“Either one wants to do something, but it is on condition of using violence--or else one respects formal liberty and renounces violence, but one can only do this by renouncing socialism and the classless society . . . The Revolution takes on and directs a violence which bourgeois society tolerates in unemployment and in war and disguises with the name of misfortune. But successful revolutions taken altogether have not spilled as much blood as the empires. All we know is different kinds of violence and we ought to prefer revolutionary violence because it has a future of humanism” (107).

I thought this passage was very interesting. Merleau-Ponty entirely undermines the rationale liberal democracies like America had been using to object to the Revolution and Communism--what they consider the inexcusable violence that was necessitated by the Revolution, and the threat it poses to the bourgeoisie. But Merleau-Ponty points out that liberal bourgeois society is equally--if not more--violent than the Revolution because of its imperialistic endeavors and the inequality caused by its class system. While the violence of the Revolution is temporary--intended to end with the rule of the proletariat, in peace and harmony, the exploitative and violent systems condoned by the bourgeois order are never-ending. He seems to be arguing that revolutionary violence is, in and of itself, actually more humanitarian in the long run than it would be to allow this system of exploitation to continue. It's interesting because his argument, I think, differs from modern human rights discourse, as I understand it. Bob Meister's book argued that human rights discourse tends to think that bodies in pain are the greatest evil possible--but Merleau-Ponty seems to be arguing that a brief period of violence to end oppression and eventually create a more egalitarian society is justifiable. He's placing this revolutionary violence within a much broader historical context, and weighing the potential evils of a brief period of violence against the continued suffering of billions. I think it's an interesting way to think about revolutionary violence.