You also can’t translate that to nationalizing key industries either, let alone worker coops. We have hundreds of years of history telling us this.
I don’t agree with this. Worker coops exists in many places in Europe, and in said continent, some key industries are heavily controlled by the government.
In my country, Canada, we socialized healthcare without any revolution.
Down south, they had the labour movement that gave us the 40 hour week, the weekend and labour laws all throughout unionization and putting pressure on the capitalist class without “revolutionary pressure”, unless unionization is what you mean by revolutionary pressure. If so, then I agree.
You’re ignoring that these advancements in labor movements came as concessions from the bourgeoisie in the context of trying to prevent what happened in Russia from happening in Canada and the US.
I’m saying there is no actual basis for it being possible within the system, though, unless there is revolutionary pressure, and even then this is only temporary and still requires revolution. That’s why FDR’s safety nets are vestigial at this point.
Revolution isn’t the goal, but it remains the only proven tool.
The recent strong example of a communist revolution gave us the anti-communist revolution. It took us 30 fucking years though. And the cost of this little detour can still be felt today. We’re at least 2 generations of progress behind, compared to our western peers.
The recent strong example of a Communist Revolution created the conditions for FDR and other Social Democrats to greatly expand protections for workers via concessions.
What do you mean by “we don’t know what we need for a proper revolution?” Can we not look to the centuries of successful revolutions, and see how their conditions are similar and different from our own? Moreover, where are you hoping will be the next required large country to have a Communist revolution, and why can’t it be your country?
Also, a lot of revolutions don’t go the way they intended.
centuries of successful revolutions
You know, the first French Revolution gave France napoleon, who was a dictator and only because he was constantly at war that he was unable to hold on to power.
Not every revolution accomplishes its goals so calling all of them successful is a stretch.
Idk if we need new examples, there has been so many example already.
But again I would like to reiterate, imo socialist revolution can work, but it’s the brute force, bloody and inefficient method that would never be my first pick if I have options.
I don’t agree with this. Worker coops exists in many places in Europe, and in said continent, some key industries are heavily controlled by the government.
In my country, Canada, we socialized healthcare without any revolution.
Down south, they had the labour movement that gave us the 40 hour week, the weekend and labour laws all throughout unionization and putting pressure on the capitalist class without “revolutionary pressure”, unless unionization is what you mean by revolutionary pressure. If so, then I agree.
You’re ignoring that these advancements in labor movements came as concessions from the bourgeoisie in the context of trying to prevent what happened in Russia from happening in Canada and the US.
I think we are splitting hairs.
I’m saying it’s possible within the confines of the system. In the US and Canada it was done by the confides of the system.
I’m good with having a revolution as the last resort, just not the first resort.
I’m saying there is no actual basis for it being possible within the system, though, unless there is revolutionary pressure, and even then this is only temporary and still requires revolution. That’s why FDR’s safety nets are vestigial at this point.
Revolution isn’t the goal, but it remains the only proven tool.
Well I guess that’s where we fundamentally disagree.
I just want us to do more of what we did with the 1930s because that helped give us the prosperity we saw past WWII.
I want that because I know it works, not saying a revolution can’t work, but why risk things in these polarizing times?
Then you need
The recent strong example of a communist revolution gave us the anti-communist revolution. It took us 30 fucking years though. And the cost of this little detour can still be felt today. We’re at least 2 generations of progress behind, compared to our western peers.
The recent strong example of a Communist Revolution created the conditions for FDR and other Social Democrats to greatly expand protections for workers via concessions.
Yes, whereas we actually don’t know what we need for a proper revolution.
So imo that still a far safer bet because it has happened successfully before.
What do you mean by “we don’t know what we need for a proper revolution?” Can we not look to the centuries of successful revolutions, and see how their conditions are similar and different from our own? Moreover, where are you hoping will be the next required large country to have a Communist revolution, and why can’t it be your country?
Well, I meant a socialist revolution.
Also, a lot of revolutions don’t go the way they intended.
You know, the first French Revolution gave France napoleon, who was a dictator and only because he was constantly at war that he was unable to hold on to power.
Not every revolution accomplishes its goals so calling all of them successful is a stretch.
Idk if we need new examples, there has been so many example already.
But again I would like to reiterate, imo socialist revolution can work, but it’s the brute force, bloody and inefficient method that would never be my first pick if I have options.