Ok...

The only way to start a coup is to have the military and rich fuckers on your side.
Bushes great grand pappy tried doing a fascist coup in america once, but the general they wanted to be dictator refused because he was a man of principal who loved america.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

I really stress having the military on your side.
A long time ago war veterans had their benefits cut and formed something called the bonus army to march on washington.
They were met with fire hoses and tanks.

If there is one place to agitate and occupy it would be the white house, the president firing on civilians would not look good at all.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

The Bonus Army was the popular name of an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers—17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups—who gathered in Washington, D.C., in the summer of 1932 to demand cash-payment redemption of their service certificates. Its organizers called it the Bonus Expeditionary Force to echo the name of World War I's American Expeditionary Forces, while the media called it the Bonus Army. It was led by Walter W. Waters, a former army sergeant.

Many of the war veterans had been out of work since the beginning of the Great Depression. The World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 had awarded them bonuses in the form of certificates they could not redeem until 1945. Each service certificate, issued to a qualified veteran soldier, bore a face value equal to the soldier's promised payment plus compound interest. The principal demand of the Bonus Army was the immediate cash payment of their certificates.

Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, one of the most popular military figures of the time, visited their camp to back the effort and encourage them.[1] On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the army to clear the veterans' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

What? No, that's not how it went down.

Hoover actually ordered MacArthur to stop but he ignored the orders and cleared the campsite anyway. What biased shit.

"The most infamous incident came in 1932. In June of that year, forty thousand World War I veterans and their supporters descended on Washington, DC, to demand the bonus payment they had been promised for their service. They set up camps on the Anacostia Flats, a marshy area across the river from the US Capitol, and named their makeshift city “Hooverville” to mock the president.

As the Bonus March began on July 28, 1932, there was an altercation in which police shot and killed two marching veterans. President Hoover responded by sending in the US Army. Two regiments and six tanks moved into the nation’s capital, under the leadership of Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Maj. George S. Patton. Maj. Dwight Eisenhower went along as an aide to MacArthur. The protesters initially cheered the military, thinking the troops were there to support them. Those cheers quickly turned to screams when the troops charged the protesters with guns and tear gas.

When the protesters retreated back to Hooverville, Hoover ordered MacArthur to stand down. MacArthur defied the order and went after the protesters, razing the Hooverville shacks and chasing veterans, their families, and their supporters out of the makeshift town at the points of bayonets.8 The sight of veterans being lied to and then bloodied by the same US Army in which they had served didn’t sit well with the public. Angry condemnations rang out from newspapers, civil rights organizations, and veterans across the country.9 The crackdown doomed Hoover’s already dim prospects for reelection and turned what had been an ambivalent public firmly in support of the veterans.10"

Source is attached.

Look guys, the purpose isn't to somehow destroy the entire US military with an action like that.

The point is to give an excuse to a foreign power to do a "humanitarian intervention," either russia or china, and then have them install you into power afterwards.

If it starts WWIII and kills 90% of the world population in nuclear war, so be it.

did somebody say…
FORMER MILITARY?

also OP, a revolution doesnt have to be violent, violence will definitely happen, but it isnt and shouldnt be the main concern. the most important aspect of a revolution is the general strike and the establishment of a transitional state. if we can organize a general strike in the third world, most production of the world would be frozen and thus makes the bourgeois way more vulnerable.

every single time

mein gott

It's the only way that a successful revolution happens when you are a minority.

The strategy has worked countless times for the US/Saudi/Israeli alliance, why wouldn't it work for us?

no offense m8 but
is pretty fucking retarded

People here don't seem to understand history.

The Soviet Union started off as a German initiative to take down the Tzarist government.

Hitler and the Nazis was a US and UK initiative to take down the Socialist government in Germany.

The Taliban and the Mujaheddin was a US/Saudi/Israeli initiative to take down the Communist government in Afghanistan.

ISIS and the thousand flavors of Salafi Wahabi Jihad in Syria was the initiative of the US/Saudi/Israeli alliance.

Why would a capitalist force instill a socialist government?

The same reason why the US backed one communist group to fight another communist group in Somalia.

And then backed a salafi wahabi jihadist group to fight them once they won

And how's that going for them now?

Also

You fight with the opportunities you have, not with the opportunities you wish you had.

If you aren't a marxist-leninist you aren't a socialist, you're simply a dreamer who takes political-economy as a fanciful hobby.

The Soviet Union collapsed upon itself when it abandoned marxist-leninist thought completely and completely obliterated everything east of nato down to a shithole.

China's communist party never abandoned marxist-leninist thought even to this day.
They didn't delude themselves for a moment.

Build on success, "don't let your dreams be dreams" :P

ITT guerilla fantasies

I can't tell if this is a false flag or if you're serious.

Simply trying to get people to wargame out a scenario, something people do all day in think-tanks and strategic analysis centers.

this is moronic and the main reason why nobody likes us. people have different views on different things, and when shit happens, anarchists have to back marxists and vice versa.
this sectarian non-sense is whats making the real radical left dying

This is not the reason "nobody likes us". Politicians don't like competition. That's the first reason. The second would be Capitalists - ML had proven itself capable of dislodging them.

Not to mention, this idea has nothing to do with ML. At best ML defines other Socialists as inherently ineffective, not as non-existent.

Nope. That is also revisionism. Nobody has to do anything. If the goals are co-aligned? Sure. Otherwise - every ideology catgirl for herself.

If you aren't marxist-leninist then you are a liability that porkies have infinite ways of using against any revolution.

People love to forget how hitler happened. Socialists were the majority of the population but porkies still managed to get the dumbass democratic socialists to kill all the communists.

It is clearly not. Why should we assume this?

You don't fight army during Revolution. Period.

You people are unbelievable. It's as if October never happened.

This is retarded and has nothing to do with Socialism. Well, I might've considered USSR as a possibility (if it has it's head screwed on right, which was not always a thing), but not modern Russia or China. Are you nuts?

Choose one and only one.

I think he's referring to Anthony Suttons book "Wallstreet and the Bolshevik Revolution". I haven't seen any scholarly refutation of it, but it's not widely supported by any means.

Decided to take a look at it:
> Of greater historical significance, however, was the assistance [$1.000.000] given to the Bolsheviks first by Thompson, then, after December 4, 1917
Is this it? Because October already happened at this point.

Sorry I'll be more clear. Anthony Suttons book is garbage, but I mean to say I have not seen scholarly refutation of the claim the Bolsheviks were never financed by Germany.

It is true that the Bolsheviks were financed by Germany - during WW1 but this was to drag Russia out of the war so Germany could focus more on France. After this it was stopped. Be wary of what Sutton writes, he's not taken seriously by historians.

Socialism in the US doesn't require ANY foreign support. The guns are already there. You can walk into a gun store right now in Utah and purchase an AR15 off the shelf. Most patriarchs/matriarchs also have access to FA guns through their local LDS outlet. 50 caliber weapons can be found easily if you're willing to spend the money.

Americans will eat ANYTHING if it comes wrapped in a bible.

probably one (1) given that most depots are run by overweight guardsmen, all of whom can usually be found in a single administration building

It won't be enough because most local LEOs are run by a local, elected Sheriff. As used to be common in the south, the Sheriff can also "accidentally" loose all his equipment to local enforcers (such as the KKK), or they can just violate federal law (see the freedom riders in the 60s) until people vote them out.

The military's head office is inside the Beltway, they ain't never gonna turn on the hand that feeds unless it stops providing.

Don't bother with Sutton:

publiceye.org/conspire/rough/sutton.htm

In each situation, the central government/authority was already weak. Russia was the sick man of europe (along with the Ottomans) until the revolution happened and modernization of infrastructure (especially railroads) began). In the middle east, "power" is still brokered around individual cities. The further a person is from the capital, the less control the central government there has.

As it pertains to the US: armed insurrection would most likely come from a state wanting to break up (such as Jefferson vs California) or where some states don't want to enforce certain laws (see NC's bathroom bill vs Obama's bathroom policy).

I'm quite certain that is still in the "unconfirmed" territory.

For Provisional Government it was their main propaganda shtick to explain the summer defeat of the army, blaming everything on Bolsheviks, but they never presented any comprehensive evidence of this connection.

Meh. It's a political question. IIRC, the first refutation was Zinoviev-Stalin brochure from 1917 (printed some time after 4th July attempt at Socialist Revolution, I think). They pointed out that evidence could be interpreted as Czarist generals attempting to defeat Soviets by surrendering Russia to Germans.

You are retarded and pointlessly divisive.

I cannot stress the importance of persuading the military to accept our common interests as indispensable to socialist revolution. We will never, ever, ever in a million years raise a fighting force of small arms owners sufficient to complete this task ourselves, and I can't help but dismiss leftypol's gun fetishists crowd of simply holding that stance out of contempt for liberal idpol and a quasi-Holla Forumsyp aspiration towards contrarianism and edginess.

Either we successfully appeal to the US army to acknowledge their shared proletarian interests, or nothing changes. Armed socialist movements only fulfill the boogeymen that Porky wants to use as controlled opposition to keep spooking the public.

what is so special about Utah.

dubs of truth. Don't bother with revolution in the U.S

Hey larpers! An armed commie insurrection won't happen in your lifetimes. You're all deluded