Revolution in the U.S.

[parecon3]

I would support any revolution that might come about in the U.S., but it is hard to assess whether it has the right conditions for revolution.

The first possibility would be to use the theory that Che had talked about making "2, 3, many vietnams" where the U.S. government would become so focused on protecting its capitalist and imperialist interests with its forces spread out to widely that it will fall eventually. After it collapses the Revolution would commence, or maybe some other country might colonize the U.S.(we can never tell).

The other possibility would be to start a revolution with what we have, but this would be very hard because most of the U.S. citizens are very ignorant and/or don't care that much about the U.S. governments long history of Oppression. If the soldiers of the military were to rise up in rebellion against the Pigs, then there would be significant weakening to start a guerrilla insurrection to overthrow the government.

Theres millions of different ways that we might go about overthrowing the capitalist pigs of this Empire, and doing so would release a huge burden off of those oppressed countries around the world.

What are your thoughts?

[APRandolph]

I don't think it's possible. A huge catastrophe, larger than WWII and the Great Depression, would have to occur. The 1930s was the closest we came. America is more powerful than the Roman Empire was at its peak. We have to work for revolutions where they are possible and do whatever it takes to preserve them from American attack. For instance, the populist revolution in Venezuela, and socialist/social-democratic revolutions occurring throughout Latin America in places like Ecuador, Bolivia, and perhaps Mexico in 2006 if Lopez isn't disqualified.
We need to do what we can where we can, and not have any delusions about what isn't possible.

[Synthesis of thought]

let me agree witht aht point, but heres my theory. people will come to realize the truth of what capitalism has done when the oil peaks soon, in about 5 years or less. it will peak, and when it does, the worlkd will fight over the oil reserves, which is why i think we are in iraq now. i think america knows that we are adicted to oil like cocaine and we are holind on to oil feilds like a crack fiend to his pipe. lol... that was sortza goofy. but i believe the entire world economy will collapse, and give way to the eprfect time to revolt. thats my view. capitalism is a powerfull machine, but a machine without control.
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/
a world economic collapse, and a return to a less individualistic, more communal society. my dream :)

[Vallegrande]

The first possibility would be to use the theory that Che had talked about making "2, 3, many vietnams" where the U.S. government would become so focused on protecting its capitalist and imperialist interests with its forces spread out to widely that it will fall eventually.

This is already under way in Iraq, where U.S. forces are already spread out and over-extended in force. Fallujah was one Vietnam, next is Mosul, etc. etc.

[ComradeChris]

They're on the decline economically. Countries like China and India are predicted to beat their GDP by 2040's. And if we take examples from Spain, to France, to Britain, and now the US (the leading imperialists from 1500's on in their respective order) the amount of time each stays on the top decreases. Something will happen I'm sure. Now however...I doubt it :( .

[NovelGentry]

We need to do what we can where we can, and not have any delusions about what isn't possible.

There is no dillusion if you've bothered to read the first chapter of the Communist manifesto. You can see much of the issues Marx talks about happening in our current society, issues which are slowly but definitely pushing the proletarians towards revolutionary thinking. It is our job as communists to help push this revolutionary thinking along by offering what we can in terms of information to discredit the lies our government spews and to promote proper education on the realities of the oppression.

What is quite strange when you look at the U.S. is that certain areas have given way to various stages of this revolutionary thinking, which can be accounted both to it's great size but also to the level of local law which can certainly affect the social conditions of a single state or even town alone.

In order to fully grasph how we should handle this a number of issues have to be looked at, rather than going into detail and posting here I suggest you just wait for my paper to come out, btw, I should note here that I've changed it's name... It is more like a book than a paper, still in it's infancy, but I plan to have it done within about 6 months from now.

The new name is:

Revolutionary Method
subtitled: Revolution and Communism in the U.S. and Other Advanced Capitalist Societies.

If you're a strong believer that it truly can't happen my book may not change your opinion, but I'm hoping it is a contribution that helps people look at the very real possibility at least for revolution in such societies.


people will come to realize the truth of what capitalism has done when the oil peaks soon, in about 5 years or less. it will peak, and when it does, the worlkd will fight over the oil reserves, which is why i think we are in iraq now.

This is a foolish argument for claiming possibility of a revolutionary proletariat in any country. It does nothing more than feed the already bourgeois war waged for the bourgeoisie by the proletariats, and will do little but pit workers in one part of the world against workers in another, particularly in a state like the U.S. where the large majority of the proletariat is still extremely reactionary.

What is more likely to happen is that out of this new forms of energy will emerge, not necessarily gracefully, but they will. From which the productive forces will outgrow, not only single isolated markets or broad national markets, but the entire world market. When these productive forces outgrow a market normally capitalists are forced to do two things as Marx points out: The first is the destruction of a mass of productive forces, and the second is to conquer new markets. Given that the world market is saturated by these new productive forces (not that this is instantaneous, it may take years with the new found forms of energy, but it will happen) then they are left with no choice but to destroy certain productive forces themself. This is where true imperialism and fascism can shine through, as now it is no longer one country pitted against another trying to "bring civilization to it" (aka: expand it's market in a place where no such market already exists) it will be country pitted against country to destroy each others productive forces and make one country submissive.

This is why I have said in the past that if revolution is not consistently tried when opportunity arrives we will see the destruction of the world before the inveitable collapse. Such wars would no question end with the destruction of the world. Thus it is imperitive that the working class becomes revolutionary BEFORE such a stage in our history occurs, although it is impossible to say that without a doubt they will, cause there is a doubt in some instances.

Just my two cents anyway.

Not to mention this seems extremely based on the idea that we're the only ones who know about the possibility of peak oil and the scientists who study it are doing nothing to help avoid such a scenario.

[Synthesis of thought]

You completly misread me my friend. i am not glorifying the squabling of capitalist imperialist powers over oil, i am saying tha tit will happen. and while they are the people will suffer, and when capitalism makes people suffer, they realize the abuses. this would be the breeding ground for a good socialist revolutiuon.. this revolution would take more responsibe control over the crisis. im not saying the imperialist s are good, what socialist do you take me for lol


and capitalists never gradualy do much of anything, its always in a bang or a crash it seems. a boom or bust if you will. right now we boom, when the oil demand increases and the oil supply starts to decrease, things will crash. when things crach, people suffer, people are poor. when the average american cannot afford heating, or transportation, his ears will hear the socialist message.

I am a utopian socialist/communist anyway. i am not a fan of big business and the likes, id prefere a federatin of small towns..


and to take marx's word as absolute truth is silly.he proposed a theory. to take it as all there is is no better then a right winger and the bible.


also as to your idea of such wars ending in the destruction of the world, i do not believe this is so. a large portion may be devestated, but it serves nobody to nuke everyone. the capitalists know better generaly.and they would have to destroy the entire surface of the livable planet, which i doubt will happen... evne if most of the citys in europe and north america and asia were detroyed, life would persist.. on a very primitive level.

i do not protest the idea of people getting in the streets and protesting now, before this happens. but at least in america, the people are saturated with nationalism and false patriotism and anti-socialism.. it will take something that shows them that this blanket of the flag and conservativism they cling to is hurting the planet and them to make them listen to us.

[NovelGentry]

i am saying tha tit will happen. and while they are the people will suffer, and when capitalism makes people suffer, they realize the abuses.

But before that they blame it on their fellow proletariat, which not everyone has surpassed yet. Ever hear computer workers saying "Son of a *****.... these people in India are taking our jobs left and right"... it is not the Indians who that anger should be targetted at. It takes some people only seconds to realize this (I would argue these people have already been introduced to revolutionary thinking or are inherently revolutionary to some degree), it can take other people years, for some people they will only realize it when the entireity of the industry has evaporated and they can only turn their blame on the company's for allowing it to happen.


this would be the breeding ground for a good socialist revolutiuon.

It would, but socialist revolution can occur with the majority of people being reactionary. It can even succeed with this, where it cannot succeed is in the post-revolution phases, which I consider to be part of the revolution itself, as revolution is more than just taking the means of production from the bourgeoisie, it is also putting them back into the hands of the proletariat (which some places fail to do).


im not saying the imperialist s are good

I'm not sure where I said you were. All I am saying is that such an occurance (no matter what economic harm it causes) is not necessarily the most apt time for a revolution, it would be more appropriate at a point where we can show capitalism is not sustainable based on the requirements of it (the need to constantly expand markets), not when it is collapsing because a resource that is currently the most feasable ways of obtaining energy is running out. ALL places, regardless of their socio-economic and political economic conditions will be hit when oil runs out -- it is simply the common energy to the world. Granted capitalist countries may use more, but that is because they produce a lot more and require a lot more workers moving from point A to point B in their cars. Marx makes it quite clear that revolution has in the past occured on the back of technological improvements which eventually outgrow their given political economy and must be "burst asunder," not on the back of technological failure which only creates a new market for the capitalists by creating newly necessary products, products which people will need to survive because oil not only runs our caars, it heats hour homes, and generates electricity. This is in essence an automated destruction of a mass of productive forces. It is destroying the whole mass of the old oil based productive forces, creating the possibility capitalism to start all over again and recreate a new market. The difference is, assuming we find a method for smarter, cleaner, reusable energy, the energy source may be effectively unlimitted, in which case technological advancement will increase in such huge leaps that the productive forces will have saturated the world market in no time.


his ears will hear the socialist message.

Justified by the reactionary reasoning of people saying "we can't let them do this to us!" Under such depression reactionary people don't care how things get better, only that they do, let's not push socialism for the wrong reasons here when people aren't ready. If indeed a capitalist walked up to such reactionary people who you think will hear the socialist message and said "Hey, I got a place you can work and earn some cash" they will take that offer, why? Because in such a decrepit market any job would basically guarantee something better than what no job will. With no one else in the market for energy, what little energy is left will not come at an insane cost. There is literally almost no demand for it, thus any supply becomes what would seem like an infinite supply to those who have money (because those are so few).


and to take marx's word as absolute truth is silly.he proposed a theory. to take it as all there is is no better then a right winger and the bible.

While Marx did propose a theory it is as scientific as it is philosophical, and hardly on the level of right wingers and the bible as the bible has no material fact. Marx's entire theory is based on the material conditions and the classes they create driving history. He not only shows this very well, but makes clear that this is upon what it is based by saying it directly.


but it serves nobody to nuke everyone

It doesn't have to serve anybody to nuke everyone, it only has to serve everyone to nuke somebody.


life would persist.. on a very primitive level.

Cancer ridden, mutated, and starving to death life. There's more to nukes than just the initial blast, and this only assumes nukes, no mention of possible chemical or biological weaponry which can be 50 times worse.


the people are saturated with nationalism and false patriotism and anti-socialism

This is just downright false, in fact at least have the nation is proved at the very least desensitized to this, since we only have 50% voter turnout, some of which (although it can be argued all of them) are actively disgusted with it and want change. Then among the other 50% you have a very socially aware, but still reactionary group who back democrats and the such. Like I said, these people are socially aware, just reactionary. Given this, we only see approx 25% of the population as being provable as holding these conservative values. Granted there could be more, but I'd say at the most 35%, which still gives us a decent majority if indeed we can educate the people to be revolutionary as opposed ot reactionary.

[Synthesis of thought]

point taken.. and you have time to put thought into this.. i do not, but when i do, we shall debate... adn also, socialism should be wantd for the right reasons you are right. those reasons could be realized as the people also are hurt by capitalism. one would not just say ehre have a job, thats not socialism. if we preach socialism and they like the idea in this time of need then they are accepting it for the right reasons i guess.


also about the false patriotism, um i live in the largest naval port in america. we hjave massive military people....so i guess i just see the realy dumb people more then others...do you know how many fucking W04 stickers i see..every..damn..day...and how many guys are like i vote bush because its american and we are fighting against evil. plus bush is a southern worker like me blah blah crap poop. like most places its kinda bad like that i bet, but here , where military pays a huge part of our economy, i see it alot mroe... and people are ractionary you are right... but most people always will be, im not sure its possible to mobilize the people into a massive revolutionary force. the must react into such a force i think... even teh octorber revolution was a reaction to mistreatment was it not, if it wasnt tell me, i havent read on it much. and the revolutoion in cuba was started by alarge number of revolutionaries, inciting reaction from the populace... if thats not true tell me talso..


and about the nuke thing.. what im saying is nobody is going to bomb some remote town thousands of miles from anything... so they will most likely survive.. and some coutries will not get involved... and i sincerely dont believe if economic collapse happend 7 years from now that all countries would wage that much of a war, i mean i think the us and china and some arab counties and north korea and india etc might get into it, but i dont know if like chile would get attacked or do any attacking... maybe im naive..i think the next big war will be center on iraq and the middle east.



but im with you on the revolutonary movement thing, im not waiting or anyhting, i make alot of propaganda and tell people i know and people i meet about the governments lies, im even planning to go protest W's inaugutarion.


oh and if half my words are spelled horrible, and nothing makes sense.. its because its late and ive been cramming all day and night...and still more to do

[NovelGentry]

even teh octorber revolution was a reaction to mistreatment was it not

Indeed, and those put in power from the october revolution then had to appeal to the reactionary demands of a rather large peasant farmer population. This is a defining reason why the New Economic Policy was necessary and in essence had reverted the USSR closer to capitalism. From this the peasantry became a petty bourgeoisie, controlling the means of a large percentage of the food production which later became a problem Stalin had to deal with. But this is in fact my point, when you are appealing to reactionaries the revolution never sheds completely the infleunce of reactionaries within the overall population. Unlike Russia and it's surrounding nations at the time, we have a majority of people who have the power to be revolutionary a true majority of working class poeple, not peasants, thus it is our duty to ensure that this majority not only becomes revolutionary, but that they are the foundation of the revolution and are able to carry it to it's ends within post-revolutionary society.