thinking the revolution's success is contingent on numbers of workers convinced or a "marketplace of ideas" thing is incidentally liberal democracy with extra, violent steps when many failed conflicts in history, such as the paraguayan war where the male population of paraguay was nearly completely genocided, show that numbers do not make the difference. the russian revolution was anemic, starving soldiers against an even weaker state, a complete fluke of a victory and china and others were arguably much the same. the next revolution, if it is to be against strong state forces, must be built on the backs of people who are surviving, thriving, defending what they love. (and in a country with nukes, they have to have the nuclear football) (an attempted reactionary military coup against a civilian government is a good example of that)
what i'm saying is that in the face of a strong military/reactionary force, the revolution has to have a force even stronger, and that does not boil down to having more lemmings to throw
(just floating this, fully expecting some people to take strong objection. i'm more curious on what grounds, i guess is why i'm doing this)
what i'm trying to say here is that if you think the government deciding to make things less bad is a bad thing because it delays a concept of the revolution designed to flatter the sensibilities of misanthropic know-it-alls, you have lost the plot. the revolution is for the living, and not one unnecessary life can be laid down in its name
ok i'm done talking about this a
