Non-Violent Revolution

[Watermelon Man]

My first post. Some thoughts on non-violent revolution... your opinions, ideas, or pondering would be appreciated.

On September 8, 1872, Marx delivered a speech in Amsterdam after a congress of the First International. The majority of the speech is a restatement of revolutionary goals. It features one important qualification: that in some countries the workers might attain the socialist goal 'by peaceful means'. On marxist.org, the speech is titled La Liberte Speech, and you can find the entire transcript there. I have copied the relevant part of the speech here:


Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics.

But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same.

You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must some day appeal in order to erect the rule of labor. [1]

Clearly Marx is not renouncing his basic revolutionism or his related belief that the socialist revolution would in most countries have to occur by force. But it is undeniable that Marx has envisaged the possibility of non-violent revolution as a path to socialism in some countries. These countries are specifically Britain and America, and it seems likely that Marx has identified these states as likely candidates for peaceful revolution because their political institutions made radical change by democratic means a conceivable possibility.

Of course, in 1917, Lenin stated in The State and Revolution that conditions in those countries had changed so much since the 1870s that such a path to socialism was not conceivable.[1] Meanwhile, Karl Kautsky expanded upon Marx's original position and thus put himself at the forefront of Social Democratic Marxist theory. Indeed, this is the origin of the split between followers of Lenin and of Kautsky during the twentieth century. Much later, in 1956, Nikita Khrushchev's conceptualisation of Soviet Marxism adopted a modified form of Marx's orginial position by suggesting that in some countries with powerful Communist parties, particularly underdeveloped countries, socialist revolution could take place through a 'peaceful parliamentary path'.[2]

Modern definitions of revolution would seem to make the debate - at least in countries with democratic political institutions - seem to be purely between those who advocate violence and those who do not. The word 'revolution' is most often employed to denote a change in socio-political institutions. In Jeff Goodwin's view, there are two definitions of a revolution. One, broad definition, which encompasses 'any and all instances in which a state or a political regime is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular movement in an irregular, extraconstitutional and/or violent fashion.' The second definition is where 'revolutions entail not only mass mobilization and regime change, but also more or less rapid and fundamental social, economic and/or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for state power.'[4]

My question is: does a socialist revolution need to be violent? It seems that, for some, a revolution is not a revolution unless it is forceful and quick. But it seems fairly obvious that a revolution need not be violent to come under that category - on Goodwin's model, it can be irregular and extraconstitutional without involving death or injury. Certainly, Alexis de Tocqueville felt that revolutions could be categorised as A) political revolutions B) sudden and violent revolutions that seek not only to establish a new political system but to transform an entire society and C) slow but sweeping transformations of the entire society that take several generations to bring about.[5]

Is revolution type C a possible pathway to socialism? Is it not conceivable that, gaining enough popularity in the electorate, socialist parties elected through a long-ranging political revolution could enact wide social reform through existing parliamentary channels, leading ultimately to the realisation of a socialist state? Why, or why not?

Young socialists are often frustrated by the lack of revolutionary potential in their country. This is especially the situation in developed Western states. But maybe they're thinking of things the wrong way. Is it perhaps the case that violent revolutionary socialism is unnecessary and not suited to the pre-existing 'institutions, mores and traditions' of states like America and Britain - or other Western democracies - just as Marx originally suggested?

Endnotes

1. Karl Marx, 'The Possibility of Non-Violent Revolution', in Robert C. Tucker (ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader, New York, 1978, pp. 522 - 525.
2. Vladimir Lenin, 'The State and Revolution', in Tucker (ed.), The Lenin Anthology, New York, 1975, p. 337.
3. Karl Kautsky, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Ann Arbor, 1964; Tucker, The Marxian Revolutionary Idea, chapter 3 and chapter 6.
4. Jeff Goodwin, No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945-1991. Cambridge, 2001, p. 5 - 9.
5. Roger Boesche, Tocqueville's Road Map: Methodology, Liberalism, Revolution, and Despotism, Lexington, 2006, p.86.

[Jose Gracchus]

I think it is clear today that the American electoral-political system, and its institutions, are among the most reactionary and regressive among First World, fully-industrialized, advanced capitalist, social welfarist, and politically liberal states.

[PhoenixAsh]

No,..it doesn't...but it almost always will be. Not because we should initiate the use of violence but because the opposition will initiate it and we need to and have the right and obligation to defend ourselves.

Force does not necessarilly mean the exact same as violence. btw.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No,..it doesn't...but it almost always will be. Not because we should initiate the use of violence but because the opposition will initiate it and we need to and have the right and obligation to defend ourselves.

Force does not necessarilly mean the exact same as violence. btw.
Well put.

My answer: Egypt and Libya.

It's useless to try and win through force alone IMO, but force on some (self-defense) level from fighting cops in a general strike, fighting thugs like in Cairo, or fighting the remnants of the military as in Libya, or fighting organized counter-revolution like in Germany or Russia last century.

[Sam_b]

Indeed, this needs to be stressed. One thing I will say about Egypt is that it has been a privilege that a close comrade of Egyptian descent went to travel over and organise with the working class in Egypt, and it has been a privilege to have heard his stories. One of the most striking (no pun intended) was his joining of one of the militia groups in the Cairo slums. These were self-organised units of workers who were specifically there to defend the slums from both the cops and Mubarrak's thugs. The idea of so-called 'revolutionary violence' is not always on the offensive, but the direction that the class takes is offensive by its nature in attacking despots or the system itself.

By this I mean to challenge assertions that revolutions are, as you say 'forceful and quick'. It's only particularly forceful when the mass of the working class is at the helm. We can look to the age old example of the Russian revolution for this. The 'revolution' itself may have been seen as quick, but the groundwork that was laid out for it to become possible took many months and years of organisation and agitation.

[black magick hustla]

i think its not an either/or thing. i think all sorts of struggles have naturally some sort of violence in it. i don't think that is the same as "armed struggle" which was an invention of the abortions of the intelligentsia/middle class (narodniki, latin american guerrillas, naxalites, red arrny fraction, weathermen etc) and is not a class vehicle. mass strikes can be violent. the defense of a revolution can be violent. but i think the nature of this violence is spontaneous/necessary rather than the sadistic violence of people who have a chubby for armed insurrection.

[Alexander Berkman]

I believe that all revolutions should try to be as nonviolent as possible, but, I am not a Pacifist. I think that violence should only be used when necessary.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Nonviolent revolution is always the ideal, and should be the strategy pursued in liberal democracy. However, in a totalitarian state, there are fewer liberal options. And so violent revolution is at least justified. Like in Libya, I don't think anyone seriously buys the argument that the protesters could have pursued nonviolent means. And in Burma, we saw the problems of a noble but otherwise quixotic nonviolent Buddhist rebellion that was repressed with the heavy use of state force.

It's also a matter of context. Gandhi was able to lead a non-violent revolution as a trusted Sadhu. There was both (a) a cultural context which was receptive to a nonviolent revolution and (b) he himself was a figure people were willing to follow into a nonviolent revolution. Those are conditions which are difficult to meet.

[Optiow]

The biggest problem with non-violent revolution is that the regime will not hesitate use violence against it. So while a revolution must not try to kill everything in site, it is obvious that the army and the police would happily use weapons against the revolution, therefore the revolution must arm itself.

[Mather]

At the end of the day, all moral/ethical questions of violence vs non-violence during a revolution are irrelevant. All ruling classes will use force (to varying degrees) during a revolution to prevent their own overthrow, so it is a case of how the working class reacts to state violence. Most people when under attack will make the effort to defend themselves and those they care about, so violence during any genuine revolution will most likely occur regardless of whether people agree with it or not.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think there is an irresponsible tendency to conflate non-violence with non-confrontation. It's somehow assumed that when the thermidorians bust out their F-15s and T-34 nonviolent activists are going to disperse and call it a day.

A picture of a man standing in front of a row of tanks says far more than the fantasy that one can somehow go toe to toe with hydrogen bombs and stealth fighters.

[robbo203]

My first post. Some thoughts on non-violent revolution... your opinions, ideas, or pondering would be appreciated.

On September 8, 1872, Marx delivered a speech in Amsterdam after a congress of the First International. The majority of the speech is a restatement of revolutionary goals. It features one important qualification: that in some countries the workers might attain the socialist goal 'by peaceful means'. On marxist.org, the speech is titled La Liberte Speech, and you can find the entire transcript there. I have copied the relevant part of the speech here:



Clearly Marx is not renouncing his basic revolutionism or his related belief that the socialist revolution would in most countries have to occur by force. But it is undeniable that Marx has envisaged the possibility of non-violent revolution as a path to socialism in some countries. These countries are specifically Britain and America, and it seems likely that Marx has identified these states as likely candidates for peaceful revolution because their political institutions made radical change by democratic means a conceivable possibility.

Of course, in 1917, Lenin stated in The State and Revolution that conditions in those countries had changed so much since the 1870s that such a path to socialism was not conceivable.[1] Meanwhile, Karl Kautsky expanded upon Marx's original position and thus put himself at the forefront of Social Democratic Marxist theory. Indeed, this is the origin of the split between followers of Lenin and of Kautsky during the twentieth century. Much later, in 1956, Nikita Khrushchev's conceptualisation of Soviet Marxism adopted a modified form of Marx's orginial position by suggesting that in some countries with powerful Communist parties, particularly underdeveloped countries, socialist revolution could take place through a 'peaceful parliamentary path'.[2]

Modern definitions of revolution would seem to make the debate - at least in countries with democratic political institutions - seem to be purely between those who advocate violence and those who do not. The word 'revolution' is most often employed to denote a change in socio-political institutions. In Jeff Goodwin's view, there are two definitions of a revolution. One, broad definition, which encompasses 'any and all instances in which a state or a political regime is overthrown and thereby transformed by a popular movement in an irregular, extraconstitutional and/or violent fashion.' The second definition is where 'revolutions entail not only mass mobilization and regime change, but also more or less rapid and fundamental social, economic and/or cultural change, during or soon after the struggle for state power.'[4]

My question is: does a socialist revolution need to be violent? It seems that, for some, a revolution is not a revolution unless it is forceful and quick. But it seems fairly obvious that a revolution need not be violent to come under that category - on Goodwin's model, it can be irregular and extraconstitutional without involving death or injury. Certainly, Alexis de Tocqueville felt that revolutions could be categorised as A) political revolutions B) sudden and violent revolutions that seek not only to establish a new political system but to transform an entire society and C) slow but sweeping transformations of the entire society that take several generations to bring about.[5]

Is revolution type C a possible pathway to socialism? Is it not conceivable that, gaining enough popularity in the electorate, socialist parties elected through a long-ranging political revolution could enact wide social reform through existing parliamentary channels, leading ultimately to the realisation of a socialist state? Why, or why not?

Young socialists are often frustrated by the lack of revolutionary potential in their country. This is especially the situation in developed Western states. But maybe they're thinking of things the wrong way. Is it perhaps the case that violent revolutionary socialism is unnecessary and not suited to the pre-existing 'institutions, mores and traditions' of states like America and Britain - or other Western democracies - just as Marx originally suggested?

Endnotes

1. Karl Marx, 'The Possibility of Non-Violent Revolution', in Robert C. Tucker (ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader, New York, 1978, pp. 522 - 525.
2. Vladimir Lenin, 'The State and Revolution', in Tucker (ed.), The Lenin Anthology, New York, 1975, p. 337.
3. Karl Kautsky, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Ann Arbor, 1964; Tucker, The Marxian Revolutionary Idea, chapter 3 and chapter 6.
4. Jeff Goodwin, No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945-1991. Cambridge, 2001, p. 5 - 9.
5. Roger Boesche, Tocqueville's Road Map: Methodology, Liberalism, Revolution, and Despotism, Lexington, 2006, p.86.

A good post. I think you have to start with a clear defintion of revolution and what is entailed by that. What is happening at the present time in North Africa, for example, is a political revolution. It is not a social revolution in the epochal sense that Marxists mean by this term as a change in the mode of production. The change from a capitalist to a socialist/communist mode has to be a majoritarian one.

Does it necessitate violence? I dont think so. Actually, if anything, violence tends to suggest the absence of majority support, the absence of conditions that would make a social revolution possible. We have seen many instances where "peoples power" has overthrown an existing and seemingly entrenched regime with little or no violence.

In fact far from revolution become less and less possible by non violent means I take the opposite view- that it is becoming more and more the only way in which to accomplsh a revolution. So called Liberal democracy is actually the achilles heel of capitalism. Yes I know all the arguments about how much it is a fraud and that in fact it is a plutocracy parading as a democracy. There is a lot in that but even so when it comes down to it, more and more under modern capitalism, regimes have to institute some means to secure their own legitimacy. Even under one party states (and there are less and less of these around) you have elections when on the face of it the exercise would seem wholly pointless

The argument that, for example, in the US it is almost obligatory to have the backing of big money to make any kind of political impact and this closes off the democratic option is I think too simplistic and the inference that is sometimes drawn - that therefore we need to contemplate using violence - is utterly suicidal in its folly. Try overthrowing the US regime by armed force and you will find yourself with a one ticket to an early grave. I want to contribute something to the socialist revolution and there is not much you can do when you're a corpse


The problem of not being able to make much of a political impact at the present time is not something inherent in the nature of liberal democracy. It is rather a reflection of the poor organisation and relative lack of support for a genuine socialist alternative. Of course, it might be argued that these things are the result of the fact that we dont have the resources to make an impact but, one has to ask oneself, what does this say about the argument that the need for socialism arises from the material conditions in which workers exists - the class struggle? Have we now been reduced to saying instead that the struggle for socialism has become a struggle between PR agencies and whoever can formulate the most catchy soundbite? This seems to follow from such an argument. Let the capitalists waste their millions on hollow political advertising; we should have more confidence in our own beliefs and our ability to relate directly to our fellow workers.

In any event, while revolutionary socialists are a small minority there is simply no way you can have socialism. Lets accept this fact and stop trying to imagine we are in some sense on the very cusp of introducing a golden new order of socialist fraternity. Reckless talk of barricades and Kalashnikovs on the streets actually does nothing to enhance the credibility or indeed the desirability of socialism

[ZeroNowhere]

A scientific revolution generally involves some level of conflict among scientists and such, from the arguments of the 20th Century to the controversy over Darwin to what happened to Galileo. Nonetheless, this is not what makes them revolutions, and therefore not a necessary part. One may have conflict over science without anything nearing revolutionary, and what makes a revolution revolutionary is its content and the essential paradigm shift represented by it, not the form by which this change takes place.

[Mather]

A good post. I think you have to start with a clear defintion of revolution and what is entailed by that. What is happening at the present time in North Africa, for example, is a political revolution. It is not a social revolution in the epochal sense that Marxists mean by this term as a change in the mode of production. The change from a capitalist to a socialist/communist mode has to be a majoritarian one.

Your correct in making this distinction. The events in Tunisia and Egypt are popular uprisings, not revolutions. A revolution only occurs when one class successfully overthrows another.

[Mather]

I think there is an irresponsible tendency to conflate non-violence with non-confrontation. It's somehow assumed that when the thermidorians bust out their F-15s and T-34 nonviolent activists are going to disperse and call it a day.

Well advocates of non-violence and pacifists also conflate all forms of violence into one generic whole.

