other revolutions

[freedom]

It seems that to have a successful revolution in a major capitalist country such as the U.S or the U.K is nearly impossible. The majority of people in these countries are content with some type of capitalist system. Everyone wants some reform here or there but to be honest things aren't that bad if the majority of people are clothed, have running water and have enough to eat. Obviously reform is needed, but the move towards a better and probably more Communist system can come in slow peaceful steps. In contrast to other parts of the world which are in horrible shape, are under control of tyrants and have even fallen into violent anarchy.

As revolutionary's are goal should be to bring uncorrupted govt. to those who need it most. So shouldn't we focus our attention on bettering the lives of the people living in mass states of poverty such as regions of Africa or South America?

[Diagoras]

You are making the mistake of separating the economic conditions of those who live in the "first world" with those who live in the "third world". It isn't just "corrupt government" that leads to the mass impoverishment of countries in Africa or elsewhere. Look at Zimbabwe. Yes, Mugabe is quite the bastard, for many reasons. The economy of Zimbabwe is falling apart as a result of hyper-inflationary monetary policies. This did not happen in a vacuum, though. As a result of the dictates of the IMF and the World Bank's "structural readjustment" policies, in which aid and loans are withheld unless countries sell off their public resources to foreign corporations, end subsidies to food, education, health and welfare programs, there were attempts to meet these standards of capitalist minimalism in the early 1990s. This expansion of capitalism opened up the country to some foreign corporate takeovers, and largely dismantled public services. As a result, Zimbabwe went from having one of the best educational systems on the continent, and at least decent health care with food subsidies, (with an average male lifespan of roughly 64 years) to a country with a decrepit educational structure and no funds to repair it (all surplus funds go to pay off the debt to the IMF and WB), and people starving in the streets (with an average male lifespan in the mid to low 30s) after attempts to print its way back to a pseudo-functional and funded economy (leading to yearly inflation increases of easily 1000% and more).

Other similar examples from NAFTA can be brought when discussing South America. Also, this is just an example from the more benign debt slavery and impoverishment systems.

The notion that we should be satisfied with most people having clothes and not starving to death, and that we should be so lucky, does not sit well with me. I understand that you would like more as well, but we should not be satisfied with being right at or above subsistence levels. We should utilize (as a tool for influence) the fact that, especially in times of crisis, like the present, the capitalist system is incapable of giving us what our economic capacity is easily capable of producing... not just in the developed countries, but in the 2/3rds of the world that is going to bed hungry tonight, because it is all one system. If we are to change the condition of the third world, we must also change the condition of the first world, because the military and political forces of the first world are what insure the degradation and submission of the third world.

I get where you are coming from, given the hegemonic and seemingly insurmountable strength of something like the U.S. government, but if history can give us any guidance, unless the dominant forces are dismantled from within, they will simply squash any attempts at creating alternate systems in the under-developed countries.


...have even fallen into violent anarchy.Grrr...:thumbdown:;)

[Niccolò Rossi]

The majority of people in these countries are content with some type of capitalist system. Everyone wants some reform here or there but to be honest things aren't that bad if the majority of people are clothed, have running water and have enough to eat.

As the current economic crisis continues we are already seeing this illusion slowly being dispelled, just how far this will progress however is something we are yet to see.


Obviously reform is needed, but the move towards a better and probably more Communist system can come in slow peaceful steps.

This is not at all the case. Capitalism is a mode of production in an era of irreversible decadence, it can offer not progress within it's own bounds and must be overthrown by the international working class. What you are describing is the position of Bernstein who asserted that capitalism could offer within it's own limits an evolutionary and peaceful path toward socialism. This was fiercely condemned at the time by revolutionaries such as Rosa Luxemburg who insisted (and where subsequently vindicated by the outbreak of WWI) that capitalism like all other modes of production was bound by objective historical limits, concluding that the only choice existing for humanity was that between "Socialism or Barbarism".

Whilst it was possible for revolutionaries to bring into question the correctness of view in light of what seemed to be a blatant contradiction, the post-war boom of the 1950's and 60's, the conclusions of Marx upheld by Luxemburg were and have once again been proved correct with the crisis of the 1970's and that which we are experiencing today.


In contrast to other parts of the world which are in horrible shape, are under control of tyrants and have even fallen into violent anarchy.

This is but one of the expressions of an obsolete mode of production on it's historic deathbed. The differences between the first and third worlds are merely quantitative, the solution for the entire world is thus the same - world proletarian revolution and the construction of socialism.


As revolutionary's are goal should be to bring uncorrupted govt. to those who need it most.

