Communist revolution? Country by country? Or worldwide?

[Viva Revolution!]

Would a communist revolution have to be worldwide, in terms of every nation being revolutionized at once? Or slowly revolutionizing each country by country?
In my mind, there's no doubt that if communism is to succeed, it'd have to be worldwide, not just occurring in one country, as all global markets and the economy are now interlinked.
When do you think would be the right time for a revolution? And what do you believe are the correct conditions for a revolution to take place?
I personally believe that it can't occur before the secularisation of religion as communism will aim to unite everyone, and religion is an ideological state apparatus that creates divisions. It will obviously only happen after the masses of working class/poverty-stricken population are united and educated about how they're are being exploited and how communism could help them.
I'd love to hear the opinions of others.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Country by country. But the whole world will have to be under DOTP before a transition to communism.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Country by country. But the whole world will have to be under DOTP before a transition to communism.

^This.

[graymouser]

Well, it would start out in a few nation states, but once enough withdrew from the capitalist market the process would have to get contagious. Things are interlinked to the point where, for instance, if India has a socialist revolution next week, world capitalism probably wouldn't last out the decade. It would send shockwaves through the capitalist economy, not to mention the spread of ideas from one country to the next.

This is not linked to the idea of "socialism in one country," which says that isolated and backward countries can go beyond a transitional form between capitalism and the lower stage of communism (commonly called socialism).

[tbasherizer]

Were capitalism or feudalism achieved country-by-country? I know, the socialist revolution is different, blah blah blah, but to try to differentiate the socialist revolution in the sense of it being one of the 'final ones' or 'the right one' is to fall for Zizeck's 'Fukuyamaism'. There is no end of history, and the anthropological shift that is from capitalism to socialism will be achieved in a way comparable to that from feudalism to capitalism. That is, global objective material conditions and the resulting class antagonism will be brought to a point where the social conditions are irreconcilably contradictory with the contemporary state institutions. This causes the revolutionary change that ushered in feudalism and capitalism, and will also cause the shift from capitalism to socialism.

NOTE: This might sound a bit reformist, but I'm just tossing this to the Revleft hounds to see which bits come away a bit less torn-up.

[Nolan]

Country by country will fall to the DOTP, each one weakening the bourgeoisie and strengthening the proletariat until the point where remaining bourgeois societies may simply start to collapse if they do not give rise to fascistic states.

What happens depends on where the revolutions do and do not take root. For instance the US will likely be among the last to fall. But if it is among the first large swathes of the capitalist world such as Latin America will just implode.

[Blake's Baby]

What do you mean by 'revolutionising' in this context? Do you mean, will the working class overthrow the ruling class and establish its dictatorship country by country, or do you mean, will the task of abolishing capitalist relations happen country by country - because these are different things.

I think the process of overthrowing the ruling class will be uneven, it will happen in some places before others, it will almost certainly happen in some locales before others even in the same country, but I would expect that it would rapidly progress or rapidly be beaten back. I don't think we'll see 'red bastions' set up for years in an 'uneasy peace'. The world civil war will gather pace and come to a head, for good or ill, I suspect, and the outcome of those turbulent months will set the world on its course for the next couple of centuries is my guess.

As for actually abolishing capitalism, this won't happen 'country by country' as countries will have no real meaning by then.


Were capitalism or feudalism achieved country-by-country? I know, the socialist revolution is different, blah blah blah, but to try to differentiate the socialist revolution in the sense of it being one of the 'final ones' or 'the right one' is to fall for Zizeck's 'Fukuyamaism'. There is no end of history, and the anthropological shift that is from capitalism to socialism will be achieved in a way comparable to that from feudalism to capitalism. That is, global objective material conditions and the resulting class antagonism will be brought to a point where the social conditions are irreconcilably contradictory with the contemporary state institutions. This causes the revolutionary change that ushered in feudalism and capitalism, and will also cause the shift from capitalism to socialism.

NOTE: This might sound a bit reformist, but I'm just tossing this to the Revleft hounds to see which bits come away a bit less torn-up.

