I'd venture a guess that 95% of Marxist-Leninists would prefer to be DemSocs if were simply a matter of personal preference but, of course, MLs are blackpilled on reformism.
I don't think many MLs actually truly want a violent revolution deep down. I think that they see it as the only viable option. When your opt to flip the table, shit gets messy and chaotic and there's no guarantee that your side will prevail.
Yup. I'd prefer that the capitalists just realize they would have more authentic and fulfilling lives as members of communities instead of demigods isolated from humanity and surrounded by sharks, but that's not going to happen so *loads rifle with revolutionary intent*
For about a year before the 2020 primary ended, I was an ML who wanted to believe that there was still a possibility for peaceful reform in the USA. So, basically a demsoc in practice. Seeing Democrats steal Bernie’s delegates right in front of my own eyes changed my mind on that matter quickly and permanently.
100% Bernie changed my mind. A simple campaign of "Healthcare for All" got me thinking, why don't we already have that? Pushed me way to the left when I did more reading (looking at you, Karl). Then Bernie getting fucked over started my reform doomer arc.
A push of reform will gain support for the movement. Reform failing encourages support for a revolution. A threat of revolution makes reform actually possible. These ideologies should go hand in hand but holy fuck do these people normally hate each other.
Honestly, I think there's a lot of poetry surrounding the Cuban revolution.
So, Che was actually in Guatemala during the coup that deposed Arbenz, who was essentially a social democrat who was instituting pretty milquetoast reforms. That didn't stop the strong arm of imperialism from taking Arbenz off the board though. (I'm not going to go into how this ties into early PR and Edward Bernays because I will prattle on too much.)
This was a radicalising moment for Che.
He took this lesson from Guatemala and he continued on his ideological development. There's an argument that Guevara pushed Castro to become a Marxist-Leninist but I don't know enough about that to say for certain, although Che was undoubtedly a very influential figure in the Cuban revolution.
Now, if we skip past the successful Cuban revolution—a Marxist-Leninist armed revolution—to Allende's presidency in Chile, we have Castro meeting with Allende and not only issuing him a stern warning about the necessity for defending the revolution militarily, you have Castro gifting Allende a gold-plated AK-47 which I doubt was anything less than intentionally symbolic.
Nevertheless, Allende proceeded on his course for a revolutionary reform and despite getting urgent warnings from Cuba and the USSR that General Pinochet was plotting a coup, he ignored the threat.
Ultimately, Pinochet carried out his coup successfully and upon storming the presidential palace, Allende took that very same AK-47 and turned it on himself when all hope was lost.
And we see that the Cuban revolution survives to this day and yet Chile was plunged into decades of the blackest reaction, which successfully eliminated an entire generation of Chilean radicals either by driving them out or by exterminating them.
If Bernie got in and attempted to actually deliver on his promises, the same thing would have happened to him. It would have been the Business Plot 2.0.
I think it's necessary for all socialists to take the hard-earned lessons from Allende and to avoid letting the next revolutionary moment slip through our fingers. We owe it to his memory.
Edit: Well, what do you know? The Tricontinental Institute just dropped a dossier on the Chilean coup and its implications.
I'd venture a guess that 95% of Marxist-Leninists would prefer to be DemSocs if were simply a matter of personal preference but, of course, MLs are blackpilled on reformism.
I don't think many MLs actually truly want a violent revolution deep down. I think that they see it as the only viable option. When your opt to flip the table, shit gets messy and chaotic and there's no guarantee that your side will prevail.
Yup. I'd prefer that the capitalists just realize they would have more authentic and fulfilling lives as members of communities instead of demigods isolated from humanity and surrounded by sharks, but that's not going to happen so *loads rifle with revolutionary intent*
For about a year before the 2020 primary ended, I was an ML who wanted to believe that there was still a possibility for peaceful reform in the USA. So, basically a demsoc in practice. Seeing Democrats steal Bernie’s delegates right in front of my own eyes changed my mind on that matter quickly and permanently.
100% Bernie changed my mind. A simple campaign of "Healthcare for All" got me thinking, why don't we already have that? Pushed me way to the left when I did more reading (looking at you, Karl). Then Bernie getting fucked over started my reform doomer arc.
A push of reform will gain support for the movement. Reform failing encourages support for a revolution. A threat of revolution makes reform actually possible. These ideologies should go hand in hand but holy fuck do these people normally hate each other.
Honestly, I think there's a lot of poetry surrounding the Cuban revolution.
So, Che was actually in Guatemala during the coup that deposed Arbenz, who was essentially a social democrat who was instituting pretty milquetoast reforms. That didn't stop the strong arm of imperialism from taking Arbenz off the board though. (I'm not going to go into how this ties into early PR and Edward Bernays because I will prattle on too much.)
This was a radicalising moment for Che.
He took this lesson from Guatemala and he continued on his ideological development. There's an argument that Guevara pushed Castro to become a Marxist-Leninist but I don't know enough about that to say for certain, although Che was undoubtedly a very influential figure in the Cuban revolution.
Now, if we skip past the successful Cuban revolution—a Marxist-Leninist armed revolution—to Allende's presidency in Chile, we have Castro meeting with Allende and not only issuing him a stern warning about the necessity for defending the revolution militarily, you have Castro gifting Allende a gold-plated AK-47 which I doubt was anything less than intentionally symbolic.
Nevertheless, Allende proceeded on his course for a revolutionary reform and despite getting urgent warnings from Cuba and the USSR that General Pinochet was plotting a coup, he ignored the threat.
Ultimately, Pinochet carried out his coup successfully and upon storming the presidential palace, Allende took that very same AK-47 and turned it on himself when all hope was lost.
And we see that the Cuban revolution survives to this day and yet Chile was plunged into decades of the blackest reaction, which successfully eliminated an entire generation of Chilean radicals either by driving them out or by exterminating them.
If Bernie got in and attempted to actually deliver on his promises, the same thing would have happened to him. It would have been the Business Plot 2.0.
I think it's necessary for all socialists to take the hard-earned lessons from Allende and to avoid letting the next revolutionary moment slip through our fingers. We owe it to his memory.
Edit: Well, what do you know? The Tricontinental Institute just dropped a dossier on the Chilean coup and its implications.