Revolutionary Terror

[Orcris]

What are your opinions on state terrorism right after the revolution, like what was done during the Reign of Terror, the Red Terror, and the Cultural Revolution?

I view revolutionary terror as a necessary evil. Counterrevolutionaries must be oppressed and crushed to prevent a counterrevolution. I view Lenin's and Mao's failures to destroy the bourgeoisie and Robespierre's failure to destroy the feudalists as the reason each of their governments suffered a Thermidorian Reaction and why there were eventually feudal and capitalist restorations in France and Russia, respectively.

What is your opinion of revolutionary terror?

Edit: I should clarify my position. I don't like seeing people killed for disagreeing with the Revolution. I disagree with how terror was implemented in France and Russia. Show trials and witch hunts aren't justified. Terror should be aimed at the actual counterrevolutionaries, and they should get a fair trial. If there is some way to get rid of them without killing, it should be used. I just don't see what it is.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Terrorism is bad and counterproductive in the long term.

[Zostrianos]

One thing is the necessary use of force for bringing down the old system, another is the savagery and despotism that "communist" dictators did in the name of the revolution. Terror is unacceptable. I see the Cultural Revolution and similar acts as abominations, leading to irreparable cultural destruction, book burning, and above all the murder of innocents, things normally associated with fascism and religious theocracies. Leftists worthy of the name should fight for social justice and equality, not their opposites.

As for those who say terror and dictatorship is necessary to keep the old order from coming back, who's going to stop that "necessary evil" from degenerating and turning society into a hellhole, like it happened in nearly every case where a so-called "communist" government was established?
Who's going to stop some "revolutionary" from falsely accusing innocent people of crimes and having them killed?

If we tear down the old order, imprison and try the main offenders, make society equal, and thereby gain the support of the masses, we won't need terror. Capitalists will be marginalized by society (like open racists already are in more progressive countries), and the old order will eventually be considered backward and reactionary.

[d3crypt]

State terror is awful, and the reason why communism has a bad reputation. Why would we want to do that heinous shit? :(

[L1NKS]

What do you mean by terror?

[BIXX]

I believe there is a difference between revolutionary terrorism and what most people consider terrorism. Revolutionary terrorism is shit like burning down a corporate butcher, terrorism is shit that terrorizes the people as a whole.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I voted other. Revolutionary terrorism will depend entirely upon material conditions. For example, the Cheka in Russia emerged due to counter-revolutionary sabotage and terrorism. The fact the anarchists had a secret police force similar to the Cheka reveals that in most probable cases the material conditions present in Russia at the time necessitated the need for a secret police force to carry out acts of revolutionary terrorism against the class enemy.

Now, that isn't to say we should at all glorify revolutionary terrorism. The organs produced during this time in Russia would eventually be used against the (generalized) working class. It was a symptom of the coming counter-revolution. It is not something communists should ever actively advocate for and never recognized as something good. It is something, I feel, that should be recognized as most likely necessary but used only when there is absolutely no other option. If at all possible, it should be avoided.

[MarxArchist]

I'm more of an advocate for an overwhelming mass movement. Seems unlikely at this point in time I know.

[Brutus]

In his article, The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 136, 7 November 1848, Karl Marx wrote: “… there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism."

In his "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky" (1918), Lenin wrote: “One cannot hide the fact that dictatorship presupposes and implies a “condition”, one so disagreeable to renegades [such as Kautsky], of revolutionary violence of one class against another … the “fundamental feature” of the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat is revolutionary violence.”

Trotsky wrote:
"...the historical tenacity of the bougeoisie is colossal... We are forced to tear off this class and chop it away. The Red Terror is a weapon used against a class that, despite being doomed to destruction, does not want to perish.".

[Tim Cornelis]

Revolutionary violence does not equal terror. Terror implies violence used against a civilian, unarmed, population. I'm opposed to this. The reason the capitalist mode of production remained in Russia and China was because capitalist class relations remained intact.

[Akshay!]

There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm

[Brutus]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm

Way to post the same quote that I did. :)

[Rurkel]

Terror implies violence used against a civilian, unarmed, population. I'm opposed to this.
What definition of "terror" we're using here? Is "hey cappies, desist from your properties or we'll do something violent to you" terroristic? If so, then obviously, a communist revolution requires such kind of terror by the definition.

Or do we restrict the meaning of the word to "anyone who we notice speaking or printing anything against the Revolutionary Party and its Leadership will be immediately repressed for counter-revolutionary propaganda"?

[Nevsky]

Depends on how a revolutionary government comes to power. If we take a look at history, we realize that more "liberal", modest revolutionary leaders like Salvador Allende ended up dead as they weren't strong enough to resist counter revolution. Consequently, I wouldn't mind if a "proletarian dictatorship" ignored civil liberties for a brief amount of time to quickly get rid of active reactionary opposition. This process should involve the masses, though. Proletarian dictatorship shouldn't operate like Gestapo.

[Akshay!]

Way to post the same quote that I did. :)

Sorry, didn't see yours.

[Fred]

Yes comrades, the revolution will defeat bourgeois counterrevolution armed with smiles and daisies. WAKE UP! Revolutionary terror is aimed only at the counterrevolution. If you think the bourgeoisie are going to give up easily, you are out of your minds. Obviously it RT is not desirable in the abstract, but is probably necessary in the concrete. The less the better. But if you are not willing to defend the revolution, don't make it.

[Fourth Internationalist]

"Terror" simply defined as political and revolutionary violence is obviously needed, but "terrorism" which involves killing civilians is not necessary and is harmful.

[Sudsy]

I think Terror is a poor way of putting it. Struggle and revolution continues after the working class victory but terror would imply they`d garner support and respect from fear rather than genuine support. I support revolution, not terror.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Brutus;2636750]In his article, The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 136, 7 November 1848, Karl Marx wrote: “… there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism."

Of course, this is the same Karl Marx who had a pretty glorified view of the terror led by the Jacobins in the bourgeois revolution in France, and the one who was writing over 150 years ago, and thus was not qualified to talk about revolutionary terror in the sense that he was writing before the socialist political revolutions of the 20th century, which provide us with an acute understanding of the huge downsides of 'revolutionary' terror.


In his "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky" (1918), Lenin wrote: “One cannot hide the fact that dictatorship presupposes and implies a “condition”, one so disagreeable to renegades [such as Kautsky], of revolutionary violence of one class against another … the “fundamental feature” of the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat is revolutionary violence.”

Lenin, of course, had a material incentive to talk up revolutionary violence, since it is how the Bolsheviks came to power. Further, Lenin was writing from the experience of civil war, largely precipitated by Russia being such a backwards country; it is unlikely the same material conditions will occur in the future in a revolution in a developed country, for example.


Trotsky wrote:
"...the historical tenacity of the bougeoisie is colossal... We are forced to tear off this class and chop it away. The Red Terror is a weapon used against a class that, despite being doomed to destruction, does not want to perish.".

The red terror ended well for Trotsky, I hear. And for hundreds of thousands of other people who were either entirely innocent, or whose 'crime' was to oppose the ruling party's dictatorship.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Further, i've got news for you, at least those of you who are typing from developed countries that are internally relatively peaceful. Look around you. Revolution is one thing, and everyone knows that any protest is never entirely peaceful, and further a general strike /political revolution is likely to be less so.

