Revolution has to be rethought. Look, even when revolutions have been successful, they have caused so much destruction and hatred that there is always some kind of horrible backlash. It’s inherent in the method. If you choose violence, then you create enemies who will resist you forever. And ruthless men become your revolutionary leaders, so when the war is over they’re in power, and likely to be as bad as what they replaced.

Socialist society can only come about by a revolution; if the masses, through general strikes and mass agitation, seize the means of production from their present owners. ‘But doesn’t that involve violence? Surely you’re not prepared to use violence to achieve your political ends?’ This cry is always flung in the face of revolutionaries, usually by people who are only too prepared to accept without complaint the recurring and brutalising violence of the class society in which we live. It comes from people who ignored or supported the orgy of destruction which the government of America launched for more than a full decade against the people of Vietnam; from people who offer sympathy and succour to the regime of the Shah of Persia, which is founded on the torture of dissenters; of from people who hardly raise a word of protest about the deep violence of tyrannical governments all over the world – from Thailand, to South Africa to South Korea; or from people who never turn a hair at the institutionalised violence of everyday life – of people being maimed and battered in factories and building sites through negligence and greed of employers; of old people tormented by hunger and cold.

Therefore, now that we have won power, our duty is to consolidate the dictatorship of the pro­letariat with all the available forces, to perfect the instruments of revolutionary violence, to improve vigilance, and to always be prepared to rebuff enemy attempts to sow trouble and start a coun­ter-offensive. Only in this way can we ensure the further peaceful development of the revolution.

The Revolutionary War. To say that we are causing a revolution in order to obtain war, is to say something which we cannot maintain. We do have not the strength. We find ourselves face to face with formidable coalitions, but the fasci of action have this object, to create that state of mind which will impose war upon the country.

With the conception that the Revolution was only a means of securing political power, it was inevitable that all revolutionary values should be subordinated to the needs of the Socialist State; indeed, exploited to further the security of the newly acquired governmental power.

Nowhere have the riots won any concrete improvement such as have the organized protest demonstrations. When one tries to pin down advocates of violence as to what acts would be effective, the answers are blatantly illogical. Sometimes they talk of overthrowing racist state and local governments and they talk about guerrilla warfare. They fail to see that no internal revolution has ever succeeded in overthrowing a government by violence unless the government had already lost the allegiance and effective control of its armed forces. Anyone in his right mind knows that this will not happen in the United States. Furthermore, few, if any, violent revolutions have been successful unless the violent minority had the sympathy and support of the non-resisting majority.

Revolutionary violence is the violence of the masses. The national democratic revolution in Laos was a cause espoused by all patriots and forward-looking people in the country. Thus, the revolutionary violence in Laos was necessarily that of the overwhelming majority of the population, first and foremost that of the working people, who were cruelly exploited. The masses have many ways and means to demonstrate their will and determination to struggle. Generalising the practical experience of the revolutionary struggle, one can say that the violence of the masses takes two forms, those of political and armed struggle, used together and separately. It is thus necessary to set up the means of violence to bring about a revolution, i.e., the political forces of the masses and the armed forces of the people.

Using various revolutionary methods, aware of the reactionary and diehard character of our adversaries, and taking into account the expe­rience of participating in two coalitions, the Party held that the revolutionary violence of the masses was and always had been the basic means of attaining final victory, that the revolutionary strategy must always remain an offensive stra­tegy. This is why the Party considered it its basic task to strengthen and expand the revolutionary forces all round, while at the same time conti­nuing the struggle on the political, legal and diplomatic fronts.

The reactionaries attempt to quell the revolution by means of massacres. They feel that the greater the number of people killed, the smaller will be the revolution. However, it has turned out to be otherwise. Actually, the more people the reactionaries kill, the greater is the revolutionary strength and the larger the number of reactionaries who will perish. This is an irresistible principle. Hitler and Mussolini of foreign countries, the fascism of Japan and the Manchurian government and Pei-yang warlords of China have all proved this point. Though hundreds of thousands and millions of China's revolutionary people have been slaughtered, hundreds of thousands and millions more will rise and continue the revolution, and no one can subjugate them.

A coordinated armed and political struggle involving the use of two forces of revolutionary violence of the masses was the principal method used during the national democratic revolution in our country. But the revolution, being a long and complex struggle, is inevitably forced to overcome the various obstacles set up by the ruling circles to prevent it reaching its ultimate goal. These circles resort to repression, fraud, corruption and other means in their fight against the revolution. These obstacles cannot be overcome immediately. The revolution is there­fore compelled to change its methods.

There are those who are dissatisfied with me. To such I would say: You desire peace; and you blame me that we do not have it. But how can we attain it? There are but three conceivable ways. First, to suppress the rebellion by force of arms. This, I am trying to do. Are you for it? If you are, so far we are agreed. If you are not for it, a second way is, to give up the Union. I am against this. Are you for it? If you are, you should say so plainly. If you are not for force, nor yet for dissolution, there only remains some imaginable compromise. I do not believe any compromise, embracing the maintenance of the Union, is now possible. All I learn, leads to a directly opposite belief. The strength of the rebellion, is its military — its army. That army dominates all the country, and all the people, within its range. Any offer of terms made by any man or men within that range, in opposition to that army, is simply nothing for the present; because such man or men, have no power whatever to enforce their side of a compromise, if one were made with them.

With regard to violence we start from the principle established by Chairman Mao Tsetung: violence, that is the need for revolutionary violence, is a universal law with no exception. Revolutionary violence is what allows us to resolve fundamental contradictions by means of an army, through people's war.

Power is the sine qua non strategic objective of the revolutionary forces, and everything must be subordinated to this basic endeavor. But the taking of power, in this world polarized by two forces of extreme disparity and absolutely incompatible in interests, cannot be limited to the boundaries of a single geographic or social unit. The seizure of power is a worldwide objective of the revolutionary forces. To conquer the future is the strategic element of revolution; freezing the present is the counterstrategy motivating the forces of world reaction today, for they are on the defensive.

I think one has to be rather cautious about accepting as absolute the alternatives peaceful stagnation and violent revolution. There’s also a possibility of spontaneous revolution that uses both violence and nonviolent tactics, that minimizes the use of terror except as necessary in defense.