Armed Revolution or Democracy

[dmcauliffe09]

I've been pondering what the better solution to the overthrow of the oppressive capitalist government is: armed revolution or ballot-box democracy. I think that in America, we're quick to shun the idea of armed revolution, despite the fact that the nation was created through violent revolutionary means. Any idea nowadays of this type of revolution is frowned upon, and American society would rather make change through voting, but as has been evident throughout our history, voting does not garauntee a change in policy. Armed revolution, in my opinion, would work better, but the casualties and devestation caused by it make me wonder if it should be saved until absolutely necessary.

[bcbm]

Well you can't exactly pull an armed revolution out of a hat. :rolleyes:

[BraneMatter]

Well you can't exactly pull an armed revolution out of a hat.


No, you can't. And even if you win at the ballot box, defending the revolution afterwards is a whole other matter. The capitalists will not give up without a struggle, and that struggle has multiple fronts (political, labor, students, educational, propaganda, economic, armed force, etc.).

We saw a lot more revolutionary consciousness in the U.S. back in the Sixties, but it wasn't enough. We had some good leaders, too, but we failed for many reasons.

[Armand Iskra]

In a revolution, There is always be a two line struggle:
The use of Parliamentary struggle through protests and the use of the ballot box, and the use of Armed struggle. These struggles must be continuous as the system grew worse. In fact, the liberation front like an armored being, must have categorized into three: the head resembles the party, the sword must be the army, and the shield must be the front. Armed struggle can't live without carrying struggle through peaceful means nor the parliament with its armed counterpart. But the worst, both struggles are useless without the guidance of the people, through the party. The Front protects its objectives while the Army offends against the enemy, but all of these are guided by the party itself, and of the people.

[bayano]

I think the likelihood of either is pretty distant. The most important thing in the US is to build bases, build mass movements, principled and anti-capitalist. Regardless of how we can bring the big change about, that isn't relevant. We'll know when we get there. The principle concern is to organize Organize ORGANIZE!!!

[Red October]

We saw a lot more revolutionary consciousness in the U.S. back in the Sixties, but it wasn't enough. We had some good leaders, too, but we failed for many reasons.

I think this is largely a myth. The "revolutionary" movement in the 60's was overwhelmingly centered with students and youth, who comprised a relatively small portion of the overall population. Even worse, they were pretty much isolated from the working class and never really won a whole lot of support for their program, if they ever actually defined one. I don't think we should really be nostalgic for the activism of the 60's at all.

[cyu]

Sometimes you need to take up arms just to ensure the election is free and fair.

You can worry about the methods later. What's more important now is to spread ideas. Some of those who agree with your theories will prefer more peaceful means. Others will be more confrontational. They should be free to decide which path they want to take - although you may want to offer tactical advice as you see fit. [For example, I wouldn't encourage armed rebels to kill opponents, but rather to protect supporters, union members, and those who are merely engaging in civil disobedience.]

Chavez tried to overthrow capitalism with a coup - didn't quite work out. Then he won with an election.

The Maoists in Nepal fought the monarchy for years. Then they won an election.

Sometimes it takes a combination of tactics.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Revolution is inherently democratic; you have to have the support of the majority of the population to succeed, otherwise It's just a coup.

[BraneMatter]

I think this is largely a myth. The "revolutionary" movement in the 60's was overwhelmingly centered with students and youth, who comprised a relatively small portion of the overall population. Even worse, they were pretty much isolated from the working class and never really won a whole lot of support for their program, if they ever actually defined one. I don't think we should really be nostalgic for the activism of the 60's at all.

Yes, you are correct about not making the working class connection, and I have pointed out that flaw in some of my other posts. Nonetheless, today we don't even have the students, at least not at the level of the Sixties.

Still, I think there was more revolutionary consciousness back then than now, limited and disorganized though it was. The Sixties also produced far more change in American society than anything going on today, from civil rights to cultural changes (free speech movement, gay rights, anti-war movement and Vietnam etc.).

I lived in San Francisco in 1967, and so I was at the heart of the West Coast scene, and there has been nothing even remotely like it since. When I look back on it all now, the words of Dickens come to mind:


"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it ws the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way."

