A new Revolution in America, how could it happen?

Post Reply New Topic

And put down our cheetos, and get two others to help get our lardasses up off the couch.

Stereotype, much? The opposite is true: many Americans WANT change. What has been proven by Occupy Wall Street is that one can only reform the system so far from below however, while from within, the government will only change so many of it's inner workings.

True reform, true change isn't possible as if the Occupy Movement got everything that it wanted, then it would require a total overhaul of the "system," I.E. free-market capitalism.

Karl Marx once addressed the issue of government reform in a critique of an article entitled "The King of Prussia and Social Reform" in 1844:



from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/08/07.htm

In 2012, the same holds true in the U.S. Depending on which of the two main parties is running the show, each will blame the other for societal defects. The state, in a blind act of trying to protect itself, is incapable of realizing that it is the system that perpetuates militarism, war, poverty-in-a-land-of-plenty, etc.

It's why Obama was unable to offer "change" to voters. Even if he was sincere and wanted to offer real change, he soon found out when in office that when working within the narrow confines of the system, certain "socialist" policies of his could only go so far.



When this famous statement was penned in the Declaration of Independence, many inside the government and in the colonies figured that just be freeing themselves from the British crown, they could usher in a wave of equality.

The opposite proved to be true. By the late 1700's/early 1800's, a form of "true capitalism" was practiced, with zero intervention from the government. Mill workers, most of them female, spearheaded reforms to the system from below to allow the right to form trade unions. Companies considered trade unions as"conspiratorial, illegal combinations" against the employer. Even when strikes by mill workers routinely got put down(striking was illegal) and became increasingly militant, the government did nothing to stop the employer(s) from cracking down in the interest of preserving the equality the founding fathers had supposedly achieved for the American people by forging a republic.

The female mill workers proved themselves to be at the vanguard of early American labor struggles, eventually winning the right to strike and to form labor unions, and in Marxist terms would have been considered part of the advanced section of a new class known as the proletariat.

in "The Principals of Communism," Engels wrote concerning the spontaneous rise of this new class in a reply to a question concerning whether or not they ever had existed before:



from: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Regardless, capitalists and the state that increasingly supported them continued to put down the working poor through a variety of repressive means throughout the entirety of the 19th century. Following the fall of the 1871 Paris Commune, New York City police actually crushed a peaceful demonstration in the heart of the city for fear that workers would rise up and form a "New York Commune." I'm dead serious.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tompkins_Square_Riot_%281874%29

The American state proved itself time and time again to be against reform, and as it hardened itself following every minor or major economic crisis it served only to protect itself from any uprising of the popular masses, insulating itself from further reform.

The founding fathers had, IMHO, failed in their mission to create an equal society, as well as to protect the American people from it's own government.

In 2012, there is no way the state would let itself be overthrown from below; no old, frail scrap of paper will prevent them from unleashing it's full power upon a rebellious American people.



Past attempts by revolutionaries to usher in centralized, iron-disciplined organization into a movement in order to overthrow governments had only ended in the creation of new, equally oppressive-if not more oppressive-left-wing states as a replacement to right-wing states.

There's a fine line between too much organization, and too little organization in a movement.

Im not advocating for revolution, however, if it came to that.... look at recent history. Im not saying we got beat in Iraq, but the insurgents killed quite a few US Troops with nothing more than assault rifles, guerilla tactics and IED's. any idiot with half a brain can build an IED. All the tanks and bombs and high tech equipment in the world, has been beaten or countered with lower tech simple, devices and smart deployment of such devices. Vietnam was a guerilla war. Now, nobody wants to wage a war against our own people, much less against all the intimidating gear that the Military has, But it is very doable, using the correct tactics. there are people among the civilian world who know these tactics and know the capabilities of military gear and tactics. Its very doable. and there are many many many weapons out there in the civilian world. A revolution could work, although its not ideal.

I dont think the military can control over 200 million civilians if they were to revolt simultaniously without dropping a nuke on its own soil.

The western media continues to deceive the world, particular those living in the west, about the TRUTH regarding the Soviet-Afghan war. The only reason why the Afghan mujahideen actually won and the Soviets "lost" is because Gorbachev was not committed to the war effort and withdrew troops from Afghanistan after less than 10 years of war! Only ~25,000 Soviet soldiers dies while more than 500,000 mujahideen terrorists were slaughtered. Afghanistan is NOT militarily invincible nor is it unconquerable! Tamerlane's Afghan campaign was astoundingly successful as he dealt the Afghans a humiliating defeat and then proceeded to colonize and civilize Afghanistan. I think that Afghans are people who are incapable of ruling themselves and that's why America's war effort there is failing.

