Civilians in a Revolution

[Peace on Earth]

Suppose an armed revolution were to occur, started by some sort of coalition of all leftist groups, or at least a majority. In an attempt to take control of the means of production and, possibly, establish a new government, at what level are civilians who do not go along with the revolution dealt with?

I've seen ideas all across the spectrum. You have the typical "fill sports stadiums and execute them" option, but a more rational approach is either only concentrate energy and resources against the powerful forces (police, military, the wealthy) or fight against anyone who is not part of the revolution.

Are non-sympathizers ignored or dealt with, and if they are dealt with, is the use of force justified?

I'd like to get the view of leftists with regard to action taken to civilians who do not support the revolution (and aren't part of the powerful minority)

[Os Cangaceiros]

This thread is sure to be good for some cringe-worthy replies. :rolleyes:

[Slav92]

We're fighting for those people - why would we "fill a sport stadium and execute them"?

Even political enemies should be granted the same rights as those who fought for the revolution (Or atleast, peaceful ones)

But, as the old saying goes; "If you didnt vote, you have no right to complain", if you didnt take a side during a theoretical revolution, you cant complain when whoever takes power.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that bulldozers and mass graves is clearly the most sensible solution for the ingrate proles, personally.

[A.R.Amistad]

"Civilian" is a broad term, and I think you are misunderstanding the term "revolution." Personally, I think violence is just something that's going to happen in any revolution, but the violence in and of itself is not the "revolution." The revolution is people changing the modes of production, expropriating them from the ruling class and taking direct control of them, administering them in worker's councils and creating a state based on those worker's councils. Certain people will be a part of a revolutionary armed force, some may not.

No one is going to shoot somebody for being a "civilian." Honestly, I think its just an emotional exaggeration to say that anyone comes up with the idea of 'rounding people up in a baseball field" and shooting them. This may have happened at various points in history, but it was never the result of a simplistic "anti-civilian" or "anti-pacifist" target program. Even the most reactionary forms of civilian violence have some other meaning. But it all depends on what you mean by civilian.

Is a civilian just a worker who isn't in an armed force, and beyond that carries on their normal life? I don't see them being the explicit target of violence.

Now, is the "civilian" some capitalist who is funding, leading and encouraging counter-revolution? Thats a whole different bird altogether. When it comes to "non-sympathisers," well, in the Russian Revolution, the church was having regular religious marches and demonstrations in public without any repercussions except for heckling from the revolutionary workers. However, religious organizations that aided counter revolution directly were dealt with, and rightly so, since a revolution that doesn't defend itself is just pointless.

[Nachie]

I'm sorry but I just can't get past the part where you think a revolution can be started by a coalition of leftist groups

[this is an invasion]

Revolution can only be made by the hands of the working class.

[Peace on Earth]

I'm sorry but I just can't get past the part where you think a revolution can be started by a coalition of leftist groups
Due to the various strands of leftist theory, it would be almost impossible to have a revolution occur under the metaphorical banner of one idea. Maybe you got the wrong idea when I said coalition of leftist groups. My intention was a revolution by the workers under a wide umbrella of leftist ideas, and not just one particular segment of the spectrum.

[Glenn Beck]

They will be execute

[this is an invasion]

Due to the various strands of leftist theory, it would be almost impossible to have a revolution occur under the metaphorical banner of one idea. Maybe you got the wrong idea when I said coalition of leftist groups. My intention was a revolution by the workers under a wide umbrella of leftist ideas, and not just one particular segment of the spectrum.

He's saying that leftists, pro-revolutionaries, activists whatever you want to label it, don't make revolution. Revolution is made by the hands of the working class regardless of their individual political allegiances. Pro-revolutionaries simply help foster this.

[Glenn Beck]

He's saying that leftists, pro-revolutionaries, activists whatever you want to label it, don't make revolution. Revolution is made by the hands of the working class regardless of their individual political allegiances. Pro-revolutionaries simply help foster this.

In the same way that wars are made by soldiers, and generals simply 'facilitate'?

[this is an invasion]

In the same way that wars are made by soldiers, and generals simply 'facilitate'?

No. Pro-revolutionaries don't direct or control anything.

[Glenn Beck]

No. Pro-revolutionaries don't direct or control anything.

Sounds like a boring job

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Suppose an armed revolution were to occur, started by some sort of coalition of all leftist groups, or at least a majority. In an attempt to take control of the means of production and, possibly, establish a new government, at what level are civilians who do not go along with the revolution dealt with?

I've seen ideas all across the spectrum. You have the typical "fill sports stadiums and execute them" option, but a more rational approach is either only concentrate energy and resources against the powerful forces (police, military, the wealthy) or fight against anyone who is not part of the revolution.

Are non-sympathizers ignored or dealt with, and if they are dealt with, is the use of force justified?

I'd like to get the view of leftists with regard to action taken to civilians who do not support the revolution (and aren't part of the powerful minority)

First, I would ask them why they don't support the revolution. After all, it stands to reason that if this is a real socialist revolution, most people will materially benefit from it.

Either they are ignorant, delusional, or a career criminal. Educate them.

[Magón]

I would educate them, not execute them. There's no reason to kill those who could potentially side with you later on, or at least be sympathetic to your cause. And if they joined, I would accept them, give them arms and train them for fighting on the front line. If they didn't join, I would just leave them be. I wouldn't force them into anything, but of course I'd let them know that I'm not fighting there against them by any means, but fighting to help keep them safe from the iron grip of Fascism, Capitalism, etc. It's inevitable in a war, that there will be those who side with neither side, and are thus caught in the middle. It's our jobs as supporters of the workers, to show them that if they have any intention on living a free and happy life, that we are the ones to give it to them.

