How much force is necessary?

[Questionable]

This question is mostly directed at Leninist-oriented users, but how much violent force should be used during a dictatorship of the proletarian?

Let's say that the revolution takes place in a certain first-world country, but there are people preaching out against the new socialist government (Be them capitalists, anarchists, whatever). What is the appropriate method of dealing with this? I know the Soviet Union historically used violence and political oppression, but was this really necessary? Are we supposed to allow everyone free speech, even if it may damage our efforts a bit, or will political oppression be a necessary tool in the war against capitalism?

[Lanky Wanker]

Well I doubt a huge group of capitalists and/or anarchists will be stood against a wall and shot for speaking against the state, if that's what you mean by "force".

[RevSpetsnaz]

I like how he thinks there can be a proletarian dictatorship.

[Ostrinski]

As much as necessary. Anarchists can be reasoned with. But any capitalist sowing the seeds of counter-revolution is potentially dangerous. As for what measures would be necessitated, it really depends on context. It depends on their perceived legitimacy (can they mobilize people, or are they just a nut shouting on a street corner?). All in all, upholding some abstract ideal just isn't worth the risk of counter-revolution.

[Renegade Saint]

Every argument I've ever heard for forcibly restricting the parameters of acceptable opinion and debate in society boils down to "the people can't be trusted to make the right decision [ie, for my party/tendency], unless we prevent them from being exposed to any other ideas."
If you believe in your ideas and believe they're most correct you shouldn't fear debating them.
If socialism is actually empowering and improving the lives of the vast majority of people why would they listen to some "capitalist roader"? If it isn't than it's not worth having.

[Zulu]

As much as it takes. Naturally, it must be complemented with all sorts of non-violent forms of political struggle to be effective.

Stalin ones said something like: "It's untrue that the Bolsheviks are in love with violence. The Bolsheviks would gladly avoid resorting to violence, if the bourgeoisie gave in voluntarily. Unfortunately, the bourgeoisie is unlikely to give in voluntarily, therefore we, the Bolsheviks, need to be ready to use all means at our disposal to make the bourgeoisie give in, including the violent means."

[runequester]

By the time a revolution in a major western country is over, the streets will have run with blood already from the reaction of capital. It may not be such a theoretical question by then.

[Revolution starts with U]

As much as necessary. Anarchists can be reasoned with. But any capitalist sowing the seeds of counter-revolution is potentially dangerous. As for what measures would be necessitated, it really depends on context. It depends on their perceived legitimacy (can they mobilize people, or are they just a nut shouting on a street corner?). All in all, upholding some abstract ideal just isn't worth the risk of counter-revolution.

I can't really disagree with this, as it is logically correct... until I get to this question;

Who gets to decide what's proper leftist or not? Who gets to decide who gets to decide? Oh, that's right.... the vanguard; the people who think they know better than you.

[workersadvocate]

Remember that it takes two to tango.

[blake 3:17]

I am much more sympathetic to pacifism than I was in the past. I am NOT a pacifist. Isaac Deutscher presented a formula for making revolution as peaceful as possible -- the greater the number of people willing to use force in a revolution, the less actual violence will occur.

If we embrace socialist morality, we need to see it through. Only two socialist revolutions have abolished the death penalty, the Nicaraguan, on the seizure of power by the FSLN, and the Cuban, in 2001 after 40 years in power. According to Wikipedia, there were people executed in Cuba in 2003.

More generally, I would look to Fourth Internationals's The Dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist democracy
In order to prevent any abuse of power by a vanguard party leading the working class under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the following principles are adhered to by the Fourth International:

a) Fullest internal democracy of the party itself, with full rights for organising tendencies and a refusal to ban factions and possibilities of public debates between them before party congresses.

b) Broadest possible links and interpenetration between the party and the working class itself. A revolutionary workers’ vanguard party can only efficiently lead the working class under the dictatorship of the proletariat if it simultaneously enjoys the political confidence of the majority of the workers and organises in its ranks the great majority of the vanguard workers.

c) Strict suppression of any material privileges for party cadres or leaders. No party leader, full-timer or member elected in any leading position of the workers state, its economy or its other social institutions, should receive a higher wage than the average wage of a skilled worker.

d) No political or ideological monopoly of the vanguard party in or control over political or cultural activities. Adherence to the multi-party principle.

e) Strict separation of the party apparatus from the state apparatus.

f) Real integration of the party in a revolutionary international and acceptance of international comradely criticism by revolutionary organisations of other countries. No control of the international by any party or parties in power in given workers state(s).

