I am not sure if this is a great idea or terrible idea, but hear me out and give me your opinion on it

I am not sure if this is a great idea or terrible idea, but hear me out and give me your opinion on it.

I always here the anarchists/socialist/communists, etc. talk about revolution here in the US maybe I am wrong but that seems like a terrible idea mainly because we have one of the most well funded armed forces and also the state is very strong. Also most people are not deprived of basic necessities despite systematic inequality. There is also the issue of people in the US being raised in a ideology that is very much against any of the above mentioned ideologies.

I started thinking a place theoretically that would be easiest for revolution and seizing the means of productio/the government would be places with the a weak military, weak or no governmnet, people are very poor denied basic needs, and have no dominant ideology that goes against socialism/communism etc.

I was thinking the areas where warlords or informal governments already control and use the money from rare earth metals, diamons, etc to enrich largely themselves.

I feel the big obstacles would be gathering enough military might. understanding the area, people, culture, language. The lack of infrastructure, specialists, wealth to have a functional society like schools, hospitals, water treatment. what else am I missing?

You're not wrong. Some of those reasons are why I've been shilling for this board to /namibia/ Puerto Rico.

It's not a bad plan. If you really mean it I'd say you should rob some porkies, and hire a PMC until you can set up your own government.

I mean rob them by taking over their businesses in the said country or like kidnapping their families and holding to hostage for ransom?

anarcho-colonialism?

The latter. You can't just start a revolution. That shit takes organization and above all money that I don't think anyone will give you to set up a socialist state

No way in hell could you pull this off without a state. After you topple one warlord more will come.

I am not really against a state currently especially for a situation like this, also it is not a colony just the best place for revolution imo.


yeah that seem to be the biggest obstacle at first lots of money for arms and things like tanks. APCs, maybe even aircraft, the potential blowback of surrounding governments. Also the thing the left here really lacks is people with real military experience.

I might be totally wrong but I feels some failures from the "republicans" forces during the Spanish civil war were that the "reuplican" forces acted independently of each other often compared to the cohesive nature of the nationalist forces.

That's why I'm saying you need to hire someone to do it. You'll have to play their games before you can get your own little slice of heaven.

OP here again also that the nationalist forces got a lot of support from outside countries where the "republic" forces received very little

are you saying mercenaries alone or a mixed forced of mercenaries, locals, and foreign radicals?

A mixed group would be best for political purposes, but mercenaries are probably the easist to acquire

Of course it's a colony. You are suggesting moving in to a vulnerable territory, displacing current inhabitants and seizing it as your own. Because warlords=bad and we=good, and hiring mercenaries to "keep peace", it's the worst idea for anarchism I've ever heard. (except primitivism)

why are we displacing the inhabitants and why is it ours now? I am not totally sure about mercanaries it would be best if you could do it with locals and foreign radicals.

It is the best chance at revolution it is to allow the people to seize the means of production and the government.

The purpose is to better the situation for the people not exploit them to use their labor to extract or process goods to make the US or Europe more wealthy.

The purpose is to meat the objectives of socialism in a real and concrete way than just talking about it in a leftist coffee shop in the US or Western Europe for the next 2-3 generations..

ehhhhhhhh

It's a US colony. Puerto Rico would get crushed HARD

Is it? You haven't even decided where or what people you are talking about. To me it seems that this is to further your own political ideology, not as you say, out of concern for a yet unidentified people. Your ideology might benefit the people, but what if they disagree with your political thoughts? Will they be free to decide the route of the revolution, or will that mean they lose you and your mercenaries protection?
because you took it by force? that is what you are suggesting?

our revolution will come slowly and peacefully. the US has invested too much in reactionaries for there to be any other way realistically.

but hit me up in 10 years who knows maybe shit will change

lol

Hold it…what if ..what if EVERYONE GETS TO BECOME A WARLORD =?

Please please do this. I really want to watch a vice documentary where a bunch of communist neets try to bolshevize the Congo only to get burned and eaten for witchcraft.

are you saying a socialist system way be worse than capitalist system?

Are you saying revolution can can be initiated by outside forces? you always need the peoples support, if the people are not ready they are not ready for it, move on simple as that.

Just because a smaller groups takes a factory, region, or government it doesn't mean that group has sole ownership or control it can be owned by the whole.

If a less than 100% of a factories workers workers take over a factory does that mean it was the wrong thing to do? if an outside force sparks revolution in that factory was it the wrong thing to do?

what is your alternative suggestion for seizing the means of production?

Che attempted and failed does that mean it can't be done or it can be done but we need to learn lesson from his failure?

That's how Zimbabwe happened.

If there is one thing that's become abundantly clear it is precisely that socialist revolutions have a potential to become real fucking shit.
It's my opinion that outside forces should only have a supportive role in any revolution. You can of course educate and encourage revolutionary behavior but the source of the revolution should be the people.
no, absolutely not. But the factory should then be taken and run by the workers, on their premises, if not what has been gained?

what is your alternative suggestion for seizing the means of production?

gaining control of the means of production can be done in many ways, I personally favor coops, because I live in the west and find this the most realistic approach, but taking seizing the means by violence is probably a better approach in some places.

OP, you're falling for a common misconception of what a revolution is and the role of violence

Just … just stop. I'm too tired to even try arguing with kids like you by now. Go join some Punks and become a lifestyle-ist, get wasted and listen to HC, but please stop pretending to care about politics and socialism. You're too lazy to read and invest your time into education and deep thought. Don't act defensive now, we both know it's true and well, fuck it. Sad you wont make it but whatever. Just give up, all you do is add to the mass of teenagers that have no idea what they're talking about and give socialism a bad reputation.
There's no need for it and you could do something about it by just stopping to do what you're doing right now. Stop it.

don't shit on a comrad his heart is in the right place

I wouldn't worry to much we are on a malaysian animation board posting about revolution and political change that will most likely never happen in our lifetime some out opinions and action will most likely change nothing.

You are right that it is pretty much a waste of time to post here it is just endless debate about peoples opinions on the best way to go about seizing the means of production.

t. Stalin


It's a waste if you think Holla Forums will be the source of the revolution, but it can be nice place to talk to other lefties and get their opinions. But real change can only happen afk.

Hey, we were all teenagers at some point, dont be lazy and talk to the guy. Dogmatic pessimisim!

OP, your whole idea felt down the moment you mentioned Mercenaries. And the thing is, you dont have other way of achiving what you say besides mercenaries or PMC so there you are. What you could do is move to some of those places, earn the trust of their people, take years and years of building a strong party with ties to the people, and when the moment is right try and make some move. And even then you would probablly fail. You cant cheat your way into socialism, just ignoring the local context and the local struggles and just go there and impose it. Its crazy talk.

OP here I personally never thought it was a good idea in the first place but when you think about it historically it has never worked, che tried it in the congo and failed. He tried to push for something that wasn't happening also these are just ideas most people here have no idea who they might seize control of the means of production. also why does people assume I am young?

No, it would be seen as an act of foreign colonial aggression and imperialism by the UN, and China and Russia would be all over them for it. That's why it's important for it to be over there and not here, because if it's here it's "suppressing terrorism".

People get a little negative on this board, I think it's partially guilt of not being able to influence the movement in a more substantial way. It makes it real tempting to shot down any suggestions with out giving them proper thought. If change is impossible we don't have to be feel guilty for not achieving it. I'm often guilty of this as well, it's counterproductive behavior and I don't like it.
That being said, I'm still going to stand by the criticisms I made in this thread, but add that I think there is potential in working with radical groups in poor countries, but we need to make sure we aren't blinded by our own ideology. Any social change will be effected by the society that birthed it, so we can't expect everything to be to our liking or be surprised if the workers make decisions that are completely opposite of what we want.
Still, if one wants to make ones life a life that changes other lives for the better, then associating with worker movements in the poorest parts of the world could be a very fruitful path. But not necessarily with guns blazing, and probably with out any mercenaries.

