/pol/ - International /Pol/itics & /Bant/er

What does strike mean? Revolution? that's what Marx thought would happen anyway.

>>4225177
It doesn't really matter what shape the "strike" takes in practice as long as it achieves the objective of eliminating any significant opposition to the revolutionary project.
Though of course the most realistic option is violent overthrowal and the implantation of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

>>4225257
>violent overthrowal
Seems impossible considering the only effective means of actualising this would probably involve some sort of insider military coup/revolt, and, as far as I know, the (revolutionary) left has no sway over any first world military. For however many guns there are per capita in WeimariKKKa, and in spite of how many people call for the epsteinbludderinos to be executed or put on trial, there's very little political violence directed at the ruling class, and unfortunately I think things are going to continue this way for a while longer

>>4225257
>as long as it achieves the objective of eliminating any significant opposition to the revolutionary project.
If you don't mean revolution, as Marx thought, let's just imagine the first world (America most importantly, but also Let's just say all of Europe) was to vanish, i don't think this fixes the larger point that there just isn't a "global war against capitalism". And that those opposed to the "revolutionary project" would still be their respective governemnts and national bourgeoisie.
>the most realistic option is violent overthrowal and the implantation of a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Is it the most realistic? It's the imperial core precisely that has proved most averse to proletarian revolutions