How much longer until the communist revolution?

The opportunities have been there for a while, there's just no organized group that can seize them.

If we all start organizing under a proper ML line, sooner.

If the material conditions were already here, the revolution would have started.

Thinking that parties or vanguards create revolutions is idealism. They GUIDE revolutions that have already been created.

because communism is by definition a success, so if it isn't a success it isn't communism.

likewise nazi germany never happened because we're not living in the 1000 year reich right now.

what the fuck does this mean? Am I missing something?

...

That's like Holla Forums asking when's the Fourth Reich going to be established. It's pretty fucking fair to say that's never going to happen in your lifetime. The more I browse Holla Forums the more I realize the far left, and the far right have more in common with each other, Both are this kind of like these historical reenactment clubs where people larp about some type of glorious revolution against thier perceived boogeyman.

Get a load of this radical centrist.

lol then why would have Marx have even bothered with the huge amount of organization that he did if his philosophy boiled down to "just wait until it happens"

The material conditions for Socialism have been here since the 19th century, period. To say anything else is a misunderstanding of Marxism.

Actually, calling it a misunderstanding might be dignifying it too much, because it implies some initial effort to understand Marxism happened. It's actually one of those persistent myths that people absorb from other people who are also ignorant of Marxism, right up there with the notion that Marx preached a huge crisis that will destroy capitalism is coming.

Did you really have to browse Holla Forums to arrive at this completely banal and trite position?

This is something a person who is just developing a political consciousness watching the Daily Show or whatever says.

How many of us here are honestly prepared to do more than larp? I know I am.
remember this is an anonymous imageboard there is literally no reason to lie.

imagine thinking that screencap is insightful

Communism as defined in theory isn't realizable. "Communism" as an actually existing social movement has only ever led to failure. Communists always want to shirk responsibility for the latter by hiding behind the former. Hence "communism is by definition a success".

Basically you have a mental virus that makes you think that constructing idealized philosophical forms means its possible to manifest them in reality.

youtube.com/watch?v=PKzJnkUHWNs&feature=youtu.be

here in smart

the problem with this argument is that there ARE more examples of communism/socialism some of which that have worked but they are conveniently left out.
I know not everyone likes him but I reccomend:
youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ

It depends by what you mean.

I'm always completely frustrated by the lack of seriousness and discipline among the Left, and as soon as I graduate I plan to throw myself into the world of organization and propaganda completely. For that, I'm somewhat prepared, as far as autistically stocking up piles of literature and data and learning to produce and distribute information goes. I plan to create a group and start networking with other lefties online for this purpose.

But if you're talking about revolution and shit, there's some truth in my case when conservatives says we'd be the first to die in one. I don't even know how to hold a gun.

I thought the same thing lol

What type of person considers that worthy of screencapping, my god

Your entire fucking world view on here boils down to either "le spooky pig man" or "THE JEWS CONTROL EVERYTHING!", funny how you call my position banal, yet you faggots literally have the most simplistic worldview almost akin to that of a creationist who believes all "evil" in this world is because of Satan.

You're just being obtuse now.

Saying that revolution can't be willed into existence isn't the same thing as saying we should just wait and do nothing. Organizing and planning and developing infrastructure is crucial to lay the groundwork for a successful revolution. But the revolution itself will only happen when the contradictions of capitalism have reached a crisis point.

This is basic historical materialism. Your quote from Marx does not suggest or imply that a revolution can be brought about if we just want it bad enough. That is literal idealism.

*quote from Trotsky

my bad

You might want to turn on your TV so you can hear "moderates" shouting about le Russians and Le Muslims at each other, or take a look into how le Terrorists have completely shaped American foreign policy, or read some history book so you can learn how our entire economic system was developed out of the back of struggles against Le Commies, or Le French, or Le Germans, or how so much of neoliberalism is only here because of Le Welfare Queens, and so on and so on.

Every single ideology out there has a big Other that it sees itself fighting against. We have the muh privilege of grounding this entity on a concrete, material dimension as defined by relations of production. And although we do tend to despise the bourgeoisie on a personal level, most of our analysis is unemotional and level-headed. You're probably more angry and paranoid about "Le political extremists!" than we are about rich people as an abstraction.

The fact you can utter these Facebook comments section-tier opinions and say someone else's worldview is "simplistic" is hilarious. Your worldview is the simplest there is: you'll remain dutifully within the boundaries that mainstream media and parties allow you to, probably calling yourself a Moderate and interrupting debates to say things like "well, both sides need to stop being ideological and just focus on working together!"

You're a fucking mediocrity and too stupid to realise it.

