was marx wrong?

[Althusser777]

i might be a young idiot who doesn't know what i'm talking about, but i seem to remember marx saying that a communist revolution would take place in an industrialized nation. and yet the first successful major communist revolution happened in russia under kerensky (after the czar), and russia was the LEAST industrialized major power in europe.

my question is, why the discrepancy? was marx wrong, and will socialist revolutions take place in more agricultural and underdeveloped countries (russia, vietnam, china, cambodia, angola, mozambique, nicaragua, yugoslavia, etc...)? or did the USSR fail because the revolution took place in the wrong country? surely it would have been more successful in 1917 in germany or france. any thoughts?

[Tseka]

The first Communist revolution didn't occur yet.

[Post-Something]

The first Communist revolution didn't occur yet.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[LOLseph Stalin]

It's more complicated than Russia simply being the wrong country. Yes, Marx said that the revolution would be in an industrialized country as it would need to involve the Proletarians seizing the means of production from the Bourgeoisie. This included factories and such which Russia obviously lacked which would make the situation more difficult for revolution. As we see, Lenin compromised a bit with vanguardism, feeling that full out revolution would have to be led by somebody. They managed to seize power in the end, but this was short-lived because of Russia's suffering economy and industry. There wasn't much for the workers to control which is a problem that Stalin later tried to address. He built up industry at a massive speed creating several other problems in its place. However, another key reason in my opinion as to why the revolution in Russia failed was the fact that Stalin wanted to confine it. The revolution was meant to be international and one isolated, underdeveloped Socialist country just couldn't keep up with highly developed Capitalist countries. Eventually the USSR started to go bankrupted due to developments during the Cold War, especially with the Arms Race.

[Il Medico]

Communism has never taken form anywhere. They are either social democracies with many tenants of capitalism, or they are fascist regimes masquerading as "communist". The revolution is a world revolution. The idea of single country revolution was not introduced until Stalin. He out of all people (capitalist included) damaged the Marxist revolutionary movement the most. The U.S.S.R failed like all other fascist regimes.Read Trotsky, he predicted it all in Revolution Betrayed. So no Marx was correct, industrialized nations are the root of revolution, the spring board. The world revolution will start in the most industrialized and slowly spread to the rest.
Keep fighting for the cause comrades!
Captain Jack

[BlackCapital]

The reason for the revolution to begin in industrialized nations was that they obviously have the most economic output and are capable of producing at the rate to make a socialist economy highly effective and plausible. The situation in 1917 Russia was very important because it showed it was indeed possible to build a socialist(ish) economy out of practically nothing, industry wise.

It was predicted to fail unless the revolution spread further west and was able to obtain more heavy industry, but in retrospect I don't think this was absolutely critical to its success. If the state apparatus of the Soviet Union wouldn't have become so bureaucratic and politicized production, and wouldn't have been forced to divert massive resources into the arms race with the U.S., we would probably be looking at a different world today.

So, it is extremely preferable for the revolution to spur from an industrialized region, but probably not absolutely necessary.

[mikelepore]

Please find me the writings where Marx said something like "will take place." I'm not so sure that Marx ever predicted anything. Recommend things, yes. If the doctor recommends that I have surgery, is the doctor predicting that I will do it? If I refuse to have the surgery, should critics later write that the doctor is a pseudoscientist who made false predictions?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Toward the end of his life Marx began to change his mind, and, after much research, began to look toward Russia for the first revolution. You can read the details in this book:

White, J. (1996), Karl Marx And The Intellectual Origins Of Dialectical Materialism (Macmillan).

[Bilan]

i might be a young idiot who doesn't know what i'm talking about, but i seem to remember marx saying that a communist revolution would take place in an industrialized nation. and yet the first successful major communist revolution happened in russia under kerensky (after the czar), and russia was the LEAST industrialized major power in europe.

my question is, why the discrepancy? was marx wrong, and will socialist revolutions take place in more agricultural and underdeveloped countries (russia, vietnam, china, cambodia, angola, mozambique, nicaragua, yugoslavia, etc...)? or did the USSR fail because the revolution took place in the wrong country? surely it would have been more successful in 1917 in germany or france. any thoughts?

I think tis is a slight misinterpretation of what Marx wrote. The first revolts of a communist nature (even if in a more vulgar form) occurred outside of the Industrial nations, and even before a large proportion of nations around the world were fully developed. Revolts which adhered to more undeveloped forms of communism occurred throughout the world - I think even the paris commune at the time (which was not a fully developed capitalist economy at the time) is a good illustration of that.
What Marx argued was that the first successful communist revolution would occur when the capitalist mode of production was fully developed, and that it needed to occur on an international scale.
The revolution of 1917, because of the defeats surrounding the other revolutions which followed (e.g. the German revolution) was isolated, and considering its own underdevelopment (Russia's that is), degenerated.
I don't think Marx negated communist revolutions occurring in less developed nations, but denied the possibility of them succeeded in over throwing the mode of production in its totality if it wasn't developed enough and was isolated.

[RHIZOMES]

i might be a young idiot who doesn't know what i'm talking about, but i seem to remember marx saying that a communist revolution would take place in an industrialized nation. and yet the first successful major communist revolution happened in russia under kerensky (after the czar), and russia was the LEAST industrialized major power in europe.

my question is, why the discrepancy? was marx wrong, and will socialist revolutions take place in more agricultural and underdeveloped countries (russia, vietnam, china, cambodia, angola, mozambique, nicaragua, yugoslavia, etc...)? or did the USSR fail because the revolution took place in the wrong country? surely it would have been more successful in 1917 in germany or france. any thoughts?

Karl Marx shouldn't be treated so Biblically. He was right about shitloads of things, but that doesn't mean he's like some infallible god like a lot of people assume communists treat him as.

[teenagebricks]

Marx may have been a philosopher, but he certainly was not a prophet. Being economically minded does not mean you have the ability to predict the future with absolute certainty. The reason why people like Marx are so important is because society is so erratic and unpredictable. We should read Marx in order to gain knowledge, insight, understanding and influence, we should not read Marx in order to know what will happen and when it is going to happen.

[Cumannach]

i might be a young idiot who doesn't know what i'm talking about, but i seem to remember marx saying that a communist revolution would take place in an industrialized nation. and yet the first successful major communist revolution happened in russia under kerensky (after the czar), and russia was the LEAST industrialized major power in europe.

my question is, why the discrepancy? was marx wrong, and will socialist revolutions take place in more agricultural and underdeveloped countries (russia, vietnam, china, cambodia, angola, mozambique, nicaragua, yugoslavia, etc...)? or did the USSR fail because the revolution took place in the wrong country? surely it would have been more successful in 1917 in germany or france. any thoughts?

How can a revolution take place in a 'wrong' country? If the revolution actually took place it obviously wasn't the 'wrong' country then, was it? A socialist/communist revolution is the seizing of state power by the working class- if the working class doesn't exist, obviously no such revolution will be taking place. Russia was, of course, industrialized, but not as heavily as some of the Western European countries.

Marxism does not state that the first revolution will occur in the country which has had capitalism the longest, or has the biggest factories, and in any case at several points throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, many heavily industrialized western countries have come quite close to revolutionary situations. No Marx was not wrong.