How does the World Revolution Work?

[CommiePhilosiphy]

I understand that for Communism to really take effect then the world would have to be Communist, this will happen after the world Revolution.
Makes Sense.

But do we expect all nations to have a revolution all at once? What are we suppose to do if you nation has it's revolution before the other?

[CommiePhilosiphy]

Bump

[TheGodlessUtopian]

All revolutions wouldn't happen at once, but as time went on each nation which underwent a revolution would hold onto socialistic elements as long as possible until the other nations underwent revolutions. In this way it is also a domino effect: one nation undergoes revolution and another is agitated further.

For more of this you might wish to look into Permanent revolution and Socialism in One Country, as both theories have stances on how the world would go communist (both are viciously opposed to one another though).

[Rooster]

The revolution will have to spread and expand quickly. You cant stick it in a holding pattern. Thinking that you can is living in a fairy tale where you can control the erupting productive forces. There's good reason to think that revolution will spread quickly, and very quickly if it happens in a highly developed state. Look at 1848, the years around 1917 and recently, the arab spring. all of those events were accompanied by revolutionary activity all over the place. people dont just decide to put the breaks on revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

What happens if the revolution doesn't spread is that the revolutionary territory militarises its economy, must constantly be on guard for dissatisfaction and outright rebellion (promoted by the capitalists on the outside, the white Restorationists on the inside, and increasing the working class itself who launched a revolution to be free and find themselves in a brutal prison camp with a new flag), and eventually just becomes another capitalist state again.

Or, maybe that's the plot of a bad science-fiction. No, wait, it was the history of the 20th century.

What 'your nation' has to do if it has its revolution before the others is to be a beacon for the rest of the world; not invade Poland, not massacre its own working class, other revolutionary minorities not of the 'ruling party', not indeed have a 'ruling party', not provoke a religious war in Central Asia on the grounds that British Imperialism will probably suffer because of it but work for world proletarian revolution instead, not make deals with the German, Turkish and Chinese bourgeoisies that result in the massacres of German, Turkish and Chinese workers and communists, not suppress genuine revolutionary attempts in the interests of 'your nation''s increasingly Byzantine foreign policy, etc.

[Brosip Tito]

The revolution will have to spread and expand quickly. You cant stick it in a holding pattern. Thinking that you can is living in a fairy tale where you can control the erupting productive forces. There's good reason to think that revolution will spread quickly, and very quickly if it happens in a highly developed state. Look at 1848, the years around 1917 and recently, the arab spring. all of those events were accompanied by revolutionary activity all over the place. people dont just decide to put the breaks on revolution.
Precisely.

The Russian revolution was banking, heavily, on the victory of the German workers in their revolution. The taking of the most advanced European country would have lead to the taking of less advanced European countries, and would push the yet more advanced countries (UK, etc.) to be taken by the workers.

As it spread through Europe and Asian, it would eventually go to North and Latin America, Australia, etc.

Sadly, the German revolution failed.

[Tim Finnegan]

Does it even make sense to talk of proletarian revolution in "national" terms? Even if you look at the period 1917-1921, when the unreconstructed Jacobin tendencies of many intellectuals lead them to describe events in such a fashion, class struggle had only a very limited national character; the key relationship wasn't between "nations" (which are, after all, simply the form adopted by the bourgoisie for divvying up territory) and the international movement, but between regions and that movement. It is telling that famous "Red Xs" of that era- Petrograd, Turin, Clydeside, etc.- overwhelmingly denoted industrial metropoli, rather than identifiable "nations"; concrete rather than imagined communities.

To the extent that the "nation" enters into it, its a question of the extent to which the existing distribution of power among bourgeois states effects the development of proletarian power; the collapse of a given bourgeois government may lead to a "national" area more rapidly coming under proletarian power than neighbouring "national" areas. But even that is simply a possibility, rather than a rule, the period 1917-21 again illustrating the essential fiction of national sovereignty, with multiple "national" governments persisting within single "national" territories.