I founded the first chapter of SDS, and organized the first protest against the Vietnam War, in my hometown in Texas. I also participated in the 1966 "La Heulga" actions in the Rio Grande Valley, led by United Farm Workers and supported by the Communist Party and others.

I traveled a lot between New York, Texas, and California back in those days, so I saw a lot and met a lot of people in the various movements, including some leaders like Stokely Carmichael of SNCC. The Vietnam protests that swept the nation were far larger, intense, and, yes, more violent, than the Iraq War protests today.

We were all mixed up together: hippies, anarchists, Maoists, communists, socialists, Black Panthers, SDS, SNCC, yippies. It was a dynamic and exciting time. but tragic in our failures to secure the vision, the promise.

[Revulero]

Revolution is necessary to overthrow capitalism because doing it the "democratic way" you will still have to deal capitalist who have power in other parts of the government. Only revolution will eliminate them and will prevent the bourgeosie from countering every move we try to make with the power they would still hold in govt. Anyways having a revolution is democratic so long as the majority of the masses support it.

[cyu]

doing it the "democratic way" you will still have to deal capitalist who have power in other parts of the government

If you protect the right of everyone to assume democratic control over their places of work, then capitalists will lose their power across the country pretty quickly.

You just have to make sure you're able to protect that right everywhere.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I think armed Revolution is more of a guarantee for Revolutionary power than ballot-box democracy.

[redarmyfaction38]

I've been pondering what the better solution to the overthrow of the oppressive capitalist government is: armed revolution or ballot-box democracy. I think that in America, we're quick to shun the idea of armed revolution, despite the fact that the nation was created through violent revolutionary means. Any idea nowadays of this type of revolution is frowned upon, and American society would rather make change through voting, but as has been evident throughout our history, voting does not garauntee a change in policy. Armed revolution, in my opinion, would work better, but the casualties and devestation caused by it make me wonder if it should be saved until absolutely necessary.
armed revolution does not necessarily mean whole scale death and destruction, we have to discard myths here.
if you believe uncle joe stalin and his reactionary counterparts in the west at the time, the storming of the winter palace, the russian revolution itself were violent and bloody.
they weren't, the revolution seized power with a minimum of bloodshed, most of the "states" armed forces were already under control of the bolsheviks, the kadets guarding the winter palace were not overwhelmed by superior armed force but by superior numbers, they were confronted by the mass of people demanding they laid down their weapons and ALLOWED the workers access, which they did.
it was the intervention of the capitalist powers and the armies they sent against the workers state that led to all the death and destruction, the rise of stalinism etc. and led to all the deformed revolutions around the world ever since. inmo.

[counterblast]

Majority-rule political systems will never be revolutionary, because they disenfranchise minority voters. Democracy, whether direct or representative, is a form of white dominance.

[Armand Iskra]

I think armed Revolution is more of a guarantee for Revolutionary power than ballot-box democracy.

I recognize the need for armed struggle as a part of intensifying a need for a radical change. Especially if that armed struggle is protracted from rural to urban areas, in which farmers (the main force) and the workers (the liberating army) may likely to crush against the despotic landlords, imperialists, and bureaucrat capitalists.

Ballot box democracy, in my own perspective, intensifies parliamentary struggle.

[Colonello Buendia]

when was the last ballot that brought down capitalism? fact is the only chance we have of creating a fair social system is through revolution. I mean the only way it can work is if there is mass popular support. also, even if there was a ballot and the socialists won...they'd probs have a minority government or minority support so their policies would have to struggle to get through. also in the UK the bi-cameral legislature would make any effective change impossible for the government to achieve. to conclude we need either an armed revolution or a peaceful one. preferably the latter.

[Trystan]

Does a revolution need to be armed?

[Saorsa]

Does a revolution need to be armed?

Yes. The capitalist class will use violence against us, and we can't fight that by linking arms and singing "We shall overcome".

Che was in Egypt talking to Nasser, and Nasser was boasting about how nobody had been killed in his revolution. Che responded to this by saying "Well it can't have been much of a revolution then."

[JimmyJazz]

I think the likelihood of either is pretty distant. The most important thing in the US is to build bases, build mass movements, principled and anti-capitalist. Regardless of how we can bring the big change about, that isn't relevant. We'll know when we get there. The principle concern is to organize Organize ORGANIZE!!!

