Is non-violence our best weapon?

[benhur]

Violence to achieve political ends has the following disadvantages:

#1 We're outnumbered, so any attempt is going to be counterproductive.

#2 We're no match for the state in terms of weapons, money etc. So why fight battles which can never be won?

#3 Bad publicity. It'll make us look like hooligans to the rest, and we might lose supporters and sympathizers as a result.

Non-violence, OTOH, can give us

#1 a moral advantage, attracting more people. Numbers are important, and as more people join, we can grow in strength. The world hates violent people, even assuming those violent people had done a lot of good for socialism, and their violence had been legit. But the world will always respect someone like Ghandi or King, even if we leftists feel they were pacifists or that they were counterrevolutionaries etc. etc.

#2 We can be safe, nobody's going to attack non-violent people. If they do, we're gonna win more sympathy.

#3 As non-violent, peaceful people, we can experience success in elections, because people may trust us, then.

#4 Getting workers over to socialism is the single most important thing we have to do. But how can we do that, when the word itself projects images of Stalin, brutality, dictatorship etc.? A non-violent approach may correct these historical wrongs, thus elevating workers' consciousness.

:)

[Bilan]

Non-violence and violence are not definite tactics in any situation. You have to use different tactics in different situations.
By limiting yourself - especially on moral grounds, or on the grounds of what the bourgeois press will depict us as - you are weakening yourself and the movement.

Act accordingly to the situation. Always.

[Sasha]

^ this....

peter gelderloos wrote a realy good book about this, and the problems with strict non-violence:
How Nonviolence Protects (http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2007/04/06/how-nonviolence-protects-the-state-by-peter-gelderloos/)

April 6, 2007 at 11:58 pm · Filed under Read All About It (http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/category/read-all-about-it/), posted by b. traven (http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/author/b-traven/)
http://crimethinc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/nonviolence.jpg“There is nothing in this world currently deserving of the name peace. Rather, it is a question of whose violence frightens us most, and on whose side we will stand.”
This is an excellent example of the sort of book anarchists need to be producing to keep our ideas visible and viable in society at large. In lucid and accessible prose, Gelderloos comprehensively debunks the notion that non-violent activism is the only acceptable and effective method of struggle.
Like anyone who wants to make a constructive contribution to a discussion, and in stark contrast to ideologues on both sides of this issue, Gelderloos makes an effort to engage with the strongest versions of all the common arguments in favor of orthodox pacifism over a diversity of tactics. Not that he pulls any punches or refrains from strong statements! But to make his point, Gelderloos doesn’t have to prove that non-violent resistance is never useful, only that a prohibition on other forms of resistance is not always effective at dissolving or toppling hierarchies.

Gelderloos starts from the successes famously associated with pacifism, then sketches in the context that pacifists often leave out. Following this opener, he sets about dissecting the insidious interconnections between pacifism and unchallenged privilege. He argues that an insistence on non-violence can only compromise the autonomy of participants in resistance movements and alienate important allies; it is no coincidence that the other book Gelderloos has recently published is on consensus process, though this might seem strange to ideologues who associate diversity of tactics with coercive machismo.
Gelderloos doesn’t seriously address the complexities of violent tactics—their effects on those who use them, the most appropriate circumstances in which to apply them, or the precedents for their success in North America—but to do so would take at least another book of this length. One can simultaneously find Gelderloos’s arguments convincing and at the same time remain unsure what the alternative to non-violent hegemony looks like.
It turns out the body text only accounts for two thirds of the book; the rest is comprised of painstakingly detailed referencing such as would never appear in a CrimethInc. project (ah, the virtues of opposition to intellectual property) and an assemblage of smaller appendices. The last of these, a heartbreaking account of the Poor People’s March at the Republican National Convention in 2004, will resonate with anyone who was there hoping to do more than be a number in the organizers’ head count. It’s only unfortunate that Gelderloos doesn’t juxtapose it against an account of one of the many times over the past decade that similar marches have been protected from police violence because their participants refused to abide by the orders of peacekeepers, trusting their courage and collective power as their only assurance of safety.
It will be a shame if this book isn’t read and discussed by people who disagree with it. If it isn’t, that will prove its central thesis—that pacifism retains its hegemony in some circles only because people refuse to acknowledge the possibility of other approaches to social change.
http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2007/04/06/how-nonviolence-protects-the-state-by-peter-gelderloos/

