When Is Violence Necessary for Radical Causes?

[the debater]

I was recently thinking about this issue, and I was wondering what the opinions of Revlefters were on when and how to use violence? Should radical causes only use violence when absolutely necessary? And when exactly does a situation begin requiring violence, due to it being "absolutely necessary?" And how should such plans for violence be executed? Should the damage only be limited to vandalism? Should large amounts of manure be dumped in rich peoples' mansions to stink up their homes? Likewise, are "violent" Revlefters concerned with how they'll be perceived by the general public if they use violence?

[Decolonize The Left]

I would like to remind all members who are going to post in this thread that everything on this forum is visible to the police and state. Also, there are forum rules in place against posting about specific events and/or actions which may be construed as illegal.

[the debater]

I would like to remind all members who are going to post in this thread that everything on this forum is visible to the police and state. Also, there are forum rules in place against posting about specific events and/or actions which may be construed as illegal.

To be honest, I myself am very hesitant about using violence. Martin Luther King Jr., if I can recall correctly, was not a big fan of violence either. Granted, if there are no other options, then maybe violence can be justified then.

[BIXX]

To be honest, I myself am very hesitant about using violence. Martin Luther King Jr., if I can recall correctly, was not a big fan of violence either. Granted, if there are no other options, then maybe violence can be justified then.

MLK Jr. (As far as I know) didn't call into question the nature of class society. You know who did? Malcolm X, the violent one.

[Comrade Jacob]

I would... never use violence...

[Hivemind]

When the pigs or soldiers come to bash the working class' heads in, or try to disperse protesters or disrupt occupations and the takeover of the means of production (among other things), violence can be considered an excellent tool used in self defence. Strategic offence in order to prevent future attacks is also a good tool. Violence is nothing but a tool, but meaningless violence is counterproductive.

[boiler]

Armed violence is necessary against an occupational or invading army, against and to overthrow despotic government or ruler and in a workers revolution of course :)

:hammersickle: :marx::engles: :star2: :che: :castro: :hammersickle:

[bcbm]

MLK Jr. (As far as I know) didn't call into question the nature of class society.

he was a socialist actually.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

he was a socialist actually.

Would you be able to give evidence for this?

I know he read some of Marx's books but that doesn't make you a socialist.

[Luisrah]

When protests and strikes start to really endanger the ruling class, they will use violence on the working class.
If we don't retaliate with violence, we'll simply die/surrender.

Plus, some violence in specific places can mean less violence somewhere else. Killing a few key leaders could prevent more deaths sometimes.

In the end, if the police/army don't side with the working class, violence is practically inevitable.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Wait, OP, did you suggest that vandalism is violence? Out of curiosity, why? On whom is the violence inflicted?
By contrast with vandalism, would you consider talking with the police violence? After all, unlike breaking a window, we can point to some pretty concrete ways that talking to the police can destroy people's lives, tear communities apart, etc.
I think if we want to have this discussion, we need to figure out what we're talking about when we say violence.
As for "the public" - man, you should hear Alex Hundert's stories of how popular he was in prison for being an alleged ring leader of the G20 riots. Violence might be unpalatable to the sensitive middleclass suburbanite, but among the most exploited strata of the working class? You've got decent odds that an injured cop is going to be the butt of jokes, not the object of sympathy.

[bcbm]

Would you be able to give evidence for this?


http://socialistworker.org/2009/01/19/the-king-they-wont-celebrate


Wait, OP, did you suggest that vandalism is violence? Out of curiosity, why?

probably because some vandalism is violence and it is asinine to pretend otherwise.

[JPSartre12]

Despite the fact that I (and many of us fellow revolutionaries) would like a peaceful, non-violent revolution, the unfortunate truth is that any fundamental change in the mode of production is almost guaranteed to be accompanied with a violent re-constitution of classes at large.

Marx himself argued that "democratic" revolutions were potentially possible in some of the more developed bourgeois democracies (the United States, Britain, etc), but I would mostly disagree. Nowadays, with the profound concentration of political and economic power by the ruling class in the hands of a small number of politico-aristocratic egoists, there is enough power centralized that it would be almost impossible for the entire economic system to undergo such a dynamic change without engaging in some sort of pre-emptive strike. The capitalist system will not relinquish power willingly; the moment that we offer a systemic alternative to it, it will crush upon us in a desperate attempt to negate any threat that we may have possessed. As a result, any "violence" that we engage in will almost certainly be of a defensive and retaliatory nature.

The "violence" that the proletariat engages in during the socialist revolution is only violent in that it is its retaliatory reflex against vicious oppression.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

probably because some vandalism is violence and it is asinine to pretend otherwise.

Well, it depends what you mean. Certainly I have yet to see any act of vandalism that directly and physically harms someone. I've seen some yuppies, cops, and other assorted motherfuckers piss-their-pants scared by vandalism, but I have yet to see anyone drop dead, or so much as shed a bit of blood because they watched a window get smashed, or a car get flipped. I mean, those things are admittedly dangerous - but they're statistically less dangerous than driving, and the peace-police don't accuse drivers of ruining the movement or obscuring "the real issues".

Of course, I'm going to stop being a shithead here, and say that obviously you mean violent in a broader sense - that context is what matters. If you come to my house and unplug my fridge while I'm away for a few days, it's not that taking out the plug is "violence" in and of itself, but insofar as it means you just spoiled a fridge full of groceries that I can't afford to replace - well, of course that's violence.

In this broad sense, however, we don't have any choice about violence - our every day lives are premised on tremendous systemic and systematic violence. Our every convenience is premised on global imperialism, our relationships are premised on heteropatriarchy (whether or not we're men or straight), and so on. The thing is, none of this gets called "violence" because it's normalized - so normal as to be invisible when we're not on the receiving end (and even then it's not "violence" - it's "the economy", or "the way men are", or whatever other appropriate ideological trope). The fact of the matter is, when it comes down to it, "non-violence" isn't a choice. The real question is, "What violence directed against whom toward what ends?"

As far as I'm concerned, there's less violence in a cop catching a brick with his teeth than there is in a Happy Meal.

[bcbm]

Well, it depends what you mean. Certainly I have yet to see any act of vandalism that directly and physically harms someone.

smashing things up is an act of violence.


Of course, I'm going to stop being a shithead here, and say that obviously you mean violent in a broader sense - that context is what matters. If you come to my house and unplug my fridge while I'm away for a few days, it's not that taking out the plug is "violence" in and of itself, but insofar as it means you just spoiled a fridge full of groceries that I can't afford to replace - well, of course that's violence.

no, that's mean. if i went and smashed out all the windows on your house and set your fridge on fire, that is violence.


I mean, those things are admittedly dangerous - but they're statistically less dangerous than driving, and the peace-police don't accuse drivers of ruining the movement or obscuring "the real issues". . .

In this broad sense, however, we don't have any choice about violence - our every day lives are premised on tremendous systemic and systematic violence. Our every convenience is premised on global imperialism, our relationships are premised on heteropatriarchy (whether or not we're men or straight), and so on. The thing is, none of this gets called "violence" because it's normalized - so normal as to be invisible when we're not on the receiving end (and even then it's not "violence" - it's "the economy", or "the way men are", or whatever other appropriate ideological trope). The fact of the matter is, when it comes down to it, "non-violence" isn't a choice. The real question is, "What violence directed against whom toward what ends?"

As far as I'm concerned, there's less violence in a cop catching a brick with his teeth than there is in a Happy Meal.

i'm not arguing against violence, i'm arguing against trying to pretend what we do isn't violence. smashing a window is a violent act, but i have no problem with violent acts.

[Art Vandelay]

Eh this really all stems around what defines 'violence'? Its actually usually the first thing I bring up when discussing revolution with more liberal types. Generally people accuse me of being 'pro-violence' which is absolutely an absurd accusation and usually comes from Ghandi/MLK pacifist types. The first thing that needs to be articulated is what constitutes violence. Do I support the revolutionary violence? Sure, however if this wants to be understood in any serious sense, then it must be first understood that we live in an inherently violent society. Racism, sexism, homophobia, these are all inherently bound up with class society. On top of this, if we want to seriously talk about violence, then we need to address the fact that in the U.S. there are 23 homes which sit empty for every homeless person on the street; there are more african american males in chains today then there were under slavery; despite being the most economically advanced country in the world, children are going to sleep hungry at night, some whose only roof over their heads are the stars; to me this is all violence, even if it escapes the parameters which society defines violence with. That being said this ultimately isn't a moral issue, irregardless of whether or not we (representing the oppressed majority) have right on our side, its a class issue. Whether or not violence is necessary really isn't the question to be asked; the question to be asked is when the social superstructure is ripped from its economic base, and thereby transformed, unleashing the violent class antagonisms pent up for hundreds of years, which side of the barricades will you be on?


However, so long as this code remains unaccepted as a rule of conduct by all the oppressors and the oppressed, the warring classes will seek to gain victory by every means, while petty-bourgeois moralists will continue as heretofore to wander in confusion between the two camps. Subjectively, they sympathize with the oppressed no one doubts that. Objectively, they remain captives of the morality of the ruling class and seek to impose it upon the oppressed instead of helping them elaborate the morality of insurrection.-Leon Trotsky:Moralists Sycophants Against Marxism, 1939.

[tachosomoza]

MLK Jr. (As far as I know) didn't call into question the nature of class society. You know who did? Malcolm X, the violent one.

Malcolm X advocated self-defense, never offensive violence. If a black family in Mississippi was being threatened with arson due to the fact that they were engaging in activities like voting, he believed they ought to have firearms to defend themselves and their property. He did not advocate burning down the homes of racist officials or murdering them. That would have generated extreme backlash from a well armed, enemy white populace who had no problem with killing innocent people.

Martin Luther King didn't espouse self defense, his strategy was to attract the news media and use them to display the violence visited upon nonviolent protesters and activists in the South to the world in an effort to generate massive outrage and spur the federal government into action.

[Decolonize The Left]

Eh this really all stems around what defines 'violence'? Its actually usually the first thing I bring up when discussing revolution with more liberal types. Generally people accuse me of being 'pro-violence' which is absolutely an absurd accusation and usually comes from Ghandi/MLK pacifist types. The first thing that needs to be articulated is what constitutes violence. Do I support the revolutionary violence? Sure, however if this wants to be understood in any serious sense, then it must be first understood that we live in an inherently violent society. Racism, sexism, homophobia, these are all inherently bound up with class society. On top of this, if we want to seriously talk about violence, then we need to address the fact that in the U.S. there are 23 homes which sit empty for every homeless person on the street; there are more african american males in chains today then there were under slavery; despite being the most economically advanced country in the world, children are going to sleep hungry at night, some whose only roof over their heads are the stars; to me this is all violence, even if it escapes the parameters which society defines violence with. That being said this ultimately isn't a moral issue, irregardless of whether or not we (representing the oppressed majority) have right on our side, its a class issue. Whether or not violence is necessary really isn't the question to be asked; the question to be asked is when the social superstructure is ripped from its economic base, and thereby transformed, unleashing the violent class antagonisms pent up for hundreds of years, which side of the barricades will you be on?



However, so long as this code remains unaccepted as a rule of conduct by all the oppressors and the oppressed, the warring classes will seek to gain victory by every means, while petty-bourgeois moralists will continue as heretofore to wander in confusion between the two camps. Subjectively, they sympathize with the oppressed no one doubts that. Objectively, they remain captives of the morality of the ruling class and seek to impose it upon the oppressed instead of helping them elaborate the morality of insurrection.-Leon Trotsky:Moralists Sycophants Against Marxism, 1939.



This is beautifully put.

[Zealot]

At all times. The bourgeoisie have employed all means of violence and ruin to keep the working class in its place. Do not fool yourself into thinking that we should limit ourselves to peaceful means when they are laying siege to workers the world over while forcing us into pacifist futility. They only understand violence and we should respond in kind if at all possible.

[Alan OldStudent]

Hello Comrade EchoShock,

You wrote this about Dr. King:

MLK Jr. (As far as I know) didn't call into question the nature of class society.

Here’s a quote from Dr. King (http://tinyurl.com/pxofgwo)

(Audience responses are italicized and in parentheses) I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion, as we talk about "Where do we go from here?" that we must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. (Yes)

There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?" And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. (Yes)

And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life’s marketplace. (Yes) But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. (All right)

It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, "Who owns the oil?" (Yes) You begin to ask the question, "Who owns the iron ore?" (Yes) You begin to ask the question, "Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that’s two-thirds water?" (All right)

These are words that must be said. (All right) That sure sounds like bringing up the question of class to me.

Click here (http://tinyurl.com/oajcze7) to see a video about Dr. King's political evolution towards revolutionary politics. He wasn't there, but he was headed there in the year or so before his death.

http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/divide2.gif

Then you write this:

You know who did? Malcolm X, the violent one. When was Malcolm ever violent after he took the name “Malcolm X”? You will be hard pressed to find examples.

When did Malcolm X ever organize an event calculated to be a riot or violent. He understood we live in a violent society, and he understood that self defense may necessitate a level of violence, but in doing so, he cited law and the United States constitution to defend the legitimacy and legality of self defense. On the other hand, the capitalist media tried very hard to paint him as an anti-white and violent man in order to discredit him in the eyes of white Americans, as well as black Americans. They catered to racist stereotypes of the violent black man. Today, as revolutionaries, we need to be clear about this question to counter slanders against Malcolm X.

Two major ways Dr. King and Malcolm X differed were:



Dr. King called for African-American integration into the mainstream American society.
Malcolm X called for black nationalism and separation from mainstream American society.




Dr. King raised nonviolent resistance to a level of a principle, fearing that violence would be self-defeating.
Malcolm X said that blacks had the right to defend themselves against violence by “any means necessary,” fearing that at a certain stage, blacks may have to resort to armed self defense.




Both men understood that power came from mass mobilization. Both were successful in mounting mass mobilization. They had a different take on the most effective way to mobilize the masses, and while one favored separation and the other integration, they both were people we can respect and learn from.

The reason for Malcolm X's words about self defense was that the US government did not shy away from using violence both abroad and domestically to maintain their rule. Additionally, racist apologists for US policies such as COINTELPRO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro) and American war policies had the temerity to preach nonviolence to the African-American community while trivializing the violence that racism brought to black Americans. Racism was profitable. Malcolm was not aiming his words at Dr. King. Moreover, Malcolm X was no violence freak.

Here is how Malcolm X explained it (http://www.malcolmx.com/about/quotes_articles.html).

If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it is wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us, and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country To me that’s not advocating violence. That's explaining the rational, legal, traditional, constitutional, and moral right to use whatever means may be necessary to defend oneself against an unjust violent attack.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[the debater]

At all times. The bourgeoisie have employed all means of violence and ruin to keep the working class in its place. Do not fool yourself into thinking that we should limit ourselves to peaceful means when they are laying siege to workers the world over while forcing us into pacifist futility. They only understand violence and we should respond in kind if at all possible.

To me, extremely poor factory workers in Bangladesh and Malaysia and other such countries definitely have an excuse to use violence. When you have incredibly unsafe working conditions, and you're unable to support your family's basic needs, that is the kind of situation where there are "no other options" so to speak. Of course, when middle-class suburbanites in the developed world use violence, chances are they will elicit eye-rolls :rolleyes: from the general populace. There may be exceptions of course, but I think that the gist of this post is accurate overall.

[the debater]

Wait, OP, did you suggest that vandalism is violence? Out of curiosity, why? On whom is the violence inflicted?
By contrast with vandalism, would you consider talking with the police violence? After all, unlike breaking a window, we can point to some pretty concrete ways that talking to the police can destroy people's lives, tear communities apart, etc.
I think if we want to have this discussion, we need to figure out what we're talking about when we say violence.
As for "the public" - man, you should hear Alex Hundert's stories of how popular he was in prison for being an alleged ring leader of the G20 riots. Violence might be unpalatable to the sensitive middleclass suburbanite, but among the most exploited strata of the working class? You've got decent odds that an injured cop is going to be the butt of jokes, not the object of sympathy.

I see what you're trying to say, and yes, I'm aware that cops can use ridiculously violent methods sometimes in performing their job. If the working class is being severely exploited, and the workers are unable to get the police on their side in protesting their opressors, that of course is a very tense situation. Nevertheless, I don't think it would hurt to be cautious in this regard of how and when to use violence. If we want more people to get on our side, we have to have as decent of an image as possible. If that occurs, we may be able to expand our influence into more demographic groups and sectors of the populace who are not normally associated with Marxism.

[Red_Banner]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is state power based on violence.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

is it violence if it's self-defence?

That's the only time when physical force (and I mean contact force, not physical force as in walking in a demonstration or march, or gathering in a park/square etc.) should be used by revolutionaries.

Inevitably, political revolutions lead to internecine conflict, which is rarely productive and can - as is happening right now - lead to civil war, which is the opposite of productive and a total waste of life.

If you have to butcher the bourgeoisie to get political power, then:

a) i'm not sure you're the kind of person/group who should wield any sort of power over other people;

b) perhaps this says a lot about the strength of your political ideas and the prevalence of your political propaganda amongst the working class.

At the end of the day, if the working class is at all united against the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie stands absolutely no chance of winning. Conflicts should be fought along class lines, in the political arena, and when one day the working class decides to end capitalism, the working class will end capitalism.

All this bullshit about butchering capitalists to seize state power on behalf of the working class - I mean, what's the point? Replacing one bunch of political actors who take part in the exploitation of workers with another bunch who are not necessarily of the working class and, once in power, do not necessarily share the same interest as workers. It's non-sensical, and history has shown it to be a pointless exercise in faux-Socialism.

[Zealot]

is it violence if it's self-defence?

That's the only time when physical force (and I mean contact force, not physical force as in walking in a demonstration or march, or gathering in a park/square etc.) should be used by revolutionaries.

Inevitably, political revolutions lead to internecine conflict, which is rarely productive and can - as is happening right now - lead to civil war, which is the opposite of productive and a total waste of life.

If you have to butcher the bourgeoisie to get political power, then:

a) i'm not sure you're the kind of person/group who should wield any sort of power over other people;

b) perhaps this says a lot about the strength of your political ideas and the prevalence of your political propaganda amongst the working class.

At the end of the day, if the working class is at all united against the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie stands absolutely no chance of winning. Conflicts should be fought along class lines, in the political arena, and when one day the working class decides to end capitalism, the working class will end capitalism.

All this bullshit about butchering capitalists to seize state power on behalf of the working class - I mean, what's the point? Replacing one bunch of political actors who take part in the exploitation of workers with another bunch who are not necessarily of the working class and, once in power, do not necessarily share the same interest as workers. It's non-sensical, and history has shown it to be a pointless exercise in faux-Socialism.

All working class violence against the bourgeoisie is self defense and even the most conscious workers have had to take up arms to protect their gains. Gandhiism has proven to be an absurd illusion that plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie and we cannot be willing to standby to avoid "butchering capitalists" while they plunder the world and prepare our mass graves. There is no class violence that is not justified, in my opinion.

[tachosomoza]

All working class violence against the bourgeoisie is self defense and even the most conscious workers have had to take up arms to protect their gains. Gandhiism has proven to be an absurd illusion that plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie and we cannot be willing to standby to avoid "butchering capitalists" while they plunder the world and prepare our mass graves. There is no class violence that is not justified, in my opinion.

"Butchering capitalists" while they are strong and have the entire military force and police at their beck and call guarantees nothing but a quicker trip to that mass grave. For a shot at success in the 21st century, revolutionaries must infiltrate the state apparatus and rot/weaken it from the inside.

[Decolonize The Left]

What is needed is not violence or non-violence, but a strategy.

[Rafiq]

What is needed is not violence or non-violence, but a strategy.

A strategy that is indifferent to the moral dichotomy between them, that sees action not in terms of how violent they are but how useful or necessary they are strategically.

[Stalinist Speaker]

You start to use violence after the state used violence agains you on a big scale, or if you have a very big part of the country supporting your organization to overthrow the government.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

All working class violence against the bourgeoisie is self defense and even the most conscious workers have had to take up arms to protect their gains. Gandhiism has proven to be an absurd illusion that plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie and we cannot be willing to standby to avoid "butchering capitalists" while they plunder the world and prepare our mass graves. There is no class violence that is not justified, in my opinion.

That's really a very slippery slope.

In context, one understands bank robbery, one understands when workers rotting to the bone working 20 hour days temporarily take their bosses hostage (eg in China) to demand higher wages and less life-threatening working conditions.

But the logical conclusion of your argument is terrorism; mindless slaughter solves no problems.

