Kronstadt Rebels

Steel wrote:

Actually I was referring to how you would need to be organised in order to win a violent revolution.

I don't see what this has to do with being authoritarian. No one denies organisation as a key to success in a revolution.

I wasn't suggesting anyone did. What I was suggesting was that winning a violent revolution would not lend itself well to an open and democratic form of organisation.

^^ But violence doesn't imply authority. I agree with your last post, but i don't see how violent revolution = authoritarianism.

Weell i don't mean that it is directly linked, but that in contrast with a 'peaceful' revolution, the violent one will not be able to maintain as democratic an organisation. It being necessary to withhold information from the 'rank and file' in order to ensure that the people you are fighting against can't have a working knowledge of the revolutionaries, how they are organised, equiped etc. etc.

If you organise some kind of force along a more regular military line, in order to ensure that things get carried out efficiently, you'd have to give some people the power to order others to thier death. On the other hand, a cell based organisation, where each 'cell' has no contact with others will be un-democratic, since individuals will have no power over the direction the whole is taking.

Steel wrote:

Weell i don't mean that it is directly linked, but that in contrast with a 'peaceful' revolution, the violent one will not be able to maintain as democratic an organisation. It being necessary to withhold information from the 'rank and file' in order to ensure that the people you are fighting against can't have a working knowledge of the revolutionaries, how they are organised, equiped etc. etc.

If the rank and file are not a part of the revolution it has no chance of success to begin with. How can you think to carry out a revolution "on behalf of the people" when you do not have their support, and cannot be certain of their needs, wants and aspirations.

Quote :

If you organise some kind of force along a more regular military line, in order to ensure that things get carried out efficiently, you'd have to give some people the power to order others to thier death.

Better things be inefficient than organised in the old bourgeios fashion.

Quote :

On the other hand, a cell based organisation, where each 'cell' has no contact with others will be un-democratic, since individuals will have no power over the direction the whole is taking.

Why must it be either authoritarian or democratic? Why should the majority have the right to impose themselves on the minorities any more than a minority imposing itself upon the majority?

There is no need for an organised military. People should be compelled within themselves to take up arms in defense of the revolution that they have much stake in. If they feel that they have built the revolution and they are an active part in upholding it and its values, then they will fight. They will feel personally attacked when the revolution is attacked.

Quote :

If the rank and file are not a part of the revolution it has no chance of success to begin with. How can you think to carry out a revolution "on behalf of the people" when you do not have their support, and cannot be certain of their needs, wants and aspirations.

This is exactly why I oppose a violent revolution (aside from the fact that I am not all that keen on seeing people get pulverised by tanks). I did not actually say that the 'rank and file' were not part of the revolution but that, in any organised force to defend it there would be limits on the information available to people, probably some form of censorship etc. Assuming of course that you actively counter opposition, rather than merely react to their actions.

Quote :

Why should the majority have the right to impose themselves on the minorities any more than a minority imposing itself upon the majority?

I always thought that socialism would be established on the authority of the majority, both as a class and as a majority of humanity. The first because working classes have much to gain from ending capitalism, the second because for the human race to survive capitalism must be ended to ensure the efficient use of resources.

Quote :

There is no need for an organised military. People should be compelled within themselves to take up arms in defense of the revolution that they have much stake in. If they feel that they have built the revolution and they are an active part in upholding it and its values, then they will fight. They will feel personally attacked when the revolution is attacked.

I really don't think that it will be acceptable to waste the lives of so many people against a trained and well equiped military force.

Steel wrote:

This is exactly why I oppose a violent revolution (aside from the fact that I am not all that keen on seeing people get pulverised by tanks).

A violent revolution does not necessarily mean physical harm will come to anyone.

Quote :

I did not actually say that the 'rank and file' were not part of the revolution but that, in any organised force to defend it there would be limits on the information available to people, probably some form of censorship etc. Assuming of course that you actively counter opposition, rather than merely react to their actions.

Censorship? To me, this seems no better than lying. How can the people feel like they are a part of the revolution if they are being treated like children? If they are being controlled even to the slightest extent?

Quote :

I always thought that socialism would be established on the authority of the majority, both as a class and as a majority of humanity. The first because working classes have much to gain from ending capitalism, the second because for the human race to survive capitalism must be ended to ensure the efficient use of resources.

This does not imply an imposition of will upon a minority. Capitalism is naturally despotic: Agreed? So we are not imposing upon anyone but simply freeing ourselves from economic bondage.

Quote :

I really don't think that it will be acceptable to waste the lives of so many people against a trained and well equiped military force.

If the revolution is by the masses of oppressed. If it is by a great majority of workers, then there may not even be bloodshed. Why would the armies slaughter millions? I don't think they are brainwashed enough with patriotism to kill so many of their countrymen. Besides, this kind of action would not even be desirable from the point of view of the capitalist; without the workers, where would he get his profits?

But if it is merely a group of revolutionaries, large as it may be, then yes, warfare would be your only option. You could not merely expropriate since you would be heavily outnumbered and overpowered. But this form of military coup would only end up in a changing of regimes rather than a social revolution.

Quote :

Censorship? To me, this seems no better than lying. How can the people feel like they are a part of the revolution if they are being treated like children? If they are being controlled even to the slightest extent?

This is why I oppose the creation of such a ‘regular army’. Other methods of defending the revolution against an organised aggressor are flawed are in my opinion equally flawed, but in different ways.

Quote :

This does not imply an imposition of will upon a minority. Capitalism is naturally despotic: Agreed? So we are not imposing upon anyone but simply freeing ourselves from economic bondage.

Perhaps I was using the term slightly differently to yourself then. I would argue that we were imposing our will on the capitalists, since our not infringing on their rights would imply that they remained untouched. But I suppose I see where you’re coming from.

Quote :

If the revolution is by the masses of oppressed. If it is by a great majority of workers, then there may not even be bloodshed. Why would the armies slaughter millions?

Then it would be necessary to be able to demonstrate that this is the great majority in order to show that resistance is futile. If your not going to participate in an election, then how do you intend to do you intend to demonstrate this?

Quote :

Then it would be necessary to be able to demonstrate that this is the great majority in order to show that resistance is futile. If your not going to participate in an election, then how do you intend to do you intend to demonstrate this?

I think we've come to an understanding other than this, so i'll leave the rest be.

Let me say first that i'm not so idealistic to believe there would be no resistance from the capitalists, no matter how many were actively involved in expropriation. I was just being hypothetical to show that i don't think an organized revolutionary military would lead to any less casualties.

As far as your question goes, no one would need to demonstrate physically, but expropriate quickly (demonstation in itself). If it gets to the point that the workers are just fed the fuck up, they need to reproduce the time of expropriation as it was in Italy. They need to continue producing (since a strike would only demoralize and weaken their revolutionary vigor) but refuse to give any of the product to the bosses. When they are met with forceful resistance, they should turn the factories as best they can into barracks', and keep the bosses out with force. The most important thing, to me, is that the industrial workers are not isolated from the farm workers. If they are, i fear the expropriation wouldn't last long.