ce to motivate any type of theory, but that the action is most dominant. It seems strange that they would separate these two ideas, as thought and action go hand in hand. No one can act without thinking; isn't thinking an action in itself? There is an evident relationship between these two things, impulsively and spontaneity are proof of this. It seems strange why Marx and Engels would suggest anything else. Perhaps it is because this is what their grounds were, they didn't want to consider any other means of revolution as effective, just ultimate force would get what they wanted. Why could a revolution not be made peacefully? Why may not the ruling class voluntarily surrender its power rather than risk defeat or the destruction of the whole society in a civil war? These questions are hard to answer without asking others. When in history has this occurred before? We must think that Socialist revolution involves not simply the substitution of power of one class for the power of another with respect to the ownership of a particular private property, for example, but of the very existence of the private property itself. Workers would then have to resort to force to achieve the socialist revolution. There are examples in history of revolution occurring without means of force. Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) established India's freedom though a non-violent revolution. He remained in South Africa for 20 years, suffering imprisonment many times. Despite all of this, he began to teach a policy of passive resistance to the non-cooperative South African authorities. Of course, there were many influences that encouraged him to act in this manner, but ultimately, he was successful. Rajendra Prasad became his disciple and joined his passive resistance against British rule in India. Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated non-violence during the 1960's, to protest against racial discrimination and inequality. Henry David Thoreau chose to go t...
