A peaceful path to revolution?

[Unicorn]

Is a peaceful socialist revolution possible in the 21st century?

These historical examples are food for thought:


History has witnessed examples of the peaceful development of socialist revolution, such as the frequent attempts of the Bolshevik Party between February and October 1917 to use the favourable situation for peacefully changing the bourgeois-democratic to socialist revolution and establishing a proletarian dictatorship. But, the counter-revolutionary actions of the Russian bourgeoisie and the conciliatory and anti-revolutionary posture of the Mensheviks and SocialistRevolutionaries forced the people and the Bolshevik Party to replace peaceful by armed struggle; proletarian dictatorship was therefore attained through an uprising and strengthened during the subsequent civil war against foreign intervention and the fight against the foreign invaders.

The possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism arose in Finland in 1917 where the people had extensive democratic liberties. The Finnish bourgeoisie eliminated this possibility by provoking a bloody civil war.

A peaceful transition to power occurred in Hungary in 1919. The previous year, a bourgeois-democratic revolution had toppled the Hungarian monarchy and brought to power the liberal bourgeoisie backed by social democrats. A coalition government which protected the interests of the big bourgeoisie and landowners and dealt viciously with the labour and peasant movement, refused to recognise the right to independence of national minorities. The government counted on help from the Entente powers in maintaining the bourgeois system in the country. Its home and foreign policy received no popular support, however, and it became bankrupt. The working class took the initiative and demanded a socialist republic; the mass of peasants and urban petty bourgeoisie followed the lead of the working class. Communist influence spread rapidly among the working people, and the social democrats, threatened with losing contact completely with the people, were obliged to unite with the Communists. The people had weapons and were ready for armed struggle; there were no forces in the country which could oppose the working class and its allies. The preponderance of the revolutionaries was so obvious that the bourgeoisie decided not to put up a fight.

http://www.leninist.biz/en/1975/LTSR447/04.3-Gaining.Power.Peacefully

[comrade stalin guevara]

no the capitolist system is in its last days the true final stage of capitolisim is corprate facisim micro chips 4 credit cards,etc its happening now

we must fight not talk
not because we want to but cos we have2

like mao i am 4 peace but 4 peace we must war

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, it's a bit more complex than that.

First, the political revolution that was Red October was much more peaceful than most people think, because the state simply collapsed around the Bolsheviks and the Petrograd Soviet.

Second, you should have specified that the Bolsheviks encouraged the MENSHEVIKS and SRs to break away from the Provisional Government and use their soviet majority to govern:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power-and-t83963/index.html

Third, "peaceful" revolutions do NOT have to entail the parliamentary route (this is the problem lots of rev-leftists have in terms of promoting minimum demands (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html)). I think some Latino comrades here talked about the Cuban political revolution culminating in a mass strike that crippled the business oligarchy.

[comrade stalin guevara]

very true comrade kia ora

[BobKKKindle$]

Revolution must be a violent process, because the bourgeoisie would never surrender control of property (and the political power they are able to derive from the ownership of property) without some form of armed struggle. If the national bourgeoisie is not strong enough to pose resistance, external powers would also try and destroy the revolution, because any determined struggle by the working class creates an example and source of inspiration for workers in other countries, and an established workers state would be able to give financial and material aid to foreign revolutionary movements, thereby posing a threat to the stability of capitalism across the world. Although the actual seizure of power (taking control of strategic locations such as telegraph exchanges, arresting the members of the bourgeois government, etc.) may not result in great loss of life, this seizure is only the initial stage of a prolonged revolutionary process, and thereafter class struggle will assume the form of military conflict between the proletarian state, and hostile forces (both internal and external) aiming to restore capitalism.

[Yes]

The capitalists cling to their system. They won't go without a fight.

[rocker935]

I think that there are multiple parts to revolution. One can not just get a band of guerrillas and overthrow the government in one day. I believe that the trust and support of the people must be gained first. In order to have the most successful outcome the people must support you from the beginning to the end, remember, your doing it for them. But yes, when all the supporters that can be gained, have been gained, violence will prolly have to be used. I see violence and bloodshed as a last resort.

[Unicorn]

Revolution must be a violent process, because the bourgeoisie would never surrender control of property (and the political power they are able to derive from the ownership of property) without some form of armed struggle.
The revolutions were peaceful in Eastern European states and DDR after WWII. The national bourgeoisie was very weak after the German Fascists were crushed and foreign imperialist powers were unable to intervene.

[Hit The North]

The revolutions were peaceful in Eastern European states and DDR after WWII. The national bourgeoisie was very weak after the German Fascists were crushed and foreign imperialist powers were unable to intervene.
Were they revolution though?

[Dros]

No.

Period.

[Drace]

There might be a way for a peaceful revolution. Why not?

Complex it would be but yes I believe its possible.

[chimx]

No.

Period.

Karl Marx specifically said that if democratic apparatuses are in place with in a capitalist country, it is possible to obtain a proletarian dictatorship through "peaceful means". Whether you agree or disagree with Marx is another story I suppose, but I think such a process is feasible depending on how culturally ingrained these democratic apparatuses are within a particular country.

