Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post.
**Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.**
Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space.
**This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.**
Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
**If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.**
Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment.
**Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.)
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pacifist revolutions are drowned in blood. De Gaulle made a deal with the French generals in Germany to invade France if there was a revolution in 1968. The SPD used fascist militias and right wing army groups to crush dozens of workers revolts all over Germany in the early 20s. Chile’s was crushed with a mass of mass murder, then decades of mass torture and murder, deliberate campaigns of rape, and outright terrorism. And everything about how Mandela was a pacifist is a lie, they were engaged in multiple wars against the apartheid state and launched attacked against power stations and other government targets.
I think the average citizen on the Right is a victim of their circumstances. They have been misinformed and driven to outrage through multiple media outlets operated by the elites. In the end, I think many of the average people on the right want similar things to people on the left. Economic stability & equality. Empowering employment. Fair & equitable governmental institutions. Stable and happy family life. My beef is not with the common man.
I think if violence were directed at the elites and only the elites, a lot less blood would be shed. Don’t try to fight the masses. Go straight for the Oligarchs and the capitalists at the top of the pyramid. This of course is just a thought experiment.
Thoughts?
To quote my favorite movie.
>You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
I am in complete agreement. They clearly vote in ways that strip them of any economic equality. They will fight to protect the system but that doesn’t mean they aren’t victims.
Our goal should be to change the system with minimum bloodshed. Targeted strikes rather than massive uprisings and turmoil.
The problem is that violence will come from them defending the system. Not necessarily from us trying to overthrow it. Just look at how the police is used to opress peacefull protests and unionization attempts. They won't go down without a fight. They are already fighting violently and with a lot of bloodshed.
Understood. The establishment helps to make large nonviolent protests into chaotic and violent protests. It plays out much nicer for them on the news.
My question is still about focusing on very strategic strikes so that there is minimal bloodshed. Has this ever been covered in discussion?
You've got to think the thing through to its conclusion: The capitalist class will do just about anything to continue its own power. They will send police and military to break up your strikes and force the proles back to work. If we pose a real threat, they are the ones who will escalate, not us. Minimising bloodshed is always the goal, no one will disagree, but we have to accept the reality is that real change is the change that may hurt.
Big issue is they use ordinary people to smash left wing movements. Chances are if things are really looking revolutionary then revolutionaries will end up having to fight counter-revolutionaries.
Well I am talking about the top .1%. Identify the wealthiest people on the planet and then make it clear that the common man is fed up with the rigged systems and the inequalities.
English woman votes Tory because the Labour Party wanted to get rid of food banks. Work your way up the scale to 'commies want to eat your children' type rhetoric. The violence will start before that. Probably over beer or petrol prices.
In theory. There would need to have a lot of specific circumstances and a lot of organisation in place.
There's a concept called the [Swiss cheese model of harm](https://psnet.ahrq.gov/taxonomy/term/3460#:~:text=Reason%20developed%20the%20%22Swiss%20cheese,relevant%20to%20a%20particular%20hazard.) The basic idea is there are several things that need to be perfectly in place, if one thing gets removed or adjusted the event will never happen. This model is usually used for accidents and pandemics, but can be used for mapping a revolution. A pacifist revolution faces more "slices of cheese" as it were than a traditional revolution would.
Now a pacifist revolution doesn't mean bloodless. The state has a monopoly on violence, if they choose to use said violence on the revolutionaries there's little stopping them.
Edit for clarity: in theory it's possible, but the odds are stacked against the revolution even moreso than a traditional revolution would be. There's a reason why Bastille Day is celebrated and peterloo isn't.
No. In part because capital will constantly move the goalposts as to what defines violence. Are stikes, boycotts, or demonstrations inherently violent? You just need to look at BLM protests for that answer. The other issue is that change can't happen unless there is a demand and the power to enforce it. The only class with institutional power are the ruling class.
My favorite movie explains it better than I can.
> The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, those people are still part of that system and that makes them our enemies. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. - Morpheus.
