revolutionary violence

[Stranger Than Paradise]

In my politics class we debate revolution and the necessity of violence within this context. What all of my classmates feel is that to some extent the ideal of Anarchist Communism is interesting but they shy away from ideas of violence and repressing the Capitalist class. Are there any articles I could use to try and convince them of the necessity of violence and that it is minute compared to the violence the Capitalist class incites against us.

[robbo203]

In my politics class we debate revolution and the necessity of violence within this context. What all of my classmates feel is that to some extent the ideal of Anarchist Communism is interesting but they shy away from ideas of violence and repressing the Capitalist class. Are there any articles I could use to try and convince them of the necessity of violence and that it is minute compared to the violence the Capitalist class incites against us.

On what grounds do you think violence is necessary? It seems to me that the more support there is for the goal of anarcho-communism the less need there is for violence and you cannot have an anarcho.communuist society with majority support and understanding. So draw your own conclusions...

The other thing to bear in mind is that violence almost inevitably breeds authoritarianism and hierarchy - certainly if it is to be effectively wielded on its terms. Is this something that any anarchist could accept? I hope not.

[cowslayer]

Revolutionary suppression results in iron consolidation of power.

[revolution inaction]

On what grounds do you think violence is necessary? It seems to me that the more support there is for the goal of anarcho-communism the less need there is for violence and you cannot have an anarcho.communuist society with majority support and understanding. So draw your own conclusions...

the capitalists will not let us take over the world with out any resistance, so either we give up or we fight them.




The other thing to bear in mind is that violence almost inevitably breeds authoritarianism and hierarchy - certainly if it is to be effectively wielded on its terms. Is this something that any anarchist could accept? I hope not.
i dont see how, violence can be used to fight against authoritarianism and hierarchy not just to impose it.

[Struggle]

On what grounds do you think violence is necessary?

For me, violence is not out of necessity, but rather about ending the suffering of the majority and bringing about the emancipation of the oppressed people as fast and most effectively as possible.

Violence for me is part of an overall strategy, not about whether revolution can or cannot be achieved without the use of violence.

[Old Man Diogenes]

In my politics class we debate revolution and the necessity of violence within this context. What all of my classmates feel is that to some extent the ideal of Anarchist Communism is interesting but they shy away from ideas of violence and repressing the Capitalist class. Are there any articles I could use to try and convince them of the necessity of violence and that it is minute compared to the violence the Capitalist class incites against us.

I think only in self-defence, or in the desperate situation of the absence of any other power to change things. And I don't particularly think Anarchism is necessarily violent, the essay on the Psychology of Political Violence by Emma Goldman really cleared this issue up for me.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

On what grounds do you think violence is necessary? It seems to me that the more support there is for the goal of anarcho-communism the less need there is for violence

This is how I tend to argue. A Libertarian Communist society cannot be established or even struggled towards without a majority in support of it. However this doesn't seem to get across very well. I think the idea of revolution seems kind of mythical to them.

What the real problem is is that they don't seem to have any sympathy for the idea of violence. As if all violence should be painted with the same brush.

How is it that people can be won over to violent means? To them they think that violence entails totalitarianism.

[revolution inaction]

This is how I tend to argue. A Libertarian Communist society cannot be established or even struggled towards without a majority in support of it. However this doesn't seem to get across very well. I think the idea of revolution seems kind of mythical to them.

What the real problem is is that they don't seem to have any sympathy for the idea of violence. As if all violence should be painted with the same brush.

How is it that people can be won over to violent means? To them they think that violence entails totalitarianism.

a lot of people change there minds the first time they encounter police or fascist violence close up.

[Struggle]

All those who struggle for the liberation of a people should advocate violence: not out of necessity; but out of strategic initiative, and because violence is the most effective means for challenging the status quo.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Violence is a fickle beast...I understand the need/desire for violence during periods of "hot terror", but it seems that pitched street battles, assassinations and militant direct action is often translated into mass executions and despotism in the wake of political power being achieved (as has happened with a fair number of political revolutions). That's not to say that violence itself is the sole cause for that, but certainly when one operates in a culture of violence one is more inclined to use violence to sort out any problem.

I'm not opposed to violence as a tool, but I do think that one needs to be careful with it's application.

[scarletghoul]

This argument is easy. Just ask them to come up with one example of a nonviolent revolution.

(if they say India, you should first point out that many people fought and died for Indian independence, and then use the opportunity to point out how bankrupt Gandhi's pacifism was by reading the quote where he says the Jews should all have killed themselves.)

[Struggle]

This argument is easy. Just ask them to come up with one example of a nonviolent revolution.

(if they say India, you should first point out that many people fought and died for Indian independence, and then use the opportunity to point out how bankrupt Gandhi's pacifism was by reading the quote where he says the Jews should all have killed themselves.)

