A Revolution in U.S.

[Bostana]

How would one start a revolution in the U.S.? When do you think a revolution in the U.S. will start? How long would it last? And who would support it?

[Philosopher Jay]

It would not be easy to create a revolution in the United States. The social conditions are certainly ripe for one, with tens of millions of people living in savage poverty and tens of millions of others being worked to death and abused.

However, the United States government has a number of secret security agencies that employ several thousand people each. The full time job of these people is to prevent a revolution in the United States. They basically have carte blanche in both funds and tactics that they can use.

In 1969 and 1970, after massive Vietnam War protests were ignored, a number of revolutionary socialist and communist parties grew in membership and there was about 100,000 people ready to fight a revolutionary socialist war in the United States. However massive police activity, including infiltration by agents soon isolated and broke up these groups. The capitalist mass media attacking these groups 24/7 and spreading misinformation about them and their ideas was also an effective tactic. For groups like the Black Panthers where infiltration was difficult, and constant mass media misinformation was ineffective, simple ruthless assassination of the leadership was used.

The United States still has the largest economy in the world. Should this change as it is expected to in a few years, the coming together of millions of the disinherited and disenchanted in a single party could become a possibility. Beyond that it is difficult to see what would happen.



How would one start a revolution in the U.S.? When do you think a revolution in the U.S. will start? How long would it last? And who would support it?

[Engel]

It would be damn near impossible. Honestly the government here would shut it down very quickly once the people started to riot. Look up the "FEMA Death camps" and you'll see what I mean.

[Martin Blank]

I don't think it's impossible for a revolution to happen here. Given the current economic and political crises, I tend to think it's relatively more likely now than it has been in decades. The important thing to remember, though, is that you don't make a revolution on a timetable; the proletarian communist party has to be able to correctly anticipate the development of the working class in order to be able to intersect it at the right moment, with the goal of helping it advance from revulsion and/or rebellion to revolution. In the interim, the best work we can do is develop our program based on the concrete experiences of the working class, educate our brothers and sisters on what will be necessary for the revolution to succeed (i.e., everything from the political direction of the struggle to the administration of society after the revolution, and agitate and organize for the development of the bodies that working people will need to carry out their own liberation (revolutionary industrial unions, workplace committees, workers' councils, etc.).

Ultimately, the revolution itself -- the act of aiding the working class in its battle to seize state power -- will be quick and may very well be bloodless. It will be the actions of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie that will determine how long the civil war against counterrevolution takes. As to who will support it, if it's done right, the majority of the working class will support the revolution, as will individual elements of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie (maybe), with the rest of the working class, and broad sections of both the de-classed (lumpenized) and petty bourgeoisie remaining neutral.

[Islamosocialist]

I think a revolution in the United States may happen soon enough. They already have third world levels of income inequality.

As we say in Bosnia: "Our rich are beggars compared to America's rich, but our poor are millionaires compared to America's poor."

That can't be sustained unless the lower classes are truly ignorant (NOT stupid, IGNORANT, uninformed, taken advantage of... I am not calling them stupid).

With Fox News and Jerry Springer and all that crap coming from America these days... it can't be so hard to keep the peasantry stupid and satisfied with the big screen TV while the average CEO makes hundreds of times the salary of the average worker and all wealth growth since the 1970s has gone to the top 1 percent or whatever close.

But, Americans... they don't think of themselves as peasantry. They have the most corrupt, horrible, almost medieval system... but, because they don't consciously realize they have peasantry and aristocrats... they never question it.

It's infuriating to watch. VERY frustrating.

[humdog]

A revolution in the U.S. is, as it stands, currently impossible. The main reason is the continuing victory of the right-wing capitalist class during the recession; they are successfully shifting the blame onto the welfare state and entitlement programs for the continuing financial crisis, even though the guilty agent is clearly the free market.

[rvp]

First of All I don't know if it is currently possible, if for only one reason the ignorance of the American people.


Now I say the American people are ignorant not out of some hatred of the United States, rather I say it from the extensive control and use of the media by the more "powerful" elements in society. The American people are constantly being lied to and manipulated by their government so they are unable to effectively understand the problems facing their nation. When you confront someone with the Imperialist policy of the United States you are likely to get either a lack of interest or the immediate assumption that you are a leftist or someone with socialist-communist beliefs (I know these things are different but to the average American they are not)

In short there won't realistically be a revolution in the United States anytime soon because the people has been propagandized into an acceptance of their government. Rather that government acts in its general interest or not

[Tommy4ever]

Don't hold your breath.

[Sensible Socialist]

A revolution isn't a dinner party. It can't be planned, or organized before hand. You won't receive an invitation; no RSVP is required. You can't get their early or fashionably late: there is no timetable. People assume a revolution is two sides battling it out until one declares defeat and accepts the loss. But it won't work that way. There isn't a start date. We won't be able to post topics here, on Revleft, and debate when it will begin. It just will. It may be a slow movement towards revolt, or it could begin with a spark that ignites a whole population against its masters. Either way, we won't know the revolution is here until we're too late to turn back. Just as there is no start, there is no end. Until every last person is free from exploitation, it will continue.

There's certainly the possibility for revolt in the U.S. As conditions worsen, people began to wonder why they're continuously beaten over the head with the very things they make. Those who build homes will wonder why they can't afford one, those who pick crops will wonder why they don't have food. The deciding factor is whether or not people will turn against the real cause of their problems, capitalism, or if they will fall into the trap of right-wing reactionaries who create scapegoats to divide the public and conquer us all.

[B0LSHEVIK]

There could be a revolution in the United States. But it would most certainly NOT be a left wing revolution. Its more likely to be some corporate christian crusader who will save the fatherland from the mongrel hordes to the south. The United States populace, unlike other countries, has been completely indoctrinated into a sort of pro-capitalist/business agenda and has developed a strong anti-communist/socialist/atheist culture. One hundred years of 'red scares' and anti communist propaganda has had quite an effect on the average 'Merican.

I will say, and Im bound to get neg-repped like crazy, there is zero chance of a revolution of sorts that you and I would desire. The right wing controls the media, communications, military, government apparatus, popular support etc. The left wing, in a metropolis like Los Angeles has a single radio station (90.7) that is truly progressive but only reaches about 40 miles inland. We got a lot of work to do.

[thesadmafioso]

How would one start a revolution in the U.S.?

We can't pick a date to 'start' a revolution as we are without the means to alter the preconditions demanded of such an event. The role of the communist intelligentsia and their fellow class conscious workers which make up the vanguard is to guide the direction of workers movements through the distribution of the weaponry of Marxist philosophy, but for this leadership to have any sort of impact there first needs to be a workers movement which is solid enough to support the large scale implementation of such revolutionary theory.


When do you think a revolution in the U.S. will start?

I don't have a certain time frame for when the workers struggle in the US will turn revolutionary in mind, as that is generally something not open to accurate prediction. Not even the best theoreticians of the left have proven to be fully correct in such hypotheses. If Lenin had issues with such matters, I certainly wouldn't consider myself a force on them.


How long would it last?

It is impossible to make anything more than a largely unsupported guess on this question, due to the multitude of unknown material factors which would need to be accounted for.


And who would support it?

The proletarian, of course. It wouldn't be much of a communist revolution without their backing, I would imagine.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yea, there could never be a revolution in the United States.

http://www.businesspundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/tompkins.jpg

http://www.businesspundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Haymarket-Massacre.jpg

http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000070/images/uen_fea_grstrike_hrpr.jpg

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/photos-americanhistory/HomesteadRiot1892.jpg

http://coalcountrytours.com/uploads/a081_resized_640x480.jpg

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Evictbonusarmy.jpg/300px-Evictbonusarmy.jpg

http://www.d.lane.btinternet.co.uk/coal_strike_accident.jpg

http://funnelme.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/1a.jpg?w=500&h=283

http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/riot-10-2.jpg

http://libcom.org/files/1971.jpg

http://www.truefilms.com/HarlanCounty4.jpg

http://www.thelawstreetjournal.com/generated/images/uploads/lariots.jpeg

[B0LSHEVIK]

Yea, there could never be a revolution in the United States.

You sure proved your point with a majority of 18th century depictions!

[rollshevik]

Would it not start in washington for various reasons?

[ckaihatsu]

Would it not start in washington for various reasons?


I think it already did...!


Earthquake damages Washington monument

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20096496-503544.html


(Call it 'seismic consciousness'...!)


= )


>x |

[Sensible Socialist]

Would it not start in washington for various reasons?
I doubt it would. Any threat, no matter how signifigant, would be taken more seriously near the capitol than anywhere else. Any sort of uprising, unless massive in proportion, would be crushed almost immediately. I doubt the U.S. government would react the same way other governments did when their own citizens occupied capitols. I'd imagine it would start where workers and the poor are angriest: urban areas, large industrial areas, etc.

[Hexen]

It would be damn near impossible. Honestly the government here would shut it down very quickly once the people started to riot. Look up the "FEMA Death camps" and you'll see what I mean.

I think the "FEMA Death Camp" is just a conspiracy theory.

http://www.facepunch.com/content/234-Dr.-Alex-Jones-Or-How-I-Learned-to-Stop-Worrying-and-Love-FEMA-A-look-at-the-NWO-Theory

[Dunk]

1. When we take to the streets, shut everything down, and start everything back up on our terms
2. Hopefully this fall
3. Hopefully forever
4. It couldn't be the revolution if the majority didn't support it

It could be the shredded vestiges of American Exceptionalism and chauvinism inside my blood red, optimistic mind, but I can't help but think there's something big - really big - about to give way here. The revolution is either going to start or end here.

Also, bring it the fuck on. The workers can do this. We can do anything. The future can have a future if we take control of our own lives, together.

[Impulse97]

I think a revolution in the United States may happen soon enough. They already have third world levels of income inequality.

As we say in Bosnia: "Our rich are beggars compared to America's rich, but our poor are millionaires compared to America's poor."

That can't be sustained unless the lower classes are truly ignorant (NOT stupid, IGNORANT, uninformed, taken advantage of... I am not calling them stupid).

With Fox News and Jerry Springer and all that crap coming from America these days... it can't be so hard to keep the peasantry stupid and satisfied with the big screen TV while the average CEO makes hundreds of times the salary of the average worker and all wealth growth since the 1970s has gone to the top 1 percent or whatever close.

But, Americans... they don't think of themselves as peasantry. They have the most corrupt, horrible, almost medieval system... but, because they don't consciously realize they have peasantry and aristocrats... they never question it.

It's infuriating to watch. VERY frustrating.

Try, living there...:thumbdown:

[Blackscare]

But, Americans... they don't think of themselves as peasantry. They have the most corrupt, horrible, almost medieval system... but, because they don't consciously realize they have peasantry and aristocrats... they never question it.



But... they aren't "peasantry" (sic) and their enemy isn't the aristocracy. It's pointless to muddle the class conditions of different epochs; we should be focused on revealing, with absolute materialist clarity, the conditions we face today.

[jake williams]

It should first be qualified that the working class can tend to surprise its own revolutionaries, so speculation can only be in general.

I'm not sure what anyone who wants to call themselves a "communist" is doing saying there could never be a revolution in the United States. But of course it is going to take some time, and an almost unbelievable amount of work on the part of millions of people.

A revolution as some specific "event" where the working class can decidedly be said to have taken state power is almost certainly far off, and would almost certainly occur in conditions so different from our own they're difficult to contemplate. The conversation it's actually important for American revolutionaries to be having is what sort of work they can do do help foster those conditions.

You need a lot of things to have a socialist revolution. You need a broad level of class consciousness, where the mass of people actually sees itself as a working class with specific interests. You need mass organizations, allowing people to achieve this level of consciousness and to assert itself, to learn to act for itself and to actually do it in ways that expand its scope of action. And you need a political force, constituted like a "party" whether or not it sees itself as such that allows working class consciousness to become revolutionary socialist consciousness.

All of these things will require the consious, intentional activity of socialist revolutionaries. All are extremely difficult and will take considerable time and effort. All are complex and contradictory. But those are the things we all need to be working on, and talking about how to do. Speculation about what city some major demonstration is going to occur in or what sort of guerrilla tactics we're going to need is totally useless, and even counterproductive. Those sorts of questions are totally irrelevant right now, if they'll ever be relevant, and talking about them serves only to distract us from work which we actually need to be doing. (Of course, if it's late on a Saturday evening and yourself and your comrades need a distraction, then there's no reason it's not fair game. But it's not a serious conversation about how any of us are going to participate in a revolution.)

[Bostana]

But... they aren't "peasantry" (sic) and their enemy isn't the aristocracy. It's pointless to muddle the class conditions of different epochs; we should be focused on revealing, with absolute materialist clarity, the conditions we face today.

Yes but do the American people realize this problems need to be solved. The problem is the American people won't take action. All they will do is play the "blame game", and do nothing else.

[Bostana]

With Fox News and Jerry Springer and all that crap coming from America these days... it can't be so hard to keep the peasantry stupid and satisfied with the big screen TV while the average CEO makes hundreds of times the salary of the average worker and all wealth growth since the 1970s has gone to the top 1 percent or whatever close.

Yes, but the problem with the American people is that they buy the ridiculousness that the media feeds them. The American people won't think outside the box, and that's another problem, the American people won't think fore themselves they will have someone else think for them.

[Dunk]

Jammoe, I like a lot of your posts, and I think what you posted is right.

But I have to admit, when I hear people say that there's important work to be done, loads of work, before the revolution is possible - I get frustrated because I can't imagine what to do other than what we're already doing. What is it? As communists, what can we do to raise consciousness other than talking to people about capitalism? Isn't it a bit ridiculous to assume that we can evangelize communism? Especially if "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." How do we or our organizations help to change our class's social being?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You sure proved your point with a majority of 18th century depictions!

None of those pictures depicted events that happened in the 18th century.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

BTW:

"...if some social scientist had examined the workers in the industrial suburbs of Budapest in September of 1956, or the industrial suburbs of Paris in April of 1968, the same would have been found. There would have been no evidence of the coming social upheaval. How could there be? The workers themselves did not know." – Martin Glaberman

[syndicat]

In 1969 and 1970, after massive Vietnam War protests were ignored, a number of revolutionary socialist and communist parties grew in membership and there was about 100,000 people ready to fight a revolutionary socialist war in the United States. However massive police activity, including infiltration by agents soon isolated and broke up these groups. The capitalist mass media attacking these groups 24/7 and spreading misinformation about them and their ideas was also an effective tactic. For groups like the Black Panthers where infiltration was difficult, and constant mass media misinformation was ineffective, simple ruthless assassination of the leadership was used.


well, i was around then. the talk of revolution tended to be marginalized to various subcultures, such as the intensely radicalized student movement, and some sections of communities of color, as expressed in things like the Black Panther Party's rhetoric, the League of Revolutionary Black Workers in Detroit, ghetto rebellions.

there was also a high level of strikes including wildcat strikes. but there hadn't developed a widespread mentality of aspiring to change fundamentally the system among ordinary working people. the working class is where the power to shut down the capitalist system lies, and the potential to start up production on a new basis.

but this can't happen if there doesn't develop very widely within the working class the capacity and aspiration for making fundamental change. this sort of change in consciousness tends to come about to the extent people see a way they can affect things, and increase their power, through collective action. otherwise the "you can't fight city hall" mentality wins out.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm a little doubtful of a revolutionary movement gaining political power in the USA. The reason is not "cuz 'murikans are dumb and christian" or anything like that, it's because historically Americans haven't had solid organizational structures into which they can channel their efforts. It's been a blessing and a curse; on the one hand the authorities don't have safety valves with which to let off steam during social unrest (as they have with some of the large labor organizations in Europe), but on the other hand the fractured nature of the unrest makes it more difficult to navigate to a satisfying conclusion IMO. (Although there's also the opinion that these sorts of centralized organs arise out of unrest, and that success is not dependent on their existence beforehand.)

