Revolution in America

[RedScare19]

People in America are so brainwashed by Cold War propaganda. America is almost synonymous to Capitalism. How will a revolution work in a country like America?

[swampfox]

First step is control or constriction of the mass media - the revolution has to be televised.

You also have to find something so strong and so moving that the mass population finds a reason to revolt against the government and fight.

Then you've got to somehow disarm the military or force them to remain neutral.

Next you would have to start a massive propaganda war with remaining media and opposition until the populous supports the revolution.

Finally you have to decide where it will be violent or peaceful.


That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

[FreeFocus]

This is essentially off the table in almost every feasible scenario.

[RedScare19]

What we also need to do is educate people. Most people I know think: Communism = Bad and Capitalism = Good. They're brainwashed by the propaganda.

[RedScare19]

A lot of people say that Obama is a Socialist so they obviously have no idea what it means.

[swampfox]

This is essentially off the table in almost every feasible scenario.

Anything is possible.

[scarletghoul]

First step is control or constriction of the mass media - the revolution has to be televised.

You also have to find something so strong and so moving that the mass population finds a reason to revolt against the government and fight.

Then you've got to somehow disarm the military or force them to remain neutral.

Next you would have to start a massive propaganda war with remaining media and opposition until the populous supports the revolution.

Finally you have to decide where it will be violent or peaceful.


That's all I can think of off the top of my head.
While all these steps would greatly contribute to the revolutionary potential of the american people, its also very important to arm them with the ideas of socialism, otherwise it will just be some aimless rebellion with no clear goal. But once the working masses have grasped the correct theory, they become much more powerful. discontent and rebellion can be transformed into proper revolution
As redscare has pointed out, most americans still need to be educated about socialism

[OriginalGumby]

Honestly it is totally possible in the US for a few reasons.

Capitalism is fail people right now in a sharp way. It is affecting millions and there is a collective realization that something is wrong. Also there is a mass rejection of the Republican party and everything that it represents. This is why Obama won. He represented change in peoples minds. People wanted the war to end, single payer healthcare, social services, to save the environment, people wanted to combat oppression and fight for more civil rights. They wanted a government that wasn't going to represent the capitalists and they even voted for the alleged "socialist" to get it. Of course Obama is a capitalist politician because that is how the democrats operate and people are not going to get what they want and they will start to question why. This is where we come in suggesting that mass movements are what has won everything in history and we need to build them today. In that process people will increasingly start to see the limitations of the system and will start to feel their own strentgh. Conscious efforts to win the population to struggle and in that context to fight the economic system itself is what is needed. We need effective organized efforts to accomplish this. That is why I am in the ISO.

[Manifesto]

Yeah right now would probably the best time unless Capitalism fails again in an even worse way like a depression.

[9]

I agree with everyone here who has said (to paraphrase) that we need to spread awareness of our ideas. When I was fourteen or fifteen, I was a self-identified liberal Democrat, and I remember literally thinking that I was as far left as was possible. I have heard many liberals echo this sentiment since then, which demonstrates the urgent need to make our ideas known. I believe a substantial number of liberals would move on to the revolutionary left rather quickly - the problem is that they don't know the revolutionary left exists.
I also think, as I have stated in other posts, that the revolutionary left needs something of a creative transformation. We need to reinvent our image (not to be confused with our theory) so we might at least partially do away with the old negative overtones that spawn knee-jerk resistance to our message. We need to bring our ideas and tactics and presentation up to date. Our old tactics are not effective anymore, at least not by themselves. And part of this, in my opinion, should probably involve dumping old imagery and figureheads that provoke hostility toward the left from the working class (Stalin, Mao, Guevara, USSR, etc) and easing up on the extent to which we invoke the "old masters" and 'revolutionaries of the past'. I even think we would be wise to distance ourselves from the old titles (though I suspect there will be resistance to this idea) - Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, Maoist, anarchist - they only incite hostility from the very people whose support we need. These are just some ideas, I hope others will add their own, and I'm sure many will disagree.

[OriginalGumby]

This has a video and an article that sums up the situation in the US pretty well.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-left-new-t112974/index.html

[Dimentio]

People in America are so brainwashed by Cold War propaganda. America is almost synonymous to Capitalism. How will a revolution work in a country like America?

Well, like this...

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!!!!11111

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I agree with Apikoros. I think America, due to it's cold way history and it's high level of right wing neo-liberal propoganda has many people entirely in the dark on communism. There is a lot of fricition around the word communism. Many people would become communists in America if it was explained without the word communist being involved.

[Dimentio]

I think that if a radical leftist revolutionary government came to power in the US cities, no matter how benevolent, the entire countryside would fall to right-wing and right-wing libertarian militias.

It would be the Russian Civil War ten times over.

[x359594]

...I think America, due to it's cold way history and it's high level of right wing neo-liberal propoganda has many people entirely in the dark on communism. There is a lot of fricition around the word communism. Many people would become communists in America if it was explained without the word communist being involved.

The classic description of revolution holds that objective and subjective conditions must be present for revolution, so it's not just a question of propaganda.

In the US at present a 20% decline in the standard of living or 40% unemployment lasting more than a year would constitute a revolutionary situation. According to the Financial Times, the dollar could loose 40% of its value by Christmas of this year. If that's correct, than the current capitalist crisis is sure to deepen.

Another indicator is the current imperial overreach of the US. Can it continue to fight two wars and maintain over 750 off shore bases? One possible scenario I've read is that another egregious outrage at Ginowan Air Force Base in Okinawa could inflame the citizens there to over run the base and tear it down. If the defenders stay in their barracks, then the base is finished, if they open fire it's still finished. When one major US base falls in this manner, the others will start falling too, especially in Asia where the US military is hated by the subject populations (eg, the 8th Army based at Itaewon in Seoul, Korea.)

The collapse of the US military overseas coupled with a drawn out capitalist crisis is an objective revolutionary situation.

Subjectively, the situation is as Bakunin-Kropotkin states it, however, there are many grassroots organizations, especially in the inner city, that are politically aware. In Los Angeles, there are the South Central Farmers Union, the Bus Riders Union, Cop Watch, the Labor Strategy Center, Revolutionary Autonomous Communities, the Black Riders, not to mention a half dozen revolutionary parties.

Some of these outfits do not call themselves socialist, communist or anarchist, but they are de facto socialist, etc. Needless to say, these organizations represent the working poor, but with the continuing decline in the US economy the ranks of the working poor and the unemployed will swell, and the crucial factor will be educating the nouveau poor.

The danger will come from some demagogue who will promise to restore the status quo ante, scapegoat a section of the population as the cause of all our problems, and then seize power.

[Dimentio]

The classic description of revolution holds that objective and subjective conditions must be present for revolution, so it's not just a question of propaganda.

In the US at present a 20% decline in the standard of living or 40% unemployment lasting more than a year would constitute a revolutionary situation. According to the Financial Times, the dollar could loose 40% of its value by Christmas of this year. If that's correct, than the current capitalist crisis is sure to deepen.

Another indicator is the current imperial overreach of the US. Can it continue to fight two wars and maintain over 750 off shore bases? One possible scenario I've read is that another egregious outrage at Ginowan Air Force Base in Okinawa could inflame the citizens there to over run the base and tear it down. If the defenders stay in their barracks, then the base is finished, if they open fire it's still finished. When one major US base falls in this manner, the others will start falling too, especially in Asia where the US military is hated by the subject populations (eg, the 8th Army based at Itaewon in Seoul, Korea.)

The collapse of the US military overseas coupled with a drawn out capitalist crisis is an objective revolutionary situation.

Subjectively, the situation is as Bakunin-Kropotkin states it, however, there are many grassroots organizations, especially in the inner city, that are politically aware. In Los Angeles, there are the South Central Farmers Union, the Bus Riders Union, Cop Watch, the Labor Strategy Center, Revolutionary Autonomous Communities, the Black Riders, not to mention a half dozen revolutionary parties.

Some of these outfits do not call themselves socialist, communist or anarchist, but they are de facto socialist, etc. Needless to say, these organizations represent the working poor, but with the continuing decline in the US economy the ranks of the working poor and the unemployed will swell, and the crucial factor will be educating the nouveau poor.

The danger will come from some demagogue who will promise to restore the status quo ante, scapegoat a section of the population as the cause of all our problems, and then seize power.

How is it with the countryside population in Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Ohio, Pennsylvania and so on and so on and so on? How would they react to a socialist revolution?

[x359594]

How is it with the countryside population in Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Ohio, Pennsylvania and so on and so on and so on? How would they react to a socialist revolution?

According to the 2000 US census, the total population was 281,421,906, with 222,360,539 living in urban centers (79%) and 59,061,367 (21%) living in the countryside.

Pennsylvania and Ohio are centers of manufacture, part of the declining rust belt; the majority of the populations of Kansas, Oklahoma and Alabama are employed in non-agricultural occupations and are city dwellers.

Vast agribusiness corporations own the arable land in the US and produce most of its farm products; migrant labor is employed.

As to how they would react to a socialist revolution, I don't know, and I don't think there's anyway to tell until we're actually presented with a revolutionary situation.

As I said before, the danger of reaction will come from a demagogue, possibly of the religious right, blaming a portion of the population (probably immigrants) for America's decline.

[NecroCommie]

It does not need to be possible in the U.S. We simply revolt here in Europe, and establish a strong socialist union. The U.S. without it's mighty trade companion would be forced to choose between turning to socialist or turning to some other trade companions... ... ... yeah, like they'd find a trade companion as industrialized as europe. :rolleyes:

[spiltteeth]

It would have to happen on two fronts. The group with the most revolutionary potential in the US is the mass of immigrant workers. 3 years ago, with no use of popular media, all the illegal immigrants went on strike nation wide!
The others would have to be the white lower and middle class in middle America, which have to be persuaded by utilization of old school Eugene Debs era propaganda.

[Dimentio]

According to the 2000 US census, the total population was 281,421,906, with 222,360,539 living in urban centers (79%) and 59,061,367 (21%) living in the countryside.

Pennsylvania and Ohio are centers of manufacture, part of the declining rust belt; the majority of the populations of Kansas, Oklahoma and Alabama are employed in non-agricultural occupations and are city dwellers.

Vast agribusiness corporations own the arable land in the US and produce most of its farm products; migrant labor is employed.

As to how they would react to a socialist revolution, I don't know, and I don't think there's anyway to tell until we're actually presented with a revolutionary situation.

As I said before, the danger of reaction will come from a demagogue, possibly of the religious right, blaming a portion of the population (probably immigrants) for America's decline.

I think we already have a candidate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8a35lm8qNQ

[Jimmie Higgins]

How is it with the countryside population in Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Ohio, Pennsylvania and so on and so on and so on? How would they react to a socialist revolution?

All these states used to be the most radical in the country.

[Dimentio]

All these states used to be the most radical in the country.

Well, certainly they are red. I have got the impression that the US is filled with a lot of people to the right of the republican party.

[Jimmie Higgins]

People in America are so brainwashed by Cold War propaganda.

Propaganda can only go so far - the same people who are the most anti-communist are also likely to believe in the Amero (the North American version of the Euro... as if trade in North America is the US strong-arming Canada and Mexico and not the other way around) or Area 51.

But there is some truth in that American politics are still defined by the McCarthy era. Most people laugh at anti-communist propaganda or right-wing nuts who say that Obama is a secret Muslim trying to bring Socialism to the US.

The key lasting impact of McCarthyism was taking the radicals out of the unions. Since then the union movement and the organized left have suffered to make lasting gains. This is how the grandchildren of the radical reds in Oaklahoma, Kansas, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania (I left out Alabama - they have never been radical to my knowledge) became republican red-staters.

Despite mainstream politics and the media's interpretation of politics in the US, a lot of people here are very sympathetic to left-wing issues and generally have some knee-jerk leftist instincts about inequality and the elietes and so on. The problem is that because the US doesn't have a strong organized left or labor parties or social democrat parties, there is no expression or outlet for left-wing views to get out. The nutty right has radio DJs and publications and right-wing groups control the evangelical christian movement. Until the left can also build a base in the labor movement and create lasting vehicles for working class politics like high-profile radio, newspaper, and even reformist organizations and electoral parties, and of course don't forget us revolutionaries(!), then left-politics are going to continue to be expressed in "spontanious" explosions of class anger such as the immigrant rights protests or the riots that happened in Oakland after the police shot someone.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't really understand the question. OK, it's on p1, it was a couple of mins since I read it, but even so. And this: "...Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Ohio, Pennsylvania ... How would they react to a socialist revolution?" I don't really understand either.

1 - there won't be an "American" revolution. There will be a world revolution. Unless America has either removed itself from the world (unlikely), or removed itself from capitalism (impossible), America will be part of the world revolution. The proletariat is an international class. The economic crisis, ecological catastrophe and revulsion at capitalist war don't stop at the 49th parallel and the Rio Grande. The working class in the USA has many examples of challenging capital and the state, from the foundation of the IWW to the Seattle general strike to the New York transit workers strike; hell, 2 weeks after September 11, workers were striking in the midst of the patriotic hysteria. Go! American Proletariat I say.
2 - the world proletarian revolution won't be something that's 'exported' to Pennsylvania and Ohio (from a 'revolutionary New York State' perhaps?) - that doesn't work, as the Bolshevik invasion of Poland in 1920 proved. You can't export revolution at the point of a bayonet. The revolution will happen in Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Tennessee, even Montana and Utah; it has to, otherwise we've failed. We won't be conquering them; they'll be revolting with the rest of us.

Will it be hard? Yes. Are there other places in the world with just as much prejudice and nationalism? Yes. But the fact that capitalism is self-eviddently both in a serious crisis and destroying the planet is I think a great help to our cause. The working class everywhere is going to be more and more compelled to face up to the realities of the current system, and decide the classic choice: what is the future of humanity to be, socialism or barbarism?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, certainly they are red. I have got the impression that the US is filled with a lot of people to the right of the republican party.

There are some just as in any country. There are many many many more people who want an end to the death penalty, universal healthcare, good schools and education for everyone, an end to the war and all wars.

The history of US radicalism is a history of fits and explosions. The lack of an established left means that long periods of despair and a sense of powerlessness for workers followed by a few years of rapid radicalization. Think about the 1920s: business unionism, greed-is-good ethic, anti-immigrant sentiment and so on. By 1934 there were 3 general strikes within weeks of eachother - by 1936 there was the CIO and radical industrial unionism. Think about 1964 and then compare it to 1970 when many people considered themselves radicals all over the country and there had been countless riots and student strikes and so on.

History doesn't move in a steady line all the time - especially when it comes to uprisings and revolutions. I doubt that the US will be the first place a modern worker revolution happens, but I have no doubt that it is possible and maybe even in the very near future there will be another 1968 or 1936.

[h9socialist]

Frankly, the problem may be that revolution is the classic sense (which in one form or another is modeled on the French Revolution -- a rebellious populous rising up and wiping out the ruling class), may be impossible in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. BUT another type of revolution is possible: one in which we birth the institutions of a new society in the belly of the old. This is not a new concept -- Marx and Engels knew it well -- and noted that the institutions of modern capitalism were born and grew during the feudal epoch. We may be spending too much time trying to figure out how to takeover capitalism rather than considering how to make it irrelevant!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Frankly, the problem may be that revolution is the classic sense (which in one form or another is modeled on the French Revolution -- a rebellious populous rising up and wiping out the ruling class), may be impossible in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. BUT another type of revolution is possible: one in which we birth the institutions of a new society in the belly of the old. This is not a new concept -- Marx and Engels knew it well -- and noted that the institutions of modern capitalism were born and grew during the feudal epoch. We may be spending too much time trying to figure out how to takeover capitalism rather than considering how to make it irrelevant!

When in history has power ever conceded without a fight?

Even if we did what you describe (which we basically are anyway - building unions and movements that could be planting the seeds for workers councils and other working class organizations) at some point this will lead to a clash between the collective interests of capital and the collective interests of labor.

The Bourgoise grew inside feudalism but it still took revolutions of one form or another - Bohemian Revolution, Reformation, English Revolution, French Revolution, American Civil War, Bizmarkian dictatorship, for the capitalists to reorder society to meet their class needs.

The main difference is that these older revolutions were replacing one minority with another, larger, minority. So these revolutionaries needed to figure out how to use the mass of the population to further their cause (like making popular appeals and promising popular reforms like in the English, American, and French Revolutions) or keep the masses down while they rearranged things.

Since our revolution involves vastly greater numbers of people, it means that it will need to be a mass uprising involving huge numbers of people taking power into their own hands.

[h9socialist]

Dear Comrade Gravedigger --

I did not say that there will be no struggle or fight. I merely implied that the struggle would proceed on other levels, and that perhaps we need to pay closer attention to those other levels. I do not think that the U.S. is ripe for a socialist revolution. Capitalism may be in bad shape -- but to be self-critical the Left has yet to make a convincing case for itself to the vast majority in the U.S. However, that doesn't mean that progress cannot be made. The indignations of capitalism are becoming more apparent and the beginnings of socialist institutions can proceed. If I read Marx correctly he indicated that capitalism would not collapse until it exhausted its possibilities. And if I read Companero Guevara correctly, the time for the armed struggle is not ripe until the possibilities for peaceful struggle have been exhausted. And if I read history correctly, it takes more than ideology to establish the credibility of any revolution. It takes the establishment of revolutionary institutions and actions as alternatives to the status quo.

