Can Capitalism Be Destroyed Nonviolently?

[TheTickTockMan]

I'd like to measure you guys' stance regarding violence or nonviolence.

It seems to me that nonviolent peoples' movements, such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Free Speech Movement, the Anti-War Movement (s), Gandhi's movement for Indian Independence, etc., have been quite successful in achieving their aims. Many times over, such popular movements have gripped their parent nations in the throes of widespread strikes and demonstrations, forcing change without bloodshed.

On the other hand, we have seen comparatively few large popular revolutions in recent modern history that have achieved the ideals of their creators. Indeed, in all of the so-called 'socialist' countries (all of them pre-industrial economies prior to the revolution) a violent insurrection has produced a sort of shambling, state-capitalist machine that industrializes rapidly and later withers away as the nation advances into modern capitalism. Or, in others, the revolution has decayed to sporadic guerrilla rebellions that must resort to terrorism to achieve their aims.

Yes, yes, I am familiar with Cuba, and Chile, and the Spanish Revolution, and their like. But remember: Cuba is blockaded and isolated, ruled by a dictator, and is insignificant. Chile was toppled by foreign intervention. And the Spanish Revolution lasted for a minute time before being tackled by Franco's fascist warmachine. The Paris Commune lasted for mere months. These violent revolutions seem to trigger an overwhelming negative response on the part of outside reactionary forces. Forces which, in a short time, come crashing in from all sides to crush the revolutionaries, like walls of water.

Here's my theory:

A violent revolution will trigger an equally violent counter-response in the areas surrounding the revolting population. Outside reactionary interests will band together in horror and crash in to overwhelm and crush the revolution.

If the revolution is initiated by a guerrilla insurrection it tends to maintain power among its elite lieutenants after it is completed. Having been forced to assume hierarchical military structures during the course of the war, the revolution tries to impose similar structures on society in the aftermath. A revolutionary vanguard forms, based around the original guerrilla army core. This results in dictatorships.

If the guerrilla revolution fails to achieve its ends, it becomes a terrorist group, loathed and feared by the populace for the violence and anarchy it sporadically visits upon them.


My belief is that we have two choices:

1) Trigger a nonviolent revolution. Mobilize as large a percentage of the population as we can, and simultaneously go on strike. Revolutionary cadres will work on destroying communications and infrastructure systems -- targeting power, light, heat, gas, roads, and water systems -- in the style of radical environmentalist groups, making sure not to harm human lives.

Elements of the state structure should begin to collapse. Have the revolting population simultaneously secede and establish a new state, within the existing one. Once the old state can no longer provide the services its population demands, the remaining people will come over to the new state.

2) Work stealthily, within the system, to undermine its foundations. Increase apathy, self-interest, and distrust in the social order. The world is changing rapidly under the stresses of climate change -- and this trend shall only continue in years to come. As climatic changes wreak havoc with economic systems, societies will begin to destabilize.

Nations will conflict over limited resources, such as arable land, water, and fuel. Famines will grip the world, droughts will parch throats and take millions of lives, rising seas and expanding deserts will trigger vast migrations, and expanding tropical areas and poor sanitation will spread infectious pandemics. While this is happening, we must continue to foment and catalyze the processes which undermine the basic foundations of social order; we must also undermine any attempts to strengthen the power of governments.

With enough time and work, we should be able to trigger a widespread, global collapse of civilisation. In the anarchy that follows, we, having prepared for this very eventuality, shall rise to take power and rebuild society from the ashes of the previous one.

@~TTTM

[fabiansocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:24 pm
It seems to me that nonviolent peoples' movements, such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Free Speech Movement, the Anti-War Movement (s), Gandhi's movement for Indian Independence, etc., have been quite successful in achieving their aims. Many times over, such popular movements have gripped their parent nations in the throes of widespread strikes and demonstrations, forcing change without bloodshed.


Baloney. I suggest you read the book, "How Nonviolence Protects the State," by Peter Gelderloos. The idea of nonviolent action and protest is one encouraged by ruling classes everywhere. Gandhi and MLK get so much publicity because they were seen to be advocating non-violent methods of protest. It wasn't Gandhi who got the Brits out of India -- that's another disingenuous myth. Nor was it peaceful chanting by MLK and his crowd that got the US ruling class to grudgingly acquiesce to a few (mostly token) concessions. It isn't millions of placard-waving protesters in the Western world who've changed the US hegemon's policies; it's tens of thousands of armed resisters in Iraq.

Ruling clases and empires are based on coercion and armed force. One has to be incredibly naive to think that any peaceful attempt at demonstration or negotiation is going to achieve anything of substance. Just remember the way Bush acknowledged the peaceful protests, then said: "With respect, I think they're wrong." End of discussion.

[TheTickTockMan]

Originally posted by "fabiansocialist"
Baloney. I suggest you read the book, "How Nonviolence Protects the State," by Peter Gelderloos. The idea of nonviolent action and protest is one encouraged by ruling classes everywhere. Gandhi and MLK get so much publicity because they were seen to be advocating non-violent methods of protest. It wasn't Gandhi who got the Brits out of India -- that's another disingenuous myth. Nor was it peaceful chanting by MLK and his crowd that got the US ruling class to grudgingly acquiesce to a few (mostly token) concessions. It isn't millions of placard-waving protesters in the Western world who've changed the US hegemon's policies; it's tens of thousands of armed resisters in Iraq.

Ruling clases and empires are based on coercion and armed force. One has to be incredibly naive to think that any peaceful attempt at demonstration or negotiation is going to achieve anything of substance. Just remember the way Bush acknowledged the peaceful protests, then said: "With respect, I think they're wrong." End of discussion.

Ironic answer, given your name is "Fabian" socialist.

Ah, but what will the ruling class do if all their workers refuse to work?

?~TTTM

[redflag32]

Originally posted by TheTickTockMan+July 25, 2007 06:38 pm--> (TheTickTockMan @ July 25, 2007 06:38 pm)
"fabiansocialist"
Baloney. I suggest you read the book, "How Nonviolence Protects the State," by Peter Gelderloos. The idea of nonviolent action and protest is one encouraged by ruling classes everywhere. Gandhi and MLK get so much publicity because they were seen to be advocating non-violent methods of protest. It wasn't Gandhi who got the Brits out of India -- that's another disingenuous myth. Nor was it peaceful chanting by MLK and his crowd that got the US ruling class to grudgingly acquiesce to a few (mostly token) concessions. It isn't millions of placard-waving protesters in the Western world who've changed the US hegemon's policies; it's tens of thousands of armed resisters in Iraq.

