If a right-wing coup happens, should socialists resist?

[Proletarian Ultra]

Excuse the dumb hypothetical, but this is Learning, so why not.

Self explanatory. Inspired by discussions on the Thai situation a little while ago.

A junta of David Petraeus and John McCain and Jamie Dimon take over from Obama, or some other bourgeois-liberal head of state.
(Ignore for the moment that there's no need for this to happen.)

Do we join the Democrats in the streets? Or do we sit at home b/c he's a bourgeois douche?

[Raúl Duke]

We should form a separate bloc; I reject that 2-sided dichotomy.

[the last donut of the night]

I chose none because a coup isn't happening. The bourgeoisie is very happy now in the US; Obama is the more charismatic Bush and his lies have been gobbled up very well. He has instituted no dangerous reforms, he just talks a lot while still holding up all the reactionary policies of the American empire. He isn't an Arbenz, or a Chavez, a Mosadegh, or a Quadros. The bourgeoisie is in love with Obama.

[Invincible Summer]

I don't see how it would be any different than Obama being voted out in favour for a right-winger, and we don't necessarily resist this. We resist the whole system, not individuals who are in power.

[Martin Blank]

If a coup was to happen again, most Democrats would stay at home, just as they did in 2000 and 2004. They fear a small-d democratic movement that can get out of their control more than they fear a reactionary takeover.

[TheSamsquatch]

Coup or not, no matter who sits atop, i'll still riot. Maybe for different reasons, but i'll still be there.

[The Ben G]

That would be the Ideal time to begin a separate faction for revolution.

[jake williams]

That would be the Ideal time to begin a separate faction for revolution.
Separate from what?

[Terminator X]

I, for one, would welcome this scenario. I wouldn't necessarily be rioting against the coup attempt, but more trying to take advantage of the chaos and form a united leftist faction. It would be the perfect storm to begin a revolution.

[28350]

There is no serious left at all in the US.
If this happened, we'd be so incredibly fucked, because workers would either be drawn into or alienated by the democrats.
We would need at least a substantial leftist base before we could lead any sort of independent socialist movement.

[28350]

Also, I doubt this sort of coup will occur.

[The Ben G]

Separate from what?

In case if the more Hard Lined liberals start one.

[bcbm]

i would probably just make a drink and have a smoke.

[Glenn Beck]

Keep my head the fuck down, that's what.

Have fun getting your asses shot and dumped in the ocean.

[black magick hustla]

cross the southern border and keep my head down

[Robocommie]

Keep my head the fuck down, that's what.

Have fun getting your asses shot and dumped in the ocean.

You know what? Just to spite you, I think I WILL have fun with it.

[∞]

If they couped anyone who was elected democratically I would riot

[Luisrah]

If they couped anyone who was elected democratically I would riot

Depends if you call bought votes democratic, brainwashing democratic and a number of other bourgeois democracies democratic.

I don't know if that happens in the USA, but in Portugal they get votes like that. How much is it? 25 euros? Here it is, thanks for your vote.

[Martin Blank]

Resist? Definitely. Riot? No. I would work with my comrades (in the narrow and broad senses of the term), as well as with democratic-minded brothers and sisters, to fight back based on a revolutionary perspective. I sure as hell wouldn't tuck my tail between my legs and hide like a fucking coward. There are some things worth putting your life and your well-being on the line for.

[gorillafuck]

That would be the Ideal time to begin a separate faction for revolution.
A right wing coup can't be the ideal anything.

[Nolan]

If a neoconservative military dictatorship would come to power, I would recommend something like what the left did in Chile under Pinochet's rule.

Edit: Lol. Hows this for dictator?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gen._McChrystal_News_Briefing2010_cropped2.jp ghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Gen._McChrystal_News_Briefing2010_cropped2.jpg/250px-Gen._McChrystal_News_Briefing2010_cropped2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gen._McChrystal_News_Briefing2010_cropped2.jp g

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I'd have to say yes since I'd fear that a tyrant would become the leader of the coup and lead a campaign to chase down anyone who disagreed with them in a major way... especially marxists....

[Martin Blank]

Edit: Lol. Hows this for dictator?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gen._McChrystal_News_Briefing2010_cropped2.jp ghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Gen._McChrystal_News_Briefing2010_cropped2.jpg/250px-Gen._McChrystal_News_Briefing2010_cropped2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gen._McChrystal_News_Briefing2010_cropped2.jp g

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

General Stanley Bushmills McCristal!

[JacobVardy]

I'd protest. From what sudamericani comrades have told me, there is a qualitative difference when elections are ignored. The bourgeois state gets worse when there is not even a minimal accounting.

[meow]

i would shoot the president.

[Dimentio]

I chose none because a coup isn't happening. The bourgeoisie is very happy now in the US; Obama is the more charismatic Bush and his lies have been gobbled up very well. He has instituted no dangerous reforms, he just talks a lot while still holding up all the reactionary policies of the American empire. He isn't an Arbenz, or a Chavez, a Mosadegh, or a Quadros. The bourgeoisie is in love with Obama.

Really, the only way for a left-wing politician (a real left-wing politician) to carry out his or her reforms in America is to be 100% reactionary in foreign policy. A left-wing president with single-payer healthcare, higher benefits and increased levels of statism would almost need to bomb and humiliate third world country after third world country because the American public loves to see the mighty military of America rape third world countries. In general, they rally behind the leader during bomb campaigns against enemies, and sometimes it seems like most Americans do not even care for casus belli.

