Is socialism possible in rich countries?

[Regicollis]

In rich countries the average worker is doing relatively well. He has so much left after having been robbed by his employer that he can afford a comfortable life, he can afford to own his own house, to go on vacations etc.

This relatively comfortable life style has made it possible to fool these workers into believing they are petty bourgeois and has made it possible for the otherwise intelligent people who populate the media and academia to believe absurdities like "the class war is over", "there is no working class any more" etc., etc.

Because they don't see themselves as workers these workers adopt hostile views towards those workers who are worse off than they are themselves like the unemployed, immigrants etc. They believe the bourgeois propaganda that their enemy is placed below them on the social ladder.

I know this is a rather crude generalisation but I think there is a clear tendency in this direction.

Is it possible at all to get these workers to demand socialism? As they are the majority their support is necessary for a revolution to happen.

Without their support the best we can hope for is that the lumpen proletariat becomes so militant and dangerous that the bourgeoisie has to enact reformist welfare policies to appease them.

Alternatively we can wait for some kind of economical or environmental collapse that will be devastating to virtually all. Such a collapse is likely to be the outcome if capitalism is allowed to continue and with the state of the world taken into account I think the post-collapse society is more likely to be fascist than socialist.

So basically my question is: Do you think a successful socialist revolution is possible in the rich parts of the world?

[Brosip Tito]

Marx saw revolution as occuring FIRST in the most advanced nations. So yes, and necessarily so.

[Blanquist]

The whole 'working-class' bringing about socialism is wrong to the core and refuted by the experience of the last 100 years.

'Revolution' happens when there is a deep-crisis, and the last 100 years saw a myriad of these cases. When there is a crisis, a small, disciplined group of professional revolutionaries should take power with a socialist programme. The masses will accept it with euphoria, if the leaders are willing to provide it.

In 1917 Russia the workers were no less reactionary then today's workers, but when their crisis struck, they were lucky to have the Bolshevik party show them the way.

When there is no party of the Lenin-type, then reaction will win out, time and time again.

The most important thing for serious socialists, is to build a genuine party of global socialism, with a steel spine, a concrete plan, and most importantly: the will to take power when the moment strikes.

We intend to build that party!

[Regicollis]

My Marxist theory is a little rusty but wasn't Marx' predictions dependent on the working class living in poverty?

I mean if workers live in relative comfort why would they be angry enough to revolt?

[Regicollis]

Forgive me for coming off as sarcastic but where is this genuine party of global socialism with a steel spine? If there is such a thing it is awfully silent. Most socialist parties seems to be small political sects that seems more interested in hair-splitting arguments with each other than in fighting capitalism.

[roy]

The whole 'working-class' bringing about socialism is wrong to the core and refuted by the experience of the last 100 years.

'Revolution' happens when there is a deep-crisis, and the last 100 years saw a myriad of these cases. When there is a crisis, a small, disciplined group of professional revolutionaries should take power with a socialist programme. The masses will accept it with euphoria, if the leaders are willing to provide it.

In 1917 Russia the workers were no more reactionary then today's workers, but when their crisis struck, they were lucky to have the Bolshevik party show them the way.

When there is no party of the Lenin-type, then reaction will win out, time and time again.

The most important thing for serious socialists, is to build a genuine party of global socialism, with a steel spine, a concrete plan, and most importantly: the will to take power when the moment strikes.

We intend to build that party!

still not sure if trolling. probably, idc

if you'll recall, revolution stagnated and the bolsheviks were pretty prompt about centralising power in the hands of the party. understandable, given their new role as the bourgeoisie. only the working class is capable of working class revolution, hence the term. the last 100 years of experience clearly don't mean all that much considering we're experiencing global capitalism in full throttle. the bitter truth is we don't know when/how/why/if there will be global proletarian revolution, but you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be facilitated by some secret cadre of super-socialists.

[Blanquist]

My Marxist theory is a little rusty but wasn't Marx' predictions dependent on the working class living in poverty?

I mean if workers live in relative comfort why would they be angry enough to revolt?

Revolution's don't happen because people are poor, if they did then there would be revolution everywhere and always.

They happen due to a certain set of circumstances.

For example, auto-workers in Detroit used to make $28 /hour, for what was pretty unskilled labour, in many cases just screwing on a tire. Today new workers start at half that pay, at $14 dollars /hour.

That is the result of the crisis, a feature inherent in capitalism, during crises periods living standards are eroded, working people are told they have to accept the new way of life, they don't want to and don't see a way out, can't imagine a better life for their children etc, etc.

[hatzel]

Revolution's don't happen because people are poor, if they did then there would be revolution everywhere and always.

There's revolution everywhere and always.

[Deicide]

Marx saw revolution as occuring FIRST in the most advanced nations. So yes, and necessarily so.

