Communism impossible while the US exists?

[rat]

I don't think any elaboration is necessary. All the major world powers are very capitalist/imperialist, we'll have to wait until they collapse, no?

Also, how is world proletarian revolution even possible? They'd all have to be CONVINCED that socialism/communism would benefit them. Wouldn't it require a lot of education, from birth? Unless we are expecting most people to give up their prejudices and consider communism, but in my experience most people aren't logical, theoretical thinkers and have no interest in such things.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think any elaboration is necessary. All the major world powers are very capitalist/imperialist, we'll have to wait until they collapse, no?

No. We we'll have to do something much more difficult: we will have to topple them.


Also, how is world proletarian revolution even possible? They'd all have to be CONVINCED that socialism/communism would benefit them. Wouldn't it require a lot of education, from birth?

No. It requires struggle; there is no such "neutral" education that turns people into revolutionaries. All education, within a capitalist society, is part of the reproduction of the system.


Unless we are expecting most people to give up their prejudices and consider communism, but in my experience most people aren't logical, theoretical thinkers and have no interest in such things.

Communism won't come from theoretical thinking; it will come from class struggle, or it won't come at all.

Luís Henrique

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yes, totally, see people's war that is protracted much like a protractor. The massive peasant class of America will team up in solidarity with the proles and lumps and then yeah. Much revolution. Very wow.

[Ele'ill]

I'm not sure that it will come from specifically class struggle.

[rat]

"No. We we'll have to do something much more difficuçt: we will have to topple them."

This seems even more hopeless. At least in America, the left is dead, at least in the mainstream. So the toppling will have to be done from the outside. No leftist groups are big enough to beat the US military, even if they all joined forces. I know it's not that simple though.

"No. It requires struggle; there is no such "neutral" education that turns people into revolutionaries. All education, within a capitalist society, is part of the reproduction of the system."

That's what I'm saying, it's not possible. So how will it be done? Why would they struggle for something they don't believe in?

sorry I dunno how to quote. I'll figure it out later

[Tim Cornelis]

"No. We we'll have to do something much more difficuçt: we will have to topple them."

This seems even more hopeless. At least in America, the left is dead, at least in the mainstream. So the toppling will have to be done from the outside. No leftist groups are big enough to beat the US military, even if they all joined forces. I know it's not that simple though.

Of course they are not. You have to understand the concept of 'revolutionary situation' and 'non-revolutionary situation'. We are currently in a non-revolutionary situation, and revolutionary situations are rare. The window of opportunity for socialism is therefore small, but it's not impossible. A revolutionary situation will occur through innumerable uncontrollable factors, and it cannot be induced -- people are not simply moved into action through persuasion. All we can do is prepare now for when such a revolutionary situation occurs and carry it to victory.


"No. It requires struggle; there is no such "neutral" education that turns people into revolutionaries. All education, within a capitalist society, is part of the reproduction of the system."

That's what I'm saying, it's not possible. So how will it be done? Why would they struggle for something they don't believe in?

They can struggle for immediate or minimum demands, and this is used as recruitment and retention tool, and a platform for political education. So you wage struggles adjusted to the current level of (class) consciousness without falling into the trap of tailism (tailing the current level of consciousness) -- you do this by trying to push struggles beyond their current scope.

The point is, you don't go about having intellectual debates about the virtues of communism. That doesn't work.


sorry I dunno how to quote. I'll figure it out later

The quote button.

[exeexe]

communism impossible while the US exists? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-impossible-while-p2764920/index.html#post2764920)
No communism can exist just not in USA.

[Revolver]

I agree that we are in a (politically) non-revolutionary moment. However, I think that we are witnessing a very powerful social and economic revolution linked to automation and the digital revolution. The question is how to exploit that shift and to foster revolutionary conditions. Clearly, this is a project of the neoliberal van(rear)guard. They are investing very heavily in automation and "big data," in the pursuit of profit. Similarly it should come as no surprise that the emergent corporate state is collapsing the distinction between the public and the private, using sophisticated surveillance techniques to not only curb dissent but also to generate profits. Of course, the ruling class is not interested in sharing the productivity gains, they want to hoard them. And they continue to exploit labor, using the economic insecurity created by technological advances to create a pool of low wage workers that are also saddled with debt that, unsurprisingly, is also a source of ruling class income.

