WORSHIPPING EITHER VIOLENCE OR NON-VIOLENCE AS A DICTUM IS METAPHYSICS, NOT SCIENCE. THERE IS A DIALECTICAL RELATION BETWEEN CLASSES AND DIALECTICS DEMANDS THAT THE TRAPS OF IDEALISM BE BROKEN.
Frederick Engels has made it clear somewhere that if the ruling class of any particular place has enough intelligence, they will give up their power and social-system peacefully; if they lack even the bare intelligence of beasts (lions, coyotes, etc., that give up power after evaluating the situation and might of their challengers) they will resort to violence.
We have it in Communist Manifesto of 1848 as well:
"Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeoisie ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole..."
We have seen brutal resistance by Sadam and Co., Gaddafi and Co., etc. Non-violence was impossible in those situations--they didn't know even the ABC of the might of the Majesty of US and other Monopoly Bourgeoisie Class. We have brutal struggles going on elsewhere in the Arab regions as well--and preaching the path of surrender and non-violence in such places is suicidal.
Feudalists and bourgeoisie have slaughtered uncountable non-violent people so far. Need is to be conscious about this fact as well as about history. Self-defense is a necessity.
THE MARK OF AN IMMATURE MAN IS THAT HE NOBLY DIES FOR A CAUSE, THE MARK OF THE MATURE MAN IS: HE LIVES FOR THE CAUSE.
IT WAS BY NO MEANS BRAVE OF SADAM AND GADDAFI TO HAVE THEMSELVES SLAUGHTERED, BUT THEY DID. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS PRACTICALLY.
JUST AS SADAM AND GADDAFI, THE SITUATION OF VARIOUS CLASSES IN VARIOUS SITUATIONS VARIES. SADAM AND GADDAFI WERE POWERFUL WITH RESPECT TO SOME, AND WEAK WITH RESPECT TO SOME. THEY FAILED TO UNDERSTAND AND EVALUATE THEIR POSITIONS; AND THEY PERISHED AS A RESULT.
THE SCIENTIFIC LESSON IS: WHEN YOU ARE WEAK, DON'T RESORT TO VIOLENCE, WHATEVER BE THE PROVOCATIONS--TRY TO PACIFY THE SITUATIONS. OTHERWISE YOU WILL ONLY HARM THE CAUSE AND YOU WILL HAVE YOURSELF MURDERED.
SACRIFICE, HOWEVER, IS A DIFFERENT THING. SOCRATES', CHRIST'S, BRUNO'S, GALILEO'S SACRIFICES DIDN'T GO IN VAIN.
BUT WHEN YOU ARE STRONG...
THE FOLLOWING WILL HELP IN CLARIFICATION.
Why are India, Pakistan and Bangladesh-i.e. one-fifth or so of humankind-still so agrarian, still so dirty, still so wretched, still so hopeless? To understand the cause, we must quote again the greatest revolutionary of the twentieth century:
"It follows that the idea of seeking salvation for the working class in anything save further development of capitalism is reactionary. In countries like . the working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism. The working class is, therefore, most certainly interested in the broadest, freest and the most rapid development of capitalism. The removal of all the remnants of old order-which hamper the broad, free and rapid development of capitalism-is of absolute advantage to the working class. The bourgeoisie revolution is precisely an upheaval that most resolutely sweeps away survival of the past, survival of the serf-owning system... and most fully guarantees the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism. "That is why the bourgeoisie revolution is in the highest degree advantageous to the proletariat... The more complete, determined and consistent the bourgeoisie revolution, the more assured will the proletariat's struggle be against the bourgeoisie and for socialism. Only those who are ignorant of the ABC of scientific socialism can regard this conclusion as new, strange, or paradoxical... It is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie for the bourgeoisie revolution not to sweep away all remnants of the past too resolutely, but keep some of them, i.e., for this revolution not to be fully consistent, not complete, and not to be determined and relentless. Social-Democrats often express this idea somewhat differently by stating that the bourgeoisie betrays its own self, that the bourgeoisie betrays the cause of liberty, that the bourgeoisie is incapable of being consistently democratic. It is of greater advantage to the bourgeoisie for the necessary changes in the direction of bourgeoisie democracy to take place more slowly, more gradually, more cautiously, less resolutely, by means of reforms and not by means of revolution; for these changes to spare the 'venerable' institutions of the serf-owning system... as much as possible; for these changes to develop as little as possible the independent revolutionary activity, initiative, and energy of the common people, i.e. peasantry and especially the workers. For otherwise it will be easier for the workers, as the French say, 'to change the rifle from one shoulder to the other', i.e., to turn against the bourgeoisie the weapons the bourgeoisie revolution will supply them with, the liberty the revolution will bring, and the democratic institutions that will spring upon ground cleared of the serf-owning system.
"On the other hand, it is more advantageous to the working class for the necessary changes in the direction of bourgeoisie democracy to take place by way of revolution and not by way of reform, because the way of reform is one of delay, procrastination, the painful slow decomposition of the putrid parts of the national organism. It is the proletariat and the peasantry that suffer first of all and most of all from that putrefaction. The revolutionary path is one of rapid amputation, which is the least painful to the proletariat, the path of immediate removal of what is putrescent, the path of least compliance with the consideration for the monarchy and the abominable, vile, rotten and noxious institutions that go with it.
"So it is not only because of the censorship, not only 'for the fear of Jews', that our bourgeoisie liberal press deplores the possibility of the revolutionary path, fears the revolution, tries to frighten the tsar with the bogey of revolution, seeks to avoid revolution, and grovels and toadies for the sake of miserable reforms as the foundation of the reformist path... "LENIN--July 1905"
ZIHANNASHEEN