Your vision on revolution is focused on one specific kind. I get why, but I was pointing at all directions, I even pointed out how the stupid nazis are not actually doing anything.
I get the dismissal of single-man action, but that single act changed instantly the approach of that company towards thousands of sick people. Also put other companies on notice. And the whole establishment, for a fraction of a second blinked. The lack of follow-up made it moot.
No power was gained by the working classes. We are not a step further in gaining socialism. The reason there was no follow-up is because it was an adventurist, disorganized act, and organization is fundamental to revolutionary change.
How does it not? A random assassination isn’t revolutionary, nor does it advance the worker struggle. Organizing does, it positions us in a better place for revolution.
I am not denying that organization is what allows revolutionary actions to be successful. But they don’t have to be part of organized action to be revolutionary actions. Likewise, the organization itself, though necessary is not revolutionary in itself.
Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice. Random assassinations aren’t revolutionary. Organizing in a revolutionary party is revolutionary because it advances the revolutionary position.
If a revolutionary party starts a series of actions designed to topple the system and a person with no theory knowledge and unorganized carries out the same type of action, then it is not a revolutionary action?
Let’s put an extreme example. There is a regime that is very top heavy. The assassination of that person will destroy the regime and change it by something else. That would be a revolutionary act, since it would topple a whole political system and replace it by something else. Now let’s assume a single person carried it out.
Your vision on revolution is focused on one specific kind. I get why, but I was pointing at all directions, I even pointed out how the stupid nazis are not actually doing anything.
I get the dismissal of single-man action, but that single act changed instantly the approach of that company towards thousands of sick people. Also put other companies on notice. And the whole establishment, for a fraction of a second blinked. The lack of follow-up made it moot.
No power was gained by the working classes. We are not a step further in gaining socialism. The reason there was no follow-up is because it was an adventurist, disorganized act, and organization is fundamental to revolutionary change.
Sure, but that doesn’t detract from the act itself.
How does it not? A random assassination isn’t revolutionary, nor does it advance the worker struggle. Organizing does, it positions us in a better place for revolution.
I am not denying that organization is what allows revolutionary actions to be successful. But they don’t have to be part of organized action to be revolutionary actions. Likewise, the organization itself, though necessary is not revolutionary in itself.
Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice. Random assassinations aren’t revolutionary. Organizing in a revolutionary party is revolutionary because it advances the revolutionary position.
If a revolutionary party starts a series of actions designed to topple the system and a person with no theory knowledge and unorganized carries out the same type of action, then it is not a revolutionary action?
How can one person carry out revolutionary action? One person cannot create a revolution.
Let’s put an extreme example. There is a regime that is very top heavy. The assassination of that person will destroy the regime and change it by something else. That would be a revolutionary act, since it would topple a whole political system and replace it by something else. Now let’s assume a single person carried it out.