The question of violent revolution

[Zanzibar]

Is violent revolution an essential part of the transition to socialism(and in turn the eventual tranistion to communism). Or do you honestly believe Marxists can gain power through parlimentary means. And if we were to gain power through parlimentary means, would class antagonism not still exist? Is it not true in order to rid ones nation, and infact world, of those antagonisms one must smash the state completly itself, not use the existing institutions of said state.

Thoughts?

[ComradeRed]

Im in the U$, it cannot start here, for it is the bourgeois capitol of the world, exporting pennies and oppression in exchange for goods made in sweat shops.
It cannot start here, it must start some where else, in an industrialized nation (east europe maybe?) so it can't be:S. America, Africa, or most of Asia/Middle east. But, in my opinion, the revolution doesn't have to be violent.

[Invader Zim]

I think it depends on geographical location, in many western countries without the support of the armed forces etc, I doubt it would ever succeed, so it seems likley a democratic/pacafist approach would need to be used. Ghandi overthrew the "mighty" British Empire by peaceful means, I see no real reason why this could not be achieved in the west, other than it would take mass support. Having said that, India is not exactly a richest nation...

In less economically developed countries, where the governments are usually considerably more ruthless when it comes to exploitation their own people, but armies etc are not as well trained or equipt, then violant revolution may well be necessary, as all other peaceful methods are none existant or would be ignored.

Of course many people believe that Marx must be followed to the letter and that a revolution must take place, but it seems that these countries seem to grow authoritarian rather soon after the revolution, so I would say that the peaceful approach would inmost cases be the best solution. However different situations call for different measures.

[redstar2000]

Is violent revolution an essential part of the transition to socialism (and in turn the eventual transition to communism)?

It would appear so...at least all the evidence points in that direction.

Marx suggested that violence "is the mid-wife of history", bringing forth new societies to replace the old.

It's curious that people sometimes find this "uncomfortable"...while ignoring the daily violence of the existing society, not to mention the devastation of its wars.

About 45,000 Americans die every year in traffic accidents. That's close to half a million per decade...easily exceeding the total number of casualties on both sides of the American civil war.

It's "not a big deal", right?

But if there were a proletarian revolution in America (say in 2080) and a million or two were killed in the uprising, there would be much dismay and "gasps of horror" from some folks...even though that number would be less than half the number of traffic deaths just in the 21st century alone.

Here is another consideration: the "great uprisings" of the 20th century--Petrograd (February 1917), Barcelona (1936), France (May 1968)--though violent were not "very" violent. The numbers of casualties were relatively small.

This suggests that whenever there are real proletarian risings involving truly massive numbers, that the old ruling class and its repressive organs are "demoralized" to such an extent that violent resistance becomes an impossibility.

So if you are under the impression that violent revolution is some nightmarish scenario of "oceans of blood", be reassured.

It will more likely involve "creeks" of blood.


Or do you honestly believe Marxists can gain power through parliamentary means?

Not a chance! Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or is an ignorant fool.


Is it not true in order to rid one's nation, and in fact world, of those antagonisms, one must smash the state completely itself, not use the existing institutions of said state?

Yes, that was the conclusion drawn by Marx and Engels after the Paris Commune of 1871.

Everything that's happened since has only served to confirm that conclusion.

(Note: for reasons too complicated to discuss here, the notion that Gandhi "liberated India" through non-violence is a myth.)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Zanzibar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 02:39 AM
All that you just said
:hammer: :redstar2000:


And there were many violent uprisngs in India. The British had to redirect many troops there during the the Second World War to prevent itself from losing the territory. In fact, if not for the second world I doubt India would have recieved it's indpendence "peacefully." The British were able to ignore Gandhi for over 30 years before that.