• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Communism and Revolution

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
@Laika and @Kirran,

This thread is initiated from a private conversation with Kirran and myself. It also relates to a thread started in the communist only section defining communism.

Now, I'm not going to write a whole essay on this topic because I hate writing essays. I will, however, provide external sources to help cover the bases to which we can continue any dialog.
To start with, here is a general definition of a revolution:
Revolution - Wikipedia

There are many types of revolutions that range from peaceful to violent. They can target specific industries, civil rights, government policies and so on. So to conclude, it can be very general and one cannot simply define a revolution without looking at the context. The context to consider is the underlying problems and the ideologies that are striving to fix those problems.

My emphasis now is how revolutions relate to communism. There are various views on this. I will focus on the theoretical view and then what has been provided from history.

There are specific doctrines within communist ideals that suggests the forced over taking of the ruling class, ie. the government.
Marxist Theory on Revolution and Violence on JSTOR
"The last paragraph of the Manifesto of the Communist Party reads: The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible over-throw of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

This by now classic formulation includes two statements:
(a) that the existing social and political system is to be changed by a revolution;
(b) that a social revolution is to be identified with an overthrow of that existing social system by violence."

[Edited]
I apparently missed more comments from the author, so I will have to correct myself:
"Yet it suffices to study the Marxist theory of revolution a little more in depth, and also to acquire a somewhat better knowledge of the statements made on the subject by the founders of Marxist theory to see the fallacy of such opinions. Both Marx and Engels and, later, Lenin on many occasions referred to a peaceful revolution, that is, one attained by a class struggle, but not by violence."

I'm would be glad to admit that I'm wrong here but honestly, I cannot draw a conclusion now given other posts concerning communism and violent revolutions. @Laika and other communists can correct me by suggesting the correct interpretation. But this would not change my conclusion to consider a non violent means.
[Edited]

The following lists all the communists revolutions:
Communist revolution - Wikipedia

If we go down that list of revolutions, it suggests what the theory implies, that they were all violent or used aggressive forcible means.

I myself have been affected by a communist revolution, being the Vietnam war. I can't say how relevant that is but I can say, at least, it was not a pleasure to experience.

Personally, I'm not here to challenge that a violent revolution is not needed to free people from oppression. Some oppression are so severe that I can understand and agree with this logic. However, I do feel that communists, especially those that align to the marxist theories believe the only route for change is through violence. Since another doctrine of Marxism is the use of indoctrination to teach ideals, one can wonder if communists are so indoctrinated into such a belief or they came to it on their own volition. I don't know. I guess it will depend on the individual.

I am here to ask that we just do not assume that the only revolution a group can take is that of forcible and violent means. Please consider all the context before we jump to our ideological conclusion.
 
Last edited:

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If you're asking about whether political violence is justified as a reality check, I'll save some time and say "I don't know".

Here's the long answer:

The more I've thought about it, the more I sense there isn't a rational anzwer. These are life and death questions and emotion will necessarily play a role. Its easy to justify violence from a distance when it happens to others. Thats particuarly true if you see those people as a dehumanised abstract catagory to be hatred or feared.

Say I wanted to be an anti-communist and decided violence was wrong. That would be easy but it would be dishonest. I could look at the concerntration camps in north korea where people are suffering today and say its wrong. But saying its wrong doesn't shut them down. It doesn't give people their freedom and it doesn't give them their lives back. It doesn't reverse the torture they suffered or bring those who died unjustly back to life.

If moral judgements are worth anything they have to have practical consequences. An Anti-Communist worth their word would not be content with perpetuating the injustices of totalitarian rule by preaching about their good intentions using empty platitudes and loud condemnation of the evils of communism. None of those things shut down the camps or set people "free". The only thing that would is violence- violence by foreign governments to invade north korea and to "liberate it" from communist party rule, or the violence of the people against an oppressive system.

Now Here's the problem. There is an intense contradiction for an anti-communist who believes communist violence was so morally wrong- that they'd be willing to use violence against them. How on earth do I reconcile the belief that dictatorship, terror, war and human rights abuses are so inhuman, so beneath the dignity of mankind that we must turn them into weapons against the communists who weild them? Murder is wrong, so murderers should be killed? Mass murder is wrong so we must execute and bury mass murderers in their hundreds and thousands?

If I sincerely loved freedom and democracy and human rights- why would I be ok with the Cold War politics that says democracies can be overturned because the people voted the wrong way, that people cannot be trusted with their freedom, and my humanity compells me to deny people their human rights because we decides they are too inhuman to have them?

I cannot say that communism is "morally right". I know it too well. But can I accept it as a more honest analyisis of political violence because it doesn't pretend to have a one size fits all morality that followed consistently is impotent and is only effective as a rhetorical device to sooth people's vanity by telling them they are the "good guys" and therefore shouldn't ask the hard questions when people try and play god.

Now if the true meaning of the "liberal" compassion of the west is genocide is wrong only when someone else does it- I don't see the point in the pretense. What use is it? What is it hiding? What is the true nature of the "freedom" that a government says people should be killed in order to defend?

