How would a socialist revolution ever happen in the US?

[Drosophila]

The military would absolutely destroy the revolutionaries, would it not?

[Paulappaul]

Not if say, the transpotation workers striked and stopped the military from moving. Not if the workers making the ammunition striked. Not if the workers in the Military sided with the Working Class as they historically have. Not if a well armed proletariat fights back.

[Lt. Ferret]

the military will not attack US civilian forces, the idea of a civil war would be quite a painful idea for the United States military to accept. But, I wouldn't deny that they would defend the Republic, whoever side had more legitimacy.

[Ele'ill]

the military will not attack US civilian forces,

There were quite a few instances of confrontation involving military in Pittsburgh during the g20 summit.

[Drosophila]

Not if say, the transpotation workers striked and stopped the military from moving

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. You mean train workers, etc? The military has plenty of their own transportation vehicles ready to go.


Not if the workers making the ammunition striked

The military's got more than enough ammunition to suppress a rebellion. It would take a while for them to run completely out.


Not if the workers in the Military sided with the Working Class as they historically have.

That still leaves the generals and loyal soldiers. I highly doubt that the United States military would side with revolutionaries. Judging from history....

[Lt. Ferret]

There were quite a few instances of confrontation involving military in Pittsburgh during the g20 summit.


National Guard soldiers, who have a messier time of it, they are generally summoned for disasters, and civil disturbance. My personal bias is they are useless as soldiers, and would not represent a collective, organized military assault on anything.

[Ele'ill]

The military's got more than enough ammunition to suppress a rebellion. It would take a while for them to run completely out.

Sabotage and supply line hijacking.




That still leaves the generals and loyal soldiers. I highly doubt that the United States military would side with revolutionaries. Judging from history....

Food manufacturing strike.

[Lt. Ferret]

seriously the military has enough MRE's to last them 10 years, let alone crush a socialist rebellion.

[Lt. Ferret]

when we go to a range we get enough rounds casually to burn them off by shooting laura croft style from tomb raider, or blasting every target there a hundred times over. theyre not hurting from rounds either.

[Paulappaul]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. You mean train workers, etc? The military has plenty of their own transportation vehicles ready to go.

Who drives those Vehicles? Capitalists? Is Bill Gates planning to drive soldiers and bullets around?


The military's got more than enough ammunition to suppress a rebellion. It would take a while for them to run completely out.

And you know this how? I didnt know they had just Trillions of rounds just sittin around. Last I checked, they were in you know, in thousands of military bases all over the world, only a few actually in America or in the hands of actual fighting brigades.


That still leaves the generals and loyal soldiers. I highly doubt that the United States military would side with revolutionaries. Judging from history....

Uh... the Russian Revolutionary? Solider/Workers Councils? The German Revolution 1918? The vast majority of Soldiers are from Working Class families. Are they going to kill their own family?

[Lt. Ferret]

uh the military has its own Transport Corps, and yes, they can do it. the military has millions, if not a billion rounds sitting around casually in american bases, who do you think sends those rounds over seas? bases send them in support of the brigades based in those bases.

soldiers may not want to kill their families, but i would imagine revolutionaries would also not want to kill soldiers.

[Ele'ill]

when we go to a range we get enough rounds casually to burn them off by shooting laura croft style from tomb raider, or blasting every target there a hundred times over. theyre not hurting from rounds either.

That's because they're currently still being manufactured and the supply lines have not been ruined.

[Revolution starts with U]

I read a study once that said over 60% of combatants (or some high number like that) only "ghost fire" in combat :)

[Ele'ill]

I think we can all agree that it would not be conventional warfare and that workers would have an immense amount of leverage

[Lt. Ferret]

im telling you, the stockpile already is incredible. if you hit the supply lines in a war, it would only be felt maybe 4-5 years in the future.

[Paulappaul]

uh the military has its own Transport Corps, and yes, they can do it.

yeah again, last I checked, Capitalists arent in these Transport Corps.


soldiers may not want to kill their families, but i would imagine revolutionaries would also not want to kill soldiers.

Then it's mutual, the Soldiers would side from the onset go to their families side.

[Ele'ill]

im telling you, the stockpile already is incredible. if you hit the supply lines in a war, it would only be felt maybe 4-5 years in the future.

Then we'll take the stockpiles

[Revolution starts with U]

That's assuming the rebels don't capture, or are handed by friends of the revolution, bases of their own.

[Lt. Ferret]

yeah good luck storming army posts.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I don't think it would result in an armed conflict if said revolution was brought forth via democratic means.

[Paulappaul]

That's assuming the rebels don't capture, or are handed by friends of the revolution, bases of their own.

Such as comrade Lt. Ferret here.

[Paulappaul]

I don't think it would result in an armed conflict if said revolution was brought forth via democratic means.


A revolution can't come by Democratic means.

[Lt. Ferret]

Such as comrade Lt. Ferret here.

yeah maybe, but if you guys are dumb fucks ill blow you all away. deal wit it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Thinking your fighting force invincible has led to a lot of downfall throughout history.

Money says I can shoot better than you, under pressure, Lt. :D

[TheGodlessUtopian]

A revolution can't come by Democratic means.

Oh? Why not? You are saying that the revolution can only come into existence through armed force?

[Paulappaul]

Oh? Why not? You are saying that the revolution can only come into existence through armed force?

Because if voting changed anything, the Capitalist would have made it Illegal a long time ago comrade.


yeah maybe, but if you guys are dumb fucks ill blow you all away. deal wit it. HAHAHAHA. Good point. I can deal with that I suppose ;)

[Lt. Ferret]

Thinking your fighting force invincible has led to a lot of downfall throughout history.

Money says I can shoot better than you, under pressure, Lt. :D


i shoot expert at M4 and M9, if you can shoot better than me then you deserve to win, my friend.

[Ele'ill]

im telling you, the stockpile already is incredible. if you hit the supply lines in a war, it would only be felt maybe 4-5 years in the future.

We'll hit the supply lines, meaning if there is a supply of ammunition going from anywhere to anywhere it gets hit.

[Lt. Ferret]

yeah they try that now with IED's and i would imagine iraqi and afghan insurgents are better at it than lazy americans talking about it on message boards. and we still meet all our supply goals in iraq and afghanistan.

[Revolution starts with U]

That's better than I expected, but I still think it would be a tough competition.
It does surprise me though that a Lt wouldn't know the difference between storming bases and attacking supply lines :lol:
Art of War much?

