Communism and Violence

Gerry, in his comment to Reply to Gerry, asks me a direct question:

As a pacifist I would never align myself with a movement which condones violence as a means of achieving political aims, so, I now ask you outright, what is your party's view about this? Is it a declared pacifist party or would it justify violence under some circumstances?

The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines pacifism as:

1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds

2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

My understanding of pacifism is that violence cannot be used even in self-defense or in the defense of innocent people.

The short answer to your question is that my party believes that self-defense is justified. This is not a pacifist position.

The Program of the DSP makes the following points:

Self-organisation of the masses and the struggle for power

As the conflict between the major classes sharpens, the capitalist rulers will almost certainly resort to legal and extra-legal forms of violence against the workers and their allies. For this reason, the working people must be prepared to defend their activities, organisations, headquarters and press against such violence through the formation of broadly-based self-defence squads. [Emphasis Mine]

Workers’ democracy and the defence of workers’ power

All historical experience demonstrates that no exploiting class ever gives up its power and privileges peacefully. The capitalist class has repeatedly shown that it will cast aside its ``democratic'' institutions and unleash civil war against the workers to defend or re-establish its rule. As long as imperialism survives in major countries — and certainly in the United States — it will attempt to intervene through economic pressure and military force whenever and wherever it can to prevent or destroy any attempts by working people to establish their democratic rule. This has been the experience of every anti-capitalist revolution this century — from Russia, to China, to Cuba, to Vietnam, to Nicaragua. Any workers' state or group of workers' states will find itself in a permanent condition of armed truce with imperialism, that could, under certain conditions, lead to open war. The workers' state must prepare against that danger, as it has to be ready to help the insurgent masses of other countries facing armed intervention by imperialism. [Emphasis Mine]

In Terrorism: A Marxist Perspective, there is a good summary of our position:

How this struggle unfolds — whether it is peaceful or violent — does not fundamentally depend on us but on the ruling class. Will the imperialist bourgeoisie defend its rotten social order to the bitter end? Will it resort to violence and terror to resist the advance of the masses? We are not pacifists: we believe in the right of the people to defend themselves against the violence of their oppressors. All those struggling for a better world are necessarily forced to confront the question of violence — and terrorism — in its various forms. [Emphasis Mine]

The violence of the state is directed the poor every hour of every day. This is manifest in the attitudes and actions of the security guards, transit officers, police officers, work supervisors, and every minor functionary who deals with the public. Their violence is mainly psychological in reminding the poor of their place in society. Woe betide anyone who loses their temper under such provocation. Then the physical violence descends without mercy. To be poor is to have infinite patience and forgiveness.