Like many primitive revolutionaries (people who think they are going to accomplish revolutionary change but fail to create any sort of political means for it to happen), he probably is a chameleon, an intense but ever-changing person.
Antonio Gramsci (who to to prison in Italy for his quasi-revolutwhionary activities) chose to be a journalist, but found himself outside the law when the Fascist Party came to power in Rome and decided that Gramsci's writings had led to an attempt on the life of Mussolini.
IOW, Gramsci went to prison over issues related to freedom of the press and freedom of speech (neither of which were being observed as rights in Italy at that time). He didn't shoot anyone.
The story of Gramsci is taught in many university classes about social change. The pen is supposed to be mightier than the sword, but what happens when a society abolishes free use of the pen?
Gramsci was held in terrible conditions in prison for 11 years for writing down his views (and being supportive of Communism in Italy). It was a clear example of political persecution (at least that's what the historians and political scientists say). He died just after being transferred from prison to hospital.
This history has sometimes prompted contemporary revolutionaries to adopt different tactics. I am guessing LM sees himself as a revolutionary. He's no Gramsci (whose writings were brilliantly and intensely well thought-out). But then, LM would probably say that Gramsci, with his pen, was ineffectual.
Notably, neither Marx nor Engels are known to have engaged in highly anti-social behavior in the name of their revolutionary ideals. However, the two of them did get up to minor acts of anti-social behavior in the days before they turned to the pen as their weapon.
Primitive rebellion is a very common tactic in the 20th and 21st centuries.
