The necessity of Violence.

[RedSabine]

So, this is sorta an old thing I wrote, but I would like to see you guy's beleifs on this.

The Revolution will undoubtedly have some amount of violence attached with it, but it need not happen as a matter of course/ There do not need to be excecutions, there will be no need for any kind of "punishment", really. We do not have to necessarily kill anyone to end the reighn of the bourgeoisie; no, a communistic revolution, a revolution that takes capital out of the hands of the few and puts in back into the hands of those who create it will, as a matter of course, effectively eliminate the class of bourgeoisie as bourgois people. Without capitalism there is no bourgeoisie, a bullet will not make that change any faster.

[#FF0000]

You don't think that the ruling classes will employ some sort of violence to defend their ill-gotten gains? There have been instances in which governments would sic the military to shut down a strike.

Are you only talking about violence post-revolution?

[The Douche]

So, this is sorta an old thing I wrote, but I would like to see you guy's beleifs on this.

The Revolution will undoubtedly have some amount of violence attached with it, but it need not happen as a matter of course/ There do not need to be excecutions, there will be no need for any kind of "punishment", really. We do not have to necessarily kill anyone to end the reighn of the bourgeoisie; no, a communistic revolution, a revolution that takes capital out of the hands of the few and puts in back into the hands of those who create it will, as a matter of course, effectively eliminate the class of bourgeoisie as bourgois people. Without capitalism there is no bourgeoisie, a bullet will not make that change any faster.

I don't think anybody will argue that a bullet will make the process faster. But I don't see how you can deny that a bullet can slow the process drastically.

For instance, I encourage you and your fellow workers to walk into work tomorrow and politely inform the boss that he is no longer going to be profiting from your labor, that you workers will now run the workplace as you see fit and will be sharing equally in the money generated, but remind him, of course, the he may feel free to stay on working there allthough he will be putting in as much labor as the rest of you and will no longer have a disproportionate ammount of say in the running of the business. Your boss will of course not allow this to happen, so lets say, through a threatening presence you are able to get him out of the building and then lock him out, he will call the police to have you all removed from the building. And now you either resist the police and are killed (bullets slowing the revolution a bit?) or are imprisoned.

Violence will be an absolute necessity based on historical precedent.

[RedSabine]

Clarification: The thing up there I wrote was due to my friend who is all down with "focoism" and the like. So like, mobs lynching owners, summary excecutions for collaborators, and other forms of "revolutionary violence". Also post-revolutionary "purges" and things like gulags and other institutionalized violences.

No, I'm down for self-defense, always, but not necesarily going with AK's and blasting on cops in a strike or whatever.

[#FF0000]

Clarification: The thing up there I wrote was due to my friend who is all down with "focoism" and the like. So like, mobs lynching owners, summary excecutions for collaborators, and other forms of "revolutionary violence". Also post-revolutionary "purges" and things like gulags and other institutionalized violences.

No, I'm down for self-defense, always, but not necesarily going with AK's and blasting on cops in a strike or whatever.

Ah I see. Yeah, I don't believe many people would try to justify that sort of thing, but in a revolutionary situation, I believe it'd be impossible to avoid completely. Revolutions aren't, and never have been, pleasant things. They're romanticized to hell, but the reality is that they're bloody, ugly things.

[RedSabine]

yeah, apparantly there's some quote that goes like this sorta (paraphrased to tha max): revolutionas are the most authoritarian things possible.

That's probably butchered, but you get the idea.

I guess the best term is "forceful" as opposed to "violent". The revolution will most likely be forceful, but not necessatily violent.

[The Douche]

yeah, apparantly there's some quote that goes like this sorta (paraphrased to tha max): revolutionas are the most authoritarian things possible.

That's probably butchered, but you get the idea.

I guess the best term is "forceful" as opposed to "violent". The revolution will most likely be forceful, but not necessatily violent.

How will it not be violent?

The bosses and politicians are going to call out their police forces, armies, and private mercenaries against us. We are going to have to fight them. With guns and bombs and things like that, it will probably last for a few years if not longer.