I definitely think that there will be huge outburts in the next few years, though...big riots, more extremism of various sorts, and such.

[La Comédie Noire]

I see nothing but right wing populism and military dictatorship in the United States' future. But I'm really just talking out of my ass about stuff I've read in books.


None of those pictures depicted events that happened in the 18th century.

I think he meant to say 1800s.

[eyeheartlenin]

I agree with humdog; there is no possibility of a workers' revolution in the US. Between the distraction of isolating, atomizing "social networks," the incredible patience of workers with their leaders, the constant disorientation caused by the media, and the stranglehold the pro-war, pro-repression, pro-business Democratic Party has on all "social" movements here, there is no chance that working people will revolt, which means that the future for the proletariat in the US is going to be tragic, with increasing exploitation and galloping immiseration. The consciousness and self-organization needed for any workers' revolt is completely lacking, thanks to the pro-Democratic Party "left" in the US, which, every election year, indicates to the workers that their interests will be served by supporting this or that pro-war multimillionaire Democratic Party hack for high office, and it certainly does not help that suburban multimillionaire "anarchist" Noam Chomsky makes a public statement every four years, urging people to keep pro-war Democrats in power. Chomsky backed pro-war near-billionaire John Kerry, the richest man in the Senate, and then, four years later, he backed Illinois state senator Obama, who once spoke publicly about the desirability of a US attack on Iran.

[jake williams]

Jammoe, I like a lot of your posts, and I think what you posted is right.
Thanks.


But I have to admit, when I hear people say that there's important work to be done, loads of work, before the revolution is possible - I get frustrated because I can't imagine what to do other than what we're already doing.
I share your frustration, a frustration that's inevitable for revolutionaries who aren't presently participating in a revolution and to whom it's not necessarily immediately obvious that their work actually matters. This is one reason that it's absolutely essential that revolutionary movements work to achieve short-term, winnable victories that both allow further work, and show us that what we're doing is useful and effective. It's also why it's important that our revolutionary movements are pervaded by a deep culture of mutual empathy and support; revolutions aren't easy and being a revolutionary isn't easy, and we really do need all the emotional support we can get. There aren't enough people in the world who can do it without that.

In terms of how much one can personally do, that's a very personal decision that no one can really give advice to someone about over the internet. I think it's clear though that our movements need to be doing more. We need to be more visible; we need to target broader audiences; we need to fight for real organization and action; we need to actually fight. (All of which generally entail a bit less RevLeft, but, again, that's a personal decision). There's no simple answer how to actually do this, but I think that's the general direction we should be focusing our priorities as we strengthen our movements.


What is it? As communists, what can we do to raise consciousness other than talking to people about capitalism? Isn't it a bit ridiculous to assume that we can evangelize communism?
There are variable opinions about this.


Especially if "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."
This point is true in an abstract philosophical sense but of course in reality our individual views of the world, including our understanding of social reality and our politics, are very much shaped by those around us (whose own views in turn are shaped by the interaction of their material experiences and their personal interactions). Virtually everyone here on this forum because they were radicalized with some significant assistance from some real person or people - either in person or in writing. That will continue to be true of our friends, family, coworkers and so on who in turn should, if we can reguarly and consistently accurately explain social reality and make clear viable opportunities for political action and revolutionary change, be radicalized by us.

I have quite a few friends who have gotten active as revolutionary leftists because of personal conversations and work in mass organizations. This really is the most important way that people are brought into revolutionary movements. This process takes a very long time - revolutions aren't easy - but it's what, eventually, ends up working. Obviously there's more to it than that, but this much is always a big part of it. There are no revolutionaries who are doing it on their own - revolutions are only possible, never mind sustainable and viable, when they are deeply and broadly rooted in real workers' communities.

[Geiseric]

A revolution in america is fully possible. It may come sooner than we think, America is becoming Capitalism's weakest link with our idiot government. The bourgeois here are already abandoning the country. The only thing the left lacks in america isn't a core of dedicated activists, albet a divided one b/c of sectarians, and in general aggrivation (leftism is in its activism phase IMO, not revolutionary phase) it's a means of agitating the working class. I think that a group of a few thousand dedicated activists can put up a fight, if they organise WITH workers, WITH criminals, and WITH the masses, the 60's phase was confined to college campuses, and the black community was unwillingly seperated from the white, however that racial barrier doesn't exist. My point about criminals, is who else except from one who has been in prison has the guts to take over a factory? anyways, nobody thought that the russian revolution would happen, people in america aren't as stupid as thought. Minorities will bring the revolt.

[Geiseric]

I can't stress enough how big a role Minorities will play in the revolution, they ARE the lower class. The lower white class still has an attitude of competition or neglect with the minority class. It's a remnent of from when America was first formed. However, under struggle, the bridge will be gapped. Those who are stuck in the past will stay back there, and will be insignificant because of their own sectarianism. Same way that hill billys will be insignificant. However the younger generation of white youth and the younger generation of minority youth are becoming friendly more and more. As long as there's an organised, revolutionary educated group to keep the aggitation up and to point out how full of shit the reactionaries are, a revolution is possible in the U.S. AGGITATE THE MINORITY YOUTH! AGGITATE THE MINORITY STREET GANGS! They are to an extent progressive, since they are organising as a reaction to poverty. However, they lack positive direction. they in lamens terms have the balls for a revolution.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think he meant to say 1800s.

In which case he still would have been wrong. The majority of the events depicted occurred in the 20th century.

[tobbinator]

Instead of just talking about it here, why don't we all go out and start rallying support? ;)

[B0LSHEVIK]

None of those pictures depicted events that happened in the 18th century.

That was a typo, I meant to say 19th century (1800's). Oh, so a couple of those pics dont portray the Haymarket strike in Chicago? Oh ok, turn of the century then maybe.

You're kidding yourself if you think a majority of Americans would support us today.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Oh, and Haymerket 1886, Seattle 1919 are good examples of left wing movements rising up....to be squashed. The point I was making was, if you have to look two centuries into the past to find something to support your argument, its probably a weak and unsound argument.

However, the Freedom fighters, the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war protests, etc ARE NOT signs or points of encouragement of the left wing. Sure, most communists believe in these things, because they are right. But, most of the middle class would-be draftees at these rallies are today people like Hillary Clinton.

Let us not try to rewrite history.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

But, Americans... they don't think of themselves as peasantry.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
- John Steinbeck

[A Revolutionary Tool]

It's disheartening to see so many communists saying it's impossible/unlikely that a working class revolution can happen in the U.S. because of the media or some bullshit. How do you ever expect to get people behind you if you don't even believe it's possible yourself? How do you plan on recruiting "Hey workers! Join the movement to emancipate the working class! BTW it's actually impossible in America because you all suck but help us anyways!"

[B0LSHEVIK]

It's disheartening to see so many communists saying it's impossible/unlikely that a working class revolution can happen in the U.S. because of the media or some bullshit. How do you ever expect to get people behind you if you don't even believe it's possible yourself? How do you plan on recruiting "Hey workers! Join the movement to emancipate the working class! BTW it's actually impossible in America because you all suck but help us anyways!"

Wrong. I said its impossible today. Tomorrow, nobody knows.

I personally hate these kids who think that because we're right (and we fucking are) people will jump to support us. Bullshit. Im a shop steward for Teamsters and some of the rank and file there are as conservative and narrow minded as some Fox viewers. Some are even registered republicans, proudly too. All over Europe, unions have led the resistance to austerity measures. In the US, well, some unions have gone on strike, to gain concessions for themselves mostly, never to stop cuts to education or retirement programs. If you think, and I mean sincerely think that a revolution is possible TODAY, you must be either very young and or naive.

[Ilyich]

Once again, I have a tendency to misinterpret the literature which I read, but in Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism does he not say that socialist revolutions must occur in the colonies of the imperialist powers before they can happen in the powers themselves. The United States has colonies in the Caribbean and the Pacific and it exerts a de facto, economic, or military rule of larger colonies such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and, soon, Libya. From what I have interpreted from Lenin's work (and again, I could be wrong) the United States will exploit its colonies' people and resources to keep its workers at home content and non-revolutionary. Therefore, it is unlikely that a revolution will occur in the United States before it happens in its colonies.

We must also consider Antonio Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony.

Also, the Unites States' government is well prepared to suspend its constitution, declare martial law, detain citizens without a trial, and enact other emergency measures at the first sign of revolution. For example, look up Rex 84. In short I personally do not think that the American phase of the World Revolution will happen any time soon

[Rainsborough]

Wrong. I said its impossible today. Tomorrow, nobody knows.

I personally hate these kids who think that because we're right (and we fucking are) people will jump to support us. Bullshit. Im a shop steward for Teamsters and some of the rank and file there are as conservative and narrow minded as some Fox viewers. Some are even registered republicans, proudly too. All over Europe, unions have led the resistance to austerity measures. In the US, well, some unions have gone on strike, to gain concessions for themselves mostly, never to stop cuts to education or retirement programs. If you think, and I mean sincerely think that a revolution is possible TODAY, you must be either very young and or naive.

You really are a "glass half empty" sort of guy.

[B0LSHEVIK]

You really are a "glass half empty" sort of guy.

Not really, I try to to optimistic, but my experience forces me to be real occasionally. America IS NOT primed for a left wing revolution. A revolt by some general or right wing Wall St. backed group, sure, I'd believe that. But not by us.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Wrong. I said its impossible today. Tomorrow, nobody knows.

I personally hate these kids who think that because we're right (and we fucking are) people will jump to support us. Bullshit. Im a shop steward for Teamsters and some of the rank and file there are as conservative and narrow minded as some Fox viewers. Some are even registered republicans, proudly too. All over Europe, unions have led the resistance to austerity measures. In the US, well, some unions have gone on strike, to gain concessions for themselves mostly, never to stop cuts to education or retirement programs. If you think, and I mean sincerely think that a revolution is possible TODAY, you must be either very young and or naive.
It's as possible today as it is as possible tomorrow. But what won't turn workers over to revolutionary politics are unconvincing "revolutionaries" who don't think revolution is possible for today. When will today end and tomorrow begin? When you start to get people on your side? That's not going to happen if you don't believe it can happen today.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That was a typo, I meant to say 19th century (1800's).

So you're still wrong.


Oh, so a couple of those pics dont portray the Haymarket strike in Chicago?

No. Only 1 does.


Oh ok, turn of the century then maybe.

There are 12 episodes there. They stretch from the end of the 19th century to 1991. 5 are occurred within the last 6 decades. I could have posted many more from the 1960's on (Tampa, Buffalo, Newark, Plainfield, and Detroit riots of 67; DC, Baltimore, Kansas City and Chicago riots 1968; Wild strikes of the 70's; Tampa riots of 89 & 92; D.C. riot 1991; Washington Heights Riot 1992; etc.) but didn't. The point is that there have been regular outbreaks throughout the history of this country.


You're kidding yourself if you think a majority of Americans would support us today.

I don't know who belongs to this "us," but I don't think you and I are in the same category. I don't want anyone to "support" me.

[B0LSHEVIK]

It's as possible today as it is as possible tomorrow. But what won't turn workers over to revolutionary politics are unconvincing "revolutionaries" who don't think revolution is possible for today. When will today end and tomorrow begin? When you start to get people on your side? That's not going to happen if you don't believe it can happen today.

No offense, but what? That statement needs a lot of help, and some commas! :cool:

Listen comrade, Im not unconvincing, I dont even consider myself a revolutionary (do you?). As a matter of fact, most people at my Local dont even know Im a communist. I dont use Marxist speech because, quite frankly, after a century of anti-left propaganda, most Americans are indeed anti-left. When I say today or tomorrow, Im speaking in poetic terminology. Today as in the present, tomorrow as in the future. Not literally. That being said, we have to work and move forward. But masturbating ourselves into believing we could be the next Libya, with a citizen army (though backed by imperialists) sacking the government with ak-47's blazing is a wet dream.

[B0LSHEVIK]

There are 12 episodes there. They stretch from the end of the 19th century to 1991. 5 are occurred within the last 6 decades. I could have posted many more from the 1960's on (Tampa, Buffalo, Newark, Plainfield, and Detroit riots of 67; DC, Baltimore, Kansas City and Chicago riots 1968; Wild strikes of the 70's; Tampa riots of 89 & 92; D.C. riot 1991; Washington Heights Riot 1992; etc.) but didn't. The point is that there have been regular outbreaks throughout the history of this country.


And how do those last 5/6 depictions support the claim that a revolution is possible? Riots are not revolutions. Though they maybe grounded in political/economical problems, they are not by themselves 'revolutionary.'

So try again.

PS, I cant believe you didnt throw in Seattle 99. Tsk tsk.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

No offense, but what? That statement needs a lot of help, and some commas! :cool:

Listen comrade, Im not unconvincing, I dont even consider myself a revolutionary (do you?). As a matter of fact, most people at my Local dont even know Im a communist. I dont use Marxist speech because, quite frankly, after a century of anti-left propaganda, most Americans are indeed anti-left. When I say today or tomorrow, Im speaking in poetic terminology. Today as in the present, tomorrow as in the future. Not literally. That being said, we have to work and move forward. But masturbating ourselves into believing we could be the next Libya, with a citizen army (though backed by imperialists) sacking the government with ak-47's blazing is a wet dream.
I believe everybody on here is a REVOLUTIONARY Socialist of some tendency, hence the name "RevLeft". Maybe you're at the wrong site "B0LSHEVIK". I know you were speaking in poetic terminology, which is why I asked "when does today end and tomorrow begin?" I know today ends in about 13 hours for me, do you think I'm a fool? My point being is that you're going to be ineffectual in any sort of talk about revolutionary politics if you don't think revolution is possible in today's world. If you have to look to some far off distant "tomorrow" and say "conditions will be better then" you're not living in reality. You're not going to find many supporters if you say "We need a revolution, but it's not going to happen today". Why would anybody want to stick around then? And if you're not calling for revolution today then you're doing a pretty shitty job of being a communist.

