If we analyse the position of those in favour of “only peaceful protest” then it quickly emerges that more often than not behind the beautiful and peace-loving words lies an attempt to defend the idea of the illegality of revolutionary violence in principle. This is a dangerous delusion. If you regard peaceful protest as meaning that you reject on principle any revolutionary violence (and that is how many people naively see it), then you will be in good company with any dictator. Doing battle with any dictatorship is, therefore, completely impossible.
Throughout the history of mankind, no dictatorship has disappeared without coming under the clear or hidden threat of force. A dictator’s never stepped down just because they were tired. If it wasn’t violence itself, then it was at least the threat of violence that always played a decisive role in the victory of the revolution. It’s another matter that the threat of violence has nearly always been more effective than blatant violence.
This is not simply a question of humanity. If a revolution starts with violence, it will end with it, too. And if a revolution ends in violence, then that will never be the end of it. A violent revolution almost inevitably produces a dictatorship in its wake that sets out to crush any counter-revolution. This must be borne in mind by anyone who – contrary to those who believe only in peaceful protest – calls for a swift transition to a violent struggle.
Nevertheless, as the experience of Belarus showed (and bearing in mind that the Russian experience promises to be even more striking), if the regime is prepared to open fire on its people, then a demonstrative and early refusal by the opposition to use violence as a way of seizing power will be counter-productive. Unless pressure is put on the authorities that there will be direct foreign intervention, restricting protest to simply applying psychological pressure can never bring down a regime that is prepared to go to any limits to stay in power. This is the case even if the protest has the support of the majority of society. For this reason, the concept of peaceful protest as a total and absolute rejection of revolutionary violence is nothing more than dogma. If you turn away completely from violence in principle, then you turn away from revolution.
In reality, not only is revolutionary violence legitimate, but historically it has always and everywhere proved to be a source of the new legitimacy. Revolution and constitution always go hand in hand. Had there been no violent revolutions in the world, constitutional order would never have been established anywhere. This must be borne in mind even when you look back over many centuries.
If the constitutional order collapses, then frequently the only realistic way to restore it has been to return to the use of revolutionary violence. This was why the old constitutions contained the people’s revolutionary right to rise up, and devoted so much attention to the people’s right to carry arms. Anyone who tried to seize power had to understand that all that they had taken from the people by force, could be taken back by the people by force, because a nation that rose up had greater legitimacy than a despotic regime had. These are hard truths. It is the ABC of revolution. And it has to be learnt by heart. If, that is, you wish to be victorious.
However, recognising the legitimacy of revolutionary violence as a means of struggle against a dictatorship does not mean that you’re immediately ready in practice to resort to this violence. Recognising the possibility and the legitimacy of using violence in a revolutionary struggle with a dictatorship is a strategic question. Employing or not employing violence in a concrete situation and, if you do choose to employ it, to what extent and in what ways – that’s a question of revolutionary tactics, and that can be decided in very different ways.
Often the deliberate refusal to escalate the violence in order to avoid massive casualties is the only correct solution, especially when the majority aren’t ready to take action if there’s no revolutionary situation in the country. But transforming this decision into a dogma, a conviction that in any circumstances your protest must remain peaceful is the same as voluntarily giving in to the dictator and, in effect, giving up any realistic struggle for power. The regime should always be under pressure, aware that if any force is used there will be a counter-force, and that every crime will be punished. Only in such circumstances will those in opposition to the regime have any hope of success.
Nevertheless, peaceful pressure can only rarely be as peaceful as its proponents might wish it to be. Any peaceful protest that isn’t backed by some kind of violence can still ignite the authorities and lead them to employ their own forms of violence against it. This can happen for a wide variety of reasons. It may be because of the collapse of the structures of power, because of the depletion of resources (in such a situation a strike can be a very useful show of strength), or for various other reasons. However, there is the danger that if a regime collapses because it’s run out of resources, then the ones who gain most on the battlefield will be the looters, be they criminals or mercenaries. In this case, the protest movement will find itself having to use violence against a third party.
One thing alone is clear. The protest cannot be held back from within. If the revolution has a built-in restriction on how fast it can go, it will never get off the ground. Once they’ve started, the leaders of the protest must always be ready to take the next step. Once you’ve called people out onto the streets, then you have to accept that by that action you’ve already made revolutionary violence possible. It’s a different matter that as a tactical move you may call upon your supporters temporarily to hold back.
Calling for violence when there’s no revolutionary situation is just as much a betrayal of protest as completely refusing to use violence in a revolutionary situation, when this is essential to bring the revolution to an end. The latter would be the same as leaving the movement leaderless and at the demands of fate. As a rule that will lead to the swift defeat of the revolution and even greater violence and casualties, and not for the sake of the revolution but for the counter-revolution. This is why protest should, of course, always try to remain peaceful; and it will remain so if there is convincing evidence that you are prepared to answer violence with violence if necessary.
Chapter 2. Bringing the Protesters Together:
Many Parties or a Single Party?
Everyone knows the well-worn metaphor of the broken arrows. It’s been passed down through the ages. A wise leader (or a tsar) first demonstratively shows how easy it is to break a single arrow. He then helplessly throws up his hands after trying to break a whole quiver of such arrows all at once. It’s become a hackneyed image; but its basic message remains true. When any kind of protest is united, it’s this unity that’s the key feature that makes it effective. Few would argue with this; but each person tends to understand in their own way just what that unity actually is. Unity can be demonstrated by a multitude of voices. But sometimes everyone needs to sing with one voice.
This is exactly where the democratic opposition has slipped up in Russia today. When they speak, the leaders of all the supposedly significant protest movements say they are in favour of “unity”. Indeed, it would be very odd to hear them declaim that they’re against a wide front in the struggle with the dictatorship. Yet many of those who talk about unity, are guided in practice by a different principle, one that was put forward in similar historical circumstances by Lenin: “Before we can unite…we must first of all draw firm and definite lines of demarcation”. The danger of this slogan is that in the process of putting all their efforts into demarcation, the ultimate goal of unity slips into the background. This is exactly what we see happening today in Russia.
If we look back at history, we can see that protest movements have succeeded by following various paths. Among these, we can pick out two types of successful revolutions. Some were carried out by close-knit groups of like-minded people, united not only by their similar political views, but who organised themselves on pseudo-military lines. This gave them a structure on which to build the new state after their victory. Other successful revolutions were carried out by a wide coalition of the most varied political forces, linked by only a fragile political bond. This bond rarely survived the actual revolution.
If we look more closely at this, we realise that very often the tactical tasks of the revolution, such as the seizure and consolidation of power, were carried out more effectively by pseudo-military, conspiratorial organisations (resembling religious sects in their structure), rather than by political parties in the strict sense of that term. But the strategic tasks that the revolutions had before them, notably tasks of a democratic nature, were better solved where a coalition of diverse forces stood at their head, having been brought together by the moment and the circumstances.
Knowing this, you might think that all responsible political forces would try to create a broad coalition. But in practice this doesn’t happen. Either coalitions aren’t formed or, if they are, they quickly fall apart. Unfortunately, there are strong objective reasons for this. History shows that the more aggressive the dictatorship and the more merciless the regime, the fewer chances there are for a coalition to come together and triumph. This is understandable. The regime recognises that the unity of the opposition forces represents the greatest threat to its existence, and so does everything in its power to prevent the opposition from uniting, including supporting secessionist sentiments among their opponents. If the regime has to choose between “irreconcilable elements” and “the most irreconcilable elements” among the opposition, strangely enough they tend to choose the latter, even though this risks bringing about their own downfall. This has already happened once in Russian history, at the start of the twentieth century.
We must never forget that there is not only a tradition of autocracy in Russia, there is also a tradition of Bolshevism, with sectarianism and schismatics within the revolutionary movement. Each of these traditions is closely linked to the other. In the country’s history, Bolshevism has played no less a tragic role than autocracy, which it first destroyed, then reincarnated in a more sophisticated format. For the vast majority of our contemporaries, Bolshevism and Communism are one and the same thing. But this is not the case. It’s possible not to be a Communist – even to be an Anti-Communist – and at the same time remain a Bolshevik. What’s more, if Communism in Russia appeared largely by chance, Bolshevism grew out of the very roots of Russian culture.
Bolshevism is