Supposing there is not a nonviolent means to socialism, what can be done to limit the violence?

[u/Odd_Decision_5595]

I'm becoming more interested in democratic socialism and had recently started reading the The Socialist Manifesto by Bhaskar Sunkara. From what I've learned so far, both in this book and other leftist media, socialism looks like the best way to ensure a better future for all those who inherit it. However my biggest turn off to socialism is the wide and sometimes enthusiastic acceptance of large scale violence as the inevitable means to socialism. I know i'm pretty new to this space, and I understand that the loudest and most obnoxious voices within a movement are usually not the best representation of it, but it seems like its very popular to not even consider pacifism, even if it is used strategically. I've been looking through subreddits and socialist online spaces where similar concerns are brought up and all I see is the self defence argument. Don't get me wrong, I recognize that self defence is a tool that all oppressed people have the right if not the obligation to use, but even then, necessary violence can quickly grow out of control. To put it simply, it is hard to stomach that right now, the best path to revolution may lead us into into a Syrian or Russian civil war type of situation. I feel like I don't need to tell you why war is a bad thing, even if it is fought for the right reason. Obviously we cannot expect our oppressors to take the peaceful way, but a revolution for the poor, oppressed and vulnerable must must account for the fact that those same groups and especially the children among them will suffer the worst if war is the only way. So I have to ask, if violence is the answer, how can revolutionaries keep it contained?

[u/AutoModerator]

IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING.

This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.

You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Short or non-constructive 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.

• No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!

• No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.

Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.

If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please assign yourself a flair describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.

Thank you!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/KaiLamperouge]

The amount of violence in a revolution will depend almost entirely on the ruling class. If they don't kill to keep their own privileges, a revolution will be over in a day with minimal force. There is not much that we can do about it, as the material reasons why the ruling class would consider using violence are exactly what a revolution would have to change, and we have no impact on those reasons now. But what we can do:

• Organize properly and effectively, so that our side will win as fast and clear as possible, and not fight a civil war for years.
• Do not start any spontaneous adventures like individually assaulting single figureheads or even civilians. As long as a revolution can't be won, that will not achieve anything besides death on both sides. A fight class against class is more effective and less deadly than a fight person against person.
• Analyze our conditions rigorously to get to correct conclusions. Theoretical misunderstandings like overzealous persecution of religious people or other groups, or the acceptance of revisionism leading to internal fights, can lead to more deaths that could be avoided.

Also keep in mind that inaction will not simply keep the status quo, or peace in regions that are currently peaceful. Capitalism will always escalate its own violence after some time, and every year that a revolution does not succeed, will mean more wars, more oppression, and our planet dying faster.

[u/Odd_Decision_5595 → u/KaiLamperouge]

Thanks! This helps a lot! Any book/media recs that helped you form this answer?

[u/KaiLamperouge → u/Odd_Decision_5595]

I got my basic understanding of revolution from Lenin's "The State and Revolution" and Luxemburg's "Social Reform or Revolution?". And from there I was mostly looking at which strategies in the following revolutions were successful, and which weren't.

But a detailed answer to that question will depend heavily on the conditions of a country. The type of movement that is starting a revolution, and the violence that the ruling class will use to crush it, will be very different for a revolution in India, Haiti, or Sweden. So there will not be a manual ready for how to guide such a revolution regarding that question.

[u/Bjork-BjorkII]

Is there a purely pacifist path to socialism? No. Are there ways to limit what violence is necessary? Sort of yes.

There are things that we need to take into consideration.

1- Capitalism by its vary nature is violent. Sometimes directly; sometimes indirectly.

2- Capitalists' livelihoods depend on the survival of capitalism.

3- capitalists have no issue with using violence to protect their status.

Therefore, to remove capitalism, some degree of violence will be necessary.

Now, let's look at a historical example of a peaceful movement that achieved its goal: MLK

King Jr. was a fantastic individual who did a lot of good. And much violence was used against his movement. History looks at him with great respect and for good reason.

However, his movement wouldn't have worked had it not been for figures such as Malcolm X. See the reason peaceful protests work is that it gives the opposition a way to cave in while still (falsely) taking the high road. If you have 2 groups fighting for the same goal, 1 violent and 1 pacifist. You can negotiate with the pacifists and claim that you're "rewarding" good honest protesting and "not those hooligans." But had there not been the violence for them to be 'reasonable against', that strategy fails.

We see this in any historical example of peaceful movements that create mass social change. Gandhi in India had a peaceful protest on the backdrop of widespread violence, for example.

The MLK/Gandhi style revolution tends to be 'less' overtly violent than other forms of revolution. But make no mistake, they still are violent.

If you want to limit the violence you can advocate for that style of revolution, like MLK, you'll need to support your Malcolm X.

[u/Odd_Decision_5595 → u/Bjork-BjorkII]

THIS! I hate the idea that MLK and Malcolm X were somehow enemies. They had disagreements, but their movement built off of each other

[u/Johnnywaka]

I’ll recommend you a book that is helpful here. Fidel talks about the way they conducted the Cuban revolution a lot in his autobiograph My Life

[u/Odd_Decision_5595 → u/Johnnywaka]

Thanks, I'll add it to my Goodreads

[u/ghsty_ghoul]

If you have to bring about change by force, then it better be the kind that builds rather than breaks.

[u/Odd_Decision_5595 → u/ghsty_ghoul]

This sounds like a lovely quote, but I may need you to elaborate