Convincing The World

[Jazz 98 757]

It seems that when Socialism arises it comes out of a country that is in need of certain things like food, healthcare, security and housing.

Russia changed into The USSR because the citizens were enslaved by the Tsar. When Lenin came up out of the ashes he gave the people hope and they all worked together to overthrow Nicholas II. The way it worked was that the people participated in it. When The Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the people weren't communist anymore, they wanted a free market and Capitalism and ultimately the economy collapsed.

Cuba's story was very similar. When Fidel Castro and his Guerrillas arrived in Cuba from South America by boat the people were given hope that their cruel Capitalist dictator could be thrown out of power. America at the time controlled a lot of the food producers on Cuba and sold the wares. The people helped Fidel Castro and his guerrillas and helped in the end overthrow the Capitalists. But, Of course Cuba is still Communist along with Vietnam, China and North Korea.

The only way to achieve true Communism is to have a poor, starving, sick country. Countries in Africa could possibly be next on the list of Communist countries. Rich countries such as Australia, America, Europe and The Middle East might be a bit hard to convince to be Communist. Because they of course believe that Communism doesn't work.

[citizen of industry]

What makes you think people in "rich" countries like Australia, America, Europe and the Middle East are not poor and in need of things like food, healthcare, security and housing. Much of the working class in these countries lack these things. Many of them are poor, starving and sick. The workers don't share in the "riches" that the bourgeoisie take in these countries.

[The Intransigent Faction]

It seems that when Socialism arises it comes out of a country that is in need of certain things like food, healthcare, security and housing.

Russia changed into The USSR because the citizens were enslaved by the Tsar. When Lenin came up out of the ashes he gave the people hope and they all worked together to overthrow Nicholas II. The way it worked was that the people participated in it. When The Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the people weren't communist anymore, they wanted a free market and Capitalism and ultimately the economy collapsed.

Cuba's story was very similar. When Fidel Castro and his Guerrillas arrived in Cuba from South America by boat the people were given hope that their cruel Capitalist dictator could be thrown out of power. America at the time controlled a lot of the food producers on Cuba and sold the wares. The people helped Fidel Castro and his guerrillas and helped in the end overthrow the Capitalists. But, Of course Cuba is still Communist along with Vietnam, China and North Korea.

The only way to achieve true Communism is to have a poor, starving, sick country. Countries in Africa could possibly be next on the list of Communist countries. Rich countries such as Australia, America, Europe and The Middle East might be a bit hard to convince to be Communist. Because they of course believe that Communism doesn't work.

So you're arguing for Maoist Third-Worldism?

I'll admit that I for a while shared your cynical attitude toward the revolutionary potential of the first world. Sure, there is an extreme disparity in the West as well and, more importantly, capitalist/private ownership of the means of production, but most workers in the West are in a better position than others in the third-world in terms of working conditions, labour laws, etc.

But if you haven't noticed, things are crashing down economically in the West these days and people are pissed. Btw, saying "Australia, America, Europe and The Middle East...believe communism doesn't work"? I don't know wtf that's supposed to mean. "Europe" for example does not "believe" anything---Europeans, on the other hand, do, and I'm sure any comrades from these countries would disagree with that generalization.

[Nox]

Just rename Communism to "Collective Democracy" or some shit like that, and people will flock to it like sheep

[Ostrinski]

Crises create the conditions that you list as necessary for communism to be plausible, in the developed world as well as underdeveloped.

[roy]

Communism doesn't exist within a country. Countries with communist governments have all quickly reverted to capitalism because revolution hasn't spread. Most people don't really know what communism is and that's not because they're stupid, but because they've never been exposed to it. Capitalism is going to the dogs worldwide and revolution will only take place when the workers themselves seize control of production. Communism isn't something that's forced through by an elite. That's been tried and it's failed. Consciousness isn't as big a factor as it may appear.

[Ostrinski]

Just rename Communism to "Collective Democracy" or some shit like that, and people will flock to it like sheepIsn't that redundant?

[Prometeo liberado]

I'm sure I am butchering it here but the idea that socialism came to be where it did was due to the fact that the bourgeois was at its weakest there. The amount of suffering is relative.

[dodger]

Just rename Communism to "Collective Democracy" or some shit like that, and people will flock to it like sheep

Sheep? yes we just need a good shepherd to guide us. Thanks Nox, I nominate you.

[Caj]

Russia changed into The USSR because the citizens were enslaved by the Tsar. When Lenin came up out of the ashes he gave the people hope and they all worked together to overthrow Nicholas II.

Common misconception. The Czar was actually overthrown in a popular revolution in March 1917, eight months prior to the advent of the Bolshevik Revolution in November. The Bolsheviks overthrew Kerensky's provisional government, not the Czar.


When The Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the people weren't communist anymore, they wanted a free market and Capitalism and ultimately the economy collapsed.

The people didn't "want" free market capitalism. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the reinstitution of private capitalism was disastrous, resulting in widespread poverty, government corruption, and rampant organized crime.


But, Of course Cuba is still Communist along with Vietnam, China and North Korea.

No, they are not communist. They are state capitalist dictatorships.


The only way to achieve true Communism is to have a poor, starving, sick country. Countries in Africa could possibly be next on the list of Communist countries. Rich countries such as Australia, America, Europe and The Middle East might be a bit hard to convince to be Communist. Because they of course believe that Communism doesn't work.

I wasn't aware that the Middle East and Europe were countries :p

[daft punk]

It seems that when Socialism arises it comes out of a country that is in need of certain things like food, healthcare, security and housing.

Russia changed into The USSR because the citizens were enslaved by the Tsar. When Lenin came up out of the ashes he gave the people hope and they all worked together to overthrow Nicholas II. The way it worked was that the people participated in it. When The Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the people weren't communist anymore, they wanted a free market and Capitalism and ultimately the economy collapsed.

Cuba's story was very similar. When Fidel Castro and his Guerrillas arrived in Cuba from South America by boat the people were given hope that their cruel Capitalist dictator could be thrown out of power. America at the time controlled a lot of the food producers on Cuba and sold the wares. The people helped Fidel Castro and his guerrillas and helped in the end overthrow the Capitalists. But, Of course Cuba is still Communist along with Vietnam, China and North Korea.

The only way to achieve true Communism is to have a poor, starving, sick country. Countries in Africa could possibly be next on the list of Communist countries. Rich countries such as Australia, America, Europe and The Middle East might be a bit hard to convince to be Communist. Because they of course believe that Communism doesn't work.
Those countries were not communist. For a good explanation of why the Russian revolution happened, read In Defence of October by Trotsky.

[TrotskistMarx]

True, but you know the minds of people is complicated. Humans are confused, psychologically terrorized and stressed. If you think about it, millions of poor people vote for capitalist parties. And poor countries like Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and other poor small countries have a very elitist, feudalist, oligarchical mentality, less liberal than big developed nations.

Another point to take into consideration is that the capitalist system of poor nations is a total mess, it is a sort of lumpen-capitalist system, mixed with a narco-state, lots of corruption and evil and no laws, no regulations. And are close to a state of barbarism.

The catholic church takes advantage of societies with low levels of education. That's why the catholic church is so strong in many poor countries. You see the populations of those narco-corrupt barbarian nations like Honduras, Mexico, Colombia, Haiti, El Salvador have a very obsolete, backwards way of thinking. There is an excess of the catholic church ruling the way of thinking and behaviour of most people there. And even their soap operas and television programs are very catholic-oriented. And that's why in poorer nations oligarchic corrupt political parties are still powerful. And progressive populist reformists parties are very very weak, and not very popular. I THINK THAT THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM (OF LETTING VERY STUPID PEOPLE TO CHOOSE THE DESTINY OF COUNTRIES IS REALLY A REAL WELL-PLANNED CONSPIRACY BY OLIGARCHIC RULERS ELITES, THEY KNOW DEEP IN THEIR HEARTS THAT THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS FROM MOST COUNTRIES ARE UN-EDUCATED AND VERY DUMB, SO THEY WILL BE EASILY MIND-MANIPULATED BY THE PRO-TRADITIONAL OLIGARCHIC POLITICAL PARTY TV COMMERCIALS, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS OF WHY OLIGARCHIC CORRUPT PARTIES ARE SO SUCCESFUL IN MOST COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD)

Of course with the exception of the nations of Latin America that are heading toward socialism, but they are a minority in this world.