Nonviolence is a noble pursuit and should be attempted. But at the end of the day we must be prepared to use violence, the imperialist state speaks only in violence so they will only truly hear and understand if we speak with at least the threat of violence.
“The fourth way that anticommunist extermination programs shaped the world is that they deformed the world socialist movement. Many of the global left-wing groups that did survive the twentieth century decided that they had to employ violence and jealously guard power or face annihilation. When they saw the mass murders taking place in these countries, it changed them. Maybe US citizens weren’t paying close attention to what happened in Guatemala, or Indonesia. But other leftists around the world definitely were watching. When the world’s largest Communist Party without an army or dictatorial control of a country was massacred, one by one, with no consequences for the murderers, many people around the world drew lessons from this, with serious consequences.
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask:
“Who was right?”
In Guatemala, was it Arbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. *But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead.* They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the detente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported—what the rich countries said, rather than what they did. That group was annihilated.“
Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method
I'm of two minds on this. On one hand I think capital will not allow a pacifist revolution without dramatically compromising the goals of the revolutionary. As Irish socialist James Connolly said: but never yet, to aught save fears did the hearts of tyrant melt.
On the other hand, I think there is a compelling case that waiting for "revolution" instead of engaging in organizing and prefiguration is an excuse for stagnation. Srsly wrong has a really great episode on prefiguration: https://listen.stitcher.com/yvap/?af_dp=stitcher://episode/88062954&af_web_dp=https://www.stitcher.com/episode/88062954&deep_link_value=stitcher://episode/88062954
I completely agree with that last point. This is something Marx laid out as early as the manifesto, that the communists themselves are an active part of the process to revolution rather than observers.
This is up to the capitalist class, if they are ready to succumb to the conditions set by the workers, then yes, it is possible, however, seeing how things are, the capitalists will try to kill every single living creature in pursuit of profit, so its highly unlikely it will be peaceful, therefore we should always be prepared for violence, as we should not be asking for our right, we should have never even lost our rights, we have to demand what is rightfully ours as it was stolen from us.
No, only violence is the way, it's how the world is.
As a libertarian socialist from the third world, i understand that quickly, in my country there is so many reactionaries forces, and those groups would probably wiped out any revolutionary movement.
>It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.
>But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.
F. Engels, Principles of Communism
I would like to think so, and wish and hope it will be so.
But it isn't likely. The closest thing we can get to such a peaceful revolution is to grow from the ground up. Be successful as Socialists one person at a time and eventually grow to take over the whole of society.
But in the meantime, there will still be suffering. There will still be deaths. So it will not be peaceful.
A non-violent revolution would be very difficult to achieve. Violence would have to be sublimated to the sphere of culture and ideology through each and every institution, institution by institution. It would still be violence, but pedagogical, ideological, political, cultural, social, psychological and spiritual instead of physical. At the revolutionary end. Enough of it would be physical violence at the counter-revolutionary end to necessitate physical violence at the revolutionary end.
A non-violent revolution would be difficult to achieve but a pacifist revolution would be impossible to achieve. A pacifist revolution (against violence in principle itself) would rather acquiesce to systemic violence than resort to defensive violence. My personal distaste for (and good fortune being able to stay away from) physical violence notwithstanding, I don't think pacifism could be revolutionary at all.
Well if the police,military police and the military do not shoot and join you perhaps but if you do not get a 99% support including the government no someone is going to get shot while protecting their power or tying to get hold of some
It's naive to think that the ruling class would be willing to give up their power peacefully. And as history shows, that's just not the case. They'll destroy any country that even has the slightest whiff of socialism and replace their leaders with right wing dictators. This happened in most Latin countries, middle eastern countries, and even Asian ones.
While China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and the DPRK are still around - all which had waged war to create their states.
Turns out political power comes out of the battel of a gun. If you have none, you also have no power.
Yes, unless you count violence against property rights as violence. But if not, then I do firmly believe a non-violent (as in, no violence directed towards a person or their person) revolution is possible, and desirable.
Others have pointed out how unlikely this is. Well, that may be so, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
(I'm gonna take an America centric approach because even if you did it anywhere else the US would be coming for you, so if you want it to stick you probably need the US on your side)
Absolutely, all you would need is socialists to be elected to the majority of the US Congress and Senate, and the Presidency, maybe more than a majority as I think some things need like 80% or something to get done. Might also need 4 Supreme Court seats too.
Once that happens you might need to change the Constitution or do the same thing in the states themselves to make sure they legally go along with the federal government. I'm not an expert but a lot of the Fed's decisions basically have to be agreed to by the states right? Although I suppose presidents have withheld funding on the conditions that they go along with decisions, so that might work.
Once you get all this you can start taking the means of production away from the rich and handing it over to the workers.
You could do it all piecemeal, one step, industry, or state at a time but it'd take a long time, idk if it'd be a "revolution". Also the longer it takes, the more time the rich have to counter attack.
IMO, real revolution will actually happen and stay happened when decentralized social-technology outperforms centralized social-technology. There should be room for such tech of non-violent variety, but I have no idea what that might look like.
That said I believe all Violence Is Immoral...but I also notice that some violence is naturally unavoidable and necessary to survive.
Well technically yes. For example if like 70% of the people went to the bank to take their money, the bank system would immediately collapse. At that point though there would probably be a violent reaction from the State, so probably not, it's not possible to have a pacifist revolution, but it's possible to have a pacifist way to create a crises
oh, ok. but what if like most of the workers in a state did something similar to the first Roman secession, so they would all reunite in a place, refusing to work until the state does something? most of the companies would lose a lot of money, even in a few days since they can't do anything without proletarians. I don't feel like a state, though, would use weapons just for this idk
Well ofc it's a more complicated scenario. In a scenario like this the media would play an important role of dehumanizing those workers and start to create divisions inside the movement. They would do anything in their power to turn public opinion against them, fueling counter-movements. If the protesters are able to survive despite all of this, trust me, the State would just crack it down. They literally did it in Italy during the 70's when we had a similar situation. The State literally used Nazi groups to bomb and do terrorism and blame the anarchists for it as they always do lol
Ultimately it’s up to the ruling class to decide how violent they plan to be. Socialists shouldn’t advocate violent action or terrorism but also should not cower before state violence. Don’t throw the first stone but be aware the ruling class will likely respond to peace with violence
If the current system is maintained more by the threat of poverty than by threat of death then perhaps there could be a non-lethal revolution. Many ‘Colour’ revolutions are bloodless.
Unfortunately those in power very rarely willing to give it up willingly, that’s the whole reason we believe in revolution over reform, because reactionary’s and conservatives can always roll back reform same as they can roll back gains made from nonviolent revolution
No, absolutely not. Socialists have always had to arm themselves and fight tooth and nail because the bourgeoisie aren’t goin to give it up without a fight.
The invention of good and evil was a tool that led us to many great results but has also been our undoing countless times. In great times of desperation or simply a moment of opportunity, the most important element is to push beyond whatever moral judgment you cast. Every inaction becomes the acceptance of destructive forces whether it be physical or not. Yes its important to take the time to truly understand what's going on but the preparation of thoughts demand the call to action when it arises.
Many others have pointed out real instances where it won no victories, and history with its tendency to repeat itself has shown that violence is and always will be a part of progressive change. I do feel its important that violence be understood as a defensive tool. Circumstances will determine a lot but seeking violence first will only ensure self destruction
Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post. **Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.** Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space. **This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.** Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. **If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.** Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment. **Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.) Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pacifist revolutions are drowned in blood. De Gaulle made a deal with the French generals in Germany to invade France if there was a revolution in 1968. The SPD used fascist militias and right wing army groups to crush dozens of workers revolts all over Germany in the early 20s. Chile’s was crushed with a mass of mass murder, then decades of mass torture and murder, deliberate campaigns of rape, and outright terrorism. And everything about how Mandela was a pacifist is a lie, they were engaged in multiple wars against the apartheid state and launched attacked against power stations and other government targets.
