Re: a violent revolution?

At the end of the 20th century, we need to look the issue of
violence/non-violence squarely and soberly in the face.   Tanya is
absolutely right to point to the systemic violence perpetrated daily by
the world capitalist system, and a brief review of the century shows
decade after decade of similar or worse horrors.  Nonetheless, those of
us with commitments to helping to transform that system into one that
begins to realize the values embodied in socialism are also forced to
confront the significant violence perpetrated by revolutionary and state
forces in the name of those ideals (and not always cynically).  The
history of the USSR, for instance, is drenched in violence from start to
finish, even though there is much that is laudable in the basic
experiment of 'socialism in one country,' given the historical
circumstances of its creation.

Those who argue that violence and terror as tactics corrupt those who
employ them have history as compelling testimony on their behalf.  Yet
the response cannot be the naive idealism of Starlife or of "flower
power" non-violence (for those of us who remember back to that era).
Rather it must be the clear-eyed, absolutely realistic non-violence of
Gandhi and Martin Luther King, who employed it with a very clear
knowledge of the realities of power and the willingness of the powerful
to deploy violence and coercion.  Non-violence will not always be a
winnable strategy, especially in the periphery, and sometimes movements
and leaders must make the hard moral choices to employ violence.  But we
must not gloss over the moral and political contradictions involved in
such choices and should seek to follow non-violent strategies wherever
possible.

David Amor

Tanya wrote:

> "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


--
David L. Amor
Campus Box 230
Knox College
Galesburg, IL 61401
tel: 309/341-7761
fax: 309/341-7770
damor@knox.edu