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.

  • JuneFall [none/use name]
    ·
    4 years ago

    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.