Communist Violence

[SocialistFreedomFighter]

I've always been asking myself this: should communism condone violence?
I understand that the capitalists aren't going to give up without a fight, but does this mean that we should execute them especially in such a brutal manner? Shouldn't we not just arrest them? Or banish them?
Is there any other way than violence?

[VDS]

I think it's a tricky question. I think many here would agree that revolutionary times are a special circumstance. For example, I'm against the death penalty now, and in a post-capitalist world. However, during a time of revolution, I believe the circumstances are different. Arresting them would do no good because where would they go? We'd need to waste resources to feed and house them, resources that would be better spent.

Now I don't think they should ALL just be captured and brutally murdered. I think that's insane, not to mention it's a gross simplification. I'll go more into it in a later reply maybe, but the short answer is that we can't just arrest/banish them. Theoretically, the revolution will be a world wide revolution, not just a revolution in one country, so where would we banish these people?

[Tim Cornelis]

Arresting and banning people is violence though.

[SocialistFreedomFighter]

the revolution will be a world wide revolution, not just a revolution in one country, so where would we banish these people?

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. Well I believe in second chances. If they attempt to revert the progress into capitalism, then I suppose there really is no other choice. I suppose it can be justified considering how evil capitalism is in comparison to communism. I suppose that could be said that capitalists are indeed selfish people who only do care for themselves and would indeed exploit the vulnerability of others. But two wrongs don't make a right either.
It's quite a moral dilemma.

[SocialistFreedomFighter]

Arresting and banning people is violence though.

Well it is a better alternative to murder through 'purges' which the Bolsheviks had carried out. In fact it's the best alternative. Capitalists should indeed be rightfully arrested for their crimes against humanity. Not permanently arrested. Just until they are rehabilitated and no longer a threat.

[Dropdead]

Where should they be put in? In a house and just lock them up?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That is all very nice, but the revolution is the violent act of one class overthrowing another and destroying the existing society. It can't be restrained; as revolutionaries, why should we even attempt to restrain it, unless we are talking about some minor restraint that would facilitate the seizure of power?

[Tim Cornelis]

Well it is a better alternative to murder through 'purges' which the Bolsheviks had carried out. In fact it's the best alternative. Capitalists should indeed be rightfully arrested for their crimes against humanity. Not permanently arrested. Just until they are rehabilitated and no longer a threat.

I don't think arresting 4-15% of the population by default for them owning means of production is viable either. It would be inefficient, wasting resources on politically inactive capitalists. Our attention should be focused on those active in reaction, workers or capitalists, and deal with them appropriately -- which would mostly mean arresting them.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

It would be fantastic if we could simply end capitalism without the need to resort to violence but that is simply living in the same fantasy that bourgeois moralists would have you live in.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Water the flower of revolution in blood.

[Rafiq]

Violence, whether mediated through physical force or otherwise is a prerequisite for revolution.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Marxaveli]

Where we can achieve our aims without the use of violence, it should be done. But of course, the capitalist state will most likely commit violence first anyways, as it almost always has, and we will have to respond in kind to defend the revolution and our class interests. So the use of violence will have to come and some point or another, any thoughts otherwise is duck tales.

[Sudsy]

There are many many situations where violence is the best option. I would argue the whole third world should take up armed struggle, but the situation in wealthy countries is different. I always believe in revolution, and revolution doesn`t mean war and death or armed struggle. Marx himself said ... we do not deny that there are countries like England and America... where labour may attain its goal by peaceful means." Marx, 18 September 1872, at the Hague Congress of the International, But sometimes violent struggle and rebellion happens, and is a justified struggle against oppressors.

[Sudsy]

Well it is a better alternative to murder through 'purges' which the Bolsheviks had carried out. In fact it's the best alternative. Capitalists should indeed be rightfully arrested for their crimes against humanity. Not permanently arrested. Just until they are rehabilitated and no longer a threat.
Actually, in the labour camps (except for serious crimes) people were sentenced to an average of five years. Which shows the favoring of rehabilitation.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I feel like arrests and imprisonment and the infrastructure necessary to sustain them more or less indicate failure. Having successfully carried out communization in most fields, one would hope that ideological enemies would be faced with a choice to either pitch in, or go fend for themselves (and likely end up vulture food). I don't see much point in feeding, housing, and watching over people I'd much rather just fuck off.

Before that point, I guess their violent suppression is kind of a "Self defence, duuuh," sort of thing.

