Have (mostly) non-lethal uprisings (i.e. riots) replaced armed revolution?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Or more importantly to us, what is the likelihood of a communist revolution coming about as a result of unarmed protests like in Tunisia and Egypt?

[Rafiq]

Unlikely you're going to get a communist revolution

[Savage]

The Russian Revolution was a (mostly) non-lethal uprising.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

The Russian Revolution was a (mostly) non-lethal uprising.

wat

[The Vegan Marxist]

wat

The Russian Revolution mostly comprised of massive worker strikes, walkouts, etc. Armed conflict was very minimal.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

The Russian Revolution mostly comprised of massive worker strikes, walkouts, etc. Armed conflict was very minimal.

And resulted in a civil war... not a civil non-lethal uprising.

[thesadmafioso]

Yeah, the actual Russian Revolution was more or less peaceful. That doesn't say much about the ensuing five years of civil war against the white army to defend it though.

[Black Sheep]

The Russian Revolution mostly comprised of massive worker strikes, walkouts, etc. Armed conflict was very minimal.
Didnt the battleship Aurora or sth bombarded the palace before the workers assaulted in?

[Savage]

And resulted in a civil war... not a civil non-lethal uprising.
If the workers struggles in the arab world turn into (succesfull) revolution(s) they will most certaintly be met with brutal repression and civil conflict. Does this detract from the non-violence of the revolution in the first place?

[thesadmafioso]

If the workers struggles in the arab world turn into (succesfull) revolution(s) they will most certaintly be met with brutal repression and civil conflict. Does this detract from the non-violence of the revolution in the first place?

I think the point is that the concept is lovely, but that it really does not do much good in the long term. Egypt will likely keep its current president after some minor political and social reforms or have its president step down to be replaced by a moderate candidate that will do that. These sort of protests are devoid of any unifying ideological drive to hold them together in the long term and they do not amount to any substantial movement. They will likely not persist for more than a few weeks, and any change they bring about will not be equal to the amount of significance which is being placed on the actual riots. The whole thing is sort of a hollow gesture, really.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

If the workers struggles in the arab world turn into (succesfull) revolution(s) they will most certaintly be met with brutal repression and civil conflict.

Why do you say that? Tunisia has already been successful, and Egypt's government has promised to step down. I fail to see why there would be any armed conflict as a result of these uprisings.

[Savage]

Why do you say that? Tunisia has already been successful, and Egypt's government has promised to step down. I fail to see why there would be any armed conflict as a result of these uprisings.
You obviously have lower standards than me when it comes to revolution. A succesfull revolution would acheive workers control over the bourgois state, in which they would revolutionize the means of production and gradually dismantle the state altogether. If this was achieved only in isolation then the revolution would need to expand if it were to survive, this would be met inherently by bourgois repression.

[StalinFanboy]

I heard that there were reports of armed rioters in Egypt?

[Blackscare]

The Russian civil war was entirely instigated by the Whites and the foreign imperialist powers that funded them, the revolution and the revolutionaries where amazingly peaceful, in comparison.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

You obviously have lower standards than me when it comes to revolution. A succesfull revolution would acheive workers control over the bourgois state, in which they would revolutionize the means of production and gradually dismantle the state altogether. If this was achieved only in isolation then the revolution would need to expand if it were to survive, this would be met inherently by bourgois repression.

You are describing a communist revolution. Tunisia and Egypt are just political revolutions.

But anyway, the point I was trying to make was that from what we can see from these two recent examples that spontaneous mass rioting and violence is far more effective at bringing down governments than the more popular communist alternative of guerrilla warfare which goes on for years, requires major funding, results it many deaths, and often achieves nothing. So will we see less armed revolutions (or attempted revolutions) in the future in favor of rioting?

I would say yes considering more and more people are moving from rural areas to urban areas and cities will continue to grow tremendously. Rural guerrilla warfare is practically obsolete. Urban guerrilla warfare might have a future, but that still has the same issues which I listed above.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Didnt the battleship Aurora or sth bombarded the palace before the workers assaulted in?

Actually I think they just fired blanks to scare the shit out of them to make them surrender. Or if they did it was only one shot, not much of a bombardment.

[Savage]

But anyway, the point I was trying to make was that from what we can see from these two recent examples that spontaneous mass rioting and violence is far more effective at bringing down governments than the more popular communist alternative of guerrilla warfare which goes on for years, requires major funding, results it many deaths, and often achieves nothing. So will we see less armed revolutions (or attempted revolutions) in the future in favor of rioting?

I'm not a proponent of guerilla warfare, I don't know why you we're denouncing the Russian Revolution before, ''Spontaneous mass rioting and violence'' describes it quite well. To provide an answer for you're question, spontaneous mass movement has always been more effective than guerilla warfare and we will most likely continue to see it happen in similar ways to that we are seeing now in the Arab world and also what we have recently seen in Greece, Portugal, France, Italy, Ireland etc.

[Nolan]

Armed conflict will always accompany communist revolution. Mass revolts that end in a compromise with the ruling class will not necessarily because the bourgeoisie are not backed into a corner fighting for their very existence as a class. What we are seeing in the Arab world is currently not the kind of all-encompassing revolution that communism would bring.

Workers hitting the streets to riot and warfare will always be parts of proletarian revolution. One without the other ultimately gets you nowhere, like in Greece and Colombia. That's the real reason for success of revolutions like Cuba, not focoism or anything like that.

I mean what good would the Russian Revolution have been if the whites had simply come in and slaughtered everyone a la Paris Commune? If Castro's guerrillas hadn't had worker's action on their side, Cuba would likely just be another Latin American country in the US orbit with a "guerrilla problem" and Batista would probably have been removed in some coup down the road if he didn't straighten up. And the Cuban Revolution wasn't even a communist revolution.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I'm not a proponent of guerilla warfare, I don't know why you we're denouncing the Russian Revolution before, ''Spontaneous mass rioting and violence'' describes it quite well. To provide an answer for you're question, spontaneous mass movement has always been more effective than guerilla warfare and we will most likely continue to see it happen in similar ways to that we are seeing now in the Arab world and also what we have recently seen in Greece, Portugal, France, Italy, Ireland etc.

I didn't denounce the Russian revolution because it was mostly non-violent. As an anarchist I have other reasons for denouncing the Russian revolution, which should be obvious. My response to those referencing the Russian revolution was because I always considered the resulting civil war to be a part of the revolution - meaning it was far from just non-lethal riots.

But all of that is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I just had a long debate with a friend of mine (big gun rights advocate) that made me realize something:

Governments are more likely to take armed citizens more seriously in such situations as we are currently seeing in North Africa. If the masses didn't have guns, there is nothing to stop something like Tienanmen Square in China where the government simply has enough and slaughters the protesters. With guns, the government realizes there is an actual threat from the people in regards to their power.

This is a good point in my opinion. So what does everyone think, does being armed help a potential revolution or is it not worth the risk? (i.e. the government opening fire and starting a truly armed conflict)

[Delirium]

It seems as though this type of protest-riot is effective in toppling particular governments, but as people have said it's not effective in bringing systematic changes. The only organizations that are in place to take advantage of these circumstances (in the middle east) are islamic organizations. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood have at least some infastructure and have been providing social services. If any movement will come out on top in this situation is will be them.

[scarletghoul]

It seems as though this type of protest-riot is effective in toppling particular governments, but as people have said it's not effective in bringing systematic changes. The only organizations that are in place to take advantage of these circumstances (in the middle east) are islamic organizations. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood have at least some infastructure and have been providing social services. If any movement will come out on top in this situation is will be them.
Exactly. This is the main lesson we can learn from the events unfolding.

We need to build up leftist parties/organisations and establish mass support, so that when the government is deposed by the people there is a revolutionary organisation there to take power, rather than some reformist or Islamic group. This is the difference between a country turning Islamist and a country turning Communist.

Of course we shouldn't view these moments as inevitable divine outbursts that the left must latch onto parasitically (we must be at the forefront of spreading consciousness and encouraging rebellion); but we should recognise that these things are going to happen as long as capitalism exists, and we should be prepared so that these opportunities are not wasted. If there was a socialist group in Tunisia or Egypt that had built a mass base organising communities and serving the people then we would have a very real possibility of two new socialist states (or more) emerging in the Middle East any time now.

[Luís Henrique]

My response to those referencing the Russian revolution was because I always considered the resulting civil war to be a part of the revolution - meaning it was far from just non-lethal riots.
It seems painfully obvious to me that the civil war was part of the counter-revolution. And I am a Marxist; it should be even more obvious to you, since you are an anarchist...

Luís Henrique

[Jimmie Higgins]

Exactly. This is the main lesson we can learn from the events unfolding.

We need to build up leftist parties/organisations and establish mass support, so that when the government is deposed by the people there is a revolutionary organisation there to take power, rather than some reformist or Islamic group. This is the difference between a country turning Islamist and a country turning Communist.

Of course we shouldn't view these moments as inevitable divine outbursts that the left must latch onto parasitically (we must be at the forefront of spreading consciousness and encouraging rebellion); but we should recognise that these things are going to happen as long as capitalism exists, and we should be prepared so that these opportunities are not wasted. If there was a socialist group in Tunisia or Egypt that had built a mass base organising communities and serving the people then we would have a very real possibility of two new socialist states (or more) emerging in the Middle East any time now.

