Add new comment

This whole point is clear when you read it in the context of the complete text.
It says things like: "4. How many lives are we willing to sacrifice for our moment? Shall we stack them for barricades? Fill the trenches with them after the tanks roll in? Use their blood to write the history books that tell of our glorious time? "

What it's doing is taking certain logics and pushing them to their limits to examine them, so we may see the faults of that thinking. So if one were committed to make a big impact, imagination and attempts would have to be much larger than the domain of rutinary activist imagination. Terrorists, whether state or non-state actions, have larger scale and surprising line of actions that shake up that comfort zone of the activist imagination. But that line of thinking has its own misery and limits. When reading it all together, it advocates for patience and engagement:

"The simple answer is that we have to be patient. We have to have an engaged patience that is incomprehensible to the lethargy of the revolutionary left. Our role should not be to lay in wait for some mark to come stumbling along because that is never going to happen. Instead we must have total engagement in the social and political processes around us. Nothing should escape our attention. This could look like, and is not limited to, attending church (especially politically active churches), going to shareholder meetings, attending city council, toasters, Elks lodges, civic organizations and even leftist meetings. The idea is not that our efforts should be particularly supportive or even destructive to these groups (although pushing the boundary in both directions should be part of the process) but to understand how it is that modern acculturated civil society works. What does a social group look like and how does it react to the kind of stimulus that can be brought to bear? If you play the game how easy is it to integrate into an organizational form? To what extent do these forms accrue power, negligence and momentum? We need more information. "

I choose to interpret this as a continuation of the same "long march" but after recovering from the "terrorist mistake". In other words, taking that same logic further, to an absurd and counter-intuitive limit.

My takeaway is, regardless of author's intention. based on my interpretation and how I make it my own, is that seeing oneself as a driver of macro social change in this or that direction by this or that means is absurd, accidental, chaotic and impossible. One can still love freedom, life, beauty, dignity, regardless of consequences. The nihilist leap is one way to lose fear of consequences, or to embrace some notion of acausality, though it is not the only way, nor is it necessary. Even believing in causality, one can see how the bouncy-ball trajectory of particles, actors, conflict, confluence, turbulence, and complexity in systems can be too much information to manage by a single brain. Navigating through this world is what our faulty faculties evolved to do, and these sense fail us, we can get lost and stranded. A certain nihilism can free us from delusions of controlling the fate of our species (what is a runaway chain reaction and what isn't?), but you can still enjoy your life, and that enjoyment may take the form of a futile struggle.