[Comrades Unite!]

Of course violence utilized as force is necessary.
A revolution in the means of production will obviously result in the capitalistic class retaliating with violence .

[Craig_J]

Well it is a better alternative to murder through 'purges' which the Bolsheviks had carried out. In fact it's the best alternative. Capitalists should indeed be rightfully arrested for their crimes against humanity. Not permanently arrested. Just until they are rehabilitated and no longer a threat.

The tricky thing is most of the world right now would consider themselves Capitalists. The indoctrination means that they can't see past it. Some may even be in our own familys. It's a very tricky one indeed.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I myself that, when the revolution does come, the level of violence will vary from country to country. Some will be relatively bloodless, others will have varying levels of bloodshed. And some will be...very, VERY bloody.

Personally, I find mass executions to be counterproductive (if not morally questionable at best). Not every member of the bourgeoisie is unsympathetic to the cause (remember Engels), and simply going out and killing anyone over a certain level of income is reactionary in the extreme. I myself would go for revolutionary tribunals, wherein the workers who labored under a particular capitalist testify before a jury of workers about the conditions in which they labored. Then, we simply let the workers decide what they want to do with them. This revolution is for THEM, after all.

But don't misunderstand me...I am under no illusions that this will be completely bloodless. There will be conflict, and there will be bloodshed. One of the best quotes about revolution comes from Thomas Jefferson: "Every now and then, the Tree of Liberty must be fed with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants."

In his time, it was quite appropriate. But for our struggle I'd modify it thusly:

"Once the day comes, the Tree of Liberty will be fed with the blood of Workers and Plutocrats."

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I didn't know we were executing every capitalist post-revolution...

[BIXX]

During the revolution, I see no problem with the bloodshed of oppressive classes. I don't want it to happen, but I consider it in a way that they contributed to the bloodshed of our comrades, so they get what's coming. After the revolution however, then I do believe we should try to rehabilitate them. Or rather, do exactly what Kropotkin seems to suggest- ignore them, more or less. They would resolve themselves. For example, how would they oppress another class when there were no classes? Why would they try to have a bigger house when there are no servants, and they must tend to it themselves? Why have fancy clothing when it is no longer a sign of social hierarchy?
If they do (somehow) organize a force to retaliate, then I again would have no problem with bloodshed. But I feel this would not be a problem after the generations of people who have experience Capitalism have died, because then the revolution will be more secure and people would be truly feeling the benefits of communism.
I think our bigger worry should be fascists and other forms of authoritarian who tend to be able to organize well, and in some cases, are not necessarily economically noticed, but rather just power oriented. They are what REALLY scares me.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's easy to say that there will be violence in the revolution, but it's much harder to make sure that the violence only ends up targeting counter revolutionaries. I don't think that worrying about innocent victims of the violence is "bourgeois moralism" so much as a general mistrust of anyone too quick to adopt the role of the Chekist.

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

That is all very nice, but the revolution is the violent act of one class overthrowing another and destroying the existing society. It can't be restrained; as revolutionaries, why should we even attempt to restrain it, unless we are talking about some minor restraint that would facilitate the seizure of power?

Revolution just means the overthrow of one system by another, not necessarily by violent means. If socialism is brought about due to support by a majority, it should be possible to transform from capitalism to socialism without resorting to unrestrained violence. However, if a minority resist the change they may need some persuasion to to stop their resistance.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Has anyone "adopted the role of the chekist", though? If they have, I must have missed it. Nor is it realistic to expect that revolutionary violence will be limited to the counterrevolutionaries. Anyone who has not made their peace with that should probably stay away from the revolution.

Anyway, revolutions are carried out by classes, not by individual revolutionaries. Some of the members that have posted on this thread act as if every revolutionary action will proceed according to our personal diktat.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Has anyone "adopted the role of the chekist", though? If they have, I must have missed it.

Most revolutions have their "Chekists" - the question is how much transparent oversight exists, or if they are just given the unquestioned authority to kill whomever they see as threatening the revolution.


Nor is it realistic to expect that revolutionary violence will be limited to the counterrevolutionaries. Anyone who has not made their peace with that should probably stay away from the revolution.
Obviously this is the case as there is always collateral damage, but any reasonable historical analysis would reveal that this has had tragic consequences in the past when revolutionary violence spins out of control. Cuba sending gays to prison camps ... Red Army rapes in Eastern Europe ... Chinese "struggle sessions" against all the "bourgeois" dog owners ... Russian secret police imprisoning and torturing anarchists to death ... the point isn't that violence is categorically bad, it's that it's very dangerous, especially when revolutionaries fetishize it and carry it out without any kind of ethical consideration, self criticism or transparent oversight.



