Poll: Is violence necessary for the left to achieve revolutionary political goals?

[Skyhilist]

Pretty self-explanatory. What say you all, revleft?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Yes, completely and totally. violence will be the end result whether it is the workers who instigate it or the capitalists. Without violence the revolution will be doomed.

Also, where is the poll?

[Skyhilist]

Yes, completely and totally. violence will be the end result whether it is the workers who instigate it or the capitalists. Without violence the revolution will be doomed.

Also, where is the poll?

I was slow to attach it because I'm on a mobile device, sorry

[Blake's Baby]

I don't think there's anything that says a priori that violence is necessary. Violence is a reaction to the violence used against us. If all the bourgeoisie were made of fluffy kittens and happy wise flowers, and consequently realised that revolution was in the best interests of humanity and indeed the world, then no, they would use violence against us, so we wouldn't need to use violence either.

But they're not, so they do, so we must in turn use violence.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Violence, in some form, should be seen as a sad inevitability. I say in some form because I don't think this sort of civil or guerrilla war fetish that some have is either theoretically sound, effective or 'cool' or whatever.

Violence in the sense that there will be demonstrations, protests, mass/general strikes and clashes with those who enforce law and order under the current system and impose its political and economic laws, and its social and cultural customs, there will doubtless be some isolated incidents of either stupidity or just anomolies.

But I don't really understand why people are so forthright in saying 'yes, we MUST have violence otherwise blah blah failure blah...'. That crosses from logical anticipation (and thus preparation for) of violence, to a sort of 'cool violence fetish'. War, in any form, is never a good thing, whether it's bourgie vs bourgie, worker v worker, bourgie v worker or whatever. Whilst 'the revolution will not be a dinner party' and similar cliches, we must not use this to justify the types of violence that should always be avoided. I mean, the sorts of violent, passionate confrontations that I describe above are qualitatively different to the sort of violence I imagine some others have in mind when they fetishise violence.

[Let's Get Free]

There will be violence entailed in the revolutionary struggle, almost certainly. However, it will be violence in self defense of the violence coming from the ruling class and reactionaries. But in general, I think people who advocate for violent revolution in the United States are fantasists--infantile adventurists, as Lenin would call them.

[Sea]

Revolution, noun,
a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed.

Sounds pretty violent to me.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Nah, we can just send workers around door-to-door.

"Hi, we're from the IWW. We're collecting the means of production to build a socialist revolution. Your generous donation will go straight to building a commune in your neighbourhood, and today we have a special offer of a free subscription to the Socialist Worker, plus this stuffed Lenin doll. Thanks for your time." :D

Seriously, gotta use some self-defense.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Revolution, noun,
a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed.

Sounds pretty violent to me.

A change of government/ruler doesn't even begin to describe a revolution as posed by historical materialists. We are talking about an entire change of mode of production. That isn't something that can happen by a few protests here, or a government or two being brought down. We're talking about something so colossal here, it's not going to happen overnight in terms of the organisation, agitation and education required to end capitalism and usher in a post-capitalist mode of production that is qualitatively different and better.

[Q]

I don't think there's anything that says a priori that violence is necessary. Violence is a reaction to the violence used against us. If all the bourgeoisie were made of fluffy kittens and happy wise flowers, and consequently realised that revolution was in the best interests of humanity and indeed the world, then no, they would use violence against us, so we wouldn't need to use violence either.

But they're not, so they do, so we must in turn use violence.

Besides violence in this common sense of the word, I'd like to add another sense. This is the sense where a peaceful (in the common sense of the word) demonstration is branded as "violent", merely because it didn't have the proper paperwork to be held, or because it deviated from the course as laid out by the police, which of course gives them ample opportunity to "restore order".

Revolution then is violent by definition as it is the highest form of being "against the order".

[Blake's Baby]

That's a bizarre definition of 'violence' there Q.

And in your quoting of what I said, I realised I typed '...they would use violence...' when of course I meant '... they wouldn't use violence...' which is kinda important as they're really as completely opposite as it's possible to be within the meaning of words... :blushing:

[Hit The North]

The revolutionary overturning of capitalist society will definitely be forceful. How violent it is will depend on how tenaciously the capitalists attempt to prevent their conversion into human beings.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yes, always. Amazing how the course of history can be changed by one blade reaching the right throat.

[Yuppie Grinder]

"We stand for organized terror, this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life." - Dzerzhinsky

[Let's Get Free]

"We stand for organized terror, this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life." - Dzerzhinsky

Because throughout the course of history, "revolutionary terror" has never proven itself to be counterproductive.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, stupid Anarchist militias, should have sat down and sung Kum Ba Ya instead.

Come on Gladiator, Dzerzhinsky may have been an insane alcoholic shit, but even the Anarchists had a Cheka.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

The portuguese 1974 revolution was completely peacefull.

[Let's Get Free]

Yeah, stupid Anarchist militias, should have sat down and sung Kum Ba Ya instead.

Come on Gladiator, Dzerzhinsky may have been an insane alcoholic shit, but even the Anarchists had a Cheka.

Whatever. I'm just tired of bloodthirsty armchair revolutionaries getting erections over terror-frankly that kind of thing should be left to the fascists.

[Conscript]

Because throughout the course of history, "revolutionary terror" has never proven itself to be counterproductive.

I can't imagine anything more counter-productive than not fighting counter-revolutionaries.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The portuguese 1974 revolution was completely peacefull.

And achieved nothing

[Blake's Baby]

I can't imagine anything more counter-productive than not fighting counter-revolutionaries.

I can, to be fair to Gladiator, and it's presiding over the counter-revolution while claiming it's the revolution.

Gladiator: the revolution will necessarily involve violence. That's the long and the short.

[Let's Get Free]

Gladiator: the revolution will necessarily involve violence. That's the long and the short.

Of course it will. My point is that it should not be fetishized.

[Conscript]

I can, to be fair to Gladiator, and it's presiding over the counter-revolution while claiming it's the revolution.

That'll probably be said for a long time regardless of who says it, however I think we can discern who is truly a counter-revolutionary by their relation to the most revolutionary program. It's the best way to draw a conclusion on the class character of a party/movement.

I wasn't even talking about working class movements at all though. The quote was by the leader of the cheka, and I can't say I despise the terror unleashed on the whites and the church.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not sure that 'relationship to the revolutionary programme' cuts it though. The Bolsheviks were in my estimation the revolutionary - 'vanguard' - of the world proletariat in 1917, but they still presided over the counter-revolution.

At least if the avowed counter-revolutionaries had won, we wouldn't be in the situation where 90 years later, we still had to explain that socialism doesn't mean wage-labour and militarised economies and millions dead.

[sixdollarchampagne]

Lenin knew a thing or two about revolution, I believe, and, when I was in a branch of the Grantist WIL, we read State and Revolution together, and I distinctly remember a phrase that Ilyich used more than once, "violent revolution," so I am content to take Lenin's word for it.

Here, in the US of A, this question is usually posed as one of workers' self-defense, and, fortunately for our purposes, most people here are not dogmatic pacifists.

Without resorting to Lenin, if one just looks around, the enormous state machine, which reaches into every neighborhood, stands guard over private control of society. How can anyone imagine that apparatus would be brought down peacefully? Or that the rich will surrender power without a fight? You can bet those who exploit labor, are not pacifists at all.

[Conscript]

I'm not sure that 'relationship to the revolutionary programme' cuts it though. The Bolsheviks were in my estimation the revolutionary - 'vanguard' - of the world proletariat in 1917, but they still presided over the counter-revolution.

At least if the avowed counter-revolutionaries had won, we wouldn't be in the situation where 90 years later, we still had to explain that socialism doesn't mean wage-labour and militarised economies and millions dead.

That's true, but we must remember all the reformists and peasant socialists they removed from the revolution, when there actually was an international revolution. They did the job of keeping the revolution on track, out of the hands of the 'moderates', bourgeois left, or whatever you want to call them.