While the liberals and progressives of course will dislike such a leader, the majority of the urban population will not care as long as they get increased benefits, and the president would also win support from the rural population because of his belligerent foreign policy.

In short, an American left-wing president would need to be like a combination of Hugo Chàvez on the domestic front and Bush on crack on the international front - in short a caesarian figure.

In short, if you want to institute a left-wing political programme in terms of social progressive policies, you need to couple that with reactionary reforms in order to confuse and split the opposition. That usually means retreats on symbol issues and a focus on real issues.

* Single-payer healthcare

* Increased benefits on the whole scale

* A federalisation of power

* Guaranteed employment for everyone.

* The ten commandments in all courthouses and public places-

* A new bombing campaign against a third world country every season

* Give the rural population increased gun-owner protection, even wider than what the Republicans would propose.

* Draconian immigration laws.

* Harsher crime laws.

In short, the only way for left democrats or people further left of them (Chávez-style populists) in order to manage to carry through sweeping reforms without alienating the population and galvanising the opposition would be to attempt to outflank the Republicans from the right as well.

I am of course not advocating such a policy, which would be cynical and machiavellian beyond the word and also borderline fascist, but I guess it would be the only way to guarantee reforms to pass through.

One example would be the draconian abortion law of the sandinistas.

[Raúl Duke]

Really, the only way for a left-wing politician (a real left-wing politician) to carry out his or her reforms in America is to be 100% reactionary in foreign policy. A left-wing president with single-payer healthcare, higher benefits and increased levels of statism would almost need to bomb and humiliate third world country after third world country because the American public loves to see the mighty military of America rape third world countries. In general, they rally behind the leader during bomb campaigns against enemies, and sometimes it seems like most Americans do not even care for casus belli.

While the liberals and progressives of course will dislike such a leader, the majority of the urban population will not care as long as they get increased benefits, and the president would also win support from the rural population because of his belligerent foreign policy.

In short, an American left-wing president would need to be like a combination of Hugo Chàvez on the domestic front and Bush on crack on the international front - in short a caesarian figure.

In short, if you want to institute a left-wing political programme in terms of social progressive policies, you need to couple that with reactionary reforms in order to confuse and split the opposition. That usually means retreats on symbol issues and a focus on real issues.

* Single-payer healthcare

* Increased benefits on the whole scale

* A federalisation of power

* Guaranteed employment for everyone.

* The ten commandments in all courthouses and public places-

* A new bombing campaign against a third world country every season

* Give the rural population increased gun-owner protection, even wider than what the Republicans would propose.

* Draconian immigration laws.

* Harsher crime laws.

In short, the only way for left democrats or people further left of them (Chávez-style populists) in order to manage to carry through sweeping reforms without alienating the population and galvanising the opposition would be to attempt to outflank the Republicans from the right as well.

I am of course not advocating such a policy, which would be cynical and machiavellian beyond the word and also borderline fascist, but I guess it would be the only way to guarantee reforms to pass through.

One example would be the draconian abortion law of the sandinistas.

I think there are certain short-comings.

There's also the fact to consider that the U.S. has a lot of regionalism in terms of politics and policy.

A (yet non-existant) American fascist will probably not centralize power in certain ways as you mention, in fact it would support "letting the states choose." This way, states that want single payer public health care are allowed to have it while does who don't opt out and formulate their own health-care scheme as they wish. Same with immigration, states on the border will probably push harsher laws but these will be local laws. Some states will have harsh laws while others may not, either way this kind of movement will render the federal government as more of an enabler to states' policies instead of making contentious universal policy and applying them equally to all states. A laissez-faire (yet enabling, i.e. provide funds to aid said states with policies they wish, etc) federal government approach to states' policies on things like welfare, abortion, etc seem to be the more likely and logical choice for such a hypothetical movement to take.

This course of action will harmonize the political discourse at the federal level as the issue of applying a "liberal" or "conservative" policies to states that don't want will be a rare occurance.

In terms of war, it will be inaccurate to say that a causa belli is not necessary and that any war with a 3rd world country will. The U.S. will need to have one, whether real, imaginary, or fabricated, and all said wars must be quick wars with little to no occupation-job afterward. Wars that get drawn out tend to create a war-weary public (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq) and it bodes bad for the government if the causa belli for these wars are "forgotten" or rejected.

Guaranteed Employment however, is a policy that the federal government can take and even though it usually "piss off" fiscal conservatives it's probably a popular measure across the U.S. political spectrum if done right. It will be even more popular with conservatives if the program replaces certain aspects of welfare (i.e. "workfare").

The centralization of the federal government will have to take a different route, one of limiting 'individual' rights (and not of states' rights). The main thing that needs to be taken care of is the media, particularly folks like Glenn Beck and such who would probably call this movement an evil fascist one. It has to be balance though. Incidentally, the current Supreme Court made a ruling about Miranda rights that could be seen as small step to this direction.

Lastly, you forgot to mention policies geared-towards small business owners (petit-bourgeois). This will probably be an additional policy aspect to this hypothetical movement.

Finally, it will need to have a very specific rhetoric that is very different from European fascist movements.

[Psy]

Really, the only way for a left-wing politician (a real left-wing politician) to carry out his or her reforms in America is to be 100% reactionary in foreign policy. A left-wing president with single-payer healthcare, higher benefits and increased levels of statism would almost need to bomb and humiliate third world country after third world country because the American public loves to see the mighty military of America rape third world countries. In general, they rally behind the leader during bomb campaigns against enemies, and sometimes it seems like most Americans do not even care for casus belli.

While the liberals and progressives of course will dislike such a leader, the majority of the urban population will not care as long as they get increased benefits, and the president would also win support from the rural population because of his belligerent foreign policy.

In short, an American left-wing president would need to be like a combination of Hugo Chàvez on the domestic front and Bush on crack on the international front - in short a caesarian figure.

In short, if you want to institute a left-wing political programme in terms of social progressive policies, you need to couple that with reactionary reforms in order to confuse and split the opposition. That usually means retreats on symbol issues and a focus on real issues.

* Single-payer healthcare

* Increased benefits on the whole scale

* A federalisation of power

* Guaranteed employment for everyone.

* The ten commandments in all courthouses and public places-

* A new bombing campaign against a third world country every season

* Give the rural population increased gun-owner protection, even wider than what the Republicans would propose.

* Draconian immigration laws.

* Harsher crime laws.

In short, the only way for left democrats or people further left of them (Chávez-style populists) in order to manage to carry through sweeping reforms without alienating the population and galvanising the opposition would be to attempt to outflank the Republicans from the right as well.

I am of course not advocating such a policy, which would be cynical and machiavellian beyond the word and also borderline fascist, but I guess it would be the only way to guarantee reforms to pass through.

One example would be the draconian abortion law of the sandinistas.
That or if the militancy of workers gets to the point that the bourgeoisie is willing to give major concessions as even rural America is sucked into the revolutionary pull of the industrial workers like Paris 1968 where while the French bourgeoisie state used the threat of violence to force the workers to accept their terms the French state gave serious concessions to the French working class to avoid the establishment of a French workers state.

That also means a US workers state would not have to have any reactionary policies as it could simply use rural industrial workers to kept rural reactionary Americans in line for example having southern miners have regular labor marches through southern towns with other southern industrial workers to show their on the side of the proletariat and the workers state.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Really, the only way for a left-wing politician (a real left-wing politician) to carry out his or her reforms in America is to be 100% reactionary in foreign policy. A left-wing president with single-payer healthcare, higher benefits and increased levels of statism would almost need to bomb and humiliate third world country after third world country because the American public loves to see the mighty military of America rape third world countries. In general, they rally behind the leader during bomb campaigns against enemies, and sometimes it seems like most Americans do not even care for casus belli.

While the liberals and progressives of course will dislike such a leader, the majority of the urban population will not care as long as they get increased benefits, and the president would also win support from the rural population because of his belligerent foreign policy.

In short, an American left-wing president would need to be like a combination of Hugo Chàvez on the domestic front and Bush on crack on the international front - in short a caesarian figure.

In short, if you want to institute a left-wing political programme in terms of social progressive policies, you need to couple that with reactionary reforms in order to confuse and split the opposition. That usually means retreats on symbol issues and a focus on real issues.

* Single-payer healthcare

* Increased benefits on the whole scale

* A federalisation of power

* Guaranteed employment for everyone.

* The ten commandments in all courthouses and public places-

* A new bombing campaign against a third world country every season

* Give the rural population increased gun-owner protection, even wider than what the Republicans would propose.

* Draconian immigration laws.

* Harsher crime laws.

In short, the only way for left democrats or people further left of them (Chávez-style populists) in order to manage to carry through sweeping reforms without alienating the population and galvanising the opposition would be to attempt to outflank the Republicans from the right as well.

I am of course not advocating such a policy, which would be cynical and machiavellian beyond the word and also borderline fascist, but I guess it would be the only way to guarantee reforms to pass through.

One example would be the draconian abortion law of the sandinistas.

I know you and I discussed elsewhere similar kinds of populist platforms, but in addition to what Raul Duke said (decentralization and Minsky ;) ), let's pick apart the "retreats on symbol issues," shall we?


The ten commandments in all courthouses and public places

Whose Ten Commandments? There are fourteen or fifteen different imperatives there, and the contextually capital-offense nature of those statements means that "thou shalt not steal" should read "thou shalt not kidnap."

Only this academic rendition would make sense, with no Roman numerals to indicate I - X. Let the reader make mental images of those numerals.


A new bombing campaign against a third world country every season

Why? The American public wasn't receptive to the NATO campaign in ex-Yugoslavia (detracting from Bill Clinton's sex scandal), got tired with the Iraq war (sectarian conflict and no WMDs), and are worried about the Afghanistan war (control only over Kabul).

It only "makes sense" within the context of cracking down on Third World tax havens, the War on Drugs, or if the belligerent attacked a US ally.

Also, don't forget the strong impulse on far-right elements towards isolationism. "Stop being the world's policeman" is as strong an influence on the US far-right as the equivalent isolationism on the European far-right.


Give the rural population increased gun-owner protection, even wider than what the Republicans would propose.

No problem here. I would, of course, go further in driving more wedges between militias and the military (and the glorification of the latter).


* Draconian immigration laws.

Don't be ridiculous. Didn't you mean a more racist spin to this, with the status quo for British, French, German, Canadian, Japanese, etc. immigrants and draconian stuff for "Them Mexicans"? [Of course, f*** such a policy.]


* Harsher crime laws.

Perhaps there should be more balance between economic factors as causes of crime and the class backgrounds of those committing the crimes. The former isn't an excuse for giving early parole to serial killers with no economic motivation (where there's no death penalty, of course). The latter means that "corporate crime" should be punished more harshly and that there should be more attention paid to the class divide between workers and the underclasses (lumpenproletarian gang wars and the lumpen-scum).

Then again, there's the Paris Commune's ban on gambling. :D


One example would be the draconian abortion law of the sandinistas.

WTF???



In short, rural gun owner protection and, depending on which crime, "harsher crime laws" (plus perhaps the academic rendition of the Ten Commandments) are the only "retreats on symbol issues" worth discussing as a tactical maneuver.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A laissez-faire (yet enabling, i.e. provide funds to aid said states with policies they wish, etc) federal government approach to states' policies on things like welfare, abortion, etc seem to be the more likely and logical choice for such a hypothetical movement to take.

This course of action will harmonize the political discourse at the federal level as the issue of applying a "liberal" or "conservative" policies to states that don't want will be a rare occurance.

How so, though? There will be grumbling by fiscal conservatives (in the proper sense) in one state about their "taxpayer dollars" funding "death panels" and abortion clinics in another state. Overall, what Dimentio outlined isn't populist enough (recallability, averaged skilled workers' wage for holders of public office, etc.), and the "states rights" shit and appeasing too much the individualistic elements of the petit-bourgeoisie isn't communitarian.

In short, this platform doesn't have as its enemies bourgeois communitarians and individualistic populists.


The U.S. will need to have one, whether real, imaginary, or fabricated, and all said wars must be quick wars with little to no occupation-job afterward. Wars that get drawn out tend to create a war-weary public (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq) and it bodes bad for the government if the causa belli for these wars are "forgotten" or rejected.

Like I said above, the American public wasn't very receptive to the NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia: wag the dog in a time of sex scandals?


Guaranteed Employment however, is a policy that the federal government can take and even though it usually "piss off" fiscal conservatives it's probably a popular measure across the U.S. political spectrum if done right. It will be even more popular with conservatives if the program replaces certain aspects of welfare (i.e. "workfare").

Did you read more on Minsky after my commentary? ;)


The centralization of the federal government will have to take a different route, one of limiting 'individual' rights (and not of states' rights). The main thing that needs to be taken care of is the media, particularly folks like Glenn Beck and such who would probably call this movement an evil fascist one. It has to be balance though. Incidentally, the current Supreme Court made a ruling about Miranda rights that could be seen as small step to this direction.

Is there any uproar on intellectual property rights?


Lastly, you forgot to mention policies geared-towards small business owners (petit-bourgeois). This will probably be an additional policy aspect to this hypothetical movement.

Finally, it will need to have a very specific rhetoric that is very different from European fascist movements.

Dimentio forgot more "socialistic" things, too: some mix of federal and state-level monopoly over the whole US financial services system (starting with a nationalized Federal Reserve), various forms of protectionism plus capital controls (especially outsourcing of jobs being "treasonous"/"unpatriotic"), nationalization of the whole military-industrial complex, etc.

[piet11111]

Interestingly enough its obvious that there is a growing gap between civilian and military leadership.

McCrystals open rebellion against Obama's leadership could be a sign of things to come.
I would not be surprised if some Bourgeois elements are considering a backup plan for when democracy becomes unworkable to push through attacks on the working class.

[Raúl Duke]

How so, though? There will be grumbling by fiscal conservatives (in the proper sense) in one state about their "taxpayer dollars" funding "death panels" and abortion clinics in another state.


Than perhaps they can exempt certain states' federal tax revenues to not be earmarked for these projects. In the North-East, most people would like to see a public single-payer healthcare and it wouldn't be far-fetch to imagine that these states will support seeing their federal taxes spent on these programs. Thus one could say that the federal tax revenues coming from these states are than used to fund these programs while those from other states, without the program, their federal tax revenues are not.

It's all hypothetical.

[Die Neue Zeit]

For the record, I should note here that there is an irreconcilable gulf between petit-bourgeois populist fascism/quasi-fascism (not populist enough and may have communitarian shortcomings, too) on the one hand and, on the other, Communitarian Populist platforms which amount to a political DOTP but with some questionable "symbol" or "socio-cultural" policies (like, as I said earlier, the Paris Commune's ban on gambling).

[Martin Blank]

Interestingly enough its obvious that there is a growing gap between civilian and military leadership.

McCrystals open rebellion against Obama's leadership could be a sign of things to come.

I would not be surprised if some Bourgeois elements are considering a backup plan for when democracy becomes unworkable to push through attacks on the working class.

Personally, I wouldn't read too much into what McShitfaced said in the Rolling Stone article. It was gross insubordination and conduct unbecoming, but it did not enter into the realm of treason or undermining the commander in-chief. Let's keep in mind that General Drunkenness is actually a supporter of Obama and voted for him in 2008. His disappointments aside, he's not the one to worry about.

That said, there is a large section of the armed forces that looks upon even the facade of civilian control over the military (which, let's be honest, is all there is; in the past, McShitfaced would have not only lost his command, but his commission for what he said) as too much. Especially in this period, when the axis of societal control passes through the armed forces of the state, the idea of civilian control, whether real or illusory, is seen as an impediment by these elements.

As for bourgeois democracy being unworkable, they and large sections of the exploiting and oppressing classes have already come to that conclusion. The 2000 coup that brought George W. Bush to the White House and the opening of the phony "war on terror" brought that into sharp relief. All that remains of bourgeois democracy today are the vestigial forms; the content that had been underlying it all since 1863 has been wiped out. The forms serve a purpose, for the moment, but they will be discarded when that purpose is no longer affordable. That, right now, is what they are considering and preparing for.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That being said, though, could it be said that Mussolini and Hitler were the exceptions to the rule of military control for fascism? [Franco, Pinochet, and Lord knows how many smaller fascist tinpots]

[Demogorgon]

Really, the only way for a left-wing politician (a real left-wing politician) to carry out his or her reforms in America is to be 100% reactionary in foreign policy. A left-wing president with single-payer healthcare, higher benefits and increased levels of statism would almost need to bomb and humiliate third world country after third world country because the American public loves to see the mighty military of America rape third world countries. In general, they rally behind the leader during bomb campaigns against enemies, and sometimes it seems like most Americans do not even care for casus belli.

While the liberals and progressives of course will dislike such a leader, the majority of the urban population will not care as long as they get increased benefits, and the president would also win support from the rural population because of his belligerent foreign policy.

In short, an American left-wing president would need to be like a combination of Hugo Chàvez on the domestic front and Bush on crack on the international front - in short a caesarian figure.

In short, if you want to institute a left-wing political programme in terms of social progressive policies, you need to couple that with reactionary reforms in order to confuse and split the opposition. That usually means retreats on symbol issues and a focus on real issues.

* Single-payer healthcare

* Increased benefits on the whole scale

* A federalisation of power

* Guaranteed employment for everyone.

* The ten commandments in all courthouses and public places-

* A new bombing campaign against a third world country every season

* Give the rural population increased gun-owner protection, even wider than what the Republicans would propose.

* Draconian immigration laws.

* Harsher crime laws.

In short, the only way for left democrats or people further left of them (Chávez-style populists) in order to manage to carry through sweeping reforms without alienating the population and galvanising the opposition would be to attempt to outflank the Republicans from the right as well.

I am of course not advocating such a policy, which would be cynical and machiavellian beyond the word and also borderline fascist, but I guess it would be the only way to guarantee reforms to pass through.

One example would be the draconian abortion law of the sandinistas.
I think you are mistaken here because support for horrible social policies is caused by right wing economic policies. Oppressed people who are told they are not oppressed often enough will start to believe it and not feel animosity towards the ruling class, but they still need to lash out at someone, and pick the wrong targets. In turn the right wing of the ruling class exploit this by offering to let them lash out as much as possible in return for more right wing economic policies being passed.

This couldn't be exploited by the left though because these social policies would make it impossible to have an egalitarian society. It is of course true that if economic policy improved then people would become less authoritarian naturally, and therefore a cynical politician could try and balance temporary authoritarianism with left wing social policies in the hope that people become less authoritarian with time, but I think the very nature of these social policies would make it impossible for support for more left wing economic policies to take hold.

The irony as well would be if it worked, there would be a backlash against authoritarian social policies as people lost the need to lash out so much and left wing economic policies would no longer be palatable because they would be associated with other reactionary actions.

Now I know you are not actually advocating this, only suggesting it on a theoretical level, so I will also try to be objective about this too and keep my strongly anti-authoritarian social views out of this and simply talk theoretically, but I think the example of the so called socialist countries shows why this approach could not work. They failed I think because they did not achieve the open and democratic society needed for socialism to thrive in. A failure to abolish the death penalty, promote rehabilitative approaches to crime, encourage diversity, pursue non aggressive foreign policy and so forth were amongst the key reasons that there was no possibility of consolidating actual worker liberation. That is why when in the cases the possibility actually seemed real, it slipped away as quickly and authoritarian bureaucratic states emerged.

[Enragé]

Regardless of the fucked up nature of obama's policies, if a rightwing coup were to happen, yes we should do anything in our might to stop it. Why? Because this sham they call democracy is still to be preferred over open totalitarianism. Under a rightwing dictatorship our room for maneuvre would be greatly diminished.

[Proletarian Ultra]

That being said, though, could it be said that Mussolini and Hitler were the exceptions to the rule of military control for fascism? [Franco, Pinochet, and Lord knows how many smaller fascist tinpots]

The German and Italian militaries were extremely weak at the time, so paramilitaries stepped into the traditional military role.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think the example of the so called socialist countries shows why this approach could not work. They failed I think because they did not achieve the open and democratic society needed for socialism to thrive in. A failure to abolish the death penalty, promote rehabilitative approaches to crime, encourage diversity, pursue non aggressive foreign policy and so forth were amongst the key reasons that there was no possibility of consolidating actual worker liberation. That is why when in the cases the possibility actually seemed real, it slipped away as quickly and authoritarian bureaucratic states emerged.

The Eastern European states encouraged peace as a foreign policy. Diversity was encouraged, as well, despite blips of Great Russian chauvinism and excessive Trotskyist claims of such as being long-lasting.


The irony as well would be if it worked, there would be a backlash against authoritarian social policies as people lost the need to lash out so much and left wing economic policies would no longer be palatable because they would be associated with other reactionary actions.

What's the alternative? Would they want to go back to liberalism? Besides, I don't think the left-wing economic policies would be associated with the reactionary cultural policies, because people see them as separate issues.

[piet11111]

Personally, I wouldn't read too much into what McShitfaced said in the Rolling Stone article. It was gross insubordination and conduct unbecoming, but it did not enter into the realm of treason or undermining the commander in-chief. Let's keep in mind that General Drunkenness is actually a supporter of Obama and voted for him in 2008. His disappointments aside, he's not the one to worry about.

That said, there is a large section of the armed forces that looks upon even the facade of civilian control over the military (which, let's be honest, is all there is; in the past, McShitfaced would have not only lost his command, but his commission for what he said) as too much. Especially in this period, when the axis of societal control passes through the armed forces of the state, the idea of civilian control, whether real or illusory, is seen as an impediment by these elements.

As for bourgeois democracy being unworkable, they and large sections of the exploiting and oppressing classes have already come to that conclusion. The 2000 coup that brought George W. Bush to the White House and the opening of the phony "war on terror" brought that into sharp relief. All that remains of bourgeois democracy today are the vestigial forms; the content that had been underlying it all since 1863 has been wiped out. The forms serve a purpose, for the moment, but they will be discarded when that purpose is no longer affordable. That, right now, is what they are considering and preparing for.

So you agree with everything i said ?

McCrystal's insubordination is something i consider more as a sign of growing resistance to civilian authority in the american military and its not just in the person of the general but his entire staff that is still in control of the Afghanistan war.
The general himself is of no importance but who knows how many important officers back him and precisely because he was not thrown out previously i would think he has powerful backing.

Now we all know that the Afghanistan war is unwinnable now what are the chances that like Vietnam they will just be demoralised or will they become dangerous like the germans after the defeat in WW1 (it certainly seems that a "knife in the back" feeling is much stronger now)

[ComradeOm]

The German and Italian militaries were extremely weak at the time, so paramilitaries stepped into the traditional military role.Hmmm? In 1922 the Italian army had just emerged from a victorious, if bloody war, while in 1933 the Wehrmacht was a large and powerful bastion of reaction. In both cases support of the military was a key element in the fascist conquest of state power. This was particularly so in Germany which, as the apogee of the fascist state, was the one case where the army was, gradually, conquered by the party


That being said, though, could it be said that Mussolini and Hitler were the exceptions to the rule of military control for fascism? [Franco, Pinochet, and Lord knows how many smaller fascist tinpots]Fascist movements are not, by definition, revolutionary. They rely on the conquest of state power. This prevents a clear sweeping-away of former institutions while the inherent conservativeness of the military makes it an ally of fascism. Its therefore perfectly possible for the former to serve as a semi-independent power base within society - in much the same way as it occasionally does in bourgeois democracy* - and resist or even control the fascist government

As mentioned above, only Nazi Germany succeeded in completely neutering the military and even this took over a decade. Other fascist movements lacked time or the strength to accomplish this

*Not that the current situation in America is remotely favourable to a coup or other flexing of military muscles

[Demogorgon]

The Eastern European states encouraged peace as a foreign policy. Diversity was encouraged, as well, despite blips of Great Russian chauvinism and excessive Trotskyist claims of such as being long-lasting.

The Eastern European States backed the Soviet Union most of the time which tended to involve supporting (though usually not committing troops to) whatever the Soviet Union happened to be up to.

And I really don't think they encouraged diversity at all. They didn't persecute minorities, but that isn't quite the same thing. What I mean is that "alternative culture" did not really exist, plus of course other forms of diversity like diversity of media and news sources.


What's the alternative? Would they want to go back to liberalism? Besides, I don't think the left-wing economic policies would be associated with the reactionary cultural policies, because people see them as separate issues.
I think liberalism is exactly where they would go. Supposing the scenario proposed by Dimentio worked (which as stated I don't think it would) and people became less economically oppressed, they would turn against militarism, xenophobia, draconian "justice" and so forth and vote for whomever proposed to get rid of them.

Now you know my views here, I have always argued (sometimes reducing myself to a minority of one) that economic issues take precedence, but part of the reason I have done so is I believe that superior social policies flow naturally from good economics. Intentionally undermining that is a recipe for disaster, especially as the existence of that kind of authoritarianism undermines democratic and egalitarian culture.

The right, particularly in America, idolises the army, and part of the reason for that is that the army is their dream society in miniature. There is a strict hierarchy, commands from above are obeyed by those below, discipline is strict and so forth. Now try to imagine that if all ranks of the army were payed the same, had the same housing, had an equal say in how military funds were used and so forth. A tad incongruous really.

[Psy]

As mentioned above, only Nazi Germany succeeded in completely neutering the military and even this took over a decade. Other fascist movements lacked time or the strength to accomplish this

I would not say the Nazis totally neutered the German military since the German military tried multiple times to launch a military coup against the Nazi state they were just unsuccessful mostly due to getting no support from Britain that the German military brass wanted before ordering divisions totally loyal to the German Army to occupy Berlin by brute force and declare the German Army was the highest authority in Germany.

[Martin Blank]

So you agree with everything i said ?

Sort of. In terms of the big picture, yes. However,...


McCrystal's insubordination is something i consider more as a sign of growing resistance to civilian authority in the american military and its not just in the person of the general but his entire staff that is still in control of the Afghanistan war.
The general himself is of no importance but who knows how many important officers back him and precisely because he was not thrown out previously i would think he has powerful backing.

