Justifying the use of force during the revolution?

[Cohacq]

To start off, I have to say that when i first came here, i was a communist, but after being here for a while, I lost faith due to an awful lot of people here saying that the use of force is neccesary for the revolution to succeed. That, combined with my feeling that violence is never neccessary except for self-defence, drove me to abandon communism and instead embrace anarchism. But, back to the question itself; How can you justify the use of force except in self defence?

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Everday over 25,000 die because the capitalists force the third world to excport crops, wool, fruit etc, they use force, they even pay the united fruit company to overthrow places like guatemala, the system is existentially and physically oppressive, to kill people who rape and pillage the world is entirely right, and if you cant handle that, your a paper tiger and should get the hell off revleft.

Sorry but the idealist bullshit dosent fly, the capitalists wont just lay down their bastions of power.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

BTW anarchists also see violence as nescesarry, i think everyone but everyone on the revolutionary left does.

[Cohacq]

Little Bobby Hutton (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=28058): So you just because the other side uses force, it is okay for us to use it aswell? Guess you have never the saying that violence only breeds more violence?

I'm an anarchist following the anti-agression principle, and neither I nor any of my anarchist or anarchist-leaning friends see the use of force as necessary.

[Guerrilla]

“Revolution is not a dinner party, nor an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly, and modestly. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another”

Whenever society will be divided into classes, one class will dominate over another. The only way to remove class distinguishes is by getting rid of the ruling classes. History tells us that the only way to do this is with violence. It might be not perfect, but it’s necessary. If you don’t use force then the bourgeoisie won’t go away. Even after the revolution you still need to use force to stop the bourgeoisie from seizing power again. Since they just won’t simply ‘give up’ after they were overthrown. You shouldn’t be tolerant to intolerance. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with the new.

I suggest you read State and Revolution by Lenin.

[Cohacq]

Guerrilla (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=27454):

"Whenever society will be divided into classes, one class will dominate over another."

Yes, and they dominate through the use of force, so using force ourselves only leads to a new ruling class (see korea, china and the soviet union as examples).

"The only way to remove class distinguishes is by getting rid of the ruling classes."

How can we get rid of it if we continue to use the same methods as they do, and thus create a new one?

"If you don’t use force then the bourgeoisie won’t go away."

I'm with you on this one, as nobody would give up power willingly if they didnt win anything else on it.

"Even after the revolution you still need to use force to stop the bourgeoisie from seizing power again."

which bourgeoisie? I assume you mean the ruling class, and by that, do you mean the old or the new ruling class?

[Guerrilla]

In my previous post I was referring to the bourgeoisie as the ruling class.

Socialism is meant to be oppressive towards the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie will always be oppressive towards the proletariat, even when they’re not in power. The only way to stop that is by using force. Then after a while the capitalists won’t be there anymore allowing everyone who’s left to break free of every form of oppression possible.

This might look like they are doing the same things (bourgeoisie oppressing the proletariat, and proletariat oppressing the bourgeoisie), but it's not. One causes racism, homophobia, sexism and poverty while the other one fights for freedom. And again, you can't and shouldn't be tolerant towards intolerance, that way you are intolerant yourself.

[Cohacq]

"Socialism is meant to be oppressive towards the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie will always be oppressive towards the proletariat, even when they’re not in power"

How can they be opressive when they're not in power?

"The only way to stop that is by using force."

So it's okay against some people but not all? You're contradictory.

"This might look like they are doing the same things (bourgeoisie oppressing the proletariat, and proletariat oppressing the bourgeoisie), but it's not."

How can the same action not be the same?

[Guerrilla]

Can I first ask your definitions about the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, and oppression?

[Cohacq]

1. The proletariat are the opressed
2. The bourgeoisie are the opressors
3. being opressed is being forced to do things against your will (for example, paying taxes) or have their freedom restricted.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Your misguided and your friends are sean pen liberal idealists, yu need to face the truth, its nescesarry.
Also not all violence is bad, if someone comes into your house kills your kids and rapes your wife, you walk in and kill him, there is a clear difference, one is using violence for his own evil gains, the other is protecting other humns from harm and exploitation.

[red cat]

1. The proletariat are the opressed
2. The bourgeoisie are the opressors
3. being opressed is being forced to do things against your will (for example, paying taxes) or have their freedom restricted.

Fail, fail and fail. :)

[Guerrilla]

1. The proletariat are the opressed
2. The bourgeoisie are the opressors
3. being opressed is being forced to do things against your will (for example, paying taxes) or have their freedom restricted.

Then how is it oppressive for the oppressed to use force against the oppressors?

And how will you even have a peaceful revolution without forcing people to do things against their will?

[#FF0000]

Everytime the topic comes up, I always direct people to Melbicimni's little essay on the Ethics of revolution, which can be found here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=598)

And, why not, here it is in spoiler tags:


This is a major rewrite and reformulation of my previous blog post "The Ethics of Revolution", it should be clearer now.

Introduction

All revolutionary leftists, leftists who seek to overthrow capitalism, (whether they are aware of it or not) do so on the basis of a normative claim. Namely that a socialist society would be superior to a capitalist one. To make any normative claim, one must at some point, make an ethical appeal in order to articulate the reason which one system is "better" than the other. Revolutionaries, then, require an ethical basis for this appeal.

Perhaps the most popular ethical basis for revolutionaries is "Utilitarianism" originally conceptualized as an ethical system by Jeremy Bentham. In short, the moral decision when considering any given action is whichever causes "the most good for the most people". There are a multitude of problems with basing an ethical premise on this arbitrary algorithm, not the least of which is that differing conceptions of what is "good" ultimately mean that it's algorithmically unhelpful in making actual moral decisions. Another significant problem with the utilitarian conception is that since it is impossible to reasonably predict the outcomes of many actions, a person using utilitarian arguments can justify acts which they believe (on a tenuous material basis) will ultimately lead to "more good" in the future.

With this in mind, I believe we should look into how people generally make decisions about ethical issues in reality. While many people approach ethical decision-making on a philosophic basis through a utilitarian lens, when somebody is actually faced with a moral decision to make, most will roughly follow these steps in order to make that decision.

1) Formulate the problem
2) Consult their personal values and intuitions
3) Pursue the path which best coincides with 2

These steps are loosely defined, often overlap with one another, and ultimately differ from person to person, but I do believe that the main point (That people make moral decisions by consulting their values) is sound regardless of the specific details. These values are not inherent in the sense that they are defined by "God" or static components of the human condition, but are largely defined and created through the material conditions of society itself.

The question is, can we trust the values which society implants in us as moral truths? Most gut reactions to this question would be a hearty "No!", and it is obvious to see why. Bourgeois morality appears to indicate that the values which society breeds are fundamentally reactionary and incapable of being used to justify revolutionary activity and the overthrow of the state. However, I do not believe that this is true at a fundamental level. To illustrate this, I will actually use the process described above (using an appeal to several values which are more or less universal as a substitute for my personal values and intiuations) to address the moral question, "Is violent revolution justifiable?".

