Non-Violent Revolutionaries

[¡Viva la Libertad!]

I didn't know where to put this thread so if it is moved to a more appropriate forum then that is fine. If there is already a thread on this subject then please give me the link to it and lock this one.

When we think of men such as Vladimir Lenin one usually think of words such as "revolutionary," and if one has certain Leninist views, "People's Leader" might come to mind; whereas when we think of men such as Mahatma Ghandi we think of descriptions such as "advocator of non-violence and peace".
It is a fact that these two men advocated for change in the political and socio-economic spectrum. The cold hard truth is that no matter how hard you look at it, the two men were striving for the same thing—change (sure, it's using the term broadly and loosely, but it is true) in their nations. Yes, Lenin was not exactly what one would call a "preacher of pacifism", and Ghandi was a vocal critic of communism. But didn't they both want to help the impoverished of their countries and change (whether peacefully or radically) their governments?
Despite any irrelevant factors of either of these men that would add positive or negative light to them, please explain whether or not one or the other method of revolution is more or less effective.
I'm not suggesting that we reason with the capitalists and have a little cutesy friendship with them, but I am a non-violent person who wants to avoid violent thought and action as much as possible.

Thank you.

~Comrade Zac

[Lynx]

The only way I see to avoid a violent revolution is to garner overwhelming support amongst workers and the middle class. Then use that support to elect a transitional communist government.
That process would require education and discussion. It would also require restraint on the parts of society that disagreed with us. If they choose violence, we would have to respond in kind.
Would Ghandi's methods have worked if the British response had been more violent? I don't know :(
I'm a non-violent person and hope for peaceful social change. But hope is not a crystal ball.

[MarxSchmarx]

The premise of the question assumes non-violence is comparable to violence insofar as they are both instrumental. This is deeply flawed.

Nobody in their right mind would advocate violence for the sake of violence.

However, true non-violence is an end in itself. Ahimsa is a moral commitment that goes to one's very core and world view. It is not a convenient tool, much less a "necessary evil".

Having said that, even if (EDIT: we) were to take an instrumental approach to non-violence, pragmatic reasons abound for its adoption.


please explain whether or not one or the other method of revolution is more or less effective.

Although partitioned and deeply troubled, independent, and bourgeois-democratic India still exists. The same cannot be said of the Soviet Union.



Would Ghandi's methods have worked if the British response had been more violent?

Witness Dr. King's fight in the American southeast.

I am also convinced many non-violent struggles as are going on today against immense repression in, e.g., Tibet, will succeed. They have done so in the Philippines, Poland, and arguably in Nicaragua.

In principle and as a strategy, I stand committed to nonviolence.

[Bilan]

The only way I see to avoid a violent revolution is to garner overwhelming support amongst workers and the middle class.

Not only is that not going to stop a violent reaction from the bourgeoisie, it's also not possible. And even if it is, it still wont stop deter reactionaries - and persons from the bourgeoisie - from violently resisting the revolution.
A violent revolution, in this day and age, is pretty much inevitable, as the bourgeoisie are not going to give up their power (political and economic) peacefully or otherwise, and they have many arms at their dispense.


Then use that support to elect a transitional communist government.

Communism from above is stupid.


That process would require education and discussion.

Under such circumstances (i.e. in the present) that too provokes a violent, repressive reaction.


Would Ghandi's methods have worked if the British response had been more violent?

No, and different responses would've been necessary to resist.

[bolshevik butcher]

I would firstly like to say comrade zac that you're repulsion to violence is what most on the left feel, although advocates of working class that will nescesserally involve violent methods and probably exchanges I and most other comrades do not enjoy violence and would rather keep it to a mimum of course without compromising any revolutionary movement. The capitalist press and state often paints the radical left as violent nutcases who enjoy mindless violence, this is not the case. Although it is also true that there is a small minoroty of people on the left who seem to enjoy the idea of violence even if it won't acheve anything.

However, ultimatley class relations are a question of force. We cannot convince the capitalist class out of power. They will not be won over by the power of reason and so force is nescesary to firstly enable the working class to seize power and also to allow the working class to keep power. How else do you suggest supressing the ruling class that rules through force and so will inevitable try to recounquer power through this method. Non-violent methods are criminal as they make us sitting ducks for the capitalists. Look at what happened in Chile, a democratically elected left wing government and the working class movement was brutally smashed by the counter revolutionary elements in the army and the ruling class. This was possible precisley because Allende had refused to arm the socialist movmeent in Chile and so they were left completely vunerable to such an attack.

There has never been an effective working class movement that has not used violence that has not been brutally smashed. Ghandi is bad example, he was not a leader of the working class at all. In fact he was regarded by british imperialism as being their man inside the Indian nationalist movement. He advocated pacafism in the face of a brutal army. Ghandi refused to support the strike movements in the Indian factories, and was a vocal critic of socialism. He suppressed working class resistance of British rule in favour of the bourgoirse congress. Through this he diluted resistance to British imperialism and allowed for the continued imperialist domination of the Indian subcontinet by allowing Britain to dvidied India along sectarian lines and ensure that the working class was divided along religous lines.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I don't think that Ghandi was "good for his own people" in the least bit. He discouraged strike action, and had no virtual connection with the worker's movement at that time. He also thought that Jews should engage in 'nonviolent resistance' to the Germans, which is, in other words, suicide. He believed that Britain and the allied powers should of "peacefully" submitted to Hitler. Personally, if I was a Jew revolting in the Sobibor death camp or in the Warsaw Ghetto, and some anorexic guy in bedsheets informed me to be "nonviolent", I would of bashed his bald head in with the butt of my rifle.

The fact is that the ideology of 'nonviolence' is cowardly. I think the Maoist tendency torwards "power grows out of the barrel of a gun" should be discouraged; we shouldn't violent for the sake of being violent. It should be an appropriate response to oppression. As Marxists, we use every tool in the box in accordance to the situation that we are under. There is no moral absolute that we try to achieve.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Violent revolution can't be avoided, at some time it will become impossible to avoid it any longer, regardless of the steps you take otherwise, and I'm not speaking in regard to "excessive measures", I'm speaking in regard to eliminating threats, to eliminating the bourgeois state, to eliminating the conditions of capitalist society which ultimately cause the subordination of the proletariat to the bourgeoisie through the coercive institution of the state. You can't have a revolution without the violent overthrow of the state, because the bourgeoisie's control of the state cannot possibly be eliminated through non-violent means- you will not eliminate it then, at least not the underlying conditions which cause it to exist in the first place- even if you succeed in somehow attaining state power through such means (which I see to be impossible considering that you need class-consciousness for there to be revolutionary movement of the working class) there will still be the problem of certain threats which will be able to regain power if they are not eliminated. you don't eliminate them, you won't eliminate their power. it's as simple as that. the state power needs to be transferred to the proletariat for the subordination of the bourgeoisie- otherwise you can't even speak of there being a "workers state" and either way you will always have a need for the use of violence against counterrevolutionary threats- so in order to eliminate that there needs to be violence to get rid of it and keep it under control so you don't have the same problem coming up in the future and the same need for action against it.

[¡Viva la Libertad!]

So the main point I am getting here from most of you is that, while non-violent action would be ideal in getting rid of the bourgeois and capitalist class, it is undeniable also that it cannot be used effectively.
MarxSchmarx pointed out that while India as an impoverished, bourgeois democratic state, it still exists, unlike the Soviet Union, which does not. However, there are certain factors that might affect either. Were the Russians fighting against imperialism, or a cruel police-state? What about the Indian independence movement? And were there many active participants, or did most of the people agree that they did/did not like these changes taking place within their society? Is it comparing apples to oranges, or is more or less the same of different?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:46 pm
So the main point I am getting here from most of you is that, while non-violent action would be ideal in getting rid of the bourgeois and capitalist class, it is undeniable also that it cannot be used effectively.
MarxSchmarx pointed out that while India as an impoverished, bourgeois democratic state, it still exists, unlike the Soviet Union, which does not. However, there are certain factors that might affect either. Were the Russians fighting against imperialism, or a cruel police-state? What about the Indian independence movement? And were there many active participants, or did most of the people agree that they did/did not like these changes taking place within their society? Is it comparing apples to oranges, or is more or less the same of different?
I think the point which is trying to be made is that though the characteristics of capitalist society and the exploitive forces which are existent have changed, the conditions underneath them, causing it to manifesto itself have not. I tend to find it to be true that Imperialism is the highest stage of Capitalism and that only the characteristics which come to manifest themselves along with the existence of capitalist society have changed but the conditions have not- therefore making it logical that Imperialism still exists but it has only changed in form in the way it presents itself. A lot of these characteristics which define Imperialism define Global Capitalism. The exploition of foreign nations for resources, etc. often lead to the same result- and are caused by the same forces which existed in regards to Imperialism- the development of monopolist capitalist forces which share the world among themselves- and exploit foreign nations/regions in the process- and the proletariat existent in those nations. I think it is fair to say that Global Capitalism is just an advanced form of Imperialism which has manifested itself by maturing from the colonial age to the age of global capital-- where monopolist capitalist forces have expanded around the world and are no longer exploiting nations and regions through colonization but through the extraction of their resources and the production of american goods in foreign nations by exploiting the workers of foreign nations by paying them extremely low wages-- hardly even comparable to wages in the country which the monopoly originated (which are already low) - resulting in exploition of not only the workers within the nation but workers of foreign nations through the productive forces being placed in foreign countries under the control of such monopolist powers-- ultimately the conditions existent in Imperialism have not diminished and all that has changed is that through the advance of capitalist society Imperialism has also advanced and what you get is what I described above.

aside from how far off topic I just got with that part of my post:

the point I was trying to make is that the conditions really haven't changed therefore it seems fair to say that revolution isn't possible without removing/eliminating the forces existent requiring there to be a violent revolution to ensure that they are successfully eliminated.

[¡Viva la Libertad!]

Ah, okay, Comrade Nadezhda, I see what you're saying. It is necessary to overthrow an improper, unjust system when it has already expanded globally and will be that much more difficult to destroy. Also, that imperialism being the highest stage of capitalism, this affects the defining characteristics of global capitalism.

[Libertarian Socialist Movement]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:23 am
Ah, okay, Comrade Nadezhda, I see what you're saying. It is necessary to overthrow an improper, unjust system when it has already expanded globally and will be that much more difficult to destroy. Also, that imperialism being the highest stage of capitalism, this affects the defining characteristics of global capitalism.
but how well do you think this can be done non violently, the nature of a man is to be violent, and such is the opressers wat, espesially in an imperialst system, like you said the highest form of capitalism. and thus also militarism. thus non- violence, could not work,
comrade - trevor

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Libertarian Socialist Movement+October 29, 2007 09:47 am--> (Libertarian Socialist Movement @ October 29, 2007 09:47 am)
[email protected] 29, 2007 02:23 am
Ah, okay, Comrade Nadezhda, I see what you're saying. It is necessary to overthrow an improper, unjust system when it has already expanded globally and will be that much more difficult to destroy. Also, that imperialism being the highest stage of capitalism, this affects the defining characteristics of global capitalism.
but how well do you think this can be done non violently, the nature of a man is to be violent, and such is the opressers wat, espesially in an imperialst system, like you said the highest form of capitalism. and thus also militarism. thus non- violence, could not work,
comrade - trevor [/b]
yes, indeed.

