Welcome to Gaia! ::

MLK and Gandhi are the two people we in the West associate clearly with non-violence. And y'know what, that's great, but they were still supported by violent elements. They had people who were willing to stand up and fight, and did so when things got real bad.

I can't think of a single movement that was purely peaceful that succeeded in any major change.

Actually, it is a little more than that. Ghandi didn't succeed at anything, and must be understood only in the context of the anti-British war going on in the north. Same with King and the hippies: they did nothing, and in some cases even said to the government "Give in to our peaceful demands, because if you don't, we will lose all legitimacy in their eyes, and we will have no power to hold them back from what they want to do."

I think that is a false contrast. Rather than see 'violent' and 'peaceful' people, I think it is important to recognise that, at least in the beginning, the construction of the new society will take place during conditions of war and militarism. As things stabilise, things will gradually turn towards peaceful development. Being democratic, it will be up to the workers and peasants to decide what they want, and thus war/development will depend on the labouring masses as a whole.

Seeing the armed forces of the revolution as 'the proletariat, armed and organised as a class'... Well, there is no distinction, to me, between the armed people, and the people with arms.

The old, the infirm, and the young will not be meaningfully engaged in peaceful development, anyway... And the cowards will do what everyone else says because... they are cowards and won't want to look bad.

I think our differences come from what we concieve the revolution to be, in terms of how sweeping it will be.

And I see it as something requiring almost the entirety of the working class to achieve. The thing is, during a revolution, vast masses of people are brought to hightened political consciousness, and are able to realise that they need to fight.

While I don't deny guerrilla tactics can be usefull, I think that basing the whole of one's ideas around that to be defeatist in the sense that it assumes the revolutionaries will be a minority, and that the rest of the population will stand by, wathing the proceedings with more or less practical indifference.

Actually, that's the very definition of guerrilla warfare as used by Marxists.
What I meant by 'more or less practical indifference' was of the immediately military sort.

Rather than have a guerrilla campaign, I would prefer to work on the political consciousness of the workers so that rather than a guerrilla war, we would have a full blown insurrection.

A good book to check out, if you have the time, is Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution. It is long, and deals with the revolution in three stages. The reason I suggest it is because I really had an extremely vague understanding of revolution (though I thought my understanding was rather precise) prior to reading it. By going through the history of the revolution, it shows how important it is to not only have the sympathy of the workers on your side, but to have the active participation of the working class mobilised as a class. I doubt you'd actually read it though, because it is ******** long, but... The suggestion is there.

Revolution without violence is not possible. It never has been and never will be. The bourgeois will never just give up political and economic power. There is a reason we have a police force and military...