Violence in revolution?

[HatefulRed]

I know Marx predicted some bloody uprising of the proletariat, but is there any way revolution is possible without violence? Do all communists believe in a violent revolution?
I personally like to think not and go by Gandhi's "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," but thats just me.

[Fawkes]

It's very unlikely that an entirely peaceful revolution would ever succeed because the ruling classes are not just going to give up power peacefully. Of course, in certain areas more violence will be needed than in others, but I don't think a revolution can succeed by using entirely peaceful means.

[MrDoom]

A wise man once said:


Revolution is not a dinner party.

We should be pragmatic about violence and use what works, adapting method to the situation, not forcing the situation to fit a particular method or pacifist/warmongering dogma.

Besides, that's why we have seeing-eye dogs.

[cenv]

Violence will probably be necessary. However, the amount of violence used by the workers in the revolution as a whole will be nothing compared to the amount of violence produced by capitalism every day, and violent revolution will ultimately save many lives.

[Janus]

Based on past history, yes, the vast majority of revolutions have always been violent. Communist revolutions are inherently violent.

[DiggerII]

it would certainly be nice to think that societal changes can happen peacefully, and certain changes have taken place without violence. But when you get down to it, the kind of monumental change that Marx was talking about requires violence.

[RedLenin]

Violence is an essential part of communist revolution. We live in a brutally violent society, and only a brutal and violent revolution will overthrow this system. That is not to say that all phazes of proletarian revolution involve violence, but two of the most important phazes do.

The proletariat must smash the state machine and seize power, replacing the bourgeois state with a proletarian state based on it's workers councils. To do this, urban insurrection will be necessary. After the seizure of power, it will be necessary to fight a potentially long and very bloody civil war against the reactionaries, as well as fighting off foreign imperialists. And considering that this process will need to happen in every country in the world, we are in for one hell of a fight. I don't want this, but we can only act within the material circumstances we are faced with. Due to the fact that capitalism exists and enslaves us, the only road to our liberation is violent revolution.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:15 am
I know Marx predicted some bloody uprising of the proletariat, but is there any way revolution is possible without violence? Do all communists believe in a violent revolution?
I personally like to think not and go by Gandhi's "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," but thats just me.
we aren't going for an eye, we're hoping to get rid of the entire body of capitalism. What we will do to them is nothing compared to what they've done to to the world for centuries.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This is a conversation I overheard a while back between an old Marxist and a young comrade:

Young comrade: "I wonder if you could tell me whether violence be needed to remove the ruling-class, or can we expect a miracle?"

Aged Marxist: "If Christ returns on a cloud one day to rule as King over us, then we can expect violence. If, on the other hand, the ruling-class cedes power to the working-class without a fight, that will be a miracle."

[RASHskins]

yea the violence is a neccesary part to smash the capitalist system. The suffering that system has brought and is still bringing to the world pales in comparison to the violence of the revolution.

[Rage]

What do the Zapitistas mean when they use the term "Armed Non-Violent uprising"?

I think a Revolution could be possible without violence. Not a revolution in the way most people think of the word though.

/,,/
Rock on!

[cenv]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:09 am
What do the Zapitistas mean when they use the term "Armed Non-Violent uprising"?

I think a Revolution could be possible without violence. Not a revolution in the way most people think of the word though.

/,,/
Rock on!
Perhaps the Zapatistas are just trying to appeal to both pacifists and non-pacifists? ;)

On a more serious note, how d'you think a revolution -- in this case, the overthrow of the ruling class and establishment of a proletarian society -- can be accomplished without violence? Perhaps you could elaborate on this?

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

On a more serious note, how d'you think a revolution -- in this case, the overthrow of the ruling class and establishment of a proletarian society -- can be accomplished without violence? Perhaps you could elaborate on this?
General strikes are appealing.

Anyways I'd say that if we are going to gauge the success of violent revolution purely by history, then there is always an enormous amount of risk as far as who will ultimately be the new holders of power and of course the double standard waving, which may or may not be a problem for everyone. On issues of self-defence it's better alive than dead, and violence is a necessity, but to me it would seem as though the Establishment want the revolution itself to be violent. That's when they know how to deal with you, marginalise you, and ultimately kill or incarcerate you.

But the question still stands: what the hell would a supposed liberal democracy such as America do to an entire class of people who just refused to listen? And who would they be able to convince to do it?

[RASHskins]

whoops i meant the other way around that the violence of the capitalist system is way worse than that of the revolution sorry for that people.

[ahab]

of course violence is necessary, do you think that walking up to the white house and saying 'well we dont really like the way your running the world, so it would be nice if you could all just put down your guns and go home and lets us (the people) take over. Thanx' is going to work? hell no! you have to fight fire with fire(power)

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:15 am
I know Marx predicted some bloody uprising of the proletariat, but is there any way revolution is possible without violence? Do all communists believe in a violent revolution?
I personally like to think not and go by Gandhi's "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," but thats just me.
Karl Marx also said that great progess towards socialism can be made through peaceful means in well developed countries, however reform can only get us so far, sooner or later we will have to confront the bougerise and take back what is ours.

[grove street]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27, 2007 11:07 am
This is a conversation I overheard a while back between an old Marxist and a young comrade:

Young comrade: "I wonder if you could tell me whether violence be needed to remove the ruling-class, or can we expect a miracle?"

Aged Marxist: "If Christ returns on a cloud one day to rule as King over us, then we can expect violence. If, on the other hand, the ruling-class cedes power to the working-class without a fight, that will be a miracle."
I hope he's not refering to fighting Jesus. I ain't religious but Jesus's paradise on earth sounds pretty good to me. :D

[KC]

I would say that violence would probably be necessary in about 99% of the situations. Of course, we have to also realize the fact that material conditions can give birth to a nonviolent (or largely nonviolent) revolution. It's possible, but it's highly unlikely.

Also, this question seems to be more a matter of principle, as the topic starter brought up his belief in nonviolence/pacifism. First, I would like to say that to decide on principle whether or not violence is valid is a fatal mistake to make, for you are closing yourself off to a tactic that could deem incredibly useful for no other reason than your principles. This is a completely foolish thing to do and shouldn't be done with regards to any tactic. Material conditions must always be taken into consideration when determining whether or not a tactic is "valid," and it should always be decided on a matter of strategy and not principle.

Second, I would like to say that nonviolence is different than pacificism. Nonviolence is a tactic which implements violence as a threat. Strikes and other such forms of protest utilize the tactic of nonviolence, for they are portraying the power of those involved and their potential ability to depose those in power, which would necessarily require the use of violence. Nonviolent actions are therefore implementing violence in order to achieve the goals of those involved (violence is being implemented as a threat). This is the only situation that progress has been made aside from complete revolution.

Pacifism, on the other hand, is a matter of principle and not a tactic like nonviolence. Pacifism is the inherent rejection of violence. Because of this it is completely unproductive, as the threat of violence is necessary to show power. A gathering of pacifists isn't going to threaten the state at all and will serve no other purpose than to waste the time of those involved.


What do the Zapitistas mean when they use the term "Armed Non-Violent uprising"?

The idea of "Armed Non-Violent uprising" could perhaps mean that the Zapatistas plan on using the threat of violence through non-violence (as I described above) by arming those who are opposed to the state. When they say "uprising," though, I'm guessing that they're referring to more of a metaphorical type of uprising than anything (such as a 'revolution' within the Mexican government that passes legislation that they support or some such bullshit).


of course violence is necessary, do you think that walking up to the white house and saying 'well we dont really like the way your running the world, so it would be nice if you could all just put down your guns and go home and lets us (the people) take over. Thanx' is going to work? hell no! you have to fight fire with fire(power)


That's certainly true in America. However, when you have an incredibly weak national bourgeoisie with little to no support that is being threatened with violence, it is quite possible that they would just pack up and leave. It's all dependent upon material conditions.

[Guerrilla22]

What do the Zapitistas mean when they use the term "Armed Non-Violent uprising"?

Keep in mind the Zapatistas are not trying to overthrow the government either. Whay they're setting out to accomplish and an actual worker's revolution are two completely different things.

[bcbm]

Naw, we're gonna fuck them bastards up.

[seraphim]

Revolution to replace capitalism would never be possible without violence. There is no way the capitalists would give up without a fight. Not only that but if the conditions were right for a revloution you can garantee that other factions would take advantage of it and we'd have to fight against them as well. Especially in the US. There's no way the Extreme right would go down without a major fight.

[RGacky3]

I think you could have a non-violent revolutoin (excluding direct self-defence), Things such as General Strikes, occupations and the such, work much better, of coarse The ruling class does'nt fight itself, it hires those in the underclass to fight for them, but if those are won over there is basically nothing you can do. You don't win support with offensive Violence.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by RFJ
General strikes are appealing.
You think those strikes are going to go unchallenged by the ruling class? The strikers will be attacked and they will need to defend themselves, most likely with workers' militias similar to the ICA (Irish Citizens' Army). The only way I could possibly think that a revolution would go without violence or at least with minimal amounts of bloodshed would be if the idea of class war and class struggle was so widespread among the working class at such a rapid rate that the bourgeois would have nobody to fight for them. I actually think that the beginning of a revolution would be the most violent part because as the revolution went on, the bourgeois would lose it's soldiers (who would be made up mostly of working class citizens) to the revolution as, like I said before, the idea of class struggle gets spread.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

It depends on the nation. I would not expect a general strike in Europe or America to be as violently contested as one in China or Indonesia, because there's that standard of "freedom" that they pretend to uphold.

[Fawkes]

When they have their backs up to the wall and potentially a gun to their head, they're not going to pretend to uphold anything that may hurt them further.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

We shall see, eh? Although the possibility is definately there I think that it should be only once they've decided to start killing people that it takes a millitant stance.

[RNK]

Once they've decided to start killing people?

Uh... when, in the past 60 years, have they NOT been killing people?

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Here I was referring to one specific hypothetical insurrectionary situation, although I see the point. I know of Kent State just like everyone else and the "justifications" they gave for shooting bother me just as they bothered the people of the time. But I am speaking in the context of something even bigger, something that has taken hold within some of the police or more likely the army.

[Fawkes]

But I am speaking in the context of something even bigger, something that has taken hold within some of the police or more likely the army.
Which is why I think the beginning of a revolution would be the most violent part.

[CNT-FAI]

Since every "communist" revolution or takeover descended into a Stalinist Hell, I don't believe we will have any success trying to sell the people on that "communism". IMO what we need to do is to create a new progressive alternative, but minus the dogmatism, cruelty & opportunism of Stalinism. Some form of mixed economy, as in Venezuela, seems to be the wave of the future.

Remember that even Marx was not anti-capitalist per se; he even praised capitalism. He even praised imperialism, because, he said, the revolution had to be a global revolution & this could occur only when the world was united in a single economic system. The ultimate breakdown of capitalism would thus usher in the age of global socialism.

In his view, capitalism became bad only when it outlived its world-historical usefulness, that is, when it became a drag on productive capabilities & thus simply not viable. He did not criticize capitalism on moral grounds, because he believed that was misguided & characteristic of utopians, altho a certain moral element enters into his thinking even so.

(These ideas appear in one of his early works, on Hegel, i don't have the title at my fingertips but it can be found in collections of Marx's early writings. As time went on he had less to say about the future, limiting himself to analysing the status quo & attacking ideological opponents.

His failure to provide a concrete framework for the future socialist society, in the form of a constitution or similar structure, led to horrific abuses, as what he did say was vague enough to be twisted into any shape by brutal, power-hungry opportunists.)

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by CNT-FAI
Since every "communist" revolution or takeover descended into a Stalinist Hell

AFAIK there had been only one true workers revolution and the reasons it descended in to a Stalinist hell is the material conditions of that Time.


I don't believe we will have any success trying to sell the people on that "communism"

We are not some salesperson trying to sell some stuff to people.


Remember that even Marx was not anti-capitalist per se; he even praised capitalism.

I guess the Capital's whole purpose was praising the capitalism.


His failure to provide a concrete framework for the future socialist society,
Hello Marx was not an Astrologer to provide soncrete framework for the future.


in the form of a constitution or similar structure, led to horrific abuses, as what he did say was vague enough to be twisted into any shape by brutal, power-hungry opportunists.

Look the USSR degenerated because of the material circumstances of its time. But still that degenerated state did something useful in many other fields except politics. The point is we have to learn from past shape our future not abandon everything because something had gone wrong in the past.

***********************

ON TOPIC...

We can't speculate whether we have to use which tactic in a message board. When revolution happens at someplace sometimes all the actions of the revolutionaries must be adopted by the revolutionaries at that time depending on the situation.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I'd hope that it would be similar to France 1968, De Gaulle was almost ready to skip the country because of the general strike and the revolution would have been lead by free-thinking students.

But yes, we have no idea what the next one will look like. We don't even know if it will be televised.

[CNT-FAI]

Originally posted by g.ram+March 02, 2007 02:12 pm--> (g.ram @ March 02, 2007 02:12 pm)
CNT-FAI
Since every "communist" revolution or takeover descended into a Stalinist Hell

AFAIK there had been only one true workers revolution and the reasons it descended in to a Stalinist hell is the material conditions of that Time.


I don't believe we will have any success trying to sell the people on that "communism"

We are not some salesperson trying to sell some stuff to people.


Remember that even Marx was not anti-capitalist per se; he even praised capitalism.

I guess the Capital's whole purpose was praising the capitalism.


His failure to provide a concrete framework for the future socialist society,
Hello Marx was not an Astrologer to provide soncrete framework for the future.


in the form of a constitution or similar structure, led to horrific abuses, as what he did say was vague enough to be twisted into any shape by brutal, power-hungry opportunists.

Look the USSR degenerated because of the material circumstances of its time. But still that degenerated state did something useful in many other fields except politics. The point is we have to learn from past shape our future not abandon everything because something had gone wrong in the past.

***********************

ON TOPIC...

We can't speculate whether we have to use which tactic in a message board. When revolution happens at someplace sometimes all the actions of the revolutionaries must be adopted by the revolutionaries at that time depending on the situation. [/b]
As i say, Marx did see capitalism as a positive force for as long as it was a productive one. He made that clear in his writings. In this he was opposing the "utopians" who critiqued capitalism from a moral point of view.

Of course he also made moral criticisms of capitalism, but Marx was not consistent, which is another problem for those seeking to understand his works. There is the well-known distinction between the "younger Marx" & the "older Marx".

I think we need to understand what it was in the doctrine itself that permitted such abuses, & not just chalk it up to "conditions". Otherwise we could repeat the tyrannies of past so-called socialism. I also can't excuse in one doctrine what we would criticise in another, that is, predatory capitalism.

Note too that the industrial development of the early USSR was mainly based on US contributions, strange as it may seem. See the book WESTERN TECHNOLOGY & SOVIET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Vol 1, by Anthony Sutton. A heavily documented work of suppressed history. Out of print, of course, the US bosses would like to see it go away & it is embarrassing for some Marxists as well.

[Lenin II]

Violence is a very legitimate and effective way of freeing a people from an oppressive regime. The ruling class—capitalists, generals, politicians and police—will never surrender power unless forced. They won’t even let people demonstrate peacefully without sending thousands of cops in riot gear.
The capitalist system cannot survive without violence - without cops, courts, jails, a standing army, tanks, nuclear and biological weapons. It inflicts violence every day through war, carpet bombing, by starving people to death or denying them health care.

However, we must make sure we don’t kill the very citizens we’re trying to free.

[Janus]

Violence vs. pacificism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59572&hl=)

nonviolent revolution? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61350&hl=)

[Orange Juche]

I've heard arguments that a violent revolution is neccissary are we to have one, I've heard arguments otherwise... and I've heard bad and good points on each side.

I'm just wondering what you people think, and exactly why.

[Janus]

This has been discussed quite a bit:

Revolution possible without violence? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63322&hl=+violence++revolution)

Peaceful vs. violent rev. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52612&hl=+violent++revolution)

Nonviolent rev. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61350&hl=+violent++revolution)

armed rev. vs. pacifism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59572&hl=pacifism)

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:19 pm
It's very unlikely that an entirely peaceful revolution would ever succeed because the ruling classes are not just going to give up power peacefully.
I have no real stance on this at this point, because I can't predict the future and don't know the specific conditions under which the revolution will start.

