Text:
It's wild how many people seem to think that winning a revolution would somehow be easier than winning an election.
This is what I'm saying!! People keep being like "we can't possibly solve things through voting! That would involve massive organizing, getting everyone on the same page, making compromises and settling for less than perfection, and it would be subject to the influence of mega-wealthy donors and an opposition-controlled media environment! We just have to have a revolution so we don't have to deal with any of those things!"
And it's like. I'd be less annoyed about what are obviously people who are hurt and frustrated lashing out if they didn't act like I was a fucking fascist for saying "I don't think massive amounts of death and violence will help this situation, actually"
The response post sets off my AI sensors. It's using if this then that speech patterns.
It's not even the argument anyone is making. We want a revolution not because it would be easier but because winning elections does not end the existing state. Now you've won an election, the existing state, its bourgeois courts, its bourgeois laws, its bourgeois constitution, its bourgeois institutions are all working in collaboration to maintain the bourgeois state.
You can't just declare the bourgeois constitution over with. You have bourgeois laws that say no. You have a billion hoops to jump through and you're not getting through them before they take power away from you in a new election.
Reform has not worked. Not one single time among hundreds of attempts. The only thing that has ever worked is revolution. Your attempt at reform will not be different, that one shining beacon. We have multiple examples of revolutions working and successfully lasting for 100+ years bringing vastly better lives to the people. The only examples of nearly successful attempts at the reformist path have ended in mass murder of all the reformers.