Anarcho-monarchy

kind of like tankies

i will enjoy knowing china and russia wrote angrily worded letters in the UN while being shot by US nat. guard.

Shouldn't you work on converting National Guard to your side?

Exactly. Also the National Guard in question would be the Puerto Rican National Guard unless things really got serious.

No, here's the thing. America wouldn't dream of pissing the UN off that hard. The UN has been telling them for 30+ years now that they own the last colony and need to get rid of it and it's something the Arab states like to hold over America's head. Now imagine if it wasn't just a colony, it was a colony you were waging war in. It would be completely unacceptable. And America is stupid and America thinks they can do whatever they want, but that shit won't fly in this day and age, not even with American citizens. They'd be permanently tarred in the eyes of other countries. and worst case scenario we'll all be martyrs for socialism and Puerto Rican independence

My point was that you should be converting US National Guard, rather than preparing to fight them.

good luck with that

Yeah, I was agreeing with you for once. We should be appealing to the National Guard's patriotic "help the people" side and making them choose between their ideals and their masters.

I'm presuming that this revolution would be led by the government of Puerto Rico, which the PRNG responds to. I think our Congress already has a sovereigntist majority, and it would just be a matter of convincing Congress to declare itself sovereign and begin working on a free association agreement with America. If America reacts negatively it will only be hurting itself.

They don't really have "comfy job" - pay is bad, living conditions are subpar. There are reasons why veterans are literally living on the streets. It's not that hard to point out that they are not getting paid enough, are risking they lives for nothing, and are being openly spat on by their own government even before they "outlived their usefulness".

And then there are quite a few internal disagreements. IIRC pilots of drones were not having a good time. Do they still?

I am the one who is not agreeing. Revolution in US is the important one. Puerto Rico is absolutely irrelevant in the face of there being no socialist base to rely on. No support. from anywhere. Too close to US and no USSR around. China is not exporting Revolution.

Ultimately you are suggesting to create a whipping boy for US military, because there are no "US interests". There are specific politicians with specific agendas. If military lobby will want to increase their budget (which they will) by bombing someone, you will immediately become "the most serious threat to national interests since the Cold War".

I'm against Puerto Rico, unless circumstances are really pressing.

Well, as a Marxist I'd rather go for selfish reasons. Understand personal grievances, find a way to address them, and so on.

Why not Vanguard? I presume government already supports US and is being bribed (one way or another) by the Capitalists. They got elected in status quo and have no reason to destroy it.

Having your own government is the way to go.

Venezuela is pseudo-socialist, as is Bolivia. Ecuador, Chile and Argentina are pretty based, like Costa Rica. There's tons of countries that would help a Puerto Rican revolution possibly despite it being socialist because they hate America and colonialism.
Here's the thing- nobody will believe it. If we release a platform online that says we will create no army (pretty easy to have an army-less island nowadays) that claim will be the stuff of conspiracy theorists. Even "they're lying" will be silly because it's kind of hard to make a fucking army behind the rest of the world's back.

You're not wrong about the

I'd much rather take care of the possibly bougie government after independence. My goal is to Bern the ruling party and drive them towards socialism. If they're bougie (which ).

All six candidates for governor right now call the relationship between America and Puerto Rico colonialism. The minority party is statehoodist and the majority party is sovereigntist. And a lot of people have feelings for America but if either Trump or Hillary becomes president that will not last long (lasting even not-longer if/after America reacts negatively), and if we surprise get Sandman my goal is much simpler, to put pressure on the government to make Puerto Rico's new constitution quite socialist. What I'm trying to say is if and only if Puerto Rico's executive and legislative departments have some fetishistic love for capitalism typical of the West but strange anywhere else then we can still work together on sovereignty and give them the boot in the following instability period, and I plan to do my aforementioned Plans A, B and C through something somewhat like a Vanguard (at least what a Vanguard looks like before a revolution).