What country in the developed world is most suitable/ready for revolution?

[RedHammer]

In France, the PCF won 4 million votes last election, and that's a good sign. Also, communism isn't demonized in France the way it is in the USA, so that is encouraging.

A French socialist revolution would be such a massive victory for our struggle, as I suspect it would wake people up across Europe and then one by one other countries (like Spain) would undergo revolutions.

I suspect the US would be the last to undergo revolution, because of all the fear tactics and low class consciousness.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Moved to Politics

[Book O'Dead]

My answer to that question is United States.

Why?

Because only the most advanced form of capitalism can produce the most advanced proletariat.

Need I say more?

[RedHammer]

My answer to that question is United States.

Why?

Because only the most advanced form of capitalism can produce the most advanced proletariat.

Need I say more?

France has "advanced capitalism". It's as developed as the United States, and has higher class consciousness.

The United States is reactionary in comparison.

[passenger57]

You know I think it might be USA. But this is just a guess, however I might also be Spain or some other nation of Europe



In France, the PCF won 4 million votes last election, and that's a good sign. Also, communism isn't demonized in France the way it is in the USA, so that is encouraging.

A French socialist revolution would be such a massive victory for our struggle, as I suspect it would wake people up across Europe and then one by one other countries (like Spain) would undergo revolutions.

I suspect the US would be the last to undergo revolution, because of all the fear tactics and low class consciousness.

[Yu Ming Zai]

I believe most Scandinavian countries are more or less socialist in their own right and given the incentive they could further easily transition their state into a form communism. However I will agree that the United States will be one of the last countries to embrace any form of revolution.

[RedHammer]

I believe most Scandinavian countries are more or less socialist in their own right and given the incentive they could further easily transition their state into a form communism. However I will agree that the United States will be one of the last countries to embrace any form of revolution.

Scandinavian countries are capitalist in every meaningful way. Welfare is not socialism.

[Pretty Flaco]

I believe most Scandinavian countries are more or less socialist in their own right and given the incentive they could further easily transition their state into a form communism. However I will agree that the United States will be one of the last countries to embrace any form of revolution.

more or less socialist, you know, welfare and benefits.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Because only the most advanced form of capitalism can produce the most advanced proletariat.

hmm, that idea sounds very familiar, where have I heard it before...

[Book O'Dead]

I suspect the US would be the last to undergo revolution, because of all the fear tactics and low class consciousness.

I'm convinced that if the U.S. working class does not lead the world to socialism it will never happen anywhere else.

Besides, you underestimate the level of incipient working class consciousness in United States. Where do think the slogans of "Occupy" and the "99%" came from, France?

Also, socialism will be thrust upon us not as a question of choice but as a matter of necessity.

[islandmilitia]

I'm convinced that if the U.S. working class does not lead the world to socialism it will never happen anywhere else.

Any actual reasoning for this or does it just amount to petty chauvinism? In fact, your assertion is wrong on purely empirical grounds because we know that the intervention of US workers is not necessary for there to be steps in other countries towards socialism, as seen from the fact that there have historically been socialist revolutions outside of the US, and without US workers leading the way - the Chinese and Russian revolutions being cases in point. The fact that major revolutionary outbreaks have taken place in these countries (and in the periphery more generally) rather than in the US is not a coincidence, rather, it reflects the different positions that these countries occupy in the world-system, and the consequent differences in social and political terrain. The conditions of combined and uneven development in China and Russia, meaning the intersection of advanced capitalist industry with various forms of pre-capitalist social organization in peripheral capitalist societies, generate intense contradictions which have the potential to produce revolutionary outbreaks. The imperialist position of the US, on the other hand, defuses the radicalism of the working class through the creation of a labour aristocracy and distribution of the proceeds of imperialism across the class as a whole. As such, the possibility of the revolution is weighted towards the periphery, which is confirmed not only by history but also by the fact that the two countries which best approximate revolutionary situations today - Greece and Egypt - are both peripheral societies, Egypt on a world scale and Greece within the context of the EU.

In any worldwide revolutionary process, we should expect the US to have a thoroughly subordinate role, because it is the belly of the beast, the world's major imperialist country, with all the attendant forms of co-optation. I just hope that most American revolutionaries aren't as chauvinist and US-centric as "Book O'Dead".

[RedHammer]

In any worldwide revolutionary process, we should expect the US to have a thoroughly subordinate role, because it is the belly of the beast, the world's major imperialist country, with all the attendant forms of co-optation. I just hope that most American revolutionaries aren't as chauvinist and US-centric as "Book O'Dead".

This. The United States is far too reactionary as a society; it arguably has the lowest class consciousness among the proletariat in the developed world.

I believe the first spark will be found in Europe; specifically, France, given their long history of sympathy to communism and revolutionary attitude.

[Book O'Dead]

Any actual reasoning for this or does it just amount to petty chauvinism? In fact, your assertion is wrong on purely empirical grounds because we know that the intervention of US workers is not necessary for there to be steps in other countries towards socialism, as seen from the fact that there have historically been socialist revolutions outside of the US, and without US workers leading the way - the Chinese and Russian revolutions being cases in point. The fact that major revolutionary outbreaks have taken place in these countries (and in the periphery more generally) rather than in the US is not a coincidence, rather, it reflects the different positions that these countries occupy in the world-system, and the consequent differences in social and political terrain. The conditions of combined and uneven development in China and Russia, meaning the intersection of advanced capitalist industry with various forms of pre-capitalist social organization in peripheral capitalist societies, generate intense contradictions which have the potential to produce revolutionary outbreaks. The imperialist position of the US, on the other hand, defuses the radicalism of the working class through the creation of a labour aristocracy and distribution of the proceeds of imperialism across the class as a whole. As such, the possibility of the revolution is weighted towards the periphery, which is confirmed not only by history but also by the fact that the two countries which best approximate revolutionary situations today - Greece and Egypt - are both peripheral societies, Egypt on a world scale and Greece within the context of the EU.

In any worldwide revolutionary process, we should expect the US to have a thoroughly subordinate role, because it is the belly of the beast, the world's major imperialist country, with all the attendant forms of co-optation. I just hope that most American revolutionaries aren't as chauvinist and US-centric as "Book O'Dead".

If history has shown us anything it's that any proletarian revolution away from the the true center of imperialist and capitalist power is doomed to failure.

You describe the U.S. as "the belly of the beast" (Jose Marti coined that phrase--a fanciful description from a failed poet and sub-leader of a failed revolution)
I describe the U.S. as the head of the snake; Step on the head to kill it.

[islandmilitia]

If history has shown us anything it's that any proletarian revolution away from the the true center of imperialist and capitalist power is doomed to failure.

If this is the case - that any revolution starting outside of the US is doomed to failure - then the fate of revolutionary change is not a happy one, because as I've already noted, it is precisely outside of the US and the core imperialist states that the conditions most conducive to revolution exist. So, based on your assertions, the countries where revolutions are most likely to begin are actually condemned to failure from the outset, unless they are preceded by the US in overthrowing capitalism. Given that there are not currently the political conditions for revolution in the US, owing largely to the co-optation of the working class, this would suggest that even though there are other societies which do exhibit political ferment, these countries basically have to wait for the time being, until there is a magical spontaneous radicalization amongst US workers, and one that is somehow going to take place against the processes of co-optation that are characteristic of imperialist countries.

This is US-centrism and chauvinism in its most vulgar form because it denies peripheral societies any possibility of an autonomous revolutionary history and subordinates them to the political trajectory of the US. Contrary to what you suggest, the reasons for the defeat of revolution in China and Russia are complex. An important part of the reason they failed is because their revolutions did not spread to more developed capitalist societies and consequently those revolutions were left in conditions of relative material scarcity and political isolation - but it is one thing to say that revolution has to spread to the US (or Germany, in the context of 1917) once it has begun elsewhere, and quite another to say that revolution necessarily has to begin in the US for any revolution elsewhere to have the possibility of success. You take the latter position, and in doing so you ignore how revolution is a protracted process rooted in combined and uneven development, including the material conditions and processes of co-optation which have historically made the US working class conservative and, at times, highly reactionary. There are specific conditions within peripheral societies which give them the role of fault-lines and weak points in the world-system, and the spread of revolution beyond those countries, including into the heartlands, is necessarily going to be a long and complex process, and one that will proceed according to the different positions that individual countries occupy in the world-systyem. This is the major lesson to be drawn from the history of revolution in the last century, and for revolutionaries in the imperialist core it produces an obligation to support the radical upsurges in the periphery, knowing that revolution in the US depends on peripheral societies being able to strike blows against US imperialism and delink themselves from the imperialist world-system. So, my formulation would be something like Lin Biao's argument: surround the cities (the imperialist core) from the countryside (the periphery, comprising the majority of the world's population).