Rule No. 39 says there's no such thing as coincidences. But Rule No. 51 says that sometimes you're wrong. I think this is a case where the latter supersedes the former. That is, this may be more of a coincidence than an outright expression of something deeper.

McShitfaced was a hot dog, and he encouraged that kind of arrogance in his staff and inner circle. I put it down to that, honestly. I don't think what he said was a real sign. But this does not mean you're not correct about a growing discontent with the appearance of civilian restraint and control on the military. It just means this ain't it. If anything, this is a distraction from what's really going on in the U.S. Armed Forces -- the quiet building of a section of the military willing to act against American citizens and a civilian government if deemed necessary by their masters.


Now we all know that the Afghanistan war is unwinnable now what are the chances that like Vietnam they will just be demoralised or will they become dangerous like the germans after the defeat in WW1 (it certainly seems that a "knife in the back" feeling is much stronger now)

The problem with this is that, first, those fighting in Afghanistan are volunteers, not conscripts. That does have an effect on consciousness. Second, most of those stuck in Afghanistan are in conditions that really do not allow for anti-militarist activity, such as soldier strikes. The need for survival is overriding.

Third, one of the main reasons that the German soldiers after WWI became so dangerous was because they did not see themselves as defeated, but rather betrayed by the government and sacrificed at the feet of the Entente. Actual military defeat of the ISAF forces, which is then pinned on Washington by the rest of the world, accompanied by an acceptance of this position by the White House and Congress, would have to be the conditions for the veterans to become dangerous on that level. As long as the civilian government is willing to stroke the ego of the brass hats, that "knife in the back" sentiment will be contained.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

That also means a US workers state would not have to have any reactionary policies as it could simply use rural industrial workers to kept rural reactionary Americans in line for example having southern miners have regular labor marches through southern towns with other southern industrial workers to show their on the side of the proletariat and the workers state.

Or even better, having southen miners have regular labor marches though southen towns...on forklifts.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Eastern European States backed the Soviet Union most of the time which tended to involve supporting (though usually not committing troops to) whatever the Soviet Union happened to be up to.

What I meant was that they supported "peaceful coexistence" in conjunction with national-liberation movements. They too sent arms (if not troops) here and there to the latter.


And I really don't think they encouraged diversity at all. They didn't persecute minorities, but that isn't quite the same thing. What I mean is that "alternative culture" did not really exist, plus of course other forms of diversity like diversity of media and news sources.

I only responded to what you said, which implied "diversity" as interpreted by Identity Politics people.


I think liberalism is exactly where they would go. Supposing the scenario proposed by Dimentio worked (which as stated I don't think it would) and people became less economically oppressed, they would turn against militarism, xenophobia, draconian "justice" and so forth and vote for whomever proposed to get rid of them.

I have heard that argument before. Traditionally, the bourgeoisie divides its state order between the Party of Order and the Party of Liberty (cit. Mike Macnair).

Oops, my apologies. You were referred to Dimentio's scenario and not mine.


The right, particularly in America, idolises the army, and part of the reason for that is that the army is their dream society in miniature. There is a strict hierarchy, commands from above are obeyed by those below, discipline is strict and so forth. Now try to imagine that if all ranks of the army were payed the same, had the same housing, had an equal say in how military funds were used and so forth. A tad incongruous really.

That's another difference between Dimentio's scenario and mine.

[Dimentio]

I do not support the scenario I put up. I just said that given the current political make-up of America, it is practically only possible to be progressive in one of three areas at the same time, domestic social policies, domestic economic policies or foreign policy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Re. your first sentence: you didn't have to state the obvious here, about support from nobody in this thread. :p

[black magick hustla]

Resist? Definitely. Riot? No. I would work with my comrades (in the narrow and broad senses of the term), as well as with democratic-minded brothers and sisters, to fight back based on a revolutionary perspective. I sure as hell wouldn't tuck my tail between my legs and hide like a fucking coward. There are some things worth putting your life and your well-being on the line for.

if i didnt put my life out to overthrow obama i might as well dont do it with right winger #123445

[Psy]

The problem with this is that, first, those fighting in Afghanistan are volunteers, not conscripts. That does have an effect on consciousness. Second, most of those stuck in Afghanistan are in conditions that really do not allow for anti-militarist activity, such as soldier strikes. The need for survival is overriding.

Third, one of the main reasons that the German soldiers after WWI became so dangerous was because they did not see themselves as defeated, but rather betrayed by the government and sacrificed at the feet of the Entente. Actual military defeat of the ISAF forces, which is then pinned on Washington by the rest of the world, accompanied by an acceptance of this position by the White House and Congress, would have to be the conditions for the veterans to become dangerous on that level. As long as the civilian government is willing to stroke the ego of the brass hats, that "knife in the back" sentiment will be contained.
You forget about the 1946 wildcat strike of British forces in Southeast Asia as troops embraced the to Marxist view of imperialism since WWII had ended yet there still fighting for British imperialism, it got to the point British forces joked the RAF stood for Red Air Force due to the massive labor strike of RAF pilots in the region led.

Since it happened to the British military why could it not happen to the American military?

[Revy]

Excuse the dumb hypothetical, but this is Learning, so why not.

Self explanatory. Inspired by discussions on the Thai situation a little while ago.

A junta of David Petraeus and John McCain and Jamie Dimon take over from Obama, or some other bourgeois-liberal head of state.
(Ignore for the moment that there's no need for this to happen.)

