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.
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 involved trekking thousands of miles of arduous mountainous terrains while escaping from the nationalist persecution.
The idea that the American left is so uniquely oppressed by a “strong” government is absurd. People literally died fighting the system in other places in the world. Merely a few thousand rank and file cadres made it to Yan’an as their urban bases were wiped out, and even at its weakest moment, Mao had already identified the strategy on how to defeat the much much stronger KMT forces.
In other words, they had a strategy to win. The problem with American left is that we don’t even know what their strategies are. Even if there is another pandemic in, say, 3-5 years time, they still wouldn’t have any clue how to transform this into political actions.
We’ve seen the recent CEO killing and the public reaction to it, and I can safely say that no organized political movement will come out of this.
American capitalism is always in crisis, and the problem with the American left is that they’re blind to it.
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.
As mentioned, I was responding to the statement that the American left cannot do anything because they have been uniquely repressed by a “strong” government, and gave an example that the Chinese had strategy that worked in particular to their material conditions. I used the Chinese example because I am well familiar with its history.
That “retreat to the countryside” you’re mentioning cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of comrades who were forced to trek through dangerous terrains. More than 95% of the people who started the journey did not make it.
Also, to claim that the PLA took power only after the Japanese invasion is absurd. The reforms that started in the Yan’an countryside would hold key to the ultimate mass defection of the KMT during the People’s Liberation War, who outnumbered the communists 6 to 1. The foundation for success started decades before because Mao had already identified that land reform would be the key to unleash the revolutionary potential of the feudal land-holding peasantry class.
You need to identify the strategy and start working on them because otherwise you would not have been able to seize when the opportunity arrives. No such equivalent exists in the American left today. No theory. No strategy.
And finally, the principal contradictions of American capitalism is not land, like in China’s case, it’s debt. I’ve read through PSL’s program and the word “debt” did not even come up once. How is that not concerning.
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.
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.
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 involved trekking thousands of miles of arduous mountainous terrains while escaping from the nationalist persecution.
The idea that the American left is so uniquely oppressed by a “strong” government is absurd. People literally died fighting the system in other places in the world. Merely a few thousand rank and file cadres made it to Yan’an as their urban bases were wiped out, and even at its weakest moment, Mao had already identified the strategy on how to defeat the much much stronger KMT forces.
In other words, they had a strategy to win. The problem with American left is that we don’t even know what their strategies are. Even if there is another pandemic in, say, 3-5 years time, they still wouldn’t have any clue how to transform this into political actions.
We’ve seen the recent CEO killing and the public reaction to it, and I can safely say that no organized political movement will come out of this.
American capitalism is always in crisis, and the problem with the American left is that they’re blind to it.
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:
As mentioned, I was responding to the statement that the American left cannot do anything because they have been uniquely repressed by a “strong” government, and gave an example that the Chinese had strategy that worked in particular to their material conditions. I used the Chinese example because I am well familiar with its history.
That “retreat to the countryside” you’re mentioning cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of comrades who were forced to trek through dangerous terrains. More than 95% of the people who started the journey did not make it.
Also, to claim that the PLA took power only after the Japanese invasion is absurd. The reforms that started in the Yan’an countryside would hold key to the ultimate mass defection of the KMT during the People’s Liberation War, who outnumbered the communists 6 to 1. The foundation for success started decades before because Mao had already identified that land reform would be the key to unleash the revolutionary potential of the feudal land-holding peasantry class.
You need to identify the strategy and start working on them because otherwise you would not have been able to seize when the opportunity arrives. No such equivalent exists in the American left today. No theory. No strategy.
And finally, the principal contradictions of American capitalism is not land, like in China’s case, it’s debt. I’ve read through PSL’s program and the word “debt” did not even come up once. How is that not concerning.
As a DSA member I find that hilarious.
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.