The following text is based mainly on the ideological political thoughts of Marx and Gandhi. What is claimed here is by no way new, however it is felt that these kind of ideas are losing popular ground to a more violent approach and hence need to be said again. This article aims to discuss how a socialist state could be brought about without the need for a violent revolution and what an alternative could be.

There has been the notion of many persons that non-violent actions never work or that they take too long to achieve. However these notions should be rejected on the basis of history. One classic example is in regard to the 1963 overthrow of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. An almost anti-climactic military coup followed a half year of intensive public actions led by Buddhist monks, in a campaign that destroyed Diem's base of support. Look at most history books and this is contributed almost entirely to a military coup. The fact is, even in revolutions that are primarily violent, the successful ones usually include non-violent civilian actions not so different from the ones Gandhi used. And nearly every time, you will find these actions curiously downplayed or ignored by most journalists and historians.

Gandhi positively rejected the idea that a class war was incompatible with nonviolence: "The idea of class war does not appeal to me. In India a class war is not inevitable, but it is avoidable if we have understood the message of nonviolence. Those who talk about class war as being inevitable, have not understood the implications of nonviolence or have understood them only skin-deep."

Many people today still regard Gandhis ideas of nonviolence to mean passivity, he even commented that one must never be passive in the face of evil; that violence was better than cowardice. It is very common to see in socialist literature the overplay of the struggle. If a person were to read most literature available on the internet or in print they would find words such as defend, fight and attack splattered throughout each article. This kind of language can only draw people who like the idea of a fight. The key question is, what kind of leader would be the result of such a party or group.

The revolutionary leaders of the past have all advocated that a revolution can only be achieved with the tool of violence. These kind of methods have so far only contributed to undemocratic socialist parties. Other factors have played a part too, such as isolation by capitalist powers and the fact that the socialist states were underdeveloped. However the leaders' thoughts should not be dismissed and much evidence could be given to indicate that Lenin, Castro and others were not of a peaceful mind. New strategies must be employed in order to bring in a socialist party based on peace. In a non-violent revolution there would be no enemies. The struggle is against ideas and institutions but not individual persons. As Gandhi said, "Hate the sin and not the sinner".

As Marx and Engels suggested this revolutionary class must be the working class. It is the job of the socialist parties to raise the consciousness of the working people and give them the tools for a non-violent revolution. This was summed up quite nicely by Lenin: "By educating the workers' party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat, capable of assuming power and leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organizing the new system, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the working and exploited people in organizing their social life without the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie." This article is in no doubt that all socialist parties are of this opinion.

This leaves open the question of how the socialist parties can prepare the working class for a non-violent revolution. Gandhi stressed many times that it requires great training and discipline to be equipped with the tools needed to win via non-violent methods. A key component in learning non-violence is of course to learn from history, past success and mistakes. This however is currently not the case, instead a greater emphasis is put on the violent option. By putting greater emphasis on non-violent actions a greater and more diverse working class would be open to the ideas of socialism. As socialism tries to shake off the image of the Stalinist Soviet image, this way of thinking would only help develop the idea that Stalinism is not Socialism.

Martin Luther king spelled out five principles on non-violent action:

"First, it must be emphasized that non-violent resistance is not a method for cowards; it does resist. If one uses this method because he is afraid or merely because he lacks the instruments of violence, he is not truly non-violent."

"A second basic fact that characterizes nonviolence is that it does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. The non-violent resister must often express his protest through noncooperation or boycotts, but he realizes that these are not ends themselves; they are merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent ... The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community, while the aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness."

"A third characteristic of this method is that the attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who happen to be doing the evil."

"A fourth point that characterizes non-violent resistance is a willingness to accept suffering without retaliation, to accept blows from the opponent without striking back. 'Rivers of blood may have to flow before we gain our freedom, but it must be our blood,' Gandhi said to his countrymen. The non-violent resister ... does not seek to dodge jail. If going to jail is necessary, he enters it 'as a bridegroom enters the bride's chamber..."

"A fifth point concerning non-violent resistance is that it avoids not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. The non-violent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him. At the centre of nonviolence stands the principle of love."

If socialism wants to be associated more with peace and the people these kind of principles should be followed up more. Too much emphasis on the struggle can only serve two purposes:

1) The alienation of the vast majority of peaceful working people

2) Promote violence and a cultural of violence.

According to common socialist theory the revolution should be carried out by the working people, which in industrialised countries is the majority of the people. Therefore by using these principles and by raising the consciousness of the working people a socialist government could be brought about via a ballot box. This is assuming that all people have the right to vote. Therefore this idea of a fight and conflict would seem to make no sense in the West of today as the only way to bring about socialism. In Marxs time of course not everybody had the right to vote and therefore the situation was different.