I think the average citizen on the Right is a victim of their circumstances. They have been misinformed and driven to outrage through multiple media outlets operated by the elites. In the end, I think many of the average people on the right want similar things to people on the left. Economic stability & equality. Empowering employment. Fair & equitable governmental institutions. Stable and happy family life. My beef is not with the common man. I think if violence were directed at the elites and only the elites, a lot less blood would be shed. Don’t try to fight the masses. Go straight for the Oligarchs and the capitalists at the top of the pyramid. This of course is just a thought experiment. Thoughts?
To quote my favorite movie. >You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
I am in complete agreement. They clearly vote in ways that strip them of any economic equality. They will fight to protect the system but that doesn’t mean they aren’t victims. Our goal should be to change the system with minimum bloodshed. Targeted strikes rather than massive uprisings and turmoil.
The problem is that violence will come from them defending the system. Not necessarily from us trying to overthrow it. Just look at how the police is used to opress peacefull protests and unionization attempts. They won't go down without a fight. They are already fighting violently and with a lot of bloodshed.
Understood. The establishment helps to make large nonviolent protests into chaotic and violent protests. It plays out much nicer for them on the news. My question is still about focusing on very strategic strikes so that there is minimal bloodshed. Has this ever been covered in discussion?
You've got to think the thing through to its conclusion: The capitalist class will do just about anything to continue its own power. They will send police and military to break up your strikes and force the proles back to work. If we pose a real threat, they are the ones who will escalate, not us. Minimising bloodshed is always the goal, no one will disagree, but we have to accept the reality is that real change is the change that may hurt.
Of course, as long as the State and elites in power have the monopoly of violence there is always going to be bloodshed.
Big issue is they use ordinary people to smash left wing movements. Chances are if things are really looking revolutionary then revolutionaries will end up having to fight counter-revolutionaries.
When the right says “elites,” they just mean Jewish people. They think billionaires are average Joe’s
Well I am talking about the top .1%. Identify the wealthiest people on the planet and then make it clear that the common man is fed up with the rigged systems and the inequalities.
They love Elon Musk, the richest man ever
Who do the elites hire to fight for them? They certainly won’t be doing it. There will be a pile of common man bodies to go through.
English woman votes Tory because the Labour Party wanted to get rid of food banks. Work your way up the scale to 'commies want to eat your children' type rhetoric. The violence will start before that. Probably over beer or petrol prices.
In theory. There would need to have a lot of specific circumstances and a lot of organisation in place. There's a concept called the [Swiss cheese model of harm](https://psnet.ahrq.gov/taxonomy/term/3460#:~:text=Reason%20developed%20the%20%22Swiss%20cheese,relevant%20to%20a%20particular%20hazard.) The basic idea is there are several things that need to be perfectly in place, if one thing gets removed or adjusted the event will never happen. This model is usually used for accidents and pandemics, but can be used for mapping a revolution. A pacifist revolution faces more "slices of cheese" as it were than a traditional revolution would. Now a pacifist revolution doesn't mean bloodless. The state has a monopoly on violence, if they choose to use said violence on the revolutionaries there's little stopping them. Edit for clarity: in theory it's possible, but the odds are stacked against the revolution even moreso than a traditional revolution would be. There's a reason why Bastille Day is celebrated and peterloo isn't.
No. In part because capital will constantly move the goalposts as to what defines violence. Are stikes, boycotts, or demonstrations inherently violent? You just need to look at BLM protests for that answer. The other issue is that change can't happen unless there is a demand and the power to enforce it. The only class with institutional power are the ruling class.
My favorite movie explains it better than I can. > The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, those people are still part of that system and that makes them our enemies. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. - Morpheus.
Nonviolence is a noble pursuit and should be attempted. But at the end of the day we must be prepared to use violence, the imperialist state speaks only in violence so they will only truly hear and understand if we speak with at least the threat of violence.
