Non-Violent Revolution

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I was wondering what the general consensus is on the use of non-violence to directly (I'm not talking electoral means )change the way things are run.

I know there are people out there that say it's impossible, that millitant rebellion is necessary, that the ruling class will do whatever it takes to stay that way.

This isn't my view however, I think that if a group of millitary strongmen lead the way they could easily fall to the temptations of creating a new kind of oppression right afterwards. Furthermore, I think that the media will demonize any kind of violent deed with every fibre of its being, stopping the people who we need to reach out to most, the working people, from sympathising with us. Also, if the state and the system are as unscrupulous as it seems, they will use the situation to claim justification in any kind of counter-revolutionary atrocities.

Also, there seems to be a trace of hypocrisy in claiming that we are victims of oppression and brutality and then turning around and using brutality to clamp down on others.

I still think that it will take a massive awakening of the people, a social revolution. Once the people are aware the rest of the story would appear to speak for itself. The whole system could collapse if nobody agrees to submit to the whims of the elite few who call themselves our leaders.

This makes sense to me, but I'm open to what anyone else has to say.

[Revolution_89]

I think there should be a non-violent revolution although i honestly dont see it happening. A massive awakaning would be great but making that happen would be very difficult considering that most people have the cappitalist way of life branded in their brains. If there is a revolution the chances are that it will be violent because the ones who do not want to change their rich lifestyle or lose the power will oppose the revolution violently and we will have no choice but to fight.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

most people have the cappitalist way of life branded in their brains.
That's the problem. Maybe better luck when all the Reaganites die out.

[RED VICTORY]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:16 am

most people have the cappitalist way of life branded in their brains.
That's the problem. Maybe better luck when all the Reaganites die out.
In the Communist Manifesto Marx informs us that violence occurs when the ruling class tries to hang on to power. I think even if every leftist or revolutionary practiced non-violent revolutionary tactics we could expect brutality once the ruling class realized the effectiveness of such a strategy.


It is true an awakening is needed for social revolution. The great thinkers of our movement have stressed the education of the masses ( Marx and Lenin both). Often times when I am spotted at work reading communist/socialist literature people often get that disgusted look and say something like,"why are you reading that, isn't communism bad? Then comes my favorite part of the conversation when I ask them. Can you tell me what communism is or name a priciple? Most times they cannot. So then I ask them. So, you don't know why you don't like it uhhh, you just don't? By this time they can often see there is some problem with there thinking. some people are still very reluctant to listen to you but we must employ every tactic. I like to (in the most stubborn cases) pull out a coin and say if it lands on heads give me ten minutes to talk to you about the working class, if tails I'll walk away. I also like to distribute cds from the marxist conference in London every year. Resistance mp3.

Educationg the masses is our duty. It is our shot at peaceful revolution. but as Marx says in the Poverty of Philosophy." War or death; the bloody struggle or nothing."

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by RadioFreeJuan+--> (RadioFreeJuan)I was wondering what the general consensus is on the use of non-violence to directly (I'm not talking electoral means )change the way things are run.

I know there are people out there that say it's impossible, that millitant rebellion is necessary, that the ruling class will do whatever it takes to stay that way.[/b]Using non-violence directly has a history of achieving little. In places where it has been used (and the typical examples are India before the British left and the USA in the 60s and 70s) there was always the undercurrent of violence threatening the ruling class. It is my opinion that without that violent fringe, the peaceful sort would have achieved fuck all.


Originally posted by RadioFreeJuan+--> (RadioFreeJuan)This isn't my view however, I think that if a group of millitary strongmen lead the way they could easily fall to the temptations of creating a new kind of oppression right afterwards. Furthermore, I think that the media will demonize any kind of violent deed with every fibre of its being, stopping the people who we need to reach out to most, the working people, from sympathising with us. Also, if the state and the system are as unscrupulous as it seems, they will use the situation to claim justification in any kind of counter-revolutionary atrocities.[/b]What you say about "military strongmen" has historically be the case with Leninist groups who have gained power. It is my contention (any many others as well) that it is still possible to have a violent revolution against the state and not fall foul of this problem. You point about the state is equally valid, and it can be seen to be true both of so called "socialist" countries and capitalist ones. However the state will and does use seemingly atrocious acts anyway, right now. See also the US base in Cuba for just one contemporary example (there are many historical examples in including Hungary 1956).


