Revolution almost always requires a brutal civil war so that a new society emerges from it. But the ideal of a new society never emerges immadietly after. We see it with the french revolution, and then the russian revolution. The american revolution seems like an exemption from this. Why is that?
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.
>>2553638Revolution in society is almost never a revolution. It's almost always evolution. Stalinist Russia is just the tsar, but better. It's not a complete break.
All revolutions are partly civil wars, every single one including the american one. It was literally a piece of the british empire breaking off dummy. Their independence war was a civil war
>>2553645>>2553642I did not say that america had no civil war
Just that the system of gouvernance was not more authoritarian than under colonial rule. In that sense, it was a success.
>>2553637the fuck are you trying to say, comrade
>>2553648You mean no revolutionary dictator who then devours the children of the revolution? I mean, Washington came kinda close, they wanted to make him king after all. But he didn't even really wanna be president, just sit on his farmstead and watch his slaves toil the land. Some people argue it was his personality that caused him not to centralize power and that might very well be, but it always seemed like a bit of a copout answer to me. There's probably more materialist reasons for the success of the american revolution. It being far away from their previous rules, a relatively new country with lots of space and possibilities, it could be many different things
>>2553654I think if you have monarchs in your country, it's almost impossible to completely remove yourself from it. Indepedence is easier.
>>2553637>Revolution requires a brutal civil warAnyone else notice how this has never ever ever led to socialism?
<Inb4 capitalism becomes socialism once your manager’s title is “People’s Democratic Supervisory Specialist” and not just “Boss” >>2553716I have been thinking that americas check of balances could have been beneficial to the young Soviet Union.
>>2553637The U.S papered over their contradictions by pointing everyone west and telling them there was free land for anyone that can take it. Also there was rebellions after the revolution. Like the whisky rebellion, they were quickly slaughtered though by George Washington himself.
>>2553654The materialist reason is that it wasn't a revolution. There was no real change in the socioeconomic power structure and so it didn't suffer from the kind of instability, foreign intervention, or other problems that characterize actual social revolutions.
>>2553738>check of balancesIgnoring the misspelling/mondegreen, lmao, imagine actually believing this is a real thing, and ALSO that the United States had/has it while the Soviet Union inexplicably did not, somehow.
>>2554055You're probably correct, it being a mere political revolution that didn't really change much about the social fabric, nor was it meant to, is the main reason for its "success" as compared to actual revolutions
>>2554080>while the Soviet Union inexplicably did not, somehow.there were show trials and shit, dawg
>>2553641Revolution comes from revolve or a cycle, a spin, it changes nothing, a cycle always leads back to where it started. We need liquidation of all of the past and creation of a new present global year zero +∞↗
>>2554467America, nor any country which claims to have "checks and balances" has ever had a show trial, ever.
>>2554479>using etymology to decide how a word is actually used in practice.dinosaur means terrible lizard in greek, but dinosaurs are not lizards
>The american revolution seems like an exemption from this. Why is that?
Because Americans have been loudly and aggressively insisting that their revolution was successful and their empire will never collapse, but it will. Just give it some time.
>>2554487>>2554579democratic centralism and the erasure of the councils is a one party dictatorship
>>2554943When the Soviet Union banned multiple factions in the early 20s, a opposite party could have been a safety net
Even today, at least having a second party in the US is better than just one. Not by a lot. Just a tiny bit.
>>2554091Bourgeois revolutions rarely change much beyond the political system because they typically happen when the rising bourgeoisie has already become the economically dominant class and main coordinators of wealth production, held back only by the reactionary privileges of a fully parasitic and non-contributing aristocracy
Like, France was already dominated by capitalist manufacture before the revolution that allowed the bourgeoisie to fully oversee the political system
In fact the reason for the utter failure of socialists again and again rests in the lack of constructed socialist relations able to burst capitalist relations, yet the rapid transformation of capitalist relations into socialist relations throughout all the mediations of this system (and the ways they reproduce mediations of previous social control systems) is likely the only way to prevent capital from reasserting itself
>>2554945>>2554945>Even today, at least having a second party in the US is better than just one. Not by a lot. Just a tiny bit.Why do you believe this? Are you legitimately retarded? The party form isn't trans-historical, it has not always existed and it will not always exist.
>>2555229how do you propose the soviet communist party woudn't have disintergrated?
unless you are a MLoid
>>2553637With AI powered mass surveillance the age of revolutions is over.
How come socialists are like "multiparty democracy is the perfect system to solidify capitalist rule wow they're so clever" but then they don't implement their own multiparty democracy to solidify their rule.
>>2555364But they lost to treatlerism.
Unique IPs: 20