How do I deal with the argument that...

[Os Cangaceiros]

..revolution cannot occur in the United States, or similar industrially advanced nations?

I've encountered this argument a lot lately, and it's hard to convince people that there's even a possibility for any kind of revolutionary consciousness on any level.

[Decolonize The Left]

Such 'arguments' are not, rather, they are statements - broad claims based in prejudices aimed at destabilizing your argument. This is the first point you must make. Do not allow these people to feel justified in making claims without justification.

Your argument is rational, logical, and rooted in material reality. This is your second point. You are not claiming idealism, rather, historical materialism.

Once you have established your position as one which ought to be listened to and considered, you may go straight for emotional chords. All people (usually centrists or left-centrists) agree with the general principles of freedom and equality. It is your job to explain to them how the current economic and social structures systematically oppress and exploit the vast majority of the population. When you have done this, you may then ask how these individuals can claim to support freedom and equality, and at the same time justify such institutions which systematically destroy these principles.

Finally, you may turn to the reality of raising class consciousness. Ignore the issue of a "revolution." It scares people and is ultimately irrelevant to your position. You have no concern with any revolution - on the other hand, you have a serious concern with class consciousness (which, theoretically, will lead to a revolution).

Your goal ought not to be to convince anyone that the revolution is around the corner, or even feasible, in an industrialized nation. Your goal ought to be to convince people that class consciousness is of the up-most priority and ought to be integrated into their lives.

Hope this helps.

- August

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Don't most Americans admit that the '60s was a "social revolution?" Well, uh.. I hope they're not expecting a Russian-style Civil War.

[Black Sheep]

Ignore the issue of a "revolution."

Are you proposing this for the US citizens specifically,or for everyone?
Because most people do see that there is something wrong with today's society,they just don't see the way out of it.

(..said the sheep to the beaver)

[apathy maybe]

Such 'arguments' are not, rather, they are statements - broad claims based in prejudices aimed at destabilizing your argument. This is the first point you must make. Do not allow these people to feel justified in making claims without justification.

Your argument is rational, logical, and rooted in material reality. This is your second point. You are not claiming idealism, rather, historical materialism.

Once you have established your position as one which ought to be listened to and considered, you may go straight for emotional chords. All people (usually centrists or left-centrists) agree with the general principles of freedom and equality. It is your job to explain to them how the current economic and social structures systematically oppress and exploit the vast majority of the population. When you have done this, you may then ask how these individuals can claim to support freedom and equality, and at the same time justify such institutions which systematically destroy these principles.

Finally, you may turn to the reality of raising class consciousness. Ignore the issue of a "revolution." It scares people and is ultimately irrelevant to your position. You have no concern with any revolution - on the other hand, you have a serious concern with class consciousness (which, theoretically, will lead to a revolution).

Your goal ought not to be to convince anyone that the revolution is around the corner, or even feasible, in an industrialized nation. Your goal ought to be to convince people that class consciousness is of the up-most priority and ought to be integrated into their lives.

Hope this helps.

- August

Apparently I have to share the love around :rolleyes:. When I see people making great posts like this, I get annoyed that I have to give rep to 20 other people before being able to give it to the same person again.

[Winter]

..revolution cannot occur in the United States, or similar industrially advanced nations?

I've encountered this argument a lot lately, and it's hard to convince people that there's even a possibility for any kind of revolutionary consciousness on any level.

I can't tell you the answer to this. I too am trying to figure out the solution to this problem. What I can do is help you see exactly what is going on in the U.S. and other capitalist countries. Gramsci came up with a theory known as Cultural Hegemony. Take a look, this is exactly what we're facing here in the U.S.:



Gramsci argued that the failure of the workers to make an anti-capitalist revolution was due to the successful capture of the workers' ideology, self-understanding, and organizations by the hegemonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic) (ruling) culture. In other words, the perspective of the ruling class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruling_class) had been absorbed by the masses of workers. In advanced capitalist societies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_capitalist_societies) hegemonic cultural innovations such as compulsory schooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_schooling), mass media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media), and popular culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_culture) had indoctrinated workers to a false consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness). Instead of working towards a revolution that would truly serve their collective needs, workers in "advanced" societies were listening to the rhetoric of nationalist leaders, seeking consumer opportunities and middle-class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-class) status, embracing an individualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist)ethos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos) of success through competition, and/or accepting the guidance of bourgeois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois) religious leaders.

Gramsci therefore argued for a strategic distinction between a "war of position" and a "war of manoeuvre". The war of position is a culture war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war) in which anti-capitalist elements seek to gain a dominant voice in mass media, mass organizations, and educational institutions to heighten class consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_consciousness), teach revolutionary analysis and theory, and inspire revolutionary organization. Following the success of the war of position, communist leaders would be empowered to begin the war of manoeuvre, the actual insurrection against capitalism, with mass support.


Also, John Reed addressed these problems in his article, Bolshevism in America, check it out: http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/bolsh.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

..revolution cannot occur in the United States, or similar industrially advanced nations?

I've encountered this argument a lot lately, and it's hard to convince people that there's even a possibility for any kind of revolutionary consciousness on any level.

A lot of Marxists will say that the subjective conditions are not there. At present, this is true; bourgeois propaganda has succeeded so far in convincing the vast majority of clerical and especially professional workers that they're "middle-class" (remember my quote of Kautsky about the latter having petit-bourgeois delusions).

On the objective side, although I wouldn't by any means call U$ workers a "labour aristocracy" (as Lenin would have), they do live in better conditions than workers in the Third World.


Finally, you may turn to the reality of raising class consciousness. Ignore the issue of a "revolution." It scares people and is ultimately irrelevant to your position. You have no concern with any revolution - on the other hand, you have a serious concern with class consciousness (which, theoretically, will lead to a revolution).

Your goal ought not to be to convince anyone that the revolution is around the corner, or even feasible, in an industrialized nation. Your goal ought to be to convince people that class consciousness is of the up-most priority and ought to be integrated into their lives.

Hope this helps.

- August

I couldn't have said this better!

[LOLseph Stalin]

I think a revolution could happen anywhere if you get enough people involved and plan well. Like for instance a government can't exactly arrest massive groups of people. It wouldn't be practical. Also, planning is important too because there may be certain things you don't want to do and other things you will have to do for the revolution to be successful.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes, I can imagine a conversation in, say, thirteenth century Britain:

"No, I just can't see capitalism ever taking off in an advanced feudal economy like ours...."

[Apeiron]

I can't tell you the answer to this. I too am trying to figure out the solution to this problem. What I can do is help you see exactly what is going on in the U.S. and other capitalist countries. Gramsci came up with a theory known as Cultural Hegemony. Take a look, this is exactly what we're facing here in the U.S.: I agree whole-heartedly on the Gramsci point; he was most certainly a great thinker, and an important one to turn to in order to explain the political climate we're facing today. Look, for example, at the emergence of 'traditional values' that has been so prominent in American political discourse over the past few years. The identity of the 'American working class' has been largely constructed through the dominant ideology as a means of social reproduction, stifling any potential for 'class consciousness'; this is such the case that class today in the US is not understood as an economic category, but rather as a cultural one.

If we want to understand what's going on today, Gramsci is definitely a thinker to turn to. Great insight.