If a genuine revolution were to take place in the USA, it would involve mass participation so it would not involve massive battles with tanks and jet fighters, unless the US bourgeois class went mental. Tactically it would be stupid to advocate waging an armed guerrilla struggle (urban or rural) in an urbanised and developed country like the USA. However just because one from of violence is not tactically sound does not discount other methods which do involve violence, this can be anything from protestors battling the police in the streets to workers having to use force to take over their workplaces and factories.


A picture of a man standing in front of a row of tanks says far more than the fantasy that one can somehow go toe to toe with hydrogen bombs and stealth fighters.

It doesn't. The massacre of Tiananmen Square shows us the suicidal futility of non-violence and pacifist methods.

[Tim Finnegan]

It doesn't. The massacre of Tiananmen Square shows us the suicidal futility of non-violence and pacifist methods.
As opposed to, say, the unquestionable success that was the German Revolution?

[ComradeOm]

I think there is an irresponsible tendency to conflate non-violence with non-confrontationThe understanding being that one ultimately leads to the other. When confronted with violent opposition (such as in a revolutionary scenario) then the choice is, to paraphrase Emery's infamous phrase, either servitude or war. You either accommodate yourself to the violent oppressor, whether due to fear or principle, or you resist unreservedly. Personally speaking, I have no intention of becoming a pacifist martyr by standing in front of a tank in a futile gesture that changes nothing

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Does anyone know the source for Lenin's immortal statement (quoting roughly):


Violence is not a sausage you can choose, hot or cold, at the hot-dog stand of History.

[Amphictyonis]

The capitalists have a monopoly on force (the state). Peacefully brushing that aside would be tricky. Violently overthrowing it would also be tricky. This whole business of changing economic systems is tricky. I'd love to see a peaceful transition but if we look at history has any ruling class ever given up privilege peacefully? If you can find some examples I'd love to read about it.

[robbo203]

The capitalists have a monopoly on force (the state). Peacefully brushing that aside would be tricky. Violently overthrowing it would also be tricky. This whole business of changing economic systems is tricky. I'd love to see a peaceful transition but if we look at history has any ruling class ever given up privilege peacefully? If you can find some examples I'd love to read about it.


Well the collapse of various state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe was essentially accomplished peacefully. I think the only exception was Rumania where about 2000 + people were killed (somebody correct me if I am wrong here). Ditto the Philipines.

Yes, the capitalists have the monopoly on force but we have the force of numbers. The capitalists cannot rule without our support, tacit or not. The changeover to a socialist system of society has to have majority support and understanding otherwise you will simply end up with another version of capitalism. It has to be a democratic bottom-up process. There are no ifs or buts here. Socialism cannot be achieved any other way.

On the face of it, this precludes violence. Violence would normally suggest that the conditions for change are absent - namely the prior transformation of the entire social environment and culture to the extent that even the armed forces would be thoroughly penetrated by the new ideas coursing through society. Violence, in other words, would seem to suggest minority action and as such rules out the possibility of change to a socialist society.

However, I dont rule out the possibility that violence may be entailed in process of revolutionary change. The point is what should be the position of the movement for change? It seems to me that most sensible course of action is to organise on the basis of peacefully and democratically changing society but to be prepared in the event of violence comiung from the ruling class however unlikely. I say unlikely because by then it will be too late for them to do anything when the writing is already on the wall. If they want to stop the socialist movement now is the time to do it when the climate of opinion is more amenable and socialists are few in number. Violence does no one any favours. It is often counterproductive and leads to authoritarian anti-democratic methods of organisation. It should be avoided at all costs.

We should not give the state the pretext for cracking down on us and I firmly believe that liberal democracy is the achilles heel of capitalism. The capitalists will be suckered by their own ideology and they will have no way of ideologically fighting back against the democratically organised movement for socialist transformation once it gets going, once it has created an environment in which the use of violent force comes to be seen, more and more, as socially unacceptable.

[MarxSchmarx]

Well advocates of non-violence and pacifists also conflate all forms of violence into one generic whole.

If a genuine revolution were to take place in the USA, it would involve mass participation so it would not involve massive battles with tanks and jet fighters, unless the US bourgeois class went mental. Tactically it would be stupid to advocate waging an armed guerrilla struggle (urban or rural) in an urbanised and developed country like the USA. However just because one from of violence is not tactically sound does not discount other methods which do involve violence, this can be anything from protestors battling the police in the streets to workers having to use force to take over their workplaces and factories.


This raises the broader question of what precisely is meant by "violence." The bourgeois state would love it if factory sit-down strikes, for example, are considered violent, because, well, workers refusing to move is in some vague sense a "use of force to take over their workplaces and factories". Or, if a bus driver asks a woman to go sit on the back of the bus, and she refuses and physically stays put, is that "violence"? Some things are recognizably violent (armed struggle, guerrilla warfare, etc... that we agree are pointless at least in places like the united states). But there is something of a gray area for a lot of actions. I don't think advocates of non-violence (or of violence, for that matter) have really carefully thought through this beyond a vague sense.
But I think to call anything that involves physical actions, like say a sit-down strike, "violence" and equating it with guerrilla warfare in some sense does play into the hands of the bourgeoisie.





A picture of a man standing in front of a row of tanks says far more than the fantasy that one can somehow go toe to toe with hydrogen bombs and stealth fighters. It doesn't. The massacre of Tiananmen Square shows us the suicidal futility of non-violence and pacifist methods.

The massacre of the Paris Commune/Haymarket/Spain 1936 etc... etc... shows us the suicidal futility of socialist insurrection and challenging the bourgeois order. :rolleyes:



I think there is an irresponsible tendency to conflate non-violence with non-confrontation The understanding being that one ultimately leads to the other. When confronted with violent opposition (such as in a revolutionary scenario) then the choice is, to paraphrase Emery's infamous phrase, either servitude or war. You either accommodate yourself to the violent oppressor, whether due to fear or principle, or you resist unreservedly. Personally speaking, I have no intention of becoming a pacifist martyr by standing in front of a tank in a futile gesture that changes nothing WEll I think this demonstrates the issue. Consider students refusing to move from segregated lunch counters. Is that "unreserved resistance"? That's what it strikes me as. But is it therefore violence? I don't really buy that - and moreover I think it is silly to claim refusing to move as morally equivalent to throwing molotov cocktails (even more absuredly) etc... Nonviolent activists confronted with "violent opposition" have shown a capacity to resist nonviolently. Sometimes they are martyred, yes, but so were many soldiers in the Red Army in 1918.

[Amphictyonis]

Well the collapse of various state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe was essentially accomplished peacefully.
The cold war caused the death of millions of people via proxy wars and had the perpetual threat of total human inhalation (nuclear war).

[robbo203]

The cold war caused the death of millions of people via proxy wars and had the perpetual threat of total human inhalation (nuclear war).

Sure. But this doesnt invalidate the point that Eastern bloc state capitalist regimes imploded through lack of legitimacy and were brought to an end by essentially peaceful non violent means - the "velvet revolution" etc . So it is at least possible to change society by such means. My argument is that to change society into a socialist world, it is more than just possible

[ComradeOm]

WEll I think this demonstrates the issue. Consider students refusing to move from segregated lunch counters. Is that "unreserved resistance"? That's what it strikes me as. But is it therefore violence?That depends on whether or not violence is employed. I'm not being philosophical here or messing around with language. If people simply refuse to move from their seats, and go no further, then that's a non-violent protest

To continue with the example however, if the authorities want the students moved, and are willing to employ physical force to ensure this, then the students will be moved. The only recourse that the latter possess is a moral appeal to either higher state authorities or the wider population (who can in turn pressure the state). We are however discussing a revolutionary scenario in which the ruling class is no longer hegemonic and has resorted to base coercion; appealing to the state, or expecting it to be held accountable to popular opinion, are futile

When a government is willing to bomb and attack its own citizens then its not the moral high ground that should interest you. Which is not to deride the importance non-violent protest (or to fetishise the opposite) but simply to argue the pointlessness of upholding the pacifist principle in the face of violent aggression

[Mather]

Well the collapse of various state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe was essentially accomplished peacefully. I think the only exception was Rumania where about 2000 + people were killed (somebody correct me if I am wrong here).