Formulate the Problem

Question: Is violent revolution justifiable?

In order to determine the answer to this question, we must first define the problem in another way by asking the larger moral question "In which cases is violence justifiable, if any?". In answering this larger question, we will organically come to the answer of the smaller question by comparing a revolutionary situation to the other situations in which violence is considered to be justifiable.

Consult Values and Intuitions

In order to do this impartially, we must first look into the society in which we live and attempt to determine, based on its policies and the general opinions of the people in it, how violence is justified.

By examing the most extreme cases of violence (in this case, all forms of "killing") and in which situations people as a whole determine that such killing is "just", we can find the moral value at work which provides this justification.

As such, I would like to provide several situations in which society has ultimately deemed that killing is just, and examine what is common in each of them. The situation is theoretical in each case, and I only provide examples for the cases which are almost universally held to be just and are not controversial (therefore the death penalty will not be examined directly at this stage, nor will abortion, though both scenarios can be examined by the same process)

War:
While certain liberal, pacifistic elements tend to claim that all war is bad, I feel this is a minority opinion so I've included it. For most people, there are certain instances in which general wisdom has determined that a war is just. In most such scenarios, there is a clear aggressor. When such an aggressor is threatening the well being of another nation, it is deemed generally morally justified for the victim of aggression to lash out in return. In this case, it is the doctrine of self-defense which gives the violence (even pre-emptive) of the victim of aggression moral justification.

Murder:
When somebody kills another human being while being attacked, raped, or otherwise physically harmed, it is deemed that they are not morally culpable for the act of violence against their attacker. A "self-defense" justification for a not-guilty plea in the case of murder is one of very few acceptable defenses to be used when one commits that act.

While there are numerous other examples, I believe that these two most extreme cases of violence are enough to show that there is a generally accepted moral value that self-defense is a legitimate excuse for the use of violent force. If one can excuse even these most egregious acts of violence on those grounds, why would it not also be the viable defense for other acts of violence? In addition, it seems that this is the only legitimate, non-controversial use of force. For example, a leader of a country cannot plead insanity for going to war with another country. Self-defense is the only legitimizing moral excuse for committing an act of extreme violence.

Given that this is the case, it appears that we have discovered the moral value behind the legitimate use of violent force, and that is self-defense. There is one remaining question before we attempt to reconcile revolution with these things, and that is "Are there any times when self defense is not a legitimate reason for the use of violent force, or when the amount of force used in self-defense is too extreme to be considered legitimizing?" I think that the answer to this is a clear "yes", there are times when the amount of force used in self-defense is unreasonable and illegitimate considering the amount of force being defended against.

For example, it would generally not be considered a legitimate use of self defense if, when somebody moved to punch a person lightly in the arm, they responded in "self-defense" by shoving a grenade down the aggressor's throat. This leads us to a second moral value pertaining to self-defense. Namely that the amount of violence used in self-defense must not be more than what is necessary to stop the perpetration of violence against the victim. (With appropriate consideration given to allow leeway due to the fact that in a dangerous situation one does not always have the time to consider all possible ways to resolve the conflict without using somewhat more than the exactly necessary force)

Violence:
We must now pursue an investigation into what it is we mean by violence. The most basic definition of violence we could use would be to say that it is any type of force which causes harm, a rather elementary definition, but one which will server our purpose for now.

Pursue the Course of Action Which Best Coincides With the Consulted Values

In the case of Revolution, when asking if we should pursue a course of action in which we should use violent force in the overthrow of the capitalist class, we can easily compare revolution to the examples of self-defense previously given in order to arrive at a moral conclusion on the matter.

Without getting into an in-depth discussion on the labor theory of value, we can easily characterize the capitalist mode of production as such: There is a class of property owners (bourgeois) who own the means of production. Through their exclusive control over production, they exert a coercive force over non-property-owners to convince them to work for them. This coercive force is a form of violence against the working class, as is the expropriation of surplus value from their labor by the bourgeois. As such, the control and ownership of private property can be seen as a form of aggression against the working class.

It is clear then, if there is an illigitimate use of force by the bourgeoisie against the working class, that the first condition for legitimate use of force by the working class is met. Revolution is self-defense. Next we must determine whether or not revolution is the only course of action which can stop the use of force against the working class. Because this violence is structural (inherent in the structure of the capitalist machine) there is no way to end it without the abolition of capitalism itself through revolution. All revolution is an act of violence, justified through self-defense against the capitalist machine, although not all forms of revolution are explicitly violent in the traditional sense. Forms of revolutionary action can also include strikes, sabotage, and anything else which undermines the operation of the capitalist machine.

[#FF0000]

btw the answers so far have been sort of lacking, I think.


How can you justify the use of force except in self defence?

I think Melbi says this in his li'l essay up there, but essentially, revolution is an act of self-defense against the institutional violence that is tied in with capitalism.

[Raúl Duke]

To start off, I have to say that when i first came here, i was a communist, but after being here for a while, I lost faith due to an awful lot of people here saying that the use of force is neccesary for the revolution to succeed. That, combined with my feeling that violence is never neccessary except for self-defence, drove me to abandon communism and instead embrace anarchism. But, back to the question itself; How can you justify the use of force except in self defence?

Anarchists are not "pacifists"...in a revolution they would probably use violence.

Under anarchism however, there's been circulating a "self-defense" justification in which that the use of violence is acceptable as a response to oppression/exploitation.

I'm just going to be pragmatic about it, if to succeed we need to resort to violence than that's that. Revolutions are not a dinner party.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To start off, I have to say that when i first came here, i was a communist, but after being here for a while, I lost faith due to an awful lot of people here saying that the use of force is neccesary for the revolution to succeed. That, combined with my feeling that violence is never neccessary except for self-defence, drove me to abandon communism and instead embrace anarchism. But, back to the question itself; How can you justify the use of force except in self defence?If you are talking about running off to the hills to form a militia, then I agree that this is pointless, but not because of the violence issue - it just ins't effective and doesn't promote the self-consious activity and leadership of working class people.

How would a revolution by workers (an act of force even if no one gets hurt and no shots are fired) be anything other than self-defense? If workers organize and take over their factories this is not violence to other people but it is violence and force against the system and the owners. They would strike back with force and so workers would probably need to defend themselves. If people pressed into service on a clipper ship mutinied because of poor treatment; if slaves burned down the plantation due to their enslavement - would this not be in self defense?

I don't think most workers want more violence in their lives and I think most revolutionaries would love to change society without any physical violence against other people. But think about a picket line: of course it is basically a peaceful means of trying to shut down production and force the bosses to comply to popular demands by the workers, but what happens? First the boss will try to get scab workers in. On most picket lines then there is a debate about forcibly preventing the scabs - if you do you have to use violence, if you don't then the boss can keep producing and will be able to hold out longer than the strikers - or can just fire them all anyway. If the picket does prevent the scabs, then the police are called and if the strikers are able to hold off against the violence by the police, the national guard is called in with live ammo.

