I think it's terribly naive to think that you're going to obtain the critical mass for a revolution simply by organizing and educating. We love to say that a person's material conditions will dictate their political action. If you follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion the best way to get people engaged in the fight to end capitalism is to show them what the alternative is. I spent my two years in nursing school carting around strangers doing uber. Most people agree that capitalism is not good. Do you think they'd rather hear they could defeat it by starting a brewery with their buddies or by engaging in a shooting war with the most terrifying armed forces the world has ever known. Now am I naive enough to think it isn't eventually going to come to that? Hell no. But you have a much better chance of getting people to engage when that comes if they have something tangible that they're putting their lives on the line for, rather than some 150 year old words on a page.
Now you kinda jump onto things i never said and rephrase your argument in more general terms that are indeed correct.
My disagreement was about your very specific interpretation of the Corbyn/Sanders campaigns being shot down as proof that their agenda and focus and their strategy was a threat to capital and was recognized as danger to move things towards socialism. Thats a very specific thing and i only explained my view of how thats not the case and ingterpretation we should have of the failures of these campaigns, looking at it historicaly too.
Its simple. Policies and structures that when enacted and pushed through social democratic governments and politicians are just concessions that dont actualy threaten capital and dont move us closer to socialism CAN BE A THREAT TO CAPITAL, have a revolutionary character and usefullness when used by revolutionary movements and parties and do move us towards socialism. Of course you should vote for the possibility of former case when you have the chance like with Corbyn but that doesnt mean that his campaign being shot down was cause capital was terrified that it would move the country towards socialism. More radical socdem/demsoc agentas have been implemented and ruled dozens western nations for a cumulative of hundreds of years but never moved a country an inch towards socialism and never catalysed an increase in class conciousness. They simply arent allowed any more because for various reasons including the fall of the USSR capitalists dont feel like allowing it anymore , despite not seeing them as a road to socialism. Why do you interpet this read and specific disagreement of mine as meaning we should just give people lenin books and that things like co-ops or alternative economic structures shouldent be persued by a socialist movement or cant be useful tools for organization under any contex. Co-ops are cool but to actualy be a part of a move towards socialism they must be part of a larger revolutionary project and connected with the work or actual socialist orgs.
Its literally the most obvious and basic thing that even the most hardcore leftcom or ML agrees with, written even in those 150 year old books. That engaging with, providing and promoting alternative forms of social/economic/political organization as part of a revolutionary movements organizing is a legit strategy and central tool. Literally what every successfull revolutionary movement or group engaged with . From the Bolsheviks, the PRC, Catalonia, Venezuela and even the Panthers. As with a lot of things , the revolutionary and class character of the movement or group engaging with this ,how it was planned ,directed and used and its interraction and prioritization with other strategies and tools was and is always the difference.
I think it's terribly naive to think that you're going to obtain the critical mass for a revolution simply by organizing and educating. We love to say that a person's material conditions will dictate their political action. If you follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion the best way to get people engaged in the fight to end capitalism is to show them what the alternative is. I spent my two years in nursing school carting around strangers doing uber. Most people agree that capitalism is not good. Do you think they'd rather hear they could defeat it by starting a brewery with their buddies or by engaging in a shooting war with the most terrifying armed forces the world has ever known. Now am I naive enough to think it isn't eventually going to come to that? Hell no. But you have a much better chance of getting people to engage when that comes if they have something tangible that they're putting their lives on the line for, rather than some 150 year old words on a page.
Now you kinda jump onto things i never said and rephrase your argument in more general terms that are indeed correct.
My disagreement was about your very specific interpretation of the Corbyn/Sanders campaigns being shot down as proof that their agenda and focus and their strategy was a threat to capital and was recognized as danger to move things towards socialism. Thats a very specific thing and i only explained my view of how thats not the case and ingterpretation we should have of the failures of these campaigns, looking at it historicaly too.
Its simple. Policies and structures that when enacted and pushed through social democratic governments and politicians are just concessions that dont actualy threaten capital and dont move us closer to socialism CAN BE A THREAT TO CAPITAL, have a revolutionary character and usefullness when used by revolutionary movements and parties and do move us towards socialism. Of course you should vote for the possibility of former case when you have the chance like with Corbyn but that doesnt mean that his campaign being shot down was cause capital was terrified that it would move the country towards socialism. More radical socdem/demsoc agentas have been implemented and ruled dozens western nations for a cumulative of hundreds of years but never moved a country an inch towards socialism and never catalysed an increase in class conciousness. They simply arent allowed any more because for various reasons including the fall of the USSR capitalists dont feel like allowing it anymore , despite not seeing them as a road to socialism. Why do you interpet this read and specific disagreement of mine as meaning we should just give people lenin books and that things like co-ops or alternative economic structures shouldent be persued by a socialist movement or cant be useful tools for organization under any contex. Co-ops are cool but to actualy be a part of a move towards socialism they must be part of a larger revolutionary project and connected with the work or actual socialist orgs.
Its literally the most obvious and basic thing that even the most hardcore leftcom or ML agrees with, written even in those 150 year old books. That engaging with, providing and promoting alternative forms of social/economic/political organization as part of a revolutionary movements organizing is a legit strategy and central tool. Literally what every successfull revolutionary movement or group engaged with . From the Bolsheviks, the PRC, Catalonia, Venezuela and even the Panthers. As with a lot of things , the revolutionary and class character of the movement or group engaging with this ,how it was planned ,directed and used and its interraction and prioritization with other strategies and tools was and is always the difference.