Extreme conditions within any society that are induced by an oppressive regime will almost always provoke a mass reaction. However, the nature of the reaction is generally determined by history and culture. For example, when colonizers violently capture and dominate underdeveloped countries, consensus forms quickly among the colonized that they must not only remove the regime in its entirety by any means necessary, including armed struggle, but they must also eliminate the system that sustained the regime. Such does not reflect the reality of the U.S. If each of the millions of people who marched against Trump and voted for Mamdani could be interviewed, it is reasonably certain that the vast majority would express a heartfelt belief that the conditions they protest are caused by corrupt individuals, and not unjust political and economic systems.
Many who are new to the movement believe that established governmental processes, if allowed to function properly, offer a pathway to change – even radical change. In other words, the shared sentiment is there is no need to scrap the Constitution or abolish the established institutions of government. It is necessary only that bad actors be removed and that the people receive a chance to speak fully and truthfully through elected representatives who will faithfully govern in ways that are consistent with mass sentiment. It is a charming, naive perspective that has been carefully nurtured by generations of propaganda specifically designed to promote the lie that the U.S. has a superior model of government, while at the same time misdirecting attention away from the powerful, ruthless forces that actually dominate the country’s political and economic life. It is a perspective that is remarkable in that it prompts the aggrieved to demonstrate their frustration, not by marching through the streets waving angry clinched fists, but instead by wearing colorful costumes, waving placards bearing amusing “no kings” slogans, and engaging in goofy street theater.
No, the U.S. is not ready for a revolution that eliminates the machinery of government and trashes the capitalist system. But what if it were? What would be the prospects for success? There is certainly the potential for the proverbial seizure of the means of production and the capture of the halls of government. But it is highly doubtful that a new, just society would emerge from such an uprising. While in many underdeveloped countries, the vast majority of the people are able to unite around a shared vision because they are all similarly devastated and oppressed by an identifiable, monstrous individual or small elite group, in the U.S., ignorance, confusion, racism and fear all combine to maintain chronic division, political blindness and movement paralysis.
White workers in particular offer little hope for revolution notwithstanding their militancy. If any group is prepared to physically challenge those in power, it is certainly white workers. They are heavily armed and driven by a sense of righteous indignation. But they have given us nothing remotely comparable to the virtuous nobility of the Sandinistas’ struggle against tyranny. They instead gave the country the misguided January 6th fiasco. This group is so thoroughly confused by many decades of lies about their right to white privilege and their desperate fears of imminent loss of same that they wallow in a mass psychosis that drives them to not only shun but destroy everyone who is not white.
There are of course progressive white workers as well as many middle class to affluent white progressive intellectuals and activists who embrace the idea of interracial solidarity. But too many of them also involuntarily and unconsciously harbor a form of racial chauvinism that leads them to discount or ignore the political instincts and concerns of communities of color. Witness the overwhelming whiteness of the No Kings demonstrations. If organizers had paused to consider the concerns of communities of color, they would have known of the reluctance of Latinos to go into the streets and expose themselves to the ICE menace. They would also have learned that Black communities have taken astute, careful notice of how Trump has, with hopes of using police violence, engaged in an extended effort to bait Black people into public reaction with a series of offensive, provocative insults. With great discipline people of African descent have declined to respond with public protests that would provide the pretext for unleashing police and military violence against them.
By not seriously considering the experiences and analyses of communities of color and instead defaulting to methods of resistance that are consistent with white culture, white activists deprive themselves not only of active participation of these communities, but also their collective wisdom. Absence from the No Kings rallies did not mean that Black people have not resisted. In their own quiet way, their boycott of the Target chain’s cowardly capitulation to Trump sent a loud, clear message. While there are other creative strategies that could potentially be mined from a people who have over the decades time and again shown the world how to resist oppression, Black people are not to be criticized for, in this moment, sitting it out. After all, it was the broad masses of white people who put Trump into office, and many Black people understandably believe it is the responsibility of the white community to clean up the mess. More significantly, Black people recognize that the “problems” that Trump has caused may be a new experience for white communities, but Black people have always had to cope with oppressive conditions.
Finally, the disregard of communities of color during demonstrations of resistance is an indication of what would likely occur after a revolutionary triumph. Are even the most revolutionary elements of the white community prepared to accept the idea that after a revolutionary seizure of power they should not be the bosses? Given that the country was stolen by European settlers from indigenous First Nations, are white revolutionaries prepared to suppress their arrogance and humbly take their cues about what should happen in North America from native populations? Likewise, are they prepared to look honestly at what would be necessary to make whole the descendants of Africans who were enslaved? It is highly unlikely that the fantasies of most white revolutionaries include such considerations.
There are many activists in communities of color who long ago presumed the futility of establishing meaningful alliances with this country’s white left. They turned their gaze beyond U.S. borders and committed to Pan-Africanism and other strategies that involve transnational engagement of all oppressed people in a global war against imperialism. Circumstances suggest that ultimately, these international struggles are likely to offer greater prospects for success than the enduring fantasy of a multiracial workers revolution in the U.S.
While there are a variety of additional factors that make revolution unlikely, perhaps the greatest impediment is the simple fact that too many people in this country lack basic decency. Hatred, fear and mean-spiritedness are so much a part of the popular culture and the very fabric of the society that if a mass uprising were to occur it would likely be little more than a riot without any transformational outcomes. A real revolution is driven by a ferocious love for all people that is clearly reflected and manifested in a new society that seeks only the best for everyone, and not the division and selfishness so much in evidence during this period.
The current U.S. predicament is not new. When Jesus conducted his ministry, the people of first century Palestine looked to him to lead a war of liberation against oppressive Roman imperialism. However, in his divine wisdom Jesus understood that the people were not morally and spiritually fit to pursue material revolutionary objectives. The people were disappointed to the point of fury when Jesus demanded that they worry less about trying to establish an earthly kingdom and instead give highest priority to learning how to love God, love other people, and live peacefully in community with each other.
Likewise, near the end of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s life and career, although he explicitly railed against the destructive impact of imperialism, capitalism, racism and materialism, he stopped short of calling for revolution in the sense that the term is usually employed. He recognized the moral decay and spiritual death that afflicted the U.S. and said that “…we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a ‘thing‐oriented’ society to a ‘person-oriented’ society.”
Dr. King’s revolution of values is an unfinished revolution. It’s enemies are capitalist values that continue to dominate and promote individualism, self-preservation, elitism, selfishness, class stratification, greed, and of course racial division. It is only logical that before a revolution can be waged against the capitalist system that the people must purge themselves of the values of the system they seek to destroy. While this may be the most basic revolutionary challenge, in this country it may also be the most difficult.
Mark P. Fancher is an attorney and writer. He is a member of the Black Alliance for Peace Africa Team and the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party.
