Violent Revolution: A Contradiction in Terms?

[robbo203]

From this month's Socialist Standard...

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2014/no-1322-october-2014/nonviolent-revolution-contradiction-terms


Nonviolent Revolution: A Contradiction in Terms?



Many assume that bringing capitalism to an end will require violence. But workers can paralyze the capitalist class without firing a shot.

Revolution is often equated with violence. William Morris addressed this misconception nicely in ‘How We Live, and How We Might Live’, where he explained that:

‘The word Revolution, which we Socialists are so often forced to use, has a terrible sound in most people's ears, even when we have explained to them that it does not necessarily mean a change accompanied by riot and all kinds of violence, and cannot mean a change made mechanically and in the teeth of opinion by a group of men who have somehow managed to seize on the executive power for the moment’.

And 130 years later most still assume that revolution necessarily is accompanied by violence, and that a ‘nonviolent revolution’ is a contradiction in terms.

The Ted offensive

In an article published last year, the radial political cartoonist Ted Rall puts forth the basic argument so often used to defend violent revolution:

‘The privileged classes won’t relinquish their privileges, power or wealth voluntarily. They will use their control over the police and the military . . . in order to crush any meaningful opposition. They are violent. Their system is violence. Defeating them requires greater violence. Nothing less results in revolution’ (‘Not a Revolution, Just an Old-fashioned Coup’).

Rall insists that nonviolence is ineffective for a revolutionary movement and historically unprecedented, as he notes in his criticism of the Occupy movement in the same article:

‘At the height of the Occupy movement during the fall of 2011, many knee-jerk pacifists, besotted with the post-1960s religion of militant nonviolence (in spite of its repeatedly proven ineffectiveness), agreed that radical transformation — revolution — was necessary in the United States. Yet these liberals also argued that (even though there was no historical precedent) the triumph of the mass of ordinary American workers over the corrupt bankers and their pet politicians could result from purely nonviolent protest’.

Rall actually makes a number of good points in his article, arguing against ‘Western analysts, liberals and even leftists’ who have ‘cheapened the word “revolution”, attaching it to developments that . . . are nothing of the kind’; whereas a true revolution is ‘a vast set of radical transformations in the way that ordinary people live’. ‘You can’t make a revolution without revolutionizing society’, he writes, ‘which requires the complete violent overthrow of the ruling class’.

But is it necessary for him to insist so strongly on the violent nature of this transformation? Is it true that violence is an essential aspect of revolution? Is the use of nonviolent tactics among revolutionaries ineffective and historically unprecedented?

The power of nonviolence?

Nonviolent tactics would seem particularly ill-suited for any movement facing an authoritarian regime armed to the teeth. Here, at least, the arguments in favour of violent revolution would seem persuasive. But an article published in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs, titled ‘Drop Your Weapons: When and Why Civil Resistance Works’, argues that even in such situations collective nonviolent resistance can be very effective.

The authors of the article, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan,are hardly revolutionaries: Chenoweth is an academic and Stephan a ‘strategic planner’ for the State Department. And the magazine is pure ‘establishment’; published by the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization that seeks to ‘promote understanding of foreign policy and America’s role in the world’.

Not surprisingly, then, many of the examples of violent and nonviolent movements that the authors examine concern ‘regimes’ that the US government has sought to topple. Far from objecting to this meddling foreign policy, Chenoweth and Stephan simply think that supporting nonviolent movements can be more effective in many cases than backing armed conflict.

In any case, their article begins with some statistics about how ‘campaigns of nonviolent resistance’ have been much more successful against authoritarian regimes than violent movements. They examined ‘323 campaigns’ in the period from 1919 to 2006 – covering ‘all known nonviolent and violent campaigns (each featuring at least 1,000 observed participants) for self-determination, the removal of an incumbent leader, or the expulsion of a foreign occupation’.

The authors found that the ‘campaigns of nonviolent resistance against authoritarian regimes were twice as likely to succeed as violent movements’; and that ‘almost half’ of the nonviolent campaigns examined succeeded in achieving their goals, compared to just 20 percent of the violent ones.

These statistics, as you can see, are vague and the category ‘campaign’ includes every sort of social movement, whether its participants saw themselves as revolutionaries or reformists. But the interesting point to note is that authoritarian regimes often found it difficult to stamp out movements of mass nonviolent resistance despite the armed power of the state.

‘Contrary to conventional wisdom, no social, economic, or political structures have systematically prevented nonviolent campaigns from emerging or succeeding’, the authors argue, adding that, ‘movements that opt for violence often unleash terrible destruction and bloodshed . . . usually without realizing the goals they set out to achieve’.

Disarming a police state

The effectiveness of nonviolence, in the view of the authors, has nothing to do with moral suasion:

‘Civil resistance does not succeed because it melts the hearts of dictators and secret police. It succeeds because it is more likely than armed struggle to attract a large and more diverse base of participants and impose unsustainable costs on a regime’.

Chenoweth and Stephan list a number of reasons why nonviolent tactics can be so effective.

First of all, nonviolence is a tactic that allows a movement to mobilize a greater number of participants and supporters. In other words, there are fewer ‘barriers to participation’ than in an armed conflict, so a wider stratum of society is more likely to take part. And, needless to say, the larger the movement, the more difficult it is for a government to violently suppress it.

Another factor cited by the authors in favour of nonviolent movements is that they can employ a wider variety of tactics than is possible in an armed movement; not only demonstrations and strikes but other forms of noncooperation that make it clear that the legitimacy of the rulers has dissolved.

The authors point to the example of the Shah of Iran, who ‘had little difficulty neutralizing the Islamist and Marxist-inspired [sic!] guerilla groups’ but when ‘large numbers of oil workers, bazaar merchants, and students engaged in acts of collective nonviolent resistance . . .the regime’s repressive apparatus became overstretched’ and soon thereafter the Shah fled the country.

In other words, what was necessary to defeat a police state is not ‘greater violence’, as Rall seems to think, but the mass power of workers to effectively disarm that apparatus of violence: overwhelming it with numbers, dissolving its legitimacy, and winning over fellow workers ordered to pull the trigger.

Even the most repressive regime relies upon a degree of cooperation and consent from the population. When that legitimacy among the citizenry has dissolved, the state’s use of violence becomes increasingly difficult or even counterproductive. There are numerous examples in recent history alone of seemingly powerful regimes that have collapsed suddenly in the face of mass protest.

This essential point was made by Erica Chenoweth in the 21 August interview with the two authors on National Public Radio: ‘When very large and diverse sectors of society withdraw their cooperation from the opponent government, it's extremely difficult for that government to maintain its hold on control. And the reason is because every power holder is 100 percent reliant on the cooperation, obedience and help of people that reside in its pillars of support - the security forces, the state media, religious authorities, educational elites, business and economic elites and civilian bureaucrats’.

Clearly, Chenoweth is imagining a conflict within the ruling class, where the outcome depends on which side the bulk of the elites decide to back. But a similar dynamic would be at play in a socialist revolution as well. That is, when the majority of the working class withdraws its cooperation from the capitalist class, it would be extremely difficult for that class to maintain its hold on power and its pillars of support will begin to crumble.

The problem for the capitalist class in such a situation would hardly be a lack of military firepower; they would always outgun the workers. But unleashing that force against a rebellious working class could backfire, adding fuel to the fire; or the police and soldiers (workers themselves) might refuse to carry out the orders or turn their guns against the rulers.

Tactics are secondary

As advocates of nonviolence, Chenoweth and Stephan may be nothing more than useful idiots in the eyes of the military-industrial complex that actually runs US foreign policy out of the Pentagon, but they do make some good points about how nonviolent tactics can work against authoritarian regimes as a sort of ‘asymmetric’ conflict.

But, to return to the question of revolution, the debate over violence versus nonviolence, however interesting, is not the primary issue for socialists. We are convinced that the success of a revolution depends on a majority of the working class coming to have an understanding of and desire for socialism. This is the key issue; much more important than the specific tactics socialists employ to surmount this or that obstacle along the way.

Ted Rall seems to suggest that the Occupy movement fell apart as a result of sticking religiously to ineffective nonviolent tactics. But the central problem of that movement had less to do with its nonviolent tactics (which were actually remarkably effective), than its lack of a clear vision of what could replace the unequal capitalist society against which they were protesting. It is hard to see how the use of violent tactics would have compensated for that lack of strategy.

Or, perhaps Rall was trying to say that the Occupy movement failed because it did not set itself the goal of sweeping aside the ruling class (which he says requires violence). But even if that is his argument, it only reveals that Rall is focused exclusively on the ‘negative’ or destructive side of revolution, rather than the new society that replaces the old. In other words, like the Occupy movement he criticizes, Rall doesn’t really have a basic goal or strategy for what is to replace capitalism. It is that absence of a goal that accounts for why movements like Occupy fall apart, not their preference for nonviolence.

Our own goal is clearly the creation of a new classless, borderless, moneyless society of common ownership; a society we call ‘socialism’. And our strategy for achieving this goal is for more and more of our fellow workers to understand and consciously aim for this new form of society, until the point of critical mass is reached where replacing capitalism with socialism is a real, concrete task for the working class. At that point, the question becomes how best to take that final step. And we believe that, once socialism has majority backing, a nonviolent, democratic transformation is possible and preferable.

Violence is an effective means for a minority to hold on to power, or for another minority group to topple them and become the new rulers. But the workers make up the vast majority of society– if not ‘the 99%’, pretty close to it. When the majority of workers are moving steadfastly toward socialism, the violence of the minority ruling class would be unable to stem the tide, at least not for long.

MICHAEL SCHAUERTE

[Rafiq]

Violence isn't necessarily armed struggle. It is much worse for you - I understand people do not want to see the very fabric of their reality being torn apart, I understand people do not want to see their abstract fantasies come to life, I understand that people fear power. What I also understand is that those people are cowards who have no place in the future of any revolution besides being pressed against the wall.

The new order is sanctified in the blood of the old. The old world must burn. Decades upon decades of their wretched rule will be accounted for. When the ruling order is de-legitimized the disgust and anger towards their rotten barbarism is known. Everything, to the riled worker, becomes clear - I was being fucked over this whole time, I was jailed, beaten and without work for what? I lived a shit life, thinks the worker, for what?

Because when it comes down to it, deep down the wretched of the Earth think that somehow, this order is just and that all that happens must have purpose. Revoke this, de legitimize and set fire to the veil of lies and all that remains is the wrath of divine violence, account the oppressors for their sins long unpunished, long overdue for the fires of hell.

[PhoenixAsh]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nonviolence-protects-state-t188159/index.html?t=188159

[Spatula City]

I can't tell if I just lost the post I tried to post or not.

Anyways, the gist of it was: We don't need a revolution because capitalism is going to topple itself in the coming decades. I'm not saying this because I know for sure, but I do think there are some rather prominent signs.

A revolution at this point would probably only turn a potentially 'soft' decline into a violent, turbulent one.

The better strategy is to just let it all come down, and prepare for it. When people are forced to depend on each other in decentralized communities, a more social mode of interaction will develop organically... and potentially spread.

Of course, this is assuming it doesn't turn into some sort of fascist militarist nightmare.

[BIXX]

I can't tell if I just lost the post I tried to post or not.

Anyways, the gist of it was: We don't need a revolution because capitalism is going to topple itself in the coming decades. I'm not saying this because I know for sure, but I do think there are some rather prominent signs.

A revolution at this point would probably only turn a potentially 'soft' decline into a violent, turbulent one.

The better strategy is to just let it all come down, and prepare for it. When people are forced to depend on each other in decentralized communities, a more social mode of interaction will develop organically... and potentially spread.

Of course, this is assuming it doesn't turn into some sort of fascist militarist nightmare.
So young, so naive.

[Slavic]

So young, so naive.

Very helpful and insightful words.

Anyways.

I have an issue with the article's scientific background; specifically on this uncited article:


In any case, their article begins with some statistics about how ‘campaigns of nonviolent resistance’ have been much more successful against authoritarian regimes than violent movements. They examined ‘323 campaigns’ in the period from 1919 to 2006 – covering ‘all known nonviolent and violent campaigns (each featuring at least 1,000 observed participants) for self-determination, the removal of an incumbent leader, or the expulsion of a foreign occupation’.

The uncited article states that its criteria for 'violent campaigns' are: self-determination, removal of an incumbent leader, or the expulsion of a foreign occupation. None of these actions constitutes a revolution and merely just results in the changing of the guard. There is no relationship to production change, only a change in leadership.

This uncited article is the only significant portion of the overall work since the rest is just theory musing and since said article doesn't contain within its parameters an actual revolutionary event, it can be ignored,

The toppling of feudal systems by liberal forces is a clear indicator that violence can in fact, effect a change in one's relationship to production.

[Illegalitarian]

Such a radical change in the mode of production, from a capitalist to a socialist one, would almost absolutely be violent, for that has been the nature of almost every real radical sociopolitical shift to ever take place.


The ruling minority won't hesitate for a minute to burn this world to ashes if it becomes clear that they will no longer enjoy the power they have now, they will do everything in their power not to give us the satisfaction of inheriting the earth that we built. One only needs to look at the violent reaction of the non-toiling Ukrainian peasantry during collectivization in the 1930's to see that, vast swaths of farmland burnt to ashes and livestock slaughtered up in the thousands just to keep others from reaping the benefits of work they hardly put forth in the first place.

And that's just to mention those who own the means of production, those who control production and the flow of capital who maintain the current socioeconomic structure. What of the false consciousness that affects the majority of people on earth as a result of their relations to the means of production, the morality, prominent ideologies and perceptions born out of living in a capitalist society in order to justify its existence in the minds of its participants?

Surely the majority of people on earth, or at least a great deal of them will need to also be convinced communists for the revolution to come, but what of all those who refuse, either due to this false consciousness or a willful refusal to give up the old way? These people won't lay down and accept progressive socioeconomic shifts without a fight.


This is why revolution needs to be just as cultural as it is economic, because if the base does not see rebirth, the superstructure surely will not.

[Ravn]

"Chenoweth is imagining a conflict within the ruling class, where the outcome depends on which side the bulk of the elites decide to back. But a similar dynamic would be at play in a socialist revolution as well. That is, when the majority of the working class withdraws its cooperation from the capitalist class, it would be extremely difficult for that class to maintain its hold on power and its pillars of support will begin to crumble..."

When the ruling class runs into difficulty because of a lack of cooperation, their response is going to be violent. The system is already violent & inflicts itself on people everyday. It doesn't make sense to tell people they shouldn't defend themselves. Chenoweth is incipiently still stuck on the notion that everything really depends on "which side the bulk of the elites [sic] decide to back." But overthrowing the *capitalist class* is inherently violent., because revolution is using force to end their rule, not come to some new reconciliation.

I think the real issue here is using the appropriate force necessary to do the job, & not waste energy doing what is ineffectual. & envisioning a non-violent revolution is ineffectual & just an example of opportunism, (since behind it is the notion that some liberal capitalist strata will save the day.)

[Martin Luther]

'Violent revolution' here is defined as armed resistance to the state, as insurgency using small arms. They contrast this to anything involving people in the street that has had a role in some political change, no matter its nature, that doesn't use small arms. This is not how Marxists understand revolution and political power. Strikes and demonstrations are listed as examples of nonviolent resistance, but strikes, occupations, and mass protests are fundamentally acts of violence in a revolutionary context, whether they are done with weapons or not. So is armed resistance. The folly of nonviolence isn't that its peddlers don't bring assault rifles to challenge the ruling class, but that there is a deficit of revolutionary content in its tactics, organization, and slogans. You could say the entire question of violence vs nonviolence is irrelevant to the left because in the end there's revolutionary violence, and then there's theater, what so many call nonviolence.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What always amuses me is how the left think they have some sort of intellectual property rights over the word 'revolution'. It's a bit pathetic, because a revolution is essentially when one government or system is overthrown. Clearly, there are many more types of revolution than 'social revolution' or 'communist revolution', so this obsession from leftists with 'the revolution' is really bizarre, and quite spooky in its similarity to religious ideas of 'the second coming'. The way some leftists talk about 'the revolution' really does make me question their sanity at times.

[robbo203]

'Violent revolution' here is defined as armed resistance to the state, as insurgency using small arms. They contrast this to anything involving people in the street that has had a role in some political change, no matter its nature, that doesn't use small arms. This is not how Marxists understand revolution and political power. Strikes and demonstrations are listed as examples of nonviolent resistance, but strikes, occupations, and mass protests are fundamentally acts of violence in a revolutionary context, whether they are done with weapons or not. So is armed resistance. The folly of nonviolence isn't that its peddlers don't bring assault rifles to challenge the ruling class, but that there is a deficit of revolutionary content in its tactics, organization, and slogans. You could say the entire question of violence vs nonviolence is irrelevant to the left because in the end there's revolutionary violence, and then there's theater, what so many call nonviolence.

I think it is pretty clear in the context of the OP article what is meant by "violence". Yes, the meaning of the term has a degree of elasticity and you could conceivably use it, as you do, in a way that suggests what is called "structural violence" , something that stems from the coercive and oppresive nature of the system itself. But that is not what the article is referring to it. What it is referring to is precisely the use of assault weapons, the spilling of blood and so on. Literal rather than metaphorical violence.

While the article does not rule out the possibility of literal violence what it does is question the centrality and usefulness of this as a strategy for change. In the context of the revolutionary change from capitalism to socialism it notes that this change cannot possibly come about except by a majority consciously wanting and understanding socialism and embracing the democratic values that socialism necessarily entails.


The point that none of the contributors to this thread have thus far acknowleged is that the very growth of socialist understanding and support almost inevitably will progressively undermine the need for literal violence. Of course the ruling class will never give up their ownership of the means of life without a struggle but that is besides the point. They will find themselves increasingly constrained, limited and hedged in by the growth of the socialist ideas everywhere (including the armed forces incidentally) in what they can do about warding off the growing social threat to their parasitical existence that socialism entails.

Far more probable than attempt to forcibly put down down the movement advocating socialism they will seek to buy it off with increasingly more generous reform measures. We have a precedent in the shape of Otto von Bismarck the German chancellor in the late 19th century who sought to make socialist acitivity illegal with his "anti socialist law" and ended trying to co-opt the movement through the introduction of so called "socialistic measures". In other words, a growing socialist movement will progressively alter the very social environment in which the capitalist government operates and from whence it needs to draw social legitimacy


Marx and Engels certainly did not rule out the possibility of revolution by essentially peaceful means as do some of our modern day dogmatic "marxists" with their abstract fetishisation andkneejerk glorification of violence - all from the comfort of their cosy armshairs, of course. Many I suspect when it comes down to it, wouldnt know which end of an assault rifle to fire from.

Engels in particular was quite specific about this. In his Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850 he put it thus:


The irony of world history turns everything upside down. We, the "revolutionaries", the "overthrowers" — we are thriving far better on legal methods than on illegal methods and overthrow. The parties of order, as they call themselves, are perishing under the legal conditions created by themselves....


The franchise has been, in the words of the French Marxist programme, transformé de moyen de duperie qu'il a été jusquici en instrument d'emancipation — transformed by them from a means of deception, which it was before, into an instrument of emancipation. And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in our vote it increased in equal measure the workers’ certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda; that it accurately informed us of our own strength and that of all opposing parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion second to none for our actions, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness — if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, it would still have been much more than enough....


He also added, somewhat overoptimistically....

If the conditions have changed in the case of war between nations, this is no less true in the case of the class struggle. The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.


However, the main point that Engels was making is well taken. Today, trying to take on the enormous might of the modern state by armed struggle is suicidal folly on an epic scale. For the socialist movement it will lead to inevitable failure and crushing disappointment that will set back the movement for decades


Actually, the need to resort to literal violence is almost inevitably an indication that the conditions for socialist transformation are quite absent. Violence can, of course, work to promote capitalist or anti socialist objectives. ISIS for example used horrendous violence to establish its despicable Islamic caliphate. If that is what you want then go right ahead and use violent methods to achieve your goal. But in most instances, the efficacy of violence as a method to achieve a given objective is statistically much less than on the case of nonviolent methods - a point that I note critics of the OP article have studiously evaded.

To conclude, I would say that the precept that "the end justifies the means" is mistaken. To a considerable extent, the end is determined by the means you use. Violence is inecapably and implicitly authoritarian and oppressive and is almost bound to reproduce a society that reflects these ugly anti-socialist values. Look at what became of so called national liberation movements everywhere that came to power through the barrel of a gun . Virtually everywhere they turned out to be disgusting depsotisms

Of course there may very well be some literal violence in the course of a future socialist revolution - I dont doubt that - but we should not make the use of violence the central plank of a strategy of socialist transformation. and that really is what the OP article is about...

[John Nada]

I've read the study cited in the OP's article. Most the successful revolutions they cite(Philippines, Nepal, East Timor, ect.) also had violent resistance, co-current or not much early. Much of what they called non-violent(what they call strategic non-violence) would probably be met with live fire in some imperialist countries. It's likely the non-violent bourgeois revolutions wouldn't have been possible without the earlier resistance. Likewise it could be that violent ones were peaceful but escalated

Also strict non-violence might not necessarily gain more mass support than more militant ones. While many might not want to get involved with some violent scary people(which is reasonable), others might wonder why they're just letting the oppressor beat the living shit out of them, instead of fighting back. This could make them think the protesters are weak.

I noticed they list/imply 6 things:

1.A popular front with mass support

2.A clear objective(usually in the confines of capitalism)

3.Effective Propaganda

4.A divided opponent

5.Possibly foreign support, but it could easily backfire("Traitors!"/"Imperialist!")

6.At most two years to succeed, after which it's unlikely

Note that these can be(and are) used by(and for) reactionaries against revolutionary/reformist movements.

The line between peaceful protests/pacifist civil disobedience(which they called principled non-violence) and outright war(as well as the response to both of them) is one of degrees on a continuum, and is viewed that way. You know that saying,"War is a continuation of politics by other means." I hope a revolution is peaceful, but...:(

[Martin Luther]

While the article does not rule out the possibility of literal violence what it does is question the centrality and usefulness of this as a strategy for change. In the context of the revolutionary change from capitalism to socialism it notes that this change cannot possibly come about except by a majority consciously wanting and understanding socialism and embracing the democratic values that socialism necessarily entails.


The point that none of the contributors to this thread have thus far acknowleged is that the very growth of socialist understanding and support almost inevitably will progressively undermine the need for literal violence. Of course the ruling class will never give up their ownership of the means of life without a struggle but that is besides the point. They will find themselves increasingly constrained, limited and hedged in by the growth of the socialist ideas everywhere (including the armed forces incidentally) in what they can do about warding off the growing social threat to their parasitical existence that socialism entails.

Far more probable than attempt to forcibly put down down the movement advocating socialism they will seek to buy it off with increasingly more generous reform measures. We have a precedent in the shape of Otto von Bismarck the German chancellor in the late 19th century who sought to make socialist acitivity illegal with his "anti socialist law" and ended trying to co-opt the movement through the introduction of so called "socialistic measures". In other words, a growing socialist movement will progressively alter the very social environment in which the capitalist government operates and from whence it needs to draw social legitimacy

To conclude, I would say that the precept that "the end justifies the means" is mistaken. To a considerable extent, the end is determined by the means you use. Violence is inecapably and implicitly authoritarian and oppressive and is almost bound to reproduce a society that reflects these ugly anti-socialist values. Look at what became of so called national liberation movements everywhere that came to power through the barrel of a gun . Virtually everywhere they turned out to be disgusting depsotisms




What set Marxism apart from reformism and social democracy when the decisive years came was its dismissal of everything about these paragraphs. History vindicated that dismissal.

Marxists do not fetishize violence. The revolution will require flexibility and the use of all kinds of mobilization and acts of defiance. What Marxists do not do is rule out the use of armed violence or pretend that other things are more effective no matter what the conditions. The opposite of the ideology of nonviolence was focoism, which is just as wrong. As I said, the question of violence (weapons! blood! oh my!) vs nonviolence seems irrelevant to Marxism. It is important, however, to those who fetishize theater and to those with social democratic illusions.

[robbo203]

What set Marxism apart from reformism and social democracy when the decisive years came was its dismissal of everything about these paragraphs. History vindicated that dismissal.

Could you explain what you mean by this - particularly, in the light of Engel's remark which I quoted as follows

The irony of world history turns everything upside down. We, the "revolutionaries", the "overthrowers" — we are thriving far better on legal methods than on illegal methods and overthrow. The parties of order, as they call themselves, are perishing under the legal conditions created by themselves....


I think you have got it exactly the wrong way round - the opposite of what you say is the truth. I agree that one should not festishise nonviolence - or violence - and I for one would certainly not want to rule out the latter completely. However, as a matter of principle, it is surely preferable - would you not agree? - that the revolution should be conducted in as non violent a manner as possible and that we should not give the state any pretext for using its vastly superior armed might to crush the revolutionary movement in its infancy. This is to say nothing of the brutalising authoritarian tendencies that the habitual use of violence tends to breed in its protagonists which will eat up and destroy the movement from within

So there are good solid reasons for saying "peacefully if we can, violently if we must". In other words, preferring a non violent approach to a violent one. If we do regretably have to fall back on violence it is very likely that this would indicate that the pre-conditon for a successful socialist revolution - mass socialist consciousness - had not yet been achieved so the revolution is almost certainly not going to suceed anyway

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

I don't buy that "moral suasion" is any kind of effective strategy against capitalism. That strikes me as the kind of neoliberalism that champions the transformation of the world through purchasing the right "conscious" kind of product, the kind of neoliberalism that distills, say, the issue of abortion to a matter of having the option to have an abortion rather than acknowledging the problem of reproductive injustice.

By all that, I mean non-violent "revolution" is a construct based on a premise devised by liberal philosophy, where a "marketplace of ideas" is the determining mechanism of social policy and the rule of law reflects the merit of ideas rather than the interests of the ruling class.

People internalize the values of bourgeois society for the reason that society is as it is because of bourgeois coercion. Working people who do not submit and demonstrate docility to the state and its ideals are starved, attacked, abducted, imprisoned, and murdered. This contradiction needs to be rationalized because, when working people are not class conscious, the absurdity of liberal ideas vis-a-vis the reality of the world would drive them mad. This rationalization is the internalization of liberalism, funded on the belief that the fact people rise to the top based on wealth is a flaw of capitalism rather than its central working mechanism.

There is no marketplace of ideas in bourgeois society, at least no marketplace in which anti-capitalist ideas have any currency. Capitalism is predicated on the threat of violence against the working class and on the reality of that violence being unleashed upon them. The proletariat does not have the luxury of an equitable forum through which to persuade the state out of existence.

This is war in the truest sense. We're being enslaved and killed. That you see the committees and commissaries of the bourgeoisie as potential allies to be persuaded out of serving the ruling class belies a petty bourgeois understanding of the world. Give compradores no quarter!

[robbo203]

I don't buy that "moral suasion" is any kind of effective strategy against capitalism. That strikes me as the kind of neoliberalism that champions the transformation of the world through purchasing the right "conscious" kind of product, the kind of neoliberalism that distills, say, the issue of abortion to a matter of having the option to have an abortion rather than acknowledging the problem of reproductive injustice.

By all that, I mean non-violent "revolution" is a construct based on a premise devised by liberal philosophy, where a "marketplace of ideas" is the determining mechanism of social policy and the rule of law reflects the merit of ideas rather than the interests of the ruling class.

People internalize the values of bourgeois society for the reason that society is as it is because of bourgeois coercion. Working people who do not submit and demonstrate docility to the state and its ideals are starved, attacked, abducted, imprisoned, and murdered. This contradiction needs to be rationalized because, when working people are not class conscious, the absurdity of liberal ideas vis-a-vis the reality of the world would drive them mad. This rationalization is the internalization of liberalism, funded on the belief that the fact people rise to the top based on wealth is a flaw of capitalism rather than its central working mechanism.

There is no marketplace of ideas in bourgeois society, at least no marketplace in which anti-capitalist ideas have any currency. Capitalism is predicated on the threat of violence against the working class and on the reality of that violence being unleashed upon them. The proletariat does not have the luxury of an equitable forum through which to persuade the state out of existence.

This is war in the truest sense. We're being enslaved and killed. That you see the committees and commissaries of the bourgeoisie as potential allies to be persuaded out of serving the ruling class belies a petty bourgeois understanding of the world. Give compradores no quarter!


I'm not quite sure who you are addressing your comments to but, if it is me, it bears absolutely no relation to anything I said. Of course, a non violent strategy can lend itself to bourgeois ends but so too can violence. If one entertains any doubts on that score one only has to look at the outcome of the various armed, so called "national liberation", struggles throughout the post war era leading to emergence of newly independent bourgeois comprador states, corrupt and rotten to their very core and more than happy to cooperate with their erstwhile colonial masters in the obscene exploitation of their own citizens.

As the OP article suggested - something that has been overlooked by several contributors here - it is the objective that we should be focussing on more than the means of achieving that objective. I dont think I am saying anything controversial here by stating that the goal of a socialist society would be better served by non violent means than by violent means. Who would not prefer the former to the latter unless you have some sick craving for violence for its own sake. Violence brutalises and breeds authoritarian undemocratic modes of thinking in my view. And it tends to breed yet more violence and an endless tit-for-tat spiral which solves nothing. If we have to use violence it should be an absoute last resort when all else fails

Non violence can of course lead to non socialist ends but ONLY if its is yoked to non socialist ends - like so called "national liberation". That is the main point that needs to be taken on board

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

To robbo203,

I disagree that what I said bore no relation to what you had said, but I wasn't addressing it to you, specifically. I'm also not going to touch your ideas on national liberation.

What you're saying, though, is that both violent and non-violent means can be yoked to anti-socialist ends. This is true, but it tells us very little. You go on to say that violence breeds undemocratic thinking, which is also true, but, again, it tells us little. The reason it tells us little is because you're making a generalization that all violence is equally anti-democratic in the sense that it robs the proletariat of democratic control over their world. This is not true.

That violence has breeded anti-democratic things in the past is an indicator of the class character of that violence, completed by the realization of whom is being robbed of democracy and to whom is it being awarded. The elites, I'm sure, feel their system is quite democratic in that it reflects their collective interests, while we recognize it as undemocratic because our voices are not heard.

The revolution will entail expropriation, which is by nature authoritarian and violent (if only through the threat of violence, which is a necessary measure of coercion in this case). Expropriation of the ruling class is undemocratic, because those subjected to it have no say against it.

The administrative method of policy is predicated on violence rather than persuasion, and even the democratic method is predicated on the same to ensure that those who lost the vote don't attempt to subvert democracy. Rejecting violence wholesale is idealistic and doesn't acknowledge the class character of realizations of violence. We may create a socialist world without spilling a drop of blood, but that will be because the barrels of our rifles are cold, not that we never had rifles in hand.

[John Nada]

This is war in the truest sense. We're being enslaved and killed. That you see the committees and commissaries of the bourgeoisie as potential allies to be persuaded out of serving the ruling class belies a petty bourgeois understanding of the world. Give compradores no quarter!Was that to me or just a point in general? I don't disagree, and I don't think imperialist and the bourgeoisie are worth shit as supposed allies. I was just summarizing the study the article was based on, which is mostly about bourgeoisie revolutions written from a bourgeois perspective.
I'm not quite sure who you are addressing your comments to but, if it is me, it bears absolutely no relation to anything I said. Of course, a non violent strategy can lend itself to bourgeois ends but so too can violence. If one entertains any doubts on that score one only has to look at the outcome of the various armed, so called "national liberation", struggles throughout the post war era leading to emergence of newly independent bourgeois comprador states, corrupt and rotten to their very core and more than happy to cooperate with their erstwhile colonial masters in the obscene exploitation of their own citizens.

As the OP article suggested - something that has been overlooked by several contributors here - it is the objective that we should be focussing on more than the means of achieving that objective. I dont think I am saying anything controversial here by stating that the goal of a socialist society would be better served by non violent means than by violent means. Who would not prefer the former to the latter unless you have some sick craving for violence for its own sake. Violence brutalises and breeds authoritarian undemocratic modes of thinking in my view. And it tends to breed yet more violence and an endless tit-for-tat spiral which solves nothing. If we have to use violence it should be an absoute last resort when all else fails

Non violence can of course lead to non socialist ends but ONLY if its is yoked to non socialist ends - like so called "national liberation". That is the main point that needs to be taken on boardBut all the examples from the study were bourgeois revolutions and national liberation. It really doesn't say anything like Gandhi-style civil disobedience.The two successes(Philippines and East Timor) and ,at the time, one failure(Myanmar) used as examples, had very long wars before or during the protests. Hell, I think the vast majority(all?) they referred to did. And they were labeled "democracies" and "non-violent" afterward, even though there was violence.

I agree that it should be as non-violent as possible, and the objective is one of, if not the most important part of it. I think it's more that in the mist of war, when a lot of the revolutionaries get killed/imprisoned, they have to go into siege mode to survive. Perhaps this structure carries over when the fog clears. However I don't think having it escalated further means it's doom, and might even be necessary in some case(ie fascist dictatorship).

While I agree that it'd be best if it was a little less violent than a non-revolutionary period, I can't ask people to become martyrs for pacifist tactics when it's strategical pointless. I don't think you(robbo203), anyone here, or even that study, disagrees.

What I was pointing out was the study itself. I just feel the OP's article doesn't actually capture what the study they based it on said. It says that a mass movement(cross-class), clear objective, discipline, good propaganda and strong leadership, all within a two year period were correlated with success. Imperialist backing/opposition was also mentioned, though it doesn't seem like they went far into it's effect, which they claimed was minor compared to the rest. Collaborating with imperialist/bourgeoisie is out of the question for probably most on here(hopefully), and many may not want strong leaders or can't.

And I really think they downplayed the armed resistance, exaggerated how non-violent and successful they were. Nepal and the Philippines had Marxist rebels for years, and they're still bourgeois revolutions with the people's ones still ongoing. Myanmar is basically in perpetual warfare and minorities still face violent discrimination, even though it's the one they listed as a failure, succeeded by their definition.IIRC they listed Uruguay's armed resistance as a failure, but is it really when they have a former Tupamaro as president? Were the bourgeois "revolutions' in the Eastern Bloc countries really unrelated to the Soviet-Afghan war or in the case of Serbia, the Balkan wars? I don't think they elaborated on geopolitical or class positions enough, beyond humanitarian concerns. Such as was there a revolution/war in the area already? A threat of invasion? Ideological supporters with material support? Who was the traditional oppressing or current neo-colonialist power? Who owns the means of production and property. What's it's level of development? What bigotries are there among the populous? If in debt, who owns it? What's the class composer and dynamic? Who's an ally country?

A BIG gaping flaw in their analysis is they excluded the US and the like! Also IMO the name is very misleading, because their definition of strategic non-violence is probably vague and broad enough to include the Bolsheviks!

[consuming negativity]

Yes, violence is sometimes necessary, but there is no need to defend this, because all except the most religiously adherent Jains accept this as truth. All we do by defending violent revolution is make ourselves look as though we are bloodthirsty and out of touch. When the time comes for violence, it will not need to be advocated. And when the time for violence is not here, such as is the case currently, advocating it will only work to alienate us. We should focus on the positive and on making the changes that will bring about the changes that we seek; you are all putting the cart before the horse and doing so needlessly.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

So young, so naive.

Actually, I think it's a legitimate point, do we need a revolution? Is it necessary? Not in the sense of violence or no but just do we really need some drawn out blood bath? Some weird psychodrama because everything in our species history has to be dramatic?

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

It has nothing to do with psychodrama or catalyst, Long Russian Name. It's about seizing power away from the oppressors.

[Magón]

Yes, violence is sometimes necessary, but there is no need to defend this, because all except the most religiously adherent Jains accept this as truth. All we do by defending violent revolution is make ourselves look as though we are bloodthirsty and out of touch. When the time comes for violence, it will not need to be advocated. And when the time for violence is not here, such as is the case currently, advocating it will only work to alienate us. We should focus on the positive and on making the changes that will bring about the changes that we seek; you are all putting the cart before the horse and doing so needlessly.

I don't think, outside in the real world, a lot of Socialists or Communists, advocate for a violent overthrow. Just look at how protests and various outreaches are conducted, there's hardly any talk of violence In all my experiences, except with some minor newcomers who are still learning a thing or two about the basics, it's mostly been just pointing out that when the time comes, that it will be violent, but that the immediate future does not consist of violence or anything like that. And then you pour them soup, or hand them a paper, whatever.

If someone asks you if you advocate for a violent revolution, you can't just say yes, and leave it at that, they will likely question you more, and you will have to explain your position to them better. Otherwise, they will likely think you don't know what you're talking about, and that's when they'll see you as someone who's just out of touch with reality, and blood thirsty.

[consuming negativity]

I don't think, outside in the real world, a lot of Socialists or Communists, advocate for a violent overthrow. Just look at how protests and various outreaches are conducted, there's hardly any talk of violence In all my experiences, except with some minor newcomers who are still learning a thing or two about the basics, it's mostly been just pointing out that when the time comes, that it will be violent, but that the immediate future does not consist of violence or anything like that. And then you pour them soup, or hand them a paper, whatever.

If someone asks you if you advocate for a violent revolution, you can't just say yes, and leave it at that, they will likely question you more, and you will have to explain your position to them better. Otherwise, they will likely think you don't know what you're talking about, and that's when they'll see you as someone who's just out of touch with reality, and blood thirsty.

Good. I don't think we should openly advocate for a violent revolution; I believe we should advocate for what it is that we really want, which is change. When we advocate for change, we will force the hands of the oppressors who will not give it to us, and violent revolution will no longer be off the table nonsense to be considered after all other options have exhausted. Because we will have exhausted all other options. Yes, liberal democracy is highly flawed, but we must demonstrate that in practice before we can have people on board for any serious system-altering revolutionary activity. As of now, the system appears to work, and most people believe that while capitalism is highly flawed, it is the best alternative available. Simply knowing otherwise doesn't mean anyone will believe us; people are smart enough to see that all the other preachers and politicians aren't on their side. They're also smart enough to see that the numbers of victims of Stalin's experiment with socialism doesn't change the reality that the shit he did was not exactly moral. In short, I just think that in order to win the game, we have to play it first. We're smart enough to play it well, so why not do so and reap the benefits of our collective intelligence in the short and long term?

