You are trying to make the argument that the group planning doesn’t matter, the action does. I am telling you that assassination can only ever be revolutionary if it fits in the context of a revolutionary movement, and isn’t just sporadic violence. Lenin went over this a century ago and it’s still nearly the same.
I am not making that argument at all. I saying that until action has taken place that effects a reaction, everything until that point is not revolutionary action. I never said it doesn’t matter, or that it isn’t necessary, just that making your backpack for a hike is not hiking, as necessary as it might be.
The second part, which you keep dodging is that any action “fitting the context of a revolutionary movement” can be labeled revolutionary even if carried out by a person outside of a revolutionary organization.
This is why I tried, unsuccessfully, to get you to define your words.
But we have to return to the original context of this, which is that you declared that only Luigi was revolutionary, and that existing revolutionary organizations that are preparing the basis for successful revolution are not. Luigi assassinating a CEO did absolutely nothing. It gained no worker power, which exists only in the form of organizing. Organizing is the means by which the working class can wield its strength against the capitalist class. A random act of assassination, disconnected from revolutionary practice, does nothing to organize the working class or weaken the capitalist state.
You claim you’ve been unsuccessful in getting me to define my words, but I’ve been tremendously clear. You’re constantly shifting the goalposts and trying to avoid the very critical point that you said organizing is not revolutionary and that random assassination is.
Even if it is the same action that a revolutionary committee would dictate?
And please define what you mean by revolutionary struggle. I don’t want to make assumptions.
You are trying to make the argument that the group planning doesn’t matter, the action does. I am telling you that assassination can only ever be revolutionary if it fits in the context of a revolutionary movement, and isn’t just sporadic violence. Lenin went over this a century ago and it’s still nearly the same.
I am not making that argument at all. I saying that until action has taken place that effects a reaction, everything until that point is not revolutionary action. I never said it doesn’t matter, or that it isn’t necessary, just that making your backpack for a hike is not hiking, as necessary as it might be.
The second part, which you keep dodging is that any action “fitting the context of a revolutionary movement” can be labeled revolutionary even if carried out by a person outside of a revolutionary organization.
This is why I tried, unsuccessfully, to get you to define your words.
But we have to return to the original context of this, which is that you declared that only Luigi was revolutionary, and that existing revolutionary organizations that are preparing the basis for successful revolution are not. Luigi assassinating a CEO did absolutely nothing. It gained no worker power, which exists only in the form of organizing. Organizing is the means by which the working class can wield its strength against the capitalist class. A random act of assassination, disconnected from revolutionary practice, does nothing to organize the working class or weaken the capitalist state.
You claim you’ve been unsuccessful in getting me to define my words, but I’ve been tremendously clear. You’re constantly shifting the goalposts and trying to avoid the very critical point that you said organizing is not revolutionary and that random assassination is.