When will the Socialist revolution in America occur?

[cowslayer]

When do you think the next Socialist revolution occur?

Also, who do you think would carry it out? The CPUSA? SPUSA? The DSA?


I would say that an actual revolution in America will not happen for decades as Socialists and Marxists are a minority here.

[which doctor]

The RCP already made revolution back in 2006.

Where have you been?

[Robocommie]

I believe things have to get bad. Worse than they are now. Things have to be pretty damn unbearable for most folks before they're willing to risk death or prison by taking up guns against their government.

The revolution happened in Vietnam because colonial rule by the French had become intolerable, in Cuba, because Batista had pushed the Cuban people too far for too long, and in Russia, it was the Czar. But even then I should note, the revolutions in those countries were not fully socialist at the beginning, they were initially quite diverse, with a struggle in the later stages to consolidate socialist rule.

I believe that the US might actually be one of the last places in the world, if not the last, to see a socialist revolution. It's been a bastion of classical liberalism for a very long time now, with extremely entrenched capitalist institutions. I believe, as in Russia, in Cuba, in Vietnam, we will see socialist revolutions occur first in the "weakest links" of capitalism, in the developing world, where exploitation is most blatant.

[The Red Next Door]

I don't know, When ever the people in this country get tired of getting fuck in the ass and scapegoating immigrants.

[dez]

I believe things have to get bad. Worse than they are now. Things have to be pretty damn unbearable for most folks before they're willing to risk death or prison by taking up guns against their government.

The revolution happened in Vietnam because colonial rule by the French had become intolerable, in Cuba, because Batista had pushed the Cuban people too far for too long, and in Russia, it was the Czar. But even then I should note, the revolutions in those countries were not fully socialist at the beginning, they were initially quite diverse, with a struggle in the later stages to consolidate socialist rule.

I believe that the US might actually be one of the last places in the world, if not the last, to see a socialist revolution. It's been a bastion of classical liberalism for a very long time now, with extremely entrenched capitalist institutions. I believe, as in Russia, in Cuba, in Vietnam, we will see socialist revolutions occur first in the "weakest links" of capitalism, in the developing world, where exploitation is most blatant.

I find it interesting that leftists buy the reactionary propaganda that the working class cannot make a revolution in normal circumstances (that is, if the ruling classes do not screw up).
It can, and it has. Eliminate this defeatism from your views. The colonial rule by the french was made intolerable because the vietnamese people were commited and willing to give everything to determine their own fate, the batista regime downfall was an inevitable consequence of years and years and years of destabilization and activism and the tsarist situation was pretty much the same.
You don't wait for your enemy to make a mistake, you don't wait until they fuck up so you start waging class war. Class war is being waged every day, and the bourgeois usually is the one finding new ways to wage it. When the working class becomes aware of the material conditions surrounding itself and takes upon itself the task and responsabilities of waging class war, of finding new ways, paths and breaches to fight it, we have a revolution because the ruling classes cannot really maintain control over people who do not want to be controlled and are commited towards not being controlled.

[Robespierre2.0]

The U.S. is not invulnerable. It's a country deeply divided between two ideological extremes. I see striking similarities between it and Tsarist Russia-
They had the Union of Russian People (Black Hundreds), we have Tea Parties.
They had absolute monarchy in an era in which most nations had become constitutional monarchies or republics, we have a neoliberal government in an era in which most nations have rejected neoliberalism, for bolivarianism/political islam/authoritarian capitalism.
Tsarist Russia was considered a 'Prison of Peoples'- a land of many minority groups under the yoke of an extremely chauvinistic, nationalist majority group. We could say the same about the U.S.
Also, like Russia, we are involved in a pointless meat-grinder of a war, the military is getting it's ass kicked, and none of the major political forces support bringing the war to an end.

I don't mean to say the situation is exactly the same. I'm sure you could point out many differences as well, but I think people tend to overlook the similarities.

[Robocommie]

I find it interesting that leftists buy the reactionary propaganda that the working class cannot make a revolution in normal circumstances (that is, if the ruling classes do not screw up).
It can, and it has. Eliminate this defeatism from your views. The colonial rule by the french was made intolerable because the vietnamese people were commited and willing to give everything to determine their own fate, the batista regime downfall was an inevitable consequence of years and years and years of destabilization and activism and the tsarist situation was pretty much the same.

I find your lecturing annoying. I am not being defeatist, I am not advocating sitting around and doing nothing, I am merely stating that right now is not the time to start forming revolutionary cadres and trying to start a shooting war.

It's not about the ruling classes not screwing up, it's the fact that right now, most Americans still have jobs, most Americans still have food on the table, and most Americans have homes, and so they're not going to risk everything by becoming revolutionaries. Not yet.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I find it interesting that leftists buy the reactionary propaganda that the working class cannot make a revolution in normal circumstances (that is, if the ruling classes do not screw up).
It can, and it has. Eliminate this defeatism from your views. The colonial rule by the french was made intolerable because the vietnamese people were commited and willing to give everything to determine their own fate, the batista regime downfall was an inevitable consequence of years and years and years of destabilization and activism and the tsarist situation was pretty much the same.
You don't wait for your enemy to make a mistake, you don't wait until they fuck up so you start waging class war. Class war is being waged every day, and the bourgeois usually is the one finding new ways to wage it. When the working class becomes aware of the material conditions surrounding itself and takes upon itself the task and responsabilities of waging class war, of finding new ways, paths and breaches to fight it, we have a revolution because the ruling classes cannot really maintain control over people who do not want to be controlled and are commited towards not being controlled.

If you can convince the majority workers here in the States to wage revolutionary warfare against the government, then I'll be fighting by your side, along with the working class. But until then, don't start making yourself seem smarter on this situation upon others when you're just like the rest of us right now - people sitting behind a computer discussing about the revolution.

[La Comédie Noire]

Interesting question. While I can't cite you an exact date, I do feel there are a few trends that have been developing since the 70's that will lead to a revolution. Firstly, stagnating wages have led to a heavy dependence on credit, the average American household's standard of living is being held up by at least two full time workers and one credit card. Here in the States we are becoming serfs! How much longer we can keep pushing paper back and forth to each other is anyone's guess.

Second, as nations break away from our hegemony and develop economies of their own we face competition which we haven't seen since the fall of the USSR. While also being unable to subjugate even the weakest nations without clumsy brute force. The idea that the United States is the eternal policeman of the world is quickly coming to an end and with it so will the ideas of an eternal mode of production.

Finally, the strangle hold of the corporate media is being broken by the Internet. Americans are connecting with people from all over the world and being told of things they were never permitted to know existed.


I believe that the US might actually be one of the last places in the world, if not the last, to see a socialist revolution. It's been a bastion of classical liberalism for a very long time now, with extremely entrenched capitalist institutions. I believe, as in Russia, in Cuba, in Vietnam, we will see socialist revolutions occur first in the "weakest links" of capitalism, in the developing world, where exploitation is most blatant.

I think the United States has been traditionally conservative because whenever we wanted to quell domestic discontent we'd channel it through the conquering and division of Indian lands. But I do agree the "land = freedom" mentality and our position at the end of World War 2 has combined to make us think the prevailing social order is a winner.

[RedScare]

Things won't change until it gets a lot worse, and a clear alternative message is presented.

[dez]

I find your lecturing annoying. I am not being defeatist, I am not advocating sitting around and doing nothing, I am merely stating that right now is not the time to start forming revolutionary cadres and trying to start a shooting war.

It's not about the ruling classes not screwing up, it's the fact that right now, most Americans still have jobs, most Americans still have food on the table, and most Americans have homes, and so they're not going to risk everything by becoming revolutionaries. Not yet.

You are being defeatist, you are advocating sitting around and doing nothing "because the enemy is too strong", and you are advocating transferring manpower and effort to "weakest links of capitalism", less developed areas where there also happen to have less capital, resources and accumulated means of production, which are strategically less relevant and inevitably overwhelmed both politically and militarily by the "west" and its minions when need be.
The inherent barbarism in the capitalist economic system is more apparent on the developing world, yes, but it is present on the same way on the developed world (infinitely better conditions, but still exploitation) and there is a very relevant connection between the two.


If you can convince the majority workers here in the States to wage revolutionary warfare against the government, then I'll be fighting by your side, along with the working class. But until then, don't start making yourself seem smarter on this situation upon others when you're just like the rest of us right now - people sitting behind a computer discussing about the revolution.

No war is about "shooting". "Shooting" is merely the outcome.
And i'm not any like the rest of you right now, for starters I don't live on the same country and the reality here is quite different.

[dez]

The task of the vanguard of the proletariat is to awaken the masses concerning this exploitation by exposing the truth, and I'm under the impression that "socialism" and "communism" in the united states is still seen at large as an evil, children-eating, economy-flunking ineffective idea that works well on paper but not in practice. The first thing the american left has to do is to build an aura of credibility and efficiency surrounding itself, in my opinion, and there is a lot of political vaccuum in this neoliberal economic system that leaves every man/woman to itself and screws over everyone who isn't amongst the best/smartest of their line of work.

[Robocommie]

You are being defeatist, you are advocating sitting around and doing nothing "because the enemy is too strong", and you are advocating transferring manpower and effort to "weakest links of capitalism", less developed areas where there also happen to have less capital, resources and accumulated means of production, which are strategically less relevant and inevitably overwhelmed both politically and militarily by the "west" and its minions when need be.

Do you have anything else to say other than being smugly contradictory and just telling me what I actually think? Something constructive perhaps?



No war is about "shooting". "Shooting" is merely the outcome.
And i'm not any like the rest of you right now, for starters I don't live on the same country and the reality here is quite different.

Exactly, you live in Brazil, where material conditions and the political situation are quite different. You shouldn't try to lecture other people on the situation in other countries, as I'm going to assume you haven't lived here for any length of time, let alone worked here.

[Robocommie]

The task of the vanguard of the proletariat is to awaken the masses concerning this exploitation by exposing the truth, and I'm under the impression that "socialism" and "communism" in the united states is still seen at large as an evil, children-eating, economy-flunking ineffective idea that works well on paper but not in practice. The first thing the american left has to do is to build an aura of credibility and efficiency surrounding itself, in my opinion, and there is a lot of political vaccuum in this neoliberal economic system that leaves every man/woman to itself and screws over everyone who isn't amongst the best/smartest of their line of work.

You're being a jackass right now, and not because of what you'd like to see us do, but the fact that you think we need you to tell us to do it.

[dez]

Do you have anything else to say other than being smugly contradictory and just telling me what I actually think? Something constructive perhaps?


Something constructive: You are capable of changing things, despite what people tell you.



Exactly, you live in Brazil, where material conditions and the political situation are quite different. You shouldn't try to lecture other people on the situation in other countries, as I'm going to assume you haven't lived here for any length of time, let alone worked here.

Nevertheless, I am aware that the american status quo does not possesses supernatural powers capable of vanquishing opposition entirely, or even winning every political dispute out there.


You're being a jackass right now, and not because of what you'd like to see us do, but the fact that you think we need you to tell us to do it.

Perhaps you deserve me being a jackass, mr. "I believe that the US might actually be one of the last places in the world, if not the last, to see a socialist revolution".
I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, simply stating my opinion and showing some really negative aspects of yours.

[Robocommie]

Something constructive: You are capable of changing things, despite what people tell you.

For fuck's sakes. Thanks for the pep talk, chief, but I really didn't need you to tell me that. We do on occasion do things over here in the American Left other than twiddle our thumbs, you know.



Nevertheless, I am aware that the american status quo does not possesses supernatural powers capable of vanquishing opposition entirely, or even winning every political dispute out there.You're an idiot if you think that's what I was saying.



Perhaps you deserve me being a jackassNo no, you misunderstand. I do not mean jackass here in the sense that I think you're being mean or something. I mean jackass in the sense that you're making yourself look stupid because you're lecturing me against thinking what I do not think, of believing what I do not believe. You come in here, all puffed up for a rant about how defeatist other Leftists are, and like a moron, start telling me what's so wrong about all the things that I never even said. I mean, what's this bullshit about "transferring manpower and effort" to the developing world that you put into my mouth?

Right now, Americans are predominantly stuck in this two-party system of Republicans vs. Democrats, to the point where a lot of socialists will even vote Democrat because they think it's the only way to influence national politics, and despite a lot of really commendable hard work and activism on the part of American Leftists, socialism is still a long way off from being a truly formidable political force in the US. It is completely fucking asinine on your part to make it sound like it's somehow defeatist to acknowledge that fact.

I said what I did about the developing world because the United States is the fucking heartland of neocolonialism. Money continues to flow into the US and other first world economies because of the exploitation that occurs in developing countries - the American consumer lifestyle is propped up by the very kind of exploitation that occurs most grotesquely in developing countries and this is exactly why labor movements are more common to develop there, because it's a lot easier to convince people to fight for more when they have nothing to lose.

The bottom of the American market system hasn't dropped out yet. Recessions will hit, but corporate welfare will keep the system limping along until the very end - most likely, once all of those developing states on the periphery have had successful labor movements that terminate the flow of revenue into the New Rome: the United States. THAT is why I said revolutions are most likely to occur in the developing world, and THAT is why I said it's likely to happen last in the United States; because it's the very heart of the empire, where the failings of capitalism are least apparent, where too many people have too much to lose by rejecting capitalism.

[dez]

For fuck's sakes. Thanks for the pep talk, chief, but I really didn't need you to tell me that. We do on occasion do things over here in the American Left other than twiddle our thumbs, you know.


Gee, you do things, now stop acting as if you're defeated already and go wage class war.



You're an idiot if you think that's what I was saying.


I was being facetious.



No no, you misunderstand. I do not mean jackass here in the sense that I think you're being mean or something. I mean jackass in the sense that you're making yourself look stupid


I really don't care about how you think I look, so you can quit explaining it now. Its not relevant to the debate either.



because you're lecturing me against thinking what I do not think, of believing what I do not believe. You come in here, all puffed up for a rant about how defeatist other Leftists are, and like a moron, start telling me what's so wrong about all the things that I never even said. I mean, what's this bullshit about "transferring manpower and effort" to the developing world that you put into my mouth?


