How to Really Spark a Revolution in Moscow
You don't like my methods, but they work.
CIA MIND SCIENCE, CODES & CIPHERS
free eBook: More free eBooks after the Essay. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DHXTTV58
Correcting Others’ Mistaken Ideas
Recently Rudyard Lynch and perhaps also Peter Zeihan too claim that there will be a second civil war in the USA. It makes great clickbait and feeds Russian fantasies and Russian disinformation. The argument is obviously mistaken. You might not like Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but in country after country this ideology brought revolution to Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba. You probably don't like the results. However, I absolutely used these methods in the early 2000s to foster revolution in Ukraine. I am also using them to foster revolution in Moscow. And later they will lament "the betrayal of the revolution", "capitalist restoration", and "international finance capital". However, sometimes a thoroughly corrupt government like that in Moscow needs to be overthrown.
After launching many failed color revolutions by people who do not understand the possibilities and limits of MLM let's look at the backlash. Of course authoritarians want to foster revolution in the USA. They will fail. I myself am an authoritarian, but I am an authoritarian democrat, not an authoritarian capitalist, also known as “oligarch” or an authoritarian totalitarian or dictator. Democratic autocracy is possible and can be an effective governance form, even more effective than liberalism since it is better adapted to societies that are not the world's richest and liberalism has many flaws that I repeatedly point out. I fight for democracy and law, not liberalism.
Here is a Marxist analysis of the actual chances of a revolution and likelihood of a revolution in the USA. The chances are nil, and the chances of a successful one are also nil. Sure, Trump might try a coup, again, and guess what, he would fail, badly, might get killed in the process and would guaranty himself a nice long prison term. He has too much to lose and will fish out, more or less trading his acceptance of defeat for minimal or even no jail time. Unlike his minions, who he will be unable to pardon for their crimes: they will do hard time.
This is the fate of those who gamble and fail at shooting their way into power.
There Will Be No Second Civil War in the United States – A Maoist Perspective
The conditions necessary for a civil war, as defined by Marxist-Leninist analysis, are absent in the contemporary United States. To understand why, we must examine the dialectics of revolutionary situations through the lens of material conditions, class contradictions, and the revolutionary potential of the masses. Lenin observed in *State and Revolution that “For a revolution to take place, it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realize the impossibility of living in the old way and demand changes; for a revolution to succeed, it is essential that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way.” Lenin was right about that fact.
In the current American situation, there is no evidence of the ruling class losing its ability to govern. Though discontent simmers, it is primarily diffused and manipulated through bourgeois electoral mechanisms, media, and the co-optation of protest movements. Lenin taught us that every state is a special repressive force for the suppression of the oppressed class. The US state remains firmly intact, its repressive apparatus unchallenged by any organized revolutionary force capable of mass mobilization. Thus, the question arises: Where is the objective revolutionary situation?
The Historical Context of Revolution
In the American Civil War of 1861-1865, the irreconcilable contradiction between an expanding capitalist North and a reactionary agrarian slave-holding South reached its breaking point. The institution of slavery represented an extreme form of exploitation, generating the conditions for violent conflict between two fundamentally opposed modes of production. Mao Zedong in On Practice argued, correctly, that man’s social being determines his thinking. So, once the economic base is fundamentally transformed, the superstructure will inevitably change. What that means is the consciousness of someone starving and someone well-fed is entirely different. It also means that from those material facts will emerge different behaviors.
There is no fundamental contradiction between ruler and ruled in the present-day United States. While capitalist exploitation persists, it is camouflaged and mediated by the welfare state, consumer culture, and identity politics, which serve to divide the working class. Mao’s teachings in *On Contradiction* are crucial here. The principal contradiction in a particular process gives rise to the principal aspect of the contradiction, which determines or influences the development of other contradictions.
In 1917, Lenin led the Bolsheviks to victory because the contradictions within Russian society had reached an acute stage. The imperialist war, famine, and the total collapse of the Tsarist regime created conditions that could not be resolved except through revolution. The state apparatus in Russia had crumbled, and the working class, supported by the peasantry, was prepared to seize power. In contrast, there is no sign of such a revolutionary situation in the U.S. today. The bourgeois state remains strong, and the contradictions within society, though sharp, are not yet irreconcilable.
The Absence of a Revolutionary Subject
As Lenin argued, without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. The question of a civil war cannot be considered without addressing the class consciousness of the masses. In the United States, the working class lacks the organizational capacity and the ideological clarity necessary to wage a revolutionary war. The American proletariat, while subject to exploitation, remains ideologically fragmented, with most identifying with bourgeois ideals or falling prey to reactionary tendencies.
