Is a non-violent revolution possible?

[Seresan]

I'm not a reformist or anything, but I believe that a society built on violence will continue to resort on violence whenever it needs control. Is there any way that I'm not aware of that a revolution could be lead successfully against a country with a strong military?

I'm pretty new to this whole thing and haven't read a lot of the source material firsthand, so forgive me if my question sounds stupid.

[miltonwasfried...man]

Well, I suppose we could ask the state nicely to kill itself and add "pretty please" after we ask the rich to give up their wealth and power... But if that doesn't work we must first educate the masses and show them that capitalism enslaves and the government oppresses then yes, we will need a violent revolution. After which we can finally be free to live in a true communist society.

[bcbm]

i doubt it

[Rocky Rococo]

The first thing you need to do in addressing that question is to define "violence".

[AnonymousOne]

Yes, a non-violent revolution is possible. Proudhon discusses for example a way of organizing society through creating voluntary associations which we use as an alternative to traditional capitalist ones. We form neighborhood associations etc. as a stepping stone and framework from which we slowly grow until our relations are primarily through these associations. This is of course reformist, but after this, we can simply overthrow the capitalist system with ease. They will have been so starved that we may simply kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will fall in.

Of course, we'll run in to opposition from the Capitalists that will probably be violent, and the workers must defend themselves. But in a strictly hypothetical sense, yes it could be possible.

[Nuvem]

I'm not a reformist or anything, but I believe that a society built on violence will continue to resort on violence whenever it needs control. Is there any way that I'm not aware of that a revolution could be lead successfully against a country with a strong military?

I'm pretty new to this whole thing and haven't read a lot of the source material firsthand, so forgive me if my question sounds stupid.

You're absolutely right. There's a monopoly on violence under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

No, non-violent revolution has never occurred and is not possible. Yes, it is possible to defeat a powerful military through revolution. Depending on the national peculiarities, the nation may go through a protracted People's War in the struggle to seize state power such as in China or Cuba or may be afflicted by a civil war following the seizure of state power such as in Russia or Vietnam.

A proper understanding of "violence" is necessary when asking this question. Violence cannot be narrowly defined as causing physical or emotional damage to a person or persons. A mugging is violent, a gunfight is violent, bombings are violent- but so is expropriation of bourgeois property. Violence is done upon a worker every day when that worker performs their job and has the surplus value generated by their labor stolen from them by their employer. Violence consists not only of physical or emotional damage done to another, but also in expropriations, the meting out of punishment (such as incarceration) or any form of stripping an individual of their moral autonomy. Quite frankly, if we are to be leftists, we must come to terms with and accept violence as an unavoidable day-to-day occurrence and embrace an understanding of the full range of exactly what violence is.

The liberal, bourgeois definition of violence as an act causing physical or emotional damage to others is all too narrow. Is it not violence to fire a worker and thereby threaten to rob them and their family of their food, their home, their clothing and their overall security? Is it not equally violent for armed workers to seize control over their places of work and expropriate them from private, bourgeois control, thereby wresting them of their source of income as well? The same applies to bourgeois housing, the largest of which is inevitably seized post-revolution for use as orphanages, day-care centers, tenant housing, local buildings of government, community centers, libraries, etc. It's a form of silent violence for the bourgeoisie and bourgeois state by extension to exercise their dictatorship over the proletariat and thereby enforce wage slavery over the vast majority of the population; work for the private profit of others, or starve. The very nature of the market and privatized ownership is a manner of violence in the same way incarcerating an individual against their will is a manner of violence. We should not be afraid to utilize violence against the murderers of the innocent and the slave owners of hundreds of millions.

The unfortunate truth is that all states are based on violence of one class against another, and this cannot be changed or avoided while classes exist.

[CHE with an AK]

Is a non-violent revolution possible?
No.


Not a real one at least ...


http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/2011/991850364_l.gif

[Caj]

To me, it seems that even a revolution based initially on non-violent principles would inevitably result in violence, as the bourgeoisie surely would not allow the downfall of their own system without some resistance. They would certainly use all that is in their power (the police, military, etc.) to try to violently suppress any revolutionary fervor. Obviously non-violence should be an ideal to be strived for, but it doesn't seem like non-violence would be practical in the midst of a revolution.