That is violent. Will it involve senseless violence, yeah probably (I expect the bosses armies to have death squads and things like that), I just hope that no senseless violence will be carried out by our side.

[Revy]

I don't agree with the killings of the Tsar's family. It's been defended as a strategic decision, but I still don't agree. They even killed the three servants to the family, the family doctor, and the family dog. They could have just killed the Tsar and I wouldn't care.

[RedSabine]

In eastern europe circa 1989 the economic systems were in a state of collapse, there was general anti-government sentiment among the people, and all the changes there happened with out violence ('cept romania).

I'm not praising that, but it just shows that it's not necessary.

Plus, we are the armed forces. In Russia 1917 the military refused to fire on the strikers, because they were down for revolution.

With capitalism in a tailspin, I think that the already present discontent will spread like wildfire, and there will be lessand less resistence as economic necessity drives the great mass of people toward socialism.

[PRC-UTE]

basically those in power tend to slaughter people trying to change the world for the better, even if they're peacefully striking or protesting, and then they label anyone defending themselves from violent repression a 'terrorist'.

whatever violence a revolutionary movement utilises will probably have less to do with convincing them not to but what actions they're forced to take.

[The Douche]

In eastern europe circa 1989 the economic systems were in a state of collapse, there was general anti-government sentiment among the people, and all the changes there happened with out violence ('cept romania).

I'm not praising that, but it just shows that it's not necessary.

Plus, we are the armed forces. In Russia 1917 the military refused to fire on the strikers, because they were down for revolution.

With capitalism in a tailspin, I think that the already present discontent will spread like wildfire, and there will be lessand less resistence as economic necessity drives the great mass of people toward socialism.

The fall of the soviet union was not a revolution. The means of production were controlled by party beauracrats, said party officials became the new bourgeoise in large part, and then private interests we allowed to come in. It went from state capitalist to capitalist. The comparison is non-existant.

Yep, the revolution went off with out a hitch in october. And then a few years of civil war followed it. Did the entire Russian army come over to the bolsheviks/sit it out? No. And did other capitalist nations contribute troops? Yes.

You think that because of one example that is a rule applied to every revolution? Look at Spain, where virtually none of the armed forces supported the revolution.

The assumption that just because we (the masses) want something, the bosses will give it to us is absurd.

[cyu]

Changes in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nepal ultimately happened in the voting booth - if you get enough people on your side, the wealthy will know which way the wind is blowing and stop trying to attack you so much. They only attack when they sense weakness and think they can actually win.

From http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1964031

What exactly is a "real" revolution (http://everything2.com/title/revolution) is often debatable. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is a change in government that most people would consider to be a significant departure from the previous government.

When you hear of revolutions from books or other people, it often involves some kind of bloodshed (http://everything2.com/title/bloodshed) or violence (http://everything2.com/title/violence) - perhaps even some sort of civil war (http://everything2.com/title/civil%2520war).

What follows are some types of revolutions that do not involve the shedding of blood (http://everything2.com/title/the%2520shedding%2520of%2520blood).

Constitutional Revolution

These revolutions happen within the existing constitution (http://everything2.com/title/constitution)al framework of the country.

Mass Conversion (http://everything2.com/title/Conversion)
This type of revolution usually does not happen quickly, but perhaps slowly over a short number of years. It happens when nearly everyone within the society decides to change their behavior, perhaps because of new scientific discoveries (http://everything2.com/title/scientific%2520discoveries) or compelling new ideas in social organization (http://everything2.com/title/social%2520organization). It may not even involve a change in the actual people in government - instead, the people just start doing things differently.

Voting for Revolution
This type of revolution occurs only at the ballot box (http://everything2.com/title/ballot%2520box). Voters may decide to vote for politicians entirely different from the ones they voted for in the past, or the legislation passed may be entirely different from past legislation.

Constitutional Overhaul
While the revolution imagined in popular culture (http://everything2.com/title/popular%2520culture) may involve an armed militia (http://everything2.com/title/militia) overthrowing the existing constitution (http://everything2.com/title/constitution), the constitutional process itself can still be used to completely change it. For example, if some nation's constitution requires 70% of the vote for approval of changes, then 70% of the people could vote in so many changes to the country's constitution that it is virtually unrelated to the constitution before the "revolution".

