Just survigning is not success, I hate just surviving. Are you familiar with dialectics? Probably not. I use this to shut down conversation and fuck off in a polite way quite often, but it has meaning. Every third-world wage-slave doesn't exist as a consequence of nature but lives a shit life to fuel my indulgent lifestyle. Have you ever drank a coke? I don't like soda but I have enjoyed a coke before. Zizek isn't lying when he says that theyre the perfect commodtiy, they only taste good when theyre cold and they taste better when theres a second coke and the taste goes beyond just the interaction between my taste-buds and the coke. A large part of enjoying the coke goes beyond the coke itself, it is the perfec co mmodity. I'm guilty for the murder of colombian union organisers by whatever company owns the soda. Everytime a latin-american child dies from some disease after swimming in a flooded lithium quarrey, it is because lithium is used in my smartphone, and the inevitable death of millions or billions of people to climate change will happen because I enjoy driving to work rather than walking. I should be hanged for living an indulgent lifestyle built on the blood and back of the third world. If I were to immolate myself in front of some state building or assassinate some suit nothing would come of it. It might not even make local news. It would not have any bearing on the world, there is no causality between what i do as an individual and the laws of motion of capitalism, which itself is an extended phenotype of homo sapiens or whatever. There is nothing we can do as individualsagainst it because it is an objective consequence of structural forces. Everything is outside of my control. But like a good dialectical thinking, the formula here is both subjective and objective, a contradiction which is not resolved but sublated by acting as if capability is immanent while preparing for it to take decades, or in Gramsci's language "optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect." Whenever this revolutionary moment occurs, it will take place in the (lacanian) Real of the third world and the invisible forces of the world economy, far outside what is subjectively possible. In fact, it is a complete break with what is "possible" and an embrace of negation, or extracting the essence from the appearance.
If you are familiar with Kant and Hegel's critique of him you know the "as if" is the foundation of the categorical imperative: action without external guarantee. If you're not familiar, Hegel critiques the Kantian thing-in-itself as a social object which is already part of real history (meaning that the mind is always-already social) while Marx critiques the intersubjective thing-in-itself of Hegel's as class (in the most broad sense of how people relate to the conditions of their life and each other) rather than an abstract social substance. The point is that critique here does not mean criticism or rejection but sublation or opening up what is implied within the text and acting as-if it were true (not to say there is no truth but rather truth is produced through the act of critique/praxis through fidelity to the text [text here broadly means any historical situation which can be analyzed and has nothing to do with words on a page] - see Althusser's concept of an epistemological break or Derrida's deconstruction).