Is violent revolution inevitable?

[Red Flag]

From "Marxist Social Thought" by Robert Feedman

---

Is violent revolution inevitable? The answer is that the use of force depends upon the degree of resistance to peaceful change. IN democratic countries the vote make peaceable revolution possible. Marx believed dispossessed property holders might even be compensated. In authoritarian countries, such as the Germany of Marx's day, violence would undoubtedly be necessary.

"The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" emerges with the downfall of the bourgeois state. This transitional government is formed, according to Engels, by "election on the basis of universal sufferage." Officials are subject to recall by the electorate. (The model for Engel's conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to be found in the Paris Commune.)

-----

What do you say of this?

[commie kg]

IN democratic countries the vote make peaceable revolution possible.

Uh, no. Does he really think that the bourgeois will hand over their power in an "election"? Does he even think the bourgeois will let any communist movememnt win an election? And since when have anybody but reformists even participated in bourgeois elections?

[James]

use of force depends upon the degree of resistance to peaceful ch

An excellent point!
Edmund Burke recognised this in part when he said:

"a state without the means of change,
is without the means of its conservation"

He realised that change is natural. A state can either survive by changing with the times, or be left in the past and overthrown by another.
This is why i believe revolutions are possibly through the ballot paper, and by non-violent means. However, i also realise that alot of states don't change - thus as Burke said, can not be preserved - therefore will be overthrown.

I suppose it depends in part on your definition of the word, revolution.

in answer to the origional question: no, i do not think that violent revolution is inevitable everywhere, everytime.

[redstar2000]

In democratic countries the vote makes peaceable revolution possible.

I think there are two factors specific to Marx's time that no longer apply to our own times.

The first is that universal (male) suffrage was seen as a kind of "magic key" that would "open" the state institutions to popular "control". There's a whole chunk of the Communist Manifesto that talks in these terms, outlining "transitional steps" to convert the state into a "vehicle" for creating a communist society.

This view was specifically repudiated in Marx's work on the Paris Commune, in which he spelled out the significance of the Commune: the revolutionary working class must smash the bourgeois state machinery, not "take it over".

The second factor was the electoral successes of the German Social-Democratic Party in the last quarter of the 19th century...it seemed entirely possible then that the worker's party would win more and more seats in parliament until it finally won a majority and could then proceed to the peaceful dispossession of the ruling class and a socialist/communist society.

This especially impressed Engels, but he didn't live long enough to see what happened to the SPD in 1914...when all but a small minority leaped into a bestial orgy of imperialist patriotism.

Ever since, intelligent communists have realized that the facade of bourgeois "democracy" simply hides the reality of bourgeois dictatorship.

Speculations on the "degree of violence" of proletarian revolution are largely pointless...no one can really know that ahead of time.

The job of communists is to encourage proletarian resistance to the ruling class. The class itself will decide on the degree of violence required to "get the job done".

I would add that those who indulge themselves in fantasies of violence and even promote those fantasies as "the road to revolution" are making, in my opinion, a serious mistake.

The point is not to strut in front of the masses (as if on a stage) and "flex your rifles" to show what a "bad ass" you are.

Revolutionary violence is a tool...the job it is used for is the overthrow of the old ruling class.

The idea that there's something "really cool" about violence per se is a fascist idea.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[FuckWar]

I think it is important tht nonviolent revolution can include protests, acts of civil disobedience, strikes, labor slowdowns, etc. All of these could be employed so as to get around the obstacle of false elections and start a real movement.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 05:30 AM
I think it is important tht nonviolent revolution can include protests, acts of civil disobedience, strikes, labor slowdowns, etc. All of these could be employed so as to get around the obstacle of false elections and start a real movement.
Those are all important practices but they won't work when violence is introduced by counter-revolutionaries. They could be used to acomplish anything, to the point that the ruling class decides to fight and I believe Marx said something about the ruling class not giving up peacably. I would have to agree; mostly because I have never even heard of powerful and corupt individuals giving up thier positions for anyone or anything. Why would they? Its all they know and all they care about, simply because of what it takes to plunder your way into such a life. When all you know how to do is take and destroy, peaceful surender seems rather absurd.

As for a voting reform in "democratic" nations.
You need an educated populus to vote
In order to educate the people, you would need the capital to be voted on for the cause.

Seeing as people can't use knowlege they don't have to attain knowlege, the ruling class will continue to thrive off of ignorance through any kind of voting reform.
If people knew how to vote to fix these problems, there wouldn't be any need to; because all we would have to do is enforce existing laws to stop criminal acts protected under capitalism.
It may be productive to work on certain issues through voting but voting can never solve any significant problems.

[Misodoctakleidist]

As redstar pointed out, in his earlier work Marx seemed to take the idea of universal suffrage at face value not considering the ways it could be manipulated by the bourgeoisie, he even suggested that the workers may conquer political power through electoral victory in England and the USA.

As for a "dictatorship of the proletariat," it would inevitably be a dictatorship over the proletariat regardless of how "democratic" it was. Leninist are amongst the first to point out the massive flaws in bourgeois democracy yet expect the very same system to represent the workers in the "workers state." A post-capitalist economic system requires an entirely different political system.

[praxis1966]

Which is exactly why Antonio Gramsci, an early purveyor of syndicalism, advocated a completely different organisation of the electorate. He theorized that it would be best for workers, once the physical act of the siezure of power had taken place, to vote through the workplace. These groups would be based upon the old guild system, with workers of like industry voting on management and representatives in whatever legislative bodies that were created. This would foster class unity much more thouroughly than voting based on geography by inextricably linking the realites of economics and politcs.

As for the question of violence, history has demonstrated the inevitability of the use of force on the part of the socio-economic elites in an effort to maintain the status quo. That being said, it is necessary for the simultaneous use of pacifist resistance and preperatory efforts for self-defense. In order to win the sympathy of the populus at large, I believe it is imperative to keep to the proverbial high ground. There is, however, nothing morally bankrupt about defending oneself. As Malcom said, "We are non-violent with those who are non-violent with us. But we are definately not non-violent with those who are violent with us. We will achieve the liberation of our people by any means necessary."

[James]

vote through the workplace. These groups would be based upon the old guild system, with workers of like industry voting on management and representatives in whatever legislative bodies that were created. This would foster class unity much more thouroughly than voting based on geography by inextricably linking the realites of economics and politcs.

True enough, that would certainly foster a sense of community within each industry - but what about between industries? I think it would be inevitable that eventually one would become "higher" or "more important" than another.

Just a thought...

[Hate Is Art]

Revolution through democracy is impossible! The state won't just sit by and let this happen.

1) Even is a revolutionary party does gain a majority in their parliment they then have a huge task off trying to dismantle or signifigantly change the state to a Socialist one.

2) Even if this so called "revolutionary" party can start this metamorphasis to a Socialist society the economic power is still held by the Capitilist's and the FatCats so they can then try to economic strangle us, this would ultimatly end the democratic practice.

3) We still wouldn't effectively be the ruling class, in a country such as Britain the Queen and Military wouldn't just stand by and let this thing happen. They would, if the economic pressure failed, resort to a military coup as seen in Chile.

Bourgeious democracy can't be used to change anything.

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 09:16 PM
Which is exactly why Antonio Gramsci, an early purveyor of syndicalism, advocated a completely different organisation of the electorate. He theorized that it would be best for workers, once the physical act of the siezure of power had taken place, to vote through the workplace. These groups would be based upon the old guild system, with workers of like industry voting on management and representatives in whatever legislative bodies that were created. This would foster class unity much more thouroughly than voting based on geography by inextricably linking the realites of economics and politcs.
It is hard to tell whether you are a conscious falsifier or simply completely misguided. Gramsci was a founder of the Italian Communist Party, not at all a syndicalist. As for his "completely different organization of the electorate", this is neither more nor less than the Soviet system, the organization of proletarian dictatorship. It is the state form most natural to the proletariat. It arose in Russia 1905 and has since appeared in every proletarian revolution.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 04:10 PM
As redstar pointed out, in his earlier work Marx seemed to take the idea of universal suffrage at face value not considering the ways it could be manipulated by the bourgeoisie, he even suggested that the workers may conquer political power through electoral victory in England and the USA.

As for a "dictatorship of the proletariat," it would inevitably be a dictatorship over the proletariat regardless of how "democratic" it was. Leninist are amongst the first to point out the massive flaws in bourgeois democracy yet expect the very same system to represent the workers in the "workers state." A post-capitalist economic system requires an entirely different political system.
Please qualify why a “dictatorship of the proletariat," would become a “dictatorship over the proletariat,” as that is the foundation of your post.

Technically, you can’t have levels of democracy, as it is an absolute term but I understand your usage.

It is absurd to expect any other “democratic” system to function with a ruling body, however; if the workers rule themselves democratically, I don’t see any problems arising.

You are right; a post-capitalist economic system requires increasing levels of working class participation and a lack of ruling class interferance.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 3 2004, 07:44 PM
Please qualify why a “dictatorship of the proletariat," would become a “dictatorship over the proletariat,” as that is the foundation of your post.

Technically, you can’t have levels of democracy, as it is an absolute term but I understand your usage.

It is absurd to expect any other “democratic” system to function with a ruling body, however; if the workers rule themselves democratically, I don’t see any problems arising.

You are right; a post-capitalist economic system requires increasing levels of working class participation and a lack of ruling class interferance.
It's funny how every time I ask someone to explain themselves, a thread dies...

[bobby]

Violent revolution is completely inevitable. At least in my view.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 12:19 AM
Violent revolution is completely inevitable. At least in my view.
For similar reasons to those which I have already stated? Do you dissagree with my reasoning? I'm up for a discussion... anyone?

[bobby]

For similar reasons to those which I have already stated? Do you dissagree with my reasoning? I'm up for a discussion... anyone?

I didn't read through your views the first time, I just posted but mine.

But...reading yours, most of what you say is correct. There is no "peaceful" surrender.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 3 2004, 08:44 PM
Please qualify why a “dictatorship of the proletariat," would become a “dictatorship over the proletariat,” as that is the foundation of your post.
I think he was referring to the corruption of the theory of 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to mean 'dictatorship of a party on behalf of the proletariat'.



Technically, you can’t have levels of democracy, as it is an absolute term but I understand your usage.
I think that depends very much on your definition fo democracy. Of course many of us are able to put a piece of paper in a ballot box, but democracy goes far beyond that.


The problem with the Lenisist (or Stalinist, or whatever) example is that workers' soviets were quickly subordinated to the Bolshevik party, and the democracy of the councils were soon undermined.

[bobby]

The problem with the Lenisist (or Stalinist, or whatever) example is that workers' soviets were quickly subordinated to the Bolshevik party, and the democracy of the councils were soon undermined.

When do you think this first occured?