The solution: Put one of the Turkic speaking ethnic groups in Power and let the Uzbeks deal with that country.

I think that there is one overriding factor that categorically stands in the way of a new American Revolution:

The vast majority of Americans have a good life.

The vast majority of people in the United States have access to inexpensive food; comfortable shelter; communications; entertainment and transportation. Americans have universal primary and secondary education free at the point of delivery, and--for all its shortcomings--excellent health care.

Are things perfect? Of course not. Could things be better? That goes without saying.

But can you honestly say that things are so bad in your country that you would take up arms against the government? I believe that the number of people who could honestly answer that question in the affirmative is a tiny, and frankly self-deluded, minority.

Think of the closing scenes of the motion picture V.

ruveyn

We already had that. It was called the American Civil War.

Anyway, in both the first revolution to get away from England, and the Civil War, both required other countries intervention either in armaments or other countries straight out sending soldiers or officers to "advise" rebel troops. In the Revolution, the other country was France, and Polish mercenaries. In the Civil War, it was Britain trading with the South. In fact, if the war went on longer, the British would have officially sided with the South. So basically, after the initial "seeds" of revolution went down, you'd be dependent upon international entities for your supplies.

As far as armed populace making revolution easy. It makes starting one easy. Doesn't necessarily make winning one easy. The Afghans managed to fight the Soviets with Lee Enfields, but they brought down the Soviet tanks with American missiles.

That's just the logistics regarding weapons and firepower alone. These logistics imply a state has a coastline, and also that the coastline isn't blockaded. Even if a state declared secession like that, and USA, didn't, oh, airstrike it to oblivion or something, you'd have a situation like Palestine/Israel going on in that state where it'd become a ghetto full of "terrorists."

As far as how it'd happen? It probably wouldn't. I think the population that wants Obama-phones far exceeds the population that wants a revolution in any form. The US government makes sure bread and circuses are covered so well, that even under martial law people wouldn't rebel. Genius plan really. The only way a revolution would happen is if the bread and circuses stopped.

Anyway, if you wanna see how a revolution in America would turn out, view the first and second ones.

And it was quite beastly. It is still the war in which the most Americans (both sides were American) were killed or maimed. The butcher's bill came out to nearly 4 percent of the population -- 1 in 25.

ruveyn

1)Unless we have another great depression and the government is unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to instigate recovery, the chances of a revolution are practically zero. However, you are incorrect that the "vast majority" of Americans have a good life, they simply aren't desperately poor and starving....................................YET.

2) In case you haven't noticed, a lot of Americans are pretty unhappy these days compared to people in Canada who seem quite content with their country. Canada has strict quotas on Americans wishing to emigrate there, unlike the US which will happily accept Canadian immigrants.

3) You're claim that secondary education(as in college) is free at the point of delivery in the US is 100% Wrong. College is NOT free and is becoming more and more expensive with the exception of community colleges. ONLY 25% OF AMERICANS HAVE A BACHELORS DEGREE(OR MORE) Many people have gone to college by taking out student loans and with the bad economy they are thousands of dollars in debt which they will spend the rest of their lives paying off. Banks may become increasingly restrictive about who qualifies for a student loan since in the wake of the financial crisis fewer people are able to get loans greater than there net worth.

Read -The Iron Heel- by Jack London.

ruveyn

As long as people can go to the mall, go out to eat, go to movies, get the latest iPhone they won't have much of an inclination (if at all) for a revolution.
Right now they aren't even sure why they'd want a revolution.

Last edited by Raptor on 01 Dec 2012, 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Revolution is generally a terrible idea. It rarely happens without some kind of bloodbath.

If there was a reveloution, it would be by America's own hand.

It is not within the range of possibility of complete economical collapse. Gas becomes 200 a gallon, and inflation skyrockets up to %1000
When there is rioting in the streets, complete social disorder and society on the brink or past the brink of failure, that's when I will rise up and join a militia group.


Best Regards,

Jake

Or save your money so you can catch a flight to a place not America?

'secondary education' generally referrs to high school, which is indeed free in the US.