No Revolution in USA

[Bud Struggle]

Interesting article in Newsweek. I have to say: it's what I see from people.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183718

Why There Won’t Be a Revolution

Americans might get angry sometimes, but we don't hate the rich. We prefer to laugh at them...

...In America, the country that invented the modern model of wealth—i.e., derived neither from inherited landholdings nor royal patronage—mocking the rich is historically one of the most durable cultural memes, matched only by envy of them...

...Yet by and large most Americans have tried to stay neutral in the war between the classes, particularly in contrast to European countries of comparable wealth. What Americans lack is what the European working classes gleefully exhibit: resentment of the rich personally, as distinct from unhappiness with policies that affect how income and wealth are distributed. The press considered it a major gaffe last fall when Barack Obama gave a tentative endorsement to the idea of using the tax system to help redistribute income—although the record shows that he won the election. In fact, according to Page, for the first time since the 1930s a majority of Americans are in favor of taxing the rich—heavily, if necessary—to redistribute income. But that doesn't mean they want to kill them. So far, at least, they prefer to laugh at them...

..."large majorities of Democrats and low-income Americans agree with Republicans and more affluent people that it is still possible to start out poor, work hard, and become rich." People who expect to join a country club someday are, obviously, less likely to want to burn it down now.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So? The revolutionary process, starting with the breaking of illusions such as during this current crisis, takes time and organization.

[Brother No. 1]

The American People cant be understood really. They them selfs are complex in many ways. A Revolution in america takes the america people to realize the lies of their goverment and revolt against them. It would be unlikely due to the fact americans are either making life good or lazy or they have been made poor and cant do anything its one of the 3.

[Bud Struggle]

So? The revolutionary process, starting with the breaking of illusions such as during this current crisis, takes time and organization.

That or the era of revolution is over and change toward socialism (as noted in the article) will gradually take place. The problem is while maybe (has it ever happened?) a Capitalist society will turn toward Communist Revolution--I find it doubtful a Socialist society will.

I think Communists need to look for a new paradigm to affect world dynamics rather than just using the standard "Viva la Revolution" mantra. The world is becoming decidedly post-Marxist. If there is any hope for Communism I'm thinking it's in Anarchism.

[Dimentio]

I think the notion of a revolution that it must be based on storming the barricades, waving flags, attack grenadiers and occupy the Winter Palace is very 1917. Most likely, a revolution would definetly look something more like what is happening today in Venezuela, with worker councils and community councils empowered to direct the economic development.

[Bud Struggle]

I think the notion of a revolution that it must be based on storming the barricades, waving flags, attack grenadiers and occupy the Winter Palace is very 1917. Most likely, a revolution would definetly look something more like what is happening today in Venezuela, with worker councils and community councils empowered to direct the economic development.

Good point. But does that bring about Communism/Marxism or something more along the lines of a progressive Social Democracy?

[Brother No. 1]

Whats wrong with Viva Revolution. I love that saying. Anarchism as communsims only hope. Well what about the rest of us.
It Really brings about what the people want or what the councils want.

[Dimentio]

Good point. But does that bring about Communism/Marxism or something more along the lines of a progressive Social Democracy?

Not necessarily. Social democracy is about empowering the state with economic power while keeping capitalism. Socialism should be about empowering the workers and the communities with control over their own economic infrastructure.

Basically, people who are living in one place should have the legal means and the executive power to collectively control the resources necessary for their welfare. Namely water, housing, food, electricity and the means of production.

[Dimentio]

Whats wrong with Viva Revolution. I love that saying. Anarchism as communsims only hope. Well what about the rest of us.
It Really brings about what the people want or what the councils want.

Its not something wrong with that model. Its simply that it is so simplistically interpreted. When capitalism replaced feudalism, it was not a process which began and ended with the French revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, but a process which lasted between 1348 and 1848, or half a millennium.

[Brother No. 1]

I get what your saying. Good point.

[NecroCommie]

I think that revolutions are still nessecary, for the very reason that Marx defined. The capitalist will never give up their possession voluntarily. When the proletariat takes what is theirs peacefully, the capitalist slauhgter squads take it back by force, unless the working class fights back. That is what is happening in Iraq at this moment. Iraqi government tried to lean toward another capitalist camp (EU), but that ofcourse is unacceptable, so american capitalist took their posessions back by force.

In the 70s in europe took hold a new concept of revolution. Thought was that revolution was reachable if enough popular support was gained. When the support for revolution was intolerable for the capitalist murderers, the masses just needed to take power from the powerless capitalists. Imagine for instance 80% of the population marching into the congress building, and just starting to legistlate. What could the rich do? Shoot them? All of them?

I however think that even in this case violence is inevitable, for the neighbouring countries (capitalist too) would send their armies imposing a bloody regime there, unless ofcourse the revolutionaries organised a resistance.

I believe that modern revolutions start out as reformations, and when the reforms meet enough resistance they are forced to either retreat or radicalize. For instance take venezuela, soon the priviledged in Venezuela start rioting in one way or another. What then? Chavez is forced to back down, or start more revolutionary means.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Its not something wrong with that model. Its simply that it is so simplistically interpreted. When capitalism replaced feudalism, it was not a process which began and ended with the French revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, but a process which lasted between 1348 and 1848, or half a millennium.

What happened in 1348 besides the Black Death, exactly? :confused:

[Pogue]

Whats wrong with Viva Revolution. I love that saying. Anarchism as communsims only hope. Well what about the rest of us.
It Really brings about what the people want or what the councils want.

What do you mean the rest of us? If there was an anarchist revolution, you'd participate, surely?

[Brother No. 1]

Yes I would just saying what about Stalinist,Troskyist, and all the others after the Revoultion what do we do after the Anarchist victory.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I also forgot to mention the Calvinist culture mentioned in the article and its waning effect on immigrants coming in year by year.

[Dimentio]

What happened in 1348 besides the Black Death, exactly? :confused:

The Black Death was one of the first blows to feudalism. It caused a process of deregulation of prices in Europe. Prior to 1348, prices had largely been set according to perceived "just standards" decided by guilds.

With fewer peasants, the farmers could start to set demands, causing a growth of a class of wealthy peasants and an emigration to the cities where the burgher class started to grow.

[Hiero]

If there is any hope for Communism I'm thinking it's in Anarchism.

How so?

[Ele'ill]

Or our government will do itself in and the people will rebuild.

[StalinFanboy]

How so?
Because it's sexy.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Its not something wrong with that model. Its simply that it is so simplistically interpreted. When capitalism replaced feudalism, it was not a process which began and ended with the French revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, but a process which lasted between 1348 and 1848, or half a millennium.

Just out of curiousity, why do you end at 1848?

Or a better question, is the Second Empire considered to be bourgeouis or feudal?

[Bud Struggle]

Just out of curiousity, why do you end at 1848?

Or a better question, is the Second Empire considered to be bourgeouis or feudal?

Revolutions in Italy, France, Poland, the German States, Hungary and a couple more. The beginning of universal male sufferage.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Revolutions in Italy, France, Poland, the German States, Hungary and a couple more. The beginning of universal male sufferage.

Well he said the bourgoueis revolution in France ended in 1848, but following that Louis-Napolean came to power and did away with the republic.

I don't even pretend to know the politics of France well, just tought the Second Empire was feudal and, therefore, the bourgoueis revolution couldn't be over by 1948.

[JimmyJazz]

Realizing that Newsweek is a giant, for-profit entity, and not "independent" in its relation or attitude toward capitalism, I read the article. With that little dose of reality in mind, it was interesting. Basically a capitalist take on the stability of American capitalism; as well, of course, as an attempt to reach as many people as possible with this take, thus making it a self-fulfilling prophecy to the greatest extent possible.

Edit: equating overthrowing capitalism with "hating the rich" is a pretty classic strawman, always good to see that one trotted out.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Sometimes I think it'd be cool if there were a revolution, unlike the terror in France where having any royalist ties was the prerequisite for execution, the people go after anyone who has been featured in a celebrity tabloid.

[Dimentio]

Revolutions in Italy, France, Poland, the German States, Hungary and a couple more. The beginning of universal male sufferage.

Technically speaking, the world turned more capitalist and feudalist, and the last attempts to keep feudalism was abolished. Even completely bizarre monarchies in eastern Europe started with capitalist reforms.

[Dimentio]

Well he said the bourgoueis revolution in France ended in 1848, but following that Louis-Napolean came to power and did away with the republic.

I don't even pretend to know the history if France well, just tought the Second Empire was feudal and, therefore, the bourgoueis revolution couldn't be over by 1948.

Louis Napoleon did so with the support of the bourgeoisie.

[Demogorgon]

The Second Empire in France was Capitalist and modernising.

Anyway, there will be further revolutions in the West, even in America. They just won't look like they did in the old days. Even in the old days they didn't look like they did in the old days come to that! I had an argument with LSD last year when he said Japan had no Bourgeoisie revolution, and I countered that the Meiji restoration was very much that whereas LSD said it wasn't because there was no violent overthrow of the Government or marching in the streets.. And with all due respect to LSD, I was right on that particular occasion. It marked a fundamental change in Japan and its abrupt shift into the modern world (even more so than its post war transformation).

Revolution takes many forms and presuming it will always look like Russia in 1917 is just naive.

[Bud Struggle]

Revolution takes many forms and presuming it will always look like Russia in 1917 is just naive.

See I have a bit of an issue here as with Serpant's notion that revolution in the future will be like Chavez's.

Chaves is a populist that "happens" to be using the Socialist agenda to advance his cause--he could just as easily have been a right winger--there's been plenty more of them in South America than Leftists. As a matter of fact South America has had it pendulum swings either way--so I'm at a loss to see a trend.

Then there's the matter of "class warfare." In velvet revolutions it just doesn't seem to be the case that there's any conflict. Chavez appropriated a bit of this and that from the rich--but they still exist. Also, as the article noted--and this is actually why I posted it, in America at least there's no class warfare--just class envy and that's hardly the beginning of social change.

I'm just at a loss to see how Communism, at least of the Marxist sort could occur gradually. I see Socialism--but not Communism. And I think once a country is Socialist it could never go Communist.

[RGacky3]

But does that bring about Communism/Marxism or something more along the lines of a progressive Social Democracy?

Workers councils and the such don't turn into a Social Democracy, they turn into actual communism, (marxist or not), Social Democracy comes about when someone at the top, thinks he can make a better society with some Socialist ideals (I'm assuming good intentions, although many times Socialist ideals are introduced to quell any revolutionary feelings). Social democracy is top down.

I remember a while ago on a plane, I was talking to a priest from Kenya, who was explaining to me the notion of African Socialism, which as he described it had nothing to do with the government, or the state. It was about people in the villages helping each other, a culture of mutual aid that was encouraged, common property, which was basically default common, a form of community welfare, in the sense that if someone got sick, they whole community would help out, and so on.

This type of Socialism did''nt come about with a 'revolution' perse, that was just a cultural thing that developt. The people in those villages are poor, an mostly rural, yet their are organized by a form of communism, its just natural.

Now In most countries, where Capitalism has taken a firm hold, some type of revolution will be nessesary, BUT, that does'nt mean (at first at least), overthrowing the state, storming the government, what it does mean is slowly replacing Capitalism and replacing the state, fighting off Capitalism with worker Solidarity, fighting of the State with community Solidarity.

BTW, as much as the uppers in society wan't to deminish the notion of class warfare (obviously they'd want to ignore it, because they are on top), class warfare is alive and well. Don't expect Newsweek to have a special on it though :p.


Chaves is a populist that "happens" to be using the Socialist agenda to advance his cause--he could just as easily have been a right winger--there's been plenty more of them in South America than Leftists. As a matter of fact South America has had it pendulum swings either way--so I'm at a loss to see a trend.


Read up on your history, and the American intervention (and to a much lesser degree, Soviet) in Latin America.

[casper]

Not necessarily. Social democracy is about empowering the state with economic power while keeping capitalism. Socialism should be about empowering the workers and the communities with control over their own economic infrastructure.

Basically, people who are living in one place should have the legal means and the executive power to collectively control the resources necessary for their welfare. Namely water, housing, food, electricity and the means of production.
you know, thats very quote worthy.

The same with some of your post Rgacky3

someone should start a thread to post favorite quotes by revleft members, but it doesn't belong here. i bet there has been some really cool things written on this board. I have a feeling some of the members will turn it into a "post the funny stupid things people has written" instead of "post the inspiring or great things people has written here". any ways it should be a sticky on one of the other forums if it could keep its seriousness, and also it would be a form of handing out esteem.

[Jazzratt]

See I have a bit of an issue here as with Serpant's notion that revolution in the future will be like Chavez's.

I take issue with the notion too, but I don't see the natural conclusion that class struggle and revolution taking a more proteacted form meaning that all revolutions will look like the "revolution" in Venezuala.


Chaves is a populist that "happens" to be using the Socialist agenda to advance his cause--he could just as easily have been a right winger--there's been plenty more of them in South America than Leftists.

Firstly I'll start by saying I'm immensly critical of Chavez and I think he's simply oppurtunist scum but saying that he could just have easily have been right wing is stupid. Especially with the reasoning you give rightwing ideals have been on the wane ever since the end of the cold war when the CIA eased up a little on murderous regime change. Latin America has a generally leftist lean, although that isn't readily apparent in most of the US-backed regimes.


As a matter of fact South America has had it pendulum swings either way--so I'm at a loss to see a trend.

It's funny that the pendulum tends to swing in a rightard direction in countries full of goon squads.


Then there's the matter of "class warfare." In velvet revolutions it just doesn't seem to be the case that there's any conflict.

There is always coflict, nothing changes just because someone feels like it. Conflict is the engine of change.


Chavez appropriated a bit of this and that from the rich--but they still exist. Also, as the article noted--and this is actually why I posted it, in America at least there's no class warfare--just class envy and that's hardly the beginning of social change.

And this is why Venezuala is not socialist, but it does not mean that a revolution has to be all about storming the winter palace and shooting the inhabitants; although I think it is naive to imagine that there won't be any violence at all. The idea that, in america or anywhere else, there is no class war is utterly fucking contemptuos. Yes, their may not be a lot of active proletarian movements and their certainly haven't been any recent victories for the working class but the ruling class is still actively involved, still attacking the workers; taking even the scraps from their table back.


I'm just at a loss to see how Communism, at least of the Marxist sort could occur gradually. I see Socialism--but not Communism. And I think once a country is Socialist it could never go Communist.

Do you say the most asinine crap you can possibly think of merely to wind everyone up? Anyone, of the requisite intelligence to breath in and out, must be taking the piss if they say "once a country is Socialist it could never go Communist", surely?

[Bud Struggle]

I take issue with the notion too, but I don't see the natural conclusion that class struggle and revolution taking a more proteacted form meaning that all revolutions will look like the "revolution" in Venezuala. I guess nobody could say how the revolution will look. Nobody's seen one in quite some time.




Firstly I'll start by saying I'm immensly critical of Chavez and I think he's simply oppurtunist scum but saying that he could just have easily have been right wing is stupid. Especially with the reasoning you give rightwing ideals have been on the wane ever since the end of the cold war when the CIA eased up a little on murderous regime change. Latin America has a generally leftist lean, although that isn't readily apparent in most of the US-backed regimes.I'd say it's a mix, and to think the US is going to say out of Latin America politics is dreaming. And for that matter--Cuba is no doubt going to turn back to sorm sort of Capitalism after Castro dies--and the problem there is like every other "Communist" country--they never are really run by the "people". Each and every time, just as with the rightist governments--it's just other strong man running the show.




It's funny that the pendulum tends to swing in a rightard direction in countries full of goon squads. FARC isn't a goon squad?




There is always coflict, nothing changes just because someone feels like it. Conflict is the engine of change. Oh things change--but there is never any certainty on the direction of change.




And this is why Venezuala is not socialist, but it does not mean that a revolution has to be all about storming the winter palace and shooting the inhabitants; although I think it is naive to imagine that there won't be any violence at all. The idea that, in america or anywhere else, there is no class war is utterly fucking contemptuos. Yes, their may not be a lot of active proletarian movements and their certainly haven't been any recent victories for the working class but the ruling class is still actively involved, still attacking the workers; taking even the scraps from their table back. Well, there's not much. There aren't any REAL leftist parties. The CPUSA, and the Socialist Party, are not considered by anyone to be anything serious. Yea, there's squatter's rights groups and IWW and all that stuff--a couple of people here and some there, mostly garage living 19 year olds that don't want to get a job and are waiting for the Revolution to live free. Not the stuff of change. Obama's the stuff of change--and he's the same as it always was.




Do you say the most asinine crap you can possibly think of merely to wind everyone up? Anyone, of the requisite intelligence to breath in and out, must be taking the piss if they say "once a country is Socialist it could never go Communist", surely? Show me where it ever happened. ;)

[Demogorgon]

See I have a bit of an issue here as with Serpant's notion that revolution in the future will be like Chavez's.

Chaves is a populist that "happens" to be using the Socialist agenda to advance his cause--he could just as easily have been a right winger--there's been plenty more of them in South America than Leftists. As a matter of fact South America has had it pendulum swings either way--so I'm at a loss to see a trend.

Then there's the matter of "class warfare." In velvet revolutions it just doesn't seem to be the case that there's any conflict. Chavez appropriated a bit of this and that from the rich--but they still exist. Also, as the article noted--and this is actually why I posted it, in America at least there's no class warfare--just class envy and that's hardly the beginning of social change.

I'm just at a loss to see how Communism, at least of the Marxist sort could occur gradually. I see Socialism--but not Communism. And I think once a country is Socialist it could never go Communist.
Class warfare isn't literal warfare. I prefer to call it class antagonism or even class friction, because that more accurately describes what is going on. People had a different, sometimes more colourful, way of expressing themselves in the nineteenth century that doesn't always translate well to today. Marx used flowery language and we might do well to update it a bit for modern conversations.

At any rate "class war" is still very much present and plays out every day. Every time there is an industrial dispute or squabbling over a shift in the tax burden it is playing out before our eyes. It isn't big and flashy for the most part, but life is far less romantic than we would sometimes like it to be. I have said many times that I am pretty sure that a shift from capitalism to Communism will likely take decades to play out properly, just as the shift from feudalism to capitalism did, and I don't see much fireworks. The shift from feudalism to capitalism was enormously violent in some countries and not violent at all in others. Personally I am hoping for the "not violent at all" side of things in any future change. Only lunatics actually want there to be violence.

As for Chavez, he is quite complicated. His political style is pretty reminiscent of the classic Latin American strong man, but that isn't particularly uncommon. Between the volatile political climate and the pretty macho culture, such people are bound to thrive, but his policies are a bit different and more importantly much of his support base are looking for real proper change. His mandate is for revolutionary change no matter what he himself intends to do.

Of course there is the whole question of how things will turn out there. The whole process is lubricated by oil and with oil prices so volatile just now, plain old capitalism without any violent intervention could bring it screeching to a halt, but the fact that there is genuine desire for change in Venezuela is important.

There is genuine demand for change in America too come too and it was clearly expressed through Barack Obama. He won't change much, that's for sure, but he campaigned on a powerful but vague promise of "change". That awoke something in people. People know the system is broken, they just don't know the solution (can any of us claim to?), and when they hear what sounds like a credible promise to fix it they leap on it. What we need to do is take the ideological blinkers off that stop us from seeing solutions outside the narrowly defined limits the current system lets us. Offer people a real programme for change and it will be derided as "socialist" and that is enough to shoot it down in some parts of the world, even though people in such parts typically don't even know what the word means any more. They even tried to use it against Obama, though people are so fed up of the status quo that they weren't going to ignore what anyone can see was a very moderate series of proposals be shot down like that. The problem is presenting real socialist ideas and trying to get them a fair hearing. People don't ant to take a blind leap of faith when it comes to change after all.

[JimmyJazz]

Class warfare isn't literal warfare. I prefer to call it class antagonism or even class friction

Erm, class struggle.

[RGacky3]

FARC isn't a goon squad?

I'm not going to say they arn't a goon squad, but if you took the time to look up real Latin American history (not CNN history), you'll see that groups like FARC are like the girlscouts compared to the paramilitary goon squads that the US has backed.