You said it without saying.
The notion that the US is an impenetrable fortress and other less developed countries are more apt for a revolution because the establishment has a "lesser grip" inherently promotes the idea that whomever wants a revolution now, at this moment, should get out of the fortress and try their luck in the developing world, and those people are usually the more aware and the more commited revolutionaries you can get. Essentially you're saying: We lost. We will lose for decades, and every revolutionary would do better with leaving the country. Not that you meant to say it though.




Right now, Americans are predominantly stuck in this two-party system of Republicans vs. Democrats, to the point where a lot of socialists will even vote Democrat because they think it's the only way to influence national politics, and despite a lot of really commendable hard work and activism on the part of American Leftists, socialism is still a long way off from being a truly formidable political force in the US. It is completely fucking asinine on your part to make it sound like it's somehow defeatist to acknowledge that fact.


Its completely fucking aisine on your part to think you have a shot on defeating the bourgeois fighting under their rules.
Who said anything about voting?
Who said anything about relying on their parliament?
Who said anything about building a political force relying on traditional "ways to influence national politics"?
A party can do much more than simply try to get votes in the next election, it can try to win hearts and minds forever. After you have that, victories in "their" system are inevitable and unstoppable.



I said what I did about the developing world because the United States is the fucking heartland of neocolonialism. Money continues to flow into the US and other first world economies because of the exploitation that occurs in developing countries - the American consumer lifestyle is propped up by the very kind of exploitation that occurs most grotesquely in developing countries and this is exactly why labor movements are more common to develop there, because it's a lot easier to convince people to fight for more when they have nothing to lose.


Who said class war is supposed to be easy?
Do you think the struggle in vietnam, in tsarist russia and in cuba was completely based on dissatisfaction with a dying system?
If yes, then you have again confirmed my whole "lecture" on defeatism.




The bottom of the American market system hasn't dropped out yet. Recessions will hit, but corporate welfare will keep the system limping along until the very end - most likely, once all of those developing states on the periphery have had successful labor movements that terminate the flow of revenue into the New Rome: the United States. THAT is why I said revolutions are most likely to occur in the developing world, and THAT is why I said it's likely to happen last in the United States; because it's the very heart of the empire,


I'm under the impression that rome wasn't the last bastion of the roman empire to fall. And yes, every empire in the history of mankind has fallen. If you smash the heart, the body dies. Fast.



where the failings of capitalism are least apparent, where too many people have too much to lose by rejecting capitalism.

Too many people have too much to lose by rejecting capitalism everywhere.
Its essentially why the system works on a global sphere, on a localized level.
Thats why revolutions are called revolutions, you replace those in power.

[Robocommie]

It's no use talking to you, you don't actually want to have a discussion; you want to preach and play "more socialist than thou." If you want to rant at people so badly, do it elsewhere.

[dez]

It's no use talking to you, you don't actually want to have a discussion; you want to preach and play "more socialist than thou." If you want to rant at people so badly, do it elsewhere.

This "holier than thou" attitude requires one to stand on a moral high horse.
Notice that I am not standing (or trying to protray me standing) on a horse at all.

[Crux]

Also, who do you think would carry it out? The CPUSA? SPUSA? The DSA?

The working class, preferably. As for the organizations you've mentioned I don't see any of them putting forward a consistently revolutionary line. Hell the CPUSA and the DSA can't even break with the Democrats.

[Uncle Rob]

When do you think the next Socialist revolution occur?

Also, who do you think would carry it out? The CPUSA? SPUSA? The DSA?


I would say that an actual revolution in America will not happen for decades as Socialists and Marxists are a minority here.

I just want to start out by saying that a revolution isn't something you can particularly predict. Our work must consist immediately of organization and as Comrade Organ pointed out, the first thing we have to do is to build that aura of credibility and efficiency. There are many ways to do this, and many tactics and issues the current American comrades aren't engaging in. or example, One major source of support can come from the oppressed black community in the south, where the constitute a majority of the population, live in the poorest conditions nationwide and live under fear and tyranny of Fascist supporters. Not a single party aside from the FRSO (I do not support this party, I'm simply stating) call for the Southern blacks to demand the right to self determination. The same applies to the Lakota Native Americans as well who are demanding their right to self-determination, yet no party hears their cries...

Another thing we are lacking (and this is something that I feel is the most important) is that no party has recognized the need for the creation of service workers unions in our majorly service based economy! What is truly absurd about this is that the service workers often work under the most horrendous conditions.

The internet too. Most parties are seeming to ignore the enormous propaganda value invested within the internet. Movements such as the Zeitgeist movement and the Alex Jones show have gained enormous support through their propaganda and the Communists are lagging behind because they are trapped in their primitive tactics.

On a final note, I just want to say that the recession is the worst we've seen in years, some studies are showing over 50% of Americans are in support of Socialism, and to me this statistic is music to my ears. Why then have we not seen a vanguard party rallying these supporters? This is the question the Communists must ask themselves first. There are also revisionists of the worst kind coming out of America such as the despicable parties of the RCP the CPUSA, that must also be addressed.

[Wolf Larson]

When the majority of workers become class conscience but by the looks of it Pfft. It isn't happening. Look at America right now, during this capitalist crisis the only people organizing on a meaningful scale are reactionaries! We're dropping the ball [even though our enemies have funding from Koch Industries and other capitalists we need to spread class awareness in opposition to this madness].Too many of us are quiet in fear of making Obama look bad [like the capitalist swine he is]. The higher up organizers and funding isn't there. I thought about it this morning in the shower. I figured many of the older revolutionaries and organizers are so happy a black person was voted in they don't want to ruin his image. The fact a person of color was elected is great BUT we need to stop apologizing for this man and start organizing against him. Not necessarily against him per say but against the system he stepped into and is happily perpetuating.

Presidents come and go. The system remains. Obama has marginalized the anti-war movement and the anti globalization movement which was exponentially growing during the Bush admin. So not only has the steam been taken out of our broader leftist movements by the capitalists new man in Washington they have also organized so called grass roots reactionary white working/middle class idiots to further marginalize any attempts we make to push for socialist pro worker policies and class awareness during this crisis. The capitalists know what they're doing. I have no hope in parliamentary socialism anyhow. What bothers me most is the new liberal [constituents]pro war attitude and the neo-McCarthy so called grass roots conservative mind frame. Both the liberal and Tea party reactionary mind frame is pro capitalist/war and is being crafted from the top down. One would think during this economic crisis and wars there would be MASSIVE WORKING CLASS upheaval. Nope. Only conservative reactionaries. We're dropping the ball. It's up to us to organize and spread class consciousness. Typos galore!

[Communist]

Not a single party aside from the FRSO (I do not support this party, I'm simply stating) call for the Southern blacks to demand the right to self determination.

Correction, comrade. WWP has for decades called on all oppressed peoples and nations to demand their right to self-determination, and WWP as a political party also demands it on their behalf. I am pretty sure the PSL and USMLO do as well.