[Paulappaul]

i shoot expert at M4 and M9, if you can shoot better than me then you deserve to win, my friend.

Oooo, I am in on this as well!

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Because if voting changed anything, the Capitalist would have made it Illegal a long time ago comrade.


It doesn't change the fact that if the working class unites it won't matter what the capitalists "allow" and "don't allow." The force of the united massess will propel socialism to power,and the military will have no basis to overthrow a socialist government.

[Ele'ill]

yeah they try that now with IED's and i would imagine iraqi and afghan insurgents are better at it than lazy americans talking about it on message boards. and we still meet all our supply goals in iraq and afghanistan.

Meeting supply goals- losing both wars.

[Lt. Ferret]

That's better than I expected, but I still think it would be a tough competition.
It does surprise me though that a Lt wouldn't know the difference between storming bases and attacking supply lines :lol:
Art of War much?


i know the difference, your downfall is you think the military isnt tracking your bases and supply lines and destroying them quickly and efficiently. enemy movement makes it so damn easy to figure out where their bases are. and when most of your stockpiles are gone, basically whoever is left with an automatic weapon can get off one or two attacks before theyre shot, and then its over.

[Paulappaul]

It doesn't change the fact that if the working class unites it won't matter what the capitalists "allow" and "don't allow." The force of the united massess will propel socialism to power,and the military will have no basis to overthrow a socialist government.

Uh.. ever heard of Allende? Popular elected Socialist president and administration and guess what ? Military threw him out buddy. Established a dictatorship.

[Ele'ill]

i know the difference, your downfall is you think the military isnt tracking your bases and supply lines and destroying them quickly and efficiently. enemy movement makes it so damn easy to figure out where their bases are. and when most of your stockpiles are gone, basically whoever is left with an automatic weapon can get off one or two attacks before theyre shot, and then its over.

What is the non-military working class population in the US compared to the number of military personnel? Whose cities? Whose neighborhoods?

I think the military would leave the old world behind too. It wouldn't make sense to do otherwise.

[Lt. Ferret]

What is the non-military working class population in the US compared to the number of military personnel? Whose cities? Whose neighborhoods?

I think the military would leave the old world behind too. It wouldn't make sense to do otherwise.

it certainly depends on the revolution, and i know most soldiers are not socialist.s maybe populists. the population has no interest in harming its military, either. you might need to tweak your hypothetical situation.

[Paulappaul]

it certainly depends on the revolution, and i know most soldiers are not socialist.s maybe populists.

That's not how revolutions work. It's not about the great mass being Socialist or populist or conservative. These are the ideas of the Bourgeois. It's all about Class and Soldiers would side in defense with their families and with their class.

[Lt. Ferret]

fine, if you think a vanguard can defeat the most advanced military in the world, then you will simply, flatly, lose. the only way a revolution would succeed in america is the opposite of vanguardism.

[Ele'ill]

it certainly depends on the revolution, and i know most soldiers are not socialist.s maybe populists. the population has no interest in harming its military, either. you might need to tweak your hypothetical situation.

Yeah, I'm viewing the situation from a point where there is a revolution occurring in the US - Organizing and education has taken place so the people are organized and educated.

[Revolution starts with U]

i know the difference, your downfall is you think the military isnt tracking your bases and supply lines and destroying them quickly and efficiently. enemy movement makes it so damn easy to figure out where their bases are. and when most of your stockpiles are gone, basically whoever is left with an automatic weapon can get off one or two attacks before theyre shot, and then its over.

I doubt any resistance in a US, or any completely modernized country, would have "strongholds" to speak of. We don't need physical communication.
On that note, any good revolutionary should secure servers first, before anything else. Communication is key in warfare.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Uh.. ever heard of Allende? Popular elected Socialist president and administration and guess what ? Military threw him out buddy. Established a dictatorship.

What happens in Chile is different than what is expected to happen in America.I wouldn't say comparing the Chilean and American military's as fair,when in the United States there is this belief that military and government are separately kept,and do not interfere with one another.In America there is this belief that the military will remain neutral,and I think the political situation will come through in the end and prevent any such takeover from happening.

If the military did take over when a socialist government was elected,than any such myths regarding American "democracy" will be demolished.

I don't know a whole lot about the Chilean coup,but I would say that imperialist financing probably had something to do with the success of the take over.Aside from which,wasn't Hugo Chavez elected into power,and remined so despite there being a military force in Venezuela?

[Revolution starts with U]

fine, if you think a vanguard can defeat the most advanced military in the world, then you will simply, flatly, lose. the only way a revolution would succeed in america is the opposite of vanguardism.

We don't need (nor want!) a "vangaurd" (at least expressly listed as so. They can exist, but they cannot think they have, nor should have any special privelage, being the vangaurd).
But this really sounds like the same thing the redcoats would have said... :D

[Paulappaul]

Aside from which,wasn't Hugo Chavez elected into power,and remined so despite there being a military force in Venezuela?

Hugo Chavez hasn't done anything Socialistic and has defended Imperialism. What is your point? Congratz, Obama got elected too.


If the military did take over when a socialist government was elected,than any such myths regarding American "democracy" will be demolished.

Americans already know we don't live in a Democracy. Why do you think people spout on about a Republic and such all the time?

[Lt. Ferret]

We don't need (nor want!) a "vangaurd" (at least expressly listed as so. They can exist, but they cannot think they have, nor should have any special privelage, being the vangaurd).
But this really sounds like the same thing the redcoats would have said... :D


maybe, but the continentals had a military force that was undefeatable, i cannot feasibly see a rebel force in america today that could stand up to a modern american military in conventional warfare, and the last 10 years have been spent on counter insurgency tactics, which i teach to soldiers. a rebel force in america would have to be pretty large and advanced to even last 3 months, let alone attain victory.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Hugo Chavez hasn't done anything Socialistic and has defended Imperialism.

He has set up communes,nationalized companies,built houses for the poor,created student councils,and improved conditions for farmers.How hasn't he done anything "socialistic" again?

When has he defended imperialism?

“We must be prudent. We know what our political line is: We don’t support invasions, or massacres, or anything like that no matter who does it. A campaign of lies is being spun together regarding Libya. The U.S. government is behind the campaign to remove Qadhafi.”

-President Hugo Chávez in a speech
to university graduates in Venezuela
March 2, 2011

My point is that he-a socialist-was elected into power,and the military hasn't removed him.

[CornetJoyce]

maybe, but the continentals had a military force that was undefeatable, i cannot feasibly see a rebel force in america today that could stand up to a modern american military in conventional warfare, and the last 10 years have been spent on counter insurgency tactics, which i teach to soldiers. a rebel force in america would have to be pretty large and advanced to even last 3 months, let alone attain victory.

Presumably, you haven't been telling them about the "unbeatable" continentals, who were beaten often. But that's neither here nor there.

[Revolution starts with U]

maybe, but the continentals had a military force that was undefeatable, i cannot feasibly see a rebel force in america today that could stand up to a modern american military in conventional warfare, and the last 10 years have been spent on counter insurgency tactics, which i teach to soldiers. a rebel force in america would have to be pretty large and advanced to even last 3 months, let alone attain victory.
Actually the colonists got thoroughly trounced for 3 years, only winning through a war of attrition. The same thing that helped the colonies is the same thing that helps the aghanis; perserverance.

[Lt. Ferret]

the biggest benefit to the afghan resistance is the unforgiveable corruption of the legitimate afghan government. god help the taliban if karzai wasnt deserving of a bullet to the head.

[Imposter Marxist]

Don't worry guys, I'll be there.

I'll swing in while dual wielding AK-47's, firing automatic rifle shots into crowds of enemys, not missing a single shot. Then when Im out of ammo, i'll rip a grenade off my body wrap and kick it into a tank's barrel, exploding it Michael Bay style. Then Ferrt will walk up to me and then we will have a sword fight, and I'll end it by cutting him in half, as he falls down into a black reactor Darth Maul style.

If you haven't noticed...I'm kind of a badass...

[Lt. Ferret]

shit i ought surrender now. im a simple air defender. dont come in on a helicopter or i got your number.:confused:

[Ele'ill]

shit i ought surrender now. im a simple air defender. dont come in on a helicopter or i got your number.:confused:

What's the hardest to defend against?

[Paulappaul]

He has set up communes,nationalized companies,built houses for the poor,created student councils,and improved conditions for farmers.How hasn't he done anything "socialistic" again?

If just plain old Communes were Socialistic, America would be Socialistic too. If Nationalized Companies were Socialist, then Louis Napoleon was a Socialist! If building houses for the poor was Socialist then Low Income Housing would be Socialist. If granting Student Councils were Socialistic, then hell every university in the US is Socialist. If Improved conditions for farmers was Socialist, then we were Socialist during the New Deal.

Nothing in that was Socialism. Chavez has kept the chains, just gave the prisoner a few slices of bread. Another example of how "Democratic Socialism" is a waste of time.


My point is that he-a socialist-was elected into power,and the military hasn't removed him.

Capitalists don't care, because Chavez "Socialism" is Capitalism.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

If just plain old Communes were Socialistic, America would be Socialistic too. If Nationalized Companies were Socialist, then Louis Napoleon was a Socialist! If building houses for the poor was Socialist then Low Income Housing would be Socialist. If granting Student Councils were Socialistic, then hell every university in the US is Socialist. If Improved conditions for farmers was Socialist, then we were Socialist during the New Deal.

Nothing in that was Socialism. Chavez has kept the chains, just gave the prisoner a few slices of bread. Another example of how "Democratic Socialism" is a waste of time.



Capitalists don't care, because Chavez "Socialism" is Capitalism.

It's a progression towards total socialism,not a system where everything is forced on the people and freedoms are restricted.

Democratic socialism is as much as a waste of time as Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism).

How is his socialism,capitalism?

[Revolution starts with U]

Don't worry guys, I'll be there.

I'll swing in while dual wielding AK-47's, firing automatic rifle shots into crowds of enemys, not missing a single shot. Then when Im out of ammo, i'll rip a grenade off my body wrap and kick it into a tank's barrel, exploding it Michael Bay style. Then Ferrt will walk up to me and then we will have a sword fight, and I'll end it by cutting him in half, as he falls down into a black reactor Darth Maul style.

If you haven't noticed...I'm kind of a badass...

I nominate this for post of the year! :lol:

[#FF0000]

How is his socialism,capitalism?

Uh, I think he explained it pretty cogently.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Uh, I think he explained it pretty cogently.

No,he badmouthed a legitimate path to real socialism,without explaining how he was a capitalist.Claims of giving the people a "few slices of extra bread" is a completely asinine statement when you look at what they are trying to accomplish in the long run.Just because something takes time to complete,doesn't mean it is not real Marxism.

[#FF0000]

No,he badmouthed a legitimate path to real socialism,without explaining how he was a capitalist.Claims of giving the people a "few slices of extra bread" is a completely asinine statement when you look at what they are trying to accomplish in the long run.Just because something takes time to complete,doesn't mean it is not real Marxism.

What exactly is socialistic about Chavez's Venezuela? You never explained this.

[Paulappaul]

It's a progression towards total socialism,not a system where everything is forced on the people and freedoms are restricted.

I never argued for the later haha. Exactly the opposite if anything.


Democratic socialism is as much as a waste of time as Marxism-Leninism (Stalinism).

yeah I would agree.


How is his socialism,capitalism?

Because there is still the purpose of production for the extraction of Surplus Value, a money economy based on commodity production wherein the wage system of maintained. Private Property still exists, etc.


No,he badmouthed a legitimate path to real socialism,without explaining how he was a capitalist.

He hasn't eliminated capitalist relations. Impossible with his powers, again why your Democratic Socialism is impossible.


.Claims of giving the people a "few slices of extra bread" is a completely asinine statement when you look at what they are trying to accomplish in the long run.Just because something takes time to complete,doesn't mean it is not real Marxism.

How many Socialists have said the later? From the Soviet Union, to China, to Cuba and now Chavez. All of them pretty successful. Last I checked, Chavez was losing votes pretty fast. Pretty soon he's bye - bye.

[StockholmSyndrome]

How do you go from a highly stratified and highly complex class-based mode of production to a classless mode of production based on common ownership and democratic control in one fell swoop? Within a span of 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? How do we get from point A to point B. Tell me how we do it in a way that does not involve the violence that has come to represent the "revolutionary" left.

[Bud Struggle]

How do you go from a highly stratified and highly complex class-based mode of production to a classless mode of production based on common ownership and democratic control in one fell swoop? Within a span of 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? How do we get from point A to point B. Tell me how we do it in a way that does not involve the violence that has come to represent the "revolutionary" left.

You don't and you won't. Sorry to say but Revolutions these days are all more or less Bourgeoise affairs in Third World countries.

