Is a Socialist revolution possible in the USA?

[Marxaveli]

Taking into account the material conditions, such as the lingering and still very strong anti-communist rhetoric and misconceptions that dominates American society, lack of class consciousness due to the false consciousness imposed on the public by mass media, and the continues assaults on the Occupy Movement......is it possible we will ever have a Socialist revolution here? I would like to think so but the reactionary idealists seem more dominant than ever, despite that it seems more people are finally seeing the serious intrinsic flaws of Capitalism. Occupy isn't even a revolutionary movement, and already it faces incredibly strong resistance. As Lenin once asked, what is to be done? I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on this please.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It is possible but it won't be for a long time.Leftism takes a long time to take hold.

[metal gear]

Yes, because a true revolution is based more on having an organized army than the material conditions. But then after the revolution material conditions determines what the Government can do. I think it would be less authoritarian in America after the initial takeover.

[Spets]

If it does take hold, I hope it comes about democratically, so we can show that we don't have to resort to violence like many other leftist groups that are currently operating (no disrespect to those who resort to aggressive actions).

[the Left™]

If it does take hold, I hope it comes about democratically, so we can show that we don't have to resort to violence like many other leftist groups that are currently operating (no disrespect to those who resort to aggressive actions).


So you are some type of reformist? A democratic revolution? lol :lol: We all know that reform in a socialist sense is impossible, transitory peace in a revolutionary leftist sense is also impossible

[xub3rn00dlex]

Don't you know comrade obama is at the forefront of the US vanguard?

Socialist revolutions are possible anywhere once class consciousness is acquired. The problem is acquiring that consciousness rather than viewing yourself as a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" as Steinbeck put it. People refuse to acknowledge they are at war with the ruling class, and are losing.

[RedSonRising]

Yes, because a true revolution is based more on having an organized army than the material conditions. But then after the revolution material conditions determines what the Government can do. I think it would be less authoritarian in America after the initial takeover.

A true revolution is one supported and orchestrated by the working classes, regardless of their method of organization. If it transforms social relations and dismantles the property-based hierarchies found within modern capitalism, then it's a revolution. A well-organized force akin to an army might help, but it's not a prerequisite.

I think such an event is possible after a long struggle, but it would have to be orchestrated on multiple fronts: a unified organizational front politicizing people from an electoral platform, a large-scale media campaign, more organized and coordinated forms of protests & occupations, and a certain level of (armed) militancy among working class communities that are consistently threatened by the coercion of the state. In the age of globalization, trying to network internationally would be vital as well; a series of third world states exploited by the US gaining more economic and political independence while all this happens would also be a big help.

[Postmodern Revolutionary]

The thought of revolution is not plausible as the large apathy lies among the working class.

[Tovarisch]

No, because USA is attached to a republican wasteland known as "Down South". Many people down there have been brainwashed to believe that Communism is the world's greatest evil

[Marxaveli]

Indeed, apathy towards politics or even anything remotely intellectual is really strong here. Anti-intellectualism is possibly even the mayflower tool of the reactionaries to keep the status-quo intact. Maybe the only solution is for the material conditions to reach absolute rock bottom (worse than Depression era material conditions possibly?).

[the Left™]

Indeed, apathy towards politics or even anything remotely intellectual is really strong here. Anti-intellectualism is possibly even the mayflower tool of the reactionaries to keep the status-quo intact. Maybe the only solution is for the material conditions to reach absolute rock bottom (worse than Depression era material conditions possibly?).

Its unfortunate but material conditions being poor is the most salient way to radicalize working class people. Granted you would never ever want to impose harsh(er) material existence on anyone...even in a very means to an end sense. I think at least you are free to disagree

[NewLeft]

Its unfortunate but material conditions being poor is the most salient way to radicalize working class people. Granted you would never ever want to impose harsh(er) material existence on anyone...even in a very means to an end sense. I think at least you are free to disagree

Agreed, the ends don't justify the means!

[Marxaveli]

In this case, they don't. But when the revolution actually does occur, the end almost certainly will justify the means.

[socialistjustin]

We have went through all sorts of recessions and depressions in our history and are we living in a socialist utopia? No. Like I said in a previous thread if poor conditions meant revolution then Europe would be called Revolutionary Europe by now.

The threat of austerity can radicalize people as shown by the fact that 2 million workers are on strike in England, but having poor conditions doesn't automatically mean we will begin the revolution.

