It is quite possible to find some support for the "imminent revolution" narrative. I do not buy it because it is inconsistent with anything I know about labor movement in the 20th century. That is to say, I am not denying that there were elements of the left thinking revolution and elements on the right scared shitless of this prospect. However, the prospect of revolution was not the greatest threat to capitalists, just as the tiny anarchist movement is not today. There is plenty of evidence that what Western capitalists detested the most was not the radical left, but the unions and their political friends - socialists, social democrats etc. - who had enough political clout to make capitalist life unpleasant by pro-labor legislation, progressive taxes, and social programs. These were far more realistic threats to capitalist interests than a distant prospect of a revolution. That is my opinion.
I also understand the romantic appeal of the idea of revolution to frustrated middle class intellectuals, predominantly male, eager to see some action that would upset the bourgeois society. But a desire to provoke a scandal is one thing, but a rational analysis of historical or political events is quite a different thing. So as much I'd love to stoke bourgeois sensibilities with outrageous ideas, I am also trying to be realistic and rational when it comes to policy analysis or discourse. And there is little doubt in mind that thinking revolution or any similar military style putsch is NOT the way to go politically for left.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."