What is a Revolutionary Moment

A  “revolutionary moment” refers to a specific point in history when the existing socio-political- economic systems (usually capitalism) reach a crisis, creating the conditions for a fundamental change. This is profoundly different from moments where only reforms are possible, because the fundamental contradictions within the system become so intense and unsustainable that they can no longer be resolved within the existing system. 

There are many dimensions to these contradictions, but the single most important contradiction is the conflict between the predatory owning class (and their petit bourgeoisie supporters) and the working class (formerly understand as the proletariat, but in contemporary times better understood as the precariat). In it’s simplest terms, this is what is best defined as Class Struggle.

How to resolve those contractions is what separates a revolutionary from a reformist. (Note that there is a difference between revolutionary reforms and more reforms, which we will dive into later).

Kalrl Marx argued that history is driven by class struggle, and when the working class gains class consciousness—recognizing their collective power and the need for systemic change—the potential for revolution emerges. A “revolutionary moment” typically involves:

1. Crisis of Legitimacy: The existing political and economic system loses its legitimacy in the eyes of the masses. This can be triggered by economic crises, wars, inequality, or failures of governance.
2. Heightened Class Struggle: As the contradictions between the bourgeoisie and proletariat intensify, class conflict reaches a tipping point where the oppressed classes are willing to overthrow the system.
3. Revolutionary Consciousness: The working class becomes aware of its potential power to transform society, moving beyond mere economic struggle to an ideological and political movement aimed at revolution.

In this context, a “revolutionary moment” represents the point where the conditions for a potential revolutionary change are ripe. Marx believed that it would be when the proletariat was able to take collective action and overthrow the capitalist system, eventually leading to the establishment of socialism and, eventually, communism

Revolutionary Moments & Electoral Politics

Exploring the idea of a “revolutionary moment” within the context of electoral politics is really interesting because it introduces a tension between the potential for systemic change through electoral means versus the more traditional revolutionary approach that Marx envisioned—often seen as happening outside or against the established political system.

In electoral politics, the idea of a “revolutionary moment” might take a slightly different shape than in a purely revolutionary context. Here’s how it could play out:

1. Crisis of Legitimacy (Electoral Context)

In modern electoral politics, this could be seen in the widespread disillusionment with the current political system. For instance, voters may become increasingly frustrated with the inability of mainstream political parties to address inequality, environmental crises, or issues like job insecurity. This could lead to a breakdown in the legitimacy of the existing political establishment, creating space for more radical, anti-establishment movements to gain traction.

• A good example might be the rise of outsider candidates who challenge the status quo, like Bernie Sanders in the U.S. or Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. They push a platform that, in some ways, addresses the system’s contradictions (such as growing inequality, underfunded social programs, and corporate power), and in a moment of crisis, they can harness the dissatisfaction of the electorate.

2. Heightened Class Struggle (Electoral Context)

While electoral politics is often associated with negotiation, compromise, and gradual reforms, a “revolutionary moment” in this sense would be when class struggle is so palpable that it cannot be ignored. This might happen when a critical mass of the population—particularly working-class people—actively pushes for drastic policy changes through their votes, protests, and demands.

• For example, consider when there’s a surge in support for left-wing candidates or policies that are explicitly anti-capitalist or anti-corporate, such as calls for universal healthcare, free education, or the nationalization of key industries. If the ruling class (or capitalist establishment) attempts to shut down these movements, it might prompt a response where working-class movements take electoral action as a form of revolt against entrenched systems.

3. Revolutionary Consciousness in Electoral Politics

Remember that revolutionary consciousness means that the working class realizes its collective power and understands that the system itself is the problem—not just the individuals in charge. In the electoral context, this could be seen when large numbers of people move beyond reformist demands (e.g., social welfare or regulation) to call for fundamental systemic change (e.g., democratic control of the economy or the dismantling of corporate power).

• A key challenge here is that in electoral politics, the system itself is often designed to prevent too much upheaval. Even left-wing candidates who propose significant changes still have to navigate the constraints of capitalist political structures, like lobbying, corporate media, or the party apparatus. So, in this context, a “revolutionary moment” might be when there’s a groundswell of support for candidates or policies that challenge these entrenched power structures at their core, potentially creating a break in the political system.

4. Reform vs. Revolution in Electoral Movements

This is the big tension in electoral politics from a Marxist perspective: Can real revolutionary change happen within the electoral system, or is it fundamentally limited by capitalism? Marx himself was skeptical that bourgeois electoral systems could bring about true revolutionary change, because they are designed to maintain the status quo.