buy online:
http://www.akpress.org/2005/items/hownonviolenceprotectsthestate

pirate bay torrent:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4355288/HOW_NONVIOLENCE_PROTECTS_THE_STATE_-_Peter_Gelderloos

[Holden Caulfield]

"Absolute non-violence is the negative basis of slavery"

so Howie Zinn says, and i agree, I had to knock together an essay for uni on the subject of violence and disobedience so take it from me (and Howie) non-violence as a principal is just wrong

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Non-violence and violence are not definite tactics in any situation. You have to use different tactics in different situations.
By limiting yourself - especially on moral grounds, or on the grounds of what the bourgeois press will depict us as - you are weakening yourself and the movement.

Act accordingly to the situation. Always.

This is pretty much what I was going to say.

[The Idler]

Would anyone recommend Pacificism as Pathology by Ward Churchill?

[fabiansocialist]

Would anyone recommend Pacificism as Pathology by Ward Churchill?

Yeah, along with the Gelderloos book mentioned previously. Both are nifty little books you can finish in an evening. Only violence -- or the credible threat of violence -- effects real change. Gandhi was a complete wimp. And those who think that distributing flowers, expressing "moral outrage," and going on peaceful vigils and demos is going to change US foreign policy are morons. The likes of Bush and Cheney have to be so intimidated they sh*t their pants: only then will they alter US policy.

[cyu]

If someone is about to shoot your girlfriend or son, would you still think non-violence is a good idea? I would say self-defence or defence of others is preferable to strict pacifism.

[mikelepore]

In my view, the main reason for adhering to nonviolence isn't one of thse listed in the original post. The main reason is this. Once political systems have developed to the point where the people elect the officers of the government, the people already have it in their power to emancipate themselves as soon as they become aware of the need to do so, and choose to organize politically and economically to do so. The only factor that now makes the state continue to be an agency of ruling class oppression is that working class people are still choosing habitually to vote to continue their own oppression. Imagination is now the only rare element. The major weapons of revolution are now the tools of persuasion -- writing and speech making. A revolution is still necessary, but the meaning of revolution has returned to the original meaning of a complete turn-around, and the association of the word with violent methods has become obsolete. The working class is now like a person in jail who hasn't noticed yet that the door isn't locked anymore.

[RedSonRising]

Acting according to the situation is obvious, as long as you work within the limitations of not becoming an immoral moster. Defining what is nonviolence is also important...resisting arrest may be key in protests or demonstrations or strikes. Nonviolence would probably work only if all other elements of the movement make progress, and such a method will either work to the end or up until the opposing powers use violence against us. "non-violence is fine, as long as it works" (Malcom X) and it will probably work as long as we don't act idly in the face of reactionary militarism.

[casper]

"non-violence is fine, as long as it works"-Malcolm x,
i like that. sometimes violence is the thing to do. sometimes, its better to use other means. act according to the situation.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I would say one stands as genuinely as non-violent if and only if you have a choice in the matter. I think the question of violence is moot at this point. Leftists have absolutely no ability to use violence. As a quick survey, how many of the people on this site own and operate their own firearms with such proficiency that they would be able to resist the police let alone the military? I would imagine that number is fairly low. It seems that we (at least in the US) should work to train others in the ability to use firearms effectively.

Moreover, if leftists in the United States were to engage in violent acts against capitalists (banks, investment firms, corporations, etc) or the state (police, military, bases) it would be counter productive. The media would immediately turn this into a general act of terrorism rather than a specific act of revolution. Moreover, the American population isn't conscious enough to realize that these acts might be based in class rather than psychopathy. In this case, violence would be impossible. It seems that we (at least in the US) should work to create a network for articulating, defending, and creating the possibility for violent acts.

[cyu]

The major weapons of revolution are now the tools of persuasion -- writing and speech making.

Very true, but then again, it is also true of violent revolutions as well, since you first have to recruit enough people to take up arms against their oppressors.



The working class is now like a person in jail who hasn't noticed yet that the door isn't locked anymore.


Maybe, maybe not (nice quote though =)... for example, in order to use the tools of persuasion, the mass media needs to be occupied and put under democratic control - but what happens when the local community shows up at the TV or radio station? Maybe they lock the doors and the community breaks it down, but do the police then show up and assault the occupiers? Or do they stay neutral and only protect people who are physically assaulted? Do the occupiers protect each other from those who assault them? Or do they allow themselves to be dragged off?

[bcbm]

In my view, the main reason for adhering to nonviolence isn't one of thse listed in the original post. The main reason is this. Once political systems have developed to the point where the people elect the officers of the government, the people already have it in their power to emancipate themselves as soon as they become aware of the need to do so, and choose to organize politically and economically to do so. The only factor that now makes the state continue to be an agency of ruling class oppression is that working class people are still choosing habitually to vote to continue their own oppression. Imagination is now the only rare element. The major weapons of revolution are now the tools of persuasion -- writing and speech making. A revolution is still necessary, but the meaning of revolution has returned to the original meaning of a complete turn-around, and the association of the word with violent methods has become obsolete. The working class is now like a person in jail who hasn't noticed yet that the door isn't locked anymore.

I think it would be absolutely lovely if we could convince our class of the need for struggle, take things over and be done with it but I sincerely doubt the bourgeois will give up power happily or peacefully. Your idea of revolution also seems to rely on everyone acting at once, which is unlikely. People can be convinced, but it generally takes a spark to get things moving and, if history is any guide, that spark will be violence from the state against our class. We should move to occupy and take-over at that point and if that can be done peacefully, great, but I doubt that will be the case and so violence becomes a matter of self-defense.

[mikelepore]

You fellow workers are right to point out the difficuty in using the art of persuasion when we don't own the mass media, but we have no choice but to find new ways to accomplish it. Our goal is a democracy, and it is in the nature of democracy that it can't be forced by a minority down the throat of a majority who don't yet want it. Why? Because you couldn't win, and even if you did win then your goal of democracy would be lost.

As for the refusal of the capitalist class to comply with a revolutionary mandate, their refusal can't amount to any more than a lot of noise and some individual acts of desperation. Without the obedience of the working class, a capitalist becomes nothing more than a person who has with a pretty stock certificate that can be framed on the wall.

For the working class to do battle with the state is impossible, and therefore the working class must take control of the state by political means. When some capitalists react violently, it will be better to have socialist police face capitalist outlaws than to have the socialist outlaws face capitalist police. This is how the whole meaning of revolutionary process changed when the officials who direct the violent state powers became publicly elected offices.

[Sasha]

I would say one stands as genuinely as non-violent if and only if you have a choice in the matter. I think the question of violence is moot at this point. Leftists have absolutely no ability to use violence. As a quick survey, how many of the people on this site own and operate their own firearms with such proficiency that they would be able to resist the police let alone the military? I would imagine that number is fairly low. It seems that we (at least in the US) should work to train others in the ability to use firearms effectively.

Moreover, if leftists in the United States were to engage in violent acts against capitalists (banks, investment firms, corporations, etc) or the state (police, military, bases) it would be counter productive. The media would immediately turn this into a general act of terrorism rather than a specific act of revolution. Moreover, the American population isn't conscious enough to realize that these acts might be based in class rather than psychopathy. In this case, violence would be impossible. It seems that we (at least in the US) should work to create a network for articulating, defending, and creating the possibility for violent acts.

good points but who's talking about firearms? from the pacifism-gestapo i'm not even permitted to hurl a rock, break a window or set fire to anything and i'm perfecetly capelbel of that and even get away with it.
i'm not going to eleborate because Gelderloos says it a lot better than i can but (exclusive) non-violence is racist, sexist, classist, counterproductive and protects the intrests of the state/system.