No revolutions took place in 1989-91, the collapse of state capitalism in Eastern Europe and the former USSR was just that, a collapse. The collapse was concluded with popular uprisings and did at times involve working class participation, but in the absence of working class revolutions, one variant of capitalism (state capitalism) was replaced with another (free-market Western capitalism).


Ditto the Philipines.

Again no revolution took place in the Philipines, it was a popular uprising. There were two specific factors which can be attributed as to why the popular uprising of 1986 was peaceful:

1) By the mid 1980s the US, which was the main supporter of the Marcos regime, decided to change course and to seek an alternative to Marcos. The US wished to see a more reliable and competent ally in power in the Philipines in order to deal with the massive wave of civil, social and labour unrest and the numerous guerrilla campaigns being waged against the Philipine state.

2) The 1986 popular uprising never challenged the class rule of the bourgeoisie and never posed the question of working class rule. So the Filipino ruling class, sections of the state such as the armed forces and foreign actors like the US were all content to allow for the popular uprising to succeed and for the Marcos regime to go, as their own class interests were never called into question.


Yes, the capitalists have the monopoly on force but we have the force of numbers.

Even with a force in numbers, that still does not rule out either the possibility or the tactical necessity for violence (at times). The question of violence (and the level of use) can only ever really be answered during the revolution itself. Only when the time comes will we be able to see how far the state and the ruling class will go in protecting their class rule.

What I don't understand is why some advocates of non-violence/pacifism turn a tactical question (the use of violence) into a matter of principle. If the question on the use of violence is turned into a matter of principle either way (for or against), then that will cause problems during a revolutionary situation, problems that may effect the outcome of such a revolution.


The capitalists cannot rule without our support, tacit or not.

The capitalist class can rule without our support as long as the working class lacks organisation and the material conditions for revolution have yet to fully develop. Many people will be apathetic to or oppose the current system in very vague and simplistic terms, but given the lack of working class organisation which is the main thing needed for a revolution, such opposition will exist but not pose any real threat to the rule of the capitalist class. It is very much a bourgeois worldview that the ruling class can only exist with our support/consent.


The changeover to a socialist system of society has to have majority support and understanding otherwise you will simply end up with another version of capitalism. It has to be a democratic bottom-up process. There are no ifs or buts here. Socialism cannot be achieved any other way.

I agree totally with this point but not as one to support non-violence/pacifism. Regardless of how much of the working class participates in a revolution, violence may occurr just as it may not occurr. This will be down to the conditions and the specifics of the situation at the time and it is impossible to predict whether violence will occurr or not as at the moment we are not in a pre-revolutionary situation.

It is best to be prepared and to be tactical in our view of violence and not dogmatic.


On the face of it, this precludes violence. Violence would normally suggest that the conditions for change are absent - namely the prior transformation of the entire social environment and culture to the extent that even the armed forces would be thoroughly penetrated by the new ideas coursing through society. Violence, in other words, would seem to suggest minority action and as such rules out the possibility of change to a socialist society.

The violence of the anarchists in Spain in 1936-37 and the violence of the Communards in Paris in 1871 was in no way a minority action. Yes, there are examples of violence being minority actions, especially the violence of urban guerrilla groups or the 19th century Russian anarchists, but there are also many examples violence being used by a majority and as a form of mass action.


However, I dont rule out the possibility that violence may be entailed in process of revolutionary change.

No one can.


The point is what should be the position of the movement for change?

To consider using violence either in self-defence or if it makes tactical sense during a revolution.


It seems to me that most sensible course of action is to organise on the basis of peacefully and democratically changing society but to be prepared in the event of violence comiung from the ruling class however unlikely. I say unlikely because by then it will be too late for them to do anything when the writing is already on the wall.

We will never know when exactly it will be "too late" for the ruling class until the time comes. However, past history has shown us that even when the "writing is already on the wall", the capitalist class are not averse to making a last (usually bloody) stand.


If they want to stop the socialist movement now is the time to do it when the climate of opinion is more amenable and socialists are few in number.

Wrong. It is when the working class becomes more assertive, confident and organised that the capitalist class and the state become more oppressive. When the working class poses little threat and the level of class struggle and friction is very low then the capitalist class are quite happy to rule through bourgeois parliamentary democracies and to give people the illusion of freedom.


Violence does no one any favours.

Violence has at times been favourable to working class struggles and has also been a favourable tool at the hands of the capitalist class. Violence is a tool to be used. It can be used for good or bad, there are no inherent moral/immoral qualities in it.


It is often counterproductive and leads to authoritarian anti-democratic methods of organisation. It should be avoided at all costs.

This has only been the case in small secretive urban guerrilla groups and some direct action activist networks. When violence has been used in mass actions it does not subvert democratic working class organisation.


We should not give the state the pretext for cracking down on us

The capitalist class does not need pretexts, it will crack down when it feels it's class rule is under threat. All pretexts are nothing but state propaganda, a ruse. The state reacts to threats according to their respective strengths, when the working class is organised and when we enter a pre-revolutionary situation, the capitalist class will crack down.


and I firmly believe that liberal democracy is the achilles heel of capitalism.

Why?


The capitalists will be suckered by their own ideology and they will have no way of ideologically fighting back against the democratically organised movement for socialist transformation once it gets going, once it has created an environment in which the use of violent force comes to be seen, more and more, as socially unacceptable.

Bourgeois ideology is meant to fool us, not the ruling class. Their only true ideology is the preservation of their own power and wealth.

[robbo203]

No revolutions took place in 1989-91, the collapse of state capitalism in Eastern Europe and the former USSR was just that, a collapse. The collapse was concluded with popular uprisings and did at times involve working class participation, but in the absence of working class revolutions, one variant of capitalism (state capitalism) was replaced with another (free-market Western capitalism).

I agree that no revolution took place. However that is not quite the point. The point was that a specific ruling class was removed from power when its authority ceased to exist. The argument, then, that the ruling class will inevitably respond with violent repression whether in a revolutionary situation or in a mere uprising, is thus questionable. If the great majority support a socialist revolution (meaning the social environment would have by then been radically transformed with socialist ideas penetrating even the armed forces) it will be far too late for any ruling class to do anything about it.




Again no revolution took place in the Philipines, it was a popular uprising. There were two specific factors which can be attributed as to why the popular uprising of 1986 was peaceful:

1) By the mid 1980s the US, which was the main supporter of the Marcos regime, decided to change course and to seek an alternative to Marcos. The US wished to see a more reliable and competent ally in power in the Philipines in order to deal with the massive wave of civil, social and labour unrest and the numerous guerrilla campaigns being waged against the Philipine state.

2) The 1986 popular uprising never challenged the class rule of the bourgeoisie and never posed the question of working class rule. So the Filipino ruling class, sections of the state such as the armed forces and foreign actors like the US were all content to allow for the popular uprising to succeed and for the Marcos regime to go, as their own class interests were never called into question.

Again, the same argument applies. The argument that violence is inevitable hinges on the assumption that a specific ruling class is threatened. The fact that class society itself is threatened is neither here nor there. It is the proximate threat to a specific concrete ruling class that we are talking about.




Even with a force in numbers, that still does not rule out either the possibility or the tactical necessity for violence (at times). The question of violence (and the level of use) can only ever really be answered during the revolution itself. Only when the time comes will we be able to see how far the state and the ruling class will go in protecting their class rule. .