[Herman]

but how well do you think this can be done non violently, the nature of a man is to be violent, and such is the opressers wat, espesially in an imperialst system, like you said the highest form of capitalism. and thus also militarism. thus non- violence, could not work,

We are not living under the same circumstances as in 1917 Europe. For now, we try to defend working class interests using trade unions and the party, while at the same time we proclaim the working people's want as being a socialist society.

You will have no violence in Europe unless the material conditions allow for an increase in worker's consciousness.

Peaceful changes are the best and should be encouraged. Marx and Engels said as much. Giving up on that idea is surrendering to barbarism.

[piet11111]

redstar2000 said it nicely


A note on violence and non-violence: in my opinion, revolutionaries should be as violent as their resources and support permit; but that rhetorical violence should be discouraged.

Making verbal threats of intended violence is often a case of "the mouth writing checks that the muscles can't cash".

Likewise, I would also discourage pacifist rhetoric...it's (correctly) perceived by most people, especially the class enemy, as a sign of weakness.

When the class enemy is physically stronger than we are, we should be peaceful. When we are stronger than the class enemy, we should kick their asses.

But there's no reason for a lot of public yap about this, one way or the other. We're not under any obligation to commit ourselves to either violence or non-violence.

Instead, we should look carefully at each struggle that we're involved in and coolly and rationally decide the appropriate level of violence that fits that situation.

"Big talk" should be avoided until it makes sense to call for a general insurrection.

Right now, what we should be telling people is to resist the tyranny of capital in whatever ways are possible now.

Remember the 11th Commandment and keep it wholly: DON'T GET CAUGHT!

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 12:15 pm
We are not living under the same circumstances as in 1917 Europe. For now, we try to defend working class interests using trade unions and the party, while at the same time we proclaim the working people's want as being a socialist society.

You will have no violence in Europe unless the material conditions allow for an increase in worker's consciousness.

Peaceful changes are the best and should be encouraged. Marx and Engels said as much. Giving up on that idea is surrendering to barbarism.
What you mention simply cannot bring about more than reform. If you do not make effort to bring about class-consciousness-- of course it will not develop. Revolutionary situation doesn't just develop out of nowhere-- revolution doesn't just grow right out of the ground-- you have to plant a seed for that opportunity or it will never sprout.

Rejecting the necessity for violence will only decrease the opportunities which develop.

[Tower of Bebel]

Violence like a revolution is sometimes a necessity and this because of material circumstances. It's not about whether it's good or bad. Revolutions and violence don't have to match. Violence is the product of contradictions, just like the revolution. The capitalist State is all violence because it's full of contradictions. When a revolution gets rid of it's contradictions (for example the workers get rid of the bourgeoisie within the first moments of revolutionary strikes) then violence will not occure.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:31 am
Violence like a revolution is sometimes a necessity and this because of material circumstances. It's not about whether it's good or bad. Revolutions and violence don't have to match. Violence is the product of contradictions, just like the revolution. The capitalist State is all violence because it's full of contradictions. When a revolution gets rid of it's contradictions (for example the workers get rid of the bourgeoisie within the first moments of revolutionary strikes) then violence will not occure.
yes, but violence is necessary in eliminating such contradictions.

[coda]

the likelihood is that most all violence we encounter will be in defense to the violence enforced by the capitalist State.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:34 pm
the likelihood is that most all violence we encounter will be in defense to the violence enforced by the capitalist State.
yes, it is necessary in working to eliminate the bourgeois state. without violence, it is not possible to combat the exploitive conditions existent in capitalist society.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Folks, we should all remember just how surprisingly non-violent "Red October" itself was (so forget Eisenstein's romantic account of the revolution, since there were actually more friendly-fire casualties than casualties "on the other side"). The Bolsheviks "found power lying in the streets and simply picked it up." The real violence there came during the civil war.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Folks, we should all remember just how surprisingly non-violent "Red October" itself was (so forget Eisenstein's romantic account of the revolution, since there were actually more friendly-fire casualties than casualties "on the other side"). The Bolsheviks "found power lying in the streets and simply picked it up." The real violence there came during the civil war (thus the aggravation of the class struggle AFTER the revolution, something which Stalin himself actually had a good point about, notwithstanding Lenin's earlier "Economic and Politics" stuff which said the same thing).

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 09:26 pm
Folks, we should all remember just how surprisingly non-violent "Red October" itself was (so forget Eisenstein's romantic account of the revolution, since there were actually more friendly-fire casualties than casualties "on the other side"). The Bolsheviks "found power lying in the streets and simply picked it up." The real violence there came during the civil war (thus the aggravation of the class struggle AFTER the revolution, something which Stalin himself actually had a good point about, notwithstanding Lenin's earlier "Economic and Politics" stuff which said the same thing).
I wasn't necessarily speaking in regards to revolution, but the necessity for certain measures to be taken in securing it.

My point being that regardless of the measures taken during the revolution-- it is impossible for there not to be counterrevolutionary forces which develop. It is also impossible to even attempt to combat such threats and eliminate them without the use of violent force-- otherwise it is not possible for the worker's state to successfully form.

When you have bourgeois and counterrevolutionary threats appearing everywhere-- and no effort is taken to combat and eliminate them so that they are no longer of threat to the worker's state-- it will become more difficult to eliminate them as there are so many which have come into existence and need to be eliminated.

Therefore, it seems fair to conclude that the use of violent force against all threats which develop is necessary for it to be successful (following the revolution) and so that difficulties don't arise in too great of numbers so that it cannot be eliminated as effectively as it could have been if it were taken care of in the first place. (of course that is assuming that the use of such force doesn't already become necessary during the revolution-- at least not to the extent which is necessary afterwards). That all depends on the revolutionary situation itself.

[MarxSchmarx]

When you have bourgeois and counterrevolutionary threats appearing everywhere-- and no effort is taken to combat and eliminate them so that they are no longer of threat to the worker's state-- it will become more difficult to eliminate them as there are so many which have come into existence and need to be eliminated.

