Genuinely curious. I keep thinking “it can’t get much worse without some kind of mass uprising” but the ability of the general population of Western states to just soak up suffering seems endless. Do you think we will actually see mass movements in the next decade or two? Or just slowly lurch into a void of ever-shittier liberalism?
By the West I mean like. Western Europe and the Anglosphere I guess.
No amount of propaganda can feed your stomach
No amount of starvation can educate people. Look at all the poor countries that haven't had communist revolutions when there was a complete breakdown of society and economy
I think what you're failing to take into consideration is that all those poor countries that haven't had communist revolutions have had the weight of the most powerful empire ever to exist on earth bearing down on them and doing its best to ensure any communist revolution was strangled in its crib. Yet despite this, some of them succeeded in communist revolutions anyway! The lack of revolutions in the periphery since the advent of capitalism is not evidence for the lack of revolutionary potential in a starving population. Saying it is is just not taking all the material conditions into account.
Ppl dont need education to do a revolution. It will happen with or without education if you starve a population.
You cant have a communist revolution just because thats your intention. Id even say that a society that hasnt reached industrial level of production at least cant build communism to its full potential
They do for a socialist one. Otherwise it'll end up being fascism or a revolution without socialist character
Not true. You may need an educated vanguard party, but not an educated population. Even then, the vanguard need only be "educated" in legitimate theory. An "educated population" that has been educated mostly in capitalist propaganda like in the US is a hindrance to revolution, definitely not a requirement. "Uneducated" people aren't dumb, they can still recognize inequality and the injustice of not being able to eat while a small elite wallows in the wealth made off their labor.
The masses still need to be educated to the extent that they will actually follow and trust and dedicate themselves to the vanguard party leading the revolution
Y'all make it sound sooooo easy haha
No one is making anything "sound easy," we're just pointing out the fact that education is not and never has been a prerequisite for revolution. It's ignorant, ahistortical, and bordering on chauvinism to say that's the reason "all the poor countries" haven't had revolutions. It's ridiculous on it's face when you actually look at history and see that almost all successful revolutions that became AES countries did so with the support and participation of their largely uneducated populous. Or no, I guess the masses of peasantry in rural China all went to uni otherwise the Chinese revolution could never have happened. 🙄
I don't mean education like a bachelor' degree. I mean just basic knowledge that socialism is good and you should follow these people who are leading the revolution
Not sure what your point is.
Vietnam developed a revolutionary and educated mass during occupation, achieved victory and independence, and still failed to achieve socialism despite attempting it because we live in a globalized economy and they had to choose between theoretical purity and letting the demons back in so people don’t starve to death after already facing massive deaths from war. It doesn’t matter how educated you are when the world is designed to strangle you.