Marxist Theory on Revolution and Violence

Author(s): Adam Schaff

Source: Journal of the History of Ideas , Apr. - Jun., 1973, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun.,
1973), pp. 263-270
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2708729

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of the History of Ideas

This content downloaded from

189.62.149.116 on Tue, 06 Dec 2022 09:39:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MARXIST THEORY ON REVOLUTION AND VIOLENCE

BY ADAM SCHAFF*

The last paragraph of the Manifesto of the Communist Party reads:

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They
openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible over-
throw of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at
a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but
their chains. They have a world to win."
This by now classic formulation includes two statements:
(a) that the existing social and political system is to be changed by
a revolution;
(b) that a social revolution is to be identified with an overthrow of
that existing social system by violence.
This idea recurs in the works of Marx and Engels so many times
that it has become trivial to identify the labor movement guided by
Marxist theory with the movement which strives for a social revolu-
tion to be attained through recourse to violence. Moreover, all this has
even contributed to the almost universal identification of the concept
of social revolution with that of a revolution that resorts to violence.
This has certainly been influenced by the historical examples of al
those social upheavals which have come to be termed "revolutions,
but in recent times also, to a large extent, by that image of revoluti
which has been outlined above and which complies with the curren
interpretation of Marxism.
Yet it suffices to study the Marxist theory of revolution a litt
more in depth, and also to acquire a somewhat better knowledge o
the statements made on the subject by the founders of Marxist theo
to see the fallacy of such opinions. Both Marx and Engels and, late
Lenin on many occasions referred to a peaceful revolution, that is, o
attained by a class struggle, but not by violence. More than that, th
used to substantiate the necessity of distinguishing the concept of
social revolution from the paths on which it may take place on give
occasions, namely, by distinguishing between a violent and a peacef

*Presented at the Conference of the International Society for the History of Ideas
"Violence in the History of Ideas," held at the Temple University Sugar Loaf Conf
ence House, June 16, 1972. The Temple University Press will publish the papers i
forthcoming volume.

263

This content downloaded from

189.62.149.116 on Tue, 06 Dec 2022 09:39:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 264 ADAM SCHAFF

revolution, and not identifyi

understanding of this issue
has important practical and
attract attention, especially
and divergences of opinion in
cerning the proper course to b

II

Let us begin with certain indispensable semantic comments.

In the light of Marxist theory, the term "social revolution" may
be interpreted in a broader and a narrower sense. In the former case,
it means a change in the social formation, i.e., in Marxist terminol-
ogy, a qualitative change in the social base and in the social super-
structure. Distinct from such a qualitative change in the economic,
social, and political system which is termed "social revolution," are
quantitative changes within a given formation, changes which are
termed "social reforms." This shows that the issue of revolution oc-
curs in its broader sense as the problem of a change in the substa
of a given social formation, regardless of the form in which suc
change takes place. Theoretically, both a peaceful and a violen
change is possible: the important point is that a qualitative ch
does take place at a certain moment (the notorious Hegelian "qua
tative jump").
Now the concept of revolution in the narrower sense of the term
connected with the way in which that "jump" takes place: in this s
"revolution" means a violent change, brought about with the use
physical violence, as distinct from "evolution," which in this sen
means a peaceful development through a gradual accumulation
quantitative changes. It is to be emphasized that the evolutionary
ture of development, if interpreted in this way, i.e., as peac
changes, is not in contradiction with the postulate of class strug
but, on the contrary, in the Marxist interpretation of the proble
does assume the form of class struggle. Further, it is not at varia
with the postulate of a social revolution in the broader sense of
term, but is merely a special case of bringing such a revolution
effect.
Thus, the concepts of "revolution" in the broader and in the nar-
rower sense are associated with one another, but are in no way identi-
cal. Hence, taking one for the other, and, afortiori, identifying them,
must result in grave theoretical difficulties.
But, following these introductory remarks, let us see how the issue
was interpreted by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, since their opinions form

This content downloaded from

189.62.149.116 on Tue, 06 Dec 2022 09:39:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MARX ON REVOLUTION AND VIOLENCE 265

