Not nearly to the same degree as China in the 40s or Russia in the 10s.
The fact that the American left hasn’t been seizing opportunities beyond mere protests, says a lot about their political strategy and ambitions.
Part of this is because they are well repressed by a strong US government. Preceding the crises in Russia and China were a gradual weakening of those governments, which allowed increasing degrees of leftist organizing and activity, which then further weakened those governments, in a feedback loop that took a while to gain momentum. We’re still fairly early in that process.
COVID is actually a great example. There was massive unrest, but a sophisticated counterinsurgency operation quelled it through a mixture of violence and multifaceted influence campaigns. There was no leftist organization strong enough to counter that federal response and capitalize on the momentum, because decades of anticommunist repression dismantled any organization with the power, inclination, and tactical knowledge to do so. Anticommunist repression is weaker now than it was in the past, but it takes time to regain that ground.
I literally just raised the example of the Chinese communist movement, where nearly 95% of the cadres were murdered by the KMT or perished during the Long March, which involved trekking thousands of miles of arduous mountainous terrains while escaping from the nationalist persecution.
Sorry but that is a bullshit comparison. Your comparison only makes sense if you ignore everything about the material conditions and only focus on "KMT was strong once too".
The Chinese communist party had a countryside to retreat to where the KMT couldn't reach. No such place exists in the US and the countryside is the most hostile to communists. And even then it wasn't until after a failed Japanese invasion that the PLA took power.
Now I don't believe you're actually suggesting US communists take to the countryside. But you're not actually specifying any alternative strategies.
FWIW what's unique about the US isn't so much it the strength of its state violence but:
Already privatized farmland where the closest thing to landless peasants are migrant workers.
Home ownership is still a viable dream for many. iirc there's some Engle's quote where he claims this explicitly.
Look, you have my sympathy, but I literally just raised the example of the Chinese communist movement, where nearly 95% of the cadres were murdered by the KMT or perished during the Long March, which also involved trekking thousands of miles of arduous mountainous terrains to escape from the nationalist persecution.
I'll reflect on this, but currently the argument doesn't convince me. The Chinese communist movement didn't just decide one day to raise an army out of the blue. The fact that there was an ongoing armed conflict on Chinese soil was what allowed them to do that. Cities were being laid to waste. Villages were being burned. That makes it easier to recruit people to die, because 1) the country is already actively under contest, there is a vacuum to be fought over, so people can imagine victory even if the road is difficult, even if battles are lost along the way, 2) violence is already killing huge numbers of people, so it is not a choice between "risk death and join us, or remain in your city and enjoy certain peace," and in fact there are already many millions of people displaced from their homes who have nothing to lose but the clothes on their backs, and millions more people who fear it happening to them in the immediate future, because there is a climate of extreme and immediate uncertainty, and 3) because of the first two reasons, an ordinary person sees that it is credible for an armed movement to grow and successfully recruit other people under current conditions, and they see that other people see it too, which means that if they join the movement they might not be alone in joining it, which removes the "first wildebeest into the river" hesitation that arises in peacetime. The situation has reached a quorum for collective action where people recognize that if they act others may join them.
deleted by creator
Not nearly to the same degree as China in the 40s or Russia in the 10s.
Part of this is because they are well repressed by a strong US government. Preceding the crises in Russia and China were a gradual weakening of those governments, which allowed increasing degrees of leftist organizing and activity, which then further weakened those governments, in a feedback loop that took a while to gain momentum. We’re still fairly early in that process.
COVID is actually a great example. There was massive unrest, but a sophisticated counterinsurgency operation quelled it through a mixture of violence and multifaceted influence campaigns. There was no leftist organization strong enough to counter that federal response and capitalize on the momentum, because decades of anticommunist repression dismantled any organization with the power, inclination, and tactical knowledge to do so. Anticommunist repression is weaker now than it was in the past, but it takes time to regain that ground.
deleted by creator
Sorry but that is a bullshit comparison. Your comparison only makes sense if you ignore everything about the material conditions and only focus on "KMT was strong once too".
The Chinese communist party had a countryside to retreat to where the KMT couldn't reach. No such place exists in the US and the countryside is the most hostile to communists. And even then it wasn't until after a failed Japanese invasion that the PLA took power.
Now I don't believe you're actually suggesting US communists take to the countryside. But you're not actually specifying any alternative strategies.
FWIW what's unique about the US isn't so much it the strength of its state violence but:
deleted by creator
As a DSA member I find that hilarious.
Could you elaborate on debt being America's central contradiction? I think that's very interesting and would like to learn more.
I'll reflect on this, but currently the argument doesn't convince me. The Chinese communist movement didn't just decide one day to raise an army out of the blue. The fact that there was an ongoing armed conflict on Chinese soil was what allowed them to do that. Cities were being laid to waste. Villages were being burned. That makes it easier to recruit people to die, because 1) the country is already actively under contest, there is a vacuum to be fought over, so people can imagine victory even if the road is difficult, even if battles are lost along the way, 2) violence is already killing huge numbers of people, so it is not a choice between "risk death and join us, or remain in your city and enjoy certain peace," and in fact there are already many millions of people displaced from their homes who have nothing to lose but the clothes on their backs, and millions more people who fear it happening to them in the immediate future, because there is a climate of extreme and immediate uncertainty, and 3) because of the first two reasons, an ordinary person sees that it is credible for an armed movement to grow and successfully recruit other people under current conditions, and they see that other people see it too, which means that if they join the movement they might not be alone in joining it, which removes the "first wildebeest into the river" hesitation that arises in peacetime. The situation has reached a quorum for collective action where people recognize that if they act others may join them.