How about fighting the imperialism which subsidizes the American WC's artificially high standard of living ands saps it of revolutionary potential.

[OI OI OI]

The revolution will be "peacefull" or violent depending on the objective conditions and , "what it takes" to overthrow the system.

we cannot speculate on how the revolution will be brought about and how the capitalists will be overthrown.

It is pretty pointless to do so and a waste of time.

In Russia in 1917 the revolution was pretty bloodless with 17 people dieing.

After that because the capitalist reaction and imperialists attacked the Russian proletariat, a bloody civil war followed so the proletariat had to arm itself and spill a lot of blood.

So you see that a revolution which is peacefull can happen.
but we need to adjust our methods(peaceful means, violent means) depending on the conditions.

That being said we should not fetishize violence and use violence only when we have the support of the population and only when the population is ready to fight on our side.

Otherwise we alienate ourselves from the movement.

[cyu]

Majority-rule political systems will never be revolutionary, because they disenfranchise minority voters. Democracy, whether direct or representative, is a form of white dominance.

Thus anarchists prefer decentralized democracy - from http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1932002 :

There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule. One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner". See also tyranny of the majority.

There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.

Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them. For example, this includes protecting other peoples' lives, whether it's from government or non-government forces.

[AJLaw]

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable." -John F. Kennedy

Either way, a revolution will occur, but the success of it all depends on the conditions like OI OI OI said. It is obvious that if the working class were to start a socialist revolution through democratic means, it would fail due to the power the capitalists have over the working class.

The only way revolution can occur through democratic means (and by democratic means, I mean a majority vote directly by the people) is if a catastrophic event such as a depression occured or some miracle of global realization by the people were to happen. Either way, the chances of such a revolution successing are slim.

I believe the only way to have a successful revolution, taking todays conditions and standards into consideration, is by forceful means. The amount of violence all depends on how much the bourgeois class fights back.

[OI OI OI]

Yes AJLaw I see we agree.

I just want to clear up that in order to reach to the point that revolution is possible we need to build the objective factor, that is the revolutionary party.

Also When we have no support from the working class over using violence we should not use it.

We don't want to alienate ourselves from the working class and become elitist "super-revolutionary" guerillas.

Only when violence is supported by the working class , we should use violence .

And me too I think that under todays conditions a revolutionary through parliamentarism is impossible.

Parliamentarism is only good for agitation of the backwards layers of tha working class as Lenin said.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To expand on what Marx said:

The only way to enact social revolution towards the emancipation of the working class is ultra-mass-"party"-based (http://www.revleft.com/vb/road-power-and-t83963/index.html) class struggle.

The working class will enact their class struggle through legal means where possible, and through extra-legal means when necessary.

Whether the means of class struggle are peaceful or violent is up to the enemies of the working class.

[dmcauliffe09]

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable." -John F. Kennedy

Either way, a revolution will occur, but the success of it all depends on the conditions like OI OI OI said. It is obvious that if the working class were to start a socialist revolution through democratic means, it would fail due to the power the capitalists have over the working class.

The only way revolution can occur through democratic means (and by democratic means, I mean a majority vote directly by the people) is if a catastrophic event such as a depression occured or some miracle of global realization by the people were to happen. Either way, the chances of such a revolution successing are slim.

I believe the only way to have a successful revolution, taking todays conditions and standards into consideration, is by forceful means. The amount of violence all depends on how much the bourgeois class fights back.
Aaron!
Men.
Haha j/k.
You're right.
We do not live in a society that has never seen attempted revolution through the use of "democracy." Socialist candidates like La Riva (who I didn't even know about until you told me about her) and countless others have attempted to make a change democratically. But due to the stigma attached to any socialist leftist movement in America, we can see that these "democratic" means of revolution are often uneffective.

[JimmyJazz]

Thus anarchists prefer decentralized democracy - from http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1932002 :

There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule. One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner". See also tyranny of the majority.

There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.

Well technically this is what everyone wants, besides religious people who want to force God's will on others. The question is, who decides how much each person is affected by a decision? That's where the real authority would lie, with the person/people making that decision.

To take an example that we already see every day, the whole abortion debate revolves around this decision regarding who is affected by the abortion procedure. Some people argue that the fetus and the father are affected; others argue only the mother is.

But other examples would be a million times more difficult. So you want to build a new mall. Who is affected by that and how much? Everyone within a 5-minute radius? 10? 20? Are you more affected if you are a jobless teenager who might work at the mall, and hence you get more of a vote than an old lady living on the same block? Exactly how much more vote do you get?

And is it even a decision worth deferring to anyone on? That's a decision that needs to be made as well, and whoever makes it would be extremely powerful. Perhaps he/she/they will decide that every new park bench requires a community vote; or perhaps he/she/they will decide that no one needs to be consulted before a new airport is constructed.

It's a cool theory but it makes no connection to reality, and would literally require a full knowledge of space-time in order to be done objectively. It would be feasible, and nearly as democratic, to just raise the bar on what a "pass" vote is: instead of a simple majority of 51%, make it 70%, 80%, or 95%. There would still be some groups so small that they could get screwed over by this system (say homosexuals make up 10% of the population and 90% is required to pass a gay-marriage ban and everyone voted by their orientation), but that's kind of inevitable, you just need to have a bill of (civil) rights that can't be over-riden by any vote.

[cyu]

Well technically this is what everyone wants
I would be happy enough if everyone agreed on that principle. From that principle, you could go in many different directions. For example, abolishment of the death penalty. Or you could argue that those who are poor have more of a right to use certain resources than those who are already making a good living - since death / starvation affects the poor much more than a minor increase in the standard of living for someone who is already making a good living.

However, I don't think everyone is as convinced as you are that this is good. Many will claim that private property is an absolute right and cannot be violated under any circumstances. Scratch the surface of why they think it is an absolute right, and you'll find out they don't have a logical leg to stand on, but so many people in capitalist societies have been brainwashed to accept it as true that they never even bother to scratch the surface.

[JimmyJazz]

Yeah, true about private property. I actually agree that there need to be some rights which can't be violated by any form of voting--certain civil liberties and civil rights, for example. It's just unfortunate that some idiots think "private property" makes the cut of this list.

[Armand Iskra]

Democracy can be achieved through a prolonged armed revolution, since it is the only way to dismantle the reactionary democracy to a genuine proletarian democracy, leading to socialism.
This idea is based on Mao Zedong's idea on "New Democracy".

On New Democracy

This theory aims to overthrow feudalism and/or achieve a country's national independence from colonialism, (through a prolonged armed revolution) but it bypasses the rule of the capitalist class that usually follows such a struggle, claiming instead to seek to enter directly into socialism through a coalition of classes (a united front of farmers, workers, and intellectuals) fighting the old ruling order.

The classical Marxist understanding of the stages of economic and historical development of the modes of production under which a socialist revolution can take place is that the socialist revolution occurs only after the capitalist bourgeois-democratic revolution happens first. According to this, the bourgeois-democratic revolution paves the way for the industrial proletarian class to emerge as the majority class in society, after which it then overthrows capitalism and begins constructing socialism.

Marx believed that primary communist revolutions in non-industrialized areas of the world would be unsustainable because they would be lacking the essential prerequisite economic and social conditions. But the October Revolution outlasted all other serious post-World War I socialist movements in Europe and seemed to validate Lenin's analysis that socialism could still be achieved in a country composed largely of peasants. Thus Mao, in turn, took Lenin's perspective to the next level, saying essentially that bourgeois democracy and socialism could be combined into a single stage of construction, called New Democracy.

Once New Democracy has been established, the country is claimed to be ideologically socialist and working towards communism under the leadership of the communist party, and its people are actively involved in the construction of socialism — see the examples of the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution for what Mao viewed as the participatory democracy inherent in the New Democracy concept — even as the country itself maintains and furthers many aspects of capitalism for purposes of rapid economic growth.

It is in this way that New Democracy is considered a stepping stone to socialism — a two-stage theory of first New Democracy, then the dictatorship of the proletariat. Given that the self-proclaimed ultimate goal of socialist construction is the creation of a stateless, classless communist society, adding the New Democratic Revolution arguably makes the whole process a three-stage theory: first New Democracy, then the dictatorship of the proletariat, then communism.