Why I think a communist revolution is a pipe dream in United States.

[Velociryx]

But, I don't know, you tell me....here's a pretty typical reason for going to war....this actually closely mirrors several conflicts going on now or in the recent past:

* These guys over here want everyone to join the borg collective. Surrender everything they own to the wisdom and benevolence of the state, and let the state make every major decision in their lives. The penalty for not doing this is death. The penalty for not voluntarily submitting to this is...also death.

* This group over here doesn't like that idea very much. They don't WANT to be lorded over by the state. They say a big NO THANKS, and take up arms to keep their personal freedom, because resistance is NOT futile, and they're rather die than be assimiliated.

That doesn't sound like an economic reason for going to war to me. Sounds like yet another group of humans rising up to meet their natural, HUMAN nature and defying the defining principles of your commie utopia.

-=Vel=-

[Oerdin]

Ten years later, communists (of a different stripe), were leading the struggle against racism and war.

The communists may have chimed in now and then but at no time was any of the major Civil Rights leaders associated with the Communist Party. In fact that would have played right into the hands of the reactionaries who claimed the Civil Rights activists were never do wells, foreign agents, or ideological enemies of the west/America.

From the very beginning the leadership of the civil rights movement as well as most of the supporters came from the religious right.That's way such a very large portion of the leaders were Christian priests and nearly all of their speeches spoke of God and Jesus.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

I think the real reason why communism won't ever fly in the US is because, for all its faults, most Americans (even those leaning towards dissent) would agree that the system, in its essense, works. The country would have to completely turn to ****, like Somalia style, for anyone to seriously consider a revolution, even an electoral one.

[Zkribbler]

There's an interesting opinion stated on page 1 of this thread that the US avoided a communist revolution by making concessions, i.e. instituting the New Deal.

Will the Republicans current attacks on the New Deal (privitization of Social Security, repeal of the 8-hour workday, attack on the welfare system, deregulation) resurrect the prospects of a Communist revolution in America??

[Ming]

No...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The communists may have chimed in now and then but at no time was any of the major Civil Rights leaders associated with the Communist Party.

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference was not the be all and end all of the civil rights movement. A lot of the people who assisted King were Communists, people who had done a lot of organizing among Blacks in the South during the 1930s. In Addition to the SCLC you had organizarions and people like CORE, SNCC, the Black Panthers, Roy Wilson who were communists or assciated with Communists. Malcolm X associated with the Socialist Workers Party.

[chequita guevara]

Vel, do you just make stuff up which agrees with you or have you ever actually looked at a war and what's going on?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
I think the real reason why communism won't ever fly in the US is because, for all its faults, most Americans (even those leaning towards dissent) would agree that the system, in its essense, works.

Well, that's why we don't see revolutions all the time everywhere. They only happen when the government fails to deal with a crisis.

[Velociryx]

There's no need for me to make stuff up, Che. The weight of historical evidence is on my side.

You guys on the other hand, have YET to have even ONE successful Big Red Run. We're still waiting.

What does that suggest?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

About all you can say, at the end of the day, is you have a problem with laws that relate to private ownership.....never mind that that contradicts (or seems to) the notion of "workers" owning the means of production, and yes, wars have been fought since time began about ownership rights.

Of course, that's got NOTHING to do with capitalism, but it would hurt your long-standing argument to admit it.



-=Vel=-
EDIT/CORRECTION: Inasmuch as private ownership is a component part of capitalism, they are interelated, yes. But laws relating TO private ownership are not, in and of themselves, the capitalism you so despise.

[Velociryx]

Well, that's why we don't see revolutions all the time everywhere. They only happen when the government fails to deal with a crisis.

And the reason we've never seen a SUCCESSFUL Red Revolution is.....that it doesn't work?

-=Vel=-

EDIT: And out of curiosity, which part was I making up? That most wars have their genesis in ideology, or that capitalism ISN"T an ideology?

[Oerdin]

Che: I'm not saying those communist/neo-communist organizations did nothing. What I am saying is that their efforts amounted to very little compared to the over all picture; it's a matter of context. White and black church groups (and not just the SCLC) made up the bulk of the vocal opposiotion to jim crow, the majority of the protester, and the majority of the money used during the movement.

Without the communists the civil rights movement would still have been accoplished but without the religious organizations who were ideologically opposed to segrigation the civil rights movement would never have gotten off the ground.

[MrFun]

A lot of the things that Chegitz has noted about capitalism I agree with.

It's an exploitative system, and throughout the history of capitialism, millions of people have died through "development" in non-Western countries.

However, while I agree that there is too often excessive exploitation by the elite under capitalist-based governments (be they republics, dictatorships, etc.), I do believe that capitalism can be reformed without a true revolution.

But the problem is, that until the majority of people become politically active again, and are no longer apathetic, you will not get any form of significant reform -- much less any kind of revolution -- be it a bloodless revolution, or a violent revolution.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by cinch


Even in the most highly industrial society, you'll still have scarcity. You may have a large abundance of goods, perhaps even a surplus, but you won't be able to elminate scarcity for most consumer or capital goods. At least, economically speaking.

Unless, of course, we're talking DISTANT future, and some sort of magical self-perpetuating machine that keeps turning out widgets in perpetuity, a la air or water.

one thing that will always be scarce is power over others

there is only so much of that to go arround

Jon Miller

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ahhh, okay, capitalist countries get to have excuses for their murderous failures, but Official Communist™ countries are murderous by definition.

The difference is, there are good capitalist countries and bad capitalist countries... the capitalism isn't the cause. However, every single communist country EVER has been a bad communist country. Why should a global capitalist country be any different?