[BobKKKindle$]

Karl Marx specifically said that if democratic apparatuses are in place with in a capitalist country, it is possible to obtain a proletarian dictatorship through "peaceful means".

Although Marx may have said this (it is sometimes difficult to know precisely what he meant, because he did not always make himself clear or fully explain his position) he did not have the benefit of one hundred years of experience, which has conclusively shown that the election of a socialist government by peaceful means cannot establish a proletarian dictatorship, but instead provokes a violent response, and economic sabotage - as occurred in Chile (1973) following the election of Salvador Allende as head of a coalition government which included the Communist Party.

Even if democratic values are part of a country's cultural identity, they will count for nothing when the bourgeoisie is faced with the danger of social revolution, the bourgeoisie will resort to any methods to prevent the proletariat from taking power.

[Decolonize The Left]

I see no reason why we ought to assume that violence will be inevitable. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you assume that violence will happen, then it will - because you will perpetrate it yourself.

I would be much more intelligent for us, as a revolutionary community, to explore all possible options for a peaceful revolution, and acknowledge that violence may occur. We can be prepared for such an outcome, but it makes little sense to ignore all other possibilities and bring it about ourselves.

- August

[mikelepore]

To be "peaceful" is ambiguous. People can't even have a town picnic without someone throwing a punch. The issue is whether the violence is incidental or whether the revolutionary change is based on it. If the revolutionary movement waits patiently until the majority of the people come to support revolutionary change, then the political process will express the people's mandate, and any violence that occurs will be merely incidental. But if any minority attempts to take power "in the name of the people" and "for the people", the resulting violence would be systematic and also severe. In the latter case, it would be mainly the working class, not the ruling class, that would get massacred. Also, the latter case, even if the uprising were successful, it would result only in a change of masters, the installation of a new kind of ruling class. Therefore a democratic outcome can only be achieved by waiting many years for majority consent and through the use of the political process.

Can Marxian socialism, specifically, be achieved in a civilized transition that sees only incidental violence? Yes, it can ONLY be achieved that way. Why only in that way? Because if a social change requires systematic violence, that would mean that the majority of the people don't support it, and if the majority don't support it then it's not a democratic process that is underway, and if the procedure isn't democratic then it's not socialism.

[Unicorn]

Were they revolution though?
Yes. Of course. Are there any major tendencies which claim that they weren't revolutions? To my knowledge also Trots and Maoists held that the Eastern European people's republics were workers' states.

[BobKKKindle$]

To my knowledge also Trots and Maoists held that the Eastern European people's republics were workers' states.

Trotskyists argue that the republics were deformed workers states, which, as distinct from bureacratic degeneration, means the proletariat has never exercised political power, because social property norms are imposed by an occupying power, and the state apparatus is controlled by a bureaucratic stratum which suppresses proletarian democracy.

[chimx]

it is sometimes difficult to know precisely what he meant, because he did not always make himself clear or fully explain his position

If you read his 1872 Hague speech he makes it pretty clear that the implementation of parliamentary systems means that revolutions can be obtained "peacefully" -- he specifically uses the term peacefully in fact.

As for Chile, I would argue that Chile in 1973 didn't have a very mature democracy. I believe it only began to make parliamentary concessions as early as the 1930s. The tolerance of a military government under Pinochet following Allende I would say is further evidence that Chile's democratic values were not yet culturally ingrained in the country.

In countries where democratic values are more obviously ingrained with the population we can see examples of Marxists and socialists being successfully elected. Leon Blum's SFIO in France for example was explicitly community, though in practice it did eventually regress to be a reformist party by the end. This was the political party that kick-started the idea of entryism for Trotsky and Blum did eventually become the PM of France under a popular front, though I would agree with you that it was pretty reformist by that time.

But I would argue that the essence of what Marx is arguing that it is not a good idea to pigeon-hole yourself with a single method, lest we all be accused of Blanquism.


I see no reason why we ought to assume that violence will be inevitable. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you assume that violence will happen, then it will - because you will perpetrate it yourself.

I would be much more intelligent for us, as a revolutionary community, to explore all possible options for a peaceful revolution, and acknowledge that violence may occur. We can be prepared for such an outcome, but it makes little sense to ignore all other possibilities and bring it about ourselves.

I agree, and I find this to be accurate to the spirit of Marxism.

[trivas7]

I can't help but feel that the USA will go the way of the Roman Empire. US government is in debt to its ears and dollars leaving the US for oil and trade right now is the largest transfer of wealth in history (just heard this from an economic on Glen Beck(!)).

[Lost In Translation]

I do think that as much as we hope that revolution can be a smooth going and peaceful process, it will most likely involve violence. No matter how deep in trouble the bourgeois are, they will always believe in rights to property and whatnot. The capitalist system will not fall until the workers escape from the fantasy provided by the bourgeois, and take action. Violence isn't what I particularly approve of, but if it will contribute to the downfall of capitalism, I'm all for it.

[Unicorn]

Is it correct to say that Trotskyists don't recognize a peaceful path to revolution?

