Why wasn't there a revolution during the great depression?

t. Unruhe

...

FDR started making concessions to the working class

In fact there wouldn't have been an FDR without working class militancy.

Pretty true. The communists pretty much ran the CIO. Without FDR both the Democrats and Republicans would drunkenly lurch from one crisis to another like what happened in Canada.

Because the feds spent the entire period after the war shooting or imprisoning every prominent socialist they could find.

Yep. Fucking FDR and his socdem reforms kept the pot from boiling over. The Republicans looked so fucking incompetent, and the New Deal was so popular that people thought that FDR was fixing things. We have to watch out for that the next time around.

That's actually a good point. I wish I knew why sometimes working class militancy is directed towards reform and then dissipates, and other times it is so unsatisfied with the status quo it attempts to sweep away the old society.

I don't know if they were really interested in reform so much as reform happened while millions of men were shipped off to war, and meanwhile the US systematically dismantled the remaining unions. I've heard too that one of the conditions for aid to the Soviets was that they'd suspend any support for socialist groups within the Allies' borders. Subsequently, laws were passed so that communists couldn't be in charge of unions, and were summarily purged from their ranks.

So it didn't really dissipate as it was murdered in the night.

America was on the tipping point. The IWW and American working class organization didn't just vanish by themselves. It took a massive crackdown by the American bourgeois state and private gangs, political suppression, et cetera, to make it go away.

Because Marx was wrong

People were to depressed to start one..

G-get it?

Marx didn't say that crises of capitalism will definitely produce a revolutionary proletariat, just that it could. He thought communism was inevitable because capitalism keeps continuously having these crises, so eventually the proletariat would hit on the right formula for dismantling capitalism

i.e. he was wrong

So can revolution only happen in a country unable to simultaneously make deep concessions to the working class while suppressing socialist movements?

bad economic conditions alone are not enough to radicalise the working class

Why?

I'm not a prophet or anything, but I'd say so. Either the state is unable or unwilling to provide the desired concessions, and the issue becomes forced.

I think the superstructure plays a significant role in this. Americans I believe are instilled with a solid core of faith in democracy/"democracy," and so maybe on top of everything else they believed they would be able to dismantle these contradictions through governmental means. I don't know if I would blame them for believing so since conditions just happened to align to see them lead into twenty-odd years of incredible prosperity.

But now all those gains are unraveling, and it's yet to be seen what the bourgeois response will be. It's tempting to try and draw conclusions from the parallels with the previous century, but then and now are as different as they are alike.

best get I have seen here in a very long time

newfags get the fuck out

heh

get fucked newfag

Because he was not an anarchist

hot take

And what makes anarchists not wrong?

...

The fact that they are not marxists

bready good circular logic

I guess you understand why you are unpopular…

...

The New Deal. FDR came in and fixed that shit.

Because accelorationism is a meme, making people miserable won't actually make them revolt.

Anarchists are all naive children that should be kept in playpens and mocked.

please spoiler your pornography.

...