You describe the U.S. as "the belly of the beast" (Jose Marti coined that phrase--a fanciful description from a failed poet and sub-leader of a failed revolution)

This arrogant tone towards a central figure in the radical history of Latin America doesn't do much to reduce the impression that you're basically a racist who thinks the US has to be at the centre of world history in every respect.

[RedHammer]

@ Book O'Dead,

But how do you get around the non-existent class consciousness of American workers?

And why is Europe any less the "head of the snake"? A radical revolution in France would change everything.

[cynicles]

China and India seem like two good major candidates, maybe china. The US definately won't be first but it might not be last, I think that we'll see a shift of imperial power in the coming decades where opportunities will open up. It might not remove all of the US's power but it should take a chunk of it.

[RedHammer]

I can see India undergoing a revolution, especially given the Naxalite situation and the current financial situation in India. But a revolution in India would probably go the way of all the other revolutions that occurred in underdeveloped countries. A revolution in Western Europe would do far more at promoting worldwide revolution.

[Book O'Dead]

@ Book O'Dead,

But how do you get around the non-existent class consciousness of American workers?

And why is Europe any less the "head of the snake"? A radical revolution in France would change everything.

There is more incipient working class consciousness in the U.S. than you suppose. It is emerging as the class intensifies.

The invention of the "99% vs. 1%" slogan is proof of that.

You mention France? They've tried and failed at working class revolution, or what do you think was the Commune of 1871?

[RedHammer]

There is more incipient working class consciousness in the U.S. than you suppose. It is emerging as the class intensifies. It's still largely non-existent compared to Europe.


The invention of the "99% vs. 1%" slogan is proof of that.Occupy isn't nearly radical enough.


You mention France? They've tried and failed at working class revolution, or what do you think was the Commune of 1871?Seriously? You're going to bring up a limited example from 142 years ago?

France, now, has widespread sympathy towards radical left politics, and is a developed, leading country in the world. A French revolution would be an incredible victory.

[cynicles]

There is more incipient working class consciousness in the U.S. than you suppose. It is emerging as the class intensifies.

The invention of the "99% vs. 1%" slogan is proof of that.

You mention France? They've tried and failed at working class revolution, or what do you think was the Commune of 1871?

Creating a slogan means nothing, but you're right about France, they have been pretty dormant on the class conscience lately.

Looks more likely to go the way of Germany given the nationalism, numerous demagogues, military worship and fear of pretty much anything. Makes them easy to manipulate.

[islandmilitia]

There is more incipient working class consciousness in the U.S. than you suppose. It is emerging as the class intensifies.

The invention of the "99% vs. 1%" slogan is proof of that.

Firstly, you didn't engage with my post whatsoever. Secondly, the Occupy movement does nothing to show that revolution has to start in the US as a matter of objective necessity, and it does not even show that revolution is possible or likely in the US in the immediate future. The Occupy movement, despite all its positive dimensions, and whilst accounting for its variations according to locality, was overwhelmingly based around the politics of the white petty-bourgeoisie, and as such did not attract sufficient people of color, or develop a working-class base that might have allowed the movement to defend itself against removal. The replacement of the occupations with 99% Spring events also shows just how vulnerable the movement was to co-optation by the Democrats.


You mention France? They've tried and failed at working class revolution, or what do you think was the Commune of 1871?

From this attitude, you make it seem as if the Commune had to fail because the Communards weren't intelligent enough to realize that they had to look to the shining US first, for guidance. The Commune didn't fail by necessity, it failed due to a combination of difficult circumstances and social conditions (such as the generally low level of capitalist development at that time) and tactical mistakes by the Communards themselves (such as their failure to seize the banks from the French government). Its military defeat aside, the Commune can also be regarded as a partial success insofar as it demonstrated what working-class rule might look like in practice.

You have really not given a coherent justification for your US-centric view of how and where revolution takes place. You have not responded to any of my points about combined and uneven development, co-optation, and revolution as a process, nor have you engaged with the complexities of revolutionary history in Russia and China.


A revolution in Western Europe would do far more at promoting worldwide revolution.

Whilst Western Europe has more of a revolutionary history, many of the processes and mechanisms of co-optation that exist in the US are also present in other imperialist countries. For me it's necessary to reject this whole racist notion of revolution having to begin in the imperialist cores, and instead we need to conceptualize revolution in terms of the cracks and weak points in the world-system, which means looking to the periphery, and engaging with theoretical concepts like delinking and encircling the world cities from the countryside.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Greece and India are entering into intense class conflict. Anyone who says the U.S. is silly.

[Leftsolidarity]

I don't think anyone could really know but if I were to throw out a wild guess I'd say Greece. That seems to be the most radical area and the area most openly shown to be torn apart by capitalism. Greek workers are becoming very radicalized over there whether it be to the right or left.

Edit: Also, Occupy was started by Adbusters which is a Canadian organization so it makes the claims of it being the USA even stranger.

[Book O'Dead]

It's still largely non-existent compared to Europe.

Occupy isn't nearly radical enough.

Seriously? You're going to bring up a limited example from 142 years ago?

France, now, has widespread sympathy towards radical left politics, and is a developed, leading country in the world. A French revolution would be an incredible victory.

I do not presume to know the level of working class consciousness in other countries but I believe that your opinion regarding the U.S. working class is incorrect.

But if it were right, then our task is clear: we must awaken and elevate the class consciousness of workers and prepare them to take over as capitalism collapses.

[islandmilitia]

I do not presume to know the level of working class consciousness in other countries but I believe that your opinion regarding the U.S. working class is incorrect.

Maybe you should learn about the class struggles of other countries, instead of presuming to make sweeping statements about where revolution has to take place according to an abstract and baseless schema. That might go some way to ridding you of your racist, US-centric politics.

[Mr. Natural]

A quick review of the posts on this thread suggests that anarchist/communist revolutionary prospects are poor or nonexistent everywhere, and that any expressed optimism is ignoring capitalism's systemic control of life on Earth.

Capitalism has triumphed: its institutions and values have globalized, and there hasn't been any response from the left other than a retreat into the old Marxist classics or cultural ruminations. We--our labors and minds--have become parts of the capitalist whole.

So what's to do? First we must understand that this is indeed our situation. This understanding should open currently closed minds to necessary new ideas.

Then comrades will need to investigate the new sciences that reveal the self-organization of matter into living systems and the life process on Earth. Life is community, and life has an organization that humanity must emulate in the creation of anarchist/communist forms of community.

Marx, Engels, and the materialist dialectic were working on this, but lacked the new sciences of organization, the culmination of which is systems-complexity science. See Fritjof Capra's Web of Life (1996).

Current Marxists shun these new sciences, seemingly preferring to remain stuck, but as Engels remarked at Marx's graveside, "Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force."

So where are all the revolutionary, scientific socialists nowadays? They are living and thinking within The System. A deep, degrading conservatism has congealed the human mind and spirit, and this is quite evident on the left. Just look.

But these new sciences of organization do, indeed, offer a path out of capitalism into a gloriously realized human future. Just look.

[Book O'Dead]

A quick review of the posts on this thread suggests that anarchist/communist revolutionary prospects are poor or nonexistent everywhere, and that any expressed optimism is ignoring capitalism's systemic control of life on Earth.

Capitalism has triumphed: its institutions and values have globalized, and there hasn't been any response from the left other than a retreat into the old Marxist classics or cultural ruminations. We--our labors and minds--have become parts of the capitalist whole.[...]

The only way capitalism can triumph is if it manages to abolish the class struggle in favor of the ruling class. That is a thing that will never happen.

[Spirit]

Greece and Spain. Greek workers are already introducing self-management in certain factories, hospitals etc and Syriza has almost won the elections despite intense propaganda which shows that a huge chunk of population is really fed up.

Spain is also not very far from that (check out the miners from Asturias), it's just a matter of time before things escalate.

[Raúl Duke]

Why does the US have "the most advance capitalism?" Can you back up that assertion?

I think the US has the weakest class consciousness and this "Occupy" stuff doesn't really prove anything other then, from my experience, the large amount of effective political misdirection and misinformation (from liberals, Paultards, conspiracy theorists, etc) the American populace has had that limits and cripples any formation of a social movement, since those miscreants quickly jump on the ship and sink it (the only good thing is that perhaps in some limited cases, some of this status-quo supporting discourse was put into question by a few). Even in Puerto Rico, a peripheral colony of the US, there's more class consciousness than in the US.

But all this talk of which is more advanced capitalism among developed nations seems nonsensical. Europe has equal, or arguably more, potential particularly in places like Spain.

[Book O'Dead]

Why does the US have "the most advance capitalism?" Can you back up that assertion?

I'm no sure that I have to. The evidence is so overwhelming as to require anyone who disagrees with it provide their "proof' instead.


I think the US has the weakest class consciousness and this "Occupy" stuff doesn't really prove anything other then, from my experience, the large amount of effective political misdirection and misinformation (from liberals, Paultards, conspiracy theorists, etc) the American populace has had that limits and cripples any formation of a social movement, since those miscreants quickly jump on the ship and sink it (the only good thing is that perhaps in some limited cases, some of this status-quo supporting discourse was put into question by a few). Even in Puerto Rico, a peripheral colony of the US, there's more class consciousness than in the US.

If you go back and see what I wrote, you'll notice that I mentioned "incipient" class consciousness in reference to the U.S. proletariat. I also (you may find this offensive) I see no significant difference or distinction between the Puerto Rican working class and the U.S. working class because the PR workers move freely between their home island and continental U.S.

BTW, do you know how many people of Puerto Rican descent work at NASA and or at JPL?
Take a gander at this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Puerto_Ricans_in_the_United_States_Space_P rogram

And these are just the notables!

This Irishman has to laugh!

[Tim Cornelis]

All developed countries have more or less the same "advanced capitalism." In my humble opinion, Latin America has the greatest revolutionary potential as it has an advancing capitalism, yet with immense income inequality and widespread poverty.

In France, I believe >1,000,000 people voted for the Left Front, not 4 million. In any case, they did not vote for the French Communist Party, but the Left Front of which the French Communist Party is a member. The French Communist Party is reformist and Eurocommunist (their flags could be seen at the inauguration of social-democrat Hollande).

Melenchon, the leader of the Left Front, claims to be anti-capitalist (which is a good thing), but his election programme merely mentioned the nationalisation of "key industries", which is reminiscent of pre-neoliberal social-democracy.

More revolutionary are the Trotskyist Workers' Struggle and the New Anticapitalist Party (together polled at 1-2%, but received less than 1% presumably because potential voters decided to vote for a left-wing party that would make it into parliament for sure).

All in all, in France, revolutionary leftist parties received ca. 8% of the votes. Nevertheless, the social-democratic voters generally have a higher potential for revolutionism. In some news reports union members have stressed that they would oust Hollande if he were to impose austerity measures (which he said he would do).

In Portugal, revolutionary leftist parties (Left Bloc, Portugese Workers' Communist Party, and Democratic Unity Coalition) have received 14.3% of the votes in the last election.

In Spain, the somewhat revolutionary leftist United Left received ca. 5% of the votes.

In Denmark, the anticapitalist Red-Green Alliance has recently garnered around 8% of virtual votes in a poll.

In Italy, the far-leftist rainbow coalition lost 7% in comparison to previous elections and in the last elections received merely 3% of the votes.* (In comparison, the Marxist-Leninist, though reformist, Labour Party in the richer and more economic tranquil Belgium is polling at 3% which is not enough to enter parliament). But, I think, there is greater revolutionary potential in Italy.

*The Left Rainbow coalition received 10% of the votes in 2006, and only 3% in 2008.

The Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (Czech Republic) has garnered 17% of virtual votes in a recent poll (but the party is reformist).

Essentially, if a revolution were to happen in Europe in, say, two years (it's not going to happen, but if) then indeed it would spread through Southern European countries firstly, and, I think, with most ease in Iberia (far-right doesn't seem as strong as in Greece, Italy, and France). Then through the more progressive countries in Europe.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm no sure that I have to. The evidence is so overwhelming as to require anyone who disagrees with it provide their "proof' instead.

Ok, then provide proof that the US working class has more class consciousness than the European one? This is what's primarily at question, and it's a claim that you made that most leftists seldom believe. 'Incredible' claims require a show of proof and it's not like I'm actually asking you to prove a negative claim.

It may be "growing" but I doubt its rate of growth (plus the present amount), etc makes it where the US is more likely to have a revolution than Spain and Greece at this time.

European workers can also move freely across Europe, but even here we make a distinction. Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico are also raised in a different set of material conditions than what's encountered state-side (i.e. PR is extremely impoverished, the political discourse is different, cultural differences, etc) which would influence their consciousness differently than a person born in the US.

In fact, it's probably impossible to gauge which will be "first" because you have to take into account other factors (i.e. how prevalent is far right discourse? This is something Europe strongly suffers from; although the US official right party is similar in practice/desires to some European strong right parties like the BNP, yet uses more deceiving rhetoric, so that also doesn't say much good for the US either.)

[Tim Cornelis]

BTW, do you know how many people of Puerto Rican descent work at NASA and or at JPL?
Take a gander at this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Puerto_Ricans_in_the_United_States_Space_P rogram

And these are just the notables!

This Irishman has to laugh!

What the hell does NASA employment have to do with class consciousness? You are acting real odd in this thread, you know.

[Book O'Dead]

Ok, then provide proof that the US working class has more class consciousness than the European one? This is what's primarily at question, and it's a claim that you made that most leftists seldom believe. 'Incredible' claims require a show of proof and it's not like I'm actually asking you to prove a negative claim.

It may be "growing" but I doubt its rate of growth (plus the present amount), etc makes it where the US is more likely to have a revolution than Spain and Greece at this time.

European workers can also move freely across Europe, but even here we make a distinction. Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico are also raised in a different set of material conditions than what's encountered state-side (i.e. PR is extremely impoverished, the political discourse is different, cultural differences, etc) which would influence their consciousness differently than a person born in the US.

In fact, it's probably impossible to gauge which will be "first" because you have to take into account other factors (i.e. how prevalent is far right discourse? This is something Europe strongly suffers from; although the US official right party is similar in practice/desires to some European strong right parties like the BNP, yet uses more deceiving rhetoric, so that also doesn't say much good for the US either.)

Raul, you are still not reading what I wrote.

I never stated that the U.S. working class was the most class conscious.

I said, and correctly so, that United States, by virtue of possessing the most advanced form of industrial capitalism has produced the most advance working class in the world.

It is the most advanced working class in the world that must assume leadership in the coming revolution. Otherwise they will be used as a bulwark against any other proletarian revolution in the world.

No effort should be spared to awaken the U.S. proletariat from its deep slumber. And failure to do so will mean disaster for the working classes of the world.

[Book O'Dead]

What the hell does NASA employment have to do with class consciousness? You are acting real odd in this thread, you know.

I won't hold your hand here. You'll have to figure this one out by yourself.

[islandmilitia]

I said, and correctly so, that United States, by virtue of possessing the most advanced form industrial capitalism has produced the most advance working class in the world.

This makes no sense. Even if the US is the most advanced capitalist society (which is itself a nebulous term - it would be more exact to say that the US is the key imperialist country and centre of power in the capitalist world-sysyem) that does not mean that the US proletariat is also the most "advanced", if by "advanced" you mean the most militant and class-conscious. In fact, as I've emphasized, and as you've failed to take up, the very fact that the US is the leader of the imperialist core provides mechanisms and processes for the co-optation of the US working class, whereas it is through the conditions of combined and uneven development in peripheral societies (those conditions being the result of belated capitalist development and exposure to imperialism) that the working classes of those societies are most likely to strike the first blows against world capitalism. The evidence for all these points comes from the history of revolution in the last century, especially the lessons of the Russian and Chinese revolutions, compared to the sustained conservatism of the US working class.


It is the most advanced working class in the world that must assume leadership in the coming revolution

What does "assuming leadership" mean in concrete terms and why must the US working class "assume leadership"? What is the analysis behind your blind belief that any revolutions starting outside of the US are doomed to failure? How does your position relate to the concept of combined and uneven development? Do you think there is no material basis for the conservatism of the US working class, or do you acknowledge the existence of a labour aristocracy and processes of co-optation?

It is the US working class that should be following the lead of the workers and peasants of the periphery because those workers and peasants have a greater body of revolutionary experience, with all its tactical and strategic lessons, and are not integrated (ideologically, materially) into capitalism in the same way or to the same extent as US workers.

