> Maybe the US needs to do a Nepal and overthrow this corrupt government
What do you think the current crop want? In any new revolution, the rich consolidate power. Same as has happened in pretty much every non-communist popular revolution over the last two centuries.
Revolutions rarely change the underlying social and economic structures in their host nations. The paths that wealth and power travel are too well groomed for their inheritors to ignore.
The US is possibly too free now to have a proper revolution. A key requisite for a revolution to be successful is that the population just accepts the new leaders. I think it’s a coin flip now if that requisite is met. Of course the alternative isn’t peaceful either, but more like a civil war or at least factions going after each other.
This is why even flawed democracy is better. The alternatives are just horrible.
> What is needed is a communist popular revolution, it's the only hope left for the country
Communist popular revolutions succeeded in replacing the previous elites. None of them—apart from departure from Tsarist mismanagement, and even then only for a short run—resulted in a higher quality of life for the people.
History rarely has justice. Idiots overthrowing flawed democracies reaping and then getting stomped on by the ensuing autocrats are a rare example. (The others are terrorism and strategic bombing backfiring. Pretty much always.)
Cuban literacy is a legitimate example. The other would be Russia. Beyond those two, you're stuck trying to justify the Cultural Revolution.
Most revolutions result in the old guard consolidating power. Where they haven't, they've tended to cause unmitigated misery. In the rare cases where violent revolution didn't fuck over everyone but the rich, it was because the previous aristocracy left a lot of develoment cards on the table. And in none of those situations was a system even pretending to hold elections overthrown. (Yes, I'm moving the goal posts. I concede the previous absolutist position was untenable. I think this refined one is, and my original point, about anyone arguing for revolution in America being an idiot, stands.)
> Don't believe the propaganda you've been fed
This is a terrible way to end if you're arguing in good faith.
> In the rare cases where violent revolution didn't fuck over everyone but the rich, it was because the previous aristocracy left a lot of develoment cards on the table.
I'd argue this is generally why revolutions happen in the first place, because the masses are miserable while the aristocracy lives a life of excess.
I'd further argue that there's plenty of "development cards", as you call them, left on the table in the US. Medical care being paywalled is an obvious one. Homelessness is at a historic high [0]. 13.5% of households are food insecure [1].
All of those problems could be fixed by simply redistributing resources from a few oligarchs.
I'm not sure what to make of your point about voting - I'm not quite sure I understand how that's related to the success of a post-revolution society.
> This is a terrible way to end if you're arguing in good faith.
So is calling people that disagree with you idiot, but I am actually enjoying the discussion, so lets not get petty here.
My point was a bigger one about Cuban society having these achievements despite being constantly undermined by its superpower neighbor. The same neighbor that presumably educated you? It was an attempt to point out a conflict of interest in said education system, not meant to be a personal attack.
Fair enough, I added the exception that’s known. If someone thinks there is Tsarist-level economic mismanagement in America to be reaped by a new regime, I have a DOGE to sell them.
China and Cuba were also both unquestionably improvements over the status quo. The neoliberal turn in Russia in the 1990s, meanwhile, was an unmitigated humanitarian disaster, and the removal of the USSR as an alternative on the world stage unshackled Western capital to the current relentless pursuit of advantage that has yielded today's K-shaped economy and all the instability, misery, and scapegoating of powerless groups like migrants that has come with it.
> China and Cuba were also both unquestionably improvements over the status quo
Fair enough. I'd point out that both had low baselines, and the former managed to still fuck that up under Mao. China's living standards dropped post Revolution, and didn't really start materially improving until its leaders had swapped away from communism. By that point, they proceeded to fabulously enrich themselves.
> neoliberal turn in Russia in the 1990s, meanwhile, was an unmitigated humanitarian disaster
Agree.
> unshackled Western capital to the current relentless pursuit of advantage that has yielded today's K-shaped economy
(Yes I know a lot of people can't leave. Maybe the US needs to do a Nepal and overthrow this corrupt government)