the mark of a wishful thinker to not plan for further developments. If you refuse to look at hypothetical situations, then you are an ineffective thinker because class struggle takes many turns that demand anticipation. If you don't think future labor struggles will involve force because of this single example, then you're hopelessly out-of-touch and not worth anyone's time.
I never said that violence doesn't happen or that self-defense against violence is bad. I brought up the question, "Is a mark of an intelligent person the ability to reason and discuss over turning to violence?"


Most importantly, you say that the workers should be at the mercy of whatever the bosses decide, and that is an anti-worker position. We'll go into this again below.
Please give the post number when I say that "the workers should be at the mercy of whatever the bosses decide." You are making false claims about the things I've said. If you have read the thread clearly, you would realize I never said such things.




No, violence doesn't have to be met by violence, but in that case your success rate drops to virtually zero. If failure is what you want, then I suppose you have the right ideas for that end. Again, until you stand up for your cause with more than empty words, you're not going to change much.
Using violence to prove you are right, does not prove you are right; if it did, the crusades would have made christians right. It proves you are incapable of presenting a clear argument to another person to convince them that your idea is correct. Until I stand up for my cause with more than empty words? Wow, that is a bold thing to say about someone you do not know. If my words are empty, then so are everyone's on the forum, as the entire forum is a bunch of words. You have no idea what I do combat capitalism, by making such claims it has become clear to me that you do not think your argument is strong enough to stand on its on and you need to resort to some sort of attempt to make me appear in low light to make your argument appear stronger. I hope in further debates with people you stick to the topic otherwise, it makes your argument look weaker.



You say that workers should be non-violent whether or not bosses become violent, correct?
No. I'm trying to get people to think outside the box of violence because I don't think its a truly viable option.

If so, then you are effectively giving agency to the capitalist class, as you are encouraging workers to hamstring themselves, to limit their options in the face of class warfare; in contrast, the capitalists are demonstrating their willingness and fondness for mind-blowing amounts of violence as we speak. So really, you want workers to be peaceful when it is abundantly clear that their enemies are not. If anyone was insane enough to follow your advice (most workers aren't, luckily enough), they would be at the mercy of their bosses. Your politics are anti-worker.
Ending classwar starts by the people not in the upper class realizing they have the power to changed their situation and then taking action. It starts by you and everyone else no longer buying products from companies exploiting their workers. It starts with the education of the masses, not by the violent overthrow of bosses. If they are commiting violence as we speak why aren't the workers using violence to fight back right now? Are they already insanely following my advice?



Yeah. You do know that most cops have their lives invested in the force, right? You DO know that their pensions and livelihood would be revoked and most of their friends (and oftentimes relatives) would turn their backs on them if they ever changed sides, right? You again fail to take into account reality.

Great idea. Let's let the cops tear gas us whenever they want without any sort of effective response (outside of complaining on the internet, of course). What happens when the tear gas becomes bullets? What happens when they become white phosphorous? Why do you think workers should let themselves be brutalized? Your position, again, boils down to the empowerment of reactionaries at the expense of workers.

And no one here wants to kill cops just to kill cops. The argument is for self-defense against things like tear gassing demonstrators.

If you want to go around trying to convince reactionaries to stop being themselves, go for it. The rest of us will be doing work that helps workers, because we don't live in a fantasyland.
Again, you miss the part where I agreed with self-defense...
I also know that good cops support and cover up for bad cops. So what? I already said I don't like them. What more do you want? Are you upset because I said I wouldn't go and kill them? Calm down. You need to understand that the only way for a revolution to be effective is to have people on your side. If you're not willing to at least try to convince everyone, then you've defeated the revolution before its begun.




I have presented evidence, you're just to obtuse to accept facts. Not only have I posted many examples of instances where working-class violence was undeniably self-defense (see my last post), but I have also cited the lack of successful revolutionary movements that refused to use force in some form or another. Further, I have used the example of an attempted non-violent revolution, which failed directly due to its refusal to adopt violence. You've ignored all this.

So it looks like you should suck that pacifist blood from your body, after all.
Wow...there's been examples given where non-violence has worked and where violence hasn't. There's positive and negative examples on all sides. I think you should take a break to cool down.




