Thing is, they’re partially right. Revolution means war and war is violent. Innocent people will be murdered. Sick children. Homeless people. The elderly. Perfectly healthy random people. Pets, wild animals, you name it. Stuff that shouldn’t have to die will die. That’s the nature of war.
The reason it’s still worth it is that we’re already at war. It’s just that largely only one side is waging that war. Innocent people are being murdered under the status quo every single day. Sick children, homeless people, the elderly, perfectly healthy random people, pets, wild animals, you name it. They’re already being murdered. Revolution only looks violent and unreasonable from the privileged position that the status quo isn’t violent.
Man it’s a good thing structural violence isn’t a thing. Otherwise incremental reform (or more honestly, its vain pursuit under bourgeois democracy) would have its own death toll that is being assumed as the normal, immutable state of things
Tagging your essay with #de-radicalisation is literally the soyest thing imagibable
Why do people think the revolution is one singular magical eschatological even that will happen everywhere at the same time, and involves destryoing everything? Why did i believe that at one point? Where did that idea come from and why does it persist?
This, only revolution you see in mass media/consciousness in the west puts it forth as some sort of pseudomaterialist rapture. When really history isn’t quite linear and easy, you could say revolutions began long before its obvious and it doesn’t matter what precious pearl-clutching scratched libs think, we’re already in several. You’ll get all sorts of flavors of slow and steady and quick fascistic collapse, which is what they desire in their scratched lil dark heart.
Yeah I think a lot of people miss that revolutions are the culmination of decades or even centuries of contradictions between the ruling hegemony and evolving material conditions. But that doesn’t make for a good 90 minute action-adventure so instead that bit gets glossed over or presented as window dressing for the Great Man’s initiative.
Dual power? Never heard of it.
Also, the cajones on someone saying only the privileged support revolution when it revolutions have only happened in the most destitute places on Earth.
This is what you get when your idea of a revolution exists in a vacuum with no events preceding it or material conditions facilitating it.
This would be the best argument against revolution if revolutions occurred spontaneously after enough people believed in it.
It also assumes all life and society just comes to a screeching hault when the government changes hands. Until checks start bouncing, most people are just going to continue going to work and doing their jobs as normal.