[the Left™]

We have went through all sorts of recessions and depressions in our history and are we living in a socialist utopia? No. Like I said in a previous thread if poor conditions meant revolution then Europe would be called Revolutionary Europe by now.

The threat of austerity can radicalize people as shown by the fact that 2 million workers are on strike in England, but having poor conditions doesn't automatically mean we will begin the revolution.

Just look at the events surround the collapse of Weimar Germany...

[socialistjustin]

Here's a more recent example. Spain has 21.9% unemployment and the conservatives won an absolute majority. People are more likely to turn to reactionary views during bad economic times.

[RedSonRising]

Indeed, apathy towards politics or even anything remotely intellectual is really strong here. Anti-intellectualism is possibly even the mayflower tool of the reactionaries to keep the status-quo intact. Maybe the only solution is for the material conditions to reach absolute rock bottom (worse than Depression era material conditions possibly?).

Some theories about when and why people revolt I've encountered in sociology actually point to slightly different causes. While there is almost always a percentage of people suffering intensely at the bottom of every oppressive system (in the case of periphery countries, a large percentage), some argue that it is only when some people's expectations aren't met, in terms of what they're getting. Some point to the Egyptian revolution (which has its own class dynamics) as evidence of this. There have always been poor in Egypt, but this is one of the first times that university-educated youth have been unable to secure jobs on such a broad spectrum amidst the crisis. With the middle layer of skilled workers unsatisfied with what they expected, regardless of the relative monetary worth of those expectations, is what triggers mobilization according to some. Just a thought.

[the Left™]

That was one case. The US had a great depression and we came out of it with no socialist paradise.

Here's a more recent example. Spain has 21.9% unemployment and the conservatives won an absolute majority. People are more likely to turn to reactionary views during bad economic times.

Oh yea i wasnt asserting that economic desperation and abject poverty/poor material conditions will reach fascism as some truism. I was just pointing out that this idea that the material conditions being correct will radicalize the working class and create some socialist alternative as a rule or a tactic-- isnt the case.

[Mike X]

Material conditions? Present conditions are ideal for a people's revolution.
Communism? Socialism? What's in a name? Are you sweaty and dirty enough to be a communist? Are you a worker? Do you make your living by the sweat of your brow? How do you relate to the people and to the struggle? Are you an 'outsider'? What 'class' do you belong to? Have you shared your food, or money, or a coat or sweater with another worker? Do you really care, or is your 'revolution' merely academic?
Resistance? The more resistance you encounter the more successful you are. When it seems like the whole world is against you then you will know that you are on the verge of victory... Did you think Corporate Capitalism is going to give up without a fight? NO - they are going to slaughter anyone who they think is a threat... better make your funeral arrangements now.
A revolutionary swims in the sea of the people... Go into the 'deep waters' where you will be safe. Don't isolate yourself from the masses. If you do you will not survive.
THIS IS THE REVOLUTION! It may not be what you wanted or expected, but it IS what it IS.
For further information read ghb666.blogspot.com - And, try to keep your spirits up.
Nothing succeeds like success....

[Marxaveli]

Some theories about when and why people revolt I've encountered in sociology actually point to slightly different causes. While there is almost always a percentage of people suffering intensely at the bottom of every oppressive system (in the case of periphery countries, a large percentage), some argue that it is only when some people's expectations aren't met, in terms of what they're getting. Some point to the Egyptian revolution (which has its own class dynamics) as evidence of this. There have always been poor in Egypt, but this is one of the first times that university-educated youth have been unable to secure jobs on such a broad spectrum amidst the crisis. With the middle layer of skilled workers unsatisfied with what they expected, regardless of the relative monetary worth of those expectations, is what triggers mobilization according to some. Just a thought.

Yea. The current crisis is a perfect example as such, because it is only a crisis since the middle class have now been injured. When the poor and working class get hurt (which is everyday), we dont make a big deal about it. But in the USA especially, the Horatio Alger Myth is a huge problem because it promotes a form of Stockholm Syndrome. "We can get rich if we just work hard enough". So many people still believe this horseshit, crazy as it sounds.

[Manic Impressive]

So you are some type of reformist? A democratic revolution? lol :lol: We all know that reform in a socialist sense is impossible, transitory peace in a revolutionary leftist sense is also impossible
What are you Carlos the Jackal? lol :lol: Coming to power democratically does not mean reform.

