democratic revolution vs violent revolution?

[Comrade Alex]

To start, revolution is inevitable and it is only a matter of time before
Revolution begins. However will the revolution be a violent struggle or a peaceful democratic struggle. Examples of violent struggle would be the Chinese, Russian and Cuban revolutions, while democratic revolutions would be allende in Chile and Chavez in Venezuela
The question is which one is the best for the proletariat, which will accomplish more and would it be universal?
I've long pondered this thought and would like to know what do you guys think?

[Riveraxis]

It really depends on our conditions at the time.
Ideally, a peacefully democratic revolution would be great.
But that is pretty unrealistic.
Capitalists have murdered millions of people in their effort to rule the world. They are not going to react kindly to us. No, not at all.
We will succeed in uniting the proletariat democratically.
After that point it's going to be raw class struggle. And that is not easy, not fun, not peaceful, and not quick. It is difficult, dangerous, painful, violent, and continuous.

Realistically the revolution will be fought on multiple fronts. One being the city streets, where violence is eminent. But revolution will also occur through our media, which should be relatively peaceful. Every factor is important.

[Let's Get Free]

The state, the system of social relations, could not withstand the force of many millions of individuals turning against it but it easily withstands the actions of the few that consciously oppose it now.

If billions turned against capitalism, they would sweep it aside and with little destructive effort. But we are few, and because we are few we would have to increase the destructive character of our interventions.

Force of numbers mitigates the need for a force of acts. By being deficient in numbers increases the requirement for forceful action for each individual.

[tuwix]

To start, revolution is inevitable and it is only a matter of time before
Revolution begins. However will the revolution be a violent struggle or a peaceful democratic struggle. Examples of violent struggle would be the Chinese, Russian and Cuban revolutions, while democratic revolutions would be allende in Chile and Chavez in Venezuela
The question is which one is the best for the proletariat, which will accomplish more and would it be universal?
I've long pondered this thought and would like to know what do you guys think?

First of all, Venezuela from its formal independence from Spain has never been democratic state as well, as other listed countries by you, because democracy means a power o authority of people which the DotP that never really existed.
Secondly, there is no opposition between democracy and violence. There can be violent and democratic movement at once.
Thirdly, I think that forms of permanent general strike is the best option of revolution.

[Riveraxis]

I also want to add that the vast majority of us would NEVER advocate violent revolution if there was any other option. It's not bloodlust that drives the revolution.
It's just that there isn't another option, and we're not willing to capitulate.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The tasks of a proletarian revolution - which include smashing the bourgeois state machine and defending the revolution against reactionaries and saboteurs - require violence. And for the revolution to succeed it must have the support of the broad proletarian masses and it must construct a proletarian democracy - so a revolution should be both violent and democratic in a proletarian sense.

[Rurkel]

Indeed. Why can't it be a violent democratic struggle? Seems like a false dichotomy to me.

[Durruti's friend]

The revolution will have to be violent, but also democratic in a sense that the workers themselves lead it and decide on how it will go. That would mean - no substitutionism.

A parliamentary "revolution" is not possible for a couple of reasons:
1) The bourgeois parties are richer and have a better propaganda machine than any present or possible future far left party.

2) Parliamentarism isn't really the best way of achieving victory because the people think you will change everything, while that is, in fact, the job of the people themselves. The voters think you are responsible for everything and that their responsibility starts and ends with voting. It's something of a moral factor, if people actually fight for change, they will feel that fight is theirs. That doesn't happen in parliamentarism.

3) The opposition is very strong after every parliamentary elections and it will do anything to stop social changes. And that could lead to a more and more authoritarian stance of the party, which could end in a dictatorship.

4) If it doesn't turn authoritarian, the party will turn reformist and after that happens there's no more revolution.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Yeah, these are false dichotomies. The "democratic revolutions" worth a damn, like the English and the French, were hardly peaceful. It requires an abstract and idealistic view of human history to even ask the question. Even the US revolution, as such, required the Civil War to complete the democratic task of abolishing slavery. That was peaceful. As the comrades above have ably pointed out, Revolutionary communists do not particularly want violence. Revolution should be made with the minimum necessary amount of violence. History tells us, in no uncertain terms, that the MNAV is indeed considerable.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The state, the system of social relations, could not withstand the force of many millions of individuals turning against it but it easily withstands the actions of the few that consciously oppose it now.

If billions turned against capitalism, they would sweep it aside and with little destructive effort. But we are few, and because we are few we would have to increase the destructive character of our interventions.

