As long as global governments are comitted to consumer capitalism there is now doubt that for the richest countries energy abundance will not be a problem. The question is at what long term ecological cost that energy abundance will come.
In the end, the Soviet Union intended to develop it's own consumer capitalism, albeit heavily mediated through the state. You can see late Soviet propaganda which attempts to entice the public's support through pictures of families in the newest apartment projects with TVs and cozy new clothing.
Especially if the state capitalists and consumer capitalosts stop murdering people who try them out.
I, for one, am not willing to support a revolution without a plan for the day after. It may be an OK thing to be an anti-capitalist, but if one defines desired outcomes only in terms of what not to be, it's pretty damn uninspired.
Revolution is building and implementing the stuff that happens afterwards. It's building parallel power structures and systems that aren't part of the current one. Things like mutual aid networks and unions (real unions, not controlled opposition).
A non-capitalist revolution looks like the Zapatistas or Rojava, not like larping the red army killing all the socialists. They generally get shut down by external violence followed by the people who enacted the violence saying "see! It ddn't work!".
Another place to look is the formation of fascist states. Night of the long knives is not what made the nazi state, nor was Trump's failed insurrection what will lead the US the rest of the way into fascism. The actual work is the last ten years of undermining the education system with things like praeger U.
That's not a definition of revolution that I have ever heard a person use, or come close to capturing what anybody who I have heard advocate revolution speaks of, whether that's in historical text or contemporary discussion.
It's exceptionally rare that a revolution is about building the new system, it's actually about shifting the power structure.
But I want a solid description of what sort of democratic control could replace the economic system of capitalism, by building it. Until then, incrementally changing but by bit seems like the only feasible way to discover better systems.
So it's not about shifting the power structure, it's about shifting the power structure? You can't shift power onto a structure if that structure doesn't exist.
> But I want a solid description of what sort of democratic control could replace the economic system of capitalism, by building it. Until then, incrementally changing but by bit seems like the only feasible way to discover better systems.
The things that were democratic and non-capitalist that we've already had and are losing.
Unions, (functioning non-capital-serving) universities, well managed utilities, co-ops, cohesive communities, public blue-sky science institutions, public mass transit, collective healthcare, mutual aid networks, a functioning commons, libraries, public education.
Moreover, the important bit is not using every bit of economic, military, propaganda, and espionage power available to destroy the more radical experiments that people try in various parts of the world, and then using your own warcrimes as some kind of gotchya against the systems they're trying.
And that other part of the system is the whole thing that needs to be explained.
Here's a very pro market capitalism take that still makes this very clear: