Being Militant is Necessary?

[Hobbitgoth]

I was wondering how many people out there believe that militant revolution is inevitable? Or are there a lot of you who believe that things can be resolved peacefully as long as we have strength in numbers (which we do)? Just a quick question, feel free to be as brief or verbose on the topic as you'd like.:)

[Widerstand]

I don't know, I used to have a pacifist attitude, but I'm currently rethinking that. It's likely that there'll be a point at which repression can only be met with force. Every other alternative seems pretty utopian. Especially the strength in numbers part, which was part of my argument as well. If we opt for everyone to be fully educated and involved, revolution won't be here in a long, long time - if it will ever come. I think Lenin said something similar once.

[The Douche]

Militancy does not mean violence.

But I have no doubt that in some places and during some times violence will be necessary in the revolutionary process.

[Thirsty Crow]

If we opt for everyone to be fully educated and involved, revolution won't be here in a long, long time - if it will ever come. I think Lenin said something similar once.
I do think that a huge emphasis should be put on this issue. Of course, it is even impossible to argue that everyone is fully educated, but ongoing cultural/educational work and militant (not in the sense of armed conflict) working class struggle (which includes the sphere of politics, IMO) are something that I would advocate. I'm thinking, maybe something on the lines of the pre-WW I communist parties' "schools" (political and theoretical education centres) and autonomous working class education centres.

On the question of "militant revolution"... I doubt that peaceful revolution (by that I mean complete compliance of the ruling class in the process of their own expropriation) is out of the question. The initial act of expropriation by definition implies force, and the only thing left for debate is the manner in which this force should be undertaken and the degree of it. While I do not really think that full blown civil war should happen in such a situation, in Western liberal "democracies", I still believe that forceful repression of counter-revolution will be necessary. And it is crucial that this necessity does not lead to yet another "red terror" or purges within the mass worker's organization and/or autonomous councils/unions.

[Hobbitgoth]

Menocchio, I think you really summed that up well.:thumbup1:

[Widerstand]

I do think that a huge emphasis should be put on this issue. Of course, it is even impossible to argue that everyone is fully educated, but ongoing cultural/educational work and militant (not in the sense of armed conflict) working class struggle (which includes the sphere of politics, IMO) are something that I would advocate. I'm thinking, maybe something on the lines of the pre-WW I communist parties' "schools" (political and theoretical education centres) and autonomous working class education centres.

Of course, education has to be top priority. What I meant is, there will never be a point at which the system will cease to exist because no one adheres to it anymore, as is a lifestylist belief. Therefore, force to some extent is necessary. I agree with your second paragraph here.

[addictedToThinking]

in my opinion,we should start informing the youth and the workers, in order for them to be with us and to increase our numbers.if we are the majority,the change will come very quickly.an armed revolution isnt always necessary .ofcourse the rulling class wont give away whatever they had.they will try to trick the people and make them sit in their homes,but in the end they will have to make use of some kind of violence.and when they do ,the people will have each and every right to respond to this violence ,accordingly,in order to take over and rule. ofcourse we dont need to destroy and kill everyone and everything but if mass protests occure ,the goverment will have little choices.

[-Strelok]

Inevitable? No.

Necessary? Unsure.

Justified? No.

[Magón]

I think, like it's obviously been already said, that educating the people first is the way to go. It not only shows people how they could benefit better, living in a society like you're teaching them, but it also shows them that acting with guns and tanks, etc. is not your first thought to go to when having a revolution. But just because you're educating, doesn't mean that you can't have a militant force in the back of your mind, that when need be you can call on and then you'll have your militant force. But going in, strictly militant in the first place is something that would probably be very rare, and would hardly get you anywhere in outside support. The only example I can use in modern day, that could resemble a "militant" action, is Black Bloc and the fighting against police.

Obviously, if the Police could get it through their thick heads, that the protests were a peaceful thing, with slogans shouted, people coming together, and just a somewhat pacifist action, then you wouldn't have people rioting and smashing out windows to bourgeois stores, when the police decide to use tear gas and other such methods against a freely able group of protests.

But of course, this can probably never happen since it is the bourgeois pricks who pay the police dollar, or pound, or whatever the currency may be, and have them stand up against these protesters under threat that they'll probably lose their job and get fired.

