Economic Warfare

[Oneironaut]

I have been thinking lately that the most practical way under today's circumstances for a communist revolution to succeed is primarily through economic warfare and not civil war. I have come to reason that the nations in which we need to have a revolution (i.e. the United States) have far advanced weaponry and would easily squash any guerrilla uprisings. I have studied communism and all its associated writers for about four years now. I understand this may be less than the majority of posters on this forum but I still feel like I have gained a certain level of understanding in regards to being a communist. Anyways, I feel like if communists united under taking over a certain producing powerhouse (i.e. Walmart) and revolutionized its workers into understanding that communism is truly what is best for them and their families then we will have a base of workers more prone to our persuasion and that doubly have the viable power to control a massive infrastructure of production ability. I think that it is likely there would be government interference in workers control in such a company such as Walmart but it may cause such an outcry from the US populous that the government would apt to not interfere with the hope of avoiding a crisis which would only further their decline since there does exist a negative sentiment amongst americans against extremely exploitative multinational corporations. In other words, I feel like economic warfare by means of the take over of multinational production powerhouses would allow communists to avoid fighting against superior weaponry at least until the point where communists would have the support system to combat the weaponry of any core, industrialized nation. Once these types of corporations (which are double sword in regards to capitalism: they create workers sentiment prone to revolution and they establish means of producing for all of the worlds peoples) are taking over, communism could build more of a viable front in countries like the US when it begins to persuade the citizens that it is in their best interest to support them. I would like to know if any one else thinks my thoughts are false or if they agree with me and why?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Lets get something straight here, Guerillaism and Blanquism have nothing to do with Communism. Violent coups where by a new ruling class seize hold of the capitalist state machinery do nothing to further the working class struggle. The economic structure of society can not be handed down to society by the new ruling class post-revolution, it's seeds are sown in the here and now.

This is not to say that economic warfare as you have put it is the correct concept either. I think you are, in a crude way referring to the necessary tie between the political and economic revolution which form the greater social revolution.

The proletarian political revolution can not be separated from the proletarian economic revolution. The growth of proletarian action in the economic/productive sphere of society is a necessary mirror of proletarian political action.

The form that this economic transformation will take will be one of workers councils, advocated particularly by the likes of Pannekoek and Mattick. I would highly suggest you read as much of there material as possible, being critical all the while however.

[piet11111]

the revolution is when all or the vast majority of the working people rebel against the government and take over for themselves.

even if the united states had say a 50 million man army they could not put a soldier next to every working laborer to force them to work.
the entire united states would be crippled as nobody would be willing to work for their bosses or the government.

if it happens like that there would not be a civil war as the government would be incapable of fighting one.

[robot lenin]

You seem to assume that the US could fight a guerilla force successfully in a reasonably short space of time. Can I draw your attention to Vietnam, where a Viet Minh force with vastly inferior weaponry and training consistently defeated the US military and eventually forced their retreat from the country. And Iraq? The bloodshed is still going on, with small numbers of guerillas forcing the US to massively increase troop numbers despite their technical superiority.

What is essential to a successful guerilla campaign (and I'm not advocating one) is the support of the people at large, without which it would just become another dictatorship a la USSR. It is necessary for the people to know what is happening, and support it, since they will then be willing to engage in civil disobedience and, due to their input in the guerilla activities in a supporting role, have more of an input in the eventual government/governance that would be formed.

Also, I think, with respect, that what Red Plague is discussing is akin to brainwashing. You can educate people as much as you want, but at the end of the day they have to make their own desicions. If you want everyone in your corporation to work for you, this will have to involve some type of brainwashing, which could lead dangerously close to a cult of personality, and we all know the dangers of that (unless, of course, you are a Stalinist :P).

