I think you are confusing, and/or blending, things I am saying, maybe. There are people calling for the violence part of revolution, and they tend to do so on posts that discuss, other, non-violent aspects of it. They can’t out-right say these things, as direct calls for violence will get you censored, but what they say has no other logical conclusion. Such as you can’t get what was taken by force, without force. Whether you call it adventurism, or revolution, matters not, as this is what the people I am seeing are claiming it to be. Whether they are correct, or not, is not the point here.
I am saying we need organization, and planning, first, however we are at the point, at least in the US, where I truly doubt peaceful revolution is possible. You need a plan when you are enacting revolution otherwise you either get nowhere, or you decapitate the state you are against, and leave a vacuum of power to fill, and descend into chaos. I hard disagree that you don’t actively plan for revolutionary action. Historically there has always been some level of planning, the level of planning tends to be a major determining factor on the cohesion of the end result.
My underlying point is that the people I see calling for “force to take back what was taken by force now”, or whatever euphemisms, or vagueries, they may be using to say “we need hot conflict to resolve this, and that means violence”, have never really dealt with any of the type of violence that goes into a society changing revolt. Often they will also blame people not “taking up arms”, so to speak, as the problem, while they, themselves, do not do this either. This is my problem with it.
I think you are confusing, and/or blending, things I am saying, maybe. There are people calling for the violence part of revolution, and they tend to do so on posts that discuss, other, non-violent aspects of it. They can’t out-right say these things, as direct calls for violence will get you censored, but what they say has no other logical conclusion. Such as you can’t get what was taken by force, without force. Whether you call it adventurism, or revolution, matters not, as this is what the people I am seeing are claiming it to be. Whether they are correct, or not, is not the point here.
I am saying we need organization, and planning, first, however we are at the point, at least in the US, where I truly doubt peaceful revolution is possible. You need a plan when you are enacting revolution otherwise you either get nowhere, or you decapitate the state you are against, and leave a vacuum of power to fill, and descend into chaos. I hard disagree that you don’t actively plan for revolutionary action. Historically there has always been some level of planning, the level of planning tends to be a major determining factor on the cohesion of the end result.
My underlying point is that the people I see calling for “force to take back what was taken by force now”, or whatever euphemisms, or vagueries, they may be using to say “we need hot conflict to resolve this, and that means violence”, have never really dealt with any of the type of violence that goes into a society changing revolt. Often they will also blame people not “taking up arms”, so to speak, as the problem, while they, themselves, do not do this either. This is my problem with it.