Civil Disobedient Revolution

These revolutions involve peaceful, but flagrant (http://everything2.com/title/peaceful%252C%2520but%2520flagrant) violations of existing legal norms.

Mass Civil Disobedience (http://everything2.com/title/Civil%2520Disobedience)
This involves changing the government by organizing very large numbers of people to openly defy the law. If even large sections of the police population (http://everything2.com/title/police%2520population) join in, then the political system would have effectively changed, even without actual legislation.

General Strike (http://everything2.com/title/General%2520Strike)
A variation of mass civil disobedience that focuses on not going to work. Strikers hope to force the minority of government and business officials (http://everything2.com/title/the%2520ruling%2520class) to respect their demands or else they would bring the country to a standstill. If there is enough support for the strike, then the officials themselves may be replaced.

Occupations and Takeovers

These movements often have the potential to result in some violence, even if violence is not the actual intent. In order for an occupation or takeover to work, the occupiers need to be able to make use of whatever it is they are occupying - which means this is usually the employees of a company or organization that are involved.

Non-Violent Occupations
In these occupations, employees assume democratic control (http://everything2.com/title/democratic%2520control) over their places of work. If they are unmolested, then they carry on doing the work of the companies or organizations. However, because the companies are now controlled by different people, significant change may sweep the country (http://everything2.com/title/sweep%2520the%2520country). If they are attacked, either by police or hired thugs, those engaged in non-violence (http://everything2.com/title/non-violence) would either run, allow themselves to be arrested, or allow themselves to be beaten.

Takeovers with Self-Defence
This is similar to the non-violent scenario above, except that the revolutionaries are willing to use self-defence (http://everything2.com/title/self-defence). As long as they are unmolested, they are virtually indistinguishable from the non-violent (except, perhaps, for the presence of weapon (http://everything2.com/title/weapon)s on the premises) - they merely carry on changing the behavior of the organizations they now control. However, when attacked, the "revolution" would no longer be bloodless. Thus it falls in the hands of the attackers to determine whether the revolution would be bloodless or not.
------------
StrawberryFrog (http://everything2.com/title/StrawberryFrog) says examples of bloodless revolution (http://everything2.com/title/bloodless%2520revolution) ? South Africa, 1994 (http://everything2.com/title/April%252026%252C%25201994) had a negotiated consitutional change followed by a vote, Czechoslovakia had mass demonstrations in the 1989 Velvet revolution (http://everything2.com/title/the%2520velvet%2520revolution)...

[JimmyJazz]

basically those in power tend to slaughter people trying to change the world for the better, even if they're peacefully striking or protesting, and then they label anyone defending themselves from violent repression a 'terrorist'.

whatever violence a revolutionary movement utilises will probably have less to do with convincing them not to but what actions they're forced to take.

Exactly this. The myth of the bloodthirsty revolutionary is just that: myth.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Changes in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nepal ultimately happened in the voting booth - if you get enough people on your side, the wealthy will know which way the wind is blowing and stop trying to attack you so much. They only attack when they sense weakness and think they can actually win.

From http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1964031

What exactly is a "real" revolution (http://everything2.com/title/revolution) is often debatable. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is a change in government that most people would consider to be a significant departure from the previous government.

When you hear of revolutions from books or other people, it often involves some kind of bloodshed (http://everything2.com/title/bloodshed) or violence (http://everything2.com/title/violence) - perhaps even some sort of civil war (http://everything2.com/title/civil%2520war).

What follows are some types of revolutions that do not involve the shedding of blood (http://everything2.com/title/the%2520shedding%2520of%2520blood).

Constitutional Revolution

These revolutions happen within the existing constitution (http://everything2.com/title/constitution)al framework of the country.

Mass Conversion (http://everything2.com/title/Conversion)
This type of revolution usually does not happen quickly, but perhaps slowly over a short number of years. It happens when nearly everyone within the society decides to change their behavior, perhaps because of new scientific discoveries (http://everything2.com/title/scientific%2520discoveries) or compelling new ideas in social organization (http://everything2.com/title/social%2520organization). It may not even involve a change in the actual people in government - instead, the people just start doing things differently.

Voting for Revolution
This type of revolution occurs only at the ballot box (http://everything2.com/title/ballot%2520box). Voters may decide to vote for politicians entirely different from the ones they voted for in the past, or the legislation passed may be entirely different from past legislation.

Constitutional Overhaul
While the revolution imagined in popular culture (http://everything2.com/title/popular%2520culture) may involve an armed militia (http://everything2.com/title/militia) overthrowing the existing constitution (http://everything2.com/title/constitution), the constitutional process itself can still be used to completely change it. For example, if some nation's constitution requires 70% of the vote for approval of changes, then 70% of the people could vote in so many changes to the country's constitution that it is virtually unrelated to the constitution before the "revolution".

Civil Disobedient Revolution

These revolutions involve peaceful, but flagrant (http://everything2.com/title/peaceful%252C%2520but%2520flagrant) violations of existing legal norms.

Mass Civil Disobedience (http://everything2.com/title/Civil%2520Disobedience)
This involves changing the government by organizing very large numbers of people to openly defy the law. If even large sections of the police population (http://everything2.com/title/police%2520population) join in, then the political system would have effectively changed, even without actual legislation.

General Strike (http://everything2.com/title/General%2520Strike)
A variation of mass civil disobedience that focuses on not going to work. Strikers hope to force the minority of government and business officials (http://everything2.com/title/the%2520ruling%2520class) to respect their demands or else they would bring the country to a standstill. If there is enough support for the strike, then the officials themselves may be replaced.

Occupations and Takeovers

These movements often have the potential to result in some violence, even if violence is not the actual intent. In order for an occupation or takeover to work, the occupiers need to be able to make use of whatever it is they are occupying - which means this is usually the employees of a company or organization that are involved.

Non-Violent Occupations
In these occupations, employees assume democratic control (http://everything2.com/title/democratic%2520control) over their places of work. If they are unmolested, then they carry on doing the work of the companies or organizations. However, because the companies are now controlled by different people, significant change may sweep the country (http://everything2.com/title/sweep%2520the%2520country). If they are attacked, either by police or hired thugs, those engaged in non-violence (http://everything2.com/title/non-violence) would either run, allow themselves to be arrested, or allow themselves to be beaten.

Takeovers with Self-Defence
This is similar to the non-violent scenario above, except that the revolutionaries are willing to use self-defence (http://everything2.com/title/self-defence). As long as they are unmolested, they are virtually indistinguishable from the non-violent (except, perhaps, for the presence of weapon (http://everything2.com/title/weapon)s on the premises) - they merely carry on changing the behavior of the organizations they now control. However, when attacked, the "revolution" would no longer be bloodless. Thus it falls in the hands of the attackers to determine whether the revolution would be bloodless or not.
------------
StrawberryFrog (http://everything2.com/title/StrawberryFrog) says examples of bloodless revolution (http://everything2.com/title/bloodless%2520revolution) ? South Africa, 1994 (http://everything2.com/title/April%252026%252C%25201994) had a negotiated consitutional change followed by a vote, Czechoslovakia had mass demonstrations in the 1989 Velvet revolution (http://everything2.com/title/the%2520velvet%2520revolution)...

Thank you for that VERY informative info on the various non-"romantic" means of revolution (depending on one's POV).

[The Douche]

Changes in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nepal ultimately happened in the voting booth - if you get enough people on your side, the wealthy will know which way the wind is blowing and stop trying to attack you so much. They only attack when they sense weakness and think they can actually win.

From http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1964031

What exactly is a "real" revolution (http://everything2.com/title/revolution) is often debatable. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is a change in government that most people would consider to be a significant departure from the previous government.

When you hear of revolutions from books or other people, it often involves some kind of bloodshed (http://everything2.com/title/bloodshed) or violence (http://everything2.com/title/violence) - perhaps even some sort of civil war (http://everything2.com/title/civil%2520war).

What follows are some types of revolutions that do not involve the shedding of blood (http://everything2.com/title/the%2520shedding%2520of%2520blood).

