Revolutionary terror

[Obs]

Reading Marx, I've stumbled upon the term "revolutionary terror", but I'm simply not completely understanding the exact meaning of this term. Does it mean the repression and use of terror against the bourgoisie and the class enemies of the workers, or does it mean terrorism against the population at large, including workers, in order to safeguard the establishment of socialism? The reason I'm asking is that, if it's the latter, I have a hard time tying that into the creation of a society with greater democracy than what is present within capitalism.

I'd love answers from all Marxist tendencies.

[Stephen Colbert]

I'm no expert but when I think of the terrors of revolutionary socialism I'm inclined to think of "what will happen" to the Becks, Tony Haywards, and other reactionary/bourgeois asswipes of the world when the proletariat seizes power.

[mikelepore]

Any reliance of violence in the workers' program would mean that the majority of the workers aren't yet educated and organized, and still oppose what the revolutionary workers are trying to accomplish. Without majority support, the outcome could not be democratic. The revolutionary change cannot proceed until the majority are behind it. Even if waiting for the people takes another 300 years, there is still no option to make any revolutionary move until the majority are recuited. I'm not saying that the majority have to accept Marxian economics or historical materialism or other theories. Just this one concept - the majority must have come to support collective ownership and workers' control of the means of production. Then violence will have no place in the program -- and the outcome will be democratic.

[Obs]

Any reliance of violence in the workers' program would mean that the majority of the workers aren't yet educated and organized, and still oppose what the revolutionary workers are trying to accomplish. Without majority support, the outcome could not be democratic. The revolutionary change cannot proceed until the majority are behind it. Even if waiting for the people takes another 300 years, there is still no option to make any revolutionary move until the majority are recuited. I'm not saying that the majority have to accept Marxian economics or historical materialism or other theories. Just this one concept - the majority must have come to support collective ownership and workers' control of the means of production. Then violence will have no place in the program -- and the outcome will be democratic.

So what do you think of Marx's claim that there is a need for revolutionary terror? Also, when you're talking about majority support, do you mean within the working class or the population as a whole?

[¿Que?]

Reading Marx, I've stumbled upon the term "revolutionary terror", but I'm simply not completely understanding the exact meaning of this term. Does it mean the repression and use of terror against the bourgoisie and the class enemies of the workers, or does it mean terrorism against the population at large, including workers, in order to safeguard the establishment of socialism? The reason I'm asking is that, if it's the latter, I have a hard time tying that into the creation of a society with greater democracy than what is present within capitalism.

I'd love answers from all Marxist tendencies.

Please forgive my ignorance, but could you provide the full quote?