Passive Libertarian Socialism

[Angry Young Man]

The other week I was in a pub in Bradford and was having a conversation about Socialism. I made my position known: belief in armed revolution; taking the means by force and no state clear, but his view was a passive stance and an evolution into socialism, with views such as mass-strike and demonstartion, extending the idea of the Dignity of Man to enemies of socialism, saying that we would be no better for taking their freedom than they ours.
My main problem with this is this: if you allow rightists their freedom, they can use force to overthrow socialism. If they start a fight, my principle is to reatlliat, not to let them crush our skulls like eggs and hang our corpses robbed of their dignity in Halifax.
Can passive socialism work?

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Nope, the Bougoursie have a very firm hold.

[apathy maybe]

Well it has had as much success as had violent revolution (none at all).

I would say that at the present time, violent revolution is the only way to go. The scum in power at not going to want to give up power that easily, they will fight to keep it. We might just have to kill them all (what a sham).

[Zingu]

How is the mass strike "passive"?

[Delta]

A commitment to nonviolence cannot work, simply because it gives victory to anyone who is willing to use violence (and the ruling classes certainly will). The threat of violence must be there at the very least, but if a large enough threat is present, then perhaps not that much violence will be needed. We need to semi-evolve first though. At the present time the ruling powers would simply nuke a revolution if need be, to "save society and order" of course.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 06:55 am
A commitment to nonviolence cannot work, simply because it gives victory to anyone who is willing to use violence (and the ruling classes certainly will). The threat of violence must be there at the very least, but if a large enough threat is present, then perhaps not that much violence will be needed. We need to semi-evolve first though. At the present time the ruling powers would simply nuke a revolution if need be, to "save society and order" of course.
I think I agree to some extent. I think the threat of violence must be there although used in practice as a very last resort, when all other options have failed. I sympathize strongly with the "passive" viewpoint but I have come around to the position that being non violent all the time, in every situation is not always doable. That the threat of violence must be on the table.

[Paradox]

First off, as Zingu asked, how does this individual consider a mass strike to be passive? Obviously, you can't explain that for him, but it makes his position sound rather contorted. Perhaps he meant "peaceful," and not so much "passive."

Secondly, did you ask what was meant by "take away their freedom"? They're bourgeois, so of course we'll take away their freedom, in the sense that they will no longer be free to exploit other people, they'll no longer own property, which allows them to exploit the propertyless. But insofar as they won't be able to shout counterrevolutionary comments from the street corner, or get things of necessity (food, shelter, etc.), that isn't going to happen. We're not just going to shoot everyone who holds a different viewpoint. We're not going to just lock up everyone who voices dissent. But should they take their dissent to the next level and actually engage in counterrevolutionary actions, they will be delt with.

And as far as being nonviolent is concerned, I would say that we should try to be as nonviolent as possible. But of course, we will be armed and prepared to defend ourselves and the movement should the need to do so arise (which it will). Therefore, "passive" socialism and pacificism are quite nullified.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 06:16 am
How is the mass strike "passive"?
I wonder the same. I have had this proposal put to me by pacifist 'socialists' before. The idea that the ruling class would simply allow the workers to take power is quite ludicrous. What happens when theres troops firing at strikers on picket lines, the need for a workers defence corps in areas under workers control during a mass strike etc.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 06:55 am
A commitment to nonviolence cannot work, simply because it gives victory to anyone who is willing to use violence (and the ruling classes certainly will). The threat of violence must be there at the very least, but if a large enough threat is present, then perhaps not that much violence will be needed. We need to semi-evolve first though. At the present time the ruling powers would simply nuke a revolution if need be, to "save society and order" of course.
This is true, however, you need to remember if it's just about "violence" and who has the most guns, they will always win.

Alongside the actual "fighting" that will have to be done to defeat counter-revolution, there has to be a general break-up in the structures of the bourgeois state, which is one of the principal reasons why conquering state power is a neccessity.

[Vargha Poralli]

Violence is natural characteristic of a social animal called man. Without it it is difficult for a man as a individual or society to bring a dogmatic change. all changes from status quo in the society are mostly happened after a bloody violence.

But a non violent way is 100% possible. but it is wholly unnatural and it takes very strong character within a man and commitment to the cause he wishes to accomplish it. fortunately history has some examples too....
but those individuals who have accomplished those facts have become either demigods or quasi religious following which might be dismissed by most people as myths and legends.

[Son of a Strummer]

The original poster is conflating a number of claims and arguments.

1. The first error is the description of libertarian socialism as "passive." Passivity is definitely not part of the tradition. As Howard Zinn once wrote, "How will change come about? By tactics short of violent revolution but far more militant than normal parliamentary procedure...The New Left's ideas of parallel organizations as a way of demonstrating what people should do, how people should live, has enormous possibilities." To be accurate the word "passive" should be replaced by "pacifist but militant."

2. As far as RSOY's own position- "belief in armed revolution; taking the means by force and no state clear". A key problem is that most normal folks shun violence. I think it would be impossible to build a broad mass movement (with women, and elements from all walks of life in it) with violent overthrow as a plank in your platform.

Further the age of the nuclear bomb has tipped the scales against the possibility of plausible violent revolution. To quote Zinn again, this time from an essay called Non-Violent Direct Action...


"Up to the hydrogen bomb it was still possible to weigh cost and consequence. Now we can throw away the scales for it should be clear to any rational and humane person that there is no piece of territory, there is no social system yet put into operation anywhere by man (not socialism or capitalism or whatever) which is worth the consequence of atomic war. If war ever in its shotgun way represented a method of achieving social progress, the illimitable scale of warfare today removes it forever as a justifiable method of achieving social change...What of revolution? Here the balance of achievement and cost is less haphazard, though still far from rational...as a general rule it seems to me that the conditions of the contemporary world have removed the feasibility of revolutions in the old sense. There are several reasons for this. One is that the power of weapons in the hands of the ruling elite makes popular uprisings, however great is the base of support, a very dubious undertaking. The other consideration, and probably more important is that revolutions like wars can no longer be contained. They almost always involve one or more of the great nations of the world, and are either crushed by an outside power (as were the Hungarians in their revolt) or are prolonged to the point of frightful massacre (as the revolt in Viet Nam was met by the intervention of th French and then the Americans, and as the revolt in Congo was stymied by Belgians and other forces.) The Cuban revolution was an oddity; it was able to subsist because it brought into the picture not one but two leading world powers. There, even in success we can see the perils posed by revolution in the contemporary world, for the Cuban missile crisis almost set off a global disaster." (Howard Zinn- Non-Violent Direct Action)

3. Really I'm hearing many people claiming to be for violent revolution but giving valid reasons only for violence in self-defence. This position is entirely within the rubric of most libertarian socialism. There was a book published a few years ago called "Talkin Bout A Revolution." Several notable radical American activists gave their views about the possibilities for revolution. The consensus was in the affirmative for a primarily non-violent revolution. A scenario was mentioned in the book that strikes me as an interesting example of legitimate self-defence...Revolutionaries agitate and militate in a long campaign that involves tactics such as general strikes, both parliamentary and non-parliamentary action, including actions to radically change the electoral system and other elements of the democratic apparatus. Eventually a mass movement with a revolutionary platform is mobilized and wins a majority vote and thus lays legitimate claims to power. At this point capitalist factions react to protect their property perhaps by hiring paramilitaries and otherwise using whatever resources they have to counter the revolution with violence. In situations such as these in the revolutionary process it is legitimate for the revolution to act in violent self-defence. It also makes sense for a revolution devote some of its resources to such a contigency, since the counterrevolutionary violence is predictable. However, what is illegitimate is a violent take-over of social power. Violent takeover is bound to be a stain for any revolution professing radical humanist values, and can be expected to return to haunt it.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 07:00 pm
Violence is natural characteristic of a social animal called man. Without it it is difficult for a man as a individual or society to bring a dogmatic change. all changes from status quo in the society are mostly happened after a bloody violence.
What do you mean by "dogmatic" change? Do you mean pragmatic (practise)?

[enigma2517]

Going to have to second what Zingu said.

The general strike is probably the most effective weapon we have.

This is primarily a war of ideas. Violence is useless and alienating without a large, class conscious group of workers. Self-defense is certainly one thing, but I feel that a lot of demonstrations now days could be construed as riots, because they do not portray a political message behind it all, thus participating in violence out of context.

At this point, increasing class consciousness should be our main objective, because i think it is the largest battle. I have a feeling that if something does go down, the actual revolution part will be relatively short, while the things leading up to it will be of most significance.

Honestly, yes, it is hard to maybe hold back a punch when you are being humiliated, but humiliation is not the same thing as being repressed for the actual reason of being eliminated. I can identify with my people's sentiments that confronting the police at every occassion is a good thing, but in retrospect I feel that it invites unwarranted repression and just makes your ultimate goal harder to achieve.

Redstar2000 once warned about using violence, despite being an adament militant. He suggested that we remain nonviolent when we are out numbered and show no mercy when we are the ones in mass.

Direct action is definetely the way to go, but in no way does it have to be inherently violent.

[Son of a Strummer]

Enigma- I agree with practically everything you wrote.

However, what you wrote about the police raises for me important questions:


"I can identify with my people's sentiments that confronting the police at every occassion is a good thing, but in retrospect I feel that it invites unwarranted repression and just makes your ultimate goal harder to achieve."

