What conditions are right for armed revolution?

[CHE with an AK]

(1) Are there specific conditions that need to be met before armed revolution can be attempted?

(2) Can the armed revolution create these conditions during the insurrection, or must they exist prior?

(3) How effective can organized violent revolution be in today’s society against modern weaponry?

(4) Can you have a non-violent workers revolution? What if the oligarchs refuse to go peacefully?

Thanks for your input

[Sosa]

(1) I think only after all non-violent means have been exhausted

[red cat]

(1) I think only after all non-violent means have been exhausted

Not necessarily. If violent reaction from the ruling class is anticipated, then going for certain non-violent means can be a wastage of resources and often disastrous to the movement.

[Sosa]

Not necessarily. If violent reaction from the ruling class is anticipated, then going for certain non-violent means can be a wastage of resources and often disastrous to the movement.

Naturally, I guess it would depend on the conditions. I didn't really think about that

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

(1) Are there specific conditions that need to be met before armed revolution can be attempted?

If you'd like to win, yes, but if you want to bang your head agains a wall no anarchist will stop you.


(2) Can the armed revolution create these conditions during the insurrection, or must they exist prior?

Yes, a revolutionary group can manifest some of its ideologies into its fighting style. For example in modern militaries Homosexuality if forbidden, however in a revolutionary egalitarian struggle homosexuality would by allowed, I believe. I do not know if this is what you mean, but an example of what I thought you meant and how to answer it.


(3) How effective can organized violent revolution be in today’s society against modern weaponry?

The effectiveness of the revolution against modern weaponry depends on what weapons we would have ourselves, and how we have trained to use them. I would say that revolutionary groups could certainly fight a first world state to a stalemate but not win, while fighting a second-tier government can be won they would receive international help quickly, and against a third world nation revolutionary governments have won many times.


(4) Can you have a non-violent workers revolution? What if the oligarchs refuse to go peacefully?

Yes, a non-violent workers revolution is possible, however not likely.

If/When the oligarchs refuse to go peacefully then we ask ourselves, isn't peace overrated?

[robbo203]

Armed revolution as a strategy is suicidal folly. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of it succeeding against the well equipped forces of a modern state. Civil wars can, of course, succeed and occasionally do. But civil wars are not revolutions in the sense of aiming to change the fundamental economic basis of society. Civil wars are really about changing one ruling class for another, one bunch of bastards for another. They are of no interest to revolutionary socialists. We dont seek to rearrange the furniture on the good ship, SS capitalism. We want to get rid of capitalism completely. To get rid of capitalism you have to have the great majority understanding wanting and democratically seeking to realise the socialist alternative to capitalism - there is no way socialism can function without majority support.

Once you have got that majority, violence becomes superfluous and utterly counterproductive. Almost always such a violent approach goes hand in glove with an authoritarian elitist anti-democratic politics and that is another damn good reason for opposing it utterly.

[chegitz guevara]

Armed struggle is only possible in places where the government does not have effective control. In most Western states, such an attempt would be, as robbo203 correctly points out, would be suicidal folly.

[Ocean Seal]

Armed struggle is only possible in places where the government does not have effective control. In most Western states, such an attempt would be, as robbo203 correctly points out, would be suicidal folly.
That's probably right, at least at the moment. In the United States there are simply too many troops, but I've been thinking about the same question in a state like France. If the workers show clear frustration and begin to seize up the means of production, could it do harm if the workers began arming themselves and along with military dissenters fought against government remnants? I think that an armed struggle could be effective only if there were mass support.

[Amphictyonis]

(1) Are there specific conditions that need to be met before armed revolution can be attempted?



When every westerner has a flat screen TV, I-Pad, 3 cell phones and a new car.

[Ele'ill]

There is a difference between 'violent' and 'armed'.

As for armed it would seem likely that the use of heavy firepower would become useful after we have gotten what we need in regards to community and places of work (we've relciaimed what's ours through other means other than direct war) and we are in a defensive position but not necessarily limited to defensive tactics.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The bolivarian revolution in venezuela is 'armed' but it is not 'violent'.

Chavez made that point clear.

that is supported by the fact that peasant, worker, and student militias have been formed. but have not been used to expropriate things.

[Tomhet]

Do you feel it is 'safe' to ask such things on a public forum?

[chegitz guevara]

That's probably right, at least at the moment. In the United States there are simply too many troops, but I've been thinking about the same question in a state like France. If the workers show clear frustration and begin to seize up the means of production, could it do harm if the workers began arming themselves and along with military dissenters fought against government remnants? I think that an armed struggle could be effective only if there were mass support.

In such a situation, the government would not have effective control over its territory, but generally armed struggle means guerrilla type war, not an armed general strike situation. In Western states, the revolution won't succeed unless large sections of the military switch sides anyway, regardless of how well the workers are armed. It's not just that they have weapons, but that the military has much better weapons, better training, and better organization.

[red cat]

In such a situation, the government would not have effective control over its territory, but generally armed struggle means guerrilla type war, not an armed general strike situation. In Western states, the revolution won't succeed unless large sections of the military switch sides anyway, regardless of how well the workers are armed. It's not just that they have weapons, but that the military has much better weapons, better training, and better organization.

Weapons, training and organization are important factors, but not the decisive ones, as revolutionaries can also acquire these through the revolutionary war itself. It is also not necessary for the army to switch sides for the initiation of the revolutionary war to take place. The revolutionary war itself might cause the army to switch sides or simply dissolve itself.

[blake 3:17]

Do you feel it is 'safe' to ask such things on a public forum?


Is it even a sensible question?

There are armed revolts and rebellions which anyone in favour of democracy would support. Anybody drawn to socialism in the hope that it would be a violent process is best to ignore.

[Faust]

(1) Are there specific conditions that need to be met before armed revolution can be attempted?An armed revolution can and should be attempted whenever it is possible to rally the manpower necessary for such an undertaking. If one is overly cautious, and waits for the "opportune moment" then one will be waiting forever, because there will never be a perfect time for revolution. The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe, you have to make it fall.


(2) Can the armed revolution create these conditions during the insurrection, or must they exist prior?The concept of "conditions" which must be met for a revolution to take place is only a hindrance. It is used by those who want to justify their inactivity in the revolutionary struggle. A revolutionary movement must necessarily bring about its own complete momentum. This must not be accomplished through violence alone, but through the education of the masses by whatever means is possible. Violence should not be used unless it is unavoidable, which it will be.


(3) How effective can organized violent revolution be in today’s society against modern weaponry?A revolutionary movement can fight the strongest weapons in the world with over the counter materials. You should never have ridiculous fire-fights and chaotic violence like the media opts to show us. Discretion is one of the greatest weapons one may have.


(4) Can you have a non-violent workers revolution? What if the oligarchs refuse to go peacefully?
The oligarchs will refuse to go peacefully, and therefore you cannot have a non-violent revolution. All modern political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, to fight capitalist oppression one must use means which are actually effective. The left must not let itself be marginalized by pacifism and defeatism.

But this is all conjecture ;)

[Burn A Flag]

I suggest you read Che's manual Guerilla Warfare. I have read it and I think it answers all of those questions and more.

[Faust]

You might check out the Red Army Faction, their writings/communiqués can be found here:

http://www.germanguerilla.com/red-army-faction/documents/71_04.html

[Manic Impressive]

(1) Are there specific conditions that need to be met before armed revolution can be attempted?

Undoubtable proof that capitalism has failed recessions are good. Proof that government has put the interests of the state and corporations above those of the people or any widespread corruption. An unpopular war especially if conscription is needed. The removal of civil liberties and hard won workers rights. Aggressive police tactics used to crush the first signs of dissent. Not all of these are necessary and they don't have to come at the same time but they'd all help.

(2) Can the armed revolution create these conditions during the insurrection, or must they exist prior?

I think some have to exist prior to a revolution kicking off in order to galvanize the support of the population

(3) How effective can organized violent revolution be in today’s society against modern weaponry?

Not very but it depends on which country we're talking about. For example it would be easier to have an armed revolution in the USA than in the UK as the general population is more armed already. There is a case to be made against anti gun laws as it considerably lowers the chances of armed revolution.

(4) Can you have a non-violent workers revolution? What if the oligarchs refuse to go peacefully?

It's possible and of course preferable but it's extremely unlikely that there would not be a reactionary backlash.

Violence as a last resort but never discounted and ultimately it should be the will of the people that decide if violence is used or not.

[NecroCommie]

If you have to ask, the conditions are not right.

[Sosa]

If there was an armed revolution brewing, I would think that Cuba or even Venezuela would support it, either financially or through arms or other means

[Faust]

I doubt they would, they've enough problems to deal with on their own.

