I believe that due to the inherent contradictions of capitalism a revolution is inevitable, and necessary, but it's still not something that is easily palatable. Revolution is certainly romanticized, yet I still question every day whether or not I would be willing to die for my beliefs. My question to my fellow comrades is do you think non-violent form of revolution is possible, or will the state and reactionaries always crack down? I know that in the past those with power and prestige have been reluctant to give it up.
I have more of a philosophical answer than a historical one. I think all moments in history are both violent and peaceful, in varying kinds and degrees. If the people had overwhelming power; say the military and police turned, and almost everyone was on board... holding a gun to the capitalist's head could very well be enough, without having to fire it. Coups have happened in this way.
But that is still violent! But is it? Everything is, to varying degrees, peaceful and violent. Have their been peaceful revolutions in the past? Likely. Perhaps most weren't. Either way, that does not determine the future. It can help us predict, but there is no way to know with certainty if the next revolution, which could very well be The Big One given the unique moment in history we live, if it will follow in lock-step with past revolutions in terms of the levels of violence that have tended to occur. After all, there's never been a socialist revolution in an imperial core--yet.
The way I see it, the very existence of capitalism is extraordinary violence and the revolutionary violence that ousts it (no matter how graphic) is peaceful by comparison.
Capitalism directly chooses to keep millions on the verge of starvation, hoard healthcare, destroy infrastructure, wage imperial war, and imprison millions more for slave labor.
By comparison, a bloody revolution with short term violence that ends the constant violence we all live with is a peaceful option.
Ya! I totally agree. Capitalism and its consequences have killed 10039 garbillion people haha—I’m only just barely kidding. I agree.
But! I also think that, just for basic ethical reasons, revolution should aim to be as bloodless as possible. I don’t believe in revenge killings, or really punishment of any kind; I believe in progress, and reform. So... if it is possible to carry out the necessary revolution relatively bloodlessly, we should try.
I don’t excitedly await my turn to kill a capitalist. And I don’t particularly enjoy glofying the idea of it either, tbh. I would rather avoid the violence altogether, if that is at all possible during the coming revolution.
Of course, if revolution is here and it precipitated war, I would play my part. But leading up to that moment, I would do everything in my power to bring about revolution as peacefully as possible.
I think you're arguing, basically, 'violence is worth it', which I agree with. And I'm arguing something entirely non-contradictory to that; 'violence is undesirable, and should be avoided as much as possible' :) :red-fist:
Well put! Violence isn't good, but focusing on revolutionary violence and ignoring the violence inherent in the system is a common tactic used to discredit revolutions. I mean we've literally seen this during the protests (the "violent protestors" narrative). It's absolutely important to try and avoid using violence, but it's not something that can always be avoided. Especially if you're doing mass action. If a revolution successfully liberates the oppressed, there's a good chance they will want to do terrible things to their oppressors and it's not important to stop that from happening (see China).
Reaping what they sowed and such.