Applying socialism to a more developed country

[Che a chara]

I maybe coming of the opinion that it may have to be necessary for a socialist revolution to occur in more of a 'first world country' as opposed to the less developed nations it has been implemented on in the past and present for it to be able to be deemed possible to live in and acceptable.

The high standard of living would be more prevalent, the know-how of the means of production would be in place, there would be more practical surroundings and overall the country would be more developed.

Would this lead to a greater success for socialism, for when we help our brother and sisters worldwide ?

[LeftSideDown]

I maybe coming of the opinion that it may have to be necessary for a socialist revolution to occur in more of a 'first world country' as opposed to the less developed nations it has been implemented on in the past and present for it to be able to be deemed possible to live in and acceptable.

The high standard of living would be more prevalent, the know-how of the means of production would be in place, there would be more practical surroundings and overall the country would be more developed.

Would this lead to a greater success for socialism, for when we help our brother and sisters worldwide ?

Isn't that how Marx imagined it would happen? He didn't think it would happen in backwards countries like Russia, and he thought it would begin in places like Great Britain as those countries (at the time) were the most developed industrially. Its sad that the thing that enriched these countries so much is slowly being eaten away.

[Axle]

That's exactly how its supposed to be implemented. Undeveloped countries are always under the economic thumb of first-world nations, which makes developing socialism incredibly difficult, if even possible.

All the socialist countries past and present have been, by necessity, at least partially capitalist. They would have been unable to survive without it because, regardless of how many socialist nations there were, capitalism has been the dominant economic system.

[Che a chara]

Isn't that how Marx imagined it would happen? He didn't think it would happen in backwards countries like Russia, and he thought it would begin in places like Great Britain as those countries (at the time) were the most developed industrially. Its sad that the thing that enriched these countries so much is slowly being eaten away.

Indeed he predicted that a revolution would occur in an industrialised nation. These nations he thought would out-greed themselves, a monopoly of enterprises would develop and wages would lower and from this a worker's army would rise up. But this does not seem to be on the cards in a more developed nation, despite capitalism still ripping at the heart of people.

So then, what struggle needs to ensue in this more developed country for a revolution to occur ?

Is there a point in waiting about for certain conditions to arise, while socialism inherits not the best of 'fanfare' (despite the best of intentions) in other less developed countries ?

[cska]

Well, the United States came close to revolution during the Great Depression. Maybe if this recovery turns out to be premature, and things get really bad again, people might turn to socialism.

Or we could just have another war to jump start the economy like we did to end the depression. Maybe the Chinese or Russians could be a good target?

[LeftSideDown]

Indeed he predicted that a revolution would occur in an industrialised nation. These nations he thought would out-greed themselves, a monopoly of enterprises would develop and wages would lower and from this a worker's army would rise up. But this does not seem to be on the cards in a more developed nation, despite capitalism still ripping at the heart of people.

So then, what struggle needs to ensue in this more developed country for a revolution to occur ?

Is there a point in waiting about for certain conditions to arise, while socialism inherits not the best of 'fanfare' (despite the best of intentions) in other less developed countries ?

Comrade! Isn't it clear? All this support of labor unions, government enforced minimum wages, a 40 hour work week, and all other regulations are impeding the revolution! They must be repealed so that capitalists can exploit their workers to the maximum and then the Socialist paradise will unfold before us like the opening of St. Peter's Gate and we will feast with God upon the Tree of Life and animals will do the labor previously assigned to us and all will be well in the world as suddenly productivity will raise to such an extent that no one will ever have to lift more than a finger and all can pursue their individual interests and goals and won't it be wonderful comrade? Won't it be wonderful? Fourier is such a great speaker!

[LeftSideDown]

Well, the United States came close to revolution during the Great Depression. Maybe if this recovery turns out to be premature, and things get really bad again, people might turn to socialism.

Or we could just have another war to jump start the economy like we did to end the depression. Maybe the Chinese or Russians could be a good target?

Yes lets send all the proletariat out to their death and maybe we will have a revolution. WWII didn't "jump start" the economy, the government just stopped involving itself after WWII and the economy finally recovered. Keynesians were screaming that that we would plunge back into the depths of the Great Depression if the government cut its budget and brought the troops back but... oh, sorry, largest increase in GDP and quickest drop in unemployment since the depression of 1920.

[IcarusAngel]

lol. The economy boomed during World War II, but even prior to World War II the economy was back at pre-depression growth rates and unemployment had been severely lowered. When an economy drops to the effect it did during the Great Depression - which was caused by speculation, tax cuts on the rich, and deregulation - it takes an enormous growth to bring it back, which did occur. Economists and historians attribute this to many factors but generally it was conceded that the New Deal was responsible for the growth rates.

As for the 1940s and 1950s the Government was investing heavily in technology and that's when some of the best computing technologies was invented. Then it stalled again in the Reagan years and boomed in the 1990s.

[Che a chara]

Comrade! Isn't it clear? All this support of labor unions, government enforced minimum wages, a 40 hour work week, and all other regulations are impeding the revolution! They must be repealed so that capitalists can exploit their workers to the maximum and then the Socialist paradise will unfold before us like the opening of St. Peter's Gate and we will feast with God upon the Tree of Life and animals will do the labor previously assigned to us and all will be well in the world as suddenly productivity will raise to such an extent that no one will ever have to lift more than a finger and all can pursue their individual interests and goals and won't it be wonderful comrade? Won't it be wonderful? Fourier is such a great speaker!

That's something I alluded to in another thread ( http://www.revleft.com/vb/worse-before-gets-t131528/index.html ).

For conditions to be necessary in a more developed country, I feel the time should be ripe anytime, especially now with the recent downturn (though we may have missed our chance with the fascists grabbing much of the advantage). More noise should be made.

Greece has a good opportunity. This is the only time I feel that it would prove that socialism can be adapted and deemed possible to the non-believers

[cska]

lol. The economy boomed during World War II, but even prior to World War II the economy was back at pre-depression growth rates and unemployment had been severely lowered. When an economy drops to the effect it did during the Great Depression - which was caused by speculation, tax cuts on the rich, and deregulation - it takes an enormous growth to bring it back, which did occur. Economists and historians attribute this to many factors but generally it was conceded that the New Deal was responsible for the growth rates.

As for the 1940s and 1950s the Government was investing heavily in technology and that's when some of the best computing technologies was invented. Then it stalled again in the Reagan years and boomed in the 1990s.

Yes, you are mostly right. The economy rose quite even before World War II. But it still remained in the midst of a depression, despite the New Deal. And most importantly, many people were still unsatisfied with the economic system (the New Deal included the government buying food and burning it while people starved to solve the problem of over-supply), until Roosevelt made them forget all about it after Pearl Harbor. It is too bad the progressives won out over the socialists.

[Skooma Addict]

lol. The economy boomed during World War II, but even prior to World War II the economy was back at pre-depression growth rates and unemployment had been severely lowered. When an economy drops to the effect it did during the Great Depression - which was caused by speculation, tax cuts on the rich, and deregulation - it takes an enormous growth to bring it back, which did occur. Economists and historians attribute this to many factors but generally it was conceded that the New Deal was responsible for the growth rates.

As for the 1940s and 1950s the Government was investing heavily in technology and that's when some of the best computing technologies was invented. Then it stalled again in the Reagan years and boomed in the 1990s.

Real productivity declined during WW2, as one would expect during war time. If the economy really were booming then people wouldn't be rationing like crazy. If unemployment went down, it was only because FDR enslaved young men to be sent to die in war.

On a side note, I wounder if the Japanese people he forced into internment camps were counted as unemployed.