I agree with all this although I don't think the role of that party should be to "take power" themselves, but to organize and promote a clear way forward for the working class. For example, if there had been a well established radical group in Tunisia, they could argue for the rank and file not to hand over total trust to the vacillating yellow union federation, but develop an independent rank and file opposition. They could argue that Tunisians can not ultimately rely on a "friendly military" structure to protect people from the old-regime's police and thugs. Since people had been organizing their own neighborhoods already and setting up barricades and patrols, radicals could argue for this as a way for workers to protect themselves and try and elicit support of these organs from rank and file soldiers sympathetic to the protests. Maybe the material and subjective conditions in Tunisia would not allow a full working class revolution, but at least measures like the suggestions above (and I'm sure much better ones than I could come up with on the top of my head) could help organize an independent class-conscious prol. social force within the larger cross-class democratic movement.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I just had a long debate with a friend of mine (big gun rights advocate) that made me realize something:

Governments are more likely to take armed citizens more seriously in such situations as we are currently seeing in North Africa. If the masses didn't have guns, there is nothing to stop something like Tienanmen Square in China where the government simply has enough and slaughters the protesters. With guns, the government realizes there is an actual threat from the people in regards to their power.

This is a good point in my opinion. So what does everyone think, does being armed help a potential revolution or is it not worth the risk? (i.e. the government opening fire and starting a truly armed conflict)

I think we need to see armed resistance as a tool, not a tactic or principle. In the case of Egypt and Tunisia, workers would be smart to (and actually have in many reports I've read) arm themselves from police and vigilante thugs, barricaded their neighborhoods, and set up community patrols.

But it is a defensive tool. The regime in Egypt wants to push people off the streets and the armed protesters are basically defending their ability to protest. In Russia, workers and soldiers armed themselves and defended taken over factories, they set up patrols and arrested military officers and the regime's police (both in Feb and Oct). In the German revolution it was the same.

But armed resistance is not the best way IMO to promote class consciousness and control of society, democratically by the working class. It can aid or defend these aims, but opposition when it's primarily an armed opposition tends to emphasize the actions of the armed groups over the self-action of the larger working class.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

It seems painfully obvious to me that the civil war was part of the counter-revolution. And I am a Marxist; it should be even more obvious to you, since you are an anarchist...

Luís Henrique

And since when is the counter-revolution not a part of the overall revolution? If, for example, the Pro-Mubarak supports initiated armed conflict with the revolutionaries in Egypt, it would be a counter-revolution within the greater revolution which has not yet ended.

Also, from an anarchist perspective the Reds were also part of the counter-revolution so I fail to see your point.

[AmericanSocialist]

I would love for uprisings to be mainly non-lethal. Che and Castro I can understand why they had to take arm revolution. The same with Mao. Sometimes it is necessary.

[Rooster]

Yeah, the Russian revolution happened without a shot being fired. The workers already controlled much of the city and only the winter palace remained out of worker control. So a small group stormed it, got lost and came upon Kerensky's government by accident. Yeah and I do not consider the civil war to be a part of the revolution. The civil war started to defend the revolution.


Didnt the battleship Aurora or sth bombarded the palace before the workers assaulted in?


Actually I think they just fired blanks to scare the shit out of them to make them surrender. Or if they did it was only one shot, not much of a bombardment.

It fired a blank to signal the event, or so the official story goes.

[Luís Henrique]

Also, from an anarchist perspective the Reds were also part of the counter-revolution so I fail to see your point.Exactly because of that. If you think the Reds were part of the counter-revolution, then the civil war was even more evidently part of the counter-revolution to you than to those who believe the Reds were revolutionary.


And since when is the counter-revolution not a part of the overall revolution? If, for example, the Pro-Mubarak supports initiated armed conflict with the revolutionaries in Egypt, it would be a counter-revolution within the greater revolution which has not yet ended.

Then your question in the OP makes no sence. Obviously no revolution will fail to attract violent counter-revolution. If counter-revolution is part of the revolution, then no, nothing has changed, and non-lethal uprising, or riots, cannot replace armed revolution.

But the fact is that you are now changing the terms of the OP. "Revolution" meant one thing there; it means something different now.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Yeah, the Russian revolution happened without a shot being fired.

In Petrograd, yes. In Moscow there was violent fight, which resulted in some hundreds of deaths. Or, in other words, things in Petrograd went according to the plans; in Moscow they did not.

Luís Henrique