What should be the appropriate revolutionary approach towards the police and military forces?

Here's a few comments and observations:

1. We need to distinguish between the rank and file in the military, and those who give them orders and design the apparatuses that indoctrinate them. Cannot we say that the rank and file of the forces protecting capitalism are themselves proletariat? Does it not then become imperative to raise the consciousness of the protective rank and file of their common interests with the rest of the revolutionary movement? When police and military forces themselves are elements of the general strike then this itself would be a definite indication of revolutionary progress. It seems like a desirable goal to coopt the military and police forces in the process of revolution. This is particularly imperative if we want to achieve a radical transformation with a minimum degree of violence.

2. How do we raise the consciousness of the rank and file protective forces of capitalism? We can probably say that it will, for the most part, come with the more general change in subjectivity of society as a whole as struggles between revolutionaries and capitalists in the spheres of production and consumption and the cultural sphere (media) increasingly reveal the contradictions and the unsustainability of the capitalist mode of production. However it seems to me that in our approach towards the protective rank and file we would best not assume an approach that alienates them a priori; which is what an approach of antagonist confrontation and presumed guilt surely would do. Instead I think we have to offer critiques that appeal to their humanity so that they will realize the wisdom of coming over to our side. We cannot also assume that the members of the protective forces always had invalid reasons for choosing their vocation in the first place. Many do in fact have humanitarian reasons for joining the police force, although in the case of the military this may be more questionable. Presumably in our revolutionary socialist society there will also be a requirement for voluntary protective forces and we should expect volunteers to demonstrate valid humanitarian reasons for joining rather than just a desire to play with high-tech weaponry or to learn techniques of martial domination. Some of these volunteers will surely come from the rank and file of the former protective forces of capitalism who have the aptitudes and the interest in safeguarding the revolution.

[phoenixoftime]

In reply to Son of a Strummer[
Being a devout commie and a part-time serviceman in the New Zealand Defence Force, I agree with both your points entirely.


We need to distinguish between the rank and file in the military, and those who give them orders and design the apparatuses that indoctrinate them.

It largely depends on the circumstances surrounding the particular military. Some militaries are almost entirely proletarian, wielding little actual power and being highly under control of borgeoisie government and corporate suppliers of the military, while others hold enormous political and economic might from within and are able to stage full-on coups as they please.

The common argument that military officers are borgeoisie is again subject to how much actual power they hold and how much more they get paid than those on the frontline.



However it seems to me that in our approach towards the protective rank and file we would best not assume an approach that alienates them a priori; which is what an approach of antagonist confrontation and presumed guilt surely would do.

The culture within a military organization would have a big effect to how it might react to a revolution. The New Zealand military, for example, has undergone a lot of change in the previous two decades, with virtually all unfair discrimination removed (race, sex, age, religion and even civilian class to an extent via scholarship programmes), a level of internal democracy installed to allow voting of military leaders, a wide-reaching anti-harassment campaign, and governmental repositioning towards a primary aims of self defence, peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. The political atmosphere within the NZDF is now surprisingly left wing, with a swing towards support of social democrat parties as opposed to the traditional center-right stance. Although this has been helped by far better use of military spending by the incumbent Labour Party, equality in NZDF society is certainly a factor - it is arguably more equal than NZ civil society itself, with better pay parity and less discrimination. If the military's culture holds similar values and aims to the revolution, any hostile reactions could be nullified to a large extent.

I would hope that a socialist military would hold similar values, since a military which champions equality and fairness both from within and in its actions (supporting revolutions, peacekeeping, humanitarian work) provides plenty of good reasons to join. The circling right-wing parties, and my desire to study politics, are the two main reasons I don't enlist in the RNZAF full time.

[Son of a Strummer]

Thanks for your insights Phoenix. Being an outsider I receive these impressions that I am not always certain can be generalized. For example, Kubrick's film Full Metal Jacket depicts the boot camp as a practically irresistable indoctrination of the human psyche. Perhaps what he was depicting pertains solely to a particular time and culture, perhaps not. Do you think that Kubrick's narrative of the boot camp holds true for the rank and file of imperialist armies currently in Iraq? According to your experience in NZ, to what extent are intensive training programs systems of indoctrination designed to turn people into amoral machines prepared to kill? cheers!

[phoenixoftime]

Indoctrination is a massive subject and one in which I'm no expert, but here's a bit of an introduction to how it works and how it can go wrong (or right, depending on your point of view). Excuse the length of the post! :)

When it comes to military doctrines, there are always two recurring themes - 1) respect & discipline and 2) leadership & management. The rest is detail. When you are in a warzone, perhaps the most important attribute is the ability to follow an order straight away - it could be the difference between life and death. That doesn't mean that reasoned questioning of an order isn't acceptable - such a right is vital to ensure that a bad spare-of-the-moment decision is avoided - but developing the tact to decide if the time is right to open a debate. These skills come with respect built for your superiors, which comes from being underneath leaders who hold a firm line, stick to it, while still being fair and understanding. This leads to an incredible trust in those above you.