Ruling clases and empires are based on coercion and armed force. One has to be incredibly naive to think that any peaceful attempt at demonstration or negotiation is going to achieve anything of substance. Just remember the way Bush acknowledged the peaceful protests, then said: "With respect, I think they're wrong." End of discussion.

Ironic answer, given your name is "Fabian" socialist.

Ah, but what will the ruling class do if all their workers refuse to work?

?~TTTM [/b]

Ah, but what will the ruling class do if all their workers refuse to work?

They would use violent means to get them to work,and we would have to defend ourselves violently :D

[TheTickTockMan]

They would use violent means to get them to work,and we would have to defend ourselves violently :D

Some sort of "people's war", no doubt? How would such a conflict be organized? You can't have a shifting mass of discontent, armed with AK-47s shooting wildly at every policeman or soldier they find? All military conflicts, all military organizations, in fact, would subject individuals to an authoritarian power-structure, and in so doing, pave the intellectual and psychological road towards a dictatorship.

@~TTTM

[redflag32]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:24 pm
I'd like to measure you guys' stance regarding violence or nonviolence.

It seems to me that nonviolent peoples' movements, such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Free Speech Movement, the Anti-War Movement (s), Gandhi's movement for Indian Independence, etc., have been quite successful in achieving their aims. Many times over, such popular movements have gripped their parent nations in the throes of widespread strikes and demonstrations, forcing change without bloodshed.

On the other hand, we have seen comparatively few large popular revolutions in recent modern history that have achieved the ideals of their creators. Indeed, in all of the so-called 'socialist' countries (all of them pre-industrial economies prior to the revolution) a violent insurrection has produced a sort of shambling, state-capitalist machine that industrializes rapidly and later withers away as the nation advances into modern capitalism. Or, in others, the revolution has decayed to sporadic guerrilla rebellions that must resort to terrorism to achieve their aims.

Yes, yes, I am familiar with Cuba, and Chile, and the Spanish Revolution, and their like. But remember: Cuba is blockaded and isolated, ruled by a dictator, and is insignificant. Chile was toppled by foreign intervention. And the Spanish Revolution lasted for a minute time before being tackled by Franco's fascist warmachine. The Paris Commune lasted for mere months. These violent revolutions seem to trigger an overwhelming negative response on the part of outside reactionary forces. Forces which, in a short time, come crashing in from all sides to crush the revolutionaries, like walls of water.

Here's my theory:

A violent revolution will trigger an equally violent counter-response in the areas surrounding the revolting population. Outside reactionary interests will band together in horror and crash in to overwhelm and crush the revolution.

If the revolution is initiated by a guerrilla insurrection it tends to maintain power among its elite lieutenants after it is completed. Having been forced to assume hierarchical military structures during the course of the war, the revolution tries to impose similar structures on society in the aftermath. A revolutionary vanguard forms, based around the original guerrilla army core. This results in dictatorships.

If the guerrilla revolution fails to achieve its ends, it becomes a terrorist group, loathed and feared by the populace for the violence and anarchy it sporadically visits upon them.


My belief is that we have two choices:

1) Trigger a nonviolent revolution. Mobilize as large a percentage of the population as we can, and simultaneously go on strike. Revolutionary cadres will work on destroying communications and infrastructure systems -- targeting power, light, heat, gas, roads, and water systems -- in the style of radical environmentalist groups, making sure not to harm human lives.

Elements of the state structure should begin to collapse. Have the revolting population simultaneously secede and establish a new state, within the existing one. Once the old state can no longer provide the services its population demands, the remaining people will come over to the new state.

2) Work stealthily, within the system, to undermine its foundations. Increase apathy, self-interest, and distrust in the social order. The world is changing rapidly under the stresses of climate change -- and this trend shall only continue in years to come. As climatic changes wreak havoc with economic systems, societies will begin to destabilize.

Nations will conflict over limited resources, such as arable land, water, and fuel. Famines will grip the world, droughts will parch throats and take millions of lives, rising seas and expanding deserts will trigger vast migrations, and expanding tropical areas and poor sanitation will spread infectious pandemics. While this is happening, we must continue to foment and catalyze the processes which undermine the basic foundations of social order; we must also undermine any attempts to strengthen the power of governments.

With enough time and work, we should be able to trigger a widespread, global collapse of civilisation. In the anarchy that follows, we, having prepared for this very eventuality, shall rise to take power and rebuild society from the ashes of the previous one.

@~TTTM
Violence is a tool to be used when needed, the agitation involved with civil rights movements should also be used as a tool. Whats wrong with using violence as a tool anyway? It has been used on the working class for centuries now. Violence has been used as a very successfull way for humans to get what they need in the past,hunting for food being one example! I think there needs to be a clear understanding of its use and means,noway should we gloat about the act of war.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:38 pm
Ah, but what will the ruling class do if all their workers refuse to work?
The same they have always done in such situations - shoot us dead until we agree to going back to work.

Luís Henrique

[fabiansocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:38 pm
Ah, but what will the ruling class do if all their workers refuse to work?

There now exists a global reserve army of labor. So if North American or West European workers get fed up with their dreary jobs and stagnant (if not declining) pay, then the threat of exporting the job or getting an undocumented immigrant to do it is a real and credible one. We are presented with a situation that is portrayed as inevitable and inexorable as a law of physics: "global competition" dictates that we not be paid any more, and that the ruling class gobble up ever more of the surplus. Our exploited classes live in such a fog of confusion, mystification, apathy, and ignorance that there's no need for the ruling class to resort to shooting us. In brief, today's ruling classes are more sophisticated and subtle in their methods; why unnecessarily use a gun?

But to return to the subject: non-violent action is doomed to failure. And if I may broaden the topic a wee bit, so-called democratic processes are also an exercise in futility, and serve but to rubber-stamp ruling-class decisions. As Ken Livingstone once remarked, if voting could change anything, they'd have abolished the ballot box a long time ago.

Old Machiavelli had it right when he contended that power has to be seized violently and surreptitiously and retained with the same methods. Lenin and Castro didn't go around waving placards.

[redflag32]

Originally posted by fabiansocialist+July 25, 2007 08:33 pm--> (fabiansocialist @ July 25, 2007 08:33 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 06:38 pm
Ah, but what will the ruling class do if all their workers refuse to work?

There now exists a global reserve army of labor. So if North American or West European workers get fed up with their dreary jobs and stagnant (if not declining) pay, then the threat of exporting the job or getting an undocumented immigrant to do it is a real and credible one. We are presented with a situation that is portrayed as inevitable and inexorable as a law of physics: "global competition" dictates that we not be paid any more, and that the ruling class gobble up ever more of the surplus. Our exploited classes live in such a fog of confusion, mystification, apathy, and ignorance that there's no need for the ruling class to resort to shooting us. In brief, today's ruling classes are more sophisticated and subtle in their methods; why unnecessarily use a gun?

