Dddddd0814 at aol.com:
> So, I am just trying to understand what you're saying. Are you saying that
> the changes accompanied by violence are different from the ones not
> accompanied by violence? I.e., those changes are less "practical and
> effective" because they are accompanied by violence? Just want to understand
> what you mean, because otherwise we seem to be in agreement-- as long as
> class antagonisms prevail, there will be violence present in shifts of power
> between one class and another.
As long as there are classes there will be class war, because the establishment and maintenance of class is an act of war. When significant changes to the social order are beginning to occur, they must begin off the stage, so to speak, because otherwise those who are attached to the existing social order and have power and interests in it would simply wipe them out. I suppose there are situations in which a ruling class may be distracted by unrelated events, but usually repression is produced in considerable surplus and is always available in sufficient quantity to quash any visible threat.
So, supposing there is an ongoing, progressive change out of the purview of the ruling class, after a time a situation will arise in which the change in the social order has become substantial but has not yet openly manifested itself in the State superstructure. The more sensitive, perspicacious and flexible elements of the ruling class will now begin to perceive the change and attempt to exploit it, to ride the wave, while others will resist. Also, new candidates for ruling-class roles will appear on the scene.
Since war is the métier or at least ambition of the ruling class and their competitors, some kind of overt war is almost certain to break out between the competing elements. Even if the new people win, from an anarchist point of view, this is not necessarily a favorable development, because now the revolutionized society is dominated by a ruling class just as the previous one was. Having appeared as a radical challenge to the exiting order, and aware of its lack of legitimacy, the new ruling class is likely to be even more repressive than the old one was. Or, if the new ruling class is defeated, the old one will redouble its repressive efforts. Further progress towards at least better conditions for the people can occur only after the victorious ruling party becomes more assured (or wearier) and loosens its grip, and creativity and productivity once more permeate upwards from what I called the "dark matter", the nearly-invisible population of non- rulers, non-leaders, non-heroes who have the time and inclination to do creative and productive things instead of running around killing, robbing and terrorizing other people.
This seems to have been the way things worked out, approximately, during and after the English Civil War, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution. In the case of the American Revolution, we have the unusual situation of a ruling class already in control of most of the country "rebelling" against the nominal authorities, who were also engaged in one or more foreign wars; hence it was unnecessary to follow the war with much of a reign of terror, although I believe there was some of that. I am less familiar with events elsewhere, although what I know of them doesn't contradict what I've written above.
The key to achieving a classless, class-warless society and culture must be to find ways of weakening or subverting the ruling class and its ideology without just replacing them with more of the same. I think this requirement rules out the use of direct military force and hence Mao's idea of how to conduct a revolution.
-- Gordon