I dont rule out the fact that violence might occur in the course of a revolution. What I am saying is that we should not organise on the basis to effect a revolution by violent means and so give the state an excuse to crack down us



What I don't understand is why some advocates of non-violence/pacifism turn a tactical question (the use of violence) into a matter of principle. If the question on the use of violence is turned into a matter of principle either way (for or against), then that will cause problems during a revolutionary situation, problems that may effect the outcome of such a revolution.

.


Depends what you mean by a matter of principle. I dont say, no , let us never use violence under any circumstances. There might conceivably be an occassion when a limited kind of "violent" response might be called for. I am just saying we should not be the ones to initiate violence or to organise to achieve what we want by violent means. If it ever came down to a violent showdown with the state - certainly in the developed world - there could only be one winner and it wont be us.




The capitalist class can rule without our support as long as the working class lacks organisation and the material conditions for revolution have yet to fully develop. Many people will be apathetic to or oppose the current system in very vague and simplistic terms, but given the lack of working class organisation which is the main thing needed for a revolution, such opposition will exist but not pose any real threat to the rule of the capitalist class. It is very much a bourgeois worldview that the ruling class can only exist with our support/consent. .


I dont see how this is the case at all. What's "bourgoeisW about saying that the ruling class only exists with our support/consent. If anything I would say the opposite was true and it is bourgeois revolutions that have historically been minority revolutions.

The idea that a ruling class is enabled to rule by virtue of the active or tacit consent of the majority is actually an idea that springs from a historical materialist reading of history. It is an idea that was developed and promoted by people like Plekhanov in his excellent pamphlet "The role of the individual in history". Plekhanov was concerned with attacking the Great Man theory of history and the notion that individuals like Napoleon assumed power and achieved what they did due to certain qualities that inhere in the indivudal himself. Plekhanov remarked how this was simply an "optical illusion". If the individual, Napoleon, had not appeared on the scene another napoleon-type individual would have emerged. This was becuase the social attitudes at the time prepared the ground, and created a role, for such a Napoleon-type figure. The ruling class dont just take power; we grant it to them. Its a two way process.



I agree totally with this point but not as one to support non-violence/pacifism. Regardless of how much of the working class participates in a revolution, violence may occurr just as it may not occurr. This will be down to the conditions and the specifics of the situation at the time and it is impossible to predict whether violence will occurr or not as at the moment we are not in a pre-revolutionary situation.

It is best to be prepared and to be tactical in our view of violence and not dogmatic.
.

Non violence is inherently preferable to violence for all sorts of reasons. We want to minimise the social dislocation and destruction that violence would entail. So for this reason alone violence should be eshewed but yes we should not discount the possibility that it might happen



The violence of the anarchists in Spain in 1936-37 and the violence of the Communards in Paris in 1871 was in no way a minority action. Yes, there are examples of violence being minority actions, especially the violence of urban guerrilla groups or the 19th century Russian anarchists, but there are also many examples violence being used by a majority and as a form of mass action.
.

"Majority" in relation to what? This is the point. No doubt amongst the Communards in 1871 the majority were prepared to defend the Commune by violent means rather than as pacifists and I dont say they were wrong to do this but you cannot really sustain an island of progressive thinking or practice within a sea of reaction. This is the lesson that Commune or the Spanish anarchists teach us: that an authentic socialist revolution truly does require broad support and understanding within the mass of the working class itself. It has to be done by the immense majority as the Communist manifesto quite right says and not juist the immense majority within a small ghetto of society





We will never know when exactly it will be "too late" for the ruling class until the time comes. However, past history has shown us that even when the "writing is already on the wall", the capitalist class are not averse to making a last (usually bloody) stand..

You are slightly contradicting yourself here. Earlier you remarked that the collapse of state capitalism in Eastern Europe was not a revolution so the fact that it was accomplished with little or no violence proves nothing. But here you are citing instances where the capitalist class has shown itself to being not averse to making a last (usually bloody) stand but these instances would likewise not be a case of an attempted socialist revolution since really this has never yet been attempted. There has never been sufficient support at yet anywhere and at any time to mount a socialist revolution




Wrong. It is when the working class becomes more assertive, confident and organised that the capitalist class and the state become more oppressive. When the working class poses little threat and the level of class struggle and friction is very low then the capitalist class are quite happy to rule through bourgeois parliamentary democracies and to give people the illusion of freedom.
..

I disagree. Since you mention it, the evidence suggests that the more militant prosecution of the class struggle actually affects the position of the capitalist class e.g. profit levels and leads to a discernable softening of their posture and increased reforms as a way of buying off and coopting the working class. In fact the famous Beveridge report of the 1940s which heralded the welfare state in the UK cited the need to allay social discontent as a primary reason for the introduction of reforms. As Lord Hailsham put it at the time, if you dont give the people reforms they will give you revolution. It is when workers offer little threat to the capitalists that the latter feel able to act more oppressively and get away with this. Ironically the logic of your position wouyld be to imply that perhaps things might be better oif we did
not resist, if we simply complied with with the wishes of our rulers. Im sure thats not what you think but the whole history of working class struggle demonstrates that progress has not been made without workers struggling to achieve it




Violence has at times been favourable to working class struggles and has also been a favourable tool at the hands of the capitalist class. Violence is a tool to be used. It can be used for good or bad, there are no inherent moral/immoral qualities in it.
..

Again it depends what you mean by "violence". We are just talking in rthe abstract here until we define "violence"? Do you mean street rioting or bang bang? I dont think violence is a socially neutral tool; it has possible social repercussions in the way it is organised and effected and in its consequences. Violence often provokes counter violence as the saying goes and leaves a legacy of bitternesss which doesnt actually help matters much. For that reason alone we should try to do without or minimise the use of violence



This has only been the case in small secretive urban guerrilla groups and some direct action activist networks. When violence has been used in mass actions it does not subvert democratic working class organisation.

..

What specifically do you mean by this? Mass street protests that turn to violence?




The capitalist class does not need pretexts, it will crack down when it feels it's class rule is under threat. All pretexts are nothing but state propaganda, a ruse. The state reacts to threats according to their respective strengths, when the working class is organised and when we enter a pre-revolutionary situation, the capitalist class will crack down.
.

No this is simply not true. The capitalist class will always need a pretext to do anything at all. For example it was not able to just march into Iraq . It had to come up with excuses - that we need to topple dictatorship or the eixtence of WMD. My argument is that liberal bourgeois democracy is the achilles heel of capitalism. Potentially the capitalist class stands to be completely suckered by its own ideology. By organising democratically to overthrow capitalism (and you have already implied the need for "democratic working class organisation") the workers will far surpass the feeble and limited example of democracy that is bourgeois democracy and in so doing will shift the struggle to the terrain of the political field where numbers count and where we have the advantage





Bourgeois ideology is meant to fool us, not the ruling class. Their only true ideology is the preservation of their own power and wealth.

That is not an ideology but a class need and it is a need that calls for an ideology to justify the very existence of the capitalist class itself. Yes, such an ideology is meant to fool us but with the growth of socialist consciousness the ability to fool us will be increasingly undermined which in turn will have repercussions on the form of ideology itself - it will have to become much more sophisticated and adept. I strongly suspect that far from moving towards a more conservative oppressive position the ruling class will be moving in quite the opposite direction to head off and buy off the working class

[Mather]

I agree that no revolution took place.

Ok.


However that is not quite the point. The point was that a specific ruling class was removed from power when its authority ceased to exist.

Which one is it?

