/b/ - Siberia

>There will be and can be no mass movement in America like there was in Russia and China until America, as in, the central government, is either seriously diminished or destroyed.
I'm not sure if I agree with this. We have to build a mass movement regardless.

I agree with the premise that the defeat of the American empire will (or should) be internal - the alternative is a catastrophic world war which the US loses, and which is probably followed by American breakaway states and smaller civil wars. In my view, as a pigdog disgusting American, the aim of revolutionaries here should be to organize relentlessly and take over the organs of the American state while they still exist with a broad workers' movement which will then kick the corporate/MIC influences (and, especially, Zionists) out of power, release suppressed information about US state activities, and reindustrialize the US while reducing the military to a strong national guard… which will probably have to fend off coup (and re-coup) attempts by mercenaries and disgruntled former proxies and foreign-based US military officers. It's ideal that the state be seized before the final stages of its hollowing out have been entirely completed, although I'm obviously very pessimistic about whether we can achieve that it's absolutely what we should be striving for.

People are way too afraid of the military and the militarized police in America to do anything serious.

Also until the USA is cut off from the influx of wealth generated by imperialism (ie they get kicked out of the countries they exploit) I think they will remain strong.

>>157070
>People are way too afraid of the military and the militarized police in America to do anything serious.
Wrong.

>Also until the USA is cut off from the influx of wealth generated by imperialism (ie they get kicked out of the countries they exploit) I think they will remain strong.
That sounds like an excuse to me.

>>157071
>Wrong.
Okay well I've heard this enough times in the wild that I think it's a common sentiment. You haven't heard people say something to that effect?

>That sounds like an excuse to me.
It's not an excuse, material conditions have to change for social change to happen. Other than some natural disaster or war (which ITT we are ruling out because OP said it won't come to America), I can't think of any catalyst for something to happen.

On the other hand if the influx of profits from exploited countries is cut off, I think that will create conditions for systemic change.

The only way to conquer the American people is by controlling the media.civil war doesn't make sense in the us because the divide isn't regional, it's urban vs rural which happens in every state. at most you would have mini conflicts followed by new normal stability
The american identity is basically 'I'll do anything for money, it doesn't have to be much' case in point: both parties. They really don't stand for anything other than 'fuck you, I've got mine'. While the posible exceptions are a few renegades here and there it's too late, the entire society is poisoned with this idea that everything is for sale.

The difference between a prostitute and a whore is that a whore will sell its priciples and the US is second only to Russia in how many of it's citizens are whores.

unfortunately, western """leftists""" are the saddest motherfuckers on the planet and will come up with any bullshit retard excuse to not do anything ever

>>157072
>Okay well I've heard this enough times in the wild that I think it's a common sentiment. You haven't heard people say something to that effect?
Idk I mostly hear people say that on the internet, and I think there's an active psyop to make it seem like a more common sentiment than it actually is.
The people who are dissuaded by the militarized police are generally people who would do nothing even without militarized police.

>It's not an excuse, material conditions have to change for social change to happen. Other than some natural disaster or war (which ITT we are ruling out because OP said it won't come to America), I can't think of any catalyst for something to happen.
Organize, arm, etc. Don't just wait for stuff to happen, that's part of the problem.

>>157079
>The only way to conquer the American people is by controlling the media.
Reeks of "I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas."

>civil war doesn't make sense in the us because the divide isn't regional, it's urban vs rural which happens in every state. at most you would have mini conflicts followed by new normal stability
The urban/rural divide itself is false - it's a product of internal divide-and-rule propaganda, genuinely fake. The actual overarching divide is along class lines and, in spite of what some people online will claim, the rural/urban "divide" doesn't actually reflect this. A war which upended the state of things in the US would necessarily be carried out without consideration for false rural/urban divides by groups commonly opposed to the existing American state.

ONLY Mexicans can destroy America

>>157145
>Idk I mostly hear people say that on the internet, and I think there's an active psyop to make it seem like a more common sentiment than it actually is.

That's… probably true actually.

But there are a fuck ton of retards that just go along not questioning the system.

You know this past weekend I may have rediscovered Maoism. Hear me out.

I was visiting my friends in another city and this one guy just got everyone so fucking hyped up. As soon as we pulled up he just slams whatever he was holding on the ground and runs to give us hugs yelling. The hype became contagious and soon we were a group of monkeys hyping each other up, repeating dumb in-jokes that got funnier the more we chanted them, and going from spot to spot having fun around town. Just non stop good energy.

Leftists need this kind of energy. Desperately.

We need to build revolutionary hype. You know what hypes people up? Actually going and doing shit. We can start small, politically charged graffiti for example. Painting on walls is fun, doing something illegal is fun, and being sneaky about it IS fun because there are consequences. Before you dismiss this as anarkiddie type shit remember the goal: hype. We start small and fun and get ourselves excited. Then we include other people into it, now there's more of us, now we can do something bigger!

But not everyone can do what my buddy did. I know plenty of amazing people but hyping up a group of people takes a certain genius that I'm not sure can be learned. That's why I thought of Mao, he seemed like the kind of guy that could just stoke people until they had a revolution.

If OP is talking about destroying America in order to further the goals of communism, then I will remind them that the point of American communism is not to destroy America but to complete it. In this case, an invasion wouldn't work even if it was somehow successful. When OP says…
>There will be and can be no mass movement in America like there was in Russia and China until America, as in, the central government, is either seriously diminished or destroyed.
…the mistake being made is the assumption that a communist movement in America will necessarily resemble those in Russia and China. What OP misunderstands is that the Western communists failed by imitating the Eastern communists. However, this is obscured by the fact that the New Left also failed through its rejection of the Old Left.
The problem we are facing is that we know (explicitly or otherwise) that the Leninist strategy doesn't work in developed capitalist countries, yet every attempted alternative to date hasn't worked either. It should be clear that won't be enough to pursue the seizure of state power through a vanguard party, nor to restrict oneself to civil-society organizations and cultural struggle.
My recommendation is to study Richard Wolff. I don't think that his vision will be successful, but I believe that it contains something important which might be missing in contemporary Western communist thought. Wolff's focus on the firm as the site of revolution ("economic democracy") is a perspective which I believe hasn't received serious enough attention beyond trade unionism. I intuit that a new communist movement in the West will succeed by combining both Leninism and New Leftism with some kind of perspective similar to that of Wolff's.

>>158606
Interesting, good post.

>Wolff's focus on the firm as the site of revolution
I'm not seeing the innovation Wolff brings to Marxism that you're seeing. He's pretty good at explaining it and relating it to today's world.

>>158607
From what I understand, Marxists differentiate between societal systems, such as capitalism or feudalism, according to its dominant mode of production. Necessary product is used to sustain and reproduce labour, whereas surplus product is used both to maintain the non-producers and to expand the stock of the means of production. Nearly any society requires some mechanism by which producers are compelled to create surplus product to be extracted, and this mechanism of surplus extraction is what defines a mode of production.
Wolff locates the surplus extraction mechanism of the capitalist mode of production specifically within the capitalist firm. Therefore, worker's co-ops supposedly subvert this by giving the workers direct control over this mechanism. I won't go into my criticisms of Wolff in this regard, especially since I might be misunderstanding him, but this perspective strikes me as relatively unique and worthy of serious consideration.
Social scientists and philosophers often use a model of society that divides it into three sectors: firms, the state, and civil society. Based on what I know about the history of the left, I believe that Western leftists show a pervasive tendency to focus on the state and/or civil society in their analyses. However, Wolff (alongside a few others like Cockshott) appears to have done the opposite, which is why I find him interesting despite my disagreements.

>>157068
If I understand correctly, the state is like a complicated control room for a nuclear reactor. There are knobs and dials but ultimately there are a few people controlling it and making observations and
adjustments.

Our job as socialists is to storm that control room and seize it.

So where are these knobs and dials located? At first I thought it might be the government. The government officials are the knobs and dials, and the rich own them and make them move in the way they wish.

But then I read this post: >>158609 and realized that leftists also need to seize control of key industries (Oil, logistics, farming, steel, manufacturing, media, internet).

Okay so we can talk about how to take control of the physical buildings and offices, but surely we will be met with an armed response. In every revolution I've read about, there was a violent civil war in which the socialist side conquered.

But we also know from >>158606 that
>a communist movement in America will not necessarily resemble those in Russia and China.

So all of this is to say that my imagination is having trouble playing out how exactly this goes. That means I lack an understanding of exactly what forces we will be fighting and where.

Only if we can figure this out we can move on to wargaming and simulating scenarios and developing a real plan of action.

And honestly, organizing IRL is currently not useful because there is no revolutionary strategy. This kind of work can actually be done on the internet and actually be useful.

Remember the most organized side will win.
Also I found out recently that the rules for D&D are inspired by conflict simulations, so I'm curious to try and hash out what will happen by setting up a similar framework

>>158605
>I was visiting my friends in another city and this one guy just got everyone so fucking hyped up. As soon as we pulled up he just slams whatever he was holding on the ground and runs to give us hugs yelling. The hype became contagious and soon we were a group of monkeys hyping each other up, repeating dumb in-jokes that got funnier the more we chanted them, and going from spot to spot having fun around town. Just non stop good energy.

>Leftists need this kind of energy. Desperately.

>We need to build revolutionary hype. You know what hypes people up? Actually going and doing shit. We can start small, politically charged graffiti for example. Painting on walls is fun, doing something illegal is fun, and being sneaky about it IS fun because there are consequences. Before you dismiss this as anarkiddie type shit remember the goal: hype. We start small and fun and get ourselves excited. Then we include other people into it, now there's more of us, now we can do something bigger!


Why do people always wanna suggest lunatic behavior for "le glorious revolution".
.It's so shallow and annoying.
Y'all don't care about making anything good.
You just want an excuse to "have a good time"

>>158624
Have you ever lived through a revolution?