Basically, what it comes down to is: In my heart of hearts, I just don't believe that a revolution will happen in my lifetime, even if I live to be an old-ass man.
So if I were to just go all-in on hoping for revolution as opposed to anything electoralism-related, in my brain, I'd pretty much be admitting to myself that I personally won't live to see anything get really significantly better, that when I die everything's still gonna suck or be even worse than when I was born.
And I guess I just can't bear to admit that to myself.
The difference is that there had already been failed revolutions in Russia a few years back. It wasn't exactly the same...
The George Floyd Uprising could have become a revolution if anyone had been in control. For a few weeks last year we had a glimpse of what the future revolution which overthrows the USA may look like. It was our 1905 (although the USA has had a lot of 1905s in the last century). I don't think I'm alone in saying that it took me completely by surprise. Even though I knew that shit was pretty fucked at that time, I had assumed that things were still basically not bad enough to get people all over the country to riot. It was fucking insane honestly. I think that even if Chauvin gets an innocent verdict (which would also be utterly insane), the resulting protests and riots will be nothing compared to the summer of 2020.
But I could easily eat my words here. As socialists we are used to losing. We are used to being surrounded by reactionaries, to being either ignored or attacked. Even those of us with only a passing familiarity with theory and history are haunted by the ghosts of the past. This means, in some ways, that our pessimism can blind us to the seeds that are germinating right now. One example: as far as I can tell, millions of renters appear to be on the brink of getting thrown out of their homes. Coronavirus cases are either increasing or at an unacceptably high plateau (almost identical to last summer). Student debt and the total lack of decent jobs are both combining to radicalize young people everywhere—although unfortunately a lot of those people are turning into Nazis. These are all serious problems which capital cannot (seemingly) deal with.
I think Bolivia offers us a pretty good and recent model of how to use both electoralism and militant organization to achieve our aims. (Both Marx and Lenin were open to using electoralism—"by the bullet or the ballot"—whenever it suited them.) If we can get a lot of people to block highways all over the country for a few months, we can actually win power. But of course that's a big if. Capital is extremely powerful in the USA in countless ways. Successful revolutions often take place where capital is weakest. We need about 3% of the population actively involved in order for a revolution here to have a decent chance. 40% of Americans currently approve of socialism in some form (although many of those people are just embarrassed liberals). 15% of the population approves of the slogan "abolish the police," which is far more radical than calling yourself a socialist. No liberal I know of wants to abolish the police. Only about 40% of the total population (not the total electorate) participated in the 2020 presidential election. Make no mistake, shit is still fucked, but in the words of the Ramayana: "as long as one lives, there is still hope."
Last summer was nowhere close to a revolution. It has nothing to do with leadership, either. It's extremely counterproductive to not see this clearly.
Most protests last summer started peaceful and stayed that way unless cops started beating and gassing people. Most protesters weren't armed and probably didn't even have access to arms. And despite all of the police violence, you could be very sure that when you went to a protest you weren't going to wind up dead. Independent of the lack of leadership, three absolutely crucial things were missing: arms, mass willingness to kill other human beings, and mass willingness to die if necessary.
And all of that probably doesn't make the top five reasons why we're nowhere close to a revolution. Talking about it as if it's imminent is as far from reality as Three Percenters who think they're going to wake up to the Day of the Rope. Nothing good will come from fooling ourselves into thinking otherwise.
Wasn't 1905 peaceful until the tsar's troops opened fire on a bunch of protestors who were carrying his portrait?
That's only one of maybe a dozen reasons why there isn't a revolution around the corner.
This is magical thinking -- thinking that we're on the verge of this spontaneous, seemingly impossible thing that will solve our problems.
I can't say when the revolution will happen. Nor can I say if a nuclear war or some other catastrophe will happen first. But to think that things will just go on forever like this—isn't that also pretty crazy? Do you think that fifty or a hundred years from now, everything is pretty much just going to be the same, but worse?
You know that in 1917 the majority of protesters weren't willing to kill for bread? While you migh tbe right with your assessment where is your data and the empiricism to come to your conclusions?
The events mattered, how and in what way we have to find out, but having preconceived notions about them is a big problem - even if we necessarily have to draw it together with our world view.
where is your data and the empiricism to come to your conclusions?
This question should be directed at the folks saying a socialist revolution is imminent.
But if you insist, you can start with how no socialist revolution has succeeded (or come close, really) in the imperial core. If you want to call Russia the imperial core, that was still a century ago, in a context that might as well be another universe. You can also look at how the last time we had anything worth calling a revolution it was a reactionary one that depended on the support of much of the political elite. Same with the time before that. You can look at the long history of American leftist social movements, none of which turned into anything worth calling a revolution, and certainly none of which were successful on revolutionary terms.
If people actually buy into this we all need to log off for about a month.
But if you insist, you can start with how no socialist revolution has succeeded (or come close, really) in the imperial core
This isn't an argument for data in what we talk about. This is Hegelian, not Marxist thought. Just cause reality was a certain way, doesn't mean it is like that cause of absolute reason. Though it is an argument for your framework of revolutions, that - why exactly? - the Imperial core is not able to deliver revolutions.
If you want to call Russia the imperial core, that was still a century ago
So you basically want to say 'revolutions don't happen'? This I would say is not very empirical, even if we ignore stuff like the fall of the Berlin wall. There are also some alternatives which brought into question the means of production for small scales.
You can also look at how the last time we had anything worth calling a revolution it was a reactionary one that depended on the support of much of the political elite
I assume you talk about the US. It might be good to hold the heterogenities in mind that are true for the US. This means the contradictions between white supremacy and powerful actors in the country, as well as the heterogeneity of vast sways of land in terms of real living situation.
You can look at the long history of American leftist social movements, none of which turned into anything worth calling a revolution, and certainly none of which were successful on revolutionary terms.
I would say you really have to talk collectively more about doing real organizing for yourself and to learn more of the history of the US and the workers of the world.
You are much too apathetically inclined in regards to the facts of what did happen. To ignore the militant miner strikes and the organization (albeit liberal in parts) of the black conscious movement means you are not historical materialist.
TL;DR The most important thing is to look at objective facts and those have to contain large collections of linked numbers. If you argue about "there never was" or from your subjective point of view, you are not looking at the objective reality.
the daily spread of the disasters of war, there are famine and banditry everywhere and the peasant masses and the urban poor can hardly keep alive
I don't think the material conditions of China in 1930 are at all comparable to the U.S. today. Give it a few roaming warlords and imperial invasions at least.
Frankly I think one of the most realistic outcomes (at least in the US/west) is that a UBI gets implemented in a round of "please don't overthrow us" concessions once automation gets really out of hand and we can't create enough bullshit jobs to cover the demand for jobs. Wouldn't be so bad (for its beneficiaries in the west, less so for the global south) and would probably stave off a revolution for as long as capitalism can sustain itself uninhibited. The west has repeatedly shown willingness to offer concessions to stop revolutions, I don't think this would be different unless for knowledge of the past ones.
In the US, we are due for a potentially revolution-triggering crisis within the next few decades since they happen roughly every 90 years. So, either expect some nice new welfare programs, or the final struggle. Probably nice welfare programs though.
Imo the 90 year cycles stuff is basically astrology for history buffs anyways...
I think it's mostly bullshit, but there is something to say about the period of 70-90 years being about the time it takes for former crises to drift completely out of living memory.
I mean that the average life span, so it would make sense that the generation who experienced the crises dying would lead to the memory of the crises fading
I'm counting the American Revolution and Civil War as well. For bonus points there was also the Glorious Revolution back across the pond in 1688, but I don't know what standing effects that had on the colonies.
Um, a lot, a few revolts, the beginning of the Stuart emigration that peaked after the '45 etc.
To speak of nothing about the increasingly frequent economic collapses right? Such a crisis could be sooner down the road with how many “bust cycles” are occurring.
I'm not sure why someone would be "revolution or bust". Of course there can't be revolution if you don't build the conditions for it first, and this can pass through "electoralism", so...
It wont happen in the US in our lifetimes, or at least not till very late in our lives. What i think is most likely to haopen is that the PRC goes FALGSC in 200 years while the US never has a revolution, but ends up basically where SWCC+Nordic social democracy is today and calls it "socialism but good and free [eagle call]". Thats kind of a best case scenario.
The capitalist apparatus will stay dominant for the next generation or two unless there's a collapse that sends us back to the early industrial age.
If you want a taste of communism, you can experience it if you involve yourself in setting up a piece of the world to come- something with communal organization that actively diminishes the power and reach of capital locally and/or globally.
I don't place my faith in electoralism, nor in the ability of a global proletariat to act as "a class for itself". My horizon is a model commune that can draw people away from living under capitalist states and markets, and provide the kind of life for those in it that reflects progressive values.
The middle ground between wimp electoralism and larp revolution is building class power through institutions composed of working people that act to enhance the conditions of working people and through such success grow themselves, as I understand it. Those can helpful in the event of either a bourgeois election, where they might be able to get you Bidens instead of Bushes, or a revolution, where they will form the power base of the left.
