View Full Version : Is the US too big?
Armed_Philosopher
15th May 2006, 03:36
I personaly have no faith in any movement which claims it can seize power over the entire land mass which is today the United States. This applies especialy to centralized Authoritarian regimes.
Diferent regions of the country have very strong cultural idientity for better or for worse. The needs of the people also vary from region to region.
I think the only hope for a unified United States post revolution would be some sort of federation system.
Im still pondering my position on this, but I thought I would bring it up for discussion.
kaaos_af
15th May 2006, 04:21
If capitalism collapsed tommorrow, the entire US and all its puppets would go down. It would be up to the people who lived in those areas as to how they'd want to move forward. I only hope the Leninist groups will be capable of handling the situation. That wasn't the case in Eastern Europe. I think the only group that really did anything to try and stop the damn mess was, to their credit, the Spartacists. It really depends on whether the vanguard is up to the challenge.
I personaly have no faith in any movement which claims it can seize power over the entire land mass which is today the United States. This applies especialy to centralized Authoritarian regimes.
Diferent regions of the country have very strong cultural idientity for better or for worse. The needs of the people also vary from region to region.
I think the only hope for a unified United States post revolution would be some sort of federation system.
Im still pondering my position on this, but I thought I would bring it up for discussion.
Well, the movement of the proletariat should claim and more importantly aim to sieze power not only in the United States but also in the rest of the World. Current situation shows us that revolution in US, at this time is unrealistic. The first step will be throwing Imperialism out of the third world. Only then can the real face of capitalism be apparent to a majority in the United States.
If capitalism collapsed tommorrow, the entire US and all its puppets would go down.
As mentioned above, not quite possible yet. Historical conditions are not at that point.
I only hope the Leninist groups will be capable of handling the situation... It really depends on whether the vanguard is up to the challenge.
(Sigh) Look, nothing personal here, but you are pretty wrong. A 'vanguard' organization can imagine that it is the main force that makes the revolution but that would only be mastrubution. It is not the vanguard who makes the revolution, it is the working class. Only if Leninists put their fantasy of becoming leaders aside and join the proletariat and submit to the will of proletariat will they be able to participate in a revolution. Vanguards organizations had their time, now its the proletariats turn!
Armed_Philosopher
15th May 2006, 04:42
You just made several good points.
I also agree that fighting Imperialism is probibly one of the few goals that unites everybody here, Anarcists and other Socialists alike. It is a major step, and one that needs to happen.
While A unified revolution in this country being carried out by any Vanguard seems totaly unrealistic at this time, the collapse of our power structure within the next few decades does not seem so far fetched to me....I seriously think the US could fall as a world power.
That doesnt mean however that there will be a majority popular support for any one movement....which is why Federations may be a practical nessesity, not out of idealism but for survival. There would be no choice but to cooperate despite serious diferences in self governing local policies.
If there was not a majority or close to majority support for a group taking power, and the Vanguard attempted to do so anyway without the nessisary popular support, this would only result in a civil war that would look alot like Iraq....You are unlikely to pursuade the bible belt to adopt a Communist Agenda.
However, in a Autonomist Federation system, diverse groups could organize and provide for the people.
Again, this is a huge subject and Im sure there are many factors to be concidered.
Armed_Philosopher
15th May 2006, 04:46
"(Sigh) Look, nothing personal here, but you are pretty wrong. A 'vanguard' organization can imagine that it is the main force that makes the revolution but that would only be mastrubution. It is not the vanguard who makes the revolution, it is the working class. Only if Leninists put their fantasy of becoming leaders aside and join the proletariat and submit to the will of proletariat will they be able to participate in a revolution. Vanguards organizations had their time, now its the proletariats turn!"
I agree very much with this statement.
I also agree that fighting Imperialism is probibly one of the few goals that unites everybody here, Anarcists and other Socialists alike. It is a major step, and one that needs to happen.
While A unified revolution in this country being carried out by any Vanguard seems totaly unrealistic at this time, the collapse of our power structure within the next few decades does not seem so far fetched to me....I seriously think the US could fall as a world power.
It all depends on the war against imperialism... The current invincible and utopian capitalist appearance of US is a spectacle. I expect that after the movement had started, it would take about fifty years for the revolution to succeed in the US.
As for vanguards organizations, they've had their time and they screwed up. Now they are blaming each other when the question 'what went wrong' is asked. But still, most of the Leninists sincerely believe that they are working for the best interests of the proleterariat. If they accept being a subject to the will of the working class, and eventually forget about their 'leading' fantasies they can very well be a part, an important part of the revolution with the workers who support them, especially in the third world.
That doesnt mean however that there will be a majority popular support for any one movement....which is why Federations may be a practical nessesity, not out of idealism but for survival. There would be no choice but to cooperate despite serious diferences in self governing local policies.
Exactly... I would name it as an association, and eventually it would be an association of the entire proletariat.
MurderInc
17th May 2006, 05:51
There would be many different states, perhaps 1000s, and all with different lifestyles, from extreem right wing to revolutionary, but with out any central control.
There would be many different states, perhaps 1000s, and all with different lifestyles, from extreem right wing to revolutionary, but with out any central control.
I think that would be very unlikely... Unlike revolutionary movements, right wing movements had always been supported, if not manipulated by higher powers, such as the centralized government. Without the existance of such power, right wing movements can't exist for a long period of time against the united revolutionaries. Reactionaries are not an equilivilent or the 'grande nemesis' of revolutionaries. Revolutionaries fight against the system, the state etc, they are our real enemies. Right-wing reactionaries are just tools of our enemies, and if we think that we are equilivilants of the reactionaries in any sense, we would fall into the trap of the real enemy.
MurderInc
17th May 2006, 08:30
I disagree with a whole lot of what you wrote.
At any rate, I was actually referring to how small, almost patchwork like organizations would emerge. Some would be armed and right wing, and no longer interested in reviving the "old" U.S., or picking a fight with the "Revolutionary" organizations a hundred miles from them.
Most would be fearful of outsiders and protectionist.
Some would attempt Revolution (the way we preceive it) and their success would depend on too many factors to discuss.
Those are my views on this, anyway.
We on the Left continue to stereotype the centrists as being more rightwing than they are.
In 1976, Gerald Ford's people argued that Reagan was "too right wing" to be president, and the party nominated Ford (who lost to Carter).
If all of your views were correct, a Ford, or Carter, or Clinton, would never be elected president, and Pat Buchanan would have been elected President for Life long ago.
redstar2000
17th May 2006, 11:20
The Communal Polis - Identity and Organization in a Communist World (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1098908960&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
At any rate, I was actually referring to how small, almost patchwork like organizations would emerge. Some would be armed and right wing, and no longer interested in reviving the "old" U.S., or picking a fight with the "Revolutionary" organizations a hundred miles from them.
Most would be fearful of outsiders and protectionist.
Some would attempt Revolution (the way we preceive it) and their success would depend on too many factors to discuss.
I can't imagine little right-wingers to be really effective... Beside from their politics, they won't even be able to meet their most basic needs. Left wing groups will be practicing communal life, we know that right-wing leaders won't do that. If they try to survive by exploiting labor of their own supporters, we will easily win their supporters because material conditions are more important than economical needs. Otherwise they will starve.
If a right wing paramilitary group is going to be fierce and strong, it needs economical support from somewhere. There has not been a single group without it.
I think, after the point where the centralized government in US had felt, Revolutionaries would be victorious.
We on the Left continue to stereotype the centrists as being more rightwing than they are.
In 1976, Gerald Ford's people argued that Reagan was "too right wing" to be president, and the party nominated Ford (who lost to Carter).
If all of your views were correct, a Ford, or Carter, or Clinton, would never be elected president, and Pat Buchanan would have been elected President for Life long ago.
That was not I meant, my point was that our problem is with capitalism. Political divisions in the bourgeois politics are not important. Ford, Carter, Clinton etc. are not initially that different from Nixon, Reagan, Papa Bush etc. Democratic Part is initially not that different from the Republican Party. We can remember presindencies of Truman or Johnson etc. Current stance of political elections in the world mostly doesn't mean anything. No matter what, capitalists own the means of production and politicians have to act in the interests of capitalists if they want to continue living in safety.
The political divisions, right-center-left spectrum, the clash of those ideologies are really not important. What initially matters is the confrontation of the capitalists by the workers, what matters is the material conditions.
Janus
18th May 2006, 01:08
Diferent regions of the country have very strong cultural idientity for better or for worse.
Culture is quite homogenized in advanced societies among the dominant ethnic group of course. Frankly, there are no major cultural divisions between the US as we saw during the antebellum and Civil War period.
The needs of the people also vary from region to region.
Yes, that's why the people should decide what's best for themselves and engage in direct democracy.
MurderInc
18th May 2006, 02:10
I can't imagine little right-wingers to be really effective... Beside from their politics, they won't even be able to meet their most basic needs. Left wing groups will be practicing communal life, we know that right-wing leaders won't do that. If they try to survive by exploiting labor of their own supporters, we will easily win their supporters because material conditions are more important than economical needs. Otherwise they will starve.
There is a good historical example re: this.
During the period when Colorado was a territory, Mormons moved into it and began living there. It was a pretty good deal for them, because they were away from U.S. law, while at the same time, the Mexican government left them alone because their forded were spread too thinly, and they really didn't care if paid a few pesos to not bother.
During that time, the Mormons organized a nearly communal lifestyle with total benefit of the collective, and all individuals working for their families.
It was an interesting combination of paternal, right wing philosophy mixed with "communism".
I mention this to debunk what was written above, that right wingers "need" a group to exploit.
Many people who support capitalism do not see it that way, and don't necessarily like corporate control over local free enterprise issues.
During the period when Colorado was a territory, Mormons moved into it and began living there. It was a pretty good deal for them, because they were away from U.S. law, while at the same time, the Mexican government left them alone because their forded were spread too thinly, and they really didn't care if paid a few pesos to not bother.
During that time, the Mormons organized a nearly communal lifestyle with total benefit of the collective, and all individuals working for their families.
It was an interesting combination of paternal, right wing philosophy mixed with
"communism".
I mention this to debunk what was written above, that right wingers "need" a group to exploit.
Yeah, I thought that en example of 'christian collectivism' could be practiced, but still I don't find it very likely because the specific group which is going to manage to form a christian collectivist system must be actively against the government before it's fall, otherwise it won't have a chance. I can imagine a left-christian group, under heavy effect of our revolutionary ideas doing this (altough it still is a pretty far option) but Mormons ain't gonna do it!
Many people who support capitalism do not see it that way, and don't necessarily like corporate control over local free enterprise issues.
Many people who support capitalism are either bourgeoise and local elites and they see it in the way they justify it in their heads, or they don't even care to justify, they just play the game. Workers and also peasants tolerate the system instead of supporting it.
Redstar2000, here's my thought on what you've written on the 'Communal Polis'...
As I envision it, a modern communal polis would resemble the ancient version in many respects...though, of course, on a considerably larger scale.
It would be a large city surrounded by sufficient farmland to meet most of its food requirements, would produce most of what it required in the way of technological goods, etc. It would, most likely, speak a common language and embrace a common culture...though it might remain ethnically mixed.
First of all, I want to start with saying that I found your idea pretty succesful. But, as for the name, I would call it simply 'Polis Commune' where in specific names, name of the city itself is written instead of Polis like the 'Paris Commune' or 'New York Commune', instead of 'communal polis. Secondly, regarding the farmlands, with the growth of the city, farmlands won't only surround the city but they will also be inside and in between the city. Redstar2000, when you find time check what I've written on the agricultural commune here: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49996
(No one replied it yet :( )
Also I would think that it would be necessary to invent a 'common' international language that everyone learns speaks for 'real' freedom of movement. Of course this 'common' language is not intended to replace someones mother-tounge, but human beings are capable of being almost perfect at least in two langueges, especially if they start early so if they grow up with the local and common language spoken around, it would be pretty easy to pick it up. The language I have in mind is supposed to be designed very beautifully and very easy to learn, but of course I have no idea regarding how to do such thing.
