@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.
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: