Eric: The Violence Perspective of the Non-Violence Faction

A very old viewpoint states that those who come to power through violent revolution, unrestrained, are prone to dictatorship. Is there any basis for this viewpoint? Yes, but it contains errors on both logical and practical levels, and it is self-contradictory regarding the issue of China.

Major democratic nations worldwide were established through violent means to break the old and establish the new. If this viewpoint were absolutely correct, why did their violence not lead to dictatorship?

If it is argued that the victor through violence is unrestrained, then by the same logic, the victor through non-violence is also unrestrained. The key to the success of non-violent movements lies in the defection of the military and police. In other words, by the time of their success, they have already gained control of violence. When a highly organized opposition faction overthrows the old regime through street protests or other non-violent means (again, pure non-violence hardly exists) and emerges victorious, it is, in fact, unrestrained and capable of dictatorship. The most obvious and extreme example is Hitler, who, after his failed Beer Hall Putsch, abandoned armed struggle, opted for the non-violent path of elections, and ultimately became the most dictatorial dictator.

Therefore, whether through violence or non-violence, any victor has the potential to be unrestrained, to become a dictator, or not to become a dictator. This is what truly happens in the real world, has been demonstrated many times in past history, and it teaches us about the complexity of real-world political struggles—anything is possible, influenced by multiple factors, rather than a single factor like violence leading to an inevitable law.

Upon closer examination, the notion of the victor being unrestrained seems more like a false premise, as truly unrestrained situations appear to be nonexistent in reality.

It is said that the United States was constrained by the mutual checks among the colonies and the French forces. What about Britain? After beheading the English king, was the victor unrestrained? You could say unrestrained, or you could say restrained—by the mutual checks among the aristocracy.

After the Syrian revolution, can we definitively say whether al-Julani is a dictator? The entire country implemented many transitional justice measures, which doesn't seem like complete dictatorship. If you claim al-Julani is unrestrained, don't forget that the opposition forces are a coalition of many different factions, which inherently provides checks and balances. Al-Julani cannot arbitrarily act like a dictator without considering the opinions of various factions.

Within violent revolutions themselves, there are also various constraints. If the revolution receives external funding or has other allies, it will be subject to external constraints. Beyond that, the principles and goals it initially declared also serve as soft constraints, which cannot be easily discarded after victory. Even the CCP, a party as shameless as it is, has to uphold some of its original promises and retain the eight allied parties from that era.

Specifically concerning China, if you simultaneously argue that the possibility of violent revolution is too low, that armed organizations are not yet formed and are very weak, and then extensively discuss how they would be unrestrained and lead to dictatorship if they were to win, this is inherently self-contradictory. Precisely because the CCP regime is powerful, armed resistance is difficult to completely eradicate the opponent and establish a single dominant force as in the past. Therefore, the path of armed revolution in China, as I have always said, will be a path of dialogue and negotiation through pressure, transitioning from armed struggle to parliamentary struggle, ultimately facilitating a peaceful regime transformation in China. In this process, armed violence is merely a stepping stone, constrained by various parties, especially the violence of the old regime. How can it become a single dominant force?

The political, historical, and cultural traditions of China have immense inertia. Attempting to overthrow the regime and establish democracy through purely non-violent means is likely to fail 100%, regardless of how many theories are presented, how politically correct or civilized it may seem. Using your own logic—violence needs checks and balances, otherwise it leads to dictatorship—then the violence of the old regime also needs new violence to counterbalance it, otherwise it will continue to be dictatorial.

To open the door to negotiation with armed struggle, to break the monopoly of violence by the authorities through equal strength or destructive capabilities that the opponent must consider, and to establish checks and balances, only then is there a possibility for a new situation to emerge.