Full text here: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article921

[daft punk]

2 people died in the Russian revolution. After that Russia became a democracy for the first time. In the summer of 1918 the Left SR Party walked out of government in protest at Lenin's peace plan with Germany. They then tried to sabotage it and killed the German Ambassador to this end. The counter-revolutionary White generals started a civil war.

So the violence from the Reds was simply self defence.

[Nox]

Inb4 Kronstadt

[Tim Cornelis]

Fidel Castro argued “Ideas do not need weapons, to the extent that they can convince the great masses”. Similarly, Thomas Jefferson correctly argued that "truth stands by itself, only government needs force".

Apparently, Fidel Castro's ideas were not very persuasive and so he resorted to violence.

If you use force to whip people into obeying you, you are simultaneously initiating a new class structure. The abridgment of freedom of speech for the bourgeoisie starts as a means to silence the bourgeoisie. But some (Marxist-)Leninists love putting the epithet of 'bourgeois' on anyone who does not act and think as they do, including revolutionary socialists. Soon all opinions will be outlawed except Marxism-Leninism and we again have a new class structure.


As much as necessary. Anarchists can be reasoned with. But any capitalist sowing the seeds of counter-revolution is potentially dangerous. As for what measures would be necessitated, it really depends on context. It depends on their perceived legitimacy (can they mobilize people, or are they just a nut shouting on a street corner?). All in all, upholding some abstract ideal just isn't worth the risk of counter-revolution.

A socialist revolution requires the active participation, passive support, or passive sympathy of at least half the working class, or else it's just a coup d'état. If half of the working class are socialist or sympathetic to the idea, why would they all of a sudden be convinced that socialism is wrong during the revolution they support? And if another part of the working class is instilled with reactionary, racist, nationalist, chauvinist, anti-communism, they already have this sentiment instilled in them, so it's irrelevant.

[manic expression]

It's the principle of self-defense that is key here. Working-class movements rarely, if ever, use violence first...first (and second, and third, and fourth) blood is uniformly drawn by capitalist forces. That should be the guiding light of the movement on this question: self-defense. Ideas need not weapons but their adherents do if they're attacked.


Every argument I've ever heard for forcibly restricting the parameters of acceptable opinion and debate in society boils down to "the people can't be trusted to make the right decision , unless we prevent them from being exposed to any other ideas."
If you believe in your ideas and believe they're most correct you shouldn't fear debating them.
If socialism is actually empowering and improving the lives of the vast majority of people why would they listen to some "capitalist roader"? If it isn't than it's not worth having.
Because all warfare is based on deception; because politics oftentimes has everything to do with whomever is the loudest bully and nothing to do with the will of the majority.

Far from being some position on moral concepts, I think it's a more practical matter of trying to deal with manipulation and staving off subversion. Remember, if tomorrow a nascent socialist revolution were to fall apart, capitalism would almost assuredly replace it because the more powerful system fills the vacuum. Capitalists need only fund a few racists, get everyone mad at their neighbors and then they're in the driver's seat. It's important that in some cases slander not be tolerated because of this fact.

After all, capitalist roaders, so-called, [I]never call themselves capitalist roaders...that's kind of the whole point.

Lastly, as I've noted previously, it's only natural that a working-class government would take an active interest in the political environment present within the masses. Capitalist governments don't really care because the capitalist is aloof to the mutterings of the oppressed...that is until it becomes something potent. Socialist governments should take a proactive role in public discourse among workers...it would be irresponsible not to confront and expose reactionary ideas in that case.

Genuine discourse is what we all want, of course, but the thing with genuine discourse is that it has to be genuine, not a poisoned well. Reactionaries, IMO, should be able to speak and march and do whatever other non-violent activity they plan to do, but they should everywhere be opposed and denounced for what they are. Further, I will not condemn a single working-class government if it decides to draw a line when it comes to anti-progressive sedition, I don't play Monday Morning Revolutionary.

[Firebrand]

It is wrong to execute people for dissent, even if they are trying to bring back a capitalist system. The new system should eventually win them over by being demonstrably better than the old for nearly everyone.
However it would be incredibly naive to think that the supporters of capitalism will stop at peaceful rallies and argument. Think assasinations and terrorism, not to mention the fact that they will do anything in their power to sabtage industry, transport etc. Think about the ways they attacked Allende's regime in Chile before the coup, there will be physical attacks not just ideological ones, they will try and damage the infrastructure that is necessary to keep civilisation functioning. While people should be allowed freedom of thought and speech, if they start actively working to bring back capitalism, they can and should be imprisoned to prevent them from causing damage.
In short as long as they are peaceful they can say what they like, but if they start physically attacking us we will have to imprison them. If they won't surrender and can't be captured alive we might have to kill them. But that would be a shootout situation, cold blooded executions are out of the question, i'm sure we can find better solutions than killing our opponants once the working class are in control.
During the revolution the situation may lead to things panning out differently, but once the workers are in power, surely we would have enough leeway to find better solutions.

