The Revolution in America Has Begun

[Bud Struggle]

Not with a bang, but with a wimper.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism

Only 53 % of Americans think Capitalism is better than Socialism. It looks like the Revolution will be a soft one.

[Dejavu]

I would say its a false dichotomy in the sense of being totally mutually exclusive. Capitalism and Socialism I mean. I think most Americans, like probably the majority of the world, especially in first and second world countries, prefer a mixture of both.

Such a mix is not feasible in the long term nor is Capitalism or Socialism by themselves. Capitalism tends to over expand into its own destruction and socialism by itself ( in the economic sense) is not very practical, fails in theoretical logic, and needs to be combined with Capitalism to at least partially work.

[Blackscare]

Well considering we're at what is likely the beginning of a massive economic crisis, those are pretty good numbers. It shows that already, this soon into upcoming events, people in the most prosperous nation on the planet are starting to see that capitalism is on it's way out.

[Blackscare]

Such a mix is not feasible in the long term nor is Capitalism or Socialism by themselves. Capitalism tends to over expand into its own destruction and socialism by itself ( in the economic sense) is not very practical, fails in theoretical logic, and needs to be combined with Capitalism to at least partially work.


All that is assuming that both systems were tried on an equal footing (and we know that every socialist state has faced isolation and shunning by the major economic powers), or that "socialism" of an authentic variety has ever been attempted.

[trivas7]

Having just seen "Sicko" last night, can't help but think that most Americans will conclude that the USA went socialist when universal health care is implemented.

[turquino]

revleft constantly argues about the definition of socialism, so I doubt the average american has a good idea of what it is.:closedeyes:

[CheFighter777]

You can really thank the Bush regime for the small surge in acceptance of socialism.

Whats funny is that now you see some Right-Wingers still clinging to their free market capitalistic views, even after Bush proved to the world that free-market capitalism is a total failure.

Some people will always keep their heads in sand, even when their own house is burning.

[Dean]

Having just seen "Sicko" last night, can't help but think that most Americans will conclude that the USA went socialist when universal health care is implemented.

This is news to me. Where did you hear that was happening?

[IcarusAngel]

Most people still generally define socialism as a regulation of business or a mixture of capitalism and government, rather than worker controlled factories, i.e., the Socialist definition. Capitalism is defined as a system of individuals freely cooperating and buying and selling from each other. It is defined as a lack of regulation on the capitalist class.

So basically, no progress has been made at all, until people come to understand why capitalism is authoritarian, and why the left seeks radical change.

[Bud Struggle]

Most people still generally define socialism as a regulation of business or a mixture of capitalism and government, rather than worker controlled factories, i.e., the Socialist definition. Capitalism is defined as a system of individuals freely cooperating and buying and selling from each other. It is defined as a lack of regulation on the capitalist class.

So basically, no progress has been made at all, until people come to understand why capitalism is authoritarian, and why the left seeks radical change.

Yea it isn't Socialism that Americans think they want--it's mopre like Social Democracy. But I think the free economy types are now interested in some government safty nets on their lives. FWIW--the safty nets are more orientated toward as I said government--NOT labor union which oddly enough may be even too "free enterprise" for them.

I think radical change will come the more the Socialist changes work for their betterment. And this may be the best way to bring about Socialism--you have to admit that starting a "Revolution" is buying a pig in a poke--you don't really ever know how it will turn out.

A slow turn toward Socialism might just be the answer. (Not Marxian, I know, but better than nothing.)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yea it isn't Socialism that Americans think they want--it's mopre like Social Democracy. But I think the free economy types are now interested in some government safty nets on their lives. FWIW--the safty nets are more orientated toward as I said government--NOT labor union which oddly enough may be even too "free enterprise" for them.

I think radical change will come the more the Socialist changes work for their betterment. And this may be the best way to bring about Socialism--you have to admit that starting a "Revolution" is buying a pig in a poke--you don't really ever know how it will turn out.

A slow turn toward Socialism might just be the answer. (Not Marxian, I know, but better than nothing.)