[Magón]

Good. I don't think we should openly advocate for a violent revolution; I believe we should advocate for what it is that we really want, which is change. When we advocate for change, we will force the hands of the oppressors who will not give it to us, and violent revolution will no longer be off the table nonsense to be considered after all other options have exhausted. Because we will have exhausted all other options. Yes, liberal democracy is highly flawed, but we must demonstrate that in practice before we can have people on board for any serious system-altering revolutionary activity. As of now, the system appears to work, and most people believe that while capitalism is highly flawed, it is the best alternative available. Simply knowing otherwise doesn't mean anyone will believe us; people are smart enough to see that all the other preachers and politicians aren't on their side. They're also smart enough to see that the numbers of victims of Stalin's experiment with socialism doesn't change the reality that the shit he did was not exactly moral. In short, I just think that in order to win the game, we have to play it first. We're smart enough to play it well, so why not do so and reap the benefits of our collective intelligence in the short and long term?

So when someone asks you what kind of revolution are you advocating for, and you say change, what do you think will be their next question? The obvious one would be, well how do you get that change? Violent or peaceful. You can't expect to always brush off the reality that for actual change to occur, it will have to be violent, whether the other side makes it so you have no other choice, but to make it violent, or that because you realize the reality of the situation being that, again, for actual change to occur it will have to be born out of violence.

And the whole point of our existence, and having the views we have, is to show people that may realize that Capitalism and the system are flawed, it isn't the best alternative they have. We're meant to show them that the system is flawed, not that it might be, and that Socialism/Communism is the better system both economically and socially. And going back to violence or peace, seeing as the system IS flawed, you can't simply vote in change.

[consuming negativity]

So when someone asks you what kind of revolution are you advocating for, and you say change, what do you think will be their next question? The obvious one would be, well how do you get that change? Violent or peaceful. You can't expect to always brush off the reality that for actual change to occur, it will have to be violent, whether the other side makes it so you have no other choice, but to make it violent, or that because you realize the reality of the situation being that, again, for actual change to occur it will have to be born out of violence.

And the whole point of our existence, and having the views we have, is to show people that may realize that Capitalism and the system are flawed, it isn't the best alternative they have. We're meant to show them that the system is flawed, not that it might be, and that Socialism/Communism is the better system both economically and socially. And going back to violence or peace, seeing as the system IS flawed, you can't simply vote in change.

I would tell them exactly what Engels wrote over a century ago:


— 16 —
Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?

It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.

To recognize that violent revolution is possibly necessary is not to advocate it.

[Magón]

I would tell them exactly what Engels wrote over a century ago:



To recognize that violent revolution is possibly necessary is not to advocate it.

Again, nobody is advocating for immediate violence, but knowing that it has to take place in the future to change things, is a way of advocating for it. Not now, but in the future.

[ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт]

The only reason any leftist should be against advocating violence against the state is because cops will break down his door, kidnap him, and lock him in a cell. There's nothing to be gained by pretending as though this is an issue of theory, about "not needing" violence.

[consuming negativity]

The only reason any leftist should be against advocating violence against the state is because cops will break down his door, kidnap him, and lock him in a cell. There's nothing to be gained by pretending as though this is an issue of theory, about "not needing" violence.

What about the support of the rest of society? That sounds like something we could really use. I don't think being smart about things is actually a matter of theory at all; it is a matter of strategy. And we have none. Our strategy is to make newspapers that only we read, and to speak to each other about minutia of theory that we won't ever be able to prove because we have no strategy except to talk. In the information age, where even a child can grab a computer and start posting, preaching to an audience of preachers is simply not enough.

[Illegalitarian]

No sane person advocates violence. Communists should, above all else, not be people prone to violence at the drop of a hat.

When the time for revolution comes we will do what is necessary to spread our ideals throughout society and push for cultural change wherever it is needed, and seize the state apparatus used to represent the class interests of the ruling minority and then rob that ruling minority of the tools they use to oppress us, our own tools, the means of production.

If they recognize that this change is coming no matter how much they want to cling to old social relations, fine, no violence, which is preferable. If they try and stop us, however, if they choose to fight back, then it becomes a matter of self defense. Defending yourself from systematic oppression is not merely violence for the sake of violence, that is what Engels meant and that is what needs to be stressed.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It has nothing to do with psychodrama or catalyst, Long Russian Name. It's about seizing power away from the oppressors.

It's Voxxy or Vasilisa haha but in all do seriousness, I get that but as of recently I've been questioning the actual or imagined necessity of revolution or insurrection. Not, again, deferring to pacifism or violence but more it stems from a general skepticism as to whether or not this tactic would be necessary or effective in the 21st century. We have to consider that we now are in a world with nuclear weapons, aerial drones and (coming soon) autonomous robotic soldiers. Facial recognition software, software than can record and compare the gate of your walk. There is numerous 'innovations' that must be reckoned with, idk.

[John Nada]

It's Voxxy or Vasilisa haha but in all do seriousness, I get that but as of recently I've been questioning the actual or imagined necessity of revolution or insurrection. Not, again, deferring to pacifism or violence but more it stems from a general skepticism as to whether or not this tactic would be necessary or effective in the 21st century. We have to consider that we now are in a world with nuclear weapons, aerial drones and (coming soon) autonomous robotic soldiers. Facial recognition software, software than can record and compare the gate of your walk. There is numerous 'innovations' that must be reckoned with, idk.

The thing I fear most is that those things you listed, will make peaceful change impossible. If just holdings signs or speaking out means they send the terminator and Robocop on your ass, what can anyone do? Vote Democrat, Labour, ect. and hope they actually become more progressive? They can't even be called progressives or social democrats at this point. I don't see mainstream ruling parties in most countries getting more leftist. If anything the "left" in most governments is to the right of the 70's right-wing, and continues to mover further right. Because that's all the bourgeoisie wants, and they're the ones pushing for this fucked up shit.

With the environment going to shit, increased ability to monitor and destroy with electronics and robots, and possibly the declining rate of profit, I could see barbarism(fascism and/or nuclear war) arising. I fear it's like they're sealing up a pressure-release valve.