But to return to the subject: non-violent action is doomed to failure. And if I may broaden the topic a wee bit, so-called democratic processes are also an exercise in futility, and serve but to rubber-stamp ruling-class decisions. As Ken Livingstone once remarked, if voting could change anything, they'd have abolished the ballot box a long time ago.

Old Machiavelli had it right when he contended that power has to be seized violently and surreptitiously and retained with the same methods. Lenin and Castro didn't go around waving placards. [/b]

Lenin and Castro didn't go around waving placards.

:D Thats my new quote of the week haha,dunno why it made me laugh. :P

[Livesoul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:24 am
I'd like to measure you guys' stance regarding violence or nonviolence.

It seems to me that nonviolent peoples' movements, such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Free Speech Movement, the Anti-War Movement (s), Gandhi's movement for Indian Independence, etc., have been quite successful in achieving their aims. Many times over, such popular movements have gripped their parent nations in the throes of widespread strikes and demonstrations, forcing change without bloodshed.

On the other hand, we have seen comparatively few large popular revolutions in recent modern history that have achieved the ideals of their creators. Indeed, in all of the so-called 'socialist' countries (all of them pre-industrial economies prior to the revolution) a violent insurrection has produced a sort of shambling, state-capitalist machine that industrializes rapidly and later withers away as the nation advances into modern capitalism. Or, in others, the revolution has decayed to sporadic guerrilla rebellions that must resort to terrorism to achieve their aims.

Yes, yes, I am familiar with Cuba, and Chile, and the Spanish Revolution, and their like. But remember: Cuba is blockaded and isolated, ruled by a dictator, and is insignificant. Chile was toppled by foreign intervention. And the Spanish Revolution lasted for a minute time before being tackled by Franco's fascist warmachine. The Paris Commune lasted for mere months. These violent revolutions seem to trigger an overwhelming negative response on the part of outside reactionary forces. Forces which, in a short time, come crashing in from all sides to crush the revolutionaries, like walls of water.

Here's my theory:

A violent revolution will trigger an equally violent counter-response in the areas surrounding the revolting population. Outside reactionary interests will band together in horror and crash in to overwhelm and crush the revolution.

If the revolution is initiated by a guerrilla insurrection it tends to maintain power among its elite lieutenants after it is completed. Having been forced to assume hierarchical military structures during the course of the war, the revolution tries to impose similar structures on society in the aftermath. A revolutionary vanguard forms, based around the original guerrilla army core. This results in dictatorships.

If the guerrilla revolution fails to achieve its ends, it becomes a terrorist group, loathed and feared by the populace for the violence and anarchy it sporadically visits upon them.


My belief is that we have two choices:

1) Trigger a nonviolent revolution. Mobilize as large a percentage of the population as we can, and simultaneously go on strike. Revolutionary cadres will work on destroying communications and infrastructure systems -- targeting power, light, heat, gas, roads, and water systems -- in the style of radical environmentalist groups, making sure not to harm human lives.

Elements of the state structure should begin to collapse. Have the revolting population simultaneously secede and establish a new state, within the existing one. Once the old state can no longer provide the services its population demands, the remaining people will come over to the new state.

2) Work stealthily, within the system, to undermine its foundations. Increase apathy, self-interest, and distrust in the social order. The world is changing rapidly under the stresses of climate change -- and this trend shall only continue in years to come. As climatic changes wreak havoc with economic systems, societies will begin to destabilize.

Nations will conflict over limited resources, such as arable land, water, and fuel. Famines will grip the world, droughts will parch throats and take millions of lives, rising seas and expanding deserts will trigger vast migrations, and expanding tropical areas and poor sanitation will spread infectious pandemics. While this is happening, we must continue to foment and catalyze the processes which undermine the basic foundations of social order; we must also undermine any attempts to strengthen the power of governments.

With enough time and work, we should be able to trigger a widespread, global collapse of civilisation. In the anarchy that follows, we, having prepared for this very eventuality, shall rise to take power and rebuild society from the ashes of the previous one.

@~TTTM
I pray every day that there could be a successful peaceful revolution. But reviewing history shows its not the case. MLK and Gandhi, like another mentioned, had little "true" influence over the movements they were a part of. Malcolm X was much more of a threat to the US governments oppressive ways because he was real and aware of the reality. MLK is only well known because the government preferred his peaceful mannerism and made him well known, making him the example the other frustrated people should follow because there is less of a threat. How do the hyenas take the food from the more powerful lions? They don't wait till its all gone, they rally together and in large numbers force the lions away. The elite won't ever give up their stuffed bellies unless they are forced.

The method you outlined sounds good but it obviously will lead to violence. "collapse of civlization" will not be pretty! haha, leaders with wicked selfess natures will rise up in all area's and start their own movements. It basically happens in all over the world right now where there is no organized government...

[redflag32]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:24 pm
I'd like to measure you guys' stance regarding violence or nonviolence.

It seems to me that nonviolent peoples' movements, such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Free Speech Movement, the Anti-War Movement (s), Gandhi's movement for Indian Independence, etc., have been quite successful in achieving their aims. Many times over, such popular movements have gripped their parent nations in the throes of widespread strikes and demonstrations, forcing change without bloodshed.

On the other hand, we have seen comparatively few large popular revolutions in recent modern history that have achieved the ideals of their creators. Indeed, in all of the so-called 'socialist' countries (all of them pre-industrial economies prior to the revolution) a violent insurrection has produced a sort of shambling, state-capitalist machine that industrializes rapidly and later withers away as the nation advances into modern capitalism. Or, in others, the revolution has decayed to sporadic guerrilla rebellions that must resort to terrorism to achieve their aims.

Yes, yes, I am familiar with Cuba, and Chile, and the Spanish Revolution, and their like. But remember: Cuba is blockaded and isolated, ruled by a dictator, and is insignificant. Chile was toppled by foreign intervention. And the Spanish Revolution lasted for a minute time before being tackled by Franco's fascist warmachine. The Paris Commune lasted for mere months. These violent revolutions seem to trigger an overwhelming negative response on the part of outside reactionary forces. Forces which, in a short time, come crashing in from all sides to crush the revolutionaries, like walls of water.

Here's my theory:

A violent revolution will trigger an equally violent counter-response in the areas surrounding the revolting population. Outside reactionary interests will band together in horror and crash in to overwhelm and crush the revolution.

If the revolution is initiated by a guerrilla insurrection it tends to maintain power among its elite lieutenants after it is completed. Having been forced to assume hierarchical military structures during the course of the war, the revolution tries to impose similar structures on society in the aftermath. A revolutionary vanguard forms, based around the original guerrilla army core. This results in dictatorships.