Without a strong ideological push from the left, even social-democracy will not happen. The left generally has a vision a what a better world would look like - democracy, worker's power, and so on and sometimes even has some ideas how to get there:o. Liberals have no different vision, and so that's why the liberal response (from liberal leaders) is always two steps forward and one step back. FDR had a conservative new deal and then there were massive strikes and a homeless movement and so on and he got scared and passed more reforms.

So I don't think that liberalism will gradually turn into social democracy and then eventually socialism. More likely, a strong radical movement will split liberals into 2 camps, those who are scared and want to pass reforms to prevent mass class anger and those who concede that the radicals have a point but have illusions in the parliamentary process in capitalist countries (these would be the social democrats).

In the right it's the hard line Christians and libertarians who give a spine to conservatism. In the US there hasn;t been much of a radical movement in the last 30 years and so liberals became "New Democrats" who supported neoliberalism unapologetically.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, there is absolutely nothing here in the United States like that. There is no radical left. I own a factory and I'm a member of the Communist Party (USA) for as much as they care. They support(ed) Obama. And they are so infinitely small that they hardly chart at all.

It seems then at least here in the god ole USA it's just Capitalist and Capitalism for years ahead. Is that right?:closedeyes:

[RGacky3]

There is no radical left. I own a factory and I'm a member of the Communist Party (USA) for as much as they care. They support(ed) Obama. And they are so infinitely small that they hardly chart at all.


No one, not even the radical left, cares about the communist party, and yes there is a radical left in america, just becuase they don't wave a hammer and sickle flag does'nt mean they arn't a radical left.

[Kassad]

There is a radical left in the United States, but you sure as hell aren't going to find them lingering around with the Communist Party USA types. They aren't communists, for the most part. Anyone who remains in the party after the Obama endorsement should either leave the party and look elsewhere or acknowledge that they are not socialists, but merely revisionist reformers of the capitalist system.

Defining a radical left movement is difficult. First of all, much of the country may consider Obama and the Democratic Party to be 'radical leftists,' mostly because the people who claim that are so far to the right that they likely think that we should round poor people into camps and gun them down because they are impeding our development. Unfortunately, these types have managed to wield quite a bit of influence, since though socialism is gaining momentum, so is right-wing populism (fascism). I fear that the definition of socialism is greatly being skewed.

Regardless, from the events I've attended, the works of Marx, Lenin, Castro and others are accepted with very open minds and very much support. I think that now is the best time to wield elections and literature to our advantage. This is a significant opportunity to use a crisis to educate people, but unfortunately, social-democrats, revisionists and reformists, such as Communist Party USA, Socialist Party USA and the Democratic Party would like to lead class consciousness astray. We can't let that happen.

[RGacky3]

First of all, much of the country may consider Obama and the Democratic Party to be 'radical leftists,' mostly because the people who claim that are so far to the right that they likely think that we should round poor people into camps and gun them down because they are impeding our development. Unfortunately, these types have managed to wield quite a bit of influence, since though socialism is gaining momentum, so is right-wing populism (fascism). I fear that the definition of socialism is greatly being skewed.

Not many people actually believe this, there are very few, radical right wingers in the country.


Regardless, from the events I've attended, the works of Marx, Lenin, Castro and others are accepted with very open minds and very much support. I think that now is the best time to wield elections and literature to our advantage.

Those arn't the radical lefts (at least not the ones I've talked to) in Americas inspiration either. Lenin is dead, Leninism is dead, Castro was a product of Leninism, Marx was a good philosopher, but thats it.

Most of Americas radical left are the Anarchists, the Socialists, the syndicalist. I think, and I hope, that the time of the "Communist parties of such and such country" or the idea that the political parties should be the defining organs of hte movement are over. The way to socialism is'nt through politics, or following a party, its through worker direct action, solidarity and community organizing.

[Kassad]

Well, I disagree. The Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin and all other assorted laissez-faire conservative parties managed to pull significant support in the elections. In truth, they pulled much more than the socialist camp and Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty is attracting significant support. Not to mention his book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, was on Amazon and the New York Times' best seller list for a decent period of time. There is a significant presence of free market capitalists in the United States.

