How violent is a revolution?

[Varroun]

I have to say, the theory of revolution being the correct course is very convincing to me. However I personally can't handle violence, I just don't think I could function.

How violent would a revolution be? Would it always be a civil war? Or will it be a quick takeover of power with minimal violence in comparison? What role would someone like me be able to play?

[Alet]

Depends. The worse the workers' conditions, the more violent a revolution. It might be possible that workers can, in certain cases, just take over the factories/companies, however, I doubt that the bourgeoisie will be as peaceful as the workers.

[RedWorker]

You need to distinguish the two meanings of revolution:

(a) a fundamental change in society; e.g. social, political, economic revolution
(b) a violent insurrection

Communism advocates (a), but (a) is usually linked to (b). But a peaceful social revolution is technically possible.

Engels said: "It would be desirable if [the peaceful abolition of private property] could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it."

And Lenin said: "The peaceful development of any revolution is, generally speaking, extremely rare and difficult ... but ... a peaceful development of the revolution is possible and probable if all power is transferred to the Soviets. The struggle of parties for power within the Soviets may proceed peacefully, if the Soviets are made fully democratic"

The October Revolution was pretty much bloodless, but the counter-revolutionaries started a massive civil war and the armies of more than 10 foreign countries attacked Russia.

I'd say any proletarian revolution is infinitely less violent than a bourgeois counter-revolution. Usually violence is only required to counter the violence used to impose the ruling order.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Revolutions are violent almost by definition. Sure, you will get people quoting Marx and Engels on the possibility of a peaceful revolution, but (1) these statements tend to be taken out of context, (2) Marks and Angles had genuinely awful politics at times (to be honest, communism was burdened from the beginning by an alliance with petit-bourgeois forces, most noticeable in German social-democracy, and didn't come into its own until WWI and the break between social-democracy and communism). But a revolution is the act of one class overthrowing another, and this generally takes violence. Saying that the revolution was not violent but the subsequent counterrevolution was is an inane way to have one's cake and eat it - after all the counterrevolution is caused by the revolution. And of course, we don't want violence - if nothing else violence means a real chance of people getting killed, and most of us like being alive. But it can't be avoided. And placing this quite understandable aversion to violence foremost is how the Peace Police get started.

Which isn't to say that everyone will have to be a soldier. Quite the contrary. There will be a civil war, but a civil war can't happen if every eligible person is at the front - the revolutionary area will collapse without a shot being fired.

[Viktor89]

Well, the police and army will protect the rich when they feel threatened by workers fighting for their rights, and the fascists will always be violent against us. If you cannot light a rag in a bottle or load a pistol, then I don't know how you will be able to win when you have an army of police shooting at you with automatic rifles, which they would do if a revolution would happen. The EU countries police forces have been training for fighting against masses of people as they think it is going to happen something like that once the resources are gone and the poor have had enough. They are basically training for this.

[cyu]

If you and your fellow employees were all armed, and decided to take over your company, the amount of violence won't be determined by you, but rather it will be determined by how much resistance the capitalist uses to try to prevent the employees from taking over.

[BIXX]

Well, the police and army will protect the rich when they feel threatened by workers fighting for their rights, and the fascists will always be violent against us. If you cannot light a rag in a bottle or load a pistol, then I don't know how you will be able to win when you have an army of police shooting at you with automatic rifles, which they would do if a revolution would happen. The EU countries police forces have been training for fighting against masses of people as they think it is going to happen something like that once the resources are gone and the poor have had enough. They are basically training for this.

Why not engage in a non-combatant capacity? Not everyone can go to get shot by the worlds armies. Anyway, I kinda wanna refer to Mari3L's and mine posts in the gun control thread- we don't want to engage in traditional military clashes.

[Viktor89]

I'm sorry, but then I think you have already lost the fight. I might be wrong, but I think if you don't use violence back against them they will just kill you easier. If you can arm yourself, do it, guns should be seen as something important, if you can get one then do it, it will be a lifesaver when the state really hits us hard. Gun control is a way for the state to make sure the people cannot defend itself from their police armies.