[daft punk]

Inb4 Kronstadt
Kronstadt was a mutiny which threatened the whole revolution, as the British could have got ships into Petrograd.

People like Victor Serge backed the Bolsheviks. The Workers Opposition did too.

Fidel Castro argued “Ideas do not need weapons, to the extent that they can convince the great masses”. Similarly, Thomas Jefferson correctly argued that "truth stands by itself, only government needs force".

Apparently, Fidel Castro's ideas were not very persuasive and so he resorted to violence.
Castro wasnt a Marxist though.

Regarding the purges, that was a political counter-revolution by Stalin to make sure socialism wasnt on the agenda

[Rafiq]

There should not be a limit, if violence is necessary. Should the revolution demand violence, we should not attempt to limit her. That being said, if it is necessary to secure a proletarian dictatorship, unlimited violence will be released towards the class enemy.

But, in no way, does the dictatorship of the proletariat find it necessary in any way to use violence against those whom do not pose a threat to the Worker's State (Former ruling class who have decided not to take up arms, Children, etc.).

Violence in a proletarian dictatorship is not some kind of spontaneous, unorganized mob of angry masses of people just fucking shit up, looting and raping. It is systematic, organized, and carefully carried out.

[Renegade Saint]

It's the principle of self-defense that is key here. Working-class movements rarely, if ever, use violence first...first (and second, and third, and fourth) blood is uniformly drawn by capitalist forces. That should be the guiding light of the movement on this question: self-defense. Ideas need not weapons but their adherents do if they're attacked.


Because all warfare is based on deception; because politics oftentimes has everything to do with whomever is the loudest bully and nothing to do with the will of the majority.

Far from being some position on moral concepts, I think it's a more practical matter of trying to deal with manipulation and staving off subversion. Remember, if tomorrow a nascent socialist revolution were to fall apart, capitalism would almost assuredly replace it because the more powerful system fills the vacuum. Capitalists need only fund a few racists, get everyone mad at their neighbors and then they're in the driver's seat. It's important that in some cases slander not be tolerated because of this fact.

After all, capitalist roaders, so-called, never call themselves capitalist roaders...that's kind of the whole point.

Lastly, as I've noted previously, it's only natural that a working-class government would take an active interest in the political environment present within the masses. Capitalist governments don't really care because the capitalist is aloof to the mutterings of the oppressed...that is until it becomes something potent. Socialist governments should take a proactive role in public discourse among workers...it would be irresponsible not to confront and expose reactionary ideas in that case.

Genuine discourse is what we all want, of course, but the thing with genuine discourse is that it has to be genuine, not a poisoned well. Reactionaries, IMO, should be able to speak and march and do whatever other non-violent activity they plan to do, but they should everywhere be opposed and denounced for what they are. Further, I will not condemn a single working-class government if it decides to draw a line when it comes to anti-progressive sedition, I don't play Monday Morning Revolutionary.
Thanks for proving my point. The bolded sections show quite clearly that manic depression is scared that those great unwashed masses will be "deceived" or "tricked" or otherwise mislead off the one true path.

Although I'm kind of confused by the italics part, as that seems to contradict the first part.

I take it as axiomatic that if the working classes ever reach the class consciousness necessary for a socialist revolution to succeed it will not be easily led away by reactionaries (particularly if the revolution is empowering them and improving their material conditions). I'm not worried about capitalists or other reactionaries influencing the vast majority of people, because they will no longer have control over the mass media to relentlessly propagandize everyone-the workers will. And the same workers who made the revolution aren't likely to allow their newly controlled media outlets to broadcast capitalist propaganda, regardless of what the state deems legal.
I imagine it'd be something like the situation today (except the opposite obviously), where radical leftists are allowed to express our views freely, but it's difficult for us to be granted a forum that reaches large numbers of people, because a) few people take us seriously, and b) giving us a platform would go against the interests of the people controlling those platforms.

