@Radical_EgoCom The global capitalist system doesn't need to be overthrown, because at some point it will inevitably fall by itself. Its unsustainability is a known fact. IMO the more important question to focus on is how to cultivate the resilience to not let it drag us down with it. As the old systems start to slowly decay and crumble, local networks of mutual aid will grow to fill in the cracks out of necessity. I hope that at some point such local and communal solutions will overtake capitalist states as people witness the old systems failing to protect them.
Now, an argument could be made that we can't afford to wait around for fossil capitalism to cause things to get that bad. I'm much too pessimistic to think that any large scale revolution could be achieved before the masses start to lose their bread and circuses. Things will have to get worse before they get better, but they're already slowly getting worse and will continue to do so for a long time. May we live in interesting times.
That's false. Capitalism will not fall by itself. Capitalism has ways of self-sustaining itself and prolonging its existence. When capitalism is in decay, fascism arises to maintain capitalism's existence through force, specifically by smashing proletarian movements that would otherwise push for the abolition of capitalism and the creation of socialism. If we just wait around for capitalism to die on its own, fascism will arise and destroy any chance of it dying.
You're claim that fascism, being capitalism in decay, will destroy itself is untrue. Tell me, is Germany still capitalist? What about Italy or Spain? Yes? But they were fascist countries, so by your logic, capitalism shouldn't exist in those countries. Fascism is unstable, but when it inevitably fails, it doesn't result in the abolition of capitalism. It results in the restoration of the old, or very similar, capitalist order, which is literally the whole point of fascism.
@Radical_EgoCom I'm not talking about the stability of a political system in and of itself. I'm talking about sustainability in the context of a global climate crisis, soil degradation, overfishing, global biodiversity loss etc. etc. In a word, polycrisis. Switching between unsustainable capitalism and unsustainable fascism won't change the fact the underlying capitalist mode of production is unsustainable and thus by definition has to end at some point, willingly or not.
And so I return to my original comment: The problem then is to not let the system take us down with it.
Still, your claim that capitalism will abolish itself isn't true. Capitalism is inherently unsustainable and will inevitably end, but if there's no working-class movement to actually abolish capitalism when it's weak, then capitalism will just continue to sustain itself through its various tactics of prolonging its survival, such as fascism. Ultimately, capitalism will have to be forcefully overthrow by the proletariat because it's not going to die by itself.
@Radical_EgoCom I think abandonment is more accurate than abolition to describe what I'm thinking of.
Economy exists within ecology. Historically, when capitalism has ceased to benefit the commoner, fascism has swooped in. Tyranny requires constant effort. My hope is that at some point in the future the ecological and environmental stresses applied on the economic system will force the state to spread its resources so thin that cracks open for communal solutions to grow in. Solutions that meet the needs of the people better than the increasingly strained state struggling to maintain control at the larger scale.
Sure, that could result in a collection of syndicates forming an armed opposition against the state, but that may not be necessary. If the state is so strained that it can't take care of its citizens, at some point it would just become irrelevant in the shadow of the communal networks.
Your "solution" for getting rid of capitalism isn't a solution at all. It amounts to waiting for capitalism to mess up the environment and society to a severe degree and then hoping that it just dissolves by itself. Any solution that relies on hope doesn't have the assurance necessary for me or many other rational people to take it seriously.
@Radical_EgoCom Is it in your opinion unsustainable? If yes, then it will end. There's no way around that. And there's no need to wait for anything to join a local anarchist group. Plenty already exist.
One could argue that fantasizing about a socialist revolution like it's the early 1900's is more far fetched. The concessions made to the workers and the huge gains in living standards since then have pretty much defused the threat of that happening in any large enough scale in the developed world. Or IDK maybe in the US workers have it bad enough, but there's other problems to deal with over there. For example that a considerable portion of the population has been programmed to violently resist any such movements by the red scare and all. In the rest of the developed world one would have to wait until capitalism messes up society so badly that the common worker is convinced about the need for a communist revolution. (If you look at the polls, they're currently voting the polar opposite of that.) But that would necessitate *waiting around for capitalism to mess up the environment and society to a severe degree.*
Yes, my solution relies on hope. I don't think a solution exists that doesn't.
Revolution is still possible despite the living standards of workers increasing and constant anti-revolutionary propaganda. Despite the living standard growing for workers, workers still face many of the same problems of wealth inequality, poverty, unemployment, etc, and there is the ever growing wage disparity that only gets bigger and bigger each year. The living standards may have gotten better, but the workers are still suffering, and as long as they are, they will have an...
...incentive to engage in the proletarian revolution. As for the propaganda against the proletarian movement, it may be numerous, but the way to combat propaganda of lies is with propaganda of truth, of the experiences and struggles of the working class and the necessity of revolution against capitalism. There is more propaganda against workers than for them, but that can change as workers organize, network, and gain more avenues of propagating their ideas and, in turn, more support.
What people want doesn't change what has to happen in order for a proletarian revolution to be successful. People may not want to live in a vanguard one-party state, but that doesn't make it any less necessary.
@Madaligned @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj
1/3 The idea of a vanguard party being necessary isn't just opinion (it is not a subjective belief based on personal feelings), it's a hypothesis, a proposed explanation for how a revolution realistically has to be done, one that is based on logic and evidence. The logic behind the necessity of a vanguard party derives from the fact that the revolutionary people need ideological unity and strategic/tactical cohesiveness in order to be successful, and...
@Madaligned @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj
2/3 ...therefore, supporters of vanguard parties conclude that a vanguard party that promotes revolutionary ideology, organizes the masses strategically and tactically, and helps guide them towards their revolutionary goals is a requirement for a revolution to succeed. The evidence for this comes from practically every single successful revolution in history, all having some kind of political organization that led the revolutionary masses to success.
@Madaligned @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj
3/3 There may have been successful revolutions that had no kind of vanguard party, but given that the vast majority of them did, I would say that those instances are the exception and not the rule.
@Madaligned @Bl4ckst4r @aumalatj
Is there any logical or evidence-based basis for this disagreement, or is it based on subjective personal preference?
@andho @Bl4ckst4r @Madaligned @aumalatj
I don't see how that logically follows at all.
@aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r @Madaligned
That still doesn't disprove the logical basis for the necessity of a vanguard party.
@Madaligned @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r
1/3 No, the logical basis for a vanguard party that I listed is not just a belief, as in a subjective opinion with no evidence or logic to back it up. Above in this thread, I gave logical and evidence-based reasoning for a vanguard party, and none of it was subjective opinion. I suggest you read that and give any objections if you desire.
@Madaligned @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r
2/3 The revolution I'm proposing does take into account what people want and need, as well as taking their personal lifestyles into account. I want a vanguard party because I've deduced that such is necessary, but I want that vanguard party to exist solely to benefit the people, their wants, and needs.
@Madaligned @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r
3/3 Letting revolutionaries take different revolutionary paths will be detrimental to the revolution. A revolution is dependent on the revolutionary masses collectively working together to achieve a successful revolution, and doing so will require some level of unity in ideology and action, otherwise, if everyone is just doing whatever they want the cohesiveness that a revolution depends on for success won't be there and the revolution will fail.
@Madaligned @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r
No, an opinion by definition can not be a fact. An opinion is a subjective belief about something. A fact is something that can be proven to be true regardless of personal beliefs.
@Madaligned @aumalatj @andho @Bl4ckst4r
No, an opinion and a fact are different types of statements. A fact is something that can be objectively verified and proven true or false, while an opinion is a personal belief or judgment that may vary from person to person and cannot be proven objectively true or false in the same way.