While true, acts of stochastic terrorism don't work.
This would only work if the majority of the people are sympathetic to the insurgency and understand that the violence they're carrying out is on behalf of those people in service of a specific and clear goal.
You're right, but we shouldn't just think "terrorism" or even violence when we think about decentralized insurgencies.
ITT people not understanding what a decentralized insurgency means
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dr-bones-actually-yes-the-left-can-defeat-the-united-states-militarily
That wasn't my main point either, the main point was that "decentralized insurgency" isn't an outlandish concept. It's been very actively used in warfare.
It's Belling the Cat.
A great idea that will do a lot of good, but requires both significant resources and monumental human risk/sacrifice for the individuals attempting it.
Who wants to be the ones putting their necks on the line for the mere possibility of successful insurgency?
Successful and failed alike. Lot more of the latter.
It's a big ask to say "Join the Long March" or "The First French Revolution" knowing what we know now. Nevermind the Shanghai Commune of 1928.
Propaganda of the deed does nothing but to set back workers’ movements as acts of individual terror heighten the police and surveillance state. If it comes out that they were a leftist or communist, right there is the media narrative.
We are no where near the conditions to have any sort of decentralized insurgency of any type. And without a centralized body and line, what is the point of acts of violence?
Look no further than our occupation of Iraq. The insurgency starts up and then we are “forced” to stay there longer, increase troops, more patrols, more helicopters, more drones, etc.
Good thing then that the meme isn't advocating for propaganda of the deed
Sure, but where and how will a decentralized and asymmetrical insurgency act. How will they do attacks? What is the goal of these attacks? If there is no direction then they do just turn into individual acts of propaganda of the deed.
You still have a power structure though. My point is that random acts will hurt more than help a workers revolution. I’m not doubting guerrilla warfare and it’s tactics (I’m trying to study them) but in the US I don’t think it can be as easily applied.
Power structure was probably a poor wording choice. I think leadership within a organization would arise though, and that could be democratic/consensus. Plus, having that sort of organization could help prevent groups/cells carrying things out on their own or what have you.
Right. I understand what you’re saying, I just disagree with it being widely successful in the United States. I think here we would need a vanguard with a “defensive force” that specifically does these things, follows a party line, and is still beholden to the working class.
I mean obviously there will be cells or groups that do this on their own, but at what point do they become a problem (or hindrance?) for revolution? Or even post revolution?
Edit: actually, it could possibly work in certain parts of the United States. Would all depends on the conditions and consciousness and ability of whoever, etc. maybe for smaller attacks that target moral and can provide instability to reactionary forces (I’m a vet so I know some ways of disabling vehicles). Larger assaults or battles could be led by a more vanguard style? Who knows comrade.
because theres a big IF associated where u need enuf insurgents to actually do anything
okay but the username PossumKratom69 is fucking hilarious to me. but yes very weird meme
