Do you think there is ever a chance of the UK becoming a communist state ?

[learningaboutheleft123]

well tell me what you think.

[RadioRaheem84]

I have more hope for the UK turning sharply to the left than the United States.

I don't know about Communism, but a return to Atlee style Old Labour Economics, yes.

Maybe even Democratic Socialism, but Communism, no.

I know that at this point the British working and middle class are in the same boat as Americans in terms of political apathy but I still think that the British will not take as much crap as Americans.

Americans believe they can take anything and have been told by the media that we're "tough". We're "tough" because we do not need to go to the hospital and can bandage up our own wounds. We're "tough" because we can work three jobs and still go to school at night! We're "tough" because we can fight two wars and still cut social programs! We're "TOUGH".

I couldn't picture Brits going for that "tough", "tighten our belts" crap.

[People's War]

Communist state is an oxymoron. I'll presume you meant a socialist state. And I'd say yeah, just like I think the whole world will eventually become socialist then communist.

[zimmerwald1915]

Communist state is an oxymoron. I'll presume you meant a socialist state. And I'd say yeah, just like I think the whole world will eventually become socialist then communist.
Well, if we're going with pretentious-sounding semantics then we might as well say that whatever entity crops up in Britian after the revolution is not going to be called the "United Kingdom".

[People's War]

Well, if we're going with pretentious-sounding semantics then we might as well say that whatever entity crops up in Britian after the revolution is not going to be called the "United Kingdom".

It's not pretentious, I'm simply correcting what is the bourgeoise use of the word 'communist'.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Well, if we're going with pretentious-sounding semantics then we might as well say that whatever entity crops up in Britian after the revolution is not going to be called the "United Kingdom".
If we're getting really pretentiously pedantic, then in a quantum multiverse there's always a chance that anything will happen - and indeed, is happening in one of the myriad universes. There's even a universe in which I'm getting laid tonight ... Okay, maybe that last one was TOO unrealistic.

[bricolage]

It's not pretentious, I'm simply correcting what is the bourgeoise use of the word 'communist'.
by using the mutilated conception of the word 'socialist'

[bricolage]

but yeah communism is possible everywhere, it just doesn't look it at the moment. no nations are predisposed to be more radical or revolutionary than others, it develops from struggle itself, it is this struggle that will give birth to communsim not any kind of national character.

[Rusty Shackleford]

there is a chance for socialism everywhere. its more of a question of 'when'

[RadioRaheem84]

Is there any first world nation where socialism is most imminent?

[Rakhmetov]

Lenin concluded that the real revolutionary energy was to be found in the so-called Third World.

By James E. Connor

Between 1900 and 1917, Lenin spent less than 2 years in Russia. The rest of the time he wandered restlessly through European exile, confronted by the same evidence of prosperity and lack of polarization that had earlier disturbed socialists in the West. Moreover, during the first decade and a half of the twentieth century, the European economy was not stagnant … and it was becoming increasingly obvious that polarization and impoverishment, the twin preludes to revolution, were not about to occur. With each passing year, therefore, revolutionary Marxism stood in need of revision. Without substantial alterations, the theory was in imminent danger of becoming an entirely irrelevant dogma.

War World I provided an impetus for revision. When hostilities commenced, workers all over Europe rallied to their respective flags, cheering the mobilizing armies and enthusiastically volunteering for military service. Almost to a man, socialist deputies in the parliaments of the belligerent countries voted for war credits. Yet Marx had asserted that workers had no country. The socialist movement, he claimed, was international in character because exploitation of the proletariat was an international phenomenon. Nationalism was merely a fig leaf by the bourgeoisie to cover the naked class bias of the state. Workers had no interest in wars between bourgeois nations, and they would not participate in them. But by 1914 participate they did----with a fervor that matched any class on the continent.

Why had Marx’s predictions failed? Why had a major war broken out? Why had the proletariat behaved so chauvinistically? If Marxism was to retain any pretensions to intellectual vitality, it had to offer serious answers to all of these questions.

Lenin perplexed by these issues went to work to find answers and presented his results in 1916 in a book entitled Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.

Lenin noted that the monopolistic practices that emerged in the last quarter of the 19th century had resulted in the creation of great industrial combinations which were strong enough to suppress competition and ensure stable profit levels regardless of market conditions. The process of monopolization was paralleled and greatly aided by the concentration of enormous amounts of capital in a few large banks. In order to operate efficiently, industrial monopolies required guaranteed reserves of raw materials, as well as markets for their products. Financial institutions, on the other hand, continually had to seek profitable outlets for their capital. Both groups solved their problems by turning to the undeveloped areas of third world. At first privately, and later through their respective governments (which they controlled) the industrial and financial monopolies began to dominate and exploit vast areas of Asia, Africa, and South America. The particular style of domination varied with the circumstances of the countries and the industries concerned. In some cases it took the form of out-
right colonization; in others of unequal agreements between powerful western nations and weak backward countries; and in still others of an informal agreement between great powers over spheres of influence. But no matter what the form, the results were the same: the monopolies extracted huge quantities of “super profits” from the colonies and employed these funds to counteract, at least temporarily, Marx’s law of falling profit in highly developed economies. The wealth that poured into the mother countries from the colonies was used to fatten the purses of the bourgeoisie and to bribe certain important segments of the working class. These super profits were the reason why Marx’s predictions of growing impoverishment and polarization had not been fulfilled in western Europe. The European proletariat had not been radicalized, Lenin argued, because for the last thirty years real exploitation had been taking place in the least, rather than in the most, advanced areas of the globe.

Thus colonial acquisition was the key to the survival of capitalism. Without the economic cushion of super profits, the
bourgeoisie could not hope to forestall social revolution. Yet not all of the powers were equally endowed with colonies. Britain and France, for example, acquired theirs at an early date, while Germany entered the colonial competition only after almost all of the worthwhile territory had been claimed. The tardy powers then had no choice but to press for a redivision of
the colonial status quo. It was this pressure for redivision that had brought on the World War and which would continue to bring on wars so long as the imperial order flourished, that is, so long as capitalism survived as a social system.

Using the concept of imperialism, Lenin had no difficulty in explaining the patriotic fervor of the European proletariat. Those workers who had been bribed by the colonial super profits
clearly had a stake in the process of redivision. They constituted a kind of labor aristocracy which, in typical “opportunistic” fashion, sought its own comfort at the expense of the world revolution. Their behavior, although scandalous, was not surprising in men who had supped on scraps from the capitalists’ tables.

Although imperialism had delayed the fulfillment of Marx’s predictions, it had not, Lenin argued, rendered them permanently invalid. As colonies matured economically, the profit rate would fall just as Marx had forecast. Even before that point was reached wars would debilitate, perhaps even destroy some of the present capitalist powers and reduce their holdings to semi-colonial status. In certain areas, successful anti-colonial revolution would cut off the flow of funds to the surviving powers. All of these factors would tend to bring about the end of the imperialist epoch. Lenin thus envisioned the Marxian struggle, with its implications of impoverishment and polarization, reproduced on a gigantic international scale. An increasing number of exploited proletariat nations would confront a handful of the richest and most powerful imperialist states. The result of this process would be analogous to that which Marx had predicted for individual capitalist countries: a proletariat revolution, now of worldwide dimensions, would overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish the classless society. Whereas Marx had forecast
the proletariat revolution would successfully supplant the bourgeois ruling classes in the advanced capitalist states, Lenin, on the other hand, observed that in the era of imperialism the energy for revolutionary uprising lay predominantly in the backward and exploited countries of the world. The flow of super profits from the backward countries had to be stopped (preferably by Third World revolutions) in order for the revolution to take place in the advanced capitalist countries.

There can be little doubt that Imperialism was Lenin’s most ambitious and impressive performance as a theorist. He incorporated the significant events of his age into a Marxian framework, while at the same time substantially altering and expanding that framework. By invoking the notion of proletariat and bourgeois nations, Lenin shifted the attention of Marxists away from Europe and focused it on these backward regions. Here, he implied was where the energy for social upheaval was stored;
here was the stage on which much of the great revolutionary drama would be played out. :mellow:

[Rusty Shackleford]

Is there any first world nation where socialism is most imminent?
in the 'first world' my guess would have to be greece.

in the next year there wont be a revolution in the west. its just impossible for that to happen.

but in a century, the US could be socialist.

