only country ready is america

[Bloody Armalite]

In the us you can bug guns.
You have large housing projects full of young downtrodden people who would unite.
Oppressive police who would be so over the top at squashing peacefull protesting, legitemising taking up arms.
A mixture of huge urban areas and large expanses of rural areas, letting urban and rural guerrilla warfare to rage simultaniously.
Cuba so close, could be used as a hub to train and arm new recruits as guerrilla army swells in ranks.

In my humble opinion, America is the only place revolution should be tried, because aslong as there is a capitalist US any communist revolution will be suppressed in every corner of the world.
When America falls, everywhere will fall.


I do not condone violence in any way

[OneNamedNameLess]

In the us you can bug guns.
You have large housing projects full of young downtrodden people who would unite.
Oppressive police who would be so over the top at squashing peacefull protesting, legitemising taking up arms.
A mixture of huge urban areas and large expanses of rural areas, letting urban and rural guerrilla warfare to rage simultaniously.
Cuba so close, could be used as a hub to train and arm new recruits as guerrilla army swells in ranks.

In my humble opinion, America is the only place revolution should be tried, because aslong as there is a capitalist US any communist revolution will be suppressed in every corner of the world.
When America falls, everywhere will fall.


I do not condone violence in any way

Who? What? Where? When? Why?

What the fuck is this and what the fuck are we supposed to be discussing here? You are making us look like a bunch of nutters.

[Q]

Who? What? Where? When? Why?

What the fuck is this and what the fuck are we supposed to be discussing here? You are making us look like a bunch of nutters.
Or people able to form comprehensible sentences for that matter.

[Mephisto]

This is a very idealistic point of view. In the US the proletariat has not developed the necessary "amount" of political class conscience nor does a revolutionary vanguard party exist to stand on the top of the revolutionary movement.

A Revolution is not only guns and guerilla armies, it's mainly about the workers taking over the factories, disempowering the capitalists and their state institutions by building councils. Yes, fighting will be necessary, of course, but is senseless to talk about revolution only because you can buy guns and because their are many downtrodden people.

[Bloody Armalite]

when the masses are given the spark by the few guerrillas, the fire of rebelion will rise across the rest of the nation, class tensions will reach boiling point, the lines will be set out and a long war of low boil warfare, with the us in the middle east they will be so strained they will be very thin on the ground in contrast to what they would be at full strengh

[OneNamedNameLess]

Or people able to form comprehensible sentences for that matter.

Eh, sorry, I don't get that one. I take it my sentences are poorly constructed?

[9]

In the us you can bug guns.
You have large housing projects full of young downtrodden people who would unite.
Would unite? When? Under what circumstances? Before your hypothetical guerrilla war or after? If before, how are you going to make them unite? Why aren't they united now? If after, who will your guerrillas be? What role will the working class play? Why is the working class by and large so hostile to revolutionary leftist ideas? What are you proposing to change that?


Oppressive police who would be so over the top at squashing peacefull protesting, legitemising taking up arms.
A mixture of huge urban areas and large expanses of rural areas, letting urban and rural guerrilla warfare to rage simultaniously.
Cuba so close, could be used as a hub to train and arm new recruits as guerrilla army swells in ranks.What is the point of this thread? If the situation in the US is as you've described it, why is the proletarian population so conservative? Why isn't your guerrilla warfare scenario playing out?

If your analysis is not a joke, I'd recommend you consider getting in touch with real workers... because you seem very out of touch with reality and the present conditions and sentiments in the US.

[OneNamedNameLess]

when the masses are given the spark by the few guerrillas, the fire of rebelion will rise across the rest of the nation, class tensions will reach boiling point, the lines will be set out and a long war of low boil warfare, with the us in the middle east they will be so strained they will be very thin on the ground in contrast to what they would be at full strengh

And they are all going to fight for Communism? At the moment they wont and that is why we need to promote our ideas and strengthen our movement. People's reaction at the present moment in time is not to overthrow capitalism but to fight for more mainstream change. In the UK the public are sick of New Labour so as an alternative they vote for the Conservatives or the BNP or whatever. Remember Iceland? Thousands of people of all ages and occupations rioted, just about stormed the parliament building and all of the police force in the country were called out. This was a response to the corruption of MP's, bankers and so on which ended up in some bourgeois green party being elected. My point is, we must focus on spreading class consciousness. Most people couldn't even tell you what capitalism and communism are ffs. What makes you think that they will suddenly rise up and establish a communist system or even strive for one?

[Q]

Eh, sorry, I don't get that one. I take it my sentences are poorly constructed?
I was referring to the OP and complementing your post. Sorry for the confusion.

[Bloody Armalite]

i am from the uk im not an american thank fuck.
and i think if before armed conflict, revolutionaries opened up projects like the black panther parties old free breakfast programe, they made makeshift hospitals to treat people with no insurance or who cannot afford it, if they distributed revolutionary literature.

[Revy]

America is the only country revolution should be tried? :confused:
Wow, what an internationalist approach you got there, revolution is only good for one country :glare:

[AntifaAustralia]

Oh yes yes yes!!! I cannot say i fucking totally disagree with BLOODYARMALITE (nice nick identifying police oppression mate!).

The USA has every thing there to start some sort of class movement, poverty discrimination etc. and even socialist surrounding states! :) The war of independence, civil war, civil rights movements! armalite has a point here!

