Need a lil help with argument.

[( R )evolution]

Hello, I have been debating my teacher on the revolution. He is dedicated to only non-violent ways and he thinks that ANY revolution with violence will lead to a totalitarian government. He says that every violent revolution has lead to a oppressive system. Is there any historical exmplae that would dis count that argument? He keeps on bring up bible shit trying to tell me that I should read the bible and learn some lessons from it, I say I only read nonfiction books. I have tried to tell him that the only way to truly achieve equality is through a violent revolution. I am no pacifist, the revolution will have to invole death and killings I just believe it is the only way. Do you guys have any more arguments or opinions to add to this? Thanks comrades!

[Fawkes]

Well, when you ask for examples, do you mean revolutions that have led to a non-oppressive society, or a society less oppressive than the one that was being fought? If you mean the latter, there is a great number of examples you could use: the American revolution; the Bolshevik revolution; the Cuban revolution; the Irish War of Independence; the list goes on and on. If you meant the former, than I don't really think there are any lasting examples.

[bezdomni]

You can't take the means of production without shooting at people.

They've always shot at us first anyway. It's a matter of rational self-defense and achivement of our goals, not blood lust.


Does he think the American Revolution brought about a totalitarian regime? Violence was certainly used in that case.

What about "non-violent" revolutions? They are still perfectly capable of bringing about totalitarian regimes (ie, the English "Glorious Revolution).

His logic has more holes than swiss cheese.

[RedLenin]

He says that every violent revolution has lead to a oppressive system.
That is true. It can't be otherwise. Every bourgeois-democratic revolution led to the oppression of the Proletariat by the Bourgeoisie. The Proletarian revolution will lead to the oppression of the Bougeoisie by the Proletariat. However, the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat will lead to the liberation of humanity from class society, ending all oppressive systems once and for all.


ANY revolution with violence will lead to a totalitarian government
That statement, however, is not true, as far as the term "totalitarian" is traditionally defined.


Is there any historical exmplae that would dis count that argument?
The American Revolution. It was a bourgeois-democratic revolution and it did lead to the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie in America, but it did not create a "totalitarian" state.


Do you guys have any more arguments or opinions to add to this?
I would argue that peace can only last if both sides agree to it. As classes exist, and the antagonisms between them are irreconcilably antagonistic, peace cannot last. Therefore, in order to get lasting peace, the oppressed class must violently liberate itself from and oppress the oppressor class. Lasting peace will only come into existence when classes no longer exist. Human agency is limited to the material conditions one is faced with, and we are faced with the option of either violent revolution and the liberation of humanity, or the continuation of Bourgeois violence and the decimation of humanity. Obviously the most moral choice is the first one.

[Fawkes]

the English "Glorious Revolution).
That wasn't really a revolution, more just a changing of monarchs. Also, it most certainly was not bloodless if you look at Ireland and Scotland during the time. But, that is beside the point and I'm probably side-tracking this topic more than I need to. Carry on....

[RedKnight]

The swiss revolution of independence from Austria lead to the most freest, and peaceful countrys in the world.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:26 am

the English "Glorious Revolution).
That wasn't really a revolution, more just a changing of monarchs. Also, it most certainly was not bloodless if you look at Ireland and Scotland during the time. But, that is beside the point and I'm probably side-tracking this topic more than I need to. Carry on....
I know...but most bourgeois teachers consider it a bloodless revolution.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:26 am

the English "Glorious Revolution).
That wasn't really a revolution, more just a changing of monarchs. Also, it most certainly was not bloodless if you look at Ireland and Scotland during the time. But, that is beside the point and I'm probably side-tracking this topic more than I need to. Carry on....
It was a changing of monarchs for ones who accepted that absolute monarchy was dead and that the bourgeoise and new ways were emerging. It was a point in history crucial to understanding how the feudal system was swept away. Had monarchs not accepted that absolute rule was over we would be living in a republic in Britain right now.

[RGacky3]

The Zapatistas!!! Theres one, the Spanish Revolution, theres 2.

[( R )evolution]

Thanks guys. My teacher is a good guy, he is someone who is really open to leftist ideas but he likes his religion shit. He is someone who was kind of dumb (in consideration to world politics and shit like that) and now he is trying to become a educated worldly person. Most of his arguments have a lot of flaws in it but it is fun debating him. Thanks for all of the response's.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The Zapatistas!!! Theres one, the Spanish Revolution, theres 2.

I dont think they mean failed "revolutions"