[griffjam]

Anarchist violence is the only violence that can be justified, the only violence that is not criminal.
I speak, of course, of the violence which has truly anarchist characteristics, not of the various blind and irrational acts of violence attributed to anarchists or which have, indeed, been committed by real anarchists roused to fury by abominable persecution, or blinded through an irrational excess of feeling by the sight of social injustice and sorrow for others' sorrow.
Real anarchist violence ceases where the need for defense and liberation ceases. It is tempered by the awareness that individuals, taken in isolation, are hardly, if at all responsible for the positions which heredity or environment have bestowed on them. It is inspired bot by hared but love, and it is sacred because its goal is the liberation of all and not the substitution of one form of domination with another.
Anarchists are not hypocritical. Force must be countered with force - today against today's oppression, tomorrow against forms of oppression which might seek to replace today's.
We want liberty for all, for ourselves and our friends as well as for our adversaries and enemies. Freedom of thought and freedom to propagate our own point of view, freedom to work and organize our own lives in the way we want; not, of course, freedom - and let the communists not equivocate - not freedom to suppress freedom and to exploit the work of others.

[cyu]

Our goal is a democracy, and it is in the nature of democracy that it can't be forced by a minority down the throat of a majority who don't yet want it.

Let's say there's a (real) dictatorship and there's a sizable minority of revolutionaries that want to take action to turn it into a democracy. What do they do? Well, in order to establish the democracy in the first place, they have to ensure the dictator loses his power. Only after that can they have a fair vote - even if the vote goes against the democratic revolutionaries, it still has to be done in an environment without dictatorship.

The same is true when occupying the mass media - your group of revolutionaries doesn't just occupy it and then broadcast whatever you feel like. In order to live up to the principles of democratic media, you'll have to practice democracy - which means after the community takes control, they immediately allow everyone to vote on the content of what is broadcast. If 35% want more stories about A, 45% want more stories about B, and 20% want more stories about C, then the media should spend 35% of its time doing stories about A, 45% on B, and 20% on C.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Anarchist violence is the only violence that can be justified, the only violence that is not criminal.
I speak, of course, of the violence which has truly anarchist characteristics, not of the various blind and irrational acts of violence attributed to anarchists or which have, indeed, been committed by real anarchists roused to fury by abominable persecution, or blinded through an irrational excess of feeling by the sight of social injustice and sorrow for others' sorrow.
Real anarchist violence ceases where the need for defense and liberation ceases. It is tempered by the awareness that individuals, taken in isolation, are hardly, if at all responsible for the positions which heredity or environment have bestowed on them. It is inspired bot by hared but love, and it is sacred because its goal is the liberation of all and not the substitution of one form of domination with another.
Anarchists are not hypocritical. Force must be countered with force - today against today's oppression, tomorrow against forms of oppression which might seek to replace today's.
We want liberty for all, for ourselves and our friends as well as for our adversaries and enemies. Freedom of thought and freedom to propagate our own point of view, freedom to work and organize our own lives in the way we want; not, of course, freedom - and let the communists not equivocate - not freedom to suppress freedom and to exploit the work of others.
How can you say that all other violence is criminal? Doesn't crime imply law? Then what law? Isn't the state law exactly what defines this criminality. I highly recommend you read Walter Benjamin's Critique of violence. You can check it out here.

http://rapidshare.com/files/126061450/Benjamin__Walter_-_Critique_of_Violence.pdf

Also, we're having a facebook discussion on violence you're welcome to join here.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=52310194736

[Mister X]

The use of violence is dependent on the material conditions. For now violence is unacceptable coming from a proletarian organization for the reasons the OP stated and also for obvious reasons anyone can understand.
Once there is a revolutionary movement violence will be used if needed. There's nothing more to it.

[Sasha]

^ bollox, the state/system uses violence against us everyday, every hour, every second.... we are entiteled to (and its acceptable to) use any tactic, non-violent and violent to try and overtrow this system.
hell, even when its only to get one back at them.

vuur en vlammen voor elke staat!

[griffjam]

Criminal as in senseless or foolish and being detrimental to society. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is bad for society i.e. burning banks and cop cars, also the reverse is true, not everything that has a negative effect is illegal, i.e. capitalism.

[GhostKing]

I think violence is the only thing the state understand,you hold a peaceful protest,and the riot police turn up,act heavy hand,and then wonder why rocks get throwen at them...in 2001 a mil people marched about the Iraq war.nothing happned,look back to the Brixton riots,and how that lead to the police and govenment to get things done,stop the searchs on grounds of race.Violence work,but only at the right time.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Criminal as in senseless or foolish and being detrimental to society. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is bad for society i.e. burning banks and cop cars, also the reverse is true, not everything that has a negative effect is illegal, i.e. capitalism.
I'm not saying that we should use violence. I'm saying we should feel the need to situate it in the discourse of "law" and "crime." A law seems to be certain sort of violence, that is, state violence. We should feel free to use illegal (natural, mythic or divine violence using Benjamin's terms) to abolish any law that perpetrates is violence on the people. However, I'm not too concerned about certain forms of state violence that perpetrate violence upon the capitalists (minimum wages, increasingly progressive taxes, redistribution, etc).

[Psy]

I would say one stands as genuinely as non-violent if and only if you have a choice in the matter. I think the question of violence is moot at this point. Leftists have absolutely no ability to use violence. As a quick survey, how many of the people on this site own and operate their own firearms with such proficiency that they would be able to resist the police let alone the military? I would imagine that number is fairly low. It seems that we (at least in the US) should work to train others in the ability to use firearms effectively.

Moreover, if leftists in the United States were to engage in violent acts against capitalists (banks, investment firms, corporations, etc) or the state (police, military, bases) it would be counter productive. The media would immediately turn this into a general act of terrorism rather than a specific act of revolution. Moreover, the American population isn't conscious enough to realize that these acts might be based in class rather than psychopathy. In this case, violence would be impossible. It seems that we (at least in the US) should work to create a network for articulating, defending, and creating the possibility for violent acts.

I take it you haven't annualized how revolutions develop, if there was a revolutionary struggle in the USA people would be on the street and not watching media.

[piet11111]

just look at the Russian revolution where the Bolsheviks in the beginning where trying to pacify the party members so they did not provoke a fight they could not yet win.
but after they gained the majority in the soviets they had legitimacy on their side (being an elected majority) and they where able to move ahead with hardly any violence needed as the russian army's just surrendered or joined with them.

when a revolution is ready to go such an overwhelming majority of the population is on our side that the state has no people left willing to defend it.
it happened in france and in portugal that the state was completely powerless unfortunately those revolutions where betrayed by the so called left leaderships.
and we can see the same happening in greece today where the unions are calling off strikes.

violence needs to be used at the last moment until then we need to provoke the state to use force against us so that we can rightfully say that the state is willing to use violence against those its supposedly representing and asking those working class people still watching tv to join the struggle in the streets and defend their brothers and sisters and that fight for their class interests.

we must never give the state the opportunity to make us look like hooligans and rioters or even terrorists because that will cut us off from the rest of the population.
the greece state tried to do this but failed and now large numbers from the working class are stepping up to do their part.

[Psy]

just look at the Russian revolution where the Bolsheviks in the beginning where trying to pacify the party members so they did not provoke a fight they could not yet win.
but after they gained the majority in the soviets they had legitimacy on their side (being an elected majority) and they where able to move ahead with hardly any violence needed as the russian army's just surrendered or joined with them.

when a revolution is ready to go such an overwhelming majority of the population is on our side that the state has no people left willing to defend it.
it happened in france and in portugal that the state was completely powerless unfortunately those revolutions where betrayed by the so called left leaderships.
and we can see the same happening in greece today where the unions are calling off strikes.

violence needs to be used at the last moment until then we need to provoke the state to use force against us so that we can rightfully say that the state is willing to use violence against those its supposedly representing and asking those working class people still watching tv to join the struggle in the streets and defend their brothers and sisters and that fight for their class interests.

we must never give the state the opportunity to make us look like hooligans and rioters or even terrorists because that will cut us off from the rest of the population.
the greece state tried to do this but failed and now large numbers from the working class are stepping up to do their part.

The state will paint us like hooligans regardless. Also without violence against the police there would have been no Paris May 1968 as the revolutionary aspect of Paris May 1968 happened when the police was pushed back.

[genstrike]

Regarding violence, I think we have two questions.

1. Is revolutionary violence justified and morally okay?
2. Is it tactically the best thing to do right now?

For example, I would argue that violent tactics against the capitalist system are justified and acceptable, but I'm probably not going to throw Molotovs at the legislature or hide out in the forest with a rifle because it isn't going to accomplish anything (aside from getting me locked up) in this context.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

Violence would be necessary in a revolution/insurrection scenario.
Persuasion, writing, speeches, nonviolent protests would only go so far, but should be used before the violence to get us just that much further, and possibly a few more supporters. Eventually, arms would have to be taken up, but only after the left becomes organized.

So nonviolence is an alright, but not good enough weapon.

The state is more than willing to fight us, we should be prepared to fight back when shit gets worse.

[piet11111]

The state will paint us like hooligans regardless. Also without violence against the police there would have been no Paris May 1968 as the revolutionary aspect of Paris May 1968 happened when the police was pushed back.

yes the state will do that but its what the rest of the population sees that is going to matter.

and the violence in france was in response to the police (if i am not mistaken) but the time for it was right because the numbers of people involved was so big that the police was unable to respond anymore and that is what we want.
had they in the beginning just started with mindless rioting then the state could have isolated it and crushed it because the vast majority don't go out to join a pointless riot.

[Psy]

yes the state will do that but its what the rest of the population sees that is going to matter.

and the violence in france was in response to the police (if i am not mistaken) but the time for it was right because the numbers of people involved was so big that the police was unable to respond anymore and that is what we want.
had they in the beginning just started with mindless rioting then the state could have isolated it and crushed it because the vast majority don't go out to join a pointless riot.

Yes it was in response to police violence yet at the time their numbers was that big, it grew as the police were pushed back.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I take it you haven't annualized how revolutions develop, if there was a revolutionary struggle in the USA people would be on the street and not watching media.
Let's be careful. There is a revolutionary struggle in the USA. I'm part of it, and I hope you're part of it. That being said, it seems clear we're losing. I'm not saying we shouldn't use violence (although sometime I use bad punctuation that makes me mean things I didn't intend). I am saying we should find out when violence will be most effective before gambling on it. Right now, it seems it won't be effective. That just entail we need to make the conditions for when it will be effective, i.e. we should train, expand, and arm ourselves.

[cyu]

As an anarchist that believes in the usefulness of direct action, I would advise revolutionaries to basically act like they already are the government. It's really just civil disobedience, but instead of acting like you are intentionally breaking the law, act like you are the law.

For example, if you want to end racial segregation, just organize people of various races to use stuff that used to be designated for another race.

Or if you want workplace democracy, just have employees show up nonchalantly for work and stop listening to the boss.

If anybody is assaulted during these acts of direct action / civil disobedience, then just exercise your right to self-defence - act as if each of the revolutionaries has been deputized as a police officer.

None of this is intentionally violent, but it's not completely non-violent either... of course, in order to succeed, you have to assume the community is already on your side. A few lone revolutionaries isn't really a revolution =]

[Psy]

Let's be careful. There is a revolutionary struggle in the USA.

Not on a large scale.



I'm not saying we shouldn't use violence (although sometime I use bad punctuation that makes me mean things I didn't intend). I am saying we should find out when violence will be most effective before gambling on it. Right now, it seems it won't be effective. That just entail we need to make the conditions for when it will be effective, i.e. we should train, expand, and arm ourselves.
True, yet we won't be able to decide when to use violence. Another trend of revolutions is when the masses really start to stir the vanguard is usually temporarily left in the dust of the masses, we can't help being caught completely off guard temporarily when the masses first start to really resist, one day it like the masses are totally apathetic to their own plight then the all of a sudden all the friction in society comes to the surface and the rate of change increases exponentially.

[fabiansocialist]

Regarding violence, I think we have two questions.

1. Is revolutionary violence justified and morally okay?
2. Is it tactically the best thing to do right now?

For example, I would argue that violent tactics against the capitalist system are justified and acceptable, but I'm probably not going to throw Molotovs at the legislature or hide out in the forest with a rifle because it isn't going to accomplish anything (aside from getting me locked up) in this context.

Physical violence is one instrument in a spectrum of instruments. At certain stages of revolutionary conflict, it has to be used, but as part of an overall strategy to accomplish revolutionary ends. To abstain from using it at these certain key junctures is to render futile the whole enterprise of revolution. And just as importantly, those who have power have to realise that the ability to exercise violence by revolutionaries is a credible threat. This is what will provoke concessions. Nothing else.

Of course no-one here (I hope) is extolling or glorifying violence or suggesting it be a be-all and end-all: that would be ... nihilistic?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Not on a large scale.
I'll let this slide, but I'd like to point out there is a revolutionary struggle on a large scale. That we are losing on a large scale.


True, yet we won't be able to decide when to use violence. Another trend of revolutions is when the masses really start to stir the vanguard is usually temporarily left in the dust of the masses, we can't help being caught completely off guard temporarily when the masses first start to really resist, one day it like the masses are totally apathetic to their own plight then the all of a sudden all the friction in society comes to the surface and the rate of change increases exponentially.
Well, this runs into an epistemic problem. I certainly agree that when the masses become revolutionary they often leave the vanguard behind. I generally believe that's how it should be, but it doesn't follow (I'm not saying you're advocating this) that the vanguard doesn't have any effect, just that we can't and don't know what it is. The use of violence is always a gamble. We can decide to use it, but that doesn't entail it will be successful, or we'll even be in any position to know if it's a success or failure. I think we agree on this point, I just want to be precise.

[Psy]

I'll let this slide, but I'd like to point out there is a revolutionary struggle on a large scale. That we are losing on a large scale.


Well, this runs into an epistemic problem. I certainly agree that when the masses become revolutionary they often leave the vanguard behind. I generally believe that's how it should be, but it doesn't follow (I'm not saying you're advocating this) that the vanguard doesn't have any effect, just that we can't and don't know what it is. The use of violence is always a gamble. We can decide to use it, but that doesn't entail it will be successful, or we'll even be in any position to know if it's a success or failure. I think we agree on this point, I just want to be precise.
Yes except I don't think we ever truly decide when to use violence (except when we really jump the gun), the masses usually decide that for us in most revolutionary situations and the vanguard is left with deciding whether to escalate the level violence.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Yes except I don't think we ever truly decide when to use violence (except when we really jump the gun), the masses usually decide that for us in most revolutionary situations and the vanguard is left with deciding whether to escalate the level violence.
Zizek tells this stories in one of his books (I don't have the book or remember it exactly, but stay with me).

During the French Revolution, a man was having a dinner party when he and his guests heard fighting in the streets growing closer. The guests looked nervously at each other, but the man continued eating. One of the guests found the situation intolerable and shouted at the man, "Can you not hear the sounds of the fighting growing closer? How can you eat at a time like this?"

The man calmly replied, "Well, can't you hear that our side is advancing?"

The guest was shocked, "which side is that?"

The man smiled and said, "We shall know that in the morning."

Zizek points out that the Left basically follows the inverse of this. "Our side is losing."

I understand that there are many reasons to be pessimistic about our prospects for the use of violence, but often it's the hopeless vanguardists who are surprised by how violently the masses react and not necessarily the reverse.

It may sound trite, but I guess we'll just have to continue the best we can. I just don't think we always make mistakes on the use of violence. However, even if we do, we ultimately need to get it right once.

[Psy]

Zizek tells this stories in one of his books (I don't have the book or remember it exactly, but stay with me).

During the French Revolution, a man was having a dinner party when he and his guests heard fighting in the streets growing closer. The guests looked nervously at each other, but the man continued eating. One of the guests found the situation intolerable and shouted at the man, "Can you not hear the sounds of the fighting growing closer? How can you eat at a time like this?"

The man calmly replied, "Well, can't you hear that our side is advancing?"

The guest was shocked, "which side is that?"

The man smiled and said, "We shall know that in the morning."

Zizek points out that the Left basically follows the inverse of this. "Our side is losing."

I understand that there are many reasons to be pessimistic about our prospects for the use of violence, but often it's the hopeless vanguardists who are surprised by how violently the masses react and not necessarily the reverse.

It may sound trite, but I guess we'll just have to continue the best we can. I just don't think we always make mistakes on the use of violence. However, even if we do, we ultimately need to get it right once.

By problem is by the time we know we hit the point of critical mass where change happens exponentially we have long pasted that point. Meaning vangaurdists either are way too optimistic and predict 10 out of 3 revolutionary situations as they interpret every resistance by the working class as a revolutionary situation or they are pessimist and only "predict" revolutionary situations after workers have started revolting.

[nikolaou]

i think that both violent and non-violence has there respective place throughout the entire revolutionary process.

depending on the situation, i beleive it is indeed possible to complete a successful revolucion.

in a democratic society, such as in the United States, for a small group such as the communists lets say, to get the word out and spread their message it can be extremely hard, as they are seen as radicals, and the mass media will largely ignore them.
however, to begin using violence as a way to spread your message can indeed alienate the very same people you are trying to bring to your cause. so indeed, we do have a difficult problem.


in a third word country, lets say a country in africa, there may not be democratic elections at all, or if there is, they may be rigged, and the current ruler has no intention of leaving power for the rest of his life. in a situation such as this, even with a large larger majority of the population supporting you, you probably would not be able to gain power non-violently. in a situation such as this, the best solution would be to have a country that supports your cause fund you, and/or arm you, so that you can have a revolution the proper way :cubaflag:

[griffjam]

vanguard?
I thought you people were socialists.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

By problem is by the time we know we hit the point of critical mass where change happens exponentially we have long pasted that point. Meaning vangaurdists either are way too optimistic and predict 10 out of 3 revolutionary situations as they interpret every resistance by the working class as a revolutionary situation or they are pessimist and only "predict" revolutionary situations after workers have started revolting.
I'm not saying every instance of violence is revolutionary violence, nor am I saying that we should imagine that every single act of violence could cause a revolution. However, we must strike a balance between a fetishism of violence that becomes self-defeating and unhelpful and an essential disavowal of violence in the form of "waiting for the right time." I would imagine there's not a huge amount of disagreement about that.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

vanguard?
I thought you people were socialists.
There's nothing about vanguardism that makes inherently socialist or nonsocialist. Also, to what extend something is a vanguard is up to hot debate. Does the vanguard just include more class conscious individuals struggling to bring awareness to the people around them or does it entail the violent authoritarian suppression of all who deviate from the party line? I'm not going to say it's only the first example, but, for me, it's pretty close.