From my observation bolshevism was revolutionary up until there was no revolution anymore, and from there degenerate currents took the party and the USSR in a more nationally-oriented, reactionary direction which used socialism and world revolution to advance its bourgeois interests.

Also, I'd like to add to the 'if the reactionaries won' list, that there would be no nationalists latching onto communism. There's too many examples to list but, it's disgusting how much nationalists can appeal to socialism thanks to stalinoids and their nation-building. Stalin did a great job of reviving 'great russian chauvinism'.

[Q]

That's a bizarre definition of 'violence' there Q.

Bizarre as it may be, this is exactly how demos, strikes, etc are portrayed by the mass media, the police and other institutions of the ruling order. And because most people think of "violence" as something quite different, and because of some well-chosen images put on tv, most people actually think working class struggle is violent, in the common sense of the word.

It is a deliberate play on words, designed to keep people confused and immobile. And this play on words is something we need to take into consideration whenever this discussion on "violence" pops up.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Whatever. I'm just tired of bloodthirsty armchair revolutionaries getting erections over terror-frankly that kind of thing should be left to the fascists.

I don't fetishize violence. I plainly don't like it. I'm not a violent person in the least bit. I sincerely wish there was a purely cooperative, peaceful route to socialism, but that is not reality. There are contexts in which violence is necessary.

[Sea]

A change of government/ruler doesn't even begin to describe a revolution as posed by historical materialists. We are talking about an entire change of mode of production. That isn't something that can happen by a few protests here, or a government or two being brought down. We're talking about something so colossal here, it's not going to happen overnight in terms of the organisation, agitation and education required to end capitalism and usher in a post-capitalist mode of production that is qualitatively different and better.Exacly. If merely replacing one bourgeois regime with another requires violence, it's unreasonable to expect that a complete international change in social order can be a peace of cake. If you thought the French revolution was violent, get a load of this stuff!


Whatever. I'm just tired of bloodthirsty armchair revolutionaries getting erections over terror-frankly that kind of thing should be left to the fascists.So those pills with the little hammers and sickles on them were viagra? I wonder what was in that kool aid that I washed them down with...

I do sort of agree with Gladiator on this though, in the sense that violence or terror should not be our goal in itself but rather a sober reality. Then again nobody really was advocating violence as the pastime of revolutionists.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Of course it will. My point is that it should not be fetishized.

It should neither be fetishized or rebuked, as it is, what it is.

[Yuppie Grinder]

It should neither be fetishized or rebuked, as it is, what it is.

The only reasonable position.

[Alekséi]

Usually sometimes, almost always. ¡Viva la revolución!

[Alekséi]

Revolutionary violence depends on the resistance made by capitalists to stay in power. ¿More capitalist resistance? OK, more violence is the answer. They´re directly proportional -as Marx could've said. We don't neglect -of course not- the relation of forces -we´re or must be "dialecticals" as far as we can.
Saludos revolucionarios.

[Ostrinski]

"Power is not transferred, it is taken with guns."- Lenin in preparation for the demonstration against the July Offensive

[TheRedAnarchist23]

And achieved nothing

It replaced fascism with capitalism. Maybe you consider that it is nothing, but it was very important fro the country.

[Rusty Shackleford]

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" Recognizing the bourgeoisie and all former ruling classes relied on force of violence we will counter this by placing daffodils in every rifle barrel imaginable!

[Blake's Baby]

It replaced fascism with capitalism. Maybe you consider that it is nothing, but it was very important fro the country.

Fascism is capitalism. So it replaced (a flavour of) capitalism with (another flavour of) capitalism.

Just like an election.

[IrishWorker]

A serious socialist revolution in any country ,especially the west, will need to be physically defended. But trying to create the conditions for revolution by armed attacks on the establishment will never work however good the intentions of those carrying them out. The capitalist establishments through the media in the west would quickly deem the socialist revolutionaries "Terrorists" thus destroying any political message their actions were meant to have. Saying that I would not lose much sleep if a cappie fat cat was taken out by progressive forces.
I would also fully support socialist political party's retaining the capability to go to war when the time comes if there is going to be a fight you might as well be ready for it.