• In this view, candidates like Sanders or Corbyn might represent a reformist approach within the system, advocating for change through policy. However, Marxists might argue that even if these leaders were to win, they would eventually face opposition from capital (e.g., through corporate influence, media opposition, or political elites), and real revolutionary change would require breaking out of those structures.
• That said, a revolutionary moment in electoral politics could still signal a broader shift, where even reformist movements create the conditions for deeper change, possibly leading to broader mass mobilizations that extend beyond electoral politics into more direct actions.

This Historic Moment as a Rupture

The idea that electoral politics can help spark a revolutionary moment—but only through a break from the Democratic Party (or any similar establishment party)—aligns with a lot of Marxian critiques of how electoral systems operate within capitalist frameworks.

Here are some key ways this break from the Democratic Party could function as part of a revolutionary moment:

1. Breaking from the Party of Capital

The Democratic Party, like its counterparts in most capitalist democracies, has historically functioned as a “safety valve” for the system—allowing some reforms and limited redistribution while preserving the broader capitalist structure. Many left-wing movements or candidates within the Democratic Party, such as Bernie Sanders, have pushed for significant reforms (e.g., universal healthcare, wealth taxes, etc.), but often encounter intense resistance from within the party apparatus itself, corporate donors, and political elites.

• A break from the Democratic Party could be necessary for a true challenge to the capitalist system, because as long as left-wing movements are tied to a party that depends on corporate funding and institutional support, they will always be constrained by those forces. A real rupture could enable the creation of new political formations that are more independent of corporate influence and less beholden to the interests of the capitalist class.
• Third parties or new political movements—like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) pushing for a more radical platform or movements like Our Revolution (which grew out of Bernie’s campaign)—could become the vehicle for this shift. These movements would need to step away from the two-party system and focus on building broader, working-class power.

2. Class Consciousness & Mass Mobilization

If a break from the Democratic Party happens, it would likely be because working-class people have developed the kind of class consciousness that Marx talked about—recognizing their collective power and understanding that the current political system is not merely flawed but fundamentally exploitative. The key, in this sense, would be that any break has to be rooted in real mass mobilization and not just a “symbolic” break or protest candidacy.

• This means pushing beyond electoralism into direct action—strikes, occupations, protests—that compel the political system to respond. A break from the Democratic Party might also help to consolidate a more class-based political movement that sees the fight for political power as linked to broader economic and social struggles, not just winning elections.
• However, this requires organizing outside traditional electoral campaigns—creating coalitions and alliances across different sectors of the working class, including students, labor unions, immigrant communities, and environmental activists. It’s less about working within the Democratic Party’s structure and more about using electoral politics to build momentum for direct action and, ultimately, revolutionary change.

3. Building Dual Power (not merely co-governance)

A break from the Democratic Party could be the first step in building what Marxists sometimes call “dual power.” Dual power refers to a situation where the state’s official institutions and the ruling class’s political structures are contested or overshadowed by an alternative, grassroots political power. This could take the form of community councils, workers’ councils, or alternative institutions created by the people themselves to challenge the authority of the state.

• In electoral politics, this could look like the creation of local, autonomous political structures that operate independently of the Democratic Party, yet still engage with the broader electoral process. For instance, this might involve running candidates who are committed to advancing the interests of working people but who aren’t beholden to corporate donors or party elites. These candidates could act as a sort of “counter-power” to the establishment parties.
• A break from the Democratic Party could lead to a broader political realignment, where the idea of “taking power” is reimagined—not as electing a president or a slate of Congress members, but as building a parallel political system that reflects the interests of ordinary working people.

4. A New Vision for Electoral Politics

To make this break meaningful, there would need to be a clear vision for what comes after the rupture. This is where the more radical vision of Marxism or socialism comes into play: the goal wouldn’t just be to elect candidates who are marginally better than the establishment but to create a political platform that directly challenges capitalist economic relations.

• Socialist electoral movements could push for the democratization of the economy, advocating for worker control of industries, public ownership of key resources, and a redistribution of wealth that undermines the profit-driven logic of capitalism. In this way, electoral politics would be seen not just as a tool for reform but as a mechanism to fundamentally change the way the economy and society are organized.
• A break from the Democratic Party could also signify a rejection of incrementalism and an embrace of more immediate, transformative goals. For example, instead of merely aiming for “a fairer capitalism” or “a greener capitalism,” the goal would be to fundamentally dismantle capitalist structures and replace them with more democratic and egalitarian alternatives.