Constitutional Revolution

These revolutions happen within the existing constitution (http://everything2.com/title/constitution)al framework of the country.

Mass Conversion (http://everything2.com/title/Conversion)
This type of revolution usually does not happen quickly, but perhaps slowly over a short number of years. It happens when nearly everyone within the society decides to change their behavior, perhaps because of new scientific discoveries (http://everything2.com/title/scientific%2520discoveries) or compelling new ideas in social organization (http://everything2.com/title/social%2520organization). It may not even involve a change in the actual people in government - instead, the people just start doing things differently.

Voting for Revolution
This type of revolution occurs only at the ballot box (http://everything2.com/title/ballot%2520box). Voters may decide to vote for politicians entirely different from the ones they voted for in the past, or the legislation passed may be entirely different from past legislation.

Constitutional Overhaul
While the revolution imagined in popular culture (http://everything2.com/title/popular%2520culture) may involve an armed militia (http://everything2.com/title/militia) overthrowing the existing constitution (http://everything2.com/title/constitution), the constitutional process itself can still be used to completely change it. For example, if some nation's constitution requires 70% of the vote for approval of changes, then 70% of the people could vote in so many changes to the country's constitution that it is virtually unrelated to the constitution before the "revolution".

Civil Disobedient Revolution

These revolutions involve peaceful, but flagrant (http://everything2.com/title/peaceful%252C%2520but%2520flagrant) violations of existing legal norms.

Mass Civil Disobedience (http://everything2.com/title/Civil%2520Disobedience)
This involves changing the government by organizing very large numbers of people to openly defy the law. If even large sections of the police population (http://everything2.com/title/police%2520population) join in, then the political system would have effectively changed, even without actual legislation.

General Strike (http://everything2.com/title/General%2520Strike)
A variation of mass civil disobedience that focuses on not going to work. Strikers hope to force the minority of government and business officials (http://everything2.com/title/the%2520ruling%2520class) to respect their demands or else they would bring the country to a standstill. If there is enough support for the strike, then the officials themselves may be replaced.

Occupations and Takeovers

These movements often have the potential to result in some violence, even if violence is not the actual intent. In order for an occupation or takeover to work, the occupiers need to be able to make use of whatever it is they are occupying - which means this is usually the employees of a company or organization that are involved.

Non-Violent Occupations
In these occupations, employees assume democratic control (http://everything2.com/title/democratic%2520control) over their places of work. If they are unmolested, then they carry on doing the work of the companies or organizations. However, because the companies are now controlled by different people, significant change may sweep the country (http://everything2.com/title/sweep%2520the%2520country). If they are attacked, either by police or hired thugs, those engaged in non-violence (http://everything2.com/title/non-violence) would either run, allow themselves to be arrested, or allow themselves to be beaten.

Takeovers with Self-Defence
This is similar to the non-violent scenario above, except that the revolutionaries are willing to use self-defence (http://everything2.com/title/self-defence). As long as they are unmolested, they are virtually indistinguishable from the non-violent (except, perhaps, for the presence of weapon (http://everything2.com/title/weapon)s on the premises) - they merely carry on changing the behavior of the organizations they now control. However, when attacked, the "revolution" would no longer be bloodless. Thus it falls in the hands of the attackers to determine whether the revolution would be bloodless or not.
------------
StrawberryFrog (http://everything2.com/title/StrawberryFrog) says examples of bloodless revolution (http://everything2.com/title/bloodless%2520revolution) ? South Africa, 1994 (http://everything2.com/title/April%252026%252C%25201994) had a negotiated consitutional change followed by a vote, Czechoslovakia had mass demonstrations in the 1989 Velvet revolution (http://everything2.com/title/the%2520velvet%2520revolution)...

Nobody is denying that non-violent means for change exist, just that they are unlikely to succceed. I think its funny that you cite Nepal and South Africa, when there were massive insurgencies that played an integral role in those "revolutions".

Regardless of all that, we're talking about more than a "significant departure from the previous government", we, as communists, advocate flipping the world as we know it, on its head. I won't waste my time with any illusions of "non-violence".

If the capitalist class is willing to go to war to protect profits, what do you think they will do to protect the means of production?