But the most ironic thing is, India did not gain it's independence through the actions of any movement, violent or non-violent; India gained its independence primarily due to the chaos caused to the British by the impact of World War 2. In order for the British Empire to have retained and kept its colonies, it needed to make sacrifices, thus, India was sacrificed as a means for Britain to continue on with its great expansionist empire.

Afterwards and because of Britain’s 'strategic sacrifice', Ghandi became the 'great hero' who 'single-handedly' managed to defeat one of the most powerful empires in the world, simply through the use of 'tongue'.

[Rjevan]

but they shy away from ideas of violence and repressing the Capitalist class
That's a pretty naive stance. They should realise that the capitalists would never be in this "moral dilemma". Whenever they are faced with even the slightest threat of a proletarian revolution they'll use violence to counter and crush it without any hesitation. History is full of examples of counter-revolutionary massacres during and after (failed) progressive uprisings.

In contrast to the working men of all countries the capitalists have everything to lose in a revolution and to think that they'll just give in if we only ask them nicely enough, go on a hunger strike or get enough seats in parliament is ridiculous. The very concept of class struggle, of irreconcilable antagonism between the interests of the exploiters and the exploited, rules out a "peaceful agreement", the exploiters being reasonable and giving in for the sake of the greater good or something similar.

It's not a question about moral superiority or wether your class mates like violence or not, it's that you are forced to use violence if you don't want to see the revolution perish in their violence.

[scarletghoul]

But the most ironic thing is, India did not gain it's independence through the actions of any movement, violent or non-violent; India gained its independence primarily due to the chaos caused to the British by the impact of World War 2. In order for the British Empire to have retained and kept its colonies, it needed to make sacrifices, thus, India was sacrificed as a means for Britain to continue on with its great expansionist empire.

Afterwards and because of Britain’s 'strategic sacrifice', Ghandi became the 'great hero' who 'single-handedly' managed to defeat one of the most powerful empires in the world, simply through the use of 'tongue'.
Indeed the economic conditions had a big part and the empire was in decline anyway, but if it wasn't for the Indians violently demanding their independence it would not have occured. "Everything reactionary is the same; if you don't hit it, it won't fall"

[robbo203]

the capitalists will not let us take over the world with out any resistance, so either we give up or we fight them..

Resistance can take many forms. The larger the socialist movement the less likely are the capitalist to resist violently and we need to have a majority wanting and understanding socialism frst before we can have socialism anyway. There are many examples of "peoples power" in which dictatorial regimes have simply crumbled and offered little or no resistance in the face of popular protest. Look at the collapse of state capitalism in Eastern Europe .

Besides, the capitalist class are a tiny minority. Jimmy Reid once quipped "if we all spat we could drown them". It is the working class that keeps the capitalist class in power through the mass support it currently gives to capitalist political parties. Withdraw that support and the power of the capitalists crumbles




i dont see how, violence can be used to fight against authoritarianism and hierarchy not just to impose it .

I doubt that very much. Certainly not if you are going to "effectively" take on an authoritarian state using violent means. That would almost inevitably require a strong vertical chain of command. You cant really hold a committee meeting to democratically discuss tactics with a phalynx of tanks rolling your way

[communard71]

As leftists, whether communist or anarchist or whatever, you could let the others know we consider every detrimental aspect of capitalist civilization violence against the “proletariat.” Every time a person goes to prison for a petty or even serious crime because of the socio-economic reality surrounding them, that’s violence. Every time a mentally ill person lives without treatment because there is no adequate care for them and they can’t work and they end up committing a crime; violence again. When a child dies before they’re one from a preventable disease etc. I mean, miners dying because they’re mangers skimp on safety precautions is almost too easy. I really think one of the most important strategies we need to pursue is education. People simply don’t see how the society they live in, the capitalist culture that surrounds and permeates us all, is dripping with violence and that as communists, we deplore violent acts except in defending our rights to be free from them.

[red cat]

But the most ironic thing is, India did not gain it's independence through the actions of any movement, violent or non-violent; India gained its independence primarily due to the chaos caused to the British by the impact of World War 2. In order for the British Empire to have retained and kept its colonies, it needed to make sacrifices, thus, India was sacrificed as a means for Britain to continue on with its great expansionist empire.

Afterwards and because of Britain’s 'strategic sacrifice', Ghandi became the 'great hero' who 'single-handedly' managed to defeat one of the most powerful empires in the world, simply through the use of 'tongue'.

India did not gain independence at all. It was transformed into a neo-colony.

[Steve_j]

What all of my classmates feel is that to some extent the ideal of Anarchist Communism is interesting but they shy away from ideas of violence and repressing the Capitalist class. Are there any articles I could use to try and convince them of the necessity of violence and that it is minute compared to the violence the Capitalist class incites against us.

I generally agree with robbo203, but to answer you question have a look at this book, i found it quite good.

http://www.akpress.org/2005/items/hownonviolenceprotectsthestate

In PDF here
http://zinelibrary.info/how-nonviolence-protects-state-peter-gelderloos