The game is as rigged as it has always been, but ironically the forces that have been unleashed by capitalist development are also eroding it. This should not be confused with techno-utopianism or the idea that the revolution is inevitable (it isn't) or that capitalism will inexorably transition into socialism and then into communism or something similar. Certainly there are advocates of that position, including people like Jeremy Rifkin. What it does suggest is that the capitalist model of economic growth is unsustainable. It also suggests that there will be increasingly large numbers of workers who are pushed into a kind of permanent precariat. I would suggest that they might be more receptive to revolutionary ideas than, say, the workers of the mid to late 1990s.

Of course a revolution is not something that takes place overnight. Durable revolutions require a material base of support, which is why building workers cooperatives and other institutional bulwarks is important. So I am hopeful when I hear about initiatives like Jackson Rising or I see what is being done here in the Rust Belt, where neoliberalism's vanguard is pushing the limits of financial dictatorship. And that is also why I am very concerned about the events that have unfolded in Nevada with Cliven Bundy or, again in Mississippi, with the rise of neo-confederates and other reactionary elements. The building blocks may be there, but the structure might not be socialist.

[rat]

OK, another question: The full effects of climate change will surely be disastrous, and disproportionately affect the third world. I know it's pure speculation but does anyone more informed than me have any theories of revolution when that happens? It seems interesting but with my limited knowledge I can't come up with anything of substance

[rat]

Of course they are not. You have to understand the concept of 'revolutionary situation' and 'non-revolutionary situation'. We are currently in a non-revolutionary situation, and revolutionary situations are rare. The window of opportunity for socialism is therefore small, but it's not impossible. A revolutionary situation will occur through innumerable uncontrollable factors, and it cannot be induced -- people are not simply moved into action through persuasion. All we can do is prepare now for when such a revolutionary situation occurs and carry it to victory.

Yeah so... we wait, like I said. I doubt it revolutionary conditions BEFORE the US collapses..

[hatzel]

No communism can exist just not in USA.

By this do you mean that there does not exist such a communism that can exist in all places except the USA???

[exeexe]

OK, another question: The full effects of climate change will surely be disastrous, and disproportionately affect the third world. I know it's pure speculation but does anyone more informed than me have any theories of revolution when that happens? It seems interesting but with my limited knowledge I can't come up with anything of substance
There is no correlation between class war and climate change. The climate change could even continue after making anarchy a reality so dont have any naive "pink" hopes about it.

As long as everyone wants several CO2 producing cars and tab electricity from CO2 producing coal plants nothing will change except the climate.

[Connolly1916]

By this do you mean that there does not exist such a communism that can exist in all places except the USA???

I think he meant ''No, Communism can exist, just not in the USA''.

[Igor]

I think he meant ''No, Communism can exist, just not in the USA''.idk how you mean this tho? obviously communism cant exist in the usa the state, like it cant exist in ghana or indonesia - their existence as states is fundamentally opposed to communism existing, its nothing to do with specifically usa.

if you are talking about there being something with the people and culture of the usa that means they somehow cant achieve communism ever thats just bullshit reverse american exceptionalism you see sometimes and historical blindness as well - things can change to directions we cant imagine within our life times, not to mention just couple of generations down the line.

[Connolly1916]

idk how you mean this tho? obviously communism cant exist in the usa the state, like it cant exist in ghana or indonesia - their existence as states is fundamentally opposed to communism existing, its nothing to do with specifically usa.

if you are talking about there being something with the people and culture of the usa that means they somehow cant achieve communism ever thats just bullshit reverse american exceptionalism you see sometimes and historical blindness as well - things can change to directions we cant imagine within our life times, not to mention just couple of generations down the line.

Obviously, on paper Communism can exist anywhere, but in reality the USA is one of the most anti-Communist countries in the world, if there is to be a worldwide revolution then I believe the USA will be one of the last to play a postitive role in it. But because the USA is perhaps the greatest embodiment of imperialism, consumerism (pretty much all the bad 'isms'), then it playing a positive part in revolution will be essential to the long-term success of that revolution.

[Црвена]

I think the USA is a pretty good place for a communist revolution, actually. As they become more fascist, the financial crises get worse, inequality becomes even more pronounced, the corporations are allowed to wreck people's lives and the government is seen to be lying continually and taking no action to stop the evil big businesses, the material conditions will be just right for a revolution. Although I think there will be another bout of fascism first. And obviously the USA will no longer exist after the revolution.

[Comrade #138672]

There is no correlation between class war and climate change. The climate change could even continue after making anarchy a reality so dont have any naive "pink" hopes about it.

As long as everyone wants several CO2 producing cars and tab electricity from CO2 producing coal plants nothing will change except the climate.You do realize the role capitalism plays in climate change with its destructive need to make profit at all costs? This is undeniable. Obviously a shift towards socialism would eliminate a huge part of the problem. Then we could finally take care of the environment.

[rat]

There is no correlation between class war and climate change. The climate change could even continue after making anarchy a reality so dont have any naive "pink" hopes about it.

As long as everyone wants several CO2 producing cars and tab electricity from CO2 producing coal plants nothing will change except the climate.
Nono I meant will the inevitable disastrous effects of climate change make the prospects of revolution better or worse, and how. Not really a useful question but interesting, I think

[Tim Cornelis]

People that say 'the USA is sooo anti-communist' are annoyingly American-centric. Look beyond your borders please. Or within:


Rasmussen Survey: 11% say Communism [which most people assume is Stalinism!] better than U.S. system
1. Is the United States system of politics and economics morally superior to communism or is communism morally superior to the United States system of politics and economics?

77% U. S. system is morally superior
11% Communism is morally superior
13% Not Sure

(Also, the USA is not turning fascist mmmmk).

[DOOM]

The States are of course in a hegemonial position and know how to exercise the power they're holding. It could be difficult to start a revolution when you have such a big enemy. However, it depends on how you define "revolution".

[Rafiq]

I would say Communism is only possible so long as the U.S. exists, given the current situation in Europe. The U.S. was always the most likely country for Communism, the American red scares (especially after the october revolution) were propagated with such great ferocity for a reason. The U.S. represents the development of capitalism without the legacy, or structural constrains of the remnants of feudalism. As those on Platypus have said, the development of capitalism equally coincides with the intensification of its contradictions.

[exeexe]

You do realize the role capitalism plays in climate change with its destructive need to make profit at all costs? This is undeniable. Obviously a shift towards socialism would eliminate a huge part of the problem. Then we could finally take care of the environment.

Well, lets assume that the revolution will happen in 2024, then according to this page
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
we will be 8 billion people. Let me spell it out for you: 8.000.000.000.

And maybe lets just say on a global scale 7 out of 8 are living sub par standards as to what would be accepted according to socialist standards.

The demands all over the world will be skyrocketing on all kinds of different material goods.

They all wanna eat cow meat and they all wanna eat pig meat with a few exceptions here and there. Then thats just the meat production. What about non essential goods? Toys for the kids for example. This industry will become booming after the socialist revolution has reached its end.

Its not just a question about profits or incentives. We are 8 billion people on this piece of land and that has nothing to do with profits.

[USAneedsCommunism]

I think that the title can be "Communism impossible in the USA while the social-democrat, progressive liberal reformist left exists". I think that the main enemy of a dictatorship of the workers in the USA is really the light-left, the social-democratic left, the reformist middle class left that has its main power and vehicle in The Democratic Party and some anti-war republicans.

As long as reformists can give the conformist masses some goodies like free health care, free college education, capitalism will exist. And remember that capitalism with free health care is still capitalism. But if there is a social-democrat politician like The Green Party that can rise to power and give the conformist masses free health care and 15 dollars per hour of minimum wage capitalism will exist for a long time.

We have to point out that 15 dollars of minimum wage in USA, free health care, free Harvard College Degrees is not socialism at all, it is capitalism with higher social services


.





I don't think any elaboration is necessary. All the major world powers are very capitalist/imperialist, we'll have to wait until they collapse, no?

Also, how is world proletarian revolution even possible? They'd all have to be CONVINCED that socialism/communism would benefit them. Wouldn't it require a lot of education, from birth? Unless we are expecting most people to give up their prejudices and consider communism, but in my experience most people aren't logical, theoretical thinkers and have no interest in such things.

