What Happens Next After They Tear It All Down? #dissidentRight #marxist

[00:00:00]What is the goal of political violence?

[00:00:02]And and and maybe this question is too broad, but to the extent that we see people left and right engage in in these actions, it strikes me that it's usually not with a constructive end in mind so much as it it's almost like destruction for the sake of destruction. It's a it's a revolution not towards something, but away from something. You very rarely hear the affirmative case, for example, by the most radical voices on the right for what is next. There's implication it will be better. It will be truer. it will be more vested in the interests of the American people. But I've not heard an affirmative structural answer to what's supposed to live on the other side of this violence. And I wonder if that's true on the left. I mean, we all say that this is sort of in the service of of Marxism and and that that perhaps implies in our mind a kind of understanding of a European style communist regime coming to power. But they almost never lay out a structural argument for a communist regime. It's more like it's Marxism lowercase. It's a Marxist vibe. It's a It's just an answer to the right-wing theory that this is wrong. This needs to be moved aside and whatever comes next is part of the perpetual revolution. Like I don't even have to know what it is.

[00:01:08]>> Well, we'll just get to it.

[00:01:09]>> I mean, that's it. What comes after the revolution isn't the sexy part. The revolution is an ideal. The ideal transition away from the evils of of western capitalist constitutional government. And then what comes after will be listen you in the anarctic socialistic violence of the 1920s you know one of the things that I write about is that there's an anacronistic linguistic convention that we have by calling these people anarchists and that really benefits modern-day socialists who say well you know we like bare government and they were hostile to any form of government what do we have to do with each other and the fact of the matter is that these were real distinctions on an ideological level but far more muted at the time for them and you can kind of imagine a smoky parlor in which the anarchists would argue that the state could dissolve at the outset of the revolution, whereas the socialists would say, "No, no, no. We need a dictatorship of the proletariat for a time in order to engineer the dissolution of the state." And I'm sure that that was a really compelling debate at the time, and it probably is in certain circles, but it is secondary to the practical challenge before us, which is destroying this evil regime that is executing so much systemic oppression.