• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    40 minutes ago

    You’re talking about how a revolutionary org can be bad. This is not the same as saying random assassination is revolutionary.

    • someoneelse@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      36 minutes ago

      I didn’t say bad, I said not carry out any revolutionary act. For the second point I said that a specific assassination by a random person can be a revolutionary act.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        34 minutes ago

        If there’s opportunity for a revolutionary org to advance the revolutionary struggle and they miss it, this is a mistake. It doesn’t mean that random adventurism is revolutionary.

        • someoneelse@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 minutes ago

          There are many reasons why a group might fail to act and fizzle out. I am just saying that without that action, the existence of the group and the discussions are not revolutionary.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            26 minutes ago

            The creation of an org that can and will act when needed is revolutionary. An org that does not live up to those standards is not revolutionary, nor is random assassination, nor is building up such a failure of an org.

            • someoneelse@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              17 minutes ago

              So you can only define the organization as revolutionary after something else has happened? The creation and organization of two identical groups can be revolutionary or not depending on if they down the line act on something?