I agree with precisely none of this.

In previous revolutions, eg the transition from feudalism to capitalism, 1 - there was no world market or indeed world system; and 2 - the revolutionary class was not the exploited class.

Capitalism, however, is a world system, the working class is a world class, and our revolution against capitalism must therefore be a world revolution. There can be no 'islands of socialism'. Capitalism must be suppressed everywhere, not just in this or that place, the failure of the Soviet Union due to the isolation of the revolution must teach us that surely.

Under feudalism, the revolutionary class was the mercantile class, the bourgeoisie; it was they who profited by the end of feudalism, not the peasantry. Capitalism was the solution to the problems of the feudal class system, it did not cause them. It allowed a new class to rule, predicated on a new form of class exploitation. Socialism, however, is not predicated on a new class rule; it is the negation of classes and therefore is fundamentally different to capitalism. Capitalism developed its economic power inside feudalism for 400 years before it risked a political revolution. It had 'come of age' and demanded its place at the rulers' table. The working class doesn't have that luxury. We cannot spend 400 years running radical co-operatives before we have enough money to challenge our rulers to grant us a place in the corridors of power; such a notion is nonsensical, because we could never have enough leverage to free ourselves through capitalist means, and because we don't intend to become another dominant class living off the labour of others anyway. For all these reasons it's fundamentally mistaken to compare the socialist revolution to the capitalist revolution.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

It'll probably start in Guernsey (which is technically Britain, but is actually just an island that no one cares about), making its way around the world slowly, finishing at Paraguay.

[Blake's Baby]

I think Guernsey is technically 'That Bit of the Duchy of Normandy that was Never Re-incorporated into France and Never Had a French Revolution'. Or something. That's why the British Government can't give it back to France, technically, Britain doesn't own it, it owns Britain (it conquered England in 1066, see?)

[smk]

I envision the world revolution to take place in a few steps:
1) third world countries will become communist because of popular support
2) ecological, financial, w/e crisis due to capitalism
3) the first world will then move to communism

[Dunk]

Following a revolution, if a country were to produce for use and not for exchange, wouldn't trade with a country that still produces for exchange be impossible?

[Kamos]

Country by country. But the whole world will have to be under DOTP before a transition to communism.

This, pretty much. I'm fairly certain that it's Lenin who said it: due to the different social and economic conditions in different countries, it's impossible to achieve a worldwide revolution in a tight time span - instead, groups of countries will fall to the revolution who will then help further revolutions take place and keep the international movement strong.

[VirgJans12]

Most likely country by country. It'll start off in northern South-America, and after all the countries in that continent have had revolutions, it'll spread to Africa. Then the rest of the world.

A global revolution would be amazing and would give the entire world a bonding. Though it'd be difficult to achieve, because the western world will heavily resist, and the economics would probably collapse if all countries had a socialist revolution at the same time.

[Blake's Baby]

Following a revolution, if a country were to produce for use and not for exchange, wouldn't trade with a country that still produces for exchange be impossible?

Yes.

Unless in 'a country producing for use', 'use' includes trade. But you know what that's called of course - capitalism. So what we have is relatively efficient capitalist countries where business continues as usual, trading with relatively inefficient, disrupted 'revolutionary' but still capitalist countries. All that would mean is that the countries where there has been no revolution can disctate the terms of the trade to the 'revolutionary' countries.

This is why 1 - the revolutionary process needs to be very rapid, why we won't see the 'red bastions' existing for years in a capitalist world framework; and 2 - the switch to production for need can't happen upon the instant, even in the revolutionary areas.

This doesn't mean I think nothing can be done in those areas, some things undoubtedly can. But we can't impliment communism until capitalism has been defeated, and that means worldwide.