[LeninKobaMao]

I personally think that a revolution would be much harder to achieve in Britain because they have a notouriously conservative working class. I am not saying all of them are i'm just saying from what i've heard communism hasn't really caught on there (same as Australia as well).

[h9socialist]

Comrade LeninKobaMao --

My only response is that the workers in Great Britain enjoy a truly socialized healthcare system, and have a viable Labor Party (albeit a timid and centrist one). Even that seems light-years ahead of the US to me. There's an article written in 1918 or 1919 by John Reed where he discusses the conservatism of the American working class (noting that American workers are prone to think highly of Charles Schwab) -I you can find it at www.marxists.org. In spite of everything that's transpired recently, Comrade Reed's observations remain applicable. Debunking American myths about capitalism in the eyes of workers seems to me to be a necessary pre-requisite to any real move to the Left in the US.

[StalinFanboy]

Communize neighborhoods. Increase conflict with the State.

[Axle]

Socialist revolution in America seems to me like it would be even more intensely difficult than anywhere else in the world. The country's bent opinion on socialism and utter devotion to Capitalism would require massive campaigns to educate Americans on what Socialism actually is before even beginning to think "revolution".

[AnthArmo]

Frankly, the problem may be that revolution is the classic sense (which in one form or another is modeled on the French Revolution -- a rebellious populous rising up and wiping out the ruling class), may be impossible in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. BUT another type of revolution is possible: one in which we birth the institutions of a new society in the belly of the old. This is not a new concept -- Marx and Engels knew it well -- and noted that the institutions of modern capitalism were born and grew during the feudal epoch. We may be spending too much time trying to figure out how to takeover capitalism rather than considering how to make it irrelevant!

That's an excellent idea. For one, how can one expect a revolution to work if you want to work out all the nooks and crannies afterwards? If we figure everything out beforehand, then we have a stable foundation for the revolution.

Plus, the most common question I hear from other people whenever I criticize Capitalism is "What do you suggest then as an alternative? The Soviet Union didn't work!". Whenever I get that question, I either denounce the Soviet Union, or make reference to vague workerist movements such as Spanish Catalonia or the recovered factory movement in Argentina.

But by actually making Capitalism obsolete by creating institutions of Socialism within Capitalism will give people a more viable alternative that will encourage people to revolt.

If I remember correctly, that's what the Owenites did, attempt to make Capitalism obsolete by actually figuring out Socialism first. I think the only reason we haven't tried to recreate Owen's experiments is because Marx denounced him as "Utopian". That's not to say that revolution is irrelevant, but I think we do need to create alternatives for people to rally around in support of revolution

[AnthArmo]

I personally think that a revolution would be much harder to achieve in Britain because they have a notouriously conservative working class. I am not saying all of them are i'm just saying from what i've heard communism hasn't really caught on there (same as Australia as well).

Australia's a funny case isn't it. Although I can't see a revolution happening any time soon, We aren't as reactionary as the rest of the first world. For example, Pauleen Hanson's fascist xenophobia died almost as soon as it started. Most Australian's that I've known and met aren't racist in the slightest, and its only a minority of hoon's and Andrew Bolt fans that are. I've also noticed that a lot of working Aussies, although not necessarily knowledgeable about Communism or the Left, don't despise it and at least are extremely sympathetic to its ideals.

We have a very relaxed lifestyle here, and people really value it, as Australian Comedian Akhmal Saleh said "You don't see Australian's having a civil war, because they just don't give a shit!".

Although I agree with that sentiment, if a Catalyst were to occour that would challenge that relaxed way of life, I can see a revolution occurring very very easily. For example, when John Howard introduced WorkChoices, workers weren't outraged because of ideology or exploitation, but because it was overwhelmingly a challenge to their right to laziness.

Although such a Catalyst hasn't occoured yet, the nature of power means that there inevitably will be a bad decision made by the Australian ruling class that will push workers towards Revolution

[LeninKobaMao]

Australia's a funny case isn't it. Although I can't see a revolution happening any time soon, We aren't as reactionary as the rest of the first world. For example, Pauleen Hanson's fascist xenophobia died almost as soon as it started. Most Australian's that I've known and met aren't racist in the slightest, and its only a minority of hoon's and Andrew Bolt fans that are. I've also noticed that a lot of working Aussies, although not necessarily knowledgeable about Communism or the Left, don't despise it and at least are extremely sympathetic to its ideals.

We have a very relaxed lifestyle here, and people really value it, as Australian Comedian Akhmal Saleh said "You don't see Australian's having a civil war, because they just don't give a shit!".

Although I agree with that sentiment, if a Catalyst were to occour that would challenge that relaxed way of life, I can see a revolution occurring very very easily. For example, when John Howard introduced WorkChoices, workers weren't outraged because of ideology or exploitation, but because it was overwhelmingly a challenge to their right to laziness.

Although such a Catalyst hasn't occoured yet, the nature of power means that there inevitably will be a bad decision made by the Australian ruling class that will push workers towards Revolution

Yeah there is not enough radical lefties in Australia what a boring and lazy country we live in.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If radicals wait for conditions to be "ripe" for revolution to act, then we are trying to sail to meet the ever-reccedeing horizon. Class struggle - particularly in the US - does not proceede in a neat line of progression, it is dynamic and explosive. So I do not think that they key for radicals is to try and educate alone, education has to come along with agitation and building movements.



I did not say that there will be no struggle or fight. I merely implied that the struggle would proceed on other levels, and that perhaps we need to pay closer attention to those other levels.I'm sorry, what do you mean by this? What other levels?


If I read Marx correctly he indicated that capitalism would not collapse until it exhausted its possibilities.If the working class waits until capitalism has exhausted all its possibilities, the working class motto will have to be: dead workers and radioactive fall-out mutants of what is left of the world, unite! Capitalism's rulers possibilities include: willingly handing over power to fascists, a nuclear exchange between the USSR/US India/Pakistan, or letting coastal cities get submerged under the sea because of climate change. The working class can not wait for capitalism to collapse because it will take the working class and the means of production with it.


And if I read Companero Guevara correctly, the time for the armed struggle is not ripe until the possibilities for peaceful struggle have been exhausted. I don't think armed struggle will ever be an offensive method for the working class; we will always be outgunned until capitalism is gone. I'm more of a Malcolm X fan on this one: armed self-defense if necissary, not armed struggle.


And if I read history correctly, it takes more than ideology to establish the credibility of any revolution. It takes the establishment of revolutionary institutions and actions as alternatives to the status quo.True, but action always comes first; deology is important for understanding the action, predicting reaction, and figureing out the best way forward from action to action.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That's an excellent idea. For one, how can one expect a revolution to work if you want to work out all the nooks and crannies afterwards? If we figure everything out beforehand, then we have a stable foundation for the revolution.How can a worker's revolution be truly democratic if a bunch of small isolated radicals map it all out beforehand?

No revolution has ever proceeded along a set formula. Our job is to be the Thomas Pains of the revolution: to give voice and expression to people's class anger and to try and point a way forward, not dictate the future to the future.


Plus, the most common question I hear from other people whenever I criticize Capitalism is "What do you suggest then as an alternative? The Soviet Union didn't work!". Whenever I get that question, I either denounce the Soviet Union, or make reference to vague workerist movements such as Spanish Catalonia or the recovered factory movement in Argentina.That's great, that's what I say. I say I want worker's power and that never really existed in the USSR, but that the Russian Revolution and countless other examples show that workers will revolt and can potentially run the economy and society democratically.


If I remember correctly, that's what the Owenites did, attempt to make Capitalism obsolete by actually figuring out Socialism first. I think the only reason we haven't tried to recreate Owen's experiments is because Marx denounced him as "Utopian". That's not to say that revolution is irrelevant, but I think we do need to create alternatives for people to rally around in support of revolutionAll these experiments ultimately fail - they are interesting to look at and to show that people can live good and creative lives without capitalism - but not much beyond that. First of all, these communes and societies are removing themselves from the day to day of the working class struggle. Tell a worker about a commune and you might as well be talking about life in the Bio-dome or the Bat-cave. We need to imbed ourselves in the day to day class-struggle and point out how worker's don't need to settle for less but can fight and win.

[zerozerozerominusone]

How is it with the countryside population in Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Ohio, Pennsylvania and so on and so on and so on? How would they react to a socialist revolution?

They would kill the socialists in very short order. Every last one. The people of the USA have over 300 million firearms. There are between 2 and 4 THOUSAND state militias, and many of them have tanks, helicopters and all other manner of military equipment. A socialist revolution in this nation has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Rotting the nation from within, slowly... that's another case altogether.

[spiltteeth]

For anyone who cares to check it out, William S. Burroughs laid down a sure fire way to bring down American capitalism in his book of essays - the Job.
It does require violence -of innocents- though, to destroy commerce by truck, plane, and train - which would destroy US infrastructure.
Not that I'm advocating this at all.

[Psy]

They would kill the socialists in very short order. Every last one. The people of the USA have over 300 million firearms. There are between 2 and 4 THOUSAND state militias, and many of them have tanks, helicopters and all other manner of military equipment. A socialist revolution in this nation has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Rotting the nation from within, slowly... that's another case altogether.

Don't forget the Michigan National Guard got its ass handed to them by armed black Vietnam vets in Detroit back in 1967 and they not only required light armour and air support but military advisors from the US Army to tell them how to actually fight trained insurgents (the black Vietnam vets sniping at them). The US Army advisers had to tell National Guard officers such basic things as shooting out streets lights is beneficial to insurgences as it gives them better mobility and makes them harder to spot.

I doubt any state militia would be anything more then a nuisance to a battle hardened revolutionary army that held its own against the US Army. They'd probably flee little girls if a battle hardened revolutionary army opened up on them with mortars.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Class struggle rarely evolves in a straight line - especially in the US. Think about the Russian revolution: there's 1905 - then there's reaction and a clampdown and demoralization among workers and the movement turns to pseudo-science and romanticism - then the class struggle advances again leading to 1917. Think about the civil rights movement; it began as a timid reform movement, but 10 years later, it had inspired black working class to fight back and became a movement that called for Black Power. Think about the US in 1855 - who (aside from John Brown) would have guessed that slavery would have been forcibly ended and that congress would be pushing for radical restoration and things like public education and reparations and so on. On the flip-side, would any of the black political office holders in 1860 have guessed that after their generation it would be jim-crow and another 100+ years before black people would be elected again?

Radicalization is explosive and as radicals it is our job to understand this and realize that uprisings and radicalization will not happen on out time-table, but it will happen as long as the contradictions of capitalism remain.


They would kill the socialists in very short order. Every last one. The people of the USA have over 300 million firearms. There are between 2 and 4 THOUSAND state militias, and many of them have tanks, helicopters and all other manner of military equipment. A socialist revolution in this nation has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Rotting the nation from within, slowly... that's another case altogether.
Well, if your plan for a revolution is to grab some people, give them guns, and shoot a postman and a few cops, then yes, you will be crushed, the working class will see you as a bunch of isolated idiots and maybe you can have a "60 minutes" segment devoted to your actions.

People in the US will never be able to outgun the US ruling class. The people of Brazil, and Venezuela, Vietnam, Cuba, Italy, and Canada put together will never be able to outgun the US ruling class. Even if we could outgun our rulers, it wouldn't bring about socialism automatically.

This is why it's not enough to sit around and hope that people become class consious - not enough to study politics in isolation. We should be involved in working class struggles of all kinds while constantly arguing that ultimately we will have to get rid of capitalism if we want to get rid of wars and racism and poverty once and for all. If we can do thins, then the ruling class will find that they suddenly do not have reliable soldiers who will fight against workers in order to maintain the status quo - it will find that cops are too scared to charge picket-lines or mass marches - it will find that the factories that produce the guns are now in the hands of the workers.

[Psy]

People in the US will never be able to outgun the US ruling class. The people of Brazil, and Venezuela, Vietnam, Cuba, Italy, and Canada put together will never be able to outgun the US ruling class.

You do know Russian soldiers partook in both Russian revolutions in 1917? If a bulk of the US military joined a revolutionary army like the Russian troops in 1917 what would sigifgant force would stop the revolutionary army from crushing the US ruling class? If a revolutionary air force carpet bombed enemy positions with 8 tonne Thermobaric bombs do you really think the remains of the US military would still put up much of a fight? Hell by that time the revolutionary air force would have the capacity to directly bomb the remains of the ruling class as not even the deepest bunker would be safe from rouge a US Air Force fighting for the revolutionary air force.



Even if we could outgun our rulers, it wouldn't bring about socialism automatically.

True



This is why it's not enough to sit around and hope that people become class consious - not enough to study politics in isolation. We should be involved in working class struggles of all kinds while constantly arguing that ultimately we will have to get rid of capitalism if we want to get rid of wars and racism and poverty once and for all. If we can do thins, then the ruling class will find that they suddenly do not have reliable soldiers who will fight against workers in order to maintain the status quo - it will find that cops are too scared to charge picket-lines or mass marches - it will find that the factories that produce the guns are now in the hands of the workers.
True but it is better to down the road have soldiers switch sides to crush the loyal units of the state.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

You do know Russian soldiers partook in both Russian revolutions in 1917? If a bulk of the US military joined a revolutionary army like the Russian troops in 1917 what would sigifgant force would stop the revolutionary army from crushing the US ruling class? If a revolutionary air force carpet bombed enemy positions with 8 tonne Thermobaric bombs do you really think the remains of the US military would still put up much of a fight? Hell by that time the revolutionary air force would have the capacity to directly bomb the remains of the ruling class as not even the deepest bunker would be safe from rouge a US Air Force fighting for the revolutionary air force.

But the Russian army at the time was a conscript army. The US army, being essentially a mercenary army has considerably less revolutionary potential. Although there are some elements of the army who I am sure are disillusioned allies of our class.

[x359594]

...the Russian army at the time was a conscript army. The US army, being essentially a mercenary army has considerably less revolutionary potential...

Not only that, but they'd been fighting a losing war with incredible casualties, they were under provisioned (some even lacked boots,) they were hungry and desertions were punished with death by firing squad after a pro forma court martial (sometimes with no due process at all.) Finally, the majority of soldiers were conscripted from the peasantry and wanted nothing more than to go home to their tenant farms.

All these factors played a role in radicalizing the Russian rank and file military, so that the slogan "Peace, Land and Bread" made sense to war weary conscripts who would return to working the land for an absentee landlord and receive starvation remuneration for doing so.

This is as far from the present state of the US military as you can get. Only a severe economic crisis of long duration with the attendant scaling back of its off shore military machine will provide the objective conditions for revolution in America. At present, I think this is a real possibility.

[Psy]

Not only that, but they'd been fighting a losing war with incredible casualties, they were under provisioned (some even lacked boots,) they were hungry and desertions were punished with death by firing squad after a pro forma court martial (sometimes with no due process at all.) Finally, the majority of soldiers were conscripted from the peasantry and wanted nothing more than to go home to their tenant farms.

All these factors played a role in radicalizing the Russian rank and file military, so that the slogan "Peace, Land and Bread" made sense to war weary conscripts who would return to working the land for an absentee landlord and receive starvation remuneration for doing so.

This is as far from the present state of the US military as you can get. Only a severe economic crisis of long duration with the attendant scaling back of its off shore military machine will provide the objective conditions for revolution in America. At present, I think this is a real possibility.
Blacks Vietnam vets returning to Detroit took up arms against the Michigan National Guard in 1967 when faced with Detroit police racism and brutality. Meanwhile back in Vietnam mutinies was crippling the US Army as more officers were being murdered by their own men then by being killed by enemy.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Don't forget the Michigan National Guard got its ass handed to them by armed black Vietnam vets in Detroit back in 1967 and they not only required light armour and air support but military advisors from the US Army to tell them how to actually fight trained insurgents (the black Vietnam vets sniping at them).

Don't forget that the National Guard is not a militia, and short of the air guard and those who actually go to places like Eye-rack, a 6th grader would hand their heads to them. But in a way you make my point. I can assure you that few vets would fight for socialism. There are literally millions of well trained ex-army and anyone fighting them would take a serious beating. Also one should be aware that the US military would not allow a socialist revolution - or anything else perceived as "unAmerican" to proceed without a very serious fight. A violent physical revolution would simply fail in short order. Too many well armed and well trained civilians to overcome. There is no population on the planet with the marksmanship skills of Americans and in such huge numbers, save perhaps the Swiss, and I don't anticipate them landing on the shores of NJ any time soon.

And to address a comment that someone made about not being able to outfight the ruling class in the USA - that is eminently arguable. One indication of this is the current ammunition drought. I was told by a representative of Federal (ammo manufacturer) that if you want ammunition you had best get it now because in Sept there will be NONE. It is ALL being bought by the US government and stockpiled and/or demilled (destroyed). The ruling class here is becoming very cautious because they know we are potentially hairs' breadths away from violence. The people of the USA are pretty fed up with these theives, and those crooks' arrogance may end them up as the guests of honor at a mass necktie party. I think it will probably not happen, but I do not discount the possibility. Bear in mind that people here, with few exceptions, don't know much about things like hunger. If they start finding their shelves empty, they will rapidly become less than polite about finding things to eat. I guess for me the real question, after whether violence will erupt here, is whom will the public fight - each other (stupid) or the real enemy (crooks at top of heap)?



I doubt any state militia would be anything more then a nuisance to a battle hardened revolutionary army that held its own against the US Army.

