>Revolution has never taken place in the bubble of first world conditions.This is basically a boring truism to say at this point. What does this say to you. Your post generally indicates a vapid and useless view of this fact. Marx said that we can talk about how things all we want, the point is to change it. While imperialism for now has undermined the first world worker's ability to become a proletariat that can lead revolution in their countries, we can also understand that this cannot be understood as a permanent condition and cannot be stable forever.
>Revolution has necessarily been deformed in the periphery.Define "deformed" and why it was necessary, OP.
>Most people today are adventurists, larpers or liberals.*blows raspberry while making jerking off motion*
>Things are going to get very exciting very soon what with climate change, the decline of the empire, world war and several other crises hitting all at once.OP really said most people are adventurists and then said the most adventurist shit possible. While Communists recognize the opportunities that could arise from coming crises, we don't cheerlead or get "excited" for the natural disasters which will arise from climate change, cheerlead as one empire falls in the absence of socialist revolution — an event that can only be followed by the rise of new imperialism(s), or eagerly anticipate the advent of a new world war. As the CPC once said:
<There are different types of peace and different types of war. Marxist-Leninists must be clear about what type of peace or what type of war is in question….<Although Marxist-Leninists have pointed out, on the basis of the history of the two world wars, that world wars inevitably lead to revolution, no Marxist-Leninist ever has held or ever will hold that revolution must be made through world war. The revolutionary struggle is necessarily a violent and difficult path, but it's reactionary and adventurist to act like crises that will first and foremost lead to the slaughter and death of proletarians in the third world is something to get excited for.
>We need to start organizing extremely quickly.A fine-sounding phrase, but
for what? Who's "we"? As you yourself pointed out, the subjective conditions for revolution don't presently exist in the first world, and the people who post here by-and-large aren't from or have any connection to the third world. The present paradigms of "mutual aid", trade unionism, and advocacy work in the first world wont cut it. Do you have anything useful to say?
>>2933215>1776A settler revolution to establish an independent colonialism — the colonialist nature of the revolution setting it apart from all other revolutions in the Americas — isn't an example of proletarian revolution. While some sections of white workers aligned themselves with the revolution, why did they do this, and were they ever in the lead of the movement? The workers never lead, and instead aligned themselves towards independence because it offered greater opportunity to take a position in the industrial bourgeoisie and slaveowning landed aristocracy.
>1848Not really comparable to present day "first world" conditions as the labor aristocracy didn't exist yet. The first labor aristocracy was identified in Britain by Engels.
>1917Russia in 1917 certainly can't be said to be "first world" by our standards or a timely equivalent. The labor aristocracy was in its infancy there and, though imperialist, the country was still largely semifeudal and subordinate to all other imperialisms. It'd be like calling Brazil "first world" today.
>1922Assuming you're talking about Greece? Or Turkey? Or considering you listed 1776 already, the Rand Revolt in South Africa? ᴉuᴉlossnW taking Rome? Regardless, none are really a good comparison to present conditions.