[RadioRaheem84]

I find it interesting that leftists buy the reactionary propaganda that the working class cannot make a revolution in normal circumstances (that is, if the ruling classes do not screw up).
It can, and it has. Eliminate this defeatism from your views. The colonial rule by the french was made intolerable because the vietnamese people were commited and willing to give everything to determine their own fate, the batista regime downfall was an inevitable consequence of years and years and years of destabilization and activism and the tsarist situation was pretty much the same.
You don't wait for your enemy to make a mistake, you don't wait until they fuck up so you start waging class war. Class war is being waged every day, and the bourgeois usually is the one finding new ways to wage it. When the working class becomes aware of the material conditions surrounding itself and takes upon itself the task and responsabilities of waging class war, of finding new ways, paths and breaches to fight it, we have a revolution because the ruling classes cannot really maintain control over people who do not want to be controlled and are commited towards not being controlled.

I am also extremely skeptical about any revolution happening the United States. I used to work for a research insitute that did polling several times a year and one of the questions that was asked among a variety of people with differing political beliefs was; do you think the government should take measures to reduce income differences between the rich and poor. Well, 99% of the respondents answered NO, from the most reactionary of conservatives to the most mainstream liberal I interviewed. And this was during the whole '08 crisis!

The United States has been firmly emersed in propaganda to a dangerous level. If any revolt would happen it would most assuredly be right wing nationalist in nature and scope. There would be clashes between leftists/liberals and right wing jingoists but for the most part the revolutionary zeal at the moment is largely right wing.

So why are you claiming that we're defeatist if we can plainly see that the leftist alternative is NOT there at all, that not only are we a minority of a minority (liberal, progressives, the US Left) but that people are not interested in socialist revolution at all. At the most they're willing to except social democracy. Where are you guys seeing this hope?

People with little to no education, with no real net worth to speak of much less employment in Bolivia and Venezuela rose up and demanded that their government listen to them. People in Argentina rose up after the IMF took them for all they had and took over the factories and ran them democratically. People in India and Nepal took arms against the corrupt government.

But here, in the wealthiest nation in the world, bankers and politicians took a trillion dollars of our money, mired us in war, and shipped our jobs overseas to further exploit the third world and what did a huge swathe of the people do? They protested against socialism, thinking that all that I listed above was because of socialism. Large numbers of the working class joined larger numbers of the petit-bougies to protest against social benefits, against redistribution of wealth, to let the market work its magic, etc. All for "liberty". If that isn't the clear result of propaganda. I don't know what is.

We also have a complacent "left" that was awe struck for two years with a man who clearly was nothing more than a charlatan and appeased the growing frustration with the government. Now that the honeymoon is over, critical voices still do nothing to prove that the man is overrated and a total joke. Liberals run around this nation thinking they're representatives of the left, siding with Wall Street interests all the time. Progressives criticize but don't want to go too far. Our socialist and Communist parties are reformists with no backbone to give it to the man (Obama).

*gasps for air* ....and you wonder why I am skeptical.

[The Ghost of Revolutions]

It won't be for along time. People call socialism the s-word and are brainwashed into thinking that socialism will mean the gruesome death of their loved ones. Workers and liberals would even oppose it. We first need to inform the masses what socialism actually is. Even then it will be hard. Captialism has been entrenched in this country for a long time and won't go without a fight. As of now a revolution would be a complete failure.

[Uncle Rob]

Correction, comrade. WWP has for decades called on all oppressed peoples and nations to demand their right to self-determination, and WWP as a political party also demands it on their behalf. I am pretty sure the PSL and USMLO do as well.

Ah alright. I wasn't sure, I was basing it on half-assed research. Thanks for the catch.

[Martin Blank]

When do you think the next Socialist revolution occur?

Here? I'm not sure. In the end, that's not up to me. That's up to the working class. In the meantime, I'll continue to educate, agitate and organize for the self-liberation of my class.


Also, who do you think would carry it out? The CPUSA? SPUSA? The DSA?

None of the above. Some individuals or, in the case of the SPUSA, sections from these organizations may be a part of the revolution, but these three organizations, as they are constituted today, cannot provide political leadership for a workers' revolution -- much less actually carry it out.

For that matter, no single political organization can (or should) "carry it out". The liberation of the working class is the task of workers themselves, and no organization can substitute itself for the working class unless it encompasses the majority of the class. The role of the workers' political organization is to provide a political direction and political leadership. The members of our party who live to see the revolution will be a part of it and its political leadership.


I would say that an actual revolution in America will not happen for decades as Socialists and Marxists are a minority here.

Never say never. As late as the end of 1916, Lenin expressed his belief that he'd never live to see a revolution in Russia. And we all know how wrong he was about that.


I believe things have to get bad. Worse than they are now. Things have to be pretty damn unbearable for most folks before they're willing to risk death or prison by taking up guns against their government.

Historically, revolutions occur not when the situation is at its worst, but when an upswing sparks a crisis of illusions. The examples you give bear this out: Batista had been attempting to implement political and economic reforms; the tsar had promised democratic reforms as a result of the World War; with the end of Japanese occupation came talk of "de-colonization" sponsored by the United Nations. The American and French revolutions occurred at times when the economic and political situations were actually improving from the depths of a previous panic and political instability. The 1848 revolutions emerged after the economic and political crises of the late-1830s.

In the depths of crisis, most people tend to take a defensive posture, looking after their immediate needs and just trying to weather the storm. It is when that pressure begins to be lifted, promises of improvement, reform and prosperity -- "hope" and "change" -- are given but not fulfilled, and a "crisis of expectations" gives way to a "crisis of illusions" that we begin to see people, especially working people, looking beyond the confines of the capitalist order.


Not a single party aside from the FRSO (I do not support this party, I'm simply stating) call for the Southern blacks to demand the right to self determination. The same applies to the Lakota Native Americans as well who are demanding their right to self-determination, yet no party hears their cries...

Members of the Workers Party in America have supported the right of African Americans to self-determination since our founding at the beginning of 2009. Before that, the clandestine Communist League, a Charter Organization of the WPA, raised that programmatic point.

As well, the League was the only organization in December 2007 to come out openly in support of the Lakotah Freedom Movement and the establishment of the Republic of Lakotah. Today, the League and WPA remain the only organizations to openly support and work with the RoL's provisional government. Our Lakotah members have even begun translating communist writings, including the Communist Manifesto, into the Lakotah language -- both as a means of reaching elder and traditional Lakotah, and as a means of helping to preserve the language.


Another thing we are lacking (and this is something that I feel is the most important) is that no party has recognized the need for the creation of service workers unions in our majorly service based economy! What is truly absurd about this is that the service workers often work under the most horrendous conditions.

The WPA supports the Workers' International Industrial Union, which actively seeks to organize all working people -- industrial, agricultural, service and office -- into One Great Union of working people to fight in both the economic and political arenas. We also support the work of the Industrial Workers of the World in their efforts to continue organizing service workers at places like Starbucks.


The internet too. Most parties are seeming to ignore the enormous propaganda value invested within the internet. Movements such as the Zeitgeist movement and the Alex Jones show have gained enormous support through their propaganda and the Communists are lagging behind because they are trapped in their primitive tactics.

The biggest issues here are money and time. A small organization like ours, composed entirely of workers, has limited resources. Nevertheless, we are able to produce a small weekly news bulletin, a quarterly political journal, help with the publishing of two other monthly newspapers, publish books and pamphlets occasionally, and maintain websites to get the word out. In addition, this spring we are going to try a weekly talk radio program, broadcast live over the Internet, and plans are still in the works for a weekly news program. Ambitious, yes, but necessary.


On a final note, I just want to say that the recession is the worst we've seen in years, some studies are showing over 50% of Americans are in support of Socialism, and to me this statistic is music to my ears. Why then have we not seen a vanguard party rallying these supporters? This is the question the Communists must ask themselves first. There are also revisionists of the worst kind coming out of America such as the despicable parties of the RCP the CPUSA, that must also be addressed.

In a sense, you answer your own question. While more and more Americans are open to the ideas of "socialism" and communism (real communism), the last century has seen a myriad of self-described socialist and communist organizations betray working people. There is an understandable distrust of people who call themselves socialists or communists, even while support for an abstract "socialism" is at an historic high. There is a lot of proving ourselves that has to be done, still. Those who can prove that their organization and its activity are meaningful (i.e., are more than feel-good or "pressure valve" actions), and that they actually will not betray the exploited and oppressed at the moment of truth, will find themselves in a position to draw ever wider circles into a single revolutionary movement.

[redwog]

There are a few things worth discussing further.

Why do we believe that things have to get worse? This is always the line amongst comrades where I am from too.

Capitalist crisis is actually precipitated by the strength of the working class. The peak struggles in the late 1960s (Paris 68 et al) were at a time of relatively well functioning economy not performed by a weak and hungry working class. Indeed it is possible to argue that at the bottom of a crisis, the chance of the working class composing itself to achieve communisms is more marginal.

The real problem for the US working class, and the rest of us for that matter is organisational. The last 30 years have seen a systematic dismemberment of the organs of working class resistance (including social democratic and reformist ones). This has been coupled with a totalising shift in the composition of the working class; pulling apart mass factories and replacing them with smaller workshops or service sector jobs (or often no job at all). The working class is more difficult to organise using the traditional methods. It is more elusive and less inclined to compose itself in community groups/trade unions/civil rights organisations etc

The other element that is missing is leadership - both official and organic. This is more difficult, as you cannot wish leaders into existance and the leaders that do emerge cannot cicrulate and generalise their ideas without organisation. Obviously a minority left exists but is is on the fringes of the class and unable to penetrate meaningfully. We are reduced to agents of propoganda, which is usually ineffective.

As a result, a great deal of the working class have confused conciousness. The potentially rebellious ones see movies like Zeitgeist, read about conspiracies and campaign for Ron Paul.

Until a layer of the class can take a vanguardist role, establish some counter-hegemonic tendendcies and provide lessons to the rest of the class, a revolution will not happen there. In saying this, things can turn around rather quickly...

EDIT: I was writing my post at the same time as Miles posted, apologies for any of my points that are repetetive.

[RadioRaheem84]

The main focus should be to lead the major leftist parties in the nation away from reform and away from trailing the Democratic Party in the US. Nearly, every single mainstream leftist party somewhat endorses Obama and the Democrats. This needs to stop. For far too long the Democrats have appeased the left and made them co-tail to the demands of their lobbyists.

The second thing would be to educate people on socialism. Let them know that it's not all about state capitalism or even social democracy. It's about democratic control over the means of production. Democracy in the workplace.

[FreeFocus]

It will probably occur in Neveruary 2020.

But seriously, not anytime soon. Even with a cataclysmic imperial collapse, socialism would not arise out of that for a number of decades probably.

[Wobblie]

When do you think the next Socialist revolution occur?

The revolution is not something that can be planned. You can't just look at a calendar and set a date. The revolution will come when the working people make it happen. In the meantime as communists/anarchist it is our task to be the catalysts for struggle, since it is through struggle (economic) that the working class becomes aware of its revolutionary nature and begins the political struggle.


Also, who do you think would carry it out? The CPUSA? SPUSA? The DSA?

The working class will carry it out, not a political party. Parties can only be a source of education and training for the working class, but they do not deliver revolution.



I would say that an actual revolution in America will not happen for decades as Socialists and Marxists are a minority here.

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows?

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

Sorry to all of my American comrades but: I believe that America is virtually a lost cause in regards to full leftist revolution - for me Europe is where it's at.
I do believe that no matter how bad things get in America, the ingrained ideas of anti-communism, etc. will never be overcome.
I believe that should things get so bad in America that the state would create an Orwellian type of place.
I believe that why such revolutions have occured in other places is because that they havnt had such lies such as 'communism is evil', etc. forced upon them.
This doesn't mean that I don't believe America will ever be leftist - I just think that it won't so much be from within but instead from invasion from Communist countries, which I think is many years from now.

[Wobblie]

Sorry to all of my American comrades but: I believe that America is virtually a lost cause in regards to full leftist revolution - for me Europe is where it's at.
I do believe that no matter how bad things get in America, the ingrained ideas of anti-communism, etc. will never be overcome.
I believe that should things get so bad in America that the state would create an Orwellian type of place.
I believe that why such revolutions have occured in other places is because that they havnt had such lies such as 'communism is evil', etc. forced upon them.
This doesn't mean that I don't believe America will ever be leftist - I just think that it won't so much be from within but instead from invasion from Communist countries, which I think is many years from now.

I would have to disagree. The younger generations in this country don't have the same stiga towards communism like the older generations have, as a Rasmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2009/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism)taken in April of 2009 indicated, with 33% of people under 30 saying that socialism is preferrable to capitalism. And this generation has been found to be much more liberal than the preceeding generations especially in areas of the economy, as indicated by a study from the Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/pdf/political_ideology_youth_execsumm.pdf).

[RadioRaheem84]

Sorry to all of my American comrades but: I believe that America is virtually a lost cause in regards to full leftist revolution - for me Europe is where it's at.
I do believe that no matter how bad things get in America, the ingrained ideas of anti-communism, etc. will never be overcome.
I believe that should things get so bad in America that the state would create an Orwellian type of place.
I believe that why such revolutions have occured in other places is because that they havn't had such lies such as 'communism is evil', etc. forced upon them.
This doesn't mean that I don't believe America will ever be leftist - I just think that it won't so much be from within but instead from invasion from Communist countries, which I think is many years from now.




It's sad that I agree with a lot of what you said. But the most we can hope for in the US is a real social democratic movement to gain momentum but even then it might get conflated with socialism and reach a point of conflict with the reactionary forces here.

The socialist cause is not going to happen in the US at all. It will happen in places where the class conscious is widely disseminated and mass propaganda was minimal. the United States is unique in the manner that A.) The vast majority of the population doesn't know, understand or comprehend what Socialism really means.
B.) The working class has been trained to identify with the interests of the upper and middle classes.

[RadioRaheem84]

I would have to disagree. The younger generations in this country don't have the same stiga towards communism like the older generations have, as a Rasmussen poll (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2009/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism)taken in April of 2009 indicated, with 33% of people under 30 saying that socialism is preferrable to capitalism. And this generation has been found to be much more liberal than the preceeding generations especially in areas of the economy, as indicated by a study from the Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/pdf/political_ideology_youth_execsumm.pdf).

While a larger number of younger people identify with liberal and sometimes leftist politics, there is also a growing number of young adults who adhere to the politics of their parents. Libertarianism is also quite popular among younger people. Conservatism is strong among some of the more disenfranchised youth in the rural areas and suburbs.

