Revolution and the US Military

[JAH23]

In the inevitable case of a revolution, don't you think the United States would immediately crush an uprise with the use of its armed forces? I am trying to think realistically. How would we manage to defeat the world's strongest and most well equipped military? Sheer numbers?

[Raúl Duke]

Tactics...it boils down to tactics.
Plus numbers are fine too.

We also have to consider the possibility that some/many/most soldiers could defect.

[Tablo]

While I'm sure some would defect, it is important to recognize that most soldiers come from the southeast and the strongholds of the left tend to be elsewhere.

Our strength and the victory of the revolution will entirely depend on our numbers. When the vast majority support us they will refuse to supply the military with the goods produced in their workplaces(assuming the masses are class conscious supporters that take control of their workplaces).

[ComradeOm]

In the inevitable case of a revolution, don't you think the United States would immediately crush an uprise with the use of its armed forces? I am trying to think realistically. How would we manage to defeat the world's strongest and most well equipped military? Sheer numbers?What military? As far as I'm aware the US Army is stretched to the limit with two low intensity conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously these will not last forever, and the industrial/military might of the US is unmatched, but let's not assume that a worst case scenario (ie, a shooting war and massive invasion) is probable

Although this is a foreign perspective. As to what will occur within the United States... well I'd hope that by that point the military is no longer part of the equation. If the US political elite is still able to rely upon its army to crush the worker movement then it is clearly not the time for a successful revolution. Every revolution has two basic, but closely interlinked, components - the refusal of the masses to continue with the present conditions, and the inability of the bourgeoisie (though its state apparatus) to enforce these conditions

[JAH23]

Tactics...it boils down to tactics.
Plus numbers are fine too.

We also have to consider the possibility that some/many/most soldiers could defect.

And what tactics are you referring to?

[Os Cangaceiros]

As I said in another thread: Even the most despotic governments rest on a certain measure of popular support.

Take a look at the history of mass strikes in the United States. Most of them were limited to certain geographic areas, and weren't about seizing political power. Yet even in those events, you had cases where police, state militias and even some of the National Guard defected.

[red cat]

Revolution in the US is most likely to occur only after several third world countries have had their own revolutions after defeating US troops. This will result a significant weakening of the US army and also the vast majority of the proletarian elements there switching sides.

[AK]

Revolution in the US is most likely to occur only after several third world countries have had their own revolutions after defeating US troops. This will result a significant weakening of the US army and also the vast majority of the proletarian elements there switching sides.
Perhaps, but I get the feeling that, since the US most likely won't be class conscious anytime soon, killing American troops if they tried a counter-revolution would spark a huge uproar in the US.

[¿Que?]

I think with enough pressure, the government and the people running the military will be so de-ligitemized that most troops will refuse to follow orders. It doesn't matter if they accept communism. The military will be dissolved after the revolution, so it really doesn't matter what they think, so long as they don't follow orders (say, like firing on American citizens...).

[AK]

The military will be dissolved after the revolution, so it really doesn't matter what they think
That should be tricky...

[mikelepore]

In the inevitable case of a revolution, don't you think the United States would immediately crush an uprise with the use of its armed forces? I am trying to think realistically. How would we manage to defeat the world's strongest and most well equipped military? Sheer numbers?

If the revolution is illegal, yes, the police and military would suppress the uprising, and millions of workers would be killed, maimed, or, the lucky ones, sent to prison. Therefore, the success of the revolution is only possible if socialists have previously taken control of the elected political offices and have issued a legal mandate formally to transfer ownership of the industries to the workers' organization. After such a legal mandate, law enforcement agencies would enforce the revolution, and it would be the resistant capitalist who would be the outlaw.

[AK]

If the revolution is illegal, yes, the police and military would suppress the uprising, and millions of workers would be killed, maimed, or, the lucky ones, sent to prison. Therefore, the success of the revolution is only possible if socialists have previously taken control of the elected political offices and have issued a legal mandate formally to transfer ownership of the industries to the workers' organization. After such a legal mandate, law enforcement agencies would enforce the revolution, and it would be the resistant capitalist who would be the outlaw.
Interesting, I never picked you to be a reformist :p

[¿Que?]

That should be tricky...
Since the military and the police are the power behind all the other state bureaucracies, I should think this to be the first order of business.

[JacobVardy]

If the revolution is illegal, yes, the police and military would suppress the uprising, and millions of workers would be killed, maimed, or, the lucky ones, sent to prison. Therefore, the success of the revolution is only possible if socialists have previously taken control of the elected political offices and have issued a legal mandate formally to transfer ownership of the industries to the workers' organization. After such a legal mandate, law enforcement agencies would enforce the revolution, and it would be the resistant capitalist who would be the outlaw.

