Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Feb 14, 2010, at 12:42 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > Under what condtions would a mass anti-capitalist movement overthrow
> > the
> > state and seize total power?
>
> That's the only way socialism could happen? Through a violent
> revolution?
Not necessarily violence, though u.s. society is pretty damn violent right now. But by mass pressure outside the law, yes.
Very few revolutions involve formal armed combat -- in act I don't know o a single one that did. (Wars of Liberation were something quite different, thoguh they could also involve or inocrporate a revlution, but the two things are different.) My point is that a lot of things would have to happen before several million people, in groups from a handfull to hundres of thousands would march, hold rallies, occupy buildings, block streets, refuse to orders until compelled to by force, et etc. Tha t happens on a small scale all the time. It'shappened on a pretty large scale several times inthe last half century, and will undoubtedly happen again, and again. Whether a govenrment actually topples under such pressure is antoher question. The Shah's government did. The Soviet government did. The Hungarian government did in 1956 but the successful revolutionaires were defeated by ouside intervention. Same with the Prague Spring in 1968.
The Chinese Government didn't in 1989. In France '68 it was iffy, but as I just poined out in another post, DeGaulle wasn't sure until he had checked with his generals.
My disgust with the Weatherman was that they made a fetish of violence, which was stupid and obnoxious..
My views have changed considraby over the last 10 years, but among those that haven't is that the focus of "revolutionary" politics is not revolution but mass struggle on partivcular issues -- i.e. reform struggles but organized around raising militant mass struggle: marches, demos, building occupations, etc etc etc, including probably new tactics we haven't thought of before.
Socialism, from my standpoint, isn't "brought in" by anthing, violent or non-violeent; it is a lengthy process that has been going on for over a century and will continue to go on for a long time. An "insurrection" won't "bring it in," but obviusly marks somewhat of a clearing of the domain of struggle, opening up new oopportunities for struggle, one hopes in less violent ways than have characterized u.s. society for the last century.
I have been serious in remarks such as most of those who make a revolution are not revolutionaries, most of those who are revolutionaries are not socialsits, most sociolists are not marxists, etc. The point is forces of protest anre mighty heterogenous affairs, with only pretty loose agreement even among the leadership.
I do reject out of hand the idea that socialism (hoever defined) can be brought about by constitutional means. There does have to be an abrupt change, with the constraints of formal law removed, before serious struggle over socialism even begins, but I I specify no formula for that abrupt change. The less violence the better, because violence is far more apt to be used _against_ revolutionaries than _by_ revolutionaries.
Carrol