Tag: communism

Guy Fawkes, Revolution and the False Promise of Political Violence

By Huw Edwards for Huwspace.com

The revolutionary argument is as old as politics itself. When institutions cease to serve the people, when governments become unresponsive, and when citizens lose faith that change can occur through democratic means, some begin to argue that violence becomes not merely justified but necessary.

It is a powerful idea. It is also one that deserves far greater scrutiny than it often receives.

Throughout history, revolutionaries have claimed that peaceful reform eventually reaches its limits. If the courts are corrupt, the legislature captured, and the political system incapable of meaningful change, then force becomes the only remaining instrument of political action.

Yet an uncomfortable question remains.

Even if institutions fail, why should anyone assume violence will make matters better?

In modern America, what exactly has failed so completely that civil conflict or revolution is seen by some as a rational answer? And what evidence exists that a bloody struggle would produce freedom rather than simply a different form of oppression?

These are not questions of left or right. They are questions of history, morality and common sense.

The Revolutionary Argument

The intellectual case for revolutionary violence is perhaps most closely associated with Frantz Fanon, whose writings on anti-colonial struggle argued that violence could become necessary when oppressed people were denied any meaningful path towards political self-determination. For Fanon, violence was not merely destructive. It could become a means through which the powerless reclaimed agency, dignity and freedom. [researchgate.net], [digitalcom…ns.usu.edu]

The logic is straightforward:

  • Institutions become irredeemably corrupt.
  • Peaceful reform becomes impossible.
  • Resistance becomes a moral obligation.
  • Violence becomes the mechanism through which freedom is achieved.

History contains examples where such arguments carried genuine force. Colonial subjects denied rights, representation and self-government often found themselves confronting systems designed to prevent peaceful change.

Yet accepting that violence may sometimes become understandable is not the same as concluding it is wise.

Hannah Arendt’s Warning

Political philosopher Hannah Arendt offered one of the most important critiques of revolutionary violence.

Arendt argued that violence and power are not the same thing. Violence can destroy institutions, but it cannot by itself create legitimate political authority. Freedom requires trust, participation, civic engagement and durable institutions. Guns alone cannot provide those things. [digitalcom…ns.usu.edu], [researchgate.net]

Her warning was simple but profound.

Revolutions are often successful at tearing down existing structures. They are far less reliable at constructing better ones.

The French Revolution toppled a monarchy only to descend into terror and eventually dictatorship.

The Russian Revolution overthrew Tsarist rule yet produced one of the most authoritarian systems of the twentieth century.

Again and again, history demonstrates that removing an unjust order does not automatically create a just one.

The assumption that freedom naturally follows violence is one of the most dangerous misconceptions in political thought.

America’s Contradiction

Modern America occupies a peculiar place within this debate.

Many political voices appeal to the language of revolution, resistance and even civil conflict. References to 1776 appear regularly in political discourse. The image of the armed citizen standing against tyranny remains deeply embedded in parts of American culture.

But unlike many societies that experienced genuine revolutionary conditions, America still possesses functioning democratic mechanisms.

Citizens vote.

Governments change peacefully.

Political parties compete for power.

Courts continue to rule against governments.

Journalists openly criticise political leaders.

Citizens organise, campaign, protest and publish freely.

None of this means America does not face serious challenges.

Political polarisation has deepened. Trust in institutions has declined. Economic inequality remains severe. Housing costs, healthcare costs and social division continue to affect millions of lives.

These are serious problems.

But serious problems are not the same as complete institutional collapse.

One can argue passionately for reform. It is considerably harder to argue that all peaceful means of reform have been exhausted.

What Exactly Is Failing?

This is perhaps the question most absent from modern revolutionary rhetoric.

What precisely has failed so completely that violence represents a preferable alternative?

If elections still occur, why abandon elections?

If courts still function, why abandon courts?

If free speech exists, why abandon persuasion?

If activism remains legal, why abandon organisation?

Too often, calls for revolution seem rooted less in objective institutional failure and more in political frustration.

An increasing number of people appear willing to regard democratic institutions as legitimate only when those institutions produce outcomes they personally favour.

That is not necessarily opposition to tyranny.

It may simply be disappointment with democracy itself.

Democracy is frustrating by design. It guarantees disagreement, compromise and political defeat as much as it guarantees victory. It promises a process, not a predetermined outcome.

Remember, Remember the Fifth of November

It is fitting that these questions are being asked on Guy Fawkes Night.

Remember, remember, the fifth of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

The rhyme recalls the failed Guy Fawkes plot to destroy Parliament in 1605.

Today, some view Guy Fawkes as a symbol of resistance against a broken system. Yet the same question remains as relevant now as it was then: does violence create freedom, or merely more violence?

Had the Gunpowder Plot succeeded, would England have become freer, or would it simply have descended into retaliation, repression and further bloodshed?

That is the challenge modern advocates of revolution must answer. Destroying a political system is far easier than creating a better one. History is filled with movements that successfully overthrew institutions only to replace them with fresh forms of tyranny.

The Fifth of November reminds us not only to remember the plot itself, but to think carefully about what comes after the explosion.

