Violence as a Means to Peace

[Sumac]

I tried to find another thread on this, but couldn't find one.

What are people's opinions? It's a pretty major question....I'm not a pacifist, but I'm not comfortable with the whole violence for peace idea. Hugo Chavez tried the miltary method, but failed, and only came to power through peaceful means later on.

People like Chomsky repeatedly say that violent means are no longer a necessary means to removing corrupt governments, making big changes in the system etc. Although I am aware that some things may not have happened without violent uprising, such as the slave revolution in Haiti.

[bezdomni]

In order to abolish the gun, we must take up the gun.

I don't know if you could call Chavez's presidency "peaceful". The Chavistas have been violently attacked by the opposition, and they have retaliated by force as well.

Chomsky is mostly full of shit these days and doesn't know what he's talking about.

Revolutions are bloody. It's unfortunate, but true.

[Cryotank Screams]

Violence is completely necessary in revolutionary terms, and really is the only practical and efficient means, to achieve a post-revolutionary Socialist society, however, violent acts will only be carried out if and when it is needed, there would and should not be needless killing, and destruction that is just destructive and counter-productive.

"Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."-Martin Luther King.

Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America by Ward Churchill.

[Rawthentic]

"Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."-John F. Kennedy

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 12:01 am
"Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."-John F. Kennedy
Yea, sorry, forgot it was MLK quoting JFK.

[Sumac]

It seems like a lot of people on this forum would agree with you. But, are the doors so closed on peaceful revolution nowadays? I'm very skeptical of a statement that says "in order to abolish the gun, we must take up the gun". Doesn't that sound insanely contraditory and reckless to you?

I'm not expecting to find many people on this site who believe in peaceful revolution, but you must have some doubts as to the need of violence to change things.

[Rawthentic]

Sumac, yes, it seems ironic, but sadly, it is true. Under capitalism, violence predominates in the form of wars of plunder and police brutality, mainly.

For us to eliminate this State violence, there must be a revolution that destroys the institutions of capitalist oppression that incite this violence on the people of the world. This revolution must of necessity be violent, because only then can we overthrow the capitalist class to make the dictatorship of the proletariat. We can't sweet-talk the capitalists to give up 'their' possessions.

Under socialism, violence will only be used as a means to self-defense, to protect the gains of the revolution from the capitalist agents who wish to bring back the system.

[bezdomni]

I'm very skeptical of a statement that says "in order to abolish the gun, we must take up the gun". Doesn't that sound insanely contraditory and reckless to you?

No, it sounds sensible...assuming you are a revolutionary leftist.

In order to abolish class dictatorship, there must be the dictatorship of the proletariat. In order to abolish state power, we must first seize state power.

Another Mao quote: "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun".


I'm not expecting to find many people on this site who believe in peaceful revolution, but you must have some doubts as to the need of violence to change things.

If you want to point out "insane contradictions", surely you see the paradox of a "peaceful revolution"?

It is not in the interest of the oppressed masses to be nice to their oppressors and beg for freedom. Liberation doesn't come from concessions and change doesn't come from above.

Violent change is necessary. The bourgeoisie are not going to just hand us the means of production. We can try to seize the factories as peacefully as we want, the truth is, they will shoot at us.

I will say it again: Revolutions are bloody.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:01 am
"Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."-John F. Kennedy
Just out of curiosity, why did you quote JFK?

[Sumac]

Do you think there are any regions out there where the conditions are such that peaceful change are possible?

With the whole "War on Terror" fiasco I am very skeptical of the Peace Is War mentality.

[Red October]

it seems cynical to say violence will be necessary, but thats just how it is. the ruling classes would never give up power voluntarily though compromise or any other means. they control the system and know how to work it so that the proletariate cannot use the system for change. it has to be done outside the system, and that means violence

[YSR]

Sumac, it's quite possible that peaceful change can happen. But whenever these peaceful changes start to threaten the power structure, the power structure employs the police to end the threat.

We only embrace violence as a means for change because we recognize that they have been attacking us for millenia. If this were occurring in a vacuum, I'd probably agree with you. But the fact of the matter is that working people and oppressed people have been shut down, beaten, and murdered for trying to change our status ever since class society developed.

A more sophisticated analysis further understands that day-to-day life is violent. Rousseau and Marx both developed theories of alienation which are still relevant. We are alienated from the products of our labor. Consumerism further alienates us from our desires and from ourselves. The spectacle of modern capitalism wages war against our senses, making us value the artificial (money, wealth, property) over the natural (love, friendship, freedom). Isn't brainwashing another form of violence?

In terms of the pacifist question, I think there's this hero-worship of figures like Gandhi (which has been addressed in other threads, just look in the History forum) which has blinded many leftists and liberals to a more fundamental question. If someone has you and your family and friends up against a wall and holds a gun to you, what is your response? Most rational people would find a way to defend themselves. This is what the State and Capital do to us everyday. A violent response against property is completely warranted, and a violent response against perpetrators of capitalist violence is acceptable when it can be gotten away with.

They brought the war to us, we've got to finish it.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

I would have to agree with the others when I say violence would be neccessary. It is sad to say but war and violence are the only two parts of society that have not evolved. The weapons we use may have, but we've been fighting fire with fire for thousands of years and will probably continue to do so for thousands to come.

This is because of course there is no more officient way to solve a problem than depleting the army or people of another nation.

[Delta]

Violence isn't necessary per se, but the threat of violence is certainly needed. If the "revolutionaries" declared their commitment to non-violence, the oppressors think "oh okay, so let's just beat them each time they protest, this will be easy". Since we live in a physical world, the only way to enforce justice is by physical means, and so the threat of violence, if not violence itself, is definitely needed.

[Delta]

Originally posted by The Crying [email protected] 09, 2007 10:18 am
This is because of course there is no more officient way to solve a problem than depleting the army or people of another nation.
What a horribly anti-human statement :blink:

[An archist]

The problem is that when you really start changing the foundations of society, it will be called 'illegal' and you will be faced with violence. Then you have no choice but to fight back.

[Zero]

I am opposed to using violence as a means to an end until violence is the last resort.

I don't doubt violence will be necisarry in the class struggle around the world. It won't just be necisarry, but vital in the survival of the Human race. However tactical non-violence while our movement is small is not only socially acceptable (as well as attractive to those who are not yet class concious) but is morally acceptable (however much I hate to use that term, and the perversions that accompany it.) If you were to rob a liquor store, or knock over a 7-11 you would be arrested, put on trial, and sent to jail. A jailed revolutionary is of no use to the movement, to the oppressed indigenous peoples, to the Proletariat, or to himself.

As well, violence on the part of small groups who do not yet have popular support give an avenue of those who would attack them verbally to do so. Violence also enables governments to cite damages, and call you a terrorist. Take for instance the British ALF. If I remember correctly a sect had bombed a shopping mall, and caused massive damage to the building. From every report I could find, the reporters were positively seething at this "act of terrorism", and calling for "the government to take action against radical terrorist factions". Usually the corporate media has to take special precautions not to tell the masses that nobody was hurt whilest the ALF had liberated several animals from the cruilty of animal testing. However in this case it took very little spin to make this into a "terrorist threat".

I implore all of you who endorse violence as a means to an end to take a long hard look at the prison system in your country. Ask yourself what you can do from behind bars. Not all of us will get the media break that Mumia has.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by SovietPants+January 09, 2007 12:38 am--> (SovietPants @ January 09, 2007 12:38 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 04:01 am
"Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."-John F. Kennedy
Just out of curiosity, why did you quote JFK? [/b]
If this is directed towards me, I used the quote, because I believe it fits, the bourgeoisie, and ruling elit, have made peaceful changes impossible therefore, violent revolution is an inevitable reality.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Originally posted by Delta+January 09, 2007 05:48 pm--> (Delta @ January 09, 2007 05:48 pm)
The Crying [email protected] 09, 2007 10:18 am
This is because of course there is no more officient way to solve a problem than depleting the army or people of another nation.
What a horribly anti-human statement :blink: [/b]
Apparently you didnt get how sarcastic I was being.
My Apologies.

[Sumac]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:37 am
[QUOTE]
Violent change is necessary. The bourgeoisie are not going to just hand us the means of production. We can try to seize the factories as peacefully as we want, the truth is, they will shoot at us.

I will say it again: Revolutions are bloody.
I agree that the rich will rarely just "hand things over" like you said, but, what about the case of, say, Bolivia? From what I've read, they have made some of the most drastic changes in South America so far, and that has been a peaceful transition. The rich didn't hand over the industries, but Morales hasn't taken it by force either. He's nationalized things through political pressure, without violence.

