Violent uprising necessary?

[AmericanSocialist]

Hello all,

so through the years I am finding myself become more pacifist. I used to think very highly of violence in the past. Now I seem to be more peaceful and calm. I admire the likes of Ernesto Che Guevara, Fidel, Chavez, and Mao. These men led revolutionary uprising that included some violence (Chavez and the Venezuela revolution did not bring as much blood shed as these other revolutions).

My question is violence for revolution necessary? Could one achieve revolution without violence? When I think of America and see all these middle east countries that use violence against their citizens, I can't help but wonder what type of violence the United States would use against its citizens if commies were doing mass protests around the states. It seems almost inevitable that they would fire on us, perhaps the first few times were over anxious riot police or military men. But this may just increase as more anger from the citizens is unleashed. So does it always go back to violence?

[Book O'Dead]

[QUOTE=AmericanSocialist;2151252]Hello all,


My question is violence for revolution necessary? [\QUOTE]

The answer to that depends entirely on a number of factors and circumstances that we cannot entirely anticipate. You'll have to be already in the middle of the fracas to find out, no?

But really, at this point in time the question ought be "Is violent revolution inevitable?"

[Octavian]

Peaceful revolution and protest are just a fashionable way of achieving change. Sure it has worked but that was only because the whole world was watching and the bourgeoisie let them.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

For proletarian revolution? Yeah most likely there will be some level of violence.

[Book O'Dead]

Peaceful revolution and protest are just a fashionable way of achieving change. Sure it has worked but that was only because the whole world was watching and the bourgeoisie let them.

There is no such thing as a "peaceful revolution".

[Old Mole]

"A revolution without firing squads is meaningless"/Lenin

Not quite true, and probably the firing squads will mostly shoot the revolutionaries. But yes, it seems that the capitalists, that currently controls the state (basically a gang of armed men, Lenin again) controls it for a reason, to control people and use violence when necessary. So a proletarian revolution without violence is to me unthinkable

[Kamos]

The capitalists will never willingly give up their system, so yes, we'll have to shoot a few people to get the point across.

[Proukunin]

It doesn't have to be violent. But the capitalists will bring it first. So yes, it will have some violence that comes with it. We don't WANT to be violent but in the means of self defense and stopping oppression we have to.

[freya4]

If the situation was ideal, then no, we wouldn't need to use violence and a peaceful revolution might be possible. However, the bourgeoisie will never willingly give up their enormous amount of economic, political and social power, and hand it over to the workers. More likely than not, some amount of force will have to be used to get them to surrender. After all, how did feudalism topple in Europe? The French Revolution, the English Civil War, etc. were all violent and bloody uprisings that resulted in the downfall of the monarchy and old order, and led to the rise of capitalism and the bourgeoisie. Either the workers have to rise up and overthrow the system, or it will simply destroy itself from within, due to its unsustainable need for unrestricted growth, and the eventual depletion of resources resulting from it. I think the revolution is more favorable though, since the latter option will be more harmful and catastrophic.

[Le Socialiste]

The ruling-classes will always resort to forms of violence and intimidation in order to put down popular uprisings against its authority. If faced with the chance of revolution, the capitalists will never shy from acts of aggression. When their position in society is threatened, they will attempt to silence the opposition in whatever way possible. Yes, I believe the American ruling-class wouldn't hesitate to fire on us if it was clear that their privileged status was at risk. While I don't condone violence, we must recognize that it is a necessary component to any potential revolution that seeks a break with the existing structures of terror and oppression. But it is not the only means by which we may place pressure: militant occupations, strikes, and worker-led actions are also vital for continuing revolutionary and emancipatory struggle. As socialists, communists, and anarchists, we have a wide array of options with which to arm ourselves - but the most successful revolt is one that utilizes all of them (or as many as is realistically possible). While Marx ceded that peaceful revolution was possible, he held that it was only possible in certain countries where it stood a chance of succeeding. I don't agree with Marx about everything, but I can (somewhat) agree with him on this point.

[Blake's Baby]

I think in the seizure of power by the Military-Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet in November 1917, something like 7 or perhaps 9 people were killed.

In the counter-revolution, the Civil War and the Intervention by the capitalist powers, not to mention the famines and all the rest that accompanied them, hundreds of thousands died. This is on top of the millions who were dying because of the First World War.

Now of course we have 1/3 of the planet on the brink of starvation, man-made or human-enhanced environmental catastrophes, vicious wars and genocides happening across the world.

So the question is not really whether violence is necessary, but, given that massive violence is already happening, is the working class prepared to use violence against the class that directs violence against us?

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Certainly a 'Peaceful Revolution' will be possible if the Bourgeois is willing to transfer their power and ownership of the means of production within a peaceful form. Violence that occurs within Proletarian Action is a direct response to Bourgeois Action and is to be viewed as such within a Revolutionary Viewpoint.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think in the seizure of power by the Military-Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet in November 1917, something like 7 or perhaps 9 people were killed.

In the counter-revolution, the Civil War and the Intervention by the capitalist powers, not to mention the famines and all the rest that accompanied them, hundreds of thousands died. This is on top of the millions who were dying because of the First World War.

Now of course we have 1/3 of the planet on the brink of starvation, man-made or human-enhanced environmental catastrophes, vicious wars and genocides happening across the world.

So the question is not really whether violence is necessary, but, given that massive violence is already happening, is the working class prepared to use violence against the class that directs violence against us?

Similarly a lot more people were killed in the "white terror" in Nationalist-controlled Spain than in the "red terror" of Republican-controlled Spain, in the direct aftermath of the outbreak of civil war.

[The Teacher]

Of course a peaceful revolution is possible. If the revolutionaries refuse to use violence and refuse to back down, then you have it. The question is can you sit idly by and suffer attacks without returning them?

If violence is initiated by the revolutionaries without substantial, visible, provocation then all public sympathy and support shifts to the government.

[Jose Gracchus]

I think that's a highly simplistic, ahistorical, and idealist conception of why sometimes violent action has resulted in reaction. You would better be suited by looking at concrete instances and the concrete conditions that yielded that outcome than drawing such broad generalizations.

[Robocommie]

It doesn't have to be violent. But the capitalists will bring it first. So yes, it will have some violence that comes with it. We don't WANT to be violent but in the means of self defense and stopping oppression we have to.

This is precisely the proper way to look at it. Hope for a peaceful revolution, but realize that in all likelihood, the forces of oppression will start shooting first, and if a revolution is not prepared to fight back, that revolution fails. Violence is never something to be seen as an end in and of itself.

[robbo203]

Peaceful revolution and protest are just a fashionable way of achieving change. Sure it has worked but that was only because the whole world was watching and the bourgeoisie let them.


Point is that, come a socialist revolution, the whole world will most certainly be watching. Not only that, the whole world will have already been markedly changed in its outlook and perspective. Socialism by its very nature is not something that can be imposed from above; it has to involve the great majority wanting and understanding it

As for the bourgeosie its not a case of them letting us proceed to do things peacefully. On the contrary, they enjoy power becuase we let them have it. And increasing we will be denying them that social power as our movement gains strength.

When the writing is on the wall, most, if not all, of them will buckle under and comply with the will of the majority. The capitalist class is after all a tiny minority . As Jimmy Reid once said "if we all spat we could drown them". To imagine that this tiny group of privileged pampered parasites could themselves physically obstruct the path to a socialist society is far fetched. Normally, they get others to do their dirty work for them but under these circumstances even members of the armed forces will themselves be heavily influenced by the rising tide of socialist consciousness. They are, after al,l just workers in military unform whose brothers/sisters, girlfriends/boyfriends, fathers/mothers et al will increasingly be socialists