It has become a commonplace to declare that "one man’s
terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter." People have long thought that
power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Someone, somewhere is applauding the
killings at the Christchurch mosques.
Most who commit terrorist crimes do so in the belief that
they are delivering some sort of justice but one thing is certain their
violence fails to deliver a better life to anybody. A number of organisations
and individuals have sought to achieve their ends via violence. They claim to
represent the interests of particular sections of the population, although none
can show any sort of mandate to do so.
The Socialist Party maintains that recourse to violence of
any kind should always be a last resort, organised and sanctioned by a body
representing the collective interests of the class fighting for freedom. As
such it is needless to add that the Socialist Party repudiates and condemns
acts of terrorism in any country especially where people possess the freedom to
present their views and opinions. It is our responsibility as socialists to
publicly expose and rally the working class against terrorism. The Socialist
Party unrelievedly condemns terrorist bombings and shootings and as the
depraved acts of warped minds. It deplores the wanton massacres of innocent
men, women and children, and denounces any individual or group who perpetrated or
condones such despicable acts for whatever perverted motive prompted they say
they commit them. There is and can be no justification for barbaric outrages.
The Socialist Party also indicts the politicians who use
such brutal acts for their own divisive agendas and to undermine civil
liberties and human rights. It is dangerous and naive to believe that society
can be defended against terror by repressive laws.
The Socialist Party deplores the reckless and inflammatory
capitalist news media, which, in its usual sensationalist style to capture an
audience, jumps from one conclusion to another about the motives of the perpetrators
of terrorism might be, scapegoating entire communities for the crimes of an
individual.
Whatever the
immediate motivations behind terror acts, the root cause of all such insane
antisocial acts is deeply embedded in the fabric of capitalist society itself. Terrorists
have no answers for today's social problems. They see or feel the effects of something
they have no understanding of, and they take refuge in religious fantasy and/or
conspiracy theories. A solution to the ills of a sick system is to be found in
a social act, that can be performed only by a social class capable today of
revolution to a better society - the working class.
There seems to be an assumption that disorder, rioting and
violence are essential accompaniments to revolution. The Socialist Party has
always condemned insurrections by minorities and terrorist violence. They are
not only futile, but play directly into the hands of the enemy. We reject the
notion that the gun rather than an idea can bring socialism. Violence demeans, debases
and dehumanises us. To overthrow one evil, corrupt system using the very same
policies and tools of that system is to simply replace one monster with another
one. The means must be in harmony with the end. Violence is bound to corrupt
both the users and those upon whom it is used. It is clear that any solution
resulting from violence or confrontation is not lasting. It is only through
peaceful means that we can develop better understanding between peoples. Though
lies and fake news may deceive people, it is only through, fairness and mutual
respect that proper understanding can be genuinely achieved.
The Socialist Party throughout its history have repeatedly
appealed to the police and soldiers not to permit themselves to be deployed
against their fellow-workers. But such appeals are self-defeating if at the
same time we are seen to be inciting riot and disorder as a means of protest.
For sure, the provocation generally comes the side of the authorities and may
be excused, but the Socialist Party cannot advocate violence, except only if resorted
to in self-defence. Non-violent and non-obedience will increase our chances of
the police and military refusing to obey orders against people who are clearly
presenting no physical threat. It could have the effect of converting them to
our point of view by winning over their hearts and minds. But if you go over to
violence, the soldiers will express no sympathy and most definitely not mutiny.
They will remain loyal to their commanders.