Well.. that was disproved.. by reality.

[Brosip Tito]

Well.. that was disproved.. by reality.
Let me rephrase:

**Successful revolutions that actually lead to socialism.

Soviet Russia would never achieve socialism, nor would Communist China or Cuba, without the most advanced capitalist nations falling to proletariat revolution...as reality has proven.

It is precisely the failure of the proletariat to seize the state apparatus and means of production in the most advanced nations which resulted in the inability of these less advanced nations to achieve/maintain a dotp, let alone achieve socailism.

[Marxaveli]

Marx saw revolution as occuring FIRST in the most advanced nations. So yes, and necessarily so.

This. The fact revolution has only occurred in backwards or 3rd world Nations thus far has contributed widely to why Capitalism still dominates society. Of course, the right likes to cover this up by blaming the ideology instead, and not the backwards geopolitics or material circumstances involved. Revolution HAS to occur in the hyper-capitalist societies first, so they can help the less powerful nations implement their own revolutions as well as directly provide resources. But revolution in a 3rd world nation FIRST will never work, the Capitalist nations will just eat them alive or force them to become totalitarian dictatorships so the leaders in said nations keep their interests protected.

[JAM]

Didn't occur to anybody that presently the richer countries (European Countries and USA) are the ones getting poorer due to the recent crisis? This retraction in rich countries is enough to create a revolutionary situation as it's happening in Greece and soon in Portugal and Spain. This just to say that revolutionary situations can occur in rich countries also, although as Lenin said not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution.

[Manic Impressive]

My Marxist theory is a little rusty but wasn't Marx' predictions dependent on the working class living in poverty?

I mean if workers live in relative comfort why would they be angry enough to revolt?
But you could also say that those living in poverty have more of their time dedicated to surviving and so simply don't have the time to be revolutionary. This is quite evident throughout much of the third world where people live in conditions which if we were in their position we couldn't take it. Workers in developed countries have higher standards of living and higher expectations from life, so when something is taken away from them they get really angry. So it's not simply how low material conditions are it's how much they have declined which prompts people to become revolutionary.

[Ocean Seal]

Let me rephrase:

**Successful revolutions that actually lead to socialism.

Soviet Russia would never achieve socialism, nor would Communist China or Cuba, without the most advanced capitalist nations falling to proletariat revolution...as reality has proven.

It is precisely the failure of the proletariat to seize the state apparatus and means of production in the most advanced nations which resulted in the inability of these less advanced nations to achieve/maintain a dotp, let alone achieve socailism.
Yep, just look at all those successful revolutions in the advanced first world countries.

We can't predict where capitalism will break. We will fight it everywhere and always, first, second, or third world.

[Marxaveli]

But Capitalism is a broken system before it even gets off the ground, due to its intrinsic contradictions. Order's post is based on one of the important aspects of Scientific Socialism, that revolution HAS to occur in first world nations prior to other places, because they are the mecca of the problems (Capitalism) origin as well as where the resources are that would be used to implement the revolution abroad. If you start in a 3rd world country, that nation as I said before, will be exploited by the imperialist first world nations. It doesn't have the power or the resources to create revolution elsewhere (at least not to a meaningful degree), as the first world nations do.

Why do you think places like America are so reactionary? That powers that be know this stuff, and know that if revolution were to take place there, they could kiss Capitalism goodbye. Thus the media is used, along with various other tools of propaganda, to push forward false consciousness and misconceptions that reinforce social norms and culture to preserve the status quo. People are conditioned to think and react a certain way upon hearing words like "Communism", Socialism, and even Capitalism and Fascism, even though most of them are dumber than shit and have no clue what these words really mean.

[NewLeft]

Didn't occur to anybody that presently the richer countries (European Countries and USA) are the ones getting poorer due to the recent crisis? This retraction in rich countries is enough to create a revolutionary situation as it's happening in Greece and soon in Portugal and Spain. This just to say that revolutionary situations can occur in rich countries also, although as Lenin said not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution.
Well, the countries themselves are not getting poorer, it's the proletariat that is getting poorer.

[Brosip Tito]

Yep, just look at all those successful revolutions in the advanced first world countries. This argument reminds me of the Stalinist canard of "so, how many Trotskyist revolutions have there been??"


We can't predict where capitalism will break. We will fight it everywhere and always, first, second, or third world.
We know that capitalism will not break until the advanced capitalist countries fall to the proletarian revolution. Unless you prescribe to Stalin's SioC revisionist bullshit.

No, I'm not opposed to revolutions occurring in third and second world countries. However, it needs to be acknowledged that they will not be able to progress to socialism without the advanced capitalist nations being taken by the proletariat.

