On the Viability of a Leftist Revolution

LeftistI recently stumbled upon a copy of On Guerrilla Warfare (Mao Tse-tung), with an introduction from Brigadier General Samuel B. Griffith, USMC (Ret.).  With all this talk of resistance, revolt and revolution, I fail to see how we’re out of the woods with the current leftist revolution taking place right now.  I’ll share some poignant remarks from BG Griffith, along with commentary.  I’ll also briefly explain why the socialist, progressive, and statist-supporting factions of American politics could mobilize for a physical, violent revolution.

A potential revolutionary situation exists in any country where the government consistently fails in its obligation to ensure at least a minimally decent standard of life for the great majority of its citizens.  If there also exists even the nucleus of a revolutionary party able to supply doctrine and organization, only one ingredient is needed: the instrument for violent revolutionary action.

Equally true is the potential for revolutionary action if a government consistently fails in its obligation to ensure the rights of the great majority of its citizens.  With the enduring unconstitutional legislation and regime action, talk of revolution and secession has reached levels likely not seen since the 1860s.

I often wonder why a revolt didn’t ensue in 1994 with the assault weapons ban, and I believe it was because the government did not consistently fail in its obligations to ensure the rights of its citizens.  Fast forward almost twenty years later and, for a majority of its citizens, the same cannot be said.  (No need to belabor the point but between the Patriot Act, DHS, extrajudicial action, executive orders, etc, liberties protected under the Bill of Rights are being peripherally diminished, if not violated wholesale, at an alarming rate.)

By these prerequisites, however, there’s only one revolutionary party in America and it’s certainly not the republican party.  In my opinion, the revolution is already being waged non-violently and at the highest levels of government.  Ineffective organizations become obsolete, illegitimate, or simply marginalized.  This is the future of the republican party unless it experiences its own political revolution from within, similar to that of successes by small government and libertarian stalwarts like Ron Paul.  (I don’t identify as a republican and I don’t advocate that the republican party become a revolutionary party.  I’m just pointing out that those who believe the republican party is the vehicle for social, cultural, and political change will be waiting for a long time.  Try forever.)  And consider this: what party would take up the mantle of political representation for patriot factions in this country?  Certainly not the republicans; many of them are part of the problem, including the party establishment.  We would likely need to create our own.

 People who live at subsistence levels want first things to be put first.  They are not particularly interested in freedom of religion, freedom of the press, free enterprise as we understand it, or the secret ballot.  Their needs are more basic… Those who have known only poverty have begun to wonder why they should continue to wait passively for improvements. …they ask, “What have we to lose?”  When a great many people begin to ask themselves this question, a revolutionary guerrilla situation is incipient.

This explains why the downtrodden portions of society remain a drain on government and, more importantly, a dagger in the backs of their countrymen.  The secret key to the liberty movement and cultural revolution is identifying this segment of the population (easy) and educating them on needs beyond the immediate (difficult).  This is a war we lose because few are willing to educate that portion of society and because that segment of society is likely indifferent towards or incapable of recognizing their needs beyond the immediate.

This theory is proven in America when the lower ~50% of the socioeconomic spectrum looks at revolutions and communist theory of the past 100 years and asks, what have they to lose; and are prodded in that direction by leaders who are ineffective in achieving those means solely through political action (the results of a divided Congress).

In many ways, I would say that unless the issue of gun control and the Second Amendment brings us to a head, the lower class of America could stand a better chance of mobilizing (not a better ability to mobilize!) for the destruction of the existing society and its institutions because those people are already led by revolutionary party capable of supplying doctrine (statist propaganda) and organization (community level).

Who can quantify the number of years – again, this is without unconstitutional legislation being passed, a tipping point for many of us – before the lower 30-40% of America collectively asks themselves the question of, what they have to lose; and respond with, nothing?  I certainly can’t but the potential of a leftist revolutionary event is too large not to prepare for that event horizon. (I’m also reminded of Matt Bracken’s CW2 cube.)  Those people may not currently have the means to conduct a physical revolution but they certainly have the proximity to the means.  Many Americans have things worth protecting but lack the ability to protect.  And more than proximity, the revolutionary party adherents have the support of nearly the entirety of the federal strata.

Guerrilla leaders spend a great deal more time in organization, instruction, agitation, and propaganda work than they do fighting, for their most important job is to win over the people.  “We must patiently explain,” says Mao Tse-tung.  “Explain,” “persuade,” “discuss,” “convince,” – these words recur with monotonous regularity…  Mao has aptly compared guerrillas to fish, and the people to the water in which they swim.  If the political temperature is right, the fish, however few in number, will thrive and proliferate.  It is therefore the principal concern of all guerrilla leaders to get the water to the right temperature and to keep it there.

In the above paragraph, if we replace “fighting” with “legislating”; does this not more than adequately describe the recent history of the democrat party and their revolutionary party leaders?  And if we replace “guerrilla” with “revolutionaries”, does not the same hold true for that lower 30-40% of Americans?  Is the Obama Administration’s chief self-directed task not to keep the water at the right temperature?  Are they not interested in fostering economic recovery for fear that their revolutionary goals will not be realized?  (And we have four more years of this.)

In conclusion, I hope I’ve laid out, however briefly, a potential course of action of the not-too-distant future of the revolutionary party.  In some cursory analysis, the only competing issue I see is that of the opposing force (us); otherwise there is no impediment for the federal regime and revolutionary party to consider this path a viable option.  These two components aren’t mutually exclusive and could, in fact, aggravate each other.  If the extra-legal destruction of the Second Amendment doesn’t cause a civil war, the mobilization of legal plunderers on the streets surely would.

4 Comments

  1. Oathkeeper Scott says:

    Incisive thinking: bravo! *They* are the revolutionaries, using subterfuge and projection to confuse and redirect blame. I find I can’t listen to the President, because the twisted lies and distortions are so many, rapid, smooth that it’s enfuriating to listen to. Orwell and Rand were *so* prophetic.

    • Partisan says:

      Hey Scott – My thoughts exactly. 1984 is truly a scary scenario and we’re just plowing full steam ahead into it.

  2. William Tuttle says:

    Greetings, and God bless.

    If I may, Partisan, I would like to re-enforce the concerns you express about the American left. I wrote this a few days after Sandy Hook because I was concerned that not enough people seeing the context in which these events were unfolding. It seems relevant to the subject matter of your post above so, with your permission, I shall post it below. Thank you.

    Greetings, and God bless.

    A Brief Discussion At A Firerms Blog
    By William Tuttle

    The subject of gun control laws, after a long and unlamented absence, is emerging into the public arena again. This time it’s different. I get a sense of end-game in the air and I’m not alone in this. There are, however, people on our side, perfectly rational and reasonable people who nevertheless don’t read it that way. I hope they’re right, but I see an element of denial in their understanding of the situation. For example, I posted the following observations on a firearms blog the other day:

    “Greetings and God bless.

    For the last several years the democrats and other proponents of a government monopoly on force have been very reluctant to even bring up the subject of gun control, let alone push for it. It has been a losing proposition politically for them, but given the current political configuration in DC and the country in general, I think that is about to change. I’ve been prowling around in the web, looking at the progressive side of things and my gut is telling me that the gun-control camp has decided that this nightmare in Connecticut is the issue upon which they are going to make their stand. The President has momentum, the Republicans in the House are disorganized, shell-shocked and dis-oriented by the all-out assault from the left on the economic front and of course the media is doing everything in its very considerable power to assist the left in keeping them off balance and in retreat. Now they are going to enthusiastically load Connecticut on top of all that. They will tell the world that not only do we, the conservative, free-market oriented people of America want to destroy children, the elderly, minorities and the poor by eliminating food stamps, health care, social security and Medicare in order to give all the people’s money to their rich friends, but now we want to facilitate baby-killers by supplying them with automatic weapons. I think Connecticut is the position from which the left is going to mount the all-out final assault on the possession of firearms. The onslaught is coming. There will be no quarter. As the British swept Washington out of New York at the Battle of Brooklyn, we may be swept out of DC in the coming assault on the 2nd Amendment. Our stand will have to be made in the State Legislatures, the Counties and the Sheriff’s Offices. Get ready.”

    I received this reply from a blog participant who calls himself, “EM”:

    “I wouldn’t worry too much. We had plenty of mass shootings (Virginia Tech for instance) back when both houses and the presidency were held by the Democrats. Plenty of insane gun control bills are introduced every single year, but never make it out of committee. Hell, an actual congress person got shot and nothing happened.”

    I thought about that for a while. It seemed to me that there might be a little tunnel-vision involved in EM’s perception of the issue. Gun control isn’t merely a bunch of hoplophobes pathetically trying to assuage their irrational fears through the legislative process. What we are facing isn’t a discreet, single-issue problem. Gun control is a sub-set of several parallel and interconnected threads and If EM has tunnel-vision that isn’t letting him take that into account, then perhaps it was because I hadn’t really made that explicit in my original post. I tried to remedy that in my response:

    “Greetings, and God bless.

    Hello, EM.

    True, ever since the Clinton administration, gun control legislation has failed to gain traction, and if the current crop of House Republicans will stick to their guns then maybe further attempts to erode the 2nd Amendment will continue to die in committee. But there will be far more going on here than just a fight over gun control. A sea change is now under way, a ramping up to the next level of combat in the collectivist war on American liberty. For the last sixty years and more there has been ongoing in America, and the West in general, a quiet, slow-motion Bolshevik style revolution. Most of it, until recently, has consisted of silent but effective battlefield preparation and that work is essentially complete. The several different and seemingly unrelated threads of the Gramsciian “long march through the cultural institutions of the west” are coming together. The entrenchment of the current administration marks the perfection of the processes that Lenin referred to as “pressure from above, pressure from below” (“top down, bottom up” for those familiar with Glenn Becks analysis of this subject). The grassroots revolutionaries, over decades, have built up the “mass organizations” necessary for successful revolution (this is what Lenin meant when he stated the need to establish small, highly trained and motivated cadres of professional revolutionaries controlling masses of useful idiots). These organizations are mature and in place, ready to be folded into the “united front”. The revolutionaries have now established control of the Executive Branch and they have constructed arbitrary executive mechanisms under the supervision of “czars” which are operating parallel with, and independent of legitimate Constitutional entities. These revolutionaries have reached down to link with the grassroots revolutionaries. The “top down, bottom up” command and control structure is now integrated and operational. The collectivist social structures that are intended to be the alternative to the collapsing traditional institutions of American society are in place. The educational mechanisms for shaping hearts and minds are in place and operating. So are the media-based tools for manipulating the public understanding of reality. The order of battle is established. The deployment of assets complete. All that remains is to pull the trigger. And that will be done in response to a “crisis”. Most likely multiple and coordinated crisis.

    It is within this context that Connecticut drops into their laps. The circumstances are qualitatively and quantitatively different than those surrounding any previous attempts at gun control legislation. Any such attempt in the current period will not be a stand-alone project. It will be a tactical move in a broader strategic action, and I expect that action to unfold between now and the 2014 election. Politically, the correlation of forces is optimal for the left. All the metrics are in their favor. As they see it now, we, the defenders of the Founders Republic, and the institutions available for us to work through, are dis-oriented, discouraged, pulled in several different directions at once, increasingly isolated, separated from a support base and in general mismatched against an enemy that has raised the art of political warfare to an exact science. They are very good at it. We are not. They believe that they have structured the political battlefield so effectively that essentially, all that remains for them to do is reduce the enemy in detail, but they know this strategic situation will not remain static. The outcome of the 2014 elections, in all probability, will be less than desirable from their standpoint. They have every reason to believe that the time to push their revolution to the next level is now. So, in light of all this, what are the odds that the current and upcoming crop of House Republican will “stick to their guns” while they stand at the focus of a white hot media spotlight, drenched in the blood of Connecticut’s children?

    So, EM, I sure hope you’re right, but I fear that the next push for gun control is going to be orders of magnitude different that any that has come before.

    I’m not trying to be discouraging or defeatist here. I speak of the collectivist perception of the situation. I’m not being Pollyanna either. That perception, in too many ways, is dangerously close to the truth and we have to understand, and own that. My discussion is also framed in terms of political combat as opposed to physical conflict. Can this Marxist revolution go hot? Absolutely, but while pushing things to the limit so as to maintain momentum, the revolutionaries need to keep it just short of a shooting war, because that, of course, would change everything.

    Which is an entirely different discussion.”

    • William Tuttle says:

      Greetings, and God bless.

      I apologize, Partisan. After posting the above I went to ensure that I would get an e-mail if there were any new comments in this thread. I found there that I had already posted my remarks above on December 31st under the “The Future of Gun Control” thread in your blog. I don’t immediately see a means to delete it from my end, so do what you need to do with it. Again, sorry. I didn’t mean to clutter up your sever space.

      William

%d bloggers like this: