Welcome to Gaia! ::

If the artificial order of things is disturbed enough, people will go with anything. If some massive disaster or insanely huge corruption scandal or something could ignite a civil war, we could use that as our revolution to overthrow the establishment and put in our own.

Well, I'll address some of the questions presented and respond first before I go on to the teaching part.

I would first point out to Dis Domnu that guerrilla tactics have their place in modern revolutions (note their roles in China, Cuba, and Nepal), but that these tactics are only tools to be used when the time is right - if they are incorrectly used this results in adventurism or just plain terrorism. Roy likely has some nice things to say about just plain terrorism, and why it doesn't work. I would point out that adventurist tactics are generally just counter-productive, exhaust the most advanced segments, and lead revolutionary forces into a vast swamp. It could also have a counter-productive experience in that, the guerrilla fighters, rather than having the class they seek to represent, are chased away by aforesaid adventurist tactics.

I would point out to Herobane that large social disturbances do present themselves as good grounds for revolutionary seeds (note historically, the first world war, the Franco-Prussian war, French Colonialism in Vietnam, or the second world war). But without an organized proletarian-revolutionary core it is impossible to transform these disturbances into a proletarian revolution.

To The Curse:

Your first statement regarding funds. These can be countered by grassroots organizing, propaganda, etc. The revolution does not require a vast majority of citizens to be on its side. At the risk of sounding like Blanqui, only a small group is required to lead revolutionary forces, and through its merits, lead the class which it represents into the fray. For example, in the Soviet Union, only a small revolutionary core was present, but the Bolsheviks were still able to lead what workers were not Communists and a large portion of the peasantry (which has no especial predisposition towards socialism) to socialism. They did this through demonstrating policies which properly represented the class and thus brought the majority of the revolutionary classes behind them.

I would point out that living standards in the major league industrial powers are high due to imperialism and exploitation of the third world. This is why in Lenin's "Imperialism" it is proposed that workers in the underdeveloped world are the most likely to revolt - that the weakest links in the imperialist chain will experience revolution prior to the most industrialized (contrary to Marx's views that the most industrialized would go first - Marx was right in his time, but this was before international finance and monopoly capitalism).



So how does one get a revolution?

Well a revolution is brought about by a Party or classes' proper understanding of objective and subjective factors.

What are objective factors? An easy explanation is that one says the "objective world" or "objective fact" it means that which cannot (for the moment) be changed. So, for example, the laws of gravity here on Earth are objective - until one enters space. To note Herobane above he is talking about an objective situation of social upheaval.

Subjective factors are ones which, through various tactics and strategies, can be affected by action. Through properly understanding what is ripe for change, and how to align your subjective factors and objective factors one can affect a revolution. Subjective factors could be a high unemployment rate, discontent regarding the poor performance of a president, labor tensions (outside of the natural conflict between worker and owner), etc.

As to what, say in the US, would affect a revolution, I am not sure. I risk sounding pretty pessimistic when I say any such revolution in the US is relatively far off when compared to the other nations of the world. There is currently no Party which can garner the support of any class in particular (besides the Republicans who are rather effectively garnering the support of finance capital and the big bourgeoisie). Not so sound like a Party fetishist, but revolution, of the type we desire, is impossible without a force which can lead the proletarian class - at present no such force exists. At present, the most important thing to do is to cultivate a proper understanding of Marxism-Leninism, tactics, and strategy. And to train in the struggles of the day - then a vanguard could be created in embryonic form. To be sure, these last 2 decades have been awful for revolutionary movements (the Reagan revolution) as evidence by the shear fact that *no* radical movement has been able to gain any traction (that is feminist, racial based, green, or any other radical movement).

This is nothing like Blanqui, though charges of 'Blanquism' are frequently accusations on a straw-man level.

Though I love the man, and think him the greatest revolutionary that lived, his thoughts were way off. What he wanted was a conspiracy. Small circles of revolutionaries would form, infiltrate or convert people in positions of power--police chiefs, officers in the army, government bureaucrats--and they would take power that way, through a sudden coup. They would then use the state to artificially create a revolutionary atmosphere and drag the proletariat along, until it is able to do stuff on its own.

The man was great, THE revolutionary, but... That s**t is way wrong.

Massive social change, an expansive guerrilla war, or an entire class acting in unison to seize power from another.

Eh. I'm still not sold. Social change would take a long time, and democracy would shift with it, such as lessening religious influence in government.

Guerilla warfare sounds like the psuedo-wars in the middle east. Whereby an effective fight is fought, but it's long, weak and drawn out. I'm not sure that it could be revolutionary in such a manner.

And, well, class struggle is something I struggle to believe is possible. Considering any worker can, or at least views themselves as a potential manager. The sheer weight of jealousy, distrust and hatred seems an impossible task.

You don't fight like in the Mid East. A rebel guerrilla force has the benefit of striking, initially, with surprise. You wouldn't be dealing with large military presences in the beginning, so you'd be able to achieve more than Mid Eastern insurgencies.

That, and those insurgencies have no strategic vision. They just fight. The Taleban, however, is doing pretty well for itself all things considered. They're the closest to a proper guerrilla force that I can think of out in the Mid East.

Though the US government has many military allies, it could indeed call on many reinforcements if the rebellion is considered the 'bad guy' internationally.

Mm. That depends on the propaganda, given if the rebels are the ;'bad guys' then allies will become synonymous with defenders and helpers. It's not 'foreigners occupying towns' so much as 'Our allies help us man the barricades'.