How is the central point, that you said random assassination is revolutionary while organizing is not, the least important part? Organizing work alone isn’t sufficient for it to be revolutionary, it must contribute to advancing the revolutionary movement. This means advancing a correct political line, engaging with the broader working class, etc. You are getting overly focused on classification and are entirely missing the essence of the point, that abstract violence detached from organizing work does nothing to weaken the capitalist state nor to prepare the working classes for revolution. It’s just an outlet for one person to express their rage at the system.
The least important part of my original comment, but I accept that is your main contention.
Going just by this last comment: “abstract violence detached from organizing work does nothing to weaken the capitalist state nor to prepare the working classes for revolution. It’s just an outlet for one person to express their rage at the system.”
There I keep trying to get you to tell me if the same action carried out by a member of an organization vs. a lone person can be considered differently. I posit that it can’t. Now, if a specific action is revolutionary, that’s the next topic.
If there is no organization, then how can it be revolutionary? Actions do not exist without context. Again, returning to Luigi, there was no revolutionary reason to kill the CEO. I won’t condemn Luigi, but he did not move the movement forward.
Returning to Luigi, he definitely didn’t move the general movement forward. As I said, he can only be considered within the context of privatized healthcare and even then as a failed spark. But failing is not the same as not existing, that’s where we disagree.
How is the central point, that you said random assassination is revolutionary while organizing is not, the least important part? Organizing work alone isn’t sufficient for it to be revolutionary, it must contribute to advancing the revolutionary movement. This means advancing a correct political line, engaging with the broader working class, etc. You are getting overly focused on classification and are entirely missing the essence of the point, that abstract violence detached from organizing work does nothing to weaken the capitalist state nor to prepare the working classes for revolution. It’s just an outlet for one person to express their rage at the system.
The least important part of my original comment, but I accept that is your main contention.
Going just by this last comment: “abstract violence detached from organizing work does nothing to weaken the capitalist state nor to prepare the working classes for revolution. It’s just an outlet for one person to express their rage at the system.”
There I keep trying to get you to tell me if the same action carried out by a member of an organization vs. a lone person can be considered differently. I posit that it can’t. Now, if a specific action is revolutionary, that’s the next topic.
If there is no organization, then how can it be revolutionary? Actions do not exist without context. Again, returning to Luigi, there was no revolutionary reason to kill the CEO. I won’t condemn Luigi, but he did not move the movement forward.
Returning to Luigi, he definitely didn’t move the general movement forward. As I said, he can only be considered within the context of privatized healthcare and even then as a failed spark. But failing is not the same as not existing, that’s where we disagree.
I never said Luigi did not exist. I said he was not revolutionary.