Do we join the Democrats in the streets? Or do we sit at home b/c he's a bourgeois douche?

Sitting at home would be dumb.

It wouldn't be about restoring Obama, at least for us. We don't support Obama as President.

Radical left-wing struggle against the coup would happen anyway regardless whether any group supported the struggle, workers would be radicalized.

Everyone knows the President is supposed to be the civilian who commands the military. The civilians, in theory (because the civilians "down here" (workers) aren't really the "civilians" up there), elected by the people, tell the military what to do. You put the military in charge you upset that whole cart and everyone goes berserk.

Not that I endorse such things because I think they lead to revolution. And the state could become so repressive the initial struggle could fizzle out.

[it_ain't_me]

Excuse the dumb hypothetical, but this is Learning, so why not.

Self explanatory. Inspired by discussions on the Thai situation a little while ago.

A junta of David Petraeus and John McCain and Jamie Dimon take over from Obama, or some other bourgeois-liberal head of state.
(Ignore for the moment that there's no need for this to happen.)

Do we join the Democrats in the streets? Or do we sit at home b/c he's a bourgeois douche?

lol. i don't think you really understand u.s. politics if you think the democrats would be in the streets. there would, however, be a rather large number of redneck gun-owning libertarian people who have been waiting their whole lives to enter into open combat with the gubmint, and would not hesitate to do so immediately if elections were suspended.

[Charles Xavier]

The answer is yes, historically this has been the case where mistakes were made in Bulgaria when the Argarian Party who passed a number of anti-worker legislation was overthrown in a coup d'etat by fascists. The Communist party of Bulgaria made a huge mistake by not doing anything, they had a wait and see approach, and what happened when they were under attack by the coup government several months later. The Coup government had consolidated power and they had no one to defend them, they weren't strong enough to resist. The answer would be to form a united front against fascism.

[IslamicMarxist]

No. I think we should support any independent uprising(without some other "Hand" in place like the color revolutions). When the government is put in place, than we will start rioting.

[Proletarian Ultra]

The answer is yes, historically this has been the case where mistakes were made in Bulgaria when the Argarian Party who passed a number of anti-worker legislation was overthrown in a coup d'etat by fascists. The Communist party of Bulgaria made a huge mistake by not doing anything, they had a wait and see approach, and what happened when they were under attack by the coup government several months later. The Coup government had consolidated power and they had no one to defend them, they weren't strong enough to resist. The answer would be to form a united front against fascism.

I was waiting for someone to bring up Bulgaria. How do those of the 'wait and see' persuasion respond to this?

[superborys]

This is sort of non-pertinent to the current conversation, but I think that in a successful socialism that lacked coercion of any kind (a real socialism, not one that claims socialism but isn't, and by lack of coercion I mean KGB, Stasi, etc), people would have adopted the thinking that's common to us here (leftism), and thus a right-wing junta would not work, as chances are the populous in a successful socialism would think left, not right.

I know that sounds confused and unorganized, but if you think about it, it's not that odd.
It's said that for a socialism/communism to work you would need similar mindsets to those who want to lead the revolution, and one of our tasks is to raise class awareness, which presupposes that we can make them understand why left wing > right wing, and so if a socialist revolution were to succeed under its own strength, then right wing would be the new 'left-wing radical' of USA today, you see what I mean?

So again, in a state that's the product of a successful socialist/communist revolution, right wing would the be taboo, radical system, and it would take a great deal more work to overthrow people who are being treated fairly.

[ComradeOm]

I would not say the Nazis totally neutered the German military since the German military tried multiple times to launch a military coup against the Nazi state they were just unsuccessful mostly due to getting no support from Britain that the German military brass wanted before ordering divisions totally loyal to the German Army to occupy Berlin by brute force and declare the German Army was the highest authority in Germany.You're right in that I slightly overstated the dominance of the party - the military definitely remained as an independent actor - but the likes of von Stauffenberg are not indicative of the high command. There was no serious or prolonged opposition from the military to Nazi rule

[Proletarian Ultra]

lol. i don't think you really understand u.s. politics if you think the democrats would be in the streets.

Dude, I live in Baltimore. The place would be up in flames in seconds.

[it_ain't_me]

Dude, I live in Baltimore. The place would be up in flames in seconds.

well ok, not saying the liberals wouldn't riot a little at first, but then they would be crushed. :)

[Psy]

You're right in that I slightly overstated the dominance of the party - the military definitely remained as an independent actor - but the likes of von Stauffenberg are not indicative of the high command. There was no serious or prolonged opposition from the military to Nazi rule
Only because Britain did not want a military coup against Hitler. Leading up to the German/USSR non-aggression treaty Britain saw Hitler as a solution to the USSR problem and more then willing to let Hitler annex the USSR if possible. This was a huge problem to the plotters against Hitler, without the British war machines coming down hard on Germany the Germany Army had no justification to take Hitler down hard as Hitler was actually expanding the German empire.

[Red Saxon]

The working class has been slumbering in the United States-appeased by consumerism and smiling politicians.

A right-wing coup may help to radicalize the working class and 'reawaken' it's spirit.

[Charles Xavier]

No. I think we should support any independent uprising(without some other "Hand" in place like the color revolutions). When the government is put in place, than we will start rioting.


We should unite all progressive forces together on a common platform against fascism, working class elements or not.