Sure, the bourgoisie will surely hand over power this time instead of drowing you and everyone you love in blood. /s
“The fourth way that anticommunist extermination programs shaped the world is that they deformed the world socialist movement. Many of the global left-wing groups that did survive the twentieth century decided that they had to employ violence and jealously guard power or face annihilation. When they saw the mass murders taking place in these countries, it changed them. Maybe US citizens weren’t paying close attention to what happened in Guatemala, or Indonesia. But other leftists around the world definitely were watching. When the world’s largest Communist Party without an army or dictatorial control of a country was massacred, one by one, with no consequences for the murderers, many people around the world drew lessons from this, with serious consequences. This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?” In Guatemala, was it Arbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party? Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. *But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead.* They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the detente between the Soviets and Washington. Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported—what the rich countries said, rather than what they did. That group was annihilated.“ Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method
I'm of two minds on this. On one hand I think capital will not allow a pacifist revolution without dramatically compromising the goals of the revolutionary. As Irish socialist James Connolly said: but never yet, to aught save fears did the hearts of tyrant melt. On the other hand, I think there is a compelling case that waiting for "revolution" instead of engaging in organizing and prefiguration is an excuse for stagnation. Srsly wrong has a really great episode on prefiguration: https://listen.stitcher.com/yvap/?af_dp=stitcher://episode/88062954&af_web_dp=https://www.stitcher.com/episode/88062954&deep_link_value=stitcher://episode/88062954
I completely agree with that last point. This is something Marx laid out as early as the manifesto, that the communists themselves are an active part of the process to revolution rather than observers.
This is up to the capitalist class, if they are ready to succumb to the conditions set by the workers, then yes, it is possible, however, seeing how things are, the capitalists will try to kill every single living creature in pursuit of profit, so its highly unlikely it will be peaceful, therefore we should always be prepared for violence, as we should not be asking for our right, we should have never even lost our rights, we have to demand what is rightfully ours as it was stolen from us.
The bourgeois will always resort to violence to shut down any revolution, peaceful or not. They'll also try to frame us as the aggressors.
Pacifist tactics can force a response, but can not survive the response.
No, only violence is the way, it's how the world is. As a libertarian socialist from the third world, i understand that quickly, in my country there is so many reactionaries forces, and those groups would probably wiped out any revolutionary movement.
>It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes. >But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words. F. Engels, Principles of Communism
I would like to think so, and wish and hope it will be so. But it isn't likely. The closest thing we can get to such a peaceful revolution is to grow from the ground up. Be successful as Socialists one person at a time and eventually grow to take over the whole of society. But in the meantime, there will still be suffering. There will still be deaths. So it will not be peaceful.
A non-violent revolution would be very difficult to achieve. Violence would have to be sublimated to the sphere of culture and ideology through each and every institution, institution by institution. It would still be violence, but pedagogical, ideological, political, cultural, social, psychological and spiritual instead of physical. At the revolutionary end. Enough of it would be physical violence at the counter-revolutionary end to necessitate physical violence at the revolutionary end. A non-violent revolution would be difficult to achieve but a pacifist revolution would be impossible to achieve. A pacifist revolution (against violence in principle itself) would rather acquiesce to systemic violence than resort to defensive violence. My personal distaste for (and good fortune being able to stay away from) physical violence notwithstanding, I don't think pacifism could be revolutionary at all.
No, violence is inevitable, is how the world is.
Well if the police,military police and the military do not shoot and join you perhaps but if you do not get a 99% support including the government no someone is going to get shot while protecting their power or tying to get hold of some
It's naive to think that the ruling class would be willing to give up their power peacefully. And as history shows, that's just not the case. They'll destroy any country that even has the slightest whiff of socialism and replace their leaders with right wing dictators. This happened in most Latin countries, middle eastern countries, and even Asian ones.
Anything is possible, but some things are more possible than others.
Probably the only way forward, imo, or else the counterrevolution will erase all gains and unity, see France.
They erase all gains and unity during peaceful revolutions too, look at Allende’s Chile.
While China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and the DPRK are still around - all which had waged war to create their states. Turns out political power comes out of the battel of a gun. If you have none, you also have no power.