The Historical Record of Political Violence

Supporters of revolutionary violence often emphasise successful struggles for independence and liberation.

Far less attention is given to the countless movements that produced chaos, instability and suffering.

Civil wars are among the most destructive experiences a society can endure.

Even after the fighting ends, the consequences frequently remain for generations.

Communities fracture.

Infrastructure is destroyed.

Political extremism becomes normalised.

Retaliation follows retaliation.

Research into revolutions suggests that violent revolutions can sometimes prove more resistant to counter-revolutionary threats because they create strong security structures capable of defending the new order. [cambridge.org], [cambridge.org]

Yet that observation raises another dilemma.

A state capable of enforcing stability through force is not necessarily a freer state.

Many revolutionary governments become highly effective at suppressing dissent once they achieve power.

The revolution survives.

Liberty does not.

The Liberal Dilemma

Liberals are often criticised for placing too much faith in institutions.

They are accused of excessive patience, endless compromise and a reluctance to confront injustice.

Sometimes those criticisms contain an element of truth.

Yet liberal democracy rests upon a recognition that violence develops its own momentum.

Once violence becomes an accepted political tool, it rarely remains confined to a single purpose.

It changes societies.

It changes movements.

It changes leaders.

Eventually, it changes the people who employ it.

The danger is not merely that violence might fail.

The greater danger may be that it succeeds.

A successful armed movement acquires armed leaders, armed structures and armed habits. Political disagreements that were once settled through debate increasingly become questions of force.

History suggests those habits often outlive the revolution itself.

Wisdom or Weakness?

Some will always argue that refusing violence is an act of weakness.

That real change requires force.

That power never concedes anything voluntarily.

Perhaps there are moments in history where such arguments carry weight.

But there is another perspective.

Perhaps refusing violence reflects an understanding of human nature itself.

Perhaps wisdom lies in recognising that the destruction of institutions is easier than their construction.

Perhaps wisdom lies in understanding that violence often unleashes forces far beyond the control of those who initiate it.

And perhaps wisdom lies in preserving democratic processes precisely because they provide a way of resolving disagreement without killing one another.

Conclusion

On this Fifth of November, as bonfires burn and fireworks illuminate the night sky, it is worth remembering that political violence has always carried an allure far greater than its actual record of success.

The revolutionary argument deserves to be taken seriously. History contains moments when oppression became so severe that resistance appeared unavoidable.

But modern America is not colonial Algeria. It is not Tsarist Russia. It is not a military dictatorship that has extinguished every avenue for peaceful reform.

Before anyone speaks casually about revolution, two questions deserve answers.

What exactly has failed?

And why should anyone believe that bullets will produce a better future than ballots?

The burden of proof lies with those advocating force, not with those exercising restraint.

History suggests that removing what we hate is often much easier than building what we hope for. The wisdom of democracy may not be that it prevents conflict, but that it offers a way of navigating conflict without setting society on fire.

References

As America wrestles with growing political polarisation and increasingly revolutionary rhetoric, the central question is not whether institutions are imperfect, but whether violence has ever proved a reliable route to freedom. On Guy Fawkes Night, Huw Edwards examines the historical case for revolution and the stronger case for restraint.

Van William – Revolution (Music Video) ft. First Aid Kit

Democratic Socialism Is Not Marxism: Why America Should Not Fear It

By Huw Edwards

The words we fear are often the words we least understand. Few political labels in America generate more misunderstanding, suspicion, and anxiety than “democratic socialism”. Yet before dismissing it as Marxism, anti-American, anti-Christian, or even a sign of the end times, it is worth asking a simple question: what actually is democratic socialism?

America’s Political Ghost Story

For generations, many Americans have been taught to view socialism as a threat to freedom, faith, and prosperity. The term became synonymous with Soviet authoritarianism, Cold War rivalries, and communist dictatorships. Yet history has a habit of simplifying complex ideas into convenient political slogans.

The result is that millions of Americans hear the word socialism and imagine the former Soviet Union, while many modern democratic socialists are talking about something entirely different: affordable healthcare, stronger worker protections, fair taxation, and opportunities for ordinary citizens to thrive.

The first challenge, therefore, is separating democratic socialism from Marxism.

Democratic Socialism and Marxism Are Not the Same Thing

One of the most persistent myths in American politics is that democratic socialism is simply Marxism with a different label.

It is not.

While both ideologies share concerns about inequality and economic power, their methods, goals, and political structures are fundamentally different. The source document highlights several key distinctions. Democratic socialism embraces multi-party democracy, constitutional rights, free elections, free speech, and gradual reform through democratic processes. Marxism traditionally advocates revolutionary transformation and has historically been associated with one-party systems and state ownership of the economy.

In practical terms, democratic socialists want to change society through ballots.

Marxists traditionally wanted to change society through revolution.

That difference matters.

A philosophy that seeks reform through democratic institutions is fundamentally different from one that seeks to replace those institutions altogether.

What Modern American Democratic Socialists Actually Support

Much of the public debate would look very different if Americans focused on the policies rather than the labels.

