Dispelling the Myths of Socialism Part I:
Liberals never cease in presenting, without a shred of evidence, that their ideology is somehow non-violent while socialism and communism are inherently violent. I wanted to take a moment to dispel this fallacy once and for all on both fronts.
First of all, if we’re going to accept that liberalism is non-violent, then we would have to ignore the bloody history of the transition from feudalism to liberal, democratic capitalism. The Glorious Revolution, the French Revolution, the American Revolution: all of these were liberal revolutions against monarchies (although the French Revolution, granted, started out as a proletarian/capitalist alliance, it ended up as a purely capitalist overthrow of the monarchy). Given this bloody history, how can liberals turn their noses up at us socialists as subhuman and accuse us of the very same evils they themselves engaged in?
Secondly, and more importantly, who ever said that socialists ever wanted violence? This may come as a shock to the know-nothing liberals who gallivant around believing they know Marx just because they’ve skimmed the Communist Manifesto, but Marx never actually said that the socialist revolution had to be violent. In fact quite the contrary. In a speech Marx delivered in Amsterdam on September 8th, 1872 entitled “On the Possibility of Non-Violent Revolution” (which, given the title you should know where I’m going with this), he said:
“But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same. You know that the institutions, morals, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries… where workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.”
Liberals everywhere deserve to have this thrown right back in their face not necessarily because of their arrogance, but because this argument is indicative of a political system which bears no resemblance to the philosophical tradition on which it claims to be based. In fact, I would go so far as to state that it is indicative of the absolute poverty of thought of most people who today call themselves liberals.