You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must some day appeal in order to erect the rule of labor.
What Marx is saying here is that in countries where democracy is well established democracy can be used as a tool to overthrow the state. Whereas countries like Russia or Prussia which were still autocratic monarchies would need to be taken by force. Today democracy is established in most of the major countries in the world, so it would make sense that democracy is the primary tool to seize control of the state. The exceptions would be countries like China or middle eastern or African countries where democracy is not well established and there is no tradition of it. If workers won't vote for socialism then they won't fight for it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Marx was clearly wrong about that, there was no way that workers could take power in the USA (at any time in it's history) without force.

[Manic Impressive]

Marx was clearly wrong about that, there was no way that workers could take power in the USA (at any time in it's history) without force.
Well obviously they haven't been in a position to do that as if they had then they would have done it :rolleyes:
So do you have an argument to make or are you happy with your baseless assertion?

[the Left™]

What are you Carlos the Jackal? lol :lol: Coming to power democratically does not mean reform.

.

sorry if i gave you the wrong impression i think i just understood what you were semantically arguing I guess my argument:

The topic : socialist revolution in the US or whatever

Can it occur sure. but this idea that socialists will change the economic relationships that are the basis of contemporary society without using force? Sorry for my misunderstanding and please never ever even joking connotate any mindless buffoon to anyone on here... :crying:

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think that it's a baseless assertion. Labor movements have historically been subjected to some pretty harsh repression in the USA, from 1877 to the Knights of Labor to the IWW, etc.

Let's say that socialists actually achieved enough votes to gain state power, on the promise of sweeping radical reforms. There are two options as far as what the response is by those who do not want to see this happen:

1) realize that the writing's on the wall for their class' historical position of influence, and quietly shuffle out of the halls of power;

or 2) drown the electoral revolution in blood with as many military units that are still loyal.

Judging from what actually happened with the labor movement in the USA, I'd say that option 2 is much more likely.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Also, just to be clear, I think whether or not a revolution or insurrection or whatever is successful is primarily a social question, not a military question. You can't mine coal with a bayonet...I think power comes not from the ballot box or "the barrel of a gun", but from the economic power commodified individuals hold by virtue of their role in a capitalist society.

But to think that there would be no violent confrontation between the forces of revolution and the forces of reaction in a hypothetical revolution in the USA is pretty far-fetched.

[Manic Impressive]

I don't think that it's a baseless assertion.
It was baseless because you did not present an argument for your conclusion. Now you have I've got something to respond to :p


Labor movements have historically been subjected to some pretty harsh repression in the USA, from 1877 to the Knights of Labor to the IWW, etc.

Let's say that socialists actually achieved enough votes to gain state power, on the promise of sweeping radical reforms. There are two options as far as what the response is by those who do not want to see this happen:

1) realize that the writing's on the wall for their class' historical position of influence, and quietly shuffle out of the halls of power;

or 2) drown the electoral revolution in blood with as many military units that are still loyal.

Judging from what actually happened with the labor movement in the USA, I'd say that option 2 is much more likely.
I agree option 2 is more likely. But that'll be the same any which way that the workers take power. A crippling general strike could result in food supplies being cut off leading to starvation, let alone the police and military suppression that would be used to restore order. A coup de tat would equally result in a military backlash as in Russia. A full scale civil war guerrilla style as in Cuba is a war already sooo, yeah. Any way workers can gain control of the state will be met with a backlash from the ruling class, that's not disputed. However, I believe that the best way to get to that position is through democratic means or at least trying. If you have the majority of workers voting for proper socialism not reforms e.g. the abolition of money, abolition of private property, etc. then you already know that a good size chunk of the military will be on your side and many of the others will be so confused that they'll side with the democratically elected government, in this case the defectors would be those siding with the ruling class and that goes for the rest of society as well. Many who might not even vote for socialists may object to the ideal of democracy being revoked by the ruling class. If we look at history and see how many people will fight and die for their right to have a say even if it is currently in a superficial form. I like the Chartist motto "peacefully if we can forcibly if we must" take power peacefully hold onto it with force.

[Tim Cornelis]

Here's a more recent example. Spain has 21.9% unemployment and the conservatives won an absolute majority. People are more likely to turn to reactionary views during bad economic times.

That was because of different reasons though. They had a "socialist" cabinet under which the economy collapsed, so naturally a significant number turns to the only altnerative, in this case the conservatives.

