Hope for the Future, Pessimism for the Revolution, and Why Both Are Important

In this piece, I will attempt to address the ideological contrast between optimistic hope for a glorious socialist future and pessimism for struggling towards a futile global revolution.

There appear to be two opposite extremes when it comes to hope for the future. One side marches in the streets, side by side with their comrades, waving the red flag of socialism. They dream of a future utopia where all are cared for and none are oppressed, where everyone has food, housing, healthcare, education, friends, love. They dream of a proletarian future of world socialism, of world peace, world harmony. They dream of fighting side by side as they stand victorious, basking in the glory of a beautiful sun rising over the world of the future. 

On the other side is the nihilist. Perhaps they are a post-left anarchist whose major defining idea is a rejection of the futility of fighting for a world revolution. Perhaps they are a more mainstream anarchist, or even a communist, disillusioned with the formulaic, bureaucratic monotony of endless meetings and conferences. They reject the sectarian vanguardism of mainstream communist parties, their stagnant meetings and petty drama. They have no faith in a cohesive, united revolution to captivate the international proletariat. They rely on themselves and their friends, those they trust and love, to carry out individual acts of agitation, be it community service or direct action.

While I am of the opinion that neither extreme is desirable, I lean slightly more in favor of the former. I think both have valid points. While I sympathize with the post-left disillusionment with the mainstream vanguardist movements - hell, I've been shouted out of plenty of online vanguardist communities* - I don't personally see that as a reason to abandon mass agitation altogether. (I would like to make clear that all of this is my opinion; I have no intention of "debunking" my postie comrades.) I understand the aversion to mass movements, I really do; they're so often sectarian, puritanical, and pedantic about their precious i m m o r t a l s c i e n c e. However, I still think a traditional, planned revolution is preferable. While I understand the pessimistic outlook, I think mass agitation should be conducted, while being tempered with realism. I do truly believe we can make a better world, a better future. I truly believe we can uplift the poor, the starving, the homeless, the destitute out of their misery. But we also shouldn't have any delusions about a perfect future. Revolution is not pretty. We will not walk hand in hand into the sunset; we will wage revolutionary war against the capitalist forces of the entire world. People will die. 

But it is necessary. The reactionary destruction of all historical examples of democratic socialist reforms shows that the bourgeoisie will never give up their power willingly. They will fight to their last breath for it, and we will be hammer that strikes them down. We need not be cruel in our struggle, but we must be vigilant.

We must fight to the end.

*(What, you thought I had negative experiences with vanguardists in real life? Pfft, that would require getting off my ass and actually doing irl agitation. I am currently exploring socialist organizations near me to see if I agree with any enough to join.)





The star of revolution will rise high above the streets of Moscow, from a sea of blood and fire, and turn into a lodestar to lead a liberated humanity!