why must communism be global?

[Red Flag]

ive seen people here say no country can be communist unless the whole world is communist, im pretty sure i understand this to an extent, but i want to make sure im clear.. could someone elaborate further?

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

A communist state is the 'perfect'. Communism is to socialism what Imperialism is to capitalism-as in the final phase. No country has ever been communist yet, this is a agreed fact-though you will often hear westeners say things like 'commie cuba' its technically incorrect. Communism is achievable when there is no threat of capitalism-therefore the world must be socialist to achieve communism.

[-JakeH-]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 1 2003, 10:59 PM
ive seen people here say no country can be communist unless the whole world is communist, im pretty sure i understand this to an extent, but i want to make sure im clear.. could someone elaborate further?
The world in general has quite an abundance of resources. However, at the moment these excessive resources are scattered around the globe. Therefor if any one nation some how became a communist state it would still be required to trade with the outside world in order to obtain the goods it does not have excess of, as well it must sell the product it does have excess of in order to provide for its people.
Communism requires alot of agriculture, and as of now most nations don't produce enough agricultural goods to support their people, they trade. So, in order for any one nation to be completely communist it must provide entirely for its state, this cannot in reality be done by any one nation today, so it must be global.

Edit: Though I do believe there is a way for a nation to be communistic and still trade with the outside world.

[Red Flag]

ok thats what i thought, i wanted to be sure though.

but, what do you say about native american tribes that were stuck to one island with no trading? they were able to self sustain because of a much smaller population?

[-JakeH-]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 2 2003, 08:15 PM
ok thats what i thought, i wanted to be sure though.

but, what do you say about native american tribes that were stuck to one island with no trading? they were able to self sustain because of a much smaller population?
Well maybe, I don't know of these kinds of tribes though. In all reality there are many populations that are semi-large that opperate entirely without currency (tribes in the Sudan, which are now being pulled into a civil-war).
Any population can self-sustain themselves, so long as they focus on agriculture. Most recent-day communisms lack the agricultural system to meet the food needs of their people. Large populations would be able to sustain themselves, it would be simple, it would just require some organization.

Edit: What I mean to say is that you don't have to be stuck on an island to run a successful communism, you just need to be organized well enough to feed your people.

[apathy maybe]

It is possible for a country or area to be communist, BUT there must be no conntact with the outside world. Capitalists and militarists must not be able to invaded or screw with the society. Now adays because of this we must have communism on a world scale. Technology being what it is capitalist countries can invaded or otherwise screw with the society.

In the past communism has worked in, Australia (before the European invasion), North America (dito I think) and generally low tech communities. Stone age one might say.
The challange is not to achive communism (that already has been achieved), but to achive it with the current leval of technology.
Some people say that communism can only occure after a global catastrophe, this would cut communications between various groups, lower technology leval and force communism on the world. Otherwise humans would not survieve.
But it should be possible to achive anarchism-communism or socialism on a world scale.

Socialism being something different (a lot larger government for one) is possible in one country because the army can defend it.

[marxistamx]

HEalthy socialism is not possible in one country! No matter who defends it!

[Severian]

Each phase of human society requires a certain level of economic and cultural development to sustain it. Even capitalism could develop only in the world market - it developed first in western Europe partly because of the opening of trade with the Americas, Africa and Asia there. In contrast, China had some of the world's most developed civilization and technology for centuries but never developed capitalism on its own.

Communism, as a more advanced system, requires and even wider basis. In part, communism is the next stage in social evolution precisely because it makes it possible for the expanding forces of production to break out of the national barriers and borders associated with capitalism.

[redstar2000]

Unusually for me, I am "in the middle" on this question.

That is, I think communism "in one country" would be extraordinarily difficult to sustain.

But communism in a group of formerly advanced capitalist countries might be quite sustainable...even if much of the rest of the world remained capitalist.

Suppose that by 2125, the former "nations" of France, Germany, Holland, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Spain, Greece, etc. were all part of a communist federation.

Other definite possibilities would include Japan, Australia, Canada, England and the United States.

That's a powerful line-up, though very far from being "global". By that time, there may be a number of "new" powerful capitalist, imperialist countries: China, Russia, India, and Brazil come to mind.

How it would "play out" is impossible to foresee...but it would be very different from 20th century conflicts, where the heavy artillery was always on the side of the capitalists.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 05:02 AM
Unusually for me, I am "in the middle" on this question.

That is, I think communism "in one country" would be extraordinarily difficult to sustain.

But communism in a group of formerly advanced capitalist countries might be quite sustainable...even if much of the rest of the world remained capitalist.

Suppose that by 2125, the former "nations" of France, Germany, Holland, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Spain, Greece, etc. were all part of a communist federation.

Other definite possibilities would include Japan, Australia, Canada, England and the United States.

That's a powerful line-up, though very far from being "global". By that time, there may be a number of "new" powerful capitalist, imperialist countries: China, Russia, India, and Brazil come to mind.

How it would "play out" is impossible to foresee...but it would be very different from 20th century conflicts, where the heavy artillery was always on the side of the capitalists.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
I would imagine that if a country or group of countries that claimed to be communist, but STILL had to fight against capitalist countries, would have to have a defence/offence force to defend it. Are you suggesting that we can have a permenent armed force with out a clear hierachy(sp?)?

[Anarchist Freedom]

well put el marko and redstar i couldnt have said it better! 8 D


:che:

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 02:02 PM
But communism in a group of formerly advanced capitalist countries might be quite sustainable...even if much of the rest of the world remained capitalist.

Suppose that by 2125, the former "nations" of France, Germany, Holland, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Spain, Greece, etc. were all part of a communist federation.

Other definite possibilities would include Japan, Australia, Canada, England and the United States.

That's a powerful line-up, though very far from being "global". By that time, there may be a number of "new" powerful capitalist, imperialist countries: China, Russia, India, and Brazil come to mind.
Interesting...

redstar,

How did you arrive at the year 2125, with the countries in the communist and capitalist factions? Was this just arbitrary, or is there some greater logic that I am not seeing here? The communist countries, in your setup, are the most advanced capitalist countries in the world today, while the next generation of capitalists are the semi-cappie powers of today's world.

[redstar2000]

Are you suggesting that we can have a permanent armed force with out a clear hierarchy?

I actually don't know under those circumstances whether a "permanent armed force" would be necessary.

It's very difficult for a capitalist country, no matter how fervently it desires to intervene on the side of counter-revolution, to actually do that and risk nuclear annihilation.

When the imperialists invaded revolutionary Russia, there was little risk involved for the imperialists themselves; the weak and impoverished USSR was in no condition to invade Germany, France, England, Japan or the United States.

In the scenario I offered (obviously one of many possibilities), a Chinese-Russian invasion of communist Europe (for example) would have catastrophic consequences for the invaders...and indeed for much of the whole planet (nuclear winter and all that).

So I don't think the imperialists will do that, much as they might want to. And that means that the "need" for a large and permanent military establishment is pretty close to non-existent.


How did you arrive at the year 2125, with the countries in the communist and capitalist factions? Was this just arbitrary...

Definitely. Anyone who tells you that they can use Marxism to "predict the future" in useful detail is a charlatan.


The communist countries, in your setup, are the most advanced capitalist countries in the world today, while the next generation of capitalists are the semi-cappie powers of today's world.

IF Marx was right, that's how it ought to turn out.

But Clio is a fickle lady and she may have some more surprises for is.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[crazy comie]

we need at least a few of the moast industryalistly advanced countrys for reasons of proudution.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 02:30 AM

How did you arrive at the year 2125, with the countries in the communist and capitalist factions? Was this just arbitrary...

Definitely. Anyone who tells you that they can use Marxism to "predict the future" in useful detail is a charlatan.


The communist countries, in your setup, are the most advanced capitalist countries in the world today, while the next generation of capitalists are the semi-cappie powers of today's world.

IF Marx was right, that's how it ought to turn out.
"Definitely."

That is a relief... I was pretty sure that you were no psychic nut, but sometimes you never know...

Do you have any serious guess as to where the first post-capitalist system will form, and when? How many revolutions will be broken before capitalism is downed for good in the advanced countries you mentioned?

Your countries have been singled out by the amount of economic sophistication to date, then? Of course, Marx had the U.S. and Britain singled out as front-runners for the first socialist/communist revolutions (along with Germany), but these countries you apparently are not as optimistic about. The U.S. and the U.K. were among the earliest (and clearly the strongest) capitalist states of all, but there is not much growth in the way of socialism/communism in either. How do you explain this?

[redstar2000]

The U.S. and the U.K. were among the earliest (and clearly the strongest) capitalist states of all, but there is not much growth in the way of socialism/communism in either. How do you explain this?

The traditional explanation is that those two countries were the most "successful" of all the imperialist powers and the extra profits accumulated from their dependencies sufficed to "bribe" a significant sector of the working class into acquiescence...though there have been significant periods of class struggle in both countries.

It's quite possible that there are other factors at work as well. The U.K. has a "cultural tradition" of "peaceful change" that contrasts strongly with the revolutionary traditions of continental Europe. The formative years of the United States created a tradition of "when you have a problem, move on"...and Americans still do that, perhaps more than in any other country.

Of course, this kind of stuff can't be sustained "forever"...but the circumstances in which it will break down are difficult to anticipate.

If Marx was right, though, it will break down.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Ah yes... bribing the upper levels of the working class... very true...

The UK has had a bloody internal history as well... it is not all peaceful transition.

"'when you have a problem, move on'...and Americans still do that"

That has been what the ruling class has been trying to condition the workers to do since the very beginning as you say. Of course, American workers have resisted this, and the attempts to deflect their anger into electoral politics at certain points of U.S. history.

Journalist Greg Palast--not sure if you have read his work, but I recommend him highly--is an American who works in the UK. His opinion is that Americans are more rebellious than Europeans, noting the privatization of utilities on both sides of the Atlantic. According to Palast, Europeans shrugged and paid the gouging bills while Americans resisted it. Would you agree or disagree with his analysis?

[Urban Rubble]

In response to RedStar's original post: How fucking ironic would it be if Western Europe went Communist and Russia and China became powerful Capitalist nations ?

I think it is highly unlikely that Communism in one country would ever be acheived.

[crazy comie]

England and america don't have that big an industreal prolitarian there main employers are varrious service industries to reatail goods made by imperialist companys exploiting poor third world countrys.

[red warlock]

<_<
Global communism you say...
well...HOW??
I dont want to make a large argument here but in the next 200 years its impossible...I know that I sound prophetic but its true ....here is another prophecy
THE USA will fall in thew next 100 years ...YOU can bet with me on a milion dollars....or rublas if you dont like dollars
HEre is the main argument
PEOPLE GET SICK JUST WHEN THEY HEAR THE WORD COMMUNISM....
they say its evil how acn we convince them that we learned from past mistakes and we are going to build a better world...they know one thing STaLIN and thats alll....welll...convince them...they will tell you : "America is like an octopus but we dont want to hear about communism"
these are simple talking facts