Why are you equating non-violence with non-resistance? This is a strawman tactic.
As Gandhi said, it is sometimes better to resist with violence than not resist at all.


Therefore, it seems fair to conclude that the use of violent force against all threats which develop is necessary for it to be successful (following the revolution) .

No it is not. We can engage in rent strikes, work stoppages, and mass defection to delegitamize and cripple the reactionaries. The reactionaries represent the interest of a tiny elite. They need class traitors to pull their triggers and wield their clubs.

Yes, at first it will be difficult, perhaps more difficult than taking up armed struggle. But as we convince more and more people of the righteousness of our cause, they will have fewer and fewer class traitors on their side.

When the tide turns; when our struggle becomes so powerful that we can yield our nonviolence as a tactic against the reaction; when our comrades are so convinced that they have the power to deprive the bourgeoisie of cannon fodder; then I am thoroughly confident that will be the point when the revolution's victory is secure.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

All revolutionaries are non-violent in that they want to defend themselves and the people from harmful elements. Anyone who campaigns for the sake of having violence is no comrade of mine.

How you respond to violence against you depends on the individual.

I take the French Revolution as an example of revolutionaries going too far. Obviously the movement was done in favor of liberalism, but the theme is the same.

[ComradeR]

Why are you equating non-violence with non-resistance? This is a strawman tactic.
As Gandhi said, it is sometimes better to resist with violence than not resist at all.
This would be better stated as non-aggression rather then non-violence which entails pacifism.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

The point I am trying to make is that violence cannot be avoided while attempting to eliminate the bourgeois state and the conditions existent under it-- I'm not saying that it's not possible but it surely cannot be avoided at all cost-- and it will at some point become necessary otherwise your movement's success will be threatened.

[Dros]

Gandhi was a great man and a great leader but he was a member of the bourgoisie and his aims were based on nationalist and bourgoisie liberal notions. Thus, it is ridiculous to equate his goals with the goals of Lenin. Gandhi's goal of ending British rule and decreasing poverty can be achieved through a nonviolent, bourgoisie revolution. Lenin's goal of overthrowing the aristocracy and the bourgoisie and instituting a socialist system can not be accomplished from a bottom up fasion in a nonviolent way. Secondly, the violence of the revolution causes the destruction of the state apparatus which is trying to be achieved in the first place. I believe that this makes violent revolution more effective than a nonviolent one because it already accomplishes the destruction of the bourgoisie state which would be hard to do nonviolently even if you were able to gain some measure of power that way.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 07:40 pm
Gandhi was a great man and a great leader but he was a member of the bourgoisie and his aims were based on nationalist and bourgoisie liberal notions. Thus, it is ridiculous to equate his goals with the goals of Lenin. Gandhi's goal of ending British rule and decreasing poverty can be achieved through a nonviolent, bourgoisie revolution. Lenin's goal of overthrowing the aristocracy and the bourgoisie and instituting a socialist system can not be accomplished from a bottom up fasion in a nonviolent way. Secondly, the violence of the revolution causes the destruction of the state apparatus which is trying to be achieved in the first place. I believe that this makes violent revolution more effective than a nonviolent one because it already accomplishes the destruction of the bourgoisie state which would be hard to do nonviolently even if you were able to gain some measure of power that way.
Indeed.

This is the point I have been trying to make: eliminations of threats cannot be effective without violence, and also the destruction of the bourgeois state cannot be ensured to be effective-- since you cannot guarantee that threats won't end up manifesting themselves in greater form and quantity-- which will ultimately threaten the success of the revolution and the ability for the power of the worker's state to be secured.

[MarxSchmarx]

and it will at some point become necessary otherwise your movement's success will be threatened.

You mean OUR movement, right?


[Gandhi's] .... aims were based on nationalist and bourgoisie liberal notions. Gandhi's goal of ending British rule and decreasing poverty can be achieved through a nonviolent, bourgoisie revolution.

Not so.

Gandhi was an anarchist and advocated something called "village republicanism". He was committed to this social vision through nonviolence. Overthrowing the Brits was only the first step.

If you can accuse him of anything, it is for adhering to feudal, pre-modern religious doctrines like the Hindu Caste system in spite of his professed dislike for the modern nation state and capitalism in any meaningful sense of the term. Sadly, like many an anarchist, Gandhi had his bigoted side as well.

Comrade Nadezhda:


you cannot guarantee that threats won't end up manifesting themselves in greater form and quantity-- which will ultimately threaten the success of the revolution and the ability for the power of the worker's state to be secured.

Isn't this precisely what happened to the Bolshevist revolution? The only way it could secure its violently attained "revolution" was through competing with the capitalists and the fascists on their own terms, through massive militarism and violence?

And didn't this induce the capitalists and fascists to up the anti, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the process?

Capitalism is predicated on violence. It can fight, often successfully, any violent attempt to suppress it. Capitalism is inherently violent.

But capitalism does not know of, and is inherently incapable of, dealing with nonviolence. It is powerless against strikes, against desertion, against workers and soldiers saying "fuck this shit."

If you want to "guarantee" the revolution, there is surest way is not to try to beat the capitalists at their own game. Nor is it to kill the rooster to scare the monkey.

The surest, most effective way to destroy capitalism is for us to get people, (Edit): even thought they may be unarmed (end Edit), to have the courage and conviction to say "we defy your guns and steel."

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:14 am

and it will at some point become necessary otherwise your movement's success will be threatened.

You mean OUR movement, right?


[Gandhi's] .... aims were based on nationalist and bourgoisie liberal notions. Gandhi's goal of ending British rule and decreasing poverty can be achieved through a nonviolent, bourgoisie revolution.

Not so.

Gandhi was an anarchist and advocated something called "village republicanism". He was committed to this social vision through nonviolence. Overthrowing the Brits was only the first step.

