Revolution is the only option for long-term gains, rather than short-term concessions. As long as the bourgeoisie controls the state, they will use it to wind back any concessions they give out temporarily.
Revolution requires organizing, and that’s indeed a long and drawn out process. However, armed protest implies disorganization and loose aims, not the direct goal of overthrowing and replacing the bourgeois state with a proletarian one.
Why do people keep smugly citing this as the third option when there are a million better options before outright rebellion?
As if any rights or liberties we’ve won as a working class have ever come from anything other than violent opposition and disruption.
Revolution is the only option for long-term gains, rather than short-term concessions. As long as the bourgeoisie controls the state, they will use it to wind back any concessions they give out temporarily.
Sure, but you don’t get to revolution without many smaller escalations
Libs harp on that word because it sounds rightly ridiculous to an american, but say ‘armed protest’ and suddenly it sounds a lot more realistic.
Revolution requires organizing, and that’s indeed a long and drawn out process. However, armed protest implies disorganization and loose aims, not the direct goal of overthrowing and replacing the bourgeois state with a proletarian one.