Revolution?

[Discordant element]

Most of the people here are probably leftists. That is a very general term. Again, most are probably socialists, and a large portion are likely communists.

People with such views would certainly be unhappy with their current government (wherever they may be), and since the plutocracy definitely wants to stay in power, a revolution would be necessary.

I personally believe that in the case of the US, considering the brainwashed military and corrupt police, said revolution would be guaranteed to turn violent.
How would you approach this? I personally cannot think of a solution that would circumvent a civil war between the government and the people- can you?

[LeftistsAreRadical]

There really isn't any way to bypass violence in a revolution. I personally don't really like violence, but the way I see it, the oppressor is not only responsible for their actions, but are responsible for the reaction of the oppressed as well. I have no problem with a violent revolution if it means smashing oppression and bringing about justice for the future of humanity.

[Heretek]

Approach: World Revolution and the abolition of all states.
Method: The workers and seizing the apparatus of the state.
The overall message: The workers must be the ones to emancipate themselves, and they must determine their own course of action. One voice can be added to the choir
(meaning an individual's) but it will be a collective decision what to do.

General Tips: This is a site for Revolutionary Leftists, so the majority support some kind of revolution. The occasional reformist crawls along, as well as trolls but they can be dealt with.
The Pacifistic approach has been theorized and ultimately rejected on multiple occasions on this site. What is left is simply a discussion between 'how much' violence will occur

[Antille]

I'm surprised that more people on the left (in America) haven't started taking advantage of the freedom to access guns and form militias, it would be interesting to see what kind of success or membership turnout these kind of groups could achieve if a political atmosphere for their existence developed.

[Comrade Samuel]

I'm surprised that more people on the left (in America) haven't started taking advantage of the freedom to access guns and form militias, it would be interesting to see what kind of success or membership turnout these kind of groups could achieve if a political atmosphere for their existence developed.

There are some groups taking advantage of this and organizing as the political situation worsens.

I'd be happy to put anyone here in contact with mine if they are interested. This website helped me learn the theory; I think its only fair I return the favor with opportunities for direct action.

[Discordant element]

There really isn't any way to bypass violence in a revolution. I personally don't really like violence, but the way I see it, the oppressor is not only responsible for their actions, but are responsible for the reaction of the oppressed as well. I have no problem with a violent revolution if it means smashing oppression and bringing about justice for the future of humanity.
It's not that I care about the police, even though they are still human, it's about minimizing our losses. Since the military has, you know, big-ass automatic guns.
This would have been way simpler 60 years ago, when soldiers weren't brainwashed into shooting anyone branded as an enemy by reflex, when they still had some agency in their actions, but in the present day, the best approach would be to infiltrate it and spread support for a revolution, both in the lower ranks, as they are the ones on the ground, shooting revolutionaries, but also in the higher-ups.
This was the main problem with the recent coup attempt in Turkey- there was no organization whatsoever, and they had way too little support. The rest of the military had no issue shooting them down.

[Konikow]

Most of the people here are probably leftists. That is a very general term. Again, most are probably socialists, and a large portion are likely communists.

People with such views would certainly be unhappy with their current government (wherever they may be), and since the plutocracy definitely wants to stay in power, a revolution would be necessary.

Wrong! This is a forum for Revolutionary Leftists.

Revolutionary Leftists worship the capitalist state and will do whatever is necessary to defend it. (http://internationalist.org/southafricaminemassacre1208.html)

[(A)]

Organization is paramount. In the U.S. their are more guns then their are civilians; if the working class where to rise up in any significant numbers they would have the military beat. That's the reason the cops have to resort to such measures to stop riots; because if the people could organize and rise up against the state they would crush it.

As it is the state is deigned to counter revolutionary's. First by blasting them in the media turning away people from the struggle and then if that does not work proclaiming them terrorists and attacking them with the law.

We are seeing this with BLM. the media is already calling for them to be deemed terrorists.

While infiltrating the military would be a good tactic the movement seems so far from organized that that kind of activity seems impossible at the moment.

We just have to keep fighting for class conciseness and keep fighting the good fight and start organizing and training.

[The Idler]

The ruling-class have more than enough bullets for any uprising. Raising class consciousness, making socialists and democratically taking control of the means of production with a significant majority is the only way and has been ever since Engels said in the Preface to the Class Struggles in France

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.

[macsrw]

Here is the thing about armed uprisings: they only work against States that are extremely destabilized. While the US certainly has its problems at the moment, it does not fit the bill. If it had just fought world war 3, and managed to hang on by its fingernails, then an armed uprising would be potentially successful. As for now, any armed uprising would be crushed without much difficulty, especially if the left does not hold sway over a significant portion of the military (which, last time I checked, it doesn't). If all of this sounds defeatist, I don't mean it to be. I think that other modes of revolutionary activity are possible, and extremely preferable to arming a bunch of guys and having a go at the State directly. The organization of labour is the fundamental starting place, and a General Strike is a more powerful weapon in the hands of the left than twenty thousand Assault Rifles ever could be. Right now, labour organization is in shambles, so square one is to organize, especially with non-unionized low-wage workers. This is an increasingly large and pissed off segment of society, but there are few enough models of organization (OUR Walmart one example. However, although it is a noble effort, but it's goals are not exactly revolutionary: they just want some very basic rights that should have applied to Walmart workers in the first place.) The more that this is done in economic sectors that do not have existing unions, or even have never been unionized, the better.

Organization of labour is the obvious and only starting place. There must be a revolution, but its main weapons must be economic ones.