Is Communism possible in one country?

[Rafiq]

Or does it require the whole world to be Communist?

[Tablo]

Most would say the whole world. Nation-states can't be communist if that is what you were inferring when you asked if it is possible in one country. Also it would be difficult for one region alone to be communist since they would lack the abundance of certain materials needed to produce the various products we take pleasure in consuming.

Also, Communism is stateless if you weren't aware.

[Vampire Lobster]

Got to be one hell of a big country.

[L.A.P.]

They would be invaded and taken over by another state in a minute.

[Ovi]

They would be invaded and taken over by another state in a minute.
By that reason communism world wide is also impossible to exist for long, since any state that forms would take over the rest of the world.

[Ocean Seal]

By that reason communism world wide is also impossible to exist for long, since any state that forms would take over the rest of the world.
I don't understand this notion, wouldn't the whole world become one country under socialism and prevent this from being an issue under communism.

[Zanthorus]

Or does it require the whole world to be Communist?

For Communism to become a reality, commodity production has to be replaced with some form of planned production. This is impossible within the bounds of a single nation-state. The international division of labour and division of resources forces individual states to participate in the world-market to acquire resources. One of the conclusions which Marx and Engels drew from the 1848 revolutions was that this made Communism impossible in a single country, since any country with a workers' government would be subject to England, "the despot of the world-market." In order for Communism to become a reality, they concluded it would be necessary for "at least the decisive productive forces" to be under the control of a working-class political administration. Concretely, this meant that the big imperialist powers would have to be overthrown internally by their own working-class. To relate this to modern times, we only need to look at the US trade blockade of Cuba.

Another consideration is the fate of previous Communist societies. In The German Ideology, Marx noted that the geographical isolation of primitive communist societies made them particularly susceptible to dissolution by outside forces as well as by the further development of their own internal productive forces. The conclusion drawn that a viable Communist society could not be small and isolated, but could only have a 'world-historic' existence. Part of what he saw as progressive about capitalism was the development of the world-market, the forcing of all people's and cultures into relation with one another and the destruction of all idyllic and isolated conditions of existence. This development forces any group attempting an alternative to capitalism to attempt it's overthrow on a world scale.

[chegitz guevara]

Or does it require the whole world to be Communist?

You cannot have communism or socialism in one country. At the very least, it would require most of the world to go socialist before any could start abandoning the state and becoming communist.

[Q]

Zanthorus said what is necessary to achieve communism just perfectly :)

I'll add to that the factor of the global balance of forces, or: what do we need for a world revolution to succeed? Do we indeed need ever single country, as the OP asks?

As I said in the global hunger thread:


... we don't need revolution all over the planet per se. We just need the capitalist "core" states: (Western-)Europe, USA, Canada, Japan, China. Taking these countries will decisively tilt the balance of forces on the proletarian direction and we could work to end worldhunger right away. The rest are petty details ;)
If Nepal, Congo, Argentina or Indonesia happen to remain capitalist then it would be unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant (they'd be bankrupt within a few years).

[Dimentio]

Or does it require the whole world to be Communist?

I would say it would be possible within a large country with a good infrastructure, which isn't underdeveloped or bombed to pieces, and with a population with a quite high level of education. The country also need to contain sufficient natural resources.

Would say that the two countries with best material opportunities to create such a civilisation today would be either Canada or Australia.

[chegitz guevara]

The U.S. would squish both countries if they tried it.

[Il Medico]

No. Multiple countries must go nearly simultaneously (within a few years of each other I'd imagine) or the one that did would just be crushed. (The Russian Revolution is a great example of such)

[Thirsty Crow]

No, it is not.
Zanthorus explained it very well.
Case closed.

[ed miliband]

I've never heard / seen anybody ask whether capitalism would be possible in a single country, so I don't see why it's so common for people to ask if anarchism / socialism / communism could work in a single country.

But whatever, Zanthorus said it perfectly.

[Rotfront]

Communism will never be possible in one country, not even socialism for more than a short period of time. Not the whole world but the major part of the capitalist centers is necessary.

[Psy]

The U.S. would squish both countries if they tried it.

You mean like Vietnam, Cuba and Venezuela or how about the U.S.S.R? Canada and Australia are not the 3rd world I doubt the US would easily be able to win a war against a Canadian or Australian revolutionary army, of course that would require a state.

[RadioRaheem84]

I remember when right wingers in the Protest Warrior site I used to frequent a long time ago coming to the conclusion that socialism cannot exist in one country, it must continually spread it's revolution. They counted this as another notch on the why Communism is evil belt. They applauded themselves for figuring this out.

I laughed. End of story. :lol:

[DaComm]

Under the jackboot of Capitalist pressure (see the Russian Civil War, Korean War, Vietnam War, etc.) and by having a limited access to resources, a constricted Socialist country would have difficulties. Socialism has to expand throughout the entire world; killing two birds with one stone: spreading liberation (not through invasive tactics) to the exploited workers, and saving the country itself from inevitable capitalist invasions.

[ken6346]

You mean like Vietnam, Cuba and Venezuela or how about the U.S.S.R? Canada and Australia are not the 3rd world I doubt the US would easily be able to win a war against a Canadian or Australian revolutionary army, of course that would require a state.
Australia's been progressively moving to the right for the last 30 years; the political position of the Liberal Party (ironically the conservative party, but there ya go) 30 years ago is now the position of the Labor Party, and the Liberal Party has moved even further right (especially since Turnbull got ousted). I think for Australia to become communist would take a miracle, because even the workers don't care as long as they can buy a PS3 for Christmas. There isn't so much fear of communism as complete disregard.

Also, the US army is huge, and it would probably be a conventional war. I wouldn't like our chances. I'd hope that since the relations between Australia and the USA are reasonably good, they'd be willing to "cut us some slack" for lack of a better expression; we're still a huge producer of many raw materials for example, including coal and uranium. But that's wishful thinking I think.

[chegitz guevara]

You mean like Vietnam, Cuba and Venezuela or how about the U.S.S.R? Canada and Australia are not the 3rd world I doubt the US would easily be able to win a war against a Canadian or Australian revolutionary army, of course that would require a state.

And if they had a state, they would, by definition, not be communist, ergo, your point is moot.

[Psy]

And if they had a state, they would, by definition, not be communist, ergo, your point is moot.
Just clarifying



Also, the US army is huge, and it would probably be a conventional war. I wouldn't like our chances. I'd hope that since the relations between Australia and the USA are reasonably good, they'd be willing to "cut us some slack" for lack of a better expression; we're still a huge producer of many raw materials for example, including coal and uranium. But that's wishful thinking I think.
The last industrial army the US faced was in 1945 and the last guerrilla army was in 1968. Lets not forget the US military is not doing so hot against general uprisings in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[chegitz guevara]

Don't know about you, but from where I sit, it looks like the U.S. achieved victory in Iraq.

[Psy]

Don't know about you, but from where I sit, it looks like the U.S. achieved victory in Iraq.

How so? It turned power to a state much weaker then South Vietnam while the US military showed being less capable then it was during Vietnam. The US military proved incapable of dealing with a weak organized insurgency in a timely manner and slow to adopt to the tactics of the insurgences thus the US didn't show its might in Iraq it showed how weak it is.

[PassTheBeer]

So.. for communism to work it needs to be the planet or nothing ? Somewhat I think that wont happen

[manic expression]

How so? It turned power to a state much weaker then South Vietnam while the US military showed being less capable then it was during Vietnam. The US military proved incapable of dealing with a weak organized insurgency in a timely manner and slow to adopt to the tactics of the insurgences thus the US didn't show its might in Iraq it showed how weak it is.
I'm no expert here, but in both wars against Iraq, the Iraqi conventional army was smashed completely by US forces. In terms of conventional warfare, the US military is very strong, although it hasn't faced a very determined conventional opponent since 1945 (maybe that's what you were referring to). The Iraqi military in 1991 was large, but not too well equipped/trained and low on morale. Still, US military expenditure surpasses all other countries on earth combined...and that has to mean something.

In terms of fighting irregular forces, the US military has been shown to be vulnerable, and the US is spending itself deeper and deeper into debt with every second it continues the occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq (the "draw-down" didn't include mercenaries, as far as I know), etc.

[Psy]

I'm no expert here, but in both wars against Iraq, the Iraqi conventional army was smashed completely by US forces.

In the first Gulf War the Iraqi army didn't want to fight so it was retreating, yet the US Army showed it was incapable of rapidly moving across open terrain due to its lack of organization thus the US military failed in cutting off the retreat of Iraqi forces that was a primary goal of the US forces thus the US failed in overthrowing Saddam by preventing his forces from returning to Iraq.

The second time around while the US was much better organized and was able to move much faster it still lacked enough organization to quickly puppet Iraq and quickly put down unrest. Remember all the looting, notice there was not mention of looting when the USSR put down the Hungary, that was because after the fighting tanks paroled the streets in large numbers while light armor was parked everywhere along with USSR infantry milling around in large numbers.



In terms of conventional warfare, the US military is very strong, although it hasn't faced a very determined conventional opponent since 1945 (maybe that's what you were referring to). The Iraqi military in 1991 was large, but not too well equipped/trained and low on morale. Still, US military expenditure surpasses all other countries on earth combined...and that has to mean something.

That means the US military has the most number of white elephants as it could afford very expensive equipment that has little payoff. For example for all the US spends on the military is was unable to get as many tanks on Iraqi city streets as the USSR put on Hungary city streets and the Abrams proved to be on the hardest tank to service in the field.



In terms of fighting irregular forces, the US military has been shown to be vulnerable, and the US is spending itself deeper and deeper into debt with every second it continues the occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq (the "draw-down" didn't include mercenaries, as far as I know), etc.
No argument here.