So violence is just a fact, we want to prevent it and keep it to a minimum, but being non-violent ON PRINCIPLE, means that the bosses will walk over us and that the daily violence in Iraq and all over the world caused by our government will continue. Violence and the threat of violence is what keeps a minority run system like capitalism together. If they did not have a monopoly on violence, then why should I pay rent? I pay rent because if I don't a sheriff with a gun on his hip and deputies to back him up will show up and force me out of my apartment. Ruling class violence is so ubiquitous in the US that we don't even consider it "violence" most of the time... just another cop going by, another person's house foreclosed, another 10,000 layoffs, another few hundred kids locked up for the best years of their lives, another person dead of preventable diseases because of the interests of the health industry.

Anything that workers do against capitalism is in their self-defense.

[Psy]

Because in a revolution failure is not a option as the bourgeoisie will (and always have) brutally punish the proletariat when they ever organize into a revolution.

So when it comes to actually overthrowing capitalism it is all or nothing deal, we either defeat the capitalist by any mans necessary or they will crush us by any means necessary. Just look at the rise of fascism after the failures of revolutions in Europe, in hindsight would there have been any cost too great to defend these revolutions leading up to WWII?

[revolution inaction]

Little Bobby Hutton (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=28058): So you just because the other side uses force, it is okay for us to use it aswell? Guess you have never the saying that violence only breeds more violence?

I'm an anarchist following the anti-agression principle, and neither I nor any of my anarchist or anarchist-leaning friends see the use of force as necessary.

thats a stupid saying and if you belive it your an idiot and so are all your "anarchist" friends.

and how is it not self defence to use violence against those who use or plan to use it against us?

[the last donut of the night]

Violence is absolutely necessary during the revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Without it, we will surely be defeated because the upper classes will do anything to stay in power. Today, capitalism kills thousands of people a day through starvation, imperialist wars, the lack of access to quality healthcare, the systematic oppression of national minorities, the actions of the state against the working people, the violence of rural thugs beating up revolutionaries (Nepal, India, Brazil, etc), horrible working conditions, and through all-out oppression. The last century has been the bloodiest in human history due to imperialist wars. Now that nuclear bombs are readily available to capitalist states, humanity hangs by a thread. Never have the poor have been so threatened. Thus, it is our utmost duty to do everything to destroy this wretched system so that our grandchildren (hopefully) will never have to know the pangs of hunger, or killing and being killed for profit, or being called a nigger or a spic, or having to be ashamed of being LGBTQ, or having to be afraid of speaking up, or being afraid of being a women, or worrying that the next paycheck won't be enough to buy medicine. And that includes violence. Because we all know where pacifism has gotten the Left: it has demoralized, weakened, and institutionalized us into the heroes of liberal capitalists. (Do you ever wonder why American textbooks have wet dreams over MLK or Gandhi but hate Malcolm X? It's because the first two never posed a real challenge to the system, but the latter always advocated for anti-capitalist liberation.)

[Spawn of Stalin]

Little Bobby Hutton (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=28058): So you just because the other side uses force, it is okay for us to use it aswell? Guess you have never the saying that violence only breeds more violence?

I'm an anarchist following the anti-agression principle, and neither I nor any of my anarchist or anarchist-leaning friends see the use of force as necessary.
I don't suppose any of your "anarchist leaning friends" fought in Spain did they? No, I didn't think so. Since you're an anarchist I'll assume that you are against using parliament and other liberal democratic institutions to gain power, and since you've already explicitly stated that you are opposed to revolutionary violence, the only other reasonable way of making revolution and taking state power would simply be to ask (nicely) the bourgeoisie to give up their property and hand it over to the poor, and something tells me they're not going to like that idea. Denouncing communism only to go over to anarchism on the basis that you are a pacifist makes very little sense, the only way anarchists could ever successfully overthrow capitalism is by use of force, whereas if you were a communist at least you could be a reformist (non-violent), you wouldn't achieve anything, but based on your rose tinted view of revolution, you probably won't achieve anything no matter what label you attach to yourself.

I will ask though, purely out of interest, how is it that you believe non-violent anarchism can succeed? I'd seriously like to know how you would go about doing it. Because of course we all know that a socialist revolution is where one class overthrows another, historically the bourgeoisie are by far the most violent and oppressive class, so how do you plan on overthrowing this violent and oppressive class, without becoming violent yourself? Because honestly I think it would be great to hear you spouting this pacifistic crap come the revolution when the capitalist police are beating you down in the street regardless of whether you have engaged in acts of revolutionary violence or not. I sincerely hope you would change your mind should this situation ever arise, the great thing about class war is that it does exactly what it says on the tin, it's WAR, and if you don't support class war then I don't think you would make a very good anarchist.

[punisa]

To start off, I have to say that when i first came here, i was a communist, but after being here for a while, I lost faith due to an awful lot of people here saying that the use of force is neccesary for the revolution to succeed. That, combined with my feeling that violence is never neccessary except for self-defence, drove me to abandon communism and instead embrace anarchism. But, back to the question itself; How can you justify the use of force except in self defence?

I dont agree with people who got angered over your post and simply told you to fuck off with your pacifist ideas. That is not a good way to clarify our positions..

Anyhow, whichever ideology you switch to ..if it really has potential to overthrow capitalism - it will have its violent aspects.

But try to look at this from a different angle...
Don't form some perverse views that we are some violent bunch that is just waiting for an opportunity to smash something.
It's not like that at all.
But 99% will use force to change the world we live in, it's a just shift and really an incredible change for human race towards something better.

Take a moment and visualize the progress we could bring about if revolution is a success - is it not worth fighting for?

[GPDP]

I don't suppose any of your "anarchist leaning friends" fought in Spain did they? No, I didn't think so. Since you're an anarchist I'll assume that you are against using parliament and other liberal democratic institutions to gain power, and since you've already explicitly stated that you are opposed to revolutionary violence, the only other reasonable way of making revolution and taking state power would simply be to ask (nicely) the bourgeoisie to give up their property and hand it over to the poor, and something tells me they're not going to like that idea. Denouncing communism only to go over to anarchism on the basis that you are a pacifist makes very little sense, the only way anarchists could ever successfully overthrow capitalism is by use of force, whereas if you were a communist at least you could be a reformist (non-violent), you wouldn't achieve anything, but based on your rose tinted view of revolution, you probably won't achieve anything no matter what label you attach to yourself.

