Granted, I’m not well read on theory, but I missed the Marx letter to the Bavarian socialists about electoralism preventing the workers’ inevitable revolution…
You joke but I think a lot of leftists online unironically believe this.
And I’m not even saying armed revolution is necessarily off the table - but it’s certainly not what we try first or even second or third for that matter.
I will admit, we are getting onto our second or third option at this point, but people calling for armed revolution do not truly understand the impact that would have on society in the short term, and also how insanely difficult to impossible that idea actually is in modern American society. Democratic socialist ideas are only just starting to gain support now because liberalism has proven to be so ineffectual for long and it is a potential electoral path to start course correcting.
I mean, kinda? Revolution is a core part of Marxism. There are rare instances like in Chile where voting worked, but then Allende was couped by the US and Pinochet.
There are plenty of marxist rooted ideologies that eschew violence, and opt for a more electoral or direct action/mutual aid type of approach to bringing about communism.
All socialism is democratic, so I assume you mean reformist socialism. Reformism has extremely specific and limited use-cases, Allende being a short-lived example. Chile was able to successfully elect a Marxist, but he was ousted in a coup. It isn’t impossible, but relying on reformism as the main strategy in all or even most cases is a significant departure from Marxist analysis of the state and its class character.
Libertarian socialism is more anarchist than anything, and has no problems with revolution. I don’t see why you bring it up.
No not all socialism is democratic. Libertarian socialism is by definition non-violent. You cannot be libertarian while also advocating for violence against others.
Incorrect on both counts. Democracy is rule by the majority, socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working class is in control of the state. Libertarianism just refers to a limited state, it cares nothing about how that is achieved. Anarchism and anarchist-adjacent ideologies are almost always revolutionary as well. Pacifism is uncommon.
No no, you don’t understand, you’re only a true Marxist if you call for armed revolution. /s
Granted, I’m not well read on theory, but I missed the Marx letter to the Bavarian socialists about electoralism preventing the workers’ inevitable revolution…
You joke but I think a lot of leftists online unironically believe this.
And I’m not even saying armed revolution is necessarily off the table - but it’s certainly not what we try first or even second or third for that matter.
I will admit, we are getting onto our second or third option at this point, but people calling for armed revolution do not truly understand the impact that would have on society in the short term, and also how insanely difficult to impossible that idea actually is in modern American society. Democratic socialist ideas are only just starting to gain support now because liberalism has proven to be so ineffectual for long and it is a potential electoral path to start course correcting.
I mean, kinda? Revolution is a core part of Marxism. There are rare instances like in Chile where voting worked, but then Allende was couped by the US and Pinochet.
There are plenty of marxist rooted ideologies that eschew violence, and opt for a more electoral or direct action/mutual aid type of approach to bringing about communism.
Like what?
Democratic socialism? Libertarian socialism?
All socialism is democratic, so I assume you mean reformist socialism. Reformism has extremely specific and limited use-cases, Allende being a short-lived example. Chile was able to successfully elect a Marxist, but he was ousted in a coup. It isn’t impossible, but relying on reformism as the main strategy in all or even most cases is a significant departure from Marxist analysis of the state and its class character.
Libertarian socialism is more anarchist than anything, and has no problems with revolution. I don’t see why you bring it up.
No not all socialism is democratic. Libertarian socialism is by definition non-violent. You cannot be libertarian while also advocating for violence against others.
Incorrect on both counts. Democracy is rule by the majority, socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working class is in control of the state. Libertarianism just refers to a limited state, it cares nothing about how that is achieved. Anarchism and anarchist-adjacent ideologies are almost always revolutionary as well. Pacifism is uncommon.