[Revolution starts with U]

The Revolution is going to happen whether or not you guys engage in petty party politics. It's an inevitability born of the fact that as capitalism stupidly gives its workers an economic foundation to stand on, they will use this newfound power to wrestle away control of society by the capitalists.

It's likely that the ruling class will respond to this, as they historically have, with terrible violence. If that be the case, we must be ready to respond in kind, and a little more on top of that. This is why they call it "warfare."

[Marxaveli]

Yes, and this was the primary reason the Paris Commune of 1871 failed - the workers were not aggressive enough against the reactionaries from Versailles.

[JAM]

Well, the countries themselves are not getting poorer, it's the proletariat that is getting poorer.

No, it's really the countries and the proletariat too of course. This crisis is the result of the de-industrialization of Europe and the subsequent relocation of Wealth from the West to the emerging economies.

[Pretty Flaco]

socialism is not possible in rich countries. so everyone in them must die.

[Deicide]

socialism is not possible in rich countries. so everyone in them must die.

We'll start with you!

[ed miliband]

man does not survive on food and liquid alone - no matter how well-fed the working class are capitalism will still be a thoroughly alienating and "dehumanising" experience

this is true everywhere

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Besides the whole "Marx said it, so it must be true" argument, rich countries have developed and industrialized enough to reach a stage of post-scarcity more quickly and achieve pure communism much faster.

[Railyon]

The Revolution is going to happen whether or not you guys engage in petty party politics.

Why so sure? It's socialism or barbarism, the or implies there might be an alternative: destruction of all life on Earth. Cuban Missile Crisis gone bad, anyone?

[Deicide]

The Revolution is going to happen whether or not you guys engage in petty party politics.

I think the teleological view of Communism has been thoroughly discredited.

[Revolution starts with U]

Why so sure? It's socialism or barbarism, the or implies there might be an alternative: destruction of all life on Earth. Cuban Missile Crisis gone bad, anyone?

And


I think the teleological view of Communism has been thoroughly discredited.

Whether or not formal revolution is declared, the Revolution is an intrinsic function of capitalism.

[Tim Finnegan]

Well.. that was disproved.. by reality.
How so?

[Deicide]

How so?

Revolution occurred in Tsarist Russia.

[Raúl Duke]

My Marxist theory is a little rusty but wasn't Marx' predictions dependent on the working class living in poverty?

I mean if workers live in relative comfort why would they be angry enough to revolt?

Do workers truly live in relative comfort, even in the "first world?"

Sure, I guess, if you compare it to the deprivation that people suffer in Africa, et.al

But that's not really the point.
The North-American and European working class are suffering from their own set of problems, which have become incrementally worse (and during this worsening even some relatively comfortable members of the working class are now struggling), besides the mounting income inequality between classes, in this "economic crisis," which may not exactly be an economic crisis in a general sense (it sure isn't a crisis for the rich, in fact it may be a boon for them) but perhaps that the capitalist economies "re-structuring" towards a new trend of decline in standard of living for the working class in these nations.

In this process of transition, one can see that in certain nations the levels of unrest have increased; but it's yet to be seen if any of this will lead to upheaval/revolution.

I agree with what JAM and michel foubro.

[Railyon]

Whether or not formal revolution is declared, the Revolution is an intrinsic function of capitalism.

If by that you mean a resolving of its dialectic contradictions into either socialism or death... then yes.

[Tim Finnegan]

Revolution occurred in Tsarist Russia.
In the industrialised urban centres of Tsarist Russia. It's about the prevalence of certain social relations, not the GDP of fictitious national entities.

[hatzel]

If by that you mean a resolving of its dialectic contradictions into either socialism or death... then yes.

Why not both?

[Railyon]

Why not both?
Death is socialism - it's classless, stateless, etc everyone is equal.

Flawless logic

[Rooster]

Why so sure? It's socialism or barbarism, the or implies there might be an alternative: destruction of all life on Earth. Cuban Missile Crisis gone bad, anyone?

Yeah but he does raise a good point; petty party politics won't help any.

[Railyon]

Yeah but he does raise a good point; petty party politics won't help any.

Should be obvious I'm not arguing against that point... though it does have a kind of defeatist ring to it, like the nihilists.

[hatzel]

Death is socialism - it's classless, stateless, etc everyone is equal.

Flawless logic

I agree. Did Levinas not hold up death not as the final moment of our exclusive ownness and property, but as "something whose very existence is made of alterity"? This complete absorption into the Other, the final shattering of solitude, should thus be seen as the complete subversion of all existent hierarchies and oppositions, that is, pure anarchy, the purest of all anarchies, purer than anything achievable under the shadow of life...

I therefore demand socialism and death. Socialisme et barbarie. Shan't accept anything less...

[Rooster]

Should be obvious I'm not arguing against that point... though it does have a kind of defeatist ring to it, like the nihilists.

Stating the obvious is what I do best.