Yes, revolutions do tend to be bloody. That doesn’t mean that I have to choose between endorsing every act of violence or condemning every act of violence.
The reality is, in any conflict, innocent people usually end up getting hurt. It’s unfortunate, but if that conflict means preventing or ending other conflicts, then it’s potentially justifiable in my eyes.
If the government is, for example, drafting people en masse and forcing them to kill and die for no good reason, then overthrowing that government is justifiable, because innocent people were getting hurt anyway.
THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
-Mark Twain
For all intents and purposes, I’m opposed to death penalty. I am, in practice, less prone to violence than the vast majority of people. But I’m also honest and transparent about my beliefs.
The working class is so far from power that it’s virtually impossible to achieve victory while pulling punches. Either we roll over and accept things, or we go all out and use whatever means and tactics are most useful to secure power. If you go halfway and present an actual threat to power (even through nonviolence) they will use any means available to neutralize that threat. Failure means death, and it could be generations, centuries even, until there’s another opportunity for change. If you’re not prepared to use every method at your disposal to win, then you simply shouldn’t pick up the fight in the first place.
Of course, nonviolent tactics can be useful and pragmatic, in many cases, they are more effective than violent tactics. However, the choice of tactic should be driven by an honest and pragmatic assessment of the actual circumstances, and not by preconceived ideological notions about morality. And that goes both ways, it is also unacceptable to prioritize violent tactics just because someone finds them more appealing or exciting. And for the record, I’m not saying that violent tactics are the most suitable for the present circumstances. I’m just not willing to write them off for all circumstances.
For example: Suppose a resistance cell in France captures a group of SS soldiers as prisoners, but the Nazis are on their trail and preparing an attack. If the cell doesn’t execute the prisoners, there’s a chance they will be rescued and will end up contributing to the German war effort. On the other hand, perhaps those prisoners could provide valuable intel that outweighs the risk. The decision on whether to execute them should, ideally, be based on these tactical considerations, rather than either an emotional aversion to violence or an emotional desire for revenge (no matter how deserved it may be).
If you don’t have your head in the game and your eye on the prize, and the other side does, then you’re probably going to lose. And fighting and losing is worse than not fighting at all. It’s better to give up and roll over than to go out and get a bunch of people killed over a hopeless cause.
Naturally, all of this is very unrelated to the reality of how the death penalty is used in the present day, which I oppose unequivocally.