The problems with the 'country by country, it will take a lot of time' approach are that we won't have a lot of time; and also that it fails to take account of the fact that it's not a linear progression. It doesn't go Spain-then-Portugal-then-Morrocco-then-Algeria-then-Italy-then-France, the development of the world revolution to the point where it openly breaks out in Spain presupposes that France, Italy, Portugal, Algeria, Morrocco and a good many other places are already at boiling point; I would expect in that case it would go more like Spain, Portugal and Morrocco, Italy France Algeria and Greece, Mali Mauretania Tunisia Ireland Turkey Gambia Egypt and Argentina, Sudan Nigeria Iran Saudi Arabia Belgium FYRs Romania Poland Denmark Netherlands Mexico Chile and Peru, Germany Britain Sweden Russia & former USSR Bolivia Ecuador Pakistan Canada Australia, etc. The contamination would rapidly spread from one country to another, not because the working class had defeated capitalism in one country, assumed power and then used that power-base to foment revolution in the state next door, but because workers in neighbouring countries (eg Portugal and Spain) or countries with strong connections (eg Spain, Italy, Greece) would likey both be suffering similar attacks by the bourgeoisie, and would inspire each other - as has happened recently with the 'Arab Spring', but in Europe too, part of the inspiration for events in Spain was a massive demo in Portugal in March; Spain in turn has inspired further actions in Greece in these last weeks. This is how the process begins (I'm going to stop short of claiming that 'the revolution has begun' but I'm hopeful that the seeds that will lead to the revolution are already germinating).

[Yazman]

^This.

^This is spam.

^This gets you a warning. Don't make one word posts! If all you're doing is agreeing or thanking, use the thanks button or the reputation system.

This post constitutes a warning to Hebrew Hammer for spam.

[28350]

i think the country-by-country model is a bit unrealistic, as it views borders as both legitimate and uncrossable

[Dunk]

Yes.

If the premise is that socialism is the common ownership and control of productive property for the production of use - not for exchange, and if revolution is really going to happen country by country, wouldn't that mean that essential goods would have to be produced within the country whose working class has overthrown capitalism if revolution fails to spread? Or, to produce for use and be able to procure essential goods unable to be produced within your newly socialist country, wouldn't whatever other country within your essential goods supply chain also have to revolt at the same time?

If revolution doesn't spread, doesn't this mean that a country attempting to produce for use would have no other option than to nationalize the economy to retain the ability to procure essential goods from capitalist countries?

This suggests to me that the only way to succeed is for the working class to utterly disregard borders and work together across them to revolt. Working class movements would have to become international rather than national. If the bourgeoisie has international institutions to coordinate policy, where is the working class answers to these?

[Blake's Baby]

Well, yes, most of those implications are reasonable I think. That's why the working class has been creating international organisatiuons since the 1860s. The First, Socialist (2nd), Anarchist, Communist (3rd), and at least two Fourth Internationals (one Left-Communist around 1922, one Trotskyist around 1936) have been proclaimed, not to mention the World Socialist Movement, at least three International Communist Parties, one Internationalist Communist Party (a component of the International Communist Tendency), the International Communist Current, and the Industrial Workers of the World. There are currently I think 3 Anarchist Internationals, and there may be other international organisations that I don't know about.

If revolution fails ('fails to spread' is a tautology, if it fails to spread it fails period, socialism in one country is impossible) then whether industry is nationalised or not is a moot point. If the revolution fails the working class is screwed whether its bosses are the state or private capitalists.

So yes, workers have to work across borders. Capitalism is international, the working class is international, and the revolution must be international.

[Sixiang]

Country by country will fall to the DOTP, each one weakening the bourgeoisie and strengthening the proletariat until the point where remaining bourgeois societies may simply start to collapse if they do not give rise to fascistic states.

What happens depends on where the revolutions do and do not take root. For instance the US will likely be among the last to fall. But if it is among the first large swathes of the capitalist world such as Latin America will just implode.

I find it interesting how Marxists have projected different orders of countries throughout the years. Marx and Engels first saw revolutionary potential in France. Then at times in England. Then in Germany. There was even mention of Russia and India. Then Lenin said Russia had the revolutionary spirit and the other Slavic nations would follow. Then east Asia, as we saw in the 40's and 50's. Of course there was also stuff in Latin America and Africa at different times. I think that whole "revolutionary spirit" or "starting place" can jump around and change quite easily. But I would agree that it seems for now that the US is a ways away as compared to some other countries right now.

[hatzel]

If the premise is that socialism is the common ownership and control of productive property for the production of use - not for exchange, and if revolution is really going to happen country by country, wouldn't that mean that essential goods would have to be produced within the country whose working class has overthrown capitalism if revolution fails to spread?

I vaguely remember a Hoxhaist saying something about this, you know...I'm sure they could pipe up here...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Country-by-country revolution is antiquated, and simultaneous global revolution fails to take into account uneven development (i.e., Third World Caesarean Socialism).

Transnational coordination for a mix of large-regional (FSU, Central America, Hispanic South America, Mideast, etc.), large-national (US, China, etc.), and continental action (EU) is the way to go.

EDIT: I mean a very strict interpretation of "simultaneous global revolution." The transnational coordination I write of can mix uprisings with politically expropriated cruise missiles aimed at fortified reactionary paramilitary units.

[Q]

Country-by-country revolution is antiquated, and simultaneous global revolution fails to take into account uneven development.

Transnational coordination for a mix of large-regional (FSU, Central America, Hispanic South America, Mideast, etc.), large-national (US, China, etc.), and continental action (EU) is the way to go.

It is not only the way to go, it is already going that way. This is exactly what we see happening in the Arabic region: A revolutionary upsurge that has set the whole region in flames in virtually no time at all.

Of course that doesn't mean things happen in a vacuum and it does affect other countries/regions, such as Europe's "real democracy" movement right now! What we also see is that the character of such a wave is different per region. For now, the "real democracy" movement is not nearly as politically developed or as intense as the Arabic revolutionary wave.

Such regional revolutionary waves are also hardly new. Europe had several, such as 1848 and 1968. The reason why they happen is because of a common language (ok, not so the case in Europe), a common culture, a common history and a common sense of being.

A second reason is that capitalism, now more than ever perhaps, is a global system. Within it there is a state hierarchy and a dispersed economical system.

Revolutions country-by-country are completely utopian and will end in utter disaster exactly for that latter reason: The country would simply go bankrupt before the end of the week. For this reason we cannot simply strive for a DOTP on a national scale for much of the same reason that we can't do it on a municipal scale. A regional/continental scale however might actually provide a higher living standard and the start of a positive overall answer to capitalism.

However, all said and done, I remain somewhat unconvinced by DNZ's meme on "pan-nationalism". I don't believe it should be our duty, as communists, to swap one type of proletarian divide for another.

[Dunk]

I find it interesting how Marxists have projected different orders of countries throughout the years...But I would agree that it seems for now that the US is a ways away as compared to some other countries right now.

I know this doesn't mean much, but I've always thought that the US or North America at large is either going to be the first, or the very last.

[Die Neue Zeit]

However, all said and done, I remain somewhat unconvinced by DNZ's meme on "pan-nationalism". I don't believe it should be our duty, as communists, to swap one type of proletarian divide for another.

Comrade, Pan-Nationalism of both working-class and Third World Caesarean Socialist forms is meant to instill unity beyond national divides and the increasing tendency whose worst incarnation is Balkanization.

[Comrade_Oscar]

Socialist revolution will occur country by country but a communist revolution from the socialist state would largely be worldwide. It is difficult to say for sure since it has never happened but for a communism to be reached a large amount of the world's population would have to live in socialist states and the change to communism would be in large section. Like continent by continent but as soon as the first one becomes communist the others will follow suite quickly.

[Zav]

I don't think it can happen worldwide or country by country, but rather only by the rising of local federations. The most successful Communist revolution happened this way, and most, if not all, of the "Communist" States have failed, except for Cuba perhaps, but even Cuba is becoming more and more Capitalist.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I don't think it can happen worldwide or country by country, but rather only by the rising of local federations. The most successful Communist revolution happened this way, and most, if not all, of the "Communist" States have failed, except for Cuba perhaps, but even Cuba is becoming more and more Capitalist.

[insert facepalm here]