I think the anti-voting people do seem to want a communist revolution, nothing else is good enough for them, there's just the small problem that conditions in 21st century USA are extremely different from conditions in early 20th century Russia
I feel like maybe I should be more open-minded towards their POV, like I appreciate it when conservatives turn away from trump, it's perfectly rational to be able to criticize your own side, and maybe that's largely what people are doing, so I should care more about their criticisms. By voting based on my fear of the other side, am I just as bad as conservatives who think gay rights and public health care will send us to the gulags? Far-right is so crazy scary tho.
I think a lot of these people are very young. And every single young person in the entire history of the world has always hated to be told by their elders that they should sit down, and be patient, and work hard, and maybe some day in the distant future they'll get what they want. They are young and full of righteous anger and are just so sure that there is a secret way that no one else has figured out to get everything they want right now
As for how you know you're not like the people who think gay people are going install Sharia Law, it comes down to where you get your information about the world from. Their problem is they rely exclusively on an echo-chamber of far-right news outlets. And like, if you start to feel like the places you get your news from are starting to become echo-chamber-like, it's good to branch out. There are plenty of reliable sources that rate news sites for bias, and you generally want to avoid sources that always validate the things you think you know already, or which are making emotional appeals or direct calls to action, even if they are sources on the left. Like, advocacy groups are fine and all, but you should get your actual news from somewhere else. And then, after reading news from multiple sources with limited bias, if you still think a Donald Trump presidency is scary as fuck, it probably is.
also MLs believe that revolution is the only way, and democratic socialism is evil, and marx apparently based his analysis on the french revolution, but like france and england and the USA all had their own paths to liberal democracy. French were extremist, USA compromised with slave owners, UK gradually expanded democracy. History says there's not only one way to do things. We don't know what the future holds. Also modern anarchists seem to be allergic to doing things.
French revolutionaries killed their political enemies, bolshevik-style, but their resulting goverment was unstable and france spent like the next 100 years flip-flopping between modes of goverment. The USA made compromises resulting in a more stable government but then people had to battle slavery for most of the following century. The UK as far as I know didn't have an equivalent event but they still made to basically the same liberal democratic endpoint.
I don't think the US and France are actually super comparable here - the US started out with a philosophy of embracing democracy. A very racist, sexist, classist kind of democracy, yes, but it was some democracy, which opens the door to gradually getting more democracy in a peaceful manner, and what do you know, that's what happened. Whereas, France was going from zero democracy to any democracy, which is much harder, and who knows if the French kings actually would have allowed that without some kind of violence? And also, the creation of the US and its nascent democracy did begin with a revolution. It was just kind of lucky that it happened in a colony where Britain couldn't oppose it as effectively and the revolutionaries didn't feel like they had to murder the king and all of his relatives in order to succeed (and also, they weren't really able to).
Whatever the UK did is probably a much better option than either of those. Although, I don't know a lot of the history of this time period, but I kind of suspect that the transition to democracy in the UK and other countries that kept their royals might have been influenced by observation of what was happening in France. It's kind of hard to imagine a situation where absolute monarchy transitions to democracy on a world-wide scale with no violence at all. But at the same time... the Romans had a partial democracy 2000 years before all of this happened. It wasn't actually ever necessary to go through an absolute monarchy stage, which means it's not necessary to have a revolution. Maybe if Caesar had never declared himself Imperator none of this violence would ever have had to happen.
Also I think if there's any kind of revolution-type activity happening in modernized industrial capitalist countries, it's going to be fascists overthrowing the government. There is almost zero desire for a left-wing revolution. You'd have to do a lot of convincing to get people to give up their comfortable lives and go to war and make sacrifices just to live in a communist country where their boss works them just as hard but maybe things will get better in 100 years.
Yeah, like I said in the last post, once you're in a position where you can change things peacefully through democracy, even slowly, violence becomes a lot less attractive. It's really only attractive to people who feel like they don't have the numbers necessary to get their way through democracy, and right now it's the left wing that feels secure that they have the numbers, and the right wing that doesn't, which you can tell based on which people are the ones attempting voter suppression tactics.
Communist revolutions seem to have happened mostly in poor farming economies, which then industrialize after the revolution. Meanwhile, in countries like the USA, people seem to find fascism to be a much more palatable form of violence. No waiting for the country to slowly transition from state capitalism, people get the immediate reward of killing inferior people.
I really don't think this is based on economic issues, I think it's just very hard to go from no political freedom to some political freedom, and then people look back on those early revolutions and don't understand (or forget) the actual reason they happened, which is no longer an issue in the modern day in most countries.
Also random side note, people like to say "if voting did anything, they wouldn't let us do it" when actually uh yeah the GOP actually does try to restrict voting, yes
The big problem is that no one thinks strategically or tactically about HOW to get from crappy point A to utopian point B. Just people being overly emotional on the website that rewards you with internet points for being overly emotional. Rage gets clicks, reason does not.
I mean, yeah, that's teenagers for you
Anarchists and MLs etc only want change to happen outside of voting. But realistically, the way that workers would realize they have the power to do direct action is through participating in unions. And we have parties that are more and less hostile to unions.