BoD, are you actually going to respond to any of my past posts?

[RedHammer]

All developed countries have more or less the same "advanced capitalism." In my humble opinion, Latin America has the greatest revolutionary potential as it has an advancing capitalism, yet with immense income inequality and widespread poverty.

Agreed. The United States is not significantly more advanced than Western Europe.


In France, I believe >1,000,000 people voted for the Left Front, not 4 million. In any case, they did not vote for the French Communist Party, but the Left Front of which the French Communist Party is a member. The French Communist Party is reformist and Eurocommunist (their flags could be seen at the inauguration of social-democrat Hollande). While I hate to use wikipedia as a source (can't link to it, but it's the results page):

Melenchon received 3,984,822 votes in the first round. Yes, he was in a coalition of parties, but it was a coalition of largely radical parties and groups. Also, you are correct that they are revisionists, but the victory is psychological. An explicitly communist victory would revive communism in the eyes of the world. It's a psychological victory: a first step, towards putting radical left politics in the mainstream.


Melenchon, the leader of the Left Front, claims to be anti-capitalist (which is a good thing), but his election programme merely mentioned the nationalisation of "key industries", which is reminiscent of pre-neoliberal social-democracy.A first step and a psychological victory.

[Tim Cornelis]

Melenchon received 3,984,822 votes in the first round. Yes, he was in a coalition of parties, but it was a coalition of largely radical parties and groups. Also, you are correct that they are revisionists, but the victory is psychological. An explicitly communist victory would revive communism in the eyes of the world. It's a psychological victory: a first step, towards putting radical left politics in the mainstream.

You're right, I was using legislative elections, you were using presidential.

[passenger57]

My friend, you know I am a truth-teller. And I try to tell the truth of what ever I see in this world. And the truth i want to say right now. Is that some months ago i posted some marxism articles in an Occupy Wall Street Protest Facebook Group, and they banned me. You know I think that the majority of Occupy Protestors are not marxists in favor of a workers-government with nationalization of corporations. I think that most of them are more or less in favor of a Universal Welfare Capitalist system with a Robin Hood tax system, with free university degrees. Free doctors appointments and free medicine. But where corporations like Wal Mart, Shell, American Airlines, Kraft, Kellogs, Heinz, Pepsi etc. would pay more taxes than they pay now. But hose corporations would still be owned by private families under the law of "The private sector". That's what I think about the ideology of most Occupy protestors. Most of them are in favor of a European Norway welfare Robin Hood tax utilitarian system, but not in favor of socialism


.



I'm convinced that if the U.S. working class does not lead the world to socialism it will never happen anywhere else.

Besides, you underestimate the level of incipient working class consciousness in United States. Where do think the slogans of "Occupy" and the "99%" came from, France?

Also, socialism will be thrust upon us not as a question of choice but as a matter of necessity.

[Book O'Dead]

My friend, you know I am a truth-teller. And I try to tell the truth of what ever I see in this world. And the truth i want to say right now. Is that some months ago i posted some marxism articles in an Occupy Wall Street Protest Facebook Group, and they banned me. You know I think that the majority of Occupy Protestors are not marxists in favor of a workers-government with nationalization of corporations. I think that most of them are more or less in favor of a Universal Welfare Capitalist system with a Robin Hood tax system, with free university degrees. Free doctors appointments and free medicine. But where corporations like Wal Mart, Shell, American Airlines, Kraft, Kellogs, Heinz, Pepsi etc. would pay more taxes than they pay now. But hose corporations would still be owned by private families under the law of "The private sector". That's what I think about the ideology of most Occupy protestors. Most of them are in favor of a European Norway welfare Robin Hood tax utilitarian system, but not in favor of socialism.

You're probably right about the majority of Occupy supporters being intolerant or fearful of communist ideas.

Nonetheless, I was trying to point out that the basic ideas behind the Occupy and the 99% slogans are ideas about class struggle.

[Positivist]

While the French communist and socialist parties do not necessarily promote programs that will affect real change to the mode of production, but their success in the recent elections is at very least demonstrative of rising anti-capitalist sentiment.

This is miles ahead of the US situation where few even dare to challenge the economic system let alone advocate socialism. The OWS protests are indicative of rising disillusionment with the existing state of things, but they weren't that large, and most solutions offered were staunchly liberal.