[Apoi_Viitor]

It is sheer insanity to believe that capitalists would goodhumoredly obey the socialist verdict of a parliament or of a national assembly, that they would calmly renounce property, profit, the right to exploit. All ruling classes fought to the end, with tenacious energy, to preserve their privileges. The Roman patricians and the medieval feudal barons alike, the English cavaliers and the American slavedealers, the Walachian boyars and the Lyonnais silk manufacturers – they all shed streams of blood, they all marched over corpses, murder, and arson, instigated civil war and treason, in order to defend their privileges and their power. - Rosa Luxemburg

[syndicat]

violence brutalized people and needs to be minimized. but i think it is highly unlikely for a genuine transition to workers power to occur without violence directed against the movement. just as workers need to take over management of their workplaces as part of a revolutionary process, the state employees need to also defy their bosses, and this includes soldiers in the military. a deeply rooted mass movement with very large scale support is likely to gain support within much of the military.

[Rocky Rococo]

Here's a book, that while being "out of fashion" for a century remains perhaps the most significant investigation of the topic of violence in class conflict:

George Sorel, Reflections on Violence (http://books.google.com/books/about/Reflections_on_violence.html?id=wD8_iQRGe3kC)

Much of it seems stilted and old-fashioned in both its ideas and its writing. However, there is one component to Sorel's work that strikes me as being very contemporary, almost "post-modernist", and that's his discussion of the role of "social myth".

[Commissar Rykov]

Yes the Capitalists will just hand over the Means of Production, their wealth, massive amount of homes and vehicles while singing the Internationale. If you think the Bourgeoisie who fought and killed to attain their position won't do so again to maintain the Status Quo then you are sorely mistaken.

[pax et aequalitas]

When you use violence you have already failed your revolution. Violence is a means of oppression, by using it you will not free anyone. You merely become the new oppressor.

[Imposter Marxist]

When you use violence you have already failed your revolution. Violence is a means of oppression, by using it you will not free anyone. You merely become the new oppressor.

"To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is cruelty."

And we must oppress them comrade, the proletariat must oppress the bourgeoisie, the Counter-revolutionaries, the reactionaries who seek to throw themselves in front of the train that is the revolution. When you set off to start of non-violent revolution, you've already failed. It is impossible.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

When you use violence you have already failed your revolution. Violence is a means of oppression, by using it you will not free anyone. You merely become the new oppressor.

Have looked at any history at all?

[pax et aequalitas]

Have looked at any history at all?

Yes and I noticed that the violent revolutions in Russia and China for example have led to some dictator becoming tyrant just as bad if not even worse than the leaders they overthrew.

[#FF0000]

I'm not a reformist or anything, but I believe that a society built on violence will continue to resort on violence whenever it needs control. Is there any way that I'm not aware of that a revolution could be lead successfully against a country with a strong military?

I'm pretty new to this whole thing and haven't read a lot of the source material firsthand, so forgive me if my question sounds stupid.

Well, first of all, a revolution isn't necessarily a military campaign. Revolutions don't have to involve guerillas in the hills or flat-out confrontations with the military. Revolution isn't a military campaign. So, don't get too caught up on that kind of thinking.

But as for your question, it kind of depends on what you think of as violence, or what kind of violence you find acceptable. The point of the communist revolution is to dismantle the systems of power and privilege that exist today, which would make people with power and privilege pretty uphappy, wouldn't it?

So, considering this, I think it's kind of unlikely that people who enjoy power under capitalism would willingly give it over without trying to fight to maintain it (especially considering the horrific things that are done on a daily basis for that very purpose). So, yeah. If a totally peaceful and smooth transition is what you mean by "non-violent", then no, it's probably not possible. But then again, if you consider something like the Egyptian uprising non-violent, then the answer would have to be... maybe.

