I hate to break it to you guys but the myth of a peaceful revolution is one of the greatest tools that the bourgeoisie use to declaw leftist movements. Giving Ghandi all the credit for Indian independence does a discredit to the very active insurgency which was simultaneously taking place in India at the time. Even MLK Jr. was beginning to question his pacifist principles towards the end; that's the main reason the Hoover had him assassinated. Don't fall for the lies, guys.
No question. Well said. This is what made me aware that I wasn't a democratic socialist, despite my attachment and belief in the principle of democracy, from the time I first realized my values were those of a socialist (around 9th grade). Ruling classes and those who control authoritarian institutions simply
do not give up power voluntarily. Capitalists will gladly move towards fascism, if threatened by social democracy, before allowing reformism to lead to socialism. Reformist struggles by workers in places like Scandinavia may strike a social democratic balance, within capitalism, which has FAR better outcomes for average workers than neoliberalism (and I do think those victories are worth fighting for), but they do so only by creating a compromise which continues to benefit capitalists, and I
guarantee that if workers continued that struggle to the point of challenging the fundamental system of capitalism itself, there would be enormous push-back by capital (which usually does take the form of fascism/neoconservatism). We can see that in some places, capital is more... "Proactive." In the US, for example, labor unions, grassroots organizations, and left-wing political parties were all crushed aggressively, and our (already limited) social democracy, which largely originated out of the New Deal policies, was rolled back to what is today an almost Third World-esque form of neoliberal austerity, whereas in much of Western and Northern Europe, the working class has had more success in holding on to what social democratic gains they have won (though in much of Western Europe, these are beginning to slip away).
So I consider revolution an unavoidable prerequisite in transitioning beyond capitalism. And I don't think one can fight against forces whose rule is enforced using violence (e.g. those who control the state or capitalist institutions) without engaging in some amount of violence; I don't think the revolutionaries in Rojava, or the Sandanistas, or the Spanish anarchists, or the Zapatistas, or any other force of liberation (be it liberation from imperialism, capitalism, authoritarianism, or any other form of oppression)
wants to use violence-- but at a certain point, your choices are to lay down and allow your society to be victimized (and to live under the ever-present threat of violence), to die, or to fight back.
However, I have a few of caveats which I think are equally important (which I'm sure you probably agree with, but which I'd like to put out there for others nonetheless):
(1) In any violent struggle, making every effort to
minimize violence to that which is absolutely necessary is key. Not only ethically (though I would argue that that's enough), but tactically; when a supposed "liberation army" commits terrorist acts and atrocities, or oppresses the people they're supposedly to be freeing, etc., they lose their legitimacy and their popular support (except in so far as they're seen as a necessary evil to avoid something even worse).
(2) It goes along with the previous point, but differentiating between violence that is terroristic, that is coercive, that is aggressive, that targets noncombatants, etc., versus violence
among combatants in the context of a civil war/liberation struggle, or which is otherwise defensive. There are plenty of examples to give, but I think this is fairly self-explanatory.
(3)
By far most importantly of all, are these last two points. Violent revolution is just one step in a
much greater revolutionary process. There is a reason that Americans couldn't just take up arms tomorrow and end capitalism. The development of
revolutionary potential-- the ideological struggle--
is, to me, the most important part of all. After all, a truly libertarian revolution, which does not aim to simply coerce the population into acceptance, requires overwhelming popular support, and that doesn't just pop up overnight. The struggle to educate workers, to raise class consciousness, is like planting seeds. It may take decades to spread our ideas, to make workers (who have been exposed to capitalist propaganda and almost nothing else for their entire lives) to understand their oppression, and to demonstrate to them that there are viable alternatives, which don't depend on state power. I agree with Marx's idea that quantitative changes produce qualitative changes. The same way that a change in temperature, degree by degree (quantitative change), will eventually reach a tipping point, where it causes water to boil (qualitative change), increasing of revolutionary potential by spreading class consciousness, person by person, eventually has to reach a tipping point-- when enough average people are conscious and revolutionary, revolution cannot be avoided (or, at a certain point, defeated).
We have some meaningful advantages here: capitalism exploits most of the population, so, if educated about their interests, there is an enormous amount of potential support to be earned. Today's technology allows us to spread information and organize much more effectively and rapidly. But this revolutionary worker education is a long-term effort which may not seem as glorious and romantic as fighting fascists in the trenches, but which I believe makes
at least as much difference, and may be the single greatest variable, in our ultimate degree of success. There's a reason the powers that be (both private and state) spend so many billions of dollars on propaganda and controlling educational curricula-- perhaps Noam Chomsky's single greatest contribution is laying out, in such staggering detail, how capitalists and the state very purposefully attempt to shape the public mind, and to control thought (through the media, through commercials, through education, through religious institutions, and all other available means). And, for those who are interested, Chomsky also discusses how there were decades of efforts at worker education, in concert with intensive labor organization efforts, prior to any armed struggle in revolutionary Spain (and this is arguably how CNT-FAI and others won enough support to make a difference). I really do believe that making our worldview known is the battle that wins or loses the war.
(4) Building institutions, within the existing system, which validate our ideology and prove whose side we're on (and, therefore, who capitalists are struggling
against) is equally important-- whether we're showing that anti-capitalist co-operative and collective businesses can and do work, and provide people with better lives; showing that direct participatory democracy, through assemblies and local councils, is a functional method of decision-making; showing that self-organization and direct action is an invaluable tool, which can make a tremendous immediate impact on people's lives; or simply building the worker's institutions which are necessary in order to wage any kind of social struggle (labor unions, grassroots movements, political parties-- whatever the case may be)-- we
must create libertarian socialist institutions, or we will forever be painted as idealists whose ideas may sound nice, but which can't exist in the real world, or in an advanced capitalist society, or whatever the uninformed (or ideologically opposed) want to throw at us.
I can try to find references for those Chomsky paraphrases on Spain (I believe they were all from lectures) if anyone wants them. However, he discusses control of public opinion and indoctrination in a number of places,such as: his book, Manufacturing Consent (and a film of the same name), where he outlines the Propaganda Model of the Western media;
this hilarious interview (where the journalist is infuriated at the accusation that he is propagandizing without meaning to); and this excellent lecture,
The Political Economy of the Mass Media.