I will ask though, purely out of interest, how is it that you believe non-violent anarchism can succeed? I'd seriously like to know how you would go about doing it. Because of course we all know that a socialist revolution is where one class overthrows another, historically the bourgeoisie are by far the most violent and oppressive class, so how do you plan on overthrowing this violent and oppressive class, without becoming violent yourself? Because honestly I think it would be great to hear you spouting this pacifistic crap come the revolution when the capitalist police are beating you down in the street regardless of whether you have engaged in acts of revolutionary violence or not. I sincerely hope you would change your mind should this situation ever arise, the great thing about class war is that it does exactly what it says on the tin, it's WAR, and if you don't support class war then I don't think you would make a very good anarchist.

There is the whole "dropping out" aspect of lifestyle anarchism which I believe purports to do just that: revolution without the violence. If everyone were to drop out of capitalism, capitalism would fall.

Not that I think such a thing would be possible, and I think it would be a recipe for disaster (and thus violence) in the end, but it's pretty much all I can come up with as far as pacifist anarchism is concerned.

[Cohacq]

There is the whole "dropping out" aspect of lifestyle anarchism which I believe purports to do just that: revolution without the violence. If everyone were to drop out of capitalism, capitalism would fall.

You hit the nail on the head there. If we just can get enough people to abandon the state and bring up alternative solutions to state-owned corporations instead of just destroying them and leaving nothing to handle whatever that corporation handled (as happened in somalia), I am pretty confident it could succeed.

But, i stress the importance of filling the void left by the state-run corporations (road maintence, health care and the like) and not just let it collapse, because if it would, we would simply have a collapsed state and not anarchism.

EDIT: typo

[Kenco Smooth]

Pacifism has never won any victories for an opressed minority alone. Any victory against established rule has been backed with a very real threat to that establishment.

As far as "dropping out" goes how well exactly did the general strike against Batista work? If a pacifist group was precieved to be any kind of threat they would be annihalated.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

You hit the nail on the head there. If we just can get enough people to abandon the state and bring up alternative solutions to state-owned corporations instead of just destroying them and leaving nothing to handle whatever that corporation handled (as happened in somalia), I am pretty confident it could succeed.

But, i stress the importance of filling the void left by the state-run corporations (road maintence, health care and the like) and not just let it collapse, because if it would, we would simply have a collapsed state and not anarchism.

EDIT: typo

This is not a viable road to revolution. The Capitalist class isn't going to 'abandon' their privelege and power in society. Revolution must repress capitalist counter-revolution which will undoubtedly be violent itself, therefore violence will be neccessary to repress it. Cohacq you really need to look throughout history of working struggles and see what the capitalist class has done to repress them. They bring in the police/army. Capitalism is violent, only violent revolution can overthrow it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You hit the nail on the head there. If we just can get enough people to abandon the state and bring up alternative solutions to state-owned corporations instead of just destroying them and leaving nothing to handle whatever that corporation handled (as happened in somalia), I am pretty confident it could succeed.

But, i stress the importance of filling the void left by the state-run corporations (road maintence, health care and the like) and not just let it collapse, because if it would, we would simply have a collapsed state and not anarchism.

EDIT: typo

If this were possible, there would still be native cultures existing in the Americas; the Zapatistas would have been left alone; squats would never be confronted by police, hobo camps wouldn't be destroyed by authorities; and the European powers would not have tried to intervene in Russia after the revolution there (after-all, what would they care if people in some other country decided to live in a society different from capitalism).

Unfortunately the people whose power and livelihood depend on a workforce with no alternative but to sell their labor and private property would not sit idly by and allow their rule to slip away. In fact if the capitalists were not concerned with this they would have never enclosed land or enforced laws against vagrancy.

There has never been a peaceful transition of power since class society began. The land and slave-owning ruling class of the pre-civil war US south would track down blacks in the north and destroy runaway communities even if they didn't know who the slave-owner originally was because such things were a threat to their ability to produce.

So in order for "alternatives to capitalism" to be attractive enough for enough people to want to abandon capitalism, these alternatives would have to be effective enough to pose a threat to the capitalist hegemony - but if the capitalists felt that an alternative was a threat to their hegemony, they would use all of their repressive forces to destroy this alternative.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

As much as there are certainly excuses to use violence against the bourgeosie - the undoubtedly huge number of lives that have been lost, or terminated early, as a result of the existence and continued hegemony of Capitalism -, that is not to say that it is necessarily the right way to go.

There is no doubt that Capitalism will die. It has to, it is not sustainable in any way shape or form. Soon enough, it will fall in on its own contradictions. What we need to do to speed that process up, is to educate the working class, the broadest spectrum of people possible, both in a general sense (since the ignorance of the masses and Capitalism do fit rather well together) and in a political sense - the latter being the trigger for the mobilisation of the workers and the precipitant class war that would be the natural evolution of working class consciousness.

Many on the left (i'd put the majority of Socialists here) deny that class consciousness is anything more than a cursory understanding of the political situation, of the class nature of Capitalism and of how Socialism is the antidote, on the part of the working class. This inevitably fails to get dramatic popular support in many areas, although it is true that in certain contexts, and with certain popular leaders, such traditional Socialist rhetoric can lead to mass support of such a leader; one can point to many past and current traditional Marxist-Leninist states, the USSR in particular as acase in point. Despite not having a plurality of political support and despite the working class being woefully under-educated, The leninist Bolshevik Party was able to forge a way for Socialism through horrendously unnecessary violence during the Civil War.

Now, the natural stance for any Socialist is to say that the bourgeoisie would never give up it's hegemony on power so easily, and that such a war is typical of revolution and fighting it is neccessary to defeat Capitalism. What is often overlooked, and what is so mesmerising, is often the size of the opposition. There are many well-established figures relating to inequality - in world terms, the top 1% hold more wealth than the bottom 95% combined, or something similar. Even in Britain, where inequality is not as drastic as some third world countries, the top 10% still have a wealth far in excess of the bottom 90% combined. Despite this, you often hear of surveys on post-GDR citizens, for example, where perhaps a significant minority, but never a plurality, 'fondly remember the GDR', for example. To blame this on western propaganda is to shoot one in the foot, since it shows the ignorance of many Socialists to the neccessity of educating the working class, the masses, the exploited - the overwhelming majority of people in the world. To this end, one can say that Socialism collapsed in the GDR and USSR because out of the total working class, nowhere near 100% supported Socialism, or the regimes that were trying to carry out Socialism.

To relate this to the OP, the point here is that the need for violence is exacerbated by the size of the enemy. This only follows logic - there will be more deaths if support is split roughly down the middle, or even if the less supported side still has a relatively significant minority of support, than the number of deaths that would occur if the counter-revolutionary side was comprised of a handful of bankers, industrialists and other Capitalists who are simply defending their own economic interests.
In other words, if in a hypothetical confrontation between Socialism and Capitalism, those who would in theory benefit from Socialism joined the socialist side, and those who in theory had something to gain economically from the continuiation of Capitalism joined the capitalist side, you should find that but a tiny, tiny minority of people would be on the side of Capitalism. Of course one must account for anomolies, but this should never be a game-changing figure.
That this is never how support is split during revolution is to the absolute dis-credit of Socialism. We do not focus on raising the general educational attainment of the working class (as I say, the class that I believe comprises a hugely overwhelming majority of people in society), and thus the only 'political education' that the workers receive is often what is force-fed through their mouths by either Capitalists or Socialists, which is obviously a most hollow of educations. If we empowered the workers with the knowledge to objectively choose (well, subjectively choose for their own economic interest), we would find that the overwhelming majority of workers side with us.

You cannot establish Socialism based on a narrow definition of the working class. If your definition of the working class adds up to 30% of the population, then acting in the name of Socialism and excluding the oter 70% of the population simply will not work, whether you like it or not; and this will only lead to absolute violence, anarchy (excuse the pun) and unnecessary death.

Revolution should be relatively peaceful. We must take a large portion of blame when it is not, for we have failed in our main pre-revolutionary task, namely the full and proper arousal of working class consciousness, as opposed to some hollow 'Socialism ftw' style realisation.

[Kenco Smooth]

Absolutely. The primary focus of any socialist should be to raise class consciousnes. However I don't see this as necesarily excluding any kind of eventual violent struggle.

It's fair to assume that the capitalist class will not yield there grip on property easily and will no doubt use all the tools at their disposal to maintain their hold on it. Why on earth should the workers limit their tactics so drastically?

And as far as capitalism inevitably collapsing. This doesn't ensure any kind of progress for the workers if they don't seize the opportunity rather than allow themselves to be usurped by those who are willing to use violence. Without class consciousnes or appropriate methods any revolution will fail. They are two sides of the same coin and must not be seperated unless we wish to see "the mutual destruction of the contending classes".

[Red Commissar]

No revolution has ever occurred quietly. We have had examples of some revolutions happening "peacefully", but people tend to ignore the great strife and violence that would precede it.

Particularly if a revolution concerns the very system a country runs under, it is unlikely the old will give up with out a fight.

You can choose to in the mean time find non-violent ways to resist, and that is perfectly reasonable. However you need to be prepared for the day when revolution comes, some force will have to be used.

[RATM-Eubie]

We can always use the power of the vote???
But if worse comes to worse a violent revolution must happen i believe we do not need that yet tho.

[chegitz guevara]

Little Bobby Hutton (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=28058): So you just because the other side uses force, it is okay for us to use it aswell? Guess you have never the saying that violence only breeds more violence?

Just because something is a saying doesn't mean it's true or relevant. Yes, the fact that the capitalists will use force does justify our using force.

[The Red Next Door]

If you are talking about running off to the hills to form a militia, then I agree that this is pointless, but not because of the violence issue - it just ins't effective and doesn't promote the self-consious activity and leadership of working class people.

How would a revolution by workers (an act of force even if no one gets hurt and no shots are fired) be anything other than self-defense? If workers organize and take over their factories this is not violence to other people but it is violence and force against the system and the owners. They would strike back with force and so workers would probably need to defend themselves. If people pressed into service on a clipper ship mutinied because of poor treatment; if slaves burned down the plantation due to their enslavement - would this not be in self defense?

I don't think most workers want more violence in their lives and I think most revolutionaries would love to change society without any physical violence against other people. But think about a picket line: of course it is basically a peaceful means of trying to shut down production and force the bosses to comply to popular demands by the workers, but what happens? First the boss will try to get scab workers in. On most picket lines then there is a debate about forcibly preventing the scabs - if you do you have to use violence, if you don't then the boss can keep producing and will be able to hold out longer than the strikers - or can just fire them all anyway. If the picket does prevent the scabs, then the police are called and if the strikers are able to hold off against the violence by the police, the national guard is called in with live ammo.

So violence is just a fact, we want to prevent it and keep it to a minimum, but being non-violent ON PRINCIPLE, means that the bosses will walk over us and that the daily violence in Iraq and all over the world caused by our government will continue. Violence and the threat of violence is what keeps a minority run system like capitalism together. If they did not have a monopoly on violence, then why should I pay rent? I pay rent because if I don't a sheriff with a gun on his hip and deputies to back him up will show up and force me out of my apartment. Ruling class violence is so ubiquitous in the US that we don't even consider it "violence" most of the time... just another cop going by, another person's house foreclosed, another 10,000 layoffs, another few hundred kids locked up for the best years of their lives, another person dead of preventable diseases because of the interests of the health industry.

Anything that workers do against capitalism is in their self-defense.

And there are perfect examples of that happening too, Like in Colombia, Union workers are getting murder, and these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Teamsters_Strike_of_1934 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1877_Shamokin_Uprising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_Mine_massacre

[CartCollector]

Well you could combine the two tactics: try to "drop out" of the economy and only fight in self defense. This way you don't alienate people because it shows that you tried to be peaceful, but the capitalist government forced you to fight back. Then again always being on the defensive isn't the best way to win.

[scarletghoul]

Just because something is a saying doesn't mean it's true or relevant. That is so true.


So you just because the other side uses force, it is okay for us to use it aswell? Its not that its 'ok', its that it's necessary.

If someone's using violence to oppress us then the only way to overcome that is to use violence. I hate violence to be honest but there's never been a single non-violent revolution in the history of the world. A genuine revolutionary must base their actions on what is necessary, rather than what would be ideal or 'ok'.

So you see we don't have some kinda evil thirst for blood. What we have is a thirst for freedom, which unfortunately can only ever be born in blood.

[HEAD ICE]

It is the capitalist that makes the revolution violent - blame them instead.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

You hit the nail on the head there. If we just can get enough people to abandon the state and bring up alternative solutions to state-owned corporations instead of just destroying them and leaving nothing to handle whatever that corporation handled (as happened in somalia), I am pretty confident it could succeed.

But, i stress the importance of filling the void left by the state-run corporations (road maintence, health care and the like) and not just let it collapse, because if it would, we would simply have a collapsed state and not anarchism.

EDIT: typo
Yeah we all know how that has worked out historically. I seem to remember Engels writing about this kind of action, if you could call it action:


The members of the Alliance could not possibly persist in the ridiculous position into which their cunning electoral policy had landed them; it would have meant the end of their control over the International in Spain. They had to act, if only for the sake of appearances. Salvation for them lay in a general STRIKE.
In the Bakuninist programme a general STRIKE is the lever employed by which the social revolution is started. One fine morning all the workers in all the industries of a country, or even of the whole world, stop work, thus forcing the propertied classes either humbly to submit within four weeks at the most, or to attack the workers, who would then have the right to defend themselves and use this opportunity to pull down the entire old society. The idea is far from new; this horse was since 1848 hard ridden by French, and later Belgian socialists; it is originally, however, an English breed. During the rapid and vigorous growth of Chartism among the English workers following the crisis of 1837, the "holy month", a strike on a national scale was advocated as early as 1839 (see Engels, The Condition of the Working-Class in England, Second Edition [1892], p. 234) and this had such a strong appeal that in July 1842 the industrial workers in northern England tried to put it into practice. -- Great importance was also attached to the general STRIKE at the Geneva Congress of the Alliance held on September 1, 1873, [6] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm#n6) although it was universally admitted that this required a well-formed organisation of the working class and plentiful funds. And there's the rub. On the one hand the governments, especially if encouraged by political abstention, will never allow the organisation or the funds of the workers to reach such a level; on the other hand, political events and oppressive acts by the ruling classes will lead to the liberation of the workers long before the proletariat is able to set up such an ideal organisation and this colossal reserve fund. But if it had them, there would be no need to use the roundabout way of a general STRIKE to achieve its goal.
No one with any knowledge of the secret springs of the Alliance can doubt that the idea of using this well-tried method originated in the Swiss centre. Be that as it may, the Spanish leaders saw in this a way of doing something without actually delving in "politics" and they gladly took it. The miraculous qualities of a general STRIKE were everywhere propounded and preparations were made to start it at Barcelona and Alcoy.
Meanwhile the political situation was steadily heading for a crisis. Castelar and his associates, the old federal republican braggarts, were frightened by the movement, which had outgrown them. They were obliged to hand over the reigns of government to Pi y Margall [June 11, 1873], who sought a compromise with the Intransigents. Of all the official republicans, Pi was the only Socialist, the only one who realised that the republic had to depend on the support of the workers. He promptly produced a programme of social measures which could be carried out immediately and would not only benefit the workers directly but eventually lead to further steps, thus at least giving the first impetus to the social revolution. But the Bakuninist members of the International, who were obliged to reject even the most revolutionary measures if they emanated from the "State", preferred to support the most preposterous swindlers among the Intransigents rather than a minister. Pi's negotiations with the Intransigents dragged on. The Intransigents began to lose patience, and the most hot-headed of them started a cantonal uprising in Andalusia. The leaders of the Alliance now had to act too if they did not want to trail in the wake of the intransigent bourgeois. And so a general STRIKE was ordered.
Presently, among other things, a poster was issued in Barcelona stating:
"Workers! We are calling a general STRIKE to show the profound abhorrence we feel on seeing the government using the army fight our brother workers, while neglecting the struggle against the Carlists", etc. [Engels probably quotes from La Solidarité Révolutionnaire, No. 6, July 16, 1873. -- Ed.]
The workers of Barcelona -- Spain's largest industrial city, which has seen more barricade fighting than any other city in the world -- were asked to oppose the armed government force not with arms in their hands, but with a general strike, that is, a measure directly involving only individual bourgeois, but not their collective representative -- the State power. During the period of peacetime inaction, the workers of Barcelona had been able to listen to the inflammatory phrases of mild men like Alerini, Farga Pellicer and Viñas; but when the time came to act, when Alerini, Farga Pellicer and Viñas first announced their fine election programme, then proceeded to calm passions, and finally, instead of issuing a call to arms declared a general STRIKE, the workers actually despised them. Even the weakest Intransigent showed more energy than the strongest member of the Alliance. The Alliance and the International, which was hoodwinked by it, lost all influence and when these gentlemen called for a general STRIKE claiming that this would paralyse the government the workers simply ridiculed them. What the activities of the false International did achieve, however, was that Barcelona took no part in the cantonal uprising. Barcelona was the only town whose participation could have provided firm support for the working-class element, which was everywhere strongly represented in the; movement, and thus held out the prospect of the workers ultimately controlling the entire movement. Furthermore, with the participation of Barcelona, victory would have been as good as won. But Barcelona did not raise a finger; the workers of Barcelona, who had seen through the Intransigents and been cheated by the Alliance, remained inactive, thus allowing the Madrid government to secure the final victory. All of which did not prevent Alerini and Brousse, members of the Alliance (the report on the Alliance contained further details about themb), from stating in their paper, the Solidarité Révolutionnaire:
"The revolutionary movement is spreading like wildfire throughout the peninsula ... nothing has as yet happened in Barcelona, but the revolution is permanent in the market place!"
But it was the revolution of the Alliancists, which consists in beating the big drum and for this reason remains "permanently" in the same "place".
At the same time the general STRIKE became the order of the day in Alcoy. Alcoy is a new industrial town of some 30,000 inhabitants, where the International, in its Bakuninist form gained a foothold only a year ago and spread rapidly. Socialism, in any form, went down well with these workers, who until then had known nothing of the movement; the same thing happens in Germany where occasionally in some backward town the General Association of German Workers [7] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm#n7)suddenly gains a large temporary following. Alcoy was therefore chosen as the seat of the Bakuninist Federal Commission for Spain, [8] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm#n8)and it is the work of this Federal Commission that we are going to see here.
On July 7, a workers' meeting voted for a general STRIKE and on the following day sent a deputation to the alcalde (the mayor) asking him to summon the manufacturers within 24 hours and present to them the workers' demands. Albors, the alcalde, a bourgeois Republican, stalled off the workers, sent to Alicante for troops and advised the manufacturers not to yield but to barricade themselves in their houses. He himself would remain at his post. After a meeting with the manufacturers -- we are here following the official report of the Alliance Federal Commission dated July 14, 1873 ["A los Trabajadores", La Federación, No. 206, July 26, 1873] -- Albors, who had originally promised the workers to remain neutral, issued a proclamation in which he "insulted and slandered the workers and sided with the manufacturers thus destroying the rights and the freedom of the strikers and challenging them to fight". How the pious wishes of a mayor can destroy the rights and the freedom of the strikers is not made clear. Anyway, the workers led by the Alliance notified the municipal council through a committee that if it did not intend to remain neutral during the strike as it promised, it had better resign in order to avoid a conflict. The committee was turned away and as it was leaving the town hall, the police opened fire on the peaceful and unarmed people standing in the square. This is how the fight started, according to the report of the Alliance. The people armed themselves, and a battle began which was said to have lasted "twenty hours". On one side, the workers, whose number is given by the Solidarité Révolutionnaire as 5,000, on the other, 32 gendarmes in the town hall and a few armed men in four or five houses in the market place. These houses were burnt down by the people in the good Prussian manner. Eventually the gendarmes ran out of ammunition and had to surrender.
"There would have been less misfortunes to lament," says the report of the Alliance Commission, "if the Alcalde Albors had not deceived the people by pretending to surrender and then cowardly ordering the murder of those who entered the town hall relying on his word. And the Alcalde himself would not have been killed by the justly enraged population had he not fired his revolver point-blank at those who went to arrest him."
And what were the casualties in this battle?
"Although we cannot know exactly the number of dead and wounded" (on the people's side) "we can nevertheless say that they numbered no less than ten. On the side of provokers there were no less than fifteen dead and wounded."
This was the first street battle of the Alliance. For twenty hours, 5,000 men fought against 32 gendarmes and a few armed bourgeois, and defeated them after they had run out of ammunition, losing ten men in all. The Alliance may well drum Falstaff's dictum into the heads of its adepts that "the better part of valour is discretion". [Shakespeare, The First Part of King Henry IV, Act V, Scene 4. -- Ed.]
Needless to say, all the horror stories carried by the bourgeois papers about factories senselessly burnt down, numerous gendarmes shot down, and of people having petrol poured over them and set on fire, are pure inventions. The victorious workers, even if led by members of the Alliance whose motto is, "to hell with ceremony!", always treat their defeated adversaries far too generously, and so the latter accuse them of all the misdeeds which they themselves never fail to perpetrate when they are victorious.
And so victory had been won.
The Solidarité Révolutionnaire writes jubilantly: "Our friends in Alcoy, numbering 5,000, are masters of the situation."
And what did these "masters" do with their "situation"?
Here the report of the Alliance and its newspaper leave us in the lurch and we have to rely on the ordinary newspaper reports. From these we learn that a "Committee of Public Safety", that is, a revolutionary government, was then set up in Alcoy. To be sure that their Congress at Saint-Imier [9] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm#n9) (Switzerland), on September 15 1872, the members of the Alliance decided that
"any organisation of political, so-called provisional or revolutionary authority, can be nothing but a new fraud and would be just as dangerous for the proletariat as any of the now existing governments". ["Les deux Congres de Saint-lmier", Bulletin de la Federación jurassienne..., No. 17-18, September 15-October 1, 1872, p. 13.]
The members of the Spanish Federal Commission, meeting at Alcoy, had moreover done everything they could to get this resolution adopted also by the Congress of the Spanish Section of the International. And yet we find that Severino Albarracin, a member of this Commission, and, according to some reports, also Francisco Tomas, its secretary, were members of this provisional and revolutionary government, the Committee of Public Safety, of Alcoy!
And what did this Committee of Public Safety do? What measures did it adopt to bring about "the immediate and complete emancipation of the workers"? It forbade any man to leave the city, although women were allowed to do so, provided they ... had a pass! The enemies of all authority re-introducing a pass! Everything else was utter confusion, inactivity and helplessness.
Meanwhile, General Velarde was coming up from Alicante with troops. The government had every reason for wishing to deal with the local insurrections in the provinces quietly. And the "masters of the situation" in Alcoy had every reason for wanting to extricate themselves from a situation which they did not know how to handle. Accordingly, Deputy Cervera, who acted as a go-between, had an easy task. The Committee of Public Safety resigned, and on July 12 the troops entered the town without meeting any resistance, the only promise made to the Committee of Public Safety for this being ... a general amnesty. The Alliance "masters of the situation" had once again extricated themselves from a tight spot. And there the Alcoy adventure ended.
The Alliance report tells us that at Sanlúcar de Barrameda, near Cádiz,
"the Alcalde closed down the premises of the International and his threats and his incessant attacks on the personal rights of the citizens incensed the workers. A commission demanded of the minister observance of the law and the re-opening of the premises which had been arbitrarily closed down. Mr. Pi agreed to this in principle ... but refused to comply in practice. It became clear to the workers that the Government was determined to outlaw their Association; they dismissed the local authorities and appointed others in their place, who re-opened the premises of the Association." ["A los Trabajadores", La Federación, No. 206, July 26, 1873.]
"In Sanlúcar ... the people are masters of the situation!" the Solidarité Révolutionnaire writes triumphantly. The members of the Alliance, who here too, contrary to their anarchist principles, formed a revolutionary government, did not know what to do with their power. They wasted time in futile debates and paper resolutions, and when General Pavía, on August 5, after taking Seville and Cádiz, sent a few companies of the Soria brigade to Sanlúcar he encountered ... no resistance.
Such were the heroic deeds performed by the Alliance where it had no competition.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm
That is section two of this work and it applies to this theory of resistance.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I hate violence to be honest but there's never been a single non-violent revolution in the history of the world.

Dude, haven't you heard about the glorious Iranian Revolution that gave power to the masses and liberated everybody from the chains of oppression? I mean, that's what nonviolent revolutions do, right? :rolleyes:


You hit the nail on the head there. If we just can get enough people to abandon the state and bring up alternative solutions to state-owned corporations instead of just destroying them and leaving nothing to handle whatever that corporation handled (as happened in somalia), I am pretty confident it could succeed.

But, i stress the importance of filling the void left by the state-run corporations (road maintence, health care and the like) and not just let it collapse, because if it would, we would simply have a collapsed state and not anarchism.

Except for one small problem (in addition to the others that have been listed): In order to develop the industry that would be necessary to fill the void you mentioned, you need capital, i.e. money and property. How exactly do you plan to acquire this without participating in the capitalist economy?

The only way this would have even the slightest chance of working (which it never will, for reasons already listed), would be if you could convince everybody to abandon technology and modern conveniences (like microwaves) and move to a hippie commune in the forest. Since, to disconnect yourselves from capitalism, you'd also have to disconnect yourselves from the power grid. Unless you plan on opening up a power plant, which would require capital and land, neither of which the state will give you or let you acquire once it figures out that you're trying to "overcome" the state. Not to mention that you would also need to convince enough people to make clothes, grow food, teach, practice medicine, write books, make music, and defend the commune from hostile government forces... oh wait.

Here's another problem*: Let's say that this method succeeds somehow magically on a small scale, then it gets copied on a large scale across the country. Instead of attacking these communes and forcing them back into the economy (as they would in real life), the capitalists start to abandon/sabotage their economic infrastructure (since they would rather see it destroyed than in the hands of those damn proletarians). The state remains intact for a little while, until it finally disappears when everybody is integrated into the communes or flees. Great. We just defeated the state in a "battle" of attrition and we have no internet, no phone lines, no television, dilapidated housing, no large-scale agriculture, no functioning energy grid and no mass production of goods because all the facilities have rotted away with the slow decline of capitalism. We also have no functioning airports or airplanes and no functioning public transit systems in the cities because all the buses, trains and airplanes no longer work after so much time being neglected. Sounds like fun.

Of course we want to smash the political and economic system of capitalism, but we also want to inherent some of the facilities and technology that would lay the foundation for a modern socialist state. It's socialism OR barbarism, not both.

Now, I don't think that a revolution in the United States is going to take the form of a People's War or anything, but if you think we can beat capitalism by organizing a sit-in or somehow disconnecting ourselves from it... Well... You have a lot to learn.

*DISCLAIMER: I may have let my imagination run a bit on this one. :lol:

[robbo203]

“Revolution is not a dinner party, nor an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly, and modestly. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another”

Whenever society will be divided into classes, one class will dominate over another. The only way to remove class distinguishes is by getting rid of the ruling classes. History tells us that the only way to do this is with violence. It might be not perfect, but it’s necessary. If you don’t use force then the bourgeoisie won’t go away. Even after the revolution you still need to use force to stop the bourgeoisie from seizing power again. Since they just won’t simply ‘give up’ after they were overthrown. You shouldn’t be tolerant to intolerance. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with the new.

