If the bourgeoisie turn to violence and terror during crises, how is that different from revolutionaries removing the bourgeoisie from power? I used to identify as an American Democrat but I’m super frustrated with their insistence on useless, vapid displays of “resistance”.
The difference is that violence from the bourgeoisie is directed against the vast majority of society to keep their parasitic profits, while revolutionary violence deposes this system and liberates the working classes.
Hey its a good question, and its one that a lot of reforming liberal democrats like yourself, and myself at one time, struggle to understand. A revolution is necessarily violent and authoritarian, right?
Well, kind of, maybe. I’m a Marxist and Marxists tend to think of revolutions as a change in the fundamental relationship that humans have to production. What gets made, who makes it, and why. A group of revolutionaries who seize control of the government but do nothing to change those fundamental relations are not revolutionary. Its just the same system with new leaders, maybe a new flag or something. The capitalist revolution took a solid 250-300 years with about 250-300 years of development beforehand. Kings and queens were replaced by industrialists, the divine right replaced by the social contract, church and god replaced by corporations and profits. The capitalist revolutions were hella bloody, with the exception of maybe the American one, which was based partly on the institution of slavery.
But what ended the divine right of kings wasnt the guillotine, it was taking their shit and redistributing it to the bourgeoisie. The slaves weren’t freed by killing their masters, they freed themselves and went over to the union armies. The changes that made real lasting effect were not cold blooded murderous action, in fact the French revolution didn’t last 15 years. It was social, cultural, political change. It was people changing themselves in order to change the world.
The bourgeoisie will use heinous violence to protect their interests, fascism is one of capitalism’s immune responses from mass organization and revolutionary activity. There are others, but that’s the big scary one we are dealing with now. Revolutionary change in the world begins with revolutionary changes to ourselves, and to each other, a cumulative historic project of liberation of the oppressed from our oppressors.
Deposing the bourgeoisie is not to become a new bourgeois. We can’t do what they do to become something that isn’t them. We will have to defend ourselves from violence but violence will not bring the changes that are necessary to create a better world. There will have to be justice for crimes against humanity, and what that justice will look like will be orders of magnitude more humane, and this bears out in historic examples from the Paris commune, to the Russian revolution (which was almost entirely bloodless until the civil war) to the Cuban revolution, and so forth.
Well, as someone who hasn’t Read Theory, the last line in the meme seems to disdain use of violence in a very general way. It was just confusing, but I see now that it’s just not well worded
If the bourgeoisie turn to violence and terror during crises, how is that different from revolutionaries removing the bourgeoisie from power? I used to identify as an American Democrat but I’m super frustrated with their insistence on useless, vapid displays of “resistance”.
The difference is that violence from the bourgeoisie is directed against the vast majority of society to keep their parasitic profits, while revolutionary violence deposes this system and liberates the working classes.
How was fighting against the Nazis different from being the Nazis?
Hey its a good question, and its one that a lot of reforming liberal democrats like yourself, and myself at one time, struggle to understand. A revolution is necessarily violent and authoritarian, right?
Well, kind of, maybe. I’m a Marxist and Marxists tend to think of revolutions as a change in the fundamental relationship that humans have to production. What gets made, who makes it, and why. A group of revolutionaries who seize control of the government but do nothing to change those fundamental relations are not revolutionary. Its just the same system with new leaders, maybe a new flag or something. The capitalist revolution took a solid 250-300 years with about 250-300 years of development beforehand. Kings and queens were replaced by industrialists, the divine right replaced by the social contract, church and god replaced by corporations and profits. The capitalist revolutions were hella bloody, with the exception of maybe the American one, which was based partly on the institution of slavery.
But what ended the divine right of kings wasnt the guillotine, it was taking their shit and redistributing it to the bourgeoisie. The slaves weren’t freed by killing their masters, they freed themselves and went over to the union armies. The changes that made real lasting effect were not cold blooded murderous action, in fact the French revolution didn’t last 15 years. It was social, cultural, political change. It was people changing themselves in order to change the world.
The bourgeoisie will use heinous violence to protect their interests, fascism is one of capitalism’s immune responses from mass organization and revolutionary activity. There are others, but that’s the big scary one we are dealing with now. Revolutionary change in the world begins with revolutionary changes to ourselves, and to each other, a cumulative historic project of liberation of the oppressed from our oppressors.
Deposing the bourgeoisie is not to become a new bourgeois. We can’t do what they do to become something that isn’t them. We will have to defend ourselves from violence but violence will not bring the changes that are necessary to create a better world. There will have to be justice for crimes against humanity, and what that justice will look like will be orders of magnitude more humane, and this bears out in historic examples from the Paris commune, to the Russian revolution (which was almost entirely bloodless until the civil war) to the Cuban revolution, and so forth.
How is the slave owner using a slave driver to whip slaves different from the slaves organizing and killing the slavers?
Well, as someone who hasn’t Read Theory, the last line in the meme seems to disdain use of violence in a very general way. It was just confusing, but I see now that it’s just not well worded
I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list if you want a place to start, FYI