A community for socialists of all tendencies.
Discussion about violent revolution vs peaceful transition over time
I was recently banned from /r/Socialism on Reddit.
They won't tell me why, but in a recent post, I was being heavily downvoted for suggesting that disarmament (for both governments and citizens) would be ideal, and that you can be a Socialist AND a Pacifist, and that the transition from market capitalism to Socialism could be achieved peacefully over time. What do you think?




Many socialists view the problems that socialism may address as inherently violent. There is the overt physical violence of jackboots and union busters, and there is the invisible violence of an oppressive system. Oppressed people's desperate existence is based on resistance to these systems.
From Martin Luther King, Jr's. Letter From Birmingham Jail:
When you advocate for pacifism, what are you advocating for? Keep in mind the Black Civil Rights Movement adopted non-resistance as a strategic tactic, not for the sake of pacifism itself. You are taking a host of options completely off the table for a theoretical position in the face of people's material conditions that you may not share.
What is the sake of pacifism? I would argue it is love. Love for the neighbor, love for the enemy. Recognize that when you say pacifism, you are telling people to love their enemies while they are are actively being harmed by them, and some people just aren't there yet.
There is also a subtext in suggesting there could be a "peaceful" transition from capitalism to socialism. Given the violent and bloody history of labor and civil rights, that continue through today, which has brought a transition to the 9-5 workday and the dismantling of Jim Crow, many people view such a suggestion as extremely ignorant, and frankly, insulting.
Maybe I'm not educated enough, but to me it seems obvious that you can be both, because I am both! What were the arguments against it? I don't see any reasons why you couldn't, aside from the general "human nature tends to be shitty" that you have to try to mitigate in anything of this nature and scale.
That's the thing - Most people were just making fun of me for wanting to get rid of guns (the whole, "how are you going to overthrow the bourgeoise if you don't have any guns" etc.).
Sounds like mods being assholes, to be honest. Even if I didn't agree with you, I don't know why you shouldn't be allowed to make the argument.
I'm not to clear on the "disarmament" thing (whether pre/post socialism or who will be enforcing disarmament) but outside of the, what I'd say, its utopian character, sure I'm in favour I guess.
The issue of violence isn't related directly to the existence of guns. If by some miracle guns just stopped working tomorrow a revolution wouldn't necessarily be any less violent. In the history of revolutions it's been political preparation that's been the major determining factor. If people are generally in agreement and they know what they want, and not just what they don't want, a revolution can occur with few, and in very rare cases no casualties and minimal violence of any sort.
It's an interesting question.
I think many revolutionaries are right when they say a degree of violence is philosophically justified. However, I could not actually bring myself to harm another human.