After reading a certain amount of history, I've come to the conclusion that social _systems_ and _classes_ are not overthrown by acts of violence. The personnel at the stop may be changed, but the way things are done generally goes on as before, or degenerates into something worse. That is because societies are mostly made up, not of the brilliant violent stuff written in history books by the winners, but of the great dark matter of innumerable non-heroic, non-violent relations and activities by which mankind actually lives, which has a kind of life of its own, suffering the violence of the superstructure, accounting for it, and attempting to go on.
Changes certainly occur, and are often accompanied by violence, but the change itself is composed of new relations and new activities which begin at the margins and in the interstices of the existing social structure. If the change is effective, the violence occurs only towards the end of the revolutionary process, as the ruling classes of the period split apart, some trying to hold on to what they had, the other trying to take advantage of new conditions. If only one could restore consciousness to what I have called the "dark matter", the whole scheme of ruling classes, leaders and heroes of any kind could be subverted; who actually needs them?
So I think Mao was wrong, except in the sense in which _revolution_ means "to go around in a circle and come back to the point from which one started". But now, and for a long time to come, his way will be much more popular than mine. As long as people are still influenced by the long history of slavery they will not only be fascinated by violence but will continue to believe that it is not merely entertaining but practical and effective. But we can't pull them away from this superstition by practicing a version of it.
-- Gordon