I think it’s important to distinguish socialism and Marxism here, since you’re referring pretty specifically to Marxist theory.
That said, you’re not wrong - Marx postulates that history moves through a continuous fight between classes, and that on average we move towards a more equal society over time as a result of this fight. The fall of the monarchy was the result of class struggle, but so was the fall of the Soviet union; the Bolsheviks had just replaced the ruling elite, walking on two legs in Orwells terms. In this sense, every revolution could be understood under the logic of Marxism, as “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”.
But then we’re speaking about a Marxist understanding of history, not a socialist ideal for society.
Marx postulates that history moves through a continuous fight between classes, and that on average we move towards a more equal society over time as a result of this fight
We’ve been backsliding heavily since the 50s. I mean, things might be better than the industrial revolution but wealth inequality is even worse.
It doesn’t need to be a unidirectional process - things get worse, the proletariat revolts, and they get better. Then things get worse again, and they revolt again. Eventually we reach a stable point where things are good enough for the proletariat to stop revolting - and that would be the communist society.
That said, while I largely subscribe to a Marxist understanding of history, I don’t personally find historical determinism very convincing. Marx’ theory might even have been a self-defeating prophesy, as it taught the ruling classes the mechanisms of history it needed to defeat in order to stay in power. The American right wing might not be fans of Marx, but they for sure ripped a page from his book to understand the importance of union busting.
In the unlikely event you’re a gamer, have you heard of Disco Elysium? It explores the concept that centrism or neutrality is actually the worst of social order choices (worse than fascism or communism) because you end up with the unending status quo. And holding the status quo in the middle (controlling the right and the left simultaneously) leaves a select few with absolute power.
The game points out that the most meaningful changes in human history have come from bloody revolts or extremist ideologies but neutrality and “radical centrism” leads to this kind of malaise in which power brokers can control things unendingly. I feel like that’s sort of what America has become.
It kind of echoes the old mantra that evil triumphs when good men do nothing - as opposed to when evil men do evil things. At the end of the day the thing to be concerned about is probably the combination of the two.
I’m not much of a gamer, but I do have a Nintendo Switch lying around somewhere - I might check out Disco Elysium if I find myself with time on my hands! Thanks for the recommendation. :)
I think it’s important to distinguish socialism and Marxism here, since you’re referring pretty specifically to Marxist theory.
That said, you’re not wrong - Marx postulates that history moves through a continuous fight between classes, and that on average we move towards a more equal society over time as a result of this fight. The fall of the monarchy was the result of class struggle, but so was the fall of the Soviet union; the Bolsheviks had just replaced the ruling elite, walking on two legs in Orwells terms. In this sense, every revolution could be understood under the logic of Marxism, as “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”.
But then we’re speaking about a Marxist understanding of history, not a socialist ideal for society.
We’ve been backsliding heavily since the 50s. I mean, things might be better than the industrial revolution but wealth inequality is even worse.
It doesn’t need to be a unidirectional process - things get worse, the proletariat revolts, and they get better. Then things get worse again, and they revolt again. Eventually we reach a stable point where things are good enough for the proletariat to stop revolting - and that would be the communist society.
That said, while I largely subscribe to a Marxist understanding of history, I don’t personally find historical determinism very convincing. Marx’ theory might even have been a self-defeating prophesy, as it taught the ruling classes the mechanisms of history it needed to defeat in order to stay in power. The American right wing might not be fans of Marx, but they for sure ripped a page from his book to understand the importance of union busting.
In the unlikely event you’re a gamer, have you heard of Disco Elysium? It explores the concept that centrism or neutrality is actually the worst of social order choices (worse than fascism or communism) because you end up with the unending status quo. And holding the status quo in the middle (controlling the right and the left simultaneously) leaves a select few with absolute power.
The game points out that the most meaningful changes in human history have come from bloody revolts or extremist ideologies but neutrality and “radical centrism” leads to this kind of malaise in which power brokers can control things unendingly. I feel like that’s sort of what America has become.
It kind of echoes the old mantra that evil triumphs when good men do nothing - as opposed to when evil men do evil things. At the end of the day the thing to be concerned about is probably the combination of the two.
I’m not much of a gamer, but I do have a Nintendo Switch lying around somewhere - I might check out Disco Elysium if I find myself with time on my hands! Thanks for the recommendation. :)
I’d argue the internet was a major opportunity towards distributed knowledge and coordinated social action.
But that peaked in the early 2000s and the tide has been receeding ever since.
The latest developments indicate more and more corporate enshitification is coming.