5. Challenges

Of course, there are significant challenges in trying to push for a revolutionary moment through this kind of break. The Democratic Party is entrenched, and the two-party system in the U.S. (and similar systems in other countries) are specifically designed to prevent third parties or radical movements from gaining real power. Additionally, corporate media, political elites, and the state apparatus will resist any efforts to disrupt the status quo.

• There’s also the issue of how to convince a broad swath of people that a break from the Democratic Party is necessary and that it’s in their interest. A lot of people feel that the Democratic Party is the best option, even if it’s imperfect, because of the entrenched belief that Republicans (or conservatives in other contexts) represent an even worse alternative.

Techno-Fuedalism

We need to explore and interrogate Yanis Varoufakis’ concept of technofeudalism as a crucial lens for analyzing the current state of capitalism and its transformation. Varoufakis argues that we are seeing the rise of a new socio-economic structure that is not quite traditional capitalism anymore but more akin to feudalism, where technology giants and global corporations hold the economic and political power that was once held by landowners in feudal societies. This concept adds a layer of depth to your thinking about a revolutionary moment within electoral politics, especially when you’re talking about breaking from the Democratic Party and the constraints of traditional capitalist politics.

Let’s break it down and see how Varoufakis’ analysis of technofeudalism can shape and inform the current revolutionary moment you’re considering.

1. Technofeudalism as the New Stage of Capitalism

In “What Killed Capitalism?” Varoufakis presents technofeudalism as an evolution (or devolution) of capitalism. Instead of traditional capitalist competition, the modern economy is dominated by a handful of monopoly-like corporations (think Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.) that control the digital infrastructure, data flows, and the means of production in ways that resemble the power structure of medieval feudalism.

• Feudalism vs. Capitalism: In feudal societies, power and wealth were tied to land, which was controlled by a small group of landowners. In the technofeudal system, power and wealth are concentrated in the hands of tech monopolies, who control data, algorithms, and digital platforms, effectively managing the economic landscape for the vast majority of people, who are dependent on those platforms to access work, services, and goods. The digital serfs, in this case, are the millions of workers and consumers whose labor is extracted and monetized through platforms like Uber, Amazon, or Facebook, yet who have little say in how these platforms operate.
• This shift fundamentally alters the dynamics of traditional capitalism, where wealth was generated through industrial production, and workers’ labor had a relatively direct link to the surplus value they produced. In the technofeudal system, much of the labor is abstracted, digitized, and monetized through surveillance capitalism, which isn’t so much a “productive” economy as a rent-seeking economy. Essentially, it’s the extraction of value without significant innovation or manufacturing—the owners of digital platforms don’t create new wealth, they extract it.
• This shift from capitalism to technofeudalism is crucial because it signals that traditional Marxist analysis, which is centered on class struggle within a capitalist framework, might need to adapt to the reality that the dynamics of surplus extraction are no longer grounded in industrial labor but in data, surveillance, and digital networks.

2. A Break from the Democratic Party in the Context of Technofeudalism

Varoufakis’ critique of technofeudalism aligns with the idea that the Democratic Party (and most mainstream political parties) are deeply enmeshed in the system of globalized capitalism. For the most part, they serve as intermediaries between the public and the corporate elite, often propping up the interests of big tech, finance, and other monopolistic industries, rather than challenging them.

• In the case of the U.S., the Democratic Party has been known for supporting tech giants while also pushing incremental reforms like regulating big tech, but they haven’t fundamentally challenged the monopolistic control over economic and political life that these tech companies represent. The Democratic Party is also funded by tech giants and relies heavily on their support for campaigns and electoral machinery, making it unlikely to break with the system of technofeudalism without a massive rupture.
• In this light, breaking from the Democratic Party becomes even more crucial, as it represents the need for a political movement that is independent of the entrenched corporate interests that now shape policy. A revolutionary moment could, therefore, involve not just a break from the Democratic Party but also the creation of new political formations that are uncompromisingly opposed to the technofeudal system.

3. Class Struggle in the Technofeudal Age

Varoufakis suggests that the class struggle in a technofeudal system operates differently than in traditional capitalism. Instead of workers fighting primarily over wages and conditions in factories or offices, in the technofeudal world, the fight is over data, algorithmic power, control over digital platforms, and the monetization of personal information.

• The working class in this new context is not only exploited through wage labor but through data extraction, where personal information is commodified. Many workers today (especially gig economy workers) are not employed in traditional senses but are instead subject to algorithms that determine their pay, work hours, and conditions without any direct accountability. This new form of control over labor means that workers are atomized and isolated, making collective organizing more difficult but also more critical than ever.
• The revolutionary moment, therefore, could involve a radical shift in class consciousness: understanding that the struggle is no longer just about fair wages or workplace rights, but about reclaiming control over data, information, and the platforms that organize and mediate our lives. Revolutionary action in this sense would require building coalitions that transcend traditional class boundaries, bringing together tech workers, consumers, gig economy workers, and people concerned with surveillance capitalism and digital monopolies.

