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.
Revolution isn’t any change, change is constant. I don’t think a second random assassination would improve worker positioning and organizing for revolution, nor weaken the bourgeois state.
Again, revolutionary within the scope of health care in the US. There is more than one kind of revolution possible. And if you don’t think that a system that’s causing the death of thousand of people and uncountable amount of pain due to lack of care improves the lives of workers then that’s a different discussion.
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.
I meant the act. I don’t consider him a revolutionary either.
The act wasn’t revolutionary either.
For the greater movement no. If a second CEO had been murdered, do you think that there would have been no changes at all in any sense?
Revolution isn’t any change, change is constant. I don’t think a second random assassination would improve worker positioning and organizing for revolution, nor weaken the bourgeois state.
Again, revolutionary within the scope of health care in the US. There is more than one kind of revolution possible. And if you don’t think that a system that’s causing the death of thousand of people and uncountable amount of pain due to lack of care improves the lives of workers then that’s a different discussion.