[slayerwulfe]

If it does take hold, I hope it comes about democratically, so we can show that we don't have to resort to violence like many other leftist groups that are currently operating (no disrespect to those who resort to aggressive actions).Hi! My name IS slayerwulfe cave(Like the AA ppl I'm an American)I'm sorry(for Ur cause) to inform that it can never happen. I received an email on Nov.28 from Senator Rand Paul from the State of Kentucky in regards to my involvement with DOMA Where he said to me that he supports it because it allows States to decide what marriage is and to have a 'Legal' recourse to either accept or reject an other States laws.Read into it Not united but divided 50 little gold plated dictatorships some giving to Federal and some only receiving (Like Kentucky) as a welfare State(Senator Rand Paul doesn't have a problem with accepting funding from other States while rejecting their laws)

Please see InfoWars I believe you are able to receive this, A U.S. Marine killed by an Arizona S.W.A.T. team May 2011.

I am not revolutionary but evolutionary, hope I get to talk to you,sound interesting. This my first day here as under 24 hrs.

[Mr. Natural]

Welcome, Slayerwulfe. Evolution, though, is revolutionary (and dialectical). Consider emergence, phase transitions, bifurcations, and punctuated equilibria. Life "goes to revolution" all the time.

Of course socialist revolution can take place in the US. The question is: How?

I'm not a pacifist, but advocating violent means to social transformation in the US is a fantasy. Do those suggesting this have any idea of the monopoly of violent means and surveillance techniques Western capitalist states possess?

The eminent theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku, was on the radio yesterday expressing love for some new mental "improvements" under development. A simple chip implant in our brains will soon allow us to walk into a room and know everything about everyone there. Think of that!

Here's what I think of that. Such developments under capitalism are a horror-in-waiting. It's time for Kaku to read Orwell. It's time for a lot of RevLefters to read 1984, too. "War Is Peace"; "Freedom Is Slavery"; "Ignorance Is Strength." Hell, we're there!

As for resorting to physical violence, How about them predator drones!!??

All is not lost, but leftists must open their currently closed minds and kennelize their dogmas. We need fresh, revolutionary, Marxist approaches to what is an endgame human crisis. We need to engage our situation with revolutionary minds and spirits.

I'm a red-green revolutionary. The "red" is Marxism, of course; the "green" refers to the new sciences that reveal the organization of life and its revolutionary processes. Life is organized as "community" that "revolutionizes" into new forms of being as necessary, and this organization will be the means of being for humanity, too. Are we not life? Marx and Engels thought so.

I can employ these new sciences to theoretically organize a bottom-up, grassroots, democratic, non-violent process of socialist revolution in the US. I won't elaborate in this post other than to say this revolutionary process begins with people organizing into various forms of "aware community" at the local level. These local, aware (of life's organization) communities will then naturally coalesce into political parties of social transformation.

Unfortunately, the key to all of this is that people must learn to organize in life's pattern. This scientifically revealed pattern is remarkably similar to the materialist dialectic's perception of "nature, human society, and thought" (Anti-Duhring) as organic, material, systemic process. However, Marxists have shunned these new sciences.

So red (Marxism) is refusing to engage the new sciences of the organization of life, community, and revolution. Green (natural science and environmentalists) is worse. Green refuses to come to grips with either capitalism or its new sciences.

I'm a red-green revolutionary, which means I exist in not-so-splendid isolation. When are red and green going to recognize they are a natural unity?? Most of us at RevLeft claim to be scientific socialists, but where is the new science in our socialism?

My red-green best.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Yes.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Not just possible, it's inevitable.

[Marxaveli]

Welcome, Slayerwulfe. Evolution, though, is revolutionary (and dialectical). Consider emergence, phase transitions, bifurcations, and punctuated equilibria. Life "goes to revolution" all the time.

Of course socialist revolution can take place in the US. The question is: How?

I'm not a pacifist, but advocating violent means to social transformation in the US is a fantasy. Do those suggesting this have any idea of the monopoly of violent means and surveillance techniques Western capitalist states possess?

The eminent theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku, was on the radio yesterday expressing love for some new mental "improvements" under development. A simple chip implant in our brains will soon allow us to walk into a room and know everything about everyone there. Think of that!

Here's what I think of that. Such developments under capitalism are a horror-in-waiting. It's time for Kaku to read Orwell. It's time for a lot of RevLefters to read 1984, too. "War Is Peace"; "Freedom Is Slavery"; "Ignorance Is Strength." Hell, we're there!

As for resorting to physical violence, How about them predator drones!!??