Without organizing through a working class party, no successful struggle will ever be waged. There are no anarchists groups in the midwest or in the United States that organize any events or struggles whatsoever. Workers parties are the ones that organize strikes, promote unions and organize rallies that attract hundreds and thousands to the socialist movement. A loose, unorganized group cannot achieve any type of radical change. Recent support and bolstering numbers in socialist parties would refute your surreal claim that Leninism is 'dead.'

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I don't think anyone should really worry about the Ron Paul people. Yes, they're delusional but it's not like they're all that popular. Also, they have some things that I like such as ending the drug war and ending the embargo on Cuba, along with closing all US bases not in the US as well as, obviously, ending both wars.

I find the defenders of the status-quo to be much more despicable, to be honest. The types who take the prison culture or imperialist nature of the US so much for granted that they don't even address those issues and instead rile people up over bullshit social issues and, indeed, maintain power by dividing people.

[Dimentio]

I would say its a false dichotomy in the sense of being totally mutually exclusive. Capitalism and Socialism I mean. I think most Americans, like probably the majority of the world, especially in first and second world countries, prefer a mixture of both.

Such a mix is not feasible in the long term nor is Capitalism or Socialism by themselves. Capitalism tends to over expand into its own destruction and socialism by itself ( in the economic sense) is not very practical, fails in theoretical logic, and needs to be combined with Capitalism to at least partially work.

Energy accounting then?

http://en.technocracynet.eu

[Hoxhaist]

Capitalism seems to reach a critical mass and then implode, history shows us that and we seem to be in the aftermath of such an implosion

[Dr Mindbender]

Not with a bang, but with a wimper.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism

Only 53 % of Americans think Capitalism is better than Socialism. It looks like the Revolution will be a soft one.

I got excited about this until i saw that 27% abstained.

Looks like 80% remain convinced or complicit supporters of dumbfuckistan.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, even I realize the radical left isn't the Communist Party--that why I brought those guys up. But on the other hand they are the biggest or just about the biggest radical-esque out there.

So where are these radicals? Do they have any power? Are they for real?

Looking just on Internet demographics (if I remember correctly--I'm not on my computer) Stormfront is about 10 times the size of RevLeft, so I doubt this is where they are found.

[Dimentio]

Well, even I realize the radical left isn't the Communist Party--that why I brought those guys up. But on the other hand they are the biggest or just about the biggest radical-esque out there.

So where are these radicals? Do they have any power? Are they for real?

Looking just on Internet demographics (if I remember correctly--I'm not on my computer) Stormfront is about 10 times the size of RevLeft, so I doubt this is where they are found.

As far as I'll understand it, American popular resentment - left or right - tend to take populist and regionalist characteristics. The report also indicates that about 80% of the American population have populist standpoints and look at Washington with distrust.

The marxists and left-wing radicals (grown-ups) tend to be well-educated and having positions in universities and public offices. Thus, they cannot speak to the general population which holds anti-intellectual viewpoints, and they cannot - for understandable reasons - be a revolutionary force as long as they are embedded in the system.

What I think American revolutionary leftists need to do is to argue for more de-centralisation. That would destroy this fake dichotomy between right-wing liberals and right-wing conservatives, and open the door for socialist parties to fight for power in the states.

Americans fear and loathe Washington and centralisation.

[Bud Struggle]

Here's an interesting website abert the different Independant Political parties in the USA:

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/

It's all over the place, not just Socialist/Communist. Interesting to see just who's out there.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

Anybody can say that in a closed door poll but it takes a real socialist to stand up and speak against capitalism/state that socialism is an answer to problem's.The american revolution won't start until people are out on the streets jumping cops and murdering politicians.Also saying it starts with a wimper though it ist true a revolution can only start with a bang a wimper will be easily silenced by capitalist propaganda.

[Hoxhaist]

the revolution must capture media outlets to take their message to the people directly. Imagine turning on CNN only to see the American Lenin speaking. That must be the hope in America

[RGacky3]

The american revolution won't start until people are out on the streets jumping cops and murdering politicians.

What the hell are you talking about? How is that revolution? What does jumping cops and murdering politicians have to do with revolution?


Imagine turning on CNN only to see the American Lenin speaking. That must be the hope in America

I pray that there never is an American Lenin, ever.


But on the other hand they are the biggest or just about the biggest radical-esque out there.


I don't think they are, I think radical unions and community groups have more influence and numbers.


So where are these radicals? Do they have any power? Are they for real?

Looking just on Internet demographics (if I remember correctly--I'm not on my computer) Stormfront is about 10 times the size of RevLeft, so I doubt this is where they are found.

They don't really have any power, and (hopefully) thats not what they want, Amerian radicals are the ones organizing workplaces and communities. However they are out there, Howard Zinns book about the peoples history of America is a great book (and a best seller) about the history of the American radical left.

[Bud Struggle]

You know Gack, I think you paint a fairly decent picture of Communism. We'd all be Communists today if Lenin and those who followed him didn't take a different path.

But if all Communist made sense like you what fun would RevLeft be? :D

[Dimentio]

the revolution must capture media outlets to take their message to the people directly. Imagine turning on CNN only to see the American Lenin speaking. That must be the hope in America

XD

[graffic]

If a revolution even started in America it would be shut down in 5 minutes by the elite who have millions of dollars to splash out.

[trivas7]

We'd all be Communists today if Lenin and those who followed him didn't take a different path.

What is it specifically you object to Lenin, TomK? His collectivist nationalism? Russian history of autocratic rule? Or simply the fact that he was the first to successfully lead a socialist revolution nationwide?

[RGacky3]

Or simply the fact that he was the first to successfully lead a socialist revolution nationwide?

It was'nt a genuine Socialist society, the revolution did'nt succede in bringing about real socialism.

The point your trying to make I think, is that Lenin is the best one can expect, that way you can argue only against lenin, which is easier than arguing against Socialism. Problem is, Lenin, is not revered by most socialists, nor was his form of "socialism".

[Bud Struggle]

What is it specifically you object to Lenin, TomK? His collectivist nationalism? Russian history of autocratic rule? Or simply the fact that he was the first to successfully lead a socialist revolution nationwide?

A couple of things. His autocratic despotism. He was a Glorious Leader that ruled with an iron hand. The Russian Revolution HIS revolution and he acted as if he owned it. If he was a "actual" Communist I imagine he would have let the Russian people form their own Communist state--instead he imposed his idea of state on them.

But secondly and most improtantly it was his idea of Communism that was the template for all the revolutions that followed. The many Socialistic states that followed him were all autocratic breaucratic morasses that brought a distinctly nasty feel to the 20th Century.

Of late I am beginning to rather like both RGacky's Anarchist version of Socialism and also Serpent's techno-Communism both are humane and fair.

[trivas7]

It was'nt a genuine Socialist society, the revolution did'nt succede in bringing about real socialism.

OTC, Lenin brought about a genuine socialist revolution.


A couple of things. His autocratic despotism. He was a Glorious Leader that ruled with an iron hand. The Russian Revolution HIS revolution and he acted as if he owned it. If he was a "actual" Communist I imagine he would have let the Russian people form their own Communist state--instead he imposed his idea of state on them.

But secondly and most improtantly it was his idea of Communism that was the template for all the revolutions that followed. The many Socialistic states that followed him were all autocratic breaucratic morasses that brought a distinctly nasty feel to the 20th Century.

Lenin was no autocrat; the myth of Lenin as a Glorious Leader was created by Stalin to legitimize his sucessorship. Lenin worked collectively w/ others and his proposals were often opposed. He worked within the framework of Soviet law and had no special privileges. It is only through the force of persuasion -- not as duly elected Chairman of the Party -- that Lenin's policies prevailed. His ideas of how the Party should be organized were adopted by other b/c the Bolshevik party was successful; he can hardly be held to blame for imitation by others.

You're looking at him through the prism of Cold War propaganda, not the brilliant political mind that he was.

[Bud Struggle]

Lenin was no autocrat; the myth of Lenin as a Glorious Leader was created by Stalin to legitimize his sucessorship. Lenin worked collectively w/ others and his proposals were often opposed. He worked within the framework of Soviet law and had no special privileges. It is only through the force of persuasion -- not as duly elected Chairman of the Party -- that Lenin's policies prevailed. His ideas of how the Party should be organized were adopted by other b/c the Bolshevik party was successful; he can hardly be held to blame for imitation by others.

You're looking at him through the prism of Cold War propaganda, not the brilliant political mind that he was.

Well, I'm no expert on Lenin, but it seems to me that he has to take some responsibility for that stulted police state that the Soviet Union became from right after his death right up until it's demise in the late '80s. Maybe you can pass all the blame to Stalin--but those that followed Stalin were all quite similar in their concentration of power in Party leadership and strangulation of dissent (though nowhere near as brutal.)

Lenin may have lead an actual Socialist revolution--but it was a dismal one to be sure--no where along the lines of the kind RGacky seems to have in mind for the future.

The Soviet Union (at least the one I saw in the mid 80s) was a failed society and deserved to die--and if Lenin was the architect of that jumble of Socialism, I find it hard to think all that much of him. (Not that Russia is any better now after Socialism has departed.)

[RGacky3]

OTC, Lenin brought about a genuine socialist revolution.

What does OTC mean?

But no he did'nt, first of all he did'nt bring it about, there were strikes, takeovers and riots already going on. Also, the society he made was a state controlled society, not a democractic society, so it was'nt a genuine socialist society.


It is only through the force of persuasion -- not as duly elected Chairman of the Party -- that Lenin's policies prevailed. His ideas of how the Party should be organized were adopted by other b/c the Bolshevik party was successful; he can hardly be held to blame for imitation by others.

You're looking at him through the prism of Cold War propaganda, not the brilliant political mind that he was.

Yes, but his Party, createad the law, and it was pretty much a top down racket. Well before Stalin there were many executions without trials, of ANYONE, non combatents and all, anarchists, Soviets were strong armed, sometimes elections were simply ignored if the bolsheviks did'nt get their way, party policies were made by the top, and the enforced. Stalin just continued that with a lot more power, with a stabler government, and with a somewhat brutal mind.

Not only was Lenins revolutionary society not geuine socialist it was'nt even what Lenin and the bolsheviks promised the people.


Lenin may have lead an actual Socialist revolution--but it was a dismal one to be sure--no where along the lines of the kind RGacky seems to have in mind for the future.

Lenins first mistake was wanting to take state power, many many smaller revolutoins that have happened and are happening have nothing to do with taking state power, those are the revolutions to watch.

[Hoxhaist]

If a revolution even started in America it would be shut down in 5 minutes by the elite who have millions of dollars to splash out.
The Bolsheviks were able to take on the wealthy White Russians with only an army of peasants and workers. It can be done and their power comes from convincing us of our weakness

[spiltteeth]

As far as Lenin, there's a discussion on him right now at Revleft in the learning part
http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-anti-revolutionary-t113105/index.html

But in America the CPUSA has 2,000 members, the DSA 9,000 , the Green party 25,000 which is progressive, the spusa 1,200, and the labor party 10,000 members; the rest of the politically active groups have less than 300 members. Most (not all)of them in practice are reformist and end up supporting democrats.

Americans are generally to the left when asked about specific issues, but that doesn't matter, the power isn't in their hands. They will believe whatever the mainstream media tells them.
The only people who aren't subjected to all the propaganda are the extreme impoverished minorities and by far the illegal immigrant population -which is really where the movement will come from. A few years back -without the media- illegal immigrants all around this country went on strike for benefits.
The ruling class cannot be uprooted by legal means, they are entrenched in all forms of state power, they dominate all means of mass communication, they have infinite financial resources.

[BCSocialist]

If a revolution even started in America it would be shut down in 5 minutes by the elite who have millions of dollars to splash out.

If a revolution in America or any major Western nation was to take place it would have to be grassroots and started by the working class with the support of the working class. The elite may have the power of money but if the people were to truly unite as one there would not be enough money to stop them. I cannot see this happening in my life time the American population has been conditioned to fear a non capitalist system.