It would cooperate with other such cities on projects of mutual advantage, obviously. But ultimate authority (insofar as that word would still mean something) would rest in the hands of its own popular assembly...that should consist of all citizens who wish to attend its daily meetings (supported by referendums as seen to be necessary).
Well, yes, but I think there also should be forums for getting representitives from each commune every once in a while so that they can all come together and talk about such projects and planning collectively, of course depending on the people. As for town meetings, well, actually I would think it would be better for them to be weekly instead of daily and in weekends because people are going to work during the week after all (of course if there is going to be such thing as weekends), and I would expect those meetings to be so full that it wouldn't be possible to actually have an effective meeting, so instead, I would base the town meetings on rotation and randomization, so there would be some kind of draft each week to pick who will be in the next meeting in a Production Collective, and whoever gets picked among producers would not picked again until everyone from their collective represents the collective in the Commune's assembly. In the meetings, the representitives of the collectives, who are also (naturally) consumers would talk about production and distribution, needs of the city etc. Decision making would be done depending on the situation: whoever will get effected by the situation should be able to decide on that, and decisions would be made by referandums. All meetings should be public. They could be given in the internet, the tv, radio etc.
Still, there is the risk that "good-natured rivalry" might spill over into "bad-natured war". The old Greek city-states quarreled nearly as often as they cooperated.
I find it difficult to imagine why one such communal polis would want to go to war with another
It seems like an odd situation, but I would think that other communes would collectively stop them, just like people around stopping two individuals that are fighting in the middle of the street.
The problem of economic relations between such cities is a rather thorny one...early on, it might strongly resemble trade a lot more than we would be comfortable with. There would be no money...but it might look a lot like barter.
Well it doesn't have to be trade, in the collective of communes, the system would be very similar to the system in the communes. A system of 'collective planing' in forums might be better then bartering. After all, if a commune has extra supplies, why should it not give it to the other communes who need them?
RevSouth
20th May 2006, 05:21
In this theoretical situation, though, what do we do about the upper middle class bourgeois proportionate, huddled in their banks and houses with useless money? Do we attempt to integrate them into the proletariat? Or utilize their higher education into managemant positions, only to risk them resuming power in some form? I see this being a significant proportion, maybe not a physical threat, but certainly a social one. Anyone have an opinion on the subject?
In this theoretical situation, though, what do we do about the upper middle class bourgeois proportionate, huddled in their banks and houses with useless money? Do we attempt to integrate them into the proletariat? Or utilize their higher education into managemant positions, only to risk them resuming power in some form? I see this being a significant proportion, maybe not a physical threat, but certainly a social one. Anyone have an opinion on the subject?
Well, first of all there wouldn't really be management positions in the communist society. As for the capitalists, it really is up to them, what they want to do. If they decide that they should attempt to overthrow and enslave us again, we will not show mercy. If they decide to join us as equal producers, we will welcome them as our brothers and sisters. If they decide not to work and reject the communist society, we will simply ignore them, we won't give anything to them, they will be outcasts and they probably won't be able to survive by themselves in the wilderness. It really is their choice.
RevSouth
21st May 2006, 03:56
There has to be some sort of bureaucracy, even if only one a local scale. Without some form of order communes would spiral into a pattern of violence. We may wish the pieces fell right together, but they won't. Especially in the early Post-Revolution period, there will be a need for some manner of control group to sort out the kinks.
There has to be some sort of bureaucracy, even if only one a local scale. Without some form of order communes would spiral into a pattern of violence. We may wish the pieces fell right together, but they won't. Especially in the early Post-Revolution period, there will be a need for some manner of control group to sort out the kinks.
