The Revolutionary Revolution

[Clarksist]

I am a strong supporter of non-violent change. As I call it, a Revolutionary Revolution. I recently got together with some of my commie friends to discuss a form of revolution, and this is what we came up with (hope you can give some critique to improve it):

To create non-violent class struggle, I believe that you need a unified force. A vanguard party (to put it in Leninist terms) which propels the proletariat to equality and freedom. However, instead of bloody battle, consider the mass conversion of proletarians. We have many countries doing this at once (much like Trotsky believed). Now with all of these workers, including members of the police and military, we all just stop conforming to capitalist rules. That's right, we just stop paying taxes, stop going to work for the bourgeois, we just go right to a communist form.

This seems really far-fetched because the fact remains that we would have a lot of converting to do. But if we start small, and work our way constantly until the next depression we could get more and more people. If we had 60% of people in many major cities, and about 50% of people in the country side, we could have enough people so that if they fought us with violence, we could act swiftly with guerilla action.

---

Just think about it for a while.

[Lamanov]

Well, there you have two possible scenarios:

1 - as an individual, or a "group" - if you "just stop conforming to capitalist rules", you die of hunger. There's allot of cheap labor arround.
2 - if we "ALL" [I wonder how] "just stop conforming"... isn't that something of a mass strike? And where does that end when "they" start with shooting and arresting?

[kurt]

If you were to get 60% of the population to suddenly stop paying taxes, stop going to work for the bourgeois, and suddenly just 'go to a communist form', we would probably just starve. By not going to work anymore, how could we possibly feed ourselves, or do anything much else besides rot for that matter. The fact is, we need to take control of the means of production in order to build a workers state. Also, if we just stopped paying taxes, working, etc, we'd end up with the bourgeois army attempting to get us back to work. Once this happened, we'd either fight them (revolution), or go back to our jobs in order to feed ourselves (same place we started at).

[Brennus]

Originally posted by Clarksist
If we had 60% of people in many major cities, and about 50% of people in the country side, we could have enough people so that if they fought us with violence, we could act swiftly with guerilla action.

Assuming a massive "strike" did work, you'd still have to figure out how to get all the people unified into doing it.

[codyvo]

Your right comradekurt, we would probably starve, so what can we do to fix this? Grow our own food. You see if us communist and all leftist group together, buy a huge piece of property, then start our own self-sufficient, self-governing society, we'll be home free. It isn't that farfetch'd and really no one would die, this is basically what they do in Chiapas, except the Mexican government will never admit that they are their own country.

[More Fire for the People]

If your going to use non-violent means (which wouldn't work alone), then you should atleast do this:
*Propaganda by the deed;
*General strike;
*Boycott;
*Civil disobedience;
*Publishing and radio;
*Protest and demostration;
*Declare a proletarian state for the hell of it just to piss 'em off;

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 12:34 AM
Your right comradekurt, we would probably starve, so what can we do to fix this? Grow our own food. You see if us communist and all leftist group together, buy a huge piece of property, then start our own self-sufficient, self-governing society, we'll be home free. It isn't that farfetch'd and really no one would die, this is basically what they do in Chiapas, except the Mexican government will never admit that they are their own country.
A commune is not communism. We must liberate the proletariat completely, or we have failed. I think you should re-think your positions on revolution.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 01:03 AM
A commune is not communism. We must liberate the proletariat completely, or we have failed. I think you should re-think your positions on revolution.
Or should we provide a harbor for the proletariat to free themselves peacefully?



If your going to use non-violent means (which wouldn't work alone), then you should atleast do this:
*Propaganda by the deed;
*General strike;
*Boycott;
*Civil disobedience;
*Publishing and radio;
*Protest and demostration;
*Declare a proletarian state for the hell of it just to piss 'em off;


I agree with some of these points. However, civil disobedience in the long run is counter-revolutionary. The media will easily twist the entire thing into "terrorism" or that we are all just hooligans.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Clarksist
I am a strong supporter of non-violent change.

I think that's your big problem, right there.

When you deliberately paint yourself into a "non-violent corner", you really have no response to ruling class violence except surrender.

This is not to suggest that there are not a wide variety of non-violent tactics that can help build a revolutionary movement.

Nor does it mean that we "ought" to strut around like pompous jerks telling people how "violent" we are or intend to be.

Violence and non-violence are tactical choices that we use depending on objective conditions.

Which is most appropriate in this particular situation?

Choosing "in advance" and "for all time" is simply foolish.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[anomaly]

Perhaps the best thing to do is to go to somewhere remote and just live together in a communist community. I've been running that through my head, and I like it somewhat. As some of you may have observed, I am a proponent of mass political change, but an alternative is to just go to a remote part of a country, and start subsistence farming. We could bring with us weapons as well as the things needed to begin subsistence farming, so as to protect us from the violent capitalists, if we ever encounter them. But the basic idea is simple: a group of Marxists get together and live together on a piece of farmland, and we simply exclude ourselves from the rest of society, and essentially form a commune. We just start subsistence farming, and live together in the commune, completely devoid of bourgeois contact. This idea is the polar opposite of mass political change, and I'm not sure if even I yet approve of it, but the opportunity readily exists. Therefore I ask now for input from my comrades...

[shadows]

Deja vu! Late sixties/early seventies leftist/hippie withdrawal, an elitist retreat from the masses, rationalized as setting an example (out of despair). Not many could afford such a middle class privilege. Radical alternatives work only for a few, and then only when not eliciting a violent response from the state. Utopianism ultimately scorns struggle and privileges fantasy over reality.

Say, didn't Engels address the role of force in history?

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 04:36 AM
Perhaps the best thing to do is to go to somewhere remote and just live together in a communist community. I've been running that through my head, and I like it somewhat. As some of you may have observed, I am a proponent of mass political change, but an alternative is to just go to a remote part of a country, and start subsistence farming. We could bring with us weapons as well as the things needed to begin subsistence farming, so as to protect us from the violent capitalists, if we ever encounter them. But the basic idea is simple: a group of Marxists get together and live together on a piece of farmland, and we simply exclude ourselves from the rest of society, and essentially form a commune. We just start subsistence farming, and live together in the commune, completely devoid of bourgeois contact. This idea is the polar opposite of mass political change, and I'm not sure if even I yet approve of it, but the opportunity readily exists. Therefore I ask now for input from my comrades...
I like that idea. If you did it correctly it could serve as a model / goal for other oppressed people. After seeing a working communism in action they'd be more likely to rebel on their own.
Though I think something more than farming would be needed, and for the sake of efficiency hydroponics would probably be the best solution...

[bunk]

If there was a seperate commune it must stay in contact with the rest of the world. It would be the perfect place to train revolutionaries and produce propaganda.

[OleMarxco]

Buying off a land wont' atleast help. They won't sell it, even IF we "got the money" for it, combinedly, and if we'd squat it, they'd find about it and that when they can't exploit us anymore, they'd petition the government to take action against us...so we have to start a revolution from non-violent means and fade over to more 'forcely' means - i.e. armed and violent. When the resistance increases, so should our - but we should let them start the offensive, so WE would be doing it on defense...exposin' 'em as the aggressors they are...arf! :P

[cph_shawarma]

As Redstar said, the non-violence path is a dead-end. Moreover it in fact leads to reactionary and conservative values. Non-violence simply doesn't count the violence we're subjected to every day, both potentially and kinetically (to talk with Bordiga). It is very simple, if you are honest about your revolutionary commitment, you will at some point be placed in conflict with the violently organised bourgeoisie, the state.

