Maybe I am, part of being in a bubble is, that it is hard to properly know that you are. Although I think I prefer the term “to live in ideology” - because it is perfectly possible to consume lots and lots of different, real-life sources, and still delude oneself into believing things, by only viewing them through a distorted lens. But I do see what you mean, and my answer has been: That was also the case when socialist movements first formed, needing to go through a phase of disillusionment with the former French Revolutionary period, as well as Utopian Socialism first developing as a multipronged movement/collection of ideas, until the realities of class struggle shaped it in a specific way. For example: Yet immature phenomena like the Luddites or the Silesian Weaver’s Uprising were indeed necessary steps, for further developments later on.
I also cannot say as much about the state of things in the US, outside of internet chatter and mainstream news, that much is true.
I had a talk about this with a friend a few years back, who essentially made the same argument as you did, because all he saw was things getting worse. I think that observation isn’t wrong, and will probably remain true for years, probably one or two decades at least. All with political confusion, further vanishing of the middle class and increased barbarism within politics. But it’s precisely because things will get so unbearably bad, globally, that I think a material movement opposing it will appear again - successful or not - because that has always happened in history.
Concerning the younger generations: The apathy is precisely a thing, that is also upheld by ideological structures making organisation impossible, by basically making the very thought of being hopeful in any way seem foolish. I don’t know if it ultimately will be foolish - but I do know, this sort of pessimistic current has been one of the main ways the status quo defends itself. (See for example Ẑiẑek’s famous interpretation of the “coffee without milk/coffee without cream” joke - about how what is presented as not within the status quo is essential to how the status quo presents itself; Similarily with his exploration of how ideology nowadays tends to work by not believing yourself, but deferring to people believing for you - “I myself don’t have superstitions, but the others do, so I shouldn’t try to exert influence over society that, it would be futile/disrespectful.”) Thus, I, of course, don’t know how it will pan out either, but I do remain convinced - it’s basically impossible to have the total collapse of many essential structures as we, in my opinion, will have/are having, without a dialectically growing answer in the form of a new material movement.
And besides that, younger generations also need some time to escape utopian, childish interpretations, one way or the other - not just in the way movements develop historically, as I mentioned in the first paragraph - but also, how people develop and mature with age.
Sorry for my delayed response, I was waiting until I could get to a computer to better think and format my response.
I think a material movement opposing it will appear again - successful or not - because that has always happened in history.
Sure, but sometimes that movement is fascism. Or religious revivalism. It’s not always socialism/communism. Nazi Germany famously arose out of the economic devastation from WW1 and the treaty of Versailles. The devastation of the American South during and after the Civil War led to a doubling down of racism and partisanship, without the softening propriety and statesmanship of the former leading slaveholder class.
I think dialectics is an interesting descriptive method, but as a predictive tool it’s no better than a random guess. The idea of what is “opposite” to any given social structure, or whether such an opposite must appear, is so open to interpretation that it’s useless for drawing conclusions. I agree that historically, desperate situations cause a movement to arise most of the time, but what form that movement will take is very difficult to predict.
And we also have to keep in mind that sometimes those movements are crushed and things keep on getting bad because the violent control of the State cannot be overcome. And sometimes movements are successful but are hijacked in their moment of triumph (Arab Spring in Egypt for example, with secular democratic forces being hijacked by Muslim Brotherhood forces).
All of this to say that I think belief in the inevitability of a socialist structure taking over after the inevitable collapse of the current capitalist one is more hope than reason. If you want a more equitable society, your best bet is to work towards its creation rather than wait for it to appear.
Maybe I am, part of being in a bubble is, that it is hard to properly know that you are. Although I think I prefer the term “to live in ideology” - because it is perfectly possible to consume lots and lots of different, real-life sources, and still delude oneself into believing things, by only viewing them through a distorted lens. But I do see what you mean, and my answer has been: That was also the case when socialist movements first formed, needing to go through a phase of disillusionment with the former French Revolutionary period, as well as Utopian Socialism first developing as a multipronged movement/collection of ideas, until the realities of class struggle shaped it in a specific way. For example: Yet immature phenomena like the Luddites or the Silesian Weaver’s Uprising were indeed necessary steps, for further developments later on.
I also cannot say as much about the state of things in the US, outside of internet chatter and mainstream news, that much is true.
I had a talk about this with a friend a few years back, who essentially made the same argument as you did, because all he saw was things getting worse. I think that observation isn’t wrong, and will probably remain true for years, probably one or two decades at least. All with political confusion, further vanishing of the middle class and increased barbarism within politics. But it’s precisely because things will get so unbearably bad, globally, that I think a material movement opposing it will appear again - successful or not - because that has always happened in history.
Concerning the younger generations: The apathy is precisely a thing, that is also upheld by ideological structures making organisation impossible, by basically making the very thought of being hopeful in any way seem foolish. I don’t know if it ultimately will be foolish - but I do know, this sort of pessimistic current has been one of the main ways the status quo defends itself. (See for example Ẑiẑek’s famous interpretation of the “coffee without milk/coffee without cream” joke - about how what is presented as not within the status quo is essential to how the status quo presents itself; Similarily with his exploration of how ideology nowadays tends to work by not believing yourself, but deferring to people believing for you - “I myself don’t have superstitions, but the others do, so I shouldn’t try to exert influence over society that, it would be futile/disrespectful.”) Thus, I, of course, don’t know how it will pan out either, but I do remain convinced - it’s basically impossible to have the total collapse of many essential structures as we, in my opinion, will have/are having, without a dialectically growing answer in the form of a new material movement.
And besides that, younger generations also need some time to escape utopian, childish interpretations, one way or the other - not just in the way movements develop historically, as I mentioned in the first paragraph - but also, how people develop and mature with age.
Sorry for my delayed response, I was waiting until I could get to a computer to better think and format my response.
Sure, but sometimes that movement is fascism. Or religious revivalism. It’s not always socialism/communism. Nazi Germany famously arose out of the economic devastation from WW1 and the treaty of Versailles. The devastation of the American South during and after the Civil War led to a doubling down of racism and partisanship, without the softening propriety and statesmanship of the former leading slaveholder class.
I think dialectics is an interesting descriptive method, but as a predictive tool it’s no better than a random guess. The idea of what is “opposite” to any given social structure, or whether such an opposite must appear, is so open to interpretation that it’s useless for drawing conclusions. I agree that historically, desperate situations cause a movement to arise most of the time, but what form that movement will take is very difficult to predict.
And we also have to keep in mind that sometimes those movements are crushed and things keep on getting bad because the violent control of the State cannot be overcome. And sometimes movements are successful but are hijacked in their moment of triumph (Arab Spring in Egypt for example, with secular democratic forces being hijacked by Muslim Brotherhood forces).
All of this to say that I think belief in the inevitability of a socialist structure taking over after the inevitable collapse of the current capitalist one is more hope than reason. If you want a more equitable society, your best bet is to work towards its creation rather than wait for it to appear.