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.

  • darkcalling [comrade/them, she/her]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Imagine coming to Chapo of all places and complaining about being called a liberal and more than that being called a liberal with an explanation instead of just a crude "fuck you lib".

    You are unread. Your statement reveals that much. You and the person I am replying to still have internalized liberalism and it prevents proper thinking and causes liberal-bad-think. I do not say you are unread/uneducated to put you down or call that person a liberal merely as an insult to cause spiteful injury. I say both of them because they are true assessments. I was once a liberal too, I once had liberal thinking. You are clearly not well read in Marxist theory or not applying it anyways. You are expressing liberalism as is that person. Their comparison of the tea party to the Democratic party and left infiltration is like comparing apples to a 737 airplane carrying them for the very important reason I illustrated above. For it fails to account for the primary antagonism, the primary problem which is there are two sides roughly speaking, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Reactionaries serve the bourgeoisie as do the Democrats, they did a lot of red baiting in the last red scare and will do so again soon among many other things. Electroralism is best thought of as a game, a rigged system put in place by the bourgeoisie to distract people from other mechanisms of change which actually work, it is to distract people and make them think at once that they have an avenue for easy change (just go out and vote every 2 years), and that if the change and material improvements they want don't come it's because they need to continue voting more or there's something slightly wrong with the machine, there's grime on the gears (corruption) clogging it up and if only we clean it a little the machine will work and we'll get what we want.

    Now you can disagree. You can say that Materialist analysis and Marxist political theory are garbage and you believe they're worthless. But don't get upset when someone who holds them to be of value and true uses them and political descriptors such as liberal -- which is not a generic slur actually but has an actual meaning.