How the hell, if you excuse my language, are you supposed to put up anything against this massively violent apparatus if you're not prepared to use violence as a means? Non-violence can only lead to apology of the bourgeois order.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 04:52 PM
As Redstar said, the non-violence path is a dead-end. Moreover it in fact leads to reactionary and conservative values. Non-violence simply doesn't count the violence we're subjected to every day, both potentially and kinetically (to talk with Bordiga). It is very simple, if you are honest about your revolutionary commitment, you will at some point be placed in conflict with the violently organised bourgeoisie, the state.

How the hell, if you excuse my language, are you supposed to put up anything against this massively violent apparatus if you're not prepared to use violence as a means? Non-violence can only lead to apology of the bourgeois order.
Did you not read my post? I talked about having guerillas in case the state violently attacks us. As for "non-violence simply doesn't count the violence we're subjected to every day" revolution is not a tool of revenge it is a tool of liberation. Killing massive amounts of capitalists isn't going to get back the years of exploitation.

In any society I don't believe in revenge, but in rehabilitation for criminals. Same goes during revolution. If it turns violent, we should only kill who we need, not just slaughter everyone against the cause for revenge. If we become exploiters ourselves, how are we fighting for a just cause?

Militarism is exploitation of those we fight, for it is taking their lives without their consent, and while it might be necessary it should not be our FIRST action.


When you deliberately paint yourself into a "non-violent corner", you really have no response to ruling class violence except surrender.

I said I'm a supporter of non-violent change. That's not painting me into a corner, because if you read through the entire thing, I do say that violence is acceptable when military violence is placed against us. I am a supporter of non-violent change, but I'm also going to be realistic about revolution.

[MKS]

The problem with non-violent struggle or passive resistance in terms of the class struggle is the non existance of a key factor to the success of non-violent struggle; the third party perspective. There has to be a third party to object and act against the aggressive party.

For example: Civil disobediance and passive resitance created results in the southern US because of the observation, and reaction by a third party. The negative reaction of the masses caused action and change.

In class struggle there are only two parties; the burgoise and the proletariat, there is not a third party, therefore non-violent resitance would be just be suicide.

The only non-violent resistance or creation of change is automaticaly labeled as reform, by the dogmatic marxists and relegated as another trapping of the ruling classes. However reform can work to an extent and then once the old system is in its last stages there might be violence on their (burgoise) side, but we will be able to deal with it peacfully, through suppression, imprisonment, etc.

I believe change within the system, can result in change of the system. War begets war, no true victory can be established through bloodshed.

It sounds idealistic, but just examine history and its is proven every war is a result of a previous war.

It is hard to understand the communist idea of the non-existance of the influence of human nature in deciding mans actions, when people argue non-violent struggle it seems they to fall into the notion of human nature can only allow for violent change.

It sounds more revolutionary to not run to the guns, to not create destruction, death and pain, but go against the pattern of history and strike out against the endless cycle of violence, hatred and fear, and to embrace the purity of peacful change.

[anomaly]

I submitted my idea as a last resort type of thing, although I do like the idea of using a commune as a training ground and a center for propaganda etc. Che and Fidel did something similar in Mexico, but they were squealed on by a snitch among them.

As far as violence/nonviolence goes, I think that the socialist movement should primarily concern itself with nonviolent resistence in richer capitalist countries with more democratic forms of government. In countries like the USA, countries in Europe, and other demcoratic and rich countries, violent revolution will prove extremely futile. I suggest using nonvioent means to establish a base of action in a Euro country, where Marxist thought is still rather strong, and then using this as an organizing place for socialist movements worldwide. I envision a sort of web with this rich country firmly in the center. From this richer country, revolutionary movements worldwide, violent and noviolent, can be funded and, if violent, armed. For the rich country to use as a base, I suggest Italy or France, where Marxist parties are still strong. From there, nonviolent socialist movement can be funded and/or supported in the rest of the EU and the USA, Australia, South Africa, or any other country that fits that mold. Violent revolution can be sought in the remaining poorer countries of the world. The entire South American continnet, I think, if properly funded or supported by a richer nation, could erupt in violent uprisings and revolutions. In short, I support both violent and nonviolent revolution, but I think that there are some cases in which one kind is superior to the other, and vis-versa, as I've described.