Force of numbers mitigates the need for a force of acts. By being deficient in numbers increases the requirement for forceful action for each individual.
If. How would this come about? Billions fighting capitalism would be great. You state this as if it is some kind of alternative to building communist parties. But if we are just wishing, how about if only we had a communist world already? Then there would be no need for any kind of struggle.:rolleyes:

[Old Bolshie]

The replacement of a social order for another is always bloodiest and violent as History as proven so far. The old order will always resist and counter-attack.

As you may know the replacement of the feudal order by the bourgeoisie's one was extremely violent and it involved multiple wars through the XIX Century. None of the bourgeois revolutions was achieved through parliamentary means.

There isn't any reason so far to think that it would be different with the replacement of the bourgeoisie order for the proletarian's one.

[Brutus]

Every class has achieved their dominance through violence. Every class has attempted to hold on to its dominance with violence.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To start, revolution is inevitable and it is only a matter of time before
Revolution begins. However will the revolution be a violent struggle or a peaceful democratic struggle. Examples of violent struggle would be the Chinese, Russian and Cuban revolutions, while democratic revolutions would be allende in Chile and Chavez in Venezuela
The question is which one is the best for the proletariat, which will accomplish more and would it be universal?
I've long pondered this thought and would like to know what do you guys think?

We workers can't achieve democracy without unrooting ruling class power - the ruling class will not give up it's power willingly and so at some point it probably will involve some violence from them or us or both in the process.

So the only way to achieve genuine democracy now that capitalism is the dominant world system, is through revolution.

But as to the question of if there can be a revolution thorough non-violent electoral means, then probably not. For one thing these strategies usually treat workers as the recipient of liberation (from an elected "savior") rather than the people who liberate themselves. Many people might initially favor this method because, hey it's easier than being on strike all the time and electotoral change is the method we've been taught is effective (though I think history argues the exact opposite when it comes to real social change). And third, taking power within the capitalist state is problematic because the state is built around defending the interests of capital and there are usually non-elected parts of the state beurocracy who can resist any forceful electoral change ultimately - specifically the military is generally not really subordinate to elected officials, but to the ruling class.

But as in your Allende example, "peaceful" electoral movements that seek a "gradual" change can still end in bloodshead for us. Populist and Socialist election victories in periods of social polarization have tended to result in an "extra-legal" responce from the ruling class and reactionaries in the form of fascism or crackdowns by the military. Allende may have been elected without blood, but the whole period of struggle surrounding his time in office was drenched in blood.

The best way for workers to defend themselves is not to support people who will change things for them from above, but organizing their collective power so that if the ruling class attacks us or we are in a position to liberate ourselves, we will have the ability to protect ourselves and our interests.

[No_Leaders]

I will say peaceful or non-violent revolution is possible, but defending the revolution can only be used with force. It's not likely the ruling class will sit idly by while workers take over the work places to run democratically. One example I've read about was The Seattle General Strike of 1919. Dock workers who were on strike after the end of WW1 were greeted with solidarity from other unions (AFL, IWW) total over 65,000 workers were on strike in Seattle. The mayor called in the national guard to restore order if the strike wasn't ended. The mayor stated that even though peaceful, it was a revolution non the less and even more deadly because of how peaceful it appeared.

Point is, the workers can shut down the wheels of capitalism, we're the ones with the power. Unfortunately the upper class will always use force or threaten to use force once they realize their seat of power is truly under threat. Whether a revolution starts peacefully or not, to defend the progress gained force/violence will be necessary in defense. But i do believe the initial revolution can start off peacefully, but it can only be for so long.

Here's what mayor Ole Hanson stated of the strike:


"The so-called sympathetic Seattle strike was an attempted revolution. That there was no violence does not alter the fact... The intent, openly and covertly announced, was for the overthrow of the industrial system; here first, then everywhere... True, there were no flashing guns, no bombs, no killings. Revolution, I repeat, doesn't need violence. The general strike, as practiced in Seattle, is of itself the weapon of revolution, all the more dangerous because quiet. To succeed, it must suspend everything; stop the entire life stream of a community... That is to say, it puts the government out of operation. And that is all there is to revolt–no matter how achieved."Interesting stuff about day to day living during the week long strike.


A cooperative body made up of rank and file workers from all the striking locals was formed during the strike, called the General Strike Committee. It acted as a "virtual counter-government for the city."The committee organized to provide essential services for the people of Seattle during the work stoppage. For instance, garbage that would create a health hazard was collected, laundry workers continued to handle hospital laundry, and firemen remained on duty. Exemptions to the stoppage of labor had to be passed by the Strike Committee, and authorized vehicles bore signs to that effect. In general, work was not halted if doing so would endanger lives.

