Didn’t move the goalposts. You posited that an assassination by an individual cannot be a revolutionary action and I disagree. That is a more general case than I started with.
His assassination still wasn’t random, but very specific for his goals and could have sparked further movement as was clear by the absolute panic by private insurers in the aftermath.
I never said that assassination can never be revolutionary. Individual, disconnected action is adventurist, and has never delivered regime change like you posit. Luigi’s assassination was not revolutionary either. The fact that none of what you said could happen did happen is because it wasn’t actually a revolutionary action, and your understanding of revolution is flawed.
So, from your words and trying to summarize what you have been saying:
A revolutionary action can only happen if directed by an organized group with very clear political theory behind them.
The act of organizing is revolutionary in itself even if completely open and legal.
A person outside organized groups and with no deep political knowledge cannot commit a revolutionary act, even if it is the same act that a politically organized group would have carried out.
Do I have that correctly? Please tell me if I got any of those points wrong.
Revolutionary action is action that advances the revolutionary struggle. A random individual acting alone is not advancing the revololutionary struggle.
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.
When was? And why random?
We are discussing the assassination of a CEO, and you’re moving the goalposts to any and all assassination.
Didn’t move the goalposts. You posited that an assassination by an individual cannot be a revolutionary action and I disagree. That is a more general case than I started with.
His assassination still wasn’t random, but very specific for his goals and could have sparked further movement as was clear by the absolute panic by private insurers in the aftermath.
I never said that assassination can never be revolutionary. Individual, disconnected action is adventurist, and has never delivered regime change like you posit. Luigi’s assassination was not revolutionary either. The fact that none of what you said could happen did happen is because it wasn’t actually a revolutionary action, and your understanding of revolution is flawed.
So, from your words and trying to summarize what you have been saying:
Do I have that correctly? Please tell me if I got any of those points wrong.
Revolutionary action is action that advances the revolutionary struggle. A random individual acting alone is not advancing the revololutionary struggle.
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.