If you can accuse him of anything, it is for adhering to feudal, pre-modern religious doctrines like the Hindu Caste system in spite of his professed dislike for the modern nation state and capitalism in any meaningful sense of the term. Sadly, like many an anarchist, Gandhi had his bigoted side as well.

Comrade Nadezhda:


you cannot guarantee that threats won't end up manifesting themselves in greater form and quantity-- which will ultimately threaten the success of the revolution and the ability for the power of the worker's state to be secured.

Isn't this precisely what happened to the Bolshevist revolution? The only way it could secure its violently attained "revolution" was through competing with the capitalists and the fascists on their own terms, through massive militarism and violence?

And didn't this induce the capitalists and fascists to up the anti, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the process?

Capitalism is predicated on violence. It can fight, often successfully, any violent attempt to suppress it. Capitalism is inherently violent.

But capitalism does not know of, and is inherently incapable of, dealing with nonviolence. It is powerless against strikes, against desertion, against workers and soldiers saying "fuck this shit."

If you want to "guarantee" the revolution, there is surest way is not to try to beat the capitalists at their own game. Nor is it to kill the rooster to scare the monkey.

The surest, most effective way to destroy capitalism is for us to get people, (Edit): even thought they may be unarmed (end Edit), to have the courage and conviction to say "we defy your guns and steel."
I am refering to the revolutionary movement--

in other words-- yes, I am speaking of *our* movement--

but to combat force, which must be done through the use of force, violence is necessary.

Nonviolence can't be used to seize power of a bourgeois state when they will ultimately use violent force against revolutionary movement-- the such is not likely at all to succeed without the use of violence to combat against their use of the such force.

The ruling class isn't just going to give up their state and "surrender".

I don't say that is the only measure to be taken-- but it is ultimately a necessary one.

[MarxSchmarx]

Comrade Nadezhda:



but to combat force, which must be done through the use of force, violence is necessary.

Perhaps this is a matter of semantics. I feel strikes, work-stoppages, and desertions are damned forceful. When workers and soldiers have the courage to institute these measures, the destruction of the capitalist reaction is assured.

However, if we rely on "violence", and hope and prey (edit: sp. pray) that our superiority of arms will carry the day, it seems we have less likelihood for suppressing the reaction than we would if we win the hearts and minds of the class-traitors in the reaction.



Nonviolence can't be used to seize power of a bourgeois state when they will ultimately use violent force against revolutionary movement-- the such is not likely at all to succeed without the use of violence to combat against their use of the such force.


As has been pointed out, we can't think of the "revolution" in terms of storming the winter palace any more. Why is it any more "revolutionary" to have the legal jurisdiction to be able to make laws than to enroll 80% of the population in a radical unions?

To be sure, there will almost certainly be a violent capitalist reaction no matter what we do. But we won't have to resort to having a superior army if we can convince workers and soldiers to sabotage the capitalist reaction.



The ruling class isn't just going to give up their state and "surrender".


You are absolutely correct. Which is precisely why we must fight them with the most powerful weapons we have - solidarity, liberation, and courage. At the risk of belaboring a point, these weapons will cripple the capitalist reaction. The ruling class has no counter-attacks against workers who are ready to die for their cause.

All our howitzers, Kalishnokovs and bombers are no substitute for the courage and hope of the working class. When (edit) WE realize that they can destroy capitalism by striking, by deserting, and by standing in solidarity with their sisters and brothers, our revolution is won.

[Vargha Poralli]

Gandhi was an anarchist and advocated something called "village republicanism". He was committed to this social vision through nonviolence. Overthrowing the Brits was only the first step.

If you can accuse him of anything, it is for adhering to feudal, pre-modern religious doctrines like the Hindu Caste system in spite of his professed dislike for the modern nation state and capitalism in any meaningful sense of the term. Sadly, like many an anarchist, Gandhi had his bigoted side as well.

You are exactly right. After he too was just a human being whose ideas are shaped the social conditions of the time and era he lived in.

To add more Gandhi cannot be labeled as a pacifist which entails non-resistance. He advocated Resistance without violence. And his tactic worked well in India in the sense that it united the Indian people against the British over the caste,Language and religious lines. But it did not win the independence for the Indian subcontinenet(India,Pakistan and Bangladesh).

As for the original topic Violence is a sword without handle. We must use it only we have a change to finish off the enemy once. We cannot afford to hurt ourselves using it when we know the enemy is not ready to die in one hit.

I would like to point out the results of the armed struggle of Naxalites,CPN(M), LTTE and other guerilla movements who took armed struggle not as a mean but as a principle.

Violence may or maynot be needed for a revolution. But both fetishising violence and non-violence is not going to help either.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Comrade Nadezhda:

Perhaps this is a matter of semantics. I feel strikes, work-stoppages, and desertions are damned forceful. When workers and soldiers have the courage to institute these measures, the destruction of the capitalist reaction is assured.

However, if we rely on "violence", and hope and prey (edit: sp. pray) that our superiority of arms will carry the day, it seems we have less likelihood for suppressing the reaction than we would if we win the hearts and minds of the class-traitors in the reaction.
The point I am trying to make is that without centralization of authority in some regard it is by far more likely for counterrevolutionary movement to develop within the revolutionary movement.


As has been pointed out, we can't think of the "revolution" in terms of storming the winter palace any more. Why is it any more "revolutionary" to have the legal jurisdiction to be able to make laws than to enroll 80% of the population in a radical unions?
The argument I am making is not whether or not it is "revolutionary"-- I am arguing that having a centralized authority allows for more success of revolutionary movement because it is properly organized so that it can respond to threats-- without some centralization there will always be threats developing within the revolutionary movement which have the ability to prevent it from being successful. It is impossible to prevent counterrevolutionary movement within the revolutionary movement itself when it can't even be guaranteed that there will 1.) not be utter chaos between those who are part of the movement and 2.) that it will be possible for a response to them to be effective in eliminating the threats they pose-- because with lack of organization comes with it the inability of the movement to response effectivity-- it is not simply whether or not it is "revolutionary" but whether or not such a movement could even maintain existence with the poor organization within it.