I'm not letting you side-track this point, which is that Allende's attempts to make a non-violent revolution were extinguished, and this could have been avoided if forceful resistance was adopted. You said no one had tried a non-violent revolution, and when someone points out such an attempt, you give a sarcastic non-response. Typical.
I said that because someone else had said it (scarletghoul I believe). To be honest, I didn't know one way or the other, or really cared for that matter. He committed suicide before the people who were trying to overthrow him could kill him. Was he fighting a revolution against the people of the nation or the government he was in control of?



Why do you think workers should let themselves be murdered without a fight?
Again, you'll have to give the post number where I make this claim because I don't believe I did. I also said (now on multiple occassions) that I agreed with self-defense.




Then how do you explain the theory of the vanguard party (a question you dodged once before)? That's neither economic nor social, it's political.
I don't know what the "theory of the vanguard party" is or the question I apparently dodged about it. Can you shed some light on this?




Imagine my surprise.

Read Marx's "The Civil War in France". I linked to it in my last post.

The fact that you don't know anything about one of the defining events in the history of the socialist movement validates your opponents quite well.
No it doesn't. It just means I'm not well read on France's history, which is actually very true.

[DesertShark]

Marx endorsed the Union cause in the Civil War. 620,000 soldiers died in that conflict. It's quite obvious.
Ok...he endorsed the workers getting control of their work. He didn't say anything about the violence.


You didn't comprehend what Engels was saying. Engels was brutally criticizing Duhring, who was reluctant to accept violence as a valid tactic of the working class.

"Dull, insipid, and impotent."
Perhaps then a greater portion of the letters should have been quoted. So that they would not be able to be taken out of context.




You're trying to see "the violence" as one thing, whereas Marx saw violence as the act of separate classes. Marx, in that passage, denounces the violence of the reactionaries while endorsing and promoting the violence of the workers. "Revolutionary terror" is not metaphorical, it is quite practical, it means that the forces of reaction must be crushed by whatever means necessary.

"Dull, insipid, and impotent." Engels got that part right.
That's an odd stance to have don't you think? Denouncing one person's violence while advocating another's. Yes that whole sentence is a metaphor, not just everything but the last part.

[DesertShark]

How's that?


So you would discuss with capitalists to collectivize their private property? What good would that do?
Yes! We use violence to change peoples ideas and to kill human beings which oppress us. Tell me how would we change system with not using such? I don't approve using violence over working class.

I agree, this is not relevant to the original question.
Still it's our job to talk with those people and make them know what are basic principles of anarchist ideology.
The christians used violence to convince people they were right in the crusades, the inquisition, Africa, Australia, etc. Still doesn't mean they were and I think it hurt their argument.
The number of people in the US who actually own a lot and have a lot of money is very small. I think aside from that 1% or whatever, everyone else could be easily convinced that capitalism is bad.
How do you change the system non-violently? EDUCATION.


If the majority of the people wanted anarchy/communism whatever, there will still be the minority of capitalists. This doesn't mean the minority is weaker than the majority. I believe that one man armed with powerful weapons, which the police/capitalist government has an enormous supply of, is much more powerful than about 50, or more, people, unarmed.
The workers are not going to be able to take down these few, powerful capitalists and brutal police without being armed.

Capitalists will never ever agree with us. To agree with our ideology is literally self destruction. We can never negotiate with them, convince them to collectivise and make everyone equal. The only way to defeat these dirty pigs is to use violence.
If you think that since we use violence in a revolution, the new society will be violent as well, you are wrong. There will be no need for violence in a new society. Everyone would be equal, so what's the point? There won't be any oppression, so no violence basically.
The only thing violent would be the revolution and after that, I think most people would be pretty pacifist.

And, yes, I agree that self-defence is justified. Self-defence, meaning using force to protect yourself. What if someone was beating you up? Would you just stand there and do nothing, because you are a pacifist? That seems pretty illogical to me. The only way to counter unjust force is through moral, and just violence.
I never said that I didn't agree with self-defense. In fact said I agreed with it about 20times.
If I was living in a community and all of a sudden a group of people overthrew the leader violently and then told me they would no longer use violence, I don't think I'd believe them. People have to understand why they revolution needs to happen, why capitalism is bad, etc to get on board with the change.
EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION!

