/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

You only ever need 3% of a population organized and ready to act to overthrow the government of any given nation state, the idea that you need the majority of any population to actually take power is populist nonsense and has literally never ben true.

>>2940251
Yeah being a TWist/ultrabordigist contrarian on a niche spinoff of a niche spinoff of an anime website is not going to get you 3% of the populations support. Maybe a rounding errors worth

>>2940258
Obviously not, entryist trots would have more of a shot but the problem with entryism is you enter the trade union and the socdem party and those change you instead of the other way around, or you get purged

You create a program that people agree with. Basically what socdems do but instead of a socdem program you make a communist program.

>>2940251
>You only ever need 3% of a population organized and ready to act to overthrow the government of any given nation state
I've heard this before but it sounds unscientific. Why 3%? Why not 1? Why not 10? What is so special about 3? Doesn't this myth come from the "3 percenter" right wingers in the USA?

>>2940283
It comes from Gene Sharp who was a CIA agent with actual experience in overthrowing governments, he more or less created the theory behind color revolutions. We need to use glowie tools if we are to conquer and subjugate glowie.

>>2940250
>how do you unite the international proletariat
global
>>2940251
<You only ever need 3% of a population organized and ready to act to overthrow the government of any given nation state
local

2 different domains of operation
also… wouldn't you want to maximize your base of support? the minority militarized vanguard might only be 3% of the population, but they need either the indifference or active support of the masses. The guerilla is a fish and the masses are the water.

>>2940284
ok interesting, followup question. wasn't gene sharp working with reactionaries who had the active support of the most powerful government on earth? Is it really fair to say proletarian revolution only needs 3% of the population when they're not getting propped up from the outside as 5th columnists by a much more powerful force?

>>2940285
You generate tacit support after the initial power grab to the extent you can

>>2940284
like, there's a difference between a nationalist right wing military junta propped up by the USA as a 5th column against socialists, and the working class actually remaking human society on an international scale

>>2940287
Both true, multipolarism means now there are more states that can compete with the US and thus be willing to fund a 3% color revolution. I think of myself as a centrist between the blanquists and the popular revolutionists.
>>2940289
You have to get in the seat of power first, by hook or by crook, only then can you create the conditions for international whatever.

>>2940291
i think i understand better what you are getting at, thanks for explaining

>>2940292
I try, might not mean anything but still

>>2940283
I mean fair criticism but I think the underlying point that populism is overrated is true even if you only need 30% support.

>>2940303
That 30% support doesn’t even need to be active, it can be passive and aloof and just going to work

>>2940250
>teachers, nurses, butlers, clerks and cooks don't produce surplus value because…
>cavalry (because the fucking proletariat is the anachronism here), and infantry are distinct classes because…
>fighting oppression actually makes you less likely to fight oppression, actually
>how do you unite the international proletariat which is so easily divided and conquered?
i don't know, officer, you tell me

>>2940317
idk where you got the first 3 lines of greentext, but i guess the fact that you imagined someone was saying that is all that counts

>>2940340
do you understand indirect quotation or

>>2940284
Looking this up… apparently the 3% thing doesn't actually come from Sharp directly (although I previously thought it did) but a 2011 book called "Why Civil Resistance Works" by Erica Chenoweth, which was a statistical study of various campaigns. But Chenoweth heavily based her theoretical framework on Sharp. Sharp's relevant theories here were originally (iirc) developed on contract with U.S. intelligence as a fallback option in case communists came to power in Western Europe. Like if fighting the Soviet Army wasn't going to work and France or Italy came under communist political control then you do a color revolution.

>>2940287
Well the thing is that people say "you only need 3% of the population to overthrow the government" and it's like yeah if you have 3% of the population of a country actively participating in taking over the streets in the capital and overrunning government buildings and declaring themselves the new government, you can find that happening in places just a matter as an actual observation. But it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to win without other objective factors to consider. Also communists aim to transform society not just take over the state although that's a means to an end.

>>2940352
I don’t see how you make those types of societal transformations without taking state power first, maybe I’m stupid or my imagination has been squashed by living in neoliberal hell all my life but it seems state power is the first and primary major bottleneck to progress there, from there you have to deal with foreign relations and whatnot

>>2940345
I understand the insufferable chanism of making up shit nobody said and insisting it was implied

>>2940352
not the best thread but i'm glad this has sparked a discussion of gene sharp and the whole 3% thing tbh