Oh yes BLACK PANTHER PARTY! theyre funny black nationalists that have some roots on socialism and communism. The Crips started off as a youth movement supporting the BPP. Even till this day there are illegal proletarian black, latino, white gangs (more like guerrillas) that support Marxism. But their popularity is somewhat low.

I think you would have to blame the Anti-communist anti-soviet era culture still lingering about. Also blame conservative culturalists, nationalists, and religious bastards too, and nonetheless greedy capitalism.

Dude above! Stancel! america is a superpower, their influence as the largest capitalist force is somewhat to be acknowledged, and taken advantage of, the islamic crazys know this.

[Bloody Armalite]

The old BPP abandoned black nationalism as it was racist, but the new BPP have took it up again as they are so bitter about the last party being destroyed.
Also guerrillas could escape to canada wich would not hand them back over to the US as canada is democratic socialist.

[Eat the Rich]

People shouldn't attack this poster. I used to have similar ideas when I was 14-15. He is just a young kid that needs to learn. Don't act like you were not like that when you were young.

[9]

The old BPP abandoned black nationalism as it was racist, but the new BPP have took it up again as they are so bitter about the last party being destroyed.
Also guerrillas could escape to canada wich would not hand them back over to the US as canada is democratic socialist.

Canada is capitalist and, pretending the whole scenario was imaginable to begin with, Canada would most definitely hand the hypothetical guerrillas over to US custody without hesitation.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

People shouldn't attack this poster. I used to have similar ideas when I was 14-15. He is just a young kid that needs to learn. Don't act like you were not like that when you were young.

You can read my early posts if you like , they were dim but not troll standards.

[Q]

Bloody Armalite: keep your language civil, consider this a verbal warning.

Keep it nice kids.

[Bloody Armalite]

sorry

[Mephisto]

when the masses are given the spark by the few guerrillas, the fire of rebelion will rise across the rest of the nation, class tensions will reach boiling point, the lines will be set out and a long war of low boil warfare, with the us in the middle east they will be so strained they will be very thin on the ground in contrast to what they would be at full strengh

Excuse me, but this is nothing but poetic guerilla romantic adventurism which can lead to nothing but individualist terrorism. The german RAF argued exactly in the same way and although I respect their emprisoned members as prisoners of class war, their tactics, political conscience and behaviour were petty bourgeois in nature and doomed to fail entirely.

Socialist revolutions require an objective dialectical materialist analysis and the formation of a strong revolutionary workers party, not a small group of quixotic dreamers and romantics.

[Mephisto]

I want to add, that I accredit your honest enthusiasm and as one of the previous speakers said, I used to have resembling ideas when I was younger. But it is important for you to try to see things like the conditions of revolution and revolutionary activism objective and without emotions. Fighting with all your heart and soul, but thinking and analyzing by keeping cool and banishing all emotional bias is one of the most important qualities a revolutionary must develop during his political work.

Sooner or later we all must accept, that struggling for the revolution firstly and most importantly is not about hollywood heroism, but about constant and reliable base activism and organizing. There are more spectacular actions too, e.g. occupations and things like that, but if they shall be more than political staw fires, they need to be backed up by a strong and organized movement, kept alive by devoted activists and organizers.

[bellyscratch]

posh fucko in kent

He's sussed you out Joe :rolleyes:

[bricolage]

Socialist revolutions require an objective dialectical materialist analysis

Why do you need dialectical materialist analysis to start a revolution? Surely quoting Kapital will be pretty meaningless when taking over a factory.

[Patchd]

when the masses are given the spark by the few guerrillas, the fire of rebelion will rise across the rest of the nation, class tensions will reach boiling point, the lines will be set out and a long war of low boil warfare, with the us in the middle east they will be so strained they will be very thin on the ground in contrast to what they would be at full strengh
Like it did when the Red Army Faction took up arms in Germany? You underestimate the power of the bourgeois media, education system and social control in general.

Guerilla warfare doesn't work, been tried and tested. It's also elitist and squaddist, believing that a small group of enlightened individuals know best, better than the working class which are constantly facing oppression. The workers don't need anyone to fight on their behalf, we fight for ourselves and our class. Please stop this romanticism, it's ridiculous and unfounded.

[Mephisto]

Why do you need dialectical materialist analysis to start a revolution? Surely quoting Kapital will be pretty meaningless when taking over a factory.

Senseless quoting is always senseless, which says the word. ;) The point is, that taking over a single factory is not a revolution nor does it indicate one in most cases. You need the dialectical materialist analysis of society to develop a dynamic revolutionary theory which must lead to revolutionary praxis. Not just single actions of good will, but broad class struggles based on true knowledge of capitalisms mechanisms and the know how to overthrow them.

One occupied factory is one occupied factory. Hundreds of occupied factories and empowered workers councils are a true revolutionary act. But to achieve this, we need more then good will.

[Radical]

An Armed Revolution in the name of Communism would be crushed in USA.

We must work on Revolution in Latin America and en-force an Embargo on USA - Venezuela is USA's largest supplier of oil.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

He's sussed you out Joe :rolleyes:


He's right, I wear a dressing gown.

[Oneironaut]

An Armed Revolution in the name of Communism would be crushed in USA.

We must work on Revolution in Latin America and en-force an Embargo on USA - Venezuela is USA's largest supplier of oil.