I could not emphasize too strongly just how mistaken you are on this point. If you saw what some of these militias are about you would shit in your pants. I can tell you that some of them are as tough and well trained as any fighting force on the planet, and that is no exaggeration. Most of them are battle-tested veterans from Viet Nam and Eye-rack. To underestimate them is to sign your own death warrant.


They'd probably flee little girls if a battle hardened revolutionary army opened up on them with mortars.

If you saw what I've seen, you would have little choice but to change your mind. Our state militias, taken as a whole, could defeat the armies of most other nations. Better trained and probably nearly as well equipped. There are a few millions of these guys and many of them are very dedicated to what they do in this capacity.

I can say with confidence that many of the many state militias here are so well trained and so hard that no invading force would be able to take them easily. I know some of these guys and they are not to be taken casually. And there is nothing more dangerous than a sneaky American with a long distance rifle. :)

[Psy]

Don't forget that the National Guard is not a militia, and short of the air guard and those who actually go to places like Eye-rack, a 6th grader would hand their heads to them. But in a way you make my point. I can assure you that few vets would fight for socialism. There are literally millions of well trained ex-army and anyone fighting them would take a serious beating. Also one should be aware that the US military would not allow a socialist revolution - or anything else perceived as "unAmerican" to proceed without a very serious fight. A violent physical revolution would simply fail in short order. Too many well armed and well trained civilians to overcome. There is no population on the planet with the marksmanship skills of Americans and in such huge numbers, save perhaps the Swiss, and I don't anticipate them landing on the shores of NJ any time soon.

Just like the US Army didn't allow Black Nationalist during the Vietnam War and didn't allow mutinies, oh wait during the Vietnam War the US Army had both Black Nationalists and was being crippled by armed mutinied in Vietnam, they couldn't find officers stupid enough to crack down on rouge troops as the bulk of US Troops in Vietnam made it clear that accidents happen to officers they don't like.




And to address a comment that someone made about not being able to outfight the ruling class in the USA - that is eminently arguable. One indication of this is the current ammunition drought. I was told by a representative of Federal (ammo manufacturer) that if you want ammunition you had best get it now because in Sept there will be NONE. It is ALL being bought by the US government and stockpiled and/or demilled (destroyed). The ruling class here is becoming very cautious because they know we are potentially hairs' breadths away from violence. The people of the USA are pretty fed up with these theives, and those crooks' arrogance may end them up as the guests of honor at a mass necktie party. I think it will probably not happen, but I do not discount the possibility. Bear in mind that people here, with few exceptions, don't know much about things like hunger. If they start finding their shelves empty, they will rapidly become less than polite about finding things to eat. I guess for me the real question, after whether violence will erupt here, is whom will the public fight - each other (stupid) or the real enemy (crooks at top of heap)?

Troops muting would have access to weapons and ammo.




I could not emphasize too strongly just how mistaken you are on this point. If you saw what some of these militias are about you would shit in your pants. I can tell you that some of them are as tough and well trained as any fighting force on the planet, and that is no exaggeration. Most of them are battle-tested veterans from Viet Nam and Eye-rack. To underestimate them is to sign your own death warrant.

And would be fighting battle hardened US Troops being backed up a revolutionary army probably numbering in the tens of million of troops if we are talking about a popular workers revolution.



If you saw what I've seen, you would have little choice but to change your mind. Our state militias, taken as a whole, could defeat the armies of most other nations. Better trained and probably nearly as well equipped. There are a few millions of these guys and many of them are very dedicated to what they do in this capacity.

I can say with confidence that many of the many state militias here are so well trained and so hard that no invading force would be able to take them easily. I know some of these guys and they are not to be taken casually. And there is nothing more dangerous than a sneaky American with a long distance rifle. :)

Even if they are that good they could just be contained till the air forces kills everything in the target area then move on to the areas with the next state militia till the militia's clue in they have no chance against therminte bombs being dropped from high alitute bombers, (capitalists can't do that to workers as they need workers alive to exploit). A workers revolution would be mostly fought in the cities so by the time we have to worry about these militias we'd be able to have far superior firepower.

[x359594]

Blacks Vietnam vets returning to Detroit took up arms against the Michigan National Guard in 1967 when faced with Detroit police racism and brutality. Meanwhile back in Vietnam mutinies was crippling the US Army as more officers were being murdered by their own men then by being killed by enemy.

That was then, this is now. Besides, one stratum of the proletariat fighting the police in one city of the USA does not a revolution make.

During the Indochina War there were no mutinies on a division scale as there were among the Russian troops during WWI.

Incidentally, I was living in Hawai'i during Moratorium Day II in November 1969. There was an island wide general strike, the ILWU refused to service ships bound for Viet Nam, and about 100 soldiers on R & R took sanctuary at several liberal churches in Honolulu. I confess that I thought it was the beginning of the revolution, and thought that only the military needs to mutiny to make it a reality.

[rosie]

As redscare has pointed out, most americans still need to be educated about socialism
A good way to do that is to infiltrate ongoing labor strikes. Bring the workers food and drinks. Come back daily and talk with them a little bit. Then start bringing info about a workers party. Feed the fire of mass strike. When the trains stop moving, the trucks stop hauling, the students stop learning, and the workers stop working... America stops. Make demands. Make no concessions. And get the workers to break from the liberal/reformist/exploitative democrat party.

[NoMore]

I think we have to wait until something happens that weakens the U.S. government or weakens the idea of capitalism such as a massive depression. If something like a depression happened then we could produce socialist media that points out the flaws within the capitalist system and many people, and maybe even many people who work for the the government such as military personal and government agents would loose faith in their government and would want to see major change.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

The problem is that because the US doesn't have a strong organized left or labor parties or social democrat parties, there is no expression or outlet for left-wing views to get out.

The Democratic Party is represented in Minnesota by the Democratic Farmer Labor Party.

[RedRise]

Very moving! Imagine if everyone felt that way!

I reckon that a lot of people are communist but just don't know it. Like I was until I looked into it more. The first step will be to educate people about what communism means.
Then we might just be underway!:)

P.S. Would the same thing be possible in Australia? My Dad reckons that things need to be really bad for the majority of the population to cause a revolution.:confused: Thoughts?

[Outinleftfield]

But the Russian army at the time was a conscript army. The US army, being essentially a mercenary army has considerably less revolutionary potential. Although there are some elements of the army who I am sure are disillusioned allies of our class.

It may be more common than you think. I knew someone who expressed the opinion that we should abolish money(though he didn't know much about socialist theories) and he tried to join the military. I know someone who likes "anarchy" and is in the military, but he doesn't know much about anarchy and is really just a lifestylist but he does hate the war and a lot of things the government does. I also know someone who supports anarchy and actually knows what it's about but has considered joining the military, because he's disillusioned, doesn't think it will ever work because there's not enough people trying to make it happen, and finds the "benefits" enticing.

I think a lot of people join the military due to their exaggerated benefits especially low income people who don't see much opportunity besides that. Many feel cheated when the benefits turn out to be exaggerated and they don't get what was promised by their recruiters. Recruiters will often make it sound like there's no possibility for what ever reason they will be shipped out to war and then it turns out to be a lie. The military is full of working class people who have been cheated by lying recruiters and exaggerated promises of benefits.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It may be more common than you think. I knew someone who expressed the opinion that we should abolish money(though he didn't know much about socialist theories) and he tried to join the military. I know someone who likes "anarchy" and is in the military, but he doesn't know much about anarchy and is really just a lifestylist but he does hate the war and a lot of things the government does. I also know someone who supports anarchy and actually knows what it's about but has considered joining the military, because he's disillusioned, doesn't think it will ever work because there's not enough people trying to make it happen, and finds the "benefits" enticing.

I think a lot of people join the military due to their exaggerated benefits especially low income people who don't see much opportunity besides that. Many feel cheated when the benefits turn out to be exaggerated and they don't get what was promised by their recruiters. Recruiters will often make it sound like there's no possibility for what ever reason they will be shipped out to war and then it turns out to be a lie. The military is full of working class people who have been cheated by lying recruiters and exaggerated promises of benefits.

The two examples you mention sound like individualists to me who have no knowledge or interest in class struggle. The fact is, in a mercenary army like the US' there is a small minority who may have some revolutionary potential, but this is just that a small minority. The bulk of US soliders are blind imperialist patriots.

Also, remember this the United States' methods are much different to Russia's post-1917. The United States have developed a heavy program of indoctrination and mind control upon each soldier which effectively transforms them into killing machines. Therefore it is my belief that the Us army will remain an enemy throughout any revolution.

[h9socialist]

At risk of sounding like a heretic, let me suggest that in a one-on-one battle the only thing that can defeat modern capitalism, is modern capitalism itself. I suggest that the system is doing a damn good job of it right now. Our job, as socialists, is to begin the new society. Capitalism has come to dominance by building its global web of market relations to a point where civil society has been paralyzed by considerations of capitalist economics and economic relations. Those relations were built without consideration of social impact. To a certain extent a successful revolution from the Left depends upon the establishment of socialist institutions, and the rise of socialist values within capitalist society. These institutions may be severely flawed under capitalism. The banks that arose in the middle ages were primitive by modern capitalist standards, but led directly to the rise of modern capitalism. By the same token, I believe, that socialized medicine, shorter worktime, social movements, and environmentalism are setting the stage for a massive move to the Left in this century. They require great struggle, but they make capitalism ever more archaic and inadequate. These institutions are seriously flawed under capitalism, but hold the seeds of future socialist institutions. I have deliberately not discussed organized labor here,mainly because U.S. unions tend to be timid and bourgeois, and in great need of massive reform. I think that's worth a whole new thread.

[h9socialist]

Post script: there are plenty of revolutionary socialist possibilities RIGHT NOW . . . if we're willing to look for them.

[Psy]

The two examples you mention sound like individualists to me who have no knowledge or interest in class struggle. The fact is, in a mercenary army like the US' there is a small minority who may have some revolutionary potential, but this is just that a small minority. The bulk of US soliders are blind imperialist patriots.

Also, remember this the United States' methods are much different to Russia's post-1917. The United States have developed a heavy program of indoctrination and mind control upon each soldier which effectively transforms them into killing machines. Therefore it is my belief that the Us army will remain an enemy throughout any revolution.

While in many interviews with US grunts in Iraq and Afghanistan they described that the local population are really nice folk but reconstruction of basic services are being held up by SNAFUs and someone even admitted they understand the anger of the local population against them.

If you have this little bit of consciousness in US grunts in Iraq and Afghanistan think about the consciousness that could appear when they are fighting their brothers,sisters, lovers,friends, father and mothers in a armed class war. You think they wouldn't feel conflicted being ordered to charge the barricades when everyone they care about is on the other side of the barricades or (barricades like it) standing their ground (meaning troops would have to either kill their loved one or be killed by loved ones to follow their orders)? The US military only has so many psychopaths in its ranks that that they can count on.

[spiltteeth]

Even if half the American army went over to the revolutionary side America has a virtual endless supply of capital and can, quite literally, buy an army as they are doing now with no political allegiance - black water, and they can also import foreign armies from Britain etc
There are many other weapons besides bullets, chemical for instance has come a LONG way from primitive Vietnam agent orange..

[x359594]

Even if half the American army went over to the revolutionary side America has a virtual endless supply of capital and can, quite literally, buy an army as they are doing now with no political allegiance -...

If by capital you mean real goods, no the US does not have an endless supply of anything.

If you're talking about exchange value in dollars, then the more dollars in circulation the more dollars are needed to buy real goods; it's called inflation, and inflation is a factor in creating a revolutionary situation.

Last month at Ekaterinburg (graveyard of the Czar and his family) the first summit of heads of state of the BRIC countries — Brazil, Russia, India and China — ended with a declaration calling for a “multipolar world order”, diplomatic code for a rejection of America’s position as the sole global superpower. BIRC favors the establishment of more regional reserve currencies, including the Russian rouble and the Chinese yuan, to prevent economic shocks. They declared that “The existing set of reserve currencies, including the US dollar, have failed to perform their functions.” In other words, they're preparing to sweep the dollar into the dustbin of history.

The PRC has started to spend its dollars on real assets such as land and gold, and when the conversion from dollars to material wealth is complete, the dollar will be dumped, the US will be crippled, and dollars won't pay for the paer they're printed on, much less a mercenarie army.

[spiltteeth]

If by capital you mean real goods, no the US does not have an endless supply of anything.

If you're talking about exchange value in dollars, then the more dollars in circulation the more dollars are needed to buy real goods; it's called inflation, and inflation is a factor in creating a revolutionary situation.

Last month at Ekaterinburg (graveyard of the Czar and his family) the first summit of heads of state of the BRIC countries — Brazil, Russia, India and China — ended with a declaration calling for a “multipolar world order”, diplomatic code for a rejection of America’s position as the sole global superpower. BIRC favors the establishment of more regional reserve currencies, including the Russian rouble and the Chinese yuan, to prevent economic shocks. They declared that “The existing set of reserve currencies, including the US dollar, have failed to perform their functions.” In other words, they're preparing to sweep the dollar into the dustbin of history.

The PRC has started to spend its dollars on real assets such as land and gold, and when the conversion from dollars to material wealth is complete, the dollar will be dumped, the US will be crippled, and dollars won't pay for the paer they're printed on, much less a mercenarie army.


Very true! China is feverishly dispensing with all their dollars. But one reason they, and most nations, need America wealthy, and why the world “lent” America billions, is because they need Americans to buy all the crap they make.
But really, by capital, I meant two things. First - oil. And America, not officially but in practice, owns many of the nations that produce it. Officially, over 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees are massed in 909 military facilities in 46 countries and territories – and it omits many bases that the Department of Defense wants to conceal or play down, notably those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel. For example, just one of the many unlisted bases in Iraq, Ballad Air Base, houses 30,000 troops and 10,000 contractors, and extends across 16 square miles with an additional 12-square-mile “security perimeter.”
Oil is necessary to make weapons, plus soon we’ll control most of the natural gas in the Middle East that supplies all of china and India, another reason China is so kind to us. Hence the construction of probably permanent American military bases in occupied Iraq and of the massive fortress—- as large as the Vatican—in the Green Zone of Baghdad that is the “American Embassy.”

Second –nuclear weapons, which we do not even allow most other nations to make. Of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Bases in Europe 350 to 480 free-fall B-61-type tactical nuclear weapons are in the territories of the NATO allies. Military analysts Heller and Lammerant note that the weapons based in Europe are “secret, deadly, illegal, costly, militarily useless, politically motivated, and deeply, deeply unpopular.” With all them nukes pointing at them I’m sure other nations can be “convinced” to lend their military support.

[h9socialist]

Don't hold breathe waiting for inflation to consume capitalism -- if recent history is any indicator, just increasing the money supply doesn't always result in inflation. You need growing worker's incomes, and a central bank that's afraid to slow or stop monetary growth. These are not imminent threats to capitalism at this time. Besides, as the experience of Germany in the 1920s and Argentina more recently, hyper-inflation is much more likely to lead to reaction from the right than revolution from the Left. You don't elect socialists because you want to protect the value of the national currency! You want socialists to manage the economy in ways that overrule money and capital.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Vast agribusiness corporations own the arable land in the US and produce most of its farm products; migrant labor is employed.

This is untrue...if I recall correctly corporate farms only own about 2% of the land used for farming, but they account for 14% of total agricultural output.

That's pretty significant.

[x359594]

... by capital, I meant two things. First - oil. And America, not officially but in practice, owns many of the nations that produce it. Officially, over 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees are massed in 909 military facilities in 46 countries and territories – and it omits many bases that the Department of Defense wants to conceal or play down, notably those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel. For example, just one of the many unlisted bases in Iraq, Ballad Air Base, houses 30,000 troops and 10,000 contractors, and extends across 16 square miles with an additional 12-square-mile “security perimeter.”
Oil is necessary to make weapons, plus soon we’ll control most of the natural gas in the Middle East that supplies all of china and India, another reason China is so kind to us. Hence the construction of probably permanent American military bases in occupied Iraq and of the massive fortress—- as large as the Vatican—in the Green Zone of Baghdad that is the “American Embassy.”...

Earlier in this thread I talked about the collapse of those bases starting with Ginowan in Okinawa. The scenario is that US forces will commit another outrage and the people of Okinawa will over run the base and tear it down. The defenders will either remain in their barracks (as the Red Army did when the Berlin Wall was torn down) or open fire on the demonstrators. In either case the base is finished, and the empire of bases you describe above will topple, first in Asia where there's long term simmering resent against the US military presence and then spreading elsewhere.

Concerning oil, Russia and Venezuela can supply the oil needs of the world in the short term while Uncle Sam's hand is pried away from the spigot in the Middle East.

The old USSR possessed a formidable nuclear arsenal and never brought it into play when the country fell. It's certainly possible that the Pentagon will try to commit suicide and take the rest of the world with it, but it doesn't seem likely to me.

I really don't think the US empire is sustainable and that imperial collapse will make a revolutionary situation is possible (but NOT inevitable) in the foreseeable future.

[x359594]

Don't hold breathe waiting for inflation to consume capitalism --...

I'm not. Note that I said it was a factor, not the sole cause, of capitalist crisis.

If you check through this thread you'll see that many posters including myself have added to the list of variables that could produce a revolutionary situation in the US. Among them are protracted capitalist crisis with accompanying reduction of the standard of living and prolonged unemployment reaching 40%, military defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq accompanied by attacks on off shore bases.