4. Building a Counter-Power to the Technofeudal Elite

The revolutionary potential in a technofeudal world may lie in the construction of counter-power: alternative platforms and systems that break the monopoly over digital infrastructure, information, and labor extraction. Varoufakis argues that disrupting technofeudalism would require alternative systems of ownership, production, and governance that challenge the core of digital monopolies.

• This could mean pushing for policies like the democratization of technology—creating cooperatives or public utilities that manage digital platforms, data commons, or decentralized alternatives to the surveillance economy. One example could be community-run digital infrastructure that is not profit-driven and does not exploit workers’ data for private gain. A revolutionary movement could push for the nationalization or cooperative control of major tech companies (Google, Amazon, etc.), transforming them into public utilities that operate in the interests of society, rather than as profit-maximizing monopolies.
• Additionally, the idea of universal basic income (UBI) or data sovereignty could be central to a technofeudal revolution. If people are receiving wages in the form of UBI or other means, the monetization of their personal data (which is often exploited by companies like Facebook or Google) should be returned to the people whose data is being extracted. These policies would push back against the technofeudal rent-seeking behavior and could be key demands in a new political formation emerging from a break with the Democratic Party.

5. Revolutionary Moment in Electoral Politics: Techno-Feudalism as the Catalyst

Varoufakis argues that capitalism is dying and is being replaced by a system that does not fit neatly into traditional capitalist or socialist categories. Technofeudalism is an evolutionary phase that can’t be resolved by conventional political methods.

• Electoral politics in the context of technofeudalism would need to act as a tool of resistance to monopolies and the political establishment that upholds them. The break from the Democratic Party could create the political space for more radical, anti-feudal platforms that aim to reclaim the digital infrastructure for the public good, dismantle the monopolistic power of big tech, and shift from an economy of extraction to one of equitable participation and democratic ownership.
• The revolutionary moment would, therefore, be when mass movements, armed with a clear anti-technofeudal platform, take to the streets and the voting booths to challenge the system of tech oligarchs. Building new political parties, supporting worker cooperatives in the tech industry, and pushing for digital sovereignty could all be steps toward a new form of post-capitalist governance that addresses the contradictions of technofeudalism head-on.

Non-Reformist Reforms: A Brief Overview

First, let’s quickly define what we mean by non-reformist reforms. This term was popularized by Marxist theorist Ernst Bloch and later developed by others like Alex Callinicos and Murray Bookchin. A non-reformist reform is a reform that, while it may be seen as a small, immediate change within the system, also has the potential to undermine or transform the system in the long term. These are reforms that do not merely appease the system or stabilize it but set the stage for further, deeper, more fundamental change.

In essence, non-reformist reforms chip away at the system, making it harder for the ruling elite to maintain control, and gradually shift the balance of power toward the working class or oppressed people. They also help build the political will and organizational strength for more radical change down the line.

Non-Reformist Reforms in the Context of Techno-Feudalism 

The concept of non-reformist reforms is a critical tool for thinking about how to navigate the contradictions in our current political system and how they relate to the revolutionary moment you’re describing, especially in the context of technofeudalism. This moment is providing not only an opportunity but a need to break from both parties of capital.

---

1. Non-Reformist Reforms in the Context of Techno-Feudalism

In the techno-feudal world, the capitalist system has mutated, and now much of the extraction of value and control over the economy is happening through digital monopolies and data extraction. The core of the new system is less about the control of physical means of production (factories, raw materials) and more about control over the flows of data and information. Therefore, non-reformist reforms in the context of techno-feudalism would focus on breaking the monopolistic control that these tech giants have over the digital economy while empowering workers and communities in new ways.

Some examples of non-reformist reforms in this context could include:

• Data Sovereignty: A non-reformist reform could be pushing for policies that ensure data is treated as public property and that individuals, rather than tech companies, own and control their data. This could be a first step toward dismantling the control that companies like Facebook, Google, or Amazon have over personal data, thus undermining one of the key pillars of technofeudalism. This reform wouldn’t just regulate data collection but would actively shift the power from corporations back to individuals and communities.
• Universal Basic Services (UBS): Instead of merely focusing on universal basic income (UBI), which could still be absorbed by the feudal tech economy, a Universal Basic Services model would expand access to essential services like healthcare, education, transportation, and housing. In the context of technofeudalism, UBS could also be applied to digital services, ensuring that the basic technological infrastructure—like internet access, cloud storage, and access to digital tools—becomes universally available. This could undermine the ability of tech giants to extract wealth from the poor by creating a public, non-profit infrastructure that citizens rely on for their digital lives.
• Worker-Owned Tech Platforms: Another non-reformist reform could be pushing for the democratization of digital platforms. Instead of merely regulating tech companies, the state or grassroots movements could support the creation of worker cooperatives in the tech sector. This would be a direct challenge to the monopolistic and exploitative nature of companies like Amazon and Uber by creating worker-controlled alternatives. By fostering worker cooperatives in the tech industry, this reform could eventually erode the concentration of power that fuels technofeudalism.

---

2. How Non-Reformist Reforms Can Help Build a Revolutionary Moment

Now, the power of non-reformist reforms in a revolutionary moment is that they don’t just make minor adjustments to the system, they begin to reshape the power dynamics in ways that can eventually make revolutionary change possible. These reforms, when done in the right way, move us closer to a fundamental transformation of society, while still taking immediate action to address the most urgent needs of the people.

In the context of technofeudalism, the non-reformist reforms could help empower new social movements, create institutional alternatives to the technofeudal system, and begin decentralizing control over critical resources (digital, economic, and infrastructural). Here’s how they work within the broader revolutionary process:

• Building Organizational Power: Non-reformist reforms provide an opportunity to build working-class power and solidarity. The more we demand things like data sovereignty or worker control of tech platforms, the more we organize people in direct opposition to the current power structures. These reforms give people something concrete to rally around and organize around while also building the political muscle necessary for more radical transformations down the road.
• Shifting Ideological Hegemony: Non-reformist reforms also serve to challenge the dominant ideological narratives that justify technofeudalism. Right now, many people accept the idea that the current concentration of digital power is simply a given, that tech companies are too big to challenge. Non-reformist reforms would challenge this by presenting an alternative vision: a world where digital infrastructure is owned and controlled democratically for the benefit of society, not just a handful of corporate elites. These reforms aren’t just about winning specific demands—they’re about changing how people think about the digital economy and ownership in the 21st century.
• Creating Dual Power: As mentioned before, dual power is the idea of creating alternative systems of power alongside the existing state apparatus, which can eventually challenge and replace it. Non-reformist reforms, like the creation of worker-owned tech platforms or data commons, could be the seeds of a parallel economy that operates independently of the technofeudal oligarchs. Over time, as these movements grow, they could develop into a larger, more powerful counterweight to the state and corporate power.
• Preparing for a Break from the Democratic Party: These reforms also help pave the way for the political rupture you’re envisioning. By creating alternative political formations (like those focused on worker-owned tech platforms or universal basic services), you gradually undermine the legitimacy of the two-party system. In turn, this sets the stage for breaking from the Democratic Party. As these reforms take root, they build both a grassroots base and an ideological shift toward more radical change, making the break with the Democratic Party not just possible but necessary. These reforms can demonstrate that meaningful change is possible outside the current political establishment, making it clear that the existing parties are incapable of addressing the crisis of technofeudalism.

---

3. A Revolutionary Moment Informed by Non-Reformist Reforms and Technofeudalism

With all of these ideas integrated, the revolutionary moment in a technofeudal context would involve mobilizing around concrete demands (like data sovereignty, worker control of tech platforms, and universal basic services), which expose and challenge the technofeudal system while also gradually transforming it into something more democratic and just.

• These non-reformist reforms would disrupt the power of tech monopolies and redistribute control over the digital economy in ways that shift the balance of power toward ordinary people. They would create spaces for grassroots organizing that don’t rely on the traditional political establishment but rather build an alternative vision of what a just society looks like in the digital age.
• The revolutionary moment would emerge when these movements grow beyond mere reformism and become a political force that can challenge the existing state. As more people become involved in these non-reformist reforms, they would begin to see that the current system of technofeudalism cannot be reformed and must be replaced by something radically different. The break from the Democratic Party would then be a natural evolution of this process, as people realize that only through new, independent political formations can the technofeudal system be dismantled and replaced with a democratic, just society.

Conclusion
The combination of technofeudalism, non-reformist reforms, and the need for a break from the Democratic Party all point to a strategy that combines immediate, practical demands with a long-term vision for radical, systemic change. By challenging the foundations of technofeudalism directly and creating alternative systems of power through non-reformist reforms, a revolutionary moment can gradually build that shifts the very structure of the economy and society toward something that is democratic, decentralized, and accountable.