>>24657649 (OP)
>Why is this?
For Marx, if the proles realized that it was irrational for them to work for someone else when they could work for their own, in essence realize their alienation, then they would have revolted against the bourgeoisie.
The problem is that the irrationality of working for the bourgeoisie becomes in this context a lack of opportunity : the prole has no other choices than to work for the bourgeois to make money.
Social-democracy solves this by making everyone more or less have equal chances at becoming a "bourgeois" (as in someone rich). If everyone is given their chances at success, it becomes redundant to have a revolution and to organize the means of production.
>Is the proletariat just fucking retarded?
Baudrillard, Deleuze & Guattari, Foucault and a myriad of french authors talk about this : the state controls the information and shapes our desire. Thus people have been socialized for and by capitalism and don't want anything else.
>Or do we have to wait 2 more weeks?
We kinda do. Albeit Marx wrote about alienation and how it was irrational to be a prole when you could own the means of production, he also wrote (and was correct to a relative degree) about the crisis that capitalism induced and how the system isn't sustainable.
As time passes, and as many of you have noticed, ecologist movements, china catching up, alternative models for capitalism have all challenged the grip that capitalism withholds. The revolution won't be marxist-leninist, it'll be a series of rational choices made by politicians to adapt trade within the global changes that have occured. It's reforms like reducing the work week to 4 days to make companies hire more, making municipalities own the housing market, creating state-owned companies to invest in green energy etc.
>Or perhaps, Marx was wrong, and class consciousness does not naturally permeate as a result of the material conditions of the working class.
He was wrong in thinking that the working class could have a revolution. Irl, the working class is too divided to focus on troons and blacks to have any meaningful impact.
>>24662780
The only times where countries successfully managed to adhere to a broad set of principles prior to the modern UN was with the League of Nations. And the reason it disbanded was because populist leaders managed to coast off rising populism in response to the economic crisis. Then ww2 happened.
Before that countries had more or less always respected some code of honor. For instance the Franco-prussian war didn't see mass rape and pillages, only professionals soldiers shooting at each other.
Economic crisis decimating entire nations is a new phenomenon, and subsequent large-scale populism that can channeled into atrocities is also a new phenomenon. This isn't because of capitalism per-se, but because capitalism introduces the means to make the local mass killing into a genocide.
>>24658296
>people have always died so we should just kys
