Revolution general

well dialected, comrade

Ehh no
In fact revolution sounds a lot harder than just pulling a chehoslovakia

Attached: da6b1c06c8fa45459739b1b1712598b5311a33539db708788741d2cb75f98131.jpeg (239x255, 11.08K)

A group of 100 hardliners, and I mean HARDliners, all attack and destroy power plants across the US on the same day. They only need to keep the power off for 3 days minimum and the current system would collapse. All the hardliners will die obviously from the us gov desperately sending everything they have to take the powerplants back but it doesn't matter the damage will not be repairable.

A revolution is impossible, communism can only be birthed from ashes.

I think Cockshott had the right idea in an interview with bolshevik bistro, regarding socialist revolution in Western countries. I'm too hungover propably to do it justice, but here goes:

His basic idea was that we should start by pushing for radical, direct and participatorial democracy. This in and of itself is not Communistic, but it's a step in the right direction, and for that reason also harder for the porky to oppose and slander. Winning this battle will also gain the Left and socialists a shit ton of credibility. Then, you work to outlaw capitalistic exploitation, but you frame it as a human rights issue. You don't expropriate the property as such, you just make it useless to porky.

So the gist of it is, you drive for socialism by empowering the working people politically, and then advocating for more radical policies that none the less are in their self-interest. I think it's the right idea, or the beginnings of it any ways. We shouldn't be afraid of being called "Communists", and we should utilize some red, leftist aesthetic. The crucial thing is none the less to lead with democratic reform, because that is what the westerners love more than anything, and any opposition of us can't help but position itself also as an enemy of people's power.

Based and Siegepilled

This is actually super interesting. However I have a question, when you say instead of expropriating capitalists we should make their businesses useless, what do you mean by this and how would we do it?

If you start by asking this question you're doing it wrong

Anyone who says anything other than real life is a LARPer.

broke: giving up
woke: organizing and agitating
bespoke: waiting for the yellowstone volcano to erupt and destroy amerikkka

swiss democracy-user was right

did you just call an ancap a comrade?

Like every other one before it, you start with local strike and then escalate it to general strike. Workers councils and red guards will come afterwards.

the capitalist parties that are democrats and republicans would desolve the government before submitting to socialism. they shut the government down over minor disagreements already

You're high if you think the the democrats and republicans would ever dissolve the government for anything. Government shutdown is a totally different thing, so apples to oranges.

Are we only talking about america?

america is the model but most countries democratic system makes it near impossible to vote in socialism (atleast in the next 20 years because reformism is slow and for pussies)

Ee not really its a lot easyer to make people vote you rather than killing for you

if there is nobody in Washington D.C. offices actively managing legislation and policing then there is no Federal Government. if D.C. shut down for an extended period of time the U.S. absolutely would dissolve Yugoslavia-style. without a doubt.

Chechoslovakia was occupied by the Soviets when the elected Communist Party took over.

Capitalist would still technically “own” their property, but workers would run it, make all desions involving it, and decide who get’s the profits. Once this is done every company is basically a co-op, than you start organizing their actions towards a production plan and slowly transition towards a planed economy. Basically reverse Titoism.

A shutdown only affects “non emergency services.” The military is still running at full capacity, and that’s all a regime needs to stay in power.

m8…

Attached: 9b45b6823513b49edf20c5e9eb59b9c227a04a11530bebfc71550a9ec35db09f.jpg (666x728, 118.96K)

well-being for who though?
capitalism is destroying the environment and needs to be stopped, it cant be ignored just because its by-products and conveniences happen to be working for you right now

Pretty much the entire population. Look at the poor in america, and look at the poor in the third world, there's a massive gap.

We must pressure for all banks to be nationalized when the financial krach happens. The state can buy them, now that they're actually worth 0 USD. Once banks are entirely under state control, the finance has actually been extirped from power and we can start bringing the economy under democratic ownership.

oh fuck yeah mate, poor people in america are practically royalty because they have enough to eat and get to be homeless around skyscrapers instead of villages

You're still missing the point entirely. Homeless people are quite few in america and even they have something to eat. If you think america is what widespread crushing poverty looks like, you've got some real utopian ideals for your ideal society.

people don’t revolt to objective quality of life they revolt to any decline in quality of life at all. the gap between the rich and poor grow in this country and as that happens people will continue to get restless.

There is only one way that will genuinely bring about socialist revolution. Large, organized efforts by communist organizations proving to the masses that we not only want to but are able to provide for their needs. This has to be proven through building infrastructure that offers a support system for the poor in the territories the organization operates. It needs to be a 21st century promise of land and bread for anyone to take it seriously. It needs to be materialist – if you convince someone you can meet their material needs in a way that isnt currently happening, ideological openness will follow. We can't evangelize and need to make a distinction between conversion to an ideology (which we should avoid) and recruitment into a network that works in the interest of the recruit (which we should emphasize).

Attached: 1545701827194.jpg (997x800, 594.17K)

Housing, wifi and a future.

Pure sophistry and I'm not even american.
Poverty is spreading in the US and you don't know what you're saying.

Yup. Job security and healthcare too.

How the hell do we/can we fulfill our promises?

Finding some way to generate revenue to help provide people healthcare or open up free clinics. Socialist tenants unions to protect peoples' homes and stop raised rents etc. That's an easy way to win over a lot of people, when they (like most people) see politics as smoke and mirrors irrelevant to their actual life and then a political organization actually saves them without asking for anything in return except working in their own self interest. We do this in Philly with the Philadelphia Tenants Union which is operated by Philly Socialists. Also teach free English Second Language classes to immigrants, most of whom are low wage workers. They're relatively small steps and seem subtle from the outside but I think in the long run they will prove far more effective at building a real base with potential to last, as opposed to spectacle like antifa rallies (which I do support for their immediate goals but provide no constructive direction) and adventurism like Red Guards Austin.

Community integration of the communist party.
Quick, someone find or write up some theory regarding said

As I understood it, once you've solidified this more radical form of democracy, you push to make the switch to labour vouchers and make wage exploitation (profitting by other people's labour) illegal. So you circumvent the whole "prepare ur anuses, we're coming for ur toothbrushes" bullshit, and instead you present it as a workers right issue.

The bourgeoisie will naturally rebel, but that's not the point. The point is getting the masses on your side by first going for deepening of democracy, then pushing for Socialism as a natural extension of that. He also talked about initially overprinting the labour vouchers, but I didn't understand that part of it.

Already gotcha fam:
outline.com/6xWaj3

A violent overthrow of society is extremely difficult in a time peace and prosperity .

Desperation and misery are the parents of revolution. The poor and oppressed with nothing left to lose are easy to lead into rebellion, while the comfortable middle classes are far more likely to be content with the status quo.

You need majority support to start a revolution effectively or at all. We don't have this whatsoever if you look at it realistically. We are from the support we need before we could make any kind of physical move. Face it, we've got some politicians advocating for our ideals but nobody is openly identifying themselves and a few people have done some protests. This ain't it chief

mods please delete that post, didn’t mean to post it.

They won't hold 3 days…………

Not that user, but thanks for sharing.