If we examine the ‘macro’ effect we can see how the dilemma of ‘revolution’ is belied by the historical factors of ‘unique moments’ now lost. The result is that we can’t take the idea of ‘revolution’ at face value and must recompute the nature of historical change in a new and different context. But at this point we see so many indicators of the terminal state of the current deadlocked and corrupted system that we are forced to new and analogous usages: a radical discontinuity, pressing the reset button, constitutional rebirth, etc…Indications of the probable failure of ordinary politics can be seen in the alarming list of symptoms of terminal deadlock: the question of climate change tops the list as the demand for immediate action against a bemused elite hypnotized by economic ideology and prepared to sink the ship oblivious to the most obvious crisis.
But more generally the ‘chatter’ about democracy is belied by the obvious contradictions in evidence, starting with the evidence of a ‘deep state’, of covert agencies run amok to the point of being a mafia running the drug trade, a hidden cabal of Wall Street and that deep state, evidenced in the clear abuse of the false flag op scenario on 9/11: a lot of people made a bundle off that conspiracy of the deep state. In general the collusion of economic and political factions that has produced imperialistic outcomes and predatory ventures such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the promotion of military ops to fuel the milit-indust complex: war for profit.
The overall indictment is so grotesque that we confront the unlikelihood of orderly change. But we must be wary of a hard choice since one option can coexist with and possibly lead to the other. The point is that revolutionary situations are rarely planned at the start and are the result of unexpected developments unforeseen by their initiators. One thing that could help here is to anticipate the unexpected and to focus on a scenario of change that is robust, free from frozen thinking, detailed in its procedure of action, and a hybrid of a new economic order and politics that can realize the essence of democracy. Those who preach democracy end up hoist on their own petard: the domination of capital was the original version of democratic freedom. Those who preach socialism also confuse themselves: they undermine liberal freedoms to end in the versions of bolshevism. We need a new and carefully readied brand that makes the moment of democratic revolution and the moment of socialist transition one and the same rather than stages in a sequence. That is a conception that has not received the blueprint needed for a viable transition. It does not follow absolutely that such a drastic transformation is beyond the potential of ‘politics as usual’. But it has become increasingly unrealistic to think that what is the equivalent of regime change can be effected by attempts to, say, get the democrats to see the light and issue in the Next era, and/or the action of an imaginary third party to finally make the breakthrough to a new system.
One option is the staging of a revolutionary platform in the form of an electoral option: however unrealistic at first this can in itself destabilize the system stuck in its doldrums. It will serve as either a path to realization or a destabilizing vision of what is the case: a real revolution. Sanders ‘Our Revolution’ unwittingly proposes just his dilemma, so we can work with that, but also with a whole set of irons in the fire.
We are out of time: a planet is at risk. Whatever we do it must effect something drastic and very soon. And even as the crisis deepens the power of dangerous elites is growing: we the sudden contempt for democracy in the Trumpian fascination with fascism. We are not ready for the reality that totalitarianism is proceeding apace in the name of democracy.