Parties can be small and then become quite big and a majority. The Bolsheviks were a minority, don't forget it. It works also the other way around, look how the SED disappeared.
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2025
23 points (96.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
938 readers
18 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes, I think about this often. Many parties, especially in the global north. Decades of propaganda, infighting, and distance from the masses have led to a lot of irrelevance.
But that's also because of the shrinking of proletarian in the First World. Most productive jobs have been outsourced to the Third World. Many workers in the Global North want to become bourgeoise, they have no material interest in revolution.
It's worth pointing out that the population clamoring to become bourgeoise comes from a place of constant capitalist propaganda from birth. I used to want that as well, until the right people at the right time of my life pointed me at the right content creators which led me to theory. Now, instead of wanting to become bourgeoise, I want to make bourgeoise proletariat again.
This antagonism will disappear if the communists come into power and manage to improve the lives of the people
There's an anecdotal statistic going around historian circles, that if a revolution gets 1% of the country's population to participate in some capacity, then it succeeds.
What is the logic behind that?
More of an observation that most successful revolutions or protests so far in history, where we have data for, had at least this many people.
When I learned of this, it was used to make a point that 1% of a country is actually quite a lot of people when they get together.
Alright, so 3.4 million people in the US's case. That's over a thousand times as many people as the group who stormed the capitol. Could work, I'd say.