Successful revolution in the 21st century?

[Aspiring Humanist]

Do you really think there could be a successful socialist revolution in the 21st century? We've seen successful revolutions in the middle east but I've yet to see any socialist elements come out of it. The current socialist insurgencies are either hopeless (Naxalites, Phillipino insurgency) or counter-revolutionary (FARC for kidnapping and drug trafficking). I'm not talking about interim or coalition governments, I'm talking about full blown revolution. And the last time a successful communist revolution happened was what, the Sandinistas?
As much as I hate to admit it, without a huge socialist power bloc socialist revolutions really have no chance to succeed in this capitalist dominated world. The only was I could see it happening would be a coup. Anyway, if I'm missing some crucial information, I really hope someone will prove me wrong!

I apologize if this question has been asked repeatedly, I'm new to the site.

[red cat]

Posters from different tendencies will give opposing answers to your question.

To me it seems that the groups you think of as hopeless or counter revolutionary are the ones most likely to give rise to future socialist blocs within a few decades.

[mosfeld]

How are the revolutions in the Philippines and India hopeless? Both of the People's Wars are intensifying, moving from victory to victory and gaining strength. At this rate, victory is inevitable. Don't lose hope based on absolutely nothing :)

[Gorilla]

How are the revolutions in the Philippines and India hopeless? Both of the People's Wars are intensifying, moving from victory to victory and gaining strength. At this rate, victory is inevitable. Don't lose hope based on absolutely nothing :)

The bolded part is totally untrue. The italicized part is totally true.

[Imposter Marxist]

I fail to see how the Naxal's of NPA are hopeless, and how FARC is "counter-revolutionary" I don't even buy that drug trafficing non-sense. FARC has called for the legalization of drugs to END drug trafficing. Even if they were drug trafficing, I dont see how that makes them counter-revolutionary.

[RATM-Eubie]

I only see violent revolutions succeeding in 3rd world type of countries (maybe some democratic ones) but democratic elections and popular protests mostly turning things around in richer nations.

[Jose Gracchus]

I sure hope so, because I don't know if the carrying capacity of the Earth at current rates of social and technological sophistication and even continuing improvement, can tolerate another century of this capital accumulation. At least without reverting to depopulated barbarism.

[Sixiang]

Check out what's going on in Nepal. Shit's goin' down.

[CommunistsUnite]

I sure hope so, because I don't know if the carrying capacity of the Earth at current rates of social and technological sophistication and even continuing improvement, can tolerate another century of this capital accumulation. At least without reverting to depopulated barbarism.
The world's supply of ICBM's should solve this problem rather quickly.

[Amphictyonis]

Capitalism is prone to crisis. During capitalist crisis exploitation or the conflict between capital and labor becomes more obvious. It's our job as socialists, in times like these, to work as hard as we can to explain to as many people as we can what actual socialism is. To point out the why's and hows' of this conflict. There needs to be socialist ideology if a successful revolution is to take place but certian material conditions must also be met before socialist ideology will be accepted. I don't see socialist ideology being the driving force in the Middle Eastern uprisings.This is what we must avoid in advanced capitalist nations- when declining material conditions cause mass uprisings these uprisings MUST have strong socialist ideological foundations or something completely unpredictable will come out of the uprising. Uprising without ideology is revolt. Uprising with ideology is revolution. I'm not so sure we're seeing revolutions in the Middle East at the moment. I think we're going to see what happens when people revolt without strong socialist ideological foundations (new government, different faces but more of the same).

If, in advanced capitalist nations, material conditions declined enough to actually spark mass uprisings and if this mass uprising did not have strong socialist foundations it could be co-opted by fascism. Ideology is VERY important but will probably not catch on until people are fed up.

[RedMarxist]

The NPA in my opinion have a real chance at winning a war that has claimed the lives of over 40,000 people. So too does FARC(don't know about the India revolutionaries though, except that the NPA trains them)

One thing I don't get is why is the NPA/FARC-EP branded both as 'terrorist organizations'

They don't hide behind civilians, aren't blowing themselves up and plotting to destroy jumbo jets, and their main targets are military based(and well lets face it, the both have real armies of insurgents capable of toppling the Colombian or Philippines governments)

[a rebel]

I fail to see how the Naxal's of NPA are hopeless, and how FARC is "counter-revolutionary" I don't even buy that drug trafficing non-sense. FARC has called for the legalization of drugs to END drug trafficing. Even if they were drug trafficing, I dont see how that makes them counter-revolutionary.

don't be ignorant, FARC is making money on drug trafficking in one way or another, war costs a lot of money and Colombian cocaine is expensive. besides if you keep people high they can't fight for themselves, that's how its counter-revolutionary

[RedMarxist]

ok then. I want your honest opinion anyone-would it be a bad or good thing if India, the Philippines, and Colombia became communist?

[The Man]

I believe that it is nearly inevitable to have some sort of massive socialist revolution at some point during this century, or the first half of the next. As a Maoist, Karl Marx's philosophy of Primitive Communism --> Slave Society --> Feudalism --> Capitalism --> Socialism --> Communism, are going exactly as he planned it.

[Dunk]

I sure hope so, because I don't know if the carrying capacity of the Earth at current rates of social and technological sophistication and even continuing improvement, can tolerate another century of this capital accumulation. At least without reverting to depopulated barbarism.

I think the ongoing popular uprisings throughout the world are inextricably linked to the effects of the global recession. The effects of this most recent crises of capitalism make a bad situation in what were repressive and poor societies even worse. But these uprisings, some of which are civil wars and revolutions, have not been carried out to overthrow capitalism, but have been carried out to overthrow the state and replace it with a new one.

Personally, I think it's a reasonable assumption that the increasing degree of scarcity of the one vital, non-renewable resource upon which the production of nearly all other commodities depends upon - crude oil - is going to accelerate the development of subsequent crises. The reason I think crude matters more to creating the right material conditions for the capital "t" capital "r" revolution more than say, increasing environmental instability, is because a spike in crude puts the price of other essential commodities increasingly out of reach of the people who create them, and may also be a contributing factor to increasing unemployment or underemployment. Peak oil may also come hand in hand with the approach of the population ceiling.

Hopefully humankind can build an global, ethical, and sustainable alternative to capitalism without collapsing into a dark age. Or maybe we are in what will be considered a dark age. I don't know.

[Dunk]

ok then. I want your honest opinion anyone-would it be a bad or good thing if India, the Philippines, and Colombia became communist?

If it's the bottom-up kind and it spreads, yes. Otherwise, what's the point of revolution if you're going to overthrow your oppressors without burning the throne?

[piet11111]

The problem with revolutions is that they happen when you least expect them.
Lenin was caught by surprise with the russian revolution.


But seeing how this century is already messier then the first decade of the 1900's i think we are off to a good start for surprising world events with hopefully a few we are going to like.

[Rafiq]

Maoism seems to be on the rise due to capitalism's not being able to fully develop in some third wolrd nations.

I do think we will see a revolution in the 21st century, though not any time soon.

[Red_Xan]

I would say so. It's already 11 years in, and we've seen what? At least 3 (Egypt, Tunisia, Libya (maybe)). The only real reason they're not socialist is that socialism isn't prevalent in their societies. I'd go so far as to say a socialist revolution (violent, electoral, etc.) will happen in the next 30 to 50 years, depending on circumstance.

[ckaihatsu]

There will not be a bolshevik revolution, the workers have wised up, we are the revolution and we are coming, just without a state :thumbup:


In this day and age people should -- as a guideline -- get to the point where they're able to be explicitly political on a daily basis, in some sort of way. (It's comparable to exercising, or being creative, or any other activity that benefits from practice.)





These were not revolution, how did the economic models change?


I think what we saw in Egypt is that the workers -- in an independent trade union network -- need to have ongoing mass popular support, as from Tahrir Square, for them to be effective in their militancy.

If the general population is ready and confident enough to make a sea change in the general society's politics then we can see longer-lasting militant struggles from the rank-and-file. But it's certainly understandable that if the rank-and-file doesn't readily see a more-friendly political climate out there they won't want to stick their own necks out alone.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I would say so. It's already 11 years in, and we've seen what? At least 3 (Egypt, Tunisia, Libya (maybe)). The only real reason they're not socialist is that socialism isn't prevalent in their societies. I'd go so far as to say a socialist revolution (violent, electoral, etc.) will happen in the next 30 to 50 years, depending on circumstance.

I would like to say that we are Just 11 years in it. We need to be patient, or more correctly, we need to organize.