• tabris@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Having spoken to so many people about this subject over my many years on this planet, the number of people that would actually want a revolution is so low that it’s effectively zero. They don’t want that kind of change. Having seen how resistant people are to give up their cars for the sake of their children’s future, do you really think people would give up their many comforts to remove capitalism from the world? Fuck no would they.

    But simple, small, understandable changes to the current system are much more agreeable. When I’ve suggested a cooperative approach, even the most resistant to change agrees that it would improve the situation for themselves, and that’s a change that can be worked with, without others perceiving that change as coming from an absolute loon.

    As others have said in this very thread, the western world is so resistant to revolution that the very idea of it will always be fringe. But cooperatives have been demonstrated to work, they just need to be applied to a much larger degree. It’s understandable to the majority, it doesn’t rock the boat too much, it’s a feasible approach and it removes power from the top and returns it to the workers.

    • Cowbee [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Having spoken to so many people about this subject over my many years on this planet, the number of people that would actually want a revolution is so low that it’s effectively zero. They don’t want that kind of change. Having seen how resistant people are to give up their cars for the sake of their children’s future, do you really think people would give up their many comforts to remove capitalism from the world? Fuck no would they.

      Capitalism’s necessary mechanical contradictions that will lead to its collapse do not need the magical will or consent of the public to happen. Collapse will happen regardless.

      But simple, small, understandable changes to the current system are much more agreeable. When I’ve suggested a cooperative approach, even the most resistant to change agrees that it would improve the situation for themselves, and that’s a change that can be worked with, without others perceiving that change as coming from an absolute loon.

      You can’t get change just by getting people to agree with you, otherwise America would have Ranked Choice Voting, Medicare for All, free public College education, and legalized weed and abortion nationwide. You’re repeating the failures of Utopian Socialists like the Owenites, you can’t vibe policy into being, especially in a system hostile to said policy.

      As others have said in this very thread, the western world is so resistant to revolution that the very idea of it will always be fringe. But cooperatives have been demonstrated to work, they just need to be applied to a much larger degree. It’s understandable to the majority, it doesn’t rock the boat too much, it’s a feasible approach and it removes power from the top and returns it to the workers.

      How and why? You’re trying to magically summon these structures. How do you expect the ones at the top to allow this?

      • Unruffled [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        MLs have been predicting the “inevitable” collapse of capitalism for a century now. When can we expect some progress? :p

        You can’t get change just by getting people to agree with you, otherwise America would have Ranked Choice Voting, Medicare for All, free public College education, and legalized weed and abortion nationwide.

        I think this is great point. In spite of majority public support for issues like these, it’s seemingly impossible to get either party to take action. That’s not how healthy democracies are supposed to work. I’d probably agree that public support is a pre-requisite for change, but it’s not always sufficient. If the public want something and the government don’t agree (say, over suspending arms shipments to Israel), what can the public actually do about it? Really nothing, other than disruptive protests or taking direct action to physically stop the shipments. And then it’s obvious what would happen to the protestors.

        • Cowbee [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          MLs have been predicting the “inevitable” collapse of capitalism for a century now. When can we expect some progress? :p

          I mean, regardless of what anyone individually or collectively wills, disparity is rising, wages are stagnating with respect to productivity, and enshittification is continuing. The logic and math behind Capitalism’s unsustainability hasn’t changed. Monopoly and Financial Capital are growing ever-more grotesque and are crushed under their own weight in search of endless growth. The fact that the US hasn’t collapsed yet doesn’t mean it hasn’t been working towards that collapse.

          I think this is great point. In spite of majority public support for issues like these, it’s seemingly impossible to get either party to take action. That’s not how healthy democracies are supposed to work. I’d probably agree that public support is a pre-requisite for change, but it’s not always sufficient. If the public want something and the government don’t agree (say, over suspending arms shipments to Israel), what can the public actually do about it? Really nothing, other than disruptive protests or taking direct action to physically stop the shipments. And then it’s obvious what would happen to the protestors.

          That’s why the Owenites and Utopian Socialists all failed. They thought they could just convince everyone of a better path, and that it would magically appear and form around them.