>Revolutionaries, incidentally, never _begin_ revolutions; capital moves
>to crush non-revolutionary mass movements, who in self-defense move
>towards insurrection. So it is also absurd to paint a scenario for
>revolution. Consider the following silliness, which appeared on the list
>a year or two ago:
>
>****I understand, even sympathize with, the blueprint problem, but
>you're asking people to sacrifice the familiar and stable and embrace
>revolutionary politics for what? A completely unknown quantity?*****
You annoying fuck, I wrote what you characterize as "silliness." Can't you ever disagree with something without characterizing it as silly, stupid, whatever?
Your politics make no sense. You've got some mystical idea of how revolutions happen - just some spontaneous social combustion that might lead to a transition to something whose outlines we can't specify. I don't think it makes sense to talk about revolution in a country like the U.S. - but I think it is possible to change this place through agitation, education, organization. You dismiss that as pointless, since you can't win "converts," and capital would crush anything that moved anyway. So why bother? Why not just sit back and read Milton and wait for something magic to happen?
Doug