In other cases, workers acted on their own initiative to create new institutions. Milk wagon drivers, after being denied the right by their employers to keep certain dairies open, established a distribution system of 35 neighborhood milk stations. A system of food distribution was also established, which throughout the strike committee distributed as many as 30,000 meals each day. Strikers paid twenty-five cents per meal, and the general public paid thirty-five cents. Beef stew, spaghetti, bread, and coffee were offered on an all-you-can-eat basis.

Army veterans created an alternative to the police in order to maintain order. A group called the "Labor War Veteran's Guard" forbade the use of force and did not carry weapons, and used "persuasion only." Peacekeeping proved unnecessary. The regular police forces made no arrests in actions related to the strike, and general arrests dropped to less than half their normal number. Major General John F. Morrison, stationed in Seattle, claimed that he had never seen "a city so quiet and orderly."
The methods of organization adopted by the striking workers bore resemblance to anarcho-syndicalism, perhaps reflecting the influence of the Industrial Workers of the World in the Pacific Northwest, though only a few striking locals were officially affiliated with the IWW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_General_Strike

[Yuppie Grinder]

The revolution will have to be violent, but also democratic in a sense that the workers themselves lead it and decide on how it will go. That would mean - no substitutionism.

A parliamentary "revolution" is not possible for a couple of reasons:
1) The bourgeois parties are richer and have a better propaganda machine than any present or possible future far left party.

2) Parliamentarism isn't really the best way of achieving victory because the people think you will change everything, while that is, in fact, the job of the people themselves. The voters think you are responsible for everything and that their responsibility starts and ends with voting. It's something of a moral factor, if people actually fight for change, they will feel that fight is theirs. That doesn't happen in parliamentarism.

3) The opposition is very strong after every parliamentary elections and it will do anything to stop social changes. And that could lead to a more and more authoritarian stance of the party, which could end in a dictatorship.

4) If it doesn't turn authoritarian, the party will turn reformist and after that happens there's no more revolution.
Please do not equate anti-substitutionism with democratism. Most Marxists who understand anti-substitutionism are not democratic on principle.

[LOLseph Stalin]

As long as the capitalists continue to hate being challenged revolution will have to be violent. Even the Russian Revolution started out non-violent until the capitalists started fighting back, not wanting their authority threatened. You already see this happening now with strikes and protests being violently repressed. Just imagine how much more it would escalate in full scale revolution.

Yes, people like Chavez have been democratically elected but that was perhaps one rare exception. Also, he's not even a Marxist so likely has different goals than we do(I'm not at all downplaying his achievements, however). As long as the capitalists don't like being challenged you won't see any Marxists being elected. You have to remember that elections in most countries are funded by large corporations who obviously benefit most off capitalist candidates being elected; a Marxist being elected would be suicide for them so why would they fund them?

[Poison Frog]

I find it difficult to imagine the route to revolution being exclusively achieved by electoral means or exclusively by violence. However, I think violence would have to be the junior partner. I mean it's true to say there will have to be violence because the capitalists won't surrender their property, but the modern state is so all-powerful that combat waged by some vanguard group would be futile. I don't think that it's a realistic target in a country like the UK, for example (not even addressing the problem of internationalism yet).

Without mass support, the firepower at the disposal of the revolutionaries will be insufficient. Although the media starves left parties of any exposure, it is still necessary for left parties to do a better job at ground level of permeating the common consciousness in their local communities. They need to find better ways of communicating the message and building a groundswell of opinion. A significant section of the public needs to support the revolution, otherwise the revolution will fail, guns or no guns.

So IMO for a revolution to be successful there would have to be a large amount of support for it, which, since the greater the support, the less violence is required, is like saying that although there will undoubtedly be some violence, the revolution can only succeed if it is primarily electoral, or maybe I should say initially electoral.

Defending the revolution is a whole other matter, though. Certainly a very interesting question and one I'm not really clear on tbh.

[Luís Henrique]

First of all, Venezuela from its formal independence from Spain has never been democratic state as well

Eh? How so?

Luís Henrique

[Ismail]

What makes the proletarian revolution is the act of the proletariat seizing the means of production from the capitalist class and abolishing the bourgeois state. The October Revolution in this regard was relatively bloodless. The bloodletting happened afterwards, when both Russian and international capitalism united to attempt the destruction of the new Soviet state. Even if a hypothetical situation existed wherein the proletariat secured an absolute majority in a legislature and decreed the passing of all factories and other enterprises to itself, you still have the issue of the army, the police, and the international capitalist system to contend with, plus the fact that you still need workers to actually seize control of these enterprises.