[bricolage]

Is there any first world nation where socialism is most imminent?
Is there any place anywhere where socialism is imminent? I'd say no.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Not a chance...

[Rakhmetov]

Is there any place anywhere where socialism is imminent? I'd say no.

...err there is a little side show in South America called Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador ... where the Yankees are so fearful they have tried everything short of war to short circuit revolutionary developments. :che:

[Rusty Shackleford]

...err there is a little side show in South America called Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador ... where the Yankees are so fearful they have tried everything short of war to short circuit revolutionary developments. :che:
he meant in the 'first world'

[Lee Van Cleef]

Communism is certainly possible everywhere in the world, just not right now. For communism to exist, fully developed socialism must already exist throughout the world.

In regards to socialism in the West, I agree that the current center of class struggle is in the Third World. Class conflict is softened in imperialist nations, as the working class gains more comfortable living conditions thanks to the economic benefits of imperialism. This is what Lenin called the labor aristocracy.

However, as we exit the age of Lenin's imperialism and continue to move into a modern globalized market economy, I believe we will start to see a new trend. As fully developed capitalist societies begin to spring up in the Third World (a process already starting with China and India, for example), they will gain equal footing with the West in terms of labor cost and purchasing power. As this occurs, the benefits the West received from its domination of the Third World will decrease, and class conflict will become more obvious again as the standard of living begins to fall.

Even so, socialism is not a historic inevitability, and nothing will ever change if we do not take advantage of the opportunities presented to us.

[Rafiq]

There is a better possibility of the UK becoming Socialist then America.

British people, from what I know, are Socialist-type people.

[Amphictyonis]

I have more hope for the UK turning sharply to the left than the United States.

I don't know about Communism, but a return to Atlee style Old Labour Economics, yes.

Maybe even Democratic Socialism, but Communism, no.



Then essentially what you're saying is, in your opinion, global communism is impossible? The third world will invade the first?

[cb9's_unity]

According to conservatives in my country, it already is.

[RadioRaheem84]

Then essentially what you're saying is, in your opinion, global communism is impossible? The third world will invade the first?

Huh?:confused:

I just said that I could picture the UK going socialist or social democratic before I could see them going to communism. That is mostly due to anti-communism in the media and the school system.

[learningaboutheleft123]

As I live in the UK, I see parties such as the Socialist worker's party holding demos, leafleting etc. They just dont look effective. I'm not a big fan of Martin Smith either.

[People's War]

There is a better possibility of the UK becoming Socialist then America.

British people, from what I know, are Socialist-type people.

I dunno. Everyone in my politics class is a raving right wing lunatic, and that seems to be the dominant mindset among a lot of people here at the moment.

[robbo203]

Communist state is an oxymoron. I'll presume you meant a socialist state. And I'd say yeah, just like I think the whole world will eventually become socialist then communist.


"Socialist state" is also an oxymoron at least from a traditional perspective since, according to this perspective, socialism and communism meant the same thing

[scarletghoul]

I see no reason why these Isles shouldn't become liberated territory some day.. Obviously it wouldn't be as the 'UK' lol, probably not even one state, but if you mean these territories then yes of course.

[human strike]

Communist state? Does not compute.

[El Rojo]

British people, from what I know, are Socialist-type people.

what is a socialist-type person? is it not a working class person. i see no more or less revolutionary potenial in the UK than the US. just coz some students smashed a window or two today does not bring us much closer to revolution.

now a general strike...

watch this space :D

[Rafiq]

what is a socialist-type person? is it not a working class person. i see no more or less revolutionary potenial in the UK than the US. just coz some students smashed a window or two today does not bring us much closer to revolution.

now a general strike...

watch this space :D

Of course everyone has the same revolutionary potential.

But stereotypically, I could see more the UK Socialist than the US, or Canada.