To be sure, there will almost certainly be a violent capitalist reaction no matter what we do. But we won't have to resort to having a superior army if we can convince workers and soldiers to sabotage the capitalist reaction.
The problem with this is when a response to reactionary movement becomes necessary-- and the revolutionary movement isn't properly organized-- it is impossible to guarantee that all within the movement will make effort to eliminate the reactionary threats-- and even if they did not-- there would not structurally be a way to eliminate them as threats to the movement.


You are absolutely correct. Which is precisely why we must fight them with the most powerful weapons we have - solidarity, liberation, and courage. At the risk of belaboring a point, these weapons will cripple the capitalist reaction. The ruling class has no counter-attacks against workers who are ready to die for their cause.

All our howitzers, Kalishnokovs and bombers are no substitute for the courage and hope of the working class. When (edit) WE realize that they can destroy capitalism by striking, by deserting, and by standing in solidarity with their sisters and brothers, our revolution is won.
My main argument against what you propose as revolutionary movement instead of a revolutionary movement with centralized authority (or a vanguard) is the organizational structure which it seems relevant to argue that the organizational structure of such a movement you speak of could very well have the potential to eliminate its effectiveness, not that it is not revolutionary-- I never claimed that-- but my argument is simply a movement's existence depends greatly on its ability to sustain itself-- and that cannot be done when it is organized in a way which makes proper response to threats difficult.

Not only that, but without properly eliminating the bourgeois state and eliminating the ruling class it also will fail.

[MarxSchmarx]

without centralization of authority in some regard it is by far more likely for counterrevolutionary movement to develop within the revolutionary movement...I am arguing that having a centralized authority allows for more success of revolutionary movement because it is properly organized so that it can respond to threats-- without some centralization there will always be threats developing within the revolutionary movement which have the ability to prevent it from being successful...

My main argument against what you propose as revolutionary movement instead of a revolutionary movement with centralized authority (or a vanguard) is the organizational structure which it seems relevant to argue that the organizational structure of such a movement you speak of could very well have the potential to eliminate its effectiveness, not that it is not revolutionary-- I never claimed that-- but my argument is simply a movement's existence depends greatly on its ability to sustain itself-- and that cannot be done when it is organized in a way which makes proper response to threats difficult.


But this is thread on the violence/noviolence question, not the autonomst/vanguardist question!


1.) not be utter chaos between those who are part of the movement and 2.) that it will be possible for a response to them to be effective in eliminating the threats they pose-

Non-violence (or for that matter anarchism) doesn't imply "utter chaos." However, you imply as much when you say:



revolutionary movement isn't properly organized-- it is impossible to guarantee that all within the movement will make effort to eliminate the reactionary threats-- and even if they did not-- there would not structurally be a way to eliminate them as threats to the movement.


No one is saying we should be chaotic, disorganized, "spontaneous". I suppose if you take discipline and class solidarity to be "violent" then you are led to this conclusion, but I doubt seriously you consider these to be inherently violent or entailing violence.

And we simply disagree on what is an "effictive" strategy for "eliminating the theats" the revolution. I think non-violence is ultimately most effective, you think otherwise.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

And we simply disagree on what is an "effictive" strategy for "eliminating the theats" the revolution. I think non-violence is ultimately most effective, you think otherwise.
the threats themselves cannot be elminated without violent force or they will not be "eliminated" they will still exist and have the potential to harm the success of the revolutionary movement.

it is naive to think there won't be necessity for the use of violent force to any extent.

[MarxSchmarx]

Comrade Nadezhda,

Sadly, I fear we are speaking past each other.


the threats themselves cannot be elminated without violent force or they will not be "eliminated" they will still exist and have the potential to harm the success of the revolutionary movement.

I would suggest violent force hasn't historically worked to attain this goal. Even after all the executions, forced relocations and public humiliations, the cultural revolution was unable to excise reactionary capitalists from the Chinese politburo. The same has been proven true for the Vietnamese and the Soviet Union.

It is my opinion that the capitalist reaction has proven, historically, remarkably resilient to violent suppression. The lesson I take from this is that more of the same is a prescription for failure.


it is naive to think there won't be necessity for the use of violent force to any extent.

I would retort it is naive to expect "violence" to carry the day.

By "violence" I am assuming you have meant all along killing, physical injury, and/or the threat of either of these to get your way. If I have been wrong, please correct me.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:30 am
I would retort it is naive to expect "violence" to carry the day.

By "violence" I am assuming you have meant all along killing, physical injury, and/or the threat of either of these to get your way. If I have been wrong, please correct me.
yes I am speaking in regard to force which restricts the capability of counterrevolutionary/bourgeois reactionary movement- and preferably in that regard i would prefer to eliminate these threats so that they do not come up again, so it would seem logical to just execute them and get it over with so there is not opportunity for their oppositional movement(s) to gain strength against the revolutionary movement. it is not a matter of "killing" or "not killing" or "violence" or "nonviolence" but rather a matter of what comes necessary to act upon- the bourgeois ruling class aren't just going to sit on their asses, they are going to attempt to prevent the revolutionary movement's success- that isn't a matter which nonviolence is always capable of addressing.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 02:21 am
Folks, we should all remember just how surprisingly non-violent "Red October" itself was (so forget Eisenstein's romantic account of the revolution, since there were actually more friendly-fire casualties than casualties "on the other side"). The Bolsheviks "found power lying in the streets and simply picked it up." The real violence there came during the civil war.
It is true that there was little resistance, but there was still violence. I believe John Reed noted that 500 Red Guards fell taking Moscow.

The state is an instrument of coercion used to protect the class that is in power, and consequently, the bourgeoisie are not going to go down without a fight. History has shown this. Just look at how determined they were to get rid of the USSR, by sending nearly two dozen armies there.