But I hear that argument alot. More than anything, its a really loosely based assumption. They won't give it up easily, of course, but that doesn't neccissarily mean that the revolution can be a well-organized, mostly nonviolent struggle.

I get the impression that more people are for violent revolution out of blood-thirstiness, rather than tactics. I'm for violent revolution if thats going to bring the best outcome, with the least struggling and suffering. By any means neccissary. But I'm not willing, at this point, to simply concede to violence as the only tactic because I'm going to assume that its the only successful way, without a strong specific reason to believe so. When the time comes, it will be far more prudent to make an accurate and wholehearted advocation for more or less violence, or none at all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:05 am
Based on past history, yes, the vast majority of revolutions have always been violent. Communist revolutions are inherently violent.
Not necessarily. What about all the talk of Red October, where the inept censorship attempt resulted in a near-bloodless counteroffensive in Petrograd?

[Something about power in the streets and the party picking it up]

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:15 am
is there any way revolution is possible without violence?
That is, of course, the wrong question. The correct question is, "is it possible to avoid revolution without violence?"

Luís Henrique

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

It's very unlikely that an entirely peaceful revolution would ever succeed because the ruling classes are not just going to give up power peacefully.
Getting down on our knees and trying to appeal to a higher power is worthless. A revolution is about taking that power away without their consent, violent or not.

Anyways, as far as history goes it's a bit of a toss-up because for every example of a sucessful non-violent revolution there are a multitude of failures, and the same applies for violent ones. It can help a little bit as far as tactics, but only to a degree. We are not Situationists shouting "FOUTRE" at the pigs in May 1968, nor are we Czecks trying to outrun Soviet tanks during the Prague Spring of the same year. We are not comrades of Luxemburg & Liebknecht being rounded up by the Freikorps in 1919, nor are we watching in 1953 as Castro begins his "history will absolve me" speech.

BUT: the problem is that some people associate non-violent revolution with protests and marches and sit-ins...period. That may have worked well in the USSR and horribly in Tianmen, but an actual proletarian revolution from the bottom up that was also nonviolent would be a totally different thing entirely.

What if there was not only a general strike, and factory occupations, combined with the formation of workers councils, assemblies, and radical unions, but an attitude among the people that no order would be followed and no concession accepted? What if every day acts of direct action set out to cripple the economy and humiliate the establishment? What if ten thousand people got high in the halls of the government buildings? What if all this was done without any acts of violence against people? (I'd say property is fair game.) How can any government even consider opposing that kind of action without coming out worse off then it started on all counts?

(Remember, of course, that the cameras would be rolling non-stop.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The media factor could undoubtedly make such revolution as equally bloody (or as BLOODLESS) as Red October, demoralizing those about to be ousted.

[RedAnarchist]

Personally, I think that the ruling classes are very comfortable and very powerful where they are right now, so we can't just ask them to go. Whilst I'm sure that most of the revolutionary left would love to have a revolution without violence, it's pretty much impossible.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:05 pm
I've heard arguments that a violent revolution is neccissary are we to have one, I've heard arguments otherwise... and I've heard bad and good points on each side.

I'm just wondering what you people think, and exactly why.
Is counter-revolution violent or non-violent?

Luís Henrique

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:49 pm
Personally, I think that the ruling classes are very comfortable and very powerful where they are right now, so we can't just ask them to go. Whilst I'm sure that most of the revolutionary left would love to have a revolution without violence, it's pretty much impossible.
Ya i agree , a non violent revolution would be great but some time or other some skulls have to be cracked esspecially in the case of a bourgeois counter-revolution.

[freakazoid]

What if there was not only a general strike, and factory occupations, combined with the formation of workers councils, assemblies, and radical unions, but an attitude among the people that no order would be followed and no concession accepted? What if every day acts of direct action set out to cripple the economy and humiliate the establishment? What if ten thousand people got high in the halls of the government buildings? What if all this was done without any acts of violence against people? (I'd say property is fair game.) How can any government even consider opposing that kind of action without coming out worse off then it started on all counts?

The government will do whatever it takes to hold on to its power. They would probably just say things to make themselves look good and the people look evil.

[Demogorgon]

It is possible. Whether or not it is likely might give a less cheerful answer. At any rate though, one would hope any violence would be kept to the minimum possible level. No more than necessary. Some people here have a rather immature "smash everything" approach which is not exactly constructive. It get particularly pathetic when they go into OI and try to convince people there with talk of violence. Sounds like a small dog yapping :lol:

I don't see a revolution happening without some scuffles but an all out civil war is not an appealing prospect and would simply destroy the conditions that lead to desire for revolution in the first place.

[Political_Chucky]

There is absolutely no way a nonviolent revolution would happen. EVER. How do you expect a government to just give up their land when they don't mind sending thousands of their own men to different countries, unconcerned with their saftey and the safety of the native civilians? It just won't happen.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+April 26, 2007 10:51 am--> (Luís Henrique @ April 26, 2007 10:51 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 09:05 pm
I've heard arguments that a violent revolution is neccissary are we to have one, I've heard arguments otherwise... and I've heard bad and good points on each side.

I'm just wondering what you people think, and exactly why.
Is counter-revolution violent or non-violent?

Luís Henrique [/b]
Exactly.

Violence begets violence.

[Forward Union]

There shouldn't be any serious debate about the issue. If you want to win the revolution, violence will, at times be necessary. And even those who express a moral objection to violence now, will be forced to take up arms, or suffer the consequences by material reality, when the time comes.

The things that do need to be discussed, are issues around when Violence is useful (in today's context) and when it is counter produtive.

Also issues of collateral damage, target, symbolic vs practical violence etc.

And Pacifists involvement in our movement. And despite their, utopian naivety, they do have an important role in other areas of revolutionary work, in non-violent capacity, cooking, producing publications, etc.

[fordan55]

If we want a revolution we need to go on the atack we need to use violence. after all it has been used on us we need to fight back that is what revolution is about

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Controlled violence, provided everything goes to plan, is really a tiny price to pay to abolish capitalism and start building a new world.

The danger is when the revolution gets bloodlust, like, I dunno, Mao's great leap forward and other programmes.

-Alex

[More Fire for the People]

The aggression of the dehumanized against the dehumanizer is the re-creation of the dehumanized in his own image. Revolution is violent, and if it wasn't, then it wouldn't be revolution — that's a fact that no one can escape. Not even the most fond lovers of capitalism can deny that revolution, including their own, is something that requires violence — Cromwell, Robespierre, Washington, etc. weren't pacifists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Washington was NOT a revolutionary, but merely a national-liberation general. <_<

[coda]

I think it&#39;s possible to have either a violent or non-violent revolution. A non violent revolution with the participation of around 71% of the working class. A violent revolution is necessary with less than half of the working class participating. Think about it.

Of course nonviolent is ideal.. and requires a consensus of the masses.

[Red_Pride]

I know when you try to take over a government, there are two ways; violent uprising and non violent subtle methods.

Violent uprising be simply taking the government by storm through military means.

Whereas Non Violent is simply getting elected into power.

Depends if you going against Fascist dictators or a democratic state.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:24 pm
^^^ Washington was NOT a revolutionary, but merely a national-liberation general. <_<
He was a general for the Continental Army — the ascendent national bourgeoisie of the thirteen colonies organized into bodies of armed men. In the epoch of ascendency of the national bourgeoisie he was a revolutionary against the British bourgeoisie whose interests were in contradiction with those of the American bourgeoisie. The whole superstructure was refounded to suit the needs of the national, not imperial bourgeoisie. But I think your missing the over-arching theme of my post: revolutions aren&#39;t a bed of roses [ or a dinner affair ] — maybe a block party though.

[coda]

<<<Whereas Non Violent is simply getting elected into power>>

no no&#33;

[dez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:24 pm
^^^ Washington was NOT a revolutionary, but merely a national-liberation general. <_<

Some people think that revolutionaries are something like angels in christian thought.
:lol:
Revolution is merely a change of power structure.







One important point most people are missing is that revolution IS war.
And war must be waged rationally.
You only actually invade a weakened opponent, and in a way that there is not much destruction on his assests, for your LOOT be worthy.
Making him weaker is the beginning of the hostilities, and what is more weakening than the killing of people that never touched weapons in their lives?
Heh
We should politically pressure them until the people is so unhappy with the system that they&#39;d accept nothing but a change.
No actual military action before, unless it&#39;s able to really be covert.

