Revolutions tend to overshoot. Objective conditions are not taken into account when the masses are on the move. The less developed the society, the greater the overshot tends to be. The greater the overshot, the more serious the problems associated with an organized retreat, that is, the greater the danger of a rout. The greater this objective danger, the greater will the terror tend to be. Etc. One problem with this: What are the “objective conditions”? Is not that concept too strong?

Addendum (April 18, 1980)

In cauda venenum, as is only appropriate. A craving for objectivity in an administered, objectivized, world is a mere anachronism. It caters to the interests of the administration, regardless of its content. Only an object can be objective, that is, indifferent, devoid of purpose, no matter how anachronistic that purpose may be prima facie. Even the subtleties of subject-object dialectics serve the objectivized reality by propagating the myth of a Second Coming, according to which the lost subject will have to be imported from another, supposedly better world. The apostles of this other world are in fact the unwitting accomplices in all this, since they cannot but indulge in vain dreams, in which they promise to themselves a central rôle in the reconstruction of the past, let alone the future. Like the other side of a coin, they are over there for good, contrary to their occasional prophesies.