Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] wrote


Zzzxxxyyy wrote

Yes it is what it sounded like to me, especially given in contrast to the previous quote about revolution. I guess in that, as I see it, it’s not just fixing things, but you have to tear down the old broken things first.

Agree with you. Marx had his flaws when it came to implementation, but he had witnessed revisionism being used by the bourgeoisie to quell the rage of workers while still oppressing them.

The thing I always wonder about is if it’s really possible to build a better state when your baseline state no longer resembles the state you initially sought out to change. So, I guess I’d argue it needs to be torn down fast and hard enough to limit the power of the bourgeoisie to rebuild it in their favor, but slow enough you know what the fuck is going on.

One can dream.


[deleted] wrote (edited )


Zzzxxxyyy wrote

Well, in your example I still don’t see how you’d go about deciding money is worthless without tearing town the prior government, military, police, financial system, etc that enforces the value and power of capital.

Seems like we’re getting lost in symantics here, but you’re correct, revolution is dangerous and no one should be naive about that.

Obviously, you would try to leave as much physical and intellectual infrastructure as possible, but tearing down the social and economic power structures is a must for “revolution.”

And I’m surprised people get up in arms over someone disagreeing with them on the Internet. Maybe they’re angry with their mothers and are directing it at undeserving victims. Hopefully as raddle matures those kinds of interactions will be discouraged.