I suggest you read State and Revolution by Lenin.


Revolution means simply a fundamental change in the economic basis of society. How you effect a revolution is another matter. Your contention that violence is necessary is contestable (Marx argued that revolution could be accomplished by peaceful means in certain countries even back in his time) but in any case the mere use of violence per se does not constitute "revolution". A further point is that "force" is not the same thing as violence. Force may actually make violence unneccessary

[The Grey Blur]

hey you should read some of lenin's works cohacq. a lot of the 'revolutionaries' here with the pictures of gun wielding guerillas, rioters etcetc forget that lenin and marx et al always always said the revolution could be the most peaceful event...it is the capitalist and the state's reaction to what is almost always at first a peaceful movement that creates the necessity for violence. i'd ignore the anarchists and mentalists who idolise violence...it's the last resort but it will almost certainly be necessary.

also you should read zizek's "violence", it explains how systematic violence is much much worse than sudden or revolutionary violence. think of how many die every few seconds from easily curable dieases, hunger etc- that is capitalism. think of how many people died in the october revolution? less than in the film eisenstein made about it...

[Robocommie]

I agree with what's been said about revolutionary violence, that it is a necessary evil and an act of self-defense in the pursuit of socialism, but just for the sake of understanding what page we're all on, what is meant exactly by using force against the bourgeoisie after the revolution? What does that entail in everyone's view?

[Os Cangaceiros]

i'd ignore the anarchists and mentalists who idolise violence...it's the last resort but it will almost certainly be necessary.

Anarchists are hardly the worst culprits around here insofar as "idolizing violence" is concerned.

I think that violence will certainly exist (and, indeed, be necessary) during a hypothetical revolution, but I think that it's use is fetishized by some, and I think that it's importance is also exaggerated by some. Presumably capitalism will collapse only after a long period of subversion of the values that society and capitalism pushes. In fact I don't see how it can come about by any other means.

That being said, those who oppose workers, peasants or other sectors of the oppressed taking proactive measures against those who oppress them do come off as whiny liberals.

[ArrowLance]

To start off, I have to say that when i first came here, i was a communist, but after being here for a while, I lost faith due to an awful lot of people here saying that the use of force is neccesary for the revolution to succeed. That, combined with my feeling that violence is never neccessary except for self-defence, drove me to abandon communism and instead embrace anarchism. But, back to the question itself; How can you justify the use of force except in self defence?

Violence against the capitalist class is self-defense. How is what the bourgeoisie doing not violent? Any action taken against them is justified at this point.

Clearly any violence would be in defense of the proletarian class. When carried out by the workers themselves, that's self-defense.

[Crusade]

There is the whole "dropping out" aspect of lifestyle anarchism which I believe purports to do just that: revolution without the violence. If everyone were to drop out of capitalism, capitalism would fall.

Not that I think such a thing would be possible, and I think it would be a recipe for disaster (and thus violence) in the end, but it's pretty much all I can come up with as far as pacifist anarchism is concerned.

“I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.” - Albert Einstein

:thumbup1:

[Crusade]

I don't mind nonviolent approaches to revolution, but this would require a once in a lifetime, a million to one capitalist dropout, as someone mentioned before. The use of violence is also not a universally rational approach, either. The political and economic climate, the resources available, and most of all, the strength and REACH of the government in question should always be considered. If you're talking about an American revolution, the naive nature of the VIOLENT approach should also be considered.

Do you honestly believe the working class can defeat the American state in a violent revolution? Shit, do you think your only enemy in this case is the police, SWAT, F.B.I., CIA, the military, right wing "counter revolutionaries"? America has allies like everyone else. If you think for a damn second that the ruling class is showing all of it's cards right now, think again. The second shit gets hot in any of these first world nations they'll drop the fucking hammer on all of us. They're waiting for an excuse to bring about a police state here and there's no doubt in my mind they're prepared for such an event. If the state is using force against us and threatening our lives, you better believe we'll defend ourselves. The debate is when should we INITIATE these conflicts. In any case, we should be prepared to fight, but this isn't a movie. The "good guys" can lose and they have throughout most of history. We CAN win though, if we move with unity and against division, and THINK THINK THINK THINK before we do anything stupid.

[red cat]

“I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.” - Albert Einstein

:thumbup1:

Class war is something different. It is imposed on the masses all the time. We cannot get out of it by refusing to fight. We can end it only by winning it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Do you honestly believe the working class can defeat the American state in a violent revolution? Shit, do you think your only enemy in this case is the police, SWAT, F.B.I., CIA, the military, right wing "counter revolutionaries"?

I think that you're using a strawman argument here. No one is advocating some kind of climatic "leftists vs. military" endgame.

We're not advocating political revolution; we're advocating social revolution. Even the most authoritarian governments rest on a certain measure of popular support, and when that support disappears it doesn't matter how many soldiers or tanks the state has. With that being said it's not likely that authorities will relinquish power without a fight.

[Thirsty Crow]

To start off, I have to say that when i first came here, i was a communist, but after being here for a while, I lost faith due to an awful lot of people here saying that the use of force is neccesary for the revolution to succeed. That, combined with my feeling that violence is never neccessary except for self-defence, drove me to abandon communism and instead embrace anarchism. But, back to the question itself; How can you justify the use of force except in self defence?

Living as we live nowadays, a revolution would practically mean "self defence", in every way possible - psychological, material/physical, spiritual.
In my view, an individual is constantly under attack in our time. So, force and violence here would basically perform the role of self defence, even more so since we can expect a violent repression by the ruling class in a potentially revolutionary situation. In my opinion, it's pretty clear that there are groups of people who want to retain the old order of affairs by all means necessary. And if a peaceful revolution would miraculously take place (by means of elections or some other means), there would occur, I'm sure of it, a significant amount of violent opposition to change. Then what?

[Vendetta]

Justifying the use of force?

What, like they're just gonna hand over power?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Justifying the use of force?

What, like they're just gonna hand over power?

This is exactly it. As much as revolutionaries would prefer a peaceful transition to a worker-controlled society we realise capitalism is a violent system which will defend itself against revolution.

[A.R.Amistad]

I honestly can't think of any revolution that ended up in civil war that wasn't defensive on the part of the revolutionaries.

[GatesofLenin]

As a believer in Leninism-in-training myself, I can't see the top crooked bourgeois society giving up their slave-master world without calling in their troops: army, police, intelligence agents, citizens in good standing, etc ...
The Russian revolution showed this well. Why wouldn't the Bolsheviks use force when force was used against them by the czar and his white army? Look at the Cuban revolution, the CIA with dictator Batista tried numerous times to assassinate Che and Fidel. What do you want Che and Fidel to do? Just smile and say: "Why you try to kill us?" HECK NO! You answer back with violence. BTW, it's funny how the original poster lost faith with communism because it preaches violence but he now embraces anarchism? Isn't violence at the heart of anarchism? :D