Advocation of peaceful means actually plays a reactionary role, as pacifism amounts to passively sitting by and letting the bourgeois dictatorship continue to function. To refuse to seize power when you have the opportunity to do it amounts to voluntarily leaving power in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Given that pacifism amounts to sitting by and letting imperialism become rampant, in the last analysis, it is really a highly violent ideology, as it ends up supporting the continuation of imperialism.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Given that pacifism amounts to sitting by and letting imperialism become rampant, in the last analysis, it is really a highly violent ideology, as it ends up supporting the continuation of imperialism.That is not pacifism, though. That's apathy. Being a pacifist does not amount to sitting around and letting shit happen.
Pacifists could serve the revolution in so many ways. Spreading consciousness, writing communiques, tending children of militants, caring for liberated territories, carrying supplies, etc.
The possibilities are endless. For a revolution to succeed, it needs both pacifists and militants.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:33 am
It is true that there was little resistance, but there was still violence. I believe John Reed noted that 500 Red Guards fell taking Moscow.

The state is an instrument of coercion used to protect the class that is in power, and consequently, the bourgeoisie are not going to go down without a fight. History has shown this. Just look at how determined they were to get rid of the USSR, by sending nearly two dozen armies there.
That is why I agrue for the use of violent force as a means of destroying the bourgeois state apparatus and the relations existent within it. The bourgeoisie can't be expected to just sit and watch as state power as seized, they will use significant force to secure their power, to secure their "state" for revolutionary movement to have any opportunity of succeeding, significant force must be made against it to crush it effectivity so that it is eliminated and reactionary movement doesn't threaten the revolutionary movment.


Advocation of peaceful means actually plays a reactionary role, as pacifism amounts to passively sitting by and letting the bourgeois dictatorship continue to function. To refuse to seize power when you have the opportunity to do it amounts to voluntarily leaving power in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
Ultimately refusing to participate in "violent acts" will lead to revolutionary failure as a revolution cannot succeed without crushing the bourgeois state apparatus with significant force to eliminate it.


Given that pacifism amounts to sitting by and letting imperialism become rampant, in the last analysis, it is really a highly violent ideology, as it ends up supporting the continuation of imperialism.
Imperialism will continue to exist unless significant force is used against it. The bourgeois state is a coercive institution, it cannot be said that it won't make effort to sustain its power, which is ultimately what it will do to secure the interests of its ruling class. Force is a means of the bourgeoisie maintaining power- such a state cannot be effectivity destroyed without the use of violent force against the force used by the bourgeois state- to eliminate its power.


That is not pacifism, though. That's apathy. Being a pacifist does not amount to sitting around and letting shit happen.
Pacifists could serve the revolution in so many ways. Spreading consciousness, writing communiques, tending children of militants, caring for liberated territories, carrying supplies, etc.
The possibilities are endless. For a revolution to succeed, it needs both pacifists and militants.
Pacifism defeats the purpose of revolutionary movement in the first place, as it ultimately makes way for Imperialist forces to develop with greater significance. That isn't to say that violence is required in all regards but without the use of significant force against Imperialism it will continue to exist.

[Fawkes]

It should be pointed out that historically speaking, non-violence is not effective if there is no threat of violence. Even Daniel O'Connell, the father of peaceful resistence and a great influence on Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., recognized that without the threat of violence to back him up, he would have no power whatsoever. In other words, if you refuse to fight back violently and the enemy knows that they can do whatever they want to you without fear of retribution, they will do whatever it is that they please. However, even if they know that you won't do anything back, if there is a threat that others will, then they will think twice about doing whatever they want to you. So, really, no matter what way you look at it, violence is still in a sense necessary for any political revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:33 am
It is true that there was little resistance, but there was still violence. I believe John Reed noted that 500 Red Guards fell taking Moscow.
That's true. [Hey, didn't Stalin play some sort of role in the Moscow uprising? :huh: ]


Advocation of peaceful means actually plays a reactionary role, as pacifism amounts to passively sitting by and letting the bourgeois dictatorship continue to function. To refuse to seize power when you have the opportunity to do it amounts to voluntarily leaving power in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

What was that saying that linked pacifism with fascism? [Anyhow, I know it's broader, as you said, but that saying's a good sound-bite to say to pacifists right to their faces.]

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:38 am
It should be pointed out that historically speaking, non-violence is not effective if there is no threat of violence. Even Daniel O'Connell, the father of peaceful resistence and a great influence on Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., recognized that without the threat of violence to back him up, he would have no power whatsoever. In other words, if you refuse to fight back violently and the enemy knows that they can do whatever they want to you without fear of retribution, they will do whatever it is that they please. However, even if they know that you won't do anything back, if there is a threat that others will, then they will think twice about doing whatever they want to you. So, really, no matter what way you look at it, violence is still in a sense necessary for any political revolution.
The problem with nonviolence is that it can't possibly be said to be true that there will never be opposition against revolutionary movement, therefore with the development of reactionary/counterrevolutionary movements comes the necessity for elimination of threats, as they pose a significant threat to the revolutionary movement itself.

It also cannot be said that reactionaries won't use violent force, so therefore it cannot be said that the use of violent force can be avoided in regard to the revolutionary movement- as oppositional movements will use violent force to weaken the revolutionary movement.

Point being, there will always be a point where the use of significant force must be used against counterrevolutionary/reactionary threats, otherwise they will weaken the revolutionary movement. For any revolution to succeed, all which threatens revolutionary movement must be eliniminated, otherwise it will weaken it and it then has a great possibility of failure as it does not have the means to eliminate threats once it is weakened and it no longer has that ability.