[KC]

I made this post in the first thread Janus linked to:


I would say that violence would probably be necessary in about 99% of the situations. Of course, we have to also realize the fact that material conditions can give birth to a nonviolent (or largely nonviolent) revolution. It&#39;s possible, but it&#39;s highly unlikely.

Also, this question seems to be more a matter of principle, as the topic starter brought up his belief in nonviolence/pacifism. First, I would like to say that to decide on principle whether or not violence is valid is a fatal mistake to make, for you are closing yourself off to a tactic that could deem incredibly useful for no other reason than your principles. This is a completely foolish thing to do and shouldn&#39;t be done with regards to any tactic. Material conditions must always be taken into consideration when determining whether or not a tactic is "valid," and it should always be decided on a matter of strategy and not principle.

Second, I would like to say that nonviolence is different than pacificism. Nonviolence is a tactic which implements violence as a threat. Strikes and other such forms of protest utilize the tactic of nonviolence, for they are portraying the power of those involved and their potential ability to depose those in power, which would necessarily require the use of violence. Nonviolent actions are therefore implementing violence in order to achieve the goals of those involved (violence is being implemented as a threat). This is the only situation that progress has been made aside from complete revolution.

Pacifism, on the other hand, is a matter of principle and not a tactic like nonviolence. Pacifism is the inherent rejection of violence. Because of this it is completely unproductive, as the threat of violence is necessary to show power. A gathering of pacifists isn&#39;t going to threaten the state at all and will serve no other purpose than to waste the time of those involved.

[coda]

nice one Zamp&#33; guess you&#39;re out there doing some hard thinking whilst doing your poll jams. keep jamming&#33;

myself, i consider violence limited to maiming and killing

non-violent tactics for me would be a nice pleasant handing over of power to the proles or any of these tactics: striking, arson, property destruction, kidnapping/hostage taking, mob rioting, squatting & barricading, hijacking, drugging bourgs water systems with electric kool-aid acid... or pretty much anything short of death.

But.. of course, if they just won&#39;t give, i suppose we have to employ the coup de grace.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

We should start out entirely bloodlessly because it simply looks better, see what the reaction is, and adjust or stick to our tactics accordingly.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Juan Sin [email protected] 30, 2007 06:24 am
We should start out entirely bloodlessly because it simply looks better, see what the reaction is, and adjust or stick to our tactics accordingly.
How would that work? Besides, by that time the working class will be class concious, so the only reaction would be from the ruling classes.

[panchovilla44]

I am a true believer of human dignity so I believe in Nonviolent Revolution, because basically no one should die to fight for thier freedom, but I do see the need for "violent Revolution" . EZLN is a good example of using nonviolent tactics to create a revolution, but however since thier uprising in 1994, they have been targeted by government supported right wing paramilitaries, many innocent people have died and suffered, is within the 12 years since the uprising. At this point I believe a "violent Revolution" is the only option in dealing with a government that continues to oppress the people by using force and bullshit rightwing media tactics. Like Marcos has stated "Those from below need to rise to the top" the only way that an oppressive government can bring peace is in death. For my brothers and sisters living in poverty in Mexico, may they get social and economic freedom, because it is long overdue. The rich get richer and poor are silenced. KEEP SURVIVING. KEEP FIGHTING. TILL THE END.

[An archist]

You can organize and revolt nonviolently (like peaceful protests, setting up neighbourhood comittees, ...) but when you really want to go forward with a revolution, at some point, the people will start collectivising factories, because without the means of production in the hands of the people there is no revolution. At that point you will face brutality from the state and possibly militias paid by the owners.
So no, non-violent revolution is not possible, unless you are willing to sacrifice your own life and that of thousands of others.

[Janus]

No reason to have 2 ongoing threads on this.

Merged

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

How would that work? Besides, by that time the working class will be class concious, so the only reaction would be from the ruling classes.



How would it work? Well you could start out by wildcat strikes and the occupation of the factories. (Preferrably at the same time) You consolidate those gains with your workers&#39; councils and directly democratic organising and proclaim them to be the manifestation of the will of the people, and not the state. Marches and things could be added for cosmetics, but they are not the main tool to overthrow the system and can be a negative thing because the police like to incite violence and destruction within them. That&#39;s the reaction I meant, anyways, the ruling class reaction. And it would determine the next move.


At that point you will face brutality from the state and possibly militias paid by the owners.
So no, non-violent revolution is not possible, unless you are willing to sacrifice your own life and that of thousands of others.
How far is the state willing to go against the unarmed when they have clearly voiced their majority viewpoint and could easily resort to the guns if they needed?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Well, I think it is obvious that our prefered tactics to arrive at our aim; the actions that we take to further us towards our goal of elevating the proletariat to the helms of the state power, would be peaceful. I personally feel that anyone who advocates individual terrorism, the misuse of violence, and the overall fierceness of battle to further our aims should be considered murderous lunatics, rather than genuine revolutionaries.

But our preferences normally do not correspond with the reality of things, and we can only go so far with such tactics until the ruling class recognizes that there is an undeniable threat to their interests.


Juan Sin Tierra wrote:
How would it work? Well you could start out by wildcat strikes and the occupation of the factories. (Preferrably at the same time) You consolidate those gains with your workers&#39; councils and directly democratic organising and proclaim them to be the manifestation of the will of the people, and not the state. Marches and things could be added for cosmetics, but they are not the main tool to overthrow the system and can be a negative thing because the police like to incite violence and destruction within them. That&#39;s the reaction I meant, anyways, the ruling class reaction. And it would determine the next move.

You have to understand, during the events that would surround this explosion of social revolution, revolutionary events would already obviously be occuring, which would signify that the ruling class would of already resorted to funding fascist bands and employing their armed police and soldiers against previous strikes and occupations that were of momentous strength. I would agree that, if by tommorow, we had the necessary inner-organizational abilities, political strength, and a fully developed system of worker councils that are engaging in dialogue with each other, that we can certainly apply what you wrote within this quote, but I don&#39;t think that we can perfectly build up such strength within such a limited period amidst the utmost capitalist reaction.

The bourgeoisie have everything to lose with socialism, and they will oppose it as soon as it is a visible force amongst the masses. I think that history has certainly proven that; with the election and the coup of Allende, with the rise of Mussolini and Hitler that was paved in the flesh of thousands of workers and communists at the hands of armed fascist gangs, with the imperialist encirclement of the Soviet Republic that lead to the senseless starvation of millions of men, women, and children. As Marx has said, "capital has entered this world, dripping from head to toe in blood and mud", and I think it is obvious that it will never exit the world in a way that is the diametric opposite of that. The forces of power and privilege will not surrender without a fight, and it is obvious that we will have to give it to them.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by LU
The things that do need to be discussed, are issues around when Violence is useful (in today&#39;s context) and when it is counter produtive.

I agree really strongly with this. Of course we&#39;d like the revolution to be non-violent, but the likelihood of that is approaching zero, so arguing about whether violence is desirable is essentially pointless. Violence will almost certainly be required in revolution, and that&#39;s a useful jumping off point for discussion- i.e. under what circumstances willviolence be used and how, etc.

But rather than debating about the minutiae of violence in revolution, it makes even more sense to grapple with those issues in current struggles because it&#39;s the success or failure of those struggles that determine whether/when a revolution happens, and wht form it will take.

[Vicarious]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:15 am
I know Marx predicted some bloody uprising of the proletariat, but is there any way revolution is possible without violence? Do all communists believe in a violent revolution?
I personally like to think not and go by Gandhi&#39;s "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," but thats just me.
Im a fan of Gandhi, his non violent protest where better organized than the "flower childrens" anti-vietnam drug fest in DC.

Though I want peaceful revolution, I feel that we as poeple of the "left" should focus on putting the ideas of the left into the minds of both the voter and the political leaders.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I like the tactics of Gandhi, but not so much his religious and nationalistic messages. I don&#39;t think that the ballot box will be the tool of our revolution though, if it had that kind of potential we wouldn&#39;t be allowed to vote. (To paraphrase Emma)

[KC]

The tactics of Gandhi aren&#39;t applicable to class war and proletarian revolution.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

The tactics of Gandhi aren&#39;t applicable to class war and proletarian revolution.