I am not saying revolution is a sure thing, only that it's objectively possible given all the variables brought into play.

[x359594]

This is untrue...if I recall correctly corporate farms only own about 2% of the land used for farming, but they account for 14% of total agricultural output...

Thank you for the correction comrade. I was generalizing based on California figures supplied by the UFW.

At least in California privately owned farms employ migrant labor and exploit undocumented workers. My larger point was that the US countryside is not necessarily counter-revolutionary because of rural isolation, which was the implication of the query about Kansas, Oklahoma, etc.

[Psy]

Even if half the American army went over to the revolutionary side America has a virtual endless supply of capital and can, quite literally, buy an army as they are doing now with no political allegiance - black water, and they can also import foreign armies from Britain etc
There are many other weapons besides bullets, chemical for instance has come a LONG way from primitive Vietnam agent orange..

Mercenaries don't have any loyalties to the ruling classes, if the ruling class can't pay their fees they won't fight for them anymore. As for the ruling class using WMDs on revolutionary forces that is fine when you talking about a colony but when you are talking about a industrial work force it would be the capitalists shooting themselves in the foot. You can't exploit corpses meaning while they would probably use lethal force they would want to try and keep casualties from skyrocketing so in the event the capitalists do restore order they are not faced with a scarcity of workers thus no unemployment and the whole revolution sparks off again.

[spiltteeth]

Mercenaries don't have any loyalties to the ruling classes, if the ruling class can't pay their fees they won't fight for them anymore. As for the ruling class using WMDs on revolutionary forces that is fine when you talking about a colony but when you are talking about a industrial work force it would be the capitalists shooting themselves in the foot. You can't exploit corpses meaning while they would probably use lethal force they would want to try and keep casualties from skyrocketing so in the event the capitalists do restore order they are not faced with a scarcity of workers thus no unemployment and the whole revolution sparks off again.

That is a good point. I was thinking the ruling class might "pressure" other nations with WMD'S to send over troops.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Just like the US Army didn't allow Black Nationalist during the Vietnam War and didn't allow mutinies, oh wait during the Vietnam War the US Army had both Black Nationalists and was being crippled by armed mutinied in Vietnam, they couldn't find officers stupid enough to crack down on rouge troops as the bulk of US Troops in Vietnam made it clear that accidents happen to officers they don't like.

Not sure where you come up with this mutiny thing, but your information is wrong. I have many friends who did multiple tours in SEA and the murdering of their COs was not that common, though not unheard of either, and by no means crippling, as you put it. The USA ate it in Viet Nam because of the doctrine of counter-insurgence - i.e. containment. Had the goal been to wipe the NVA out, they could have accomplished that in perhaps 8 weeks' time. Recall that when Tricky Dick ordered the bombing of Hanoi just how rapidly the north returned to Paris. Dont' fool yourself - the USA had the means to extirpate the entire population of the north. IMO we should never have gone there in the first place, but once there, we should have exterminated them to the last man until they tossed up the white flag or there were none left to fight. That is war. It is ugly and it damned ought to be because we should not enter into it casually. We did in Viet Nam and every conflict since. Big mistake, IMO and I duppse you may agree.


And would be fighting battle hardened US Troops being backed up a revolutionary army probably numbering in the tens of million of troops if we are talking about a popular workers revolution.

US troops? Questionable at best.


Even if they are that good they could just be contained till the air forces kills everything in the target area then move on to the areas with the next state militia till the militia's clue in they have no chance against therminte bombs being dropped from high alitute bombers,

Again this presupposes the US air force would murder their own neighbors, and that is anything but assured.


(capitalists can't do that to workers as they need workers alive to exploit).

This is just silly. If you really beleive this about so-called "capitalists" then you really do not understand the vast and overwhelming majority of the American people. You attribute to them the characteristics of the thieves at the very top of the heap, and not even every one of them are like this. People are people no matter where you go. It is one thing to play a game in safety - it is quite another to play it for keeps in a context of mortal violence. Most of the shenanigans that occur do so because the complacent and tolerant Americans have allowed it. That is, they occur by consent, whether explicit or tacit. Pose a true threat to them and even the couch potato, net.porn, net.game, cocaine-addled suburbanite may awaken to defend what he holds dear. The only people who would go for a socialist revolution here are the parasites - the hard core drug addicts and generational welfare recipients, and I am not even sure about all of those, either. A violent revolution of the sort written of in these forums would be doomed to fail in all probability.


A workers revolution would be mostly fought in the cities so by the time we have to worry about these militias we'd be able to have far superior firepower.

Where would this superior firepower come from?

I think you are fooling yourself, but until such time as this may come to pass we each speculate idly. Violence is an inherently non-linear affair. Outcomes are seldom what one thinks they will be.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Not sure where you come up with this mutiny thing, but your information is wrong. I have many friends who did multiple tours in SEA and the murdering of their COs was not that common, though not unheard of either, and by no means crippling, as you put it. The USA ate it in Viet Nam because of the doctrine of counter-insurgence - i.e. containment. Had the goal been to wipe the NVA out, they could have accomplished that in perhaps 8 weeks' time. Recall that when Tricky Dick ordered the bombing of Hanoi just how rapidly the north returned to Paris. Dont' fool yourself - the USA had the means to extirpate the entire population of the north. IMO we should never have gone there in the first place, but once there, we should have exterminated them to the last man until they tossed up the white flag or there were none left to fight. That is war. It is ugly and it damned ought to be because we should not enter into it casually. We did in Viet Nam and every conflict since. Big mistake, IMO and I duppse you may agree.

Who is we? "We" are not represented by the U.S. government. "We" did not lead a criminal invasion against the people of Vietnam. Why do you believe the US should have launched an insane campaign of mass murder (well, at least a larger, more insane campaign of mass murder than it already was) in order to "win" in Vietnam? Whose interests is that in? Not ours. Truthfully, I don't know about you, but please don't include "us" and other subjects of the US regime when you're talking about the Rockefellers' wars.



This is just silly. If you really beleive this about so-called "capitalists" then you really do not understand the vast and overwhelming majority of the American people. You attribute to them the characteristics of the thieves at the very top of the heap, and not even every one of them are like this. People are people no matter where you go. It is one thing to play a game in safety - it is quite another to play it for keeps in a context of mortal violence. Most of the shenanigans that occur do so because the complacent and tolerant Americans have allowed it. That is, they occur by consent, whether explicit or tacit. Pose a true threat to them and even the couch potato, net.porn, net.game, cocaine-addled suburbanite may awaken to defend what he holds dear. The only people who would go for a socialist revolution here are the parasites - the hard core drug addicts and generational welfare recipients, and I am not even sure about all of those, either. A violent revolution of the sort written of in these forums would be doomed to fail in all probability.

Well, that is truly insulting seeing as how you are implying that I am a parasite. If you had actually talked to people in real life you would know that is not true. I have met lots of workers, students, immigrants, and natives who "go for" the socialist revolution here.

[Psy]

Not sure where you come up with this mutiny thing, but your information is wrong. I have many friends who did multiple tours in SEA and the murdering of their COs was not that common, though not unheard of either, and by no means crippling, as you put it.

It was crippling, officers murders reached a point were officers were more afraid of their men.



The USA ate it in Viet Nam because of the doctrine of counter-insurgence - i.e. containment. Had the goal been to wipe the NVA out, they could have accomplished that in perhaps 8 weeks' time. Recall that when Tricky Dick ordered the bombing of Hanoi just how rapidly the north returned to Paris. Dont' fool yourself - the USA had the means to extirpate the entire population of the north. IMO we should never have gone there in the first place, but once there, we should have exterminated them to the last man until they tossed up the white flag or there were none left to fight. That is war. It is ugly and it damned ought to be because we should not enter into it casually. We did in Viet Nam and every conflict since. Big mistake, IMO and I duppse you may agree.

The PLAF had tunnels going even under US bases so I fail to see how the US could have easily destroyed the PLAF when they didn't know the PLAF bases were.




US troops? Questionable at best.

US Troops do gain some consciousness through their experiences




Again this presupposes the US air force would murder their own neighbors, and that is anything but assured.

No it would be neutralizing terrorists that are isolated from most Americans, by the time revolutionary forces start advancing into the countryside the revolution for the most part would already be won even in the countryside. All that would be left is a hand full of counter-revolutionary terrorists that would just quickly alienate themselves by using violence against workers societies.



This is just silly. If you really beleive this about so-called "capitalists" then you really do not understand the vast and overwhelming majority of the American people. You attribute to them the characteristics of the thieves at the very top of the heap, and not even every one of them are like this. People are people no matter where you go. It is one thing to play a game in safety - it is quite another to play it for keeps in a context of mortal violence. Most of the shenanigans that occur do so because the complacent and tolerant Americans have allowed it. That is, they occur by consent, whether explicit or tacit. Pose a true threat to them and even the couch potato, net.porn, net.game, cocaine-addled suburbanite may awaken to defend what he holds dear. The only people who would go for a socialist revolution here are the parasites - the hard core drug addicts and generational welfare recipients, and I am not even sure about all of those, either. A violent revolution of the sort written of in these forums would be doomed to fail in all probability.

Most Americans are workers meaning in a class war in the USA most Americans would be on the side of the workers.



Where would this superior firepower come from?

When soldiers defect in revolutions it usually means the revolutionary forces inherit the weapons of the state they are fighting, especially later in the revolution. Also worker controlled factories can produce arms.

[Brother No. 1]

Originally Posted by zerozerozerominusone
Not sure where you come up with this mutiny thing, but your information is wrong. I have many friends who did multiple tours in SEA and the murdering of their COs was not that common, though not unheard of either, and by no means crippling, as you put it. The USA ate it in Viet Nam because of the doctrine of counter-insurgence - i.e. containment. Had the goal been to wipe the NVA out, they could have accomplished that in perhaps 8 weeks' time. Recall that when Tricky Dick ordered the bombing of Hanoi just how rapidly the north returned to Paris. Dont' fool yourself - the USA had the means to extirpate the entire population of the north. IMO we should never have gone there in the first place, but once there, we should have exterminated them to the last man until they tossed up the white flag or there were none left to fight. That is war. It is ugly and it damned ought to be because we should not enter into it casually. We did in Viet Nam and every conflict since. Big mistake, IMO and I duppse you may agree.

So you think that a Revoluitionary force should have been extreminated? The US started the the Vietnam War mainly to keep their own puppet state, South vietnam, in existence and wanted to make sure their presense in Vietnam was completely theirs. Also what do you mean by "we?" Dont inculde us in that insane thinking for we, leftists, wanted the US out of there. We didnt want them there in the 1st place.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You do know Russian soldiers partook in both Russian revolutions in 1917? If a bulk of the US military joined a revolutionary army like the Russian troops in 1917 what would sigifgant force would stop the revolutionary army from crushing the US ruling class? If a revolutionary air force carpet bombed enemy positions with 8 tonne Thermobaric bombs do you really think the remains of the US military would still put up much of a fight? Hell by that time the revolutionary air force would have the capacity to directly bomb the remains of the ruling class as not even the deepest bunker would be safe from rouge a US Air Force fighting for the revolutionary air force.
I'm not arguing that force will never be necessary - though I think it will more likely be defense on our side, not military offense (we take over factories, they send in police and military and so we will need to defend our ground - opposed to we don't have any factories occupied and we attack a police station or military base). My argument was against the Democratic Socialist who seems to be setting up a straw-man of revolution only meaning armed workers fighting the cops.


True but it is better to down the road have soldiers switch sides to crush the loyal units of the state.I definitely agree - I don't think a revolution can happen if this doesn't also happen. Still, in the nuclear age - even if most of the military revolts and comes to our side, we will still be outgunned in the fact that they will still control the nukes. We will really need to paralyze them which rules out relying on force alone. Not to mention the more important point that a military strategy will not ready the working class for their rule over society by building workers councils and so on like mass strikes and factory occupations will.

[h9socialist]

Huh? Where did the Democratic Socialist (I take it meaning me) set up a "straw man of revolution, meaning armed workers against the cops"???????? I don't recall such a strategy in any posting I've ever made . . . Here or elsewhere.

[Psy]

I'm not arguing that force will never be necessary - though I think it will more likely be defense on our side, not military offense (we take over factories, they send in police and military and so we will need to defend our ground - opposed to we don't have any factories occupied and we attack a police station or military base). My argument was against the Democratic Socialist who seems to be setting up a straw-man of revolution only meaning armed workers fighting the cops.

If we have the advantage why pull our punches?



I definitely agree - I don't think a revolution can happen if this doesn't also happen. Still, in the nuclear age - even if most of the military revolts and comes to our side, we will still be outgunned in the fact that they will still control the nukes.

But they can't use them, like I said one can't exploit corpses and it would make it impossible for the capitalists to establish any kind of order. Let's not forget it opens them up to nuclear retaliation, even though we'd probably capture tactical nuclear weapons we'd can't launch them or even if we wanted to if the conflict hasn't escalated to a nuclear war since the soldiers that switched to our side (who would be the ones in charge of captured tactical nukes) wouldn't take using them lightly. Yet once the capitalists has used nuclear weapons they would no longer have reservations of launching tactical nuclear weapons directly as the capitalists class, meaning looking up the locations of bunkers of the US ruling class and launching nuclear bunker busters at those locations to decapitate the remains of the US military.



We will really need to paralyze them which rules out relying on force alone. Not to mention the more important point that a military strategy will not ready the working class for their rule over society by building workers councils and so on like mass strikes and factory occupations will.
Agreed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Huh? Where did the Democratic Socialist (I take it meaning me) set up a "straw man of revolution, meaning armed workers against the cops"???????? I don't recall such a strategy in any posting I've ever made . . . Here or elsewhere.

My comment wasn't to you directly, more of a clarification to Psy on where I was coming from. I'm sorry if I misunderstood some of the points you were making and where you were coming from politically.

When I talk about revolution I mean organized mass and general strikes and factory occupations, but often non-socialists (and some socialists) take "revolution" to mean only armed uprisings or Che-like armed struggle. If revolution means only bands of fighters or a worker's militia even, then I agree that kind of revolution probably will not win in the US (I would add that such a strategy, even if it could win, will not create worker power). But if this narrow definition of revolution (armed struggle) is used to argue that revolution in general would fail in the US, I think it's a straw-man argument against revolution.

[GiantBear91]

I think that the revolution for america should start really soon. If not then it will be to late. The only thing we need to do is teach the people the value of communism, anarchism or socialism(whatever the rebelion is for). Then it should try to get the attention of the militery soldiers of the US, if that will be the defense to the American government. They should try to get them to understand the real work they do and what they are really fighting for then teach them about the rebelions ideals. After that Get some kind of newspaper or information booklet on why the rebelion is fighting and send it out to everyone in the US. Something to educate the people, more like it. After that when you have the favor of the militery soldiers, the people and whoever else is willing to fight, then that is when you will have enough people to fight. But, before the fight its self, the rebelion must learn the tatics of the enemy, they must learn its plans. The rebelion, also, must never get to cocky because in the long run, they will not become the victor of the revolution.

PS. The Art Of War is an amazing war philosophy.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Who is we? "We" are not represented by the U.S. government. "We" did not lead a criminal invasion against the people of Vietnam. Why do you believe the US should have launched an insane campaign of mass murder (well, at least a larger, more insane campaign of mass murder than it already was) in order to "win" in Vietnam? Whose interests is that in? Not ours. Truthfully, I don't know about you, but please don't include "us" and other subjects of the US regime when you're talking about the Rockefellers' wars.

You apparently did not read what I wrote. I wrote that we should not have been there in the first place. But we did go. Therefore, the only honor we could possibly do to those conscripted to die in the name of who in hell knows what, we should have kicked ass and taken names. That we murdered 58 thousand of our own people and maimed hundreds of thousands of others is inexcusable, not to mention the million plus Vietnamese we killed. Then again, so is the fact that we went there in the first place. That it all amounted to less-than-nothing in the end was perhaps the most obscene part of it.



Well, that is truly insulting seeing as how you are implying that I am a parasite.

I expressed myself imprecisely. I did not mean to say that everyone going for it would be a parasite. My error.


If you had actually talked to people in real life you would know that is not true. I have met lots of workers, students, immigrants, and natives who "go for" the socialist revolution here.

[zerozerozerominusone]

It was crippling, officers murders reached a point were officers were more afraid of their men.

I suppose this comes down to definitions, but I have yet to hear anyone who was actually there say anything even remotely like this.



The PLAF had tunnels going even under US bases so I fail to see how the US could have easily destroyed the PLAF when they didn't know the PLAF bases were.

You don't understand because you don't know about the proper use of military force.



No it would be neutralizing terrorists that are isolated from most Americans, by the time revolutionary forces start advancing into the countryside the revolution for the most part would already be won even in the countryside. All that would be left is a hand full of counter-revolutionary terrorists that would just quickly alienate themselves by using violence against workers societies.

You need to stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking. If you really believe that a socialist revolution would go off like this in the USA, you are fooling yourself. At least, not in our lifetimes.



Most Americans are workers meaning in a class war in the USA most Americans would be on the side of the workers.

Most Americans are neither socialists nor communists, nor would they take kindly to any group attempting to foist such a regime upon them.



When soldiers defect in revolutions it usually means the revolutionary forces inherit the weapons of the state they are fighting, especially later in the revolution. Also worker controlled factories can produce arms.

Well, you are certainly welcome to continue believing that there would be mass defections to the socialist cause. If and when you and your buddies attempt this revolution of yours, be sure and let me know what funeral arrangements you would like for yourself because I promise that you will not live long after making your move. You seem to possess a poor understanding of human nature. Here is a clue - since 1918 people flocked not to the socialist nations, but to the USA and other relatively free parts. The only persons I can think of who went the other way were the Soviet operatives who, upon being discovered, fled to avoid being imprisoned or executed for espionage and treason.

There is a reason for millions coming here and a handful going there. I remember when... was it Krushschev or Brezhnev... came to the USA. When he was brought to a typical US shopping mall he was so utterly astonished at what he saw - the raw wealth that one single and (to us) insignificant spot on a map represented to his eyes, that he was quoted as expressing the belief that it was all a put-on - that it must have been the only one in the nation because such wealth was impossible. And lots of people had comfy pieces of that pie - not as it is today with those at the top grabbing it all and not even leaving the crumbs for the rest.

If you're going to revolve, you should at least turn to something people want. Better yet, how about letting people choose for themselves. If you want to be a socialist, then get together with your buddies, acquire some (common) property, and live the socialist lifestyle. What stops you?

[Blake's Baby]

I'm sorry, thousands of people emigrated to Russia to help the revolution, from all over the world. They weren't "soviet operatives" because at that point there was no Soviet Union for them to be operatives of. They might have been revolutionaries or socialists but that isn't the same at all. At the same time, workers for instance in Seattle were organising a general strike, 2 Communist Parties were founded in America, the IWW was increasingly militant...

As for the idea of acquiring some land for a commune, Kropotkin dealt with why these always fail 120 years ago. It's a non-starter. If socialism isn't world-wide, it isn't socialism.

[zerozerozerominusone]

So you think that a Revoluitionary force should have been extreminated?

If you go to war, you should do so with the object of defeating the enemy, not containing them. When it comes to fighting, anyone with brains give their enemy no quarter. Only a fool plays fairly.

And as I have now stated at least three times, no I don't think they should have been exterminated because we should have stayed out of their business. As a sovereign state, Viet Nam should have been left to their devices. They are entitled to live as they please. But given that we did go there, would should have fought to win and not to contain, which was idiocy heaped upon that of interference.


The US started the the Vietnam War mainly to keep their own puppet state

You need remedial help with your history. The Vietnamese of the North (to be conversational) started the war with the French. The Frenchies had the minimal sense to leave. The Americans stupidly took up the "cause" and committed to 9 years of death and destruction.


Also what do you mean by "we?" Dont inculde us in that insane thinking for we, leftists, wanted the US out of there. We didnt want them there in the 1st place.

No need to get your undies in a knot. I use the term conversationally, lest we bog down in way too much preparatory jawing for the sake of a couple of sentences.

[zerozerozerominusone]

I'm sorry, thousands of people emigrated to Russia to help the revolution, from all over the world. They weren't "soviet operatives" because at that point there was no Soviet Union for them to be operatives of. They might have been revolutionaries or socialists but that isn't the same at all. At the same time, workers for instance in Seattle were organising a general strike, 2 Communist Parties were founded in America, the IWW was increasingly militant...

I'm sorry, I meant since the end of WWII - I failed to be specific.


As for the idea of acquiring some land for a commune, Kropotkin dealt with why these always fail 120 years ago. It's a non-starter. If socialism isn't world-wide, it isn't socialism.

Then you will have a very long time to wait. The USA will not go that way any time soon, in all likelihood. I cannot for a minute imagining the Swiss doing so, either. Who will force either of them? Do you believe in forcing them to accept it? Would you kill them to make them accept it?

I doubt Japan would accept it - though China is close enough to invade, but would they?

Forcing a one-size-fits-all political system on the entire world makes about as much sense as two monkeys humping a football.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Then you will have a very long time to wait. The USA will not go that way any time soon, in all likelihood. I cannot for a minute imagining the Swiss doing so, either. Who will force either of them? Do you believe in forcing them to accept it? Would you kill them to make them accept it?People get killed all the time in the effort of our ruling classes to force their rule on workers. People I know have been killed or had their lives destroyed so that the court system remains as it is or so that business doesn't have to comply to some pretty basic standards of worker safety.

If fighting back is forcing the ruling class to accept our will to live decent lives under our own control, then hells yeah I'm for force!


I doubt Japan would accept it - though China is close enough to invade, but would they?

Forcing a one-size-fits-all political system on the entire world makes about as much sense as two monkeys humping a football.You are right and this is what the capitalists have done to the entire world. What most socialists and anarchists propose is not forcing anything on the majority of the population - we are arguing for the majority of the world to liberate itself.

Will Japan or the US's ruling class accept this - no, but considering the most popular book in Japan not too long ago was a long-forgotten Marxist book fro 70 years ago, it seems like the working class in Japan is just as interested in a different lot in life as workers in any other country.

[Psy]

I suppose this comes down to definitions, but I have yet to hear anyone who was actually there say anything even remotely like this.

When you have officers too scared to say anything about drug abuse in their company because not only was officers getting offed by their own men but officers were murdering other officers that was cutting into their profits in selling drugs to troops I say the army was crippled.



You don't understand because you don't know about the proper use of military force.

You don't understand guerrilla warfare



You need to stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking. If you really believe that a socialist revolution would go off like this in the USA, you are fooling yourself. At least, not in our lifetimes.

Newsflash most Americans are urbanized workers and most key means of production are in major urban and industrial regions. Warfare in urban and industrial environments are completely different then warfare in fields and forests. By the time revolutionary forces takes the offensive against state militia's the cities would have been secured, meaning rural town folk could easily be bought off we goods and services from the cities.



Most Americans are neither socialists nor communists, nor would they take kindly to any group attempting to foist such a regime upon them.

You obviously never been in a industrial workplace in the USA. Where non militant American workers joke about beheading all the capitalists to solve the current crisis.



Well, you are certainly welcome to continue believing that there would be mass defections to the socialist cause. If and when you and your buddies attempt this revolution of yours, be sure and let me know what funeral arrangements you would like for yourself because I promise that you will not live long after making your move. You seem to possess a poor understanding of human nature. Here is a clue - since 1918 people flocked not to the socialist nations, but to the USA and other relatively free parts. The only persons I can think of who went the other way were the Soviet operatives who, upon being discovered, fled to avoid being imprisoned or executed for espionage and treason.

There is a reason for millions coming here and a handful going there. I remember when... was it Krushschev or Brezhnev... came to the USA. When he was brought to a typical US shopping mall he was so utterly astonished at what he saw - the raw wealth that one single and (to us) insignificant spot on a map represented to his eyes, that he was quoted as expressing the belief that it was all a put-on - that it must have been the only one in the nation because such wealth was impossible. And lots of people had comfy pieces of that pie - not as it is today with those at the top grabbing it all and not even leaving the crumbs for the rest.

If you're going to revolve, you should at least turn to something people want. Better yet, how about letting people choose for themselves. If you want to be a socialist, then get together with your buddies, acquire some (common) property, and live the socialist lifestyle. What stops you?
You obviously have a poor understanding of the history of workers struggle even in the USA.

[Brother No. 1]

If you go to war, you should do so with the object of defeating the enemy, not containing them. When it comes to fighting, anyone with brains give their enemy no quarter. Only a fool plays fairly.

Imperialistic wars always want to destroy the "enemy" but it is always a different kinds fo "enemy."



The Vietnamese of the North (to be conversational) started the war with the French.

When France still had control over the area. It was Revolutionary warfare and it drove out those Imperialist but drove in some new ones. But if we are to call it a "war" then lets remember that The Vietnam War and the "war" between the French and the Vietnamese are 2 very different things. Other then the fact that the Vietnamese, 1st one as a whole the 2nd one in the North, were being Anti-Imperialists.



, no I don't think they should have been exterminated because we should have stayed out of their business.

The US always goes into someones business. Why? Well being both a Imperialistic Capitalist country and wanting to expand its influence I'm sure for as long as it's current goverment is here it will do the same.



The Americans stupidly took up the "cause" and committed to 9 years of death and destruction.

The Soliders were sent to their death to fight the "Red Menace" the Elite told them about. But when the war was getting very unpopular they had to move out to make sure the people would still be used for their purposes. That and some of the "patriotic" Americans were baffled that Vietnam wasnt "destroyed by US superiority"



But given that we did go there, would should have fought to win and not to contain,

Imperialist war is Imperialist War. I'm glad the US pulled out and stoped trying to destroy the North Vietnamese but the US would have gone in anyway. They tried to stop the Russian Revolution and failed. So they didnt want to fail this time but they did once again.




Here is a clue - since WW2 people flocked not to the socialist nations, but to the USA and other relatively free parts.

Well I fixed this for you but on to another matter. The Reason why they "flocked" to the US was becuase they had propaganda showing themselfs off as the nation where you can be the best you can be. "The land of opportunity" worked back then and it still does today. But most who come to find that "better life" sometimes never get it. They either become an owner of a bussniess and expolit or are the ones being expolited. Another reason why they sometimes didnt come to the Socialist Republics was all the lies that were put on their names. "The Red Menace" is one of them and started when the Cappies invaded Russia in 1918. Saying that the "Red Menace" would take the whole of Europe.



Most Americans are neither socialists nor communists, nor would they take kindly to any group attempting to foist such a regime upon them.


Maybe its becuase they think Communism is a "evil regime" and Socialist=China. Since the American people only know what their "Educational system" and goverment tell them.


And lots of people had comfy pieces of that pie - not as it is today with those at the top grabbing it all and not even leaving the crumbs for the rest.

When did "lots" of people have the comfy pieces of the pie? For as I remember it that only the ones on top had the pie and the ones on the bottom had the scraps.

[zerozerozerominusone]

People get killed all the time in the effort of our ruling classes to force their rule on workers.

You have not answered the question. Would you kill people who refused to accept socialism?



If fighting back is forcing the ruling class to accept our will to live decent lives under our own control, then hells yeah I'm for force!

But that is not the same thing as attempting me to accept a socialist regime.


You are right and this is what the capitalists have done to the entire world. What most socialists and anarchists propose is not forcing anything on the majority of the population - we are arguing for the majority of the world to liberate itself.

OK, this is fine as far as it goes, but it really doesn't say much about day to day living. What does it mean to be liberated? Disallowing, for example, private property doesn't strike me as particularly liberating. Forcing equality upon beings that are innately unequal also makes no sense to me, except from the standpoint of a tyrant. Abolishing the division of labor is similarly ludicrous when one considers the ultimate return to the stone age that it would lead to. Then there was that old Soviet notion of teachers knowing no more than the students. Are these what you have envisioned?


Will Japan or the US's ruling class accept this - no, but considering the most popular book in Japan not too long ago was a long-forgotten Marxist book fro 70 years ago, it seems like the working class in Japan is just as interested in a different lot in life as workers in any other country.

This may be so, but the Japanese and the Americans are vastly differing in their views of the world.

I might also question the common use of "worker". It is as if bosses were not considered to be among those who work for a living. Having spent most of my professional life swimming with the sharks (how many people do you know have had semi-casual lunches with the likes of Ed Whittaker?) I can tell you that most of these people are not only very smart, but extremely hard working. Hell, I myself have worked 110-hour weeks for months on end. There are those who use only the leverage their money grants them to do what they do, to be certain. But the numbers of such people are very small. So this raises the question of who, exactly, are the ones you would overthrow? And what about the CEOs of companies who are hard-working, intelligent, decent people? Would you strip them of their earnings?

My point here, I suppose, is that there is a lot of talk of revolution, but I wonder how many really know what that would be about in the minutiae. The devil is in the details, as the saying goes, and it will do no good whatsoever to fart out some half-baked grandiose vision of a perfect world yet have no idea at all how it would actually work to the nth degree of detail. That is precisely what happened in the SU - big mouth Lenin getting the understandably wroth peasants all worked up, and the moment the Tsar was taken care of, the real blood bath began. Lenin had no clue what he was doing, save for the broad strokes and that cost tens of millions of people their lives. I may not give a damn about any of them - perhaps none of us do, but I'd bet money I don't have that every single one of those poor stupid bastards cared at least about their own destinies at the hands of the likes of Yezhov. The lesson here, IMO, should be that things like revolutions rarely turn out the way you think they will and all the idealism goes right out the window the minute the reins are in one's hands. Power has that tendency to change people (rather, it enables the worst in a person to be realized, which would otherwise have lain dormant), and the masses tend to have a very unfortunate habit of looking to others to do their thinking for them. Can you name more than a small handful of nations where this is not the case? Any at all, even?

[zerozerozerominusone]

I writ:

If you go to war, you should do so with the object of defeating the enemy, not containing them. When it comes to fighting, anyone with brains give their enemy no quarter. Only a fool plays fairly.


Imperialistic wars always want to destroy the "enemy" but it is always a different kinds fo "enemy."

This seems a bit unresponsive. I'm not sure how you go from what I wrote to what you did.



The US always goes into someones business.

Much the way the Soviets did. Remember Afghanistan, just to name one?


Why? Well being both a Imperialistic Capitalist country and wanting to expand its influence I'm sure for as long as it's current goverment is here it will do the same.

Just as the Soviets did until their little house of cards came crashing down upon them. The USA is not even approaching uniqueness in this regard. We have several thousands of years of human history to demonstrate this most convincingly.


Then I writ:

The Americans stupidly took up the "cause" and committed to 9 years of death and destruction.

The Soliders were sent to their death to fight the "Red Menace" the Elite told them about. But when the war was getting very unpopular they had to move out to make sure the people would still be used for their purposes. That and some of the "patriotic" Americans were baffled that Vietnam wasnt "destroyed by US superiority"

I can't really make heads or tails of what it is you are saying here. But as to your last comment, the USA would have wiped the Vietnamese out had it been the goal to do so. It wasn't. The goal was to make the war last as long as possible because war is very profitable to certain interests.

Consider the ass whooping the USA put on them. They prevailed in everyoutright military engagement, but every time the US put the hurting on them, they were ordered to back off, which was idiocy from the purely military standpoint. Also consider that the Vietnamese were heavily supported by the SU. Without that support, they would have folded in a matter of days.


And then I writ:

But given that we did go there, would should have fought to win and not to contain,

Imperialist war is Imperialist War. I'm glad the US pulled out and stoped trying to destroy the North Vietnamese but the US would have gone in anyway. They tried to stop the Russian Revolution and failed. So they didnt want to fail this time but they did once again.

Again your response seems nonsequitur, but in any event, the US did not go in with the objective of winning. This much is well established historical fact. Counter-insurgency is not a strategy for winning - it is a formula for disaster, and we got plenty of that.

And since when did the US try to stop the Russian revolution? I recall one Jaboc Schiff, a horrid little capitalist creep, wrote a personal check for $1 million to underwrite it. In those days the US policy was still isolationist, but as I recall, there was a lot of moral support here. Methinks you need to go back and reread some of your history .






The Reason why they "flocked" to the US was becuase they had propaganda showing themselfs off as the nation where you can be the best you can be. "The land of opportunity" worked back then and it still does today. But most who come to find that "better life" sometimes never get it.

That is the risk of living freely. Not everyone gets the life they want. I would add that most of those people had every opportunity to get on a ship and go elsewhere, yet they stayed. Now why would they do such a thing if it was that horrible? Unlike the great examples of socialism/communism like the SU and East Germany, the USA never kept anyone prisoner here. If you wanted to go elsewhere, you were always welcome to go. Hell, Lee Harvey Oswald went to the SU for a while and we even accepted that dumbass back! That strikes me as pretty fair treatment of anyone. Anyone defecting to the West had precious little option of returning to the SU unless they welcomed a long stay in Siberia after entertaining their good buddies at the KGB for a few months.


They either become an owner of a bussniess and expolit or are the ones being expolited. Another reason why they sometimes didnt come to the Socialist Republics was all the lies that were put on their names. "The Red Menace" is one of them and started when the Cappies invaded Russia in 1918. Saying that the "Red Menace" would take the whole of Europe.

Sorry pal, but you cannot bullshit me on this one. I spent a goodly amount of time in Soviet Bloc countries as a kid and I know first hand what miserable shit holes they were. The two greatest commodities that system produced were terror and depression. I saw it - I experienced it first hand, so any claims of how these nations' political systems had been malingned fail the smell-test.


I then proceeded to writ:
Most Americans are neither socialists nor communists, nor would they take kindly to any group attempting to foist such a regime upon them.


Maybe its becuase they think Communism is a "evil regime" and Socialist=China. Since the American people only know what their "Educational system" and goverment tell them.

Oy... There are lots of dumbass Americans, that is for sure. There are also hordes of very bright ones who think for themselves. I for one know what I know not from our school system, which sucks I might add. Much of my opinion comes from having spent significant time in places such as those we speak of here. I watched good people living in fear and I saw what that did to them, like lapsing into alcoholism.

And finally I scribbled:
And lots of people had comfy pieces of that pie - not as it is today with those at the top grabbing it all and not even leaving the crumbs for the rest.

When did "lots" of people have the comfy pieces of the pie? For as I remember it that only the ones on top had the pie and the ones on the bottom had the scraps.

