Should the methodology differ by country?

[RedSquare]

Recently I've been reading the Communist Manifesto, which seems to be a universal blueprint for the correct way to create a Communist society, and while obviously a brilliant work, it obviously lacks the hindsight which has been accumulated long after the death of Marx and Engels.

At the same time I've become interested in the basic theory of Maoism, and also the basic premise of Titoism, which I understand to be that the conditions of a particular country should dictate how the struggle between Proletariat and Bourgeoisie is approached. It seems sensible to me because, for instance, not all countries are composed of solely urban proleterians, but have a number of small farmers (formerly peasants) that I would term rural proletarians.

I'm interested in seeing people's thoughts on this, and getting advice on whether this is a good theory in current circumstances or whether it is better to follow the set methodology.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think any Marxist will argue that (well, I hope they wouldn't!) geo-politics plays a huge role in how a revolution will come about.

I would fully agree with you on this, and also be interested to see what other people think.

[Impulse97]

Yea I'd have to agree. How, when and where a revolution will occur depends a lot on the local situation. For example a revolution in the US would likely have to be organized and well funded to be able to defeat the Empire militarily. Whereas, a revolt in a place such as Egypt succeeded* by massive protests with very little organized fighting.

I hope to be there when the US government falls. :thumbup1:

Anyway, good luck learning!:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

(*Some would say its not over yet [myself included] and that they have to ensure a Socialist government)

[Psy]

Yea I'd have to agree. How, when and where a revolution will occur depends a lot on the local situation. For example a revolution in the US would likely have to be organized and well funded to be able to defeat the Empire militarily. Whereas, a revolt in a place such as Egypt succeeded* by massive protests with very little organized fighting.

I hope to be there when the US government falls. :thumbup1:

Anyway, good luck learning!:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

(*Some would say its not over yet [myself included] and that they have to ensure a Socialist government)
I doubt a revolutionary USA would have a revolutionary army strong enough to military defeat renaming imperialist forces on its own. It would most likely have a very easy time in defending against imperialist forces but I wouldn't count on bringing a world revolution on its own as the world is very big to win by marching troops across it.

[Impulse97]

I doubt a revolutionary USA would have a revolutionary army strong enough to military defeat renaming imperialist forces on its own. It would most likely have a very easy time in defending against imperialist forces but I wouldn't count on bringing a world revolution on its own as the world is very big to win by marching troops across it.


I understand what your saying and I agree with it. What your saying is my point. You can't just raise an army and expect it to win the world. Nor, can you expect a wave a Jasmine revolutions to be effective or bring lasting change. Each could probabaly bring gains in certain areas suitable for them but neither can do the whole job. Each region's revolution needs to be suited for the political, cultural, geographic[situation] and ammount of support in each region.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[Sixiang]

I do think that revolutions will and should vary from country to country, culture to culture, and so on. You see, what works depends on the material conditions and the countless social variables that are all in place at that specific time in that specific place. The guerrilla tactics of revolutionaries in largely jungle-based countries are going to be much different than the revolutionary tactics of workers in an industrialized western country.

[NGNM85]

I'm not a Marxist, but it should be abundantly clear that the methodology of creating substantive social change is dependent on circumstances, which vary substiantially from country to country. The predicament of activists in the United States is quite different from that of activists in the People's Republic of China.

[Savage]

It (the revolution) will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace. It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.-Engels

[scarletghoul]

Recently I've been reading the Communist Manifesto, which seems to be a universal blueprint for the correct way to create a Communist society, and while obviously a brilliant work, it obviously lacks the hindsight which has been accumulated long after the death of Marx and Engels.

At the same time I've become interested in the basic theory of Maoism, and also the basic premise of Titoism, which I understand to be that the conditions of a particular country should dictate how the struggle between Proletariat and Bourgeoisie is approached. It seems sensible to me because, for instance, not all countries are composed of solely urban proleterians, but have a number of small farmers (formerly peasants) that I would term rural proletarians.

I'm interested in seeing people's thoughts on this, and getting advice on whether this is a good theory in current circumstances or whether it is better to follow the set methodology.Of course it is necessary for revolutionaries to be creative and take into account the differing conditions in every country. I don't know much about Tito but can tell you that's something just about every Marxist agrees on (certainly every dialectical materialist).

Nepal is a great example. The path of its revolution is different to any others in history and is shaped by Nepal's specific conditions: very poor largely rural peasant country, an unstable despotic monarchy, Indian expansionism, and so on. Because of these conditions the revolutionaries built up their forces and led the people to rise up in a 10 year guerilla war to take over most of the country and weaken the government, then got the support of some progressive bourgeoisie to topple the King while consolidating and strengthening the revolutionary urban working class in preparation for a proletarian insurrection. There are a few haters who complain that the Maoists are not following the exact template of 1917 Russia, but they are insignificant and more importantly incorrect


a number of small farmers (formerly peasants) that I would term rural proletarians.The peasantry are a mixture. Some are rural proletarians, but a lot own their own piece of land, varying in size, and there is still some semi-feudal remnants in many areas further complicating the picture.

[scarletghoul]

-Engels
"Fewest difficulties in England" lololol. He didn't take into account our terrible style of practicality which led to compromise and dampening down of the workers' movement, even if objectively we were the most prepared for socialism..

[chegitz guevara]

While it's true that in words, no Marxist would disagree that methodology should vary by country, by era, etc., i.e. depending on the concrete conditions in existence, in practice, we've been not terribly creative, and instead fighting over which revolution to emulate and castigating those who don't emulate it correctly.

[Raúl Duke]

Should the methodology differ by country?Personally, I think yes. But it won't be a wide difference. However, I'm thinking this in a different terms (in terms of praxis, practice; rather than theoretical ideas like rural proletarian vis a vis peasants).


It seems sensible to me because, for instance, not all countries are composed of solely urban proleterians, but have a number of small farmers (formerly peasants) that I would term rural proletarians. Despite Marxism's focus on the urban, issues related to rural or suburban areas will have to be addressed by Marxists who operate in those areas. For example, in Immokalee and similar central Florida areas we have actual rural proletarians, they do farm-work by the wage (hour or bucket). Thus, obviously Marxists in that area will focus on the rural proletariat despite that their ideology is focuses on urban areas because...they live in that area and not an urban one. However, do not think it's "unimportant" compared to playing a part on organizing urban workers/etc.

Helping out in organizing rural workers in your community and partaking in solidarity a part in their actions is important for the workers of that community whether or not it's ultimately directly important for the Marxist/etc working-class revolution. Marxists should see themselves as somewhat like community organizers (or more as in enablers and supporters of such organizing, unless they themselves are a rural worker in which case you and your class are organizing/taking actions yourselves which is good) rather than activists and focus on the community they live in and love rather than focusing on taking a bus-ride to some far-off demonstration that has little to nothing to do with your community directly; those actions do little to nothing and are become more like charades.

For the most part I agree with Chegitz, obviously look into the situation and conditions of your community and figure out what you can do to enable/increase/whatever the class struggle and/or help out the working people, etc in that area.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, I say no, though there might be minor differences in the circumstances in which the revolution begins in different places, there isn't any essential difference in the process of the revolution in different countries, because

1 - capitalism is international;
2 - the working class is international;
3 - the revolution must be international.

Not 'will be'. Must be. As in 'must be to be successful'.

Since the establishment in outline of the world market before WWI, there has only been one way forward for the world working class - the socialist revolution. The Third International was pretty clear on that point in 1920. No national specificities change that. The world working class must overthrow capitalism internationally, not as a series of discrete events. There will only be very temporary 'red bastions' during the revolution, and there are no 'progressive fractions of the bourgeoisie' to support, all fractions of the bourgeoisie must be opposed by the workers.

By the way Redsquare, 'small farmers' are not 'rural proletarians'. Rural proletarians (ie, farm workers) are employed on farms, and exist by selling their labour power. Small farmers own farms, and exist by selling the produce of the farms. They are capitalists or petit-bourgeois, depending on whether they use hired labour and/or their own labour in that process. The term 'peasants' exists for a reason, peasants aren't working class. There aren't so many of them now as there once were, many have become real 'rural proletarians' and some have become out-and-out capitalists, but in some countries they make up an important part of the population.

[Hoplite]

It would seem a mix of both is required.

Set rules like requirements for freedom of information, freedom of speech, etc etc are necessary for any Communist/Socialist society.

However the fine details, the nuts and bolts, need to be worked out by individual groups. It's ludicrous to think that one person, or even one group, can come up with a system that will suit the needs and ends of everyone, or even the majority, especially with such a complex modern world.

Socialism and Communism are COLLECTIVE systems, they need to be built collectively.

[OhYesIdid]

No national specificities change that.

lolwut.
So, kids, remember: NOTHING MUST ALTER YOUR TACTICS.
:huh:

That just silly, man. You wouldn't use the same tactics to conquer the streets of New York than to defend the jungles of the Congo, would you?
Besides, this great big International Revolution has been waited for for far too long now. I think the revolution will come in steps, with each nation liberating itself from capitalism one by one, if only because of the great discrepancies present when it comes to historical materialism and social progress.
And no, Facebook (TM) ain't gonna be the great medium through which the world proletariat organize the Final Revolt. People should stop being so naive about technology.

[Blake's Baby]

lolwut.
So, kids, remember: NOTHING MUST ALTER YOUR TACTICS.
:huh:

Which kids? The workers and students out there currently overthrowing their governments, or tired sub-2nd-international hacks who say 'no, really, we all have to become revolutionary in turn'?




That just silly, man. You wouldn't use the same tactics to conquer the streets of New York than to defend the jungles of the Congo, would you?

I have no intention of conquering either New York or the Congo, as I'm not playing Risk.

The working class, self-organised in workers' councils, will take over New York. There isn't much of a proletariat in Congo (not in the jungles anyway); I would expect that once the urban proletariat of Kinshasa, Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, Lagos, Mombasa, Jo'burg etc have overthrown capitalism (and I don't see why they should wait their turn) the more rural areas of Africa will come to see it's a good idea.



Besides, this great big International Revolution has been waited for for far too long now. I think the revolution will come in steps, with each nation liberating itself from capitalism one by one, if only because of the great discrepancies present when it comes to historical materialism and social progress.
..

Because that's worked so well in the past hasn't it? Let's see: revolution in Russia, failed revolutions in Germany, Hungary, Italy, leaving Russia isolated; on the plus side: we get to wave red flags; on the negative side: the whole history of the 20th century.

Isolated revolutions still have to exist in a capitalist world. A nation can't 'liberate itself from capitalism' without becoming totally autarchic, and that's pretty much impossible for even the biggest countries. Capitalism is a world system (it's almost like you weren't paying attention when i said that earlier) and therefore the working class's response to it must be international too. Otherwise it's doomed to fail just like the other experiments with 'socialism in one country'.

[OhYesIdid]

I have no intention of conquering either New York or the Congo, as I'm not playing Risk.


I wasn't talking about risk-like world conquer, but small guerrilla cell micro-warfare. My sentence was meant to refer to small-scale, immediate tactics. I apologize if it came off as childish or megalomaniac, as I assume it did.




The working class, self-organised in workers' councils, will take over New York. There isn't much of a proletariat in Congo (not in the jungles anyway); I would expect that once the urban proletariat of Kinshasa, Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, Lagos, Mombasa, Jo'burg etc have overthrown capitalism (and I don't see why they should wait their turn) the more rural areas of Africa will come to see it's a good idea.


Wait, so the revolution must come all at once but only in the cities? lolwut

See, this I do not get: why is it silly to expect gradual national revolutions to lead the way, but perfectly rational for "the more rural areas of Africa to come to see it's a good idea"? I think that one of the great mistakes of the international left has been this strange confidence on Leftism being so obvious to the working class. Remember, most people have been raised in an environment that relentlessly stifled their intelligence and fostered a blind faith on the modern capitalist-imperialist global economic system, as painfully evidenced by so many working-class corpses laying strewn across the deserts of Iraq and the jungles of Vietnam.
Communism is not an obvious philosophy, we must therefore lead by example.

[Blake's Baby]

I wasn't talking about risk-like world conquer, but small guerrilla cell micro-warfare...

In which case, what you are talking about is not communism (as in the movement of the proletariat to overthrow capitalism) but a putsch by a military clique.




Wait, so the revolution must come all at once but only in the cities? lolwut...

Actually, it's the 'lolwut' that makes you look childish.

I didn't say it was 'only' in the cities, but the revolution will be lead from the cities because this is where the concentrations of proletarians are - the associated labourers who are expropriated by the capitalists, this being rather the point of capitalism.


...See, this I do not get: why is it silly to expect gradual national revolutions to lead the way, but perfectly rational for "the more rural areas of Africa to come to see it's a good idea"?

It's 'silly' as you call it (I didn't) because it's failed. National revolutions lead to administration of the state on behalf of 'the nation'. This might have seemed OK in theory in 1890, but merely leads to 'state capitalism', not communism.

Even before WWI Luxemburg, criticised the reformism inherent in the SPD, and the idea of the 'national revolution' is a reformist road. There is no 'national road to socialism' because the working class is international and its combat against international capitalism must also be international. It may be difficulty but that doesn't mean you can short-circuit the process by starting a guerilla band in the woods.


...I think that one of the great mistakes of the international left has been this strange confidence on Leftism being so obvious to the working class. ..

No one said it was obvious. The ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class, after all. But there is no communism without the working class, because the working class is the only revolutionary class in society, because only the working class has the perspective of the future organisation of society, precisely because of their place in the productive process. If you don't understand this, that is probably why you are pinning your hopes on a peasant insurrection in the jungle 'conquering' power, instead of the working class confronting capitalism and the state.


...Remember, most people have been raised in an environment that relentlessly stifled their intelligence and fostered a blind faith on the modern capitalist-imperialist global economic system, as painfully evidenced by so many working-class corpses laying strewn across the deserts of Iraq and the jungles of Vietnam.
Communism is not an obvious philosophy, we must therefore lead by example.

The fact that capitalism has imposed its intellectual hegemonty, its own tyranny of ideas, on the population of the world, is one of the very reasons why the revolution will be lead from the cities. It is in the cities that the social contradictions inherent in capitalism are most sharply focussed, and it is in the cities where workers are congregated together and thus can generalise and communicate their own experiences, and organise with other workers. So it's in the cities that the revolution will fight its most important battles. I can't see how any 'theory' that disputes that can claim to be any form of socialism, either anarchist or marxist.

[OhYesIdid]

Dude, you have a point. I cannot see any holes in your theory except for a slight smugness against peasantry. Other than that your argument is very well put together, and you have given me much to think about.

Still, you won't stop me from using chanspeek!