Violent Revolution vs. Nonviolent Revolution

[The Wiseman]

Continued from the chatroom, once again its a very annoying place to debate.

I'll take some examples again, the Paris Commune and anarchism in the Spanish Revolution are great examples. The capitalist state will absolutely smash any sort of bottom-up revolution based on popular control and collective decision making. To expect the counter-revolution to dissipate without establishing a sufficient system of violent self-defense is absolute suicide. Now both had established popular militias but the Spanish Revolution in particular was under the weight of both the bourgoriese state and the fascist oligarchy. The Paris Commune didn't even have sufficient time to organize successful working class militias. They were both wiped clean through the violence of the system, clear examples of revolution destroyed in bloodbath. Not to mention that both revolutions had elements of violence, especially the Spanish anarchists who burned down the Churches and murdered counterrevolutionary priests.

Global Anarchism

To talk away from working class revolution and speak on national liberation, the examples of the Cuban Revolution and Allende in Chile will be sufficient. Although Allende was a reformer, he was also a self-described democratic Marxist. His failure to sufficiently arm the working class and peasantry as a counterbalance to the right-wing oligarchy that controlled the military basically spelled his doom. The Cuban Revolution on the other hand was achieved through violence and sustained through violence. The Cuban revolutionaries integrated with the military and, due to overwhelming popular support, were able to destroy the counter revolutionaries at the Bay of Pigs. Violence is an absolute necessity for any actual revolution that overturns the structures of its society.

Note: Not to say that violence should take up the entire form of revolutionary action, just that its a necessity. Organizing and establishing community control in the workplace, neighborhoods, and households is integral to any revolution. But to expect to attain any substantive or fundamental change without defensive violence is a pipedream.

[Alloy]

What I was saying in the chat room is that White supremacists wont hand this shit over with people picking up signs, violence is key in any revolution. The white supremacists MUST be oppressed by imprisonment or a death sentence; they are the biggest murderers, rapist, and robbers alive. If a revolution does happen a slap on the wrist isn’t enough for them. I’m also against killing all whites in general if a revolution does happen but once the system they where benefiting from is threatened some will stand up for it. Nayiri I don't understand why we should educate white supremacists they know enough and choose to do what they do.

[Drizzle]

They must pay willingly, or inevitably by force... and they aren't willingly.

[Bob]

Correct. White supremacist have access to maximized resources: education, political, socio-economic, and yet they still have problems understanding that they hold concentrated power. In other words, an inherently oppressive individuals representing a race that is has genocide on its hand.

That said, I do recognize that they're conditioned, but attempting to reverse that is akin to domesticating a zebra! To opt for that is inefficient: those belonging to the subordinate class will end up bleeding more, while those who have access to resources (i.e. capitalist, whites, et al) progress.

Violence, for that reason, is required for revolution. To employ non-violence will fail as effective as Gandhi and MLK. And yes, go read and realize that the gap between people of colour and whites have increased. The rate of incarceration is so high, that we're over representing prisons and under representing tertiary institutions.
Posted on: April 03, 2008, 06:12:11 amDebunking the myth associates with Gandhi:

[An extract from a letter written by P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30 1976, reads thus:

When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Clement Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in post war years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan Calcutta for two days. I put it straight to him like this: ‘The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?’ In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN Mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’.

There is, however, no basis for the claim that the Civil Disobedience Movement directly led to independence. The campaigns of Gandhi… came to an ignoble end about fourteen years before India achieved independence… During the First World War the Indian revolutionaries sought to take advantage of German help in the shape of war materials to free the country by armed revolt. But the attempt did not succeed. During the Second World War Subhas Bose followed the same method and created the INA. In spite of brilliant planning and initial success, the violent campaigns of Subhas Bose failed… The Battles for India's freedom were also being fought against Britain, though indirectly, by Hitler in Europe and Japan in Asia. None of these scored direct success, but few would deny that it was the cumulative effect of all the three that brought freedom to India. In particular, the revelations made by the INA trial, and the reaction it produced in India, made it quite plain to the British, already exhausted by the war, that they could no longer depend upon the loyalty of the sepoys for maintaining their authority in India. This had probably the greatest influence upon their final decision to quit India. Source: Majumdar, R.C., Three Phases of India's Struggle for Freedom, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1967, pp. 58–59.

[The Wiseman]

Any reforms associated with Martin Luther King and peace disobedience need to be given credit to Malcolm X and other radicals as well. If it wasn't for the overwhelming threat of disobedient, politically-directed violence from a large portion of the black population there would have been no reforms. Reforms, like always, are handed out to appease the more radical elements of any movement and to ensure the most conservative sectors dominate. If the state can take over reform and integrate itself with the conservative elements of a social movement, it can essentially weaken its substance. Reforms are basically concessions of the ruling class so as to avoid more "impossible demands" that threaten power and privilege as a whole.

[fLow]

Effectively it would be aggressive defense. Why defense? It is counter-reaction to attack. Attack which is well-documented through many sources, studies etc. So it isn't just a perceived attack, it is researched; thorough. Also worth noting; an attack does not need to be intentional for the counter-action to be deemed worthy of self-defense.

[piercehawkeye45]

I believe there is a time and place for a violent and non-violent revolution. To inspire change within the system, non-violent methods are preferable and realistic  but to change or overthrow the entire system, violent methods will not only be more effective but possibly the only way a revolution can be accomplished.

If you look at the Civil Rights movement in the 60’s, we can see that change within the system is possible by non-violent means, but other revolutions that changed the entire system (American, French, and most colonial) were violent and many had to die to get what (some of) the oppressed wanted.

Revolution through economic means (Spanish Revolution???) is possible but the chances it will be able to withstand the violence thrown at it by the state and people in power are very low without resorting to violence themselves.


Anarchical or any decentralizing revolution I have doubts with unless the entire population is carrying it out. A population has to be ready not only for the challenges and changes of anarchy, but be stable enough to protect itself from outside powers.