Possibility of a coup?

[The Red Next Door]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co .php
Do you think there is a possibility of a coup in a non first world country? People say it unrealistic because we do not have much of the problems that third world countries have.

[FreeFocus]

I don't see it as being plausible. I think a coup would lead to civil war, and I don't see that in the cards at the moment..

[Jimmie Higgins]

It could happen and in the 1930s, there was supposedly a plot by some industrialists and people in the military to replace FDR. I don't know the details or how serious this is... it could even be some liberal myth designed to show how much FDR was on the side of the common people and against the rich.

But if it is true, it is no doubt because the ruling class was split on how to deal with the rising militancy in the 30s. Obviously FDR presented himself as either neutral or slightly sympathetic for a lot of the decade and tried to ease the class conflict through social reforms.

I don't think there is really a layer of the ruling class who would want to replace Obama and risk that kind of gamble. Obama is continuing the war, has bailed out the rich, and has channeled the popular demands for heath care into pro-corporate neoliberal schemes.

Personally I think the right-wing furor about Obama was 1) on the part of the ruling class anti-Obamians this anger was cultivated n order to dial down some of the working class expectations after Obama was elected (the liberals spent months talking about Obama as the new FDR or Lincoln when the economy was really shaky). 2) It has also been used to funnel class anger away from the system to conservative bug-a-boos about socialism and so on.

THe right-wing populists are really angry at Obama but this is polarization due to the economic collapse and petty-bourgoise anexiety.

I think it is far more likely that some lone nut, or some domestic terrorist would try and kill Obama - the ruling class doesn't need to because they know Obama is in their pocket. If the class struggle were to really pick up and Obama tried to respond like FDR and enact left-populist reforms and labor reforms, but this emboldened the working class movement and did not slow down the class conflict, then there certaintly would be a section of the ruling class that would want to reject reforms in favor of crushing the workers and so this part of the ruling class might feel that a coup was necissary in order to rapidly change the course of what the government was doing.

[cb9's_unity]

Everyone but the most delusional right wing nuts understand that Obama is far from being radical.

This guy clearly takes right wing propaganda too literally.

[Kléber]

On the one hand, the left is pretty unprepared to meet this crisis. If some communist group starts doing well in elections, however, that might lead to some kind of military coup. On the other hand, I doubt the rank and file soldiers would be supportive. Whatever left-wing party the fascists try to wipe out would do well not to preserve its independence and not join the liberal government.

[Joe_Germinal]

It could happen and in the 1930s, there was supposedly a plot by some industrialists and people in the military to replace FDR. I don't know the details or how serious this is... it could even be some liberal myth designed to show how much FDR was on the side of the common people and against the rich.

There probably was such a plot. General Smedley Butler alleged in 1934 (one year before outing himself as a socialist) that he had been approached by the plotters who asked him to lead the coup (at the time he was the most decorated officer in American history). This was investigated by Congress which reported that the allegation was almost certainly true. Nonetheless, the couldn't be sure because none of the alleged plotters confessed. Just google "buisness plot" and read all about it.

Of course, FDR was no threat to American capitalism. Still you can't deny that his reforms, in addition to saving American capitalism, did take a few bucks out of the pockets of capitalists and put them in the pockets of the workers. Its astounding to realize that how far some capitalist will go to protect even realitively small sums.


I don't think there is really a layer of the ruling class who would want to replace Obama and risk that kind of gamble.

I think you're right. Obama is safe from a coup (although not from white supremacist violence) because, unlike FDR, he's not even willing to make the slightest redistributive moves. Indeed, the only wealth redistribution under Obama so far has been from the working class to the big banks. If he reverses course, we can start talking about the possibilty.

[h9socialist]

This reminds me of the old movie "Seven Days In May" (which, as I recall, would be worth dusting off your old VHS cassette and watching again).

I don't doubt the possibility. The military has an overabundance of upper-class twits, and neo-fascist generals. These same people thought Bill Clinton was a communist. Add that to Obama being an African American, and it wouldn't surprise me that a real life "General James Matoon Scott" could be lurking in the long halls of the Pentagon.

[RadioRaheem84]

This reminds me of the old movie "Seven Days In May" (which, as I recall, would be worth dusting off your old VHS cassette and watching again).

I don't doubt the possibility. The military has an overabundance of upper-class twits, and neo-fascist generals. These same people thought Bill Clinton was a communist. Add that to Obama being an African American, and it wouldn't surprise me that a real life "General James Matoon Scott" could be lurking in the long halls of the Pentagon.

Jeez, Clinton and Obama are too radical for these people? I could only imagine if a Salvador Allende won the election.