Keep in mind, though, that capitalism is a system that exists on a foundation of violence, and that horrendous things are done to humans every day to keep the candystore open for the privileged. Given the fact that capitalism itself is violence committed against the working class, I think that violence in a revolution can be justified anyway, because revolution is an act of self-defense by the working class.

[#FF0000]

When you use violence you have already failed your revolution. Violence is a means of oppression, by using it you will not free anyone. You merely become the new oppressor.

Slaves who kill their masters are oppressors, I guess.


Yes and I noticed that the violent revolutions in Russia and China for example have led to some dictator becoming tyrant just as bad if not even worse than the leaders they overthrew.

You're absolutely right, the use of violence is the only thing that had anything to do with how those two countries turned out. In fact I remember back in Spain of '36 when the Anarchists fought off Franco's army's with civil disobedience.

I mean, look dude I'm not one of those guys who's all about bloodthirst and thinks "anything goes" when it comes to violence. Violence and nonviolence are both just tactics to be used, and it's dumb to just go all-in for one or the other, no matter how much one might like Robespierre or Gandhi.

[DarkPast]

"To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is cruelty."

And we must oppress them comrade, the proletariat must oppress the bourgeoisie, the Counter-revolutionaries, the reactionaries who seek to throw themselves in front of the train that is the revolution. When you set off to start of non-violent revolution, you've already failed. It is impossible.

That's all well as long as those being oppressed are actual counter-revolutionaries - that is, they actively oppose the working class. I can't help but notice how, during the October revolution, anarchists, mensheviks, and many other leftists were declared "petit-bourgeoise" and oppressed (to put it mildly).

[UnknownPerson]

The short answer is "No.".

[piet11111]

When you use violence you have already failed your revolution. Violence is a means of oppression, by using it you will not free anyone. You merely become the new oppressor.

Its violence in self defense against those that use violence against us.

[Nehru]

Slaves who kill their masters are oppressors, I guess.


Nope, but they end up becoming the new 'masters' and start owning slaves themselves.

[#FF0000]

Nope, but they end up becoming the new 'masters' and start owning slaves themselves.

I would agree?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Yes and I noticed that the violent revolutions in Russia and China for example have led to some dictator becoming tyrant just as bad if not even worse than the leaders they overthrew.
Well no one said just because you employ violence the revolution was going to be successful. On the other hand look at the "non-violent" revolutions. You'll most likely point to India and I'll point out how royally screwed they are from imperialism even after the British gave them "independence". Or maybe you'll point to the current situation that happened in Egypt, the place where they're now discussing violence because the "revolution" amounted to nothing more than a military coup.

Then I will point out the various successful violent revolutions like the American Revolution and French Revolution.

But how cool would that be if history was as simple as "China and Russia failed because they used violence!" I wish it were that easy.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Yes and I noticed that the violent revolutions in Russia and China for example have led to some dictator becoming tyrant just as bad if not even worse than the leaders they overthrew.

If you think the USSR was worse than Imperial Russia, or that Maoist China was worse than Nationalist China, this may be the wrong forum for you...

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I would wager that it's not, no.

[Imposter Marxist]

That's all well as long as those being oppressed are actual counter-revolutionaries - that is, they actively oppose the working class. I can't help but notice how, during the October revolution, anarchists, mensheviks, and many other leftists were declared "petit-bourgeoise" and oppressed (to put it mildly).

Anarchists...Mensheviks...yeah, thats because they were. Counter-revolutionaries being oppressed, and stopped.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Anarchists...Mensheviks...yeah, thats because they were. Counter-revolutionaries being oppressed, and stopped.

There's nothing more counter-revolutionary than the independent organization of the working class...

[Dogs On Acid]

Violence is a product of the Rich and the Reactionaries defending private property. If the fat-cats just gave away their money and didn't complain, of course it would be peaceful. But that's not how shit goes down.


It's not the Revolutionaries that want violence, it's the Capitalists that don't mind resorting to it.

[Seresan]

I like the idea about voluntary organizations building strength through popular approval. It certainly would make it easier to gain control of things if the system was already established in a smaller form...

[CHE with an AK]

If you think the USSR was worse than Imperial Russia, or that Maoist China was worse than Nationalist China, this may be the wrong forum for you...
Exactly!

Who the hell does the restricting around here, and what exactly does a user have to say to get restricted? Glowingly quote Adam Smith & Adolf Hitler at the same time? :confused:

If we want to be a forum for everyone fine, but if this is going to be a revolutionary leftist forum, then some of the reactionary trash needs to be secluded to the opposing ideologies forum.

[ComradePonov]

Not only is peaceful revolution possible, its the only meaningful form of revolution which will ultimately result in the implementation of communism and the improvement of workers rights.

There is no legitimate revolution that is carried out without popular support. A legitimate socialist revolution must be carried out gradually, in a democratic process, and with the full support of the people.

Any other form of revolution (ie violent revolution) will ultimately result in despotic, autocratic rule. You can not militarize the workers and still call your self a socialist (like the Bolsheviks did.)

I don't know why people think that the workers will voluntary carry out the back-breaking task of rebuilding an economy that has just gone through a revolution... the only way the people will do this is if they are forced to do it, ie if they are Militarized, just as the Bolsheviks decided to ignore the principles of socialism and militarize the workers in Russia.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Theoretically, I suppose.
The bourgeoisie fights back with more than just rifles and artillery. It needs officer to operate its war machines, and property with which to bribe.
If the cops were to suddenly develop a revolutionary consciousness and the notion of property to be suddenly disowned, their would be no means of defense against revolution.
But of course, it's just as realistic to say we can instantly devalue all currencies and bankrupt the bourgeoisie by trading in salt water taffy.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Not only is peaceful revolution possible, its the only meaningful form of revolution which will ultimately result in the implementation of communism and the improvement of workers rights.First thing, out of curiosity, why the hell do you have a picture of Trotsky as your avatar with such a view of revolutionary politics? Secondly why is peaceful revolution the only "meaningful" form of revolution, violent revolution has no meaning? And you better have a good reason as to why you think peaceful revolution is the only way to implement communism.


There is no legitimate revolution that is carried out without popular support. A legitimate socialist revolution must be carried out gradually, in a democratic process, and with the full support of the people.What type of liberal shit is this? That's not revolutionary, it's called reformism. Really this is just reformism with populist rhetoric, who's "the people"? Does it include the bourgeoisie, they're people too right? That's who you're not going to get support from as a class.


Any other form of revolution (ie violent revolution) will ultimately result in despotic, autocratic rule. You can not militarize the workers and still call your self a socialist (like the Bolsheviks did.)Yeah actually I can, as can most socialists calling for violent revolution. I'm confused as to what you mean by militarization, because I've usually meant it to mean the strengthening of a military industrial complex. If you mean you can't be a socialist while advocating workers organize and arm themselves for what will be a violent conflict, why not? You just make claims without making any sort of supporting arguments for them.


I don't know why people think that the workers will voluntary carry out the back-breaking task of rebuilding an economy that has just gone through a revolution... I think it's because most of us here would gladly blow up a building if it meant we're going to rebuild it under a socialist society.
the only way the people will do this is if they are forced to do it, ie if they are Militarized, just as the Bolsheviks decided to ignore the principles of socialism and militarize the workers in Russia.Again, more claims with no supporting arguments, you just declare something to be an absolute truth. Where did you get these absolute truths from?

[#FF0000]

Not only is peaceful revolution possible, its the only meaningful form of revolution which will ultimately result in the implementation of communism and the improvement of workers rights.

Can we define our terms, please? What is a peaceful revolution to you?


There is no legitimate revolution that is carried out without popular support. A legitimate socialist revolution must be carried out gradually, in a democratic process, and with the full support of the people.

I don't really care about popular support. I care about working class support. Secondly, you're creating a false dichotomy here. A revolution can be popular, and at the same time be violent.


Any other form of revolution (ie violent revolution) will ultimately result in despotic, autocratic rule. You can not militarize the workers and still call your self a socialist (like the Bolsheviks did.)

The way you guys say the presence of violence dictates how "free" the society will turn out to be is like saying paying tribute to the gods will help my garden grow. You guys insist there is a link that doesn't exist, ignoring actual history and all the factors that actually had anything to do with the way the USSR or China turned out.

I mean, if violence leads to autocratic government, and nonviolence leads to freedom, then how do you explain someone like, i dunno, Indira Fucking Gandhi in India?


You can not militarize the workers and still call your self a socialist (like the Bolsheviks did.)

Can you explain this? Like, in detail? Because I don't know if you actually know what you're talking about or not.


I don't know why people think that the workers will voluntary carry out the back-breaking task of rebuilding an economy that has just gone through a revolution... the only way the people will do this is if they are forced to do it, ie if they are Militarized, just as the Bolsheviks decided to ignore the principles of socialism and militarize the workers in Russia.

Yeah, shit, I know if my house just got wrecked the fuck up one day, I'd just sit there until someone forced me to clean it.

But anyway, I'm kind of confused. What was the violent part of the Russian Revolution, exactly? Is it, say, the storming of the Winter Palace y'all think was too much? Was it the sailors who tried and executed their superiors? Or are you talking about the massive civil war that happened in 1918?

[#FF0000]

I like the idea about voluntary organizations building strength through popular approval. It certainly would make it easier to gain control of things if the system was already established in a smaller form...

You're talking about things like, say, a voluntary commune out in the woods or something, right?

[CHE with an AK]

"Revolution is not a dinner party, nor an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly, and modestly. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."
— Mao Zedong

[#FF0000]

"Revolution is not a dinner party, nor an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly, and modestly. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."
— Mao Zedong

new rule

no quotations as arguments anymore

esp. not Robespierre and Mao in threads about violent revolutions.

[CHE with an AK]

no quotations as arguments anymore

esp. not Robespierre and Mao in threads about violent revolutions.
Why word it different when they said it best?

They actually led victorious revolutions ... as far as I know, nobody here has.

[Frank Zapatista]

Sorry if this sounds stupid but I consider the revolution to be pacifist in nature. It's not so much a violent destruction of the government as it is the people protecting themselves from the government. It's more of an act of self defense. Look at it this way, if we started a mass non-violent revolution, would the people in power not fight back? What do you think the police and military are here for if not to secure the govenments interests through violence? After the revolution there would be peace within society. Violence is a byproduct of the state and it's protection of it's own interests, once the state is gone and the people are taken care of and ruling over themselves, why would there be violence?

[hatzel]

new rule

no quotations as arguments anymore


Why word it different when they said it best?

"Quotation, n.: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another."
– Ambrose Bierce.

...see, I can do it, too :rolleyes:

Also it reeks of "well, they said it, so it must be right. End of discussion." That's a terribly boring approach to life...particularly considering:


They actually led victorious revolutions ... as far as I know, nobody here has.
Some may wish to debate exactly how victorious Mao and/or Robespierre were, from a revolutionary perspective. And even if they did lead victorious revolutions, doesn't automatically mean that everything they said was a particularly good idea, unless you happen to be involved in some kind of quasi-religious worship of historical figures...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's possible and preferable, yes.

But we must be prepared for the reality that there will be a positive link between revolutionary fervour, the intensity of class warfare and clashes between ordinary working people and the state security apparatus: the police etc.

I am talking about developed western nations here, of course. It might be the case in developing nations that, due to the lack of development of even a modicum of democracy in many such nations, that violence will be an inevitably inherent symptom of revolution as dictators and their regimes are overthrown.

What I really dislike is violence fetishism in western countries. It is quite clear that it is possible (though admittedly, not probably) that non-violent revolution could occur in a country such as the UK. Of course, there will always be confrontation, scuffles and some escalation. We see that even in a relative time of peace with some demonstrations, protests and marches. But the main thing is that we should avoid preaching that in order for revolution to be successful in a nation such as the UK, people must take up armed revolt and put their lives in peril. It's simply not true.

[Dr Mindbender]

It depends if the armed forces and law enforcement agents of the state can be persuaded to defect to the side of the people. If that can be done there is nothing the establishment class can do to physically prevent revolution.

The bourgeoisie are not in power because they are 'tough guys' that we fear. They are in power because they pay soldiers and police to protect them, who are proletariats under the same conditioning as the rest of us.

[AnonymousOne]

You're talking about things like, say, a voluntary commune out in the woods or something, right?

Actually, I believe he's referring to what I mentioned earlier. A movement to create voluntary associations, cooperatives and communes through a non-hierarchial process. With more and more resources, and reliance being put into these institutions. This helps create a framework through which we can organize our new society.

For example, I'm working on creating a locally controlled credit union which doesn't charge interest on loans, based on Proudhon's ideas. We're struggling to get members to sign up as we can't get NCUA without 500 members. We're at a little under half that right now.

Of course, the ruling class won't like this and we will have severe and harsh attacks as we attempt to organize worker's associations and cooperatives. Laws against such local banking may begin to be enforced, and the ruling class will try to crush these movements. These battles will probably be violent, but if we defend ourselves and our new institutions we can probably weather the storm and succeed with the capitalist system being so weakened, that it will go out with barely a sound.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It depends if the armed forces and law enforcement agents of the state can be persuaded to defect to the side of the people. If that can be done there is nothing the establishment class can do to physically prevent revolution.

The bourgeoisie are not in power because they are 'tough guys' that we fear. They are in power because they pay soldiers and police to protect them, who are proletariats under the same conditioning as the rest of us.

The police are not 'the same as the rest of us'. They are not conscripted. Indeed, many of them are not even from working class backgrounds these days -a lot of them can afford to demonstrate their potential as a full PC by working voluntarily as a Special Constable for a period, and even then, they start on the same salary as an economics graduate from a top university might.

[CHE with an AK]

"Quotation, n.: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another." – Ambrose Bierce
... see, I can do it, too
Hey, good, I love Bierce's stuff and that was at least more interesting than most of the other posts on this thread. :)




And even if they did lead victorious revolutions, doesn't automatically mean that everything they said was a particularly good idea
True, but if discussing flying, I'd prefer to refer to the words of someone who has actually flown a plane before.

Would you prefer that I quote them without attribution - because if what they said has merit, it shouldn't matter who said it.

[bricolage]

"Revolution is not a dinner party, nor an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly, and modestly. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."
— Mao Zedong

bricolage's law; "As a revleft discussion on violence grows longer, the probability of the dinner party quote approaches 1 (100%)."

[Rss]

I guess anything is possible, but anyone who thinks that peaceful revolution is probable is living in La-La Land.

[CHE with an AK]

bricolage's law; "As a revleft discussion on violence grows longer, the probability of the dinner party quote approaches 1 (100%)."
Nice. :)

But then again, I would have the quote mandatorially placed in every users sig if it was up to me. :star3:

[Kosakk]

Maybe I'm naivé, but I kinda like to think of violent revolution as a "last resort". Self-defense.

It might be unavoidable, but I'll avoid it as long as possible.
I don't want a lot of people dying because someone thinks the
revolution isn't revolutionary enough.

[punisa]

They gave us violence for centuries and now we should go easy on them?
I see your point dear comrades and I too am not very fond of getting a bullet in my forehead, but when the revolution kicks in it will bloody and messy.
Try to look at it from the perspective of "final struggle" - today we kill, but tomorrow and evermore our fellow humans can live in peace after thousands of years of slaughtering each other.

[Rocky Rococo]

The robber baron Jay Gould is famously quoted as saying, "Whenever I need to, I can hire half the working class to kill the other half of the working class." If the number of working people that would take the bossman's money to suppress fellow members of the working class could be reduced to zero by political and other peaceful means, there'd be little "violence" in any revolution, because the bossman isn't about to do much of his own fighting. But the sad truth is that number will never be reduced to zero, there will always be workers willing to kill their brothers and sisters for the rich man's buck. One of the objectives of revolution is to put an end to the conditions that make such a self-defeating behavior possible.