One subject the World Socialist Movement keeps harping on — and we harp on a lot of subjects — is the necessarily non-violent nature of the socialist revolution. Why do we insist that the abolition of world capitalism must be brought about peacefully? Not because we are idealists, or humanists, although idealism and humanism do have some role in our philosophy. We advocate a non-violent revolution principally because we are convinced that a socialist revolution cannot be brought about in any other way. This is why we do not qualify our terms with ”ifs,'' "ands,” or “buts."
In the first place let us look at the question of ends and means. There is an old cliche, usually attributed to Bolsheviks but also part of the philosophy of capitalism, that the end justifies the means. In other words, anything one can do — not even excepting mass murder — to bring the end of capitalism, or the end of totalitarianism, or the end of something else that so many wars have been supposedly fought over, is justifiable. Which would be a logical argument only for one important factor — at least one. Ends and means are all part of a process, are inter-related. Violent means have to result in violent ends. There has never been a period in the lives of any person living today when nations did not argue that they needed more and more powerful weapons. Why? Because only by building up a powerful armed force could peace be maintained. Yet, violence has grown in scope and in intensity all through the years of the lifetime of everybody living today, and in every country regardless of the professed peace-loving nature of its government.
Most people still seem to think that the trouble is all caused by bad guys — the other country. If only that country or the other country wasn’t made up of intrinsically warlike, or intrinsically greedy people everything would be all right. All we want is to be left alone. This is the usual argument that the average person in every country in the world gives. But the answers go deeper. The very existence of nations implies violence and this is the case whether the nation calls itself capitalist, socialist. or anything else. Which brings us back to the subject of socialist revolution and why we insist it must be peaceful.
For the first time in history, a revolution will be by the immense majority in the interests of the whole population. All previous revolutions have been organized by minorities in the interest of minorities. This is why all previous social revolutions were accompanied by violence, either at the moment of consummation or immediately following. So when advocates of violent revolution base their argument on the fact that revolutions have always been accompanied by violence they are unwittingly rejecting socialist revolution and advocating the overthrow of one group of exploiters and the substitution of another group of exploiters — themselves — in the guise of state officials “Unwittingly?” we said. Perhaps, in cases.
The main point to bear in mind when considering world socialist revolution is that it is a revolution organized and consummated by a majority of the people. And an immense majority has no need for violence. An upsurge of revolutionary-thinking in the population would result in an overwhelming majority of scientific socialists being elected to the central organs of power, the state. And this would mean one all-important thing, that the overwhelming majority of the population would have to be fed up with capitalism and would want no more part of it. A victory at the polls by a genuine socialist organization would be followed immediately by the abolition of class ownership of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth.
Would the defeated capitalist class resist with an organization of violence? Hardly likely when the very basis for their existence as a capitalist class has been removed. What could they offer that isn’t already freely available to ail. including themselves? Think about it and help organize for world socialism.
No comments:
Post a Comment