[cyu]

I think its funny that you cite Nepal and South Africa, when there were massive insurgencies that played an integral role in those "revolutions"... If the capitalist class is willing to go to war to protect profits, what do you think they will do to protect the means of production?


I agree with you more than you think. Personally I favor self-defence more than absolute non-violence. Self-defence, of course, can often result in armed struggle if there's an oppressor trying to impose their will on you.

One of the keys to successful revolution though is that you have to convince / convert as many people to join your side as possible. If there are many people who have religious or personal beliefs that make them oppose murder, then you are not going to win converts as easily if you are encouraging the assassinations of your political oppressors (even if you think they deserve it). As a tactical alternative, I would suggest you "arrest" (ie. capture) them instead - if the big shots are too well protected, then you can start with the local oppressors.

[The Douche]

I agree with you more than you think. Personally I favor self-defence more than absolute non-violence. Self-defence, of course, can often result in armed struggle if there's an oppressor trying to impose their will on you.

One of the keys to successful revolution though is that you have to convince / convert as many people to join your side as possible. If there are many people who have religious or personal beliefs that make them oppose murder, then you are not going to win converts as easily if you are encouraging the assassinations of your political oppressors (even if you think they deserve it). As a tactical alternative, I would suggest you "arrest" (ie. capture) them instead - if the big shots are too well protected, then you can start with the local oppressors.

Yeah I'm not arguing for focoism or urba guerrilla strategies. I'm just saying that violence will be part of any socialist revolution. Defense of the revolution will require offensive actions. (i.e. the forces of reaction will take and secure areas and the peoples army will have to move against them.)

[RedSabine]

Yeah I'm not arguing for focoism or urba guerrilla strategies. I'm just saying that violence will be part of any socialist revolution. Defense of the revolution will require offensive actions. (i.e. the forces of reaction will take and secure areas and the peoples army will have to move against them.)

I think that the creation of an organized "people's army" is counterproductive, in that it creates an organziation that is independant of the will of the people that wields the most coercive force possible: military power. Then, this organization has the right to enforce its own will on the workers, and stifle opposition to its power. This is simply unacceptable.

Now, if there were people's militias, as opposed to an army, I might be a bit more down for that. These militias would be democratic and voluntary, made up of the workers themselves - as opposed to a military organization independant of the workers.

ALSO! I think that if atrocities were being committed by these reactionary armies on a mass scale, then the general popluace would be opposed, therefore eliminating any support base by the people for these armies.

I'm also down for workersself-defense at the point of expropriation or in the case of a general coup de'etat by the bourgeoisie. Maybe a bigger Black Bloc type thing...

I am also against most political assasinations, for the reason that this would alienate people to the cause, and that it would mostly be unnecissary violence, and I'm never cool with unecessary violence. Also because of what I said about changing relations of production eliminating the bourgeoisie as a class, therefore killing the individuals is pointless.

(Also, thanks cyu for that information, very interesting/informative.)

[The Douche]

I think that the creation of an organized "people's army" is counterproductive, in that it creates an organziation that is independant of the will of the people that wields the most coercive force possible: military power. Then, this organization has the right to enforce its own will on the workers, and stifle opposition to its power. This is simply unacceptable.

Now, if there were people's militias, as opposed to an army, I might be a bit more down for that. These militias would be democratic and voluntary, made up of the workers themselves - as opposed to a military organization independant of the workers.

You're jumping to conclusions here. All I said were two words "people's army" I didn't describe what such an army would look like, who would lead it, who it would be responsible to etc.


ALSO! I think that if atrocities were being committed by these reactionary armies on a mass scale, then the general popluace would be opposed, therefore eliminating any support base by the people for these armies.

There will not be mass support for the forces of reaction in the first place. Their forces will comprised of left-over elements of the military, the police force, private military contractors, and fascists.


I'm also down for workersself-defense at the point of expropriation or in the case of a general coup de'etat by the bourgeoisie. Maybe a bigger Black Bloc type thing...

Militant protest tactics become drastically less militant when the state uses firearms, see carlo giuliani. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Giuliani pictures may upset you)