As for the liberalism prevalent in the youth, it doesn't translate into sympathy for socialism much less communism. Socialism is largely a minority view in the US that has been repeatedly been used as word to scare off any progress for the lower classes.

I just have to ask, where is the hope in the US that you guys see, that I fail to see?

[Dimentio]

2053.09.27

It would probably be led by the military.

:lol:

[Wobblie]

While a larger number of younger people identify with liberal and sometimes leftist politics, there is also a growing number of young adults who adhere to the politics of their parents. Libertarianism is also quite popular among younger people. Conservatism is strong among some of the more disenfranchised youth in the rural areas and suburbs.

As for the liberalism prevalent in the youth, it doesn't translate into sympathy for socialism much less communism. Socialism is largely a minority view in the US that has been repeatedly been used as word to scare off any progress for the lower classes.

You're right that there is a number of libertarian and conservative youth, but this will always be the case. This is the case in every country. I would hardly say that they are a major force, the youth voted overwhelmingly in favor of Obama in the past election and a majority consider themselves "progressive." Does this equate to a sympathy with communism? No. But it does represent that more young people are losing faith in the whole "self-made-man" theory. Younger people are more likely to support nationalized health care and government regulation of the economy, which indicates both a realization that capitalism doesn't work for everyone and that there is a need for a democratization of the economy.


I just have to ask, where is the hope in the US that you guys see, that I fail to see?

In yourself, and in the working class.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

While a larger number of younger people identify with liberal and sometimes leftist politics, there is also a growing number of young adults who adhere to the politics of their parents. Libertarianism is also quite popular among younger people. Conservatism is strong among some of the more disenfranchised youth in the rural areas and suburbs.

As for the liberalism prevalent in the youth, it doesn't translate into sympathy for socialism much less communism. Socialism is largely a minority view in the US that has been repeatedly been used as word to scare off any progress for the lower classes.

I just have to ask, where is the hope in the US that you guys see, that I fail to see?

Is the rising liberal and leftist youth reflected in a rising far right and Nazi in the youth in America?

[RadioRaheem84]

You're right that there is a number of libertarian and conservative youth, but this will always be the case. This is the case in every country. I would hardly say that they are a major force, the youth voted overwhelmingly in favor of Obama in the past election and a majority consider themselves "progressive." Does this equate to a sympathy with communism? No. But it does represent that more young people are losing faith in the whole "self-made-man" theory. Younger people are more likely to support nationalized health care and government regulation of the economy, which indicates both a realization that capitalism doesn't work for everyone and that there is a need for a democratization of the economy.


I totally agree that a Social Democratic revolution is the best we can hope for. I mean these days advocating for a government like Sweden or Canada is revolutionary here in the States. So yes, that is what I am hoping for in the least for this country and will defend. I am just not holding my breath for an actual Socialist revolution like what is happening in Venezuela, Nepal, India, and even possibly Greece some day.

We're in a similar boat as the Depression Generation. Lassiez-Faire capitalism has been largely discredited and its adherents are looking dumber and dumber every day. The problem we face now is one of a growing proto-fascist movement in the reactionary camps in the US that wish to return to the greatness of the old times. The younger generation wants Social Democracy. There will be a clash. That's about it. No socialist revolution.

[RadioRaheem84]

Is the rising liberal and leftist youth reflected in a rising far right and Nazi in the youth in America?

The rising Neo-Nazi, reactionary movements are disenfranchised youth in the rural areas. The conservative and libertarian youth identify with their parents politics and largely live in the middle class suburbs. They want to be future petit-beorgoise and feel threatened by the lower classes and the rise of "socialism".

Liberalism is inner city youth, children of immigrants and minorities, children of liberal parents, upper middle class, and college educated, it varies but it usually has to do with a rejection of conservative values.

The youth in my opinion though are split in the middle with more favoring private enterprise with mild reforms. They want the security of social benefits but mainly for the security of social mobility.

Like I said the best we can hope for is a Social Democratic movement.

[Wobblie]

The rising Neo-Nazi, reactionary movements are disenfranchised youth in the rural areas.
I would say that the Neo-Nazi movement is much more prevalent among the petit bourgeoisie than among working class people or the youth.

[Wobblie]

I totally agree that a Social Democratic revolution is the best we can hope for. I mean these days advocating for a government like Sweden or Canada is revolutionary here in the States. So yes, that is what I am hoping for in the least for this country and will defend. I am just not holding my breath for an actual Socialist revolution like what is happening in Venezuela, Nepal, India, and even possibly Greece some day.

We're in a similar boat as the Depression Generation. Lassiez-Faire capitalism has been largely discredited and its adherents are looking dumber and dumber every day. The problem we face now is one of a growing proto-fascist movement in the reactionary camps in the US that wish to return to the greatness of the old times. The younger generation wants Social Democracy. There will be a clash. That's about it. No socialist revolution.

I think what you are missing is the opportunity this represents. With this growing support of liberalism in the U.S. you have a rejection of the conservative values that prove to be an obstacle to the radicalization of the working class. This openness towards more social democratic tendencies means an opening for a true Marxist movement.

[RadioRaheem84]

Is the rising liberal and leftist youth reflected in a rising far right and Nazi in the youth in America?

What? No. It is largely a movement among the white disenfranchised youth in the rural South and Midwest.

The petit-bourgeoisie are largely conservative, religious, nationalist and capitalist. Sometimes they're racist.

[RadioRaheem84]

This openness towards more social democratic tendencies means an opening for a true Marxist movement. I agree. I mean I am hoping more for a new Republican movement with a broad coalition of liberals, socialists and progressive like the Spanish Republic before Franco smashed it.

I mean could you imagine though if something like that happened though? If a liberal were to be elected with a broad coalition of liberals, socialists, Marxists, social democrats and leftists? That would cause a real revolt by the right. I mean just the mere misrepresentation of Obama's administration as "Marxist" caused a near riot by the right wing zealots.

No, there would be a clash. That's even if the current State apparatus would even allow for an Allende-type to ascend to power.

[Wobblie]

What? No. It is largely a movement among the white disenfranchised youth in the rural South and Midwest.

The petit-bourgeoisie are largely conservative, religious, nationalist and capitalist. Sometimes they're racist.
Is this response aimed at me? The quote isn't from my post, but it seems to be aimed at my statement about the petit bourgeoisie.

[RadioRaheem84]

LOL. Yeah, sorry. Quoted the wrong person. :blushing:

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

What? No. It is largely a movement among the white disenfranchised youth in the rural South and Midwest.

The petit-bourgeoisie are largely conservative, religious, nationalist and capitalist. Sometimes they're racist.


LOL. Yeah, sorry. Quoted the wrong person. :blushing:

No worries :)

[Wobblie]

I agree. I mean I am hoping more for a new Republican movement with a broad coalition of liberals, socialists and progressive like the Spanish Republic before Franco smashed it.

I mean could you imagine though if something like that happened though? If a liberal were to be elected with a broad coalition of liberals, socialists, Marxists, social democrats and leftists? That would cause a real revolt by the right. I mean just the mere misrepresentation of Obama's administration as "Marxist" caused a near riot by the right wing zealots.

