Revolution doesn’t actually need massive support, the US revolution had at most 30%. Che started with less than a thousand. You get the support by showing people it’s possible. Anytime anyone talks revolution in the US, what’s the response? “Hurr wut about the drones and tanks murica fuck yeah f22 m16” Well maybe not that exactly, but thats the gist. And it’s what everyone being oppressed but not as much as others thinks, that’s what oppressors want all oppressed to think, that its futile to resist, especially outside whatever rules they set up.
Incrementalism has the chance and historically just has suppressed the masses as each group feel they got enough, piece by piece. Say you get rail unions on board. They’re gun ho, they’ll help sabotage, they’re willing to fight to the end, etc; except we chose incrementalism, so when/if we get what they actually want, during the incremental improvement, they stop. They got theirs, and they will be scared of losing it if you go further. So they’ll become non revolutionary, then liberal, then conservative, all while growing more hateful and resentful. Not all of them mind you, but enough to hurt or kill your movement. We know this. This is primarily the black Republican vote in the US.
And Che was not the leader, but Fidel, right?
And wasn’t it anti-imperialist/anti-colonialist in nature, which gave them lot of local support?
I’ve read some quote/excerpt by Che or so about how local support is what is important for irregular forces.
“Hurr wut about the drones and tanks murica fuck yeah f22 m16” Well maybe not that exactly, but thats the gist.
They have a point tho. Unless your org has physical means, wouldn’t that be an issue? Or/And you’d have to a portion of such forces sympathetic to your movement.
Still needs incremental public support, right?
that’s what oppressors want all oppressed to think, that its futile to resist, especially outside whatever rules they set up.
I agree with that, but I think they also encourage infighting and adventurism so that things would never advance into a mass support level.
I don’t know much about USAmerican politics, but isn’t most of black votes with the Dems? And incase of anti-slavery stuff, isn’t the Rep president Lincoln famous about the topic? Though, I think it was more about the secession.
So I think it not might be just hate or resentment, but different pov’s(which maybe right or wrong). I do agree with material interests aspect of groups tho.
US revolution had 30%
Would there be a similar amount of supporters for one in USA now?
And weren’t that lead by USAmerican capitalists who had amassed resources? For a similar thing, wouldn’t the people planning to do the same, need the same?
Mass support would be very important there, right? Where the people support the resource acquisition?
And I’m not too well-versed on theory, so maybe I’m confused with the term incrementalism. Maybe it’d be better to call it more along lines of “Ground setting”.
Incrementalism towards a revolution, then?
Revolution in Russia had the WW1, China, Cuba, Vietnam etc had anti-colonialism/anti-imperialism.
Revolution would need mass support, right? So the good people need to incrementally increase support among the populace too, right?
Revolution doesn’t actually need massive support, the US revolution had at most 30%. Che started with less than a thousand. You get the support by showing people it’s possible. Anytime anyone talks revolution in the US, what’s the response? “Hurr wut about the drones and tanks murica fuck yeah f22 m16” Well maybe not that exactly, but thats the gist. And it’s what everyone being oppressed but not as much as others thinks, that’s what oppressors want all oppressed to think, that its futile to resist, especially outside whatever rules they set up.
Incrementalism has the chance and historically just has suppressed the masses as each group feel they got enough, piece by piece. Say you get rail unions on board. They’re gun ho, they’ll help sabotage, they’re willing to fight to the end, etc; except we chose incrementalism, so when/if we get what they actually want, during the incremental improvement, they stop. They got theirs, and they will be scared of losing it if you go further. So they’ll become non revolutionary, then liberal, then conservative, all while growing more hateful and resentful. Not all of them mind you, but enough to hurt or kill your movement. We know this. This is primarily the black Republican vote in the US.
So different increments with different groups?
And Che was not the leader, but Fidel, right?
And wasn’t it anti-imperialist/anti-colonialist in nature, which gave them lot of local support?
I’ve read some quote/excerpt by Che or so about how local support is what is important for irregular forces.
They have a point tho. Unless your org has physical means, wouldn’t that be an issue? Or/And you’d have to a portion of such forces sympathetic to your movement.
Still needs incremental public support, right?
I agree with that, but I think they also encourage infighting and adventurism so that things would never advance into a mass support level.
I don’t know much about USAmerican politics, but isn’t most of black votes with the Dems? And incase of anti-slavery stuff, isn’t the Rep president Lincoln famous about the topic? Though, I think it was more about the secession.
So I think it not might be just hate or resentment, but different pov’s(which maybe right or wrong). I do agree with material interests aspect of groups tho.
Would there be a similar amount of supporters for one in USA now?
And weren’t that lead by USAmerican capitalists who had amassed resources? For a similar thing, wouldn’t the people planning to do the same, need the same?
Mass support would be very important there, right? Where the people support the resource acquisition?
And I’m not too well-versed on theory, so maybe I’m confused with the term incrementalism. Maybe it’d be better to call it more along lines of “Ground setting”.