Why don't they go shoot up Beverly hills/Wall Street/police stations/court room/federal agencies etc.? Rich and powerful people rarely get hurt.
Why don't they go shoot up Beverly hills/Wall Street/police stations/court room/federal agencies etc.? Rich and powerful people rarely get hurt.
the weather underground did a little bit, and there was some anti-war sabotage in shipyards and that bombing in wisconsin but overall it didn't amount to much. If we go back to the "propaganda of the deed" days and Czogolz's assassination of president mckinley i'd say it even backfired pretty hard as that lead somewhat directly to the creation of the FBI.
deleted by creator
and these institutions don't blip into existence out of a vacuum, they have costs: economically, socially, politically. dismissing adventurism simply because "revolutionary actions only lead to counter-revolutionary reactions" is too idealistic.
not that all actions are good because reactions have costs. but we have to do a comprehensive material analysis when examining violent actions and the state's reactions. repression in response to revolution can be a good or bad thing depending on the details.
as much as i
for some new righteous john brown to emerge in the imperial core and run where
i'm of the same opinion, we just can't pretend the crackdown doesn't come at a cost. everything is interconnected, and pulling resources from, say, imperial repression to focus on domestic repression could in some contexts be a useful outcome. or if repression is the straw that radicalizes the masses it may be useful. it's an equation looking at how many resources can be extracted from people compared to the cost of controlling them through entertainment/treats/violence. violent repression is more expensive than cultural control, and parasitic to it.
but we don't have an organized left to seize opportunities on a macro scale, so i'm not convinced individual acts of violence can be expected to do anything productive at that scale yet.
deleted by creator
yeah that's worth keeping in mind, violence for the sake of terrorism or propaganda of the deed doesn't seem likely to have much revolutionary potential. unfortunately it seems to have a lot of reactionary potential in the form of mass shootings
deleted by creator
Honestly I forgot about the weather underground. The only things I know about them is that one of them blew themselves up and another was supposedly friends with Obama (or that’s what conservative conspiracy theorists say anyway)
I read Burrough's Dayd of Rage and although the author's ideology is terrible it's a good historical chronology of Weather and some similar groups.
If they didn’t disavow each other, he could’ve taught Obama some theory to impress the long legged socialist girls in college
I’m very curious how one becomes more liberal later on in life after bombing several buildings in the name of anti imperialism. Is it just the pessimism of getting older and seeing nothing change? Or did they just become rich
yeah I don't want to slander Ayers, I don't know much about his modern politics. I'm just assuming (a) he and Dohrn are wealthy now (probably bought a Hyde Park house) (b) he and Obama wanted broadly the same things when they were on that nonprofit board.