I don't know. But I can look at the communists and think these people aren't hypocrites. Thats what makes them so terrifying. I chose to have what appears to be a "bad" morality rather than a "good" one because its closer to the truth. If I swallow the lie that murder is so wrong we must kill the murderer- am I not just a nihilist engaged in a cowardly and elaborate self-deception? Do I even have a morality where my "good" intentions produce "good" consequences?

For me the nihilism of anti-communism is still worse than communist atrocity. You can look at a communist and say this is who they are and what they believe. Maybe they are evil, but they haven't surrendered the pursit of moral truth to the comfort of self-deception and hypocrisy. you can trust a communist to be a communist- but I don't know whether I can trust a liberal to be a liberal. Too often a liberal is someone who believes themselves to so morally pure by virtue of their individual conscience that as much as they are capable of moral outrage they are in practice indifferent to the suffering of others and are more than ready to employ fascists to uphold their "universal" human rights by denying then to others. I'd rather be an honest villain because its more meaningful than living a comforting lie. I think Communism is the more honest path- even if I cannot be sure if it is the right one.
 
Last edited:

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
@Laika and @Kirran,



I am here to ask that we just do not assume that the only revolution a group can take is that of forcible and violent means. Please consider all the context before we jump to our ideological conclusion.

The problem I have with this is that a peaceful revolution is not without violence. The violence is one sided so you have less death but still deaths and other violence(starving, prison, beating ...etc). Also even peaceful revolutions form governments that become violent. For me a peaceful revolution is possible but with major sacrifices to the revolutionaries and with no major advantage over a non-peaceful revolution.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
The problem I have with this is that a peaceful revolution is not without violence. The violence is one sided so you have less death but still deaths and other violence(starving, prison, beating ...etc). Also even peaceful revolutions form governments that become violent. For me a peaceful revolution is possible but with major sacrifices to the revolutionaries and with no major advantage over a non-peaceful revolution.

I think its prudent to still try to differentiate the essence of a peaceful revolution versus a violent revolution. Accidents can still happen with the good intentions. We use our ideologies to rationalize our actions. If we believe a peaceful revolution can solve our issue then should uphold that. If we've already accepted a violent revolution, then I fear there's no further constraint in the matter.
 

Kirran

Premium Member

Can't say I've seen you recommend this before. But you've made over 17,000 posts, so that makes sense.

Would you give a bit more of a blurb on what it's main thrust is, and what you find compelling?

EDIT: suncowiam got there first.

EDIT again: Searching for all your posts with Fanshen in yields one result! Maybe you recommended it elsewhere?
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
I think its prudent to still try to differentiate the essence of a peaceful revolution versus a violent revolution. Accidents can still happen with the good intentions. We use our ideologies to rationalize our actions. If we believe a peaceful revolution can solve our issue then should uphold that. If we've already accepted a violent revolution, then I fear there's no further constraint in the matter.

I have no problem differentiating. I also have no problem with doing what is right for you and your group. For me the only advantage is a belief not substance.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Could you summarize and suggest how it relates to the OP? I do not have time to read a entire book at the moment. :)
It was a long time ago, and it changed my life on how I viewed things at that time. Basically its a case study of one village in China during the Maoist revolution. It demonstrated how the peasants took over, distributing wealth(clothing, land, etc.) and gave the landowners every single opportunity possible to join with them before resorting to violence. Unable to confront their own class superiority complex, most of the upper class either ran away, or stayed to fight, but lost.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
I have no problem differentiating. I also have no problem with doing what is right for you and your group. For me the only advantage is a belief not substance.

My whole point of this thread is to ensure violence is truly the last resort.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
It was a long time ago, and it changed my life on how I viewed things at that time. Basically its a case study of one village in China during the Maoist revolution. It demonstrated how the peasants took over, distributing wealth(clothing, land, etc.) and gave the landowners every single opportunity possible to join with them before resorting to violence. Unable to confront their own class superiority complex, most of the upper class either ran away, or stayed to fight, but lost.

See, to me that seems more to be the local communist system, which is essentially anarchist in nature. There were great developments in that regard in China, and among the general populations shortly following many of the socialist and communist revolutions of the 20th Century. It's when the new central government begins flexing its muscles and taking back control that things seem to have gone downhill for me. Does that correspond to your thoughts on the matter?

Maoist ideas are very popular in Nepal, you know? Right up there in mainstream politics. Leftist and far-leftist ideals are common there. It's also one of Asia's best countries for LGBT rights etc, and generally pretty clocked on. I find it a good country to look to as an example of a Hindu nation.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
If you're asking about whether political violence is justified as a reality check, I'll save some time and say "I don't know".

Here's the long answer:

The more I've thought about it, the more I sense there isn't a rational anzwer. These are life and death questions and emotion will necessarily play a role. Its easy to justify violence from a distance when it happens to others. Thats particuarly true if you see those people as a dehumanised abstract catagory to be hatred or feared.

Say I wanted to be an anti-communist and decided violence was wrong. That would be easy but it would be dishonest. I could look at the concerntration camps in north korea where people are suffering today and say its wrong. But saying its wrong doesn't shut them down. It doesn't give people their freedom and it doesn't give them their lives back. It doesn't reverse the torture they suffered or bring those who died unjustly back to life.