Not when an old patriarch tells the proletarians to follow him, no. But if it was beneficial to the struggle some aspects of mass civil disobediance could be given a more revolutionary angle by the people themselves.

[Exovedate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:15 am
I know Marx predicted some bloody uprising of the proletariat, but is there any way revolution is possible without violence?
I think it really all depends on the circumstances; on the number of people uprising, the commitment of those uprising, the popularity of the upper classes among other classes, the technology available to the upper classes vs. the technology available to the lower classes, etc., etc.
For example, if a couple hundred thousand people decide to march on Washington, they are likely going to require some serious fire power. However, if millions of people decide to overthrow their government, their sheer numbers alone might be enough to persuade the upper classes to peacefully step down rather than face violence and death for themselves.
Basically it would come down to whether the upper classes believe they can win or not. As long as they are confident in their ability to destroy any who oppose them, then it will be necessary for the revolution to use violence. Only when the upper classes realize that they face either death or a peaceful step-down will a peaceful revolution be possible.

[Che Guevara 1967]

I believe that non-violent protest works to a SLIGHT degree. Even then, it takes YEARS, if not DECADES for anything to be accomplished. We simply don&#39;t have that kind of time to fuck around with.

Violent protest, aka REVOLUTION, can and does work, if conducted properly. Revolution may be conducted faster than non-violence.

However, it doesn&#39;t really matter whether you believe in violent or non-violent protest. The point is that you are protesting, and that is always good...

[beneath the wheel]

if you look at the united states, it started out as a purely capitalistic democracy, with no traces of socialism. if you look at the u.s. today, it shows signs of socialism, mostly in the anit-monopoly laws, workers unions, social security, medicaid, and arguibly public schools.

although these changes took place over a long peiod of time, there were still violent times, especially during the strikes of the late 1800&#39;s and early 1900&#39;s. so, out of violent times came change, and the ammount of change was often reletive to the ammount of violence. but in many cases, change was made through other means of persuasion. namely the civil rights movement and womans sufferage.

personaly, i am not a supporter of violent uprisings. i believe there are other was to change oppressive governments, such as organized workers strikes that could economically cripple the higher power. however, in some cases, i will admit that violence is necessary, particularly against governments that use violence against the citizens.

[Rawthentic]

socialism, mostly in the anit-monopoly laws, workers unions, social security, medicaid, and arguibly public schools.
Umm...no. Socialism is worker&#39;s control of the state and means of production in the transition to communism. Capitalism is incompatible with democracy.

[cenv]

if you look at the united states, it started out as a purely capitalistic democracy, with no traces of socialism.
Socialism refers to a society run in the interests of the workers. In the United States, the proles are as dominated as ever.


anit-monopoly laws
Nothing to do with workers&#39; control. In the end, companies remain entities for the systematic exploitation of the worker, regardless of whether or not they&#39;re monopolies.


workers unions
Well, you&#39;re getting a little closer, but this still has little to do with socialism. In fact, despite the benefits they can gain for workers, the role of trade unions in modern capitalist society seems to be simply to make the workers content with capitalism and to give us the impression that the capitalist class does not exercise control over every realm of society.

I&#39;m sure you can use the same logic for the rest of the items you stated.


although these changes took place over a long peiod of time, there were still violent times, especially during the strikes of the late 1800&#39;s and early 1900&#39;s. so, out of violent times came change, and the ammount of change was often reletive to the ammount of violence. but in many cases, change was made through other means of persuasion. namely the civil rights movement and womans sufferage.
You fail to grasp the relevance of class. The point is that for all of the "change" we&#39;ve gone through, the capitalist class still exploits the working class, which in turn finds itself alienated from work, society, and life. This aspect of a fundamentally exploitative society can not be changed simply through legislation, as the state represents the interests of the capitalist class, so we really have no option other than revolution, which will almost inevitably involve a degree of violence.


however, in some cases, i will admit that violence is necessary, particularly against governments that use violence against the citizens.
And you ignore the fact that capitalist society is really nothing more than a system of organized exploitation, hidden behind the mask of "peace", "liberty", "democracy", etc. Capitalism is an inherently violent system, so it logically follows that combating it will require violence.

[joser03]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 01, 2007 04:54 pm
Naw, we&#39;re gonna fuck them bastards up.
I could read all 4 pages, but the elite will not give up power. They&#39;ve been using murder and genocide to protect their needs and wants. Why would that change,. They only know violence. We just have to be stronger. This might be for another topic but i hate just talking... i want to take action. Especially when reading the Bolivian Diaries. I&#39;d be next to Che.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I think it should be about removing their power. Not getting them to give it up, removing it from below like pulling a tablecloth from under a carefully assembled house of Bicycle brand playing cards so that they have nothing left to give up.

[HatefulRed]

Originally posted by Juan Sin [email protected] 05, 2007 06:42 pm
I think it should be about removing their power. Not getting them to give it up, removing it from below like pulling a tablecloth from under a carefully assembled house of Bicycle brand playing cards so that they have nothing left to give up.

Obviously a great idea, but how do suggest we remove that power? Through violence or reforms?
I think this comes back to Social Revisionism. I see it as getting the same results of socialism but through non-violent methods. Yeah, it&#39;d take a while, but with violence all we&#39;d get is resentment.

[dreguam]

i was reading The Quotations From Chairman Mao Zedong and he was saying that violence is not necessary unless the reactionaries insist on it. then voilence must be used.

[abbielives!]

i suggest reading &#39;pacifism as pathology&#39;

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 04:06 pm
i was reading The Quotations From Chairman Mao Zedong and he was saying that violence is not necessary unless the reactionaries insist on it. then voilence must be used.
No offence, but could you not use such a small font? Its a bit hard to read.

[nagchampa]

I think that revolution can happen without bloodshed, but with the current regime we&#39;re facing I don&#39;t think that would ever happen. If the working class wanted something from the higher-ups my guess is that we would have to take it by force. They&#39;ve already proved time and time again that they don&#39;t budge. Why give them the benefit of the doubt..

[Rawthentic]

This isnt even a serious question. The capitalist class will never surrender its political and economic power unless we forcefully take it from them.

Like Great Leader All Hail Saint Mao Tse-Tung said: "Political power comes from the barrel of the gun" and, "to destroy the gun one must first pick it up."

They went something like that, not like I care.

[Morello]

I have no problem getting my hands dirty in the name of Revolution, but is there an alternative? I personally don&#39;t think so, but perhaps there is.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Riots in these capitalist times get really awful press from the bourgeousie media that everybody reads, although they do at least show that some people are still opposed to the stranglehold this system has. In an actual revolution it might be a different story altogether, and it will almost certainly occur and hopefully have better results, but bear in mind that the main driving force behind all this will be worker control of the factories, the destruction of the ideas of servitude and rulership, and generally seeing the people united. Revolutions aren&#39;t won by how much destruction you cause, they are won by how much of a better solution you can create. And bear in mind that all those buildings and vehicles we attack during the revolution would need to be used afterwards; it would be no use for the world we inherit to be a broken and incinerated one.

[Morello]

Many thanks for clearing that up. That&#39;s something that ran through my head but I needed another Revolutionary to tell me it&#39;s true.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Don&#39;t take my word for it, there will be plenty of other opinions and it&#39;s up to you to find which one makes the most sense.

[Janus]

Violence (assuming that&#39;s what you mean by brute force) isn&#39;t the only way to rebel but it&#39;s certainly the most effective one. However, class struggle itself is more than mere brute force as it requires mass action, organization, and skill if it is to achieve its ends.

[RedArmyFaction]

Originally posted by Mark [email protected] 22, 2007 08:41 pm
I have no problem getting my hands dirty in the name of Revolution, but is there an alternative? I personally don&#39;t think so, but perhaps there is.
I don&#39;t think there&#39;s much alternatuve. I think force is the only way to get a revolution. Lenin, Mao Castro both did this. They believed militant action was the only way forward. I don&#39;t think the ballot box is the answer.
However, having said, i think all you really need is support from the masses, ie the prolateriet or the peasantry, so perhaps voting is the way forward. This can only take place in civilised countries that believe in demoracy. In fascist countries...........force is required.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Juan Sin [email protected] 22, 2007 02:50 pm
And bear in mind that all those buildings and vehicles we attack during the revolution would need to be used afterwards; it would be no use for the world we inherit to be a broken and incinerated one.
We built it once, we can build it again.

