Worse is Better Yet Again

Another (brief) foray into this topic.

In The Turner Diaries, Pierce makes the cogent point that a major objective of revolutionary violence (besides making the System look weak) is to provoke repressive measures by the System so as to alienate and radicalize the population. 

It says something about human nature that the population wouldn't simply blame the rebels for instigating the situation - most people are shallow and focus on immediate causes; further, if revolutionary violence depends on support from a fraction of the population, then one can assume that elements of the population were already displeased with the System even before the increased repression, and would thus be very willing to blame the System, rather than the rebels, for ultimately creating the problems.

But how does the historical truth about revolutionary violence stack up against Suvorov's Law - that revolutions tends to occur when repression is suddenly relaxed, not when the repression is the greatest?  And what about my own support for a strategy based on Suvorov's Law?

First, even if the repression increases, typically peaking at some point, as long as the rebellion continues, the System may make an attempt to compromise, so the two aspects of revolutionary change are not always incompatible. Typically, Suvorov's Law activity follows a period of the worse is better repressive scenario. Second, in those cases in which the two strategies are completely separate, choosing one or another depends upon circumstances. If the population is not supportive of revolutionary violence, if there is no effective organization for such violence, if there is no way of using force to overthrow a System, then Suvorov's Law comes - or should come - into play. Under other circumstances, such as a System disintegrating due to other pressures and ripe for physical overthrow, widespread support for armed rebellion, a situation in which the System is "boiling the frog" so slowly that radical intervention is required to disrupt the status quo, then the "twigs and branches" "to the mountains" armed struggle approach may be more reasonable.

EGI Notes does not support armed struggle in our current situation, and all of the Grand Poobahs of "movement" "leadership" seem to agree, with their denouncing of violence (assuming their sincerity) and emphasis on "metapolitics" (the fact that some of these "leaders" still focus on worse is better Der Tag "the System is about to collapse" scenarios tells you how incoherent their "strategy" is). Very well. There is not yet any real significant support for "twigs and branches" Der Tag scenarios, and there is no organization for that, no chance for success.

Thus, I - who at least offers a coherent strategy, whether you think it right or wrong - promote the Suvorov's Law approach. The danger of "safety valve" complacency after System concessions is fought against with a vanguard elite that constantly stirs the pot - there should be endless demands, one should never be satisfied, every concession by the System should be met with a set of fresh demands, new outrage, and more militancy. The Left has radically transformed America with this strategy. When has the Left ever been satisfied with any concession over the last, say, 60 years? Never. Every surrender by the Right, by the old traditional System, every compromise and concession, was met with screams for yet more, endless demands, endless anger, leading to new cycles of surrender, concession, compromise, and leftist victory. There was never any "storming of the ramparts" by the Left; America was just given to them, piece by piece.  They never had the support of the people for armed insurrection, nor did they have the organization and power to take on the government. They seized power nevertheless.

Is the Far Right paying attention?