[Volcanicity]

I think, like it's obviously been already said, that educating the people first is the way to go. It not only shows people how they could benefit better, living in a society like you're teaching them, but it also shows them that acting with guns and tanks, etc. is not your first thought to go to when having a revolution. But just because you're educating, doesn't mean that you can't have a militant force in the back of your mind, that when need be you can call on and then you'll have your militant force. But going in, strictly militant in the first place is something that would probably be very rare, and would hardly get you anywhere in outside support. The only example I can use in modern day, that could resemble a "militant" action, is Black Bloc and the fighting against police.

Obviously, if the Police could get it through their thick heads, that the protests were a peaceful thing, with slogans shouted, people coming together, and just a somewhat pacifist action, then you wouldn't have people rioting and smashing out windows to bourgeois stores, when the police decide to use tear gas and other such methods against a freely able group of protests.

But of course, this can probably never happen since it is the bourgeois pricks who pay the police dollar, or pound, or whatever the currency may be, and have them stand up against these protesters under threat that they'll probably lose their job and get fired.
I think the opposite in that you have to have militancy at the forefront of your mind because if you cant get the support to start with then people will never fall back on militancy.everyone has to know what they are doing right from the start,because the police will never see protests as anything but violent .

[Magón]

I think the opposite in that you have to have militancy at the forefront of your mind because if you cant get the support to start with then people will never fall back on militancy.everyone has to know what they are doing right from the start,because the police will never see protests as anything but violent .

I'm sorry, I should have made myself more clear. What I meant by having the militant force in the back of your mind, is that it was already there. You'd already gained enough support for a militant action if need be, and you didn't have to use it right away, it was just laying in wait for a spark in which to bring them to the part. But they weren't on your mind 24/7, and that education was the bigger deal to add to your strength and show people you weren't focused on militant action, but it was there because you knew that militant action would be needed down the road at some point, and maybe even the next day. But that also doesn't mean you'd make the militant group, and then just ignore them, they'd be apart of the education with people. Showing them that you're not there to harm them, but their masters.

[Volcanicity]

I'm sorry, I should have made myself more clear. What I meant by having the militant force in the back of your mind, is that it was already there. You'd already gained enough support for a militant action if need be, and you didn't have to use it right away, it was just laying in wait for a spark in which to bring them to the part. But they weren't on your mind 24/7, and that education was the bigger deal to add to your strength and show people you weren't focused on militant action, but it was there because you knew that militant action would be needed down the road at some point, and maybe even the next day. But that also doesn't mean you'd make the militant group, and then just ignore them, they'd be apart of the education with people. Showing them that you're not there to harm them, but their masters.
Ok isee whwre you are coming from but i personally think you have to educate focussing on militancy knowing that the enemy will have it at the forefront of their minds and will use from the start. hope that makes sense.

[Magón]

Ok isee whwre you are coming from but i personally think you have to educate focussing on militancy knowing that the enemy will have it at the forefront of their minds and will use from the start. hope that makes sense.

Oh it does, and I see where you're coming from. But that's the thing. It is by educating and using words as a first resource, that you'll have a lot more resources (guns, fuel, etc.) than your Bourgeois enemy will by having it's main focus be military force. And really, unless the Bourgeois enemy wants to make itself look even worse, then just let them attack a place of learning. Because if they do, then we'll return in kind with an attack on some police station or military base.

[Volcanicity]

Oh it does, and I see where you're coming from. But that's the thing. It is by educating and using words as a first resource, that you'll have a lot more resources (guns, fuel, etc.) than your Bourgeois enemy will by having it's main focus be military force. And really, unless the Bourgeois enemy wants to make itself look even worse, then just let them attack a place of learning. Because if they do, then we'll return in kind with an attack on some police station or military base.
Yes but do you really think the Bourgeois would attack aplace of learning and if they didnt what then?you either have to educate militantly and be ready to put that into practice from the off or sit around waiting for an attack. militantly you have put it into practice before the enemy gets wise

[Magón]

Yes but do you really think the Bourgeois would attack aplace of learning and if they didnt what then?you either have to educate militantly and be ready to put that into practice from the off or sit around waiting for an attack. militantly you have put it into practice before the enemy gets wise

I wouldn't put it past them, there are plenty of examples in nations where an opposing faction destroyed another's place of learning so they could cripple that faction. But I wouldn't put militarism right at the forefront of my thinking, but it wouldn't just be sitting in some backwater town or something waiting either. There's always time for fighting, but it's important to educate as well. Obviously if you have a nation where the people are for one side or another, there's no need to put education first, and militaristic action can be put forward and acted on. Not depending on who strikes who first. Even though there's no problem educating the masses while behind the front lines, in a situation like that, I can see education taking to the side and put in its own place for a bit while the fighting happens.

And you wouldn't necessarily have to put your military strength right there on the board either. Obviously if your enemy is making a military, or already has one and is just setting it up, it's kinda common sense to make one yourself to combat them since it's obvious that they're already leaning that way. (Since it's the only way they know how to handle things like this.) But while your enemy wastes energy gathering a force, you can systematically drive them to the ground by striking major places of infrastructure and planning. Terrorists like Al Qaeda do it, but in this case you'd be able to do it much more frequently and make it so your enemy uses up resources (money, gas, etc.) that in the end, you can show your militant strength and knock them over.

Simply put, you can have a militant arm, while still teaching and also by destroying your enemy economically. And besides, if you destroy your enemy economically, you'll gain more support as seeing how your Bourgeois enemy has put more money into fighting a hidden foe than it's people which you systematically taught over the times that such a thing would occur and that you have a better way of handling such.

[Volcanicity]

I wouldn't put it past them, there are plenty of examples in nations where an opposing faction destroyed another's place of learning so they could cripple that faction. But I wouldn't put militarism right at the forefront of my thinking, but it wouldn't just be sitting in some backwater town or something waiting either. There's always time for fighting, but it's important to educate as well. Obviously if you have a nation where the people are for one side or another, there's no need to put education first, and militaristic action can be put forward and acted on. Not depending on who strikes who first. Even though there's no problem educating the masses while behind the front lines, in a situation like that, I can see education taking to the side and put in its own place for a bit while the fighting happens.

And you wouldn't necessarily have to put your military strength right there on the board either. Obviously if your enemy is making a military, or already has one and is just setting it up, it's kinda common sense to make one yourself to combat them since it's obvious that they're already leaning that way. (Since it's the only way they know how to handle things like this.) But while your enemy wastes energy gathering a force, you can systematically drive them to the ground by striking major places of infrastructure and planning. Terrorists like Al Qaeda do it, but in this case you'd be able to do it much more frequently and make it so your enemy uses up resources (money, gas, etc.) that in the end, you can show your militant strength and knock them over.

Simply put, you can have a militant arm, while still teaching and also by destroying your enemy economically. And besides, if you destroy your enemy economically, you'll gain more support as seeing how your Bourgeois enemy has put more money into fighting a hidden foe than it's people which you systematically taught over the times that such a thing would occur and that you have a better way of handling such.
I agree with what you are saying but not every one is educated in one place.Surely if you are going to be attacked you would be hit where it hurts the most.But i definitely agree that education and strategy is the key.

[#FF0000]

Inevitable? No.

Necessary? Unsure.

Justified? No.

Wait, are you saying that revolutionary violence would be unjustified?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Through Marxist theory, socialism must be attained, all-in-all, through revolutionary violence. Any take of the transition from capitalism to socialism as the means of a peaceful transition is full of themselves & are revisionist Khrushchevites.

[Volcanicity]

The words peaceful and revolution do not and never will go together,and that should be the first lesson in any revolutionarys education

[Peace on Earth]

Do I hope a peaceful revolution would occur? Yes, but it won't happen. People who are at the top of the socio-economic ladder will not leave their perch because we ask them to.

Militancy doesn't have to mean starting a thirty-year guerilla war that harms people on both sides, as it's portrayed in popular media. We will make our demands with the voice of the people and, after the ruling class laughing at us, we will take what is rightfully ours. Hopefully the violence is not widespread and contained to specific areas of interest (factories, stores, political buildings).

[nuisance]

full of themselves & are revisionist Khrushchevites.
Harsh, man.

[thesadmafioso]

The nature in which you have worded the question makes it very circumstantial and one which would be near impossible to answer in a direct fashion. Though through extrapolating on the basic premise of the question to a point where I am assuming that you are implying in this hypothetical situation that through some miraculous feat popular support has been established to a substantial degree in support of some sort of leftist ideology, or at the very least against the current status quo of capitalism and its hold on all relevant governing institutions. For the sake of my response I will presume that this scenario is set in the context of a developed nation as well, such as the US as well as some basic assumptions that this shift in ideological sentiment has occurred mainly in the lower classes and those which are generally politically moderate, left leaning, or apathetic.

