an analysis of the root issue in civil unrest, pretty good imo
I’ve always thought that the only way a revolution can be created in the US is to follow Mao’s example and build support in the rural areas first. Midwest US used to be a hotbed of socialist/communist/anarchist activity until the passage of the Espionage (1917) and Sedition (1918) Acts in support of WW1 made many of their activities illegal. The rural poor don’t seem to exist in the eyes of coastal US urban comrades, or are written off as too right wing to be organized. Small town US is decaying and dying, with no one seeming to notice.
I suppose what needs to be asked here is why do the coastal regions seem to have far more organised communists than the rural regions?
Would rural people appreciate or listen to communists that moved there just to try and agitate them toward communism?
What about what few comrades exist within these rural areas? How many of them have tried to organise rural folk but failed?
This position gets floated a lot in UK spaces as well, that comrades from London ought to be airdropped into the forgotten and left behind parts of Britain where community barely exists and there is no work whatsoever to do. There is a reason there are more communists in urban centres with more proletarian work available.
Most rural populations are either kulaks, sub-proletarian or commuters. I do think we are beyond the vast revolutionary potential in rural areas since farmhands dont really exist anymore (make an exception for the “cheap labor”-force from Eastern Europe). The rural areas of past were quite different, the communal sense is basically dead and people have emptied out.
I’d avoid using Kulaks because this term does not apply to the US current material conditions. But I agree with you, Mao’s strategy of encircling urban areas from the countryside wouldn’t work because nowadays the rural areas aren’t as populous anymore. We’d hardly ever have a strong base there, even if we managed to convince a lot of rural workers to join the communist movement. So yeah, I don’t think the strategy is applicable for the US or UK.
In Brazil, which is still an agrarian nation (and on most global South nations that depend on agriculture), this strategy could have benefits. But even in Brazil’s case, focusing on the urban proletariat is still important.
I used kulaks more flippantly, it has more bite than owner of large scale industrial farms or Manager of a Cargill Inc plant. I agree with the rest of your analysis though.
I think you’re under-counting migrant labor in rural areas - they might have some revolutionary potential.
You’re right, if we overcome xenophobia and migrant labor’s fear and partial indifference for some, then yes.
Although I agree that more could be done to radicalize these communities, I think this fails to recognize that a large part of the rural US are petty bourgeois white folk who’ve historically also been the biggest opponents to marginilized workers liberation. In the early 20th century the Midwest was obviously significantly more radical than now, but it should also be noted that the urban centers, mining towns, and port cities, were also hotbeds for action. The labor struggle was advancing on all fronts, with the immigrant poor, black working class, and undocumented populations being at the forefront. Undocumented migrants are likely in rural areas due to their exploitation as agriculture workers, so in that case I’d argue that there must be more organizing on that front. However undocumented migrants aren’t really what I assume you mean when you say “rural US” and they largely exist in cities as well.
Although, I guess as a Californian I’m one of the “coastal elites” so to speak, and I may hold biases due to not having interacted with the opinions of many rural comrades at a deeper level of analysis on the subject.