[Paulappaul]

How do you go from a highly stratified and highly complex class-based mode of production to a classless mode of production based on common ownership and democratic control in one fell swoop? Within a span of 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? How do we get from point A to point B. Tell me how we do it in a way that does not involve the violence that has come to represent the "revolutionary" left.

Already, production is run on a massive cooperative scale. The Big contradiction of Capitalism is this, Socialized Production consisting of Thousands of Workers intercoordinating their efforts to produce the Anarchy of the Market Place wherein, commodities take on metaphysical properties. So with that said, workers already know how to run society cooperatively and therein, the question of Democratic control of the workplace isn't complicated. Plus there are already models of Workers' Councils and Cooperatives for which the workers can adopt if they want. As Marx said in the Communist Manifesto, Property isn't a question. Common Property mearly means that nobody owns the means of production which for nine-tenths of the population is already true, workers don't own the means of production so the act of ending the Capitalist metaphysical control over the means of production doesn't bring any big transition or problem.

By the workers establishing their control internationally and by abolishing Property and what makes the Capitalist a Capitalist, you abolish their class and with it class distinctions.

There you go.

[Revolution starts with U]

How do you go from a highly stratified and highly complex class-based mode of production to a classless mode of production based on common ownership and democratic control in one fell swoop? Within a span of 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? How do we get from point A to point B. Tell me how we do it in a way that does not involve the violence that has come to represent the "revolutionary" left.
As networking and education expand people gradually realize they are worth more and more, demanding pension benefits and healthcare, more raises and chance for promotions. They start realizing management isn't quite as necessary as they thought, at least not enough to justify large gaps in pay. They begin demanding more education and the process spreads more.
As they get these pensions and stock options they start to realize just how unimportant the current ownership is. They start grabbing the reigns of entitltement (of property) and investment for production. The status quo fights back, talking about bourgie liberty and property protection. But the masses start realizing they should have these things too... there's nothing inherently better about those at the top.
As ownership begins to expand to 20 > 30 > 40, then possibly even 50% of the population (a massive leap to the <10%/<1% it is now), they begin to understand just how unnecessary and illogical the concept "private ownership" is.
So they begin to dismantle it. They start gauranteeing a spot in control of resource to each person, democratically. Money becomes more and more uneccessary, first only used for luxurious goods, but then possibly not used at all.
Of course, somewhere in here, the bourgies will bring down the hammer, militarily. Will you blame us, or them?


You don't and you won't. Sorry to say but Revolutions these days are all more or less Bourgeoise affairs in Third World countries.
It's already happening Bud. I mean, even just comparing laissez faire to today, there has been quite a revolution in the economy in the developed world. Tho there may be a time we have to shoot bourgioues partisans, revolution does not necessarily mean violent.
And those revolutions are mostly petite bourgie, public workers, and genuine proles from what I can tell.

[Revolution starts with U]

Already, production is run on a massive cooperative scale. The Big contradiction of Capitalism is this, Socialized Production consisting of Thousands of Workers intercoordinating their efforts to produce the Anarchy of the Market Place wherein, commodities take on metaphysical properties. So with that said, workers already know how to run society cooperatively and therein, the question of Democratic control of the workplace isn't complicated. Plus there are already models of Workers' Councils and Cooperatives for which the workers can adopt if they want. As Marx said in the Communist Manifesto, Property isn't a question. Common Property mearly means that nobody owns the means of production which for nine-tenths of the population is already true, workers don't own the means of production so the act of ending the Capitalist metaphysical control over the means of production doesn't bring any big transition or problem.

By the workers establishing their control internationally and by abolishing Property and what makes the Capitalist a Capitalist, you abolish their class and with it class distinctions.

There you go.

:thumbup:
Bare with me here;
There's really no such thing as a "class traitor" in regards to a bourgie siding with the proles. Without any special privelage, we're all of the same class (or more specifically, lack thereof). So there's really just the rest of us, and those who refuse to relinquish their tyranical stranglehold on the economy.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Already, production is run on a massive cooperative scale. The Big contradiction of Capitalism is this, Socialized Production consisting of Thousands of Workers intercoordinating their efforts to produce the Anarchy of the Market Place wherein, commodities take on metaphysical properties. So with that said, workers already know how to run society cooperatively and therein, the question of Democratic control of the workplace isn't complicated. Plus there are already models of Workers' Councils and Cooperatives for which the workers can adopt if they want. As Marx said in the Communist Manifesto, Property isn't a question. Common Property mearly means that nobody owns the means of production which for nine-tenths of the population is already true, workers don't own the means of production so the act of ending the Capitalist metaphysical control over the means of production doesn't bring any big transition or problem.

By the workers establishing their control internationally and by abolishing Property and what makes the Capitalist a Capitalist, you abolish their class and with it class distinctions.

There you go.

You just described what socialism is...

[Paulappaul]

You just described what socialism is...

Congratz, you figured it out, that is how you get to Classless, Stateless society founded on the principle of Common Ownership of the means of production.

[El Chuncho]

With a great deal of violence! Revolutions are not peaceful, as much as we want them to be. The people would have to create their own army and fight like they did in Cuba and Vietnam, or their would be no chance as the US government has often put down protests with violence.

I do not want to be seen to be endorsing murder or violence, but I doubt a peaceful revolution will ever happen in the USA, or any country. It is why I am against the naivety of people who rant on about revolutionary ''atrocities''.

[Lt. Ferret]

What's the hardest to defend against?


fighter jets. transport planes and rotary aircraft are easy kills though.

[StockholmSyndrome]

I do not want to be seen to be endorsing murder or violence...

Well, you see, that's exactly what you're doing.

[Die Rote Fahne]

If it were to start, it would probably start in the way of mass strikes and/or a general strike.

[RGacky3]

If it were to start, it would probably start in the way of mass strikes and/or a general strike.


Strikes are always the best starting point IMO, along with other industrial action.

[Drosophila]

Say you do sabotage the supply lines and ammunition stops being manufactured. Where does that put all of you? Oh yeah, without any goddamn ammunition or weapons. Good luck fighting the military with sticks and stones.

Also, you do all know about Rex 84, right?

[Ele'ill]

Say you do sabotage the supply lines and ammunition stops being manufactured. Where does that put all of you? Oh yeah, without any goddamn ammunition or weapons. Good luck fighting the military with sticks and stones.

Sabotage and hijack, not necessarily all the time nor in that order nor always one or the other and this is a very, very small portion out of everything else that would be going on- including military defecting, worker control of manufacturing, community assemblies and community action. Any actions by the military to stop the general population from going about its business will be repressive and add fuel to the fire- this would be a fail move by the military.

[#FF0000]

Well, you see, that's exactly what you're doing.

Violence ain't violence if it is self-defence, which is what a revolution is, silly-billy.

How much violence are you giving a pass by supporting the status quo?

[Viet Minh]

Even the entire civilian population couldn't defeat the US army, I know thats a defeatist attitude but in terms of weaponry and ammunition there's no comparison, unless you literally swarmed them with suicide attacks in a crazy charge. It would have to be a military coup, or democratic means. I know a lot of Americans have gunsthats not the issue, the problem is black hawk helicopters, rocket propelled grenade launchers, tanks.. :crying:

[Ele'ill]

Even the entire civilian population couldn't defeat the US army, I know thats a defeatist attitude but in terms of weaponry and ammunition there's no comparison, unless you literally swarmed them with suicide attacks in a crazy charge. It would have to be a military coup, or democratic means. I know a lot of Americans have gunsthats not the issue, the problem is black hawk helicopters, rocket propelled grenade launchers, tanks.. :crying:

It wouldn't be open warfare. It wouldn't be in the military's interest to do so. What are they going to force the population to do?

[Conscript]

Obey curfews while they smash all armed resistance, attempt to force or convince them to abandon the fight, try to politically alienate revolutionaries from the rest of the populace, or find ways to divide the revolutionaries themselves (what if the government paid off those workers we rely on for some critical purpose, or assassinated a leading anarchist and framed the leninists). There's a lot they will try to do, and all of them liabilities that can leave us hopeless and vulnerable. As you believe, the decisive battle might not be a military one, instead it might be political ('who seems more justified' comes to mind), however if we are forced to take up arms to defend the revolution, we must be ready to fight and win that decisive battle. Unless we intend to give up after the military decides it's willing to crush striking workers, regardless of public perception of it, that is.

[agnixie]

Of course, this all sort of assumes the US, in a situation where a revolution happens, can still afford a military at the level it currently is; I doubt a revolution would happen without the country being in fairly bad shape economically - probably a depression-level economic crash at least. Maybe with some fascism thrown in.

[Viet Minh]

It wouldn't be open warfare. It wouldn't be in the military's interest to do so. What are they going to force the population to do?

Its not about their interests, if the left organised and mobilised enough for revolution they would be forced into open warfare. Very quickly large areas would become no-go for the police, they would be forced to use miltary means to crush the resistance. Look into race riots in the UK in the past few decades, when whole areas were barricaded off. I'd imagine inner city areas in the US would be even more likely to do so come the revolution, and would have more firepower to back it up as well.

[Viet Minh]

Of course, this all sort of assumes the US, in a situation where a revolution happens, can still afford a military at the level it currently is; I doubt a revolution would happen without the country being in fairly bad shape economically - probably a depression-level economic crash at least. Maybe with some fascism thrown in.

Well, now's the time, with them opening a whole new front in Libya, and still somehow unable to control Afghanistan despite the massive coalition support.

Soon you will have the United States of Socialist America! :cool:

http://i53.tinypic.com/ve3l78_th.jpg

[RED DAVE]

I think that a lot of comrades are very naive about the military. A primary political task of the revolution will be winning over the military. Should the military remain intact and under control of its officers, the revolution will fail.

RED DAVE

[Ele'ill]

The United Stateless of the Former Americas

[a rebel]

any U.S army soldiers who don't defect, would be helpless without the air force. I know enough about modern warfare to know that the second things get tough, dozens of types of air support can, and will be called in. But I doubt they would drop bombs on their own cities, nuke the suburbs?

[Drosophila]

So far every counter-argument I've seen are complete strawmen. The sad reality is that a revolution would be extremely bloody, and would turn into an endless civil war. This aint' Russia. You try an 'October Revolution' maneuver in any developed country and you're dead. There's no way to get enough of the military to just support you.

[#FF0000]

So far every counter-argument I've seen are complete strawmen. The sad reality is that a revolution would be extremely bloody, and would turn into an endless civil war. This aint' Russia. You try an 'October Revolution' maneuver in any developed country and you're dead. There's no way to get enough of the military to just support you.

I figure by the time a socialist revolution's a-knockin on the USA's door, things are gonna be in such a state that the military will defect, or just not take a side. Not the officers, mind, but the rank-n-file.

I mean, look at North Africa. I'm not saying the conditions are anywhere near the same in the US and in Egypt. I'm just saying that revolutions and uprisings can be carried out like that.

And if it is a huge, bloody civil war, which I don't know if it would be, but if it is, then, well, as the Situationists said: A single nonrevolutionary weekend is infinitely more bloody than a month of total revolution..

[Revolution starts with U]

You can't straw man a loaded question anyway :lol:

But every country thinks there military is more powerful than the citizenry.

[RGacky3]

The Russian revolutoin happened because a HUGE section of the military joined .... But even before that it started with general strikes.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, the US accounts for about one half the millitary spending of the world and we have what, maybe 5% of the population? Without the military signing up, I don't think it will be much of a Revolution. And if you add in all of the Self Hateing Proletarians fighting on the side of Bourgeois, I'd say it would be over in a week.

[Che a chara]

I think by the time the USA has the domestic support and appeal for a socialist revolution other nations worldwide would be already at/past that stage and could aid logistically and financially to assist the revolution. And of course by that time many of the population should be class conscious, including members of the military.

[RGacky3]

The type of revolution a lot of Leninist types invision would be stupid in most countries, storming the barricades, a type of war, or military action would be rediculous and just suicide.

A revolution in the United States would be strikes, occupations, squats, shutting down banks, civil disobedience, and so on.

You want to know what a successfull revolution would be, look at what the ruling class is scared of.

THey are NOT afriad of people collecting guns, they could'nt give less of a crap, what they absolutely ARE terrified of is unions, community organizing and those sort of things.

[Bud Struggle]

I think by the time the USA has the domestic support and appeal for a socialist revolution other nations worldwide would be already at/past that stage and could aid logistically and financially to assist the revolution. And of course by that time many of the population should be class conscious, including members of the military.

But it would be the LAST country to fall to Communism--that's for sure.

(And the first country where the counter-Revolution will begin! :thumbup: :lol: )

[RGacky3]

But it would be the LAST country to fall to Communism--that's for sure.

(And the first country where the counter-Revolution will begin! :thumbup: :lol: )

It would probably be the last, but not where a counter-revolution will begin, considering there'd be no super power to fund it.

[Bud Struggle]

It would probably be the last, but not where a counter-revolution will begin, considering there'd be no super power to fund it.

There are plenty of people in the US that MIGHT be for Socialism--but I think there are a lot more, a LOT more that just might pass on the idea. And when it comes to nationalism--Americans rank pretty high on the list.

Further for all the talk of backlash, the unions have been beaten down considerable in the private sector and are now being smashed in the public (something I really didn't think would happen.)

Hey, unions MIGHT make a comeback, but that is far from certain.

[Le Socialiste]

I don't think it would result in an armed conflict if said revolution was brought forth via democratic means.


A revolution that relies on capitalistic bourgeios parliamentarianism/republicanism (i.e. election cycles/government seats) is doomed to fail from a purely revolutionary perspective. The unfortunate reality (and, indeed, history itself) shows us that those parties and organizations that indulge in capitalist politics end up being co-opted into the exploitative nature of capitalism. Nor will the ruling-classes surrender their wealth and influence willingly. A socialist/communistic government, democratically elected, will still have the capitalists to deal with, and the military by extension. I just don't see it working out. Alexander Berkman puts it best in "What is Anarchism?":



If capitalism is to abolished by revolution, what do the Socialists seek office for, why do they try to get into the government?

This contradiction has created the greatest confusion among Socialists and has split the movement into many factions. The majority of them, the regular Socialist parties in every country, now stand for the conquest of political power, for the establishment of a Socialist government whose business it will be to abolish capitalism and bring about Socialism.
Judge for yourself if such a thing is possible. In the first place, Socialists themselves admit that the possessing classes will not give up their wealth and privileges without a bitter fight and that it will result in revolution.
Again, is the thing at all practical? Take the United States, for instance. For over fifty years the Socialists have been trying to elect party members to Congress with the result that after half a century of political work they have now just one member in the House of Representatives in Washington....But even suppose that the Socialists could some day secure that majority. Will they then be able to change capitalism to Socialism? It would require amending and altering the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the individual states, for which a two-thirds vote would be necessary. Just stop and consider: the American plutocrats, the trusts, the bourgeoisie, and all the other forces that benefit by capitalism, would they just sit quietly and permit the changing of the Constitution in such a manner as to deprive them of their wealth and privileges? Can you believe that?

[Drosophila]

The type of revolution a lot of Leninist types invision would be stupid in most countries, storming the barricades, a type of war, or military action would be rediculous and just suicide.

A revolution in the United States would be strikes, occupations, squats, shutting down banks, civil disobedience, and so on.

You want to know what a successfull revolution would be, look at what the ruling class is scared of.

THey are NOT afriad of people collecting guns, they could'nt give less of a crap, what they absolutely ARE terrified of is unions, community organizing and those sort of things.

This is how it should be done. My problem is with the people who think that the US will turn communist through some bloody revolt. Even if it was possible, it wouldn't be necessary at all.

[#FF0000]

The type of revolution a lot of Leninist types invision would be stupid in most countries, storming the barricades, a type of war, or military action would be rediculous and just suicide.

Oh shut the fuck up that isn't what we expect a revolution to be like at all.

[RGacky3]

Oh shut the fuck up that isn't what we expect a revolution to be like at all.

THen why is everyone talking about what the military can and cannot do?


There are plenty of people in the US that MIGHT be for Socialism--but I think there are a lot more, a LOT more that just might pass on the idea. And when it comes to nationalism--Americans rank pretty high on the list.

Further for all the talk of backlash, the unions have been beaten down considerable in the private sector and are now being smashed in the public (something I really didn't think would happen.)

Hey, unions MIGHT make a comeback, but that is far from certain.

The unions have been beaten down not by popular will, but by the government and major Capital.

I don't think Americans would beat back Socialism they never have, its only been the powers of Capital, once you weaken those and their control of the state, you'll see a different picture.

Unions making a comeback, I don't know, right now its up in the air, they have been doing better in recent years, but just slightly, although Americans have organized in other ways, US uncut, anti-forclosure organizations, the 99ers and so on.

[psgchisolm]

Sabotage and hijack, not necessarily all the time nor in that order nor always one or the other and this is a very, very small portion out of everything else that would be going on- including military defecting, worker control of manufacturing, community assemblies and community action. Any actions by the military to stop the general population from going about its business will be repressive and add fuel to the fire- this would be a fail move by the military.Good luck trying to hijack a couple of military convoys with armored escort. You do know the military travels in convoys right? Those convoys usually have high caliber weapons and a fair amount of munitions for them. I'd really like to see what a couple of civilian rifles can do against a .50 cal or Mk 19 Grenade launcher. Btw if you sabotage bridges, you just effectively eliminated your primary means of escape also. I highly doubt a bunch of untrained revolutionary's could undermine a professionally trained military force that trains for ambushes and has experience against IEDs in actual combat conditions. Also it's not like they could import munitions from other countries right? Wait...

Please, this isn't the movies. There aren't lone military trucks loaded with ammunition just driving around ready for you to pull-over and have the soldier defect. You must understand that you are facing a high firepower military. Revolutionaries would take a high number of casualties before any major ground would be gained.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well, the US accounts for about one half the millitary spending of the world and we have what, maybe 5% of the population? Without the military signing up, I don't think it will be much of a Revolution. And if you add in all of the Self Hateing Proletarians fighting on the side of Bourgeois, I'd say it would be over in a week.
Ever hear of a war of attrition?
Also, why would the US fight any better domestically than its piss poor record internationally?


There are plenty of people in the US that MIGHT be for Socialism--but I think there are a lot more, a LOT more that just might pass on the idea. And when it comes to nationalism--Americans rank pretty high on the list.

Further for all the talk of backlash, the unions have been beaten down considerable in the private sector and are now being smashed in the public (something I really didn't think would happen.)

Hey, unions MIGHT make a comeback, but that is far from certain.
Bud, sometimes you make the most piss poor political analysis...
The voting public does not equal the public at large. Most polls show that most of the people who don't vote are socialist-ic and feel disenfranchised by the capitalist system. The people happy with the status quo don't stay home on election day.
This is not to say that the country will automatically sign up with us. I'm just trying to pull you out of your bubble and realize wtf is going on in this country.
THE TEA PARTY IS A SMALL PARTY THAT ONLY EXISTS BECAUSE IT SERVES THE INTERESTS OF THE RULING CLASS. Regardless of it's "wins," it represents only a very very small sample of the working class.


THen why is everyone talking about what the military can and cannot do?



The unions have been beaten down not by popular will, but by the government and major Capital.

I don't think Americans would beat back Socialism they never have, its only been the powers of Capital, once you weaken those and their control of the state, you'll see a different picture.

Unions making a comeback, I don't know, right now its up in the air, they have been doing better in recent years, but just slightly, although Americans have organized in other ways, US uncut, anti-forclosure organizations, the 99ers and so on.
I actually agree that we are better served using economic means, rather than military.
BUT HAS NO ONE HERE HEARD OF A WAR OF ATTRITION?!!?!?!?!

[#FF0000]

THen why is everyone talking about what the military can and cannot do?

most people in this thread are anarchists though

[Revolution starts with U]

Good luck trying to hijack a couple of military convoys with armored escort.
Thx :lol:

You do know the military travels in convoys right? Those convoys usually have high caliber weapons and a fair amount of munitions for them. I'd really like to see what a couple of civilian rifles can do against a .50 cal or Mk 19 Grenade launcher.
You severely underestimate the armed-ness of the american populace :lol:. In certain parts of youngstown you will see people walk aruond with AKs. I know a couple people who claim to know how to get RPGs....

Btw if you sabotage bridges, you just effectively eliminated your primary means of escape also.
Dirt bikes and 4 wheelers dont need roads and bridges (for the most part) :lol:


I highly doubt a bunch of untrained revolutionary's could undermine a professionally trained military force that trains for ambushes and has experience against IEDs in actual combat conditions. Also it's not like they could import munitions from other countries right? Wait...

Nobody said it would be easy. But again, this is what every country thinks about its military. For the most part it may be true. But to rely on "beating back the revolution simply with superior fire power" is doomed from the start. Any half-assed politician or military brass knows this too. Propaganda is far more important in an insurgency than any actual weaponry. This is why we were getting thoroughly trounced in Iraq until we started paying off the insurgents.
But assuming hte US is in a state of collapse; the more money they use to pay us off, the less money they have to keep up with payments to the soldiers. And we all know what happens to soldiers that don't get paid... mutiny.
:lol:

... when do you ever see that in the movies either?

[IndependentCitizen]

Let's be honest, our imperialist armies aren't exactly fairing well against guerrillas in Afghanistan and Iraq..

[Bud Struggle]

Let's be honest, our imperialist armies aren't exactly fairing well against guerrillas in Afghanistan and Iraq..

If our Imperialist armies wanted to kill every man woman and child in Afghanistan and Iraq they could do it in a week. Not killing them is a lot harder than killing them.

[#FF0000]

If our Imperialist armies wanted to kill every man woman and child in Afghanistan and Iraq they could do it in a week. Not killing them is a lot harder than killing them.

Well yeah. But they don't want to kill literally everyone because that'll get a reaction from literally every country in the world.

[psgchisolm]

.
Thx :lol:

You severely underestimate the armed-ness of the american populace :lol:. In certain parts of youngstown you will see people walk aruond with AKs. I know a couple people who claim to know how to get RPGs....
Fully-auto .50,m249,m240 M16's M4's SAW's. vs AK's RPG's(:rolleyes: possible RPG's). In certain parts of a lot of places you can see people walking around with weapons. Doesn't mean they can effectively use them.


Dirt bikes and 4 wheelers dont need roads and bridges (for the most part) :lol:I wonder how many of them can stand up to 5.56 and larger caliber rounds. You can't carry too much ammunition on a dirt bike.


Nobody said it would be easy. But again, this is what every country thinks about its military. For the most part it may be true. But to rely on "beating back the revolution simply with superior fire power" is doomed from the start. Any half-assed politician or military brass knows this too. Propaganda is far more important in an insurgency than any actual weaponry.
But assuming hte US is in a state of collapse; the more money they use to pay us off, the less money they have to keep up with payments to the soldiers. And we all know what happens to soldiers that don't get paid... mutiny.
:lol:

... when do you ever see that in the movies either? Yeah, I doubt they'd pay you off. If they did it would probably be a trap so I'd be ready if I were you. Not to mention you have the Ultra-nationalists who probably could rival your numbers.


This is why we were getting thoroughly trounced in Iraq until we started paying off the insurgents.It's not like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda had training camps and manuals.
Wait...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1560492/How-to-be-a-jihadi-Talibans-training-secrets.html

[Bud Struggle]

Well yeah. But they don't want to kill literally everyone because that'll get a reaction from literally every country in the world.

Oh I agree. But the problem isn't that they can't do the job militarily--the problem in those countries is political.





Bud, sometimes you make the most piss poor political analysis...
The voting public does not equal the public at large. Most polls show that most of the people who don't vote are socialist-ic and feel disenfranchised by the capitalist system. The people happy with the status quo don't stay home on election day.
This is not to say that the country will automatically sign up with us. I'm just trying to pull you out of your bubble and realize wtf is going on in this country.
THE TEA PARTY IS A SMALL PARTY THAT ONLY EXISTS BECAUSE IT SERVES THE INTERESTS OF THE RULING CLASS. Regardless of it's "wins," it represents only a very very small sample of the working class.

Do you seriously believe that any more than maybe 1% of the American people want a freakin' Revolution? This threade is just trash talk--nothing more. Nothing wrong with that, but nobody seriously wants a Revolution when they can just vote the Tea Party out in the next election.

[Revolution starts with U]

Fully-auto .50,m249,m240 M16's M4's SAW's. vs AK's RPG's(:rolleyes: possible RPG's). In certain parts of a lot of places you can see people walking around with weapons. Doesn't mean they can effectively use them
Straw man.


I wonder how many of them can stand up to 5.56 and larger caliber rounds. You can't carry too much ammunition on a dirt bike.

This is your only valid point. And there's not much I can say on it, other than "perserverance in the face of difficulty."


Yeah, I doubt they'd pay you off. If they did it would probably be a trap so I'd be ready if I were you. Not to mention you have the Ultra-nationalists who probably could rival your numbers.

Non-sequiter


Do you seriously believe that any more than maybe 1% of the American people want a freakin' Revolution? This threade is just trash talk--nothing more. Nothing wrong with that, but nobody seriously wants a Revolution when they can just vote the Tea Party out in the next election
Apparently you didn't read my post at all... not surprising you rarely ever do, other than to make some snide unfounded assertion.

