I'm talking about most of Washington DC and other landmarks that are symbols of the USA. What do you think should happen to them? Mostly kept around or mostly destroyed?
Things like statues (unless they are actually old or have historical worth) probably can go, buildings can probably stay.
Surely public good comes before individual desires??
if people torch the white house during revolution, im not gonna clutch my pearls and scold them for burning down potential future public housing.
Eh yeah ok, during the revolution sure. But this thread seemed to me more about what we do with whatevers left after the revolution.
I suppose what happens immediately following the fighting is also part of revolution, just as libs were stomping on cheetos after defeating trump, i think we deserve to just take our anger out even if its not productive.
I can sort of understand that but to me socialism is about community and at some point we have to be considering what's best for the public. Surely we can think of more productive uses for people's anger. Otherwise we'll be having people destroying resources that we actually need and its fine because they were just venting. Plus like, I actually think making decisions based on anger isn't a good way to build a socialist society. Same reason why I'd be advocating against rounding up the bourgeoise for public executions. It just... seems like the wrong foot to get started on.
Split the difference? We could all hypothetically work out which buildings are needed and which buildings are useless for anything but catharsis. Those cheap 5 over 1 "gentrification style" apartment blocks come to mind. Actual deathtraps, and the architectural manifestation of capitalist priorities. Not only are they unethical to actually house people in for any real length of time, the sense of community gained from destroying them would be a huge boon to morale.