If the guerrilla revolution fails to achieve its ends, it becomes a terrorist group, loathed and feared by the populace for the violence and anarchy it sporadically visits upon them.


My belief is that we have two choices:

1) Trigger a nonviolent revolution. Mobilize as large a percentage of the population as we can, and simultaneously go on strike. Revolutionary cadres will work on destroying communications and infrastructure systems -- targeting power, light, heat, gas, roads, and water systems -- in the style of radical environmentalist groups, making sure not to harm human lives.

Elements of the state structure should begin to collapse. Have the revolting population simultaneously secede and establish a new state, within the existing one. Once the old state can no longer provide the services its population demands, the remaining people will come over to the new state.

2) Work stealthily, within the system, to undermine its foundations. Increase apathy, self-interest, and distrust in the social order. The world is changing rapidly under the stresses of climate change -- and this trend shall only continue in years to come. As climatic changes wreak havoc with economic systems, societies will begin to destabilize.

Nations will conflict over limited resources, such as arable land, water, and fuel. Famines will grip the world, droughts will parch throats and take millions of lives, rising seas and expanding deserts will trigger vast migrations, and expanding tropical areas and poor sanitation will spread infectious pandemics. While this is happening, we must continue to foment and catalyze the processes which undermine the basic foundations of social order; we must also undermine any attempts to strengthen the power of governments.

With enough time and work, we should be able to trigger a widespread, global collapse of civilisation. In the anarchy that follows, we, having prepared for this very eventuality, shall rise to take power and rebuild society from the ashes of the previous one.

@~TTTM

My belief is that we have two choices:

1) Trigger a nonviolent revolution. Mobilize as large a percentage of the population as we can, and simultaneously go on strike. Revolutionary cadres will work on destroying communications and infrastructure systems -- targeting power, light, heat, gas, roads, and water systems -- in the style of radical environmentalist groups, making sure not to harm human lives.

Elements of the state structure should begin to collapse. Have the revolting population simultaneously secede and establish a new state, within the existing one. Once the old state can no longer provide the services its population demands, the remaining people will come over to the new state.

Id just like to point out that one of your choices is actually violent action. "destroying communications" "targeting power". Is there a mix up in the tool of violent revolutionary action and that of guerilla warfare? Also id like to point out that the word revolution does not necessarily
mean violence. It means a complete change of the status quo, you can have a revolution in cooking or industry etc..without any violence. I think we should be clear about what we are debating here, armed guerilla warfare or violent revolutionary tactics?

[Raúl Duke]

I think leftists should be more pragmatic (I think thats the word...maybe I'm using it wrong.) about violent and nonviolent tactics. They should use what they think is apporpriate to the situation (and to their abilities), not "stick" to either non-violence nor violence tactics on principle.

However, even in violent situations there could still be important nonviolent tasks for pacifistic leftists.

[RGacky3]

I think revolution is not always a single event, I think it can be done slowly with agitation and Activism, when it comes to method I prefer the Syndicalist method of organising workers directly through unions, Non Violent methods should be used, I think violence should only be used as self defence, and violence against property is NOT violence. Even self-defence violence should be used very carefully, not because its not justified, but because the the PR it causes, the media will turn even self defence violence and make it look bad, its very very hard for them to twist something thats completely non-violent.

Its also important to remember that police men and Soldiers are not the enemy, most of them are poor working class people. I like the prison analogy:
Prison guards are the ones that keep the prisoners in line, but they are not the problem, they did'nt put the prisoners there, they did'nt make the laws, they did'nt prosecute them, they are just doing a job, so attaking Prison Guards may release frustration but it won't do anything to change anything.

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:55 pm
I think leftists should be more pragmatic (I think thats the word...maybe I'm using it wrong.) about violent and nonviolent tactics. They should use what they think is apporpriate to the situation (and to their abilities), not "stick" to either non-violence nor violence tactics on principle.

However, even in violent situations there could still be important nonviolent tasks for pacifistic leftists.
If you mean pragmatic, as in practical, then I completely agree. Situations change, governments change, tactics change, and we must change with it. Violence is not always the answer, just as pacifism is not always the answer. To me, it mostly depends on how authoritarian the government is. The more strict and corrupt the ruling class, the more violence is necessary.

[TheTickTockMan]

What I'm saying is that the sort of violence that people seem to espouse here -- the type that leads to mass executions come the revolution's victory -- would alienate those who were not already on our side.

Furthermore, violence against machines and objects is not the same as violence against human beings. I'd prefer the former.

@~TTTM

[fabiansocialist]

Originally posted by Marxist-[email protected] 25, 2007 11:40 pm
Violence is not always the answer, just as pacifism is not always the answer. To me, it mostly depends on how authoritarian the government is. The more strict and corrupt the ruling class, the more violence is necessary.
Name a ruling class in the history of the world that hasn't been violent and corrupt. It's the nature of the beast. Can you negotiate with a crocodile or a shark? What is their inner nature? What is the inner nature of ruling classes? Is non-violent action supposed to shame them? Convince them of the error of their ways? You'd have a better chance of converting a tiger to vegetarianism.

I am of course not recommending mindless violence. Negotiation and diplomacy play vital roles -- but they're meaningless without credible threats in the background.

In the final analysis, power has to be seized. Power -- real power -- and violence are inextricably tied together. If you play the game according to the rules of the powerful -- peaceful demos and so on -- you're already doomed to failure (assuming you have an agenda to begin with).

[RNK]

Glorifying violence is just fetishism. True revolutionaries need to know how to balance violence with non-violence. There must be violence against the system, to physically destroy its instruments of control, but there must also be non-violent insurrection, as the entirety of the masses can not be expected to fight. For most, resistance must come via non-compliance, via the refusal to carry out the orders of the ruling class.

[TheTickTockMan]

Glorifying violence is just fetishism. True revolutionaries need to know how to balance violence with non-violence. There must be violence against the system, to physically destroy its instruments of control, but there must also be non-violent insurrection, as the entirety of the masses can not be expected to fight. For most, resistance must come via non-compliance, via the refusal to carry out the orders of the ruling class.

Now there's something I can agree with!

!~TTTM

[Faux Real]

American feminist writer D. A. Clarke, in her essay "A Woman With A Sword," suggests that for nonviolence to be effective, it must be "practiced by those who could easily resort to force if they chose." This argument reasons that nonviolent tactics will be of little or no use to groups that are traditionally considered incapable of violence, since nonviolence will be in keeping with people's expectations for them and thus go unnoticed.

^^ The reasons for the short-term achievements of the likes of MLK or Ghandi didn't prosper were because of this. Their vision of full equality through nonviolence will not be achieved through nonviolence alone. However, it will always be an advantage.

[Janus]

I see a violence in revolutions as more or less inevitable.

violence in revolution (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67912&hl=+violence++revolution)

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

against violent revolution (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42165&hl=+violen*++revolution)

violent revolution (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36111&hl=+violen*++revolution)

[redflag32]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 12:23 am
What I'm saying is that the sort of violence that people seem to espouse here -- the type that leads to mass executions come the revolution's victory -- would alienate those who were not already on our side.

Furthermore, violence against machines and objects is not the same as violence against human beings. I'd prefer the former.

@~TTTM
Where on revleft have you seen someone espouse mass excecutions? Im just curious as ive never come across it. You seem to be afraid of upsetting a section of society which isnt on our side through the use of violence, but surely during socilaist revolution those who are not on our side are counter-revolutionaries? Why appease those?

Violence against machines and violence against humans is exactly the same, unless you want to start a moral or ethical debate. Violence, not rage, is always used to gain something. In this case it would be used as a tool to, a you say, target machinery or state instalations, and yes even to target humans. Blind rage is wrong, but the ue of violence during revolution is inevitable. As long as we dont glory in it i think we will be fine. :D

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Tick Tock man
Gandhi's movement for Indian Independence,

Well actually you are not well informed.

Gandhi and Congress did one thing in Indian Independence struggle - they united the Indians across Language,Religion and Caste - briefly. But they did not certainly win Independence for India.

Especially Gandhi never recognised the Independence - because of the partition which accompanied it - he said his soul revolts against the whole Idea that Muslim and Hindu Indians cannot live together. Nor did he fight for complete independence from British - he mainly worked for unification of Indian masses and Social Justice for the oppressed groups - both in which he did not achieve full success.

Anyway the Independence struggle of India did involve a lot of Violence against Gandhi's intentions Bombay Mutiny/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Indian_Navy_Mutiny)

And I agree to a certain extent that Violence should not be fetished or used unnecessarily in the struggle. I would point out the stagnation of Naxalite movemnt in India to indicate why.

Violence is just a tool. It should be utilised when necessary.

[peaccenicked]

In a world that has only seen revolution in the poorest of nations, we have yet to see what a revolution in the imperialist countries would mean in terms of violence.

I reckon it might come at a time of mutiny when standing armies will be replaced by bands of mercenaries, perhaps civil war. When public rage is actualy felt in the bourgeois parliaments. When they are more afraid than us than us of them.

The collapse of the USSR is the likely model but with a few hiccups.

[TheTickTockMan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 12:23 am
What I'm saying is that the sort of violence that people seem to espouse here -- the type that leads to mass executions come the revolution's victory -- would alienate those who were not already on our side.

Furthermore, violence against machines and objects is not the same as violence against human beings. I'd prefer the former.

@~TTTM
Where on revleft have you seen someone espouse mass excecutions? Im just curious as ive never come across it. You seem to be afraid of upsetting a section of society which isnt on our side through the use of violence, but surely during socilaist revolution those who are not on our side are counter-revolutionaries? Why appease those?

It's simply that I fear what may happen during and in the aftermath of the revolution. For example, it's widely touted that a worker's revolution involves the workers rising up and stamping out the ruling classes. But how, in the midst of the heady fire of a revolution, shall we decide who was part of the ruling classes? Do we divide it up by income? Or by deeds of property? Or shall we target whomsoever we happen to call 'rich' and 'exploitative' at any given time? And how do we stamp them out, per se? How do we get rid of counter-revolutionaries? They surely won't bow their heads and let us take all their possessions!

Shall we then execute all people who refuse to give up their possessions? That's one step on the road towards repeating the horrors of the Cultural Revolution. That's forcible compulsion to submit to a tyranny of the masses.

It seems to me that a violent revolution would seem to presuppose the eventuality of reprisal killings, slaughter, and mass executions.

My question still stands: How do we moderate violence in a popular revolution such that it doesn't wind up simply running out of control and executing every person who disagrees with its principles? Labelling every critic or dissenter a 'bourgeois sympathizer'? Shall those comrades on this forum, who shall be unnamed, who called me a 'reactionary', nearly accusing me of being a social democrat or apologist for liberal capitalism, be the ones to hold a gun to my head, simply because I didn't particularly agree with the tenets of their revolution? A guerrilla rebellion can afford to make surgical strikes to topple a regime, but a popular uprising is a vast upwelling of human discontent, a tidal wave of destruction poised to push over one order and create another. I fear that innocents may be caught in the wash.

In my opinion, a revolution will only avoid this by strictly avoiding the direct harm of human life -- that it must have safeguards built into the ideology itself specifically designed to temper the hot, red emotions of revolution so that it doesn't spiral out of control.


@~TTTM

[redflag32]

Originally posted by TheTickTockMan+July 29, 2007 02:59 pm--> (TheTickTockMan @ July 29, 2007 02:59 pm)

[email protected] 26, 2007 12:23 am
What I'm saying is that the sort of violence that people seem to espouse here -- the type that leads to mass executions come the revolution's victory -- would alienate those who were not already on our side.

Furthermore, violence against machines and objects is not the same as violence against human beings. I'd prefer the former.

@~TTTM
Where on revleft have you seen someone espouse mass excecutions? Im just curious as ive never come across it. You seem to be afraid of upsetting a section of society which isnt on our side through the use of violence, but surely during socilaist revolution those who are not on our side are counter-revolutionaries? Why appease those?

It's simply that I fear what may happen during and in the aftermath of the revolution. For example, it's widely touted that a worker's revolution involves the workers rising up and stamping out the ruling classes. But how, in the midst of the heady fire of a revolution, shall we decide who was part of the ruling classes? Do we divide it up by income? Or by deeds of property? Or shall we target whomsoever we happen to call 'rich' and 'exploitative' at any given time? And how do we stamp them out, per se? How do we get rid of counter-revolutionaries? They surely won't bow their heads and let us take all their possessions!

Shall we then execute all people who refuse to give up their possessions? That's one step on the road towards repeating the horrors of the Cultural Revolution. That's forcible compulsion to submit to a tyranny of the masses.

It seems to me that a violent revolution would seem to presuppose the eventuality of reprisal killings, slaughter, and mass executions.

My question still stands: How do we moderate violence in a popular revolution such that it doesn't wind up simply running out of control and executing every person who disagrees with its principles? Labelling every critic or dissenter a 'bourgeois sympathizer'? Shall those comrades on this forum, who shall be unnamed, who called me a 'reactionary', nearly accusing me of being a social democrat or apologist for liberal capitalism, be the ones to hold a gun to my head, simply because I didn't particularly agree with the tenets of their revolution? A guerrilla rebellion can afford to make surgical strikes to topple a regime, but a popular uprising is a vast upwelling of human discontent, a tidal wave of destruction poised to push over one order and create another. I fear that innocents may be caught in the wash.

In my opinion, a revolution will only avoid this by strictly avoiding the direct harm of human life -- that it must have safeguards built into the ideology itself specifically designed to temper the hot, red emotions of revolution so that it doesn't spiral out of control.


@~TTTM[/b]

It's simply that I fear what may happen during and in the aftermath of the revolution. For example, it's widely touted that a worker's revolution involves the workers rising up and stamping out the ruling classes. But how, in the midst of the heady fire of a revolution, shall we decide who was part of the ruling classes?

It will be very easy to distinguish them, they will be on the other side of the fence, fighting against us.It doesnt have to be phisical opposition to the revolution either,take the right-wing media in Venezuela for example. They were dealth with without the use of the gun.



They surely won't bow their heads and let us take all their possessions

Social revolution is not about taking peole possessions, its about redistributing the wealth democratically and installing a system that will keep it this way. The wealth of society remains, its just put to better use.


Shall we then execute all people who refuse to give up their possessions? That's one step on the road towards repeating the horrors of the Cultural Revolution. That's forcible compulsion to submit to a tyranny of the masses.

This implies that the revolution will be led by an elite minority which it wont be. Social revolution can only be achieved through the hands of the majoity of the people, the working class. So it wont have to be forced on the majoirty because it will be the majoirty who are putting the system in place. Those who oppos the will of the people have three choices, leave the country, accept the will of the people or become a dissenter within the system and accept the consequences.



It seems to me that a violent revolution would seem to presuppose the eventuality of reprisal killings, slaughter, and mass executions.

Why?


My question still stands: How do we moderate violence in a popular revolution such that it doesn't wind up simply running out of control and executing every person who disagrees with its principles? Labelling every critic or dissenter a 'bourgeois sympathizer'?


But they are "bourgeoise sympathizers", that doesnt mean we kill them though,and i dont see why you think social revolution would be a mass cull.


A guerrilla rebellion can afford to make surgical strikes to topple a regime, but a popular uprising is a vast upwelling of human discontent, a tidal wave of destruction poised to push over one order and create another. I fear that innocents may be caught in the wash.


Ofcourse they will, but how many innocents are you saving from eventual starvation or from the acts of imperial war if you struggle for the destruction of capitalism? Billions!


In my opinion, a revolution will only avoid this by strictly avoiding the direct harm of human life -- that it must have safeguards built into the ideology itself specifically designed to temper the hot, red emotions of revolution so that it doesn't spiral out of control.

Revolution doesnt have to be violent, but going on the behavour of the capitalist class it inevitable will be. We all want to change the world peacefully mate but their comes a time when you accept that it probably wont happen and if that upsets you i suggest you give up on your dreams of a just and equal world.

[Labor Shall Rule]

To TheTickTockMan

Trotsky once said that “...no ruling class has ever voluntarily and peacefully abdicated.” He was correct; the ancien regime and their feudal practices were withheld with the utmost violence, and even today, we can see that the capitalists do the same thing.

It is sad, by necessarily true, that under times of necessity, under definite and specific conditions, revolutionary violence would need to be flexed. Sadistic, senseless killings do not further our goals and are not justified - they are properly deemed "excesses" and are unfortunately inevitable, because human beings are not perfect. How would we moderate violence? We can't. It's as simple as that. The only valid question is, do the inevitable excesses of a revolution outweigh the inevitable mass destruction and loss of life of another imperialist world war? If we truly believe for the moment that we are not fighting for wealth or abstract glory, but for the liberation of humanity as a whole from capitalist production, then our actions towards that end are justified.

We reject theories of moral absolutes or universals; we respect human life, but not to a point of suicide. As long as you play by rules that the bourgeoisie prescribes but does not itself follow, ever, you will be a loser, in a personal and historical sense. Our movement needs realistic thinkers, not moralizing preachers and sunday sermons. Our movement needs rational thinkers, who are not "hypersensitive" about anything, but who are willing to consider all options. Our movement needs people who are not afraid to take decisive and bold action when the time comes. If we are ever met with death to the hands of armed fascists, we can not reduce ourselves to cowardice, and the whimpering about the moral supremecy of "a peaceful road", we need to start killing people.

[fabiansocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:59 pm
It's simply that I fear what may happen during and in the aftermath of the revolution. For example, it's widely touted that a worker's revolution involves the workers rising up and stamping out the ruling classes. But how, in the midst of the heady fire of a revolution, shall we decide who was part of the ruling classes? Do we divide it up by income? Or by deeds of property? Or shall we target whomsoever we happen to call 'rich' and 'exploitative' at any given time? And how do we stamp them out, per se? How do we get rid of counter-revolutionaries? They surely won't bow their heads and let us take all their possessions!

Shall we then execute all people who refuse to give up their possessions? That's one step on the road towards repeating the horrors of the Cultural Revolution. That's forcible compulsion to submit to a tyranny of the masses.

It seems to me that a violent revolution would seem to presuppose the eventuality of reprisal killings, slaughter, and mass executions.

My question still stands: How do we moderate violence in a popular revolution such that it doesn't wind up simply running out of control and executing every person who disagrees with its principles? Labelling every critic or dissenter a 'bourgeois sympathizer'? Shall those comrades on this forum, who shall be unnamed, who called me a 'reactionary', nearly accusing me of being a social democrat or apologist for liberal capitalism, be the ones to hold a gun to my head, simply because I didn't particularly agree with the tenets of their revolution? A guerrilla rebellion can afford to make surgical strikes to topple a regime, but a popular uprising is a vast upwelling of human discontent, a tidal wave of destruction poised to push over one order and create another. I fear that innocents may be caught in the wash.

In my opinion, a revolution will only avoid this by strictly avoiding the direct harm of human life -- that it must have safeguards built into the ideology itself specifically designed to temper the hot, red emotions of revolution so that it doesn't spiral out of control.


@~TTTM
If history is any indicator, workers don't rise up spontaneously and remove their shackles; you might see sporadic riots that burn themselves out (since they lack ideology, organisation, and clear objectives). Successful revolution require organised intellectual elites who may be able to harness popular discontent. But this is by and by. Your central point concerns the excesses that accompany any revolution. Your concern is legitimate. But I think it's the nature of all real revolutions to have excesses built into them. Violence by its nature can't be tempered.

