@artemis this thread is great and I have boosted it.
One thing that's coming up for me, tho, is... I'm starting to think the dichotomy between "revolutionary" and "incrementalist" is a false one.
Like, I could be accused of being an incrementalist because I believe in voting as a solution.
You may raise an eyebrow and say "but voting hasn't worked so far, has it?" And yeah. Left-wing votes are cancelled out by right-wing ones, and further swamped by a big mass of shrugging centrists. Left-wing parties fall to entryist career politicians beholden to corporate interests, and judges and upper chambers stand in the way of progressive changes.
So. Armed revolution then. But that needs an overwhelming buy-in from the populace. (That or military support, but that's a coup, and those tend not to go great.) So we need a massive consciousness raising effort to get people on-side...
But... then... maybe we could try the whole voting thing at that point? 🤷♀️ Get proper leftists primaried, then vote then in.
Then if you get a clear majority of leftist politicians in power, the line between "incremental change" and "revolution" becomes blurry. Tax rates can be raised overnight. UBI implemented. Utilities socialised. Police forces defunded. Upper chambers reformed. Prisons shut down. Why go gradual if you don't have to?
...at the threat of which upheaval maybe the system does rebel against the will of the people. And maybe some shots will need fired then. Just to confirm that, yes, we're fuckin serious.
It's like. Voting is, always has been, the implicit threat of force. The provable demonstration of superior numbers at the ballot rather than battlefield.
Whether the force is actual or implied, consciousness-raising is the first step. Arguing over whether voting will or will not work feels premature at this stage. Maybe we try it and have backup options too.