Since reading Rosa Luxemburg’s Reform or Revolution and discussing with my wife about it, we both got to the conclusion that a party should have its goal in their laws and executive actions to get rid of capitalism instead of making it “livable” under it, like the Northern countries.
Now, that is mostly clear to me, and I kinda also understand what Lenin spoke of in Left-wing communism (haven’t finished reading it). But how would one go about doing so?
I also recognize that having a mix of both reformist and revolutionary laws before the revolution might be advantageous and a worthy tactic to raise the class consciousness in the short term and starting to lay the foundation for the revolution on the long term. But this is very abstract and I can’t quite fully understand how this would be measured and which law would have to be reformist or revolutionary.
My interpretation of revolutionary is anything that is inherently anti-capitalist. This can either impede exploitation of a sector of the current economy (like abolishing the ability of landowners to own more than 2 homes or outright banning corporations of buying homes and subsequently appropriating their homes) or make it impossible to extract profits (collectivization of national industries and running them on non-profit basis).
Am I missing something here tho? Are there any other useful tactics or strategies to apply in the European imperial core?
I mean if what you are getting at is that violence for the sake of violence or sadistic pleasure is wrong i 100% agree.(punctuation left the chat)
But i cant help to feel theres some sort of miscommunication in here, thats why i would like to know how you feel about Dresden.
Dresden? You mean the bombing of the German city during WWII?
The fire bombing i mean
From what I can find on it, it was carried out by British and US forces, so I’m not sure what it has to do with the practice of communists. Not trying to avoid the question either, I’m just not sure where the connection is. It looks like indiscriminate targeting of civilians to me, which is typical for colonial forces like them (and the US did similar to imperial Japan - worse when you consider the atomic bombs).
I wish to know whats your moral stance on the Dresden Fire Bombings(considering that the end goal was to defeat the nazis)
Well from what I can tell, it was carried out by the sort of institutions (e.g. the US, Britain) who took on Nazis after the war via Operation Paperclip, or had Nazis in NATO positions. So was it even about defeating Nazis? Is the US/israel trying to defeat the IRGC in Iran when they murder Minab schoolchildren or carry out longstanding colonial policies based in racism and maximizing civilian death?
I find colonialism to be very fucked up (I would hope you do too) and at that point in the war, and given who was doing it, I’m doubtful it had very much to do with defeating Nazis. It was the USSR who did the brunt of the fighting against Nazi Germany and I haven’t heard about them fire bombing civilians to do it.