A political upheaval borne of blood inevitably continues in a similar fashion. Whether or not there is 'capitalist encirclement' or not is irrelevant - if a political revolution ends up in mass purges and mass murder, it's really not worth it at all and should be discouraged.

But yes, as Manoir says, we need a strategy, not a moral argument between pacifists and those with a fetish for violence.

[G4b3n]

Violence ought to be used in self defense, which during revolutionary struggle is needed. The police, i.e the state is generally the first to use violence to begin with, even during liberal protests which is just outrageous.

[Art Vandelay]

A political upheaval borne of blood inevitably continues in a similar fashion. Whether or not there is 'capitalist encirclement' or not is irrelevant - if a political revolution ends up in mass purges and mass murder, it's really not worth it at all and should be discouraged.

But yes, as Manoir says, we need a strategy, not a moral argument between pacifists and those with a fetish for violence.

For Marxists, moralism is never useful. I cannot seem to find the quote, but Angela Davis made an excellent point when she stated that the true nature of any revolutionary thrust lies in its aims and not its methods; in other words, the ends justify the means, as long as there is something which justifies the end. Ultimately whether or not any future revolution descends in to bloodshed is largely out of our control and really isn't the question to be asked. Sadly when any future revolutionary situation comes, many self proclaimed revolutionaries, will be shackled by the morality of the bourgeoisie and will do their bidding.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

For Marxists, moralism is never useful. I cannot seem to find the quote, but Angela Davis made an excellent point when she stated that the true nature of any revolutionary thrust lies in its aims and not its methods; in other words, the ends justify the means, as long as there is something which justifies the end. Ultimately whether or not any future revolution descends in to bloodshed is largely out of our control and really isn't the question to be asked. Sadly when any future revolutionary situation comes, many self proclaimed revolutionaries, will be shackled by the morality of the bourgeoisie and will do their bidding.

The ends justify the means, as long as there is something which justifies the end.

This seems like dialectic bullshit to me. Sounds like a way of saying the means must justify the ends, but she wants to be seen as anti-moralism so pre-supposes it with the opposite. It's just a sentence that doesn't make any sense.

You don't have to be a moralist to understand that if a revolution is going to cause more misery (i.e. the un-necessary deaths of many, many people) than the status quo, then it's obviously not being done in the correct manner, with the correct strategy, and probably not by the correct people.

The root cause of much of the blood shed under the 'socialist' regimes of the 20th century seems to be a divorce - at the most base level - between the aims of those actioning the revolution, and the interests of the working class. The loss of class struggle, if you will. Any other revolution that follows the same path will, almost certainly, follow the same path - to bloodshed, un-necessary violence and, eventually counter-revolution and capitalist restoration.

For a political revolution to irreversibly lead to a permanent post-capitalist society, socialism will actually have to practices what it preaches and let it be the work of the mass of the working class, not of a party saying it is of the working class, and promising to do the bidding of the working class once it wields total state power.

[Decolonize The Left]

I would like to remind us that we have no idea what a socialist revolution will actually look like. We are talking about years, after capitalism is completely global and all markets consumed, a conscious proletariat seizing means of production perhaps randomly and in a long string of violent events. We are talking about chaos, literally, as the social and economic fabric of whole societies is rendered apart and the armies and police are put in the most difficult situation of choosing whether to shoot their families and friends or forsake their honor.

We are talking about something which cannot have a predestined form, or plan, or rules.

[Art Vandelay]

This seems like dialectic bullshit to me. Sounds like a way of saying the means must justify the ends, but she wants to be seen as anti-moralism so pre-supposes it with the opposite. It's just a sentence that doesn't make any sense.

First off the ends justifies the means statement, is a Trotsky quote, I paraphrased it after commenting on the Angela Davis statement, because they deal with the same topic. Angela, never made any statements like that. Also I have an issue with this anti-dialectics comment. I'll be the first to admit that alot of times claims to a dialectical paradigm are merely covers for bad logic (especially on this site), however just as bad as those people, are the ones who denounce anything that is dialectical, whether it is cause they simply disagree or don't comprehend. Also people can say anything they want in an attempt to 'sound dialectical,' however it kinda sticks out like a sore thumb to anyone who has any sort of grasp of dialectics. Neither the Trotsky quote, nor the Angela Davis statement I alluded to, fall into that category.


You don't have to be a moralist to understand that if a revolution is going to cause more misery (i.e. the un-necessary deaths of many, many people) than the status quo, then it's obviously not being done in the correct manner, with the correct strategy, and probably not by the correct people.

Quite frankly this is just useless prediction. Marxists don't make predictions, but come to conclusions based on observations and evidence. How can anyone take any sort of serious glance at past revolutions and say that un-necessary death necessarily means that the revolution isn't advancing the interests of the class it represents. I mean obviously I agree about the desirability of a peaceful as possible revolution; peacefully if we can, forcibly if we must.


The root cause of much of the blood shed under the 'socialist' regimes of the 20th century seems to be a divorce - at the most base level - between the aims of those actioning the revolution, and the interests of the working class. The loss of class struggle, if you will. Any other revolution that follows the same path will, almost certainly, follow the same path - to bloodshed, un-necessary violence and, eventually counter-revolution and capitalist restoration.

Ugh this just sounds like it was written one of the moralistic anarchists on the forum. This is not a Marxists analysis and how anyone thinks it can pass for one, I don't know. You don't simply isolate one of the causes for the degeneration of the revolution (substitutionism by the Bolsheviks, which was entirely necessary and justified but that's neither here nor there) and proclaim that it was the sole cause of the excessive bloodshed and downfall of the revolution. You'll probably hate this, but that's not a dialectical analysis! And therefor neither is it a Marxist one. One of the characteristics of the degeneration of the revolution (let alone all of them) cannot be isolated, atomized and analyzed and then put back into the larger context of the degeneration. You cannot abstract them from their place in the totality of the events transpiring; one thing effects another, each individual part bleeds into everything it touches and they must be analyzed as such.


"Capitalism serves Marx as his jumping-off point for an examination of anything that takes place within it. As a beginning, capitalism is already contained, in principle, within the interacting processes he sets out to investigate as the sum total of their necessary conditions and results. Conversely, to begin with a supposedly independent part or parts is to assume a separation with its corresponding distortion of meaning that no amount of later relating can overcome. Something will be missing, something will be out of place and, without any standard by which to judge, neither will be recognized. What are called "interdisciplinary studies" simply treat the sum of such defects coming from different fields. As with Humpty Dumpty, who after the fall could never be put together again, a system whose functioning parts have been treated as independent of one another at the start can never be reestablished in its integrity." - Bertell Ollman, Dance of the Dialectic.



For a political revolution to irreversibly lead to a permanent post-capitalist society, socialism will actually have to practices what it preaches and let it be the work of the mass of the working class, not of a party saying it is of the working class, and promising to do the bidding of the working class once it wields total state power.

The idea that a class cannot wield its interests through its class party, is just a political difference we have and is a discussion for another time. But I just can't help but feel that the majority of the people in this discussion are really, really missing the point. This question is pointless, can't be answered, and would serve no point speculating about. Whether or not violence breaks out in any revolutionary situation is beyond our control, just as it was largely beyond the control of the Bolsheviks. Obviously I'm not trying to take away our human agency in the matter, I'm a Marxists, free will plays an important role in history, but having said that the ultimate deciding factor when it comes to the amount of bloodshed in a revolution doesn't come down to human agency, but rather the unleashing of the pent up class antagonisms as the economic base is ripped and divorced from the social superstructure. I know I like to claim anti-moralism alot and I think alot of the times it gets misconstrued. Trotsky makes the claim in 'Their Morals and Ours' that the anti-moralism of Marxists, is really nothing other than a form of 'higher human morality'. And of course on a day to day basis, I consider myself an extremely moral person. I wouldn't be a Marxists today if it were not for the moral convictions my mother and grandmother implemented in me when I was young. But when it comes to Marxian analysis, to objectivity, moralism serves us no tangible benefit, it merely clouds things. When these topics come up we shouldn't be seeing the useless regurgitation of moral quips, but rather serious discussion on our inability to predict future revolutionary situations (as Manoir put quite well above me), as well as the fact that class antagonisms have been growing and laying dormant for hundreds of years, and the limited ability of human agency to control them when released. Until then, this discussion will lead no where productive. Its similar to what Plekhanov says in 'The Role of the Individual in History,' until we fully confront our own limitations in our ability to control history, we begin to fully understand the ways we can put our human agency to best use.