However, if you think that advancing political terror is really a good tactic, then all you are going to have to look forward to is a very short stay in power and probably a long time behind bars/early trip to the grave. I mean, do you REALLY think that any worker in countries that are generally past the whole state terror/civil war thing is going to be enthusiastic about going back to such barbaric, backwards political methods?

In 2013, I think we can view fetishes for political terror as reactionary.

[Akshay!]

Marx was not qualified to talk about revolutionary terror.

Marx was a reactionary.
http://s17.postimg.org/g7hlm9ggv/images_2.jpg

[Petrol Bomb]

Akshay, just stop being so immature.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Terror consists mostly of useless cruelties perpetrated by frightened people in order to reassure themselves. - Engels

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Oh god, this boring debate again. If those who oppose revolutionary terror could name one, one revolution that did not have to resort to terror against the defeated class enemies, perhaps we would get somewhere.

[Hermes]

Oh god, this boring debate again. If those who oppose revolutionary terror could name one, one revolution that did not have to resort to terror against the defeated class enemies, perhaps we would get somewhere.

No offense, but do you really think this is the best argument to make? Just as it'd be really intellectually dishonest to claim that those revolutions failed because of terror, it's also dishonest to say that they somehow succeeded because of terror, especially considering the fact we have no idea what terror would have done in an 'ideal' revolution, let alone those in Russia and China.

That is, trying to pretend that there's an objective one-size-fits-all answer for every revolution, just because it's happened that way in the past, is silly, yes? Especially considering we don't really have an idea on what the long-term effects of that terror actually were in a truly revolutionary, non-isolated society?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No offense, but do you really think this is the best argument to make? Just as it'd be really intellectually dishonest to claim that those revolutions failed because of terror, it's also dishonest to say that they somehow succeeded because of terror, especially considering the fact we have no idea what terror would have done in an 'ideal' revolution, let alone those in Russia and China.

That is, trying to pretend that there's an objective one-size-fits-all answer for every revolution, just because it's happened that way in the past, is silly, yes? Especially considering we don't really have an idea on what the long-term effects of that terror actually were in a truly revolutionary, non-isolated society?

Surely, we should focus on successful revolutions? Now, I think the revolutions in Russia and China were a success, but in any case, there have been quite a few revolutions (in the Marxist sense) before these - the great bourgeois revolution in France, for example. The appearance of terror in one or two of these revolutions would have been an oddity, perhaps - but the ubiquity of terror tells us something, and that something is corroborated by the Marxist theory of the state as an instrument of class rule. And class rule is inherently violent and becomes terrorist when it is challenged - whether in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Brutus]

Terror consists mostly of useless cruelties perpetrated by frightened people in order to reassure themselves. - Engels

Source?

[Fourth Internationalist]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_09_04.htm

[Brutus]

Akshay, the Boss never said that Marx was a reactionary, or even hinted at it. Once again you are recoiling in horror as the man who said 'criticise everything' is criticised.

[Hermes]

Surely, we should focus on successful revolutions? Now, I think the revolutions in Russia and China were a success, but in any case, there have been quite a few revolutions (in the Marxist sense) before these - the great bourgeois revolution in France, for example. The appearance of terror in one or two of these revolutions would have been an oddity, perhaps - but the ubiquity of terror tells us something, and that something is corroborated by the Marxist theory of the state as an instrument of class rule. And class rule is inherently violent and becomes terrorist when it is challenged - whether in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat.

My fault, I thought you were talking about proletarian revolutions. Apologies.

Regarding the French revolution, I definitely agree, but this was, as you said, not a proletarian revolution. I also agree that the state is definitely violent when challenged, regardless of whether the class nature of the state is proletarian or bourgeois. I guess what I'm disputing is the need to erect a new state in the first place.

That said, it's already been established in earlier threads, both those I've 'participated' in (if you can call asking stupid questions participating) and those I haven't, that the definition of a 'state' tends to vary between Marxists and Anarchists, and what I term not-a-state could very well be a state in your opinion.

Sorry for rambling, to be concise, feel free to call me an idiot, etc.

It also depends (I know I'm repeating someone earlier in the thread, sorry that I can't remember who it was) on how we're defining terror, I guess.

--

More apologies for continually rambling on, but I guess the distinction I'm making is between terror as an adopted institution of the state and terror that is felt by the class enemies because of the autonomy/organization of the working class, and with that, its ability to liberate/defend itself.

[Tim Cornelis]

Oh god, this boring debate again. If those who oppose revolutionary terror could name one, one revolution that did not have to resort to terror against the defeated class enemies, perhaps we would get somewhere.

The American revolution. Also, it's a fallacious argument, a dicto simpliciter.

[Brutus]

Semendyaev said class enemies, Tim.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I think Terror is a poor way of putting it. Struggle and revolution continues after the working class victory but terror would imply they`d garner support and respect from fear rather than genuine support. I support revolution, not terror.

Interesting point, but I feel there are some problems with it. For one, the revolutionary terror would not be about gaining support. It would be about crushing what's left the the violent counter-revolutionaries. The point of revolutionary terror is to establish power through fear, but this isn't meant to be directed against the proletariat or anyone for that matter who has submitted to the proletariat dictatorship.


I mean, do you REALLY think that any worker in countries that are generally past the whole state terror/civil war thing is going to be enthusiastic about going back to such barbaric, backwards political methods?

I get the sentiment of your post (revolutionary terrorism should never be advocated for) but I don't think anyone in any country would really be enthusiastic about such things. The point is that a successful revolution will give birth to a counter-revolutionary movement, and depending on circumstances, it may be necessary.

[Fred]

[QUOTE]

Of course, this is the same Karl Marx who had a pretty glorified view of the terror led by the Jacobins in the bourgeois revolution in France, and the one who was writing over 150 years ago, and thus was not qualified to talk about revolutionary terror in the sense that he was writing before the socialist political revolutions of the 20th century, which provide us with an acute understanding of the huge downsides of 'revolutionary' terror.



Lenin, of course, had a material incentive to talk up revolutionary violence, since it is how the Bolsheviks came to power. Further, Lenin was writing from the experience of civil war, largely precipitated by Russia being such a backwards country; it is unlikely the same material conditions will occur in the future in a revolution in a developed country, for example.



The red terror ended well for Trotsky, I hear. And for hundreds of thousands of other people who were either entirely innocent, or whose 'crime' was to oppose the ruling party's dictatorship.
One of the striking things about the October Revolution, was that it was not terribly violent. Especially in Petrograd there was little violence and little resistance. Of course, the Civil War, was something else entirely. Trotskyists make a sharp distinction between Red Terror aimed and counterrevolutionaries and terror aimed at communist with a differing political program. To blame Trotsky for the political excrescence that characterized Stalin and his followers is a major mistake. As for the "slippery slope" perspective, it still gives no practical answer about how to handle counterrevolutionaries after establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. Shall we sing songs and blow kisses at the counterrevolutionaries? Shall we eschew violent methods to defend the revolution in fear of violence being used against communists?

It is foolishly simplistic to argue that the methods of Stalin and his co-factionalists were a result of the earlier necessary Red Terror. Until you can come up with some kind of reasonable scenario of how the d of the p can successfully turn back attempts at counterrevolution you go nothing.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

My fault, I thought you were talking about proletarian revolutions. Apologies.

No need to apologise, my post was unclear and somewhat schematic.


Regarding the French revolution, I definitely agree, but this was, as you said, not a proletarian revolution.

Alright, but Marxists usually understand the necessity of terror in revolutionary situations to be the consequence of the class-dictatorship nature of the state. To that extent, it doesn't matter if the revolution was bourgeois, proletarian, and so on, and so on.


I also agree that the state is definitely violent when challenged, regardless of whether the class nature of the state is proletarian or bourgeois. I guess what I'm disputing is the need to erect a new state in the first place.

Fair enough, but again, the historical experience of revolutionary movements strongly suggests that the state is necessary - even in anarchist Ukraine, for example, there was "voluntary mobilisation", a counterintelligence police etc. etc.


More apologies for continually rambling on, but I guess the distinction I'm making is between terror as an adopted institution of the state and terror that is felt by the class enemies because of the autonomy/organization of the working class, and with that, its ability to liberate/defend itself.

Unless the latter sort of terror gives way to the former sort, however, how is the resistance of the remnants of the bourgeoisie to be smashed?


The American revolution.

No cigar. Not even close. Terror against the loyalists is something that is usually glossed over in official histories, but it was definitely present. Do you think tarring and feathering, for example, was harmless? And such acts were officially sanctioned by the Committees of Safety.


Also, it's a fallacious argument, a dicto simpliciter.

There really needs to be a term for the fallacy whereby one spuriously accuses one's opponent of making fallacies.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

tarring and feathering

It was more than just tarring and feathering jsyk

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It was more than just tarring and feathering jsyk

Tarring and feathering, riding the rail, making someone an outlaw, hanging... even exterminations of whole families in the South, as I recall it. The American revolution is one of those historical periods I find interesting.

[Tim Cornelis]

No cigar. Not even close. Terror against the loyalists is something that is usually glossed over in official histories, but it was definitely present. Do you think tarring and feathering, for example, was harmless? And such acts were officially sanctioned by the Committees of Safety.

How is "tarring and feathering" revolutionary terror? Revolutionary terror is the systematic use of violence such as mass killings against counter-revolutionary individuals, usually in reference toward unarmed civilians. Tarring and feathering does not constitute terror, unless you equate terror with any bit use of coercion, violence, or force.


There really needs to be a term for the fallacy whereby one spuriously accuses one's opponent of making fallacies.

Stop using fallacies then. Would you say "communism has never existed therefore it can't ever exist" is a valid argument? That's the argument you made for revolutionary terror "it was necessary in these instances, therefore it's necessary in all instances."


Semendyaev said class enemies, Tim.

Surely the armed wing of the aristocracy are "class enemies"?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Who is being "terrified" in this "revolutionary terror"? The King? Some douchey libertarian college kid? A bunch of neofascists? The children of rich businessmen? The leader of a small businessman's association who organizes pathetically tiny peaceful protests against the so-called evils of Marxism? A Catholic priest who is apolitical but doesn't like abortion much? The head of a secret police organization known for torturing suspected leftists? A pompous upper middle class soccer mom who is rude to working class children, but is oblivious to her own prejudices? A college professor who teaches Hayek and Mises? Or the most deserving of revolutionary terror of all, the woman with a pet (as we all know, pet ownership is bourgeois!)? "Revolutionary terror" as has been raised is vague.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How is "tarring and feathering" revolutionary terror? Revolutionary terror is the systematic use of violence such as mass killings against counter-revolutionary individuals, usually in reference toward unarmed civilians. Tarring and feathering does not constitute terror, unless you equate terror with any bit use of coercion, violence, or force.

See, the second sentence of this paragraph plainly does not follow from the first, and in fact contradicts it, unless you meant to say that mass killings are the only form of terror. And obviously that's not the case; in Russia, for example, there also existed the institution of seizure of hostages, who were not always shot. Tarring and feathering was a form of torture, specifically designed to drive the loyalists away or to break their morale, making this act a clear example of revolutionary terror.

Of course, loyalists were also killed, so I don't see how you can deny the existence of revolutionary terror in America.


Stop using fallacies then. Would you say "communism has never existed therefore it can't ever exist" is a valid argument? That's the argument you made for revolutionary terror "it was necessary in these instances, therefore it's necessary in all instances."

And this demonstrates that you haven't read my argument. Once more, the necessity of terror is the direct consequence of the class-dictatorship nature of the state, and the ubiquity of revolutionary terror is a clear confirmation of that theory.



Who is being "terrified" in this "revolutionary terror"? The King? Some douchey libertarian college kid? A bunch of neofascists? The children of rich businessmen? The leader of a small businessman's association who organizes pathetically tiny peaceful protests against the so-called evils of Marxism? A Catholic priest who is apolitical but doesn't like abortion much? The head of a secret police organization known for torturing suspected leftists? A pompous upper middle class soccer mom who is rude to working class children, but is oblivious to her own prejudices? A college professor who teaches Hayek and Mises? Or the most deserving of revolutionary terror of all, the woman with a pet (as we all know, pet ownership is bourgeois!)? "Revolutionary terror" as has been raised is vague.

As we all know, the bourgeoisie is defined by the ownership of the means of production, which pets generally are not. Perhaps you are replying to some Pol-Potist post that only you can see. Revolutionary terror is aimed at the remnants of the bourgeoisie - the "lords of the factories", not soccer moms (and since when is "upper middle class" a Marxist term?), to their ideological appendages such as the priests etc., and to those who would rise against the proletarian state.

[Tim Cornelis]

See, the second sentence of this paragraph plainly does not follow from the first, and in fact contradicts it, unless you meant to say that mass killings are the only form of terror.

such as


And obviously that's not the case; in Russia, for example, there also existed the institution of seizure of hostages, who were not always shot. Tarring and feathering was a form of torture, specifically designed to drive the loyalists away or to break their morale, making this act a clear example of revolutionary terror.

No it's not, you lower the standards for something to qualify as "revolutionary terror" so much it leads to ludicrous conclusions, namely that any incidental excess in a war is "terror".


Of course, loyalists were also killed, so I don't see how you can deny the existence of revolutionary terror in America.

Because there wasn't, this is unsubstantiated revisionism. You'd think that if there was revolutionary terror then at least one historian would have found it out, and it would be acknowledged as such (as with the French Revolution). There was no systematic campaign that could in any way be qualified as "revolutionary terror".


And this demonstrates that you haven't read my argument.

Your argument suggested that since revolutionary terror was used in these instances, it must be applied in all instances (of revolution). This is fallacious.


Once more, the necessity of terror is the direct consequence of the class-dictatorship nature of the state, and the ubiquity of revolutionary terror is a clear confirmation of that theory.

You said none of that:


If those who oppose revolutionary terror could name one, one revolution that did not have to resort to terror against the defeated class enemies, perhaps we would get somewhere.

Can you prove that class dynamics necessitate revolutionary terror?


their ideological appendages such as the priests etc., and to those who would rise against the proletarian state.

Ideological appendages can be anyone, bloggers, journalists, academics.

[Rafiq]

All revolutions must utilize the cleansing blade that is terror. No revolution can solidify itself without terror. It is only through terror that the old is thrown to the wind.

[Rafiq]

The American revolution. Also, it's a fallacious argument, a dicto simpliciter.

All the necessary terror was mediated through direct warfare.

[G4b3n]

Do you really wish for the history of socialism to be plagued with more violence?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

All revolutions must utilize the cleansing blade that is terror. No revolution can solidify itself without terror. It is only through terror that the old is thrown to the wind.

This is bullshit. If a political revolution is genuinely popular, then it doesn't need to utilise terror. Doing so, if the revolution is indeed genuinely and overwhelmingly popular, is exposed as a choice rather than a necessity.

[JPSartre12]

I answered that yes, it is necessary, because the dictatorship of the proletariat is going to have to do what is needed to assert the hegemony of the working class over the bourgeoisie. What this "assertion" will entail, I'm not wise enough to predict, but there will have to be action taken by the proletarian state in order to surpress counter-revolutionary tendencies and a re-emergence of the bourgeoisie.


Revolutionary terrorism will depend entirely upon material conditions.

I agree with Brosa. It's entirely circumstantial.

[Tim Cornelis]

All the necessary terror was mediated through direct warfare.

I agree that the necessary violence was mediated through direct warfare, however to say it's terror contradicting, if it was through warfare it wasn't terror, if it wasn't terror it follows that in a future revolution "terror" (revolutionary violence) can be mediated through direct warfare as well.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

As we all know, the bourgeoisie is defined by the ownership of the means of production, which pets generally are not. Perhaps you are replying to some Pol-Potist post that only you can see. Revolutionary terror is aimed at the remnants of the bourgeoisie - the "lords of the factories", not soccer moms (and since when is "upper middle class" a Marxist term?), to their ideological appendages such as the priests etc., and to those who would rise against the proletarian state.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the extremes of the cultural revolution?

http://gbtimes.com/past-present/history/chinas-love-hate-history-dogs


However, everything changed in the 1960’s. The Cultural Revolution started in 1966, marking a painful turning point for pets in China. Literally hounded, dogs in China were eradicated by the tens of thousands. “Dogs were seen as a symbol of the bourgeois, therefore they were involved in the class struggle,” Marina Shafir explained. “There was a mass extirpation of dogs, and many of the original Chinese dog breeds almost became extinct.”
In many cases, frightened by the potential consequences, dog owners opted to get rid of their four-footed “class symbols” by themselves, not to mention that there was a desperate food shortage in the country. Thus dogs were doomed.
The point is that "revolutionary terror" has been initiated against "reactionaries" where "reactionary" has been construed quite broadly before (we all know what happened to some 80% of the original Bolshevik party during Stalin's Terror.) It's easy for a revolutionary movement to tell everyone that terror will be directed towards the reactionaries, but who is to judge who the sufficiently dangerous reactionaries are? Historically speaking, vanguard parties have a poor track record. There are plenty of other examples. Pretty much every Communist country from Stalin's takeover of the USSR up to the Cuban revolution and beyond threw "reactionary" homosexuals in jail, for instance. A communist may perceive a particular person or group of people as a threat, yet they actually are not. This has led to the most vile behavior towards groups seen as too "cosmopolitan" or "bourgeois".


All revolutions must utilize the cleansing blade that is terror. No revolution can solidify itself without terror. It is only through terror that the old is thrown to the wind.

Yeah too bad pretty much the majority of Communist revolutionary parties between Stalin and the fall of the USSR saw homosexuals as being a part of that "old" which is to be "thrown to the wind". Saying it is "necessary" does nothing to assuage people's (very legitimate) concerns with "revolutionary terror" and its potential excesses.

[Fred]

I agree that the necessary violence was mediated through direct warfare, however to say it's terror contradicting, if it was through warfare it wasn't terror, if it wasn't terror it follows that in a future revolution "terror" (revolutionary violence) can be mediated through direct warfare as well.

The American Revolution was not exactly complete. It took the American Civil War to complete the US bourgeois revolution. Now that was bloody.

One can't predict what will happen after the bourgelisie is overthrown. Perhaps there won't be significant organized resistance. But what if the revolution happens in a country like Greece first? Or Italy, or Germany, etc. Do you think the international bourgeoisie won't organized a bloody counterrevolution? Again, the revolution won't happen in the abstract -- it will happen on the ground. And it is far better to be prepared for counterrevolutionary activity in advance, then just crossing one's fingers and hoping that the national dentist's association doesn't bring out their cleaning tools in the cause of counterrevolution.:)

[Zostrianos]

The point is that "revolutionary terror" has been initiated against "reactionaries" where "reactionary" has been construed quite broadly before (we all know what happened to some 80% of the original Bolshevik party during Stalin's Terror.)

The terms "reactionary", "bourgeois", etc. in those contexts seem to have lost all meaning and just become general insults for people they wanted to get rid of. In Cambodia's tyrannical regime, being an intellectual or simply wearing glasses (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7002629.stm) was enough to get you labeled as reactionary and killed. These so called "revolutions" were in practice not different than what fanatical Christians did to Pagans and Jews in the later Roman empire, or what the taliban did in Afghanistan, the difference being the former used religion for their crimes. If you read accounts of the Christianization of the roman empire and compare them to incidents from the Cultural Revolution, the parallels are disturbingly similar. If you were suspected of being a non Christian and word got around, you'd have a mob of monks coming to your house, beating you up, robbing you and burning whatever books you might have.

Then follows a Mysian prey, the roofs are uncovered, walls are pulled down, images are carried off, and altars are overturned: the priests all the while must be silent upon pain of death. When they have destroyed one temple they run to another, and a third, and trophies are erected upon trophies: which are all contrary to [your] law. This is the practice in cities, but especially in the countries. And there are many enemies every where. After innumerable mischiefs have been perpetrated, the scattered multitude unites and comes together, and they require of each other an account of what they have done; and he is ashamed who cannot tell of some great injury which he has been guilty of. (Libanius, Pro Templis)

In China all the Red guards had to do to take over a place is claim that the people there were reactionaries, and the place would be doomed to destruction.

And for those who defend the Cultural Revolution, how can you defend stuff like this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/27/china-cultural-revolution-sons-guilt-zhang-hongping

Zhang Hongbing was 16 when he denounced his mother for criticising Chairman Mao....They beat her, bound her and led her from home. She knelt before the crowds as they denounced her. Then they loaded her on to a truck, drove her to the outskirts of town and shot her.

And justto be clear, these were not "isolated incidents", this was happening regularly to countless people

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

such as

Yes, I realise your posts contradict themselves, but that's not my fault.


No it's not, you lower the standards for something to qualify as "revolutionary terror" so much it leads to ludicrous conclusions, namely that any incidental excess in a war is "terror".

Given that these incidents were authorised by the highest executive authorities on the revolutionary side - the Committees of Safety (or of Public Safety, the terminology was inconsistent), to describe them as "incidental excesses" is disingenuous at best.


Because there wasn't, this is unsubstantiated revisionism. You'd think that if there was revolutionary terror then at least one historian would have found it out, and it would be acknowledged as such (as with the French Revolution).

It is! Even van Tyne's practically ancient work mentions the campaign against the loyalists.


Your argument suggested that since revolutionary terror was used in these instances, it must be applied in all instances (of revolution). This is fallacious.

You said none of that[...]

I refer you to my subsequent post:


The appearance of terror in one or two of these revolutions would have been an oddity, perhaps - but the ubiquity of terror tells us something, and that something is corroborated by the Marxist theory of the state as an instrument of class rule. And class rule is inherently violent and becomes terrorist when it is challenged - whether in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Can you prove that class dynamics necessitate revolutionary terror?

States are instruments of class dictatorship. And revolutionary states are instruments of dictatorship of a revolutionary, ascendant class. But as we know, the old classes do not disperse - one, because the superstructure of society lags behind developments in the economic base (since it is conditioned by the base, not a simple epiphenomenon), and two, since the changes in the base are themselves not instantaneous. So for a period the remains of the overthrown class represent a real danger to the revolutionary state. And for the remnants of a class to be destroyed, to be smashed so that they no longer pose any danger to the revolution - that takes terror. Repressing this or that manifestation of the resistance of the old society is pointless - what is necessary is to smash their source, to demoralise the remnants of the old society, to destroy them, to make them non-factors.


Ideological appendages can be anyone, bloggers, journalists, academics.

So?


Perhaps you aren't familiar with the extremes of the cultural revolution?

I am familiar with the usual horror stories. I fail to see the point. As communists, we are for the revolution, and no equivocation on that point is permissible. If the preservation of the revolution has, as a side effect, the end of dog ownership, well, so much the worse - for the dogs. That said, the Cultural Revolution was many things, but one thing it was not was a state terrorist campaign.


The point is that "revolutionary terror" has been initiated against "reactionaries" where "reactionary" has been construed quite broadly before (we all know what happened to some 80% of the original Bolshevik party during Stalin's Terror.) It's easy for a revolutionary movement to tell everyone that terror will be directed towards the reactionaries, but who is to judge who the sufficiently dangerous reactionaries are? Historically speaking, vanguard parties have a poor track record. There are plenty of other examples. Pretty much every Communist country from Stalin's takeover of the USSR up to the Cuban revolution and beyond threw "reactionary" homosexuals in jail, for instance. A communist may perceive a particular person or group of people as a threat, yet they actually are not. This has led to the most vile behavior towards groups seen as too "cosmopolitan" or "bourgeois".

Perhaps you should have considered the position of homosexuals in bourgeois dictatorships, particularly in that period, before trying to pinkwash anticommunism. And what sort of argument is that? Mistakes were made, so we should do nothing - abandon the proletariat to the dogs of the bourgeoisie - so we do not make mistakes again? Well, pardon, but mistakes will be made. The communist movement today has a firmer understanding of special oppression, particularly concerning homosexuality, but this understanding was forged in revolutionary struggle, in identifying and struggling against the remnant influences of bourgeois morality in the movement, not blindly tailing it. Who knows what other mistaken opinions we now have? In any case, we will not advance in our understanding if we throw our hands up and abandon the necessity of struggle. The greatest advances are made in the heat of the highest forms of revolutionary struggle, when mistakes are being made right and left.

Some members want an assurance that nothing bad will happen in the revolution! What sort of attitude is that? All sorts of bad things will happen in the revolution. That is how revolutions are. Those who are disturbed by that - well...

[MarxArchist]

Some points of agreement and disagreement concerning Kautsky.



THE OUTLOOK FOR THE SOVIET REPUBLIC


Lenin’s government is threatened by another 9th Thermidor, but it may come about in some other way. History does not repeat itself. A government that gets an object in view, which under the circumstances is unattainable, may go to pieces in two different ways. It will in the end be overthrown if it stands by its programme and falls with it. But it can only maintain itself if it makes some corresponding change in its programme, and finally abandons it altogetherWhich is what happened because material condition's weren't proper for socialism in Russia and a global revolution wasn't sparked via Russia.






Whatever happens, one way just as much as the other, will lead to failure, so far as the thing itself is concerned. For those persons implicated, however, it makes an enormous difference whether they retain the State power in their own hands, or whether they are to be delivered up as fallen idols to the rage and fury of their enemy.This didn't imminently happen largely because of the brutal policies the Russian Bolsheviks enacted but Russia eventually did fail. These brutal policies along with the long term capitalist policies have tainted the name of communism since. Terror to defend revolutionary gains meant abandoning communist ideals (democracy) for quite some time. Capitalism being used to industrialize was also an abandonment of communist ideals. Workers democracy has never seen the light of day on any meaningful long term scale. Not in Russia and not in any of the "socialist" nations modeled after Russia.







the Bolsheviks have developed the art of adaptation to circumstances in the course of their rule to a remarkable degree. Originally they were wholehearted protagonists of a National Assembly, elected on the strength of a universal and equal vote. But they set this aside, as soon as it stood in their way. They were thorough-going opponents of the death penalty, yet they established a bloody rule. When democracy was being abandoned in the State they became fiery upholders of democracy within the proletariat, but they are repressing this democracy more and more by means of their personal dictatorship. They abolished the piece-work system, and are now reintroducing it. At the beginning of their regime they declared it to be their object to smash the bureaucratic apparatus, which represented the means of power of the old State; but they have introduced in its place a new form of bureaucratic rule. They came into power by dissolving the discipline of the army, and finally the army itself. They have created a new army, severely disciplined. They strove to reduce all classes to the same level, instead of which they have called into being a new class distinction. They have created a class which stands on a lower level than the proletariat, which latter they have raised to a privileged class; and over and above this they have caused still another class to appear, which is in receipt of large incomes and enjoys high privileges. They hoped in the villages to cripple the peasants who had property, by meting out political rights exclusively to the poorest among the peasantry. Now they have granted these propertied peasants some measure of representation. They began with a merciless expropriation of capital, and at the present moment are preparing to hand over to American capitalists the mineral treasures of half Russia.Again, because they ignored historical materialism because they thought Russia would spark a global revolution. When it didn't Bolsheviks had to rely on capitalists and later actual capitalism to develop Russia. They had to manage first primitive accumulation/dispossession in order to create a larger working class and then actually put that working class to work. There was no way this could have been a truly democratic process. Absolutely impossible.




in order to gain their assistance, and in every way to come to some terms with foreign capital. The French war correspondent, Ludovic Naudeau, gave a report recently in the Temps of a conversation he had had with Lenin, in which the latter, among other remarks, gave the following account of his friendly attitude towards capital:–

Lenin-"We are very willing to propose that we should acknowledge and pay the interest on our foreign leans; and since we lack other means of payment, that this should take the form of the delivery of wheat, petroleum, and all kinds of raw material, of which we without doubt have superfluous stacks, as soon as work in Russia can be undertaken to its fullest extent. We have also decided, on the strength of our contracts, which, of course, must first receive diplomatic sanction, to grant concessions to subjects of the Entente Powers for the exploiting of forests and mines, naturally subject to the condition that the essential basis of government of the Russian Soviet Republic be acknowledged. We know that English, Japanese, and American capitalists are keenly striving for such concessions."



Interviews are not documents upon which one can swear, but the views of the Soviet Republic, about which we are here speaking, are proved by other responsible reporters on Russia. They give evidence of a strong sense of the actual realities of life; but show that they have already renounced their Communist programme, since its realisation will be delayed for some long time to come, if they are prepared to form out to foreign capitalists a part of Russia for eighty years.Soviet Russia did almost last 80 years but eventually had to completely give way to capital as there was no global revolution. Which brings the question, should they have simply let bourgeois capitalism proper develop Russia both economically and socially?






Communism, as a means towards the immediate emancipation of the Russian proletariat, has now collapsed. It is now only a question whether Lenin’s government will announce in a veiled manner the bankruptcy of Bolshevik methods, and seek thereby to maintain its position; or whether a counter-revolutionary power will overthrow this government and proclaim its bankruptcy in a very brutal way. We should ourselves prefer the first way, namely, that Bolshevism should once more consciously establish itself on the basis of Marxist evolution, which holds that natural phases of development cannot be precipitated. It would be the least painful, and it would also be the most beneficial way for the International proletariat. But, unfortunately, the course of world-history does not always run according to our wishes. The hereditary sin of Bolshevism has been its suppression of democracy through a form of government, namely, the dictatorship, which has no meaning unless it represents the unlimited and despotic power, either of one single person, or of a small organisation intimately bound together. With a dictatorship it is as with war.Again, Kautsky is saying historical materialism is being thrown out of the window after it has become apparent Russia was not going to spark a global revolution. Kautsky was of the opinion the global proletariat was not mature enough at the time (which he touches on earlier in chapter 8).









This should be borne in mind by those in Germany who are under the influence of the Russian method, and who are now coquetting with the idea of a dictatorship, without thinking it out to its logical conclusion. Kautsky's view was that advanced capitalist nations had completely different conditions than Russia and applying the Russian strategy (which he knew was doomed from the start without a global revolution) would be needlessly brutal and wholly unnecessary if in the first place material conditions weren't ripe for socialism. In Kautsy's view material conditions ripe for socialism meant an advanced industrial economy with an advanced proletariat mass movement that has experienced bourgeois democracy and can hit the ground running so to speak without the need for strict authoritarian "guidance" as material conditions in Russia necessitated (touched on earlier in the chapter). Where I break with Kautsky is in his later views that violent revolution in general should be avoided in favor of a parliamentary route to socialism. If this were possible it would be great but it's just not possible.



In the aforementioned preface to Bucharin’s Programme of the Communists there is written:–
“he conditions which Kautsky and company would impose upon a revolution appear to be that the revolution certainly has the right to dictate its will to the bourgeoisie, but that at the same time it is pledged to grant the bourgeoisie every facility, whether through freedom of the Press or through the Constituent Assembly, to air its complaints. This masterly suggestion of a learned expert, who does not seem to bother whether he has right on his side, but only whether he can lodge his accusation on the particular man for whom he is looking, might quite well be put into practice, abstractly regarded, without its doing any harm to the Revolution. But the Revolution consists in being a civil war, and those classes who have to fight with cannons and machine-guns readily forego such Homeric form of controversy. The Revolution never discussed with its enemies. It destroys them, and the counter-revolution does the same thing, and both are quite capable of shouldering the reproof that they have disregarded the orders of the German Reichstag."



This justification of slaughter, also in regard to the counter-revolution, is all the more sublime, when it is compared with what the author says a few pages before concerning the revolution:–

"The Socialist Revolution is a long process, which begins with the dethronement of the capitalist class; but it can only end with the transformation of the capitalist system into one for the community of Labour. This process will take a generation, at least, in each country. This period is exactly the period of the proletarian dictatorship; the period, that is to say, in. which the proletariat, with one hand, must continue to crush the capitalist class, while the other hand alone is free to aid in other Socialistic reconstruction. (p.18)"


That is to say, the revolution is synonymous with civil war, with a war in which no pardon is given, in which the one side attempts to crush the other without any lasting effect, since this pleasant process must continue “for a generation at least.” Bolshevism, on the other hand, argues that Socialism can only be introduced by being forced on a majority by a minority, and such can happen only through dictatorship and civil war. The fact alone that Bolshevism feels itself to be in a minority among the people makes it clear why it so obstinately rejects democracy, in spite of its assurance that democracy cannot “harm the revolution.” If it thought it had the majority behind it, it would not need to reject democracy, even if it did regard fighting with cannons and machine-guns as the one and only possible form of revolutionary struggle. Moreover, this struggle would be made easier for Bolshevism, as it was for the revolutionary Parisians in 1793, if a revolutionary Convention was behind it all. But such a Convention would not stand behind it. When the Bolsheviks came into power they found themselves at the height of their influence over the workmen, the soldiers, and a large section of the peasants; and yet they themselves at that time did not dare to appeal for a universal election. Instead of dissolving the Constituent Assembly and introducing a new election, they simply smashed it. Ever since, the opposition against the Bolsheviks has been increasing from day to day. The growing nervousness betrayed by its disciples over every kind of Press which is not official, as well as the exclusion of Socialist critics from the Soviets, shows the transition to the Regiment of Terror. In such a situation, to demolish the dictatorship in order gradually to return to democracy is scarcely possible. All such attempts hitherto have quickly come to an end. The Bolsheviks are prepared, in order to maintain their position, to make all sorts of possible concessions to bureaucracy, to militarism, and to capitalism, whereas any concession to democracy seems to them to be sheer suicide.And it would have meant the end of the Russian experiment because as Kautsky earlier said the Russian economy/population wasn't ready for socialism and Russia didn't spark a global revolution. The only choice they then had, to preserve any sort of "socialistic" goals, was to become increasingly authoritarian.




And yet that alone offers any possibility of bringing the civil war to an end, and of leading Russia again along paths of economic progress and prosperous development, towards some higher form of existence. Without democracy Russia will go to pieces; but through democracy the proletariat must go to pieces. The final result is quite predictable. The final result? Authoritarian capitalism all done under the name of communism and a later global model of spreading "communism" formulated from the Russian attempt in underdeveloped regions which completely ignores historical materialism. The amount of "terror" Bolsheviks employed wouldn't be necessary in advanced capitalist nations with a mass movement of workers. This is the point.


The outlook For The World Revolution



The Bolsheviks themselves seem to have no great confidence in their ultimate victory. Yet they have anchored all their hopes on one thing. For if Russia ceases to be a chosen people of the revolution then the World-Revolution must be the Messiah that shall redeem the Russian people. But what is this world-revolution? It may be regarded in two quite different ways. One may regard it as representing such a growth of the Socialist idea in the world, alongside of the strengthening of the proletariat, accompanied by an increased bitterness of the class-struggle, that Socialism will become a great power, capable of stirring the whole world, and affecting the life of more and more States as it develops.^The proper path^ all done with an advanced working class under conditions with as much democracy as possible



On the other hand, one might understand under this head a revolutionising of the world in the Bolshevik sense, i.e., the conquest of political power by the proletariat in all the great States; otherwise, the Soviet Republic can no longer save the Revolution. It would mean, further, the establishment everywhere of Soviet Republics, and the depriving of all non-communist elements of their rights. It would mean the dictatorship of the Communist Party, and, as a consequence, the letting loose of a civil war throughout the whole world for at least a generation to come.Which is exactly what happened. The cold war. The cold war was a result of pushing "communism" on less developed nations which necessitated extreme authoritarianism and endless war between advanced capitalist nations and the less developed nations. This has tainted people view of communism and has helped hinder proper development of global class consciousness. Of course capitalism itself has developed false consciousness to a large degree but these attempts at "communism" in undeveloped nations has added fuel to the anti-communist fire. Authoritarianism and war which is necessary if this path is to be the path to communism. As we have seen and as Kautsky predicted it has failed. This isnt to say that a purely democratic/parliamentary route is in any way possible.




A strenuous propaganda is at work to bring about this result. To produce a world-revolution, in the Bolshevik sense is beyond their power. But they might certainly be able, should they succeed, in exerting a very considerable influence on Western Europe, and so endanger the world-revolution in the other sense of the word. For the chief task of the preachers of the world-revolution, in the Russian sense, is the letting loose of a fratricidal war among the proletarian masses of the world.
Being from its very beginning a child of party dissension, and having come to power as the result of its struggle with other Socialist parties of its own country, Bolshevism endeavours to establish itself in Russia by means of a civil war, which makes it into a war between brother and brother; and, as a final means towards its supremacy, it adds the attempt to split up all other Socialist parties which have still remained in unity – so long as they do not prove to have a Bolshevist majority. Such is the meaning of the Third International. By this means they hope to introduce the world-revolution. Yet this is not the consequence of a mere whim or of sheer malice, but proceeds from the very essence of Bolshevism itself, which is incompatible with the higher form of existence, for which pioneer work has already been done in Western Europe.What Kautsky is saying (and has said ion many other post 1917 works) is Marxists should be working in the more advanced nations to foster proper class consciousness within the proletariat in order to build a mass movement in the advanced capitalist nations. To create a "higher form of existence" both materially and higher class consciousness so that workers in the advanced capitalist nations can "hit the ground running" and help less developed nations achieve socialism. This has been the Orthodox Marxist position, but then, he goes and says this...



