- 22 Jan 2009 17:11
#1769063
My answer is that they shouldn't. The aim of a proletarian revolution is to seize collective ownership of the means of production, not destroy them. In fact, the achievements of the capitalist mode of production are real and should not be squandered in an orgy of mindless violence. When the Bolsheviks seized control in Russia in 1917, one of the first orders Lenin issued was to protect the museums and art galleries from looters and vandals. Even bourgeois culture should be preserved as the birthright of the revolutionary working class. Some collatoral damage is inevitable under revolutionary conditions, but it should be kept to a minimum.
Oh, and burning some little old lady's kiosk is not a revolutionary act.
You didn't answer my question. You posted a totally boring Marxist definition of capital (which no one else uses, and everything has a social relation of some sort, including a fucking shaker of salt). Let's make this simpler for you: why should tangible, productive assets be destroyed?
My answer is that they shouldn't. The aim of a proletarian revolution is to seize collective ownership of the means of production, not destroy them. In fact, the achievements of the capitalist mode of production are real and should not be squandered in an orgy of mindless violence. When the Bolsheviks seized control in Russia in 1917, one of the first orders Lenin issued was to protect the museums and art galleries from looters and vandals. Even bourgeois culture should be preserved as the birthright of the revolutionary working class. Some collatoral damage is inevitable under revolutionary conditions, but it should be kept to a minimum.
Oh, and burning some little old lady's kiosk is not a revolutionary act.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)