The revolution will unfold in the most developed state of capitalism i.e. the dominant imperial power

Lets discuss all of the above points and see if we can get some coherence out of them. This isn't supposed to espouse a third worldist position, rather I wish to discuss the idea that actually, revolution does not occur organically in the most developed imperial powers and therefore praxis should be developed with this in mind, it may actually be the case that, in the first world, we must adopt almost entirely different tactics of organisation for the placated western proletariat, who are not exploited to the point of revolution, but must revolt in order to secure the global revolution for the global proletariat, here I think is the greatest contradiction in the material conditions standing in the way of revolution .

I think perhaps revolution in the first world must to some degree be "inorganic" it must be pushed, it must be proliferated, it must be built, it must be shown and exposed, it cannot be waited for, because it will not come.

What has come to be classed as the dominant imperial power comprises most of Europe, north America, Australia and has huge influence, financial and military in almost every other place, To push for revolution in but one part of the mess, to focus on one national bourgeoisie can only ever secure the interest of one national proletariat and yet organisation must be localised in order to ensure a direct logistical connection

How do we solve the economic and organisational contradictions involved in a global revolution?

The revolution failed in the 60's so left wingers decided to change culture instead of the economic system.
So today we have neo liberalism.

The left won the culture war and it was the the worst thing to ever happen to humanity. Cause now you got like capitalists that celebrate diversity and also have third world sweatshops.

But you guys lost the economic war. And we are ruled by global capitalism. More women CEO'S, more black executives :DDDD

And the left, they despise guns, they think they are icky. A majority of the people in the military and police force are right wing or from middle america.

What is a revolution anyways?
Do you plan on taking the means of production? Outsourced in the third world.
Do you plan on destroying the capitalist institutions and taking the government? How? Going to make a snarky tweet chain?

Assumption of control of production by the proletariat and its direction towards their ends. The abolition of the parasitical property class and its networks of exploitation, destruction, and ultimately inefficiency and waste, which inevitably produce unstable ,malnourished, stunted human development and socialisation, which destroys productivity and material progress, which means only benefits for a cabal of satanic fatcats while the vast majority of the population live in shit.

Only a cuck wants to be a slave because he thinks he'll get fed a little better if hes a good boy, only a submissive little bitch willing to be an appendage like a medieval princess. Jesus Christ was a communist.

"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.[a] 6 You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you."

James 5:1-6 (my favourite bible passage)

A significant reduction in consumption among the American middle class would devastate the globalized capitalist economy. Anti-consumerism is revolutionary.

fuck outta here with this lifestylist nonsense. Revolution will occur due to the advancement of superior firepower under the control of revolutionary forces

You clearly don't know what that word means. If the lifestylists would just stop buying all their expensive beauty products and clothes and other lifestyle products, that would be a major act of counter-economics.

Why would they do this? Is it in their self interest to not have what they desire? Maybe they don't really desire it, its a manufactured desire, but the desire is real enough to them. A teenage girl must have make up, not because she wants it, but because to all teenagers male and female certain things are part of correct socialisation, should we really be putting the onus on the insecure teenage girl or the depressed middle aged fat guy who eats lots of mcdonalds. People eat and buy shit because they feel they need it. How do you hope to change consumption of you don't first change production? How will people with no real choice over what they consume consume differently if what is produced is the same, produced in the same way by the same productive mechanism?

Do such people really exist?

Because they've become radicalized and want to participate in the Revolution.

The onus is on everyone who wants Revolution. For a middle class person, a relatively easy thing to do is consume less, and if possible, work less.


How pampered are you? Did you ever hear of a foodbank and did you ever see what they generally have to hand out?
but then
hmmmmmm. Radicalised by what? What do you say to a not middle class person? Even if it be the case that you can somehow get the entire middle class to stop eating so much,How can this revolutionary praxis be effective if it is in fact totally devoid of any relevance to the working class, whose problem is that they do not consume enough or consume inadequate quality of things.

Also you still didn't tell me how it was in the middle class immediate self interest therefore why they would bother to do it

OK, yes, among the homeless, they have very little choice in what they consume. But among the middle and even working classes, they have some amount of choice when it comes to consumption.

Psychedelics, dialectics, literature and art.

If middle class spending went down significantly, many "too big to fail" corporations would become insolvent, leading to massive depression, creating better material conditions for Revolution. It would absolutely fuck up Porky's whole system.

It's not in their immediate self interest, necessarily. Being able to work less would be an immediate benefit, perhaps. But their main motivation would be to avoid ecological catastrophe, liberate their fellow humans (and themselves) from wage-slavery, and ultimately, post-Revolution, create near paradise on Earth. Middle class people, by and large, live empty lives, and many would love to trade their material luxuries for more meaning in life, I'm certain.