[manic expression]

Thanks for proving my point. The bolded sections show quite clearly that manic depression is scared that those great unwashed masses will be "deceived" or "tricked" or otherwise mislead off the one true path.
And every one of your words shows that you're not heeding the realities of politics. It's as if you believe there's some magic potion to make everyone who isn't a capitalist unwaveringly support your "one true path". And you do have a path, even if you don't want to admit it.

But more to the point, are you actually telling me that you don't think the masses can be set against themselves or silenced? Surely you can't be that naive.


Although I'm kind of confused by the italics part, as that seems to contradict the first part.That has to do with my preference, but as we learn from history, circumstances dictate such matters, oftentimes to a more persuasive degree than anyone's political preference.


I take it as axiomatic that if the working classes ever reach the class consciousness necessary for a socialist revolution to succeed it will not be easily led away by reactionaries (particularly if the revolution is empowering them and improving their material conditions). I'm not worried about capitalists or other reactionaries influencing the vast majority of people, because they will no longer have control over the mass media to relentlessly propagandize everyone-the workers will. And the same workers who made the revolution aren't likely to allow their newly controlled media outlets to broadcast capitalist propaganda, regardless of what the state deems legal.You really think that's how these things work? People like x, so y can't happen? This isn't the Teen Choice Awards, this is real life...what people want doesn't always count for much. In fact, what people fear usually trumps that.

So please, stop thinking of class consciousness like it's some superpower laser shield that nullifies any threats. What you need to realize is that capitalists don't need to influence the vast majority of people...they simply need to pay a few to intimidate and silence the rest. That's all they need. How do you think Yugoslavia was torn apart...by consensus?


I imagine it'd be something like the situation today (except the opposite obviously), where radical leftists are allowed to express our views freely, but it's difficult for us to be granted a forum that reaches large numbers of people, because a) few people take us seriously, and b) giving us a platform would go against the interests of the people controlling those platforms.Interesting. Ever heard of the Black Panthers? The Young Lords? Allende? Arbenz? Romero? Joe Hill?

[Renegade Saint]

And every one of your words shows that you're not heeding the realities of politics. It's as if you believe there's some magic potion to make everyone who isn't a capitalist unwaveringly support your "one true path". And you do have a path, even if you don't want to admit it.

But more to the point, are you actually telling me that you don't think the masses can be set against themselves or silenced? Surely you can't be that naive.1. Of course I have a "path", I'm just not so damn certain of it that I want to force others on it at the point of a bayonet.

2. In current society? Sure. In a society where the working class has become self-acting and conscious enough to seize power by itself for itself? No. Who would silence them? By what means? I'm talking about after the working class has seized state power.


That has to do with my preference, but as we learn from history, circumstances dictate such matters, oftentimes to a more persuasive degree than anyone's political preference.Ah, free speech is just a convenience to discard whenever it becomes burdensome. That's what I thought.


You really think that's how these things work? People like x, so y can't happen? This isn't the Teen Choice Awards, this is real life...what people want doesn't always count for much. In fact, what people fear usually trumps that.

So please, stop thinking of class consciousness like it's some superpower laser shield that nullifies any threats. What you need to realize is that capitalists don't need to influence the vast majority of people...they simply need to pay a few to intimidate and silence the rest. That's all they need. How do you think Yugoslavia was torn apart...by consensus?
Silence the rest? How do they do that when the working class has state power?

It's amusing, getting lectured on "reality" by someone who thinks China is anything but a capitalist state.


Interesting. Ever heard of the Black Panthers? The Young Lords? Allende? Arbenz? Romero? Joe Hill?
I'm shocked! shocked! to find that bourgeois democracies don't live up to their stated ideals. But nonetheless, we are all on this forum, and not in jail (yet). I haven't seen any posters from those glorious workers' states of North Korea, China, Vietnam, or Cuba (maybe there are some, I just haven't seen them).

If I ever become as distrustful and disdainful of the working classes as you I hope I just become an alcoholic cynic in the mold of Rick Blaine instead of a Stalinist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm shocked! shocked! to find that bourgeois democracies don't live up to their stated ideals. But nonetheless, we are all on this forum, and not in jail (yet). I haven't seen any posters from those glorious workers' states of North Korea, China, Vietnam, or Cuba (maybe there are some, I just haven't seen them).

You don't know glorious comrade sunfarstar? :ohmy:

[Renegade Saint]

You don't know glorious comrade sunfarstar? :ohmy:
Well I do now. "Love Che, like Che, earning Che!"


"if we sale more and more che 's things,it will been best!"

Now that's a sales pitch. Unfortunately the site is down :(

[manic expression]

1. Of course I have a "path", I'm just not so damn certain of it that I want to force others on it at the point of a bayonet.