[fa2991]

We're fighting for those people - why would we "fill a sport stadium and execute them?

Sounds like a Pinochet reference to me.

To answer the question, if the revolution is carried out properly, civilians shouldn't be willing to really resist it in the first place. I don't know what kind of person would complain about democratized workplaces, for example, other than the ex-bosses. Those who don't want to go with it will just have to learn to suck it up. :D They shouldn't be punished or anything.

[ArrowLance]

They should be dealt with to whatever extent is necessary to fulfill and defend the revolution. It is situational and any blanket sentence for all revolutionary situations would be silly.

[Widerstand]

I'll define 'civillian' as someone who is not engaged in any fighting. Ergo neither a militant revolutionary, nor a militant counter-revolutionary. As such, I would just try to educate them, especially those not sympathetic, try to show them the benefits of a revolution, and maybe try to incorporate them in revolutionary struggle, possibly in non-militant ways. Other than that, ignore them. Everyone decides his level of involvement, and as long as they are not militant counter-revolutionaries there's a good chance they are just ignorant, but in a case not a threat.

[ContrarianLemming]

Suppose an armed revolution were to occur, started by some sort of coalition of all leftist groups, or at least a majority. In an attempt to take control of the means of production and, possibly, establish a new government, at what level are civilians who do not go along with the revolution dealt with?

What do you mean "dealt with"? They do what they want.

[Kyrite]

How can we be true revolutionaries without the support of the majority?

[Kyrite]

First, I would ask them why they don't support the revolution. After all, it stands to reason that if this is a real socialist revolution, most people will materially benefit from it.

Either they are ignorant, delusional, or a career criminal. Educate them.

I'm confused as to how, during a time of revolution, you would be able to ask what could be millions of people what they have against the revolution.

[ContrarianLemming]

How can we be true revolutionaries without the support of the majority?

What do you mean "true revolutionaries"?
I'm sorry but threads like these just annoy me, true revolutionaries, oh c'mon! Most of the members of this forum are teenagers and armchair revolutionaries! and we have the hubris to talk about this as if we're preparing for it to come tomorrow. All this hypotetical conversation is absolutely useless and wont affect the reality of the situation whatsoever!

[Kyrite]

What do you mean "true revolutionaries"?
I'm sorry but threads like these just annoy me, true revolutionaries, oh c'mon! Most of the members of this forum are teenagers and armchair revolutionaries! and we have the hubris to talk about this as if we're preparing for it to come tomorrow. All this hypotetical conversation is absolutely useless and wont affect the reality of the situation whatsoever!

The question he posed was hypothetical like most of the questions asked in 'LEARNING'.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I think its wrong to have the picture of that the workers revolution will bee some sort of apocalyptic world war. To get the control over the production system a general strike would probablie play the key roll, rather then a super organized well trained avant garde with 35 people.

[Volcanicity]

I think we ought to get a revolution started before thinking about the during and after.We will never know until we try.

[durhamleft]

These threads do my fucking head in.

"Arm the Hobos" one cries, another replies "No you fool- the key to success in the revolution is to use forklifts to kill capitalists!"

[howblackisyourflag]

These threads do my fucking head in.

"Arm the Hobos" one cries, another replies "No you fool- the key to success in the revolution is to use forklifts to kill capitalists!"

I hope you're not promoting anti-forkliftism comrade.

[durhamleft]

I hope you're not promoting anti-forkliftism comrade.

:lol::lol:

[Magón]

I'll define 'civillian' as someone who is not engaged in any fighting. Ergo neither a militant revolutionary, nor a militant counter-revolutionary. As such, I would just try to educate them, especially those not sympathetic, try to show them the benefits of a revolution, and maybe try to incorporate them in revolutionary struggle, possibly in non-militant ways. Other than that, ignore them. Everyone decides his level of involvement, and as long as they are not militant counter-revolutionaries there's a good chance they are just ignorant, but in a case not a threat.

I agree with you, but I wouldn't necessarily call them ignorant. I'd just say they're a selected people who have no care in politics this way or that. They could be very smart on both sides of the line, but just have no interest in fighting for either in anyway. (Even if it means supplying the fighters with food or another non-lethal way.) I wouldn't call them ignorant though, just not caring.

[StoneFrog]

I'm confused as to how, during a time of revolution, you would be able to ask what could be millions of people what they have against the revolution.

We have reached a stage in technological development that we can do such a thing.... its called the internet, shhhh don't tell anyone its our secret weapon :lol:

Plus local group can do such a thing, hold local meetings in which these people can talk about their issues. Without the support of the people the revolution is useless, this should really happen before the revolution in a time of high tension.

[Raúl Duke]

what level are civilians who do not go along with the revolution dealt with?
Are non-sympathizers ignored or dealt withIgnoring the already countered part about a bunch of pro-revolutionaries doing revolution (substitution-ism concept) and assuming this is about a working class revolution,

The civilians who for some reason do not want to get personally involved as much should just be ignored. I'm of the opinion that during the timeline of the revolution at some point those sitting on the fence will, by circumstances, be compelled to pick a side or will leave the area where the revolution is taking place. Unless they become active counter-revolutionaries, there's no reason to do anything about them at all.

Even if they stayed neutral for the whole time the revolution occurred, the mere fact that they stayed and accept the new order of things means they're on our side. Not everyone has the stomach to fight nor the courage to participate. Revolution is a serious, impacting, and ultimately complex event and people will have their own reason for doing what they do.