You said no revolution took place but then said that the ruling class was removed from power. That can only happen via a revolution, when one class rises up to abolish the other. The main reason the collapse of the USSR was peaceful (apart from regional unrest in the Baltic and the Caucuses) was that some parts of the ruling class were in a position where they could continue to rule as part of the new fully bourgeois ruling class of post-91 Russia. These were the people who either went on to become oligarchs and businessmen or former Soviet security and military officials, many of whom have continued on as members of the government, security forces and the military. Putin is of course a perfect example. Yes the USSR as a state and entity went, along with the red flag, the communist party and 'marxism-leninism'. However those sections of the state capitalist ruling class that were able to make the transition to a fully capitalist free-market system, did so and in doing that they intergrated themselves into the ruling class of todays Russia.

What happened in Eastern Europe and Russia was the collapse of a social system and the realignment (not replacement/overthrow) by some of that systems ruling class to the new system of bourgeois rule in todays Russia. Had the actual question of class rule been posed, events may have been very different.


If the great majority support a socialist revolution (meaning the social environment would have by then been radically transformed with socialist ideas penetrating even the armed forces) it will be far too late for any ruling class to do anything about it.

It wouldn't. Do you think the ruling class would be as stupid to as allow dissent to reach the very high levels you seem to insist upon for a revolution to occur?

When the level of dissent and working class militancy is very low (for example todays USA, Britain and Western Europe), the ruling class take a hands off approach and will tolerate (in most cases) dissent and displays of militancy, of course all within the confines of bourgeois 'democracy'. A pre-revolutionary situation develops when the balance of class forces becomes near even, this means that the ruling class cannot continue to rule in the way that they used to as the ability to hold onto power has began to be brought into question. This also creates dividisions within the ruling class as different factions will try and impose their own solutions to deal with a pre-revolutionary situation and sooner or later the pre-revolutionary situation will end in either revolution or reaction.

As for the armed forces, there will be splits with some military formations joining the revolution but it would be delusional to think that every single division, unit and soldier will join our side. Some will remain loyal and as in past revolutions, class divisions will open up within the military as they do in society.


Again, the same argument applies.

My above argument applies here, not yours as you have given to two examples (USSR and Philipines) that are not even relevant to the question of using violence in a pre-revolutionary situation. You gave me two examples of popular uprisings which resulted in the respective regimes and sections of the ruling class being replaced by different sections from within the same class.


The argument that violence is inevitable hinges on the assumption that a specific ruling class is threatened.

I did not say violence was "inevitable".

No one can predict how each different country will go through its revolution but there will be variations in each revolution according to a whole range of things, including violence. There may be peaceful revolutions, I never said it was impossible, just that I believe violence is more likely to occur than not during a revolution.


The fact that class society itself is threatened is neither here nor there. It is the proximate threat to a specific concrete ruling class that we are talking about.

Again you condradict yourself. If class rule is not threatened then the ruling class will not face any threats, proximate or otherwise.


I dont rule out the fact that violence might occur in the course of a revolution.

No one can. Just as I don't rule out the chance of there being a peaceful (or relatively so) revolution.


What I am saying is that we should not organise on the basis to effect a revolution by violent means and so give the state an excuse to crack down us

No, we should organise and plan for both options and try and be prepared for as many different outcomes as possible. Even basic things like personal self defence for demos, first aid and protective gear needs a certain level of planning and organisation.

Going into a revolution without any plans if things do go violent is suicide and mind numbingly stupid.

As for the "state crackdown" point, it's irrelevant.

The state needs no excuses whatsoever if the ruling class feels that it's rule is under threat. If the threat is deemed important enough, the state will do what it can to deal with it. This is a materialist view as the state will crackdown on the working class when a pre-revolutionary situation develops and the ruling class cannot rule as before and the working class won't be ruled as before.


Depends what you mean by a matter of principle. I dont say, no , let us never use violence under any circumstances. There might conceivably be an occassion when a limited kind of "violent" response might be called for. I am just saying we should not be the ones to initiate violence or to organise to achieve what we want by violent means.

If you accept that violence is a possibility during a revolution (as you have done above) then you have to plan for it. Organising and planning for violence doesn't mean going on a rampage as soon as things kick off, but it does mean that if violence does occur then we our prepared for it and can respond in kind and defend ourselves.

Saying that violence may occur but then making a point of not organising or planning for such a possibility, is either sheer stupidity or idealistic dogmatism.


If it ever came down to a violent showdown with the state - certainly in the developed world - there could only be one winner and it wont be us.

Then why not just give up and accept capitalist rule ad infinitum.

Violence is a day to day reality for many people either as perpetrators or victims and this is so because it is a basic fact of capitalism. Capitalism cannot survive without violence, it's part of it's very nature. For the working class it is a question of organising and building our collective strength as a class until we can finally take on the ruling class and put an end to the daily acts of violence that occur because of capitalism.


I dont see how this is the case at all.

Then your not using a materialist approach.


What's "bourgoeisW about saying that the ruling class only exists with our support/consent.

The very idea that the ruling class rule according to our will is absurd if your a revolutionary. Any pretense that the ruling class govern according our 'consent' or that the 'people are sovereign' is just that, a pretense. In Britain, the state claims we have "policing by consent", despite the state never seeking our contsent on that issue.

All political formations, be they bourgeois democracies, republics, state capitalist systems, monarchies or dictatorships, all of them are just variatitions of the same thing, the dictatorship of capital.


If anything I would say the opposite was true and it is bourgeois revolutions that have historically been minority revolutions.

The bourgois revolutions of 18th and 19th century Europe were bourgeois in leadership, ideology and in terms of class interest being best served. However they involved mass participation from the peasantry, labourers, skilled craft workers and artisans, social groupings who would later form the working class as we know it once the industrial revolution got into full swing. None of the revolutions were small putschist affairs or secretive conspiracies.


The idea that a ruling class is enabled to rule by virtue of the active or tacit consent of the majority is actually an idea that springs from a historical materialist reading of history.

No it doesn't.

A materialist analysis would explain the ability of the ruling class to rule, by looking at and questioning the matrial conditions of the time, the state of each class in terms of their unity/division and their level of organisation and class consciousness. The state of the class struggle and the balance of forces between the working class and the ruling class are what determine and enable the capitalist class to rule.


It is an idea that was developed and promoted by people like Plekhanov in his excellent pamphlet "The role of the individual in history". Plekhanov was concerned with attacking the Great Man theory of history and the notion that individuals like Napoleon assumed power and achieved what they did due to certain qualities that inhere in the indivudal himself. Plekhanov remarked how this was simply an "optical illusion". If the individual, Napoleon, had not appeared on the scene another napoleon-type individual would have emerged.

I don't believe in the Great Man Theory and more or less agree with Plekhanov on this issue.

But the Great Man Theory is not relevant here as no one is adovcating a revolution by a single leader or some Great Man.


The ruling class dont just take power; we grant it to them. Its a two way process.

Wrong.

When did we (the working class) ever "grant power" to the capitalist class? The first class societies were established by a groups of people who began to attain status and then established the very first form of class rule and the concept of the state. This was done using violent and forceful means as the very first ruling classes asserted their economic/political/social power over society. From then we went from ancient societies to feudalism and to capitalism. There is nothing two-way here, just one class being replaced by another in a progressive pattern.


Non violence is inherently preferable to violence for all sorts of reasons.

And those reasons are?


We want to minimise the social dislocation and destruction that violence would entail.

But if it comes to it, you can't pick and choose. If violence occurs it is a case of responding to it or accepting defeat and a continuation of the dictatorship of capital.

As bad as social dislocation and destruction can be, they are not bad enough to put off a revolution and accept defeat if it looked likely that violence was a possibility.


Majority" in relation to what? This is the point. No doubt amongst the Communards in 1871 the majority were prepared to defend the Commune by violent means rather than as pacifists and I dont say they were wrong to do this but you cannot really sustain an island of progressive thinking or practice within a sea of reaction. This is the lesson that Commune or the Spanish anarchists teach us: that an authentic socialist revolution truly does require broad support and understanding within the mass of the working class itself. It has to be done by the immense majority as the Communist manifesto quite right says and not juist the immense majority within a small ghetto of society

I agree.