[USAneedsCommunism]

You are right, there is a theory that socialism will take place first in rich advanced countries and then spread to poorer countries. This is because humans are habit creatures, and in developed nations like USA, Spain, Italy etc people are used to having food all day, electricity 24 hours a day, air conditioners all day, and a few other basic services. And a higher living standard. So if the citizens of rich countries see themselves in a situation losing all their basic needs, they will have a greater psychologic need to revolt than the people of poorer countries who are pretty happy and content with electricity blackouts of 5 hours to 10 hours a day, water shortages, eating only once or twice a day, and many other things that are normal in poor countries than in USA would be like terrorism to the body and mind of americans






I would say Communism is only possible so long as the U.S. exists, given the current situation in Europe. The U.S. was always the most likely country for Communism, the American red scares (especially after the october revolution) were propagated with such great ferocity for a reason. The U.S. represents the development of capitalism without the legacy, or structural constrains of the remnants of feudalism. As those on Platypus have said, the development of capitalism equally coincides with the intensification of its contradictions.

[Broviet Union]

Frankly, the US is one of the few countries materially advanced enough that real, stateless communism is an attractive option. But I think that any attempt at revolution would be a massive bloodbath.

[USAneedsCommunism]

Hi, you know there are many things that are an impediment for regular americans to support a marxist revolution right now. for people out there, for regular workers of Wal Marts, regular unemployed people eating from food stamps that we see at supermarkets, average joes delivering pizzas. Average people out there with a sad face working pushing supermarket shopping carts at grocery stores (when they maybe would like to be in a university studying to be doctors, pilots, astronomers and reach their dreams etc.).

But even if they themselves do not like their shitty life that they have, their shitty labor conditions and their zero hope of never never never in their life of being able to join a university in order to be a lawyer, doctor, astronomer, etc, and even if they have internet, alternative television news channels at home like Link TV, Russia Today News Network, Free Speech TV, Bill Moyers on public TV etc. And even with access to communist literature and leftist information and knowledge all over the internet. I think that they are like scared, too scared that their bosses might fire them for reading leftist news on the internet. And many people depend on their jobs, so that they can eat. No job no food, in this neoliberalism stage of the capitalist system, where many unemployed people are being cut away from food stamps and other social services. So that's why they cannot take the risks of becoming marxists, in the fear of being fired from their jobs (and being fired means hunger for them are their families, so because of the survival instincts of people, they prefer not to become leftists so that they can work to buy food and eat)

The USA is really a closet-fascist nation, a closet-dictatorship. What I mean by a closet-dictatorship, is that even though it is preached by mainstream TV that USA is a wonderful workers democracy, in reality, inside a closet, hidden from the public is a hell of SWAT cops in schools, harassing students even for bubble gum and things like that. (a police capitalist dictatorship)

In fact Bob Avakian from the revolutionary party at bobavakian.net in one of his MP3 audio speeches said that in USA there are many black mothers that prohibit their own young sons from lifting weights and being too strong, because they are scared that sons might to have a too agressive physical image. And too agressive and violent as a result of practicing agressive sports that increase muscle size. That's the degree of how in USA lots of things are banned, everybody is scared, neighbors do not talk to each other.

Another reason of why it is hard to see a marxist revolution right now in USA is that most americans are too scared. People in America are so scared that most people in America do not even have any leftist political bumper stickers in their cars. The most radical bumper stickers I've seen are "coexist" and others like about global warming. But you don't see many political bumper stickers. In other words americans try to stay away from politics, because they know that in America if you try to wake up the masses, like being a Malcom X, a Luther King, a Caesar Chavez, a Michael Moore (with his movie Capitalism a love story), Oliver Stone, Rage Against the Machine, you won't get much support, because of the excess of fear, the excess of family narcissism, and the excess of suicidal tendencies, and last but not least 3 types of thinking that are embedded in the way americans think:

1- argumentun ad popolum
2-consensus reality thinking
3-the band wagon effect,

spread all over USA (Argumentun ad populum and consensus reality literally and the band wagon effect means that what ever is believed by the great majority of people is true. So if the great majority of americans say that dogs can fly, an american that claims that dogs cannot fly is hated and alienated.

The same is still happening in politics even in this era of internet, tables and communist information even on your iphone, lap top and tablets. The same thing happens in politics today, in USA today right now most americans think that Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are good for USA, and any anti-war politician like Cindy Sheehan, The Green Party and even social-democrat reformists like Bernie Sanders and Sean Penn are anti-USA, side with terrorists and are nuts)

So because of that I really think that either we have to wait for an objective revolutionary situation like around the year 2050 (which is the year when US economy will be in pretty bad shape and when according to Lenin, there must be a deep crisis for the leftists leaders to move the poor people to be ready to overthrow the capitalist government).

Or the other option is not having to wait until around 2050 for the objective revolutionary situation. And push a revolution right now thru a revolution from above done, like a military leftist coup done by a select group of leftist US soldiers in combination of civilian communist leaders, backed by popular support.

But right now a revolution from below, would be crushed. Because most americans love capitalist politicians like Hillary and Jeb Bush and hate anti-war leftist politicians like Cindy Sheehan and The Green Party


.

People in USA even talk very quietly, americans are so scared that they even talk in a soft very passive way. You don't have to be a Freud psychiatrist to see with your own eyes how most people in this country are super-scared. except of course people who are drunk because when people are in a state of drunkeness they lose all their fears



Frankly, the US is one of the few countries materially advanced enough that real, stateless communism is an attractive option. But I think that any attempt at revolution would be a massive bloodbath.

[ckaihatsu]

So because of that I really think that either we have to wait for an objective revolutionary situation like around the year 2050 (which is the year when US economy will be in pretty bad shape and when according to Lenin, there must be a deep crisis for the leftists leaders to move the poor people to be ready to overthrow the capitalist government).

Or the other option is not having to wait until around 2050 for the objective revolutionary situation.


I was going to thank your post, except I can't because of this '2050' part -- where do you get this timeline from, exactly, or is it just some kind of rhetorical flourish -- ?

The global economy is decidedly in a state of indefinite stagnation, so objective conditions are currently better than ever for class consciousness and its potentialities.

[USAneedsCommunism]

The behavior of humans is very complex, very confusing. Sometimes it happens that people of the upper middle classes, that all of a sudden because of the current economic crisis, fall down toward the lower middle class, or the lower class, become hardcore communists, in your face out of the closet communists, than people who have been born in the lower classes, and have lived all of their lives in poverty. I think that this is because humans are habit creatures. And when people are born in a comfortable environment, and are forced to live and to move toward are more painful hostite way of life, and they never conform to the new poor painful life, what would happen is that they either get into illegal activities to get out of poverty, or if they are people that come from honest moralist families, they become radical communists.

But for former upper middle class people who are forced and thrown into a lower class lifestyle, they have to be well-read, and not very sociable people. Because when bourgeoise people are very sociable and live according to the standards and values of traditional societies, even if thouse bourgoiese people become poor, it is real hard for them to radicalize themselves toward communism. I think that's why many former upper middle class americans, who right now are lower middle class american families or lower class families, are too shy to become orthodox marxists, so what they do is that they support the different social-democrat reformist revisionist options that we have in America like Jill Stein of The Green Party, Bernie Sanders (The independent senator from Vermont, Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia Mckinney, The Socialist Party of USA, Socialist Alternative, Ralph Nader, Elizabeth Warren, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and the other anti-war progressive social-democrat politicians in the political market of USA that are in favor of a Sweeden, and Norway welfare regulated capitalist system with a human face.

But like I said the former middle class americans who are now poor, because of the fact that humans are habit creatures, and because middle class people are very sociable and very traditional might be too shy to become orthodox ultra-leftist communists. But it might also happen that many upper middle class families who are now poor, bankrupt and broke, and who are well-read, informed, have high literacy skills, reading skills, and can digest information pretty easy, are very open minded to become full communists.

The smarter people are, the more open minded that they are for any change, even to be ruled by computers. While the dumber people are, the more things like marxism, and new knowledge, and strange new things like UFOs are like taboos to them, and the more the dumb people are, the more enslaved they are to old way of thinking and to old traditions



.



Yeah so... we wait, like I said. I doubt it revolutionary conditions BEFORE the US collapses..

[ckaihatsu]

The smarter people are, the more open minded that they are for any change, even to be ruled by computers.


*I'm* smart, and *I* want to be ruled by computers -- !


x D

[hatzel]

Would somebody like to explain to me why Trotskistmarx seems convinced that: a) right-wing Miseans suddenly become Nordic-style social democrats simply for opposing a war; and b) shouting is a prerequisite for communism? I'm losing track here, you see...

[USAneedsCommunism]

Hi, well 2050 was just a year I think that the US economy will be pretty bad, it might be earlier like in 2020, 2030, or earlier than 2020, around 2018. There was an article by the economists of the CIA who predicted that the US economy will collapse around 2025. But I think that there are more requirements for an objective revolutionary situation, like the oppressed masses of people being a lot more informed about politics, than they are now.

It is real hard really to predict when will there be an objective revolutionary anti-capitalist situation




I was going to thank your post, except I can't because of this '2050' part -- where do you get this timeline from, exactly, or is it just some kind of rhetorical flourish -- ?

The global economy is decidedly in a state of indefinite stagnation, so objective conditions are currently better than ever for class consciousness and its potentialities.

[USAneedsCommunism]

I guess you are right, about how hard it is for most right-wingers middle class people, to experience a a personal ideological paradigm shift, and evolving into left-wingers, as a result of an economic crisis



Would somebody like to explain to me why Trotskistmarx seems convinced that: a) right-wing Miseans suddenly become Nordic-style social democrats simply for opposing a war; and b) shouting is a prerequisite for communism? I'm losing track here, you see...

[Wuggums47]

While I do believe that eventually capitalism will not be able to sustain itself, I don't feel we should wait for it to collapse. We should use non-violent means to bring change.

[hatzel]

I guess you are right, about how hard it is for most right-wingers middle class people, to experience a a personal ideological paradigm shift, and evolving into left-wingers, as a result of an economic crisis

This doesn't even begin to address the question. You said:


the light-left, the social-democratic left, the reformist middle class left that has its main power and vehicle in The Democratic Party and some anti-war republicans.

You subsequently named names:


they support the different social-democrat reformist revisionist options that we have in America like [...] Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and the other anti-war progressive social-democrat politicians in the political market of USA that are in favor of a Sweeden, and Norway welfare regulated capitalist system with a human face.

Both of these statements lead to me to believe that you consider the Pauls to be 'progressive social-democrat politicians' (in fact not just being such, but actually being the 'main power and vehicle' of 'the light-left, the social-democratic left, the reformist middle class left'). However, it is abundantly clear that the Pauls' political positions do not fall under anything that could be called social-democratic (even in this day and age, with the pitiful state of the centre-left), so I have no choice but to assume that your repeated use of the phrase 'anti-war' in reference to them (debatable how accurate that is as a description but whatever, let's not discuss that) suggests that you consider this the important issue, to such an extent that people with obviously right-wing socio-economic positions suddenly become 'the light-left, the social-democratic left, the reformist middle class left' on the back of their non-interventionism alone. Hence I asked why this is the case, why you're calling somebody like Rand Paul a leftist, 'light,' 'reformist,' 'revisionist' or otherwise...

[USAneedsCommunism]

hatzel: wow, what a crime, oh my god, I called and labeled Ron Paul as a light-leftist. Wow, I will be damned for ever.

hahaha, just kidding. But anyways, what the hell is this? A college test? quit your perfectionism and lets instead try to create a plan in order to overthrow the capitalist system, because there is not really an absolute truth and absolute plan in any leftist party, in any leftist organization on how to overthrow capitalist states and replace them with socialism. Not even the Bolshevik Revolution succeeded, not even the Paris Commune.

PS: Besides, there is not much of a difference between a government of Ron Paul and a social-democratic government, social-democrats and Ron Paul are both capitalists. So i don't understand why you worry so much about the political ideology of Ron Paul and the political ideology of social-demcrats like Bernie Sanders and The Green Party. They are all Ron Paul, libertarian parties, Green Party and Bernie Sanders anti-marxism


.





This doesn't even begin to address the question. You said:



You subsequently named names:



Both of these statements lead to me to believe that you consider the Pauls to be 'progressive social-democrat politicians' (in fact not just being such, but actually being the 'main power and vehicle' of 'the light-left, the social-democratic left, the reformist middle class left'). However, it is abundantly clear that the Pauls' political positions do not fall under anything that could be called social-democratic (even in this day and age, with the pitiful state of the centre-left), so I have no choice but to assume that your repeated use of the phrase 'anti-war' in reference to them (debatable how accurate that is as a description but whatever, let's not discuss that) suggests that you consider this the important issue, to such an extent that people with obviously right-wing socio-economic positions suddenly become 'the light-left, the social-democratic left, the reformist middle class left' on the back of their non-interventionism alone. Hence I asked why this is the case, why you're calling somebody like Rand Paul a leftist, 'light,' 'reformist,' 'revisionist' or otherwise...

[ckaihatsu]

Hi, well 2050 was just a year I think that the US economy will be pretty bad,


Excuse my incredulity, but the U.S. economy will be pretty bad in 2050 because you *think* it will -- ?? How does that help anybody?





it might be earlier like in 2020, 2030, or earlier than 2020, around 2018. There was an article by the economists of the CIA who predicted that the US economy will collapse around 2025.


Got a link for that?





But I think that there are more requirements for an objective revolutionary situation, like the oppressed masses of people being a lot more informed about politics, than they are now.

It is real hard really to predict when will there be an objective revolutionary anti-capitalist situation





When people are hungry, societies tend to unravel, regardless of whether it's led by an authoritarian tyrant or a democratic body. When food is too expensive, people can't eat. And all over the world, food is way too expensive right now.




High Food Prices Are Fueling Egypt's Riots—and Those in Brazil, Turkey, and Syria

August 14, 2013 // 03:30 PM EST

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/high-food-prices-are-fueling-egypts-riotsand-those-in-brazil-turkey-and-syria





[T]hings like marxism, and new knowledge, and strange new things like UFOs are like taboos [...]


And, also, by extension, Marxist UFOs....


x D

[ckaihatsu]

This doesn't even begin to address the question. You said:



You subsequently named names:



Both of these statements lead to me to believe that you consider the Pauls to be 'progressive social-democrat politicians' (in fact not just being such, but actually being the 'main power and vehicle' of 'the light-left, the social-democratic left, the reformist middle class left'). However, it is abundantly clear that the Pauls' political positions do not fall under anything that could be called social-democratic (even in this day and age, with the pitiful state of the centre-left), so I have no choice but to assume that your repeated use of the phrase 'anti-war' in reference to them (debatable how accurate that is as a description but whatever, let's not discuss that) suggests that you consider this the important issue, to such an extent that people with obviously right-wing socio-economic positions suddenly become 'the light-left, the social-democratic left, the reformist middle class left' on the back of their non-interventionism alone. Hence I asked why this is the case, why you're calling somebody like Rand Paul a leftist, 'light,' 'reformist,' 'revisionist' or otherwise...


Hey, just wanted to say 'welcome' to the single-quotation-marks club, hatzel.... You'll never look back.


= D

[ckaihatsu]

[I] called and labeled Ron Paul as a light-leftist.


To be specific / technical, he would be a 'left nationalist', at least in my book.


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://s6.postimage.org/cpkm723u5/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/cpkm723u5/)

[Slippers]

Lots of very wrong things being said in this thread but I don't even know where to begin as far as correcting them goes.

The Unites States of America; the nationstate is incompatible with Communism as all states are.

Could a Communist revolution happen within the US? Someday? I think yes.

[bcbm]

OK, another question: The full effects of climate change will surely be disastrous, and disproportionately affect the third world. I know it's pure speculation but does anyone more informed than me have any theories of revolution when that happens?

i think it will be likelier barbarism than socialism.


You do realize the role capitalism plays in climate change with its destructive need to make profit at all costs? This is undeniable. Obviously a shift towards socialism would eliminate a huge part of the problem. Then we could finally take care of the environment.

except we don't have time for this; emissions need to be drastically reduced now (or better, decades ago), though in fact it is pretty likely we have already past the point of no return towards the 2 degree tipping point. as it stands we're on track for much, much worse.