The bourgeoisie isn't just going to wait around and sit on their asses, they are going to use force against movements causing threat to their "state". Oppositional forces will develop and they will need to be effectivity eliminated so that they are taken care of and won't manifest themselves in the future as that would create potential of greater threats to form which could significantly weaken the revolutionary movement and prevent the revolution from succeeding.

As by all means, when threats develop outside of the movement in such quantity that they cannot be effectively eliminated the door is open for threats to develop within the movement itself, as it is already weakened and can longer defend itself against internal threats- that leaves prime opportunity for opposition within the movement which will ultimately cause the revolution to fail if there is no means of getting rid of them at that point.

Point being, wouldn't it be better to use force against counterrevolutionary/reactionary movements as they begin to develop rather than waiting for them to manifest themselves with such significant quantity and force that the threats cannot possibly be eliminated? It would definitely be a step towards securing the power of the revolutionary movement and strengthening its force, as less difficulties will develop with the potential of weakening it.

Avoiding the use of violent in that regard is ultimately only going to weaken the movement and lead the revolution to failure. Going in to revolutionary movement with the intention of avoiding necessary acts in securing it is pointless, as it will ultimately fail. It cannot possibly be assumed that reactionaries won't use violence, they will- the bourgeoisie is going to use the greatest amount of force to secure the existence of their state and their position as the ruling class- therefore, greater force must be used by the revolutionary movement to effectively eliminate the bourgeois state apparatus and bourgeois reactionary movement which is ultimately trying to secure its position in society. the bourgeoisie isn't just going to surrender, they are going to form oppositional movement against it. That is exactly why the use of violent force is necessary. All threats must be eliminated to secure revolutionary movement.

Ultimately, that is unavoidable.

[MarxSchmarx]

In other words, if you refuse to fight back violently and the enemy knows that they can do whatever they want to you without fear of retribution, they will do whatever it is that they please. However, even if they know that you won't do anything back, if there is a threat that others will, then they will think twice about doing whatever they want to you.


But nonviolence is retaliation. Work stoppages, sit-ins, and desertion are a few of the most obvious examples. The capitalists know that they cannot keep their machine of death operating without our tacit complicity. Capitalist resistance requires class traitors - with solidarity we can cripple capitalism far more effectively than with guns, steel and the NKVD.


The problem with nonviolence is that it can't possibly be said to be true that there will never be opposition against revolutionary movement, therefore with the development of reactionary/counterrevolutionary movements comes the necessity for elimination of threats, as they pose a significant threat to the revolutionary movement itself...
The bourgeoisie isn't just going to wait around and sit on their asses, they are going to use force against movements causing threat to their "state". Oppositional forces will develop and they will need to be effectivity eliminated so that they are taken care of and won't manifest themselves in the future as that would create potential of greater threats to form which could significantly weaken the revolutionary movement and prevent the revolution from succeeding.


Again, this is a misunderstanding of what precisely nonviolent resistance implies. Nonviolence isn't myopic, and it doesn't pretend to invite the capitalists to join us for a bottle of wine.

Besides, violent mechanisms (like the death penalty for corruption in China) have failed spectacularly to secure the revolution time and time again. The argument that violence somehow immunizes us from capitalist restoration is contradicted quite plainly by the history of every violent socialist revolution.


without the threat of violence to back him up, he would have no power whatsoever.

But this seems to assume that "all power derives from the battle of a gun" . We have economic power. We have "manpower". We can refuse to fight their wars, refuse to manufacture their arms, refuse to plan their business strategies. We have power, and serious power. Our power doesn't derive from the barrel of a gun. It derives from the fact that WE are the producing class, and they are the parasites.


there will always be a point where the use of significant force must be used against counterrevolutionary/reactionary threats, otherwise they will weaken the revolutionary movement. For any revolution to succeed, all which threatens revolutionary movement must be eliniminated, otherwise it will weaken it and it then has a great possibility of failure as it does not have the means to eliminate threats once it is weakened and it no longer has that ability.


How do you know this? Again, look at the historical record. Given that numerous leftist revolutionaries agree with you on violence, yet we have no example of a successful liberatory revolution that withstood the onslaught of capitalist temptations. Sure, there are numerous factors that explain why the Bolshevik revolution was betrayed, but violence didn't stop its disintegration.


It cannot possibly be assumed that reactionaries won't use violence, they will- the bourgeoisie is going to use the greatest amount of force to secure the existence of their state and their position as the ruling class- therefore, greater force must be used by the revolutionary movement to effectively eliminate the bourgeois state apparatus and bourgeois reactionary movement which is ultimately trying to secure its position in society. the bourgeoisie isn't just going to surrender, they are going to form oppositional movement against it. That is exactly why the use of violent force is necessary. All threats must be eliminated to secure revolutionary movement.


The reactionaries will use violence. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but nonviolence accepts this point. But part of the point of advocating nonviolence is that we don't buy the capitalists argument that "oh well, it is human nature to be corrupt, so the only way you can suppress us is through force." We show the capitalists that even though they need missiles and munitions factories to win, we can defeat them with solidarity and solidarity alone. The capitalists rely on force to maintain the present order. We don't have to. If this isn't empowering, I don't know what is.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

The reactionaries will use violence. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but nonviolence accepts this point. But part of the point of advocating nonviolence is that we don't buy the capitalists argument that "oh well, it is human nature to be corrupt, so the only way you can suppress us is through force." We show the capitalists that even though they need missiles and munitions factories to win, we can defeat them with solidarity and solidarity alone. The capitalists rely on force to maintain the present order. We don't have to. If this isn't empowering, I don't know what is.
You will not be able to combat their force, therefore the such will lead revolutionary movement straight to failure. It may be ideal ,but it certainly is very unlikely, as revolutionary movement is not ideal and actions taken to secure it cannot be especially since only conditions of necessity create the need for the use of violent force. It isn't a matter of whether or not it is preferable or not, it is a matter of necessity in regards to the progression of revolutionary movement towards attaining communist society.