Anyway, revolutions are carried out by classes, not by individual revolutionaries. Some of the members that have posted on this thread act as if every revolutionary action will proceed according to our personal diktat.Yes they are carried out by classes but that's not really the point here.

[billydan]

why do we just send them to a capitalist country

[BIXX]

why do we just send them to a capitalist country

Because it's a worldwide revolution. And exile, in my opinion, should be avoided, because to me it rings of deportation, even if it's for different reasons. During the revolution, fine, we can just push them away, but afterwards we need to re-educate them or something.

[Dropdead]

Because it's a worldwide revolution. And exile, in my opinion, should be avoided, because to me it rings of deportation, even if it's for different reasons. During the revolution, fine, we can just push them away, but afterwards we need to re-educate them or something.

How can you state this? What if it's just an one country revolution? Things can happen..

[BIXX]

How can you state this? What if it's just an one country revolution? Things can happen..

I could have sworn someone defined it as a worldwide revolution earlier, however, I'm gonna defend this from a standpoint to where revolution is likely impossible to maintain if it is not worldwide.

Say we have a revolution in Portland, OR. We're doing great, but the capitalists have something we don't: means of production that we need. So we have to play the capitalism game- and as on of our comrades on this board once said, "when playing capitalism's game, capitalism always wins.

Assume we have everything we need, the capitalists will always have a stronger military, if we just have a revolution in one country, which, while that doesn't always mean defeat, certainly allows then to damage our means of production.

I'm sure there are other reasons that I could come up with, but that will have to wait until after I am out of school today.

[Dropdead]

I could have sworn someone defined it as a worldwide revolution earlier, however, I'm gonna defend this from a standpoint to where revolution is likely impossible to maintain if it is not worldwide.

Say we have a revolution in Portland, OR. We're doing great, but the capitalists have something we don't: means of production that we need. So we have to play the capitalism game- and as on of our comrades on this board once said, "when playing capitalism's game, capitalism always wins.

Assume we have everything we need, the capitalists will always have a stronger military, if we just have a revolution in one country, which, while that doesn't always mean defeat, certainly allows then to damage our means of production.

I'm sure there are other reasons that I could come up with, but that will have to wait until after I am out of school today.

Think about the army of capitalists during the worldwide revolution. :rolleyes:

[BIXX]

Think about the army of capitalists during the worldwide revolution. :rolleyes:

That's where I believe you are making your mistake. The armies will be controlled by capitalists, but I do believe that like Kropotkin said in the Conquest, if there is a revolution, and we destabilize the State, they (he uses the police as his example but i believe it would be the same or similar with the militaries of the world) will stand idly by because they are not receiving any orders. Of course there will still be armies, but they'd be far more confused and likely to defect than I'd we had a single-country revolution, which means that while we destabilized the state and "started" communism, no where else in the world would have a destabilized state, and this, their armies would function like normal.

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

For a socialist revolution to be successful, a socialist ideology would need to be understood, and be wanted by the majority. Members of the armed forces and the police would be part of this majority. The majority would then vote democratically for socialism, and seize control of the state. Thus the armed forces and the police would be under the control of the socialist majority, and would indeed make up part of the majority. Once the risk of any pro-capitalist uprising has subsided, the state can be dismantled.

Therefore, the risk of violence would be reduced. The overthrow of the capitalist system needs to be undertaken by the working class i.e. the general public. The general public will not stand for an armed up rising, which would, in any case, be futile against a modern army under the control of a capitalist state. Any method of trying to attain a socialist society without the backing of a 'socialist' aware majority, and using violence, would not succeed, all in my opinion of course.

[Martin Blank]

I've always been asking myself this: should communism condone violence?
I understand that the capitalists aren't going to give up without a fight, but does this mean that we should execute them especially in such a brutal manner? Shouldn't we not just arrest them? Or banish them?
Is there any other way than violence?

"Condoning violence" is not an issue. Communists are not bloodthirsty. Any force we have to commit is in direct response to the violence and terrorism inflicted on the working class by the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. In other words, it is self-defense (even in those instances where one can call it "pre-emptive self-defense"). If the ruling classes are slaughtering workers, assassinating working-class leaders and organizers, violently breaking up meetings and peaceful gatherings, etc., then I have no qualms about the same being done to them. You get what you give, as the saying goes.

If the exploiting and oppressing classes simply give up the ghost and surrender to the working class without a fight, I'm sure we can find some small uninhabited island where they can live out their days in comfort. It's certainly a small price to pay for a relatively peaceful takeover of society. On the other hand, if they do what is more likely -- that is, mobilize the state and all other armed defenders of capital, including fascists, to crush the proletarian movement and save their system (even if that means civil war) -- then the proletarian movement should respond in kind and, as DeLeon put it, "mop the earth with them".

"Peacefully if we can, by force if we must". That's the general rule for communists in a situation like this. If arrests and imprisonment are enough, then so be it. If not, then we'll take steps to properly defend ourselves. If they're willing to end it bloodlessly, then all the better.

[Clarksist]

Violence is unavoidable when taking and keeping power. The question we have to ask ourselves is what kind of violence are we willing to accept when compared to the gains of the revolution?

Post-USSR global political developments have shown a trend for successful left wing movements to succeed in parliamentary routes only to be violently undone by the opposition or for the gains to be eroded by the opposition in said parliament. This results in less physical bloodshed than, say, Marxist-Leninist revolutions of the past. So you could say that the political violence necessary to maintain left wing gains in governments were not seen as justifiable which led to their downfall.

I know this is very vague, but it is a vague question.

I guess I feel that violence is the currency of power, and different attitudes of the participants, realities of the situation, and issues at hand will create different levels of acceptable violence for the time.

So communists can't really reject violence unless they want to reject political power, but there are certainly times when particular struggles may not justify violence, and certain gains which may atrophy if no violence is used to maintain them.

Just to comment on the thread as a whole, I'm not sure we should be so cavalier about violence. It's a serious issue and should not be subject to sloganeering. I realize some comrades feel strongly about the issue and rightly condemn bourgeois moralizing of revolutionary violence which decontextualizes it from a history of brutal oppression from the ruling class, but violence doesn't happen to the entire history of the ruling class or the entire context of a struggle. Violence, at least the physical, direct kind, happens to individuals who are only acting in their self interest which is what workers are doing when they have a socialist revolution.

It is also important not to overemphasize physical violence as the only means to improve the lives of workers and their place in society. Overemphasizing it pushes most people who would otherwise be most sympathetic to our ideals away. People with families would general take wage exploitation and the whole lot of it if only to make sure the streets are safe for their children. It's hard not to understand where they are coming from.

[valgor]

This is a subject I've been thinking about a lot lately. I think there are two possible types of revolutions: a violent and a non-violent revolution. (A mix of the two would be a violent revolution). A non-violent revolution would literally require a vast majority of people to, in unison, transform the state into a Communist State. We would just have to start living as Communist, and boycott the capitalist lifestyle. This obviously requires a probably unrealistic amount of education and willingness from the masses.

The main problem I have with a violent revolution that is you are not killing some capitalist individual, but you are killing someone's brother, son, father, whatever. This keeps a perpetual, continuous amount amount of enemies for the Communist society to deal with. If the state killed your wife or mother because they were anti-Communist, are you going to be okay with that or seek out some sort of revenge?

[Let's Get Free]

Some level of violence will almost certainly be necessary in any revolutionary struggle, but we must always bear in mind that our rage is best levied against institutions and not relatively unimportant individuals. The brutal violence and pathetic ressentiment and will to revenge of typical armed leftist movements should be avoided if we are to avoiding losing our humanity and our credibility. We should also avoid negating the humanity of our enemies.

It is important for revolutionaries not to seek out violence, but also not be afraid to use it when human dignity demands it.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

That is all very nice, but the revolution is the violent act of one class overthrowing another and destroying the existing society. It can't be restrained; as revolutionaries, why should we even attempt to restrain it, unless we are talking about some minor restraint that would facilitate the seizure of power?
Revolutionary violence is fine, but always keeping in mind that our task is to build a new society. Why would we destroy anything of use to that end unless absolutely necessary. This includes people that have particular talents and capacities. For example, I would suggest that France would have been better off if the terror had spared Lavoisier. Great chemists don't come along every day. Still, that is a small point, and I absolutely accept the Terror as a necessity.