Is revolution a viable option in western countries? The militaries are far more advanced than they were in Vietnam

Is revolution a viable option in western countries? The militaries are far more advanced than they were in Vietnam.

Attached: 202c6676d89f13181cf9ff1def906d85cf765cd04f1e96db5b4626dc83f1a89d.png (1024x646, 215.72K)

If a state is brought to use carrier aircraft, cruise missiles and other state of art instruments of destruction against its own citizenry, it had already failed, and will likely devolve into a civil war where its opponents will have access to the same toys.

On the ground, the revolution will be fought against the same shit as always: soldiers with guns, cops, reactionary thugs. Nothing radically changed here since 1917, except that we found ways to slap tacticool shit on our boomsticks.

I'll just say that I hope the West doesn't accelerate the economy even more like how Vietnam established a market economy almost right after Northern victory

Attached: 1520889892566.png (1967x1967, 2.89M)

Realistically the revolution, if ever it comes and if it needs to turn violent, will not be a sudden lining up of the power of the state against people's militia's. Preceding the revolution will necessarily have been a long period of instability that sees the power of the state fracture, which is how the room for a revolution is created. Any revolution, to be successful, will need to have shards of the shattered armed forces be a part of it. Acute crisis (economical collapse and/or war) -> collapse of state power -> disintegration of the army -> revolution.

I would prefer we try to do some reforms in polite bourgeois fashion as long as the getting is good.

It is not. The first world benefits off of imperialism so much that it would be a net loss for them to become revolutionary. Also, They don't have nothing to lose but their chains. Most first world workers have a comfy lifestyle that they would not want to risk their lives over giving up.

Attached: image.png (1334x750, 1017.74K)

The West already has the productive forces required to estabilish communism (which implies a lack of scarcity in first need products among other things) - underdeveloped countries like Vietnam didn't and still don't

Why would a revolution "turn violent"? Revolutions are violent

The October revolution wasn't violent until the whites tried to destroy it and the allied intervention arrived

Well, responding to a revolution with violence is just a side effect of there occurring a revolution.
Besides, that's one example. The cuban revolution was violent, the spanish revolution was violent, etc

No. It will never happen.
The bourgeoisie has every method to make it not happen. Plus people is completely alienated from each other and nobody is willing to die for something bigger than their miserable existence. The only way out is Death.

It was awkwardly phrased. You can't argue with what follows though.

Only reason why Vietnam did not turn into revolutionary failure is due to fact that it was Asymmetric warfare instead of unilateral one.

Personally I do think that the revolutionary window of opportunity started to decline after invention of breech loading artillery pieces, later brought to its end by usage of massed air-forces.

What? Everything in relation to the military anomaly of 1917 has changed. In 1917, defensive was more effective than offensive strengths of militaries around the world and that changed with the innovation of tanks and modern aircraft. Libya is a good example of how things have truly changed, where few hundred aircraft can bring entire military into a halt against otherwise inferior opposition. Scale and nature of warfare itself is also on the change, since world is moving away from conscripted mass armies into even more professional coherent armed forces.

I disagree. The workers in the first world do not live the luxery you think they do. With their well developed means of production they could make a net gain in terms of living conditions, lots of first world workers do not have a comfy lifestyle, they have an ok lifestyle, with many struggling to get by on a day to day basis and relying on government support to not fall into abject poverty or homelessness.

Yeah, I agree, just thinl that revolutions will always be inherently violent. Not saying that's a bad thing, violence has always been neccessary to make big changes in society

yes, a revolution is perfectly viable
you just have to get your head out of your ass and stop romanticizing violent revolutions while shitting on the daily struggle because "it's not communism when i can't jerk it to spontaneous armed uprising"
that's third worldist tier retarded

third worldists claiming that workers in the "first world" would "lose" when striving for socialism are spreading the same reactionary propaganda as the bourgeoise
makes you wonder where these guys are even coming from

Different user here. I find myself drifting closer to ML thought recently, and on the subject of MTW, I agree that communism can't be achieved without massive upheaval in the third world, but I believe that the best results would come from first and third world workers cooperating.

Mabey in Canada only.

Yes. Modern military tactics requirea bit of highly advanced weaponry and some very well trained soldiers. However once those soldiers get shot and that weaponry get’s destroyed modern militaries will crumble. Outside of special ops. Most soldiers come from working class backgrounds and would likely turn on the state. If that dosn’t happen a socialist militia can be organized, and a civil war fought. Using guerrilla warfare this war could be won.

If you think armed plebs stand a chance against modern military you are utopian. If you think state would just start killing it’s citizens and transform itself into military junta you are romantic.

That depends completely on what military are we talking about, for example Saudi armed forces are completely trash tier as we can see from examples of Yemen but that has more to do with their rigid command structure.

Mass warfare has changed massively, but it's not quite relevant to how the revolution will happen. The moment the state will use modern aircraft and tanks on the people, things will likely devolve into all-out civil war. The primary opponent of the revolution for the most part will be militarized police and reactionary thugs, not drone fleets and tank columns.

Tell that to Mullah Omar.

If anything the US military's become even less competent; jihadi guerillas appeal to far lower percentages of the population than commie guerillas ever did, and the US seems incapable of snuffing them out. Iraq is majority Shi'a and the Americans still couldn't whip together a puppet state capable of defending its territory from genocidal ultra-sectarian Sunnis.

Don't mistake flashy tech for actually getting better at their job.

T. Has never visited the rust belt or the south.
And black workers in America especially are suffering through poverty. But I guess that doesn’t count, right?