Would the Maoist conception of the Peoples' War be the most effective strategy at employing a revolution in the United...

Would the Maoist conception of the Peoples' War be the most effective strategy at employing a revolution in the United States, Canada, or Mexico? Considering the strategy of Peoples' War focuses on unifying the rural population to the point where urbanites are outnumbered and cannot resist, it seems like it would be perfect for countries like burgerland, canada, or mexico since they have large areas of undeveloped land and many of the urban areas are somewhat isolated.
use your imagination for a minute

Peasant revolts accomplish nothing in the modern world. Heck the Communists in China only came to power because China got fucked up so badly by the Japanese, it's not something that could be replicated today.

The majority of population in the first world lives in cities. Any revolution in the first world is going to be driven first and foremost by the urban proletariat.

This. Like 80 something percent of Canada’s population lives in cities.

If you're a merchant state that just an't enter into economic autarchy then revolution simply won't be able to start with you. Best you can hope for is to weasel your way into some EU-esque body with countries with productive capacity and make communism on that level.

Anyway, the best revolutionary strategy is actually parliamentarianism, done from some political entity with plenty of material resources and integration with the capitalist order so it won't be able to easily suppress your transition. Get in (before you do this you'll need to have made moves to ensure the workers prevent any attempts at capital flight; this part isn't strictly parliamentarianism but your populist campaign for parliament will be responsible for making this possible and eventually decisions will be made from the apparatus of the state), simultaneously default and issue debt forgiveness, withdraw from NATO, and spend the next couple of decades building massive amounts of infrastructure and providing prosperity to citizens of the origin country and any others that sign on while the capitalist world is in economic and political chaos.

some variation of it - yes. All his tactical approach is useless, unlike, say, India. But the core idea of protracted people's war is universal: you do not have to try and match the state where it is the the strongest. You need to create your own organisation where state organisation does not exist. In the end, every independent and authentic(not KGB shilled) communist revolution did exactly that. Latin American city guerellas was also an alteration.

They didn't accomplish much in the past either as far as civil war is concerned. China is the only place where it arguably work, but like you said, it had more to do with the balance of power after WW2. Before the invasion, the commies were getting their asses kicked all over China. Quite literally, because they wouldn't stop moving after being defeated.

The value of people's war is against invaders. People's war is essentially guerrilla, and guerrilla wars are won not by terminating your enemies, but having the resolution and capacity to keep fighting for longer than the enemy, who cuts their losses and leaves. This rarely works in a civil war for reasons obvious, with China being the exception because the enemy managed to successfully maintain an island as holdout.

Castro's band was an anomaly tho. A small guerrilla force that managed to defeat a regular government by force of arms? Absolute madmen!

I think when it comes to america one should probably study the revolution and civil war to see how people fought it then.
Of course in modern times if you start a revolution….thats a drone strike

a revolution in America would look much more like a coup than a revolution for it to work. The workers have to take over the offices where drones are being operated, taking over the satellites, as well as the various private companies in charge of infrastructure pretty much at the same time. Ordinary people can't fight the developed government in the modern world with guns, you can't punch or shoot a satellite.

the taliban and al queda seem to do pretty well

technology doesnt matter.
The saudis have trillion of dollars and all the best shiny toys and are having their ass handed to them by barefoot qat chewing houthi hillbillies

Those are wars for resource extraction, not for genocide or traditional conquest. If the US wanted to actually get rid of al-qaeda they would be gone in two minutes.

it hurts bro

Dude, it's not like the massive urban populations need food to survive. Any revolution in the US would probably start arround the rust belt, seizing heavy industry, agriculture and important infrastructural points of intersection.

Literally none of that matters, the revolution has to be entirely digital, industry means nothing, information is everything.

I must have missed the memo that we now have Star Trek replicators in every household. Seriously, how utopian and disconnected from the real world are you?


1) How much brutality will the US bring to bare against it's own citizens?
2) What will the domestic and international consequences of that be?
As I see it, killing non-combatants in large numbers trying to root out revolutionaries would just radicalize more people, and committing atrocities would provide an excuse for foreign intervention, which might just be enough to cause the whole house of cards to come down.

Agriculture in the midwest is the highly mechanized production of cereal grains. Who are you going to organize there? The distances involved and the low densities of possible sympathizers makes it very easy to put down any action. While definitely important to secure eventually, a better immediate target would be the more labor intensive farms along the coasts growing fruit and vegetables. Migrant workers constantly harassed by the state and working in conditions even worse than those mandated by America's meager standards are ripe for agitation.

Al-Qaeda is currently an asset in Syria so there is your reason. But there are other examples of the US sincerely wanting to get rid of something and failing.

As it happens, the metropoles of which you speak are located along the coasts and the dollar is strong enough that they'd have no trouble importing food even if you managed to take control of truly massive swaths of land. Besides, all you would be depriving them of would be cheap mass market meat and grain, since that's what comes out of the "heartland."

When a state has an enemy with the support of the civilian population, it can either dither about and not do much or it can start to kill the civilian population. If a chunk of the American working class were to be destroyed, it could easily be replaced by fussing with immigration laws and using the reach of American media to whitewash what happened.

I agree with you, but I'm always sceptical when there is this ethnic aspect to it. If an insurrection is mostly made-up of migrants, this might very well cause a massive nationalist backlash. I don't think any revolution in the USA would be possible without a fair amount of rednecks.

Secondly, one of the most important target during a revolution must be points of intersection and control over economic transport, public transport and roads. In more dense European countries this is probably even more crucial, as these countries are so dense that pretty much control the entire country once you seize motorway junctions and railway junctions.

Unlike most European countries, the USA is mostly food self-sufficient. You are thinking that you could just replace all the economy of the US heartland just by importing stuff, which is unrealistic.

I don't think the USA could kill vast amounts of its own people and everything would be a-ok afterwards, especially in a country that is so fucking spooked about da gobberment with a milita culture.

Obviously that won't be enough in the long term, but the country is wealthy enough to weather a few years of revolution without trouble if people just ate fewer burgers.

Reminder that the NRA supported passing a gun control law when the Black Panthers started arming themselves

Sounds like a good enough reason for insurrection for the average burger. I think what you are saying is not realistic, by looking at history. How long could Saigon resist with the entire backland seized? Remember they were also propped up by foreign capital.

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan lost control over most of the countryside in the 1980s but was able to hold on in the cities until 1992 despite receiving virtually no assistance from abroad after the fall of the USSR and having no industry worth mentioning.

the same militia culture that jacks off about killing commies.

As someone who lives in a rural part of North America farmers are too few in number and spread out to lead an effective insurgency. An average farm now works 600-700 acres with a family and maybe a handful of seasonal workers. Many farming towns where I live are dying because there just isn't enough people to justify services and buisnesses.

Wait so people's war doesn't work except in that one instance where they conquered all of China?

Those are very exceptional circumstances

Also keep in mind that China was heavily agrarian, that the Kuomintang did not have modern military equipment, and that the Kuomintang control over inland china was already tenuous at best.

Search for Cliven Bundy.
The cops didn't have drones in the hills of 1940s China.

People's war WAS tried in Mexico by the EZLN: they realised that in a nation where cartels run around it is neigh impossible to organise people for more chaos. Such they changed to leadership by example.

There’s more unbanites than peasants in burger land though

Civil Society (unions, media, schools, families, universities, hospitals) have formed a trench that surrounds the state so it will not be overthrown by the proletariate in a direct frontal attack in developed states.