So, in that event, is the idea to just hope that a revolution will break out instead?
Yeah, yeah organize too, but revolution is ultimately the desired final conclusion from said organizing, is it not?
Call me a doomer or whatever, but odds are that ain't gonna happen any time in the foreseeable future, things are gonna have to get way, waaayyy worse before it's even a realistic possibility imo.
Not to say organizing should be completely abandoned in favor of electoralism either, of course not, it just feels foolish to me to give up on either lane.
To me, it feels like the best course of action would be to pursue both at the same time until one or both leads to success. To increase our chances/odds by pursuing 2 avenues instead of putting all of our metaphorical eggs in one basket.
Basically I'm saying we should keep both options open instead of limiting our scope, and chances of success with it.
I guess you could say I'm a big-brained centrist on this issue.
Are you not just dividing your resources, thereby half-assing two things versus committing to one? And no matter how far off a revolution might seem, achieving the kind of huge change we need through bourgeois politics is even less likely.
No, mainly because people are not a resource that gets split. Revolutionaries can still spare time to vote for example. Pursuing both avenues is better because not everyome will fit on the same path at once as well.
Voting is not “electoralism”. Electoralism implies putting time and energy and money into campaigning, canvassing, everything else the political sham involves. All resources we are short on that I think can be better used elsewhere.