If moral judgements are worth anything they have to have practical consequences. An Anti-Communist worth their word would not be content with perpetuating the injustices of totalitarian rule by preaching about their good intentions using empty platitudes and loud condemnation of the evils of communism. None of those things shut down the camps or set people "free". The only thing that would is violence- violence by foreign governments to invade north korea and to "liberate it" from communist party rule, or the violence of the people against an oppressive system.

Now Here's the problem. There is an intense contradiction for an anti-communist who believes communist violence was so morally wrong- that they'd be willing to use violence against them. How on earth do I reconcile the belief that dictatorship, terror, war and human rights abuses are so inhuman, so beneath the dignity of mankind that we must turn them into weapons against the communists who weild them? Murder is wrong, so murderers should be killed? Mass murder is wrong so we must execute and bury mass murderers in their hundreds and thousands?

If I sincerely loved freedom and democracy and human rights- why would I be ok with the Cold War politics that says democracies can be overturned because the people voted the wrong way, that people cannot be trusted with their freedom, and my humanity compells me to deny people their human rights because we decides they are too inhuman to have them?

I cannot say that communism is "morally right". I know it too well. But can I accept it as a more honest analyisis of political violence because it doesn't pretend to have a one size fits all morality that followed consistently is impotent and is only effective as a rhetorical device to sooth people's vanity by telling them they are the "good guys" and therefore shouldn't ask the hard questions when people try and play god.

Now if the true meaning of the "liberal" compassion of the west is genocide is wrong only when someone else does it- I don't see the point in the pretense. What use is it? What is it hiding? What is the true nature of the "freedom" that a government says people should be killed in order to defend?

I don't know. But I can look at the communists and think these people aren't hypocrites. Thats what makes them so terrifying. I chose to have what appears to be a "bad" morality rather than a "good" one because its closer to the truth. If I swallow the lie that murder is so wrong we must kill the murderer- am I not just a nihilist engaged in a cowardly and elaborate self-deception? Do I even have a morality where my "good" intentions produce "good" consequences?

For me the nihilism of anti-communism is still worse than communist atrocity. You can look at a communist and say this is who they are and what they believe. Maybe they are evil, but they haven't surrendered the pursit of moral truth to the comfort of self-deception and hypocrisy. you can trust a communist to be a communist- but I don't know whether I can trust a liberal to be a liberal. Too often a liberal is someone who believes themselves to so morally pure by virtue of their individual conscience that as much as they are capable of moral outrage they are in practice indifferent to the suffering of others and are more than ready to employ fascists to uphold their "universal" human rights by denying then to others. I'd rather be an honest villain because its more meaningful than living a comforting lie. I think Communism is the more honest path- even if I cannot be sure if it is the right one.

Laika,

I'm going to have to get back to you when I find more time to fully absorb this. :)
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
At the time, about 1976, I was at University and by no small coincidence encountered a Marxist professor in an anthropology course. Fanshen was required reading. Not surprisingly, most of the students couldn't get past the 'Communism is bad." mantra they'd heard their entire lives. Since I had a brain, I did get by that. The prof and I disagreed on one main thing, and that was whether or not violence was necessary. She was older than I, and perhaps more hardened, a lifetime opposer to all things oppressive. We studied Che, Guatemala, the overthrow of Allende and more. I think I was still optimistic at the time (still am in many ways) and she was more pessimistic. My point was that I felt greedy selfish bast...ds could probably be turned, on reason alone, whilst she had lost all hope, and felt violence would, in the end, be necessary, so might as well get it over with. I was religious while she wasn't, if that means anything.
 
Last edited:

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
So you would prioritize violence before other means of consideration? What is validating that in your decision making?

Governmental violence demands immediate action not discourse. If the government started genocide a non-violent method would be disastrous. I might also include internment of civilians because that usually leads to disaster.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
See, to me that seems more to be the local communist system, which is essentially anarchist in nature. There were great developments in that regard in China, and among the general populations shortly following many of the socialist and communist revolutions of the 20th Century. It's when the new central government begins flexing its muscles and taking back control that things seem to have gone downhill for me. Does that correspond to your thoughts on the matter?
.

I don't make the same link to anarchy. In Fanshen, the newly elected village councils were in charge, but they did consider all peoples POVs. They worked for the people, and saw the entire village as in control. People supported them, but yes decisions were very localised. But not anarchy. I disagreed with how they viewed religion as an aide to the oppressor, and felt true religion would be far more charitable and kind. Still feel that way.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Governmental violence demands immediate action not discourse. If the government started genocide a non-violent method would be disastrous. I might also include internment of civilians because that usually leads to disaster.

I can agree with that concerning government violence.

How about other situations where the government does not resort to violence?
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
I can agree with that concerning government violence.

How about other situations where the government does not resort to violence?

The only way I would say non-violence always first is in a democracy with free speech that is not doing the previously mentioned things. Any government that suppresses free speech or rights of the people should expect violence as a method of revolution. Fascist governments, Religious governments for example.
 
Top