Rev Left Radio - Regeneration: The Real Movement - Against The Solidarity Economy

Episode Date: May 10, 2019

In this article from Regeneration Magazine, the official outlet for the Marxist Center, Alyson Escalante responds to an article defending the solidarity economy over Marxist revolutionary strategy. In it she clarifies the Marxist conception of revolution, defends Leninism against those who wish to reject it, and shows the inherent weaknesses of utopian schemes dreamed up in armchairs compared to Marxist theory which has been tested in the process of building and defending socialism in the real world.  Here is Alyson's piece (which I am reading in this episode): https://regenerationmag.org/the-real-movement-against-the-solidarity-economy/ Here is the piece she is responding to:https://regenerationmag.org/marxism-and-the-solidarity-economy/ You can find and support Regeneration Magazine here: https://regenerationmag.org You can follow Regeneration Magazine on twitter @RegenerationMag ---- Support Rev Left Radio via monthly subscription (and get access to bonus content) at Patreon here: Or make a one time donation to the Rev Left team here: paypal.me/revleft

Hello everybody and welcome back to Revolutionary Left Radio. I'm your host and Comrade O'Shea, and today we're reading another article from Regeneration magazine, the magazine associated with the Marxist Center. For this episode, we're going to be reading The Real Movement Against the Solidarity Economy by Alison Escalante, who is also my co-host on Red Menace. all right this is a response to a regeneration article published by chris wright entitled marxism and the solidarity economy so i will post both that piece and this piece which is in response to it in the show notes if people want to go and get like a broader understanding of the debate and what alison is

responding to but this article in and of itself is it sort of stands on its own and it can easily be understood and grappled with on its own accord. But for those who are interested in reading the actual article that this is responding to, that's available as well. So, with no further ado, let's get into this article by Alison Escalante. Last week, Regeneration magazine published a piece by Chris Wright entitled Marxism and the Solidarity Economy. In this piece, Wright attempts to offer a gradualist approach to dual power politics by highlighting a quote-unquote trans-historical view of revolution within Marx's writing. Wright suggests that the capitalist revolution is an example of this trans-historical revolution.

In his reading, the capitalist revolution is understood as a spatio-temporal process of new revolutionary productive forces emerging within the feudal economic system and eventually leading to a new system. In this view, revolution is not a process organized or seized upon by a revolutionary party, or vanguard, but rather an organic development of productive forces. Wright offers this view as a gradualist alternative to the quote-unquote statist or, quote-unquote, authoritarian view of revolution developed by Lenin. As such, Wright's theory of revolution is developed both through a revisionist reading of Marxist theory, as well as a political motivation to avoid previous revolution strategies developed from Leninist theory and praxis.

While Wright certainly offers a novel interpretation of Marx, I think there are important historical-theoretical and praxis-based reasons to reject the theory offered in his article. On a theoretical level, I think that Wright underplays the violent aspects of capitalist revolution. After all, the success of capitalism over feudalism was guaranteed not through organic and anti-authoritarian developments, but through bloody anti-monarchical revolutions, the horrors of French terror and liberalizing effects of the Napoleonic wars. As such, it seems untenable to look to the gradualist capitalist revolution as an example of revolution which did not require a dictatorship of some form. On a more practical level, we simply do not have time for gradualism. Climate

catastrophe is around the corner, and the urgency of socialist victory is of the utmost importance. Capitalist crisis has reached a point where collapse becomes increasingly likely, absent a revolutionary socialist alternative. The end of human society is a very real possibility. Given the urgency of socialist organizing and the positive move towards revolutionary strategy emerging within the dual power and base building milieu, I believe it is worthwhile to not only respond to Wright's article, but to use it as a site of ideological struggle. In this article, I hope to contest right on the level of history and theory, as well as on the more practical level of organizational strategy. My hope is to demonstrate that not only is Wright's gradualist theory of revolution based upon a revision of

