Revolution in America

How would a reasonably sized decently trained revolutionary force of socialists organize for a revolution? Or is revolution necessary at this point? Dismantling capitalism at it's core by upheaval of the capitalist-supporting democracy we have now is essential in my views.

Attached: socialist-revolution.jpg (600x628, 44.65K)



a revolution is a coup if it actually works

It depends on the country tbh, things like how easy it is to get guns, ammo, other necessary equipment, shit like that. Landscape of the country, how much support they have from the general population, etc.
Imo, we should keep going for electoral gains to make socialism/communism more popular/accepted/ more normalized. We shouldn't discard reformism completely but imo revolution is necessary to destroy capitalism.

Woops disregard shitposting flag

Distributed sabotage as a mass movement.
When the infrastructure is down, there's no government. You think the pigs are going to drop foot patrol?

Makes more sense to let the US collapse under its own weight. Instead of organizing militants to overthrow shit, do some communization, set up mutual aid networks, organize labor unions, etc. so the people are more ready to adapt when the rate of profit falls too low for capitalism to sustain itself. Specifically focus on

Attached: collapse.jpg (624x658, 86.26K)

Probably best to do this at this point

I hear this "coming collapse" theory from both sides, communists and fascists, but what we and the fashies don't realize is that the U.S Capitalists are self-sustainable. The exploitation of workers still continues to happen because the workers are being told they aren't. No action is being made because we're being told it isn't necessary.
It's obvious that the U.S-backed brand of imperialism is sustainable to the bourgeoisie for longer than we can expect. We can't accurately predict when the collapse is going to happen, if it does, and when it does, it will likely be far off into the future. The "sit-back-and-wait-for-the-collapse" mentality is dangerous because it puts our small, often sectarian, worldview in a war of attrition with a source of near infinite power. Action is almost entirely necessary to establish what we need.

While I agree with you about the likelihood of collapse, my friend's suggestions are still good.

Even if the collapse is far off, our efforts are better spent solving problems in the present with methods that build our political power (remember, it was the radicals who provided the pressures needed for the social gains of the 20th century).

Collapse, however, is almost certainly not far off. The bourgeoisie are working hard at automation in part because of this. If they manage to automate enough labor before the final crisis then this scenario is plausible (if hyperbolic):
This would require an economic transition to something like FALC (but only for the 1%), but for the time being, capital is very much dependent on labor. In an ironic twist, the drive to automate is also driving the rate of profit down, which means that capitalists being aware of the contradictions may actually make the system fail faster.

Revolution occurs when the people who are responsible for preventing revolution (the military) no longer benefit from doing so. When the next crash happens and everything goes to shit and it becomes aware that the current system can’t do anything, only than can revolution occur.

all revolutions are coups

this is utopianism

Porky can’t genocide all the prols because prols make up the military.

You don't have to actively kill anybody, just leave them to their own devices. Why do you think people want to go to Mars?

yes? I have no idea why you Sassenachs in here and Zig Forums think exterminism + FALC for the 1% is somehow more unlikely than worldwide proletarian revolution

You're better waiting for technology to kill off capitalism than organising a labour based militia to overthrow the US government.

The biggest obstacle to any revolution is the army, even as recent as the Maoist (soc dem) Nepalese revolution a few years ago was permitted by the army.

Leftists can't even infiltrate the military without outing themselves like that "communism will win" guy who got canned. Also so as long as the military is voluntary, it will always be comprised of liberal ideologues and those grateful the military gave them a career instead of poverty.

The army will have to become a conscription based one forcing political pluralism in the army, alongside this the labour movement has to stir up class consciousness amongst the working class and agitate the populous into insurrection against the system ie labour riots precipitating into martial law followed by a socialist mutiny.

Organising honeypot socialist militias are an ancillary at best measure towards the revolution.

I think you want this flag^^^

that isn’t what I said. What I said was localized action that ignores wider society is utopian.

All the blueprints would be left here though.

This doesn't even require that capitalism itself be collapsing already. Simply by creating an alternative system parallel to capitalism, you render capitalism increasingly irrelevant and weak as economic activity shift from one to the other.

It's a classic 3rd choice to the false dichotomy (though it can be used alongside either or both) of "revolution vs. reform".

Attached: 56bb96bc1607e_300_sq.jpeg (300x300, 24.39K)

ty my hibernian friend

You gotta lace the water supply with mass amounts of LSD in New York City and play the Anarchist FAQ audiobook on loud speakers in Manhatten

hypothetically speaking

Actually during the hypothetical riots phase we would need to sabotage industry and infrastructure like the CIA insurgency manuals suggested. The bourgeoisie need to panic and over play their hand, once the socialist sympathisers in the military smell their fear, they would over throw the old order, albeit again this would require class consciousness in America that would be unprecedented for it to proliferate in the rank and file of the army.

Any agitation in the absence of working class unity ie a mass popular labour movement, will just empower the fascists whilst we're on the topic. A volunteer army of "patriots" unfamiliar with our goals ie consumers of corporate media would see it as their duty to purge the traitors who they perceive as destroying their most sacred institutions.

Attached: cia-sabatoge-manual.jpg (3690x2530, 2.22M)

America is a collection of small countries (otherwise known as "states".) A Bolshevik style seizure of power wouldn't work here. You would need to take it state by state.

by establishing dual power infrastructure that replaces the necessity of capitalist power relations and the state

states are just regional governments. They don’t have any really power as 1865 showed. The real power is in the military and intelligence agencies.

Whats the meaning of that? I know it refers to CIA, FBI, NSA and the like. But why do they glow in the dark? Can someone explain?

"Frequently ridiculously obvious."

They're really easy to spot with the "im gonna get ya" antics, hence, glowing

armed struggle is a dead end as far as the first world goes, its only for dumbass larpers like , the general strike is the way to go

Yousa people gonna die.

they can't kill us all, unlike your little group of dipshits running around playing soldiers

They just have to kill enough of you.

Attached: Pinkerton Agency.jpg (300x223, 20.88K)

You're not wrong but you need strikes to cause an economic crisis in the country, I've already mentioned in this thread how the army will need to get involved. Strikes and riots need to get so bad that the army is brought in, at which point a socialist mutiny is declared. It's impossible now, but if the nation is so class conscious that a national general strike is possible, then the army will surely have a large leftist tendency with which the actual revolution will be won.

At any rate, strikes in of themselves incentivises automation which will also weaken capitalism in the long term.

The US military is far and away the world's strongest conventional force, but it's proven to be absolutely garbage against insurgencies, even (as in Afghanistan) when fighting against foreigners with ideologies almost no Americans sympathize with.

But the public support to sustain a successful insurgency doesn't come close to existing yet, so early political violence needs to focus as much on building support for revolution as it does actually striking blows against capitalism. Symbolic targets, the worst of the worst even among porkies, etc. And honestly even that seems iffy right now, our task is probably to radicalize more people and build popular support for revolution.

assuming you're not just trolling, how is that argument not applicable to armed struggle

are you a student or something

The military never got me out of poverty. I applied for selective service in 2001 and was denied.

Have you looked into the revolutions of the 20th and 21st centuries?

I'm not talking about smashies setting garbage on fire, I'm talking about general unrest that would disrupt the economy and provoke an overreaction from the state.

I knew a bunch of ex army guys that turned their life around after getting their shit together and leaving the army with some qualifications like a heavy good vehicle licence. Why didn't they take you on?

Your mistake lies in your expectation that the Americans were ever trying to stablize places like Afghanistan in the first place. They are getting exactly what they want out of there, Iraq, and elsewhere. The Americans are not fighting the insurgencies; they are ignoring them and occasionally sending proxies to keep the situation from escalating when necessary.

You should keep in mind that Afghanistan is not worth shit to them apart from Bagram which gives them a staging point to strike Iran should they want to. Afghanistan is just a military outpost, just like Iraq is just an oil well. So long as they control those, they are more than happy to leave the host countries to their misery.

It is easier to kill unarmed people than it is to kill armed people, and armed people actually have a chance to win.

Attached: october-patrol-lg.jpg (778x477, 68.15K)

Symbolic targets do not always work out the way you want them to.

you mean the ones that failed to establish socialism and generally empowered reactionary governments

working people don't want to get beat up or killed over some dumb theoretical shit about making the state look bad

stop living in the past