Even revolutions and socialisms in one country are doomed to fail after a short period of time. But that is a point in favour of internationalism and having revolutionary waves on a continental level, not for the case for non-violence.


You are slightly contradicting yourself here. Earlier you remarked that the collapse of state capitalism in Eastern Europe was not a revolution so the fact that it was accomplished with little or no violence proves nothing. But here you are citing instances where the capitalist class has shown itself to being not averse to making a last (usually bloody) stand but these instances would likewise not be a case of an attempted socialist revolution since really this has never yet been attempted. There has never been sufficient support at yet anywhere and at any time to mount a socialist revolution

Im not contradicting myself at all.

The examples I gave like the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution and the Spanish Revolution are all examples of revolutions that failed and were short lived affairs.

The other examples I had in mind when I wrote that, were situations that where not pre-revolutionary situations yet there were high levels of class struggle, social unrest and working class organisation/militancy. Chile in the early 1970s, Argentina in the 1970s and Mexico in the 1970s, all of these countries had a high level of class struggle at the time but they were not pre-revolutionary situations, though that did not stop the capitalist class and the state from unleashing a wave of bloody oppression and mass murder against the working class in those countries.


I disagree. Since you mention it, the evidence suggests that the more militant prosecution of the class struggle actually affects the position of the capitalist class e.g. profit levels and leads to a discernable softening of their posture and increased reforms as a way of buying off and coopting the working class. In fact the famous Beveridge report of the 1940s which heralded the welfare state in the UK cited the need to allay social discontent as a primary reason for the introduction of reforms. As Lord Hailsham put it at the time, if you dont give the people reforms they will give you revolution. It is when workers offer little threat to the capitalists that the latter feel able to act more oppressively and get away with this.

Well how do explain the historical examples of most Latin American states which saw brutal military dictatorships coming to power during high levels of class struggle and a level of working class organisation?

Mussolini and Hitler were both given power during a time when class struggle was intensifying and the ruling class felt less secure, especially in Italy's case as Italy was in a near pre-revolutionary situation during the very early 1920s. There are many historical examples to back my assertion that state oppression is dependent on the level of class struggle and organisation.


e.g. profit levels and leads to a discernable softening of their posture and increased reforms as a way of buying off and coopting the working class. In fact the famous Beveridge report of the 1940s which heralded the welfare state in the UK cited the need to allay social discontent as a primary reason for the introduction of reforms. As Lord Hailsham put it at the time, if you dont give the people reforms they will give you revolution. It is when workers offer little threat to the capitalists that the latter feel able to act more oppressively and get away with this.

That was then, not now. The capitalist systems of the USA and Western Europe are no longer a productive and progressive force as they once were back then. The capitalist system of the West are now in a state of decay as the rise of new capitalist power like China, India, Asia and Latin America push aside the productive dominance that the Western capitalist system once had. The era of New Deals and the welfare state are over in North America and Europe as the capitalist systems are now more parasitic than they are productive, hence the massive cutbacks and attacks in social care and the welfare state that the ruling classes are now engaged in.


Ironically the logic of your position wouyld be to imply that perhaps things might be better oif we did
not resist, if we simply complied with with the wishes of our rulers.

That is not the logic of my position, my position is that working class revolution is the only way to end the dictatorship of capital and in the likelihood of violence, our class must be prepared for it and to resist it.


Again it depends what you mean by "violence". We are just talking in rthe abstract here until we define "violence"? Do you mean street rioting or bang bang?


What specifically do you mean by this? Mass street protests that turn to violence?

I am an anarchist-communist, so I believe in a social revolution of and by the working class. It would involve demos, occupying buildings, workers taking over their workplaces and factories, strikes, sabotage, rioting, all potential flashpoints for violence.

The failed revolution of Paris 1968 is probably the closest example we have to a modern working class revolution, how it would look and what form it would take.


I dont think violence is a socially neutral tool; it has possible social repercussions in the way it is organised and effected and in its consequences.

It is neutral in that it is not inherently good or bad. If violence is used to save lives then it is good, just as it is bad if used for oppression and preserving class rule. What makes violence good or bad is not it's inherent qualities but the person initiating the violence, his own motives and cause will determine the nature of the violent act.


it has possible social repercussions in the way it is organised and effected and in its consequences. Violence often provokes counter violence as the saying goes and leaves a legacy of bitternesss which doesnt actually help matters much.

If this is the price of having a revolution and finally consigning capitalism to the dustbin of history, then it's a price worth paying.

If the revolution is successful it can deal with any violent leftovers of the bourgeoisie, up until wiping them out if need be.


No this is simply not true.

Why? If you call yourself a materialist you will have no choice but to accept it is true. Classes react to each other and to their own material conditions and the level of class struggle is very much a factor in how classes relate to each other and also as to how the ruling class deals with the working class.


The capitalist class will always need a pretext to do anything at all. For example it was not able to just march into Iraq . It had to come up with excuses - that we need to topple dictatorship or the eixtence of WMD.

The fact that the ruling class uses pretexts and propaganda in no way vindicates the view that the working class have any sort of control over them or that their power is dependent on our consent as opposed to the reality that their decisions are made and done according to their own class interests.


My argument is that liberal bourgeois democracy is the achilles heel of capitalism.

You have said this twice without backing it up with anything.


Potentially the capitalist class stands to be completely suckered by its own ideology.

Er no. The capitalist class are really not that stupid and again this view completely departs from any materialist understanding of class dynamics.


By organising democratically to overthrow capitalism (and you have already implied the need for "democratic working class organisation") the workers will far surpass the feeble and limited example of democracy that is bourgeois democracy and in so doing will shift the struggle to the terrain of the political field where numbers count and where we have the advantage

Can you specify what you even mean here, how will any of this happen in your view?

Do you mean using the bourgeois parliament and bourgeois democracy?

[Dunk]

I don't think a non-violent revolution is something any reasonable person should expect. Working people and the throngs of unemployed workers are going to be backed into a corner by the material conditions we face, and we'll increasingly have the choice between revolt and a hopeless life for us, our children, or even death. Conversely, if the revolution takes place, we need only to consult history to see the type of draconian measures capitalists resort to when their profit margins or recruiting quotas for a draft are threatened, much less when the most powerful and organized capitalists the world has ever seen stand to lose private property and the possibility of ever owning or controlling it again.

[Mather]

This raises the broader question of what precisely is meant by "violence." The bourgeois state would love it if factory sit-down strikes, for example, are considered violent, because, well, workers refusing to move is in some vague sense a "use of force to take over their workplaces and factories".

I don't consider property damage or the occupation of buildings or other such acts violence. However, once workers occupy a factory/workplace, then the ruling class may respond and that response may be violent. Recently the French riot police (the CRS) violently broke up an occupation at Marseille port by striking workers. This is an example of how a non-violent direct action can turn violent, usually at the state's choosing as they usually are the ones who use violence first.


Or, if a bus driver asks a woman to go sit on the back of the bus, and she refuses and physically stays put, is that "violence"?

No.


Some things are recognizably violent (armed struggle, guerrilla warfare, etc... that we agree are pointless at least in places like the united states).

Not all violence (including revolutionary violence) is about urban armed struggle or Maoist style rural guerrilla warfare. My criticism with a purely guerrilla strategy is that it excludes the working class and thus cannot lead to revolution, without the working class there is no revolution.


But there is something of a gray area for a lot of actions. I don't think advocates of non-violence (or of violence, for that matter) have really carefully thought through this beyond a vague sense.

I have and like I said before, violence is not just about guerrillas, terrorists and small secretive groups, violence can exist in all types of revolutionary situations and in many different forms.


