Dear Joe,
it was against my better judgement to make any further comment on this thread, but I did try to post something that went beyond the kind of simplistic, insulting, binary logic you've predictably thrown back.
Think what you like (though it's not thinking), but please don't presume to impose your crude constructions on my thinking.
On that note, I'll bow out.

Thank you, Squeers - I thought that what I wrote was a devastating attack precisely on binary thinking, specifically grok's either/or, not to mention his 'tu quoque' defense of revolutionary/anti-capitalist brutality by citing anti-revolutionary/capitalist brutality, as if:

brutality a > brutality b, therefore b better than a [in a universe of a, b].

My point was exactly that: what might the alternatives be to these very unattractive options ? ARE there any other options ?

Please don't leave us hanging like this: come back on-line and give us some much-needed guidance :)

Joe

Loudmouth:
<Please don't leave us hanging like this: come back on-line and give us some much-needed guidance :)>

Dear Joe,
I don't pretend to be any kind of guru, so spare me the sarcasm.

<My point was exactly that: what might the alternatives be to these very unattractive options ? ARE there any other options ?>

The "options" are what Marxists, Critical Theorists and Continental philosophers have been exploring since about 1960!!

Meanwhile capitalism has only tightened its ideological grip, and today's generations of the bourgeoisie have no conception of their own demeaned state, nor any regard for the offshore working classes they continue to exploit at a remove. But this kind of merely ethical talk may not be to your taste (bewilderingly, ethics and Laissez fare are today somehow thought synonymous!), that's why I generally argue the pragmatics of the need for change; that capitalism is unsustainable, is headed for a cliff, never mind ethics!

The option then, to answer your question, is to go over the cliff (as Grok hinted, probably be pushed!).
There are no easy options.

*For revolutionaries it is better to die, better to risk violence, than to live demeaned.*

Ah Squeers, that does indeed sound like Osama in Laden, or
Castro for that matter. So what do they do? Make the lives
of millions miserable, by force as required.

I've yet to see too many swimming back towards Cuba and
even old Fidel has now seemingly conceded that his experiment
was a failure.

*and today's generations of the bourgeoisie have no conception of their own demeaned state*

Of course. People don't know what is good for them, revolutionaries
do it seems.

Capitalism, for all its faults, has dragged more people out of
poverty then any other system. Capitalism, for all its faults,
has given more people the opportunity to use their talents as they
see fit, not as others see fit.

Gilbert Holmes made one very valid point. Some men seem to
have in innate need to control others at any cost. Now you
seemingly can justify their use of violence, to achieve that.

Thank you, Squeers,

Yeah, my own exploration for options dates from about 1961-62. Still looking.

Frankly, I hope I go to my grave with not a single person's blood on my hands or death on my conscience, in the belief that I have not sacrificed anybody to my political vanity. Think very carefully because as Yabby suggests, the cavalier attitude that

* people's lives are as nothing compared to the completion of the historic task of revolution

is not all that different to

* the rationale of Osama and all the other supporters of the Caliphate and Shari'a law.

What is socialism worth if it puts people a very distant second ? Second to what ? Some ideal ? What the hell are we supposed to be working towards if people have so little value ? By all means, as a revolutionary, jump over your cliff, but don't presume to take innocent people with you.

But, despite grok's confidence, you only get the chance to do that once.

Joe

You know, I thought Loudmouth was a bit different than the other lot -- but more discussion reveals how little that difference actually is. He chooses not to understand some very basic facts about life, living as he does in the relatively privileged upper echelons of imperialist society, IMO.

My attitude for Reichwingers and social-democrats alike has always been that the coming period of world revolution will reveal the inadequacy of their relatively similar way of thinking, in VERY concrete ways...

So learn the hard way then, Loudmouth. And don't blame people like me: it won't be us who will be shooting/brutalizing/starving/yadda you.