That’s a lie. Capitalists will only make compromises if their lives (directly or figuratively) is in danger. That’s what History demonstrates.
Right now they’re so comfortable with power and propaganda that they’d rather make fascism happen.
Violence is the only language they understand. I’m not talking about everyone here, I’m talking about the capitalist overlords. They’re ruthless monsters who only understands vital threat to their way of life or their life directly.
The person you are replying to is a Marxist, they are revolutionary but anti-adventurist. Violence is a requirement, but its form and direction makes a huge difference.
You’ll soon see what fascists do with violence. In an idealistic world, pacifism is fine. But in reality the threat of violence is still the only thing that can prevent violence from the opposing side.
Violence has been used to shut down leftist for decades now. Pacifism did nothing to prevent capitalism from degenerating. At some point one need to accept the reality.
I don’t disagree with you. I think the reason you aren’t understanding what the Marxists are saying is a difference in understanding of revolution, pacifism, and adventurism.
Killing a random CEO? Will not put the working class in power. Cool move, but not going to change anything.
Organizing a revolution? Will change society, as it has done historically many times in favor of Leftists.
Revolution isn’t pacifist, it’s organized violence. Random assassinations aren’t a part of that process.
That’s not what can be understood from a comment that simply condemn violence with one example though. I mostly agree with you otherwise.
But I am starting to change my mind recently with a simple parallel : strike is a kind of violence with a company, and it works very well. A strike in a single company can have positive effects for the people who work there. A global strike can have positive effects for everyone.
I am starting to think that physical violence may have the same property : of course an organised revolution is the best. But in the mean time, I don’t think assassinating a CEO is useless. I’m not saying it’s what we should do, at least not to this day. But I am wondering: did the last such event had positive or negative effects?
So far, the UH CEO getting got has helped confirm suspicions that the Proletariat is more radical than previously thought, but no change has come of it. Without taking advantage of the moment to organize, nothing will change from it.
At that point, just organize a revolution like has already been done, nobody has assassinated a revolution into success.
Funny enough, this exact conversation was had a long time ago, Lenin and the Bolsheviks advocated organizing the working class and reading theory, while the Socialist Revolutionaries advocated abandoning theory (believing it to cause more conflict among comrades than unity) and advocated assassinations. Ultimately, the Bolsheviks ended up being correct, which is why I think we can learn a lot from our predecessors in analyzing how our own conditions are similar and different in coming up with a strategy that works for us.
We really need to not stab our neighbors, anyway. CEOs, however.
Whacking a CEO doesn’t do shit. They just install a new one and divert more funding to the police state.
That’s a lie. Capitalists will only make compromises if their lives (directly or figuratively) is in danger. That’s what History demonstrates.
Right now they’re so comfortable with power and propaganda that they’d rather make fascism happen.
Violence is the only language they understand. I’m not talking about everyone here, I’m talking about the capitalist overlords. They’re ruthless monsters who only understands vital threat to their way of life or their life directly.
The person you are replying to is a Marxist, they are revolutionary but anti-adventurist. Violence is a requirement, but its form and direction makes a huge difference.
You’ll soon see what fascists do with violence. In an idealistic world, pacifism is fine. But in reality the threat of violence is still the only thing that can prevent violence from the opposing side.
Violence has been used to shut down leftist for decades now. Pacifism did nothing to prevent capitalism from degenerating. At some point one need to accept the reality.
I don’t disagree with you. I think the reason you aren’t understanding what the Marxists are saying is a difference in understanding of revolution, pacifism, and adventurism.
Killing a random CEO? Will not put the working class in power. Cool move, but not going to change anything.
Organizing a revolution? Will change society, as it has done historically many times in favor of Leftists.
Revolution isn’t pacifist, it’s organized violence. Random assassinations aren’t a part of that process.
That’s not what can be understood from a comment that simply condemn violence with one example though. I mostly agree with you otherwise.
But I am starting to change my mind recently with a simple parallel : strike is a kind of violence with a company, and it works very well. A strike in a single company can have positive effects for the people who work there. A global strike can have positive effects for everyone.
I am starting to think that physical violence may have the same property : of course an organised revolution is the best. But in the mean time, I don’t think assassinating a CEO is useless. I’m not saying it’s what we should do, at least not to this day. But I am wondering: did the last such event had positive or negative effects?
So far, the UH CEO getting got has helped confirm suspicions that the Proletariat is more radical than previously thought, but no change has come of it. Without taking advantage of the moment to organize, nothing will change from it.
One. Sure. 100? 500? Maybe not.
At that point, just organize a revolution like has already been done, nobody has assassinated a revolution into success.
Funny enough, this exact conversation was had a long time ago, Lenin and the Bolsheviks advocated organizing the working class and reading theory, while the Socialist Revolutionaries advocated abandoning theory (believing it to cause more conflict among comrades than unity) and advocated assassinations. Ultimately, the Bolsheviks ended up being correct, which is why I think we can learn a lot from our predecessors in analyzing how our own conditions are similar and different in coming up with a strategy that works for us.