Militaries usually use a combination of the functional leadership model and an appointed management structure. The use of functional leadership allows input, consultation and feedback from the group, systems to maintain the group's efficiency and the support structures to facilitate adjustments during changes in situation. The appointed chain-of-command ensures that there is ultimately one person in control of each facet of the task, and that every member will have to answer to someone else. Think of it like democratic centralism - debate when the time is open, united action once it's over.

All these basic principles come together while being drilled on the parade ground, the basis of any military training. The respect is taught immediately, through the respect for your colours & country, and all those who have served and died before you. Through superiors who control your physical movement (marching) with precision, ensuring you don't walk into a wall, teaching and guiding, admitting mistakes. Teamwork with other members of your squad to ensure that you are moving in time etc. Altertness and self-discipline. Communication, debate & consultation being within the silent and still boundries of standing at attention, but still taking place no less.

Elite military units use other doctrinal methods to harden a soldier's nerve, improve his concentration, and generally make them mentally tough. This embodies the horror exercises often seen in the movies, like staring at a wall for seven hours, being forced to carry an injured person through tear gas etc. This type of training is often misunderstood - it is not intended to turn soldiers into 'animals', 'madmen on killing sprees' etc. It is intended to ensure that they can stay alert and focussed on the task at hand no matter the situation.

The two main places where ethical and moral standards of soldiers conduct come into question lie not in the indoctrination itself, but in the way in which procedures are carried out. The first area of concern is the training and enforcement of ethical standards. Most doctrines will try and enforce this to a degree, but it is the level which it is controlled which is important. Systematic harassment, unfair discrimination, divisive leadership - all these sorts of behaviour should be removed from the environment entirely, from the barracks to the breech. Building in this culture of ethics is the best way to prevent inhumane and unnecessarily bloodthirsty activity, particularly acts performed outside of direct orders (prisoner photo scandals, for example).

The second is leadership. Sadly, in the military, you're only as powerful as the rank you hold. If those in charge want to encourage bloodshed, they're in a position to do so. But how do they do this without a revolt of all the troops? Leadership style. An autocratic leadership style, with little revelation of the entire plan to those at the bottom, and only small, specific steps being given, ensures that 1) the group focus on the best way to perform the steps of planned action, rather than debating how to do it and 2) the group doesn't know the big picture of what's going on. This can be beneficial in certain situations, but it can easily be abused. The group can simply be conned into the reason that they are doing the task. Even when used correctly, this style of leadership can result in people disregarding important parts of the task they do not realize - for example seeing certain immoral acts as a resonable price to pay, when perhaps in the big picture it really isn't.

So what are the troops being treated like in Iraq? That I don't know. I do have a good (high ranking) friend who might know better than me (NZ had a small reconstruction team over there), so I'll ask him for you. However I assume it is a combination of autocratic leadership, misinformation and a culture with questionable ethics (i.e. shooting up the town in your tank while listening to your favourite metal CD... unbelievable... :blink: )

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Well it has had as much success as had violent revolution (none at all).

that's a joke, right?

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 02:36 pm

Well it has had as much success as had violent revolution (none at all).

that's a joke, right?
Certainly not. Neither have managed to bring about long lasting communism. Which is after all what we are aiming for (or at least some form of anarchism).

Sure you can talk about "socialism", but where differentials in power and 'wealth' are as high as they were in the USSR (and Cuba, and China (now and then), et al.) I would not call it socialism. To do so would be like calling Sweden or the UK just after WW2 socialist, they were not (and are not now).

Socialism is about equality, both in terms of access and control of resources and in other types of power.

Revolutions have managed to bring about change, but not socialism, at least not for very long.

[Son of a Strummer]

Thanks for the thorough explanation Phoenix. You write extremely well. Questions that arose for me in reading the paragraphs pertaining to the instilling of moral and ethical standards were resolved for the most part by the paragraph concerning autocratic leadership style.

Would you hold that, for a military order to maintain itself over the course of time, the higher one goes up the military hierarchy the more congruence there has to be in terms of moral and ethical standards? Moreover would you hold that there needs to be a congruence between top level military elites and the executives of the state who interact with them and who are instrumental in framing directives for the military?

For example, regarding personnel in the CIA or NSA responsible for executing or coordination operations such as those related to infrastructure destruction in Nicaragua, was it basically an institutional prerequisite that the folks selected to perform the tasks embraced the values of American imperialism and anticommunist ideology?