Is America Ready for Revolution?

[Bored77]

Hey, I'm new to this forum. I identify with anarchism as well as communism but im not really sold on either, simply due to the fact that as I look at our brothers and sisters chained to their ipods consuming all this ibullshit in their khakis and gap sweaters still stinking of sweat and blood from the 8 year old kids pumping these things out, I wonder if it will ever happen. Another point I think a lot about is that the oppressed and poor and starving of the world want to come here. Fuck being equal and fair and voting they want to be rich and fat and stupid like every other cog in this big "American Dream" machine. Am I to really believe that revolution is possible? I know im not the sharpest tool in the shed so take it easy on me. Im just a angry ass leftist looking for hope and a leader.

Bored77

[Vanguard1917]

I identify with anarchism as well as communism but im not really sold on either, simply due to the fact that as I look at our brothers and sisters chained to their ipods consuming all this ibullshit in their khakis and gap sweaters still stinking of sweat and blood from the 8 year old kids pumping these things out, I wonder if it will ever happen.

Revolution is more likely to happen if there exists a more serious revolutionary agenda. Fashionable, middle class "anti-consumerism" nonsense can never be such an agenda.

[Commie Rat]

Am I to really believe that revolution is possible?

Certainly


I know im not the sharpest tool in the shed so take it easy on me

That is what the learning forum is for, and most mebers will kindly point out mistakes without too much flaming.


Im just a angry ass leftist looking for hope and a leader

Being young and angry can be good and bad, be careful not to be too nieve.
This whole movement is based on hope.
Leaders are a terrible idear, learn and exist on your own, is to have a communist tell you what to do and think all day any better then a capitalist?

[C_Rasmussen]

I dont know how well a revolution would be for the leftists of the US. I mean we'd be up against numerous law enforcement agencies and possibly the military. The US armed forces would be the downfall of the revolutionarys.

[Tekun]

Well the material conditions are ready, industrialization and such

But, as far as class consciousness goes, this country is way behind its Euro counterparts, from what I've read
They're content with the current state of their labor aristocracy
In addition, they're lulled to sleep by what their politicians promise them through that false sense of democracy

However, only through action and the spread of info can we hope to prepare the proletariat in this country
We have to reach those that are ready for change, those that are fed up, those that are exploited
One good choice would be the immigrants that are marching out there, I know Im trying to reach them

Yet IMO, I rather work with those in the weakest link of the system of imperialism, in other words countries such as Haiti, Nepal, Bolivia, and many African nations would be more willing to adopt and promote socialism due to their dire surroundings

Although, the ppl themselves would have to be put in power instead of creating a vanguard party that in the past has demonstrated its weakness towards corruption

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Bored77
Is America ready for revolution?

Clearly not. We might be talking about the end of this century before a revolution becomes a practical option.

But consider this. An outfit called World Public Opinion asked a bunch of people in different countries whether they agreed or disagreed with this statement:

The free enterprise system and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world.

Believe it or not, 24% of Americans disagreed!

Imagine! Right in the midst of the "Final Triumph of Capitalism", nearly a quarter of the citizens of "the Greatest Empire in History" were having none of it!

More discussion of this poll here...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48511

So, don't despair over what you just happen to see around you at the moment...things are going to change.

A lot more than most people anticipate. :D

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

[violencia.Proletariat]

chained to their ipods consuming all this ibullshit in their khakis and gap sweaters

Thats right no ipod's after the revolution! These objects and people wanting them are not the problem, the problem is the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeois.

[More Fire for the People]

No. American is not ready for the revolution. The objective prerequisites of a revolution are either stagnation of economic development, the ‘brutalization’ of the means of production — fascism, libertarianism, etc., political despotism in a backwards country — i.e. capitalism cannot develop as a bourgeois revolution is too late, or any combination of these.

There are definite ‘subjective’ prerequisites of a revolution but I have yet to understand them. I am still in the process of reading up on psychology and class conscioussness.

[Ol' Dirty]

Nope. Things are way too cushy here. We've got everything we'll ever need and more. People are so desensitized to everthing that's going on, it's really sickening. :( Revolution ain't gonna happen any time soon. Sorry.

[piet11111]

if things keep going like they are now then it will be the end of this century at best.
but thanks to bush & company the chances for economical disaster are bigger then ever.
and we all know how pissed people get when their wallets are hurting and then change is inevitable.

fortunatly im a european and the revolution is more likely to happen here first.
who knows how far things are already the capitalists are doing their best to keep reality away from us so perhaps we will see the american empire collapsing just as suddenly as the ussr.

[Cheung Mo]

IF there is a "revolution" in the U.S. anytime soon, it will be a theocratic revolution that will make things exponentially worse than they already are.

[вор в законе]

IF there is a "revolution" in the U.S. anytime soon, it will be a theocratic revolution that will make things exponentially worse than they already are.


This was a very interesting assertion.

America's increasingly laissez-faire economic policy and the absence of a significant democratic-''socialist'' (aka reformist) party are two extremely important developments.

To quote San Carlos :

"But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade."
-Karl Marx, On Free Trade

This will result to a depression and a revolutionary situation.

But this alone doesn't mean anything. Furthermore nothing guarantees that a possible revolution will be a communist revolution. It can very easily turn into a religious or a nationalist ''revolution'' of some opportunists.

[Cheung Mo]

Marx's definition of free trade is obviously very different from the definition used by the corporate globalists and the neo-liberal elite.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 14 2006, 06:37 PM
IF there is a "revolution" in the U.S. anytime soon, it will be a theocratic revolution that will make things exponentially worse than they already are.
an american theocracy can only push the proletarians into a revolutionary position.
besides religion is pretty dead in europe so when our revolution comes we can play hardball with your christian facists.

i have first call on rush limbaugh !!

[Rawthentic]

well, there's Maoist peoples wars and others going on such as Nepal, India, etc., but I wouldnt call them communist revolutions, they're more of national libertaion that would transend into capitalism or that decrepit Leninism. Yeah, revolution in the US would be in 50-90 years i would say, but one can never be sure. From what redstar said about 24% of Americans agreeing that the free trade system is the best in the world, that says alot in itself and how much we're fucked here. If the communist revoolution in the EU, im going over there.

A theocratic or nationalist seems the more likely in the meanwhile, seeing the current polarization in society where the christian fascists are taking more and more control of the ruling class. Slowly, but surely. Hey Piet, if you get Limbaugh, then I get first stab at Pat Roberston! :P

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Let's think about the revolution's funding for a sec. How would we get money to hire recruits? buy Arms? keep order? fortify strategic positions? All leftist revolutions have done italian mob style shit and fored people to pay them for protection, or sold drugs. That's bad so what would we do?

[violencia.Proletariat]

How would we get money to hire recruits?

Hire recruits? This isn't a mercenary army it's revolution. Any people's forces would be all volunteer. The counter-revolutionaries of course would hire mercenaries.


buy Arms?

If America is good for one thing it's the number of gunshops. No money necessary.


keep order?

What order? The workers qill have their councils to keep production going, community organizations to keep the neighborhoods functioning and the peoples militia to combat attacks.


All leftist revolutions have done italian mob style shit and fored people to pay them for protection

What history have you been reading? We are speaking of a communist revolution, not a third world guerilla army.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Hire recruits? This isn't a mercenary army it's revolution. Any people's forces would be all volunteer. The counter-revolutionaries of course would hire mercenaries.

Ok I see your point. But wouldn't they out number us if thye hired people?


If America is good for one thing it's the number of gunshops. No money necessary.


What about in places where guns are highly restricted like lets say New York which is abundant in revolutionaries who want change but there is no mean of doing so.

Besides are you suggesting a hold up of the gun store? It would be hard.


What order? The workers qill have their councils to keep production going, community organizations to keep the neighborhoods functioning and the peoples militia to combat attacks.


Ok This is good.



What history have you been reading? We are speaking of a communist revolution, not a third world guerilla army.

I've been reading Che Guevara's biography. This is just the way that revolutions have been run in the past. War needs money especially if we're to fight US Army troops who are funnded with over 300 billion dollars per year. No baseball bats and crowbars are gonna kill these guys.

[321zero]

There's not too much point in making guesses about how many decades or centuries capitalism can carry on in the 'States or in the world.

The objective material conditions are overripe in the 'first world' and imperialism tends to retard further economic development elsewhere inn the world. So the question becomes political really. If the class consciousness was there then a socialist revolution would be on the agenda immediately. How do we boost that 24% of market skeptics Redstar speaks of into a majority of conscious anti-capitalists?

If patient explanation is the only method considered then sure, maybe it will take till the end of the century. However look at the turmoil produced in the US by their war in Vietnam, and the (temporary) damage to the confidence of the US ruling class...

The position of the US at the top of the imperialist heap means that it is constantly involving itself in Vietnam-like interventions. A Vietnam era slogan went "one, two, many Vietnams!" Just how many such successive defeats could the US handle before the pro-capitalist consensus was fatally damaged? Maybe not so many.

War breeds revolution, in particular defeat in war breeds revolution. War is endemic to capitalism - they'll dig the grave, we have to be ready to snatch the shovel and deliver the coup de grace.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Ok I see your point. But wouldn't they out number us if thye hired people?

This would be a revolution, meaning a very very large majority 80-90% of the proletariat would rise up. No mercenary army could defeat that. They would not be able to draft the proletariat either.


What about in places where guns are highly restricted like lets say New York which is abundant in revolutionaries who want change but there is no mean of doing so.

They can take them from police stations? Who knows, they will be sent arms if need be from other parts of the country. This won't be a "civil war" at least not initially.


Besides are you suggesting a hold up of the gun store? It would be hard.

No thats not what I'm suggesting, I'm suggesting that the community vote to reposses a gun store. They delegate people to go there, make a supply list and distribute the arms to the workers militias.


This is just the way that revolutions have been run in the past.

IN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES.


War needs money especially if we're to fight US Army troops who are funnded with over 300 billion dollars per year.

By the time proletarian revolution in America comes about, I doubt the US army would have any significant ammount of people willing to fight against the revolution. The army is not made up of bourgeoisie, but proletarians.


No baseball bats and crowbars are gonna kill these guys.

We probably won't have to fight them in any significant number.

[321zero]

an american theocracy can only push the proletarians into a revolutionary position.

First Rush Limbaugh, then us? I don't think this is a good stratagy!

On the question of armed force, well my stuff about war breeding revolution is relevant. Also if the professional army is too resistant to revolutionary propaganda and cannot be split in a big way, then maybe National Gaurd units will form the backbone of the US Red Army. Yay for the second amendment!

[OneBrickOneVoice]

This would be a revolution, meaning a very very large majority 80-90% of the proletariat would rise up. No mercenary army could defeat that. They would not be able to draft the proletariat either.

They can take them from police stations? Who knows, they will be sent arms if need be from other parts of the country. This won't be a "civil war" at least not initially.

No thats not what I'm suggesting, I'm suggesting that the community vote to reposses a gun store. They delegate people to go there, make a supply list and distribute the arms to the workers militias.

This is just the way that revolutions have been run in the past.

IN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES.

War needs money especially if we're to fight US Army troops who are funnded with over 300 billion dollars per year

By the time proletarian revolution in America comes about, I doubt the US army would have any significant ammount of people willing to fight against the revolution. The army is not made up of bourgeoisie, but proletarians.


We probably won't have to fight them in any significant number.


This wouldn't happen in our life time. The capitalists would make sure. It'd have to be during a Great depression where almost every one is protaleriat. The only way I could see if happening in the next 50 years would be a Cuban Che Guevara style revolution.

[Horatii]

On the question of armed force, well my stuff about war breeding revolution is relevant. Also if the professional army is too resistant to revolutionary propaganda and cannot be split in a big way, then maybe National Gaurd units will form the backbone of the US Red Army. Yay for the second amendment!

Then Comrade, all we need to do is start mass murdering all that oppose us!

[Orange Juche]

The fact that theres that 24% has made me happier than I've been in a very long time.

It has given me a level of optimism which I have never had! Yes, its still a small amount, but it is FAR larger than I would have expected. It gives me more hope that revolution... whether in my generation or the next... seems quite likely X-D

[вор в законе]

of the US Red Army.

I like the way it sounds. :cool:

[phragit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 04:33 AM
Am I to really believe that revolution is possible?

Bored77
See Trotsky's essay "Should America Go Communist" its verry good

[MurderInc]

Hi,

I'm going to respond to this but this is my first time here, and I don't have much to base things on other than my opinions. You can call what I write bs, but it's just my POV.

America is not ready for revolution (socialist) becuase of the following reasons:

1. The current generation in power (those above 40) have vivid ideas of what leftist revolutions brought about throughout the past 100 years. Whether or not you believe the Soviet Union, China, or Angola are/were communist, it doesn't matter. These jokers have pretty much wrecked it for socialism, and set it back a good generation or two. It doesn't matter how many political and economic prisoners capitalism has created, it's nothing compared to what "State Socialist" nations did to their people. Millions dead, millions in prison, millions without any kind of good life at all.

Conclusion: Only when people under 30 today are in power can there be such a revolution. We see everyone fed in Cuba and Vietnam, sports figures in socialist countries not crying about not getting 18 million a year, and the richest country in the world not having medical coverage for 1/4 of their people.

2. Anyone ever read the Declaration of Independence? Jefferson wrote that the purpose of government is to secure rights for people that will, in general, make them happy, or at least pursue happiness. This is not an oversimplistic view of the world, but the heart of any issue. I have to believe that at the heart of my revolutionary actions is an end where I will "be more happy" than I am about government and society, otherwise, I won't follow a revolution.

Conclusion: In my opinion, Americans will accept a revolution where there is an end to ANY government more than they would a represive socialist one. This is almost like an anarchy, and I know many here are anarchists, but the strong would, under our current lifestyles, overpower the weak in such a situation. But if the government becomes too oppresive, people would accept anarchy over a "socialist" leader with a lot of charisma, becuase they would tend not to trust such a person.

3. Young people in America today are nearly stupid. Period. Public education does not have the power to make anyone do anything about learning. My peers, for the most part, care only about parties and avoiding any responsibility. Many HATE school. Literally. Because they don't see the point to it.

Conclusion: There are these green pieces of paper with Ben Franklin on them. As long as people have access to them, there will be no revolution. When an increasingly smaller number of people have access to them, there will be a movement toward revolution. If this occurs, everyone will have lived through or have a story about their parents losing their home or their friends parents losing their home. If that happens, people will reach for their guns and eventually you will have at least a revolt.

4. It is interesting that a large number of Americans love being Americans. Regardless of leftist history or what the world thinks. Ultimately, I believe that people would have to give up their love of being Americans. But ever since you are 3 or 4, you learn to love America, in a way that France, or China, or Mexico don't do with their kids.

Conclusion: For the majority to not enjoy being Americans is a pretty neat trick. Bush is doing more to cause this than anyone else. But there will be a new president in 2009, and this person (it may even be a woman this time around) might go a long way to change the current climate. Many who read this will argue that you can love America and hate the government/financial system. Of course this is true, but in America it's harder, becuase the two, government and country, are so linked to one another.

M.I.

[VukBZ2005]

My personal opinion is that right now there are too many variables at work to make a educated, real communist guess of what is actually happening in America today. If one wants to understand the reason why I said that, then one must see the situation in a material perspective and in a psychological perspective.

{to be edited...}

[Jesus Christ!]

A revolution were conditions are much more, such as the third world, seems more like for succesful revolutions than here in the U.S.

[Valmont]

I personally don't think a Castro/Guevara/Lenin- style revolution is going to take place any time soon, either. The masses are too comfortable, too fat, and too darned (politically) stupid to know that they are committing slow suicide by bit taking their destiny in their hands. "As long I get my MTV I'm okay..."

Another ting to think about, as has been pointed out, is the military. Individual members may 'defect' to a revlutionary struggle, but by and large they will stick together and follow the government's lead. Why? Simple- they know where their paychecks and benefots are coming from! Why would they, of all people, want to smash the government that feeds them? Besides, most of the older NCO's and Officers were brought during the Cold War years and are thoroughly politicized against ANYTHING remotely resembling Communism; unfortunately on the face of it there's not much difference between an Anarchist mob and a Communist mob- to them, you'll just be targets.

Financing is another issue as well- unless somebody really hits a good lottery, money is going to have to come from YOUR pockets to buy beans and bullets- not to mention all the other impedimenta that even the most rudimentary soldiers need to operate. Of course, if you turn to robbery to finance things, you will automatically gain another set of enemies in the law-and-order crowd- and usually they ALREADY have guns and are generally not afriad to use them.

The revolution will not- CANNOT- take place in the streets amid gunfire and/or angry mobs wit torches and pitchforks. To let it go that route invites certain disaster through sheer disorganization.

To advance a successful revolutionary agenda in the US, a real honest-to-goodness political party is required; one that operates totally legally and has the strength to elect local, state, and national leaders. Of course, it's so difficult to start a new Party these days and live to see it function, but unless you join and 'hijack' an existing party it's just not going to go down.

[MurderInc]

Valmont, two comments:

1. I agree with you that (despite this forum being dedicated to revolution), the U.S. just may one day use the current Democratic party to make a serious turn to the left. It's bound to happen. One day the Dems will support universal health care and a minimum wage of living standards. Usually third parties are eaten up by the big two. But this may be far afield from a communist revolution.

2. I disagree with your assessment regarding the military. Since 1775 they have followed civilian authority and, relative to their numbers, a nearly non-existant amount of them have ever deserted or refused an order. When McArthur was fired they didn't revolt; when Carter didn't properly keep them funded they didn't revolt. There is no historical basis for the notion that they'll follow who ever pays them (Congress pays them, by the way, not the President), and you will notice that even though President Bush rattled sabres more than any other President since Teddy Roosevelt, plenty of them are not happy about his being Commander In Chief.


But Point No. 1 is very interesting...Can you have a democratically voted in revolution? Most here would say no. I'm not sure myself if you could get socialism by voting. Most people get afraid when the vote, rather than vote for a positive future.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ!@Apr 19 2006, 12:37 AM
A revolution were conditions are much more, such as the third world, seems more like for succesful revolutions than here in the U.S.
if you completely ignore the difference between what a third world peasant considers unbearable and a first world proletarian considers unbearable then you would be right.

and it is here where an advanced proletariats importance to the revolution is becoming obvious.

in the first world the proletariat as a labour class is absolutely neccessary for capitalism to work without us there would be no capitalism this is how we are able to make demands.
in the third world there is no advanced capitalist society as most still are self providing peasants that sell their leftovers on the market for a little bit of money.
there is no need for an advanced labour class in the third world and because of that there is no advanced labour class there and a communist revolution is impossible.

but in the first world we are reaching the end of the line capitalism cant make any concessions anymore to us if they are to remain profitable.
in the netherlands poeple are fired by the hundreds (and the economy is actually growing according to the statistics !!!) and factory's are being closed.
this process will gain momentum like a snowball going down the hill untill its either stopped because of something or untill the proletariat overthrows capitalism.

why would they overthrow capitalism ?
because the chances of becoming jobless are very high and the costs of living are exploding to the point where nobody can afford anything anymore.

[Dreckt]

In my own opinion, I think that America needs a little more punch in the right direction. Yesterday I read an article about the poor people in Western Virginia (I think (?)), but they looked to religion for their salvation. I think this is a problem in America today.

For people to realize the flaw of capitalism they need to feel this flaw. More people have to be poor, to live in bad conditions. If it continues, people will naturally realize that maybe this system is not what they want.

A revolution is probably more likely to happen in a Third World country, but it "should" happen in the First World first, because if a revolution happens there, the Third World can have their revolutions without the fear of invasion by stronger states.

[Bored77]

I'd like to speak to some of the things that Nate has said about 80-90% of the proletariat coming out to fight and that in a time of revolution the people would sit down and vote fairly and peacefully to reposses the gun shops. I dont believe any of this is very likely. If 100% of the country believed it was time for change I dont believe even 60% would favor a violent means of change and if they did would sit down to discuss means of organizing and arming. The guerilla movements this world has seen have been small and poorly run. What wins it is the determination and passion of the few that fight. Although I disagree with the tactics being used by Palestinians, I agree with their fight. Am I going to fight for them? No. Any army that is willing to fight and die for a new world is going to have to do just that. Fight and die. Guns will not be handed out. We will never EVER have 80-90% support from any country or group. Thats never been and it will never be

[Janus]

I think that it will take quite some more time in order for this to occur. The current belief that radical leftism=evil is continually being hampered into students. Furthermore, the necessary material conditions needed in order for the workers to truly rise up have still not developed though their situation is stagnating and not improving. The great global instability may boost hopes for a revolution but only time will tell.

[MurderInc]

Well, we certainly had an extreemly high support to fight in WWII after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The world gave huge support to destroy Hitler and the Axis Powers.

Read that part of the Declaration of Independence where Jefferson wrote that people tend to accept various kinds of suffering because they don't want to lose the normal aspects of their life. But when the suffering becomes intolerable, they gain willingess to change the system. It's the part that begins, "History hath shown..."

Consider highjacking after 9-11.

If I was on a plane that was highjacked before 9-11, I might tend to accept the situation, and hope that it would end with the passangers like myself alive.

9-11 has changed all that. If there ever were another highjacking of a U.S. plane, WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS TRUE, I WOULD BELIEVE THAT AT THAT MOMENT, MY LIFE WOULD BE OVER. It is highly probable that my fellow passangers would feel the same. Let's say there are four men with guns and 150 of us. To take the plane, 25 of us would die. NEARLY EVERYONE ON THAT PLANE WOULD JUMP THE HIGHJACKERS. There would be no other choice because, rightly or wrongly, everyone would believe we were about to be smashed into the First USA tower in Los Angeles, or the Hancock Building in Chicago, or the Bellagio or New York New York in Las Vegas, or the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building.

If 80% of the people of any country reasoned that their government would be the death of life as they knew it, you'd have a revolution on your hands.

As I wrote earlier, why sould Americas over 45 fight for a communist revolution after watching how badly it was screwed up by the "communist" nations, or former ones, of today?