This is a good comment but I would say that the requirements for revolution at least aren't a complete enigma.

The masses attempt violent change only when the conditions of their everyday lives become intolerable. This action is successful only when the existing system of exploitation has become too weak to defend itself. There were instances of violent labor insurrection in the children-in-coal-mines era of American history, but the forces of reaction were too strong and just pulverized them.

The bourgeois have been very good at parsimoniously doling out just enough reform and just enough treats to just enough people in order to keep everything under control. This is where Marxism comes in. Pretty much the only hope of Marxists anymore is the TRPF. If not for imperialism, the imperialist countries would never have made it this long without everything grinding to a halt as Marx predicted. But they can force their way into new markets and more profitably extract resources at gunpoint. The ability to export misery onto the rest of the world, and to maintain control there by dumping enormous investment into guns and bombs and propaganda and comprador liberals' police, allows the imperialist nations to hold out at home indefinitely.

I've been thinking lately that neoliberalism might be their undoing. To the extent that they're successful in financializing and integrating and "levelling," they're just running out the clock in terms of places they can stuff human misery and get away with it. Even if we have to wait until the entire capitalist world has been democracied in the skull so many times that four billion people have Disney+ subscriptions, there's no outrunning the TRPF forever and the whole sordid system will just go down together. Fascism scares me though. Fascism can't really exist without war, and the whole Marxian formula for the end of capitalism kind of falls apart if the capitalists can just keep destroying the world and finding new profits in the rebuilding...