Socialism and Revolution

[u.s.red]

Is socialism possible without violent revolution?

[Firebrand]

No it isn't

[danyboy27]

Its would be possible without a lot of unecessary violence and usless killing, but the act in itself would be violent, somehow.

The revolution that put the bolshevik to power in russia wasnt really violent, its the civil war that fallowed that killed a lot of people.

[Ostrinski]

It is possible. But not likely or practical.

[Firebrand]

The ruling classes will not relinquish power peacefully. They will send all the forces at their disposal against us in an attempt to surpress the revolution. You think the riot police are bad now, if we get anywhere close to actually seizing political andd economic power they won't stop at rubber bullets and tear gas. It will be all truces off, right now they try to at least appear to abide by human rights laws but if we come close to actually toppling them, don't think they'll even bother to remember human rights regulations.

[The Idler]

There'd be little point with an overwhelming majority in favour.

[Firebrand]

There'd be little point with an overwhelming majority in favour.

Minorities have opressed and controlled majorities throughout human history and they do have superiour firepower. And in any case if the revolution is truely spontaneous the full scale of it won't become apparant until we're actually in control, when it happens it will happen fast. They won't have a chance to realize they can't win. Besides a lot of capitalists believe in their system as strongly as we object to it, they will fight for it even if it looks like losing. That sai I think we should avoid unecessary bloodshed, but when there's fighting in the streets people on both sides are going to die.

[Rafiq]

There'd be little point with an overwhelming majority in favour.

You're wrong, because an overwhelming majority would still have to deal with elements of counter revolution, which will resist violently to the power of the proletariat.

Mafias and Drug Lords represent a minority( I don't mean this racially, I mean it in the sense that most people in Miami are not in a Mafia, ergo Mafias are minorities) in Miami yet the impact they have on society is unbelievable.

[danyboy27]

It is possible. But not likely or practical.

Except, well it happened in the past and stuff.

[Ismail]

Revolution is a violent and (as Engels noted) authoritarian (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm) act. The actual 1917 revolution wasn't really violent, but don't forget that there had been a few months of dual power between the soviets and the provisional government and the bourgeoisie were in little position to do much due to the world war and the huge discontent it created in the armed forces. The actual effects of the revolution and the seizure of state power by the working-class, however, resulted in much violence (aka the civil war) when the bourgeoisie and international reaction worked together to retain their privileges.

[Ostrinski]

Except, well it happened in the past and stuff.It all depends on the material conditions and the interests that are being threatened. A model that works for social upheaval in one particular place and point and time would not necessarily work for every other place/point in time. A peaceful transfer of class power in United States isn't possible but that's not to say that it can't work elsewhere.

[danyboy27]

It all depends on the material conditions and the interests that are being threatened. A model that works for social upheaval in one particular place and point and time would not necessarily work for every other place/point in time. A peaceful transfer of class power in United States isn't possible but that's not to say that it can't work elsewhere.

There is a difference between peaceful and relatively peaceful.
Violence can be present but limited, take the cuban revolution for exemple, or the bolshevik revolution, or when allende took control of the chile governement, or when chavez took power (not the best revolutionary around but eh, that just an exemple) or when sankara took power in burkina-faso.

The only reason why the russian civil war lasted that long was beccause the whites where backed by foreign power, the only reason why the vietnam civil war lasted that long was beccause the U.S interveined.

All in all, an almost bloodless revolution is a verry real possibility, but you need the support of the population, otherwise a lot of lives will be lost in vain.

[Ostrinski]

There is a difference between peaceful and relatively peaceful.
Violence can be present but limited, take the cuban revolution for exemple, or the bolshevik revolution, or when allende took control of the chile governement, or when chavez took power (not the best revolutionary around but eh, that just an exemple) or when sankara took power in burkina-faso.

The only reason why the russian civil war lasted that long was beccause the whites where backed by foreign power, the only reason why the vietnam civil war lasted that long was beccause the U.S interveined.

All in all, an almost bloodless revolution is a verry real possibility, but you need the support of the population, otherwise a lot of lives will be lost in vain.And you may very well be right. But whether by violent or peaceful means, or the degree, does it really matter? So long as the proletariat gets to where they're going.

[Renegade Saint]

Is socialism possible without violent revolution?
Depends on what you mean by 'violent'. Anyone who thinks a Western state will be overthrown primarily through force of arms is nuts, but when the working class stage mass protests and occupy government buildings, their workplaces, etc, they almost certainly will be attacked and then it will be necessary to resist. I don't think anyone here is a Gandhi-style pacifist.

Of course, you're on a forum called 'revleft: the home of the revolutionary left'. Just saying that socialism is possible without a revolution of some kind can get you restricted to OI.

[Ostrinski]

Nah I think there are a couple resident pacifists.

[Mr. Natural]

Marx thought peaceful socialist revolution was possible. Here is an excerpt from his address to the First International in Amsterdam in 1872:

"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 towhich we must someday appeal in order to erect the rule of labor."

Please note Marx's theoretical flexibility in the above remarks. He bases the revolution of the working class in the conditions existing in the various countries at a particular time. In this light, I cannot see any path to the violent revolution so many RevLefters seem to desire in Western countries where the state has a monopoly of violent means and has developed such daunting surveillance technologies.

Socialist/communist revolution is possible in the West, but not by adhering to old formulas from past eras. Marx and Engels were revolutionaries and would have advanced Marxism with the times. Where are their legitimate heirs? Where is the necessary new Marxist revolutionary theory and spirit for our times?

Marxism is about the liberation and realization of humanity, not kicking ass.