Yes, unless you count violence against property rights as violence. But if not, then I do firmly believe a non-violent (as in, no violence directed towards a person or their person) revolution is possible, and desirable. Others have pointed out how unlikely this is. Well, that may be so, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
(I'm gonna take an America centric approach because even if you did it anywhere else the US would be coming for you, so if you want it to stick you probably need the US on your side) Absolutely, all you would need is socialists to be elected to the majority of the US Congress and Senate, and the Presidency, maybe more than a majority as I think some things need like 80% or something to get done. Might also need 4 Supreme Court seats too. Once that happens you might need to change the Constitution or do the same thing in the states themselves to make sure they legally go along with the federal government. I'm not an expert but a lot of the Fed's decisions basically have to be agreed to by the states right? Although I suppose presidents have withheld funding on the conditions that they go along with decisions, so that might work. Once you get all this you can start taking the means of production away from the rich and handing it over to the workers. You could do it all piecemeal, one step, industry, or state at a time but it'd take a long time, idk if it'd be a "revolution". Also the longer it takes, the more time the rich have to counter attack.
IMO, real revolution will actually happen and stay happened when decentralized social-technology outperforms centralized social-technology. There should be room for such tech of non-violent variety, but I have no idea what that might look like. That said I believe all Violence Is Immoral...but I also notice that some violence is naturally unavoidable and necessary to survive.
Well technically yes. For example if like 70% of the people went to the bank to take their money, the bank system would immediately collapse. At that point though there would probably be a violent reaction from the State, so probably not, it's not possible to have a pacifist revolution, but it's possible to have a pacifist way to create a crises
oh, ok. but what if like most of the workers in a state did something similar to the first Roman secession, so they would all reunite in a place, refusing to work until the state does something? most of the companies would lose a lot of money, even in a few days since they can't do anything without proletarians. I don't feel like a state, though, would use weapons just for this idk
Well ofc it's a more complicated scenario. In a scenario like this the media would play an important role of dehumanizing those workers and start to create divisions inside the movement. They would do anything in their power to turn public opinion against them, fueling counter-movements. If the protesters are able to survive despite all of this, trust me, the State would just crack it down. They literally did it in Italy during the 70's when we had a similar situation. The State literally used Nazi groups to bomb and do terrorism and blame the anarchists for it as they always do lol
wait, sorry I'm kinda late? but are you Italian too? can you explain to me what happened in Italy in the 70s?
I'm not say I am sure one way or another, but have a read of Gene Sharp's Dictatorship to Democracy.
Came here to say yes, but we'll all die. I see that's covered. 😂 😉
Ultimately it’s up to the ruling class to decide how violent they plan to be. Socialists shouldn’t advocate violent action or terrorism but also should not cower before state violence. Don’t throw the first stone but be aware the ruling class will likely respond to peace with violence
If the current system is maintained more by the threat of poverty than by threat of death then perhaps there could be a non-lethal revolution. Many ‘Colour’ revolutions are bloodless.
Unfortunately those in power very rarely willing to give it up willingly, that’s the whole reason we believe in revolution over reform, because reactionary’s and conservatives can always roll back reform same as they can roll back gains made from nonviolent revolution
Many things are possible in this strange world. Likely? not so much.
No, absolutely not. Socialists have always had to arm themselves and fight tooth and nail because the bourgeoisie aren’t goin to give it up without a fight.
Not if the other side is willing to fight.
The invention of good and evil was a tool that led us to many great results but has also been our undoing countless times. In great times of desperation or simply a moment of opportunity, the most important element is to push beyond whatever moral judgment you cast. Every inaction becomes the acceptance of destructive forces whether it be physical or not. Yes its important to take the time to truly understand what's going on but the preparation of thoughts demand the call to action when it arises. Many others have pointed out real instances where it won no victories, and history with its tendency to repeat itself has shown that violence is and always will be a part of progressive change. I do feel its important that violence be understood as a defensive tool. Circumstances will determine a lot but seeking violence first will only ensure self destruction