An armed reaction from the revolutionaries will not succeed,
as the regime is invariably stronger on the military front. As soon as you
choose to fight with violence you're choosing to fight against opponents in
possession of the best weapons. The state's police and army are better trained
in using those weapons. And they control the infrastructure that allows them to
deploy them. It may well be that the social revolution will not be achieved
without violence; but we would be foolish to provoke any fighting when we
should have to fight at a disadvantage, and when all the resources of
civilisation are held by the master class, and all we have to oppose to them is
bricks and bottles. There is no possibility of the workers successfully
engaging the capitalist class on the basis of brute force or violence. If the
capitalist means of combat rested merely and solely of police clubs, then, we
might well organise workers’ battalions (such as the Irish Citizens Army Vs the
Dublin police) equipped with the same weapons and give a good account of
ourselves on the field of action. But the tremendous and destructive nature of
military weapons in society today preclude the possibility of successful
competition. The owning class has a supreme and invincible weapon within its
grasp: political power, which gives it control of the army, navy, air and
police forces.
To fight the State with violence is to cede to them the
choice of battleground and tactics. Using violence against experts in it is the
quickest way to have a movement crushed. That is why governments frequently
infiltrate opposition groups with agents provocateurs—to sidetrack the movement
into violent acts that the police and security agencies can deal with.
Non-violence is an aspect of resistance that the normal forces of coercion are
ill-prepared for
The Socialist Party seeks to adopt means in harmony with our
ends; we have to make sure that they are means; that will hasten, not retard
its attainment. Revolution to be successful must be the effort of the organised
movement of the majority. All government rest on force; but it is futile for
the people to take up force while all the arms are in the hands of their
enemies, the ruling class.
We are not pacifists. We considered violence a possible outcome
of revolutionary change; but we argue that the more that the workers
understood, the more educated they became in socialist ideas, the less
likelihood there would be of violence. Historically the battle of ideas has
been waged both in the mind – in debates and discussions. This is where
street-fighting plays its role: physically removing opposition that one cannot
overcome in a battle of hearts and minds, at the price of destroying the free environment
in which the working class can find its own way. The revolution is aborted in
the process, not defended. This is another reason why a socialist revolution
must be peaceful, at least as far as our class is concerned.
“Revolutionary” violence is a sign of weakness in the
working class. Our assumption is that significant numbers of capitalists will
see the futility of resisting a well-educated, well-organised working-class
majority. The capitalist class cannot continue its rule – even through violence
or bribery – when enough workers decide to break with the capitalists’
legitimacy and the capitalist system.
People turn violent because they feel there is little
alternative but to resort to violence. Socialist organisations will develop
the substitutes to militarising the class struggle and then people will have a
choice of psychological weapons, social weapons, economic weapons and political
weapons which can be applied and are ultimately more powerful against tyranny. Once enough people and organisations within a
society (trade unions, community groups) are engaging in civil disobedience and
withholding their cooperation from a regime, the capitalists' power will
gradually wither from political starvation.
The success or failure of any peaceful revolt largely
depends on the campaign’s ability to undermine the regimes supporters and
weaken the allegiance of its civil servants, police and soldiers to the regime;
to persuade those neutrals sitting on the fence to join the opposition. The
worse the regime suppresses protests, the more steadfast ought the opposition
be in its commitment to non-violence and the more the people resists, the more
we will realise our own power and discover the means of re-shaping our destiny.
Non-violent popular civil-disobedience has an important role
in moving forward from limited political democracy to full social democracy,
which is what we mean by socialism. Not as a substitute for electoral and
constitutional action, but as an additional guarantee that the socialist
majority will achieve its goal under any conceivable circumstances. Socialists
are not pacifists on principle but purely as a practical tactic. We acknowledge
that there might be instances in which violence is a legitimate means to use. When
non-violence fails, the method is condemned. But when violence fails, strategy
or tactics are blamed—not violence as a method. And partial success is seen as
total failure. Violence is not all that effective in a social revolution.
“... In short I do not believe in the possible success of
revolt until the Socialist party has grown so powerful in numbers that it can
gain its end by peaceful means, and that therefore what is called violence will
never be needed; unless indeed the reactionaries were to refuse the decision of
the ballot-box and try the matter by arms; which after all I am pretty sure
they could not attempt by the time things had gone so far as that.” – William
Morris
No comments:
Post a Comment