Impact Postscript

Two underlying questions from the previous post, “What is the function of the revolutionary,” and, “To what extent may the actions of the revolutionary be justified?” Murder and death, it seems, are a necessary part of the equation, “collateral damage,” as it were, unpreventable. In some cases those in power willingly concede and step down, as was the case with Mubarak in Egypt last year. Other times they acquiesce allowing for change. When absolute, fundamental change is needed, and the ruling party is unwilling to compromise, what then is acceptable? Where exactly are the limitations? What is the role of the revolutionary? Historically, there has been supreme and monumental success as well as disaster, both culturally and individually.

The revolutionary is the radical agent for change. But what kind of change exactly and for what purpose? These determinations can be helpful in assessing the viability of the act itself.

Undesirable activity against the state will always be designated terrorism by the state. To be understood the terrorist act, wherever it occurs, must be questioned, the purported reason for it examined and explored. In this way the event can be processed. The actions of, say, the Zapatistas or the Sandanistas can be justified and appear honorable, indeed, noble, whereas those of the PLO in Munich, the attacks of 9/11, or McVeigh’s strike against the U.S. government (the faceless, ever-present, bureaucratic non-entity) seem pathetic, despicable, and counter-productive.

In the modern world it can be difficult to locate the actual enemy, the real threat. Terrorists are misguided, disillusioned, and essentially undemocratic. They mistakenly think one thing necessarily leads to another (if I blow up this building, people will understand the gravity of the situation). The revolutionary, however, is the enemy of tyranny and despotism, the instrumental catalyst. The revolutionary penetrates superficial causalities. The revolutionary seeks to effectively change the world around them for the better.

Change is a process - a slow, laborious, mundane process. What is unfair and unjust must be challenged. And violence is not the answer. There are too many profound, illustrious alternatives.