[gilhyle]

It is a hardcore Marxist idea that in a developed capitalist economy, the army can defeat most purely violent opponents. Engels drew this conclusion in the mid 19century and events repeatedly prove it correct.

The military history is complex, but the conclusion is still correct. Careful study of the most professional urban guerrilla warfare groups (e.g. the IRA or the Red Brigades) will show you cannot win. Rural guerrilla campaigns can be won under very definite circumstances, but those will always be exceptional circumstances. The general conclusion is this (generalising across many different cases): you can survive, but you cant win against a stable, professional state machine.

The rules of the game are stacked against you: you must change the rules of the game. You change the rules by subverting the support for the State on the part of the army and the police, by setting up parrallel state structures (soviets), by using strike action to bring the economy to a halt. Then its not about a professional army chasing down a hunted guerrilla group any more.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Mark [email protected] 22, 2007 08:41 pm
I have no problem getting my hands dirty in the name of Revolution, but is there an alternative? I personally don&#39;t think so, but perhaps there is.
Organise politically with the fellow working class, give them the confidence to strike when their rights are trampled on and basically dont take any shit from the beourgiouse. Violence isnt necessarilly needed to acheive any of that.

[RedArmyFaction]

lenin believed violence was needed in the revolution

[BlessedBesse]

Just do everybody a favor-

if you insist on using violence and force to push your ideology
don&#39;t whine about being oppressed when it gets turned against you and you&#39;re choking on teargas and being beaten with a baton

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB, we do not choose violence for itself, it is just that the ruling class will not give upi their wealth and power if we merely ask nicely.

And there is a world of difference between using force to end oppression, and using it to defend it.

[ChickenJoe]

Yeah I am not about the violence the way I look at it is...how can we build a good equal society if we have an "I just blew the shit out of my neighbors car cause he was a capitalist" atittude? its not about killing off all the capitalists but rather showing them a better way to live.....a better way to be.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CJ, the kind of socialism we defend here is not about blowing away individuals, but about forming the kind of society where those who create the wealth (the working class) also hold democratic power.

Since that will be a threat to those who currently hold power, they will resist this with all their might, and that is where the violence will come from -- them.

We just have to defend ourselves, and stop them preventing us creating such a society.

[Vargha Poralli]

Violence is not the only way to revolution it is one of the way. A way no revolution can easily avoid/overlook.

But extreme caution should be taken when using it. Revolutionaries will have to make sure the masses are behind them. Correct timing and strong will is a must to use it - a failed armed revolt will strike back with double the amount of reprisal.

Without building a mass movement usage of violent tactics will just alienate masses from revolutionaries and will accomplish nothing - a good example I can give is the Naxalbari uprising in India and the failure of movements like ETA,RAF etc.

[BlessedBesse]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 04:10 pm
BB, we do not choose violence for itself, it is just that the ruling class will not give upi their wealth and power if we merely ask nicely.

And there is a world of difference between using force to end oppression, and using it to defend it.
oh okay, violence is good as long as the minority are using it "for a good cause"

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 04:10 pm
BB, we do not choose violence for itself, it is just that the ruling class will not give upi their wealth and power if we merely ask nicely.

And there is a world of difference between using force to end oppression, and using it to defend it.
Damn straight. If we could do without the violence, i&#39;m sure we all would. But there is no other way. There is no way a revolution could come to be without some violence. The Bourgoisie enjoys their flamboyant, excessive wealth far too much to give it up without a fight.

[Black Cross]

GOD I hate capitalists&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


oh okay, violence is good as long as the minority are using it "for a good cause"

Where did I mention the minority, or a &#39;good cause&#39;?

We do not plan revolutions; they happen, and when they do, unless the majority (who made the revolution) is prepared to take certain measures, the ruling class will kill tens, if not hundreds of thousands, as they did in the Paris Commune, as they did in the German Revolution, and as they did using the white armies after the 1917 revolution, and as they did in Spain.

So, &#39;good&#39; or &#39;bad&#39; cause does not come into it; if we do not defend ourselves effectively, we will be killed.

A half-completed revolution is no less than a suicide note.

[Leo]

I have no problem getting my hands dirty in the name of Revolution, but is there an alternative? I personally don&#39;t think so, but perhaps there is.

Depends on what you understand from "getting your hands dirty".

[CornetJoyce]

I&#39;m not aware of anything violent Lenin or Trotsky did except maybe pound the typewriter keys real hard. Same with Mao. Maybe Castro and undoubtedly Che.

Clausewitz observed that war is "the alternative chosen by the defender." The attacker doesn&#39;t want a fight but rather submission. Revolutions have always been attacked and as Jefferson said, had to "chose between submission and the sword." But in order to defend themselves against the old regime, they have always been pressed into giving power to new authoritaries and new rulers.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:12 pm
its not about killing off all the capitalists but rather showing them a better way to live.....a better way to be.
I don&#39;t want to sound like a complete asshole, but forget it: that&#39;s not going to happen...ever. While you try to show them "a better way to live" they will be in their private island enjoying a drink a black female servant prepared for them, while laughing at young naive ignorant idealist you who wants to "change the world" and commenting to their equally wealthy friends under a palm tree in their privately-owned beach that if you get the chance to do so the army should step in and blow the shit out of you and your "comrades" with an M16.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I don&#39;t want to sound like a complete asshole, but forget it: that&#39;s not going to happen...ever. While you try to show them "a better way to live" they will be in their private island enjoying a drink a black female servant prepared for them, while laughing at young naive ignorant idealist you who wants to "change the world" and commenting to their equally wealthy friends under a palm tree in their privately-owned beach that if you get the chance to do so the army should step in and blow the shit out of you and your "comrades" with an M16.
I think he meant after the revolution when their trust funds have been liquidated and nobody is thinking of providing for their needs without anything in return. Because after the revolution I think we should give the capitalists shovels or paint rollers and we can teach them how to do that sort of work. Treating them as our equals may seem like punishment to them, but it&#39;s justice to me.

[RedHal]

Let&#39;s just see how Chavez does in Venezuela. He&#39;s trying to change the venezuelan society through the ballot. Already there has been a coup attempt and the opposition is heavily influeced and funded by Uncle Sam. If Chavez transforms Venezuela into a socialists state then that will be the first peaceful transformation. if he gets violently ousted it&#39;ll just show once again the bourgeoisie will not hand over power peacefully. History has shown that violence is necessary to take power from the bourgeoisie.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I&#39;ve been postulating that perhaps if a general strike managed to destroy the economy properly there wouldn&#39;t even be anything left for the government to give up.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well. at some point you&#39;d have to challenge state power and/or take over production and distribution, or the working class itself would starve&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedHal:


Let&#39;s just see how Chavez does in Venezuela. He&#39;s trying to change the venezuelan society through the ballot. Already there has been a coup attempt and the opposition is heavily influeced and funded by Uncle Sam. If Chavez transforms Venezuela into a socialists state then that will be the first peaceful transformation. if he gets violently ousted it&#39;ll just show once again the bourgeoisie will not hand over power peacefully. History has shown that violence is necessary to take power from the bourgeoisie

As you say, history has shown that in every case the ruling class will not take any challenge to their wealth and power lying down; at some stage they will attack the new Venezuelan state, unless workers themselves take over the leavers of power, set up their own soviets (or whatever they want to call them), and expropriate the the rich and powerful.

Anything short of that will just be postponing/provoking the evil day when the bosses strilke back, and kill tens of thousands.

Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat its errors.

So, it&#39;s not a case of wait and see; workers have to take the initiative.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Well. at some point you&#39;d have to challenge state power and/or take over production and distribution, or the working class itself would starve
Obviously; the idea would be that it would be like a strike on the job, only the workers would acually remain working but absolutely none of the profits would go to the owners.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sure, but at some point the question of power would arise, and if the working class fails to fill that vacuum, the state will, with disastrous results, as history shows.