what in the Continental legal language is termed "a

tation."
Consider the fundamental ideas of Marxian philosophy of history,
ideas which are of essential importance for Marx's model of the social-
ist revolution. Every socio-economic formation is marked by its spe-
cific mode of production. The mode of production means the produc-
tive forces existing in a given period (i.e., technology + appropriate
human knowledge + raw materials) and the relations of production
between people, relations reflected mainly in the property laws domi-
nant in that period. If the relations of production comply, within a
given mode of production, with existing productive forces, if they are
in agreement with them, then a given social formation is developing
normally, and the relations of production act as stimuli to a further
development of the productive forces. But the latter tend to develop
more quickly than the relations of production do. The conservative
nature of the relations of production is due above all to the fact that
they are linked with the interests of specified social groups, which, with
respect to their relationship to the productive forces (mainly property
relations) are termed classes. When the relations of production no
longer fit the needs of the productive forces, the former begin to act as
a brake on the latter. This results in a disfunctioning of a given socio-
economic formation, a disfunctioning manifested in the attitudes of
the social classes. Some of these are interested in preserving the exist-
ing state of things, which guarantees them various privileges, whereas
others are interested in changing that state of things and thereby re-
moving the brakes on the further development of the productive
forces. A period of revolution begins, which ends either in the victory
of a new socio-economic formation, or in the fall of a given civiliza-
tion, which did occur in history more than once. According to Marx,
the class struggle need not end in the victory of a new formation (the
possibility of the annihilation of a civilization was taken into account
by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto), nor need it always
culminate in a violent revolution that resorts to the use of arms, even
though the change from one formation to another always is a sui
generis revolution as far as the relations of production characteristic
of the old formation are concerned.
Let us examine the last-named issue in greater detail; that issue,
trivial as it is in view of the fact that Marx always used to emphasize
the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism, is nevertheless
extremely important for the proper understanding of what will be said
later.
Marx and Engels, especially in their youth, were certainly in-
fluenced by Jacobin elements of the French Revolution and the revo-

This content downloaded from

189.62.149.116 on Tue, 06 Dec 2022 09:39:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 266 ADAM SCHAFF

lutionary struggles in the first

on the barricades gun-in-hand
the then prevailing ideas, and
way of making revolutions. Ma
approved of the possibility of a
nating point of class-struggle
works, the weapon of criticism
and physical force must be res
to socialism by a violent revolu
munist Manifesto. Marx was n
struggle for power, and did not
and he did not preach it to be th
On the contrary, especially in
that a peaceful transition to s
conditions.
Marx and Engels saw the possibility of a peaceful transition to so-
cialism in the United States, where the strong military and bureau-
cratic machinery of the state was still nonexistent at that time.
Marx's letter to Kugelmann (April 12, 1871) shows that the smashing
of that machinery was a prerequisite of a people's revolution on the
Continent of Europe.
In his Preface to the English-language version of Capital Engels
wrote in 1886 that Marx was "... led to the conclusion that, at least in
Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable social revo-
lution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means. He cer-
tainly never forgot to add that he hardly expected the English ruling
classes to submit, without a 'pro-slavery' rebellion, to this peaceful and
legal revolution."
On July 3, 1871, that is, after the Paris Commune, Marx said, in
his interview to The World, that the problem of revolution had its spe-
cific aspects in every part of the world, that the workers were taking
these into account and approaching to its solution in their own way.
For instance, in England the working class could choose the path along
which it would add to its political power. There a rebellion would be a
stupidity, since the goal could be attained more quickly and more
surely by peaceful agitation.
He spoke in the same spirit at the London Congress of the Inter-
national on September 21, 1871, when he said that the workers had to
declare to the governments that they knew the governments were an
armed force directed against the proletariat, and that they would rise
against the governments peacefully, whenever possible, or arms-in-
hand, should that become necessary.
His formulation was stronger in the speech delivered after the

This content downloaded from

189.62.149.116 on Tue, 06 Dec 2022 09:39:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MARX ON REVOLUTION AND VIOLENCE 267

Hague Congress of the International, on September 1

the workers must take over the political power in orde
organization of labor; they must destroy the old political
strives to preserve the old institutions, if they are not t
the heavenly kingdom on the Earth, as it occurred to
who neglected to do the same. But it cannot be claimed th
that goal are the same everywhere. It is necessary to
sideration the institutions, manners, and traditions in the various
countries. It cannot be denied that there are countries, such as Amer-
ica, England, and perhaps the Netherlands, in which the workers can
attain their goals peacefully.
In 1891, in his criticism of the Erfurt program, Engels admitted
the possibility of a peaceful development of a socialist revolution in
such countries with an advanced parliamentary system as England,
America, and France. He claimed that it could be imagined that an
old society could turn into a new one in those countries in which popu-
lar representation has all the power in its hands, where everything can
be achieved constitutionally if one is supported by the majority of the
nation; this applied to such democratic republics as France and
America, and to such monarchies as England.
Lenin later said (in The State and Revolution) that the conditions
which had made Marx treat England, the United States, and the Neth-
erlands as exceptions had ceased to exist, but he did not exclude the
possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism in the new epoch, and
he even strove to put that idea into effect at one stage of the Russian
revolution.
Lenin in the same work stated that a violent revolution was a neces-
sity, since the exceptional conditions in England and in the United
States, referred to by Marx, had ceased to exist, but nevertheless in
his polemics with Otto Bauer he admitted a possibility of a peaceful
transition to socialism in a capitalist country surrounded by socialist
countries. In 1917 Lenin often reverted to the issue of a peaceful tran-
sition to socialism in Russia and thought that such a course of events
would be exceptionally advantageous. He elaborated on that idea of
his in "April Guidelines" and in his paper "On Slogans." He next
came back to that idea in connection with Kornilov's putsch and the
emerging possibility of the Bolsheviks' cooperation with the
Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries. His idea was most
clearly formulated in his paper "The Tasks of the Revoluti
tober 1917), where he wrote that Russian democracy, the So
parties of the Socialist Revolutionaries, and the Menshev
facing an opportunity, extremely rare in history, to ensure
development of the revolution. Should the Soviets take over

This content downloaded from

189.62.149.116 on Tue, 06 Dec 2022 09:39:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 268 ADAM SCHAFF

power, they could at that mome

ensure a peaceful development
the delegates by the people, and
the Soviets. That would also en
various parties in practice and
the power from one party to oth

III

Without engaging in political analyses of the reasons for which

many Communist parties in advanced countries have included the
postulate of a peaceful revolution in their programs I will raise the
issue of the relation between that postulate and the reformist program.
In other words, do those Communist parties which postulate a peaceful
transition to socialism thereby "betray" the principle of social revo-
lution and thus become reformist?
Let it be said at the outset that this objection would be entirely
groundless and based only on verbal speculation.
The program of a peaceful transition to socialism is based on the
idea of appropriate changes, i.e., social reforms. Reformism is a name
of social movement which bases its program on reforms, and hence
the program of a peaceful transition to socialism means reformism. Is
this true? That depends on how we interpret the term "reformism."
If we interpret it in the broad sense suggested above, then this is true.
But if we interpret it as, so to say, a technical term, as it is used in
labor movements, this is not true, just because that latter meaning
does not cover the program in question.
In Marxist terminology and in the history of labor movements the
term "reformism" does not mean just a movement whose program of
action is based on the idea of social reforms; it means a movement
whose program of action is based exclusively on the idea of reforms,
and thus bars the possibility and admissibility of a social revolution.
Historically, reformism, as it was preached, for instance, by Edw.
Bernstein, disclaimed revolution in favor of gradual reforms within
the capitalist system, and stated consistently that the final goal means
nothing, whereas the movement means everything. Now, if today it is
said in Marxist theory that it is possible to pass peacefully to socialism
provided that appropriate conditions exist, this disclaims neither a
violent revolution (on the contrary, the necessity of such a revolu-
tion is stressed if those conditions are not satisfied) nor the impor-
tance of the ultimate goal, i.e., Communism (on the contrary, accord-
ing to the idea now under consideration, that goal determines all
actions). Hence, by definition we do not have to do with a reformist
policy.

This content downloaded from

189.62.149.116 on Tue, 06 Dec 2022 09:39:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MARX ON REVOLUTION AND VIOLENCE 269

There is also another point, no less important than

Classical reformism had been advocated before the socialist revolu-
tion emerged victorious in any country, which added significan
the claim that reforms are all-important. In the case under cons
tion now the situation is diametrically different. Reference is
here to the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism not
after the victory of socialism in many countries, when the wor
been divided into two great blocks that differ from one anoth
their respective socio-economic systems, but also as a result of
victory. It is now beyond all doubt that many social and econom
forms in capitalist countries owe not only their pace, but also
very existence to the pressure of the example provided by soci
countries and to the rivalry between the two systems. There is
doubt that this will continue and that the bourgeoisie in adv
capitalist countries, when facing serious social and economic di
mas, will in its decisions and choices be guided also by the consi
tions of the rivalry between the two systems and its fear of the po
reactions of the masses in the respective countries, reactions s
lated by the example of the other system. Thus there is an ess
difference between the policy of reforms before the socialist re
tion, reforms which are offered instead of revolution, and the
of reforms after the victory of the socialist revolution in c
countries, a policy that is affected by that revolution and tends
its tasks into effect by resorting to other methods of action, adjust
existing conditions.
Finally, the program of a peaceful transition to socialism doe
exclude class struggle: on the contrary, it does assume it, even th
it rejects some of its forms (armed conflict) under specified situ
It would be naive to think that radical changes in social life woul
place, e.g., in the United States, without resistance, protests, and
determined struggle on the part of the reactionary groups of the bo
geoisie. But it would equally be naive to suppose (be it alone in th
of the evolution of capitalism) that the bourgeoisie in an adv
capitalist country would be unable to understand its own interest
to act accordingly in order to survive. Many examples, espe
after the October Revolution, show that this is otherwise. Hence
may reasonably be assumed that both in the United States a
other countries a conflict would develop also within the proper
classes, the stake being the conception of social development in
cordance with the interests of the various groups of the bourge
Now the conscious part of the working class must know how to
itself of such contradictions between the various classes of a g
society, and also within the propertied classes, in order to becom

This content downloaded from

189.62.149.116 on Tue, 06 Dec 2022 09:39:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
270 ADAM SCHAFF

force which stimulates and acce

structure in accordance with t
the base in a given society. Th
class struggle and fills it with a
masses to promote the requirem
nomic democratization of public
but also no less revolutionary
armed uprising.

Polish Academy of Sciences.

This content downloaded from

189.62.149.116 on Tue, 06 Dec 2022 09:39:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms