How do you think socialism should be advanced in the U.S.?

[Jacob Cliff]

The U.S. is by-and-large the foremost capitalist power on earth and bourgeois ideology is deeply imbedded in the mind of the proletariat and broad masses of people. Even so-called socialists (even more depressingly, the CPUSA) are nothing more than incompetent social democrats who, and I hate to be "that guys," give us on the Left a very bad name by making petty issues, which would already be resolved under socialism, the basis of their protests/demonstrations.
In short, the Left is weak here and those who identify as "socialist" are, even at the most "extreme" ends, social-democratic at best. What do you think is necessary here to ferment revolution fervor? What will swing the pendulum to our side – is a crisis necessary (such as the up and coming social security crisis) or do you think a revolutionary organization has the potential of rallying the masses towards socialism even in today's conditions, where most are pretty competent?

[Synergy]

I think the inevitable oil crisis in the next decade or so will cause some mass movements. If we're lucky (probably not), the uprising will be lead by socialists.

[Working Class Hero]

We need to re-organize the labor movement, radicalize it, and initiate a nonviolent revolution as soon as the ruling class is in a bad position. Unfortunately, this process could take decades, more likely centuries.

[tuwix]

The U.S. is by-and-large the foremost capitalist power on earth and bourgeois ideology is deeply imbedded in the mind of the proletariat and broad masses of people. Even so-called socialists (even more depressingly, the CPUSA) are nothing more than incompetent social democrats who, and I hate to be "that guys," give us on the Left a very bad name by making petty issues, which would already be resolved under socialism, the basis of their protests/demonstrations.
In short, the Left is weak here and those who identify as "socialist" are, even at the most "extreme" ends, social-democratic at best. What do you think is necessary here to ferment revolution fervor? What will swing the pendulum to our side – is a crisis necessary (such as the up and coming social security crisis) or do you think a revolutionary organization has the potential of rallying the masses towards socialism even in today's conditions, where most are pretty competent?

As former crisis has showed, a protest can arise from nothing. Occupy Wall Street arose from nothing and has made much trouble. Then wait to to another crisis. According to Marx, they are cyclical. And maybe this will be the last one. :)

[John Nada]

The U.S. is by-and-large the foremost capitalist power on earth and bourgeois ideology is deeply imbedded in the mind of the proletariat and broad masses of people. Even so-called socialists (even more depressingly, the CPUSA) are nothing more than incompetent social democrats who, and I hate to be "that guys," give us on the Left a very bad name by making petty issues, which would already be resolved under socialism, the basis of their protests/demonstrations.Most people either don't know there's still a CPUSA or have this misconception that they must be far more radical then they really are.

While the ruling class idealogy keeps the proletariat in the dark, most people seem to sense that somethings fucked up. A lot of people are busy and don't look into it further, because what's the point? I'd say many are a political "blank slate", which often goes with the flow. There might be potential in reaching out in this regard.
In short, the Left is weak here and those who identify as "socialist" are, even at the most "extreme" ends, social-democratic at best. What do you think is necessary here to ferment revolution fervor? What will swing the pendulum to our side – is a crisis necessary (such as the up and coming social security crisis) or do you think a revolutionary organization has the potential of rallying the masses towards socialism even in today's conditions, where most are pretty competent?Crises are a prime time to strike, for anyone. This is good and bad, good if there's a strong revolutionary movement to exploit it, bad if there's a strong reactionary movement(who also wait for crises).

I constantly hear "There's no (radical groups), what's there to do?", "This group doesn't seem like they're doing anything," "Yeah, but there's nothing you can do about it." Even on this forum. Clearly someone can correct this. Because if they sucessed in winning the support of 1% of the population, that's over 3 million people.

I read a study that compared violent and "strategic non-violent" rebellions and protests. It was tilted towards reformist bullshit and counted "pro-democracy" sham revolutions that weren't really revolutions or exactly "non-violent". One interesting thing was it claimed that overthrowing the government took the active support of 3% of the population. If you could get one in 33 people to agree with you, it's about that. One person out of the size of a school classroom. Think about school. There was at least one weird person in class that be down for it. Find all those weird kids in class.:lol:
We need to re-organize the labor movement, radicalize it, and initiate a nonviolent revolution as soon as the ruling class is in a bad position. Unfortunately, this process could take decades, more likely centuries.What labor movement? To reorganize implies there's already one organized. You're kidding yourself if you think a labor movement is peaceful on a picket line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain The meager gains were not made holding signs and letting the pigs beat the shit out of you because "non-violence":rolleyes:. Bosses and the scabs that just jacked your paycheck will just laugh you off. And that's just one strike, imagine a countrywide revolution. Oppressed peoples can't walk down the street without the state employing violence, but the proletariat will somehow walk peacefully to power?:lol: It won't take centuries, but millennia, with the state being violent as fuck the whole way.

[RedSonRising]

Consolidate the various parties and organizations already mobilized against the system in some meaningful way, inject class consciousness into mainstream society through engaging electoral politics and offering a viable alternative, all the while building and investing in projects that improve and empower the lives of the working class, and continue until we exhaust democratic means.

[Working Class Hero]

Maybe "non-violent" is a misnomer. I'm fully aware of the violence the state and corporations will use to suppress radicalism. I have no illusions on how bloody revolution can be. But the idea that an armed revolution in the United States can take on the strongest military in human history with guns snd bombs is silly. I know that bosses called the Pinkertons and the National Guard on striking workers, I'm not stupid. But trying to fight the US military, even in a guerrilla war, is foolhardy. Nonviolent revolution is the only real option.

[Wyboth]

Maybe "non-violent" is a misnomer. I'm fully aware of the violence the state and corporations will use to suppress radicalism. I have no illusions on how bloody revolution can be. But the idea that an armed revolution in the United States can take on the strongest military in human history with guns snd bombs is silly. I know that bosses called the Pinkertons and the National Guard on striking workers, I'm not stupid. But trying to fight the US military, even in a guerrilla war, is foolhardy. Nonviolent revolution is the only real option.
Not at all. Look at what happened during the February Revolution: most of the Tzar's army defected and joined the revolution. When the material conditions become bad enough, I imagine something similar will happen in the US.

[John Nada]

Maybe "non-violent" is a misnomer. I'm fully aware of the violence the state and corporations will use to suppress radicalism. I have no illusions on how bloody revolution can be. But the idea that an armed revolution in the United States can take on the strongest military in human history with guns snd bombs is silly. I know that bosses called the Pinkertons and the National Guard on striking workers, I'm not stupid. But trying to fight the US military, even in a guerrilla war, is foolhardy. Nonviolent revolution is the only real option.PLA and KPA fought the US, south Korean and UN forces to a stalemate. FLN made France withdraw from Algeria. Cuba crushed a CIA invasion in the Bay of Pigs. The Vietminh fought both Japan in WWII, and defeated France. The Vietcong stood toe to toe with the US, south Korea and south Vietnamese army, paving the way for victory. Hezbollah drove the US and France out of Lebanon, and later twice repealed Israel. Albanian partisans drove out both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany with minimal outside help. Sendero Luminoso almost took over the US-backed Peru. FARC and ELN are still fighting off the Colombian government and the American "private contractors". NPA fought US special Forces till just recently, and the struggle goes on. Various IRA groups raised hell against Britain. The Afghan Mujaheddin defeated the Soviets and Soviet-backed Afghan government. Their successors the Taliban went from losing the whole damn country to making it nearly uncontrolled by the US-led Colition force, forcing many to withdraw, and now control vast swaths of the country. The Naxals have seized large swaths of India. Iraqi insurrgents, were able to fight off Coalition Forces, only slowing down because the Awakening movement were bought off. Many afterward join Daesh and sent the Iraqi military running. YPG/YPJ are now kicking Daesh's ass, and won battles against the Syrian government and other rebels too. Various orgs like the TKP/ML, DHKP/C, MLKP and the PKK continue to fight the second largest and US-back Turkey.

Now there's a lot of complicated and nuanced shit behind all this, as well as some morally questionable shit. Many had/have foreign backing and even conventional capabilities too. Hell, some of those groups are downright counterrevolutionary and I don't like them at all. Don't advocate emulating any of them, and it'd be different in other countries than these. Don't want anyone to be a fucking fool and try this shit. A lot of the people in those countries were forced into this shit. But history has clearly shown that a much weaker force can hold up against a quantifiable stronger forces.

[The Idler]

Putting socialism on the ballot not just leftism.

[SonofRage]

No one knows. We have to just keep organizing and fighting while actually looking at the history and material conditions we live under in the US instead of just applying tired old formulas from another time and place.

If you look at US history, it's the Black freedom movements that have led to the broadest struggles. I think that's the key here, breaking the system of white privilege to create more space for revolutionary consciousness.

[ComradeAllende]

The U.S. is by-and-large the foremost capitalist power on earth and bourgeois ideology is deeply imbedded in the mind of the proletariat and broad masses of people.

To be fair, most of the "proletariat" and the broad masses tend to support the reformist programs of the old socialist/labor parties, at least when it comes universal healthcare and progressive taxation. That may not be full-on Marxism, but it's better than the centrist (or center-right) persona portrayed by the media. And given that the ideology of the American bourgeois is almost complete neoliberalism, I think that's a start (although I do live in an era of "diminished expectations).


In short, the Left is weak here and those who identify as "socialist" are, even at the most "extreme" ends, social-democratic at best. What do you think is necessary here to ferment revolution fervor? What will swing the pendulum to our side – is a crisis necessary (such as the up and coming social security crisis) or do you think a revolutionary organization has the potential of rallying the masses towards socialism even in today's conditions, where most are pretty competent?


Personally, I don't know if a crisis is the surest path forward. That proletarian despair and frustration caused by recession and unemployment could easily support a reactionary movement (like the Tea Party) instead of a socialist one. I think the Left had its best chance in the 60s and 70s, when workers had more bargaining power and could really see how they (and not the bosses) were the drivers of the economy. Of course, the postwar expansion is unlikely to happen again, and even if it did the structure of the economy has changed dramatically (while the Left has dissolved and stagnated).

[Comrade Jacob]

The proletariat in the US are too reactionary to build socialism. The only scenario I can see is if a new socialist power rises and invades. lol

[RedSonRising]

The proletariat in the US are too reactionary to build socialism. The only scenario I can see is if a new socialist power rises and invades. lol

But polls show many in the US are more favorable to socialism than we might expect. They might not have a concrete idea of what that is, but it's better than outright hostility. Besides, gauging the consciousness of a working class that has little to no exposure to any organized leftist perspective or efforts isn't the best way to measure potential.