I disagree, the goals of revolutionaries are none other than those of the working class itself. Today the goal of the liberation of the working class is both possible and necessary, concrete and meaningful reform within the framework of capitalism for the benefit of the proletariat is however impossible. Revolutionaries do not act to instate "uncorrupted" governments, they, like the the working class as a whole, act for their abolition and the seizure of political power by the workers themselves.


So shouldn't we focus our attention on bettering the lives of the people living in mass states of poverty such as regions of Africa or South America?

As above, real improvement can only come in the construction of a world human community of free and equal producers - communism. Capitalism is historically bankrupt and can offer no progress.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Obviously reform is needed, but the move towards a better and probably more Communist system can come in slow peaceful steps. In contrast to other parts of the world which are in horrible shape, are under control of tyrants and have even fallen into violent anarchy.

In between your current position and the common Trotskyist and left-communist position on reforms (per Niccolo's post above) is my position. Reality is much more complex in regards to the dynamism and senility of bourgeois capitalism. At times, the system can accommodate real, reform-enabling reforms, but only if pushed. At other times, it can't.

Nevertheless, the key point here is class struggle. To achieve those reform measures (not mere liberal palliative-dressings), class struggle is required. However, if preserving the gains down the road ultimately means overthrowing the bourgeoisie as part of heightened class struggle, then so be it.

[freedom]

"The notion that we should be satisfied with most people having clothes and not starving to death, and that we should be so lucky, does not sit well with me. I understand that you would like more as well, but we should not be satisfied with being right at or above subsistence levels. We should utilize (as a tool for influence) the fact that, especially in times of crisis, like the present, the capitalist system is incapable of giving us what our economic capacity is easily capable of producing... not just in the developed countries, but in the 2/3rds of the world that is going to bed hungry tonight, because it is all one system. If we are to change the condition of the third world, we must also change the condition of the first world, because the military and political forces of the first world are what insure the degradation and submission of the third world."

Its seems then like we should launch a sort of campaign of ideas and spread them to the working class of developed countries in order to show them the advantages of a communist(or communist like) system. We would also need to brake the stereotypes of communism. Perhaps dropping the name entirely and creating a better working model of communism. If we have the general support of the people of developed nations then we could launch a revolution in a more susceptible county and put into practice our new system which would be both funded and supported by the world. If this system works and works well, then an example could be set for the rest of the world and an international social revolution could take place. Its a very broad statement and it needs some more explanation, but hopefully I'm getting a point across.

[Invincible Summer]

Its seems then like we should launch a sort of campaign of ideas and spread them to the working class of developed countries in order to show them the advantages of a communist(or communist like) system.
Who is "we?" What sort of "campaign" are you referring to? A political one, headed by the national communist parties?

Every Anarchist/Communist should be trying to help others understand/see the benefits of the Communist position in their everyday life. We shouldn't have to rely on some glorified PR campaign that will be likened to Soviet propaganda by the mainstream of society. Spread revolutionary ideas with your friends, family, workplace (albeit cautiously), union (again, cautiously), etc.

And we shouldn't have to settle for a "communist like" system. That's reformism.


We would also need to brake the stereotypes of communism. Indeed. We accomplish this by doing what I stated above.

[qute]Perhaps dropping the name entirely and creating a better working model of communism.[/quote]
Well, what is communism to you? What would be your working model?

If one's definition of "Communism" is a system in which the workers control and own the means of production in order to cease exploitation and create an equal, stateless society, then why hide the name in shame?


If we have the general support of the people of developed nations then we could launch a revolution in a more susceptible county and put into practice our new system which would be both funded and supported by the world.Developed nations are so deep into the decadence and false consciousness propagated by the media and government that it's difficult to bring them to class consciousness.

Besides, what you're proposing is almost like imperialism, but for the sake of Communism. That, in my opinion, defeats the point. You can't force people into Communism. They have to want it to liberate themselves. After all, it's all about the global proletariat, yes? You can't impose top-down Communism without it turning into some bastardization that we've seen in the past.


If this system works and works well, then an example could be set for the rest of the world and an international social revolution could take place. Its a very broad statement and it needs some more explanation, but hopefully I'm getting a point across.Or, if the USA is not Communist, then they'll blow the shit out of us. Like I said, you can't impose top-down Communism. It won't turn out well.

[el_chavista]

"The majority of people in these countries are content with some type of capitalist system."

Their contentedness is a measure of their alienation. The capitalist magnates are not "captains of industry" any more. They produce nothing, they're just the tenants of legal papers that allow them to get money for nothing. So being a communist is a mater of self confidence.

"So shouldn't we focus our attention on bettering the lives of the people living in mass states of poverty such as regions of Africa or South America?"

We don't need a "salvation army". We do need a lot of international revolutionary cadres.