Communism and Revolution

[suncowiam]

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.

I'll have to think about this a bit more. I do agree your points and merits. Thanks

 

[Maponos]

Communists fail to realize that no one wants to be part of their violent regimes.

 

[suncowiam]

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.

I want to first clarify that my OP was about distinguishing when to use violence. I did suggest that there are scenarios where one simply has no other option. In the case of North Korea, I do not see another option unless the ruling party deliberately steps down. I highly doubt that will happen.

I was trying to establish that a common mantra of communists is the use of violence which you, yourself, indicated in your definition of communism. Of course, the source I used contradicted that, suggesting that communists also use peaceful means. So now I cannot establish a true correlation between communism and the use of violence. Further search online suggests more conflicts within the Communist community. The best I can say now, is that I don't know. If there is so much confusion even in the communist camp, then how should a young possible communist follow in their beliefs of communists. Should they believe that communism supports violent means as a default or not?

Let me focus on your communist beliefs then. Does communism innately believe violence is a means to an end? That is what I perceived from your original definition. That was the basis for this OP.

 

[Kirran]

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.

That IS the kind of system anarchism advocates, essentially - fully democratic voluntary democracy. It's a common misconception that it advocates chaos.

Well I'm largely with you on religion - although certainly systems of ecclesiastical authority are to be watched out for.

 

[Laika]

I want to first clarify that my OP was about distinguishing when to use violence. I did suggest that there are scenarios where one simply has no other option. In the case of North Korea, I do not see another option unless the ruling party deliberately steps down. I highly doubt that will happen.

I was trying to establish that a common mantra of communists is the use of violence which you, yourself, indicated in your definition of communism. Of course, the source I used contradicted that, suggesting that communists also use peaceful means. So now I cannot establish a true correlation between communism and the use of violence. Further search online suggests more conflicts within the Communist community. The best I can say now, is that I don't know. If there is so much confusion even in the communist camp, then how should a young possible communist follow in their beliefs of communists. Should they believe that communism supports violent means as a default or not?

Let me focus on your communist beliefs then. Does communism innately believe violence is a means to an end? That is what I perceived from your original definition. That was the basis for this OP.

My experience with "Marxist-Leninist" varieties of Communism is that they are incredably violent. Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of the USSR and was adapted to local conditions in the eastern bloc (e.g. Maoism in China, Hoxhaism in Albania, Juche in North Korea, etc). However this is not representative of communists as a whole because the range of beliefs is quite diverse-including pacifists though these are generally not marxist.

There is a line in amazing grace I keep remembering as I think about this. Its a song about slavery: "once I was blind but now I see". My experience is that most young communists won't really touch the "hard" stuff thats really violent and don't ask these questions. It was certianly true of me and like them I would say "communism had never really existed" and "the soviets weren't real communists", etc and put some distance between what I believed and what happened in the communist bloc. So in a sense I was "blind" to it, and at some level it became wilful. In the wrong circumstances, with manipulative people- thats very dangerous. I get a distinct impression alot of communists that were drawn into violence were basically blind to it and didn't know what the hell they were doing until it was too late.

When a freind of mine who was a politics student visited Cambodia, I read the black book of communism which catalogued its atrocities. I knew that my freind might visit the killing fields and then may ask me-as a communist- about it. He was my first gay/bi crush and so was a person I wouldn't lie to and I knew I didn't have an answer. So I read the black book and at last "now I could see". The inner expereience was like "falling into the depths of hell" as my illusions simply gave way and suddenly questions of life and death, good and evil became much more vivid and took on much more relevence. It started years of very unpleasant and uncomfortable inner monologues and research. I still don't have an answer but trying to answer the question has made me a better person.

As for Marxism-Leninism, its a philosophical worldview so it affects everything I think about in some way. Its a totalitarian belief system and does change the way you think and feel in very intrusive ways. Whilst its not accurate for what the beliefs are, calling this kind of communism a "religion" encapsulates how the mixture of human vulnerabilities can turn people into very disciplined, passionate but dangerous fanatics. Even if I sincerely wanted to give up communism (a thought that has reoccurred many, many times) the nature of the belief system is highly resistent to change. Its got its roots too deep into everything for me just to dump it as much as I'd like to. When you ask these question Its not something you can walk away from as you can't go back to being blind to them. So you find ways to live with it and adapt. Really, I don't think there is any kind of escape from these questions as if I chose any other political ideology or religion- I'd still have to face up to a vague collective responsibility for the human capacity for violence.

I cannot speak for all communists, but the whole experience has made me much more resistent to the idea of political violence and the realities of it. There is clearly an "unreality" to marxist ideology with abstract ideas concealing the violent nature of class struggle that conceal the consequences of peoples action. This is something I do try and share with other communists on the forum because the "religious" nature of the belief can be used to exploit our deepest vulnerabilities, our fears and hatreds in ways that aren't healthy and are disproportionate to what we may actually be afriad or resentful of. So Marxism-Leninism is inherently violent, but recognising that we all have that power can be a basis for trying to be responsible and mature about it. Believe me thats not the answer I want to give you as its just horrible and makes mereally uneasy. its just I think another answer might be dellusional and complacent to the evils human beings are capable of.

 

[suncowiam]

My experience with "Marxist-Leninist" varieties of Communism is that they are incredably violent. Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of the USSR and was adapted to local conditions in the eastern bloc (e.g. Maoism in China, Hoxhaism in Albania, Juche in North Korea, etc). However this is not representative of communists as a whole because the range of beliefs is quite diverse-including pacifists though these are generally not marxist.

There is a line in amazing grace I keep remembering as I think about this. Its a song about slavery: "once I was blind but now I see". My experience is that most young communists won't really touch the "hard" stuff thats really violent and don't ask these questions. It was certianly true of me and like them I would say "communism had never really existed" and "the soviets weren't real communists", etc and put some distance between what I believed and what happened in the communist bloc. So in a sense I was "blind" to it, and at some level it became wilful. In the wrong circumstances, with manipulative people- thats very dangerous. I get a distinct impression alot of communists that were drawn into violence were basically blind to it and didn't know what the hell they were doing until it was too late.

When a freind of mine who was a politics student visited Cambodia, I read the black book of communism which catalogued its atrocities. I knew that my freind might visit the killing fields and then may ask me-as a communist- about it. He was my first gay/bi crush and so was a person I wouldn't lie to and I knew I didn't have an answer. So I read the black book and at last "now I could see". The inner expereience was like "falling into the depths of hell" as my illusions simply gave way and suddenly questions of life and death, good and evil became much more vivid and took on much more relevence. It started years of very unpleasant and uncomfortable inner monologues and research. I still don't have an answer but trying to answer the question has made me a better person.

As for Marxism-Leninism, its a philosophical worldview so it affects everything I think about in some way. Its a totalitarian belief system and does change the way you think and feel in very intrusive ways. Whilst its not accurate for what the beliefs are, calling this kind of communism a "religion" encapsulates how the mixture of human vulnerabilities can turn people into very disciplined, passionate but dangerous fanatics. Even if I sincerely wanted to give up communism (a thought that has reoccurred many, many times) the nature of the belief system is highly resistent to change. Its got its roots too deep into everything for me just to dump it as much as I'd like to. When you ask these question Its not something you can walk away from as you can't go back to being blind to them. So you find ways to live with it and adapt. Really, I don't think there is any kind of escape from these questions as if I chose any other political ideology or religion- I'd still have to face up to a vague collective responsibility for the human capacity for violence.

I cannot speak for all communists, but the whole experience has made me much more resistent to the idea of political violence and the realities of it. There is clearly an "unreality" to marxist ideology with abstract ideas concealing the violent nature of class struggle that conceal the consequences of peoples action. This is something I do try and share with other communists on the forum because the "religious" nature of the belief can be used to exploit our deepest vulnerabilities, our fears and hatreds in ways that aren't healthy and are disproportionate to what we may actually be afriad or resentful of. So Marxism-Leninism is inherently violent, but recognising that we all have that power can be a basis for trying to be responsible and mature about it. Believe me thats not the answer I want to give you as its just horrible and makes mereally uneasy. its just I think another answer might be dellusional and complacent to the evils human beings are capable of.

I appreciate your honesty. Many of your words resonate with my perception of communism. You've labeled it as a religion with fanaticism which I would agree with. But you have clarity on this where most religioners would still be trapped in their fanaticism. I understand at the root of such beliefs like religion and communism is a goal of happiness and good for society. Ultimately, it is the goal of the individual to be happy when deciding to accept these beliefs.

Your clarity on the matter speaks for itself. There's really nothing I can or should add about violence that you haven't mentioned. I'm not here to force others to my beliefs but will definitely object when it crosses into extreme forms of hatred and violence. I hope that is understandable.

 

[Laika]

I appreciate your honesty. Many of your words resonate with my perception of communism. You've labeled it as a religion with fanaticism which I would agree with. But you have clarity on this where most religioners would still be trapped in their fanaticism. I understand at the root of such beliefs like religion and communism is a goal of happiness and good for society. Ultimately, it is the goal of the individual to be happy when deciding to accept these beliefs.

Your clarity on the matter speaks for itself. There's really nothing I can or should add about violence that you haven't mentioned. I'm not here to force others to my beliefs but will definitely object when it crosses into extreme forms of hatred and violence. I hope that is understandable.

I think I've liked practically every post you made in this thread. Honestly, its because you're trying to do the right thing in standing up to people who in your experience are bullies and thugs.

I have alot of respect for that. Its what I'd want to do as well.

 

[suncowiam]

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.

Communism seems to have more success at smaller levels. It usually starts failing when extrapolated to nations.

 

[Laika]

Communism seems to have more success at smaller levels. It usually starts failing when extrapolated to nations.

I think it's fair to say that we haven't as yet figured out a way to "mass produce" the kind of people who sincerely want to do good. That's hard to do and is certainly impossible based on purely negative forms of coercion and enforced conformity. The psychology of it is very complex and there isn't a "magic" way of doing it. We still don't really know how it's done.

Small groups genuinely committed to finding new ways of living often prove to be better at it because they are voluntary and they have already achieved that mixture of emotional awareness and pragmatic idealism. Revolutionary Marxism as an idea could well die out in my lifetime unless it adapts and finds new ways of achieving the "end goal" without falling into the trap of using violence to "solve" every "problem".

If Marxism can't do that- well, good riddance. We can't afford to repeat the same mistakes as the technologies we have now are even more powerful and potentially destructive than it was in Stalin's and Mao's day. So it would be far more dangerous this time round. The creative side of Marxism has to win out or else just "survive" long enough until a workable solution to these problems comes along and we can use it. it's all a long-shot by today's standards but the sort of "pessimism" in the west may create the conditions for utopian ideas to make a come back. I just hope we get it right this time around.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

When it comes to revolution, whether it's violent or not (or even communist or not), I would always put the lion's share of the blame on whatever regime existed prior to a revolution. It seems to me the easiest way to prevent a violent (or non-violent) revolution would be to not create the conditions ripe for revolution in the first place. Most revolutions throughout history could have been prevented with a bit of foresight and a willingness to compromise on the part of the ruling class.

But I never blame the revolutionaries for starting a revolution. The blame must always fall on the regime in power before a revolution.

The question of "violence," in my opinion, is a red herring. The State and ruling class use violence, too, or at least the threat of violence, in order to achieve their ends. Neither side would hold any moral high ground over the other, so then it becomes a matter of who is tougher and stronger. Whoever wins the fight is the one who decides whose violence was justified and whose was not. Just like the winners write the history.

I don't believe communists are "indoctrinated." Sometimes it seems like just the opposite. Judging from some of the pre-revolutionary conditions in countries where communism took hold, what kind of "indoctrination" would be necessary in order to convince a person that they were in the midst of horrific injustices and atrocities? It's those who see nothing wrong with situations like that who seem more likely to fall under the spell of "indoctrination."

Like a lot of Westerners, I grew up thinking that communism was the worst thing in the world, the enemy of freedom, enemy of America. I was told that we all had to be on guard against communist expansion, no matter where in the world it might crop up. But not everyone went along with that idea, or at least, they weren't quite so militant in their stance against communism - not like some of the more obsessed anti-communists, like Hoover, McCarthy, Nixon, etc. But there was a fair amount of indoctrination coming from both sides.

 

[Kirran]

Communism seems to have more success at smaller levels. It usually starts failing when extrapolated to nations.

Hence anarchism.

 

[VioletVortex]

When the status quo is bad (dictatorship), society will be filled with a desire to rebel. Eventually, they will, and they will create a new system. This is sort of like a form of political natural selection so to speak. This is fundamentally a good thing, however, the problem lies with the fact that there is no guarantee that the new system will be any better than the old. (Communism).

One must understand the difference between communism and socialism. Communism is a form of government that involves extreme socialism and fascist uniformity. Art and information not relatable to the "common man" is suppressed, and the government usually has the goal of weakening the population so much that they will not be able to rebel, so that government officials can make money off of other people's work. (In capitalism, the government officials are just businessmen instead). Socialism, on the other hand, is simply an economic philosophy or idea. In a socialistic economy, people are required to contribute a portion of the money that they make to the government, where ideally, it will be given back in the form of healthcare, security, and infrastructure. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case.

I think that people should rebel from a tyrannical or overbearing government. The problem is that people are focused on their individual lives so much that they can't contribute any to a cause that will ultimately benefit them, so we're left with a few scattered people who run their mouths like me.