Could this even be a serious question? The wealth of this nation is so staggering as to defy apprehension by the mind. Until recently, much of that was up for grabs and we all went to work to make our own little corners of paradise. I made my million. Then I lost it. It sucks being poor, but that is the way it goes. Maybe I will make a little mound again for myself, maybe I won't. I don't worry about it.

Don't misunderstand me, there is a lot wrong with America and with American habits and attitudes. There is also a lot right with it, too. Were we not owned by international banking, we would be a very different nation - a far better one, I might add. So I agree that changes are very much in order, but I am not even remotely convinced that communism/socialism would serve any purpose but to make a bad situation far worse, based on what I see and read here and elsewhere.

But at least we are seemingly agreed that the elite need to be thrown off. They have destroyed much that was good and don't appear to have any intentions of stopping of their own accord. Such people need to be dealt with unequivocally.

[spiltteeth]

You have not answered the question. Would you kill people who refused to accept socialism?




OK, this is fine as far as it goes, but it really doesn't say much about day to day living. What does it mean to be liberated? Disallowing, for example, private property doesn't strike me as particularly liberating. Forcing equality upon beings that are innately unequal also makes no sense to me, except from the standpoint of a tyrant. Abolishing the division of labor is similarly ludicrous when one considers the ultimate return to the stone age that it would lead to. Then there was that old Soviet notion of teachers knowing no more than the students. Are these what you have envisioned?

You seem to have virtually no knowledge of revolutionary theory, but it is true that in "the stone age" people worked about 9 hours a week and had a rich cultural life, but I doubt anyone is advocating that - except the anti-civilization John Zerzan green anarchists. By equality, obviously it is meant every one has the same access to basic needs : food, health care, housing etc. However, if somone wants to work 80 hrs a week obviously they will have more 'capital' -however that functions.
Unequal access have been "forced on people" so your saying "forcing equal access" on people is tyranical....OK

f my professional life swimming with the sharks (how many people do you know have had semi-casual lunches with the likes of Ed Whittaker?) I can tell you that most of these people are not only very smart, but extremely hard working. Hell, I myself have worked 110-hour weeks for months on end. There are those who use only the leverage their money grants them to do what they do, to be certain. But the numbers of such people are very small. So this raises the question of who, exactly, are the ones you would overthrow? And what about the CEOs of companies who are hard-working, intelligent, decent people? Would you strip them of their earnings?

Yes - they are a small number of people, only %2 yet they own %50 of the wealth, as I said in my earlier post if you capped salaries at 350,000 all the surplus capital would be enough to pay for health care, food etc
Obviously you no nothing of Marx or the ABC's of socialism but do you know how many of those CEO's came from wealthy families? Went to good schools? Had access to the best health care? Were exposed to culture? Went to college? Had good, healthy meals? Were brought up in a non-violent supportive environment? There are many, many intelligent, hardworking, decent people - those CEO's BOUGHT their education etc, why not give others equal access to gaining management skills?

My point here, I suppose, is that there is a lot of talk of revolution, but I wonder how many really know what that would be about in the minutiae. The devil is in the details, as the saying goes, and it will do no good whatsoever to fart out some half-baked grandiose vision of a perfect world yet have no idea at all how it would actually work to the nth degree of detail. That is precisely what happened in the SU - big mouth Lenin getting the understandably wroth peasants all worked up, and the moment the Tsar was taken care of, the real blood bath began. Lenin had no clue what he was doing, save for the broad strokes and that cost tens of millions of people their lives. I may not give a damn about any of them - perhaps none of us do, but I'd bet money I don't have that every single one of those poor stupid bastards cared at least about their own destinies at the hands of the likes of Yezhov. The lesson here, IMO, should be that things like revolutions rarely turn out the way you think they will and all the idealism goes right out the window the minute the reins are in one's hands. Power has that tendency to change people (rather, it enables the worst in a person to be realized, which would otherwise have lain dormant), and the masses tend to have a very unfortunate habit of looking to others to do their thinking for them. Can you name more than a small handful of nations where this is not the case? Any at all, even?

As every sociologist has pointed out -and Marx - and Chomsky - you can NEVER figure out all the details since these are determined by historical circumstances so to decide before hand would be disastrous

[spiltteeth]

You seem to have virtually no knowledge of revolutionary theory, but it is true that in "the stone age" people worked about 9 hours a week and had a rich cultural life, but I doubt anyone is advocating that - except the anti-civilization John Zerzan green anarchists. By equality, obviously it is meant every one has the same access to basic needs : food, health care, housing etc. However, if somone wants to work 80 hrs a week obviously they will have more 'capital' -however that functions.
Unequal access have been "forced on people" so your saying "forcing equal access" on people is tyranical....OK

Yes - they are a small number of people, only %2 yet they own %50 of the wealth, as I said in my earlier post if you capped salaries at 350,000 all the surplus capital would be enough to pay for health care, food etc
Obviously you no nothing of Marx or the ABC's of socialism but do you know how many of those CEO's came from wealthy families? Went to good schools? Had access to the best health care? Were exposed to culture? Went to college? Had good, healthy meals? Were brought up in a non-violent supportive environment? There are many, many intelligent, hardworking, decent people - those CEO's BOUGHT their education etc, why not give others equal access to gaining management skills?

[Brother No. 1]

Much the way the Soviets did. Remember Afghanistan, just to name one?

Didnt the Cappies fund the Rebels who were battling the socilaist goverment? The USSR didnt want to lose Afghanistan to Fudeameantalists who were going to change the country into a Religious dictatorship.



Just as the Soviets did until their little house of cards came crashing down upon them. The USA is not even approaching uniqueness in this regard. We have several thousands of years of human history to demonstrate this most convincingly.

I'm sure by the 1960s the Soviets were playing a whole new game with their economy/goverment. Since Capitalist Restoridation got them in "Economic Reforms" They werent being Socialist anymore. But really why compare to the Soviets? the Soviets were different things at different times. After the 60s they were being Social-Imperialists but this isnt the point.




And since when did the US try to stop the Russian revolution? I recall one Jaboc Schiff, a horrid little capitalist creep, wrote a personal check for $1 million to underwrite it. In those days the US policy was still isolationist, but as I recall, there was a lot of moral support here. Methinks you need to go back and reread some of your history .


when in 1918 they invaded russia and aided the White army? Or when they tried to block off all trade routes into russia and try to starve the population into going to the White Army. But really Capitalists play in these types of games paying for someone who will be most benifital to them. When the Bolshevik party didnt want to continue in the War well the Cappies didnt take that to kindly.


That is the risk of living freely.

where exactly? I dont think anyone is "living freely" in Bougoise states. their living to earn their pay and survive this world that the Bougoise rule in.



Not everyone gets the life they want.


This is true but should we allow the Bougoise to live the life they want? To opress the proletariat and gain capital. No we dont allow what the Elite want. We allow what the people, the Proletariat, want.




I would add that most of those people had every opportunity to get on a ship and go elsewhere, yet they stayed.

does that mean its a good place? No one left the 3rd Reich does that mean its a good place? No one left the Empire of Japan does that mean its a good place? Just becuase people want to stay doesnt automaticly make it a good place. Since, thought i hate it here, I must stay here untill my education is complete. Since, in those times, they thought there was no other better place then the US. Propaganda works here.



Unlike the great examples of socialism/communism like the SU and East Germany, the USA never kept anyone prisoner here.

once again you fail to understand that people here barely know not only politics but they also trust their goverment fully. they believe whatever they say. They think its grand here, that its perfect here. In the SU economic changes and lies made people leave, in Eastern Germany the propaganda of Western Germany and the dream of finding a "better life" made them cross the wall. does that mean they liked it? Why dont you ask the Eastern Germans that actually want the DDR back?




Hell, Lee Harvey Oswald went to the SU for a while and we even accepted that dumbass back!

Maybe its becuase they thought. "hey since he left he must hate the place now!" Oswald moved alot from place to place so, in their minds, they thought he disliked the USSR and moved back to "enjoy" the life of the US. maybe he went to the USSR becuase he wasnt "accepted" in the American community. Maybe he wanted attention. I Dont know exactly for i dont know him personally.



That strikes me as pretty fair treatment of anyone.

Yeah...check the "fair treatment" the workers get, Check the Fair treatment immagrants got when they finally came to the "paradise", ect.
But if a person is accepted back does that automaticly mean its "fair?" I can go to cuba but the US will accept me back in for they dont want to lose another person they can expolit.



I spent a goodly amount of time in Soviet Bloc countries as a kid

When was this? the 50s? 60s? 70s? and which ones? The Eastern Bloc had different systems in there that arent know or well know.




and I know first hand what miserable shit holes they were.

Revisionism , Capitalist Resotridation of the state, and Bureacracy can do that to you. Since it is obvious by the "economic Reforms" the USSR had it was having Capitalistic Reforms. So the equality was fadeing from the USSR but it wasnt quick. It was slow and ended in 1991.




The two greatest commodities that system produced were terror and depression.

Like I said. Capitalist Restoridation , Bureacracy, and Revisionis, can do that to the state. Since The USSRhad just let the Bueacracy take over who was going to stop it? The Politburo was the voice of the USSR and the Centreal Commite its brain. the CPSU was its force. Since the Bureacracy took over it did very well to make sure its power was not only un-questionable but law.




I can't really make heads or tails of what it is you are saying here

Mainly Some Americans didnt even want to go. Some were forced and others joined becuase they thought they'd be doing their country "proud." They thought they'd defeat the "Red Menace",Communists, very quickly and come home soon. You think they'd learn their mistakes from Korea.:closedeyes: They went in and were in there for 9 years becuase the Goverment thought this would be not only a good money making bussniess but also to take care fo the Northern Vietnamese goverment. It wasnt their "Stupidity", mostly, but it was their willingness to believe every word the goverment said and to follow whatever fight their goverment told them to do. That part of the American mind has not changed.



Anyone defecting to the West had precious little option of returning to the SU unless they welcomed a long stay in Siberia after entertaining their good buddies at the KGB for a few months.

Ok. Let see someone has learned about your enemies system, I dont know what time of the SU you are talking about but I'm guess 60s-70s, and if they come back the politburo of the SU doesnt want the others ideology coming in and messing up their control or their operation of making the USSR having Capitalism. Capitalist Resotridation was just starting at those times and the nation was still Socialist, to a degree, but this Restoridation of Capitalism would be completed in the many years to follow.



So I agree that changes are very much in order, but I am not even remotely convinced that communism/socialism would serve any purpose but to make a bad situation far worse, based on what I see and read here and elsewhere.

I dont think so. Since Socialism didnt make things far worse in Eastern europe. That was Capitalism that made it far worse and made lives bad in the 60s-current. Capitalist Restoridation made jobs decrease a bit and made the Bueracracy have more and more control.




They have destroyed much that was good and don't appear to have any intentions of stopping of their own accord.

Well for since we have had goverments the Elite of those goverments have abused their power for their own gain and for 500 years the Bougoise, highest class of Capitalism, have expolited those below them. Its basicly how they get Capital,money, and how they are so sucuessful.

[zerozerozerominusone]

As every sociologist has pointed out -and Marx - and Chomsky - you can NEVER figure out all the details since these are determined by historical circumstances so to decide before hand would be disastrous

Then you'd better have an awful lot of it thought out beforehand. The only alternative is disaster - how many revolutions can you name that were not disastrous for everyone, save the new ruling class? The bloodless coup has even resulted in terrible problems for populations when a new regime decides it is time for some payback, thinly veiled as "justice".

[Jimmie Higgins]

You have not answered the question. Would you kill people who refused to accept socialism?Well, the question is abstract. I would kill in self defense, I would not kill Bill Gates if he opposed the revolution, I think workers could just take all the homes in his neighborhood (he owns all the other homes in his neighborhood and doesn't use them - he just doesn't want any neighbors - great, I share a one bedroom house that has been turned into apartments and is now occupied with me, my girlfirend and with 2 other couples!) so other people can have a nice place to live and then we can give him the option to become a worker and have full rights like all other workers but if he activly tries to keep people under his power or organize a counter-revolution and a return of capitalism, he would have to be detained.

If armed bands of pro-capitalists tried to take over worker-controlled factories, then workers should defend themselves by any means necissary including fighting back and killing some of them.

Would workers after a revolution walk door to door with guns and ask residents if they supported the revolution (like some kind of crazy Stalinist census-taker) and shoot anyone who marked the "capitalist" box on the questionaire? No. We'd be too busy reorganizing production and voting on decisions at our work places and making a better world for ourselves.


OK, this is fine as far as it goes, but it really doesn't say much about day to day living. What does it mean to be liberated?Actually having a democratic say on the things that influence our daily lives from our workplaces, to schools, to the building and development of our communities. This can be organized through worker and community councils.


Disallowing, for example, private property doesn't strike me as particularly liberating.First of all, induviduals will want to keep their personal property, I am only interested in democratizing private property that goes to production. Capitalism has prevented people like me from having any property - I have some books, this computer, clothes, a bed, TV and DVDs but that's about it - I don't own a placve to live or my own transportation other than my feet. So things that are pretty basic in my life are controlled by a landloard, local government (bus and subway transportation), and the banks I owe debt to.

So during a revolution, workers will have to take over their work sites and then the machinery, the fields, the buildings and shipping vehicles are owned together and decisions about production would be made through worker councils rather than through a board of CEOs and stock holders. This way our society will produce things that benifit more people rather than doing things that only create profit.

One of the first and easiest things for workers to do right after the revolution would be to cancel all debts and rent. It will suck for banks and landlords, but revolutionary workers can treat them with as much care and respect that they show to the families who who get forclosed or people who are kicked out of their appartments because the landloard decides to sell the place (if the workers want to be spitefull that is).


Forcing equality upon beings that are innately unequal also makes no sense to me, except from the standpoint of a tyrant.As opposed to enforcing inequality? If people are innately unequal, then should we have a Mao or King rule us? With this logic that would be better than forcing equal votes on people.

Seriously, how are people innately unequal? How is democratic control of production forcing equality on people - seems like it's people taking power over their own lives to me.


Abolishing the division of labor is similarly ludicrous when one considers the ultimate return to the stone age that it would lead to. Then there was that old Soviet notion of teachers knowing no more than the students. Are these what you have envisioned?There will still be divsions and different tasks for people - the point is to give everyone power over decisions in their lives - any "managerial" kind of positions should be detrmined by the workfoce of a particular work site and subject to popular recall rather than appointed by a boss or owner.


This may be so, but the Japanese and the Americans are vastly differing in their views of the world.Not so much. Not as much as Bill Gates has a different view of the world than someone like me or my co-workers. Like a Japaneese worker, I just want controll over my own life and to be able to not have to worry about starving or being kicked out of my appartment. Like Japaneese capitalists, US capitalists are concerned with how to keep a competitive edge, how to maintain increasing profits, how to make sure the resources they need are secure.


I might also question the common use of "worker". It is as if bosses were not considered to be among those who work for a living. Having spent most of my professional life swimming with the sharks (how many people do you know have had semi-casual lunches with the likes of Ed Whittaker?) I can tell you that most of these people are not only very smart, but extremely hard working."Worker" is what I use for prolitariet, because I have shitty spelling - additionally, it's a word not used much in the US. Worker in marxist/anarchist terminology is defined by someone's relationship to (the means of) production.

So while a mass-murder may put a lot of work into stalking and killing his victimes, I would not consider him a worker despite how much effort was put into his work.

Many professionas put in many hours as do military generals and CEOs and stock brokers and small business owners - many workers are actually underemployed and would love more hours but they are stuck with one or two part-time jobs because companies can avoid providing benifits that way.


Hell, I myself have worked 110-hour weeks for months on end. There are those who use only the leverage their money grants them to do what they do, to be certain. But the numbers of such people are very small. So this raises the question of who, exactly, are the ones you would overthrow? And what about the CEOs of companies who are hard-working, intelligent, decent people? Would you strip them of their earnings?Just like lay-offs, it's not personal. I would strip my boss of their earnings just as I would strip a dictator of his unilateral power.

Any major producer strips their employees of the money they help make for the company - otherwise the company can not make a profit. So if I work at a textile factory I get apid a set wage and if the company makes 5x a profit, I don't get any of that - but if the company looses profit, I can get fired - or they can make profit and get bought by another company which then downsizes because it's more profitable to have fewer people making the same amount of product.


My point here, I suppose, is that there is a lot of talk of revolution, but I wonder how many really know what that would be about in the minutiae. The devil is in the details, as the saying goes, and it will do no good whatsoever to fart out some half-baked grandiose vision of a perfect world yet have no idea at all how it would actually work to the nth degree of detail.The bottom line is that for me, revolution is about democratizing production the self-emancipation of the working class in their own interests. Therefore, I think it is impossible to have a grand vision for what people are going to have to work out and democratically decide sometime in the future. So I focus on what I know for sure which is that since at least the 1830s or so, the working class has collectivly come into conflict with the collective interests of their bosses (staring in England and other industrial countries). There have been and will continue to be major class uprisings and unhevals (in France every 2-10 years and in the US every 30-40 years - most other countries somewhere inbetween). I think these conflicts are irreconsilable since in order for workers to get what they want (power over various decisions in their lives) it will hurt capitalists and for capitalists to get what they want (we're in it now) it hurts workers.


That is precisely what happened in the SU - big mouth Lenin getting the understandably wroth peasants all worked up, and the moment the Tsar was taken care of, the real blood bath began. Peasants in Russia (just like workers everywhere today) do not need anyone to tell them to get worked up. There would be peasant uprisings and worker uprisings with or without Lenin. Before Lenin and the Bolsheviks, there were anti-Tsar terorist organizations and assasination attempts and so on - the question that the bolshivks tried to answer was not should the Tsar be overthrown but how and with what kind of organization after.


Lenin had no clue what he was doing, save for the broad strokes and that cost tens of millions of people their lives. I may not give a damn about any of them - perhaps none of us do, but I'd bet money I don't have that every single one of those poor stupid bastards cared at least about their own destinies at the hands of the likes of Yezhov. The lesson here, IMO, should be that things like revolutions rarely turn out the way you think they will and all the idealism goes right out the window the minute the reins are in one's hands. Power has that tendency to change people (rather, it enables the worst in a person to be realized, which would otherwise have lain dormant), and the masses tend to have a very unfortunate habit of looking to others to do their thinking for them. Can you name more than a small handful of nations where this is not the case? Any at all, even?Well the one thing here that I think you do have correct is that the revolution failed and cost many many lives and the mistakes and missteps of the Bolsheviks contributed to this. 90% of the political debates on this website are basically rooted in the question of what went wrong and why and how can we actually achieve and sustain real worker's power.

But failure is always a possible outcome - as is sucess if we study and know our history and learn from our wins and losses! We don't know what challenges a future worker's movement will face, we do know if we keep the current status quo, capitalist nations will continue to compete with eachother (look at China and the US in Africa - future location of proxiy wars between the two powers in my opinion) or what happened with Russia and the US with Georgia last year. We know that economic crisis will continue to happen periodically and we know that massive inequality will continue to cause conficts between people and that poverty will lead to countless easily preventable deaths.

But Had there been no uprising - had soldiers not left the front, how many more Russian lives would have been lost to WWI? How long would Germany have kept fighting if Reds didn't help stage uprisings against the war there? How many lives would have been saved if Reds in Germany won which would have meant Hitler would not have come to power and probably Stalin too?

[spiltteeth]

Then you'd better have an awful lot of it thought out beforehand. The only alternative is disaster - how many revolutions can you name that were not disastrous for everyone, save the new ruling class? The bloodless coup has even resulted in terrible problems for populations when a new regime decides it is time for some payback, thinly veiled as "justice".

Again, its non-sensical to pre-plan for historical circumstances that people can not predict or have control over. But many revolutions were a disaster - the American revolution needed huge amounts of slaves for its economy to work. The capitalist revolutions from feudal societies led to millions of children working in factories and the mass use of slaves, the communist revolutions led to plenty of terror. Obviously they all had good things too-in the communist ones (for example) : expanding life expectancy, zero unemployment, free health care, full literacy.
I assume your saying revolutions are a bad thing and we should have never had revolutions and simply lived under either a theocracy or simple hunter/gatherer societies. Well, thats fine. I believe humanity can do better, I believe humanity deserves better, some people don't.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The Democratic Party is represented in Minnesota by the Democratic Farmer Labor Party.Really? Hilarious! I thought they only existed in the 1920s and the book "Teamster Rebellion".

[zerozerozerominusone]

Thus spake I:

"So this raises the question of who, exactly, are the ones you would overthrow? And what about the CEOs of companies who are hard-working, intelligent, decent people? Would you strip them of their earnings?"


Just like lay-offs, it's not personal. I would strip my boss of their earnings...

So what you are saying is that you would rob him. Very interesting.


Any major producer strips their employees of the money they help make for the company - otherwise the company can not make a profit.

Have you ever run a business? Have you ever held P&L responsibility? Have you ever been responsible for the economic lives of the people whom you supervise? Do you know anything about business? How it is structured? What are the considerations in daily operations? Pardon me please if I am very direct, but I suspect you don't know the first thing about any of it because if you did you would not have made such an incredibly ignorant statement as that.

I have managed teams with hundreds of people and been responsible for up to $250 million of someone else's money. That is an immense responsibility. If I fuck up badly, some people lose their livelihoods. You have no idea how concerned I have ben for the people who have worked for me, so you can take your EvilleBoss crap and stuff it. You seem to believe that managers and the like think of nothing but how to steal from their employees. You are dead wrong. There are always some bad actors in the game - the averages dictate this, humans being what they tend to be on the whole. Most people in business are pretty honest, generally hard working and smart working.

Let me ask you this: if you were running a business and you came down to the decision of laying off half your workers or closing your doors entirely for good, which would you choose?


So if I work at a textile factory I get apid a set wage...

... which you agreed to when you accepted the position.


and if the company makes 5x a profit, I don't get any of that

You imply that you are entitled to it. Except by previous agreement, you are not. If you can get them to agree to give you some of it, more power to you, but never operate under the delusion that anyone owes it to you. They don't.

I might add that many companies have profit sharing arrangements. For example, in Athens WV there is a tool and die shop. The owner sets a target for his income. Every penny over that amount is divied up between the employees. The owner doesn't owe them that, yet he generously gives to them. The shop does very well, is always busy, and the employees have gotten upward of $35K bonus checks at the end of the year.

All that aside, a company owes you no job. Employment is "at will", unless you advocate some slavery model, of course. Given at-will employment, the employee is free to quit any time he pleases. The employer is free to fire the employee at any time as well. Employer and employee come to an agreement that the latter will execute some set of tasks and the employer will pay at a given rate. That agreement means the conditions are acceptable to both parties. If new employee decides he doesn't like it, he can ask for a new arrangement, which the employer is under no obligation to grant, or he can find another place to work. That is how things work in the USA and it is a good arrangement. What alternative would you suggest?


- but if the company looses profit, I can get fired

That's right. What is your point?

An ex-gf's father was CEO of Lincoln Electric (make welders and motors). They had a policy of not laying off employees. If times got tough you went on a reduced schedule, but you still had a job. A company is not obliged to go out of business for the sake of its employees. I might add that at Lincoln you have people with no more than a HS diploma making over $100K/year. Their model is performance-based. The more you produce, the more you earn. If your machines don't pass QA, you fix them on your own nickel (time) and when you get it right, you get paid. Can't ask for better equity than that.


- or they can make profit and get bought by another company which then downsizes because it's more profitable to have fewer people making the same amount of product.

Yes, that is true. Shit happens. I used to make a comfy $500K+/year. Now I make literally nothing and may lose my home. Them's the breaks. I may find success again or I may die abjectly under a bridge. While I don't look forward to the latter, I prefer that over living on handouts or as a slave to some dickhead who thinks he knows what is best for me. I know what is best for me, and that includes others keeping their noses out of my business and their hands out of my wallet.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Again, its non-sensical to pre-plan for historical circumstances that people can not predict or have control over.[/quote

This is a wholesale cop-out. One can design the system to nth degrees of resolution regardless of the possibility of circumstances arising that may prove outside of human control. How do you think we get new automobiles? All manner of things may happen, but that doesn't stop new and improved designs from rolling off the lines.


But many revolutions were a disaster - the American revolution needed huge amounts of slaves for its economy to work.

Actually, it didn't. It needed them to work within the timeframe in which it did. Had people been more patient, slavery could have been avoided, but people are what they are and history is what it is.


The capitalist revolutions from feudal societies led to millions of children working in factories and the mass use of slaves, the communist revolutions led to plenty of terror. Obviously they all had good things too-in the communist ones (for example) : expanding life expectancy...

At a small fraction of the rate in the capitalist west. Life expectancy was atrociously low compared with Europe and the USA.

zero unemployment...[/quote]

A marginal point on which to boast, at best. Consider the quality of the employment - far more slavish than anything in Europe or the USA.


free health care,

Free? You cannot be serious. It was anything but free.


full literacy.

Hey, there's one...



I assume your saying revolutions are a bad thing and we should have never had revolutions and simply lived under either a theocracy or simple hunter/gatherer societies

I have neither said nor implied anything of the sort. What I wrote was that revolutions are not parlor games. When they become violent, usually many people are killed - often completely innocent people. Ever been in the middle of a gun fight? I have. You don't know your asshole from your elbow in the midst of bullets flying around. It isn't anything what people think and neither is open warfare. My point is that if you are going to advocate this sort of thing, you'd damned better have a good idea of what it is, exactly, that you are fighing and possibly dying for. You do not want to find out that you have made a terrible error in judgment after taking irrevocable steps.

It amazes me the degree to which rationality is absent from peoples' habits as they advocate all manner of warm-and-fuzzy sounding changes that have no chance of success in reality. What amuses me more is the naive hubris of humans, believing that they are so much smarter than those of generations past and that, given the chance, they would succeed where others failed. That is possible only if the thing to be tried has a basis of viability, and even then one ought not hold their breath.

[zerozerozerominusone]

I would kill in self defense

Good. So would I.


I would not kill Bill Gates if he opposed the revolution, I think workers could just take all the homes in his neighborhood (he owns all the other homes in his neighborhood and doesn't use them

Jesus weeping on the cross... He lives on Mercer Island. I once lived on Mercer Island. The island is rather small. Trust me, there are thousands of other people living there. Someone has been telling you lies.


- he just doesn't want any neighbors - great

Different strokes for different folks. I'm on 100 acres in the mountains of WV. I don't want neighbors too close, either. It is my right to provide for myself that which I am able. If I fail, nobody is obliged to bail my sorry ass out.


, I share a one bedroom house that has been turned into apartments and is now occupied with me, my girlfirend and with 2 other couples!) so other people can have a nice place to live

Did you choose this or did someone force it upon you?


and then we can give him the option to become a worker and have full rights like all other workers but if he activly tries to keep people under his power or organize a counter-revolution and a return of capitalism, he would have to be detained.

Who are "we"? Whence is your authority granted to interfere with Mr. Gates' affairs? Gates doesn't try to keep anyone under his power at Microsoft. My friend Dan is rather highly placed in Redmond - highly enough to call meetings with Gates himself - nobody is holding him there against his will.


If armed bands of pro-capitalists tried to take over worker-controlled factories, then workers should defend themselves by any means necissary including fighting back and killing some of them.

If armed bands of pro-socialists tried to take over privately-controlled factories, then owners should defend themselves by any means necissary[sic] including fighting back and killing some of them.

Are you getting the point here or do we need to draw a picture?


Would workers after a revolution walk door to door with guns and ask residents if they supported the revolution (like some kind of crazy Stalinist census-taker) and shoot anyone who marked the "capitalist" box on the questionaire? No. We'd be too busy reorganizing production and voting on decisions at our work places and making a better world for ourselves.

And what about those who refused to surrender their means of production - who choose to continue to operate capitalistically?


First of all, induviduals will want to keep their personal property, I am only interested in democratizing private property that goes to production.

"Democratizing"? You mean "stealing". Let us at least abstain from these abusive and dishonest euphemisms and be upfront with each other. You are in favor of expropriation of property owned by others.



Capitalism has prevented people like me from having any property - I have some books, this computer, clothes, a bed, TV and DVDs but that's about it

Please demonstrate how it has done so.


- I don't own a placve to live or my own transportation other than my feet. So things that are pretty basic in my life are controlled by a landloard, local government (bus and subway transportation), and the banks I owe debt to.

What have you done to earn these things that you lack? How, specifically, have these things been taken from you, assuming that you have in fact earned them?


So during a revolution, workers will have to take over their work sites and then the machinery, the fields, the buildings and shipping vehicles are owned together and decisions about production would be made through worker councils rather than through a board of CEOs and stock holders. This way our society will produce things that benifit more people rather than doing things that only create profit.

Oh dear... well, I have a suggestion for you. Before you break out the machine guns and go running madly about the countryside stealing the legitimately held property of others, try getting together with a bunch of your like-minded friends and associates and buy a factory - just a small one - and take a swag at running the business along your lines of thought as you have written them here. If you succeed, then perhaps you can move on to the next step in the process of revolutionizing wherever it is you live. But in case you come to realize that your ideals are misguided, you have at least invested and risked comparatively little. Methinks this approach might be better than getting yourself killed in a fire fight.



As opposed to enforcing inequality?


Ah, the old false-dichotomy trick. I'm sorry, but I am a little too clever to fall for that.

The best arrangement is to leave people to their own devices, within a very broadly established set of minimal rules of behavior such as not murdering, beating, and raping one another. Short of those and a couple more, it's every man for himself. Make what you can of yourself - or do nothing at all. Cooperate with others or act alone, as you may choose for yourself.


If people are innately unequal, then should we have a Mao or King rule us?

Nonsequitur.

Inequality means diversity. Diversity means that one size does not fit all. Leave people alone to pursue their private interests. Some succeed - some fail. That is part of what makes life worth living - no guarantees of anything, good or bad.



Seriously, how are people innately unequal?

To be equal in all respects means to be identical. Need I say more? OK, I will. We are, each and every one of us, unique, which is to say we are not identical - we are not clones. We have different likes, dislikes, preferences, goals, desires. To be equal in the real sense of the word is to be absolutely identical. This is impossible and therefore the ideals of things such as socialism are based on fantasies that will never come to pass because they constitute a revolt against nature itself.

The notion of "equality" as has been propounded by the likes of socialists, communists, and idiot American liberals is a misunderstanding and the intentional bastardization of the proper meaning of the political use of the term that originated in 18th and 19th century political thought which was a notion of equality was not that of sameness but of equality of liberty. You do your thing, and I do mine. If you want to be a commie or socialist, or whatever, and you can find like-minded people with which to live that lifestyle, then by all means you are at liberty to do so. You are not[I], however, at liberty to force your lifestyle on others, and if you try you will have one hell of a fight on your hands. People are largely sick and tired of others forcing shit on them, and who can blame them?

I am not a religious person in any conventional sense, but the judeo-christain bible has some good stuff in it and the best of all is the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In other words - live and let live. I give you life and you give me life. I mind my business and you mind yours. Any cooperation between us must arise from non-coerced accord. Anything other than that is nothing better and nother other than slavery.

I might also add that "equality" in this sense also refers to equality of [I]value in terms of being an individual living human. Your life has no greater valence than mine (except perhaps to you, but that isn't the point). If one truly believes in this sense of equality, then it necessarily follows that no man has any authority to tell another what to do, save by mutual and uncoerced agreement. Therefore, you have no right to deny my right to carry a gun as an instrument of self-defense. I have no right to dictate to you not to be a commie or socialist. It is nobody's business if I'm straight or queer as a $57 bill. You hold no authority to prevent me from becoming an intravenous heroin user. And the list goes on, seemingly without end.


How is democratic control of production forcing equality on people - seems like it's people taking power over their own lives to me.

I didn't say it was, so please refrain from putting words in my mouth. Democratic control of legitimately acquired property is the prerogative of that property's owners. It is not one's prerogative to steal from me. If you try it, I will defend myself by any means I see fit.


There will still be divsions and different tasks for people

Then you concede that people are not equal. Good.


- the point is to give everyone power over decisions in their lives -


First off, nobody "gives" such to anyone else. It is born into each of us - our rights and abilities. That some deny the rights of others is not a refutation of the existence of said rights, but only a demonstration of criminal attitudes and acts.

Second, that to which you refer is more commonly referred to as "freedom". Freedom is a good thing, but in order for it to exist, all must be afforded it equally - hence equality of liberty. Freedom implies no guarantees of outcomes - only that of choice within the context of one's abilities. If I educate myself and the go into the world to make my way, I am entitled to the fruits of my efforts regardless of how meager or grand they may turn out. If I spend my high school years smoking angel dust and am fit for no other job than shoveling shit at a chicken farm, I have no reason to feel entitled to anything better. I made my choices and must then live the the results. Nobody owes me anything except the courtesy of allowing me my freedom to live as I see fit, the same way I owe it to them.


any "managerial" kind of positions should be detrmined by the workfoce of a particular work site and subject to popular recall rather than appointed by a boss or owner.

The difference being?



Like a Japaneese worker, I just want controll over my own life and to be able to not have to worry about starving or being kicked out of my appartment.

You have control over your own life. Saying you don't just because your circumstances are not what you want is like me issuing the same complaint because I don't have my own Gulfstream jet.

As for starving - that is a risk we all take. Get used to it because it will never go away no matter what system you put into place. And as to your apartment, well, if you don't pay rent what shall your landlord do - let you stay for nothing? How about his costs to maintain the building? Does he not get even those? If not then he is basically paying you for the privilege of having you as his tennent. Does this not strike you as just the slightest bit irrational?


Like Japaneese capitalists, US capitalists are concerned with how to keep a competitive edge, how to maintain increasing profits, how to make sure the resources they need are secure.

I see nothing wrong with any of that. If you had any idea of what business entails you might think differently about is as well.


"Worker" is what I use for prolitariet, because I have shitty spelling -

You make it sound as if it were some incurable disease. Short of some serious organic problem, you can change your spelling skills, but it takes effort. Are you willing to put in the effort?



Many professionas put in many hours as do military generals and CEOs and stock brokers and small business owners - many workers are actually underemployed and would love more hours but they are stuck with one or two part-time jobs because companies can avoid providing benifits that way.

They can also start businesses of their own. A hot dog stand doesn't require large start up capital. Work that miserable job you hate so much. Work two or even three of them and save your pennies. In a year, in two - in five - you have enough and you buy that pretty little stainless steel cart and you stock it and you go out and take you chances in the market. That is part of being free. Expecting someone else to provide it to you is not reasonable. You are not entitled. None of us are.