[manic expression]

Ok...he endorsed the workers getting control of their work. He didn't say anything about the violence.

He said he supported the Union cause, which entailed fighting the Confederacy with guns, cannons, ships, bayonets and more.

If you can't comprehend this straightforward position put forth by Marx, it's clear why you can't bring yourself to take the progressive viewpoint.


Perhaps then a greater portion of the letters should have been quoted. So that they would not be able to be taken out of context.The context is that you jumped to a conclusion. The point, however, is that Engels was savagely criticizing someone for being reluctant to see the place of force in revolution.


That's an odd stance to have don't you think? Denouncing one person's violence while advocating another's. Yes that whole sentence is a metaphor, not just everything but the last part.No, it's not an odd stance, it's perfectly in line with anyone who supports a cause. One application of violence is reactionary, the other is progressive. The same can be said of rhetoric: one use of it is reactionary, other uses are progressive. Until you actually stand for a cause, it's unsurprising you can't understand this.

And no, it's not a metaphor, revolutionary terror has been put into practice at different points.

[manic expression]

I did, using the commonly excepted definitions of the words we were using. You were the one basing your meaning of the word from your opinion. Language use comes from a collective understanding, which would make my argument more valid then your opinion.

And I put forward the fact that self-defense is a form of violence. Your argument consists of "that's your opinion".


Wow quick to judge aren't we? I said I didn't want to discuss ethical theories outside of the philosophy forum, nothing more nothing less. You make a great logical conclusion don't you? A pacifist thinking someone should have been murdered...good job.

Learning is the perfect place to discuss this, actually. Is the use of a gun positive if it fights off fascists who are trying to kill a Jewish kid? Answer the question or confirm my assumption.


Because I don't want to use violence to convince others I'm right, I am unwilling to contribute to progress? Again, you've done a great job coming up with logical conclusion.

No, it's because you can't wrap your head around how society works. We don't fight capitalism because it's objectively "wrong", we fight it because it oppresses the working class and the march of humanity. The capitalists have plenty of justifications for their behavior and their beliefs, so we have no interest in "convincing" capitalists into giving up control of society. Our aim is to enforce working-class control, just as the capitalists enforce bourgeois control.

So yes, since you are either unwilling or unable to contribute to this struggle, you are incapable of contributing to progress.


I believe the one who was advocating it the most adamantly was scarletghoul; saying things like political power comes the barrel of a gun, etc. But you know that because you read the posts and comprehended them right?

Political power does come through the barrel of a gun, but that doesn't mean every tactic available to the workers does, too. Revolutionaries recognize that all political power is the result of coercion in some form, but revolutionaries also recognize that before conquering state power, the workers must organize themselves, propagate the principles of socialism and promote the cause of workers if the final victory is to be achieved. Further, revolutionaries recognize that these tactics can be met by violence, and that this must in turn be met by the self-defense of the workers.


I didn't say that one example disproves numerous other examples, all it proved was that non-violent worker strikes are possible.

Possible, yes, but under certain circumstances and certain bosses. Change those factors and you have the distinct possibility of violence from the capitalists. What will you do then? Tell the workers to get the crap kicked out of them and see their jobs taken by scabs? I await your proposal.


I never said that violence doesn't happen or that self-defense against violence is bad. I brought up the question, "Is a mark of an intelligent person the ability to reason and discuss over turning to violence?"

That's a silly dichotomy for a lot of reasons. Every intelligent leader and movement is able to utilize non-violent and violent methods to achieve their goals (even Machiavelli recognized this). The problem is that you can reason and discuss with the capitalists until you're blue in the face, and they will not give away control of society. That much has been proven by history, and I've outlined why.

And it is more than fitting that your method, talking to capitalists and trying to get them to have some epiphany, necessitates spending your time with the enemies of progress. I think we can all see what you think is more important: you'd rather be daydreaming aloud to capitalists than organizing workers to take control of their own communities.


Please give the post number when I say that "the workers should be at the mercy of whatever the bosses decide." You are making false claims about the things I've said. If you have read the thread clearly, you would realize I never said such things.

It's quite implicit in your argument and I've explained why. You want to hamstring workers in the face of a shockingly violent ruling class. That would put workers at the mercy of their bosses, and it is an anti-worker position.


Using violence to prove you are right,

It's not about proving that you're right to your enemies, it's about defeating the other side. Some people don't agree with you; what do you do when they try to stop you? Apparently, the entire point of struggle is lost on you, which gives us insight into why you so stubbornly cling to the tactic of intellectual parlor exercises with the bourgeoisie.

Once again, we're back to that back alley in Paris...should the Jewish kid be murdered, or should someone pull a weapon and save his life? I'm still waiting for you to give your answer.


does not prove you are right; if it did, the crusades would have made christians right. It proves you are incapable of presenting a clear argument to another person to convince them that your idea is correct. Until I stand up for my cause with more than empty words? Wow, that is a bold thing to say about someone you do not know. If my words are empty, then so are everyone's on the forum, as the entire forum is a bunch of words. You have no idea what I do combat capitalism, by making such claims it has become clear to me that you do not think your argument is strong enough to stand on its on and you need to resort to some sort of attempt to make me appear in low light to make your argument appear stronger. I hope in further debates with people you stick to the topic otherwise, it makes your argument look weaker.

A whole lot of hot air, not a lot of reality.

Capitalists do not care if you are "right" (as if you could be objectively "right", anyway), they want power and money and control of society. To them, no working-class viewpoint will ever be "right" because they look at the world through the lens of the bourgeoisie. Time and again, they have shown that they will not agree to their own destruction. This isn't about being right, it's about standing up for the majority of humanity, something you're obviously too timid to do.

I have a very good idea of what you do to combat capitalism, if it at all resembles your words here: nothing. If you don't believe me, just look at how Engels described quasi-pacifists in his day: Dull, insipid, and impotent. Hits the nail right on the head.


No. I'm trying to get people to think outside the box of violence because I don't think its a truly viable option.

The experience in Chile proves that thinking "outside the box" just puts workers inside real boxes. That's all your position comes down to: empower reaction, hamstring workers.


Ending classwar starts by the people not in the upper class realizing they have the power to changed their situation and then taking action. It starts by you and everyone else no longer buying products from companies exploiting their workers. It starts with the education of the masses, not by the violent overthrow of bosses. If they are commiting violence as we speak why aren't the workers using violence to fight back right now? Are they already insanely following my advice?

Ending class war starts with the defeat of the capitalist class, and even then it continues. The question is how to go about that, and while you're fretting about your morale fiber, workers are asserting their rights and building a movement for revolution.

The workers are using violence to fight back: in Nepal, India, the Philippines, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba and elsewhere. You clearly don't know the first thing about working-class struggles today (or yesterday, apparently), because if you did, you'd know that workers are promoting their interests, not trying to talk capitalism to death.


Again, you miss the part where I agreed with self-defense...

An agreement that is so paper-thin as to be meaningless. If you cannot identify revolutionary use of force as self-defense, then your position here is in opposition to it.


I also know that good cops support and cover up for bad cops. So what? I already said I don't like them. What more do you want? Are you upset because I said I wouldn't go and kill them? Calm down. You need to understand that the only way for a revolution to be effective is to have people on your side. If you're not willing to at least try to convince everyone, then you've defeated the revolution before its begun.

Stop avoiding the issue: it's not about killing cops to kill cops, it's about defending the working class movement with whatever means are most appropriate. In many cases, non-violence is appropriate; in many cases, force is appropriate. You want to limit the options of workers (which only helps the capitalists) because of your personal taste.

And having people on your side means being able to fight for them and their interests. No one will join a revolutionary movement that can't even stand up to reactionary violence. Most importantly, you're talking about convincing capitalists that they're "wrong". I'm talking about winning workers to the side of revolution and defeating capitalism.


Wow...there's been examples given where non-violence has worked and where violence hasn't. There's positive and negative examples on all sides. I think you should take a break to cool down.

Revolutions without violence or the use of force? I'd love to hear some. It's only fair since I've provided multiple examples that validate my argument.


I said that because someone else had said it (scarletghoul I believe). To be honest, I didn't know one way or the other, or really cared for that matter. He committed suicide before the people who were trying to overthrow him could kill him. Was he fighting a revolution against the people of the nation or the government he was in control of?

Do you know anything about the coup in Chile? Allende won the democratic elections fair and square. The US, working with right-wingers (the minority) in Chile, causes an economic crisis. At that moment, Pinochet (a fascist), leads a military coup (not supported by the general public) and destroys the democratically-elected government, murdering workers and many others in the process.

So no, Allende was promoting the interests of workers, but because he refused to adopt forceful resistance against fascism, he and thousands of other progressives died. All that could have been avoided if the working class was mobilized to defend itself.


Again, you'll have to give the post number where I make this claim because I don't believe I did. I also said (now on multiple occassions) that I agreed with self-defense.

Do you agree with the October Revolution?


I don't know what the "theory of the vanguard party" is or the question I apparently dodged about it. Can you shed some light on this?

The vanguard party is a concept that was pioneered by Lenin (drawing directly from the theoretical foundations of Marx and Engels) in the early 1900's, which posits that the most revolutionary layers of the working class must organize itself into a disciplined, highly-organized party. There are many writings about it online. The point is that it's not an economic or social theory.


No it doesn't. It just means I'm not well read on France's history, which is actually very true.

It's not just French history, it's a watershed moment in the history of socialism. Both Marxists and anarchists owe much of their theoretical and historical foundations from this event. I can't overemphasize how important the Paris Commune is to all socialists' understanding of society and class struggle, and I highly suggest you familiarize yourself with Marx's writings on the Commune if you wish to be a part of that movement.

[robbo203]

Marx and Engels took a pragmatic view on the question of violence

In their early years they favoured the use of violence - understandable then given the absence of bourgeois-democratic insititutions - but even then this support for violence was a qualified one. Engels made this point in The Principles of Communism 1847

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. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes

In their later years Marx and Engels became increasingly disposed to favour non-violent approaches to a socialist revolution . In his address to the Hague Congress in 1872 Marx said this


But we by no means claimed that the means for achieving this goal were identicial everywhere. We know that the insitituons customs and traditions in the different countries must be taken into account; and we do not deny the existence of countries like America, Engalnd and if I knew your insititutions better I might add Holland where the workers may achieve their aims by peaceful means

Similarly Engels, in March 1895, in an introduction to Marx's The Class Struggles in France was able to write:

"The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for with body and soul. The history of the past fifty years has taught us that."


The rejection of a conspiratorial elitist approach to revolution in my view amounts to an advocacy of a peaceful approach to revolution. Conversely those who still cling to the old fashioned notion of violence as a means of bringing about revolution unwittingly, it seems to me, take up an elitist or vanguardist perspective on this matter

[Искра]

DesertShark so you will change system by education?
What would this education be consisted of and why do you think that capitalists will let you "educate" people? They tell that you are crazy and no one will ever listen to you.
Also, why do you think that people will give a shit about your education when they have bigger problems in their lives?

[NecroCommie]

Of fuckity fuck, I can't believe this thread! Violence is not immoral or unpragmatic in itself, but only the context in which you use it can be. Violence is a tool, not a goal, and therefor cannot be immoral.

And what was that shit about self-defence not being violence?! Typical western arrogance: "I ofcourse am completely against violence, except in this and this and this and this... But these cases ofcourse are not violence at all but self-defence, pre-emptive strikes, lesser evils ect..." Honestly, I have never seen a person who would see violence as a bad idea. They just make up some special conditions and excuses why it should be allowed. That is all very well, but would they just stop lying to themselves!

As to the necessity of violent revolution. Ofcourse it is a must! Have you not heard of class war? Do you not see everyday how democratic workers communities are violently taken down? Every fucking time workers have achieved something, whether violently or otherwise, it has been countered with violence or threats of violence.

[x359594]

Since the injustices in society are mainly in the institutional system even though the personal agents might be innocent or even quite sympathetic, it is necessary to prevent the unjust institutions from grinding on as usual. It is necessary not to shun conflict but to seek it out. These confrontations may or may not entail violence, but eventually the ruling class will resort to violence to safeguard its privileges. When that happens, we will have to respond with violence or suffer instant defeat.