It is odd you mention Allende, since his case was a textbook example of why the electoral path is a horrible road for the working-class to take. To quote (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/hoxhachile.htm) Hoxha:

All the revisionists, from those of Moscow to those of Italy, France and elsewhere, presented the “Chilean experience” as a concrete example which proved their “new theories” about the “peaceful road of the revolution”, the transition to socialism under the leadership of many parties, the moderation of the nature of imperialism, the dying out of the class struggle in the conditions of peaceful coexistence, etc. The revisionist press made great play with the “Chilean road” in order to advertise the opportunist theses of the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the reformist and utopian programs of the Togliattist type.

From the “Chilean experience” the revisionists expected not only confirmation of their “theories” about “the parliamentary road”, but also a “classical” example of the building of socialism under the leadership of a coalition of Marxist and bourgeois parties. They expected confirmation of their thesis that the transition to socialism is possible through parliamentary elections and without revolution, that socialism can be built, not only without smashing the old state apparatus of the bourgeoisie, but even with its aid, not only without establishing the revolutionary people’s power, but by negating it....

The Communist Party of Chile, which was one of the main forces of the Allende government, fervently adhered to the Khrushchevite theses of “peaceful transition”, both in theory and practice. Following instructions from Moscow, it claimed that the national bourgeoisie and imperialism had now been tamed, had become tolerant and reasonable, and that in the new class conditions, allegedly created by the present-day world development, they were no longer able to go over to counter-revolution.

However, as the case of Chile proved once again these and similar theories make the working masses irresolute and disorientated, weaken their revolutionary spirit, and keep them immobilized in the face of the threats of the bourgeoisie, paralyse their capacity and make it impossible for them to carry out decisive revolutionary actions against the counter-revolutionary plans and actions of the bourgeoisie...

The revisionists try to prove that the dividing line between the revolution and reforms has been wiped out, that in today’s conditions of world development there is no longer any need for a revolutionary overthrow, because, they allege, the present technical-scientific revolution is doing away with the social class contradictions of bourgeois society, is allegedly a means for the integration of capitalism into socialism, a means to create a “new society” of prosperity for all. Thus; according to this confusing logic, one can no longer speak about exploiters and exploited, hence according to them, social revolution, the smashing of the bourgeois state machine and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat become unnecessary....

History has proved, and the events in Chile, where it was not yet a question of socialism but of a democratic regime, again made clear, that the establishment of socialism through the parliamentary road is utterly impossible. In the first place, it must be said that up till now it has never happened that the bourgeoisie has allowed the communists to win a majority in parliament and form their own government. Even in the occasional instance where the communists and their allies have managed to ensure a balance in their favour in parliament and enter the government; this has not led to any change in the bourgeois character of the parliament or the government, and their action has never gone so far as to smash the old state machine and establish a new one.

In the conditions when the bourgeoisie controls the bureaucratic-administrative apparatus, securing a “parliamentary majority” that would change the destiny of the country is not only impossible but also unreliable. The main parts of the bourgeois state machine are the political and economic power and the armed forces. As long as these forces remain intact, i.e., as long as they have not been dissolved and new forces created in their stead, as long as the old apparatus of the police, the secret intelligence services, etc.; is retained, there is no guarantee that a parliament or a democratic government will be able to last long; Not only the case of Chile, but many others have proved that the counter-revolutionary coups d’état have been carried out precisely by the armed forces commanded by the bourgeoisie....

As long as imperialism exists, there still exists the basis and possibility for, and its unchangeable policy of, interference in the internal affairs of other countries, counter-revolutionary plots, the overthrow of lawful governments, the liquidation of democratic and progressive forces, and the strangling of the revolution....

The Allende government was also sabotaged and savagely opposed by the Christian-democratic and other factions of the bourgeoisie, so-called radical democratic forces similar to those together with which the communist parties of Italy and France claim that they will advance to socialism through reforms and the peaceful parliamentary road. The Frey party in Chile does not bear only “intellectual responsibility”, as some claim, because it refused to collaborate with the Allende government, or because it was lacking in loyalty to the legal government. It bears responsibility also because it used all possible means to sabotage the normal activity of the government, because it united with the forces of the Right to undermine the nationalized economy and to create confusion in the country, because it perpetrated a thousand and one acts of subversion.

[homegrown terror]

democratic for us, violent for them. that's the simplest way to put it.

[DROSL]

One thing I've remarked is that most of communist revolutions are done by means of violence. And that, most of the time, Fascists ''revolution'' are played within the senate or parliament. I think it is strange. I'll check this out.