There would be a social organism, birth, residence records and probably getting a piece of paper from the collective you work in while taking a vacation would be necessary but other than that I can't see need for a bureaucracy.
RevSouth
21st May 2006, 17:37
Originally posted by Leo
[email protected] 21 2006, 01:08 AM
There has to be some sort of bureaucracy, even if only one a local scale. Without some form of order communes would spiral into a pattern of violence. We may wish the pieces fell right together, but they won't. Especially in the early Post-Revolution period, there will be a need for some manner of control group to sort out the kinks.
There would be a social organism, birth, residence records and probably getting a piece of paper from the collective you work in while taking a vacation would be necessary but other than that I can't see need for a bureaucracy.
I seriously don't think everything is going to just sort itself out. Especially in inter-commune relations. Everyones not just going to be one great big happy world family. There needs to be some manner of forum for economic cooperation and that sort of thing. Otherwise there would be no outlet for the trade, labor, and internal management strife that will insue. With no governing body at all, even a small one, an anarchy in the negative sense will come to be.
I seriously don't think everything is going to just sort itself out. Especially in inter-commune relations. Everyones not just going to be one great big happy world family. There needs to be some manner of forum for economic cooperation and that sort of thing. Otherwise there would be no outlet for the trade, labor, and internal management strife that will insue. With no governing body at all, even a small one, an anarchy in the negative sense will come to be.
There will be a communal assembly (a social organism) that meets every week, and talks about what is needed and what to do to solve problems and new projects etc. There will also be forums for cooperation between communes. This group of people won't be governing, they will be representing the collectives they work from, and as for decision making, they will make propositions first, and then whoever will get effected by the decision will vote. (For example, they want to build a train station in a neighborhood, the residents decide.)
RevSouth
22nd May 2006, 02:26
Originally posted by Leo
[email protected] 21 2006, 12:58 PM
There will be a communal assembly (a social organism) that meets every week, and talks about what is needed and what to do to solve problems and new projects etc. There will also be forums for cooperation between communes. This group of people won't be governing, they will be representing the collectives they work from, and as for decision making, they will make propositions first, and then whoever will get effected by the decision will vote. (For example, they want to build a train station in a neighborhood, the residents decide.)
..Which is a bureaucracy. Even if they are not 'governing', but simply participating in this social organism, they are in turn managing the aspects of inter-commune relations. People who make propositions are indirectly governing. I am in the U.S., and even if a bill has ninety five percent of the country backing it, it would never pass if noone was to propose it.
Which is a bureaucracy. Even if they are not 'governing', but simply participating in this social organism, they are in turn managing the aspects of inter-commune relations. People who make propositions are indirectly governing.
They are not governing. First of all those people should change in every meeting on radomization and rotation principles. So who will be in the meetings will be randomly picked and whoever is picked won't be able to be picked again. Secondly, the Collective the representitive is in will decide what he will propose. He literally only represents the collective will of the work collective he is in.
RevSouth
22nd May 2006, 22:49
Originally posted by Leo
[email protected] 21 2006, 11:27 PM
They are not governing. First of all those people should change in every meeting on radomization and rotation principles. So who will be in the meetings will be randomly picked and whoever is picked won't be able to be picked again. Secondly, the Collective the representitive is in will decide what he will propose. He literally only represents the collective will of the work collective he is in.
Well that is how it is supposed to work in republics, but it doesn't always happen that way, by any means. The representative is just supposed to be a shortcut to direct democracy but mostly isn't. What is the point of even having these representatives, anyway, if they have no power at all? Might as well not even meet, but use the internet or some other form of communication to convey ideas between communes if it's just a one time deal. And if you have random rotations of haphazardly selected people, you could have a misrepresented commune. What they need are strong leaders for communes, though not consistently the same ones.
MurderInc
22nd May 2006, 22:50
There will be a communal assembly (a social organism) that meets every week, and talks about what is needed and what to do to solve problems and new projects etc. There will also be forums for cooperation between communes. This group of people won't be governing, they will be representing the collectives they work from, and as for decision making, they will make propositions first, and then whoever will get effected by the decision will vote. (For example, they want to build a train station in a neighborhood, the residents decide.)
And people will sit in brown colored chairs, and listen to Bach on Tuesdays, and there will be skinny dipping every Friday in the summer.
OH, PALEEEEESE!!! Leo, how the f*** can you Svengali these down to the nano-details?
Well that is how it is supposed to work in republics, but it doesn't always happen that way, by any means. The representative is just supposed to be a shortcut to direct democracy but mostly isn't. What is the point of even having these representatives, anyway, if they have no power at all? Might as well not even meet, but use the internet or some other form of communication to convey ideas between communes if it's just a one time deal. And if you have random rotations of haphazardly selected people, you could have a misrepresented commune. What they need are strong leaders for communes, though not consistently the same ones.
Well first of all it won't be either a democracy or a republic. It will be beyond it. Everyone will be governing in turns so the masses will literally be governing. People will presesent the collectives they work. Yes, there might be another form of communication, but this seems practical, after all people have to work and this will be extra, so it will probably be better to do it that way.
What you describe, strong leaders that change, is very similar to the concept of democracy in the west, chosing a dictator in every x years. As an idea, it is crap! It is a fraud. The whole point is collective self-governce.
And people will sit in brown colored chairs, and listen to Bach on Tuesdays, and there will be skinny dipping every Friday in the summer.
OH, PALEEEEESE!!! Leo, how the f*** can you Svengali these down to the nano-details?
I'm speculating comrade, you should try it sometime too, it is fun.
MurderInc
23rd May 2006, 08:11
Tuche, Leo. I've speculated plenty on Mexico here, including a lot of stuff many find absurd.
Sorry for going off on you.
:)
M.I.
RevSouth
23rd May 2006, 19:15
Originally posted by Leo
[email protected] 22 2006, 08:11 PM
Well first of all it won't be either a democracy or a republic. It will be beyond it. Everyone will be governing in turns so the masses will literally be governing. People will presesent the collectives they work. Yes, there might be another form of communication, but this seems practical, after all people have to work and this will be extra, so it will probably be better to do it that way.
What you describe, strong leaders that change, is very similar to the concept of democracy in the west, chosing a dictator in every x years. As an idea, it is crap! It is a fraud. The whole point is collective self-governce.
I know how you feel about "Republics" and "Democracies" and how they work (or how they don't work), but that is not what I am suggesting. What I am saying is you can't have mentally unstable Ted from up the road representing one of the most prosperous aeronautics communes in the world during a crucial vote, even if he is supposed to represent exactly what his commune wants. You just can't have a jury duty type thing going on. It would still be self governing, just not by the brass and rich like here in the West.
Tuche, Leo. I've speculated plenty on Mexico here, including a lot of stuff many find absurd.
Sorry for going off on you.
Don't worry about it. :)
I know how you feel about "Republics" and "Democracies" and how they work (or how they don't work), but that is not what I am suggesting.
The idea of a republic or a democracy do not really mean much in this world. Those ideas are painted and polished so much that the actual meaning behind the words are lost.
What I am saying is you can't have mentally unstable Ted from up the road representing one of the most prosperous aeronautics communes in the world during a crucial vote, even if he is supposed to represent exactly what his commune wants.
If someone is mentally unstable, we will think him being there. He would probably be excused. Other than that, first of all, representitives will only propose what the collective they are in decides they should propose. Secondly, the communal assembly (or whatever name we call it) will not decide. Whoever will be effected by the situation will decide with referandums.
Now here's the critical mistake. People think 'governce' should be optional, that it should
be up to the people wether they want to participate in decision making or not. They are wrong! Just like everyone has to work, everyone has to participate equally in governce. Other then the fact that one person ruling, or a group ruling, would eventaully be seperated from the masses, it wouldn't be fair for the governing person. In the communist society everyone has to produce. How will someone produce if he has to govern all the time? That person would surely be tired and sick of the whole process. Communism is about sharing, and people should share the burden of planning equally.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.