The populations and societies of the poor countries of this world are very backwards, un-educated, stressed out because in many poor countries the minimum salary a month is around 150 dollars to 400 dollars. Poor countries have a very corrupt capitalist neoliberal system. And the living standards and way of life of poor countries is a hell on earth, compared to the living standards of rich bigger countries of the G-8 and G-20

In fact some marxist writters claim that capitalism will be overthrown first in the G-20 nations (The 20 richest countries of the world) and then spread to the poorer countries. Because like I said the levels of book-reading, literacy, thinking, rational thinking of the people of rich countries is a lot worse than the education levels of people big countries. So thepeople of big countries have more psychologic abilities to digest socialism, to welcome socialism and to support a socialist labor party in their governments, than the population of poorer nations with higher levels of illiteracy rates.


But all of us here wish that socialism could happen right now in the whole world, real quick because the capitalist system in both rich countries and poor countries is turning the life of people into a hell on earth, a hell of stress, taxed to death, billed to death, high unemployment and absolutely no opportunities within the capitalist system to live a normal life here on earth without stress.

Thanks


.



It seems that when Socialism arises it comes out of a country that is in need of certain things like food, healthcare, security and housing.

Russia changed into The USSR because the citizens were enslaved by the Tsar. When Lenin came up out of the ashes he gave the people hope and they all worked together to overthrow Nicholas II. The way it worked was that the people participated in it. When The Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the people weren't communist anymore, they wanted a free market and Capitalism and ultimately the economy collapsed.

Cuba's story was very similar. When Fidel Castro and his Guerrillas arrived in Cuba from South America by boat the people were given hope that their cruel Capitalist dictator could be thrown out of power. America at the time controlled a lot of the food producers on Cuba and sold the wares. The people helped Fidel Castro and his guerrillas and helped in the end overthrow the Capitalists. But, Of course Cuba is still Communist along with Vietnam, China and North Korea.

The only way to achieve true Communism is to have a poor, starving, sick country. Countries in Africa could possibly be next on the list of Communist countries. Rich countries such as Australia, America, Europe and The Middle East might be a bit hard to convince to be Communist. Because they of course believe that Communism doesn't work.

[daft punk]

It seems that when Socialism arises it comes out of a country that is in need of certain things like food, healthcare, security and housing.

Russia changed into The USSR because the citizens were enslaved by the Tsar. When Lenin came up out of the ashes he gave the people hope and they all worked together to overthrow Nicholas II. The way it worked was that the people participated in it. When The Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the people weren't communist anymore, they wanted a free market and Capitalism and ultimately the economy collapsed.

Cuba's story was very similar. When Fidel Castro and his Guerrillas arrived in Cuba from South America by boat the people were given hope that their cruel Capitalist dictator could be thrown out of power. America at the time controlled a lot of the food producers on Cuba and sold the wares. The people helped Fidel Castro and his guerrillas and helped in the end overthrow the Capitalists. But, Of course Cuba is still Communist along with Vietnam, China and North Korea.

The only way to achieve true Communism is to have a poor, starving, sick country. Countries in Africa could possibly be next on the list of Communist countries. Rich countries such as Australia, America, Europe and The Middle East might be a bit hard to convince to be Communist. Because they of course believe that Communism doesn't work.
Revolutions are most likely to happen in backward countries, because capitalism is weakest there. But you cant achieve socialism in one country, especially a backward one. None of the so-called 'communist' countries was ever socialist or communist. Only Russia even tried to be, up to 1924.

[bricolage]

seriously, 'backward' is such a chauvinistic word to use

[Tim Cornelis]

People often have a wrong view of Africa. While it is true that Africa is the poorest continent in the world, with the highest level of malnourished children, widespread porverty, etc.. The difference between Africa, Asia, and the Western world are smaller than you would think looking at the income level. The problem is, in Africa costs of living are very low. Poor communities in America may just be as poor as a median civilian in Botswana or Senegal, but when those American members of poor communities move to Africa they become 'rich' since the costs of living in Africa are low.