[Red Commissar]

To start, revolution is inevitable and it is only a matter of time before
Revolution begins. However will the revolution be a violent struggle or a peaceful democratic struggle. Examples of violent struggle would be the Chinese, Russian and Cuban revolutions, while democratic revolutions would be allende in Chile and Chavez in Venezuela
The question is which one is the best for the proletariat, which will accomplish more and would it be universal?
I've long pondered this thought and would like to know what do you guys think?

Well, you could assume power 'peacefully' like they did but this shouldn't mean you can't expect trouble. Allende faced massive resistance from entrenched sectors of society when he tried to nationalize the mines and start the process of land reform, and this culminated in his overthrow with help from foreign pressure. Chavez got overthrown himself and the his supporters had to resist against the military and foreign stooges to get him back in there. And for years afterwards he faced resistance and trouble in implementing anything so that he had to limit the scope of them, and even then got pressure from the bourgeois who controlled his economy and their allies abroad.

A popular order can only be built up by the workers themselves, not done through a process the bourgeoisie control and monopolize. A revolution that entails radical changes to society can't be done through the ballot box, the ruling class will not cede power that easily.

[Art Vandelay]

The two (democratic and violent) are not mutually exclusive.

[fractal-vortex]

Social revolution can only be violent, as the ruling class, or caste, will not give up power and privilege by peaceful means. Revolutionaries must deal with the armed forces of the state, and hence form their own army. :)

[Buck]

All of the examples given are not communist revolutions, nor should they be seen as such. In the democratic ones, there was nothing revolutionary about them, being that nationalization and welfare are not steps toward socialism nor are the socialist measures. All that "revolution" was, was a election of an official who offers a set of reforms to the capitalist superstructure. The entire platform of the "socialist" parties in those counties was not to bring socailism but to bring welfare and nationalization. In the case of most of the others, they were bourgeois revolutions , in the sense that they changed the poor feudal societies that they were into a capitalist base.
Now on to the violent vs democratic revolution. Violent today is completely out of the question and insane in the western world, being that the military force of the western world is so immense, having untold weapons of war to destroy entire armies of working class revolutionaries. There are additional reasons why this is also stupid. First inorder to actual have a chance, you have to create a hierarchical structure to issue commands to even to began concive of a violent overthrow. This then creates a new ruling class that has to again be overthrown. Also their is no way to tell if this is what the majority of society wants, as most violent revolutions are done be a small minority of the population who has to then hold power by force over the majority, once they have captured power.
The democratic revolution, on the other hand, seems to be the only way to gain control over the state to then destroy it, so it must be the working class, who organize, without leaders or a "enlightend" vanguard to elect delegates to the already existing semi-democratic institutions, demonstrating vast majority support, with strict mandates, not to govern the ungovernable capitalist system with reforms, but to eliminate the state and the capitalist base, by basically stating that all property laws are now void, with the only goal to establish socialism immediately. This is the only sane, democratic, and logical way to create a socialist society in today's world.

[Red Nightmare]

The Revolution will be both democratic and violent by its very definition. Democratic in the sense that it will be the mass of workers rising up to assert their will against the bourgeoisie and violent in the sense that it will destroy capitalism and hierarchy.

[Narodnik]

SPGB is interesting in holding to the view of parliamentary revolution.

Here's their article about that:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/whats-wrong-using-parliament

[Crixus]

Violent Revolution. Betty and Jim are prepared. Or are they? I think the Betty's and Jim's of America don't have communism on their minds. Maybe they will when the system itself can no longer support growth and average everyday life becomes unbearable.

http://h6img.com/g/8/ackward-wtf-family-photos-8.jpg


A democratic revolution to end capitalism isn't possible. The modern state exists to defend the interests of capital it cannot be used to end capitalism unless there's some sort of MAJOR earth shattering switch in social consciousness and the way our representative system of "democracy" works.

[Deliverous]

Engel's stated that a revolution 'is the most authoritarian thing there is... it is an act whereby one part of the revolution imposes itself on another part of the population by means of force'.

We already live in an authoritarian society. Capitalism is a dictatorship that makes any chance of fundamental political and economic reform very unrealistic and almost impossible.

To use John F Kennedy's own words: 'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable'. And by his very standards, force will most probably need to be used to overthrow the bourgeoisie. That said revolution requires certain objective conditions. By this time, mass support will already exist. A successful revolution cannot occur without the consent of the majority.
Alas, in the sense that a revolution occurs with the tacit or expressed consent of the majority, does this not count as a democratic revolution? Democracy always requires force. It is the tyranny of the majority against the minority in the bourgeoisie sense. Then, from this perspective, a revolution with majority support is no less democratic than the bourgeois conception of democracy.