[cph_shawarma]

Did you not read my post? I talked about having guerillas in case the state violently attacks us. As for "non-violence simply doesn't count the violence we're subjected to every day" revolution is not a tool of revenge it is a tool of liberation. Killing massive amounts of capitalists isn't going to get back the years of exploitation.
Didn't you read my post?

Simply having guerillas "just in case" is almost worse than the totally apologetic. It gives the current order authority and legitimacy, but if they take away these "legit rights" we will insurrect. As I said, the "non-violence" isn't anti-violence at all, it is simply for one type of violence (bourgeois) and against another typ of violence (proletarian). We are subjected to violence everyday and in all corners of our life, mostly potential but in some cases kinetical. To realise that "non-violence" is a dead end doesn't mean that I want to "revenge" the capitalists. That's just idiocy. It means that I admit that we are subjected to violence everyday and that we will need violence to get rid of an order that is based on a steadily organised violence, the state. Not realising this, means you will be on the wrong side when the bourgeois order comes crumbling down.


In any society I don't believe in revenge, but in rehabilitation for criminals. Same goes during revolution. If it turns violent, we should only kill who we need, not just slaughter everyone against the cause for revenge. If we become exploiters ourselves, how are we fighting for a just cause?
This has nothing to do with "criminals". It is not an ethical decision to make. Based on the situation the violence will be in varying degrees. But having the illusion that we can just peacefully walk into wonderland seems quite naive. We are not fighting for a "just cause" (which is an ethical standpoint), we are fighting for a worthy life. We are fighting for ourselves. Or maybe you're not?


I said I'm a supporter of non-violent change. That's not painting me into a corner, because if you read through the entire thing, I do say that violence is acceptable when military violence is placed against us. I am a supporter of non-violent change, but I'm also going to be realistic about revolution.
This is also not enough. Should we wait for the state to disarm us before we strike? Should we wait for the bourgeoisie to attack? Revolution is an authoritarian act, which means we will definitely use violence and coercion of some sort. Not admitting this is naive.

[workersunity]

communists would be the first to try non-violent struggle, but face it, nothing will change with that, we have to pick up our arms and fight back

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 05:04 AM
In class struggle there are only two parties; the burgoise and the proletariat, there is not a third party, therefore non-violent resitance would be just be suicide.
The third party would be the proletariat whom are not yet converted, they would be the ones who would then "see the light" and come to our side, and the bourgeois would not have a standing chance if they went to violent struggle with us.

[MKS]

The third party would be the proletariat whom are not yet converted, they would be the ones who would then "see the light" and come to our side, and the bourgeois would not have a standing chance if they went to violent struggle with us

Ok so they come to our side and then youre left with what? Just two sides, the third party has dissolved. Non-Violent resitance wouldnt work.

Reform might, as a non-violent way to create change.

I only say that because War is very, very bad.

[Clarksist]

Ok so they come to our side and then youre left with what? Just two sides, the third party has dissolved. Non-Violent resitance wouldnt work.

Though you only have about 10% of the people for capitalism, and we could wrest control away by coercing, or by simply storming the place, like Castro did the capital. Only, you know, without the bloodshed before hand.

[kurt]

Ok, and storming the place wouldn't result in some sort of massacre how?? Either we'd be massacred, or the bourgeoisie state machine would be so weakened that they would simply concede. The state machine won't be weakened by holding a sign and shouting. Hell, the police even use violence against mere protest, and this is in times where civil unrest isn't really all that high. Imagine the violence during a period of revolutionary sentiment.

[slim]

The pawns of the bourgeois wouldnt be stupid enough to fire.

If we set up n image so that we are the "righteous" force of enlightenment and justice then if we were fired at we would become martyrs. It is just a case of accepting the chance of their stupidity and overcoming it.