When the revolution happens do you think it will Marxist-Leninist, because it will have become more popular as it can prescribe a new socialism for our material conditions, or more Anarchistic in character, because of the individualistic ideology of the west?
Edit: thanks everyone for your responses, answering my questions and more.
While I do think the US contains a closeted base of revolutionaries that’s more prevalent then what appears on the surface, a marxist-leninist revolution happening is still a laughably long ways off. I rarely ever see any sort of broadly leftist sentiment expressed at all out in public, just endless military/police worship.
Yet, to quote Guevara, the revolution isn’t an apple that simply falls from the tree once its ripe. You have to make it fall.
You’re 100% correct about present conditions being laughably inadequate for such a socialist movement even finding its feet in the US. At its current level of consciousness, I’d say the US is roughly equivalent to the stage Russia was at before Plekhanov came along and popularised Marxism there. American radicalism and its primary strains of thought at present; democratic socialism and anarchism, are basically analogous to Russia when Narodism was in full swing. It naturally follows that America will need its own Plekhanovs and Bolsheviks to forge a path for Marxism in America; people who will build up cadre all over the country, before eventually welding them together into one cohesive movement that is united in thought and action. One of the key tasks that underline this process will be the thorough denunciation and defeat of American Anarchism and Democratic Socialists, America’s Narodniks and Mensheviks. There is an unbelievable amount of work to be done when you actually assess the full scope of the problem.
Wait, what’s wrong with Anarchism and Democratic Socialists?
I’ve broken down Anarchism in another comment in this thread. As for the demsocs, they aspire towards integrating themselves with the bourgeois political establishment. In essence, they will only repeat the mistakes of social democratic parties abroad by forming something analogous to the British Labour party; a political organ of the establishment whose development corrals and contains the British labour movement, suppressing an otherwise radical leadership of the working class from emerging.
A workers democracy cannot be achieved through engaging in a bourgeois political system whose form serves only to perpetuate bourgeois class rule. History has repeatedly shown us that this strategy never works and rapidly degraded the political vehicle the workers pin their hopes on into a form of workfare for opportunistic charlatans. Be it the SPD in Germany or Labour in Britain, the development of mass political parties focussed only on electoral success has inevitably resulted in these organisations betraying the working class to become junior partners with the capitalists. I could talk at length about the various ways in which building socialism through engagement with bourgeois democracy is impossible, complete with historical examples dating back to at least the foundation of British Labour by the Labour Representation Committee of 1900.