...for capitalists to get what they want (we're in it now) it hurts workers.

You appear to be a zero-sum thinker. At the risk of sounding harsh, you need to un-fuck your thinking. I am sure you are probably a good person - don't let that go to waste with unreasonable notions. Life is far too short, as you will come to see before too long.

Here's a clue - think "value-added". Think "win-win". For example, I need a car. Johnny Honest's has a car I like for sale. I go in... oooo... priced a little too high. Johnny Honest hisownself comes to talk with me and asks "what can I do to get you to drive out of here in that car this afternoon?" I tell him I need to price to come down $3K. He says OK and off I go. The car serves me well for 8 years. In the end, Johnny got what he wanted - a sale. I got what I wanted - a car that lasted as good or better than I'd hoped. That is called a win-win situation.

As to value-added - Farmer Al grows wheat - in and of itself, of limited value, but the miller grinds it into flour and sells it to the baker who turns it into bread that you buy and eat. The miller added value to the raw material by grinding and packaging. The baker added value in the baking. The result is a nice loaf of bread that helps you get from one day to the next without starvation setting in.

So-called "revolutionaries" seem to be very fond of seeing the world as a zero-sum game, meaning that A can only gain in some commodity by taking it from B. This is, of course, pure nonsense. Sure, theft happens - that has always been the case and most likely always will be. Some people steal just for the kicks. Don't you recall all those Hollywood assholes who got popped for shoplifting? Wynona Rider was one... Xaviera Hollander (happy hooker) was another. Those people have more money than god, yet they went about shoplifting $9 items from the five and dime.

In most transactions, each party gains by trading - labor for pay - one commodity for another. Sometimes people are in a jam and have to settle for less than they hoped for. That is life and at times it is a royal *****. I have found that in most cases each party profits from the transactions they engage in. Don't fool yourself - people are profit oriented creatures by nature. "Profit" may assume very unobvious forms and may not be readily recognized by others as such, but I assure you as surely as the sun will rise on the morrow that it is there. Example - women who are beaten by their spouses, have ample opportunity to leave, yet remain. There is a payoff, a profit, in staying. If it were not so, they would be out the door in a split second.

[spiltteeth]

QUOTE :
"Freedom is a good thing, but in order for it to exist, all must be afforded it equally - hence equality of liberty. Freedom implies no guarantees of outcomes - only that of choice within the context of one's abilities. If I educate myself and the go into the world to make my way, I am entitled to the fruits of my efforts regardless of how meager or grand they may turn out. If I spend my high school years smoking angel dust and am fit for no other job than shoveling shit at a chicken farm, I have no reason to feel entitled to anything better. I made my choices and must then live the the results. Nobody owes me anything except the courtesy of allowing me my freedom to live as I see fit, the same way I owe it to them."


Since you've never read a single sociology text I'll just repeat myself, how many of those CEO's came from wealthy families? Went to good schools? Had access to the best health care? Were exposed to culture? Went to college? Had good, healthy meals? Were brought up in a non-violent supportive environment? There are many, many intelligent, hardworking, decent people - those CEO's BOUGHT their education etc, why not give others equal access to gaining management skills?
How many congressmen were millionaires BEFORE they got into congress? The vast majority. But thats all coincidence, in reality everyones 'really equal.'
Perhaps slavery didn't need to happen, or colonialism, but then perhaps neither did dictatorship have to occur in communism. EVERY capitalist revolution utilized child labor -did it have too? Does that mean they ought to have quit after the first few because EVERY one was indulging in imperialism/imperialist war?
I here crazy people everyday on the bus telling me the secret historical forces behind history.
Incidental, the high standard of living, say, in America, is bought at the expense and unjust treatment of others - cheap 3rd world labor, which is bought with violence and enforced economic policy by the WTO etc. Hell, the average bean picker lives only to 28! I don;t see how the 'Boss' being entitled to most of the profits if he bought his skills and know-how, and his power is enforced by government propaganda, guns, and subsidies. Since you mentioned Bill Gates you know his work was subsidized by the government at college campuses for decades before it yielded profits allowing him to build his fortune. Hmmmm the government never offered me anything like that? But I guess forces of equality too subtle for me to see are at work....

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know why right-wingers like to hide their politics - this debate can happen in OI learning. I guess it's because when they get banned, they can feel all reassured that radicals are tyrants:rolleyes:

Jesus weeping on the cross... He lives on Mercer Island. I once lived on Mercer Island. The island is rather small. Trust me, there are thousands of other people living there. Someone has been telling you lies.

God, why do Objectivists always make you do the goodle search... sure sometimes I read the wrong info, but they always assume anything a radical says is a lie.

Ok, well MTV does lie to me quite often, but in the case of Bill Gates buying all the homes in the neighborhood, they were not lieing...

"Over the past decade, Bill Gates (http://www.billgatesmicrosoft.com/billhouse.htm) has quietly bought up 11 properties, including nine houses, that surround his 5-acre Medina estate, creating a buffer zone that is increasingly turning a small hillside neighborhood into a private holding of the richest man on earth."


Who are "we"? Whence is your authority granted to interfere with Mr. Gates' affairs? Gates doesn't try to keep anyone under his power at Microsoft. My friend Dan is rather highly placed in Redmond - highly enough to call meetings with Gates himself - nobody is holding him there against his will.Whatever, enjoy reading Ayn Rand, man.


If armed bands of pro-socialists tried to take over privately-controlled factories, then owners should defend themselves by any means necissary[sic] including fighting back and killing some of them.They will and they have. It's called the class war - my side is loosing now and has been for about 30 years.

Again, you seem to have this fantasy that socialist revolution is like Castro and Che and a bunch of other college students grabbing a gun and some fatigues and takeing your bike and toys away. I have no interest in such a thing and this kind of "liberation" can not bring socialism just as the US military can not "bring" democracy to other people - socialism is the self-emancipation of the working class. So people who take over work places won't be some guy with a gun and a red flag, it will be the workers at that work site who begin to run things for themselves on their own terms, not the bosses terms.

Sure, the boss works hard or whatever, but can a manufaturer produce assembled goods without the workforce? He can't. This is what causes strikes and eventually worker uprisings: the boss wants to set the terms of work, alone each induvidual worker can not really negotiate that, but if they organize together they can shut down the work place and then begin to implement their terms of work - I know, Democracy sacres you, but don't worry, we will treat the bosses much better than we get treated by them today.


Are you getting the point here or do we need to draw a picture?Yes, I get the point that you read Ayn Rand in college and it made you feel oh sooo special inside: I'm a special person just as Ayn Rand and Mommie told me! All my failures are due to moochers and welfare queens!


And what about those who refused to surrender their means of production - who choose to continue to operate capitalistically?Well if it is a strong revolution, who would want to work for capitalists when they can go to another town and join a worker's cooperative workplace - have decision making power into their work. I mean what worker has never thought - "The way we do this doesn't make sense - wouldn't it be more efficient to do it this way instead?"


"Democratizing"? You mean "stealing". Let us at least abstain from these abusive and dishonest euphemisms and be upfront with each other. You are in favor of expropriation of property owned by others.Yes, I do support the American and French Revolutions as well as the Civil War which expropriated a lot of property... I mean black people who had been enslaved.

I do not, however, support expropriation of property when the rich do it for their power and their profit - like manifest destiny, or Imperialism.


Please demonstrate how it has done so.How does capitalism steal from me each day? Hmm, well at my job each day I (alone) work, the effort of my lobor allows the company to collect about $1,500 of which I am paid about $50. Of course you will say there are many expenses that the company need that excess money for - this is very true. However, when I started working there, one day of labor made about $500-800 of income of which I saw about $46. So in the time I have worked there, the profit have doubled, the retail prices the company charges has gone up, and the pace of the labor I do has trippled. Yet in 3 years where our department increased income (alltogether) by 3 times what it was in 2005, I hve recived a $.30 raise. But now that the economy is down (not that much actually - probably averaging $1200 instead of $1500) my boss has told everyone that they will not get a raise and that we can no longer recieve the same helth benifits (the deductable went from $1500 to $2700 this year - which considering that after rent I make about $500/month means that I will never get any healcare paid for by my company unless I get a tumor or something).

So, as long as my co-workers and I are negotiating as induviduals, we have to accept the terms as set by the bosses - if we organized and threatened a work stoppage, which would then cost the company thousands of dollars each day that we prevented work from happeneing - then we could begin to have a say in the conditions of our work.


Oh dear... well, I have a suggestion for you. Before you break out the machine guns and go running madly about the countryside stealing the legitimately held property of others,He says in a land stolen from Indians with money from agriculture built on the backs of stolen labor (i.e. slaves) from Africa.


try getting together with a bunch of your like-minded friends and associates and buy a factory - just a small one - and take a swag at running the business along your lines of thought as you have written them here. If you succeed, then perhaps you can move on to the next step in the process of revolutionizing wherever it is you live. But in case you come to realize that your ideals are misguided, you have at least invested and risked comparatively little. Methinks this approach might be better than getting yourself killed in a fire fight.I'm not a hippie. Communes don't work because you can't have socialism in a isolated bubble. We would still be buying materials from capitalists at rates set by capitalists, we would still be shipping things at rates set by capitalism. Co-ops just mean that you get decision making power (a good thing) but you end up having to exploit yourself in order to compete with the capitalists.

No, capitalism was held back by the feudal system and socialism would also be strangled by capitalism... this is why the capitalists needed their revolutions and why ultimately we too will have to have a revolution for the working class to reorder society to meet their needs.


Ah, the old false-dichotomy trick. I'm sorry, but I am a little too clever to fall for that.Yes, you are special, I know.


The best arrangement is to leave people to their own devices, within a very broadly established set of minimal rules of behavior such as not murdering, beating, and raping one another. Short of those and a couple more, it's every man for himself. Make what you can of yourself - or do nothing at all. Cooperate with others or act alone, as you may choose for yourself.Maybe I was wrong about you... maybe you're a libertarian, not an Objectivist.


Inequality means diversity. Diversity means that one size does not fit all. Leave people alone to pursue their private interests. Some succeed - some fail. That is part of what makes life worth living - no guarantees of anything, good or bad."I'm here, I'm poor, get used to it!" Nah, never heard that chant.


To be equal in all respects means to be identical. Need I say more? OK, I will. We are, each and every one of us, unique, which is to say we are not identical - we are not clones. We have different likes, dislikes, preferences, goals, desires. To be equal in the real sense of the word is to be absolutely identical. This is impossible and therefore the ideals of things such as socialism are based on fantasies that will never come to pass because they constitute a revolt against nature itself.Again you seem to think socialism=mao-suits or something. I don't want people to be the same - that would be impossible anyway - people are naturally differnet in personality and likes and dislikes - I only want everyone to have the same rights and power over their own lives.

[Psy]

Who are "we"? Whence is your authority granted to interfere with Mr. Gates' affairs? Gates doesn't try to keep anyone under his power at Microsoft. My friend Dan is rather highly placed in Redmond - highly enough to call meetings with Gates himself - nobody is holding him there against his will.

Capitalists extorts labor out of their employees as all capitalists refuse to give access to the means of survival without the working paying tribute to the capitalist in the form of a gap between wages and value workers produce.



If armed bands of pro-socialists tried to take over privately-controlled factories, then owners should defend themselves by any means necissary[sic] including fighting back and killing some of them.

Them and what army? If a factory with 10,000 workers rush the bosses resistance on the bosses part would be entirely futile as your talking a division's worth of workers coming to kick the bosses asses.



And what about those who refused to surrender their means of production - who choose to continue to operate capitalistically?

With what workforce? In a revolution it won't be a revolutionary army liberating means of production, the workers greatly outnumber the capitalists so they don't need a revolutionary army to take the means of production they only the revolutionary army to protect them from the imperialist pigs in the police and military that defend the capitalist class.



"Democratizing"? You mean "stealing". Let us at least abstain from these abusive and dishonest euphemisms and be upfront with each other. You are in favor of expropriation of property owned by others.

Workers built the means of production and were not paid not their full value thus it is simply the working class taking property that was stolen from them by the capitalist class.




Please demonstrate how it has done so.

For capitalism to work the working class has to be coerced into working for less their labor is worth. This means for capitalism to work only the capitalist class can have property rights as if the working class had property rights they would simply build their means of production and become artisans, thus capitalists as a class have to have a monopoly on the means of production and ensure other classes don't own means of production.




What have you done to earn these things that you lack? How, specifically, have these things been taken from you, assuming that you have in fact earned them?

Manufactured value, most of which was stolen by my employer. The question should be what has capitalists done to steal value from their workers.




Oh dear... well, I have a suggestion for you. Before you break out the machine guns and go running madly about the countryside stealing the legitimately held property of others,

What legitimately held property? You mean that of the peasant and artisan? Welcome to the 21st Century they don't exist in the USA as the capitalists class had turned every last peasant and artisan in the USA into wage slaves decades ago.



try getting together with a bunch of your like-minded friends and associates and buy a factory - just a small one - and take a swag at running the business along your lines of thought as you have written them here. If you succeed, then perhaps you can move on to the next step in the process of revolutionizing wherever it is you live. But in case you come to realize that your ideals are misguided, you have at least invested and risked comparatively little. Methinks this approach might be better than getting yourself killed in a fire fight.

What so we could exploit ourselves to compete with capitalists that can extract more surplus value out of their workers? Marxists don't argue that capitalists are bad at make profits, we think profit is theft as not only are you stealing value from workers but limiting access to the utility workers produce.




I am not a religious person in any conventional sense, but the judeo-christain bible has some good stuff in it and the best of all is the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In other words - live and let live. I give you life and you give me life. I mind my business and you mind yours. Any cooperation between us must arise from non-coerced accord. Anything other than that is nothing better and nother other than slavery.

History has shown ruling class only understands force, might makes right is the only thing ruling classes understand. For example most of the living standards in the USA was not won because workers convinced capitalists their labor was worth more but because workers forced capitalists with their might to pay them more.



Second, that to which you refer is more commonly referred to as "freedom". Freedom is a good thing, but in order for it to exist, all must be afforded it equally - hence equality of liberty. Freedom implies no guarantees of outcomes - only that of choice within the context of one's abilities. If I educate myself and the go into the world to make my way, I am entitled to the fruits of my efforts regardless of how meager or grand they may turn out. If I spend my high school years smoking angel dust and am fit for no other job than shoveling shit at a chicken farm, I have no reason to feel entitled to anything better. I made my choices and must then live the the results. Nobody owes me anything except the courtesy of allowing me my freedom to live as I see fit, the same way I owe it to them.

Statically class plays far more important role then life choice, just look at the recently former president George Bush. Bush was a alcoholic, snorted cocaine and made slackers look energetic yet because he was born a capitalists all of that didn't matter.



You have control over your own life. Saying you don't just because your circumstances are not what you want is like me issuing the same complaint because I don't have my own Gulfstream jet.

Again look at Bush, he couldn't have fucked up his life worse but because he was born a capitalists it didn't matter.



They can also start businesses of their own. A hot dog stand doesn't require large start up capital. Work that miserable job you hate so much. Work two or even three of them and save your pennies. In a year, in two - in five - you have enough and you buy that pretty little stainless steel cart and you stock it and you go out and take you chances in the market. That is part of being free. Expecting someone else to provide it to you is not reasonable. You are not entitled. None of us are.

How many hot dog stands make their owners capitalists. If it was that easy why don't everyone just hot dog stands so they could raise spoiled kids like Paris Hilton that they don't have to worry about because their kids would also be capitalists thus don't have to work?



Here's a clue - think "value-added". Think "win-win". For example, I need a car. Johnny Honest's has a car I like for sale. I go in... oooo... priced a little too high. Johnny Honest hisownself comes to talk with me and asks "what can I do to get you to drive out of here in that car this afternoon?" I tell him I need to price to come down $3K. He says OK and off I go. The car serves me well for 8 years. In the end, Johnny got what he wanted - a sale. I got what I wanted - a car that lasted as good or better than I'd hoped. That is called a win-win situation.

As to value-added - Farmer Al grows wheat - in and of itself, of limited value, but the miller grinds it into flour and sells it to the baker who turns it into bread that you buy and eat. The miller added value to the raw material by grinding and packaging. The baker added value in the baking. The result is a nice loaf of bread that helps you get from one day to the next without starvation setting in.

So-called "revolutionaries" seem to be very fond of seeing the world as a zero-sum game, meaning that A can only gain in some commodity by taking it from B. This is, of course, pure nonsense. Sure, theft happens - that has always been the case and most likely always will be. Some people steal just for the kicks. Don't you recall all those Hollywood assholes who got popped for shoplifting? Wynona Rider was one... Xaviera Hollander (happy hooker) was another. Those people have more money than god, yet they went about shoplifting $9 items from the five and dime.

In most transactions, each party gains by trading - labor for pay - one commodity for another. Sometimes people are in a jam and have to settle for less than they hoped for. That is life and at times it is a royal *****. I have found that in most cases each party profits from the transactions they engage in. Don't fool yourself - people are profit oriented creatures by nature. "Profit" may assume very unobvious forms and may not be readily recognized by others as such, but I assure you as surely as the sun will rise on the morrow that it is there. Example - women who are beaten by their spouses, have ample opportunity to leave, yet remain. There is a payoff, a profit, in staying. If it were not so, they would be out the door in a split second.
Yet the more profit the less workers get and less value consumers get.