But I think to call anything that involves physical actions, like say a sit-down strike, "violence" and equating it with guerrilla warfare in some sense does play into the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Sit-ins are generally not violent and totally different to guerrilla warfare, a better example would be people having to use violence to defend their own physical well being from police attack during a demo (when cops usually get violent themselves). But don't forget that there are many methods of struggle inbetween sit-ins and full on guerrilla warfare that can be violent.


The massacre of the Paris Commune/Haymarket/Spain 1936 etc... etc... shows us the suicidal futility of socialist insurrection and challenging the bourgeois order.

Then why are you even debating here if it is suicidally futile?

Though no one in their right mind would argue that the guy in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square somehow left behind a model of political and social organisation for other people to follow and learn from, which the Paris Commune and the Sapnish Revolution both did, thus leaving a bigger mark on history than a very tragic and sad massacre which is more heartbreaking than inspiring.


Nonviolent activists confronted with "violent opposition" have shown a capacity to resist nonviolently. Sometimes they are martyred, yes, but so were many soldiers in the Red Army in 1918.

So you advocate people placing their physical and personal safety and even place their lives on the line just to prove a point about pacifism and to become martyrs?

During a revolution, I'd rather working class people look after themselves and their comrades in struggle and protect each other whenever possible to minimise any losses on our side. I would not want to see working class people needlessly put themselves in harms way by being non-violent towards a violent enemy, better to save and protect working class lives even if that means taking the lives of the ruling class and it's agents.

[MarxSchmarx]

WEll I think this demonstrates the issue. Consider students refusing to move from segregated lunch counters. Is that "unreserved resistance"? That's what it strikes me as. But is it therefore violence? That depends on whether or not violence is employed. I'm not being philosophical here or messing around with language. If people simply refuse to move from their seats, and go no further, then that's a non-violent protest

To continue with the example however, if the authorities want the students moved, and are willing to employ physical force to ensure this, then the students will be moved. The only recourse that the latter possess is a moral appeal to either higher state authorities or the wider population (who can in turn pressure the state). We are however discussing a revolutionary scenario in which the ruling class is no longer hegemonic and has resorted to base coercion; appealing to the state, or expecting it to be held accountable to popular opinion, are futile


You've put your finger on the core of the disagreement with that last point. The state, even of the most oppressive, unpopular variety, remains accountable to popular opinion. It requires a massive machinery of bureaucrats and soldiers and military suppliers and IT workers and the like to operate or, for that matter, merely stay alive. They have their parents and children to justify themselves to. When these people withdraw their willingness to uphold the state by shooting their neighbours, the state is powerless. When people are peacefully engaging in activism against the state, and the "base coercion" is contrasted over and over again to the resolve of the nonviolent resisters, it creates a very stark image that does, in fact, make the state accountable to popular opinion. Reportedly, something like this happened in Egypt when Mubarak asked his generals if the corporals and privates were willing to fire on the protesters, and was told that they would not. When popular opinion shifts decidedly against the state, its days are numbered.

The goal therefore isn't so much to "claim the moral high ground" , although there is immense power that the strength of conviction can bring to bear in making such tactic effective. But a central objective of such non-violent resistance is to awaken the consciousness of people ("popular opinion") about the raw barbarity of the state (or the violent reactionaries) and expose it for what it is.

[No_Leaders]

Well i i just realized i had accidentally posted this in a completely different thread! too many tabs open on firefox :p So basically My opinion on non-violent revolution is that the initial phase of the revolution i.e. seizing the means of production can be done without violence, but defending it is a WHOLE different story. Violence would be necessary to defend the gains that any revolution makes and that's just a fact that has been proven time and time again throughout history. Perfect example is the Seattle General Strike in 1919. This is a quote on the strike from the IWW webpage.


The city now stopped functioning, except for activities organized by the strikers to provide essential needs. Firemen agreed to stay on the job. Laundry workers handled only hospital laundry. Vehicles authorized to move carried signs "Exempted by the General Strike Committee." Thirty-five neighborhood milk stations were set up. Every day thirty thousand meals were prepared in large kitchens, then transported to halls all over the city and served cafeteria style, with strikers paying twenty-five cents a meal, the general public thirty-five cents. People were allowed to eat as much as they wanted of the beef stew, spaghetti, bread, and coffee.
A Labor War Veteran's Guard was organized to keep the peace. On the blackboard at one of its headquarters was written: "The purpose of this organization is to preserve law and order without the use of force. No volunteer will have any police power or be allowed to carry weapons of any sort, but to use persuasion only." During the strike, crime in the city decreased. The commander of the U.S. army detachment sent into the area told the strikers' committee that in forty years of military experience he hadn't seen so quiet and orderly a city.



The mayor swore in 2,400 special deputies, many of them students at the University of Washington. Almost a thousand sailors and marines were brought into the city by the U.S. government. The general strike ended after five days, according to the General Strike Committee because of pressure from the international officers of the various unions, as well as the difficulties of living in a shut-down city.
The strike had been peaceful. But when it was over, there were raids and arrests: on the Socialist party headquarters, on a printing plant. Thirty-nine members of the IWW were jailed as "ring-leaders of anarchy."


Of course there were internal issues that led to it's demise but i'm certain if it had gone on any further the military and police would forcefully crush it. Which is why it's important to have a way to defend the revolution.
The mayor of Seattle stated:

"The so-called sympathetic Seattle strike was an attempted revolution. That there was no violence does not alter the fact. . . . The intent, openly and covertly announced, was for the overthrow of the industrial system; here first, then everywhere. . . . True, there were no flashing guns, no bombs, no killings. Revolution, I repeat, doesn't need violence. The general strike, as practiced in Seattle, is of itself the weapon of revolution, all the more dangerous because quiet. To succeed, it must suspend everything; stop the entire life stream of a community. . . . That is to say, it puts the government out of operation. And that is all there is to revolt -- no matter how achieved."

[ComradeOm]

The state, even of the most oppressive, unpopular variety, remains accountable to popular opinionExcept that this is not true. There are countless examples of states throughout history, and indeed in the world today, that base their authority primarily on coercion rather than a popular legitimacy. A revolutionary scenario in which this legitimacy is seriously challenged would indeed lead to the collapse of the liberal democratic states; but this is not to say that the bourgeoisie would not regroup under a more nakedly repressive regime in order to perpetuate their class rule


Reportedly, something like this happened in Egypt when Mubarak asked his generals if the corporals and privates were willing to fire on the protesters, and was told that they would not. When popular opinion shifts decidedly against the state, its days are numbered. Nor would the generals stand and protect Nicholas II. Generals are perfectly capable of transferring their loyalties to another regime... this is rarely possible when the new social order threatens the very base of their power and privilege

[Amphictyonis]

Sure. But this doesnt invalidate the point that Eastern bloc state capitalist regimes imploded through lack of legitimacy and were brought to an end by essentially peaceful non violent means

But they weren't. Afghanistan crippled the USSR. Other proxy wars also crippled the USSR (economically). Being cut off from trade with certain nations also crippled the USSR but I wouldn't say the state capitalist nations in general fell peacefully. It was a result of decades of war. The Korean war, Vietnam, war in South America...war war war.

[Gorilla]

But they weren't. Afghanistan crippled the USSR. Other proxy wars also crippled the USSR (economically). Being cut off from trade with certain nations also crippled the USSR but I wouldn't say the state capitalist nations in general fell peacefully. It was a result of decades of war. The Korean war, Vietnam, war in South America...war war war.

While all the factors you cite are real, and while the fall of the East Bloc was (irrefutably, in the light of what's happened since) a historic defeat for the international working class, one can't honestly argue that all of these these regimes were popular or had a lot of popular legitimacy. The USSR, maybe. Czechoslovakia, Poland and East Germany, that's a tall stretch.