2. In current society? Sure. In a society where the working class has become self-acting and conscious enough to seize power by itself for itself? No. Who would silence them? By what means? I'm talking about after the working class has seized state power.
1.) So you have a path but you lack the requisite conviction to defend it when under attack. Very comforting, I'm sure that'll make a great banner: "We think this is a good idea, but we're not all that into it so we're not going to fight for it too hard!"

By the way, even if you're afraid to use the bayonet, other people won't be when they get the slightest chance. Think about that.

2.) Why not? What new law of physics have you discovered that makes it an impossibility to create confusion and distrust among a worker state...especially if it's run by people too timid to challenge reactionary subversion?


Ah, free speech is just a convenience to discard whenever it becomes burdensome. That's what I thought.Neither is it a universal principle.


Silence the rest? How do they do that when the working class has state power? There are many methods for doing this. Overt military action (Paris Commune, German Revolution, Hungarian Revolution), the funding of racists to divide and confuse the people (Yugoslavia, the Caucuses), utilizing anti-socialist agents to poison discourse and slander the worker state (Russia, Baltic states, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.).

So far, you've been able to duck history by hiding behind vague moralizing. Now, you need to address how this stuff works in practice. In the case of Cuba, the imperialists attempted overt military action, sabotage, assassination, funding of reactionaries...but none of it has succeeded, and why? Was it because of your magic wand class-consciousness force field? No, it was because the Cuban workers, through the worker state, took appropriate measures when attacked. As an example, Fidel once told Herbert Matthews, the NYT journalist who broke the story that Fidel was alive in 1956, that if he was in Cuba during the Bay of Pigs, he would have been arrested. I know that this might not appeal to your "live and let live" sensibilities, but in the fog of war, such policies were needed to defend the Revolution and the interests of the working class.


It's amusing, getting lectured on "reality" by someone who thinks China is anything but a capitalist state.When a Trotskyist doesn't realize that Trotsky worked directly with the Cheka when the chips were down and retook control of a certain naval installation, then yeah, you need that lecture real bad.


I'm shocked! shocked! to find that bourgeois democracies don't live up to their stated ideals. But nonetheless, we are all on this forum, and not in jail (yet). I haven't seen any posters from those glorious workers' states of North Korea, China, Vietnam, or Cuba (maybe there are some, I just haven't seen them).I've seen multiple posters from China. The DPRK and Vietnam don't have very many English speakers.

But it's probably also a function of the fact that when you have a genuine working-class discourse, people don't need to escape to the internet to debate leftist ideas. Someone from Cuba posting here would be like someone from Canada posting on a Bangladeshi hockey website.


If I ever become as distrustful and disdainful of the working classes as you I hope I just become an alcoholic cynic in the mold of Rick Blaine instead of a Stalinist.Just because I don't agree with your dough-eyed naivete means neither distrust nor disdain. It just means I see how things work, how things can fall apart, how it's not a good idea to make capitalist agent's jobs a lot easier. Recognizing that anti-socialist slander is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to imperialist aggression is part of this. In light of that, saying any reactionary agitation would be tolerated under any circumstance is both unrealistic and irresponsible.

Just curious, how much history do you plan on not learning?

[Ostrinski]

I take back some of what I said, but force has always been necessary to suppress counter-revolution. Class society does not disintegrate right after the revolution, as the dispossessed bourgeoisie and the faction of the proletariat that supports them will see nothing in the way of reaction if the opportunity is ripe.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

This question is mostly directed at Leninist-oriented users, but how much violent force should be used during a dictatorship of the proletarian?

Let's say that the revolution takes place in a certain first-world country, but there are people preaching out against the new socialist government (Be them capitalists, anarchists, whatever). What is the appropriate method of dealing with this? I know the Soviet Union historically used violence and political oppression, but was this really necessary? Are we supposed to allow everyone free speech, even if it may damage our efforts a bit, or will political oppression be a necessary tool in the war against capitalism?

Some people are 100% reactionary and need to be removed from society, in order for revolution to be possible. If their opinion is simply that they are more important than poor people and that they deserve a better quality of life because of their high wealth, then I would have no problem with them being sent to death camps. The purges against reactionaries and fascists in the Soviet Union were necessary for the country to be stable at that time. Although, I do think that Stalin should have had somewhat more sympathy for some simply poor-minded people. Deportation to small towns just for counter-revolutionaries may have been a better idea. What should be done to certain people really depends on what makes them counter-revolutionary.