[Psy]

In such a situation, the government would not have effective control over its territory, but generally armed struggle means guerrilla type war, not an armed general strike situation. In Western states, the revolution won't succeed unless large sections of the military switch sides anyway, regardless of how well the workers are armed. It's not just that they have weapons, but that the military has much better weapons, better training, and better organization.
Military bureaucracy hinders their battlefield effectiveness against militarities that focuses more on practicale tacticts and less on bureaucratic procedures. The problem is a revolutionary army would be starting off with far less practicale knowledge yet without a military bureaucracy a revolutionary army could in theory devlop far more practicle tacticts if they survive long enough to learn (if the revolutionary army has the ability to learn and adapt). Inheriting practicle knowledge from defectors beougrisie forces would greatly speed up the learning process.

Of course a bourgeoisie military just going on a labor strike like parts of the British forces did in 1946 it could provide a window of opportunity.

[Sosa]

I doubt they would, they've enough problems to deal with on their own.

I don't see why not as it would be in their interests. Of course Cuba wouldn't be much help financially, as they are cash strapped, but I'm sure they would support it some other way, like providing medical support/supplies, etc.

[Faust]

If you have to ask, the conditions are not right.

defeatist.

[red cat]

If there was an armed revolution brewing, I would think that Cuba or even Venezuela would support it, either financially or through arms or other means

They are doing nothing for the ones in Latin America and south Asia at least.

[Amphictyonis]

When every American owns a chattel slave, a sex slave and chamber maid. But seriously, when material conditions decline and at least 75% of the population s ready for a change in economic systems- a change that will be reached by the masses giving the bourgeoisie the boot. Armed revolution by a minority population in advanced capitalist nations is absurd. We need to quit being Orwellian proles and realize our social power. The real question is what will make the masses want to discard capitalism? I think I already provided my opinion :)

[Sosa]

They are doing nothing for the ones in Latin America and south Asia at least.

They have more to benefit from a socialist U.S. I'm sure they'll provide doctors like they do with Venezuela, Haiti, Chile, etc.
What revolutions are going on in Latin America at the moment?

[red cat]

They have more to benefit from a socialist U.S. I'm sure they'll provide doctors like they do with Venezuela, Haiti, Chile, etc.

Probably I did not understand your statement properly. Were you referring only to the US earlier ?


What revolutions are going on in Latin America at the moment?

The movements of the PCCC or FARC in Colombia and PCP in Peru.

[Sosa]

Probably I did not understand your statement properly. Were you referring only to the US earlier ?

Yes. If there was a successful revolution in the U.S. I was speaking in that hypothetical context. It would definitely benefit all of Latin America, especially Cuba. I would think they would have a lot at stake.

[Kiev Communard]

I doubt that the traditional forms of armed uprising typical of 19th-20th century revolutions would apply at all (save for the possibility of direct intervention of the army on behalf of the ruling class). More possibly, the revolutionary movement would take the form of wave of mass (up to 1,000,000 people or more each) demonstrations and wildcat strikes, with soldiers and lower-rank officers being sympathetic to the revolution through the disillusionment in their "elders" propaganda due to worsening economic conditions and being passively supportive of social change. As the example of Romania shows, even the police officers could become rebellious under right circumstance. Then, with army and police won-over or neutral, the government would collapse/negotiate in the same way as Stalinist government of Poland did in "Solidarity" case. Obviously this is all highly hypothetical, but more plausible under current conditions than some kind of "Russian Revolution remake".

[Amphictyonis]

due to worsening economic conditions

:)

[robbo203]

Revolution means simply a fundamental change in the economic basis of society. A change from a class-based capitalist society to a classless stateless socialist/communist society can only happen if and when the great majority want and understand it. That has implications for the means by which you propose to effect a revolutionary transformation.

Violent methods tend to be the province of minority based revolutions. They almost always lend themselves to authoritarian structures of power and invariably entail the substitition of one bunch of rulers for another. Insofar as such methods are associated with revolution this once again is invariably associated with the revolutionary transformation of feudalistic-type societies into capitalist societies. In fact people who advocate violent methods of revolution tend to use past capitalist revolutions as the template or model to imitate to utilise.

That in itself is significant. It suggests one more reason for rejecting violence as a method of revolution: its outcome will most likely be just another version of capitalism probably in a more brutalised form