What if the proletariat isn't the revolutionary subject?
There's one really good argument against Marxism. And it isn't the stupid arguments about how Hayek said central planners can't solve the millions of equations, Venezuela, or human nature.
The real problem with Marxism is the lack of a revolutionary subject. In countries where socialist revolutions succeeded, they were often on the backs of peasants, not industrial workers. There are precisely zero examples of successful proletarian revolutions, and zero ATTEMPTS at new proletarian revolutions since the 1980s or so (i.e. Peru), certainly for the whole 21st century.
The fact is that the thesis of the proletariat as the revolutionary subject has essentially been disproven by the 20th century. Any form of socialism or communism going forward would need to have an alternative driving force, and would therefore not really be Marxism.
It's actually possible capitalism doesn't even produce a revolutionary subject at all.
Other possibilities are counter-economics (maybe coops or prefigurative cybernetics), ultra-vanguardism aka blanquism and coups, accelerationism, or even some more outlandish examples like building humanity into a hivemind so that it is ontologically incapable of commodity production and therefore defaults to borg-communism.
Even though Bookchin rightly critiques Marxism in this regard, he just goes on larping "democracy" as though nothing is changed, there's no reason for a bunch of randos to make communism or anarchism or communalism whether you call them proletariat or not.
I've seen way too many social movements fail or be swallowed, only for the next generation of rubes to come along and mindlessly cheer for war, imperialism, capitalism and for the elites to drink their blood. The only difference is trad flavored vs woke flavored, real life is like the ending of mass effect the fucking universe explodes and you only get to choose the color of the explosion.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.(0 reply bait thread)