[MrFun]

But skywalker, didn't Chegitz say that he rejects the historical models of the USSR and China?

Chegitz would never advocate the horrible governments that those two countries established.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, then there has NEVER been a Communist government. Why should we impliment a completely untested economic system on the entire world? Just because you say so?

[MrFun]

Just because something has not been proven yet to work, does that mean that it is impossible??

Maybe people have just gone the wrong way about it up to this point, but there is a successful way??

[Kuciwalker]

First, there are a lot of logical problems with communist theory, but I'll ignore that.

Just because something works on paper, doesn't mean it'll work in the real world. And so shouldn't we TEST the theory on a small scale, rather than implement it on the ENTIRE WORLD? Wouldn't that be a lot less risky?

[MrFun]

Like what?

Use a smaller country to start with, or a segment of a regional population within a country?

You can't organize and set up social changes as a lab experiment. Part of the human experience in history, is that social changes are not externally controlled (maybe there are exceptions) -- they emerge out of a wide range of socio-economic factors.

[Jon Miller]

I am pretty sure that there have been working examples of communism

and they have all been on the small scale

Jon Miller

[Kuciwalker]

Well, going back the chegitz's assertions that those countries weren't communist, is that true? They tried to be communist. However, the very nature of communism ensured that they ended up a totalitarian state.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am pretty sure that there have been working examples of communism

and they have all been on the small scale

Jon Miller

If so, tell us about them (and provide sources).

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Velociryx
You guys on the other hand, have YET to have even ONE successful Big Red Run.

The central flaw in Communism is that it is based upon the erroneous assumption that humans are virtuous, that people will produce according to their maximum ability while taking only what they need.

The central flaw in supply-side economics is that it is based upon the erroneous assumption that corporations are virtuous, that corporations having monopolized the wealth of the world, will let some trickle down to their employees and consumers.

[Kuciwalker]

The central flaw in supply-side economics is that it is based upon the erroneous assumption that corporations are virtuous, that corporations having monopolized the wealth of the world, will let some trickle down to their employees and consumers.

Supply-side economics != capitalism.

Plus, corporations don't have to be virtuous. All we need to do is make acting virtuously in their best interests. (seriously)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
Well, going back the chegitz's assertions that those countries weren't communist, is that true? They tried to be communist.

That's a good summation of my position on the USSR and China.

However, the very nature of communism ensured that they ended up a totalitarian state.

This ignores that every single one of these states was under seige from the moment they took power. They never got a break to try and settle things down and actually develop. If you were trying to invent something, and everytime you got close to making it, I sent a bunch of thugs over to your place to smash things up, would that be evidence you were a bad inventor? No.

From the moment workers and/or peasants seize power anywhere in the world, the armed might of the imperialist world is there to confront them, arm and thrain their opposition, and cut the revolutionaries off from trade and aid. If you're at war, suffering from terrorism, and don't have the resources to meet all your needs, you are going to become a police state.

Finally, not every attempt at revolutionary socialism ended up a dictatorship. Sandanista Nicaragua didn't. With the exception of the U.S. State Department, ever monitor of the 1984 Nicaraguan elections certified them free and fair, despite the massive monetary aid the U.S. gave to the opposition (an act which would be illegal in the U.S.). Fortunately, and also in an historical exception, the Contras didn't engage in a slaughter of Sandinistas when they came to power in 1990.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
And so shouldn't we TEST the theory on a small scale, rather than implement it on the ENTIRE WORLD? Wouldn't that be a lot less risky?

If we could have, we would have. However, the capitalists have deliberately intefered with each and every attempt. It's difficult to prove the efficacy of your system when you're being invaded, terrorists are burning your crops and factories, destroying your bridges, cutting you off from foriegn trade, etc. I'd wager you'd be unable to successfully take a test if someone had a naked girl wiggling in front of you while someone else was smacking in the back of the head with a 2x4. Does that mean you're an idiot?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
White and black church groups (and not just the SCLC) made up the bulk of the vocal opposiotion to jim crow, the majority of the protester, and the majority of the money used during the movement.

I don't deny this. Non-socialists make up the bulk of the anti-war movement. What we bring to movements are organization, leadership (sometimes direct, sometimes indirect), historical lessons and perspective, etc. We are the leading edge of the movement, not the whole of the movement.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
EDIT: And out of curiosity, which part was I making up? That most wars have their genesis in ideology, or that capitalism ISN"T an ideology?

The former. Wars largely have their geneses in material, concrete reasons, like control of oil, diamonds, people tired of being slaves, etc. It's true that many wars have an ideological component. The Iran-Iraq war was both about revolutionary Shia Islam and control of the Shat al Arab and the security of Iraq from Iranian terrorism. But very few wars are fought for ideological reasons alone or even as the most important reason. If there's no material reason for the war, there won't be a war.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This ignores that every single one of these states was under seige from the moment they took power. They never got a break to try and settle things down and actually develop. If you were trying to invent something, and everytime you got close to making it, I sent a bunch of thugs over to your place to smash things up, would that be evidence you were a bad inventor? No.

From the moment workers and/or peasants seize power anywhere in the world, the armed might of the imperialist world is there to confront them, arm and thrain their opposition, and cut the revolutionaries off from trade and aid. If you're at war, suffering from terrorism, and don't have the resources to meet all your needs, you are going to become a police state.

Nope...

We were never at war with China or Russia. Yes, we fought wars through their proxies, but those wars were INITIATED BY THEM. We didn't start them. Moreover, the tyrants came to power BEFORE external aggression started.