I don’t disagree. But its important to know that individual acts of violence are not helpful.
Violence absolutely is a helpful tool of resistance. But only in a manner that shows the weakness of the fascist state to that organized resistance.
A single act of violence on a state or ruling class leader does not help to organize the working class. This was the idea of “the propaganda of the deed”. But has never been a successful means of organizing resistance.
Organized and armed movements that take over factory floors, defend neighbors against ICE, and resist the actions of state violence are the methods that bring about revolution in the masses.
We are at a stage where the monopoly of violence that the state holds needs to be met with violence that gives people MORE protection, more stability, and more safety in the face of the fascist state. This is how that monopoly of violence is removed from the state. When the masses are shown that the violence used to against the state is in their own interest.
Single acts of violence are not personal enough to the masses to connect the “deed” to their own worsening conditions.
An act of solidarity, that protects the victims of state violence, is something that fuels revolution. The masses need to be shown that resistance can work, we can push them back. And every ICE agent that runs away from a group of people with whistles fuels that feeling within society.
We are at whistles now. But we will not be for long. So, save your bullets for protecting your neighbors. Don’t waste them on some politician or oligarch. They will be replaced the next day so long as the fascist state remains.
Edit: Not sure why the downvotes. I’m literally just explaining historically how single acts of violence result in no helpful progress to revolution.
What I’m talking about here is not some undocumented thing. The failure of the “propaganda of the deed” has been written about by Marxist, Anarchist, and even right wingers. It has a long history of failure and does not move the masses to a position ripe for revolution. Lenin specifically wrote about how it often times does the opposite by causing apathy in the population as they wait for the next “deed” to occur.
Tell me of a class revolution that was started with a single assassination that directly grew from that assassination into a successful revolution that took power.
I’ll wait…
Why do people just think history “just happens” from the acts of individuals? That’s not how the world works. Life isn’t a marvel movie.
We have examples of real class revolutions that were successful. Cuba, Russia, China, etc. All of which were built upon the organized efforts of countless people working to bring about that change. And all of which wrote about the failures of “the propaganda of the deed”. It’s nothing more than anarchist wish casting and has never been successful in bringing the masses to revolution.
Seriously. Learn from the past and learn from history. Don’t just form your opinion on the “vibes” of enjoying some form of justice because it makes you feel good to see a CEO die. It only gives a short and meaningless form of justice that leads to nothing else. Actually learn from past failures and successes on what brings the masses to a revolutionary state.
Single combat… has the immediate effect of simply creating a short-lived sensation, while indirectly it even leads to apathy and passive waiting for the next bout.
Lol if you think the beginning of any of those began when you started hearing about them or they wrote in books about the very beginning of any class revolution. They all likely began with “the casting of the first stone” ww1 began over one Archdukes assassination by a guy.
That first sentence you wrote is so poorly worded that I’m not gonna make assumptions about what you’re even talking about.
WW1 literally didn’t start from the archdukes assassination. The assassination was used as a means to fuel already existing European expansion.
Holy shit, you actually used like the most cliche event a historian would point to as an example of how horribly simplified pre college history classes teach WW1.
It also has nothing to do with the potential of revolution in the working class. It’s quite literally the opposite. The assassination of the archduke was used as a means to fuel European expansion. Which, stay with me here, is the opposite of what I’m talking about as “the propaganda of the deed”. This phrase is specifically about an act (often violence) done by an individual in hopes it would fuel the working class to rise up to overthrow the ruling class.
The ruling class can absolutely use propaganda related to an assassination to fuel their interest. Why? Because they are already the ruling class. They have the power of the state. They command the military. They have the ear of the masses.
You have no idea what you’re talking about and you are talking about WW1 like you googled “what conflict was started from an assassination” and then read the first part of the AI response.
I will apologize though. See, when I read something that I’ve never heard before, especially when it’s a phrase placed in quotes, I take a second to read about what it means before responding to someone. I’m dumb I guess. I assume that other people actually care about understanding something before they respond to it. So I should have typed out the entire explanation of the phrase for you.
If you had just searched “propaganda of the deed” you could have saved yourself from responding with a comment that makes you sound extremely ignorant.
He got shot in the head, and had a dictator take over the destroyed everything they were about even while wrapping himself in the image of the dead leader.
Are you talking about the assassination attempt on him he survived? Because he never got shot in the head. Shoulder and part of his neck.
Not sure what that has to do with anything “losing”.
The USSR literally went on to be the world’s second largest superpower only a short time. Even after losing the most people in WW2.
Without the USSR and the October revolution that formed it; we’d literally have a Nazi ruled Europe right now. There is no beating the Nazis in WW2 without the USSR.
But I guess some whiney cunt like you can call all of that “losing”.
He was never the same after getting shot in the head, was no longer in power, which was ceded to Stalin, who, and this is true, was a bastard that betrayed the revolution.
Oh, look. Another “violence is never the answer” claim from the government.
While our government uses violence or the threat of violence to do anything they’ve wanted for the past 250 years.
Seems negotiating only ever works at all, if you’re carrying a stick and they know you’re willing to use it.
Back when I was a libertarian (Anarcho Capitalist, but no longer. Loudly a democratic socialist) this concept was called “monolopoly of force”.
Made me laugh thinking of ancaps pronouncing ‘monopoly’ like Ralph Wiggum would.
I don’t disagree. But its important to know that individual acts of violence are not helpful.
Violence absolutely is a helpful tool of resistance. But only in a manner that shows the weakness of the fascist state to that organized resistance.
A single act of violence on a state or ruling class leader does not help to organize the working class. This was the idea of “the propaganda of the deed”. But has never been a successful means of organizing resistance.
Organized and armed movements that take over factory floors, defend neighbors against ICE, and resist the actions of state violence are the methods that bring about revolution in the masses.
We are at a stage where the monopoly of violence that the state holds needs to be met with violence that gives people MORE protection, more stability, and more safety in the face of the fascist state. This is how that monopoly of violence is removed from the state. When the masses are shown that the violence used to against the state is in their own interest.
Single acts of violence are not personal enough to the masses to connect the “deed” to their own worsening conditions.
An act of solidarity, that protects the victims of state violence, is something that fuels revolution. The masses need to be shown that resistance can work, we can push them back. And every ICE agent that runs away from a group of people with whistles fuels that feeling within society.
We are at whistles now. But we will not be for long. So, save your bullets for protecting your neighbors. Don’t waste them on some politician or oligarch. They will be replaced the next day so long as the fascist state remains.
Edit: Not sure why the downvotes. I’m literally just explaining historically how single acts of violence result in no helpful progress to revolution.
What I’m talking about here is not some undocumented thing. The failure of the “propaganda of the deed” has been written about by Marxist, Anarchist, and even right wingers. It has a long history of failure and does not move the masses to a position ripe for revolution. Lenin specifically wrote about how it often times does the opposite by causing apathy in the population as they wait for the next “deed” to occur.
Idk, insurance providers did change a lot of their policies right after Luigi
And then got sued by Blackrock for doing so. Capitalism will not relent until we force it to through mutual resistance.
They still did it though. You can fight for a strong lasting movement. But a murdered CEO every 6 months might work better.
Why wait that long?
Murder is such a strong word. Introduction to lady justice flows.
You’re being promoted to fertilizer to increase your net improvement of the world
It has to start somewhere.
Tell me of a class revolution that was started with a single assassination that directly grew from that assassination into a successful revolution that took power.
I’ll wait…
Why do people just think history “just happens” from the acts of individuals? That’s not how the world works. Life isn’t a marvel movie.
We have examples of real class revolutions that were successful. Cuba, Russia, China, etc. All of which were built upon the organized efforts of countless people working to bring about that change. And all of which wrote about the failures of “the propaganda of the deed”. It’s nothing more than anarchist wish casting and has never been successful in bringing the masses to revolution.
Seriously. Learn from the past and learn from history. Don’t just form your opinion on the “vibes” of enjoying some form of justice because it makes you feel good to see a CEO die. It only gives a short and meaningless form of justice that leads to nothing else. Actually learn from past failures and successes on what brings the masses to a revolutionary state.
-Lenin
Lol if you think the beginning of any of those began when you started hearing about them or they wrote in books about the very beginning of any class revolution. They all likely began with “the casting of the first stone” ww1 began over one Archdukes assassination by a guy.
That first sentence you wrote is so poorly worded that I’m not gonna make assumptions about what you’re even talking about.
WW1 literally didn’t start from the archdukes assassination. The assassination was used as a means to fuel already existing European expansion.
Holy shit, you actually used like the most cliche event a historian would point to as an example of how horribly simplified pre college history classes teach WW1.
It also has nothing to do with the potential of revolution in the working class. It’s quite literally the opposite. The assassination of the archduke was used as a means to fuel European expansion. Which, stay with me here, is the opposite of what I’m talking about as “the propaganda of the deed”. This phrase is specifically about an act (often violence) done by an individual in hopes it would fuel the working class to rise up to overthrow the ruling class.
The ruling class can absolutely use propaganda related to an assassination to fuel their interest. Why? Because they are already the ruling class. They have the power of the state. They command the military. They have the ear of the masses.
You have no idea what you’re talking about and you are talking about WW1 like you googled “what conflict was started from an assassination” and then read the first part of the AI response.
I will apologize though. See, when I read something that I’ve never heard before, especially when it’s a phrase placed in quotes, I take a second to read about what it means before responding to someone. I’m dumb I guess. I assume that other people actually care about understanding something before they respond to it. So I should have typed out the entire explanation of the phrase for you.
If you had just searched “propaganda of the deed” you could have saved yourself from responding with a comment that makes you sound extremely ignorant.
That’s a lot of words to say “I’m a dumb-ass”
That’s a lot of words for you to say nothing at all.
Lenin lost.
By having a successful revolution? Weird way for him to lose.
He got shot in the head, and had a dictator take over the destroyed everything they were about even while wrapping himself in the image of the dead leader.
Are you talking about the assassination attempt on him he survived? Because he never got shot in the head. Shoulder and part of his neck.
Not sure what that has to do with anything “losing”.
The USSR literally went on to be the world’s second largest superpower only a short time. Even after losing the most people in WW2.
Without the USSR and the October revolution that formed it; we’d literally have a Nazi ruled Europe right now. There is no beating the Nazis in WW2 without the USSR.
But I guess some whiney cunt like you can call all of that “losing”.
He was never the same after getting shot in the head, was no longer in power, which was ceded to Stalin, who, and this is true, was a bastard that betrayed the revolution.
Imagine being on Stalin’s dick, gtfo.
Bullshit.
Damn. I hadn’t thought of it that way.