SDF: Revolution led by the "rugged individualists," who can fight and win wars before recruiting a single troop? They ARE the ideal of a triumphant class. Let us not mince words.
: Let us not mince words. Engels certainly did not when he broached the topic of revolution:
: A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other by means of rifles, bayonets and canon---all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie?(5)
SDF: And when the reactionaries launch the US nuclear arsenal to prevent the revolution (and "solve the population problem" in their eyes, esp. that "India-China-Russia" axis, the current locus of paranoia), what will be the comeback?
Let's get closer to the substance of this debate, which will be here and here.
How close is the revolution?
Small is not beautiful? Big won't be a deathtrap?
Who will pump the oil? People in the OPEC nations, of course... so? Is the revolution to "seize the oil fields" to produce for the new triumphant classes? Still wedded to "big"? What about these people? Are they mere bourgeois reactionaries?
The observers of this message are directed to read Volume 2 of Julius Braunthal's HISTORY OF THE INTERNATIONAL, starring Ulyanov as the Marlboro Man. Here's the upshot.