No, there would be a clash. That's even if the current State apparatus would even allow for an Allende-type to ascend to power.

I don't believe electoral politics is the way to go. What we need is the Marxist parties to push for revolutionary industrial unionism, and to be the catalysts for struggle between the workers and the bosses. It is through this kind of action at there is a radicalization of the working class, and the economic struggles lead to the political struggles (class wide movement for changing the system, rather than shop floor direct action for better working conditions). Right now in America, with the illusion that Obama and the Democrats would deliver real change being destroyed and the economic downturn continuing, I believe that the working class is seeing more and more that we live in a plutocracy not a democracy. I think that they are looking for a way to bring about real change, and we as communists need to show our brothers and sisters that they don't need to look any further then themselves. That they hold the power in this nation, and through a workers party run by the workers (which would help to coordinate political action) and a revolutionary industrial union, also run by the workers, (which will lead economic action) they can make real change.

[Wobblie]

What? No. It is largely a movement among the white disenfranchised youth in the rural South and Midwest.

The petit-bourgeoisie are largely conservative, religious, nationalist and capitalist. Sometimes they're racist.

I did some more research and found that they have been doing a lot of outreach to young disenfranchised people, but could not find any stats on the demographics of the current members. So, I detract my statement till I have some actual numbers.

[RadioRaheem84]

The problem was blamed on socialism because Americans don't understand socialism or capitalism. They believe the prosperity of the mid twentieth century was due to free enterprise. How they believe this I do not know!? How they fail to take the obvious state intervention of the forties, fifties and sixties is beyond me.

[Wanted Man]

What the discussion here shows is exactly the problem that part of the USA left seems to have. They don't seem to have a great amount of confidence in the working class itself, but are more worried about temporal matters like Obama's election, the Teabaggers, etc., as if it's only a matter of months until the US turns into some fascist hellhole.

The misconception here is the same as in the OP, namely that there will be a "leftist revolution", i.e. that the revolution will be entirely carried out by some present or future leftist party or organisation, regardless of class. Nobody says that explicitly, but that's how I would interpret the way people express themselves here. In that case, the future organisers of the "leftist revolution" must be having their hands in their hair, because the working class itself is conspicuously absent from their groups. That's also why they're so worried about hyped-up astroturf groups like the Teabaggers, because they take note of this, and of the fact that the Teabaggers claim to represent the working class, and actually believe it.

That misconception is also the reason why Robocommie translated Organ's message, "You are capable of changing things; defeatism is out of place" as "You should form revolutionary cadres and start a shooting war". The latter is obviously ridiculous, but why even think in such terms? Has the idea of what a "revolution" constitutes become so warped?

The US left, even more than in many European countries, seriously needs to rethink. It's not exactly like there is a massive lack of a union movement, an anti-war movement, student movement, etc., but what do you do with it? I leave it to you to find the answer, because that's just how this game works. ;) (besides, I don't claim to have answers ready-made)


It's no use talking to you, you don't actually want to have a discussion; you want to preach and play "more socialist than thou." If you want to rant at people so badly, do it elsewhere.

It's too bad that you were so angry at Organ that you failed to understand most of what he was saying. I thought most of his criticism was pretty good, though I might have formulated things differently.


Sorry to all of my American comrades but: I believe that America is virtually a lost cause in regards to full leftist revolution - for me Europe is where it's at.
I do believe that no matter how bad things get in America, the ingrained ideas of anti-communism, etc. will never be overcome.
I believe that should things get so bad in America that the state would create an Orwellian type of place.
I believe that why such revolutions have occured in other places is because that they havnt had such lies such as 'communism is evil', etc. forced upon them.
This doesn't mean that I don't believe America will ever be leftist - I just think that it won't so much be from within but instead from invasion from Communist countries, which I think is many years from now.

What makes you say that? You live in the UK; is the UK particularly more likely to see a revolution than the USA? Or the Netherlands or Germany for that matter? I would very much doubt it.

[Robocommie]

What the discussion here shows is exactly the problem that part of the USA left seems to have. They don't seem to have a great amount of confidence in the working class itself, but are more worried about temporal matters like Obama's election, the Teabaggers, etc., as if it's only a matter of months until the US turns into some fascist hellhole.That's because the United States is in a weird position, historically. We have a very long tradition of reactionary movements springing up at moments of great tension. Through most of the 20th century, the Ku Klux Klan has been a rather visible presence and it's membership has been almost entirely working class; they're also thoroughly anti-Communist. And it's not just the KKK, and not all of this right wing populism is the work of astro-turfing. After all, these Tea Parties are usually organized by corporate money, but the people attending and spouting off the rhetoric of the American Revolution are not actors. And it wasn't astroturf groups who formed right-wing militias like in Michigan and elsewhere.

If American leftists have anxiety about the working class and burgeoning fascism, there's a reason for it. It's the history of things like Bleeding Kansas, people like Quantrill's Raiders who were working class whites actually fighting FOR the land rights of the Southern aristocracy - hell, the white landowners managed to convince hundreds of thousands to fight against their own economic interests, and the resulting civil war devastated the country.

There is a risk in this country, because of it's history, that if poor white folks get mad because of how they've been treated, that they'll turn to reactionary politics. The American Left is contending against all of that history, plus the fact that for nearly the entire second half of the 20th century, this country was the moral center of the fight against communism. My mother told me once that growing up, she had been taught that Nazism and Communism were the same thing. That's what we're fighting.


It's too bad that you were so angry at Organ that you failed to understand most of what he was saying. I thought most of his criticism was pretty good, though I might have formulated things differently.


Very little of what he said was technically wrong, though I have my disagreements with a few things he said. More annoying was the way in which he immediately started labeling me a defeatist and lecturing me on what I needed to do. He said we needed to go out and build an aura of credibility, well no shit. I'm not in the mood to argue against things I partially agree with just because it's been presumed that I must not think them, and I'm not interested in doing it against a condescending, superior tone.

I get a lot out of this forum, but I've been trying to avoid a lot of hardcore arguments and debates since a lot of it boils down to irreconcilable differences in political philosophy, and I tend to grow a lot more as a Leftist when I have discussions where I feel there's mutual respect, and being told to "stop being defeatist and go out and do class warfare" is not something I have time or the inclination to humor.

[Outinleftfield]

Historically major events, the ones that are remembered tend to happen rapidly and only a few people predict them, sometimes are even ridiculed for their predictions until it happens and then they can say "told you so".

Few people thought the USSR was going to collapse up until the last year. Even when it became obvious it would at least transition to capitalism people still expected it to hold together.

Few expected WWI.
Few expected the Russian Revolution. As one poster said already Lenin thought he would never live to see revolution in 1916.

If revolution comes it will be because of factors most people didn't notice, bubbling under the surface, things that you need to look at deeply in order to see.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

2053.09.27

It would probably be led by the military.