Boris Leibson writes:

While Lenin emphasised that ".. . violence is, of course, alien to our ideals”, Trotsky praised violence and intimidation and widely resorted to it. Speaking ten days after the victory of the October Revolution, Lenin said: "We have not resorted, and I hope will not resort, to the terrorism of the French revolutionaries who guillotined unarmed men." This expressed his deep conviction that the victorious working class must not resort to armed violence, to terror, except as a retaliatory measure, when forced to do so by representatives of the overthrown exploiting classes who are unwilling to lay down their arms. Trotsky, on the other hand, made terror a law of all wars and all revolutions. In his book, Terrorism and Communism, he maintained that "intimidation is a powerful means of policy, both foreign and domestic”. He did not draw any distinction between war and revolution; to him every revolution was a war, and "war, like revolution, is based on intimidation”. Like war, "revolution . . . kills few but intimidates thousands".

[STI]

But, the counter-revolutionary actions of the Russian bourgeoisie and the conciliatory and anti-revolutionary posture of the Mensheviks and SocialistRevolutionaries forced the people and the Bolshevik Party to replace peaceful by armed struggle
(Emphasis added)

It's that counter-revolutionary activity we can count on, and it's that counter-revolutionary activity that will make violence necessity, much as we may wish we could avoid it.


If the revolutionary movement waits patiently until the majority of the people come to support revolutionary change, then the political process will express the people's mandate

I'd argue that the political process never will represent such a mandate, and if it started to look like it would then you'd have everything from suitcases full of cash being delivered to purchasable members of parliament, to a military coup by the bourgeoisie. It would really be better to prepare for the inevitable violence, both practically (ie: getting guns, learning how to use them) and in what we tell people. We have to be the ones who tell the truth, even if it's a truth some people won't want to hear.

[Yehuda Stern]

Karl Marx specifically said that if democratic apparatuses are in place with in a capitalist country, it is possible to obtain a proletarian dictatorship through "peaceful means".

He did not. Marx (or Engels, I don't remember) said that in states where the military apparatus is not very strong - say, in America or Britain of his time - the workers might be able to make a peaceful revolution. But that was in the time of laissez-faire capitalism. In the age of monopoly imperialist capitalism, that option is off the table.


Are there any major tendencies which claim that they weren't revolutions? To my knowledge also Trots and Maoists held that the Eastern European people's republics were workers' states.

Well, the orto-trots don't believe that these states were created out of revolutions. They say that they were "deformed" workers' states. How workers' states came to be without working class revolutions is a question best directed to those who believe in these magical entities.

[Pogue]

As Che himself said, our violent insurrection is only justified when all peaceful means to radical change have been exstinguished.
Violence in self defence, too.

[NerdVincent]

What do we mean by peaceful revolution?
As a matter of fact, I think it is the only possible way to get a viable communist state. I don't even consider Lenine-esque revolution, with a little commando taking the power (and keeping it) to be revolution at all. It's just a pretty coup d'état.

The only revolution is the revolution of people's mind (Rosa Luxemburgh). Let just show people what is the problem and how communism can solve it, and the revolution, unstoppable and real, is almost done. After this, we just need to call the population to do it the Gandhi way.
When it is over, there won't be any massive exile to adjacent country or anything because the people wanted the revolution, the people did the revolution.
Done.

[Hyacinth]

Whether or not a revolution is peaceful doesn’t depend on the revolutionaries or the working class; any revolutionary would gladly accept the peaceful surrender of the ruling class if they could. Alas it is the ruling class and the reactionaries who will resist change and force us to use force. Workers could tomorrow decide to ignore their bosses and take over the factories, this in itself is a peaceful act, but the bosses wouldn’t stand for this, and from there conflict will arise. So long as the ruling class refuses to surrender power violence will be necessary, and it is doubtful whether the ruling class will ever simply surrender power. The reformists who think we can usher in socialism with parliamentary tactics are dreaming: even if they had a majority in said parliaments, do they honestly believe that the bourgeoisie and their running dogs would simply concede without a fight?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Comrade, I would also add that there's much confusion over "peaceful revolution" and "legal means." When most people talk about "peaceful revolution," what they REALLY mean is enacting their "revolution" LEGALLY. "Red October" was an illegal, yet PEACEFUL revolution - and, from our past conversation on "the road to power," Lenin's compromise proposal to the Menshies and SRs was also one of illegal yet PEACEFUL revolution (non-recognition of the Provisional Government).

[Led Zeppelin]

Well, the orto-trots don't believe that these states were created out of revolutions. They say that they were "deformed" workers' states. How workers' states came to be without working class revolutions is a question best directed to those who believe in these magical entities.

How were bourgeois property relations spread by Napoleonic France?

Through war and conquest.

It's not really difficult to get these things when you think about them a little.

[Mala Tha Testa]

more or less we need to be ready for violence, but strive for peace during any revolution.

[BIG BROTHER]

Like I've always said, violence is not our options, but the ruling class'. Depending on how far they are going to defend their system and private property determines whether violence will be used or not.

[Lost In Translation]

What josefrancisco said was right. However, I think we shouldn't expect anything less than an all-out attack by the ruling class. After all, it is them who are defending their property. But are we capable of persuading the military as well? Because if that's the case, the bourgeois has little left.