We of the present day have no “ready-made Utopias to introduce by popular decision.” What is now happening is the liberating of those elements that mark the beginning of Socialist development. If we care to call that the world-revolution, because this is happening throughout the world, then we are certainly confronted with a world-revolution. It will not proceed on the lines of a dictatorship, nor by means of cannons and guns, nor through the destruction, of one’s political and social adversaries, but only through democracy and humanity. In this way alone can we hope to arrive at those higher forms of life, the working out of which belongs to the future task of the proletariat. Pure democracy alone will never be the foundation of abolishing capital. One must understand this in order to be a revolutionary communist which Kautsky no doubt was not later in life. What we can/should do is see where and why Russian Bolsheviks went wrong and question whether or not those tactics would be necessary in advanced capitalist nations with a mass movement of class conscious workers. We should also question if pushing "communism" around the globe in less advanced nations in order to go to war/compete with the more advanced capitalist nations is a path we should advocate.

[Old Bolshie]

We already had a proletarian revolution in History without revolutionary terror and the outcome was pretty clear when the revolution and the revolutionaries were killed by the counter-revolutionary terror.

I am certain that no one here desires it but if the success of the revolution depends on it and the bourgeoisie will make use of it I don't see why the working class shouldn't use it as well.

[Old Bolshie]

Spain?

Paris Commune.

[Ele'ill]

violence and terror against capital

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I am familiar with the usual horror stories. I fail to see the point. As communists, we are for the revolution, and no equivocation on that point is permissible. If the preservation of the revolution has, as a side effect, the end of dog ownership, well, so much the worse - for the dogs.


One can be "for the revolution" without thinking that the revolution means "anything goes". If revolutionaries think killing dogs and terrorizing dog owners is what is going to bring about a communist society, then they're doing revolution all wrong.

Look at China now. How did terrorizing dog owners work out for them?


That said, the Cultural Revolution was many things, but one thing it was not was a state terrorist campaign. It was a campaign to root out bourgeois cultural power which used force to terrify elements seen as "bourgeois" ... call it what you will



Perhaps you should have considered the position of homosexuals in bourgeois dictatorships, particularly in that period, before trying to pinkwash anticommunism.Stop trying to "Redwash" homophobia, ethnic cleansing and genocide. It is legitimate to question the motives or theoretical understanding of a revolution which commits these kinds of acts.

This has nothing to do with how people are treated in bourgeois dictatorships, this has to do with how people are treated in the revolution. If this was about repression of homosexuals in bourgeois dictatorships, then we'd be talking about that. But we're not, so your comment is nothing but a pointless red herring that contributes nothing.


And what sort of argument is that? Mistakes were made, so we should do nothing - abandon the proletariat to the dogs of the bourgeoisie - so we do not make mistakes again? Well, pardon, but mistakes will be made. http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/d/d3/Strawman.jpg

Obviously mistakes will be made, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize them.


The communist movement today has a firmer understanding of special oppression, particularly concerning homosexuality, but this understanding was forged in revolutionary struggle, in identifying and struggling against the remnant influences of bourgeois morality in the movement, not blindly tailing it. Who knows what other mistaken opinions we now have? Yeah uh that's precisely the point, the consciousness of the revolutionaries will include reactionary assumptions, and the revolution if it is not careful will only bring those reactionary assumptions into its acts of violence.


In any case, we will not advance in our understanding if we throw our hands up and abandon the necessity of struggle. The greatest advances are made in the heat of the highest forms of revolutionary struggle, when mistakes are being made right and left.
Your false dichotomies are beyond frustrating.



Some members want an assurance that nothing bad will happen in the revolution! What sort of attitude is that? All sorts of bad things will happen in the revolution. That is how revolutions are. Those who are disturbed by that - well...Who the fuck said they expect nothing bad to happen? Where are you pulling these strawmen from? The fact that "bad things" and "mistakes" happen does not mean that we don't make efforts to reduce or minimize those bad things and mistakes. I never once said that terror was bad or good, just that terror has in the past been misdirected with tragic consequences for many deemed "reactionary" for absurd reasons. Terror has been a strategy which has been abused quite liberally by revolutionaries whether or not it is necessary, and sticking your head in the sand won't change that.

[Rafiq]

This is bullshit. If a political revolution is genuinely popular, then it doesn't need to utilise terror. Doing so, if the revolution is indeed genuinely and overwhelmingly popular, is exposed as a choice rather than a necessity.

A population that consists of even five percent counter revolutionaries is enough to create a Great Terror.

[Rafiq]

I agree that the necessary violence was mediated through direct warfare, however to say it's terror contradicting, if it was through warfare it wasn't terror, if it wasn't terror it follows that in a future revolution "terror" (revolutionary violence) can be mediated through direct warfare as well.

No. Terror did exist during the American Revolution. It simply isn't categorized as terror, but as a result of the excesses of war.

Revolutionary violence creates terror, inevitably. Terror is not something that can be so easily controlled or regulated. But without it, a revolution cannot solidify itself.

[Rafiq]

Yeah too bad pretty much the majority of Communist revolutionary parties between Stalin and the fall of the USSR saw homosexuals as being a part of that "old" which is to be "thrown to the wind". Saying it is "necessary" does nothing to assuage people's (very legitimate) concerns with "revolutionary terror" and its potential excesses.

The great purges were not a form of revolutionary terror (unlike the Red Terror of the civil war) but a result of the degeneracy of the revolution and the bureaucratic masturbation existent.

[MarxSchmarx]

Originally Posted by The Boss
Marx was not qualified to talk about revolutionary terror. Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boss
Marx was a reactionary.

http://s17.postimg.org/g7hlm9ggv/images_2.jpg

Now now, let's quote people in context. Your second quote isn't really what the Boss intended, and I'd encourage a point-by-point rebuttal instead. Also let's try to keep one-liners to a minimum people.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

If, after the revolution, there are pockets of tyrants who wish to re-establish their rule by force....then yes, come down on them like the hammer of God if necessary.

But I do not approve of individuals using the revolution as an excuse for wanton, random violence. I'm highly suspicious of terror campaigns because innocents always (and I do quite mean always) get caught in the crossfire, with innocents having their property and even their lives taken from them to further the revolution.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

No. Terror did exist during the American Revolution. It simply isn't categorized as terror, but as a result of the excesses of war.

Revolutionary violence creates terror, inevitably. Terror is not something that can be so easily controlled or regulated. But without it, a revolution cannot solidify itself.

The thing which holds this argument together is the terror that the ruling classes use to preserve their rule necessitates the terror of the revolution. Without terror, there is no ruling class (even liberal society is based on terror to preserve its existence). If the ruling classes were nonviolent, they wouldn't remain ruling classes very long, and it is this threat of violence on their part which gives this revolutionary violence the sense of necessity. To take the English civil war as an example, the King of England used the threat of severe state violence against all of those who opposed the monarchy, and this meant Cromwell needed to use the absolute threat of death against anyone who would want to preserve (or recreate) the monarchy so as to preserve his rule.


