Explain this to me revolutionaries

Russian Revolution 1917
Chinese Revolution 1949
Cuban Revolution 1959

If capitalism inevitably leads to Marxist revolutions, why has the rate of revolutions been slowing down? Why have successful revolutions only happened in backwards societies and never advanced capitalist economies?

Attached: 170306134510-04-russian-revolution-100-years-anniversary-putin-restricted-super-169.jpg (1100x619, 271.24K)

I heard that certain sects of leftoids support the new soft imperialism like Israel because a liberal Israel WOULD bring democracy and break up the feudal patriarchies of the Middle East. Following this reasoning is it really so wrong that the US led and sponsored every single socialist (and fascist) dictator of South America?

Attached: ML.jpg (1017x535, 200.91K)

Liberals go home

what the fuck? fucking kill yourself

Advanced Capitalist countries have Representative "Democracies", and Freedom of Expression which feeds into the idea that people have control over their lives. Your master is harder to see.

Define progressive. If this was done in US it probably includes literally everything to the left of the Republican Party.

The only thing the US sponsored was reactionary forces opposing them.

Attached: 38689543_524855117970176_1015184244181303296_n.jpg (960x942, 52.37K)

I never stated anything to the contrary. I'm debating the notion that a proletariat revolution is the inevitable consequence of capitalism when all evidence we have points to the opposite. A lot of leftists like to belittle "reformists" because they are somehow detracting from the supposed revolution that is always right around the corner. In the mean time we should all suffer more because this will make the revolution come faster they say, but there is no evidence that points to this conclusion that advances of capitalism lead to revolution. If we look at history revolution seems to become a more and more distant possibility than a growing inevitability.

Because Marx is wrong

Who's argued that? . No one on this board. Have a read of the Overproduction Vs. Unprofitabiliy thread. Lurk moar.

t. marx if he lived longer to correct some of his previous assumptions

Revolution is not "inevitable", it is only one possible outcome of the historical progression of capitalism.

complacency and the presence of technology.

Revolution is inevitable, because class still exists. As any mode of production spins itself apart, the ruling class must steadily lose what makes it dominant over the lower classes. As that occurs, a lower class must invariably rise and bring with it the nascent form of a new mode of production. Once that lower class has accumulated more wealth than the ruling class, and thus more ability to steer the course of the economy, then the ascendant class topples the old ruling class and eliminate the vestiges of the old mode of production. Unless you think that the current ruling class will just go gentle into that good night, there can be no changing over without revolution.

Attached: InfantileDisorder.jpg (1300x916, 136.55K)

Insurrectionist civil wars are no longer the most effective way to bring about socio-political change.

yes they are.

Hello FBI





because leftism exists solely to replace the current power, and once leftists take charge, well we all know what happens then. The islamists are banking on it.

What is?

because america legalized trade unions in the 1930s, and the total cuckening of society only began in earnest in 2000


If anything, it is the krauts and the anglos fault for popularising social democracy in the early twentieth century.