New figures released this year show that 1 in 4 Europeans lives around the poverty line, meaning they either cannot afford to pay for groceries or rent, or are just able to do so. Meanwhile, another research showed that 1 in 3 Africans is now middle class if take both income, spending, and cost of living into account.

True, Africa is the poor and I do not want to minimise this, but I do want to put in perspective.

[Delenda Carthago]

http://www.cepr.net/images/stories/report_images/low-wage-fig1-2012-01.jpg

[daft punk]

seriously, 'backward' is such a chauvinistic word to use

No. Backward is an accurate word. If a country is semi-feudal, largely illiterate, has little industry, has a tiny urban working class, has hardly any indigenous capitalism, if it's indigenous capitalism is not playing a progressive role, it is a backward country. An advanced country has a capitalist economy, with most people being urban working class. Advanced countries are not dominated by other countries. Advanced countries usually have bourgeois democracy.

Russia in 1917 had a smaller percentage of urban workers than India has today, by far. China was about the same. I would say Yugoslavia was in 1945, and some other Eastern European countries. A backward country means mainly peasant. It is a vital distinction for Marxists.

[daft punk]

People often have a wrong view of Africa. While it is true that Africa is the poorest continent in the world, with the highest level of malnourished children, widespread porverty, etc.. The difference between Africa, Asia, and the Western world are smaller than you would think looking at the income level. The problem is, in Africa costs of living are very low. Poor communities in America may just be as poor as a median civilian in Botswana or Senegal, but when those American members of poor communities move to Africa they become 'rich' since the costs of living in Africa are low.

New figures released this year show that 1 in 4 Europeans lives around the poverty line, meaning they either cannot afford to pay for groceries or rent, or are just able to do so. Meanwhile, another research showed that 1 in 3 Africans is now middle class if take both income, spending, and cost of living into account.

True, Africa is the poor and I do not want to minimise this, but I do want to put in perspective.

My mate goes to Africa, she runs a charidee. Trust me, there is poverty there alright. Kids walk miles to school, if they can afford to go.

40% of the worlds population live on less than $2 per day. Cost of living is taken into account, this is PPP

"
Purchasing power parity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity#mw-head), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity#p-search)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/GDP_PPP_per_capita_2009_IMF.png/400px-GDP_PPP_per_capita_2009_IMF.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_PPP_per_capita_2009_IMF.png)
GDP per capita adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) in the world, 2007

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/PPP2003.svg/400px-PPP2003.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPP2003.svg)
Purchasing power parity adjustment for the world (2003). The economy of the United States is used as a reference, and is set at 100. Bermuda has the highest index value at 154; this means that goods sold there are more expensive than in the US.



In economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), purchasing power parity (PPP) asks how much money would be needed to purchase the same goods and services in two different countries, and uses that to calculate an implicit foreign exchange rate."

[Zav]

Just rename Communism to "Collective Democracy" or some shit like that, and people will flock to it like sheep
The problem with that is the word 'collective'. It translates to 'hippie', 'WACO', 'drugs', and 'troublemakers' in the eyes of the sheeple. Also, that would be the only time the right-wing media would get the definition of Communism correct. They would say, ''Look! These people are really Commies trying to trick poor America!'' bringing in memories (and propaganda) of the Cold War, Vietnam, Korea, and Cuba.

[Connolly Was There1916]

Revolutions are most likely to happen in backward countries, because capitalism is weakest there. But you cant achieve socialism in one country, especially a backward one. None of the so-called 'communist' countries was ever socialist or communist. Only Russia even tried to be, up to 1924.

Well said. The lack of food or any basic commodities being a reason for an attempt at Communist revolution in a country is inextricably entwined with the weakness of the bourgeoise/government that governs it. But as you say the benefit of hindsight has shown us that for it to be sustainable or successful there would have to be a worldwide proletarian revolution, and not just an isolated one.

[TrotskistMarx]

Hi, this is off topic. But this phrase is very true. You see in the USA many people filling their garages of stupid gadgets and toys and stuff. Just to make their lives a hell on earth. I just don't understand how can a human being live a peaceful life a live of motivation and strength, with so many gadgets and irrelevant stuff that americans have in their houses. According to the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer the 2 basic requirements for self-realization and personal liberty and power are a great mind, and a great body. The material things that humans need must really be devoted as tools to fulfill the self-realization objective of having a great mind, which can be fullfilled with lots of books, playing an instrument, and a great health and body from a healthy lifestyle, and a healthy diet. All the other things that the masses-slaves buy on a regular basis on the stupid shopping centers and mega-stores are absurdities, inanities and just make our lives a hell on earth.

Thanks




"When I was an adolescent, I was obsessed with having many commercial things, cars, clothes, stupid things. Now that I have all that, I understand that the superfluous things can turn you into a very stupid idiot-type. In East Germany there were very few things, but there was also a feeling of solidarity that no longer exists. Now we are up to the neck in consumption, the ego, the individualism. Now before friendship, it is merchandise." - Till Lindemann, Lead Singer of Rammstein




Just rename Communism to "Collective Democracy" or some shit like that, and people will flock to it like sheep

[TrotskistMarx]

Indeed, you are right. The thing is that most americans take for granted the electricity that they have 24 hours a day, water, and food. But there are millions and millions of people in this world, like in Haiti, Dominican Republic, Panama, Honduras, and even Mexico who some people in USA think that Mexico is some sort of Italy or France. But trust me Mexico like a sort of oligarchic dictatorship just like India and Saudi Arabia.

So this world right now is full of suffering and pain. And it is the task of the marxists of rich countries who have more phyisical, mental, psychologic to put away their sectarian petty differences, their personal favorite leftist ideologists and to unite into United Leftist Front in each of the rich developed countries. To see if the marxist left can rise to government. And then spread socialism to poorer nations






My mate goes to Africa, she runs a charidee. Trust me, there is poverty there alright. Kids walk miles to school, if they can afford to go.

40% of the worlds population live on less than $2 per day. Cost of living is taken into account, this is PPP

"
Purchasing power parity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity#mw-head), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity#p-search)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/GDP_PPP_per_capita_2009_IMF.png/400px-GDP_PPP_per_capita_2009_IMF.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_PPP_per_capita_2009_IMF.png)
GDP per capita adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) in the world, 2007

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/PPP2003.svg/400px-PPP2003.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPP2003.svg)
Purchasing power parity adjustment for the world (2003). The economy of the United States is used as a reference, and is set at 100. Bermuda has the highest index value at 154; this means that goods sold there are more expensive than in the US.



In economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), purchasing power parity (PPP) asks how much money would be needed to purchase the same goods and services in two different countries, and uses that to calculate an implicit foreign exchange rate."

[ckaihatsu]

I'd like to point out that there's a *flip-side* to all of the negatives you're using in your stereotype -- that, amidst all of the mind-*less* consumerism there is also mind-*ful* consumerism, or the access to varying kinds of individuality that we would otherwise *not have* if it weren't for gadgets and stuff.

A basic example would be that musical instrument that's so revered by culture junkies. The musician would not be able to do their craft and provide us with the music we enjoy so much -- that we choose according to our individual tastes -- if it weren't for the consumerism related to having a variety of musical instruments to select from in the first place.

Extending this example outward we now have gadgets to *store* and *transport* this music in a digital form so that we don't have to *burden* musicians with requests for performances *every time* we want to hear our favorite music.





The material things that humans need must really be devoted as tools to fulfill the self-realization objective of having a great mind, which can be fullfilled with lots of books, playing an instrument, and a great health and body from a healthy lifestyle, and a healthy diet.


You're being entirely presumptuous here in claiming that you *know* what self-realization is for every single person on the planet, and that one-size-fits-all. Perhaps for some the realization of their own individuality requires *more* stuff or a *different* life-path than study, the playing of music, exercising, and being healthy, respectively.

An enlightened society is one that *provides* whatever material resources a person deems necessary for their own life and living, and does not *prescribe* which items are "correct" and which are "incorrect". If societal implications arise from certain personal practices then those can be dealt with as political issues -- hopefully beyond authoritarian priorities for profits and power.