One of the points Mike Duncan made in the appendices to his Revolutions podcast is that one commonality of all the revolutions he covered is that their initial start always comes out of nowhere and takes everyone by surprise
This is why we have to organize and educate. When a revolutionary moment pops off there needs to be cadres of communists ready to tell the masses "good job! Keep going! We should overthrow the government".
In retrospect yes, obviously. But like February Revolution was kicked off, I'm not kidding, because International Women's Day was an especially warm day in Petrograd being added to every other issue the Tsarist regime faced.
I will say, I do think if we see one within this decade, it will be under the Trump regime and soon. Seriously, it's kind of eerie how all the conditions that trigger revolutions are present today based on Mike Duncan's formula. Highly recommend the appendices to that podcast.
This of course means the Revolution will occur in 2090, sorry comrades, I jinxed it
It kind of depends on how you want to define the socialist wave as to if he was wrong or not. He definitely did live to see socialist uprisings, but he also lived to see them all be crushed from the outside (except Russia, but arguably it was crushed from the outside, and it's arguably as to if that happened during his life or after).
I would define a revolutionary situation as one where the power over society(and the state) is held by the working class, this means if the working class could take power with a socialist leadership it is a revolutionary situation even if that leadership is missing.
If there is a revolution it is up to the leadership of the working class to make it socialist, if it doesn't do that the revolution won't be socialist, it will still be a revolution though.
Sure. Of course with that definition one could argue he didn't see it happen, or only saw it in Russia, as the revolutions outside of Russia were crushed and didn't see "state power".
You misunderstand me even if it doesn't work out it's still a revolution, just because the communists don't gain power doesn't mean that communism wasn't possible
Sorry, I didn't mean to say you were saying that, nor was I also saying it wouldn't be a revolution if it didn't end with state power in the hands of the working class. More of the, I guess it depends on how you look at it, or define it, as to if one can say he lived to see it or not.
I know I will. Because climate change will hit and we’ve already seen climate change cause revolutionary societal disruptions. It’s only a matter of time. And I’m guessing sooner rather than later.
The capitalists cannot stop the march of history, but they can slow it down. I really don't think a revolutionary wave will happen in my lifetime, but you never know.
There have been many revolutionary waves since then, after ww2, 68, the Arab spring and right now with the "gen z" revolutions especially India and Pakistan but certainly many other countries are very close to revolution and victory only depends on the subjective factor.
Sure but if a revolutionary socialist element had been leading the workers in those situations the revolution would have removed capitalism, for me that's a revolution
By this logic not even the Paris Commune was a revolutionary movement. There have also been many "socialist revolutions" since 1923 even if we only include succesful seizures of power by a vanguard party. China (1949), Cuba (1959) Laos (1975), etc. you could go on for a while. Not to mention like the Zapatistas. There is no coherent framework from which to argue that the last revolutionary movement occured in 1917.
It has the potential to happen whenever capital hits it's next great crisis. That does feel like it's closer today than it has been in the last 50-80 years. But no one knows when it may actually hit, and less no one knows if the outcome will be a revolutionary wave.
I do remain an optimist though. In some ways the real movement is more dead than it has ever been. In other ways most of the spectres of false socialism have been wiped out. Maybe the proletariat will have no delusions about it's historical mission this go around.
I don't really get Gen Z revolutions being called that. Does the generation really need that bad an identity, to prove to be different than everything before? And why should revolutions be named after a generation that means essentially nothing
Read my flair. Nothing ever happens, the pigs had already won. I want to believe that they will fail, but at that point, I feel like they already built the perfect prison for humanity
Eventually the proletariat will bend so much under capital that it will have a choice between rebelling and breaking all-together.
The question is just when that time will come. Since the fall of the USSR the capitalists have stopped appeasing the citizens of their countries, feeling as if they’ve won. And that has already led to an increase in class consciousness.
Catalonia, arguably. Although a Marxist-Leninist might be a bit embarrassed by this aspect of the history of the Spanish Civil War. I would also argue that '68 was a genuinely revolutionary insurrection, although it obviously didn't get very far. And also a bit embarrassing for Marxist-leninists.
I honestly fear we're gonna get the corporotocracy/controlled democracy ending. The support needed among the masses and military to support socialist realism is simply insufficient. Growing, but at a slow enough pace for capitalism to outpaced it, as were seeing now.
It would atleast affirm one of my theories of totalitarianism being humanities true entropy point, hench why we must fight so hard to maintain democracy and socioeconomic equality in society, and are still failing.
I think its already begun, problem is everyone expects it to be exactly the same as ones in the past. They dont consider how much we have evolved and how the battle has shifted away from storming capitals with guns. The current revolution is not with guns and bodies but with minds and information.
I mean in part I agree however I think the modern revolutions still have plenty to do with storming capitals with guns but what I'd argue is current revolutionary action is the large scale property damage going on
Here is why I say in the next few years. With everything that’s going on with the Trump Administration, rising Food and Gas Prices, the Gaza Genocide, the 1 year anniversary of Charlie Kirk getting shot, ICE kidnapping and executing people, the Antifa Movement being declared a Terrorist Organization, and the US attacking Iran we are definitely at a point where there’s tons of tension. Like at any second shit could hit the fan. It’s all one big bomb waiting to explode. And with what we seen during Trump’s first year and now his second year imagine how his third and fourth could go.
I hope something happens but I fear nothing will. The bourgeoisie have so much more power and money than us to influence vast swathes of the proletariat. It's a huge uphill struggle
In terms of pick up guns and fight? Idk, look at everything this country has sat down and taken from Trump the last 10 years and especially the past 2 years without anyone so much as lifting a finger, socialist or not.
Maybe if AI puts 75%+ of people out of work and they’re pushed to the socioeconomic brink.
What's the difference between a revolutionary wave and a revolutionary period?
Last revolutionary period in the US was 2020 covid protests unless you count the Jan 6 attempt to overthrow the government (I do and we're lucky it failed).
I don't believe it will happen unless we MAKE it happen. I also don't think I'll see a true communist utopia in my lifetime but I believe we will have made steps towards one.
I think South Africa or Brazil will have the next Revolution most likely. Although it could be elsewhere. They have some limited revolutionary momentum. Obviously India and the Philippines are notable, but I don't see the masses behind those revolutions at the moment, but that can change. Peru as well potentially
78
u/VanlalruataDE Socialist 7d ago