Modern democratic socialists in the United States typically advocate for:

  • Universal healthcare.
  • Affordable or tuition-free higher education.
  • Stronger labour rights and trade unions.
  • Paid family leave.
  • Higher minimum wages.
  • Investment in clean energy and environmental protection.

Americans may support or oppose these ideas for a variety of legitimate reasons, but none of these proposals involve abolishing democracy, confiscating all private property, or outlawing private business.

They are policy debates taking place within America’s constitutional framework.

That is not Marxism.

That is democracy.

The Cold War Legacy Still Shapes American Thinking

The fear of socialism did not emerge naturally.

It was shaped by real historical events.

The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the rise of the Soviet Union, and decades of geopolitical tension encouraged successive generations to treat socialism and communism as interchangeable concepts. During the McCarthy era, socialism came to be viewed not merely as a political ideology but as something inherently anti-American, anti-religious, and even treasonous.

Many Americans inherited these assumptions without ever examining whether they still accurately describe modern democratic socialist movements.

The world has changed, but some political fears remain frozen in time.

Christianity and Democratic Socialism

Perhaps no accusation is more emotionally powerful in parts of America than the claim that socialism is “the work of the devil”.

Such language generates fear, but it rarely generates understanding.

Supporters of democratic socialism often argue that their goals are deeply aligned with moral and religious principles. The source document notes that many Christian traditions emphasise caring for the poor, healing the sick, protecting workers, and supporting the vulnerable.

Reasonable Christians can disagree about the role government should play in achieving those goals.

However, it is difficult to argue that feeding hungry children, treating sick people, reducing poverty, or improving access to education are inherently evil objectives.

The debate should be about methods, costs, effectiveness, and outcomes, not about whether compassion itself is somehow a threat.

Indeed, many of the social programmes Americans already support today, including Social Security and Medicare, were once condemned by critics as dangerous forms of socialism.

History offers a useful reminder that today’s radical idea often becomes tomorrow’s accepted institution.

America Already Uses “Socialist” Ideas

An uncomfortable truth for both supporters and critics is that America has never been a purely free-market society.

The United States already embraces collective solutions in many areas of public life:

  • Public schools.
  • Libraries.
  • Fire departments.
  • Police services.
  • Public infrastructure.
  • Social Security.
  • Medicare.

Most Americans view these services as ordinary parts of modern society rather than dangerous steps toward dictatorship.

Democratic socialists simply argue that similar principles could be applied more broadly to healthcare, education, housing, or environmental protection.

Whether Americans agree with that proposal is another question entirely.

But it is a debate about policy design, not the apocalypse.

Could This Be the Beginning of a Better America?

The United States faces significant challenges.

Economic inequality continues to grow. Millions struggle with healthcare costs. Housing has become increasingly unaffordable in many communities. Trust in political institutions has declined, while social division has intensified.

Supporters of democratic socialism argue that stronger public services and social protections could help address these challenges while preserving democracy and maintaining a market economy. They point to countries such as Denmark, Norway, and Finland, where robust social safety nets coexist with prosperity, innovation, and economic freedom.

These countries are not communist.

They are democratic.

They are capitalist.

Yet they also believe that government has a responsibility to ensure a baseline level of dignity, opportunity, and security for all citizens.

Fear or Possibility?

Every generation faces a choice.

It can view political change through the lens of fear, assuming that every new idea represents the collapse of the old order.

Or it can examine those ideas honestly, testing them against evidence, experience, and democratic debate.

Democratic socialism may not be the answer to every challenge facing America.

Its supporters may overestimate its benefits.

Its critics may underestimate them.

But there is little evidence that modern American democratic socialism resembles the Marxist revolutionary movements that many opponents imagine.

Nor is there evidence that expanding healthcare, improving education, supporting workers, or reducing poverty will somehow usher in the end of civilisation.

Perhaps the more important question is this:

What if the real danger is not that America tries to build a fairer society, but that it becomes too afraid to try?

Reflection

America has always been at its best when it has balanced liberty with responsibility and individual freedom with collective purpose. The debate over democratic socialism should not be reduced to Cold War slogans or religious fear. Instead, it should centre on a timeless question:

How do we build a nation where prosperity, justice, and opportunity are available to all rather than reserved for the fortunate few?

Whatever answer Americans ultimately choose, it should emerge from informed discussion, democratic participation, and a shared commitment to the common good, not from fear of labels.

Donald Trump built much of his political appeal by identifying grievances, frustrations and divisions that many Americans felt had been ignored. The challenge is that highlighting problems is easier than solving them. Social democratic principles, at their best, attempt to move beyond anger and towards practical solutions: healthcare that prevents illness becoming bankruptcy, education that expands opportunity, infrastructure that creates jobs, and democratic institutions that bring people together rather than drive them apart.

Fear can win elections. Solutions build societies. The real test of any political movement is not how effectively it identifies enemies, but how successfully it improves people’s lives. If politics becomes a permanent search for someone to blame, division deepens. If politics becomes a collective effort to solve shared problems, communities become stronger, more resilient and more hopeful.

History suggests that societies thrive not when they are united by fear of one another, but when they are united by a shared belief that tomorrow can be better than today.

First Aid Kit – America (Cover)