That strategy hasn't worked since Cuba. Why would guerrillas have more favorable conditions now? It seems to be quite the opposite.

[Radical]

That strategy hasn't worked since Cuba. Why would guerrillas have more favorable conditions now? It seems to be quite the opposite.

Are you saying because it hasent worked since Cuba we shouldent do it? What other working alternatives do you have in mind to reach Socialism? Armed Struggle is the most effective Revolutionary Strategy we have.

Communism has never been achieved despite attempts, should we also give up because of that?

[Oneironaut]

Are you saying because it hasent worked since Cuba we shouldent do it? What other working alternatives do you have in mind to reach Socialism? Armed Struggle is the most effective Revolutionary Strategy we have.

Communism has never been achieved despite attempts, should we also give up because of that?

That's exactly what I am saying. If a socialist revolution is going to be successful, it must be a mass movement led by the workers themselves. It seems like guerrilla warfare will just keep breeding Cuban-styled states. Those who directly fought, led, and won the war get first dibs on the new riches of the revolution leading to a whole new group of oppressors.

Of course we don't give up. But it is important for us to be critical of past attempts because they did, well, all fail.

[h9socialist]

Getting back to the subject of the thread, as a socialist in the US allow me to say that I agree that socialism needs to have a chance to bloom here, not only to give radical left movements some air to breathe, but mainly because there are far too many US citizens who are poor, sick, stressed, unhealthy, overworked, incarcerated, or any combination thereof.
It is sheer fantasy to think that a violent revolution will happen here. This country is not ripe for it. It would be less a proletarian revolution than a grudge match between the US Left and the US Right, and the right-wingers have a lot more guns!
But it is possible to imagine that militant democratic (small d) movements can open up possibilities. The biggest stumbling block is that the US constitution is written to prevent and frustrate majoritarian movements. That's why we can't get decent healthcare enacted here. Obama's healthcare plan ias timid by world standards, mainly because our system of government is rigged in favor of property. A revolution in the US may consist of opening a constitutional convention. But a very large progressive majority must be able to find its voice in this country even to get to that point. The recent healthcare town-hall meetings proved that the petty-bourgeois in this country have no problems of being timid. The left -- across the spectrum of the US Left -- needs to find its guts and determination before anything can happen.

[gorillafuck]

The USA has every thing there to start some sort of class movement, poverty discrimination etc. and even socialist surrounding states! :) The war of independence, civil war, civil rights movements! armalite has a point here!
Which surrounding socialist states?

And what does the war independance and civil war have anything to do with developing a class movement?


Oh yes BLACK PANTHER PARTY! theyre funny black nationalists that have some roots on socialism and communism. The Crips started off as a youth movement supporting the BPP. Even till this day there are illegal proletarian black, latino, white gangs (more like guerrillas) that support Marxism. But their popularity is somewhat low.
The BPP has completely abaondoned it's roots. And the strong majority of gangs aren't marxist.......


Dude above! Stancel! america is a superpower, their influence as the largest capitalist force is somewhat to be acknowledged, and taken advantage of, the islamic crazys know this.
The "Islamic crazies"?

[Radical]

That's exactly what I am saying. If a socialist revolution is going to be successful, it must be a mass movement led by the workers themselves. It seems like guerrilla warfare will just keep breeding Cuban-styled states. Those who directly fought, led, and won the war get first dibs on the new riches of the revolution leading to a whole new group of oppressors.

Of course we don't give up. But it is important for us to be critical of past attempts because they did, well, all fail.

It is not necessary to wait for a revolutionary situation to arise as one can be created.

[Dimentio]

In the us you can bug guns.
You have large housing projects full of young downtrodden people who would unite.
Oppressive police who would be so over the top at squashing peacefull protesting, legitemising taking up arms.
A mixture of huge urban areas and large expanses of rural areas, letting urban and rural guerrilla warfare to rage simultaniously.
Cuba so close, could be used as a hub to train and arm new recruits as guerrilla army swells in ranks.

In my humble opinion, America is the only place revolution should be tried, because aslong as there is a capitalist US any communist revolution will be suppressed in every corner of the world.
When America falls, everywhere will fall.


I do not condone violence in any way

Roflmao ^^

[scarletghoul]

Despite the huge holes in the OP's logic, there is some truth to be found. You can get guns in America, and there are loads of concentrated areas of highly opressed people. However, to start a guerilla war there right now would be stupid. What's needed is a propaganda campaign and a general organisation working within the community to spread revolutionary conciousness. I don't like citing the Black Panthers in every one of my posts, but they are a great example of an organisation that brought revolutionary conciousness to the community and armed them, in America. Certainly time would be better spent on this kind of thing than appearing on the Glenn Beck show.

[Dimentio]

There was a guy in Sweden who liked to beat up kitties. He bragged about it on a public discussion forum.

He shouldn't have done that.

Please, someone lock this thread.

[Oneironaut]

It is not necessary to wait for a revolutionary situation to arise as one can be created.

Maybe then, but definitely not now. You think 13 guys setting up in the woods out of the eyes of government is going to create the revolution? Anymore, those plans of revolution would most likely be uncovered even before any armed attacks were made. Did you know that the most extensive maps in the world were made by the American military? They wanted to know every nook and cranny of this planet just for instances like these. Its sheer idiocy to think guerrilla warfare can be successful now. The government will find out about you, tell lies to everyone around you about who you are (which is what happened to Che in Bolivia) thereby cutting off any public support, send in highly trained teams whose sole purpose is to find, interrogate, then kill you while the entire time the public will think "who are those wackos?".