:lol:

I can't wait until the day that Juche comes to the USA. :lol:

[alkateeb]

i cant say when it will begin, but i can tell you that until we start acting like comrades instead of this bullshit that i quoted, we will never in our days, or our childrens, succeed. christ, i mean, you act like little kids, just try to get along, be the bigger man (or woman) and stfu and "walk away" if the individual (in your mind) is too big of a bigot to see your side, and resorts to arguing, then assume (dont say) that he is a pig trying to cause drama, and separation amongst comrades, thats why the revolution hasnt already been organized, not cause big bad govt, or the big brother is watching and will put a stop to it before it begins, or that we dont have the balls to do it, or that we dont have the weapons, or backing, or any of the other bullshit excuses we have. excuses are like assholes, everyone has one and they all suck, now let your balls drop, and act like men, and get along, cause thats the only reason we arent fighting for what we believe in, cause people want to argue over stupid shit like "when do you think the revolution will start? I want to put it on my calendar", i mean wth?!?! Comrades, Im not innocent, but I am making an effort to get along with the rest of you, are you? Ask yourself that, and then make the changes you need to, when the majority of us can do this, then my friends, the revolution will begin.

Gee, you do things, now stop acting as if you're defeated already and go wage class war.



I was being facetious.



I really don't care about how you think I look, so you can quit explaining it now. Its not relevant to the debate either.



You said it without saying.
The notion that the US is an impenetrable fortress and other less developed countries are more apt for a revolution because the establishment has a "lesser grip" inherently promotes the idea that whomever wants a revolution now, at this moment, should get out of the fortress and try their luck in the developing world, and those people are usually the more aware and the more commited revolutionaries you can get. Essentially you're saying: We lost. We will lose for decades, and every revolutionary would do better with leaving the country. Not that you meant to say it though.




Its completely fucking aisine on your part to think you have a shot on defeating the bourgeois fighting under their rules.
Who said anything about voting?
Who said anything about relying on their parliament?
Who said anything about building a political force relying on traditional "ways to influence national politics"?
A party can do much more than simply try to get votes in the next election, it can try to win hearts and minds forever. After you have that, victories in "their" system are inevitable and unstoppable.



Who said class war is supposed to be easy?
Do you think the struggle in vietnam, in tsarist russia and in cuba was completely based on dissatisfaction with a dying system?
If yes, then you have again confirmed my whole "lecture" on defeatism.




I'm under the impression that rome wasn't the last bastion of the roman empire to fall. And yes, every empire in the history of mankind has fallen. If you smash the heart, the body dies. Fast.



Too many people have too much to lose by rejecting capitalism everywhere.
Its essentially why the system works on a global sphere, on a localized level.
Thats why revolutions are called revolutions, you replace those in power.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

What makes you say that? You live in the UK; is the UK particularly more likely to see a revolution than the USA? Or the Netherlands or Germany for that matter? I would very much doubt it.

I cannot believe that the USA would have a revolution, simply because of just how much the majority hate Communism.
In the UK, for example, there is barely any anti-Communist sentiment and most people here typically have a more liberal or leftist stance. The only real opposition to us in the UK is the Torys and I can't honestly see those posh toffs fighting to stop us.
I think that you don't nessesarily need support from the majority of people, just indifference.
I am not sure but isn't the Netherlands quite similar to the UK in regards to the political spectrum and the proportions of who supports which ideaology. Germany is, from my understanding, a very money orientated nation, so they just need a huge recession, and combine that with a somewhat liberal tendency then you could work something out.
A good thing about Europe atm is the Euro, of one country loses all their money then it screws all the other ones up too - thus providing a way to spur a whole continent into action.

[Martin Blank]

What the discussion here shows is exactly the problem that part of the USA left seems to have. They don't seem to have a great amount of confidence in the working class itself, but are more worried about temporal matters like Obama's election, the Teabaggers, etc., as if it's only a matter of months until the US turns into some fascist hellhole.

Actually, the problem with the left is the opposite of what you say, and is closer to your point of view: they do not see any kind of development or change; everything is as it was 20, 40, 75 years ago. It's still the same ol' imperialism, the same ol' bourgeois democracy, the same ol' same ol'.

I do see the Tea Party Nativists as an incipient mass fascist movement in the U.S., and I do think Robocommie has a point about the peculiarities of American history (though he does sort of overstate the influence of the third generation KKK among white workers -- it had more influence during its second generation, in the 1920s). This country has flirted with fascism for 90 years, but because of the fact that capitalism has not had a need for a mass fascist movement, primarily because the workers' movement has historically been weak and disorganized, it has kept the leash on.

But at this point in history, with working people growing more and more angry and frustrated with the Republicans and Democrats, and knowing that an uptick in the economic situation is going to provoke a move by workers to get back what they gave up over recent years (which capitalism is not willing to part with), they might have a use for the Nativists after all, much as they had a use for similar "patriotic" groups in the 1920s.

It's not that we see this on a scale of months. The fact is that the slide from bourgeois democracy to corporatism was over the course of a generation, beginning in the late-1970s and lasting until 2000. What we're seeing now has more of a Bonapartist feel, but there is more than a whiff of fascism in the air these days. Whether it's a few years or more down the road depends on a lot of factors. One thing is certain, though: failing to organize now against a possible threat from the Nativist fascists only keeps the path clear for them to potentially grow, and leaves it entirely up to the exploiting and oppressing classes to decide their fate.

[Martin Blank]

I don't believe electoral politics is the way to go. What we need is the Marxist parties to push for revolutionary industrial unionism, and to be the catalysts for struggle between the workers and the bosses. It is through this kind of action at there is a radicalization of the working class, and the economic struggles lead to the political struggles (class wide movement for changing the system, rather than shop floor direct action for better working conditions). Right now in America, with the illusion that Obama and the Democrats would deliver real change being destroyed and the economic downturn continuing, I believe that the working class is seeing more and more that we live in a plutocracy not a democracy. I think that they are looking for a way to bring about real change, and we as communists need to show our brothers and sisters that they don't need to look any further then themselves. That they hold the power in this nation, and through a workers party run by the workers (which would help to coordinate political action) and a revolutionary industrial union, also run by the workers, (which will lead economic action) they can make real change.

This, obviously. The only value, at this point, to even participating in elections here is as a means of agitating for non-electoral action and organization. Even if a workers' party were to sweep elections across the board, it would immediately be confronted by the capitalist state, which would move to "correct" the "error" of the election through a coup d'état. While this scenario would provide a "legal" cover for overthrowing capitalism (which is why a "legal" public organization like the Workers Party includes it as a part of our strategy), it doesn't actually do a thing to make it happen. That rests, as Wobblie rightly points out, with the organization of the workers themselves -- revolutionary industrial unions, workplace committees and workers' councils.

[redwog]

I have seen too much of this nonsense about the people of the USA hating communism and therefore revolution being unlikely.

It's as if communism is some sort of ideological choice one must make.

Communism is a process, a strategy for human liberation. It is material in origin not ideological. Two homeless people, on a winters night, with 1 blanket and 1 cup of milk between them do not share because they like or dislike communism, they do so because it is in their material interest. (Just as may be a fist fight between them and the winner takes all!)

Ideology, in particular bourgeois ideology serves to mystify material interest. This is where communist hate comes from, along with religion, individualist competition, racism, sexism and so forth come from.

No doubt it is a barrier to the process of discussion' communist politics but discussion and practice are radically different. Hating communism but unknowingly practicing it in struggle is possible because it works.