Invading the US and the UK.

[Hiero]

This topic has rarely been discussed, it has mostly been pushed aside as some radical Maoist ideology.

I didn't really take much notice of it, and thought that it would never come to invading the US and other imperialist nations. I always took it, that revolution would occur in the 3rd world. This would cause the Imperialist powers to lose all their bases for super profits. It would also result in the lose of it's major manufacturing base which is overseas (agriculture: 0.9% industry: 19.7% services: 79.4% (2004 est.) USA). So the ruling class would be forced to reinvest in industry to be able to produce what they lack. As people would lose their jobs in services. That would result in the lose of the middle class, and a growing proleteriat.

So i always believed that it would be best to leave the US to their own buisness and make sure they can never gain their imperialist powers again, buy keep watch on their military.

Comparing this to Nazi Germany, the Allies invaded Germany to completly destroy the Nazis. They also invaded to help rebuild, also for the Capitalists to gain economic growth there.

Many people on this forum claim the US is growing Fascist and is constantly moving to world domination. If this is true then looking at the facts, the US population hasn't been a great force in stoping US imperialism.

Some point to Vietnam, but this was a open war which faced a strong United resistance from the Veitnamese. Many people died from this war, the US could never win unless they were able to get more support to sacrifice US citizens.

The anti war movement during Vietnam, did not stop imperialism. The US just changed to a covert tactics, and made more gains in South America. Eventually South East Asia opened up to the Imperialist, apart from DPRK.

So while the US citizens can make a good impact against the Imperialist, they can not stop it. The Iraq war happen in 2003. In 2005 the US couldn't even vote out Bush. Thoose who did not vote for Bush voted for Kerry, who was never clear about being against the war. He was clear in his foreign policies for the intervention of Venezuela. So it was trading one imperialist venture for another.

If the US is going to become Fascist and make more wide scale invasions, then they are only naturally going to overextend. The 3rd world will eventually liberate themselves and grow to power. Is it not right for them to invade the USA.

I say yes, based on two reasons. Political and Internationalist.

1) To fully smash the Imperialist and make sure they lose all power. To allow socialism to grow.

2) To help build the industry that the US stop building when they shifted manual labour overseas.

Imainge at the end of WW2 if the Allies didn't invade Germany.

[sovietsniper]

I dont think any one could pull off a full-scale invasion of the united states. The u.s has the power to wipe out the would many times over. If just 1 missel base remains in the hands of the capitilists then its curtens for its enemys.

A revouluthion from withen is the only way to toppel the capitilist united states.

[redstar2000]

Well, they first face the daunting task of freeing themselves from U.S. occupation.

If they manage that and then wish to carry through the war against U.S. imperialism by attempting an invasion of the continental U.S., I see nothing "wrong" with that. From a military standpoint, it looks "impossible" at this point. But in the future, who can say what resistance an utterly demoralized mercenary army will still be capable of.

The casualties would be enormous...probably exceeding those of World War II by an order of magnitude or more. 700,000,000 or more people might die in such a conflict.

If that's what it takes to put an end to the greatest evil in modern history, then future generations might well enthusiastically affirm that "it was worth it!".

Those who live through it might well echo the sentiments of John Brown -- "I knew it would take blood...but I didn't know it would take so much blood."

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:52 PM
I dont think any one could pull off a full-scale invasion of the united states. The u.s has the power to wipe out the would many times over. If just 1 missel base remains in the hands of the capitilists then its curtens for its enemys.

A revouluthion from withen is the only way to toppel the capitilist united states.
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) seems to rule out a direct invasion of the USA. Only revolutions based on Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution can take things forward. The US has the most powerful army on Earth, but we must remember that this powerful army cannot keep a large population that resents it down. Iraq is proof of this.

A successful revolution in any nation, even backward, sends shockwaves all over the world. The capitalists of the world probably wet themselves in fear on November 7, 1917. We are living in the most turbulent times in recent history, and the conditions are maturing for revolution and such. There is an anti-capitalist kernel contained in even the most basic anti-Bush sentiment.

We (and the Borugeoisie of the world as well!) also know that communism is not dead. If it were really dead, then why would the capitalists even bother spending so much time and money on anti-Marxist textbooks and such?

[Master Che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:53 PM
Well, they first face the daunting task of freeing themselves from U.S. occupation.

If they manage that and then wish to carry through the war against U.S. imperialism by attempting an invasion of the continental U.S., I see nothing "wrong" with that. From a military standpoint, it looks "impossible" at this point. But in the future, who can say what resistance an utterly demoralized mercenary army will still be capable of.

The casualties would be enormous...probably exceeding those of World War II by an order of magnitude or more. 700,000,000 or more people might die in such a conflict.

If that's what it takes to put an end to the greatest evil in modern history, then future generations might well enthusiastically affirm that "it was worth it!".

Those who live through it might well echo the sentiments of John Brown -- "I knew it would take blood...but I didn't know it would take so much blood."

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
What he said.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Turn the cable and satellite tv off for a few months in the USA, and maybe my fellow Americans would pull thier heads out of their asses and get pissed off. The USA needs a second revolution desperatly.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:23 AM
It would also result in the lose of it's major manufacturing base which is overseas (agriculture: 0.9% industry: 19.7% services: 79.4% (2004 est.) USA).
And yet the U.S. is the world's largest agricultural exporter. Which should restrain you from jumping to the conclusion, based on those figures (what are they measuring anyway? 0.9% of what?), that the U.S.'s "major manufacturing base is overseas."

If that was true, U.S. domination of the world economy would already be a thing of the past. In reality, it is only certain industries, mostly light and labor-intensive like garment and textile, which have mostly moved overseas.


Many people on this forum claim the US is growing Fascist and is constantly moving to world domination.

Those people are idiots. The U.S. is a bourgeois democracy which already dominates the world, has dominated it for decades, and is gradually losing that domination.


The 3rd world will eventually liberate themselves and grow to power. Is it not right for them to invade the USA.

Only if they enjoy being nuked.

Nor is the 3rd world going to develop the level of economic and military power that would be necessary....as long as capitalism continues to be the world's dominant economic system. There is no realistic prospect of any country or likely combination of countries surpassing U.S. military power.

A revolution in the USA is absolutely necessary to the victory of the world revolution. If the totally superficial reasons you've given, have convinced you that such a revolution is impossible.....then you might as well give up on the world revolution too.

[drain.you]

Anyone else believe Europe will be the next super power, if so, where would that leave the US?

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 06:02 PM
Anyone else believe Europe will be the next super power, if so, where would that leave the US?
Yes, it looks that way.

It would leave the USA in a deep depression and I would guess fascism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 10:23 AM
Many people on this forum claim the US is growing Fascist and is constantly moving to world domination. If this is true then looking at the facts, the US population hasn't been a great force in stoping US imperialism.

Some point to Vietnam, but this was a open war which faced a strong United resistance from the Veitnamese. Many people died from this war, the US could never win unless they were able to get more support to sacrifice US citizens.

The anti war movement during Vietnam, did not stop imperialism. The US just changed to a covert tactics, and made more gains in South America. Eventually South East Asia opened up to the Imperialist, apart from DPRK.

So while the US citizens can make a good impact against the Imperialist, they can not stop it. The Iraq war happen in 2003. In 2005 the US couldn't even vote out Bush. Thoose who did not vote for Bush voted for Kerry, who was never clear about being against the war. He was clear in his foreign policies for the intervention of Venezuela. So it was trading one imperialist venture for another.

If the US is going to become Fascist and make more wide scale invasions, then they are only naturally going to overextend. The 3rd world will eventually liberate themselves and grow to power. Is it not right for them to invade the USA.

I say yes, based on two reasons. Political and Internationalist.

1) To fully smash the Imperialist and make sure they lose all power. To allow socialism to grow.

2) To help build the industry that the US stop building when they shifted manual labour overseas.

Imainge at the end of WW2 if the Allies didn't invade Germany.
This argument is taking "the US is Fascist" argument (made by liberals in the US and "lefter-than-thou" comrades on this forum) to its logical conclusion. This is why the argument "the US is fascist" is incorrect and a "short-cut" as opposed to a marxist analysis.

It would be wise to read up on some German history if you want to compare the US to NAZI germany. I think it is impressionistic to view the US working class in this way:

1) there is a difference between a working population in an imperilist countiry which does not at the moment seem to be able to stop imperilaism and Germans in NAZI germany. You can't have anti-war protests in fascism... the US has had some of the biggest protests since Vietnam.

Advocating an invasion of the US on the grounds that the US population is "bought-out" is simply a shortcut and immature impatience with reality. THe German population was "bought-out" before WWI and the majore socialist party in Europe was in Germany and advocating a social-democrat view of achieving socialism, but a few years later, the German working class was (aside from the Russian workers) the most radical in Europe and engaging in attempted revolutions, huge strikes, insurrections and so on.

Consiousness changes and we need to try and take advantage of this and organize people who are coming to anti-capitalist/ anti-imperilaist conclusions. If you were watching the police use fire hoses against civil rights people in 1958, it would be easy to make a similar argument about the US being too right-wing, but 10 years later huge numbers of people had become anti-imperialist and identified with movements like the Black Panthers and so on.

2) An invasion of the US would not promote socialism in the US since at best it would be an "imposed" socialism which is as valid as the US's imposed "democracy" in Iraq. At worst an invasion of the US would only end up serving to give more power to imperial competators of the US like the European powers.


The US government needs to be stopped and it's good we are discussing what it will take. In my view "invasion" is not the best way to achive either of the two goals of smashing imperialism/promoting socialsim.

The US working class may seem "bought-out" right now, but this is simply impressionism. Do US workers really have an intrest in seeing US imperialism win? Do us workers benifit from capitalism? I'd say no on both counts and add that US workers have fought back against both of these things in US history and will again. We need to be organizing and building thoes struggles, not dreaming about someone or some other imperialist coming along and getting rid of the problems for us.

A revolution in Latin America would have a huge impact on consiousness of people in the imperialist countries. Any attacks against this revolution by the US would expose the class divisions within the US as many workers here do identify with Latin Americans (even if it's on a moral level and not yet a class-solidarity level). After the Russian revolution there was a huge strike-wave in the European powers and the US including a general strike in Seattle... a revolution in Latin America would undoubtedly increase the pace of workers struggles in the US as well as the confidence of workers in their ability to fight for an alternative. The lack of an alternative is what holds back worker/ anti-imperialist struggles in the US, not the workers being bought-off.

You bring up the election... you seem to think that because there was no anti-war voice running for president in either of the two pro-corporate parties that this is a true reflection of the people in the US... you need to take a closer look at what electoral politics looks like in the US: it's basically a one-party state with two name-brands.

[TC]

An economically superior socialist state (such as the PRC might be mid 21st century) wouldn't *need* to invade the United States to destroy it, it would simply need to escelate an arms race to the point that the US economy could not keep the pace (being smaller)...leaving the United States vulnerable to political, economic and military threats from the inside...similar to the way the Soviet Union was defeated in the cold war.

In other words a larger socialist state or set of socialist states could apply the same strategy to the United States and the US did to the Soviet Union in the cold war...an actual invasion wouldn't be needed.

Since the US economy is imperialistic it is even more vunerable then the Soviet Union's and wouldn't handle competition as well since its size is grossly disproportional to its actual level of domestic production as a huge portion of its assets are overseas...assets which would presumably be lost in such a scenario where the socialist camp could outspend the US in the third world. In fact existing socialist states such as the PRC, B.R. Venezuela, could on their own cause terrible economic damage on the US by selling their stores of US currency and appropriating their assets in the case of China and in cutting off oil shipments in the case of Venezuela...but they wouldn't do something like that at this point since their economies still aren't large enough to pull it off and not end up worse then the US's.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by OglachMcGlinchey+Oct 25 2005, 06:56 PM--> (OglachMcGlinchey @ Oct 25 2005, 06:56 PM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 06:02 PM
Anyone else believe Europe will be the next super power, if so, where would that leave the US?
Yes, it looks that way.

It would leave the USA in a deep depression and I would guess fascism. [/b]
How does it look that way? It doesn't seem like the quality of life in Europe is growing all that much more than the US. I think it will be China, India, and possibly Brazil. That is, from a capitalist standpoint.

[Hiero]

The US has the most powerful army on Earth, but we must remember that this powerful army cannot keep a large population that resents it down. Iraq is proof of this.

The invasion is of course after the 3rd world liberate themselves from US imperialism.


This argument is taking "the US is Fascist" argument (made by liberals in the US and "lefter-than-thou" comrades on this forum) to its logical conclusion. This is why the argument "the US is fascist" is incorrect and a "short-cut" as opposed to a marxist analysis.


Im not claiming the US is fascist, im saying that some people say that. People who do, should support an invasion of the US after 3rd world revolution.

However we should never doubt that the US will become Fascists. It may very well to reclaim lost markets in a socialist revolution


but 10 years later huge numbers of people had become anti-imperialist

As i said before this is not the case. Many people have become anti-war. Voting for Kerry does not make you anti imperialist.

The Communist Parties have failed to make anti imperialism movements, thats the task they now face in the US.


2) An invasion of the US would not promote socialism in the US since at best it would be an "imposed" socialism which is as valid as the US's imposed "democracy" in Iraq. At worst an invasion of the US would only end up serving to give more power to imperial competators of the US like the European powers.

It would supply the working class with the military and ideological means to defeat the vast amount of reactionaries.


A revolution in Latin America would have a huge impact on consiousness of people in the imperialist countries. Any attacks against this revolution by the US would expose the class divisions within the US as many workers here do identify with Latin Americans (even if it's on a moral level and not yet a class-solidarity level).

This may have been true for the 1917 revolution as you say, though during the 1949 Chinese revolution and 1959 Cuban revolution this did little to inspire the US population.


You bring up the election... you seem to think that because there was no anti-war voice running for president in either of the two pro-corporate parties that this is a true reflection of the people in the US... you need to take a closer look at what electoral politics looks like in the US: it's basically a one-party state with two name-brands.

Is this meant to help your arguement?


Nor is the 3rd world going to develop the level of economic and military power that would be necessary....as long as capitalism continues to be the world's dominant economic system.

The USSR built up as a world power.


If the totally superficial reasons you've given, have convinced you that such a revolution is impossible.....

The main reason is there never has been a revolution, or any motivation to revolution in the US is a good reason to believe its no going to happen.

On the other hand, the 3rd world has show great ability to revolution, change in class control over the means of production and industrialisation as far as possible and as far as USSR Social imperialism allowed them.

The 3rd world can rise and take back what the US gains super profits off. If it comes to the position where the new Socialist bloc must invade to finally stop US imperialism and to stop the chaos that would follow the collapse of the US empire, then all communist should support this.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Here is another thread where the real question seems to be is the working class in the US and Europe bought-off; do they benifit from imperilalism in such a way that makes them an anti-revolutionary force rather than the agents and benificiaries of revolution?

I don't believe so because a higher standard of living only covers up the basic contradictions and instability of capitalism. If US and EU workers are bought off, I haven't read any convincing arguments as to why these workers will never rebel.

If you agree that US and UK workers still do have revolutionary potential, then we should be discussing how to organize and help these workers make radical conclusions from the inequality and injustice of their daily lives rather than if some army could invade them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 04:26 AM
...


but 10 years later huge numbers of people had become anti-imperialist

As i said before this is not the case. Many people have become anti-war. Voting for Kerry does not make you anti imperialist.In the early 70s, US people were not anti-imperialist?

Yes, most of the anti-war movement today is not anti-imperilaist and is split on questions about Palistine or bringing in the UN to continue the occupation instead of the US. But the movement is very young but is very large compared to the anti-vietnam movements at the same stage during vietnam.

Of corse voting for Kery does not make you anti-imperilaist. But why did people vote for Kerry - simply because he wasn't Bush, not because he was pro-war. I wouldn't hold my breath to wait for one of the two corporate parties in the US to come up with an anti-imperialist candidate. Besides what does your argument say for the UK where the labor PM is the warmonger? Does that mean labor in the UK is pro-war? You seem to suggest that parties in capitalist countries are a true reflection of the ideas of the people rather than a force for constraing and corralling the ideas of working people.


This may have been true for the 1917 revolution as you say, though during the 1949 Chinese revolution and 1959 Cuban revolution this did little to inspire the US population.Well these revolutions were different since they were made by "revolutionary/nationalist" armies or gurella fighters rather than rebelling workers and soldiers. But even so, what were the main radical groups in the 60s and 70s... they were all maoist inspired from the Black Panthers to radical anti-war groups!


The USSR built up as a world power.Yeah, at the expense of workers power.


The main reason is there never has been a revolution, or any motivation to revolution in the US is a good reason to believe its no going to happen.No motivation? Do the contradictions of capitalism mystically rectify themselves when you cross the border to the US? I think not. Just look at the Communist Party in the 30s or the Populaist movement or May day itself (started in the US)!

If our rulers were not afraid of the potential of revolution from US workers why would there have been red scares and Mccarthyism and repression against the panthers and so on and so on?

[Colombia]

What one must take into account is the amount of goods available to people living in the US. The USA currently owns 50% of the world's wealth and compared with the rest of the world is a paradise. Now seeing that they have so much, why would they want to give up the system that has given it to them? The people don't realize how they are exploited because of the amount of wealth they have as a whole.

If the people were to ever have another revolution, I hardly doubt it would be socialist in nature but simply a rebellion in order to turn the ever oppressive government back to it's relatively calm self.

[Sid the Sloth]

Y does Revalution have 2 b violent y cant u win power democraticaly

Then destroy the goverment from the inside like hitler did but insted of makin ita facist nation make it a fair communist one .thats wot america needs invading america would give them an exuse 2 take over the majorty of the world by say that the countrys they invade were potetial enemys and must be destroyed

makin them more powerful and even less chane of revelution violantly or democratically
=D

[Axel1917]

A bit on the so-called argument for the US becoming Fascist:

Where is the mass basis for Fascism in the USA? Historically, Fascism's basis was a large Petty-Bourgeois class, but the natural course of capitalism has made the Petty-Bourgeois a very small class in today's world. I would argue that if the masses ended up failing to take power in the USA that the US would become Bonapartist, not Fascist.