Charles Brown writes:
> No self-consciousness will be able to create a state-power at all that
does not defend its selfconscious self with force and violence. The trials
and errors of the first efforts to build socialism - the giant Commune of
the Soviet Union especially - have demonstrated that this is truer now even
than in Marx's day, sadly. That idea is neither prejudiced, superstitious,
mystical, or dominated by an irrational passion; rather it is materialist,
empirical, scientific, logical and associated with revolutionary elan won in
world historic tragedy.
Okay -- I have been trying to follow this thread and now I am lost. How is the idea that violence is necessary empirical and scientific when it (violence) hasn't worked yet?
Wouldn't the opposite also be possible: that violence is not the way to go since it has failed so far? Or is it that not enough violence was used (the old "if you fail redouble your effort, don't rethink your approach)?
I remember a few weeks back I was struggling with the concept of false consciousness. Could it be that belief/faith in violence is a manifestation of false consciousness in that violence appeals to/satiates the passions and not the rational mind?
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister