What's next, when incrementalism fails?

I usually agree with Stalin, at least when it comes to internal communist debates, like with Trotsky or H.G.Wells.

   Theoretically, of course, the possibility of marching gradually, step by step, under the conditions of capitalism, towards the goal which you call socialism in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word, is not precluded.

   But what will this "socialism" be? At best, bridling to some extent, the most unbridled of individual representatives of capitalist profit, some increase in the application of the principle of regulation in national economy. That is all very well. But as soon as Roosevelt, or any other captain in the contemporary bourgeois world, proceeds to undertake something serious against the foundation of capitalism, he will inevitably suffer utter defeat. The banks, the industries, the large enterprises, the large farms are not in Roosevelt's hands. All these are private property. The railroads, the mercantile fleet, all these belong to private owners. And, finally, the army of skilled workers, the engineers, the technicians, these too are not at Roosevelt's command, they are at the command of the private owners; they all work for the private owners. We must not forget the functions of the State in the bourgeois world.

   The State is an institution that organises the defence of the country, organises the maintenance of "order"; it is an apparatus for collecting taxes. The capitalist State does not deal much with economy in the strict sense of the word; the latter is not in the hands of the State. On the contrary, the State is in the hands of capitalist economy. That is why I fear that in spite of all his energies and abilities, Roosevelt will not achieve the goal you mention, if indeed that is his goal. Perhaps, in the course of several generations it will be possible to approach this goal somewhat; but I personally think that even this is not very probable.

Don't give yourself airs and you won't spout air.

Socialism under the conditions of capitalism must pay. As long as the common good lies in the direction of socialism, socialism can pay all parties. The moment socialism tries to proceed beyond the closest distance of its path to the common good, it can only pay one party at the cost of another. Savvy?

And when we look at the present situation, we must take into account that socialists aren't even taking this program seriously, or at least so called socialists aren't taking it seriously. In the United States, for instance, of course not the first place to look for socialists, only Bernie Sanders suits the general profile.

The socialist mainstream these days seems to consist of overt gloating over the parties, whose interests are being curtailed, in line with the idea that socialism has gone beyond its closest proximity to the common good. Incrementalism under these circumstances will eventually run into a brick wall, or has done just that in November 2016.

But then what? When the suppression of that impact will eventually fade, and I think it is beginning to fade right now with a last crazed effort to coerce under the veil of decency*, H.G.Well's vision of the ascent of socialism will give way to Stalin's.

* I'm amazed at the boldness. The El Paso shooting would have given real ammunition against Alex Jones in defense of Twitter's, Facebook's etc. policies, but Trump has never spoken of a population exchange. Attacking Trump for this is trying to force one's own delusions on others. That won't succeed and that failure will likely bring about the end of the suppression of the failure to sell the socialist road as the path to the common good. Mind you, the important thing is not that a socialist revolution will then in earnest be attempted, but that the further socialist path will henceforth be conceived of as a revolutionary one. And on that point I'm again amazed, because Alex Jones immediately floated that idea, leaving his own flank wide open to attack, but the attack targetted Trump instead. Such moves are more natural in theatre than on the battlefield.