Essentially he thinks that, because surveillance is so powerful, and because of 21st-century advancements in the military, there is no way that a socialist uprising could happen, if any at all. The news already does a good job of showing that the US has this new incredible surveillance tech!! and could send these brand new, ultra-powerful drones to bomb you!! and it's all powered by really smart algorithms that can show all your history!!. They are very opaque about how to stop it, and it seems almost like a form of state-terrorism where the US shows its most freitening new technology to the media so that the people feel helpless, thus disinclined to start groups critical of the government. It seems that there is a strain where people like my friend see changing material conditions, and interpret the change as shutting off revolutionary potential once and for all.

I really want to know what you guys think. It really feeds into a lot of Anarchist notions to just leave alone the possibility of overthrow and tend to your own garden and write poems, or Liberal notions of simply voting because nothing else could possibly work.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 4 days ago

I actually agree with him in the sense that if a revolution happened tomorrow in the U.S., the U.S. still has enough money and a loyal-enough professional military to suppress it using extreme violence (picture the BLM protests plus ultra-ICE).

In order for a revolution in the U.S. to be successful, most of the U.S. neocolonies need to have revolutions/move toward sovereignty, and thereby stop paying the United States. When that occurs and the U.S. by definition loses its empire, it will no longer be able to afford for its own advanced military. At that point, a revolution will be winnable because it doesn't matter how many F-35s you have if you don't have the money to fly them.

  • source