this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
27 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

23247 readers
327 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Maybe this is too fedposty (and let me know if it is), but I've been thinking about this a lot, especially with how things are going in Iran. It seems like modern warfare is basically just "my drones strike your drones", and if either side has drones free to not strike other drones, they can instantly kill whoever they like. With this in mind, is it even really possible for a revolution in the US to escalate into a civil war without simply being air-superiority'd into oblivion with modern sensors? Is guerilla war viable anymore? The main counterpoint I can think of to this possibility is that the US military is A: incompetent and B: mostly a colonial garrison force, but I don't know.

(And yeah, I know a revolution in the US would have a whole laundry list of prerequisites and is significantly hindered by the fact it can't be tied with anti-imperial nationalism. I'm talking strictly in terms of if it actually happened.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jack@hexbear.net 32 points 1 day ago (4 children)

is significantly hindered by the fact it can't be tied with anti-imperial nationalism

This is true, and that means it throws your whole premise into irrelevance.

What were the revolutions that featured lengthy and bloody civil wars and guerrilla warfare? Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, Angola, Yugoslavia, etc.

What do all of these have in common? Invasion by a foreign colonizing (or fascist in Yugoslavia's case) power. Mass violence in every case is imposed by foreign powers. Usually, a liberal or fascist government in one part of the country disrupts national sovereignty with imperial support. The mass violence was not a result of revolutionary people against a reactionary government. Instead, conditions of mass violence and disruption were resolved through the organization, military competence, discipline, and development objectives of communist parties. They emerged as leaders out of extended periods of guerrilla warfare that predate the socialist revolution. The socialist revolution is an evolution of the anti-colonial (or anti-fascist) revolution.

The US is very different from any of the countries that underwent successful socialist revolutions, but it is obviously the closest in structure, scale, and internal organization to one: the Russian Empire into the USSR. What was the nature of the Russian Revolution? Were there years of guerrilla warfare? No. Was the military deployed against the people at large scale? No. Were there great battles between revolutionary forces and the state? No.

The February Revolution was a massive wave of strikes and protests that toppled the old government through mostly non-violent (but not peaceful!) disruption. The provisional government was established. At this point, the Bolsheviks were a minor party with 20 or 30 thousand members in a country of 140 million people. The provisional government fails to deliver on all the promises of the February Revolution and immediately backslides into all the problems of the Tzarist regime. The Bolshevikes are an opposition party who loudly decry the failures of the government and the reason - a refusal to break from capitalism and move to socialism. They explode in size and influence. Strikes break out everywhere, workers and soldiers form councils, factories are seized by the masses, and in October the Bolsheviks prepare for and call a single military action to seize the government. NOBODY DIES!

A revolution in the US will not look like China or Vietnam. It will look much, more like Russia. You will not need to fight the military. The Air Force will not bomb revolutionary cells in American cities. Guerrillas will not roam the hills ambushing military patrols.

In Russia, the Civil War came after the Bolsheviks had seized state power, and the Red Army was built as a state fighting force against insurrectionary reactionary forces backed by foreign powers.

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 5 points 18 hours ago

Were there years of guerrilla warfare? No.

Actually most of the Russian Civil War was fought by guerrilla warfare on all sides. Direct military action was limited due to horrible state of logistics.

You will not need to fight the military.

In Russia the military partially disintegrated and partially split between Reds and Whites. In fact, Bolsheviks at first tried to completely replace professional military with militias (Red Guards and assorted forces), immediately got catastrophically owned by Germans and small segments of the old army that sided with Whites and then began to build the Red Army as a proper army.

[–] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The only other country that transitioned into socialism that looked similar to the modern United States is Nazi Germany into the DDR, via military occupation by a communist power.

get-ready-to-learn-chinese-buddy

[–] jack@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Good point, but unfortunately China will never occupy the US to impose a DOTP

[–] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 4 points 1 day ago

:yea: Be cool if they did tho

[–] Tabitha@hexbear.net 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

bloomer AOC could literally become Stalin 2!

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 6 points 18 hours ago

Much more likely that she will be Kerensky 2 (or in the worse case Ebert 2).

[–] jack@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago

I'm glad somebody's getting it doggirl-smart

[–] bunnossin@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not discounting a mostly-"peaceful" (as in non-violent) revolution as something that can happen. My issue with this idea is that I feel like the US is, like you said, very different from anything ever dealt with before. Specifically, the systems in place. Could a toppling of the government in the vein of the February Revolution happen? Yes, absolutely. But I find it hard to believe the beast would just roll over and die. The US already has a chain of command in place in case the central government is destroyed, and even if there was no central leadership, I can't help but feel that the military and the second military (police) would fight back.

I suppose this view is also influenced by my belief that there's simply no way the military could be turned to even be neutral towards socialism. That belief is certainly being tested right now as discontent about dying for Israel grows, but I still think if something happened, the military would either splinter into a bunch of fash factions that all bomb the fuck out of the commies, or be firmly on the side of the Greatest Economic System. I fully recognize this might be informed by some lingering USAmerican brainworms about the "power" of the US military, though.

Very open to hearing counterpoints to this (though I think saying this might not be necessary? I'm not used to online platforms where good-faith discussions happen heart-sickle )

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 3 points 18 hours ago

Could a toppling of the government in the vein of the February Revolution happen? Yes, absolutely. But I find it hard to believe the beast would just roll over and die. The US already has a chain of command in place in case the central government is destroyed, and even if there was no central leadership, I can't help but feel that the military and the second military (police) would fight back.

The Russian Empire also had reserve chains of command, but the central government was so rotten, strained by WWI and embroiled in internal power struggles, that it was completely unable to mount a coherent response to strikes and riots. As a result, the Civil War was fought mostly against peripheral members of the Russian state and competing revolutionary parties, because its central apparatus completely disintegrated.

[–] HamManBad@hexbear.net 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I suppose this view is also influenced by my belief that there's simply no way the military could be turned to even be neutral towards socialism

IMO everything hinges on this point. The Russian revolution was successful and relatively non violent because of mass defections from the military in support of the revolution. We will organize and do everything we can on the civilian side, but in the critical moment, the fate of the US will be in the hands of the enlisted.

[–] ComradeRat@hexbear.net 1 points 5 hours ago

trump will reintroduce conscription and 5 years later we will have a revolution long live jdpon don