That’s why you organize the working classes beforehand. There isn’t a “delete the state instantly” button, all successful revolutions have happened with highly organized groups taking advantage of popular unrest to overthrow the old and replace with the new, be it the French Revolution, Russian, Vietnamese, Cuban, etc.
If you can organize the working classes that fully before violence, you have enough alignment to use democratic or other non-violent means to change the system.
The real problem is that it doesn’t matter if your end goal is violence or not - it’s that the current state will bring violence to you loooong before you are able to organize that sufficiently. Including villianizing you - which plans of violence and destabilization help them with.
You can’t say “we’ll organize first” because no you can’t.
You cannot actually use democratic means to change the system from within. Even with high levels of organization, you still have to smash the capitalist state apparatus. Organizing requires at least creating a disciplined party that is trusted and supported by the majority of the revolutionary class, as a party can do very little by itself. The party’s job is to educate, organize, and lead the rest of the revolutionary class, not to itself be the revolution.
You seem to be conflating capitalism with democracy. Which suggests you want some kind of authoritarian socialism or communism, which - no thank you. And now you are not talking about the ‘working class’, which definitely includes a vast majority so has no democratic barriers, but a ‘revolutionary class’ - ie, ‘the party’, a small group that seize power and oppress the rest ruthlessly. Again, no thank you. That is just trading one group of self-intrerested individuals with no restraints (who are psychopathic about it) for another group (who are ruthless zealots about it).
I’m not conflating capitalism with democracy, not at all. I want a socialist system, which is necessarily democratic. Parties are not distinct classes in and of themselves either, but are subsections of broader classes. For example, principals and teachers are both working class, even though the principal manages teachers. This is basic Marxist analysis.
That’s why you organize the working classes beforehand. There isn’t a “delete the state instantly” button, all successful revolutions have happened with highly organized groups taking advantage of popular unrest to overthrow the old and replace with the new, be it the French Revolution, Russian, Vietnamese, Cuban, etc.
If you can organize the working classes that fully before violence, you have enough alignment to use democratic or other non-violent means to change the system.
The real problem is that it doesn’t matter if your end goal is violence or not - it’s that the current state will bring violence to you loooong before you are able to organize that sufficiently. Including villianizing you - which plans of violence and destabilization help them with.
You can’t say “we’ll organize first” because no you can’t.
You cannot actually use democratic means to change the system from within. Even with high levels of organization, you still have to smash the capitalist state apparatus. Organizing requires at least creating a disciplined party that is trusted and supported by the majority of the revolutionary class, as a party can do very little by itself. The party’s job is to educate, organize, and lead the rest of the revolutionary class, not to itself be the revolution.
You seem to be conflating capitalism with democracy. Which suggests you want some kind of authoritarian socialism or communism, which - no thank you. And now you are not talking about the ‘working class’, which definitely includes a vast majority so has no democratic barriers, but a ‘revolutionary class’ - ie, ‘the party’, a small group that seize power and oppress the rest ruthlessly. Again, no thank you. That is just trading one group of self-intrerested individuals with no restraints (who are psychopathic about it) for another group (who are ruthless zealots about it).
I’m not conflating capitalism with democracy, not at all. I want a socialist system, which is necessarily democratic. Parties are not distinct classes in and of themselves either, but are subsections of broader classes. For example, principals and teachers are both working class, even though the principal manages teachers. This is basic Marxist analysis.