Marxism, but also that its practical implications are flawed and would lead our movement in the wrong direction. Wright's revision On a theoretical level, Wright essentially concedes that he is making a fundamental revision to Marxist theory of revolution, though he refers to it as a quote-unquote correction. Wright explains that, in his view, quote, it is necessary to conceive of revolution in a gradualist way, not as a sudden historical rupture in which the working class or its representatives take over the national state and organize social reconstruction on the basis of a unitary political

will, end quote. Therefore, Wright's project is essentially focused on quote-unquote correcting Marx in order to develop a theory of socialist revolution which does not require the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. As such, Wright's formulation represents not a reconfiguration of Marxism, but a fundamental break with the Marxist tradition. Lenin famously argues in Staten Revolution that the distinguishing feature of Marxism is precisely the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He writes, quote, only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is what constitutes the most profound distinction between the Marxist and the ordinary petty bourgeois, end quote. Lenin astutely

observes that the recognition of class struggle not only precedes Marxism, but also does not necessarily aid in the process of proletarian liberation. After all, the capitalist class themselves can be wholly and completely cognizant of the reality of class struggle while still engaging in it. What is distinctive about Marxism, according to Lenin, is that it extends its theory of class struggle to a theory of proletarian revolution, realized through the dictatorship of the proletariat. As such, I want to suggest that Wright's project is much more than a humble correction to Marxism, but represents a fundamental challenge to Marxist theory, potentially gutting Marxism of the content that makes it distinct from all the many bourgeois schools of political

economy. Having clarified what is at stake in this discussion, I will now turn to the details of rights quote-unquote correction. He begins his theoretical assessment of Marx by arguing that Marx has two simultaneous views of revolution. The first is the theory of revolution which moves from capitalism to socialism, and the second is the quote-unquote trans-historical theory, which applies to previous transitions, quote, for instance, also to the earlier transition between feudalism and capitalism, end quote. Wright argues that this latter trans-historical theory of revolution can be derived from Marx's a contribution to the critique of political economy. The relevant passage that Wright performs a close reading of is as follows.

This is a long quote from Marx. Quote, In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production

constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure, and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life.

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production,

or, this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms, with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure, end quote. Back to Allison. Wright bemoans the bare-bones nature of this excerpt, arguing that it clearly begs for further elaboration. He is less interested in the view of base and superstructure.

structure developed in this passage, instead focusing on the moment that productive forces, quote, come into conflict with the existing relations of production, end quote. While Marx argues that this moment leads into a social revolution, right is concerned that the argument is quote unquote functionalist in nature and does not provide a causal analysis of how a society reaches a point where the productive forces come into conflict with relationships of production. This is a fair enough point. In this section, Marx is more focused on providing an explanation of the relationship between the superstructure and an economic base, than in providing a historical analysis of the revolutionary development of capitalism.

If this paragraph represented the totality of Marx's analysis of this quote-unquote trans-historical conception of revolution, we might indeed conclude that Marxist theory lacks a causal explanation of crisis and internal conflict within capitalism. Wright claims that the theory presented in this excerpt, quote, verges on meaninglessness, end quote, and argues that there is no clear heuristic for determining, quote, when production relations have started to impede the use and development of productive forces, end quote. He further, correctly, suggests that this contradiction seems to be an ongoing and constant affair within any given class society. He notes seven instances in which capitalism seems to further this conflict and asks why we have not seen revolution occur in response to any of these instances.

Additionally, Wright argues that capitalism continues to develop the productive forces of a society, not simply hinder them. He points to information technology as an example of this, as an example of the way that capitalism simultaneously, quote, fetters and develops productive forces. While we dig into this later, it is worth pausing for a moment to consider the conflation of technology with productive forces. Information technology certainly plays a role within capitalist economics, but Wright fails to demonstrate. that information technology is a part of the productive forces of a society, nor does he explain how integration of information technology might bolster productive forces. This should be concerning, as his claim for the necessity of revising Marxism rests upon the supposed paradox of capitalism simultaneously fettering and developing productive forces. It is in light of this supposed paradox

that Wright suggests the need for a quote-unquote subtle revision to Marxist theory. He suggests that we must, quote, replace Marx's idea of a conflict between productive forces and production relations with that of a conflict between two sets of production relations, one of which uses productive forces in a more socially rational and unfettering way than the other, end quote. This so-called subtle change has profound implications for all of Marx's theory, as Wright himself admits. He forthrightly states that such a revision means that revolutions no longer require a dictatorship of any sort, and argues that this modified Marxism leads to, quote, advocating a more grassroots-centered, long-term evolution of social movements that remake the economy and society

from the ground up, end quote. This is not the classic social democratic reformism, which seeks to make minor policy adjustments to capitalist society, but rather a gradualist reformism, which seeks to develop new economic infrastructure within capitalism in order to facilitate a non-authoritarian transition to socialism at a later time. As such, there is some level of novelty to Wright's theory, though it does echo certain ideas within the cooperative movement and parallels much of Richard Wolfe's emphasis on worker cooperatives. This revised version of Marxism has significant political import, according to Wright. He summarizes this revision more concretely as the recognition that, quote,

At certain moments in history, new forces and relations of production evolve in an older economic, social, political, and cultural framework, undermining it from within. The gradual process of social revolution begins to happen when the old set of productive relations fetters or irrationally uses productive forces in relation to the new set of widely emerging production relations, end quote. Back to Allison. Wright argues that this revision, quote, saves the Marxian theory from meaninglessness, end quote, because it provides a heuristic for understanding the causal factors which push the contradictions of capitalism into an actual revolution. I will refrain from commenting at length on the hubris required to claim that one has saved Marxism from meaninglessness, but we must note that such a bold claim requires significant justification. In order to justify this claim, Wright states that, according to his revision, the, quote, definite point at which the old society really begins to yield to the new one occurs when an emergent economy has evolved to the point that it commands substantial resources and is clearly more effective or powerful in some sense than the old economy, end quote.

It is this insight that Wright claims has saved Marxism. But has it? I would suggest that Marxism is not actually in need of saving in the first place. In socialism, utopian and scientific, Angles explores the internal contradiction within capitalism which produces the conflict between productive forces and productive relations. Engels explains that capitalist development has socialized production. The process of proletinarianization meant that commodity production was no longer done in an artisanal context, wherein one product might be produced primarily by one craftsman,

industrialization and proletarianization led to a further division of labor and resulted in, quote, the concentration of the means of production and of the producers in large workplaces and manufacturers their transformation into actual socialized means of production and socialized producers, end quote. Thus, the nature of productive forces under capitalism is a socialized nature. At the same time, capitalism revolutionized the productive forces.

It failed to revolutionize appropriation. If production prior to capitalism was individual, so too was appropriation. Engels explains that prior to capitalism, quote, the owner of the instruments of labor had himself appropriated the product, because as a rule, it was his own product and the assistance of others was the exception, end quote. This individual appropriation made sense in the context of individual production. Capitalism, however, socialized production, but failed to socialize appropriation of the product. Engel summarizes, quote,

Now, the owner of the instruments of labor always appropriated to himself the product, although it was no longer his product, but exclusively the product of the labor of others. As a quick aside here, just to sort of make that easier to understand, this is Brett speaking, what is being said here is that, you know, under an artisanal context, you have like, think of, like a craftsman making a shoe, right? The craftsman owns the means of production and he alone with maybe an apprentice make shoes and then appropriates whatever profit they could have from that shoe. But under capitalism, the process by which you make products is socialized, right?

A workplace has many dozens, many hundreds, many thousands of workers, but the appropriation of the profits, you know, that take place after you sell that product are individual still, which means that an individual capitalist or business owner, usurps the profit, even though many, many people have taken part in its creation. Back to the article. Allison goes on. This paradoxical relationship is a fundamental contradiction at the core of capitalist society. It is this contradiction, which represents the conflict between the productive forces and the relations of production under capitalism.

Marx does not give this contradiction much depth in the preface to the economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1840. because it is not his primary object of study. It is unclear to me why Wright treats four sentences from the preface of a text as the end-all be-all of Marxist theory, but it should be clear that Engels' writing provides much more depth on the subject. How is it then that this view Angles offers diverges from Wright's view?

On some level, Wright is correct that the seeds of the new society emerge from and already exist within the old society. Angles concedes as much when he recognizes that the productive forces are in constant conflict with capitalism itself. However, Wright diverges from Engels by arguing that these seeds are a result of a sort of quote-unquote counter-economy born within capitalist society, which somehow competes with the predominant capitalist economy, which fetters production.

According to Engels, the thing that fetters the revolutionary, i.e. socialized aspect of production, is not some abstract relation of production, but rather the capitalist class itself, and more specifically, the capitalist model of individual appropriation. The productive forces are revolutionary precisely because they are socialized. The socialization of production is a testament to the unnecessary status of individual capitalist ownership. Capitalism is in a state of constant internal conflict because the productive forces can only reach their full potential and be truly unleashed through the disillusion of the capitalist class. However, in Wright's view, revolutionary production relations can exist

alongside reactionary capitalist production relations. As such, while capitalist production relations might be predominant, meaning that capitalist appropriation might fetter the productive forces in the majority of cases, it is still possible to build a sort of counter-economy wherein capitalist appropriation no longer exists and the full force of the socialized production is unleashed. Wright refers to this hypothetical counter-economy as the quote-unquote solidarity economy. This solidarity economy is made up of workers' cooperatives without capitalist ownership, public banking, and participatory budgeting. In Wright's view, we can resolve the contradiction between socialized production and capitalist appropriation by building a solidarity

economy in which the latter no longer exists. Therefore, instead of waging violent revolution against the capitalist class in order to eliminate the reactionary model of capitalist appropriation, we simply develop a better alternative that exists alongside capitalism. Wright argues that because this new system is more, quote unquote, socially rational than capitalist production relations, it will eventually win over, quote, fast numbers of adherence who participate in it and propagandize for it, end quote. Therefore, insurrection is not needed because, quote, after a long evolution, the emergent economic relations and their institutional partisans will have access to so many resources

that they will be able to triumph economically and politically over the reactionary partisans of the old deteriorating economy, end quote. In short, the revolution occurs not through a party or a dictatorship with a proletariat, but through out-competing capitalism and winning over a critical amount of individuals based on the rational superiority of these new productive relations. We are supposed to believe that this brilliant change in strategy has saved Marxism, but as I will demonstrate shortly, it has simply abandoned it. What is wrong with Wright's revision? There are several problems with this subtle revision and the strategic implications that Wright derives from it.

As I have demonstrated above, angles and right diverge sharply, and this divergence has serious consequences. If Angles is correct that the revolutionary seed, within capitalism is the socialization of production, and that this socialization is held back by the capitalist class, then the political task at hand is obvious, overthrow the capitalist class. Angles summarizes the proletarian revolution as follows. Quote, the proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie into public property. By this act, the proletariat freeses the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized

character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society, thenceforth, and anachronism." End quote. Back to Allison. This is the traditional Marxist view of revolution. If Wright asks why it is that the conflict between productive forces and the relations of production has never transformed into a revolution in the past, Engel's answers that it is because the proletariat has not successfully been organized to seize the public power. Wright looks at the contradictions within capitalism and is dumbfounded as to why they do not necessarily spill over into social revolution.

This is based on an overly deterministic understanding of economics and history. The contradiction might formally be understood in economic terms, But in practical terms, socialized production is expressed in the activity of real people of the proletarian class. These real people must be organized in order to overthrow the capitalist class that fetters productive forces through capitalist appropriation. Now, of course, Wright might suggest that this explanation for precisely when and how revolution occurs is not present within Marx's own work, but this is hardly a problem. Marxism is not simply the totality of Marx's writing. It is a method developed by Marx which extends beyond his own writing. In foundations of Leninism, Stalin explains that Marx and Angles wrote in a pre-revolutionary period

in which capitalist development had not matured sufficiently to make revolution possible or likely. Furthermore, he argues that Lenin's real contribution to Marxism is the development of Marxism in the age of imperialism, where the global development of capitalism has matured into its highest form, making revolution possible. He writes, quote, Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics

of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular. Marx and Angles pursued their activities in the pre-revolutionary period. We have the proletarian revolution in mind here. When developed imperialism did not yet exist, in the period of the proletarian's preparation for revolution, in the period when the proletarian revolution was not yet an immediate practical inevitability, end quote.

Back to Allison. Lenin therefore develops Marxism beyond the level that Marx and angles were capable of, simply on the basis of developing it within a different historical epoch. As such, the fact that Marx does not provide us with the clear heuristic for determining the precise moment at which revolution becomes possible within class society, does not mean Marxism needs to be revised. Rights revision might be insightful and necessary if no other thinkers had ever developed a Marxism

to have a more coherent theory of revolution, but Lenin has already done precisely that. Thankfully, Lenin has already demonstrated that Marxism is capable of explaining when revolution is possible, and at what precise moments the internal contradictions within capitalism erupt into social revolution. In his groundbreaking text, What is to be done, Lenin argued that the spontaneous activity of the working class

cannot ever lead organically to revolution because the working class exists within capitalist society their beliefs and ideas are shaped by capitalist ideology. As such, the spontaneous actions of the working class can rise to the level of trade union struggle but never to the level of revolution. The history of the labor struggle in the United States attests to this fact. Union struggle exists here,

but has been gutted of its revolutionary content and serves largely to funnel proletarian energy into small workplace reforms instead of into revolutionary organizing. As such, Lenin demonstrates that it is no surprise that the constant conflict and crisis within capitalism has not spontaneously erupted into revolution because the spontaneous action of the working class cannot achieve revolutionary consciousness. Lenin then argues that in order to reach that elusive, definite point at which internal conflict and contradiction break out into social revolution, it is necessary to construct a party which can synthesize the experiences of all the classes under capitalism in order to agitate propagandize and lead the working class in a revolution against the capitalist class. Therefore, if we do not insist on excluding Lenin from the canon of Marxism,

it becomes clear that Marxism can explain why conflict does not boil over into social revolution on its own. And we can point to that definite moment at which it might boil over with the guidance of a party. such, the revision offered by Wright is not theoretically necessary. Right attempts to preclude this Leninist analysis by arguing that the October Revolution was not an actual revolution, but was actually a coup carried out by a vanguard of socialist leaders. While the October Revolution was set into motion based primarily on the decision and votes of the handful of Bolsheviks, it would not have been possible without the support of the masses. Though the October revolution saw relatively little fighting, this is because the Bolsheviks had already won the

support of a critical mass of conscripted soldiers, sailors, and workers. That the Bolsheviks could mobilize their loyal soldiers in the streets of Petrograd without opposition from supporters of the Mensheviks is itself a testament to the fact that the majority of the workers supported the Bolshevik party already. While Wright claims that the Leninist strategy is, quote, based on the belief that revolution can emanate from the will of a few men, end quote, this interpretation is entirely cynical and ideological. In fact, the Leninist strategy is based based on an unshakable belief in the mass's ability to be organized, to support and participate in the party structures which enable revolution to occur in the first place. It is based upon

not the arrogance of a few individuals, but on the belief that any worker can be raised to the level of a professional revolutionary through education and training. It ultimately relies upon an intense belief in the revolutionary power of the working class. Thus, it is clear that the Leninist development of Marxism in the age of revolution resolves the theoretical problems that Wright sees within Marxism. As such, there is no need for Wright to save Marxism from meaninglessness, because frankly, Lenin already did so, and did it much better. Lenin did not revise Marxism, but rather updated it in an age where revolution had become possible. Wright abandons the actual core of Marxism, the proletarian revolution, and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletarian. There is no

oppressing theoretical crisis within Marxism that forces us to follow right in this abandonment of revolution. Thus, having demonstrated that Wright's revision is not theoretically necessary, we must now ask if the strategy it gives birth to is practically superior to a revolutionary strategy. The first major problem with Wright's strategy is that it has no means of accounting for state oppression. A vanguard party oriented towards revolution is perfectly capable of defending itself because building armed revolutionary forces is central to the party's development. How, on the other hand, is a decentralized counter-economy of cooperatives and banks meant to prevent the capitalist from simply crushing it?

Wright concedes that even his theory of gradual revolution through a counter-economy will not be free of violence. He explains that, quote, it will certainly not be a peaceful process as innumerable political clashes with oligarchical authorities will have to occur, end quote. He is correct on this front, but his history. choice of the word clash undersells the severity of this violence. The moment the capitalist state sees this solidarity economy posing a serious threat to capitalism, they will crush it, and this

will not be through petty street clashes. The horror of the move bombings in Philadelphia shows the scale of internal warfare that the capitalist state is willing to go in order to crush even fledgling resistance movements. How exactly were the solidarity economy survived this? Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, Wright has no answer for this. Wright suggests that his model of gradualist change is based on the history of capitalist revolutions, which supposedly avoided the dictatorship model promoted by Marxists.

However, this view ignores previous events and historical processes. Capitalist actors impose the capitalist system on Europe through profound violence, the terror of the French Revolution, the various anti-monarchical revolutions which establish liberal parliamentary and control, and the enclosure laws which those parliaments

proceed to pass along with the whole process of primitive accumulation bear testament to the fact that capitalism could only wrestle control from feudalism through intense levels of state violence and dictatorship. The establishment of liberal systems of law throughout Europe required the Napoleonic wars to universalize the Napoleonic code. Right simply ignores all of this in favor of a utopian approach to socialism. He completely ignores the Marxist theory of primitive accumulation, likely because he has already made a fundamental theoretical break from Marxism. There is also a second more important problem with Wright's strategy. Put simply, Wright's gradualist strategy is just too slow to be viable.

Wright admits that this is a slow strategy, that it, quote, will not be consummated in the short term, likely requiring well over a century to carve out even the basic infrastructure of a post-capitalist society, end quote. While in the broad scope of human history, this might not seem like too long of a time period, in the context of acute capitalist crisis, it is far too long. The International Panel on Climate Change reports, we only have 12 years to limit global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius. If we do not limit it in time, that would create massive worldwide destruction through droughts, starvation, floods, and extreme weather.

According to the IPCC's most recent report, we would need to see reversal. of deforestation, carbon capture development, and decrease the emissions in order to avoid catastrophe. Thus, the most urgent question that we must ask right is how exactly his solidarity economy would create these changes in a 12-year timeframe. Quite simply, a strategy that takes a century to get rid of capitalism is a strategy that cannot address climate crisis. On the other hand, a revolutionary strategy which establishes a dictatorship of the proletariat, would have the centralized political control necessary to lead a planned economy which could address these issues. As such, there is a clear reason to prefer a revolutionary approach to socialism in order to

avoid climate catastrophe. In the face of looming climate catastrophe and of state repression, there is only one option available to us, revolutionary organizing. Only revolutionary organizing can create a centralized structure for resisting state violence. Revolutionary approaches to dual power allow us to build a militant infrastructure and to build counter-institutions to meet the needs of the working class. Where revolutionary dual-patter strategy diverges with Wright's solidarity economy is in the recognition that these counter-institutions will not overcome capitalism simply throughout competing it in the marketplace of ideas. Wright believes that the rationality of the workers will draw them to his counter-economy. Put Marxists understand that

capitalist ideology can cause people to act irrationally and against their own interests. Plenty of workers prefer capitalism because of the intense power of ideology. A revolutionary approach to dual power does not presume that we will persuade workers of the rational superiority of our system, but rather that we can meet workers' needs in order to raise consciousness and begin to assist the working class in seeing itself as a revolutionary class. We do not presume that a rupture with capitalism is impossible. Rather, we believe that it is inevitable and that a dual power infrastructure which is built with revolution in mind will allow us not only to survive such a rupture, it will allow us to emerge victorious. While Wright suggests that the idea of a successful

revolution against a modern capitalist state is utopian, this is merely his own defeatism clouding his view. While I will not make a lengthy case for that possibility here, I would highly recommend episode four of the podcast it could happen here. This episode breaks down precisely why it is possible to overcome massive states in a revolutionary context and provide some evidence for the hypothetical possibility of a revolutionary strategy today. Now, I am not endorsing or suggesting any of the tactics brought up in that episode, but rather suggesting that it demonstrates that we have a tendency to underestimate the power of a revolutionary movement. Furthermore, I would recommend Tim Horace's article Goodbye Revolution for a compelling defense of the possibility

and necessity of revolution. As an aside, I read Goodbye Revolution in our last installment of the Regeneration article reading, so if you want to go read that, it's on the RevLeft catalog, just scroll a few episodes down and you'll find it. Back to Allison.

Regardless of the hypothetical possibility of revolutionary victory, Wright's own strategy is itself mired in utopianism. The belief that a gradualist transition to socialism is possible is based on an idealistic understanding of capitalism's own emergence, a total disregard for the severity of state repression, and a complete failure to account for how pressing the looming climate crisis is. Even if revolutionary strategy is imperfect and has a risk of failure, we can say for certainty that the global climate will collapse by the time Wright suggests his strategy would have succeeded.

Wright ultimately offers no useful strategic alternative to revolutionary organizing and does not resolve some pressing internal theoretical crisis within Marxism. Ultimately, he simply abandons Marxism by jettisoning its revolutionary content and leaves us with one more utopian scheme which is incapable of providing a real alternative to capitalism. What we need now is not more utopian dreams, but a concrete strategy for building socialism. The revolutionary strategy remains our only option. And that concludes this reading of The Real Movement Against the Solidarity Economy by Alison Escalante. Good night.