Sometimes I think that it's fucking dangerous to have people that think like that in power. I mean they are extremely stupid to think that people like Clinton and Obama are radicals.

[h9socialist]

Dear Comrade RadioRaheem84 -- There were people who had "Clinton for Change" bumperstickers, in which the C in Clinton was depicted as a hammer and sickle. This was to emphasize their view that Clinton was a wild eyed radical leftist! The military hated him because he evaded the draft. To us, a "leftist" or a "communist" is someone who seeks a more socially functional world by removing private domination of the social surplus, and replacing it with radical democratic control. To them, a leftist (or communist) is just someone they don't agree with, or believe to be culturally too permissive or outcast. No one ever said that even minimal intelligence was a prerequisite for being a conservative.

[RadioRaheem84]

No one ever said that even minimal intelligence was a prerequisite for being a conservative.Very true. In fact most of the intellectuals the right wingers (and talk show hosts) look up to tend to be Libertarian.

But how do they appeal so much to the public? Is it their "common sense" approach? How is it that they can get a working class stiff to believe that Obama, Clinton are radicals, trickle down economics and that Medicare needs to be abolished? What scares me the most is that there could be people that think like this in power! I was under the impression that at least there the establishment was generally liberal.

[Robocommie]

Very true. In fact most of the intellectuals the right wingers (and talk show hosts) look up to tend to be Libertarian.

But how do they appeal so much to the public? Is it their "common sense" approach? How is it that they can get a working class stiff to believe that Obama, Clinton are radicals, trickle down economics and that Medicare needs to be abolished? What scares me the most is that there could be people that think like this in power! I was under the impression that at least there the establishment was generally liberal.

There's a lot of reasons for this kind of thing. Lack of widespread political education is a big one. Just look at your average Tea Bagger's rally and really ask yourself how many of them could tell you what "classical liberalism" means. Another factor is hegemonic control of the political discourse - the corporations run the news networks, so people are fed whatever facts and figures they want. That actually ties in with the first part, as well. If you don't know a lot about political philosophy and economic theory, and then the news tells you certain things are true and rattles off various statistics and the like, you can be pretty well deceived.

Sometimes I think the big reason that working class people still identify with the causes and goals of the rich is that they still believe they themselves can "make it big" one day. They still accept the myth of the self-made man.

[Revy]

if they wanted a military dictator it would probably be General Petraeus. the thought sickens me though.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There's a lot of reasons for this kind of thing. Lack of widespread political education is a big one. Just look at your average Tea Bagger's rally and really ask yourself how many of them could tell you what "classical liberalism" means. Another factor is hegemonic control of the political discourse - the corporations run the news networks, so people are fed whatever facts and figures they want. That actually ties in with the first part, as well. If you don't know a lot about political philosophy and economic theory, and then the news tells you certain things are true and rattles off various statistics and the like, you can be pretty well deceived.


I think this is all very true. In addition, the 2-party system here acts to confine the mainstream debate to a narrow spectrum of "common sense" (i.e. pro-business/ruling class) political alternatives. This general political agreement of the two parties not only controlls the terms of political debate but also tends to lead to demoralization of the population - the majority of eligible black and young workers don't even vote and about 1/2 of the voting population doesn't vote most of the time.

Obama was the exception that proves the rule and the (misplaced) raised expectations among people who usually feel that the electoral system has nothing to offer them is undeniable. Of course since the Democratic party has no real interest in activating these populations (the poor, young, minorities) Obama immediately disbanded the grassroots activist coalition which led him to victory in the primaries and to a lesser extent (they were often replaced by professional Democratic activists after the primaries) in the general election.

If the Democrats really stood for what they always campaign on, Obama would have kept these grassroots activists mobilized and they could have been a more than effective counterweight to the tea-party nuts at the town hall events.

So in this example, the two party system is used on the one hand to keep out politics they don't want (both parties decided in private to not include Universal or Single-paper plans in the public debate) and argue that only pro-business plans are "realistic". At the same time by doing this, the Democrats demoralized their base to the point that even their loyal trade-union bureaucrats had a hard time getting members out to support the Democrat's health-care plans and against the tea-partiers.

Now many of the regular workers who felt that Obama represented the sea-change they've been waiting for all their lives aren't necissarily drawing the conclusion that the Democrats are part of the problem, instead they are - at the moment (I'm banking on this situation changing slowly) - drawing the conclusion that the US is just too inherently conservative and are going back to the kind of cynicism they held during the Bush administration.

It will basically take the lead of grassroots activist wins to turn this around and show people that it takes things like independent political action or militant rank and file unionism to actually change things.