I agree with Zero, when he says the use of violence can be very quickly turned against a person who is trying to make positive change. The people at the top will find a example of violence, and exploit it through the meida (eg. the so-called Venezuelan media coup, even though Chavez was not behind the violence). Because of this, people have to be very careful about resorting to violence. Another example is obviously the terrorist label that the States is applying to anyone they deem a threat.

And what about places like Canada and the US? Guerrilla warfare just isn't possible in those regions, even if you tried...people like Che Guevara have said that themselves on a number of occasions. So what tactics are people left to use in those countries, if they want to make changes?

When you resort to violence, you walk a precarious line in the public view, which is of course so crucial to making changes. When I first started reading about the Sandanistas, one of the things that made me see through some of the propaganda you often read about them was the fact that they abolished the death penalty once they got into power. That sent a powerful message. It made me think "if this group is as horrible as some people in the US make them out to be, why would they abolish the death penalty?" The fact that they decided to do that sent a strong message about their real intents.

I'm still not sure on this debate, but I wanted to bring it up because I wasn't comfortable with how non-chalant some were being with regards to the use of violence.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "SovietPants"+--> ("SovietPants")I will say it again: Revolutions are bloody.[/b]All the more reason not to begin the bloodshed until it is absolutely necessary.

You know, building your case for siezing state power through violent revolution by quoting Mao as a definative source must be one of the worst stratagies available to you.


"Sumac"
I agree that the rich will rarely just "hand things over"The rich will never "hand things over" because it is not in their interest to do so. The Bourgeois have state power, have wealth, have status, and legitimacy with the people. There is no reason for a Bourgeois entity to hand power to anyone, much less the people. Only on the brink of revolutionary tension will a state ever succede power to its natural enemy.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by SovietPants+January 08, 2007 08:38 pm--> (SovietPants @ January 08, 2007 08:38 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 04:01 am
"Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."-John F. Kennedy
Just out of curiosity, why did you quote JFK? [/b]
Thats because he's the one who said it. In a previous post here, a comrade gave the credit to MLK, and I corrected him.

[Comrade_Scott]

the way i see it one cant have a long lasting and meaningfull peace without conflict.Some things can only be fixed through the gun its sad but a fact of life.
Nothing is perfect my friend ;)

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:11 pm
I'm still not sure on this debate, but I wanted to bring it up because I wasn't comfortable with how non-chalant some were being with regards to the use of violence.
Welcome to the internet. We're nonchalant about everything here. In a real life situation though, I'm pretty certain that most will find it incredibly taxing to take another human life and so will only do so when there is no other option. Killing for the sake of killing will quickly make one an enemy of the revolution.


Apparently you didnt get how sarcastic I was being.
My Apologies.

Oh ok good. After seeing those types of ideas being held seriously by some people, it's sometimes hard to recognize the sarcasm :blush:

[Sumac]

Thanks for everybody's replies.

Another thing I wanted to mention in this vein that I was thinking about was...

The obvious difference between something like "The War on Terror" conflict and say, an actual socialist revolution, is that the War on Terror is supposed to be about putting an end to violence and such but does not, whereas a socialist revolution actually would appear to actually stop violence. The War on Terror is an unwinnable (and basically completely hypocritical) fight. But a socialist revolution aims to remove those from power who cause wars, and remove the conditions that actually lead people to take up arms (inequality, repression etc). It aims to change the system that causes war.

If that reasoning is correct, then possibly violence as a means to peace could be justified in some cases....if it can in fact lead to a changing of the system that leads to violence.

I'm aware of the argument that says "violence against a a violent system is justified". The international financial system, by my understanding, has what you might call very violent outcomes by design. So, the argument goes, "why shouldn't people be justified in violently rising up against that system? There is already violence." I agree with that view point to a degree. But it's just like someone else above mentioned. Violence can only be justified if it is a true last resort.

So I guess my opinion overall is that the violence of the War on Terror is not justified, but the violence of a socialist revolution (or other fight against the institutionalized violence we seem to have now) might be, in some cases.

[RGacky3]

The problem with an armed revolution is that because of the nature of war, the revolutionary groups must generally be undemocratic, and they generally view themselves as vanguardist, which is VERY dangerous, who is to say that it won't spill over to the political sphere.