What Are The Chances A Leftist Military Leader Will Launch a Coup In The USA?

[Rakhmetov]

I've been musing this for a while and have reached the conclusion that the military is such a hotbed of fascist reactionary mentality that we can not expect help from that quarter. Only a prolonged general strike can bring about change combined with a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries.

[Reznov]

About as much as a Leftist Leader ever gaining anything significant here in the U.S.

[Weezer]

-0.1%

[Red Commissar]

As likely as the Stalin v Trotsky debates ending.


I've been musing this for a while and have reached the conclusion that the military is such a hotbed of fascist reactionary mentality that we can not expect help from that quarter. Only a prolonged general strike can bring about change combined with a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries.

It is indeed a problem. The lack of any clout of progressive types in some parts of the military is bad. I mean in many cases war can be a radicalizing experiment, but military types are thoroughly turned off to anything perceived to be "leftist" in this nation. It's particularly bad in the officer rankings obviously.

Though an interesting case is that of August Willich, a Prussian revolutionary who fled to the United States after 1848 uprisings. He himself was a communist though in a grouping that had differences with Marx. He ended up serving as a high-ranking officer in the US Civil War though.

[incogweedo]

well.. when you think about it, extremely slim chance of that. Why would a leftist of any kind join the US military and fight for Imperialism, Americanism, and Nationalism? It is against everything they stand for. Unless somebody rises through the ranks just to start a coup, I don't see it happening. Also, i think it would be a bad idea anyway. If anything, we should try to make leftism more popular in the US before any military coups. Otherwise the government would crush it and use the incident as propaganda against us.

[iwwforever]

Not everyone joins the military out of patriotism. Most people sell out because they have no other way to make a living wage.

Many of the best spokespeople coming out against U.S. imperialism have served in the military. The challenge is to figure out how to organize the ranks from within the system.

[Robocommie]

If you're a Leninist, I would think the idea of superexploitation would lead one to generally preclude the high probability of a revolution in the US at all.

[KC]

If you're a Leninist, I would think the idea of superexploitation would lead one to generally preclude the high probability of a revolution in the US at all.

You mean the labour aristocracy?

I do think the theory of labour aristocracy is flawed in the sense that it tried to explain a social/political issue in strictly economic terms. We now know that this type of approach is dogmatic and reductionist. Back when the theory was developed, though, there was little if zero publications on "cultural marxism" such as Gramsci's writings, for example.

[Magón]

Right now? Very, Very, Very Little to non-Existant.

[The Douche]

Shhhh, don't let them find out about my plans.:laugh:

[arm]

This has little chance of happening in the near future. The military is overwhelmingly apolitical. If they vote it is usually for economical or moral reasons. And of course their false consciousness prevents them from connecting their economic and political interests.

[Bright Banana Beard]

We only have cmoney aboard, that is how much we have right now.

[The Douche]

We only have cmoney aboard, that is how much we have right now.

Who else do we need?

[Blackscare]

So you pose a ridiculous question for a thread, which you immediately concede is unlikely/impossible, in order to simply state the most basic orthodox leninist/vangaurdist postulate ever with no real follow up.

Well I must say, people are creative in finding new ways to beat horses on this board.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I thought we were all for the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the dictatorship of a leftist military leader...

[9]

There's not really much to respond to here... you seem to have answered your own question... although the question in the thread title seems to be pretty different from the question in the original post, so I'm slightly confused. I also get the weird feeling that this might be a trollthread of some sort, but either way....


I've been musing this for a while and have reached the conclusion that the military is such a hotbed of fascist reactionary mentality that we can not expect help from that quarter.

Ignoring the nonsensical use of the term 'fascist', obviously there aren't hoards of radicalized elements in the US military at the moment (to say the absolute least), but it isn't exactly surprising considering the state of the working class in the US at the present time - i.e. very weak. In a period of heightened class struggle - and in particular one which was approaching revolutionary proportions - I think it would be absolutely essential in the US to have significant numbers of active military personnel breaking ranks and taking the side of the workers. I think there are important strategic questions in relation to this about what role revolutionaries could play with regard to agitation within the military, but its sort of getting off topic.


Only a prolonged general strike can bring about change combined with a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries.I'm not sure about the use of the terms "only" or "professional", and I wouldn't have phrased it like this to begin with, but otherwise (:p), I basically agree.


I thought we were all for the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the dictatorship of a leftist military leader...
meh, this is revleft. Obviously it depends who you mean when you say "we".

[RedSonRising]

A coup is not a revolutionary transformation of social relations and the empowerment of the working class. Leftists by definition don't lead coups. Unless they're extremely privileged/lucky but politically dumb. What happens after the coup? The Tea Party's incoherent ideology becomes rampant on steroids and convinces the working population this was a destruction of the US's perfect democracy while reactionary forces quickly establish the right use of force to depose him. The State is back in the hands of the bourgeois with more ammo than ever to suppress the working people of the world. I really doubt this is what Lenin was suggesting when designing his theory of the Vanguard.

Involving sympathetic military leaders into a movement is one thing, but fostering a military dictatorship in hopes of a benevolent restructuring of society from the top is dangerous, authoritarian, and against the very idea that the working class is entitled to the autonomy a revolution is intended to secure. And I'm not even an Anarchist or anything.

[Catillina]

0

[Psy]

Revolutionary military uprisings historically came from the lower ranks thus not really a coup but a mini-revolution within the military as the grunts rebel against their masters thus a class struggle of non-officers vs officers.

Thus it would not be a question of a military coup from a leftist leader but US troops having a armed revolution within the US armed forces against the US military leadership to free themselves from their officers.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Soon Comrade, soon. Comrade Psy has reported that his stock of revolutionary forklifts has reached over 9000.

[Jimmie Higgins]

None in the absence of a mass working class militant struggle and a lot of social polarization. Some figure like Chavez can only really exist if he has some other social force to balance out the parts of the ruling class opposed to their populist reforms. Of course the catch is, if there is a militant mass movement of workers, why would we want a populist leader like this... why not try and push all the way for self-emancipation?

[Myrdal]

Maybe a better question would be. What are the chances of a leftist military leader?
I was under the impression that love and respect for the military was directly proportional to the amount of hate and mistrust of government.
Basically the more you mistrust the government with lets say healthcare the more you trust them with defense and enough nukes to annihilate all sentient life on this planet.

[incogweedo]

Not everyone joins the military out of patriotism. Most people sell out because they have no other way to make a living wage.

Many of the best spokespeople coming out against U.S. imperialism have served in the military. The challenge is to figure out how to organize the ranks from within the system.

You are correct about how this economy forcing people to join the army these days, but I wouldn't say "most" of them do it because of this fact. I would say the majority of the people who join the military are people who believe they are actually protecting their country; patriotism. This leaving a minority of them have joined yet hate what they are fighting for.

as for rising through the ranks, it would be insanely hard, they'll probably kick you out of the military just for knowing what true leftism is; or jail you and use the Patriot Act as their justification.

[Psy]

Maybe a better question would be. What are the chances of a leftist military leader?
I was under the impression that love and respect for the military was directly proportional to the amount of hate and mistrust of government.
Basically the more you mistrust the government with lets say healthcare the more you trust them with defense and enough nukes to annihilate all sentient life on this planet.
Not really militarism is mostly linked with nationalism and one justification for imperialism (told to the masses) is bring civilization to the barbaric hoards. For example Japan during WWII made propaganda films portraying their expansion as liberating their neighbors from British, French and US imperialism and that Japanese troops station abroad were not a occupying force but there to help their backward neighbors become civilized and this was the official line from the Japanese armed forces during WWII.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Revolutionary military uprisings historically came from the lower ranks thus not really a coup but a mini-revolution within the military as the grunts rebel against their masters thus a class struggle of non-officers vs officers.

Thus it would not be a question of a military coup from a leftist leader but US troops having a armed revolution within the US armed forces against the US military leadership to free themselves from their officers.

Besides broadcastingsilence's punchline, the best that really can be hoped for in a high-ranked military coup is some repeat of the Julius Caesar of people's history (radical social reform), but this is only applicable in the Third World nowadays, and you can expect a militarized society if not one waging economically expansionist wars.

[Revy]

If the military apparatus is not reined in, all hope is lost.

The left needs to get back to its anti-war roots now. People need to be talking about the war in Afghanistan. It needs to be seen as the new Vietnam.

[Robocommie]

If the military apparatus is not reined in, all hope is lost.

The left needs to get back to its anti-war roots now. People need to be talking about the war in Afghanistan. It needs to be seen as the new Vietnam.

Only problem is, it just isn't. Current US troop deployment in Afghanistan is nowhere near the numbers fielded by the US at the height of the Vietnam War, nor is the number of casualties anywhere comparable. There's no draft and there's less loss of American life so frankly, the entire thing is easier to ignore by most Americans, because it probably won't affect them directly.