The great purges were not a form of revolutionary terror (unlike the Red Terror of the civil war) but a result of the degeneracy of the revolution and the bureaucratic masturbation existent.

Where does the "terror" end and "bureaucratic degeneracy/violence" begin? The excesses of bureaucratic violence and revolutionary terror have the same justification - in particular, to protect the revolution from the remaining reactionary institutions and unite the revolutionary class into a cohesive movement. This is the case with the homosexuals, who were seen as "bourgeois" and "cosmopolitan", or the Jewish doctors which Stalin targeted as "counter-revolutionaries"

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

A population that consists of even five percent counter revolutionaries is enough to create a Great Terror.

Depends how you define counter-revolutionary. Is every member of the bourgeoisie instantly counter-revolutionary? Are we to include as counter-revolutionary those who are Socialists but disagree with the ruling party?

Really, it seems as though your base position is 'I want revolutionary terror', which is a pretty foolish position to start from IMO.

[hashem]

if a peaceful solution is available, there is no reason to reject it. but when its not, revolutionary violence is necessary.

[Rurkel]

Where does the "terror" end and "bureaucratic degeneracy/violence" begin?
That's easy - Stalinist and revolutionary rhetorics are the same, but their class character was different. That line of reasoning, however, does mean that anti-abortion priest propagandists and Mises-Hayek professors are legitimate targets of revolutionary terror, since their anti-proletarian class character is not in doubt. In fact, emphasis on the concept of class character transcends the categories of guilt and innocence, making them seem irrelevant and embarrassingly liberal.

[Rafiq]

The thing which holds this argument together is the terror that the ruling classes use to preserve their rule necessitates the terror of the revolution. Without terror, there is no ruling class (even liberal society is based on terror to preserve its existence). If the ruling classes were nonviolent, they wouldn't remain ruling classes very long, and it is this threat of violence on their part which gives this revolutionary violence the sense of necessity. To take the English civil war as an example, the King of England used the threat of severe state violence against all of those who opposed the monarchy, and this meant Cromwell needed to use the absolute threat of death against anyone who would want to preserve (or recreate) the monarchy so as to preserve his rule.



Where does the "terror" end and "bureaucratic degeneracy/violence" begin? The excesses of bureaucratic violence and revolutionary terror have the same justification - in particular, to protect the revolution from the remaining reactionary institutions and unite the revolutionary class into a cohesive movement. This is the case with the homosexuals, who were seen as "bourgeois" and "cosmopolitan", or the Jewish doctors which Stalin targeted as "counter-revolutionaries"

I would go as far as to say that a revolution does not impose newly birthed terror, but that the process of ripping the veil of the state appatatus unleashes the terror that sustained these relations.

Stalin's terror had to leach off of the rhetoric of the red terror, but by Stalin's time the bolsheviks assumed full control and were in complete power of the state, whilst during the red terror that was hardly the case.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[MarxArchist]

Basically "militarized labor", systematic executions that he CHEKA (Bolsheviks) facilitated, political subjugation of communist/anarchist allies, state capitalism in general and the entire ideology of post 1917 "Leninists" was born out of a perversion of Marxism based on improper material conditions for attempts at socialism. "Terror" and violence/coercion are two separate things. "Terror" as we associate it with communism is a wholly unnecessary element if, lets say, 80% of the population is on board with communism. Without proper material conditions "terror" is not only necessary but an entire system of control must be erected. This "path" to communism is what we've actually seen in the "real world" (outside of Marx's actual theory). Everything has been backwards and upside down.

[Fred]

Basically "militarized labor", systematic executions that he CHEKA (Bolsheviks) facilitated, political subjugation of communist/anarchist allies, state capitalism in general and the entire ideology of post 1917 "Leninists" was born out of a perversion of Marxism based on improper material conditions for attempts at socialism. "Terror" and violence/coercion are two separate things. "Terror" as we associate it with communism is a wholly unnecessary element if, lets say, 80% of the population is on board with communism. Without proper material conditions "terror" is not only necessary but an entire system of control must be erected. This "path" to communism is what we've actually seen in the "real world" (outside of Marx's actual theory). Everything has been backwards and upside down.

Okay -- we have now engaged in a rather long thread mostly dealing in the abstract with the use of Red Terror. Comrade Archist, 80% support of the revolution would be lovely and I suppose is possible. But again, you limit your view to an abstract single country -- what about international capital? I would tend to agree at which time the revolution succeeds globally, there might be little use for RT. But it isn't likely to happen everywhere all at once. There have been threads about what to do with the bourgeoisie after the revolution, etc. The answer to that and to the issue of RT, is that our aim is to build a new society from the highest point of the old one. We are not about punishing people -- we want them to participate in building the new society.

As for the persecution of leftist parties, the Bolsheviks were willing to rule in a coalition with parties that supported the October Revolution and the d of the p. The Mensheviks, SRs, and later the Left SRs openly participated in counterrevolutionary activities. Should the Bolsheviks have just smiled and said "oops, reformists will be counterrevolutionary reformists"? While there is something to be said for the argument that conditions were not ripe for socialist revolution in Russia in 1917 -- something that the Bolsheviks said repeatedly, btw, this discounts the international nature of the socialist revolution and the internationalism of the Bolsheviks.

[Djoko]

http://ljubodragsimonovic.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/ljubodrag-simonovic-revolutionary-violence/

[International_Solidarity]

Although it is situational and dependent on the material conditions at hand, I tend to view terror as a necessity for a post-revolutionary period. I have heard many people criticize the terrors of the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, The Cuban Revolution, etc; However, these were all necessary. I feel that in this quote about the French Revolutionary Terror, Mark Twain truly embodies how I feel about this subject:

There were two 'Reigns of Terror', if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the "horrors of the... momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror - that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
I could never have even hoped to have said it better myself. :)

[Fourth Internationalist]

During the bourgeois revolutions, bloodshed, terror, and political murder were an indispensable weapon in the hand of the rising classes.

The proletarian revolution requires no terror for its aims; it hates and despises killing. It does not need these weapons because it does not combat individuals but institutions, because it does not enter the arena with naïve illusions whose disappointment it would seek to revenge. It is not the desperate attempt of a minority to mold the world forcibly according to its ideal, but the action of the great massive millions of the people, destined to fulfill a historic mission and to transform historical necessity into reality. - Rosa Luxemburg

[3dward]

A revolution must be defended against enemies. But one thing is the persecution of revolution declared enemies and other is to label an entire group into that category and launch a massive campaign of killings and imprisonment. The last is state terrorism, no matter what justification u may find to this. The great purge is an example of what happens when the revolutionary forget the difference between one thing and another.

And for the historical references, although in the first revolutions there was a tendency to radicalization against the enemy, this is something that appears to be changing. Take a look to the actions of the revolutionary governments in Bolivia and Venezuela and u will see what I mean. These are examples of revolutions that didn´t came as a result of armed fight but via electoral process and this is why the elected revolutionary government is more careful when dealing with his enemies. In the recent miners strike in Bolivia, Evo Morales had to negotiate with´em and explain why the government couldn´t satisfied the striker´s demands. Compare this to the violent repression of strikers in Poznan, in Poland and you´ll see the difference.
So is it terrorism an inevitable thing in a revolution? I think not.

[Brutus]

You equate revolution to a party claiming to be socialist winning elections and introducing some progressive reforms.