a violent revolution?

"What is rejected is the view that a worker's revolution with a
Marxist ideology is the solution. The call for
more creative proposals is a call for proposals that address the role
of big money and power. Aren't there ways of restricting the behavior
of global capitalism short of violent revolution?"

This is a very good question posed by John Groves.  Given that Alan
Spectors has already quite eloquently outlined the necessity of ending
capitalism and replacing it with a more egalitarian system, I will not
pursue that point any further.

I would simply like to comment on the concept of a violent revolution.
 It may be easy for many of us to ignore the outrageous numbers of
people who die of hunger each day in a world where food is thrown away
in the name of free-market capitalism.  (example:  USA and EU policies
which provide subsidies to farmers to destroy edible food products in
order to keep prices high enough).

Many of us are not obliged to think constantly of the people that are
killed in genocidal wars provoked by the IMF and other global
organizations as well as imperialism.  (example: Rwanda).

However, all of us do know that people die violent and terrible deaths
every single day.  I would argue that these deaths are a direct result
of free-market capitalism which places profits over people's lives.  

In light of this fact, why are we so disinclined to imagine a violent
revolution as a viable solution for uprooting this unnecessary evil?  
 If it were to be realized that a violent revolution is the only
solution to ending capitalism, why is it such a disagreeable concept? 
How much longer will we let our brothers and sisters across the world
suffer brutal and unnecessary deaths as a result of our unwillingness
to take up arms against their murderers?

Tanya Golash
Graduate Student
Department of Sociology
UNC - Chapel Hill