[Black Sheep]

Ignoring completely the subjective criteria of a revolution, do not be like nostradamus with the socialist revolution.
Marx was about germany.Same stuff have been expressed for the US in the past.

[Bloody Armalite]

Or, the guerrillas could gain momentum, move into areas populated by mainly black, oppressed people, where there is the most discontent and give out food and clothes taken in raids from malls, supermarkets etc.
They could get socialist doctors to carry out free healthcare for the needy, put up pockets of resistence all around the country, people will refer to these as liberated zones, where the government has no vestige of power left.
These communities will hide guerrillas, they will teach revolutionary politics to each other.
Recruited members would be sent to join the military, police, fbi, cie etc who will provide a intelligence system, resulting in greater efficiency of military actions.
The revolution will be modeled on a sleeper cell system, which contains 4 guerrillas, one of which is in contact from another guerrilla in another cell, so if one is captured, they cant give everyone up during interegation.
Bridges and highways would be domolished by smtx, cutting off Military vehicles from moving freely.
Weapons stores will be raided and banks will be taken and spread among the liberated community.

[bricolage]

One occupied factory is one occupied factory. Hundreds of occupied factories and empowered workers councils are a true revolutionary act. But to achieve this, we need more then good will.

Yes taking over a factory is not a revolution and as an isolated act it will probably lead to little more than, well, taking over that factory, however in a wider context it is a revolutionary act, as you note. My point being however that for this to happen and for what people generally see as a revolution you do not need to know the in depth complications of dialectical materialism and I see it as frankly elitist to say people cannot be revolutionary until they understand it.

[Mephisto]

It has nothing to do with "elitism" that I say, that a revolutionary movement must aim to understand capitalism and it's mechanisms in order to overthrow it.

I'd say it is a little ignorant and naive to believe, we need not to know about the society we want to change.

[RadioRaheem84]

The only revolution brewing in this country is a scary right wing one that is mobilizing people to stop communism.

[bricolage]

It has nothing to do with "elitism" that I say, that a revolutionary movement must aim to understand capitalism and it's mechanisms in order to overthrow it.

I'd say it is a little ignorant and naive to believe, we need not to know about the society we want to change.

Yes you need to know it's shit, isn't that enough?

[Mephisto]

No, because if you don't know how this shit works and how you can beat it, the shit will beat the shit out of you.

[RadioRaheem84]

No, because if you don't know how this shit works and how you can beat it, the shit will beat the shit out of you.


Right wing groups are ready to beat the shit out of you and they dont even know the difference between a liberal and leftist or nazism and socialism.

[bricolage]

No, because if you don't know how this shit works and how you can beat it, the shit will beat the shit out of you.

Not really. You know it exploits you, you know someone makes money of your work and you know you need to seize the means of production. That should be, and is, enough

What it comes down to is when people are out on the street what are you going to be doing, joining them on the barricades or trying to lecture them about dialectical materialism?

[Mephisto]

The point is, you think it is so simple: We only need to say "Hey, the system sucks, come on, we make a revolution and stuff." And then communism is achieved through some heroic adventurers and we all live happily ever after. But you won't believe it, reality is more complex.

Revolutionary situations do not arise on your order. You need to build up a strong revolutionary organisation which tactics and strategies must be based on the objective analysis of our society. And I can tell you, a revolution is not just a thing of 1 week and then it's all over. Many processes and contradictions arise and revolutionaries can face them only if they know why they arise and how they can be solved. Especially problems like the fluctuating class conscience of the workers, even at the time of a revolutionary process, but many many other problems which are by no means less important, are to be named here.

It is by the way necessary too to know about capitalism's mechanisms for you need to explain to the people why things like the world economic crisis happen. The news say: "It happens because some bad managers are greedy" and most of the people believe it. You can only present a political alternative if you can base your critique on capitalism on a fundament of a scientific economic analysis which clearly shows, that the problem lies not with individual failure, but systemic organisms like over-accumulation and the falling profit rates resulting from the increasing degree of organic capital composition etc. etc.


To answer your question finally: Of course the revolutionary organisation must stand on the first line of the barricades but the difference between you and me is: My comrades and I would try to develop a revolutionary strategy based on social analysis in order to use our resources effectively and not waste energies on senseless battles while overseeing important ones.

You would just fight and don't care about who, how and when. You would fight some time and then inevitable be overrun by the counter revolution. And that is exactly why people like you are honest in their conviction but doomed to lose.

[bricolage]

I understand what you are saying and I'd like to clarify I'm not just arguing that we should run around with guns shooting anything and shouting communism fuck yeah however I do disagree. I think one of the main reasons communist/socialist politics have become so marginalised is due to this descent into complex and esoteric language and theories and the elitist view that noone that fully understands it all can be revolutionary. If you go to striking workers and talk in depth about Kapital or whatnot then I'm sorry but you are going to have little luck in convincing anyone, quite frankly because I don't' believe most people want to, or have time to, hear about it. Back to the matter at hand I maintain people are perfectly capable of understanding the inadequacies of capitalism, the need for an alternative and the way to reach this alternative without knowing or caring about dialectical materialism.

[Radical]

Maybe then, but definitely not now. You think 13 guys setting up in the woods out of the eyes of government is going to create the revolution?