All is not lost, but leftists must open their currently closed minds and kennelize their dogmas. We need fresh, revolutionary, Marxist approaches to what is an endgame human crisis. We need to engage our situation with revolutionary minds and spirits.

I'm a red-green revolutionary. The "red" is Marxism, of course; the "green" refers to the new sciences that reveal the organization of life and its revolutionary processes. Life is organized as "community" that "revolutionizes" into new forms of being as necessary, and this organization will be the means of being for humanity, too. Are we not life? Marx and Engels thought so.

I can employ these new sciences to theoretically organize a bottom-up, grassroots, democratic, non-violent process of socialist revolution in the US. I won't elaborate in this post other than to say this revolutionary process begins with people organizing into various forms of "aware community" at the local level. These local, aware (of life's organization) communities will then naturally coalesce into political parties of social transformation.

Unfortunately, the key to all of this is that people must learn to organize in life's pattern. This scientifically revealed pattern is remarkably similar to the materialist dialectic's perception of "nature, human society, and thought" (Anti-Duhring) as organic, material, systemic process. However, Marxists have shunned these new sciences.

So red (Marxism) is refusing to engage the new sciences of the organization of life, community, and revolution. Green (natural science and environmentalists) is worse. Green refuses to come to grips with either capitalism or its new sciences.

I'm a red-green revolutionary, which means I exist in not-so-splendid isolation. When are red and green going to recognize they are a natural unity?? Most of us at RevLeft claim to be scientific socialists, but where is the new science in our socialism?

My red-green best.

I do not see making socialist changes 'the democratic' way as being possible in this nation. Those in power love their power, and will stop at nothing to hold onto it. If we are to see fundamental change, I do not see any other but violent revolution, regardless of the monopoly of violence the State may hold. I would love to see otherwise but I think you underestimate the anti-socialist mentality that is rampant in this country. Look at the Occupy Movement, that are not nearly as organized or revolutionary in structure as the movement you are proposing, and they are already being heavily assaulted.

Someone else said that if we try doing this the democratic way that the military will be on our side. Not a chance. Most of those in the military are reactionaries, and they are being trained to deal with civil unrest here. They are in fact, very much not on our side.

[Ocean Seal]

Welcome, Slayerwulfe. Evolution, though, is revolutionary (and dialectical). Consider emergence, phase transitions, bifurcations, and punctuated equilibria. Life "goes to revolution" all the time.

Of course socialist revolution can take place in the US. The question is: How?

I'm not a pacifist, but advocating violent means to social transformation in the US is a fantasy. Do those suggesting this have any idea of the monopoly of violent means and surveillance techniques Western capitalist states possess?

The eminent theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku, was on the radio yesterday expressing love for some new mental "improvements" under development. A simple chip implant in our brains will soon allow us to walk into a room and know everything about everyone there. Think of that!

Here's what I think of that. Such developments under capitalism are a horror-in-waiting. It's time for Kaku to read Orwell. It's time for a lot of RevLefters to read 1984, too. "War Is Peace"; "Freedom Is Slavery"; "Ignorance Is Strength." Hell, we're there!

As for resorting to physical violence, How about them predator drones!!??

All is not lost, but leftists must open their currently closed minds and kennelize their dogmas. We need fresh, revolutionary, Marxist approaches to what is an endgame human crisis. We need to engage our situation with revolutionary minds and spirits.

I'm a red-green revolutionary. The "red" is Marxism, of course; the "green" refers to the new sciences that reveal the organization of life and its revolutionary processes. Life is organized as "community" that "revolutionizes" into new forms of being as necessary, and this organization will be the means of being for humanity, too. Are we not life? Marx and Engels thought so.

I can employ these new sciences to theoretically organize a bottom-up, grassroots, democratic, non-violent process of socialist revolution in the US. I won't elaborate in this post other than to say this revolutionary process begins with people organizing into various forms of "aware community" at the local level. These local, aware (of life's organization) communities will then naturally coalesce into political parties of social transformation.

Unfortunately, the key to all of this is that people must learn to organize in life's pattern. This scientifically revealed pattern is remarkably similar to the materialist dialectic's perception of "nature, human society, and thought" (Anti-Duhring) as organic, material, systemic process. However, Marxists have shunned these new sciences.

So red (Marxism) is refusing to engage the new sciences of the organization of life, community, and revolution. Green (natural science and environmentalists) is worse. Green refuses to come to grips with either capitalism or its new sciences.

I'm a red-green revolutionary, which means I exist in not-so-splendid isolation. When are red and green going to recognize they are a natural unity?? Most of us at RevLeft claim to be scientific socialists, but where is the new science in our socialism?

My red-green best.

Okay now you are just being absurd? You don't think that Batista was more well equipped than Castro and his revolutionaries? Question? What does the US government do when the workers go out in a mass strike and they can't pay their military or their police to fire on them anymore?

[OHumanista]

Oh yea i wasnt asserting that economic desperation and abject poverty/poor material conditions will reach fascism as some truism. I was just pointing out that this idea that the material conditions being correct will radicalize the working class and create some socialist alternative as a rule or a tactic-- isnt the case.

Indeed I think too many a socialist has expected the worst case scenario (ignoring the burdens and sufferment it causes to the workers) in the hopes of fomenting a revolution only to be disappointed as the workers hopes are more crushed and opressed than ever.

This is a lesson some still didn't get.

[ShaunHingston]

Hey all!

I have written a thought provoking essay on how to non-violently convert capitalism into communism.

Since I'm a newb you will have to google it, I would appreciate if someone could please link it. :)

google: Daniel Little discusses David Graeber's

it should be the first link, then the first comment.

Enjoy!

[The Young Pioneer]

The thought of revolution is not plausible as the large apathy lies among the working class.

:rolleyes:

I think the working class is not apathetic, but held down and kept there by the bourgeouis. That differs from apathy- they simply think it is not plausible, and thus have yet to try, as evidenced by those here who do not believe a revolution is possible. I'm guilty, too.

But it is by no means due to lack of giving a crap.

[Mr. Natural]

Rosa's~Dream, RedBrother, Thanks for giving my post a look. Both of you skated past the radical points I made, though

Rosa, you wrote: "I think you underestimate the anti-socialist mentality that is rampant in this country. Look at the Occupy Movement ..."

Well, I thought I was underscoring the current lack of a popular radical political awareness in the US and suggesting the way out of this impasse. I said the way the rest of life organizes into community and revolutionary processes is the way a socialist revolutionary process must be organized--with awareness--at the grassroots level. Then I wrote that the new sciences of life's organizational relations are in general agreement with the Marxist materialist dialectic and reveal how such revolutionary movements might begin and proceed.

RedBrother wrote, "What does the US government do when the workers go out on mass strike and they can't get their military or their police to fire on them anymore?"

Not to be rude, but this scenario is fantasy at present. Workers have to get mentally and physically organized before any mass strike can happen, and American workers at present have the political awareness of a head of lettuce. What awareness must be developed? The (new) proletariat must become conscious of capitalism's relentless assault on all forms of life and of life's pattern of organization. Life is organized as community--as communism--and this is the pattern of organization the working class must learn. And then we can speak of mass strike actions.

Is the human species really going to go down without anything resembling an effective struggle against capitalism? That's the situation at present, and I would think this reality would motivate Marxists to bring Marxism up to date in theory and spirit. Marx and Engels looked to science to inform and confirm their views, but they are dead and cannot further develop Marxism.

That's our job, but where are we?

My red-green best.

[LuckyStrikes]

There is a distinct lack of many essential revolutionary criteria in this nation. Along with a lack of class conciousness, I feel that most people are, no matter how embittered by it, slaves to capitalism. Even a vast majority of the Occupy Movement only want reform to weed out capitalisms greed, which is impossible without its abolition. Talking to one person that I knew leaving for the Occupy Movement, I asked him why he was going. He stated that he was tired of not being able to find a job, and wanted to get one to obtain his "piece of the pie."

So, I feel that America is no where near a socialist revolution. If one was even started now I feel it would just degenerate into the petty bourgeoisie taking power and reinstating the status quo. As we know, in times of hard ship the petty bourgeoisie are nothing but the pawns of the capitalists!

[Marxaveli]

:rolleyes:

I think the working class is not apathetic, but held down and kept there by the bourgeouis. That differs from apathy- they simply think it is not plausible, and thus have yet to try, as evidenced by those here who do not believe a revolution is possible. I'm guilty, too.

But it is by no means due to lack of giving a crap.

No man, apathy is part of the problem as well. You have no idea how many people I've met that are indifferent to politics in general, much less aware or concerned about class. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but where there is smoke, there is fire. Of course, part of this is due to the fact some people feel like their vote doesn't count anyway (and in a Republic such as ours, they are for the most part, correct), but outside of this, Americans, especially the lower classes, are very apathetic towards politics. Anti-intellectualism is possibly the primary reason for it, but it is there nonetheless.

[Spets]

So you are some type of reformist? A democratic revolution? lol :lol: We all know that reform in a socialist sense is impossible, transitory peace in a revolutionary leftist sense is also impossible

Nothing wrong with being optimistic?

[Geiseric]

Alright, a revolution in the U.S. is very possible, because in the areas where most wealth is created, a sense of class struggle is already developing, and people are starting to figure out that things are wrong with the system. It won't be long untill the unions start choking the protest movements, and it won't be long untill complete faith is lost in the democratic party. As soon as that happens and when the working class obtains consciousness through the struggles we are going through, a revolution will be possible. Capitalism is breaking down, and we're fortunate enough to be born in the time of its demise. This financial breakdown is the begining of the end, capital's only safe investment is in war and direct, military backed imperialism. That isn't sustainable by any means. We are already seeing the results of the working class's break from liberals in Greece, Italy, Spain, Egypt, you name it. The egyptians are calling for civilian power instead of the military provisional government.

We need to not be optimistic, but realistic. The U.S. is becoming more and more the only surviving vestige of capital, soon there will be conflicts between the imperialist powers over the third world and we'll probably see a few wars. It's what happened before WW2. However, this is where we take advantage of Capitalism's inherent failures and work to build a better system to replace the old one. The working class's consciousness in my mind won't take any longer than 3 years to develop. It already is in GB, with that million man strike. It won't be long untill it's in the U.S. Of course there will be obstacles, certain reactionary elements in and outside of the movement, but we just need to be at least marginally disciplined and organised in order to deal with those.

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

Unless some violent guerrilla group forms in the US, I don't see revolution in the US to be possible. Although I would like that to happen, I don't see it anytime soon.

[Le Socialiste]

I think one of our most important points should be an emphasis on the relevancy of socialism, as it has been largely discredited by 'revolutionary' and non-revolutionary circles. Occasionally it will be resurrected by certain members of the political establishment as a fear tactic (such as the media-fuelled furor over Obama's 'socialist health bill'), but these pale in comparison to the Red Scare periods of American history. By and large, the perception of communism has mellowed. Being a self-described communist (or any of communism's sub-tendencies) doesn't carry quite the same stigma it used to. In that respect the willingness for alternative answers to the political and financial system is there; the problem lies in making socialism relevant again in the eyes of the working-class. For many, socialism collapsed with the Soviets and has been limping on ever since (which, despite what one may think of the USSR, is more or less true).

That's why the current financial crisis is so important. For once, we have people questioning the reasons for what happened and why it happened. They're looking for answers, faced with hundreds of businessmen/women, politicians, organizations, and parties clamoring to provide them. Socialists must first make it past those who would seize this 'opportunity' to capitalize on the anxiety of the working-class and chain them to their cause, being present and vocal at every instance of dissent, unrest, and disillusionment made against the existing political/financial order. If we can sow the seed of doubt in the minds of the people, we take the first step in their willingness to mobilize. It all comes down to baby steps - demonstrations, strikes, mass mobilizations (such as OWS). This year has proven that the international working-class is waking up to its ability to organize in politically/socially meaningful ways, and this has had some effect on the mentality of most Americans.

It would be foolish to dismiss the American worker as gripped by apathy, cocooned against the social and financial upheavals currently gripping the world capitalist system. A history of setbacks and betrayals has left labor disillusioned and demoralized. It is tied by the union bureaucracy to the Democratic Party, the graveyard of social movements. Capitalism’s current crisis will force both groups into the difficult position of containing working-class displeasure while trying to soothe jittery financial markets. The hold they have over working people is slipping, however – their complicity in suppressing unrest and revolution in N. Africa and the Middle East has shown them to be as rightwing as the Republicans (which may be obvious to those on the left but isn’t well accepted by the general population). Their intervention in Libya, the supplying of the Egyptian junta with lethal/non-lethal weaponry, and the crackdown on OWS demonstrators has exposed the cynical, hypocritical nature of the Democrats. Include what seems like a perpetual state of financial austerity and militarism and you have a potentially explosive situation.

The American working-class is facing some of the worst conditions since before the Great Depression, with approximately one third (one hundred million) of the American population living with dangerously low incomes – barely above the official poverty line. Obama’s presidency has seen a concerted push by the political and financial elite for increased cuts to social programs, with both parties locking horns over how much to cut (not whether or not they should). Again I refer to OWS: while far from being a revolutionary movement/situation, it does mark the beginnings of what may be a complete break with the political establishment. Disillusionment over Obama’s ‘failure’ to live up to his campaign promises has led some to question the true intentions and loyalties of the Democratic Party, a significant step in breaking the working-class off from the pseudo-progressive liberalism of the American ‘left’. Occupiers have expressed disgust with the hypocrisy of the entire political establishment, not just that of the Republican Party.

Socialist revolution won’t come about until the mass mobilization of the working-class against the parties and structures of capitalism is made possible. This requires a focused, concerted effort made by the revolutionary left to agitate and organize for a militant shift in workers’ and peoples’ consciousnesses, to stem the deluge of liberal and reactionary politics and engage the working-class from a position of solidarity. It serves us no good to theorize and speculate over the future of the class struggle without actively participating in it. If the American working-class sees us as partners in their struggle, they’ll come to appreciate our input. As it currently stands, socialism is either perceived as irrelevant or elitist by broad layers of the population, which isn’t helped by the official left’s unwillingness and/or inability to engage in genuine outreach and dissent. We need to change this perception if we’re to make inroads in gaining the trust and support of the people. As capitalism continues to contract and deteriorate, affecting the material and social welfare of working people the world over, we’ll see a significant rise in class-based agitation against the institutions of the state. This isn’t to say the working-class will make a conscious decision to reject capitalism and the power structure(s) built around it, but their dissatisfaction with governments’ abilities to stem the crisis will result in a marked shift towards greater frustration and action.

As I said in another thread about Britain’s millions-strong strike action, slowly but surely, the working-class is waking to its strength and ability to organize. America’s working-class will rediscover this strength as well, and with this discovery will come a greater willingness to strike at the repressive systems overseeing the degradation of peoples’ livelihoods and welfare. Socialists must be prepared to step in as this shift in public opinion takes place, to lay the groundwork for further action and greater awareness. We must reject any effort made to corral the people into reformist politics and tactics, and push for greater militancy and unity in the face of opportunistic elements of the left and right. In short, yes – I believe socialist revolution is possible, but I doubt it will be called socialist.

[Philosopher Jay]

The greatest accumulation of wealth in the world remains in the United States. If one looks at gross national income either absolutely or per capita, the United States is still far ahead of any other country. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gnp_mktp_pp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gross+national+product
While China might overtake the United States in gross national income in 10 or 15 years, we have to consider that China still has 4 times the population of the United States. On a per capita basis it only make 1/7th what the United States makes. On a per capita basis nothing has changed over the last 30 years. Per capita income in France and Germany was about 3/4ths of the United States in 1980 and still the same in 2010. Most countries are 1/2, 1/4, or less.
The income distribution has certainly become more unfair over the last 30 years in the United States, with the top 1 or 2 percent doubling and tripling its wealth at the expense of the rest of the populace. The one-third of Americans living below or near the poverty level live under conditions close to poor people in Eastern European countries like Hungary or Bulgaria. but this does not help to produce a revolutionary situation. It just gives the capitalists more room to maneuver and the ability to make more concessions and bribes in any revolutionary situation.
Due to its leading position in the capitalist world, the United States remains the least likely country in the world for socialist revolution to take place.
This condition places extra burdens and problems on socialists within its borders.
Attempts to overcome this objective situation with "will power" and talk of "sacrifice" are foolish and impotent.

[KurtFF8]

Unless some violent guerrilla group forms in the US, I don't see revolution in the US to be possible. Although I would like that to happen, I don't see it anytime soon.


Well that didn't really work last time, so it would seem there's more to it than whether or not there is a violent resistance.

Arundhati Roy made a good point about violence vs nonviolence. Something along this lines of that it's a tactical question, not an ideological one. And right now, it wouldn't make sense tactically to form those kinds of groups.

[ColonelCossack]

Here's a more recent example. Spain has 21.9% unemployment and the conservatives won an absolute majority. People are more likely to turn to reactionary views during bad economic times.

Fascism is capitalism in decay.

[u.s.red]

Communism? Socialism? What's in a name? Are you sweaty and dirty enough to be a communist? Are you a worker? Do you make your living by the sweat of your brow?


Karl Marx was a communist, revolutionary...also, an academic: he produced his most famous work in the British Museum.