Given such context, I would be forced to predict that violence would be a necessary factor to at least some degree. It would most likely be directly towards this recent political entity from the far right, perhaps the tea party type and very likely from the militia type. I could see some local governments endorsing the use of violence towards such groups as well, based mainly upon region. For example, I could see violence being directly towards leftist groups in souther regions of the country easily if there power grew to a level where revolution would be a viable and realistic option. The federal government would most likely endorse some level of repression, but it is difficult to predict how far this would go. I could see it only existing in the detention and riot control fashion, with deadly means only being used out of defense or at least perceived defense. At the same time though, if we are discussing something on the scale of a nation wide revolution that would threaten to topple the entire infrastructure of capitalism in America and through such bring about what would very likely amount to world wide financial disaster (from the perspective of the ruling class), I could also see violence being more willingly used. The military would likely remain loyal to the current status quo and all of its institutions, as its members tend to be little more then mindless husks, from what I have experienced. And with that tool at their disposal, it seems probably that there would be those willing to make use of such means to defend their personal wealth. Greed is a powerful sentiment, and its capabilities should not be underestimated in an analysis of a scenario of such scope and depth.

And this is all without taking into account the susceptibility of this emerging movement to the use of violence for their own uses. It seems more then likely that it would be a issue which would divide many, and is simply one that deals too much with the personal morals of the individual. It is impossible to say how such a large group would treat such a sensitive issue, but it would most likely be open to shift based upon circumstances. Given a sever enough situation, I could see violences acceptance amongst this movement rise, and vice versa. Or perhaps we would see a situation akin to the October Revolution, in which many are opposed to the use of violence, but eventually support it after and during the fact as it has already begun and since it is being used in their causes name. Basically the whole there is no going back now argument could come into play.

tl:dr circumstances play too big a role for a complete answer to exist to this question

[crazyirish93]

violence is the only way to achieve anything meaningful otherwise u have 2 make a deal with the devil

[28350]

If there were only proletarians and capitalists, workers and owners, revolutionary violence would not be necessary. The revolution would be the proletariat simply walking away.
However, it's more complicated than that.
There are all sorts of mechanisms to keep the working class "in line," and those can't just be walked away from.

[DEPAVER]

Do I hope a peaceful revolution would occur? Yes, but it won't happen. People who are at the top of the socio-economic ladder will not leave their perch because we ask them to.

Militancy doesn't have to mean starting a thirty-year guerilla war that harms people on both sides, as it's portrayed in popular media. We will make our demands with the voice of the people and, after the ruling class laughing at us, we will take what is rightfully ours. Hopefully the violence is not widespread and contained to specific areas of interest (factories, stores, political buildings).

Yeah, I tend to agree with this line of thought, although I do believe many of the former elites are going to crash and burn on their own.

This sort of stuff (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/06/collapse/index.html)is what will fuel it. Eventually, everyday, average people are going to get fed up.

[HammerAlias]

A violent revolution is almost inevitable. The elitists of society want their power, wealth and influence to be secured, at any cost. Allowing the people to attain power through peaceful means, such as a majority vote or an election, would compromise their status and dictation. That is why they utilize the educational system to embed dangerous ideas, false hope and deceit. That is why they implement subliminal political messaging in the media, to influence the majority of the masses into believing that they are happy under the current conditions, that the current system and institution is secure, safe and ideal.

[Dimentio]

I was wondering how many people out there believe that militant revolution is inevitable? Or are there a lot of you who believe that things can be resolved peacefully as long as we have strength in numbers (which we do)? Just a quick question, feel free to be as brief or verbose on the topic as you'd like.:)

The most likely forecast for the 21st century, if we assume that capitalism is perpetuated, is an ecological-economic crisis in the second half of the century which could and would most likely lead to a collapse of what living standards people have everywhere, leading to the entire world resembling the societies which today are called failed states.

[Qayin]

Through Marxist theory, socialism must be attained, all-in-all, through revolutionary violence. Any take of the transition from capitalism to socialism as the means of a peaceful transition is full of themselves & are revisionist Khrushchevites. This is such a load of crap, I''ll address your statement in order.

Regarding peace as a route to Socialism.


Engels
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.



But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.

Revolution should seek peaceful means if possible, more then others Revolution is necessary.

But this whole line of "revisionist Khrushchevites" because he wasn't apparently hardcore enough is ridiculous, stick to real criticism.

Who was in charge of the USSR during the cuban missile crisis? ah.