Permanent revolution?

[cappiej]

I know Trotsky wanted permanent revolution, he wanted communism everywhere, whereas Stalin wanted socialism in one country, however here's my question to you, as communists.

Do you feel communism would be a sustainable ideology for people to follow if its only in one locality or does it need the force of everyone in the world?

I've heard some communists argue capitalism and communism are mutually exclusive, initially I thought they meant in one country (well obviously, you couldn't have a country operating as both a capitalist & communist state simultaneously) but then I realised they were hell bent on destroying capitalism EVERYWHERE!

Anyway, post your thoughts, and in the absence of having a thought simply repeat what a smarter comrade said.

As a capitalist, while I detest communism, I don't think we need capitalism everywhere for it to thrive in one place, we need a balance of political systems.

:D:D

[mikelepore]

I think the main thing is that socialism is about administering society according to a conscious and rational plan, and that means not making plans by default just because old ways have been inherited from the past. National boundaries are seen as meaningless obstructions that generally originated when ancient kings established treaties or land grants, invading armies progressed a certain number of miles, or geological accidents caused by tectonic plates floating around. It's not a rational social plan to continue to arrange human affairs according to meaningless dotted lines found on old maps. Socialists consider themselves citizens of the planet. This is one of my reasons for supporting a world government.

However, there are also pragmatic reasons. One that I emphasize is that the full potential of socialism can't be realized until the need to conduct trade is eliminated. National boundaries make trade not an option but a requirement; for example, Japan makes electronics and needs solder, a tin alloy, but has no tin in the ground. If you have international trade you will have competition over which countries are willing to provide how much of which products in exchange for which other products. If socialists didn't realize that economic competition is destructive they wouldn't have become socialists in the first place.

Other people would emphasize the practical aspect that capitalist countries have a tendency to send invading forces around the world to tell other countries what kinds of political and economic systems they are required to have, so a single socialist country would have to diminish its material prosperity to produce the waste that is military materiel.

[Kronos]

Socialism is an inevitability not because it is a philosophically sound ideology or any of that nonsense, but because central economic planning and strict ordinance by the state will be necessary to maintain an ecological balance with the earth. Capitalism is a system which maximizes technological production, and this can only go on for so long before it becomes dangerous. It was a great idea hundreds of years ago, but the theorists couldn't have possibly known what would become of it centuries later.

Socialism will be forced into realization in that respect, as a matter of pure urgency. It may very well be a kind of hybrid system....not a single class system, consisting of both capitalists and proletarian. But the traditional concept of private property and free market will no longer be applicable. The state will have jurisdiction over everything.

[cappiej]

Socialism is an inevitability not because it is a philosophically sound ideology or any of that nonsense, but because central economic planning and strict ordinance by the state will be necessary to maintain an ecological balance with the earth. Capitalism is a system which maximizes technological production, and this can only go on for so long before it becomes dangerous. It was a great idea hundreds of years ago, but the theorists couldn't have possibly known what would become of it centuries later.

Socialism will be forced into realization in that respect, as a matter of pure urgency. It may very well be a kind of hybrid system....not a single class system, consisting of both capitalists and proletarian. But the traditional concept of private property and free market will no longer be applicable. The state will have jurisdiction over everything.

And you want the state to have power over everything or are you just saying its going to be a natural consequence of what's going on?

[NecroCommie]

If socialism would be possible in one locality it would be fine with me. However we seem to have somewhat aggression increasive effect on surrounding ruling classes, and it is therefore likely that we are allowed to live in peace only when we control most of the populace in the world.

So to put it simply, I wish the one country model, but class war forces us to take Trotskys theory.


I don't think we need capitalism everywhere for it to thrive in one place, we need a balance of political systems.


I suggest you read the book: Open Veins of Latin America (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FOpen-Veins-Latin-America-Centuries%2Fdp%2F0853459916%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbook s%26qid%3D1244578086%26sr%3D8-1&tag=socialistwork-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325) [1]--by Latin American writer Eduardo Galeano
Also read: Imperialism, the highest form of capitalism -- By V.I. Lenin
If one does not change ones mind after those, that one is simply thick headed.

[trivas7]

I think the main thing is that socialism is about administering society according to a conscious and rational plan, [...]

Other people would emphasize the practical aspect that capitalist countries have a tendency to send invading forces around the world to tell other countries what kinds of political and economic systems they are required to have, so a single socialist country would have to diminish its material prosperity to produce the waste that is military materiel.
The practicality of 5 billion people administering a world economy somehow escapes me.

[Kronos]

I don't think Transhumanism and Extropianism will remain fictional and fantastic ideas in the future. I think a new ergonomically superior type of being will be the result of a slow, gradual process of sociological engineering. Governments will have more power over these new technologies and industries than what little of the private sector is left. Capitalists will simply be beat out by the competiting government, and lose by their own rules. There will be no sudden, radical revolution. I bet once the state has hegemonic control over economy, fiat money will no longer be used. There will be a wage/credit system.

A new paradigm will merge out of this process....and in the future the old notions of "free-market' and 'private enterprise' will be history. There will still be classes, but the differences in the degrees of wealth will be nothing like they are now.

Anyway, cappiej, although we are at a time in history where we hear environmentalists declaring emergency on one side while cynics and critics declare bologna on the other side, don't think for a second that civilization's impact on the environment will not change it for the worse. Eco-solutions developed in the private sectors only temporarily stall the inevitable. The fundamental problem is market freedom and uncontrolled materialism.

[Kronos]

The practicality of 5 billion people administering a world economy somehow escapes me.

They will use the Buddhist atoms, Trivas.

[Havet]

They will use the Buddhist atoms, Trivas.

lol

[Bud Struggle]

The Permanent Revolution is happening as we speak. It's just the Capitalists that are reinventing Capitalism over and over and over again on a daily basis. There's the Permanent REVOLUTION!

Not Communists revinventing Communism--the SU ossified Communism forever.