That's exactly what I mean. You obviously do not understand the Foco Thoery. The Foco thoery is designed to trigger a Revolution and gain popular support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foco_theory

[Tzadikim]

I would actually agree with this, to some extent, but for reasons probably very different from the initial poster.

As I see it, the history of the 20th century, from the Russian Revolution through to Vietnam and beyond, has largely been that of mostly agrarian nations, the objects of Imperialism, attempting to break free from the binds of Western capitalism. This is fine and good for a nation attempting to establish itself on its own footing, but I do not believe this Leninist approach can lead to a world-revolution: the sheer fact that the first-world powers will always react against it should be proof positive of this maxim.

Only when the first-world has been revolutionized can the so-called 'second' and 'third'-worlds follow. Without first breaking the concentrated power of the capitalist States, any attempt to liberate its exploited nations must inevitably be in vain: the capitalists have at their disposal all the resources of Europe and the North American continent and virtually all of Asia, and not much can withstand these in the southern hemisphere.

I believe - and I base this not on any theory I've read, but on my own deductions and intuitions - that a world-revolution is possible only when the epicenters of capitalism have first fallen. We on the Left have for too long been going about this backwards: it is inordinately difficult for a small nation to engage in a successful revolution and then safeguard its successes, because the larger powers will always employ coercive force against them, and these powers have that force in spades. If, however, America were to undergo a revolution, and especially Western Europe, then nothing will stand in the way of bringing the smaller nation-states on-board.

This is why I feel revolutionary socialism, of all stripes, must be employed here, in the Anglosphere, first: we must for once put the horse before the cart. The Anglo-European bourgeoisie has always been able to appeal to xenophobia when threatened with revolution in the far-flung corners of the world; it would be vastly more difficult for them to do that when the revolution is hitting them at home.

The world-revolution must be the predicate upon which every revolutionary action is founded. It is not enough to take command of an isolated nation; it will be surrounded by enemies and destroyed (the history of the Paris Commune proves it). We must instead work on uniting the working class on a global basis. Only then will our force be sufficient to overcome the enemy.

[RotStern]

If there was a revolution in America, it would need vast support from a different country.
They wouldn't be able to do it alone.
The far right is gaining in power and they are hell bent in making sure we fail.

[Mephisto]

I understand what you are saying and I'd like to clarify I'm not just arguing that we should run around with guns shooting anything and shouting communism fuck yeah however I do disagree. I think one of the main reasons communist/socialist politics have become so marginalised is due to this descent into complex and esoteric language and theories and the elitist view that noone that fully understands it all can be revolutionary. If you go to striking workers and talk in depth about Kapital or whatnot then I'm sorry but you are going to have little luck in convincing anyone, quite frankly because I don't' believe most people want to, or have time to, hear about it. Back to the matter at hand I maintain people are perfectly capable of understanding the inadequacies of capitalism, the need for an alternative and the way to reach this alternative without knowing or caring about dialectical materialism.




Okay, I guess the problem is, we both argue by exaggerating the other's position to extremes. :D

Of course it is not my intention to go to a factory and telling the striking workers about the Kapital and the most complexe marxist theories.

You should not get the impression, I'd think a revoluationary's task is to study all the time, wait for workers action and then walk "down" to them and explain them the world. :D Albeit I admit, that there are several "marxists" who act exactly like this.

Marxist theory means to learn from the workers struggles. No revolutionary theory can develop in some kind of ivory tower. That means that marxist revolutionaries themselves must fight for strikes and political action in their factories and workplaces or, as in my case, in the universities. So, okay, I must admit that as a student of course I have no chance of initiating things like strikes in the factories. But besides my political agitation in the university and the student struggles (we had large student strikes and university occupations this year in germany) I think it is my task as a working class student to line with fighting workers, supporting them best I can. E.g. through solidarity demonstrations and actions or several other ways. But of course also by seeking conversation with them about the objective perspectives of their struggles and our marxist point of view as well, especially about why we are convinced that workers can't realise their interests within capitalism and why we think that we need a social revolution. And I think that this takes more than sayings like "The system exploitates you and therefore you need to make a revolution."

[Tzadikim]

If there was a revolution in America, it would need vast support from a different country.
They wouldn't be able to do it alone.
The far right is gaining in power and they are hell bent in making sure we fail.

I agree with this, and this is why I think it is so important to form a truly internationalist coalition of workers. When I envision the world-revolution, I picture armies of workers from South America marching northwards, meeting with their American counterparts, and the two working together to smash the capitalist State - nothing more, nothing less. American workers alone cannot do it: no nation's labor force can do it alone. That said, so as to avoid the possibility of the bourgeois using their famed tactic of appealing to xenophobia, it will be imperative that the revolution in each individual country begin as a purely national liberation movement, but they certainly needn't end that way.

Which is why it's so integral for the Left - the real Left - to utilize the power of the Internet to communicate and coordinate effectively with the workers of the world. It is not enough to offer them mere moral support; we must effectively be able to coordinate our activities, or all will be in vain.

[Oneironaut]

That's exactly what I mean. You obviously do not understand the Foco Thoery. The Foco thoery is designed to trigger a Revolution and gain popular support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foco_theory

I don't mean to be criticizing every one of your posts and know that it is only because I once held the exact same ideas you hold when I first get into left politics. But what is fundamental to Marxism is its ability to recognize new socio-economic factors, bring them into the picture, and help us deduce what would be a potentially successful way to go about 'organizing' a real socialist revolution, where workers are in actual control and are the ultimate authority. Now, this sure isn't the case with Cuba as it stands now. And foco theory has never, despite multiple endeavors, led to a socialist revolution. So why are you telling me that it is the smartest way to achieve socialism? Like I said earlier, depending on your perspective, foco theory may have worked with Cuba and only Cuba because US imperialists felt like those sorts of revolutions simply couldn't happen anymore. Afterwards, you can sure as hell bet they paid attention.

[FreeFocus]

The United States will be one of the very last places to revolutionize, although there are pockets of hope that can be supported and built up. But to suggest that these pockets (and they are just that at the moment) make the US the "only country ready" is ludicrous.

America is closer to a fascist overthrow and National Socialism than a communist revolution.

[Tzadikim]

The United States will be one of the very last places to revolutionize, although there are pockets of hope that can be supported and built up. But to suggest that these pockets (and they are just that at the moment) make the US the "only country ready" is ludicrous.

America is closer to a fascist overthrow and National Socialism than a communist revolution.

Then I cannot but help think that any possible world-revolution is doomed to failure. Because, so long as the military and economic might of America (and its puppet States in Western Europe) remains, it will inevitably crush any dissent in the oppressed nations of the world.

[FreeFocus]

Then I cannot but help think that any possible world-revolution is doomed to failure. Because, so long as the military and economic might of America (and its puppet States in Western Europe) remains, it will inevitably crush any dissent in the oppressed nations of the world.

I think prospects in Europe are better, although I disagree that it would be doomed to failure. It's certainly much smoother if the US became socialist, but any world revolution would be a war of attrition basically. It would have to be made unprofitable for American capitalism/imperialism to operate in most places abroad. At the same time, the pockets of resistance I mentioned can grow in strength, develop ideologically, and make definitive connections with the revolutionary fervor abroad.

I still don't think it can be disputed that right now, the US is closer to a fascist overthrow/movement than a communist revolution. And it's been that way forever, except in the 1960s and early 1970s perhaps.

[Tzadikim]

I think prospects in Europe are better, although I disagree that it would be doomed to failure. It's certainly much smoother if the US became socialist, but any world revolution would be a war of attrition basically. It would have to be made unprofitable for American capitalism/imperialism to operate in most places abroad. At the same time, the pockets of resistance I mentioned can grow in strength, develop ideologically, and make definitive connections with the revolutionary fervor abroad.

That's not a bad strategy. My biggest fear, I think, is that a genuinely internationalist revolutionary movement might arise, and find broad popular backing throughout the world, only to be crushed by combined Euro-American arms - that the bourgeoisie will throw off their mask of civility and impose a dictatorship of capital over the whole world. The only thing worse than no revolution is a failed revolution: we will have only one shot, when the time comes, to get it right.


I still don't think it can be disputed that right now, the US is closer to a fascist overthrow/movement than a communist revolution. And it's been that way forever, except in the 1960s and early 1970s perhaps.I certainly agree with this. I suspect that Obama will fail, and be replaced in 2012 by a theocrat like Mike Huckabee, who's just enough of a pseudo-populist to placate a large part of the unconscious working class and impose a quasi-fascist system in America.

But we, still, ought to work for revolution in America, no matter how desperate it might seem at times. America is the lynchpin in the present capitalist world-order; without it, the entire thing falls down. America's fate is, to a great degree, the fate of the working class of the entire world. If America can be revolutionized - even if the rest of the world sees that a large part of its population rejects its capitalist hegemony - then the world's working people might be inspired to try the same in their lands.

[Saorsa]

That's exactly what I mean. You obviously do not understand the Foco Thoery. The Foco thoery is designed to trigger a Revolution and gain popular support.

First of all, foqismo failed massively when Che tried to put it into practice in Bolivia with his band of guerillas. There's a whole host of other factors that led to their failure, from the lack of support from the Bolivian CP to the fact they couldn't speak the language of the people in the area they were based in! But foqismo showed itself to be a very poor and ineffective way of reaching out to, organising and mobilising the masses of working people.

Secondly, Che's analysis was faulty to the core. It didn't actually reflect how the revolution occured in Cuba. In Cuba, there had been years, decades even, of organising in the cities and also in the countryside by various radical movements, and the July 26th Movement had a strong urban wing. In fact the guerillas only survived thanks to support for the cities - bullets, guns, food, medicine, uniforms, and new recruits all came from the cities. The urban wing organised strikes and sabotage as well as propaganda, and was integral to the revolution's success.

Don't just adopt a theory because it sounds cool, study how it worked in practice and take a critical analytic approach.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The OP reeks of romanticism, but I must admit that I had very similar ideas, hopes really, for a time.

Factory closes, house foreclosed on, kids without health coverage. Certainly see some motherfucker snapping under that. But the real question is, how would the public respond? More and more I get the feeling that people would be indifferent, and even idolize those who take up arms against the 'man.'

Has to be a good target though. Blowing away your 54 year old father of four boss would be pretty dumb. But hell I feel great everytime I hear of a bank robber who's on the run.

Anyway, though, on paper it does appear that America has revolutionary potential. But the fighting among the working class neutralizes all of that. Among the poorer elements with whom I have experience (ie my life), young white guys tend to hate the minorities they think are getting a free ride via AA, young blacks tend to hate other blacks who are on the other team, and just about everyone seems to hate mexicans. Yes, there are many exceptions and pockets of solidarity but its really kind of sad the way every group blames every other group for their problems.

[RHIZOMES]

I do not condone violence in any way

That made my day. Hahahahaha :lol::lol::lol:

[Bloody Armalite]

lol:)

[Dimentio]

Bloody Armalite - I am sorry to say this, but please grow up.

Most people who are wearing guns in the USA are not progressive, but belongs to the rural population. And it is no secret that - for the moment - very reactionary ideologies are popular there.

I don't know any example of a successful urban guerilla. If you want guerilla war, you must begin on the countryside, and encircle the cities. If the countryside is more solidaric with the government or the ruling ideology, then you will fail.

If there is going to be a guerilla war in the USA, I expect one from an angry rural population in the South and the Heartland which is directed against "the communist federal government of the liberal democrats who want to install communism, islam and free condomes". Even Obama's reforms are seen as an extreme threat by broad segments of the US population.

I agree that the inner cities in general are more radical (and probably together contain as big a population as the entire Heartland). But the thing is that the countryside produces food, materials and electricity needed by the cities. You can shut off the cities from the countryside, but not vice-versa.

[Tzadikim]

This is slightly off-topic, but --


Most people who are wearing guns in the USA are not progressive, but belongs to the rural population. And it is no secret that - for the moment - very reactionary ideologies are popular there.

It's funny you should mention that.

In the late nineteenth century, this was precisely not the case. First, I'll refer you to this image:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/ElectoralCollege1896.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1896.svg.png

William Jennings Bryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennings_Bryan) was the very first 'progressive' Democratic candidate, and in many ways he was further to the left (on economics, at any rate) than his modern-day Democratic corporate-statist counterparts: he supported trust-busting and the prohibition of child labor; he was in favor of the anti-imperialist movement and resigned as Secretary of State under Wilson in opposition to America's entry into the First World War; and he opposed the Palmer raids during the First Red Scare. Now, he was a theocrat - he's perhaps most famous for prosecuting John Scopes during the (in)famous 'Monkey Trial' regarding the teaching of evolution in Tennessee - but he was a true and genuine leftist. (The South, of course, voted for him because he was a Democrat, the segregationist Party.)

And this isn't merely an isolated case of economic leftism catching fire in the so-called 'American Heartland'. The trust-buster Teddy Roosevelt was wildly popular in this region at the time, as were the populists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist_Party_%28United_States%29), who were even more radical yet. In fact, much of the Republican support in this region predates the Republican Party's 'conservative revolution' and dates back to the period when the Republicans had a legitimate claim to being the Party of the Left - the Party of Lincoln and Roosevelt.

Now none of these people called for the abolition of the capitalist system itself (though a significant segment of the People's/Populist Party did, though on agrarian grounds), but surely they were preferable to our modern day neo-liberal state. If we want to understand the roots of this old 'prairie populism', and how to rekindle it and orient it in a revolutionary and class-focused direction, then it might very well be prudent to understand the objective conditions that led these movements to arise in the American West in the first place. This is, at any rate, proof-positive that the rural West needn't be bastions of economic conservatism. And I think we do ourselves a disservice if we dismiss the West as a political entity outright: we on the Left need to appeal to the concerns of the producers of agricultural goods, because there's a stake in revolution for them, too - putting an end to the corporate farms that destroy our world and destroy their jobs.

[Fishoutofwater]

Oh yes yes yes!!! I cannot say i fucking totally disagree with BLOODYARMALITE (nice nick identifying police oppression mate!).

The USA has every thing there to start some sort of class movement, poverty discrimination etc. and even socialist surrounding states! :) The war of independence, civil war, civil rights movements! armalite has a point here!

Oh yes BLACK PANTHER PARTY! theyre funny black nationalists that have some roots on socialism and communism. The Crips started off as a youth movement supporting the BPP. Even till this day there are illegal proletarian black, latino, white gangs (more like guerrillas) that support Marxism. But their popularity is somewhat low.

I think you would have to blame the Anti-communist anti-soviet era culture still lingering about. Also blame conservative culturalists, nationalists, and religious bastards too, and nonetheless greedy capitalism.

Dude above! Stancel! america is a superpower, their influence as the largest capitalist force is somewhat to be acknowledged, and taken advantage of, the islamic crazys know this.

by socialist surrounding states, do you honestly think that Canada and Mexico are socialist? if so... honestly, just get off the forums, we need SMART people to help fuel the flames of revolution, not upstart kids from highschool who went on google and looked up communism

[Bloody Armalite]

this forum is full of people who dont want to talk about anything, wtf is the point in having revleft and just not talking, just because a question is about something that probably wont ever happen, dosent mean it is a forbiden question.
No wonder the left is so isolated from mainstream politics, its because hardly any of the youth learn about it, because of uptight armchair Marxists who say how stupid their questions are.

[Ol' Dirty]

Firearms and explosives a revolution does not make. The US is the product of capitalist discontent and subsequent revolution. US capitalism was so succesful that it wouldn't tolerate British protectionism. We still have a strong culture of the "rugged individual." The only cultural parralel I can find is between us and the Afrikaners in South Africa... we go into uncharted land and conquer it. It's what he do. We're kind of like Afrikaners with Adam Smith as our national hero rather than Jan van Riebeeck.