Yea, there's squatter's rights groups and IWW and all that stuff--a couple of people here and some there, mostly garage living 19 year olds that don't want to get a job and are waiting for the Revolution to live free. Not the stuff of change. Obama's the stuff of change--and he's the same as it always was.


TomK, when I was talking about squatter groups and the such I was talking worldwide, (Communists don't, or at least should'nt care about countries and borders). Also that statement that you said, is just seeping with ignorance bordering on arrogance. You simply don't know what your talking about.

BTW talking about revolution in the USA is'nt looking at the big picture, Capitalism is global, thuse we should be looking global, in some countries, like the US, we should be focusing on things like local class struggle, immigration rights and so on, other countries big time revolutions are what should be focused on, its different.

Remember Capitalism is global, so prosperity in the US does'nt defend Capitalism, and the Capitalists exploit first world workers but third world workers much more so. So talking about a "revolution" in the USA is missing the big picture and missing the meaning of revolution.


Show me where it ever happened.

Depends waht you mean by Socialist and depends what you mean by Communist. One example I'd mention would be Hungry, it as Socialist (Leninist), then during the revolution they tried to impliment real communism. But considering how new both movements are its rediculous to expect examples.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Tom do you have some disorder which stops you from seeing that things change?

Look at english attitudes to the word democracy in the early 19th centuray for example

[trivas7]

Tom do you have some disorder which stops you from seeing that things change?

I see no evidence that human nature changed over the last million or so years (but then, you probably don't believe such a thing exists).

[RGacky3]

Originally Posted by Comrade Joe http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1356311#post1356311)
Tom do you have some disorder which stops you from seeing that things change?
I see no evidence that human nature changed over the last million or so years (but then, you probably don't believe such a thing exists).

No one was talking about human nature, no one mentioned it, your quote had nothing to do with it.

Trivas stop trolling, your wasting everyones time, either you intentionally troling or your just incapable of inteligent orderly discorse. Either shape up or just leave.

[trivas7]

Trivas stop trolling, your wasting everyones time, either you intentionally troling or your just incapable of inteligent orderly discorse. Either shape up or just leave.
Just ignore my posts, child.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Just ignore my posts, child.

Your posts are quite shit.

[MarxSchmarx]

What we need to do is take the ideological blinkers off that stop us from seeing solutions outside the narrowly defined limits the current system lets us. Offer people a real programme for change and it will be derided as "socialist" and that is enough to shoot it down in some parts of the world, even though people in such parts typically don't even know what the word means any more.

This is a very real limitation. The best solution to this problem is to create viable alternative institutions. Even people like Chavez seem to understand that the future lies not in their government, but in institutions like the Bolivarian councils. We need to give people, err..., "hope". The kind of hope that doesn`t require trusting in a "savior" like Obama, but that gives them a sense of power and control over their own lives. Unions are so far the best tool. They are an important start, but I think there is a demand for other institutions in the near future, like tenant`s unions and community councils that are organized outside of the local government, that is initiated by neighbors.

At some point, these institutions will provide a serious alternative to trusting in capitalist politicians.

[Bud Struggle]

This is a very real limitation. The best solution to this problem is to create viable alternative institutions. Even people like Chavez seem to understand that the future lies not in their government, but in institutions like the Bolivarian councils. We need to give people, err..., "hope". The kind of hope that doesn`t require trusting in a "savior" like Obama, but that gives them a sense of power and control over their own lives. Unions are so far the best tool. They are an important start, but I think there is a demand for other institutions in the near future, like tenant`s unions and community councils that are organized outside of the local government, that is initiated by neighbors.

At some point, these institutions will provide a serious alternative to trusting in capitalist politicians.

Yea, but it's all politicians not just the Capitalists ones. There seems to be some inclination in the human psyche that makes people, at least the vast majority of people, more than happy to be followers. Obama is a good example, but you can just look at Socialist societies to see that same reaction in people to a "savior." Stalin, Castro, Chavez, Ho, Mao, all these guys had a cult of personality behind them.

Only quite rarely do people take matters in their own hands with out some sort of "Glorious Leader" to help them out. I'm not saying it's a good thing--I'm just saying it's the way history constantly keeps being played out.