Hear me out
My analysis as a ML with third worldist tendencies as to why the west will not have a socialist revolution and why the methodology employed by people like Hasan is the most effective contribution of western Marxism to the international proletariat.
I am from a global south country currently residing in the west. English is not my first language and I have trouble with prose and prefer bulletpoints instead. So I will explain my analysis as bulletpoints. I tried to structure this so each bulletpoint leads to the one below it. Starting now:
The global north relies on resource extraction from the south. This provides a higher standard of living to even the impoverished groups in the global north compared to the impoverished in the global south. This is why the global north is unable to have a socialist revolution. There would be no western socialist revolution until the south manages to have their own revolutions and cut off the supply of cheap resources to the north driving down the material conditions of those residing in the north and disabling their capacity for violence through impoverishment. This concept is understood as the labour aristocracy (btw this term is poison for generating class consciousness among the masses as it actively pushes the idea that exploitation of the south is good for the material gain of the proletariat in the north. I only use it here, among Marxists and would never in a million years use it when conversing with liberals)
Global south is undergoing a revolutionary period, the unending extraction of resources and the brutal oppression of compredor bourgeoisie has started converging with political awakening of the masses and a revolutionary spirit. The next socialist revolutions will be from the global south like Burkina Faso or another LATAM / MENA country
Liberalism is the orthodox majority opinion of the north. Even the fascists are liberals. The Marxist are a very tiny and powerless group that are not been allowed space in the mass zeitgeist. Any political movement in the north will be driven by liberalism and fascism. There is no getting around this fact.
America is the foremost imperial power in the world, and in control of the most powerful military the world has ever seen. It is also the most violent empire the world has ever seen and has been the most destructive. A fading imperial power is capable of greater destruction still. As liberals will eventually elect more and more ideological fascists to maintain property rights, while their own material conditions worsen leading to increase of lumpenproles who are politically illiterate but carry revolutionary fervor.
America under the control of an ideologcal fascist will look for enemies within and without to maintain their political base of power. This would lead them to open up new wars on multiple fronts, to forcibly extract resources that would give them an edge against more and more powerful enemies.
This would result in global south countries undergoing socialist revolutions being stamped enemies of the state and invaded violently. As capitalists in the imperial core and periphery would want access to cheaper resources to be reinstated, and they have no compunction about working with fascists.
Newer socialist countries are emerging into a post cold war environment. They do not have the benefit of anti imperialist alliances that aes countries enjoy. Cuba and Vietnam both had strong relationships with USSR and the dprk with China, which allowed them to persevere against imperial blockades. New socialist countries are unlikely to receive such support as neither modern Russia nor China value ideological solidarity. Unless these new socialist countries can show themselves to be materialy indispensable to aes countries they will be left to fend for themselves against imperialist invasions.
This means that ideological fascism of the north have to be mitigated internally to allow the global south a chance at revolution which would allow the global north a chance at revolution later down the road. A fading empire lashes out violently due to the political will of the masses in the imperial core that believe they are not receiving the boons of their labour. This fervor can be dampened by Democratic socialism. Democratic socialism is usually an enemy of socialism because it does the above, dampens revolutionary fervor and prevents actual socialism. It prevents the removal of the bourgeoisie and the control of state by the proletariat from taking place. But for a global north thats not capable of socialist revolution does not matter if the revolutionary spirit is dampened. Because the revolutionary spirit has no where to go anyway. While the dampening of the revolutionary spirit is beneficial as it dampens the chance for a fascist revolution from taking place which is the more likely scenario. This is why democracric socialism (the moderate wing of fascism) has become the goal most suitable for western Marxists to pursue. As much as it is distasteful, it slows down the rise of ideological fascism by temporarily blunting the material conditions allowing the global south time to go through their own socialist revolutions.
Hasan, AOC, Mamdani, Bernie etc, are in my opinion managing the decline of American imperialism so that the collateral damage to the global south is minimized. Yes I am an enjoyer of the concept of JDPON DON, his dismantling of structures like USAID have been amazing outcomes. But this is American imperialism chosing the stick over the carrot. His coup of Maduro and the eventual invasion of Cuba is the flip side of the fascist dismantling of USAID.
Lastly, attempts to apply wholesale, the tactics pursued by the Bolsheviks will not work unless they are adapted to post McCarthy USA. The end of WW2 was not a victory for socialism against fascism, even though the Bolsheviks by all rights won that war. The other fascist countries of that period wasted no time in spreading its own fascism at the end of that war until the majority of the western world was completely captured by fascism. These fascist states forced the proletariat in these countries to internalize anti socialist propaganda. It has been such a successful endeavor that anti socialism is no longer spread via propaganda alone, it's spread via generational wisdom. This was never the case for the Bolsheviks or the Spartacists. They operated at a time when socialism has emerged as a revolutionary and popular ideology, to the point that fascism (the other revolutionary ideology of the time) had to incorporate the brand name of socialism just to keep up. The tactics used by the Bolsheviks will not work if they are applied wholesale to the current world, they must be adapted to the current conditions (time and place) to have any effect. There would be a time to hang the social chauvinists as enemies of the proletariat, but for the global north, this is not yet the time for that.
Let me know what your thoughts are, agree or disagree, as this is my personal interpretation of what I read and observe and if I am wrong I'd like to improve my understanding.
Edit: thanks for the replies. I agree for what it's worth, that people like AOC and Bernie are not anti imperialists because of their American exceptionalism. I included them here, because regardless of their actual intentions they would be less able to direct invasions of global south countries and maintain their political base of power among the masses. A warhawkishness displayed by these people will cut away at their base of support (at least this is what I expect from the average Bernie supporting lib).
And secondly Hasan is far more radical than people like AOC, Bernie and Mamdani. He is the only mainstream voice I know of that emphasize the fact that Marxism leninism is the only avenue to build socialism. And regularly pushes back on the idea of anarchism and European style socialist democracy. The fact that his goal is to convert liberals to be charitable to socialism and to stop looking at aes countries as if they are enemies, means he sometimes has to use dem soc countries as positive examples. But even here he still tries to frame it as the positive gains made by struggles of past European communists and not some boon granted by a benevolent dem soc politician. I know a lot of people like to say he's a Zionist sheepdog for the Democrats. But again to me, this analysis never holds up to scratch. His made his pro Palestinian position known at a time when it was political and career suicide to do so. I cannot question the moral convictions of someone like that. His current alliances with Zionist individuals is nothing new. He has always bit his tounge and made alliances that he thinks is suitable for the development of his project. This has not prevented him from having clear boundaries on what is acceptable and what is not. See his fallout with Ethan Klein.