--- info at pulpculture.org wrote:
> felt that the most likely scenario for a revolution
> in which this might
> matter were two:
>
> 1. civil war, in which case we' be fighting urban
> warfare style in cities
> divided along the lines that are typical in a civil
> war. In which case, the
> likelihood that the capitalist army would be using
> nukes on our asses would
> be low and, in which cases, the likelihood that we
> would only have our
> shotguns and rifles would be low since we'd have
> gained access to some of
> the weapons of the military since some soldiers
> would defect bringing their
> access to weapons with them we'd be taking over
> entire military bases with
> the help of defecting insiders.
What makes you think that such a scenario is likely? This is a bona fide question, because I see this scenario as very unlikely. Here is why.
First, there is no historical precedent of guerilla-style revolution (urban or otherwise) in industrial democracies. Fascist coup - yes, riots - yes, but not a guerilla-style revolution. The latter are mainly confined to agrarian societies.
When you think about it, it makes sense. Unlike plantation owners who do not have much room for maneuver to appease the peasantry, capitalists can do a lot to appease workers. In fact, the development of the European welfare state was such appeasement.
Furthermore, unlike in agrarian societies, violent suppression of labor in industrialized ones does not pay for a very simple reason - it is not possible to run modern industries with semi-slave labor. You could force peasants at a gun point to work the field.
They may resist and work as slowly as they can get away with, but otherwise they will do everything that is required in agrarian work. The opportunity for sabotage is low. That is why peasants pick up weapons and figh when they've had it - because they do not have many other means of resistance.
Industrial labor, otoh, can screw things up big time - not just by "putting sand into gearboxes," which will cost capitalists dearly, but by using tools like weapons. For example, during the 1970 riots in Poland, the cops used armored vehicles to disperse demonstrations in the streets, yet they did not storm the shipyards. The reason was quite simple - the striking workers who barricaded themselves threatened to blow up the supplies of acetylene (gas used for welding). Whether they would carry out that threat is a diffrent story, but the cops evidently did not want to find that out.
This is to say that industry owners stand much to lose from using violence as the means of labor control, and at the same time they have considerable capability of appeasing labor demand and still making a profit. Therefore, they have no incentive to resist labor demand by force, but rather they will accomoodate them (or some of them) at some point. That means that guerilla-style revolution is rather unlikely.
A more likely course of action is what happened in Sweden in 1930s. The working class and agrarian parties seized control of the parliament and implemented a welfare system that practically gutted capitalism. Incidentally, that happened after the conservative goverment made a blunder that led to its collapse - dispatched troops to break a strike in Adalen, which resulted in several deaths and general outrage of public opinion.
Another point - the US Army has a history of defeating much better organized, armed and determines enemies than a bunch of "volunteers" with shotguns. The Philippines is one example, Iraq is another. It can do that because of its superior organization, mobility, logistics and communication - more so than to superior fire power alone. An armed band of volunteers stands little chance against a well-trained and equipped military combat unit.
It is a mistake to assuming that guerilla warfare that is bleeding the US troops in Iraq will take place here. Guerilla warfare makes sense only when waged by indigenous population against an occupying foreign force. The reason is simple. Guerillas obviously cannot defeat the occupying force (for otherwise they would not be occupied), but they can raise the cost of occupation to the point that occupiers decide to leave the land in which they do not have as many stakes as the guerillas do. In other words, the logic of guerilla warfare is that the local population has greater stakes in the land than the occupiers do, and therefore is willing to take heavier losses harassing the occupiers, and thus make them leave.
It is obvious that this logic does not apply to domestic conflicts, as both sides hav eequal stakes in staying, and no side can "go home" when it gets tired of fighting. In that situation, the government has a much greater capacity of neutralizng a guerilla- type opposition, mainly by cooptation, but also by suppression. At the same time, the opposition cannot use the more violent (and effective) methods without losing popular support (in case of foreign occupation, heavy civilian losses are genrally blamed on the foreign enemy). Therefore, a guerilla-style warfare will not progress very far in a domestic conflict (revolution).
A more likely scenario for such a conflict is a civil war (e.g. like in Spain) - but that is NOT a guerilla style revolution by any means. Instead it is a battle of two quasi-governmental entities, each relying primarily on organized military. In other words, it would be the United States of Canada vs. Jesusland rather than guerilla revolution a la Latin America. The US of C may operate guerilla units inside Jesusland (and vice versa) - but these would be only a relatively minor side show.
In conclusion, the chances of guerilla-style revolution in the US (or any other industrialized country) are rather low (cf. Gramsci.) A more likely scenario is dramatic political reforms a la Eastern Europe. Even a civil war is more likely than a revolution Russia- China- or Latin America style. Absent any real chances of a revolution, gun ownership and militia-type organizing is simply irrelevant for advancing the cause of socialism. As the case of Adalen shows, not having weapons can actually be more beneficial in a long run than having them.
Wojtek
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com