Don't blame other people for your own lack of education. If you are only familiar with the most basic leftist world view and you know nothing of the dynamics of the contradictions of capitalism that is your fault.

Did you mean to write "can" here?

If crisis is more important than having a pre-existing proletarian organization to make use of it, then how come no crisis in the developed world so far has lead to a revolutionary situation?

You can't presume to explain basic historical materialism when you conflate an economic crisis with "material circumstances". I'll repeat myself: the material circumstances for Socialism have been here since the 19th century and I challenge you to find any word of Marx saying the opposite.

Stop using words you don't understand.

Everything in leftypol is a low-effort shitpost. You should all consider suicide as a viable alternative to what I'm sure is a bleak and meaningless life.

Hilarious to hear a 14 year old talk about mediocrity, while desperately attempting to be outside of the relevant political norm. I guess you'll just have to remain dutifully within the boundaries that mommy sets, While you larp as a revolutionary on the internet.

come on you can do better than that

You know what you're right, I'll grow up and get a job

This letter Engels wrote later in life might clarify some aspects of this debate btw:

To Point II. [3] I qualify your first major proposition as follows: According to the materialistic conception of history, the production and reproduction of real life constitutes in the last instance the determining factor of history. Neither Marx nor I ever maintained more. Now when someone comes along and distorts this to mean that the economic factor is the sole determining factor, he is converting the former proposition into a meaningless, abstract and absurd phrase. The economic situation is the basis but the various factors of the superstructure – the political forms of the class struggles and its results – constitutions, etc., established by victorious classes after hard-won battles – legal forms, and even the reflexes of all these real struggles in the brain of the participants, political, jural, philosophical theories, religious conceptions and their further development into systematic dogmas – all these exercize an influence upon the course of historical struggles, and in many cases determine for the most part their form. There is a reciprocity between all these factors in which, finally, through the endless array of contingencies (i.e., of things and events whose inner connection with one another is so remote, or so incapable of proof, that we may neglect it, regarding it as nonexistent) the economic movement asserts itself as necessary. Were this not the case, the application of the history to any given historical period would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.

We ourselves make our own history, but, first of all, under very definite presuppositions and conditions. Among these are the economic, which are finally decisive. But there are also the political, etc. Yes, even the ghostly traditions, which haunt the minds of men play a role albeit not a decisive one. The Prussian state arose and developed also through historical, in the last instance, economic causes. One could hardly, however, assert without pedantry that among the many petty principalities of North Germany, just Brandenburg was determined by economic necessity and not by other factors also (before all, its involvement in virtue of its Prussian possessions, with Poland and therewith international political relations – which were also decisive factors in the creation of the Austrian sovereign power) to become the great power in which was to be embodied the economic, linguistic and, since the Reformation, also the religious differences of North and South. It would be very hard to attempt to explain by economic causes, without making ourselves ridiculous, the existence of every petty German state of the past or present, or the origin of the shifting of consonants in High-German, which reinforced the differences that existed already in virtue of the geographical separating wall formed by the mountains from Sudeten to Taunus.

Secondly, history is so made that the end-result always arises out of the conflict of many individual wills, in which every will is itself the product of a host of special conditions of life. Consequently there exist innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite group of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant product – the historical event. This again may itself be viewed as the product of a force acting as a whole without consciousness or volition. For what every individual wills separately is frustrated by what every one else wills and the general upshot is something which no one willed. And so the course of history has run along like a natural process; it also is subject essentially to the same laws of motion. But from the fact that the wills of individuals – who desire what the constitution of their body as well as external circumstances, in the last instance economic (either personal or social) impel them to desire – do not get what they wish, but fuse into an average or common resultant, from all that one has no right to conclude that they equal zero. On the contrary, every will contributes to the resultant and is in so far included within it.

Marx and I are partly responsible for the fact that at times our disciples have laid more weight upon the economic factor than belongs to it. We were compelled to emphasize this main principle in opposition; to our opponents who denied it, and there wasn’t always time, place and occasion to do justice to the other factors in the reciprocal interaction. But just as soon as it was a matter of the presentation of an historical chapter, that is to say, of practical application, things became quite different; there, no error was possible. Unfortunately it is only too frequent that a person believes he has completely understood a new theory and is capable of applying it when he has taken over its fundamental ideas – but it isn’t always true. And from this reproach I cannot spare many of the recent “Marxists”. They have certainly turned out a rare kind of tommyrot.

marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol01/no03/engels.htm

(It's the second one, to Joseph Bloch)

This is one of the oldest misconceptions about historical materialism there is, to the point M&E themselves were fighting against it when they were still alive.