[SpikeyRed]

I think, it is VERY important to remember that Violence not consciously sanctioned&#092;supported by the masses is actually a MAJOR SETBACK.
For example, the small "Arterial Bloc" (Anarchists I think? Could be wrong) group at the G20 protests in Melbourne recently who kind of just came out of no where and caused some damage, brawled with police, burned stuff, well&#33; The local, mass (burgeoise) press went ape-shit and the masses bought it. It demonised protesting and protestors and gave more ammunition for political leverage by the Australian Government for us to "Put our trust in them" to "protect us" etc. It also meant that none of the other aspects of the protests got coverage in any big media.
Also, Violence is tricky because, it really really really fucken&#39; upsets people. Esspecially if it goes wrong, and you kill "the wrong person". I&#39;m not saying Burgoise and shit haven&#39;t used violence against us before, including murder and stuff, but, it really is, quite terrible stuff, and we have to be very carefull in how it is used, because, at the end of the day, we&#39;re aiming for a peaceful and violence&#092;oppresion free world&#33;

Having said all that, there have obviously been cases in History where it has been succesfull in revolutions and struggles and such, but it is a very tricky tool to use, very unpredictable etc.

Thats my 2 cents

[Black Cross]

A lot of it has to do with context as well. The thing is, nothing came from the violence caused by the Arterial Bloc, so it was violence for violence&#39;s sake. As long as the government controls the media, they can put any spin on that event that they want. Whoever is in charge gets to write history, history is subjective; so if the Arterial Bloc goes against the government, of course they&#39;re going to make them look bad through media, even if their cause was noble.

[Janus]

Merged.

[CornetJoyce]

Violence is not necessary to the Revolution but it is necessary to the counterrevolution, and thereby to the Revolution.

[RedHal]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 08:28 am
RedHal:


Let&#39;s just see how Chavez does in Venezuela. He&#39;s trying to change the venezuelan society through the ballot. Already there has been a coup attempt and the opposition is heavily influeced and funded by Uncle Sam. If Chavez transforms Venezuela into a socialists state then that will be the first peaceful transformation. if he gets violently ousted it&#39;ll just show once again the bourgeoisie will not hand over power peacefully. History has shown that violence is necessary to take power from the bourgeoisie

As you say, history has shown that in every case the ruling class will not take any challenge to their wealth and power lying down; at some stage they will attack the new Venezuelan state, unless workers themselves take over the leavers of power, set up their own soviets (or whatever they want to call them), and expropriate the the rich and powerful.

Anything short of that will just be postponing/provoking the evil day when the bosses strilke back, and kill tens of thousands.

Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat its errors.

So, it&#39;s not a case of wait and see; workers have to take the initiative.
So you want the workers to organize right now and overthrow Chavez&#39; government? If you expect Chavez to nationalize every industry tommorrow, you&#39;re dreaming. Look at all the uproar he caused by shutting down(deomcratically) RCTV. If he goes too fast, that&#39;s just asking for the US to invade&#33; If Chavez manages to unite South America then he can tell the Yanks to kiss is brown ass. Right now he needs to do things cautiously.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Hal:


So you want the workers to organize right now and overthrow Chavez&#39; government? If you expect Chavez to nationalize every industry tommorrow, you&#39;re dreaming. Look at all the uproar he caused by shutting down(deomcratically) RCTV. If he goes too fast, that&#39;s just asking for the US to invade&#33; If Chavez manages to unite South America then he can tell the Yanks to kiss is brown ass. Right now he needs to do things cautiously.

1) Workers do not, in fact, listen to me.

2) Unless they set up their own soviets (or whatever they want to call them), then at some point the ruling class will attack, and kill tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands.

3) This is not a negotiable point (and this is not because I say so -- history and theory tells us this).

4) Your idea that Chavez can unite all of S America is fine as it sounds, but if you think the US will allow this, I have to tell you, you are living in cloud cuckoo land. The US will use any level of violence to maintain their dominance over the region.

5) A workers state in Venzuela would do more to unite S Amertica than this top down approach to &#39;socialism&#39; that Chavez is trying.

Recall Marx&#39;s words: "The emancipation of the working class is an act of the working class", not an act of Chavez.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Rosa, how hard is your punch?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 10:18 am
CJ, the kind of socialism we defend here is not about blowing away individuals, but about forming the kind of society where those who create the wealth (the working class) also hold democratic power.

Since that will be a threat to those who currently hold power, they will resist this with all their might, and that is where the violence will come from -- them.

We just have to defend ourselves, and stop them preventing us creating such a society.
Since you raise post-revolutionary questions, doesn&#39;t such defense aggravate the class struggle further AFTER the revolution?

[And I am referring to a historically validated theory here, in spite of its source. ;) ]


A workers state in Venzuela would do more to unite S Amertica than this top down approach to &#39;socialism&#39; that Chavez is trying.

Unfortunately, there can never be such thing as a "workers&#39; state" unless it is international, no matter how many "socialist tasks" are accomplished (if possible at all in a single country).

[I know you&#39;re for Trotsky, but I think Leo has your number here.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

El-K:


Rosa, how hard is your punch?

Rock hard -- after drinking some, I put it in the freezer. :P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hammer:


Unfortunately, there can never be such thing as a "workers&#39; state" unless it is international, no matter how many "socialist tasks" are accomplished (if possible at all in a single country).

I think not -- it might not be possible to set up socialism in one country, but there is nothing to prevent there being a workers&#39; state in one country.

It might not last long if the revolution does not spread, but that is a separate issue.

And who is Leo?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Leo is your fellow mod. ;)

And you didn&#39;t respond to my "aggravation" issue, which is now my new sig (the stuff on monopoly is in the "interests" section of my profile).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hammer:


^^^ Leo is your fellow mod.

And you didn&#39;t respond to my "aggravation" issue, which is now my new sig (the stuff on monopoly is in the "interests" section of my profile).

I do not have a fellow mod (I have about 20). So, who is Leo?

And the rest of your post reads like it was writtten by someone who has snorted a couple of lines too many.

I really have no idea what you are on about. :blink: :blink: :blink:

[RedHal]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 11:17 pm
Red Hal:


So you want the workers to organize right now and overthrow Chavez&#39; government? If you expect Chavez to nationalize every industry tommorrow, you&#39;re dreaming. Look at all the uproar he caused by shutting down(deomcratically) RCTV. If he goes too fast, that&#39;s just asking for the US to invade&#33; If Chavez manages to unite South America then he can tell the Yanks to kiss is brown ass. Right now he needs to do things cautiously.

1) Workers do not, in fact, listen to me.

2) Unless they set up their own soviets (or whatever they want to call them), then at some point the ruling class will attack, and kill tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands.

3) This is not a negotiable point (and this is not because I say so -- history and theory tells us this).

4) Your idea that Chavez can unite all of S America is fine as it sounds, but if you think the US will allow this, I have to tell you, you are living in cloud cuckoo land. The US will use any level of violence to maintain their dominance over the region.

5) A workers state in Venzuela would do more to unite S Amertica than this top down approach to &#39;socialism&#39; that Chavez is trying.

Recall Marx&#39;s words: "The emancipation of the working class is an act of the working class", not an act of Chavez.
Good thing workers don&#39;t listen to you, cuz like all other armchair revolutionaries, you would lead them to their deaths. The Venezuelan masses have shown full support of Chavez, through the ballot and mass action, rather then plotting to overthrow him. The idea of uniting a strong S. Ameria is not my idea, it&#39;s Chavez&#39; and I don&#39;t have much faith in it happening either. Chavez is empowering and educating the masses. THe masses have to walk before they can run, especially with Uncle Sam at their doorsteps.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedHal:


Good thing workers don&#39;t listen to you, cuz like all other armchair revolutionaries, you would lead them to their deaths.

I happen to be working class, a trade union rep (unpaid), and I probably was one or both before you were even knee high to potty. So don&#39;t give me any of your BS, sonny.

If you are not prepared to learn from history that&#39;s your funeral.

Fortunately, us non-armchair socialists have, and will continue to do so.

Your version of socialism from above has never worked, and never will.

The ruling class will not allow it.

Socialism from below is the only way to defeat them.

Chavez has yet to learn this.

[Mariam]

There is no revolution without violence. Those who don&#39;t accept violence can cross the word revolution from their dictionary. Malcom X

Simple as that&#33;

[Comrade Nadezhda]

I. Attaining communist society is not possible without violence, without revolution and without doing whatever may be necessary to secure the revolution. What I say to most of the arguments opposing violence- there cannot be revolution without it, so don&#39;t pursue communist society if you cannot accept that as something that will become necessary in attaining it.

II. Securing a revolution involves violent measures. I honestly don&#39;t think it matters what extent this has to be taken to in order to secure it, because in that situation it is a must, not an option that you can choose to throw out just because you take issue with it. It is necessary in attaining communist society- otherwise it is impossible to eliminate threats (which must be eliminated if in fact the goal is to attain communist society without subordination to the bourgeoisie, oppression, exploitation, and the list goes on). So yes this involves getting rid of those who may possibly threaten the future of communist society. I would have no problem with that. It is necessary and I wouldn&#39;t necessarily care what extent that would involve going to. Yes, sometimes this can get excessive but what is necessary is not excessive and therefore it is only excessive if it is not necessary for securing the revolution but necessary for your selfinterested needs of attaining power.

III. Emancipation of the working class does require eliminating threats and violence and that&#39;s why you shouldn&#39;t attempt it if you aren&#39;t prepared to use violence when necessary. This task requires coming to the understanding that violence will be necessary and that it is not a matter of whether or not you should kill people and if it&#39;s ethical - it&#39;s a matter of necessity, therefore what is necessity needs to be taken seriously so you can eliminate all threats and secure the revolution in order to attain communist society.

IV. Revolution requires doing everything that comes to be necessary in order to reach communist society. There cannot be communism without revolution and definitely not without violence. It is not possible to eliminate the bourgeoisie as the ruling class without violence, and it is definitely not possible to prevent counterrevolutionary threats without the use of violence.

V. "Peaceful" revolution is not successful because there is no way in securing power after the revolution and if you go about doing it that way and avoiding killing anyone then no you won&#39;t attain communist society because there will be too many threats for you to overcome without the use of violence.

[piet11111]

it should be clear violence can not be avoided but i am surprised so many think its possible to rehabilitate the capitalists and other reactionary&#39;s.

perhaps its just me but i want these scumbags brought to justice so that they cant take their place in the ranks of the counter revolutionary&#39;s.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

How can we operate a compassionate society by founding it in violence? I&#39;m not saying there won&#39;t be violence, but we certainly shouldn&#39;t be the ones instituting it. If the capitalists resort to peace but disagree with the transition, they shouldn&#39;t have their heads chopped off or sent to some brainwashing camp.

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:58 pm
How can we operate a compassionate society by founding it in violence? I&#39;m not saying there won&#39;t be violence, but we certainly shouldn&#39;t be the ones instituting it. If the capitalists resort to peace but disagree with the transition, they shouldn&#39;t have their heads chopped off or sent to some brainwashing camp.
I completely agree. But, if you read about the Russian Revolution, you will see that it was the counter-revolutionaries who were insinuating violence, and that the revolutionaries were doing what they could to prevent it.

[JoePedo]

I know Marx predicted some bloody uprising of the proletariat

I&#39;m... going to let the pure marxists speak for themselves.


...but is there any way revolution is possible without violence?

Certainly; supplantation of functions followed by withdrawl, for instance, is a fairly nonviolent way to create a new system and split it off from an old one.

Of course, with issues of property, this often gets into "tax resistance" and swiftly becomes an armed defense against, say, state-sponsored massacre - but there are a number of other fronts in which it works. Most cities, for instance, harbor a large percentage of the populace which have effectively replaced and withdrawn from police through simple self-management and noncollaboration.


Do all communists believe in a violent revolution?

Probably not... for the simple reason that with any group of signifigant size, the answer to "do all ___" is usually "no, not all" - for any question.


i personally like to think not and go by Gandhi&#39;s "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," but thats just me.

Not a bad way to do it. Personally, I take the non/violence-agnostic route.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:58 pm
How can we operate a compassionate society by founding it in violence? I&#39;m not saying there won&#39;t be violence, but we certainly shouldn&#39;t be the ones instituting it. If the capitalists resort to peace but disagree with the transition, they shouldn&#39;t have their heads chopped off or sent to some brainwashing camp.
if it could be done peacefully then that would be best but those fuckers wont go down without a fight.

and i dont have any intention of leaving any of those that fight us alive to fight again.

[Comrade Rage]

One of my biggest questions about revolution is:
What if the State uses air power to quell revolution?

[Luís Henrique]

It is not possible to make omelettes without breaking eggs.

Some people, on the other hand, seem to think that the fun is not in eating the omelettes, but in breaking the eggs.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 08:39 pm
One of my biggest questions about revolution is: What if the State uses air power to quell revolution?

Planes have to come back to base sometime.

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by LH
Planes have to come back to base sometime.

What about the aircraft carriers?

[dez]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+October 06, 2007 09:10 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ October 06, 2007 09:10 pm)
LH
Planes have to come back to base sometime.

What about the aircraft carriers? [/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battleship_Potemkin

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 06, 2007 01:57 pm
It is not possible to make omelettes without breaking eggs.

Some people, on the other hand, seem to think that the fun is not in eating the omelettes, but in breaking the eggs.

Luís Henrique
A fine-line distinction, I would say. Post-revolutionary terror can only go so far before becoming a useless bloodbath.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:43 pm
it should be clear violence can not be avoided but i am surprised so many think its possible to rehabilitate the capitalists and other reactionary&#39;s.

perhaps its just me but i want these scumbags brought to justice so that they cant take their place in the ranks of the counter revolutionary&#39;s.
what I don&#39;t understand is what the whole idea is based off of - because if you don&#39;t eliminate all threats (meaning the capitalists and the counter-revolutionaries) there is no way to secure the future of communist society and you won&#39;t even come close in securing revolution, nevertheless seizing power and getting rid of the problem so that it is possible to attain communist society.


How can we operate a compassionate society by founding it in violence? I&#39;m not saying there won&#39;t be violence, but we certainly shouldn&#39;t be the ones instituting it. If the capitalists resort to peace but disagree with the transition, they shouldn&#39;t have their heads chopped off or sent to some brainwashing camp.
That is besides the point. It is about necessity. Is there no distinction between what is necessary and what is unnecessary? It is not about killing people because we feel like it, it is about killing people because it is necessary.


I completely agree. But, if you read about the Russian Revolution, you will see that it was the counter-revolutionaries who were insinuating violence, and that the revolutionaries were doing what they could to prevent it.
yes counter-revolutionaries don&#39;t necessarily display less violence than revolutionaries. and even if you are opposed to violence (this is the point i was trying to make) that doesnt mean it wont be necessary to use violence in order to secure power and revolution- because the longer you avoid it (that is assuming you would support revolution in the first place) the more problems you will have to eliminate later on and the more there will be to stand in the way of attaining communist society and all the steps in between. if you dont eliminate your threats immediately they will only multiply and become a larger issue in regard to the revolutionaries ability to maintain/secure power/revolution and the future of communism.


if it could be done peacefully then that would be best but those fuckers wont go down without a fight.

and i dont have any intention of leaving any of those that fight us alive to fight again.
that&#39;s exactly my point. wouldn&#39;t it be better to get it over with and just eliminate them as a threat because later on they will still be there for you to deal with- the more you avoid using violence against them the more power they will have and their ability to make your efforts weaker increases.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 08:39 pm
One of my biggest questions about revolution is: What if the State uses air power to quell revolution?

Air power cannot win ground battles it can only act as support.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+October 06, 2007 09:10 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ October 06, 2007 09:10 pm)
LH
Planes have to come back to base sometime.

What about the aircraft carriers? [/b]
They also need to come back to their harbour.

Luís Henrique

[dez]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+October 08, 2007 07:35 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ October 08, 2007 07:35 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 09:10 pm

LH
Planes have to come back to base sometime.

What about the aircraft carriers?
They also need to come back to their harbour.

Luís Henrique [/b]
they can also drift.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+October 08, 2007 07:35 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ October 08, 2007 07:35 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 06, 2007 09:10 pm

LH
Planes have to come back to base sometime.

What about the aircraft carriers?
They also need to come back to their harbour.

Luís Henrique [/b]
the american nuclear powered aircraft carriers can do without refueling for many months.

but just a reminder poeple the topic is violence in revolution.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:24 pm
the american nuclear powered aircraft carriers can do without refueling for many months.
As long as their crew is supplied with food, yes.

If the distribution of food falls to the working class, they will need to come ashore.

Luís Henrique