[Audeamus]

The portuguese 1974 revolution was completely peacefull.

Yes, the actual seizure of power was bloodless, but the widespread hostility to the regime can be tied pretty directly to the protracted colonial war Portugal was pursuing in Africa. And while yes there were popular demonstrations during the revolution, it was essentially a military coup. The driving and most active force behind the revolution was the Armed Forces movement, which most certainly carried with it the threat of imminent violence. So yes, it got rid of the Estado Novo, and brought bourgeois democracy to the country. Actual subversion of property relations, while some were attempted, fizzled out fairly quickly. In no small part due to the Portuguese state declaring them illegal.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

The majority of the time yes, but I would imagine that it could on a rare occassion be peaceful. It would be rare circumstances.

[Geiseric]

We have a higher cultural level than 18th century france, or 1914 Russia today, which includes near universal literacy, basic schooling, and other methods of socialization which I believe will deter violence on the scale of thousands of people being executed in the streets. I don't think it'll be like The Great Terror, I believe most people will go along with the dominant revolutionary force when it shows that it is the only option that would benefit everybody, by getting rid of capitalism. Most of the world imo isn't motivated by violence.

This is all assuming most of the army will defect, like we saw in Russia, where the Whites were as Trotsky said "An army full of officers." Mercenaries are a different story too. I think that most people are rightfully afraid of the bourgeois state, because of the measures it uses for social control, which include allowing vigilantes, and the organized pigs in the FBI, to institute terror to huge portions of the non white population.

[maoster]

there should be another option for - no ideally not but in the past yes revolutions have been violent
we should realize we are living in a completely different age than the ages of the past where communist revolutions have succeeded we can't just put a gun in the hands of millions of idiots and expect to win because the police have undergone paramilitarization and cannot be defeated by force

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Fascism is capitalism. So it replaced (a flavour of) capitalism with (another flavour of) capitalism.

Shut up. You go live in a fascist dictatorship and then tell me if you don't miss the liberal flavour of capitalism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Yes, the actual seizure of power was bloodless, but the widespread hostility to the regime can be tied pretty directly to the protracted colonial war Portugal was pursuing in Africa. And while yes there were popular demonstrations during the revolution, it was essentially a military coup. The driving and most active force behind the revolution was the Armed Forces movement, which most certainly carried with it the threat of imminent violence. So yes, it got rid of the Estado Novo, and brought bourgeois democracy to the country. Actual subversion of property relations, while some were attempted, fizzled out fairly quickly. In no small part due to the Portuguese state declaring them illegal.

You don't need to teach me the history of my own country, I knew all that already.
Many people think it was a CIA backed coup, and that the government that came to power was put there by the CIA to stop the country from going communist. The 1974 revolution was leftist in character, there was occupation of factories, and taking of the fields from the land owners, but this disapeared. The ones that went to power were not those placed by the people, they were rightists.

In the end you can say fascism in Portugal was ended the way it begun, with a military coup.

[MarxSchmarx]

The portuguese 1974 revolution was completely peacefull. And achieved nothing

Funny you should mention that. After I'm done touring my newest Foxconn factory investment, I had been hoping to take a trip to the Soviet Union to see the accomplishments resulting from a revolution that was a murderous civil war.

It's a serious problem with violent socialist revolutions. Historically, they have persistently created new institutions and new elites who ultimately proved conducive to the restoration of full blown capitalism. Not one has in any substantive sense succeeded in realizing its liberatory goals, and those that weren't destroyed from the outside, the violent transition period invariably created the germ of subsequent counter-revolution.

[Geiseric]

Funny you should mention that. After I'm done touring my newest Foxconn factory investment, I had been hoping to take a trip to the Soviet Union to see the accomplishments resulting from a murderous civil war.

It's a serious problem with violent socialist revolutions. Historically, they have persistently created new institutions and new elites who ultimately proved conducive to the restoration of class society. Not one has in any substantive sense succeeded in realizing its liberatory goals, and those that weren't destroyed from the outside, the violent transition period invariably created the germ of subsequent counter-revolution.

Way to ignore material conditions.