in an era of “punch a nazi” memes, it gets lost that even if violence is justified & necessary, it’s not itself a revolutionary strategy. it’s a necessary means of defending attempts to self-organize & self-govern, but without that, no amount of dead fash can transform our world.
killing a nazi doesn’t destroy the material conditions that lead to people becoming nazis. killing a ceo doesn’t redistribute the power held by the company. i’m not saying that individual acts of violence don’t protect anybody—obviously a nazi who is too scared or otherwise unable to terrorize a community is a good thing. but it’s not transformative. it may be a bandage, but it’s not going to change the world.
the role of violence in revolutionary change is to defend the actual revolutionary work.
what does that mean?
when a revolutionary movement attempts to establish autonomous neighborhood councils, or redistribute resources and the means of producing goods, the state will react (using cops, military, etc.) with incredible violence. revolutionary violence is unavoidable if a revolutionary mode of organizing society is to last—that way of life will inevitably come under violent assault that can only be resisted by violence. but that violence is a way of protecting the real work of revolution: reorganizing society to meet our needs & make decisions collectively.
moreover, when we systematize violence, even just in an effort to get rid of every cop, every fascist, every ceo, every nazi, we take on an incredible risk to the long term health of a revolution. history shows again and again that when you build a system dedicated to carrying out systemic violence, it is very, very hard to get it to ever stop carrying out systemic violence. how to defend a revolution from reactionary violence by global capital without turning that revolutionary government into a permanent executor of systemic violence is a historic problem which socialists are still struggling to find an effective answer to. this only makes it more important not to mistake the violence for the revolution. when we allow ourselves to believe violence produces rather than defends change, we set ourselves up for failure.
in the end, in a world full of capitalist militaries with a history of violent reaction to change, violence will be necessary to ensure that change survives. but it will not produce that change. building systems for organizing production, making democratic decisions, and settling conflict that allow everyone to participate equally, to give only what they can and receive, always, what they need—that is the real work. every ceo and fascist could disappear right now and without that framework in place, we would fall into the ways we already know.
when fidel tried to give salvador allende a gun, the intended message was not that that he & the Popular Unity party must socialize chile’s resources at gunpoint, but rather that no matter how democratically & nonviolently they tried to socialize those resources, history showed that empire would never allow them to do so without violently crushing that peaceful democratic effort. the CIA would prove him right in just years.
we cannot abdicate the responsibility to defend the revolution with violence, but nor can we mistake violence for revolution.
And Jess articulates better than I ever can. Best I can say is that peaceful protest only works when the possibility of violent action exists, and that pure violence can only achieve violent goals. I remember reading somewhere that violence should never be a goal in a revolution only an unfortunate necessity.
I'm not going to get into the history of how Buddhists and Buddhist spiritual leaders have justified war and violence because I am talking specifically about myself and my beliefs.
So as a Buddhist (lay follower) I am supposed to avoid violence, which like most practices is based around the core belief of "Living in accordance with the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things" but to me things such as capitalism and fascism are the complete antithesis of that! what is more violent then war? How can I possibly be a Buddhist if I am actively participating in oppressive and violent hierarchical structures? Shouldn't I be doing everything I can to resist and dismantle these systems? Wouldn't a non-hierarchical global society based around mutual aid be the end point of "living in accordance with the interdependence of all things"?
Some Buddhists have reconciled the beliefs of non-harm and violent protest with the act of Self-Immolation, which personally I do see as a violent act yet one that does not directly harm others. However as we have seen recently with the brave act of Wynn Bryce who self-immolated to draw attention to the climate crisis, it is an act that no longer seems to be effective.
My current conclusion to this is that the way for me to best practice my beliefs is to do all I can to support others in the form of mutual aid, resist capitalism and fascism everywhere I can, and when it comes to it, I will take up arms in defense of the revolution.
