3rd Worldism; A tendency too far.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Some Marxists view the First world Proletariat as lumpen, even petty exploiters, they disregard the possibility of revolution in europe, North America and other imperialist nations, this is why i disagree.

1. In first world nations, due to the rulling classes having such a mighty millitary, propoganda machine and vast sums of wealth made from the exploitation of the third world, they grant the workers with better pay and to a degree, freedom of speech, this makes it possible for Communists to organise and agitate without risking masacres.
Most of us also have net and mobile phone access so technology can be used to spread the cause and mobolise workers far more efficiently.

2. Third world revolutions will be unable to remain socialist due to embargo, invasion and blockade, thus having to make reforms and turn state capitalist because of its need to create revenue to feed its people, in the first world, if the super powers are overthrown, the main obstacle to third world liberation will be removed.

[Morgenstern]

Third World revolutions in this age are useless. As stated in point two, they will turn to state capitalism. We should focus all our efforts at striking at the very heart of capital: The United States and Europe. Once the United States falls China will be so much easier to strike at since they lost their biggest buyer.

[Morgenstern]

I don't think that makes third world revolutions "useless"...

Completely useless? No. I mean a revolution in some sweatshop filled country may upset a couple budgets for some companies. An organized effort to even make some progress in the hearts of capital will cause a lot more. In these hearts of capital the capitalists are fortified, a siege is not won in a day If you can make the progress of getting a battering ram you will fare much better when you assault the keep rather than if you try to assault without the ram.

[Robocommie]

In the most developed nations, revolutions are unlikely to occur on a large enough scale necessary to be successful. Most of these nations have long established traditions of liberal democracy which means that public discontent will usually manifest itself in reforms, which serve as "release valves" for public anger. Likewise, the economies of the most developed nations tend to be healthy enough to support social welfare programs which can alleviate some (but certainly not all) of the most grotesque consequences of capitalism on the lower strata of society.

The wealth that makes this possible is primarily achieved through neo-colonialist oppression of developing nations, or the "third world" which serve as the suppliers of natural resources like oil, or cheap labor in order to provide a low cost manufacturing base in order to provide low cost consumer goods to the developed world. These low cost consumer goods further reinforce the capitalist society of the most developed nations, the "first world" because as a result of neo-colonialism they are able to keep a vast number of their citizens living a consumerist lifestyle. Those groups in first world society who can't fully achieve that consumerist lifestyle tend to be encouraged to channel their frustrations into bourgeoisie politics and reforms, while those individuals who step out of that line are generally smashed by the state apparatus' for protecting the status quo - which because of the first world's wealth tend to be VERY strong.

However, the very relationship the developed nations of the world have established with the developing world has in fact laid down the potential for it's own destruction. In order to prevent resistance against neo-colonialism and imperialism, it's been necessary for the "first world" to establish client states and meddle with the democratic traditions which make reforms so attractive, or else the democratically elected governments of colonized nations have been complicit in this relationship, breeding extreme discontent and resentment among the people, giving rise to national liberation movements.

Frankly, I don't think it's likely to occur that the first world will see a socialist revolution until every last colony of the developing world has risen up and thrown off the shackles of imperialism, undercutting the wealth that flows unceasingly to the halls of capitalist power, the wealth with which the bourgeoisie effectively BUY political stability through consumerism and bourgeois politics. Only when the wealthy nations of the "West" have been systematically denied their neo-colonialist sources of wealth, as nation after nation rises up in socialist liberation movements, will the very strongholds of capitalism begin to crumble.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

But how can every colony throw its shackles off if it gets invaded by the imperialist powers, like for example the congo where belgian troops and mercanaries massacred 30,00, and when they do succeed the are betrayed and are oppressed by their own national bourgesie, i do support national liberation fiercely, i am just skeptical that the world wide proletariat can be liberated without destroying the imperialist superpowers, i hope i am wrong though.

[Morgenstern]

But how can every colony throw its shackles off if it gets invaded by the imperialist powers, like for example the congo where belgian troops and mercanaries massacred 30,00, and when they do succeed the are betrayed and are oppressed by their own national bourgesie, i do support national liberation fiercely, i am just skeptical that the world wide proletariat can be liberated without destroying the imperialist superpowers, i hope i am wrong though.

Or better yet, how do you unite all the peoples of Africa? Tribal feuds run deep. How do we knock out Asia if nations such as the People's Republic and Vietnam can destroy opposition so readily? South America is actually a bit more possible but I fear US intervention. It will be difficult to have a successful revolution with the United States able to react. But it will be even more difficult to prevent it from turning into a state capitalist society when besieged.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

I think the seeming impossibillity is what leads reactionary and counter revolutionary groups like the RAF and the weather underground to distort, mangle and nulify the communist struggle, this is what we must avoid at all costs, steady building up of conciousness and millitant factory takeovers is what we need among other things.

[Robocommie]

But how can every colony throw its shackles off if it gets invaded by the imperialist powers, like for example the congo where belgian troops and mercanaries massacred 30,00, and when they do succeed the are betrayed and are oppressed by their own national bourgesie, i do support national liberation fiercely, i am just skeptical that the world wide proletariat can be liberated without destroying the imperialist superpowers, i hope i am wrong though.

Cuba and Vietnam are two very prominent examples of colonized nations which, through socialist liberation movements, managed to resist foreign military intervention. Vietnam of course did eventually liberalize, but I feel this was more a result of the failure of agricultural collectivization than something inherent to the revolutionary process in developing nations.

No national liberation movements are easy, and some can be expected to tragically fail either from within or without, but I feel the struggle of colonized and colonizer in many ways mirrors the struggles of proletariat and bourgeoisie.

[khad]

Yes, Third Worldism is like the Maoism of idiots.


Third World revolutions in this age are useless. As stated in point two, they will turn to state capitalism. We should focus all our efforts at striking at the very heart of capital: The United States and Europe. Once the United States falls China will be so much easier to strike at since they lost their biggest buyer.

But not quite as idiotic or offensive as First World chauvinism.

[Robocommie]

Or better yet, how do you unite all the peoples of Africa? Tribal feuds run deep. How do we knock out Asia if nations such as the People's Republic and Vietnam can destroy opposition so readily? South America is actually a bit more possible but I fear US intervention. It will be difficult to have a successful revolution with the United States able to react. But it will be even more difficult to prevent it from turning into a state capitalist society when besieged.

The situation in Africa is complicated because when the European powers drew the map of the continent as it currently exists they paid no attention at all to tribal boundaries or ethnic makeup of the regions they were dividing, and that is the source of a lot of these tribal conflicts. It's also further aggravated by the fact that during the colonial period, the European powers blatantly favored one group over another and, whether consciously or not, actively bred internal resentment and set the stage for later bloodshed, like in Rwanda. Africa's got no shortage of problems, what with the AIDS epidemic, desertification of soil as well as these bloody conflicts, and the continued commercial abuse of arable land to produce cash crops instead of cereals, certain regions serve as the ultimate symbol of the evil of imperialism.

But the situation there is not hopeless, it never really is. I would argue that the success of the African National Congress and the victory against apartheid represents just what can be done when the forces of Socialism coordinate.

All in all, yes, it will be difficult, but if revolution was easy, it would've been done by now.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Yes, Third Worldism is like the Maoism of idiots.



But not quite as idiotic or offensive as First World chauvinism.

Harsh no?

Just wanted to say, i have started a group called the writers block, please comment on my novel idea and tell us your own if you have one, thanks.

[Palingenisis]

But not quite as idiotic or offensive as First World chauvinism.

"Maoism-Third Worldism" though does seem to be a reaction to a real problemn in the country of its origin (it doesnt originate in China, India or Peru) which is the enslavement of the vast majiority of Americans too an individualistic "classically liberal" world view. A lot of people from the United States will put up with conditions and working hours much worse than a western european would tolerate because they have the "american dream" that one day they too will be the boss however utterly niave that is in most cases. Forgeiners often find that along with an hysterical optimism goes an equally hysterical arrogance in a lot of people from that culture. "Maoism-Third Worldism" I believe is an over the top reaction to those two things.

[bricolage]

Harsh no?

Not really. I think it's pretty fair to call out anyone accusing political activity outside the Global North as 'useless'. It's basically a roundabout way of saying 'sit back and enjoy getting fucked over, once we've figured out what to do we'll come over and tell you how to do it'. Nothing but colonial discourse mascarading as radical politics.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

He retacted that though

[red cat]

This thread is ignoring the situation that now prevails all over the world. I will focus on some point of third worldist Maoism:

1) At present, the imperialist countries can afford to hire a labour aristocracy to divert the proletariat of their country politically.

2) Due to the above, and the all over better living standards of the first world proletariat, revolutions in the first world cannot occur before a certain number of revolutions have been completed in the third world.

3) The fact that the third world is the only place where the first revolutions of a revolutionary wave can take place is illustrated by the protracted peoples' wars in several third world countries.

4) Whole continents do not unite to make revolutions. Revolutions begin in a few countries and then spread to the whole world gradually.

5) The third world proletariat has to beat back imperialist occupation successfully in order to weaken the system so that the first world proletariat can make revolution.

[Barry Lyndon]

I am still a strong supporter of Trotsky the revolutionary and Trotsky the political theorist. However, I prefer to distance myself from contemporary Trotskyists as they are all too often repulsive First Worldist chauvinists, who say they are for 'permanent revolution' but absolutely refuse to support or even worse, actively denigrate any revolution that is occurring the developing world, whether in Cuba, Venezuela, or Nepal. This is completely at odds with the actual Trotsky, who enthusiastically supported the 1927 Shanghai commune, for instance.

I think that the Third Worldists are right to the extent that they believe that the Third World is the vanguard of any sort of global revolution against capitalism. My hope is that the left-wing governments in Latin America consolidate into an independent economic/political bloc long enough for the Maoist wave to crest in India, and from there the arteries of imperialist control can be shut off, one by one. Finally the apparatus of First World capitalism will begin to crack. None of this would happen overnight, but I feel it is our best hope.

[Ramon Mercador]

ACTUALLY TROTSKY CALLED 1927 A COMMUNE ON PAPER ONLY'. Trotsky was alwyas 100% against the revolution, his permanent ""revolution"" theory was only a bourgeoisie theory to be used against it.

Funy how the so called Marxist-Leninists can be against real revolutions in the Third World. Sometimes i wonder whether u are any better than the bloody Trotskyites.

LONG LIVE STALIN

[Die Neue Zeit]

Third World revolutions in this age are useless. As stated in point two, they will turn to state capitalism. We should focus all our efforts at striking at the very heart of capital: The United States and Europe. Once the United States falls China will be so much easier to strike at since they lost their biggest buyer.

I'm very much for action in developed countries, precisely because revolution will be easier to spread.

However, I'm also for the idea of Third World class struggle propelling the First World to ruling-class political power (but perhaps not to the point of Third World revolution in really backward places like Africa).

[zimmerwald1915]

In the most developed nations, revolutions are unlikely to occur on a large enough scale necessary to be successful. Most of these nations have long established traditions of liberal democracy which means that public discontent will usually manifest itself in reforms, which serve as "release valves" for public anger. Likewise, the economies of the most developed nations tend to be healthy enough to support social welfare programs which can alleviate some (but certainly not all) of the most grotesque consequences of capitalism on the lower strata of society.
Excuse me, but this is crap. If capitalism could afford reforms, they would have instituted reforms. What we see, however, is entirely different. Every "reform" capitalist society has had to offer has for decades been nothing but attack after attack on workers' living conditions. Whether from the right, as in the labor market adjustments in France, or from the left, in the American healthcare legislation, every reform is just plain unmitigated disaster for the working class. And sometimes they even resist it.

[Robocommie]

Excuse me, but this is crap. If capitalism could afford reforms, they would have instituted reforms. What we see, however, is entirely different. Every "reform" capitalist society has had to offer has for decades been nothing but attack after attack on workers' living conditions. Whether from the right, as in the labor market adjustments in France, or from the left, in the American healthcare legislation, every reform is just plain unmitigated disaster for the working class. And sometimes they even resist it.

Social security? Medicare? Unemployment benefits? There was a time in the US when none of these things existed. And that's just in the US, social democratic nations tend to have even more extensive programs. The point is not that this represents a genuine shift towards socialism, but that it represents the ability of capitalism to subsidize it's existence by providing social safety nets of varying effectiveness to prevent outright rebellion of the working poor or permanently unemployed.

[Devrim]

Social security? Medicare? Unemployment benefits? There was a time in the US when none of these things existed. And that's just in the US, social democratic nations tend to have even more extensive programs. The point is not that this represents a genuine shift towards socialism, but that it represents the ability of capitalism to subsidize it's existence by providing social safety nets of varying effectiveness to prevent outright rebellion of the working poor or permanently unemployed.

I presume that you don't live in one of those 'social democratic' nations. If you did you would know that the social wage has been massively eroded over the last thirty years. The UK, for example, used to talk about its national Health Service being the envy of the world. Now its widely considered to be a joke. The 'safety nets' are becoming more and more threadbare.

Devrim

[bricolage]

I presume that you don't live in one of those 'social democratic' nations. If you did you would know that the social wage has been massively eroded over the last thirty years. The UK, for example, used to talk about its national Health Service being the envy of the world. Now its widely considered to be a joke. The 'safety nets' are becoming more and more threadbare.

Devrim

It's also worth noting that the extent to which these reforms exist it's not just because of the generosity of the state its because of periods of prolonged struggle, for example in the United States;



The Social Security bill was passed in 1935 as part of the Franklin Roosevelt “New Deal.” But it was passed only after a period of mass struggle against unemployment, the famous veterans’ Bonus March in Washington, D.C., and the break up of the veterans’ encampment by federal troops in a pitched battle. It followed the general strikes in San Francisco, Minneapolis, Minn., and Toledo, Ohio, in 1934.


Even at that, it was a compromise in which the bosses wound up having to pay only half of Social Security, with workers paying the other half. But it became a working-class right. The money was held by the government for the workers and paid out every month by the government.


The Medicaid bill was passed in 1984 and the Medicare legislation was passed in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” program. These bills were not passed because the capitalist government suddenly became socially conscious. They came after 10 years of the Civil Rights movement, massive rebellions in the streets of Harlem, N.Y., and Los Angeles, and a growing national liberation movement right here in the U.S.
http://www.workers.org/2010/us/health_care_0401/

[Robocommie]

I presume that you don't live in one of those 'social democratic' nations. If you did you would know that the social wage has been massively eroded over the last thirty years. The UK, for example, used to talk about its national Health Service being the envy of the world. Now its widely considered to be a joke. The 'safety nets' are becoming more and more threadbare.

Devrim

I've never gotten the impression that the UK was particularly social democratic, but to the extent that those programs are being eroded is probably due in part to the eroding of the western domination of the global economy as other nations, like India and China, begin to rise as capitalist powers.

And some of this is giving rise to right wing shifts I think as people begin to put their trust in the right wing of bourgeois politics, like Thatcher's anti-Unionism in the UK, or Reaganism in the US, hell, even Gerhard Schroeder who was nominally a Social Democrat shifted the German economy more to the right. These are just a few examples, but I think this represents a reaction to the sliding of the western powers from their place in the sun in the global economy, thanks to various events like the Iranian Revolution, just to name one example for it's effects on the oil market.

[Robocommie]

It's also worth noting that the extent to which these reforms exist it's not just because of the generosity of the state its because of periods of prolonged struggle, for example in the United States;


That was in fact part of my point, originally.



In the most developed nations, revolutions are unlikely to occur on a large enough scale necessary to be successful. Most of these nations have long established traditions of liberal democracy which means that public discontent will usually manifest itself in reforms, which serve as "release valves" for public anger. Likewise, the economies of the most developed nations tend to be healthy enough to support social welfare programs which can alleviate some (but certainly not all) of the most grotesque consequences of capitalism on the lower strata of society.

But at the same time it shouldn't be suggested that these politicians don't generally believe in some of the reforms they sponsored, Lyndon B. Johnson genuinely believed in the Great Society, and for the rest of his life he bitterly resented the Vietnam War as he felt it had ruined his plans domestically, via the Great Society.

[Dimentio]

Third World revolutions in this age are useless. As stated in point two, they will turn to state capitalism. We should focus all our efforts at striking at the very heart of capital: The United States and Europe. Once the United States falls China will be so much easier to strike at since they lost their biggest buyer.

USA today is hopeless. But Canada and Europe are less hopeless cases. Especially Canada is underestimated. If that country turns socialist, it could transform itself into a window-frame to show the rest of the world what is possible. Just imagine so much resources collectively owned by a low population of 40 million. I'm sure that there is room to improve the standard of life for all Canadians maybe five- or six-fold.

[Ravachol]

We should focus all our efforts at striking at the very heart of capital

I disagree. We should strike at the very heart of capital, namely: capital.
Capital doesn't have a geographic 'heart', sure it's core institutions have a geographic presence but capital itself is a relation, not an object. Striking at Capital means striking everywhere.



2) Due to the above, and the all over better living standards of the first world proletariat, revolutions in the first world cannot occur before a certain number of revolutions have been completed in the third world.


Because? Given that the proletariat is motivated by material reasons and these are the catalyst for revolution, we should look as to what material conditions are ripe for a revolution. This doesn't have to be a situation of poverty and starvation. A simple setback of material wealth in the first world might be a subjective disaster to the first world proletariat sparking the desire for radical action.




4) Whole continents do not unite to make revolutions. Revolutions begin in a few countries and then spread to the whole world gradually.


Do revolutions HAVE to start in a country? Is it not possible for them to spark across borders in marginalised identity groups? Or in certain sectors of the industry across national borders (In the form of international strikes in, say, the petrochemical industry).

[Robocommie]

Because? Given that the proletariat is motivated by material reasons and these are the catalyst for revolution, we should look as to what material conditions are ripe for a revolution. This doesn't have to be a situation of poverty and starvation. A simple setback of material wealth in the first world might be a subjective disaster to the first world proletariat sparking the desire for radical action.

Judging from the fact that the Great Depression and several recessions since then have failed to produce a revolution, I don't think that's going to be sufficient.

But even so, setbacks of material wealth do not manifest randomly, they occur as a result of external political events, such as revolutions which disrupt the beneficial market conditions favorable to the first world.

[Ravachol]

Judging from the fact that the Great Depression and several recessions since then have failed to produce a revolution, I don't think that's going to be sufficient.

But even so, setbacks of material wealth do not manifest randomly, they occur as a result of external political events, such as revolutions which disrupt the beneficial market conditions favorable to the first world.

The fact that revolutions have failed to materialise have numerous reasons, ranging from cultural hegemony, the reproduction of capital's logic and domination in the labor movement and a general lack of revolutionary organisation and counter-power.

As for the setbacks of material wealth, they don't manifest randomly, not at all. They usually occur either due to uncontrollable circumstances, such as natural disasters or they are the result of man-made machinations, ranging from wars to the inability of capital to expand in order to accumulate thus turning upon it's own inside.

[Lyev]

I presume that you don't live in one of those 'social democratic' nations. If you did you would know that the social wage has been massively eroded over the last thirty years. The UK, for example, used to talk about its national Health Service being the envy of the world. Now its widely considered to be a joke. The 'safety nets' are becoming more and more threadbare.

Devrim
Yes, our health service has steadily gone down the shitter, since the 70s, when Thatcher (milk-snatcher) got into power. It's steadily being sold off via PFIs. The NHS is rotting from the inside outwards, like maggots in an apple. It's sad to see Attlee's creation go up in smoke. Revenues of private sector mental health hospitals here rose to an all time high of £1 billion in 2008. What's even more shocking is 85% of that came from the NHS. Then, we have wankers like Cameron offering his "co-op" dealio, and New Labour offering their equally weak "mutualist" policy; death by firing squad or hanging...

[dez]

In the most developed nations, revolutions are unlikely to occur on a large enough scale necessary to be successful. Most of these nations have long established traditions of liberal democracy which means that public discontent will usually manifest itself in reforms, which serve as "release valves" for public anger. Likewise, the economies of the most developed nations tend to be healthy enough to support social welfare programs which can alleviate some (but certainly not all) of the most grotesque consequences of capitalism on the lower strata of society.

The wealth that makes this possible is primarily achieved through neo-colonialist oppression of developing nations, or the "third world" which serve as the suppliers of natural resources like oil, or cheap labor in order to provide a low cost manufacturing base in order to provide low cost consumer goods to the developed world. These low cost consumer goods further reinforce the capitalist society of the most developed nations, the "first world" because as a result of neo-colonialism they are able to keep a vast number of their citizens living a consumerist lifestyle. Those groups in first world society who can't fully achieve that consumerist lifestyle tend to be encouraged to channel their frustrations into bourgeoisie politics and reforms, while those individuals who step out of that line are generally smashed by the state apparatus' for protecting the status quo - which because of the first world's wealth tend to be VERY strong.

However, the very relationship the developed nations of the world have established with the developing world has in fact laid down the potential for it's own destruction. In order to prevent resistance against neo-colonialism and imperialism, it's been necessary for the "first world" to establish client states and meddle with the democratic traditions which make reforms so attractive, or else the democratically elected governments of colonized nations have been complicit in this relationship, breeding extreme discontent and resentment among the people, giving rise to national liberation movements.


Agree 100%.



Frankly, I don't think it's likely to occur that the first world will see a socialist revolution until every last colony of the developing world has risen up and thrown off the shackles of imperialism, undercutting the wealth that flows unceasingly to the halls of capitalist power, the wealth with which the bourgeoisie effectively BUY political stability through consumerism and bourgeois politics. Only when the wealthy nations of the "West" have been systematically denied their neo-colonialist sources of wealth, as nation after nation rises up in socialist liberation movements, will the very strongholds of capitalism begin to crumble.

We fight wherever the capitalists are weak and the working class is strong.
It won't happen first on the third world or first on the first world, both currents are determinist and prophetical in their analysis, they lack a valid understanding of the material conditions / the political situation of every stronghold of capitalism.

On the same way that there are liberal traditions hampering the development of the working class in developed countries, in "neo-colonies" there is a traditional elite / military that controls political life in these nations with the support of developed countries (For an example. The struggle against the "contra" military dictatorships in south america, notably brazil, meant that a bunch of university students, vanguardist workers and intellectuals were standing up against the combined militaries and intelligence services of the entire developed world. There was a rural guerilla movement that originated here in the 70s under a maoist line in a maoist-hoxhaist communist party, and it consisted of around 300 guerillas stimulating class war in the middle of nowhere. Shortly after the venture started, they had to face a 5.000 strong army led by a colonial-war-vet portuguese general, trained by french paratroopers (argel veterans) and funded and provided intel by american intelligence services, combined with local "colonels" (descendants of thugs armed by the portuguese and given land, turned into a "national guard" that defended the interests of the state and was the executive, the legislative and the judiciary locally) and their armies of mercenaries), they (third world elite) may be in equal footing or even stronger politically and the working class / peasantry even more allienated than in the first world.
Think that the fundamental flaw in the communist movement is the lack of proper analysis of the political situation in every region and consequentially of proper tactics, a flaw that, by the way, was shared by lenin in his trust in M. N. Roy's analysis of india's material conditions.

[dez]

To be quite honest, I am more concerned with the reaction to third-worldism (smells of chauvinism quite a lot tbh) in the first world than with the phenomena of third worldism itself.

[Palingenisis]

"Monkey Smashes Heaven"'s idealolgy though as I pointed out does not exist as far as I can work out outside of the United States. It is a product of the historical circumstances the "left" in that country and in the anglo-saxon as a whole finds itself. Reality shows that working class and the rural oppressed people in the so-called third world can and do fight back. It also shows events such as May and June 1968 in France and the "years of lead" in Italy which show that first world workers can and often are also revolutionary. However the issue of what could be called "Social-Imperialism" is a serious one.

But honestly the comrades from the USA should be asking why tendencies such as this have arisen among them and finding out the reasons why instead of reacting hysterically to their propaganda.

[red cat]

Because? Given that the proletariat is motivated by material reasons and these are the catalyst for revolution, we should look as to what material conditions are ripe for a revolution. This doesn't have to be a situation of poverty and starvation. A simple setback of material wealth in the first world might be a subjective disaster to the first world proletariat sparking the desire for radical action.

This hasn't ever happened in the first world on a large scale. Our experience till now indicates that until this setback is large enough, the first world proletariat won't move for radical change.




Do revolutions HAVE to start in a country? Is it not possible for them to spark across borders in marginalised identity groups? Or in certain sectors of the industry across national borders (In the form of international strikes in, say, the petrochemical industry).International strikes are impossible until communists organize in an international level. This is impossible without significant advancement of class struggle in the national level.

If communists can overcome the cultural barriers in the initial stages of the revolution, then not only will revolutions spark across borders, but they will also make full use of the initial lack of coordination between the different national ruling classes. However, all such struggles will develop considerably in smaller areas first, before spreading fully to one or more countries.