Mao taught us in *On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People* that " that a clear correct understanding of who are our enemies and who are our friends is essential for the success of the revolution. In the U.S., the primary contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat has not yet reached a stage where the masses recognize the necessity of armed struggle. This is not to say that revolutionary potential does not exist, but that it has not matured into a concrete revolutionary force capable of leading a civil war. The scattered protests, such as those seen in response to police brutality, are indicative of localized contradictions but lack the broader class consciousness arising from catastrophic social collapse required for sustained, possibly suicidal, revolutionary action. People want to survive more than we want to rebel, generally speaking. This is also why elites can and do emerge. Some dare, and those who dare win, but not all who dare win.
The Illusion of a Civil War and the Reality of Class Struggle
The discourse around a second U.S. civil war is rooted in bourgeois fear-mongering and a misunderstanding of revolutionary theory. Civil war arises not from individual grievances but from deep-seated material contradictions within the economic base of society. The polarization we see today—manifested in racial tensions, identity politics, and disillusionment with the political system—does not amount to a revolutionary crisis. These are manifestations of contradictions within the superstructure, but they do not reflect an unbridgeable rift in the economic base.
As Mao emphasized, "Correct political and ideological leadership is decisive in mobilizing the masses to resolve contradictions." The lack of a revolutionary vanguard means that any discussion of a civil war remains an abstraction, disconnected from the reality of class struggle. Without the leadership of a revolutionary party grounded in Marxist-Leninist theory, the masses will not move towards insurrection.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
The path to revolution in the United States lies not in a misguided hope for spontaneous civil war but in the methodical organization of the proletariat under a Marxist-Leninist program. We must recognize that the contradictions in American society are not yet ripe for armed conflict, and instead focus on building the revolutionary consciousness of the working class. As Mao reminds us, "All correct leadership is necessarily ‘from the masses, to the masses.’" The incipient struggles we see today, whether economic or social, must be guided by the principles of proletarian revolution, not by the bourgeois fantasies of civil war.
Revolution do not arise by chance, but through the dedicated effort to unite the working class, expose the contradictions of capitalism, and prepare for the eventual seizure of state power. Lenin’s words in *State and Revolution* are as true now as they were in 1917: "Only a revolution can smash the bureaucratic-military machine and it is folly to think otherwise." Our task is clear: to prepare, to organize, and to wait for the right moment when the contradictions will give rise to a revolutionary situation. There will be no civil war, but there must be a revolution.
Russia, in contrast, will absolutely be facing a revolutionary situation. Putin is doomed. The tougher question is how China the EU, and the USA will square off to pick up the pieces of the soon to be former "Russian" Federation.
"Cheat Codes": How to Pass the Bar Exam
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1719060746
Chinese Vocabulary Builder
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08KSRKZMQ
MANDARIN CHINESE VOCABULARY BUILDER
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B5FXV4LB
Here are the translations for the phrase "elastic defence" and the provided sentence:
- English: Elastic defence
- French: défense élastique
- Spanish: defensa elástica
- German: elastische Verteidigung
- Estonian: elastne kaitse
- Russian: эластичная оборона
- Ukrainian: еластична оборона
- Mandarin Chinese: 弹性防御 (tánxìng fángyù / 彈性防禦)
Translations of the sample sentence:
- English: Ukraine will use an elastic defence in Southern Ukraine to inflict as many casualties on the invaders as possible, while taking as few casualties as possible.
- French: L'Ukraine utilisera une défense élastique dans le sud du pays pour infliger un maximum de pertes aux envahisseurs tout en minimisant ses propres pertes.
- Spanish: Ucrania utilizará una defensa elástica en el sur de Ucrania para infligir tantas bajas a los invasores como sea posible, mientras que sus propias bajas serán mínimas.
- German: Die Ukraine wird in der Südukraine eine elastische Verteidigung einsetzen, um den Angreifern so viele Verluste wie möglich zuzufügen und gleichzeitig eigene Verluste so gering wie möglich zu halten.
- Estonian: Ukraina kasutab Lõuna-Ukrainas elastset kaitset, et põhjustada kuhjuda võimalikult palju kahju rünnakutele, samas hoides oma kahju väiksema võimalikuks.
- Russian: Украина применит эластичную оборону на юге страны, чтобы нанести как можно больше потерь захватчикам, при этом сведя к минимуму собственные потери.
- Ukrainian: Україна застосує еластичну оборону на півдні країни, щоб завдати якомога більше втрат загарбникам, при цьому мінімізувавши власні втрати.
- Mandarin Chinese: 乌克兰将在乌克兰南部采取弹性防御，尽可能多地给入侵者造成伤亡，同时尽可能少地承受伤亡。 (Wūkèlán jiāng zài Wūkèlán nánbù cǎiqǔ tánxìng fángyù, jǐn kěnéng duō de gěi rùqīn zhě zàochéng shāngwáng, tóngshí jǐn kěnéng shǎo de chéngshòu shāngwáng.)