Fuck all of you communist larping figs!!
you're somehow even worser tan halfchan"s /x/


Yeah, Porky, don't worry. It's all just a LARP! ;^)


Just kidding, Porky!

it is not just homeless people who use foodbanks there is such a huge thing as in work poverty.
for starters, even the physical access to most shops for most people is not great, consider transport is a cost, consider time spent getting there and not being working or at home with kids is a cost, consider reducing caloric intake or nutrition in any way a cost, consider considering all this while trying to consider the costs of all of the above on a tight budget.
I was talkking about revolutionary praxis not an evenings entertainment
you still haven't justified this huge if.
so if the middle class stop spending voluntarily they will starve the destitute into revolution… This is really honestly your position?
Porky would be absolutely untouched, You think porky can't profit off a starving population?
then they quite simply will not do it.
shame about the mortgage and the private schools
These ideas have been around as long as there has been capitalism and yet the middle class has not revolted, why?
This is bullshit from the movies. Sure marriages break down and whatnot but that really is just the ebb and flow of life. You think pleasant dinner parties and school runs is all that terrible and empty compared to scraping together benefits to feed your kids cornflakes without milk every day? Its nobel savage romanticism and fetishisation of the "simple" life whatever that means in the age of drone strikes

I honestly just don't feel like responding to all this ignorance.

They can't profit off a shrinking economy. The whole banking/debt system collapses in a shrinking economy, governments become insolvent, etc…

So no response then

What do you call the recessions from 2007 onwards from which porky profited?

They can profit in the short term by buying discounted assets, but if the economy isn't growing, most loans won't be repaid, and then banks become insolvent, and the economy collapses. Why do you think they took such drastic measures to get the economy out of recession if they can profit just as much in a shrinking economy?

only, they have continued to profit from 2007 onwards, at increasing rates, this will grow, the market will crash, it will be reshuffled again in porkies favour as it has done many, many times throughout history not just 2007 but the great depression and crashes in the 80's and 90's and so on back to the 1850's. The measures weren't drastic for them, all that happened was they shored up their interests at the expense of the taxpayer and public services, what a crash actually does, unless you can turn it into a revolutionary situation, is push back gains made by the proletariat. Suppose you cut consumption in order to crash the economy. Now what, which bodies are going to take over and manage production and why will they be better at it and provide better materially to the proletariat than the capitalist? Seems to me you spent all your time telling people not to eat rather than developing an alternative economy

I'm not telling anyone not you eat, dummy, I'm talking about relatively wealthy people consuming less.

Yes, Porky, turns recessions to their advantage, but they can't tolerate an extended recession.

Define relatively wealthy, define consuming less. Do you think people eat the things they eat for no reason, or because a certain set of eventualities such as class, ethnicity, geographic location, culture, economic development, employment, work patterns,to a certain extent gender, create a lifestyle around them which they have to sustain. As they get older they will develop obligations and ties to this lifestyle such as children.

On top of this, which you also did not address, is that production is controlled by the bourgeois, and not the proletariat, so how can they really be choosing what it is they are consuming, when they are not in control of its production?

But they don't HAVE to. There are tremendous pressures to, but they could still choose to overcome those pressures.

A single year of significant reduction in spending among the wealthy, let's say a reduction of 30% among those making more than $100,000, would absolutely devastate the economy. Factories would stop production, industries would go under; it'd be chaos. At this point, we would seize the means of production.

Good OP with absolute garbage responses

Look, consumerist action doesnt work, if individuals stop buying products, the only effect it has is to temporarily decrease the demand, which results in a decrease in price, which in turn increases the demand right back up untill it balances around the labour value again.
This is basic LTV, and is the reason why consumerist boycotts don't work unless they have economics on their side.

This also doesn't consider the fact that that is basically what has been happening over the past decade or so. American (and European) import has been dropping due to lower consumption after the recession, which is a large part of why China has been building up its own middle class.
So even this "consumerist" - for lack of a better word - revolutionary praxis still has to be global in a way we simply don't have the organizational basis for, which was the entire point that OP was making in his post.

The reason why the capitalist class didn't suffer any large losses from this or any earlier recessions is in large part because the state (which is the institution that enforces the capitalist property ownership behind both production, rent and loaning) is a tool of the capitalist class. Why do you suppose that it would cease to be that just because the recession is prolonged or more severe? I don't think there's any evidence to support this, on the contrary I think one could look to states of economic collapse and watch the state double down on its control of the proletariat through police/military violence and inviting global capital in to extort its proletariat.
Your argument is literally akin to old ML/trot ideas of reaching some peak amount of class-consciousness which evolves into a general strike that permits the vanguard party to take power. Except without the vanguard party.
All the capitalist tools of both ideological and material power dont just evaporate because of a crisis.
Also fucking stop with the double linespace please, its obnoxious to read.