Socialism is a very un-Unitedstatesian thing to the vast majority of people.

[Tzadikim]

.
This is slightly off-topic, but --



It's funny you should mention that.

In the late nineteenth century, this was precisely not the case. First, I'll refer you to this image:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/ElectoralCollege1896.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1896.svg.png

William Jennings Bryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennings_Bryan) was the very first 'progressive' Democratic candidate, and in many ways he was further to the left (on economics, at any rate) than his modern-day Democratic corporate-statist counterparts: he supported trust-busting and the prohibition of child labor; he was in favor of the anti-imperialist movement and resigned as Secretary of State under Wilson in opposition to America's entry into the First World War; and he opposed the Palmer raids during the First Red Scare. Now, he was a theocrat - he's perhaps most famous for prosecuting John Scopes during the (in)famous 'Monkey Trial' regarding the teaching of evolution in Tennessee - but he was a true and genuine leftist. (The South, of course, voted for him because he was a Democrat, the segregationist Party.)

And this isn't merely an isolated case of economic leftism catching fire in the so-called 'American Heartland'. The trust-buster Teddy Roosevelt was wildly popular in this region at the time, as were the populists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist_Party_%28United_States%29), who were even more radical yet. In fact, much of the Republican support in this region predates the Republican Party's 'conservative revolution' and dates back to the period when the Republicans had a legitimate claim to being the Party of the Left - the Party of Lincoln and Roosevelt.

Now none of these people called for the abolition of the capitalist system itself (though a significant segment of the People's/Populist Party did, though on agrarian grounds), but surely they were preferable to our modern day neo-liberal state. If we want to understand the roots of this old 'prairie populism', and how to rekindle it and orient it in a revolutionary and class-focused direction, then it might very well be prudent to understand the objective conditions that led these movements to arise in the American West in the first place. This is, at any rate, proof-positive that the rural West needn't be bastions of economic conservatism. And I think we do ourselves a disservice if we dismiss the West as a political entity outright: we on the Left need to appeal to the concerns of the producers of agricultural goods, because there's a stake in revolution for them, too - putting an end to the corporate farms that destroy our world and destroy their jobs.

[Revy]

Actually (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/aug2006/brya-a11.shtml), Bryan's campaign was an attempt to divert away any potential radicalism of the Populist movement. The Democrats actively sabotaged it, proving it was a ruse to begin with. It was literally an attempt to bring the Populists into the Democratic Party, and watering down their message.

Bryan supported the Spanish-American War, and as Secretary of State under Wilson, supported the foreign policy of invading Haiti, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic. Opposing World War I was mainly opportunistic for him, he supported it after the declaration of war, and criticized war opponents as unpatriotic.

He also refused to take a stance against racism in the South, supporting it all throughout his career, especially later in his life where he used his influence within the Democratic Party to defeat convention resolutions which would have moved the party more toward a civil rights position. the "people's candidate" was really posing an obstacle to their unity. So by supporting racism he was preventing the unity of poor black and white industrial workers and farmworkers.

During World War I, he abandoned politics and became an evangelist and Prohibitionist. Hence his last hurrah as a nutty anti-evolutionist during the laughable "Scopes Trial". This means his most notable legacy today is his struggle against modernism, secularism, and science.



Kazin laments the fact that the Scopes trial has for decades overshadowed Bryan’s career as a social reformer. However, there is an objective reason for this.

The pacifist and reformist illusions advanced by Bryan were, in the final analysis, aimed at forestalling the threat of social upheaval by undermining radical and socialist influences in the working class. Bryan’s program was never based on a scientific analysis of the contradictions of capitalism, but rather hazy notions drawing on Christian morality. As events more and more undermined the illusions of the masses in the possibility of peaceful reform, Bryan reacted with an attack on science, blaming the outbreak of war and revolution on the decline in religious faith.

[Tzadikim]

I don't disagree with any of that, but it isn't my point: Bryan himself may have been a jackass, but at one point the people of the American plains states were receptive to a message that at least pretended to challenge the economic status-quo. The point is to uncover what conditions were present at the time that may have inclined them to what we would today consider radicalism, why they changed, and how they might be recreated.

[StalinFanboy]

I don't disagree with any of that, but it isn't my point: Bryan himself may have been a jackass, but at one point the people of the American plains states were receptive to a message that at least pretended to challenge the economic status-quo. The point is to uncover what conditions were present at the time that may have inclined them to what we would today consider radicalism, why they changed, and how they might be recreated.
At one point is the key phrase.


They are not anymore.

[Killfacer]

was that bp socialist?

[New Tet]

In the us you can bug guns.
You have large housing projects full of young downtrodden people who would unite.
Oppressive police who would be so over the top at squashing peacefull protesting, legitemising taking up arms.
A mixture of huge urban areas and large expanses of rural areas, letting urban and rural guerrilla warfare to rage simultaniously.
Cuba so close, could be used as a hub to train and arm new recruits as guerrilla army swells in ranks.

In my humble opinion, America is the only place revolution should be tried, because aslong as there is a capitalist US any communist revolution will be suppressed in every corner of the world.
When America falls, everywhere will fall.


I do not condone violence in any way

Video game fantasy. I hope circumstance and good luck render you harmless all to except those that made you think that way.