Originally posted by RadioFreeJuan
Also, there seems to be a trace of hypocrisy in claiming that we are victims of oppression and brutality and then turning around and using brutality to clamp down on others.This is true, however, there is one big difference. We use violence in self defence and in defence of humanity (though I am sure that Joseph Labadie would disagree). Our attacks against the state are justified on the basis of their continued oppression of us. Yes it would be better not to have to use violence, but it is unlikely that we can succeed in overthrowing centuries of class prejudice without some killing.


[email protected]
I still think that it will take a massive awakening of the people, a social revolution. Once the people are aware the rest of the story would appear to speak for itself. The whole system could collapse if nobody agrees to submit to the whims of the elite few who call themselves our leaders.

This makes sense to me, but I'm open to what anyone else has to say.It makes sense to me as well. I just think that it is unlikely. Individualist anarchists tend to be big believers in this sort of thing. Historically revolutions have been large masses of people in the streets and disobeying the state. Which then reacts with violence from the police and the army. It is self defence for us to attack them.


Revolution_89
... most people have the cappitalist way of life branded in their brains
I disagree. Most people are not ideological at all, they are simply resistant to change. However when things get shit enough, there will be protests and if things don't get better ... We'll make things better and screw those who would stop us.

[Knight of Cydonia]

It makes sense to me as well. I just think that it is unlikely. Individualist anarchists tend to be big believers in this sort of thing. Historically revolutions have been large masses of people in the streets and disobeying the state. Which then reacts with violence from the police and the army. It is self defence for us to attack them.
it's not a self defense if there was a provocator around us

and i think this Non-Violent Revolution it's necessary.and that's only when something's not goes wrong.

you know, it's when our opposite is willing to get some negotiation or discussion,rather than sending a troops to get rid of us.then Non-Violent action is necessary.

[Dimentio]

It is desirable with as little violence as possible to achieve the goals.

[Pirate Utopian]

non-violent revolution isnt gonna help because nobody's gonna give you power if you sit around dooing nothing.
you need to show them bussiness.

[Dimentio]

I think that Chavez have actually half-way pointed out the way.

[apathy maybe]

Non-violence is desirable and preferred. I think by all but some crazies.

However, what is the likelyhood of the govt. giving up power with no violence?

[Dimentio]

If strategic parts of the establishment are controlled by the revolutionary movement, then there will be a foundation.

[An archist]

Peaceful change would be nice, but it will probably allways be a dream. If you really want to change things radically, you will get the police and/or the army against you. So actually, the only way you could hope for succes in a peaceful revolution is if you can convince large numbers in the police and military of your cause.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 22, 2007 12:22 am
Peaceful change would be nice, but it will probably allways be a dream. If you really want to change things radically, you will get the police and/or the army against you. So actually, the only way you could hope for succes in a peaceful revolution is if you can convince large numbers in the police and military of your cause.
that's good, just attack "them" from the inside :D
that's what i call Guerrilla's Revolution :)

[cb9's_unity]

People usually forget here that any counter-revolutionary action will be ordered by the bourgeoisie but executed by proletarians. We must talk to the soldiers and influence them to leave the military and join the revolution. Soldiers are more likely to join you if your not shooting at them.

Now i'm not a gandhi pacifist, because i would prefer people don't get killed but i won't stick to that position if it means the revolution will be defeated. I mean if the military comes into you houses trying to kill you i fully support defending yourself by any means neccesary.

[Omri Evron]

The best revolution is the revolution with the biggest base of support and participation- optimally of the whole oppressed class. Non-violence has a clear advantage over a violent struggle, because ultimately more people of the oppressed class sympathies with it and can actively participate in it (practically anyone who can walk out of bed, as opposed to a minority who is willing to live everything and hide in the jungle). If truly the great majority of the exploited class decide that they won't serve the current system of oppression- that system would fall without the need of a single gun. The proletarion needs no trained army or killing machines to emancipate itself- it only needs the proletarion.
A non-violent revolution rarely means asking the government for power- although, it is true that simply uncooperating with the ruling regime can make it collapse or give up its power: Such was the case of the Plebeian revolution against the Patricians in the Roman Republic (a country that did not think twice before using the army to violently oppress anybody that stood in their way- but was eventually forced to give up all the Patrician privileges and answer all the Plebeian demands when the Plebeian simply walked out of Rome). Though usually a non-violent revolution does not mean asking for power, but it means directly taking that power. Who other than the proletarian can directly take over the means of production? What is a state that does not control the means of production or serves the same class that controls the means of production? Who are already operating all the industries, media, transportation companies and every other means of production and key part of the economy?
The working class already has all the tools to liberate itself without using tanks and missiles, if it only realized it and wanted it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchists Have Forgotten Their Principles (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/malatesta/ForgottenPrinciples.html)

My signature is a quote from that pamphlet.

[bezdomni]

Orwell writes about some "non-violent" military tactics that were used during the Spanish Revolution in Homage to Catalonia.

For example, when the fascist army was in a nearby trench that couldn't be attacked for whatever reasons (not enough revolutionaries, ammunition...etc), they would shout slogans (like "don't fight against your class!") at them all day and all night, which lead to some fascist soldiers deserting and even joining the revolutionaries.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Those guys are my heroes. That's another thing I'd be bothered by. Breaking open the head of some cop from the East Side is pretty damned stupid considering he's the kind of person we're trying to set free. If it came down to it I'm sure most of us would defend ourselves personally, but the old "propaganda of the deed" idea seems to be kind of futile.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:52 pm
Breaking open the head of some cop from the East Side is pretty damned stupid considering he's the kind of person we're trying to set free.
There is a line in which we must draw when considering our "good nature".

Once someone joins the police they are no longer workers who are to emancipate themselves, they are class enemies. Unlike the army, the police are ideologically trained to defend capitalism and the state and will use every force available to them in order to execute their duty.

I am not here to "set free" cops; I'm here to smash capitalism and the state. Cuz baby, I'm an anarchist...

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Once someone joins the police they are no longer workers who are to emancipate themselves, they are class enemies. Unlike the army, the police are ideologically trained to defend capitalism and the state and will use every force available to them in order to execute their duty.

I guess it depends on the man, and what he sees and believes. Maybe some of them could be turned to our cause, but the guys who describe the crimes for the TV stations seem pretty mindless.

[rouchambeau]

Violent action, non-violent action: right now it's all the same to me. Just as long as people are doing something, anything to make positive change the most effective means will be taken up.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:07 pm
I guess it depends on the man, and what he sees and believes. Maybe some of them could be turned to our cause, but the guys who describe the crimes for the TV stations seem pretty mindless.
An optimistic outlook, but perhaps naive. The police force have no interest in having their minds changed.

[seraphim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+January 23, 2007 12:46 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ January 23, 2007 12:46 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 11:07 pm
I guess it depends on the man, and what he sees and believes. Maybe some of them could be turned to our cause, but the guys who describe the crimes for the TV stations seem pretty mindless.
An optimistic outlook, but perhaps naive. The police force have no interest in having their minds changed. [/b]
Naive is an understatement I feel the police by their very nature would actively fight to keep their capitalist empoyers in a position of power. Maintaining the status quo.

[Tatarin]

I know there was a demonstration in Britain some time ago (against globalization), and apparently the media portrayed the demonstrators as violent and bent on destroying this "peacful, democratic society" for some "phantom cause".

Just this kind of lies and aggression towards peacful demonstrants shows the unwillingless of the overclass to aknowledge even the slightest protest against the system.

Imagine, then, what they would do to us when it is time for revolution.

[RGacky3]

I think the best way to Revolution is non violence, mass protests, general strikes, business occupations, but what is most definately going to happen (we see it happening in Oaxaca, and San Salvador Atenco) is the government with the support of the Capitalists will become violent, then its ok to defend ones self, even though perhaps continued non-violence (Gandi style) might work better. But I don't think a Communist movement should be violent at all, first of all its morally wrong, second it generally does'nt work, third when it does it usually leads to an authoritarian structure.

Violence is usually what kills a revolution.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I agree with you RG, this is the ideal I try to follow.


I know there was a demonstration in Britain some time ago (against globalization), and apparently the media portrayed the demonstrators as violent and bent on destroying this "peacful, democratic society" for some "phantom cause".

The media fucks us over. We protest peacefully, they don't mention it in the paper. We protest violently, they call us vile and despicable beasts. That's why it needs to be something so big that they have to report it, and something without a bloodthirsty message to attract even more people to our side.




Naive is an understatement I feel the police by their very nature would actively fight to keep their capitalist empoyers in a position of power. Maintaining the status quo.
A lot of them would gladly submit to whatever the ruling class says, but not all of them. Going through hell every day so that some bureaucrat can stay in power in his gilded mansion could get to almost anyone.