There is no way that the bourgeois will allow a revolutionary party to take power after an election win. The results would simply be annulled, the nation invaded or subject to a credit strike to wreck the economy. That is not to say that taking part in elections could not be a valid revolutionary tactic. Indeed, provoking the annulling of an election could be a blow that would win over parts of the armed forces. Revolutionary Spain is instructive; a number of non-leftists remained loyal to the Republic because the popular front had won the election.

[Red Rebel]

We can NOT defeat the US military on their terms. A Revolution needs the capitalists cannon fodder (soldiers) to defect, desert, lose moral (i.e. being ordered to attack civilians), ect.

Also strikes would upset the capitalist war machine and they'd be unable to sustain a war.

[AK]

We can NOT defeat the US military on their terms. A Revolution needs the capitalists cannon fodder (soldiers) to defect, desert, lose moral (i.e. being ordered to attack civilians), ect.
Killing civilians obviously doesn't phase the US military - especially if the soldiers believe they are doing it for a righteous cause.
http://collateralmurder.org/

Also strikes would upset the capitalist war machine and they'd be unable to sustain a war.
Good point.

[chegitz guevara]

If the revolution is illegal, yes, the police and military would suppress the uprising, and millions of workers would be killed, maimed, or, the lucky ones, sent to prison. Therefore, the success of the revolution is only possible if socialists have previously taken control of the elected political offices and have issued a legal mandate formally to transfer ownership of the industries to the workers' organization. After such a legal mandate, law enforcement agencies would enforce the revolution, and it would be the resistant capitalist who would be the outlaw.

:blink:

[Red Commissar]

A good chunk of the military are right-wingers with southern or rural midwestern roots. We might have some sympathizers in there, but they won't be enough to make a difference.

If the fate of the country is at stake, you'd better believe the government will fight back with everything its got, from the military down to the national guard and police.

A revolution in the United States of this caliber would only be possible if the working class was fully behind it (joining the struggle, not working in the arms industries any more, etc), and with the way the political climate is currently that is doubtful.

[Crusade]

This is why I don't understand some people's objection to so called "third worldism". Pick your damn battles, we don't need any more "martyrs". Stay alive and stay out of prison. There are far more nations living in poverty than living "comfortably". These nations typically have weak states, with populations who have been denied their piece of the pie, and ultimately have no loyalties to the Capitalist system. North America in general cannot be won with one strategy alone. It's far too big and with many right wingers believing the country to somehow be under "Socialist" control ALREADY, there's even a possibility of a right wing counter-assault on the Federal government, hell maybe even a second Civil War. We've seen an increase in talks about "states rights" and the noble intentions of the Confederacy from our own politicians, not just southern fringe groups. A divided Capitalist state sounds like an obvious opening, but this could also mean an incoming police state, with military patrols(likely national guard), and an authoritarian crackdown on any and all suspicious characters(like us, for example).

[Vendetta]

I'd say it depends.

Look how long they've been bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[ComradeOm]

If the revolution is illegal, yes, the police and military would suppress the uprising, and millions of workers would be killed, maimed, or, the lucky ones, sent to prison. Therefore, the success of the revolution is only possible if socialists have previously taken control of the elected political offices and have issued a legal mandate formally to transfer ownership of the industries to the workers' organization. After such a legal mandate, law enforcement agencies would enforce the revolution, and it would be the resistant capitalist who would be the outlaw.I see that we are no longer restricting reformists

[Coggeh]

While I'm sure some would defect, it is important to recognize that most soldiers come from the southeast and the strongholds of the left tend to be elsewhere.

Most if not all average soldiers come from working class backgrounds generally poorer working class backgrounds and it is revolution is only enable if the mass of the working class are behind it . Now it is enable and obvious that their will be a military backlash but the vast amounds of soldiers would come over to the side of the revolution or at least refuse to fight it considering relatives and friends would be the ones doing the revolting.


Our strength and the victory of the revolution will entirely depend on our numbers. When the vast majority support us they will refuse to supply the military with the goods produced in their workplaces(assuming the masses are class conscious supporters that take control of their workplaces). It isn't really based on numbers so much, but more the organised working class which has the power to shut down capitalism the Russian revolution in October didn't have the majority behind it but it still succeded because it had the organised working class behind it . After that its only a matter of time and tactics.

[ZeroNowhere]

Interesting, I never picked you to be a reformist :p
"Reform means a change of externals; revolution, peaceful or bloody, the peacefulness or the bloodiness of it cuts no figure whatever in the essence of the question, means a change from within. [...] Whenever a change leaves the internal mechanism untouched, we have reform; whenever the internal mechanism is changed, we have revolution."

Mike is not suggesting simply reforming capitalism, he is suggesting revolution, the replacement of capitalism by socialism. That post did not say anything about reforms under capitalism, in fact.