[B0LSHEVIK]

I believe everybody on here is a REVOLUTIONARY Socialist of some tendency, hence the name "RevLeft". Maybe you're at the wrong site "B0LSHEVIK". I know you were speaking in poetic terminology, which is why I asked "when does today end and tomorrow begin?" I know today ends in about 13 hours for me, do you think I'm a fool? My point being is that you're going to be ineffectual in any sort of talk about revolutionary politics if you don't think revolution is possible in today's world. If you have to look to some far off distant "tomorrow" and say "conditions will be better then" you're not living in reality. You're not going to find many supporters if you say "We need a revolution, but it's not going to happen today". Why would anybody want to stick around then? And if you're not calling for revolution today then you're doing a pretty shitty job of being a communist.

Oh ok. I thought you didnt understand how I used today/tomorrow, that's why I explained it so kids can understand.

This site is as revolutionary as the Google ads on top of your screen (currently about dominos pizza). So again, dont fool yourself.

[syndicat]

There is a lot of discontent and conditions for the working class have been worsening for several decades.

some people here seem to think consciousness is completely static. so if they don't see evidence of revolt out there now they think this is foreordained to continue indefinitely.

but class struggle, struggles of the oppressed, are notoriously episodic. in the '20s, a time similar to the present, very conservative, no one could have predicted that there would be nearly 600 plant seizures a few years ahead.

no one should call themselves a "revolutionary socialist" or "bolshevik" if they think a working class revolution isn't possible in the USA.

[B0LSHEVIK]

There is a lot of discontent and conditions for the working class have been worsening for several decades.

some people here seem to think consciousness is completely static. so if they don't see evidence of revolt out there now they think this is foreordained to continue indefinitely.

but class struggle, struggles of the oppressed, are notoriously episodic. in the '20s, a time similar to the present, very conservative, no one could have predicted that there would be nearly 600 plant seizures a few years ahead.

no one should call themselves a "revolutionary socialist" or "bolshevik" if they think a working class revolution isn't possible in the USA.

I dont agree with everything you said, including your last dinger there.

First off, some of you guys read in too much into a username. Thats like getting mad at some dweeb with an Xbox account because he has a silly name. My username is Bolshevik and I consider myself an anarchist, go figure.

Second off, I never said it isnt possible. I said, its not going to happen anytime soon. How could you think otherwise? People in Greece were rioting BECAUSE they TALKED ABOUT austerity measures. Same in Spain, England, France, Mexico, etc. Here in the US, austerity is well under way. Im not too impressed with the working class's response.

Third, while the 20's is largely considered a conservative era, thats only a facade. Unions were mighty and actively organizing newly arriving immigrants and Americans from Europe working in the factories, mines, and cities of the east coast. I dont see that happening right now. The era, was in completely different context. Communism was a real thing happening in Russia in this period, or so it seemed.

Fourth, 95% of revolutions have a build up period. A period when tensions escalate and then burst into open hostilities. It could be a handful of days, or it could years or decades. Usually the latter. And in the US case, the only revolution any time is most likely to come from right wing militiamen, not hippy liberals from the Bay area.

[syndicat]

Third, while the 20's is largely considered a conservative era, thats only a facade. Unions were mighty and actively organizing newly arriving immigrants and Americans from Europe working in the factories, mines, and cities of the east coast. nope. less than 10 percent of the workforce were in unions in the '20s. the unions declined in numbers throughout the '20s and wages declined too.

what was more relevant is the fact that there were thousands of revolutionaries who had been formed in the previous period of working class upsurge, 1909-1920.

but, yes, a revolution in the U.S. is not likely in the immediate future. it presupposes a period of rising working class self-activity and self-organization and increasing confidence.

[Bostana]

Another thing, how can one start a revolution in the U.S.

[Le Socialiste]

I would not say revolution is impossible in the U.S. We have a long history of workers' struggles and revolts against the powers that be. The unfortunate reality is, this history has largely been swept under the proverbial carpet by the higher ups, leaving many Americans blind to their historical role in (inter)national movements regarding working-class militancy. The working-class of this nation is steeped in a history of struggle, militancy, and bloodshed (our government liked drowning practically every uprising in blood - but then, what government hasn't), though you wouldn't know it today. The Democratic Party's stranglehold on all "left"-leaning movements ensures that the majority of people remain largely subservient to the existing modes of oppression. Add this to the massive security structure, the reactionary attitude of many Americans (many of which are working-class), and the U.S.'s role as the largest, most powerful economic power and you have quite the uphill battle on your hands when it comes to spreading revolutionary consciousness.

Any revolution inside the U.S. assumes that the facade of American "exceptionalism", coupled with the illusion of bourgeois "democracy", has crumbled to such an extent that the majority of Americans see the reality of thier present condition. I believe the potential is certainly there, but it won't be anytime soon.

[bellum33]

What if we had communist youth groups in schools try to push a heavy pro-communist agenda and also inform other children what real communism is about. If we can spread this movement across the country, than I think we would have taken care of the "people too ignorant to understand communism" problem. We might even be getting a new generation dominated by communist individuals.:D

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Good luck with that.

[Delenda Carthago]

People need to understand that the revolutionary process is a long term one. You need to take the time and construct it block by block. First you organise your union, your strike, your newspaper, your hood.

Dont get all hyped up "yo, how we gonna do the revolution? Cmon lets go!". One day at the time. So you shouldnt worry about the potential revolution but for the baby steps to it. Its better to spend time thinking how you gon press a newspaper or give away flyers about something than dream of a worldwide revolution which is irrelevant at the time.

[Psy]

People need to understand that the revolutionary process is a long term one. You need to take the time and construct it block by block. First you organise your union, your strike, your newspaper, your hood.

Dont get all hyped up "yo, how we gonna do the revolution? Cmon lets go!". One day at the time. So you shouldnt worry about the potential revolution but for the baby steps to it. Its better to spend time thinking how you gon press a newspaper or give away flyers about something than dream of a worldwide revolution which is irrelevant at the time.
No because society moves towards a revolutionary condition under its surface till there a lone spark that ignites decades of built up tensions causing uprisings to spread like wild fires.

[Tatarin]

I believe it is important to recognize history when it comes to revolution. Both Russia and China were in terrible conditions, much worse than the US or EU is in today. They were also plaqued with a civil war following the "original spark" of true change, (Lenin and Sun Yat-Sen). But I think we can see some rips in the US today already; we have the tea party as a potential future "blackshirt" (or what future "blackshirts" may be based on), then the remnants of the southern nazi movements, as well as liberal loyalists, but also the silenced left (which I believe is the biggest one).

So as I said, we might see huge riots and demonstrations, but the situation is yet some distance from true revolution. This isn't to say that it will take decades; Germany went from Empire to Empty in some 20 years, and on the "positive" side, when the US dives economically, then so does the world...

[Dumb]

Past left-wing revolutions shared at least one of these two things in common that do not apply to the U.S. today:

#1). The working class was still a fairly young phenomenon, a minority of the population, so the working class was more conscious of itself as an economic class - just like black Americans are reminded daily of their otherness while white Americans can live in racial anonymity. Once you're a majority, you cease to notice yourself.

#2). Marx argues that the working class, through revolution, has to rid itself of "the muck of ages," and the failure (and reversal) of the revolutions in the PRC and USSR has only added to that muck. It's hard enough getting the working class organized for a revolution; it's even harder when that working class has been taught that such revolutions have apparently been tried, and failed.

We will probably need some sort of radical movement that does not necessarily call itself Marxist, despite sharing all the same aspirations, as Marx will be but one prophet leading up to that movement. Such a movement would achieve socialism, but its stated purpose would not necessarily be socialism per se; rather, its agenda will be the emancipation of humanity from the yoke of class society.

As a citizen of the United States, I only regret that the current state of the working class likely means that this movement will not prevail here first (only in the sense that I'd want to be emancipated as soon as possible - not that I care about the pride of "being first"). On the other hand, given the massive inequalities of the U.S. system and the massive disillusionment in both capital and the state, I predict that the U.S. is a fertile ground to be the second stage once "the movement" has prevailed in one area. Give these 300 million something to believe in, and I think they're ready to have it replace what they have today.

[Delenda Carthago]

People need to understand that the revolutionary process is a long term one. You need to take the time and construct it block by block. First you organise your union, your strike, your newspaper, your hood.

Dont get all hyped up "yo, how we gonna do the revolution? Cmon lets go!". One day at the time. So you shouldnt worry about the potential revolution but for the baby steps to it. Its better to spend time thinking how you gon press a newspaper or give away flyers about something than dream of a worldwide revolution which is irrelevant at the time.
And I have to say that the need of having a revolution right here right now is very similar to the spirit of our generation in general. The microwaveMTVfastfoodfastsex era where everything we want and we think its doable or not by if we can do it today. So its only right that young revolutionaries today want their revlution also right here right now. They dont want to invest, to built on it, to take the nessesary steps. They just want to take it in their arms. And possibly play with it a lil bit, get bored, and dumb it like a playstation console when the new one arrives.

But fortunatly or not, history dont work that way.

[Bostana]

When will people in America realize this?

[Bostana]

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
- John Steinbeck

I couldn't agree more!

[RebelAssault]

maybe in a few hundred years. we're pretty apathetic here in the states.

[Rusty Shackleford]

When will people in America realize this?
simply getting people to know things does nothing. getting them into motion is what matters.

Robert Owen even went to the queen of england to promote his utopian socialism. Obviously, the queen didnt give a damn. only a few industrialists gave a damn, and many people knew about it. it was also a miserable failure.

[Bostana]

simply getting people to know things does nothing. getting them into motion is what matters.

When will they get into motion.

[dinoantifaru]

.

[dinoantifaru]

I think the revolution in America will happen . America is in big crisis right now because of army . one aircraft carrier costs 1 million dollars per day for maintenance , and i think America has 16 of them . Also they need to feed the army, keep the aircraft, tanks etc . and they will not do it if they don't reduce the army, plus they own big money to China , so i don't think they will reduce the army. they will just keep owing and owing until they fall down. then America will not be capitalistic country anymore . that is my prediction

[Rusty Shackleford]

When will they get into motion.
depends. some people will only do something once the crisis gets to a certain point.

agitation is necessary as well.

[Psy]

So as I said, we might see huge riots and demonstrations, but the situation is yet some distance from true revolution. This isn't to say that it will take decades; Germany went from Empire to Empty in some 20 years, and on the "positive" side, when the US dives economically, then so does the world...
I don't think we can tell due to how bourgeois society historically seems stable right up to the revolution takes form as revolutions, there historically have been no dependable warning signs to warrant a revolution is likely imminent. For example there is was no warning sign that predicted the great railway strike of 1877, the railways lowered the wages of railway workers the railway workers went on strike and the capitalists as usual reacted with violent oppression of striking workers yet this time the people collectively decided they have been shat on by capitalists long enough and attacked the capitalist hired goons and stated liberating cities and towns in Maryland, West Virgina and Pennsylvania from capitalist oppression.

[Bostana]

The American People are too gullible. The only thing keeping Communism from rising in America is The Biased Media.

Americans hear what they want to hear, they have selected hearing. One man can't change an Americans opinion after he has already became custom to what he is told on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, and other media resources.

[RedMarxist]

I'm American and my opinion was changed simply by independent reading.

My parents however, are gullible. They are scared of Communism and hate that I made the decision that I made.


Were in debt, interesting to say that least that at the time of the 1905 Russian Revolution the Russian Empire was deeply in debt as well to foreign European nations and fighting an unpopular war in the far east and losing.

Compare.

America is deeply in debt to foreign nations(esp. China) at the time of the 2008 economic crash onwards and we are engaged in two unpopular wars that we cannot win, plus a third war in Libya that is increasingly threatening to turn into a guerrilla war as Gaddafi said.

Again, agitation will be necessary in the many arduous years ahead of us.

[A Marxist Historian]

You sure proved your point with a majority of 18th century depictions!

Um, that was 19th not 18th.

During the 20th Century, revolution was unlikely in the USA because by and large, US capitalism was doing better than anywhere else, rising to the top of the world food chain and pecking order. For much of the century, people in the US lived better than anybody else. Even back when Clinton was prez, after the USSR collapsed, for a few years it looked like the US was ruling the world unchallenged.

Seems like a long time ago, don't it?

Times have changed, though Americans are reluctant to realize it. Damn right revolution has possible, when Americans fully realize that the good old days aren't coming back.

The first reaction is a frantic and futile effort to bring back the good old days by going back to the past somehow, as the Tea Partyites believe. But that is wearing off.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Wrong. I said its impossible today. Tomorrow, nobody knows.

I personally hate these kids who think that because we're right (and we fucking are) people will jump to support us. Bullshit. Im a shop steward for Teamsters and some of the rank and file there are as conservative and narrow minded as some Fox viewers. Some are even registered republicans, proudly too. All over Europe, unions have led the resistance to austerity measures. In the US, well, some unions have gone on strike, to gain concessions for themselves mostly, never to stop cuts to education or retirement programs. If you think, and I mean sincerely think that a revolution is possible TODAY, you must be either very young and or naive.

i.e. a revolution next week? Well, no, that's not how it works. You have to have a long period of struggle for, first the creation of a revolutionary working class party, and then for it to be accepted by the working class as its leadership, before you can have a successful workers revolution in a country whose bourgeoisie is as powerful, experienced and capable as the American.

But you could have a big spontaneous revolutionary blowout any time now. It would fail, given the absence of anything even resembling revolutionary leadership, but that's all part of the process. Going through defeats is how you learn and is part of the road to victory.

BTW, I used to be am activist in my old union, including stewarding from time to time, and I know exactly what you're talking about. It is through struggle that workers learn, and we just haven't had a lot since 9-11. You had a lot of big workers struggles in the '80s and '90s, but it's been downhill ever since PATCO, with the workers getting kicked in the ass repeatedly due to sellouts by union leaders. This hasn't helped.

But even one or two smashing union victories could turn this around very rapidly, as Wisconsin showed briefly, before the bureaucrats stepped in and smothered everything.

-M.H.-

[Bostana]

We all know that a Revolution is not going to happen next week. However should we push for it to happen as soon as possible or do we need to take our time and plant seeds of a revolution.

[B0LSHEVIK]

one or two smashing union victories could turn this around very rapidly, as Wisconsin showed briefly, before the bureaucrats stepped in and smothered everything.

I dont agree on Wisconsin. Yes, bureaucrats smothered everything, by holding recall elections in which the very people of WI voted for the status quo. What, like 4 positions were gained back? Im not a Dem, but I really dislike the GOP. I personally cant even fathom voting for a Republican. But, the 'people' voted for this sickness in November of 2010, and again recently.

Building a movement requires building a media. Here in LA the AM radio is filled with right wing so called 'independent thinkers' that are nothing but fucking wackjobs and libertarian Ron Paul Revolutionites. But there is a left media here. I cant imagine the conservative's percentage of media control in other rural parts of the country like the Midwest or south. It must be horrible there. Theres a lot of work to be done.

[Madslatter]

I dont agree on Wisconsin. Yes, bureaucrats smothered everything, by holding recall elections in which the very people of WI voted for the status quo. What, like 4 positions were gained back? Im not a Dem, but I really dislike the GOP. I personally cant even fathom voting for a Republican. But, the 'people' voted for this sickness in November of 2010, and again recently.

Building a movement requires building a media. Here in LA the AM radio is filled with right wing so called 'independent thinkers' that are nothing but fucking wackjobs and libertarian Ron Paul Revolutionites. But there is a left media here. I cant imagine the conservative's percentage of media control in other rural parts of the country like the Midwest or south. It must be horrible there. Theres a lot of work to be done.
Those elections were held in predominantly right wing districts where the GOP had won in the Dem wave of 2008. If you look at the election maps and statistics, these recalls show a major shift away from the right. Two GOP recalled, two struggled to hang on, two held easily. This is important because it shows a distinct shift to the left among generally right wing voters, something that is being replicated among generally left wing voters. While the recalls were in many ways a waste, they do give some valuable insight into the political shifts that have occurred in Wisconsin.

AM radio is filled with garbage, as are most small town newspapers. That being said, more and more people are getting their news from the internet.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Those elections were held in predominantly right wing districts where the GOP had won in the Dem wave of 2008. If you look at the election maps and statistics, these recalls show a major shift away from the right. Two GOP recalled, two struggled to hang on, two held easily. This is important because it shows a distinct shift to the left among generally right wing voters, something that is being replicated among generally left wing voters. While the recalls were in many ways a waste, they do give some valuable insight into the political shifts that have occurred in Wisconsin.

AM radio is filled with garbage, as are most small town newspapers. That being said, more and more people are getting their news from the internet.

As I understood it, yes, most of the districts were conservative. But the ones won back in the recalls, are 'swingers' so to say. So you're correct, sort of. I've heard that argument quite often since, and I humbly disregard it. I dont possibly see how any Dem can see a victory in WI. Or any true progressive for that matter. What I see, honestly, is how fucking confused Americans are in the first place, politically. I mean think about it, every election, no matter who the fuck is running, you can count on 40-50 million registered poor-republicans (literally poor) coming out of the woodshop to shoot down gays, or socialism, or big government, or against the mexicans, or for lower taxes, or any other stupid myriad of bullshit these pricks perceive to be destroying 'Merica.

George Carlin sums it up:

acLW1vFO-2Q

[Rufio]

We all know that a Revolution is not going to happen next week. However should we push for it to happen as soon as possible or do we need to take our time and plant seeds of a revolution.
Aren't they the same thing?
There's no point 'pushing for it to happen' if you're not pushing against anything real, with anything real supporting you. You can't have a successful working class revolution without a largely revolutionary working class.

There are conditions for serious unrest but the left seems to be broken and have no currency with the American people - from my point of view full blown fascism or even civil war seem much more likely to happen than any kind of leftist uprising in America, sadly.

[Bostana]

from my point of view full blown fascism or even civil war seem much more likely to happen than any kind of leftist uprising in America, sadly.

Sadly your right.

[A Marxist Historian]

I dont agree on Wisconsin. Yes, bureaucrats smothered everything, by holding recall elections in which the very people of WI voted for the status quo. What, like 4 positions were gained back? Im not a Dem, but I really dislike the GOP. I personally cant even fathom voting for a Republican. But, the 'people' voted for this sickness in November of 2010, and again recently.

Of course the Tea Partyites did well, and Wisconsin fizzled even electorally.

This country is going through economic disaster, the Democrats are in power, sort of, and what has Obama done? What did the Demos do for the two years they controlled Congress?

Nothing. Fiddled while Rome burned, Nero fashion.

People are disgusted with the US government, and the Democrats *are* the US government.

At least the Tea Party crowd were against the bank bailout, unlike just about anybody else in public life. They are the only people saying loud and clear that the whole situation is fucked up.

So people are willing to listen to them and vote them into office to see if they, unlike Obama and the Democrats, actually have serious solutions to the problems.

So you get a Tea Party governor in Wisconsin, and that puts an end to the popularity of the Tea Party in Wisconsin. But it doesn't restore the popularity of the Democrats, no matter how hard the union bureaucrats try. So the recalls more or less fizzle.


Building a movement requires building a media. Here in LA the AM radio is filled with right wing so called 'independent thinkers' that are nothing but fucking wackjobs and libertarian Ron Paul Revolutionites. But there is a left media here. I cant imagine the conservative's percentage of media control in other rural parts of the country like the Midwest or south. It must be horrible there. Theres a lot of work to be done.

Yup.

But the first piece of work to be done is a piece you haven't, it seems, totally completed in your mind. You have to realize that the Democrats and the liberals aren't the solution, they are the problem, more so than the Tea Partyites, a temporary affair as they have no answers, just a loud voice that knows how to strike the right tone of outright denunciation, rejection and hatred of the political establish, Demos and Obama very much included.

You may well see a Republican president and Republican control of Congress in the 2012 elections, simply because there is going to be a wave of abstension by the left in the elections that you are not going to believe, whereas the right are at least motivated to go to the polls.

But if the Republicans are in charge that will just backfire on them, as at least Obama is competent in a bureaucratic sort of way, and these guys are just irresponsible nutcases who will make Bush Jr. look like a brilliant statesmen. If you get a Tea Party president like Ms. Bachman, that will finish off the Tea Party once and for all.

-M.H.-

[B0LSHEVIK]

You have to realize that the Democrats and the liberals aren't the solution, they are the problem

Oh really is that so? And, if you dont mind, where did I say that the Dems are the solution?


whereas the right are at least motivated to go to the polls

Again, they're motivated alright, motivated to put an end to the country's first black president. They think he's been tyrannical (hes been a fucking moderate republican all along), I doubt they have a grasp on reality, really.

But to be fair, they are the only ones openly saying things are fucked. But only because Latinos are surging in the population, the socallled welfare state spending is out of control, 'they're losing their country" (again, reference a black in the white house), etc.

Also, the bailout happened during Bush, THERE WAS NO TEA PARTY during bush. So how they were against it is beyond me.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Another point comrade, the GOP, as it currently exists, would never garner major support in other industrialized (post-industry) countries. ONLY in the US does such ignorance garner 50 million votes every fucking year, despite the catastrophe being seen in the country with complete towns outsourced or replaced by machines. Look at the Canadian, English, French, or German conservative parties. The US GOP would probably call them communists. My point being, the GOP is a party for ignorant people, something many Amerikkkans are. And fuck the democrats. Fuck American politics really. Its a one party system. They're all beholden to the exact same interests. I fail to see a difference. People call them the lesser evil, but I dont see how so.

[S.Artesian]

First off, the "American plan" of political ignorance, is certainly admired by the Canadian, English, French and German, conservative parties. They wish they could be as effective as the US bourgeoisie in knocking the snot out of their working classes at a level equivalent to that of the US, so let's not overrate the Thatcher's, Merkels, Sarkozys, Camerons, Berlusconis, etc of the world.

And point of fact, there was a "tea party" stirring in 2008, it just hadn't coalesced yet. Certainly had support among the US Congress, which if you remember correctly, voted against Hank Paulson's first proposed rescue of the financial sector, only to reverse itself after Wall Street took a 500 point swan dive.

[RedMarxist]

Lenin in What is to be Done?(1902) was right when he said that the Social-Democratic party soon-to-be-Bolshevik party's mission was to build up the political and economic consciousness of the working class by agitation, to prepare them for revolution and shift them away from the right towards the revolutionary left.

Say which you will about the eventual outcome of the 1917 Russian Revolution, Lenin's strategy outlined in the work above sure as hell was effective at organizing the working masses for said revolution.

The 2011 London riots are what happens when something like the Social-Democratic party does not exist. People channel all that pent up rage not into THE system, but into the product of the system: consumer goods.

Without a party suggesting new socialist ideas/agitating, working alongside the workers as a guiding hand towards revolution etc, the entire revolt will be disorganized and off balance and oppose the wrong things at the wrong time.

We need a mass democratic and open worker's party in America, and we need it soon while the time is still ripe for potential revolt.

[svenne]

I'm pretty sure Lenin would roll over in his grave if he heard you trying to directly adapt his ideas to an american context; i've got nothing against people reading Lenin/Bakunin/Rosa Luxemburg/Mao, but you've gotta read Lenin and try to apply his ideas to your own context. The working masses in Russia was a small minority, while the peasants was a large part. A lot more interesting than Lenin are the scenarios where rebellions has broken out in industrialised western societes, like France 68, or the Italian hot autumn.

Also: there's no idea trying to build a party in your head with wishes, if there's no mass party in sight, and no tendencies to it being formed, it probably won't happen because 5000 leftists pray about it each night.

[RedMarxist]

Chill. Look, I know all about Russia at that time(books, internet, etc).

I'm just saying that without a revolutionary party of some sort pent up rage against the system will spill out over into chaos and nothing productive will ever get done(London Riots)

Um, he would spin over in his grave? if Leninism hasn't already been applied to America, then what do you think the CPUSA is(the original, 1919 CPUSA back when it was new and actually revolutionary)?

ignorance much.

What is to be Done? is so true of the state of the American working class today. without a working class socialist vanguard party(not of the authoritarian 'lets rule the country post-revolution' type), then how can the working class consciously realize they are exploited and become militant enough and eventually prepare for revolution?

Kasama did an interesting article on the KOE(pronounced Koy) once and its relation to the ongoing 2011 Greek Revolution. The KOE put forward many socialistic ideas(and so did the Greek Anarchists) such as worker control and nationalization and socialization of the banks(both I believe were adopted and have yet to be put into practice).

Yet the KOE is not intervening directly in politics of the square movement nor are they positioning themselves to 'lead the revolution' post-revolution.

In a word, the party's role is for the most part over once the revolution succeeds and as history tells us every attempt to extend it's role post-revolution and "lead the new proletarian state towards Communism" have resulted in most socialist states being totalitarian in nature.

[A Marxist Historian]

Oh really is that so? And, if you dont mind, where did I say that the Dems are the solution?

Again, they're motivated alright, motivated to put an end to the country's first black president. They think he's been tyrannical (hes been a fucking moderate republican all along), I doubt they have a grasp on reality, really.

But to be fair, they are the only ones openly saying things are fucked. But only because Latinos are surging in the population, the socallled welfare state spending is out of control, 'they're losing their country" (again, reference a black in the white house), etc.

Also, the bailout happened during Bush, THERE WAS NO TEA PARTY during bush. So how they were against it is beyond me.

Technically true, but everybody knows that the right wing Republicans who in large numbers voted against the bank bailout became the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party as soon as the Tea Party got going.

And the Tea Party makes opposition to the bank bailout one of their big issues, unlike just about anybody else in mainstream American politics.

BTW, I'm not saying, and if you read what I said carefully, I wasn't saying, that you think the Dems are the solution.

But face it, your post came off sounding awful soft on the Dems. So clean up your act and I'll stop bugging you on that one.

Everything you say about how racist they are is true of course. Hey, it's a racist country we live in, whaddya expect. America has gotten a lot more racist now that we have a black president, which was very predictable.

The people who have been hurt the absolute worst in this Great Recession are black people. And the main axis of Obama's domestic program seems to be to prove to white people that he too, just like Bush Jr., doesn't give a damn about black people who aren't rich, and will never ever do anything that might benefit them in any way.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

First off, the "American plan" of political ignorance, is certainly admired by the Canadian, English, French and German, conservative parties. They wish they could be as effective as the US bourgeoisie in knocking the snot out of their working classes at a level equivalent to that of the US, so let's not overrate the Thatcher's, Merkels, Sarkozys, Camerons, Berlusconis, etc of the world.

And point of fact, there was a "tea party" stirring in 2008, it just hadn't coalesced yet. Certainly had support among the US Congress, which if you remember correctly, voted against Hank Paulson's first proposed rescue of the financial sector, only to reverse itself after Wall Street took a 500 point swan dive.

Exactly right as to the 2008 pre-Tea Party.

And as for the Europeans, especially not Berlusconi, who makes the Tea Party look good by comparison. He makes Dick Cheney look like Bernie Sanders. Even the semi-fascists of his Northern Alliance partners, who are actually worse than Alexandra Mussolini's Eurofascists, can't stand him.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I'm pretty sure Lenin would roll over in his grave if he heard you trying to directly adapt his ideas to an american context; i've got nothing against people reading Lenin/Bakunin/Rosa Luxemburg/Mao, but you've gotta read Lenin and try to apply his ideas to your own context. The working masses in Russia was a small minority, while the peasants was a large part. A lot more interesting than Lenin are the scenarios where rebellions has broken out in industrialised western societes, like France 68, or the Italian hot autumn.

Also: there's no idea trying to build a party in your head with wishes, if there's no mass party in sight, and no tendencies to it being formed, it probably won't happen because 5000 leftists pray about it each night.

France '68 and the Italian hot autumn lost, Lenin won. So I think I'll take Lenin.

Some ideas of his can't be applied literally here, like that infamous 1921 leaflet one wing of the Communist Party handed out during a subway strike calling on the "workers and peasants of Brooklyn" to seize the tracks.

But the basic idea of forming a revolutionary party is something Lenin most certainly wanted to see in the USA and everywhere else, and he'd be rolling over in his grave at anybody calling themselves a Lenininst and not being in favor of that basic elementary thing.

Parties never start as mass parties. First you have a small propaganda group, and gradually through political struggle within the working class movement, it wins the support of the masses. A very important element of this, as far as Lenin was concerned, was defeating and destroying the nonrevolutionary competition, reformist and centrist allegedly leftist political outfits.

-M.H.-

[svenne]

I'm just saying that without a revolutionary party of some sort pent up rage against the system will spill out over into chaos and nothing productive will ever get done(London Riots)

Um, he would spin over in his grave? if Leninism hasn't already been applied to America, then what do you think the CPUSA is(the original, 1919 CPUSA back when it was new and actually revolutionary)?

What is to be Done? is so true of the state of the American working class today. without a working class socialist vanguard party(not of the authoritarian 'lets rule the country post-revolution' type), then how can the working class consciously realize they are exploited and become militant enough and eventually prepare for revolution?

In a word, the party's role is for the most part over once the revolution succeeds and as history tells us every attempt to extend it's role post-revolution and "lead the new proletarian state towards Communism" have resulted in most socialist states being totalitarian in nature.

(i've removed some stuff from the quote, so read his whole post if you want it all)

Yes, i am with you here. The thing i try to point out is that the party, and the process when the party is formed, is different from situation to situation. As fellow marxists (when we're not trying to form the party ;) ), it's really important to look at both objective and subjective "things" (can't come up with the real word, it's the problem having english as a second language...). While the russian revolution succeeded, it was in a country that just had been involved in an extremely bloody war, with a lot of people dying both in the first world war, and also at home. Much can be said about USA (and other western countries) today, but it's more 10 soldiers a day dying than 10 k. Also, no majority living on the edge of death from starvation.

Can't really follow you on the part on the CPUSA, i'd be glad if you wrote a bit more there.

As of the class consciousness part, i'm more of the Rosa Luxemburg "class consciousness comes from the proletariats own class struggle", than the Vladimir Lenin "class consiousness comes from the outside, via the Communist Party". In reality, it's propably not that black-and-white, but i'm pretty sure that people themselves can realize capitalism sucks, and find alternatives. To go back to the part about objective and subjective "things" (still can't find the right word, i feel this whole post seems like it's composed by a ten year old by now...); theory can only be useful for the masses if it's linked to the masses, and the masses will only use theories that they find is corresponding with their lives.

On the last part, i'm on your side about the whole thing, but i'm propably having a totally different definition of what the communist party is, and supposed to be, today.


France '68 and the Italian hot autumn lost, Lenin won. So I think I'll take Lenin.

But the basic idea of forming a revolutionary party is something Lenin most certainly wanted to see in the USA and everywhere else, and he'd be rolling over in his grave at anybody calling themselves a Lenininst and not being in favor of that basic elementary thing.

Parties never start as mass parties. First you have a small propaganda group, and gradually through political struggle within the working class movement, it wins the support of the masses. A very important element of this, as far as Lenin was concerned, was defeating and destroying the nonrevolutionary competition, reformist and centrist allegedly leftist political outfits.

-M.H.-

(i erased some parts from this post too)

Well, i could just point at Gulag and be an ass, but i'll settle on that Lenin failed in the end anyway, with the ending of the Soviet Union around 1990. And point out that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship (and not of the proletariat), which at some points (don't miss the "some" there ;) )where just as bad as the US. But i honestly haven't seen any Leninist revolution in the western world for the last... well, maybe the Portugese people tried that?

I'm not against the idea of a party. While we propably differ on what the party will look like and how it will be build, i'm against the idea that we can take the leninist (or Luxemburgs, or anybody elses) idea straight from Lenin to the US (or Sweden, in my case), without seeing that neither the world nor the working class looks anything like Russia in 1905 or 1917. While some basics are true (we're still fucked by capitalism), it doesn't give much practical tips.

I've seen small Leninist parties/groups trying to struggle from within the working class. In my experience, it's never worked. The succesful (in Sweden, it may be different in the US) examples i've followed, never had anything with leninist parties to do. However, i've seen leninist parties trying to participate in strikes, and losing them because of their intention of trying to stay in our main swedish union, while we have a syndicalist union with 6000 members that really wins struggles, with support from the whole union, rather than small segments without power.

And the problem with trying to destroy the "bad" sectors of the labor movement today, is that it usually ends up with trotskyists, stalinists, left communist, syndicalists and reformists waging a stupid word war against each other, without any real practical experience in their own country, to use as grounds for their arguments.

[tanklv]

What if we had communist youth groups in schools try to push a heavy pro-communist agenda and also inform other children what real communism is about. If we can spread this movement across the country, than I think we would have taken care of the "people too ignorant to understand communism" problem. We might even be getting a new generation dominated by communist individuals.:D

If that fantasy should be even partially real - first, the students involved would be suspended/expelled if not outright arrested. There is absolutely NO tolerance of anything even remotely resembling disagreement with authorities - and that goes times ten in schools of today.

Ever hear of the "Patriot Act"? With Obama's approval of even MORE draconian spying on Amerikkkan citizens than even bush* (*= war criminal) contemplated, coupled with the complete and utter distruction of the Constitutional rights granted each person, any such organized action will be long gone suppressed with the persons hearded off into Guantanimo or some other of the many black sites around the world not even known as "enemy combatants"...

I mean, we have jocks and cheerleaders who do the beating up of anyone who isn't as mindless and "beautiful/popular" as they are, for chrissakes!!!

And as more repuke/conservative/reactionary policies get instituted nationwide - especially with the poliferation of private/for profit charter schools and the ever dwindling/closing of public schools - the chances of our children leading anything remotely resembling revolutionary or socialist or communist is out of the question.

Today's Amerikkka is all about turning out "yes men/women" and faithful robots trained for a trade/job where they will submit willfully to their employeers. There is absolutely no allowance for any discussions anymore or "social studies" classes. Almost all, if not all, textbooks are from the Texas board of luddites standards - they just eliminated Jefferson in favor of Calvin and some other religious idiots in the latest versions - so don't expect any mention, let alone discussion or even knowledge of left politics!

I'm afraid we are following in the steps of Weimar Germany - and the right wing/relilgiouis fundamentalists will soon take over as opposed to any "liberal" (it's a good word/term you know) or left leaning group. Amerikkka is about to have it's "exceptionalism" bubble burst real bad - and not in a good way...

There is no "left" in Amerikka today - or if there is, they are isolated and invisible to the point that they effectively don't exist.

Even our unions, when they argue - it's just for the right to exist to argue to AGREE TO WAGE AND BENEFIT CUTS FOR THEIR OWN WORKERS!!! You don't see any unions arguing for the statis quo, let alone wage/benefit increases any more! Before the repukes outlawed collective barganing and aboliltion of unions in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and other places, the unions had ALREADY agreed to EVERYTHING the repukes were demanding BEFORE the actions to abolish them even took place!!!

Revolution in the US? NOT A CHANCE as far as I can see!!!

And "wishing" or "hoping" for it won't change the reality...

[B0LSHEVIK]

your post came off sounding awful soft on the Dems

Oh god, you really DONT know what you're talking about after all.....:cool:

[Bostana]

Of course the Tea Partyites did well, and Wisconsin fizzled even electorally.

The Tea Party is horribly stupid!
Thy are probably the most fascist thing in the world next to the Nazis!!

[Smyg]

shy5guy98, no. Just... no.

[Bostana]

shy5guy98, no. Just... no.

What?

[tir1944]

...it ain't gonna happen soon.
IMO.

[Conscript]

The Tea Party is horribly stupid!
Thy are probably the most fascist thing in the world next to the Nazis!!



Were you born in 98 by chance?

[Smyg]

What?

Saying the Tea Party is the "most fascist thing in the world next to the Nazis" is just plain idiocy.

[Bardo]

Reactionary capitalists with a tinge of racism, perhaps. Fascist? Not quite.

[Bostana]

Saying the Tea Party is the "most fascist thing in the world next to the Nazis" is just plain idiocy.

Dude I hate the Tea Party so much you wouldn't understand. It's just a figure of speech isn't that hard to comprehend

[Smyg]

It's the second time I've seen you misuse the word 'fascist' and it is quite honestly annoying.

[Bostana]

It's the second time I've seen you misuse the word 'fascist' and it is quite honestly annoying.
I quite honestly don't care.

[Smyg]

Well, then you're an idiot. Everybody cares about my opinion. As it happens, I'm universally loved. Or not. Regardless:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Fascism_as_vague_epithet

[Bostana]

Well, then you're an idiot. Everybody cares about my opinion. As it happens, I'm universally loved. Or not.

No not really no one really cares about your opinion your ego is just that big to convince yourself to believe that.
Dude look you proved yourself wrong with me calling the tea party and a theocracy fascist. Look first one Right Wings are fascist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Marxist_definition

[Smyg]

You're not only uneducated, you're also awful at detecting sarcasm. How amusing.

[Bostana]

You're not only uneducated, you're also awful at detecting sarcasm. How amusing.

Dude just shut up.

[Smyg]

Freedom of speech? No?

Secondly, you should listen to Orwell. He knew what the fuck he was talking about, as opposed to other people.

[Bostana]

Freedom of speech? No?

Secondly, you should listen to Orwell. He knew what the fuck he was talking about, as opposed to other people.
Me telling you to shut up has nothing to do with your freedom of speech.
And Second, Opposed to who Marx and Lennin

[Smyg]

If Marx and 'Lennin' [sic] ranted on the definition of fascism I'd be damn amused, given that they both were long dead once the ideology rose to importance. I was rather refering to you yourself.

[S.Artesian]

This is a thread about politics, no? Why don't both of you talk politics, or both just shut up? As it is right now, you're contributing nothing but spam.

You sound like 9 year olds.

[Bostana]

If Marx and 'Lennin' [sic] ranted on the definition of fascism I'd be damn amused, given that they both were long dead once the ideology rose to importance. I was rather refering to you yourself.

Lennin ranted mainly about Imperialism and it's connection with capitalism

[Smyg]

Nine? I was under the impression I was at the very least sounding like a teenager.

I also thought the definition of fascism was political. Oh well.

[Bostana]

Nine? I was under the impression I was at the very least sounding like a teenager.

I also thought the definition of fascism was political. Oh well.
Your acting like a smart ass dude

[El Louton]

And again a smart thread turns into an argument....

[Bronte]

Capitalism has so strangled worker's groups in the U.S.A, that revolution wouldn't yet have the support of the general populace. If the economy gets messed up, maybe something will occur.

However, Capitalism being widely socially accepted would cause a head-ache which I've yet to see an answer to. Nobody wants to give up their Cable, or their SUV, or their Government housing.

I've yet to see how one could encourage people to revolt against a system seemingly so geared up to their immediate economic needs.

[Impulse97]

And again a smart thread turns into an argument....

Communists + people who think its cool to call themselves communists + the internet = this thread. :rolleyes:


This is a thread about politics, no? Why don't both of you talk politics, or both just shut up? As it is right now, you're contributing nothing but spam.

You sound like 9 year olds.

Once again SA comes to the rescue! :lol:

[S.Artesian]

Capitalism has so strangled worker's groups in the U.S.A, that revolution wouldn't yet have the support of the general populace. If the economy gets messed up, maybe something will occur.

However, Capitalism being widely socially accepted would cause a head-ache which I've yet to see an answer to. Nobody wants to give up their Cable, or their SUV, or their Government housing.

I've yet to see how one could encourage people to revolt against a system seemingly so geared up to their immediate economic needs.

Comrade,

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to current events-- there's a strike going on in Oakland that has shut down the port-- a strike brought about precisely by the messed up economy.

There are "Occupy" movements in at least 10 cities of which I'm aware, and probably more.

[Impulse97]

Comrade,

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to current events-- there's a strike going on in Oakland that has shut down the port-- a strike brought about precisely by the messed up economy.

There are "Occupy" movements in at least 10 cities of which I'm aware, and probably more.


Its in Approx. 100 cities in the US. 1,500 Approx. world wide.

[S.Artesian]

Its in Approx. 100 cities in the US. 1,500 Approx. world wide.


See what happens when you get old?

[Bronte]

Comrade,

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to current events-- there's a strike going on in Oakland that has shut down the port-- a strike brought about precisely by the messed up economy.

There are "Occupy" movements in at least 10 cities of which I'm aware, and probably more.

Well, of course this is dependent on whether the media can convey the Occupier's political message.

It is all very well to attack the evils of America's recent Laissez-Faire economics, but a social revolution (impact on the American economy, and harm to the Capitalists) will be the Litmus test for how much of a social revolution the Occupy Movement is. I have every hope that the Occupy Movement will lead to Obama removing support from those banks who gave us the economic catastrophe that is Laissez-Faire economics, but most of the American population would want to see the withdrawal of funding to the Banking Racketeers before they believe that the Occupy Movement has been actively successful in removal of the power of the Capitalists.

[CAleftist]

Comrade,

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to current events-- there's a strike going on in Oakland that has shut down the port-- a strike brought about precisely by the messed up economy.

There are "Occupy" movements in at least 10 cities of which I'm aware, and probably more.

Are these "Occupy" movements truly revolutionary, though?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I've heard either that its 200 cities in the US or that its "almost 2000 locations" in the US.The movement in Oakland is far more left than other Occupy#. Future history may trace the "official" beginning of the American socialist revolution to Liberty Park, NY in September.

Its a mistake to dismiss the #Occupy movement. Of course its not revolutionary, although the one in Oakland is coming close. It is one of the first clear expressions of working class anger. As Red Dave said, these are baby steps. Even so the movement is only a month iold and its already changed American politics.

Hey, just wait till the US working class and the Occupy movement hits the "terrible twos"!

[S.Artesian]

Are these "Occupy" movements truly revolutionary, though?

Nope, not yet. But no movement really starts out as revolutionary. Uneven and combined development applies to the formation of the movement itself, not just the material circumstances of its birth.

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

3lEko6kMfng
i wouldn't count on it U.S is very protective and they want their "glorias" system to stand but very soon they will be more resistance and the police will not be able to control it. Only time will tell

[CAleftist]

The biggest hinderance to class consciousness in America, in my view, is the weakness of the unions and the lack of solidarity workers of different backgrounds (whether they be race, gender, blue-collar vs white-collar, or what have you) have with each other.

Tying into this, the extraordinary power capital has over every aspect of American society is a serious problem for revolutionaries, to put it mildly. A lot of people still feel loyal to their own family, their own church, their own culture, etc. Furthermore, people are just now beginning to feel empowered-there's still a lot of people assuming that the ruling class is too powerful, and has too much of an iron fist that will harshly punish those who dare question the ruling social relations.

Now, working-class solidarity is starting to come back, but it's still very early. Conditions and events will dictate what happens.

[Bostana]

Hey the Revolution can start at any time they all ready "Liberated" a house that was Foreclosed:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVYIBikzwmk

:D

[GoddessCleoLover]

The very notion of revolution has been so watered down in American popular culture as to bear no resemblance to the real article.

[Bostana]

The very notion of revolution has been so watered down in American popular culture as to bear no resemblance to the real article.

Well then maybe it's time to define the U.S. Revolution.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Ultimately the working class must define the terms of its own revolution, and in the USA where the ruling class' cultural hegemony is so deeply entrenched an actual revolution is hard to envision. The Occupy movement has taken some toddling steps is challenging the predominant bourgeois national-popular culture by identifying the the concentration of wealth in America today as a major issue.

[Bostana]

Ultimately the working class must define the terms of its own revolution, and in the USA where the ruling class' cultural hegemony is so deeply entrenched an actual revolution is hard to envision. The Occupy movement has taken some toddling steps is challenging the predominant bourgeois national-popular culture by identifying the the concentration of wealth in America today as a major issue.

So just try to uphold the meanings of the Occupy Movement?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Sorry if I was unclear. Occupy is not revolutionary, but it has challenged the pro-capitalist orthodoxy. Revolution would necessitate a long-term movement to mobilize workers in a movement aimed to seize control of state power and replace it with revolutionary institutions of the working class.

[Bostana]

Sorry if I was unclear. Occupy is not revolutionary, but it has challenged the pro-capitalist orthodoxy. Revolution would necessitate a long-term movement to mobilize workers in a movement aimed to seize control of state power and replace it with revolutionary institutions of the working class.

Well not necessarily Revolutionary but Peaceful Protest that have awaken people like what you just said

[Blake's Baby]

Revolution is not about a 'long term movement to mobilze workers' because this implies that the revolutionary impetus comes from outside. It is about about 'workers mobilizing in a long-term movement'. 'We' - the revolutionary minorities - don't make the revolution. The working class makes the revolution. What our main job is at the moment is to remind the rest of the working that revolution is possible and start a discussion about why it's necessary. But the working class as a whole makes the revolution.

Do not forget about the international situation. 'A revolution in the US' pre-supposes that the 1/20 of the world's population that lives there is somehow different from the 19/20 that don't. The revolution in the US will be part of a worldwide revolutionary wave. Otherwise, it'll be a weird nationalist-putschist disaster. So it will happen when the interplay of global and local events forces enough of the working class to confront capitalism and the state that the logic of revolution starts to overtake events. This will not happen in the US in isolation.

[DudeDorothy]

Pretty much impossible.
I think that any shot at a legitimate socialist power in this day and age would be in either India or Africa, where resources are abundant. If a socialist nation had control of resources, it could sustain itself without having to trade excessively.
It's a long shot, but my theory is that if separate, large-scale revolutions in Africa and India took place, it would set into motion a world revolution. Also, the USA relies on China. If, as unlikely as it may be, China allied itself with these revolutions and then transformed itself into an ideal socialist country, so to speak, then the United States would become much more isolated as a world power and therefore much weaker. The rejection of Yankee influence in third-world countries would reject Yankee outsourcing, making its economy go further down the toilet.
As I said, it's a long shot, but still, it's a theory.

[KrasnayaRossiya]

i think that the Mexicans should start a revolution.;)
take back what the Gringos stole from them.Also it would be progressive to create independent black/Negro nation,and Indian nations too.
White people have less revolutionary potential,or so it seems to me.

[Deicide]

The US is the poster boy of reactionism in the world. From my experience, the word ''Communism'' is synonymous with ''Can I fuck your mother?''.

Ardent pessimism is the only sane position to hold regarding the possibility of socialist revolution in the US.

[KrasnayaRossiya]

you've very most correct comrade!
america is the "zoo" of reaction.
that's why i say:split it bwetween oppressed peoples!;)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

i think that the Mexicans should start a revolution.;)
take back what the Gringos stole from them.Also it would be progressive to create independent black/Negro nation,and Indian nations too.
White people have less revolutionary potential,or so it seems to me.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/131/351/eb6.jpg?1307463786

Is it just me or do many KPRF folks have internalized a base biologism and other reactionary ideas in the place of class conflict?

[KrasnayaRossiya]

sorry,my english is very bad.
but america needs to be weakened,so that it has less power.
and im for self determination of peoples,this is what communists support.?

[ВАЛТЕР]

There would be a civil war sooner than a revolution. Too many different ideas floating around, and too many guns.

You've got everyone from outright Neo-Nazis, all the way up to Anarchists and everyone in between. Not enough class consciousness.

I really like what I am seeing in Greece though.

[KrasnayaRossiya]

yes,civil war,yes
!

[MustCrushCapitalism]

The US on the verge of collapse. At that point, some revolutionary movement will spring up and gain some steam.

[marl]

Occupy is going the way of Greece (local occupations, occasional large rallies, (proposed) strikes, local change).

Greece is going the way of revolution.

[Os Cangaceiros]

There would be a civil war sooner than a revolution. Too many different ideas floating around, and too many guns.

You've got everyone from outright Neo-Nazis, all the way up to Anarchists and everyone in between. Not enough class consciousness.

I really like what I am seeing in Greece though.

Neo-Nazis and anarchists in the USA are both extremely tiny groups, though.

[Bostana]

Neo-Nazis and anarchists in the USA are both extremely tiny groups, though.

But the fact they're able to spread their message of hate should be a crime.

[KrasnayaRossiya]

no crimes like fact-crimes ;)

[Os Cangaceiros]

But the fact they're able to spread their message of hate should be a crime.

Uh ok. I was just commenting that groups like neo-nazis and anarchists aren't even significant social groups in the USA. At all.

[Bostana]

Uh ok. I was just commenting that groups like neo-nazis and anarchists aren't even significant social groups in the USA. At all.

I know
It wasn't really a rebuke just a comment

[BuddhaInBabylon]

We are phucked. I am convinced. Civil war before revolution absolutely. But where will the lines be drawn? The US really is a melting pot. There are so many languages, colors, cultures, etc, that it's difficult to make distinctions outside of class division in my opinion. as for DC being the epicenter, i can assure you that is impossible. I have wtinessed with my own eyes and heard testimony from my fellow workers, the extent to which the security apparatus is in place in this city. It's unbelievable. Tech has made it possible to read business cards in georgetown from the top of the white house with a highly sophisticated camera. Not to mention there are plain clothes SS agents walking the streets, Homeland security, MPD, FBI, CIA, NSA, and a plethora of other agencies infiltrating every imaginable institution there is, revolutionary and benign. You can't take a piss in dc without being watched. For the most part we just got used to it here. I know i'm on lists. the question is which one. I really don't care. A revolution in this country will definitely not come before an outright civil unrest of epic proportions. Especially not a workers revolution or anything red at all.

[Os Cangaceiros]

All the security and survelliance in the world is useless against open revolt.

Open revolt > clandestine action :sleep:

[Bostana]

We are phucked. I am convinced. Civil war before revolution absolutely. But where will the lines be drawn? The US really is a melting pot. There are so many languages, colors, cultures, etc, that it's difficult to make distinctions outside of class division in my opinion. as for DC being the epicenter, i can assure you that is impossible. I have wtinessed with my own eyes and heard testimony from my fellow workers, the extent to which the security apparatus is in place in this city. It's unbelievable. Tech has made it possible to read business cards in georgetown from the top of the white house with a highly sophisticated camera. Not to mention there are plain clothes SS agents walking the streets, Homeland security, MPD, FBI, CIA, NSA, and a plethora of other agencies infiltrating every imaginable institution there is, revolutionary and benign. You can't take a piss in dc without being watched. For the most part we just got used to it here. I know i'm on lists. the question is which one. I really don't care. A revolution in this country will definitely not come before an outright civil unrest of epic proportions. Especially not a workers revolution or anything red at all.

How do you know the Civil war wouldn't be that of a Communist Revolt?

[Per Levy]

i think that the Mexicans should start a revolution.;)
take back what the Gringos stole from them.

workers should die so the mexiacan ruling class has more land to rule over?


Also it would be progressive to create independent black/Negro nation,and Indian nations too.

how is seperatism and nationalism progressive?


White people have less revolutionary potential,or so it seems to me.

you can tell from skincolour how much of a revolutionary a person is?


yes,civil war,yes

so judging from your other posts you want that the workers who live in the usa tear each other apart on the lines of race, nationalism and seperatism. how is that progressive and how can you call yourself a communist if that is your view?


but america needs to be weakened,so that it has less power.
and im for self determination of peoples,this is what communists support.?

no, not all communists support "self determination of the people" a lot reject it. these communist dont care much for nationalism and care much more about class struggle.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Uh ok. I was just commenting that groups like neo-nazis and anarchists aren't even significant social groups in the USA. At all.

I was just using it as an example to show how many differences there are in the nation. Not necessarily reffering to actual nazis and anarchists.

[RevSpetsnaz]

I think if a Republican takes power and imposes the draconian beliefs they stand for the situation could be ripe for a revolution, however if a Democrat, particularly Obama, retains power we could be looking at a civil war.

[Antipiol]

How do you know the Civil war wouldn't be that of a Communist Revolt?

We don't know, but take an honest look around the U.S.... it wouldn't be a Communist revolt. The furthest you could probably stretch it would be some sort of lower/middle class "revolt" but it wouldn't have communist tendencies or goals. But that's even pushing the "Realistic" limit as there is massive division among the lower and middle class in terms of political and societal goals; for example conservative christians/republicans vs. liberals and etc. It would be a miracle if they could come together under one flag for a common goal, at least that's how it seems. It's be nice if they all would come together for a working class cause, something along the communist/socialist lines... but as far as I've seen and experienced, 98 out of 100 people in the U.S. think communism is some sort of fascist/big government system that allows little freedom. And this doesn't seem to be showing any signs of changing any time soon....

Hell I have a hard enough time even trying to talk to people about it to change their warped view of communism/anarchism. It's like they think I'm lieing to them, and that they know what communism really is because of the USSR and China... Fucking idiots... anyway...

So a Communist revolt in the U.S. anytime soon that would be substantial in the least bit?... I don't know about that...

Unfortunately that is...

[Bostana]

We don't know, but take an honest look around the U.S.... it wouldn't be a Communist revolt. The furthest you could probably stretch it would be some sort of lower/middle class "revolt" but it wouldn't have communist tendencies or goals. But that's even pushing the "Realistic" limit as there is massive division among the lower and middle class in terms of political and societal goals; for example conservative christians/republicans vs. liberals and etc. It would be a miracle if they could come together under one flag for a common goal, at least that's how it seems. It's be nice if they all would come together for a working class cause, something along the communist/socialist lines... but as far as I've seen and experienced, 98 out of 100 people in the U.S. think communism is some sort of fascist/big government system that allows little freedom. And this doesn't seem to be showing any signs of changing any time soon....

Hell I have a hard enough time even trying to talk to people about it to change their warped view of communism/anarchism. It's like they think I'm lieing to them, and that they know what communism really is because of the USSR and China... Fucking idiots... anyway...

So a Communist revolt in the U.S. anytime soon that would be substantial in the least bit?... I don't know about that...

Unfortunately that is...

Maybe not so much a Communist Revolt but at least a left wing revolt.

[Ostrinski]

If I had a dollar for every "revolution in the US" thread we've had, I might not be a communist.

[MotherCossack]

ooh-err!
as a Brit with some paddy [irish] and some Eye-tie [italian] in there [and thank f**k, i have, is all i can say], i must confess that the idea of an impending communist revolution [or anything even approaching it] in USA is somewhat BIZARRE!
Unless i slept for 100 years and missed a lot of serious stuff....
last time i looked there did not seem to be a tremendous amount of commie unrest or left wing agitation over that side of the pond..
i mean ... from here ... unless you've got a telescope it is hard to even see the left.....
unless of course , someone is obstructing the view.

[Per Levy]

If I had a dollar for every "revolution in the US" thread we've had, I might not be a communist.

stalin/trotsky threads would've give you much more tbh.

[GoddessCleoLover]

MotherCossack is right. The hegemony of the ruling class in the USA is deeply entrenched. Our first task has to be rebuild the American working class movement. Actual Communist revolution in the USA is entirely speculative at this time.

[Prometeo liberado]

MotherCossack is right. The hegemony of the ruling class in the USA is deeply entrenched. Our first task has to be rebuild the American working class movement. Actual Communist revolution in the USA is entirely speculative at this time.

Gramsci schooling us on Gramsci, and correctly! The american working class feels no less pain than their international counterparts, but they do interpret systemic suffering in a diffused way. Thus all too often the language and tactics or the left is heard through that prism. And that is where the rebuilding starts.

[GoddessCleoLover]

In the wake of the 2008 economic crisis and the Occupy movement, current conditions are more favorable than they have been in many decades. While revolution may be rather speculative at the present time, the possibilities are very real to begin the task of energizing the American working class. As posted by Jbeard, we have to be cognizant of the effects of the prism that has resulted from the deeply entrenched hegemony of the US ruling class and its effect on the class consciousness of the American worker.

[Bostana]

In the wake of the 2008 economic crisis and the Occupy movement, current conditions are more favorable than they have been in many decades. While revolution may be rather speculative at the present time, the possibilities are very real to begin the task of energizing the American working class. As posted by Jbeard, we have to be cognizant of the effects of the prism that has resulted from the deeply entrenched hegemony of the US ruling class and its effect on the class consciousness of the American worker.

The Occupy Movement has stirred quite a noise for Americans to start focusing on The Rich Fat cats.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

How to start a revolution? Vote for the worst Republican possible, like Paul, and hope for the worst. Hope that he creates the worst living conditions in the world and then see all the people formerly brainwashed by anticommunist propaganda come crawling to Marxism-Leninism. Communists should do whatever possible to make the United States the worst place in the world until people learn that they dont need reforms to help them, they need a revolutionary change of production modes. After people come to communism, we will begin to incite urban revolution. We will attack government and military institutions and get rid of influencial business and government leaders. It will be large popular uprising that will slowly transform into a civil war between reactionaries (conservatives, libertarians, and liberals) and progressive Marxist-Leninists in uncomfortable union with other leftists. This civil way will last for many years and there will be many counterrevolutionary attempts after the civil war ends. But before we get to revolution, we need to make sure that capitalist conditions are so bad that everyone supports Marxism-Leninism or at least leftism. Yet, the people, who have been tricked for so long into believing that Marxism-Leninism is bad, will need to be educated on the truth. Communist will begin massive socialist education campaigns. With the support of a majority of the people, we can acheive everything!

[Bostana]

I wouldn't have to hope for that Republicans do it on a daily basis

[Igor]

How to start a revolution? Vote for the worst Republican possible, like Paul, and hope for the worst. Hope that he creates the worst living conditions in the world and then see all the people formerly brainwashed by anticommunist propaganda come crawling to Marxism-Leninism. Communists should do whatever possible to make the United States the worst place in the world until people learn that they dont need reforms to help them, they need a revolutionary change of production modes. After people come to communism, we will begin to incite urban revolution. We will attack government and military institutions and get rid of influencial business and government leaders. It will be large popular uprising that will slowly transform into a civil war between reactionaries (conservatives, libertarians, and liberals) and progressive Marxist-Leninists in uncomfortable union with other leftists. This civil way will last for many years and there will be many counterrevolutionary attempts after the civil war ends. But before we get to revolution, we need to make sure that capitalist conditions are so bad that everyone supports Marxism-Leninism or at least leftism. Yet, the people, who have been tricked for so long into believing that Marxism-Leninism is bad, will need to be educated on the truth. Communist will begin massive socialist education campaigns. With the support of a majority of the people, we can acheive everything!

That kind of thinking is fucking callous, not only because it's messed up to actively try and make living conditions for people worse than they already are, but also because we're seriously screwed if your ingenious plan doesn't work out, like it probably would not. Living conditions have been pretty fucking awful for working class as long as there's been a working class, but where's my revolution and my classless society? Things can always get worse, a lot worse, and that's something we should fight, not promote. The ruling class doesn't need our help.

Also your post reads out like some kind of revolutionary fanfic lol

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

That kind of thinking is fucking callous, not only because it's messed up to actively try and make living conditions for people worse than they already are, but also because we're seriously screwed if your ingenious plan doesn't work out, like it probably would not. Living conditions have been pretty fucking awful for working class as long as there's been a working class, but where's my revolution and my classless society? Things can always get worse, a lot worse, and that's something we should fight, not promote. The ruling class doesn't need our help.

Also your post reads out like some kind of revolutionary fanfic lol

I agree that the ruling class can fuck up by themslves, but I argue that with the current mindset the American people have, they will never accept calls to true freedom. Conditions need to become worst for people to take off their blindfolds and see that only the path to communism can truely liberate them. In the end, it will help them more than it will hurt them. Anyway, Marxist-Leninist wont "actively try and make living conditions for people", thats bullshit and I never said it like we will start killing people and making them suffer. Thats just what you took from my post and not what I meant.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The strategy which I rather artlessly term "the worse it gets the better it is" strikes me as ahistorical. IMO Thatcher and Reagan set back the working class movement in ways that still have an impact today. When virulent reactionaries like Thatcher and REagan come to power they institute anti-worker policies that in time become part of the bourgeois "conventional wisdom" Witness the austerity measures being taken in Greece and to a lesser extent in Portugal and Italy. These measures have their genesis in Thatcherism and Reaganism and they strengthen the hand of capital and weaken labor. That strikes me as a recipe for reaction rather than a path to revolution.

[Bostana]

Yah like Greece the Government getting worse and the people are getting more anger. The same thing is happening here in the U.S. eventually there will be a Revolution but through a great war. So basically Left Wings versus Right Wings.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Revolution usually happens when the expectations of the masses go up and are not met. The labor upsurge in the US did not happen in the very depths of the depression, only when things started to improve, in 1934, did we see the Minneapolis General Strike, and the Autolite strike. So the idea that the worse it gets the better it gets, for revolution, is really ahistorical.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The reason that it is ahistorical is that when things get enough workers are required to prioritize their individual and familial survival. As Lev Bronsteinovich just posted, a period of rising expectations is more fertile for mass activity than a period of immediate economic crisis.

[Bostana]

Revolution usually happens when the expectations of the masses go up and are not met. The labor upsurge in the US did not happen in the very depths of the depression, only when things started to improve, in 1934, did we see the Minneapolis General Strike, and the Autolite strike. So the idea that the worse it gets the better it gets, for revolution, is really ahistorical.


Ahh so if Mitt Romney becomes "President" we would have a Revolution by the end of his term.

[Blake's Baby]

It's not algebra. There isn't an 'x amount of misery + y amount of frustrated expectation = z amount of revolutionary upsurge'. Did 'first Hitler, then us' teach you nothing?

The working class revolts, as Lenin said, when the working class cannot continue to live, and the ruling class cannot continue to rule, in the old way. See, Left Communists do read 'An Infantile Disorder'.

So supporting the ruling class in its quest to screw even more out of the proletariat is madness. Instead of encouraging the ruling class to attack the working class, we should be encouraging the working class to attack the ruling class. That seems to me to be so brazenly obvious that it shouldn't need saying but apparently it does. I can only assume it derives from a notion of the proletariat as some kind of dumb sleeping beast that needs to be goaded, instead of a creative and vital force that needs to be encouraged and supported.

[Rooster]

...

You're a terrible communist.


How to start a revolution? Vote for the worst Republican possible, like Paul, and hope for the worst. Hope that he creates the worst living conditions in the worldLiving conditions don't dictate a socialist revolution.


crawling to Marxism-Leninism.Yes, go crawling to marxism-leninism. Such a respectful attitude towards proletarians!


Communists should do whatever possible to make the United States the worst place in the world until people learn that they dont need reforms to help them,How does that even make sense? If you're actively making the world a worse place to live in, then reforms would seem to be pretty good, wouldn't they? Oh, have I mentioned that you're a fucking terrible communist? You should probably be restricted for supporting extreme right wing bourgeois ideology. Incidentally, such a great attitude you take towards proles!


After people come to communism, we will begin to incite urban revolution. We will attack government and military institutions and get rid of influencial business and government leaders. It will be large popular uprising that will slowly transform into a civil war between reactionaries (conservatives, libertarians, and liberals) and progressive Marxist-Leninists in uncomfortable union with other leftists. This civil way will last for many years and there will be many counterrevolutionary attempts after the civil war ends. But before we get to revolution, we need to make sure that capitalist conditions are so bad that everyone supports Marxism-Leninism or at least leftism. Yet, the people, who have been tricked for so long into believing that Marxism-Leninism is bad, will need to be educated on the truth. Communist will begin massive socialist education campaigns. With the support of a majority of the people, we can acheive everything!And now the day dreaming and prophesying begins. I hope you're a teenager and not a grown man. Also, did I mention how you're an awful communist and also you've got a severely patronising attitude towards proletarians?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I do agree that my language went to far, but at the same time, you cannot put any real trust in the proletariat of the United States. They are great people and they are the hope of the future, but they refuse to cooperate in this future because they have been brainwashed. You cannot deny the fact that a large majority of the proletariat will always work against their ecanomic interests. I am sorry for what I said. It was a half-joke post. In reality, I do not think any revolution is ever going to happen in the USA in our lifetimes. The state and capitalists are too strong, the workers too blinded, and the farmers almost nonexistent as honest proletariat. Despite my apology, I will never deny the historical truth that before the capitalist state weakens, the workers must become agitated by poor material conditions to open themselves to new, beneficial, and radical ideas. Once the capitalist can no longer provide, the worker really notices what he has been living under this whole time. Under no circumstances do I agree that better conditions cause revolutions, that's not only ahistorical, but outside the realm of basic common sense. And please dont use the examples of Reagan and Thacther. Remember that while they were making the living conditions for the proletariat worse, they were also continuing propaganda against communism and revolution. Please ignore my joke, but I thought that it would be obvious to my fellow comrades.

Let me just leave my comrades with this quote by John Reed, said in a article titled Bolshevism in America, that is still true today:

"The American working class is politically and economically the most uneducated working class in the world. It believes what it reads in the capitalist press. It believes that the wage-system is ordained by God. It believer that Charles Schwab is a great man, because he can make money. It believes that Samuel Gompers and the American Federation of Labor will protect it as much as it can be protected. It believes that under our system of Government the Millenium is possible. When the Democrats are in power, it believes the promises of the Republicans, and vice versa. It believes that Labor laws mean what they say. It is prejudiced against Socialism."

You can search it on marxists. org. Sadly, I cannot add links.

[Igor]

I do agree that my language went to far, but at the same time, you cannot put any real trust in the proletariat of the United States. They are great people and they are the hope of the future, but they refuse to cooperate in this future because they have been brainwashed. You cannot deny the fact that a large majority of the proletariat will always work against their ecanomic interests.

This is not something restricted to the United States. And I will deny that, as they now actively perhaps work against their economic interests, they will not always do that. If you deny that, there's little point in participating in revolutionary activity.

Also, stop thinking the American worker is somewhat unique. American workers differs in no meaningful way from workers all around the world. If you can't trust American workers, you can't trust any worker.


In reality, I do not think any revolution is ever going to happen in the USA in our lifetimes. The state and capitalists are too strong, the workers too blinded, and the farmers almost nonexistent as honest proletariat. Despite my apology, I will never deny the historical truth that before the capitalist state weakens, the workers must become agitated by poor material conditions to open themselves to new, beneficial, and radical ideas. Once the capitalist can no longer provide, the worker really notices what he has been living under this whole time. Under no circumstances do I agree that better conditions cause revolutions, that's not only ahistorical, but outside the realm of basic common sense.

"Our lifetime" is a pretty long fucking time, considering the average revlefter is probably on his/her twenties or so. Just think how much the world changed between 1900 and 1950, for example. Or hell, even 1900 and 1920. Revolutions happen fast when they happen, there's no way you can say for sure how the revolutionary situation is going to develop if we give it a few decades. But what you need to get here is that material conditions are already poor. If capitalism could provide a good standard of living for the working class, I'd throw my revolutionary ideals in the trashbin without battling my eyes. But it doesn't, that's why I'm a commie. Promoting better conditions under capitalism is just humane, we don't want people dying. Because that's what poor conditions will lead to. And yeah, as pointed out by others itt, how exactly did "first Hitler, then us" work out? You know, austere times are great ground for reactionary movements, too. Historically, the most reactionary governments have basically always set back the working class movement.


And please dont use the examples of Reagan and Thacther. Remember that while they were making the living conditions for the proletariat worse, they were also continuing propaganda against communism and revolution.

Huh? Not sure what's your point here. Governments everywhere, all the time, propagate against us. Propagation against us is the norm in bourgeoisie society, because we are a threat to their privilege. You'll be a waiting for a long time if you're waiting for them to stop it.

[Bostana]

America is going down more and more every single day.

It won't be long. At least with in the century.

[Rusty Shackleford]

we dont make the revolution. the revolutionary period comes about from how everything in society interacts, including communists. sure we are the ones who kick the lantern over and start shit anew but without the world being in a position to where a section of the working class is willing to make such a move, it will never happen and you will end up as some weather underground vet doing speeches for the democrats.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree that focoism leads to a Weather underground type of isolation from the masses and that no revolution is possible without mass support. How to organize that support until it reaches the critical mass needed for revolution is the big question. IMO it will take many years of organizing before we get anywhere close to revolution here in the USA.

[Rusty Shackleford]

generally i agree but at the same time, focoism and guerrilla type movements are necessary for some societies. though i will be clear on this, trying to apply that in the us is just as you said, isolating.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I live within the culture of workers. Every single family member I have is a worker. All their friends are workers. Most of my friends are from working class families. I do not see much willingness in them or any other mainstream American worker to stand up to capitalism. Do you want me to say that I trust that they will liberate themselves soon and especially without any cause? I refuse to lie, comrade. If the eyes of the American workers are opened by some kind of catostophic failure in the current capitalist system (worst than the ones before and the current ones), maybe I can trust that they will revolt en masse. Notice that I said en masse. I know there are communist workers, but they are definately not the majority. Like I said before, material conditions need to get to the point that the modern proletarians finally give up on the mode of production that has been killing them, and committ themselves to revolution. You might give me historical evidence to the contrary, but I am not talking about history, I am talking about now and in the U.S. I think revolutions from now on are going to change a little bit from what we have seen in the past. Sure some things will stay the same and maybe I am wrong, but these are only my observation of now. Some times communist need to look at current times to come up with new ideas. That is how we adapt while keeping our basic core principles.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The 2008 economic crisis might turn out to have been a watershed with respect to the working class' acceptance of the notion of "American exceptionalism", and we ought to to redouble our efforts to build an organic link between revolutionaries and the mass of the American working class. The road ahead will be difficult and it will probably also take many years to galvanize American workers, and even then the outcome is uncertain. Nonetheless, progress is possible. The 1930s saw the upsurge in the trade union movement. The 1960s brought the civil rights movement and the struggle for racial equality, followed by the movements for equal rights for women and gay people. Perhaps now is the appropriate time to seek to revive the labor movement, but this time toward revolutionary rather than reformist goals.

[Bostana]

The U.S. government is basically screwing up the country so bad they're stiring up a revolution

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Point is: No one is a fucking fortune teller. Whether revolution happens now or a century from now, it gonna happen, and that should satisfy us enough. :) Workers of all lands, unite!

[TrotskistMarx]

True, and I think that Mexico and many many other countries of this world are just like USA in its things that uses to mind-control the population, to mold their political tastes, and to make it very very hard to be a marxist. And one of those methods that US rulers use are the movies, the sit coms, the talk shows, and of course the main stream TV news. And Mexico is just like that, the majority of Mexicans are very mind manipulated by the catholic, pseudo-feudalists telenovelas, bourgeoise oligarchic music and bourgeoise elitist artists. Even the mexicans who live in USA are very mind-controlled, very terrorized by the 2 main mind-controllers of the spanish population which are UNIVISION AND TELEMUNDO.

So like I said here, the TV, bourgeoise newspaers. And i forgot the churches in oligarchic capitalist nations are also a major impediment for its poor people to vote for Marxist Political Parties. And instead they vote for capitalist political parties, like The PAN of Mexico, the PP in Spain. And Pyñeira (The capitalist neoliberal president of Chile)

Even Jim Morrison of The Doors said that he who controls the television, controls and owns the mind of a whole society.

I think that what the USA left should do is to find resources, unite resources and to either buy or support an existing leftist TV network like Link TV, Democracy Now, and invest more in propaganda to spread the Socialism ideology to the american poor people. So that the poor exploited americans who are millions would give their support to a socialist party, instead of supporting Ron Paul. They support Ron Paul as the only escape out of this hell of poverty, because the USA left doesn't have a strong electoralist leader for US elections in 2012.

Thanks

.


I don't think it's impossible for a revolution to happen here. Given the current economic and political crises, I tend to think it's relatively more likely now than it has been in decades. The important thing to remember, though, is that you don't make a revolution on a timetable; the proletarian communist party has to be able to correctly anticipate the development of the working class in order to be able to intersect it at the right moment, with the goal of helping it advance from revulsion and/or rebellion to revolution. In the interim, the best work we can do is develop our program based on the concrete experiences of the working class, educate our brothers and sisters on what will be necessary for the revolution to succeed (i.e., everything from the political direction of the struggle to the administration of society after the revolution, and agitate and organize for the development of the bodies that working people will need to carry out their own liberation (revolutionary industrial unions, workplace committees, workers' councils, etc.).

Ultimately, the revolution itself -- the act of aiding the working class in its battle to seize state power -- will be quick and may very well be bloodless. It will be the actions of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie that will determine how long the civil war against counterrevolution takes. As to who will support it, if it's done right, the majority of the working class will support the revolution, as will individual elements of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie (maybe), with the rest of the working class, and broad sections of both the de-classed (lumpenized) and petty bourgeoisie remaining neutral.

[Blake's Baby]

I live within the culture of workers. Every single family member I have is a worker. All their friends are workers. Most of my friends are from working class families. I do not see much willingness in them or any other mainstream American worker to stand up to capitalism. Do you want me to say that I trust that they will liberate themselves soon and especially without any cause?

But why do you think they would have no cause? They would have the same cause we all have: capitalism is shit, socialism is better, and to get from here to ther, we need to unite and fight for it. There's no magic to it, and in essence that's class consciousness. It's hard not because there's some complicated secret, but because the massive weight of propaganda against the notion of socialism is overwhelming.


...
I refuse to lie, comrade. If the eyes of the American workers are opened by some kind of catostophic failure in the current capitalist system (worst than the ones before and the current ones), maybe I can trust that they will revolt en masse. Notice that I said en masse. I know there are communist workers, but they are definately not the majority...

Do you think that the majority of workers in Russia or Germany or Hungary or Paris in 1871 or any other progressive rising you might name were communists? The working class is forced to resist or go under. Resistance itself produces consciousness. Sure, some people learn by reading and there will always be some people interested in communist theory and history; other people, probably the majority of people, learn by doing - in the struggle new ways of thinking emerge from new ways of organising, the working class as a whole becomes conscious of itself.


... Like I said before, material conditions need to get to the point that the modern proletarians finally give up on the mode of production that has been killing them, and committ themselves to revolution. You might give me historical evidence to the contrary, but I am not talking about history, I am talking about now and in the U.S. I think revolutions from now on are going to change a little bit from what we have seen in the past. Sure some things will stay the same and maybe I am wrong, but these are only my observation of now. Some times communist need to look at current times to come up with new ideas. That is how we adapt while keeping our basic core principles.

I'm not sure what you think communists 'do' while the working class is comparatively quiet. We keep trying to raise debates, to take discussion and political action and organisation beyond the limits that the bourgeoisie sets for us, but we can't 'make it happen'. The working class is stirring in a way it hasn't for a while. But these are still early days.

Coming confrontations - maybe in Greece or Argentina or Algeria or South Africa or India or anywhere or loads of places - will start to echo internationally, as we've seen over this last year, and the working class will increasingly organise to fight back against austerity, povery, unemployment, war, environmental destruction and all the other evils capitalism is inflicting on us. Or, it'll knuckle down and submit to barbarism. Either way, we're not the fuse.

The working class makes the revolution, not necessarily with a fully-developed consciousness in place of what it is doing, but when at least it comes to the understanding that capitalism needs to be fought. The role of the revolutionary minorities is not to substitute themselves for the working class, to make the revolution for them, but to offer themselves to the working class as a weapon in that fight.

[TrotskistMarx]

Blakesbaby: I think that many workers in the whole world still vote for capitalist parties instead of leftist parties is because humans behave according to traditions, and habits, a lot easier than rational scientific thinking. So the habits, the tradition of living in a capitalist society, with capitalist TV, and voting for capitalist parties and a capitalist urban planning and capitalist philosophy of life, is very very hard quit and to replace it with a marxist, socialist leftist society and leftist way of life

Remember that most changes even changes for the better are painful. Like weight loss, diets and exercising is painful even if its for the better. thanks





But why do you think they would have no cause? They would have the same cause we all have: capitalism is shit, socialism is better, and to get from here to ther, we need to unite and fight for it. There's no magic to it, and in essence that's class consciousness. It's hard not because there's some complicated secret, but because the massive weight of propaganda against the notion of socialism is overwhelming.



Do you think that the majority of workers in Russia or Germany or Hungary or Paris in 1871 or any other progressive rising you might name were communists? The working class is forced to resist or go under. Resistance itself produces consciousness. Sure, some people learn by reading and there will always be some people interested in communist theory and history; other people, probably the majority of people, learn by doing - in the struggle new ways of thinking emerge from new ways of organising, the working class as a whole becomes conscious of itself.



I'm not sure what you think communists 'do' while the working class is comparatively quiet. We keep trying to raise debates, to take discussion and political action and organisation beyond the limits that the bourgeoisie sets for us, but we can't 'make it happen'. The working class is stirring in a way it hasn't for a while. But these are still early days.

Coming confrontations - maybe in Greece or Argentina or Algeria or South Africa or India or anywhere or loads of places - will start to echo internationally, as we've seen over this last year, and the working class will increasingly organise to fight back against austerity, povery, unemployment, war, environmental destruction and all the other evils capitalism is inflicting on us. Or, it'll knuckle down and submit to barbarism. Either way, we're not the fuse.

The working class makes the revolution, not necessarily with a fully-developed consciousness in place of what it is doing, but when at least it comes to the understanding that capitalism needs to be fought. The role of the revolutionary minorities is not to substitute themselves for the working class, to make the revolution for them, but to offer themselves to the working class as a weapon in that fight.

[Os Cangaceiros]

People are painting some pretty broad strokes in this thread...:rolleyes:

[Blake's Baby]

Blakesbaby: I think that many workers in the whole world still vote for capitalist parties instead of leftist parties is because humans behave according to traditions, and habits, a lot easier than rational scientific thinking. So the habits, the tradition of living in a capitalist society, with capitalist TV, and voting for capitalist parties and a capitalist urban planning and capitalist philosophy of life, is very very hard quit and to replace it with a marxist, socialist leftist society and leftist way of life

Remember that most changes even changes for the better are painful. Like weight loss, diets and exercising is painful even if its for the better. thanks

Oh, I agree with you that changing one's perspective on the world is hard - especially as we're told all the time that, though it's bad at the moment, it'll get6 better, and anyway, all the alternatives are worse; that is the constant message of bourgeois propaganda and they've got a lot more resources to put it over than we have. So there is a big obstacle to climb over before the working class even gets to realising that socialism is better than capitalism.

I also agree that changing the world will be hard. The revolution, whether or not everyone goes into it witha fully-formed plan of where it's all going (I personally think it's idealistic to assume that the revolution wil be made, consciously by socialists, rather than organically by angry people learning as they go, but that's maybe not such an important distinction at the moment), will be a difficult and deadly affair. It will be very hard to win the world revolution and begin to transform the world.

But that isn't what Comrade Commistar meant I don't think: I paraphrase 'why will the American working class revolt against capitalism for no reason?' - and I think there are many reasons. Reasons aren't in short supply, but perhaps reasoning is. The reasons would and could and will include (but are not limited to) "austerity, povery, unemployment, war, environmental destruction". But without the process of identifying capitalism as the problem, then these reasons will merely float in a philosophical aether as 'concerns' that 'something needs to be done about' - woolly liberalism/social-democracy in other words.

So if Comrade Commistar is saying 'how will the American working class come to realise that revolt against capitalism is in its best interests?' I'd say a combination of the weight of direct and indirect attacks (austerity, unemployment, war etc) causing a questioning of the future capitalism offers; the inspiration of other sections of the working class (eg Greece, Egypt, Spain over the last couple of years) organising in defence of their own interests; and the propaganda work and intervention of the revolutionary minorities who already see that capitalism is dragging humanity into the abbyss, who have a duty to oppose as best we can the capitalist hegemony of thought.

Of course, nothing is predetermined. We may still fail. But we have to try, no matter how difficult the task is. Either that or resign ourselves to going into the dark.


EDIT: broad strokes? Where?

[Bostana]

So I'm guessing by the end of the century. Proletariat's are tired of getting robbed by the rich. They know Capitalism isn't a success.
I mean, Capitalism is a Success?
Because the stock market has risen to the sky and C.E.O's are richer than ever before?
A Success when 1 quart of American Children live in property and 40,000 of them die before their first birth day?
100,000 people line up in New York City for only 2,000 Jobs. What will happen to the 98 million who are turned away? Is that why were building more prisons? A success to who? We have had miracles of Technology we have set a man into the moon but what happen to the people here on Earth?
Why are they so fearful? Why do they turn to drugs and Alcohol? Why do they go kill? And the politicians say it's a success makes it a success. Don't people know the Histroy of the free enterprise system? When the Government did nothing for the poor and everything for the Rich. When the government gave 100 million acres of free land to the railroads but when they looked the other way when the Chinese Immigrants and the Irish immigrants working 12 hours a day die from the heat and Cold. And when the workers went on strike the government sent the National Guard to smash them into submission. In England little children were put to work in the textile mills because their little fingers can work work the mill. Here in America young girls worked at the age of 10 and died at the age of 25.
Cities were cesspools of poverty and crime.

That is Capitalism then and now.

[TrotskistMarx]

hTWKbfoikeg
USA needs an artistic, music awakening, to wake up the masses that are inside The Matrix

You know another problem that I see in USA which is an impediment toward a marxist socialist revolution to overthrow the capitalist government? The problem is that most americans because of their nature of being people who are not well-read, who don't have any history, politics and philosophy books in their heads, have a sort of very strong fear toward the authorities, because when people have not read any thing about historical events from the ancient greeks, ancient romans, Alexander the Great, Medieval History and all that. They have this world view that coup de etats, riots, strikes, rebellions are immoral, criminal, evil and are not supposed to happen. And that it is better to have peace even with a dictatorship of Bush, Hitler and Obama than a rebellion of the USA-left against the US government (What a country of assholes)

(specially in countries like America, where you don't see too many coup de etats, where there are no strikes, no riots, no drug smuggling cartels inside USA, and no big problems. And this is very bad because crime is revolutionary, and according to Nietzsche, Emile Durkheim and Dostoyesky criminals are agents of change. When poor people get into crime it really means that they don't accept poverty, they don't conform to poverty).

So most americans have this sort of ultra-moralist anti-problems, anti-fighting, anti-violence, anti-crime, anti-alcoholic drinks, legalist, moralist mentality and thinking that any thing that breaks any law. Like you know in revolutions revolutionaries are *supposed* to be illegalists and violent.

But americans have been educated since childhood to be geeky nerds, goody too shoes, too strict, legalists, straight and to have a mentality that says: "Cleanliness is next to godliness", the mentality that the rock and roll rebels of the 1960s and 1970s despised so much. The mentality fought by The Beat Poets who were against that anti-revolution, mormon mentality ingrained in the DNA of most american traditional Brady Bunch, Ronald Reagan, square, straight families.

So having said all this, it is time in USA for another revolutionary artistic awakening like the music awakening of the 1960s and 1970s, and the grunge, rap and revolutionary awakening of the 1990s with Nirvana, Rage Against The Machine, Pearl Jam, Tupak, Snoop Doggy Dog, etc. SO THAT IF THE OCCUPY PROTESTORS COULDN'T OVERTHROW THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM IN USA, IT IS TIME FOR THE LEFTIST ARTISTS, LEFTIST MUSICIANS OF USA TO TAKE THE WHEEL OF REVOLUTION AND LEAD THE USA TOWARD THE DESTRUCTION OF CAPITALISM THRU MUSIC AND ART. BECAUSE NIETZSCHE WROTE THAT MUSIC, AND ART ARE THE GREAT POWERFUL ANTI-PESSIMISM FORCES OF LIFE. HE CLAIMED THAT MUSIC HAS AN EFFECT ON THE WILL POWER AND ON MUSCLES.

THANKS ! !!

.

.



I doubt it would. Any threat, no matter how signifigant, would be taken more seriously near the capitol than anywhere else. Any sort of uprising, unless massive in proportion, would be crushed almost immediately. I doubt the U.S. government would react the same way other governments did when their own citizens occupied capitols. I'd imagine it would start where workers and the poor are angriest: urban areas, large industrial areas, etc.

[workersadvocate]

TrotskiMarx has a good point about the need for a culture of liberation.

I'm really finding it harder to believe that economics alone---whether the ups or downs---are going to motivate working people to make a revolution from below.

People don't make revolutions until they are willing to kill or die if necessary for systematic change. They won't do that just for another nickel, dime, quarter or dollar in their pocket, especially as long as they think there is some other easier safer way to obtain it.
But even people who aren't quite starving can find themselves willing to kill and even die if necessary, when that conflict is primarily understood to be social in nature, rigged by the wealthy and powerful interests and their junior partners against the rest of us. People are willing to kill or die in struggles where the decisive outcome can mean either life or death for themselves and those they care about.

Sure, maybe you can inspire some people gradually with socialist ideas, and you can hang out with those people to the very end thinking of how a better world might have been. But that, by itself, will not make a real revolution.

What does convince people to be willing to kill or even die if necessary to bring about systematic change?
It ain't dry economics. It ain't just whining about rich and poor.

[ckaihatsu]

Just brainstorming here, but perhaps simple, basic *defensive* struggles / politicizations can give people the experience they need to become more confident about engaging in conscious, *active* struggles as a class....

[TrotskistMarx]

Comrade: I think that from my own point of view, the only people in the USA that would be open-minded for a marxist socialist government in America. That would be totally supportive of a Socialist Workers Party, of a Marxist Political party to rise to The White House are really a section in USA that is a lot worse than the USA working class. A section in USA who are millions of americans that earn ZERO dollars a month, or at least earn very little such as maybe 200 dollars worth of food-stamp money.

And indeed there are millions of americans, that live *un-normal lives* that are totally alienated from producing a stable quantity of money like the workers. Because the workers of oppressor nations have higher salaries, than the workers of oppressed nations. So by their nature of their earning 10 big dollars per hour, they are already a little bit right-wingers, capitalist, pro-war and pro-US bombing the hell out of nations. And in favor of the US government bailing out bankers, The Pentagon and all that.

So having said all this about American Workers living the life of their time and the time of their lives right now. I think that the left of the USA should concentrate in a sector of the USA that is a lot worse than workers. That sector is the families who are living and eating off a misery of 200 dollars or 300 dollars of food stamps, the 12 million un-documented workers, the prisoners, the homeless, the USA war veterans, and the millions of americans who earning ZERO dollars a month.

But there is a catch-22 with that sector of USA that belongs to the extreme-poverty class. And the catch-22 is that by their nature of their ultra-stressed lifestyle and ultra-poor lifestyle even in USA (The belly of the capitalist beast). Because of their high levels of pain, stress and poverty, they are less able to attend socialist marxist classes and meetings than the regular workers of USA.

But like I told you, right now the regular working class of Mcdonalds, Wal Mart, Supermarkets and retail stores of USA are too happy, and maybe that's why they are too pro-Obama, too pro-Mitt Romney and too anti-marxism.

But i believe that the US capitalist system and economy will get a lot worse than it is already right now, in which a pound of chicken will rise to 3 dollars, a loaf of bread to 4 dollars, a pound of american cheese which costs around 5 dollars right now might rise to 12 dollars a lb. and because of the permanent state of dollar-devaluation, sooner or later americans will not be able to put food on their table anymore (Because wages will not rise with the super-inflation) and that's maybe when americans will become marxists by force and support any marxist political movement as a solution out of the coming hell of hunger and starvation in USA !!



I live within the culture of workers. Every single family member I have is a worker. All their friends are workers. Most of my friends are from working class families. I do not see much willingness in them or any other mainstream American worker to stand up to capitalism. Do you want me to say that I trust that they will liberate themselves soon and especially without any cause? I refuse to lie, comrade. If the eyes of the American workers are opened by some kind of catostophic failure in the current capitalist system (worst than the ones before and the current ones), maybe I can trust that they will revolt en masse. Notice that I said en masse. I know there are communist workers, but they are definately not the majority. Like I said before, material conditions need to get to the point that the modern proletarians finally give up on the mode of production that has been killing them, and committ themselves to revolution. You might give me historical evidence to the contrary, but I am not talking about history, I am talking about now and in the U.S. I think revolutions from now on are going to change a little bit from what we have seen in the past. Sure some things will stay the same and maybe I am wrong, but these are only my observation of now. Some times communist need to look at current times to come up with new ideas. That is how we adapt while keeping our basic core principles.

[Saviorself]

First, you would have to convince people that there is something terribly wrong going on in this country and it needs to change. Which is certainly happening but, unfortunately, many people, though fully aware that something is amiss, are quite content to continuing living as they do. Whether out of apathy, fear or just plain laziness, many people are fine with settling with "good enough".

Among those who aren't fine with "good enough" you would have to convince them that things like protesting, voting and random acts of vandalism against a Starbuck's and ATMs here and there are entirely impotent, weak forms of assertion. That the only way to affect any meaningful change is through the use violence. Blood must be shed, the ground must be scorched and purged before something greater can be built on top of it.

How long it would last is pretty dependent on the number of people involved, how prepared, organized and willing to see their cause through to the end are. It certainly wouldn't be an easy. Then again, nothing worth the effort in life is.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

LOL at everything. When you reflect, you notice how stupid your past views were.

[Bostana]

I can't believe this thread went on till March

[Per Levy]

LOL at everything. When you reflect, you notice how stupid your past views were.

just wait a couple of years, then you'll be embaressed about what you wrote nowadays. you might not even be ML anymore.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

just wait a couple of years, then you'll be embaressed about what you wrote nowadays. you might not even be ML anymore.

Cool story, bro.

The problem is that back then, I only had a slight knowledge of Marxism and was basically just a Castro loving revisionist who read, but didn't understand. Now, I have taken studying Marxist literature and history seriously and I have discovered that real Marxism-Leninism is the only way to communism.

But, if you still want to follow that logic, maybe one day you'll abandon your stupid beliefs.