[Oneironaut]

I did not mean to come off as a proponent of brainwashing, although I can see how that was misunderstood. What I intended to say is that the most practical method that IMO will without a doubt succeed is by attacking imperialist nations' multinational companies with a specific emphasis on the workers outside of the heavily industrialized nations we are indirectly attacking. I feel that successful guerrilla warfare against the United States has been greatly due to the lack of soldier presence. The biggest difference between the War in Iraq and a theoretical guerrilla war in the United States would be troop difference: the US would reinstate the draft and recruit as many soldiers as possible to squash any guerrilla movements. As to why I think emphasis should be placed on the workers in these multinational production powerhouses is that they are most ready to join arms with us due to their socio-economic situation. I understand that they are eventually going to have to make their own judgment to join us or not but I feel they would have less of a stigma against communists than workers who affording better wages in imperialist nations. From a workers' takeover of these production powerhouses they could in turn vie for state power in their own countries and have the means already established to produce for all the peoples of their nations. Since these multinational corporations have their foundations in the nations that we must fight for to ensure a successful revolution, we would be able to directly attack their profits because the great majority of the money they hound is from exploitative factories. Once their profits have been attacked they will pay their workers less here in the US and will be somewhat of a catalyst for speeding up the economic crisis that will doom capitalism. Thanks for your responses and for your references zeitgeist. I just haven't been able to get this idea out of my head for a long time. I think it may potentially be a great plan of action for communists to take.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You seem to assume that the US could fight a guerilla force successfully in a reasonably short space of time. Can I draw your attention to Vietnam, where a Viet Minh force with vastly inferior weaponry and training consistently defeated the US military and eventually forced their retreat from the country. And Iraq? The bloodshed is still going on, with small numbers of guerillas forcing the US to massively increase troop numbers despite their technical superiority.

The US military didn't lose in Nam, nor is the US military really losing in Iraq. Seriously, the US has lost what, 4,500? Aka 10 minutes at Normandy?

The thing which caused the US to withdraw was American public perception that the war was unwinnable. It will be the same in Iraq.



What is essential to a successful guerilla campaign (and I'm not advocating one) is the support of the people at large, without which it would just become another dictatorship a la USSR. It is necessary for the people to know what is happening, and support it, since they will then be willing to engage in civil disobedience and, due to their input in the guerilla activities in a supporting role, have more of an input in the eventual government/governance that would be formed.


Until the revolution, the masses will not become conscious. Until they become consious, there will be no revolution.

[Psy]

The US military didn't lose in Nam, nor is the US military really losing in Iraq. Seriously, the US has lost what, 4,500? Aka 10 minutes at Normandy?

The thing which caused the US to withdraw was American public perception that the war was unwinnable. It will be the same in Iraq.

The Pentagon saw their army become more and more like the Tsarist army near the Russian revolution. Near the end of US occupation of South Vietnam US troops deployed in Vietnam were fragging officers left and right, so much that more US officers died at the hands of their own troops then by the enemy, a growing number of divisions were refusing to fight and they couldn't get them to fight as officers were too scared to approach them. To make things worse for the US ruling class, Vietnam veterans returning home were also starting to take up arms against the state.

Seems like the only difference between Russia in WWI and US in Vietnam was the bourgeoisie in the US learned from the mistakes of the Russian tzar and pulled out of the war to avoid the US military revolting in mass.

[Dust Bunnies]

Note: I am not urging or supporting any type of illegal actions, just talking about a way you could pull off a revolution.

If we are to create a worker's state within the next few decades (or even the century) we must have a peaceful revolution. We first spend the rest of this decade and the next getting a huge worker base, then we, for as long as needed, stop going to work, and just shut down the industries. I doubt most of the military or police would do any state ordered actions to bring us back to work. We'd leave the bourgeoisie in the double edged sword of the year. They'd have no power but we'd lose some of our comforts. Our solution, we do what the colonists did in the American Revolution and make our own products, once most of the police and armed forces join us and the bourgeoisies are not willing to step down then we must capture key systems such as water and electricity. Under a loose union of workers we shall reform the government and disregard the current corrupted governments.