Theory of Peacful Revolution

[MKS]

I know that a lot of us, me included, have thought about the age old peaceful vs. violent revolution argument. Most of us I think would prefer a peaceful means to securing an end to imperialism, capitalism, and statism. However I also think that a lot will conclude that a peaceful revolution is almost impossible in such a violent world. Well, here is my attempt to construct a theory of the necessity of a peaceful revolution and perhaps an elementary foundation for implementation.

Organized violence (war, police action etc) is a creation of the state used by the state to suppress, exploit and dominate. It is a cliché that wars are fought by the young for the benefit of the old. "It always the old who lead us to the wars always the young to die" (Phil Ochs). The "old" representing the people in power, the "young" being the soldiers who are more than likely conscripted through forced draft or coercive manipulation. The state organizes the force, establishes the goal and appropriated the capital needed for an organized campaign of violence. Such an organization always creates hierarchy, within both civil and military organizations. War creates power structures, establishes command by a small group over a large group and feeds of manipulation of the populous.
A violent revolution, a war, would more than likely create the same mechanizations, rather than Capitalist or Imperialist or nationalist propaganda, there would be the propaganda of the vanguard, the manipulation of Leftist ideology and theory morphed into digestible rhetoric and slogan. The creation of a revolutionary army would obviously call for the creation of a revolutionary command, a hierarchy, (I use Cuba as an example of the creation of an entrenched command structure being turned into a state power), the army of the "people" under the command of a few men and women. Simply stated military organization is anti-libertarian, it is anti-communist. A violent revolution would only replace one state system for another, an entrenched power structure.
Another argument against the use of violence is the fact that warfare forces the division of the people; it creates animosity, fear and hatred. It draws lines that are not easily erased; "you are either for us or against us" is not a very egalitarian sentiment. The very nature of warfare is anti-humanity therefore any war fought in the name of the equality of man is a contradiction because warfare forces us to dehumanize our enemy and to count one life as less valuable as another. Now some of you will say that the Imperialists and Capitalists do just that, they devalue humanity through exploitation and oppression, but to turn around and use their evil to justify your evil is pure hypocrisy. Evil is evil, bad is bad, period.
I know many of you will denounce my theories or ideas as sentimental or utopian. But I assert that any true change of human society and real egalitarian society must first be based on ideas and principles that are alien to our present way of thinking. A "quick" violent revolution will not change the human ethos, it will only rearrange the organization of humanity, borders and governments might dissolve or change, but the change will only be superficial.

[Janus]

So you think that pacifism is nonbeneficial to the state? That it will promote radical change?

[MKS]

So you think that pacifism is nonbeneficial to the state? That it will promote radical change?

Pacifism is not the only alternative to violence. In order for a real change to occur, any change that is lasting and substantial, a true change not just of the system but of the people, there must be a coorperative shift in attiude, that is to say there must be a real radical difference in the way people at the most basic levels percive with and interact with each other. War, does not do this, it simply destroys the superfical constructs of the State or system. Of course pacifism will not promote radical change, it hasnt in the past, but neither has open warfare, both methods have proven to be non beneficial to humanity. Maybe we (the left) should be searching for new ways to revolutionize society in order for the state to errode without open conflict or warfare.

[KC]

It is a cliché that wars are fought by the young for the benefit of the old.

This is incorrect. Wars are fought by the poor for the benefit of the rich.


The state organizes the force, establishes the goal and appropriated the capital needed for an organized campaign of violence. Such an organization always creates hierarchy, within both civil and military organizations. War creates power structures, establishes command by a small group over a large group and feeds of manipulation of the populous.

War doesn't establish the power structure; it was already there before the war started. It is merely a way of appropriating and/or enforcing power.


A violent revolution, a war, would more than likely create the same mechanizations, rather than Capitalist or Imperialist or nationalist propaganda, there would be the propaganda of the vanguard, the manipulation of Leftist ideology and theory morphed into digestible rhetoric and slogan. The creation of a revolutionary army would obviously call for the creation of a revolutionary command, a hierarchy, (I use Cuba as an example of the creation of an entrenched command structure being turned into a state power), the army of the "people" under the command of a few men and women.

“the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. ... The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.”
- Marx, The Civil War In France

In other words, the proletarian state will have a much different form than the bourgeois state.


Simply stated military organization is anti-libertarian, it is anti-communist. A violent revolution would only replace one state system for another, an entrenched power structure.

It's not anti-communist at all. Our goal is to destroy the bourgeois state apparatus and construct a proletarian one in its place.


Another argument against the use of violence is the fact that warfare forces the division of the people; it creates animosity, fear and hatred. It draws lines that are not easily erased; "you are either for us or against us" is not a very egalitarian sentiment.

Well, that's usually how it is. Class warfare divides everyone in terms of class. Since we are for the emancipation of the working class the only groups that we are "pitting against each other" are already enemies.


The very nature of warfare is anti-humanity therefore any war fought in the name of the equality of man is a contradiction because warfare forces us to dehumanize our enemy and to count one life as less valuable as another.

The emancipation of humanity won't come through class warfare; it will come from the disappearance of class society. The only way to get to a class society is through class warfare.


Now some of you will say that the Imperialists and Capitalists do just that, they devalue humanity through exploitation and oppression, but to turn around and use their evil to justify your evil is pure hypocrisy. Evil is evil, bad is bad, period.

Nobody is "evil" or "wrong" for what they're doing. If you want to look at it from a moral perspective then I guess you could say that, but marxists look at it objectionably. Classes (and members of classes) act in the interest of their class. If it's beneficial to their class to wage war then they will do it. If it is beneficial to my class to wage war then I will do it. I suggest that you throw this moralist bullshit out the window.


I know many of you will denounce my theories or ideas as sentimental or utopian. But I assert that any true change of human society and real egalitarian society must first be based on ideas and principles that are alien to our present way of thinking.

How is pacifism going to accomplish anything?

[MKS]

This is incorrect. Wars are fought by the poor for the benefit of the rich.

Most standing armies consist of men (some women) between the ages of 17-24 (enlisted personnel) officers tend to be older. but that is no really the point, the point is that the people in power (the old or rich whatever) use the rest of us (the lower classes, the young) in order to fight their wars.


War doesn't establish the power structure; it was already there before the war started

Armies are hirearchal by nature, they have to be. General, colonels, lieutenants etc etc.


for it of the armed people

And then what? an armed mass of people, chaotic roaming the streets looking for the burgoise and capitalists? That sounds productive. any armed force needs order, needs structre, or else it will be chaos.


Our goal is to destroy the bourgeois state apparatus and construct a proletarian one in its place.

Well not my goal. I dont want any state apparatus, bourgeois or otherwise.


If it is beneficial to my class to wage war then I will do it. I suggest that you throw this moralist bullshit out the window.

And what of the greater class? The human race? We are borne without class, often cast into it by those in power, by those who hold power. I see those who hold a higher class though not as my enemy, arent they just products of their environment as I am of mine? so why should I want to kill them, or even call them my enemy? As for the moralist bullshit, what other compulsion should i have to work for the progress of equality and of justice and for the destruction of Capitalism? I do this for pure moral reasons, I think most of us do even if we dont admit it. Marx did.


How is pacifism going to accomplish anything?

Im not advocating pacifism.

Try to think for yourself without the guidance of dogma or rhetoric, think of things that do not exist.

[Dean]

I think that there will be many wars that will lead to societies which are essentially classless and free, and others will be able to achieve the same or similar results through peaceful means, such as democracy. I don't think that war and revolution are mutually exclusive, nor do I think that they are necessarily intertwined.

It is simply by the will of the people that we will become free, and that will can take many different forms in the transition between alienation and social one-ness.

[getoutofhere]

Originally posted by MKS
Most of us I think would prefer a peaceful means to securing an end to imperialism, capitalism, and statism.

i can't recall in particualr who said this (i think it's engels), but it goes something like this: "if communism can be achieved peacefully, the communists would be the last to oppose it". however, the sad, bitter, painful, undesirous truth is that capitalism cannot be overthrown peacefully. :(

[Rollo]

And then what? an armed mass of people, chaotic roaming the streets looking for the burgoise and capitalists? That sounds productive. any armed force needs order, needs structre, or else it will be chaos.

Ever hear of Guerilla tactics?

[MKS]

however, the sad, bitter, painful, undesirous truth is that capitalism cannot be overthrown peacefully

Prove it. you sound like you have already given up before you have even tried. But I can point to several examples where Capitalism has been confronted with force of arms and the Capitalist/statist powers won.




Ever hear of Guerilla tactics?

You still need structre to implement guerilla tactics, at least any that suceed. there needs to be strategy, a known desired outcome or objective, command etc. Otherwise you would just have roving armed bandits. Organized violence is not successfull without hierarchy, those who give the orders and those who follow them.

[Rollo]

So, why does one man in his cell or unit need to hold a higher rank than the other ones?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:10 AM


And then what? an armed mass of people, chaotic roaming the streets looking for the burgoise and capitalists? That sounds productive. any armed force needs order, needs structre, or else it will be chaos.

Ever hear of Guerilla tactics?
Guerilla tactics are simply different tactics by essentially the same hierarchical military structure.

IOW, you still have leaders and commanders telling guerillas where to ambush.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:48 AM
In order for a real change to occur, any change that is lasting and substantial, a true change not just of the system but of the people, there must be a coorperative shift in attiude, that is to say there must be a real radical difference in the way people at the most basic levels percive with and interact with each other.
How do you envision this occurring given that state/tribal/clan warfare and attitudes in general have not changed greatly in the 5 thousand + years of recorded human history, regardless of which was the dominant political or economic paradigm?

[KC]

Armies are hirearchal by nature, they have to be. General, colonels, lieutenants etc etc.

Yes but the power structure in society already existed.


And then what? an armed mass of people, chaotic roaming the streets looking for the burgoise and capitalists? That sounds productive. any armed force needs order, needs structre, or else it will be chaos.

Of course it does. And there's many ways to structure a working people's army. Leaders could be elected and recallable at any time except in crucial situations when a recall would kill people.


Well not my goal. I dont want any state apparatus, bourgeois or otherwise.

You want to get to a stateless society, then. Then you have to ask yourself how to get there. The state only exists insofar as there are irreconcilable class antagonisms. Therefore, to get rid of the state you must get rid of class.


And what of the greater class? The human race?

The "human race class" has nothing to do with anything.


We are borne without class, often cast into it by those in power, by those who hold power.

We're cast into class by class society. Eventually we will become part of a class.


I see those who hold a higher class though not as my enemy, arent they just products of their environment as I am of mine?

Yes and no. However, why does it matter if they're just "products of their environment"? If they're stealing from you, they're your enemy, regardless of why they do it.


As for the moralist bullshit, what other compulsion should i have to work for the progress of equality and of justice and for the destruction of Capitalism?

To throw off the binding chains of capitalism and help create a world where you are no longer exploited.


I do this for pure moral reasons, I think most of us do even if we dont admit it. Marx did.

No he didn't. If his analysis of capitalism came out to be that workers aren't exploited then he wouldn't have acted the way he did.


Prove it. you sound like you have already given up before you have even tried.

The bourgeoisie aren't going to voluntarily give up power.

[Marukusu]

Most standing armies consist of men (some women) between the ages of 17-24 (enlisted personnel) officers tend to be older.

That would probably be because the young people (17-24) are (mostly) in a better physical condition than people in their fifties or older. Many officers are probably older than their subordinates because they have more experience, having served in the army for a longer time than the young privates.

It's just simple logic.

[MKS]

That would probably be because the young people (17-24) are (mostly) in a better physical condition than people in their fifties or older. Many officers are probably older than their subordinates because they have more experience, having served in the army for a longer time than the young privates.

It's just simple logic.

Thank you Captain obvious. My example was obivously a simplification of the one of the chrecterstics of war, the young die for the old, rich for the poor whatever the point is there is a group of people killing and dying for the gain of another group of people. We all are aware of this.



The "human race class" has nothing to do with anything.

It has everything to do with everything. I do not think humanity needs or wants another war. The majority of people want to live in peace, and I think our struggle can be bloodless and realitivley peacful if we are willing to examine, question, and eventually change the fundamental structre of human society, not just simple class divisions or cultural divisions, but the complete reversal of thousands of years of social conditioning. Such a change will not come quick, and war will not make it come any quicker, if anything it will only divide us further.


To throw off the binding chains of capitalism and help create a world where you are no longer exploited

to be honest I am not really exploited, I could probably live a comfortable middle class existence. But I realize that by doing so I would be morally wrong if I did not at least try to agitate and work towards change.


No he didn't. If his analysis of capitalism came out to be that workers aren't exploited then he wouldn't have acted the way he did.


Why do you think he began his examination in the first place? To discover any exploitation or inequality. And once he did he could have (and some say he did) become a member of the upper classes of European society, he was an intellectual, and Im pretty sure his compulsion to act against inequality had some moral component.

Most of you missed my point. Thats ok though I know how hard it is to imagine, no one wants to be labeled a utopian dreamer, what shame.

[Cryotank Screams]

Peaceful revolution is an oxymoron, because no revolution is peaceful; it is chaotic and radical that causes such a fury that it crushes the ways of the old system, and destroys the shackle holders, and to do this violence is necessary, because again you can't destroy centuries of corrupt bourgeoisie power, and a centuries old system by peace, you have to cut it out like a cancer.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 5 2006, 11:42 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 5 2006, 11:42 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 09:10 AM


And then what? an armed mass of people, chaotic roaming the streets looking for the burgoise and capitalists? That sounds productive. any armed force needs order, needs structre, or else it will be chaos.

Ever hear of Guerilla tactics?
Guerilla tactics are simply different tactics by essentially the same hierarchical military structure.

IOW, you still have leaders and commanders telling guerillas where to ambush. [/b]
But the guerillas are the army. There is no one man sitting back telling the guerillas what to do. Each man in his cell has the say in the attack.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:37 PM
But the guerillas are the army. There is no one man sitting back telling the guerillas what to do. Each man in his cell has the say in the attack.
I don't know where you (and a lot of people) got this idea, but no actual guerilla armies run like this. They have commanders, orders, and punishments for disobeying orders. They couldn't fight effectively without them.

Worse, they'd become bandit gangs; armed groups that are free to do their own thing - tend to use their weapons to enrich themselves. All guerilla armies that avoid this - do it by strict rules and punishments for bandit-like behavior. Enforced by a command structure.

Read Che's Bolivian Diary or better yet his Episodes of the Cuban Revolutionary War. They're full of examples.

[getoutofhere]

Originally posted by MKS
Prove it. you sound like you have already given up before you have even tried. But I can point to several examples where Capitalism has been confronted with force of arms and the Capitalist/statist powers won.

waaah, some pacifist mind invaded this board. :huh:

anyways, i'm not the only one who'd given up trying to overthrow capitalism peacefully. historically, it is proven that cappies will not give up their wealth and power so easily, as if they've been enlightened one day and suddenly distributing all their properties to the poor. such thing is only for the movies. :blink:


But I can point to several examples where Capitalism has been confronted with force of arms and the Capitalist/statist powers won.

eeehh, what you posted here doesn't mean capitalism can be overthrown peacefully, just that there were some times that revolutionaries were defeated in some battles. you're not proving your point. :o

[Herman]

Don't worry. I'll be sure to put a flower in the barrel of a gun. That'll probably work.

[ZX3]

Gee MKS, the consesnsus seems to be that violence is the only way to build a revolution. Of course, this is true, because the capitalists will not give up their power (which really doesn't exist anyways), or at least what socialists/communists think is their power.

What is funny is that we are seeing the same sort of ideas (such as electing army officers, or being violent with the opponents of the revolution) that one saw in the USSR, by the same folks who deny that the USSR had anything to do with socialism/communism.

But the idea of the "peaceful" socialist revolution died in in 1933, when the SPD of Germany basically abdicated to the National Socialists because they realised that their views could not be implemented peaceably. Ever since the, it has been a steady retreat by the more "mainstream" socialist parties worldwide.

[MKS]

eeehh, what you posted here doesn't mean capitalism can be overthrown peacefully, just that there were some times that revolutionaries were defeated in some battles. you're not proving your point.

I was speaking more about the "successful" armed revolutions i.e. Cuba, Russia, China, Vietnam etc. These are all examples of a violent revolution not creating true communism or equality, but simply restructuring the system of power, usually some sort of State Capitalist society. It proves that armed revolution fails to create any real change of ethos or popular attitude thus allowing for those in power to pervert whatever egalitarian principles that initiated the revolution in order to secure their own power and wealth.


Maybe my argument is what some would consider post-leftist, to me any revolution must first be implanted in the hearts and minds (pardon the cliche) of the people, Marx said that only material conditions will propel revolutionary actions, but I think that we must reconsider the relation of humanity and economy, we must begin to recgonize that there are other factors that will provoke an action towards change, and maybe those factors are not yet known. Just think the current ethos of humanity has been formed over thousands of years, wouldnt it take more than a "quik" war to reform that ethos? Wouldnt it take thousands of years? I dont have the answers to these questions, and I dont think we should be so quick to destory lives until we have a greater understanding of what is needed in order to intitate real substantial change.

[getoutofhere]

Originally posted by ZX3+--> (ZX3)Gee MKS, the consesnsus seems to be that violence is the only way to build a revolution.[/b]

not the violence that's kinda like someone who's drunk just gets to kill people because he hates capitalism. not like that. the violence i refer is revolutionary violence. that kind of thing that breaks capitalist machinery apart.


MKS
I was speaking more about the "successful" armed revolutions i.e. Cuba, Russia, China, Vietnam etc.

how about you cite an example of a successful peaceful revolution that successfully threw capitalism away? :mellow:

[MKS]

how about you cite an example of a successful peaceful revolution that successfully threw capitalism away

I cant. None have ever been attempted. but I also cannot cite a violent revolution that threw capitalism away. Can you?

[Herman]

but I also cannot cite a violent revolution that threw capitalism away. Can you?

Yup, the October revolution, the Spanish (anarchist) revolution of 1936, the Chinese civil war 1945-49, the Cuban revolution... and there are lots more.

[getoutofhere]

Originally posted by MKS+--> (MKS)I cant.[/b]

of course you can't.... -_-


Originally posted by [email protected]
None have ever been attempted.

because none would succeed. <_<


MKS
but I also cannot cite a violent revolution that threw capitalism away. Can you?

err... just before this response from me comrade redherman already enumerated them...
Yup, the October revolution, the Spanish (anarchist) revolution of 1936, the Chinese civil war 1945-49, the Cuban revolution... and there are lots more.

[MKS]

Yup, the October revolution, the Spanish (anarchist) revolution of 1936, the Chinese civil war 1945-49, the Cuban revolution... and there are lots more.

The Spanish "revolution" was intitated by nationalist facist forces, the anarchist factions were defending the Republic, while they did succeed for a short time, their success was obviously destoryed by both the Cointerm (Russian Stalinism) and the Facists heavy use of force. They were not successfull.

The Chinese Civil War-established State-Capitalism not a classless society, not even a freer one than did exist before.

The Cuban Revolution-again created more of a state capitalism, a stretch to call it state-socialism, but none the less it was not successfull, it did not create a free socialist society, it did create an entrenched hierarchy and an almost permanent ruling class.

All of your examples were failures because they did not create any egalitarian society, or even try to. They were violent revolutions which failed horribly and cost the lives of millions of people.