[RGacky3]

BUT HAS NO ONE HERE HEARD OF A WAR OF ATTRITION?!!?!?!?!

Sure, do you really think that would work militarily internally in the US? What would it accomplish?

[Bud Struggle]

Apparently you didn't read my post at all... not surprising you rarely ever do, other than to make some snide unfounded assertion.

Oh I read it. I just think your "most polls" point is just nonsense. People might take a view that might be called "Socialist" by some on an issue here and an issue there, I do myself, but to opt for a REVOLUTION is something else altogether. If people WANTED to vot the Tea Party out they could. If they can't be bothered to vote they certainly can't be bothered to fight and die in a Revolution.

And for that matter there wouldn't be a Revolution at all--it would be a civil war and the Socialists would lose big time and the country would turn to the Right. So right that the Tea Party would seem like the ultra Liberal left.

[RGacky3]

THe United States has enough weapons to kille everyone in the word with nuclear bombs, thats not an argument Bud.


Oh I read it. I just think your "most polls" point is just nonsense. People might take a view that might be called "Socialist" by some on an issue here and an issue there, I do myself, but to opt for a REVOLUTION is something else altogether. If people WANTED to vot the Tea Party out they could. If they can't be bothered to vote they certainly can't be bothered to fight and die in a Revolution.


Bud thats because voting is the LEAST EFFECTIVE WAY to change anything, your not gonna change anything voting, its a system bought and paid for.


And for that matter there wouldn't be a Revolution at all--it would be a civil war and the Socialists would lose big time and the country would turn to the Right. So right that the Tea Party would seem like the ultra Liberal left.

I doubt it, unless there was a military coup.

[Revolution starts with U]

Oh I read it. I just think your "most polls" point is just nonsense. People might take a view that might be called "Socialist" by some on an issue here and an issue there, I do myself, but to opt for a REVOLUTION is something else altogether. If people WANTED to vot the Tea Party out they could. If they can't be bothered to vote they certainly can't be bothered to fight and die in a Revolution.

You keep building up and knocking down those straw men :lol:
Let me know when you want to address the actual point of my post. Read it again.. slowly... and then get back to me.



And for that matter there wouldn't be a Revolution at all--it would be a civil war and the Socialists would lose big time and the country would turn to the Right. So right that the Tea Party would seem like the ultra Liberal left.

So... what's the lottery numbers in Ohio gona be this week Bud?

[psgchisolm]

.
You severely underestimate the armed-ness of the american populace :lol:. In certain parts of youngstown you will see people walk aruond with AKs. I know a couple people who claim to know how to get RPGs....

Fine then. It's well-known that Americans are known for their gun rights. It's not about the tools, it's how you use it. So unless you spend your time doing tactical shoots like these guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peaELeF1Ixc
You might not stand up in direct engagements against forces that do this for a living. It's going to have to occur quickly, because the longer a soldier stays alive in a ambush, their chances for surviving it rise drastically. I'm all for tactical shoots like above(hint). They build familiarity with the weapon and gives you some form of training.

[Bud Struggle]

THe United States has enough weapons to kille everyone in the word with nuclear bombs, thats not an argument Bud. They don't need nuclear bombs. And I wasn't making that argument--



Bud thats because voting is the LEAST EFFECTIVE WAY to change anything, your not gonna change anything voting, its a system bought and paid for. Maybe, I really don't think "Revolution" is a very good way to change things either. There have been hundreds of revolutions in South America--very few do any good.


I doubt it, unless there was a military coup. You don't seriously believe the Socialists would win--well maybe you do. I think they would get exterminated and then America would turn very xenophobic.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Tony Benn's 5 part documentary on democracy:

poO5BgU2PZo


"The fight for democracy never ends"
"The end goal is nothing to me, the movement is everything"

[Viet Minh]

First of all, a violent revolution is not always necessary. The only way I see to a Socialist revolution is with another major economic crash. Like any capitalist country there is a huge difference between the haves and have-nots, at the moment the impoverished majority are kept relatively distracted by tv and false flag 'Islamism', immigration panics etc. The huge irony is a lot of the leftist support is from the upper middle classes, the 'educated elite' and the right wing are often the poor who don't truly understand leftist politics, i know that sounds patrinising but I'm one of them.. :D So the revolution might not call itself socialist, but it will be about socialist values; civil rights, equality, and democracy.

[RGacky3]

You don't seriously believe the Socialists would win--well maybe you do. I think they would get exterminated and then America would turn very xenophobic.

If it got to a point, where a popular socialist revolution happaned in the US? Meaning mass general strikes, yeah, I think they could win, unless the you have a military coup.

The far right in the US is really just the manipulatable, once you take away the vast propeganda system and the corporate control it would mostly go away (they have a hard time keeping it up as it is, with all the money and propeganda).


Maybe, I really don't think "Revolution" is a very good way to change things either. There have been hundreds of revolutions in South America--very few do any good.


Revolution is the reason most of Latin Americ is not under dictatorial rule right now, and why people in Bolivia can drink water from rivers, and why you have any indigenous rights pretty much anywhere, and why Argentina has'nt imploded completely, Revolutoin has done TONS of good in South America, hell, the fact that its not a colony of spain and portugal any more is due to revolution.

[MarxSchmarx]

Let's be honest, our imperialist armies aren't exactly fairing well against guerrillas in Afghanistan and Iraq..

Don't forget Vietnam!

[Amphictyonis]

The revolution will be waged at the shopping mall for $15.99! Free hats for those who show up first! (a limited time only)



(insert long list of possible side effects including death, severe diarrhea and blindness)

[RATM-Eubie]

Democracy is the only way i see it happening. Like in Venezuela.

[Agent Ducky]

I have doubts about the American public. I feel like too many people are entranced by the glass ceiling (like in this quote).
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
— John Steinbeck

[RATM-Eubie]

I have doubts about the American public. I feel like too many people are entranced by the glass ceiling (like in this quote).
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
— John Steinbeck

I see where you are coming from. I can see it coming by one of two ways
1.) Capitalism collapses and utterly fails (which it will) and the people vote in a socialist party.
2.) Capitalism fails and the people rise up, and bring about their own change with force...

[Bud Struggle]

Democracy is the only way i see it happening. Like in Venezuela.

Glorious Leader and all!:)

[RGacky3]

Glorious Leader and all!:)
What?