My red-green best.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, Marx believed that there might be a possibility of the working class taking power without using insurrectionary methods. You're right that he had a pragmatic approach wihich avoided dogmatic statements and looked at the specifities.

So, in looking at the specificities of the situation over the last 100 years or so, I don't know why you can't see that the states Marx claims 'might' be susceptible to the peaceful implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, have in fact become considerably more brutal, centralised, and reactionary than they were in 1872. If the majority of continental Europe was to reactionary to allow a peaceful takeover by the proletariat, how are the states you mention now any less reactionary?

I would argue that any possibility of a 'peaceful' transition to socialism is a pipe-dream. It would be lovely if it were true. It isn't, though. The revolution will of necessity be violent because the capitalists will never allow the working class to assume power worldwide without a bitter fight, and that's the long and short of it.

[Mr. Natural]

Blake's Baby, We agree that the current conditions in the West are deeply problematic for socialist revolutionaries such as ourselves. I also agree with your assessment that the governments of the UK and the US have greatly increased their repressive powers since 1872. Have they ever!

I do not understand, though, why you then conclude only violent revolution is possible. The ruling class and its state will employ violence, of course, but is it possible for the proletariat (whatever it is these days; "class" needs reworking) to organize employing violence?

We agree the world has changed dramatically in some ways. I believe this means Marxist theory needs radical reworking in some areas, a project Marx and Engels would avidly engage, were they alive.

I'm American, and there is almost no class consciousness in the US, nor is there any grassroots awareness of the nature of capitalism. Hell, discussing capitalism is almost forbidden! In this environment, I can see nonviolent approaches to organizing and developing class consciousness having a chance of success where violence would just turn everyone off and provoke massive repression. Then, once some class consciousness and organizing has been effected, comrades will, of course, re-evaluate their situation.

In the meantime, the Western capitalist state's monopoly of violent means and repressive technology must be constantly acknowledged by revolutionaries and dealt with in revolutionary organizing theory.

My red-green best.

[Blake's Baby]

... The ruling class and its state will employ violence, of course, but is it possible for the proletariat (whatever it is these days; "class" needs reworking) to organize employing violence?

...I'm American, and there is almost no class consciousness in the US, nor is there any grassroots awareness of the nature of capitalism. ... I can see nonviolent approaches to organizing and developing class consciousness having a chance of success where violence would just turn everyone off and provoke massive repression...


What 'violence' are you discussing if you're not discussing violence in the revolution?

Do you think when we are talking about class violence, we mean that we want to violently organise in a pre-revolutionary situation?

If there is no class consciousness, if there is no recognition that capitalism is the problem and the proletariat needs to overthrow it, if, in short, we are not in a revolutionary situation, what 'violence' are you talking about?

[ckaihatsu]

- Revolutionary violence would be a *strategic* matter -- no one can be anything *but* pragmatic on the issue.

- The received wisdom is that the capitalist class does / would act desperately against the least perceived threat to their control and does / would respond with the maximum physical violence available to them.

That said, though, the revolutionary aim is not violence-*dependent*, and so it's conceivable that a fully global mass insurrection could simply *overwhelm* the ruling class with sheer coordinated numbers, effectively bypassing the world's elite and their hired goons.

[Mr. Natural]

Blake's Baby asks, "Do you think when we are talking about class violence, we mean that we want to violently organize in a pre-revolutionary situation?"

You apparently do not automatically think of violence in developing pre-revolutionary class consciousness and praxis, Blake's Baby, but many at RevLeft do. Romantic visions of the positive effects of violence are common. I recall some amazing posts approving of breaking shopkeepers' windows during OWS demonstrations. Then there's the Black Bloc (some of whom gotta be agents) that specializes in provoking violent police crackdowns on demonstrators' heads in the belief this will radicalize them.

There is plenty of state surveillance and pre-revolutionary violence around, though. The US now has a travelling police state that surfaces at major events. The Seattle WTO events alerted the ruling class to new, disturbing popular developments, and the next stop--Philadelphia with its preventive misdemeanor arrests and million-dollar bails--showed the capitalist state's new response to such events.

I'm attempting to say, BB, that the world has dramatically changed with capitalism's global triumph, and that we on the left must correspondingly radically reassess the situation and our response to it. Marx and Engels sure as hell would, and I experience the current theoretical conservatism and paralysis of the left as dismaying and painful.

I doubt we have major differences on the topic of pre-revolutionary violence, BB, and I concur with the sense of chaihatsu's post.

[Blake's Baby]

Blake's Baby asks, "Do you think when we are talking about class violence, we mean that we want to violently organize in a pre-revolutionary situation?"

You apparently do not automatically think of violence in developing pre-revolutionary class consciousness and praxis, Blake's Baby, but many at RevLeft do...

I rather assume that violence will not be a feature of our organising.


... I recall some amazing posts approving of breaking shopkeepers' windows during OWS demonstrations...

Though I have to say for the record that 'violence' is committed against people not property, so breaking windows is not violence by my definition. Whether damamge to property is useful can only be decided as a tactical question, though generally I think it's over-emphasised as a tactic. I don't see the point in breaking a shop's windows, if it's a small business, unless it's particularly known for treating its workers badly. I can see the point of breaking a bank's windows, or a big supermarket's windows, if it's part of a protest about this or that aspect of global capitalism.

But ultimately our weapon as the working clas is our organisation. We are most effective not rioting on the streets but striking against our employers and persuading other workers to join us. That is rarely accomplished by breaking windows.

Rioting won't bring down capitalism and the state any more than armed insurrection will. It is through mass industrial action that we put the question of our running of society onto the table, not stunts like smashing windows, though those stunts may have a place in certain circumstances. But all the window-smashing in the world can't make up for a lack of struggle from the working class.