[TheTickTockMan]

We reject theories of moral absolutes or universals; we respect human life, but not to a point of suicide. As long as you play by rules that the bourgeoisie prescribes but does not itself follow, ever, you will be a loser, in a personal and historical sense. Our movement needs realistic thinkers, not moralizing preachers and sunday sermons. Our movement needs rational thinkers, who are not "hypersensitive" about anything, but who are willing to consider all options. Our movement needs people who are not afraid to take decisive and bold action when the time comes. If we are ever met with death to the hands of armed fascists, we can not reduce ourselves to cowardice, and the whimpering about the moral supremecy of "a peaceful road", we need to start killing people. (my bold)


Revolution doesnt have to be violent, but going on the behavour of the capitalist class it inevitable will be. We all want to change the world peacefully mate but their comes a time when you accept that it probably wont happen and if that upsets you i suggest you give up on your dreams of a just and equal world.

Here's two fine examples of the kind of mind-set I'm talking about. The kind that says "Either you are with me, or you are against me." The first is a tirade against people who question the validity of senseless killing, painting me as some kind of hand-wringing coward. The post is mostly recycled propaganda that I've heard countless times before. Preaching to the converted.

The second is trying to insinuate that my dreams of a "just and equal world" are less valid, predicated simply upon the fact that I am concerned that a future revolution may repeat the same, sordid, bloodstained atrocities as revolutions in the past.

What "behaviour" of the capitalist class is this? Is it wrong to consider capitalists as individuals, who have their own rights, alongside workers? We always talk about leftists being different, that you cannot classify the left as one unified mass, so why should we think of the right in the same way? I think it is dangerous to start lumping people together, doing so deprives them of their humanity. Yes, of course there are evil, selfish, greedy monsters in their class -- there are such people everywhere. But some may simply be good people trying to do what is best for themselves and their loved ones.

Perhaps a class revolution will not be bloodless. But can there be anything done to ensure that what bloodshed is caused, it doesn't spiral out of control into an orgy of violence, a bloodbath? What about reprisal killings? Mass-murders? The killing of dissenters? A "Reign of Terror" like that after the French Revolution? The destruction of cultural institutions, such as during the Cultural Revolution? Do any of you know about the Khmer Rouge? Sure, sure, rant all you like about the corruption of the ideals and the actions of fanatic personality cults around psychotic leaders, that still doesn't address the fact that a revolution touched into something deep and wild, tapped a dark place in the human heart, and that dark place allowed people -- ordinary people -- to not only abide mass atrocities, but to actively support them.

We are talking about revolution, but some of you in this forum seem thirsty for a massacre. I'm afraid that come time for the revolution, there will be many more of you in the lead.

The time is come, my friends, to ask yourselves if you're an adult, willing to contemplate what it means to put a gun to someone's head and pull the trigger, or an adolescent, who is simply pumped-up on bloodstained visions of red glory.

!~TTTM

[peaccenicked]

What is a revolution? It is the replacement of majority rule over minority rule. Presently, the so-called the majority of those bothering to vote endorse minority rule. In that they accept the existence of a class society in which a few exploiters systematically control the substantial wealth of the nation and other nations as well,
when it comes to the imperialist countries.

This majority rule has its conscious goal of ending class society, thus it has tasks to enforce. The nature of the resistance is entirely up to the minority and they are the ones who will determine the level of violence.

The question of a reign of terror as a result of revolution begins when the leadership of the majority turn against previous allies in the majority and suppress them.

The task of revolutionary democrats is to prevent this from happening ever again , it is only the mature development of the revolutionary forces that can determine the condition of true and permanent revolution.

While we are in a prerevolutionary situation, there is not much we can do about the fear of Stalinism but heighten awareness of the democratic nature of our revolution and our hostility to counter-revolution where ever it raises itself historically and in the present.

When the majority want socialism the political culture will be so different and our distrust of leaders will be enormous. The cold war has ensured that a possible reign of terror is high on the agenda of the revolutionaries - as a complete must to avoid.

[destroy*r*nation]

i believe that if you don't fight with the man he cannot fight back, which would give us the upper hand. there is a reason they gave us a right to from malitas, so they can stop them. you do think are for father know the idaes of government would turn into what they were as they say trying to get away from.

[Joe AZ]

I see that some of my writings on the myspace Socialism forum have made their way over here... RedDali :) Those were some points I made on the very same topic.

This is going to be a long post. Please bear with me. I enjoy long discussions and so I hope I don't put anyone off with all of this.

I was just reading Lenin on this question the other day. Some of you may not hold Lenin in very high regard. For those of you who don't cringe every time you hear his name, I will offer some of his insights, which I have always believed myself and which I think are self-evidently true.

In "The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution", Lenin gives three arguments against "disarmanet", which can also be employed against all variants of pacifism, non-violence, etc.

"Socialists cannot, without ceasing to be socialists, be opposed to all war.

Firstly, socialists have never been, nor can they ever be, opposed to revolutionary wars. The bourgeoisie of the imperialist “Great” Powers has become thoroughly reactionary, and the war this bourgeoisie is now waging we regard as a reactionary, slave-owners’ and criminal war. But what about a war against this bourgeoisie?

Secondly, civil war is just as much a war as any other. He who accepts the class struggle cannot fail to accept civil wars, which in every class society are the natural, and under certain conditions inevitable, continuation, development and intensification of the class struggle. That has been confirmed by every great revolution. To repudiate civil war, or to forget about it, is to fall into extreme opportunism and renounce the socialist revolution.

Thirdly, the victory of socialism in one country does not at one stroke eliminate all wars in general. On the contrary, it presupposes wars. The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be otherwise under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois. This is bound to create not only friction, but a direct attempt on the part of the bourgeoisie of other countries to crush the socialist state’s victorious proletariat. In such cases, a war on our part would be a legitimate and just war. It would be a war for socialism, for the liberation of other nations from the bourgeoisie."

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/i.htm

This, I think is the most striking example of what I call "revolutionary realism". As students of modern political science, of international relations especially, at the university level know, the two broad camps are the "idealist" or "liberal" camp and the "realist" camp. These differing approaches to international politics, within academia, express the views of different wings of the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie needs its idealist wing to keep up apperances - although the last 8 years, in keeping with the last 30, have shown the extent to which the modern state serves as the executive committee for directing the affairs of the bourgeoisie; namely that when profits begin to slump, costs must be cut and luxuries done away with. The rapid turn away from "diplomacy" and towards unilateral military action is as much a manifestation of declining profit rates as the gradual destruction of the welfare state and the renewed offensive against organized labor. The marginalizing of idealism in international politics is, in essence, what a good CEO in charge of the capitalist enterprise that is the United States must undertake.

Revolutionaries cannot afford to be idealists, or more specifically, the working class cannot afford the luxury of having its own "idealist wing". What we ultimately end up with is the "strategy" of Stalinism, which declares that arming the working class only gives the bourgeoisie a pretext to attack it. But the bourgeoisie already has a pretext in the economic struggle between classes. The meek did not inherit Chile, but were herded into soccer stadiums for beatings, torture and executions. Was this horror preferable to any possible outcome of a successful working class revolution in Chile? The disarmament of the Chilean workers did not give pause to Pinochet and Nixon, but on the contrary encouraged them to hasten their efforts. The enemy is ruthless. We can be kind and die, or be ruthless ourselves and live. I believe in mercy, and would gladly extend it to our enemies, but they believe they have all the power and they certainly have a lot more to lose.

Yes, there are lessons to be learned from the Russian experience, but it is also foolish to transpose Russia under the Tsar, with no history of democratic traditions and centuries of slavery and serfdom, with an economic infrastructure devestated by war and decades behind that of Western capitalism, with the United States of 2007. Our revolution will be built upon a much different historical foundation, among a people whose most politically active sections are well aware of and committed to the defense of democratic ideals. Our material conditions will be infinitely better, and the root source of "statism", of the elevation of a special body of armed men and functionaries over the masses, will have been minimized. I am no anarchist so I do believe that a state of some kind is necessary, but its character will reflect our specific historic circumstances, as much as it will (and probably moreso than) any abstract, inherent quality of "human nature".

Someone else brought up Cambodia, TheTickTockMan I believe. He wrote,

"Sure, sure, rant all you like about the corruption of the ideals and the actions of fanatic personality cults around psychotic leaders, that still doesn't address the fact that a revolution touched into something deep and wild, tapped a dark place in the human heart, and that dark place allowed people -- ordinary people -- to not only abide mass atrocities, but to actively support them."

Some people may rant about these things - but ideals are always "corrupted". More accurately, I think, reality always changes while ideals like to simply hang in the air, above history and above life itself. Ideas don't change, reality changes.

Why do we have to look only to the "dark place in the human heart" - something I will readily acknowledge that is in us all - when there are much more relevant factors to consider?

The Khmer Rouge became popular for one primary reason; US imperialism's war-time atrocities in Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge was a second-rate outfit until the secret bombing campaign began. As more and more villages were destroyed, as thousands were burned to ashes by bombs and napalm, the survivors flooded into the ranks of the Khmer Rouge. Unspeakable burtality had already been unleashed on those people by US imperalism. Real world events, more than the devil or any other force you care to name, hardened the hearts of the Cambodian people.

More importantly, Cambodia was a backward, agrarian society to begin with. The depths of the madness of the Khmer Rouge had nothing to do with Marx or Lenin. Pol Pot frankly admitted that he was reinventing "Marxism-Leninism" as he saw fit. The Khmer Rouge was in fact a primitivst outfit which sought to bring Cambodia back to "the year zero". There was no mass working class movement. It was a peasant revolution.

While the "Makhnovista" was not quite as insane, it displayed the same hostility and confusion towards the urban Russian working class during the Russian Revolution. It was the class outlook of the most degraded peasants taken to the most extreme conclusions - the mass destruction of culture, industry, science; in a word, modern civilization. A revolution guided by a Marxist outlook, needless to say, takes all of these things as its starting point, as the foundation upon which socialism is to be built. It follows then that such a revolution would not unleash similar horrors, but actively seek to prevent them.


Ultimately however I do believe this is a matter of priorities. If you want a socialist society, you must be prepared to do what it takes to get there. If your chief concern is some other principle - then follow it, but do not pretend that it too can result in a socialist society. Be forthright and admit it, proudly - my principle - of non-violence, of diplomacy, or whatever, is more important to me than the establishment of socialism. This is the plain truth and while I may hold a different priority than you, I will respect your honesty.

The struggle for sociailsm must embrace every type of strategy, violent and non-violent, offensive and defensive, military and diplomatic, etc. It will only be successful if it applies the right tactic at the right time. Whoever wrote this:

"i believe that if you don't fight with the man he cannot fight back"

Is clearly unacquainted with the most basic facts of history. You can follow this logic right off the cliff, or you can embrace revolutionary realism.

[hajduk]

not with wheapons not with demonstration but with computer net booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooom :D

[Herman]

There is a belief around here that believing in a peaceful solution is being naive and idealistic.

The reality however is that in Europe and North America it is impossible to use violence as a means for the oppressed to conquer power.

The notion that killing someone else is completely and utterly wrong has been entrenched in first world society too deeply. However I do agree that participating in parliaments can achieve change, gradually, and protect working class interests while socialist groups attempt to change the cultural hegemony of society.

Every socialist must see that it is always wrong to kill someone else. Only in the most extreme cases could it be accepted, such as in the poorer countries where the workers suffer super-exploitation, severe repression and civil war.

[Joby]

Yeah, we could end it quickly.

just stop buying shit.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:02 am
Yeah, we could end it quickly.

just stop buying shit.
That would mean you'd have to steal stuff or produce it yourself, to produce stuff you need factories, so you'd need to take over those factories.
Both those are illegal and will make the government crack down on you.

[Joby]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 13, 2007 09:15 am
That would mean you'd have to steal stuff or produce it yourself, to produce stuff you need factories, so you'd need to take over those factories.
Both those are illegal and will make the government crack down on you.
No, we wouldn't even need to do that to shake it up significantly.

All economic growth is based on spending. What if we just stopped buying shit?*

The government will hand out tax breaks to keep spending up. But oh, wait, the governments trillions of dollars in debt. If they continue to spend money on this foreign policy, I guess the whole economy will crumble...

....course we'd probably just go to war with someone in that event.

But anyway, It would seriously be like a cow swatting away some flies if thepopulace was motivated too.

*iPods, Cell Phones, Plasma TVs, Cable, New Cars, Big houses, new home appliances every year, people to mow the lawn, CPA's, clothes, appetizers, desert, fast-food, speakers for your car all fit in this category, but this isn't all that it's limited too.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:24 pm
A violent revolution will trigger an equally violent counter-response in the areas surrounding the revolting population. Outside reactionary interests will band together in horror and crash in to overwhelm and crush the revolution.


Capitalism cannot be destroyed without some sort of force, I think.

It's not that Capitalism will be violent back, it's that it will be violent .
Capitalism will not give up without a fight, and they will resort to violence usually.

Most likely nonviolent revolution will include tons of protest. Capitalism will probably respond with riot police coming and beating the shit out of everyone there. Or they'll send out fire trucks and use the hoses as force, like they did in the 60's to the non-violent Revolutionaries under Martin Luther King,Jr. Yes they acheived their goals through non-violence, but I believe it would be much more effective to destroy Capitalism by doing just that, destroying it.

They will almost definitely respond with violence, no matter our method. Why not fight fire with fire?