[Positivist]

Also, while I foster no illusions of my native US hosting the first workers uprising, I do believe that the victory of the US class struggle is of special importance. I believe this because of the US's position as the vanguard of globalization. Any revolution prior to an American one will have to contend with the US's massive military presence worldwide. Crushing the US bourgiose, and subverting their military will undoubtedly help to defend peripherial revolts.

This being said, the US is NOT omnipotent, and I think that it is ridiculous to suggest that no revolution could succeed as long as the American bourgiose stands. In order to support socialist revolutions worldwide, I think that the US proletariat will require a distinctive revolutionary strategy which must focus on insurrection and sabotage. Basically this amounts to an anti-imperialist struggle within a bastion of imperialism, where the focus is more on assisting revolutions across the globe, than within the US itself. This I feel will be necessary as the result of limited conscious workers to carry out any mass activities.

Optimally this strategy will not be necessary, and in the case that it is, it would be preferred if it would only be a secondary focus of the struggle, but if the US working class retains such a low level of class conscioussness than this path will be inevitable. Ultimately what I anticipate will happen is that revolutions will commence elsewhere across the globe (likely in places where the US bourgiose has enslaved a substantial amount of labor) and a militant anti-war movement would do a service to the revolting proletarians. The success of these revolutions would decrease the US standard of living, mobilizing an increased segment of the American working population, and allowing for mass revolutionary activity.

[Geiseric]

I agree a hundred percent with Positivist. The first outbreaks will happen once the economic crisis goes into the double dip, and eventually we'll have a full blown depression, which will mobilize the world's masses against capitalism as it did a hundred years ago. Honestly the world is over ripened, and places like Mexico are developing a lumpen class instead of a larger working class, which dangers revolutionary possibilities. Greece, Algeria, Italy, Ireland, Russia all have huge working class populations who are militarising, however it's up to the militants to provide new leadership, differing from the older, opportunistic, conservative generation of Trumkas and Tony Blairs. Obviously the goal of communists worldwide is to build parties, and aggitate during times of struggles to build alternate organs of political power, which needs to triumph. Independent (from bourgeois socialist) grassroots workers, students, minority, and overall community organizations need to be organized in large cities.

[Red Banana]

Most like likely, a successful revolution would probably begin in Spain and easily spread throughout Europe. They have a class consciousness and are being driven to necessity by austerity. Revolution could easily spark in Latin America or in certain other third world countries but would be immediately crushed by the US, where as if it starts in Western Europe you have a counterbalance to US military/economic power and thus a stable platform for the rest of the dominos to fall.

[passenger57]

Damn man, you are very right. Around where I live most people are part of the low-wage working class. Many neighbors around my neighborhood work in supermarkets, in fast food restaurants. And even if the majority of people around here are not even high wage professional workers, but low-wage blue collar workers. Most of them are self-absorbed stuck up assholes and they even hate talking to you. I think that the US rulers have trained americans to do a lot of things in order for the rich rulers to preserve their wealth. One of these things is to sort of educate most americans to hate each other. Another is for most americans to be very silent, very quiet. The USA is a very very quiet society, uncomunicative, americans are reluctant to express their feelings. They digest all their angers and unchecked appetites and their sufferings and pains. We are not extraterrestrials so how the hell can we guess the needs and desires of others. Socialism organizing for socialism requires to be social, and to socialize.

And you know Latin Americans, Europeans and other nations are more sociable than the self-absorbed stuck-up narcissist americans.

There are many many many other impediments spread around in the behaviour of most americans that unfortunately will prevent a marxist government for many years to come thanks


.



Also, while I foster no illusions of my native US hosting the first workers uprising, I do believe that the victory of the US class struggle is of special importance. I believe this because of the US's position as the vanguard of globalization. Any revolution prior to an American one will have to contend with the US's massive military presence worldwide. Crushing the US bourgiose, and subverting their military will undoubtedly help to defend peripherial revolts.

This being said, the US is NOT omnipotent, and I think that it is ridiculous to suggest that no revolution could succeed as long as the American bourgiose stands. In order to support socialist revolutions worldwide, I think that the US proletariat will require a distinctive revolutionary strategy which must focus on insurrection and sabotage. Basically this amounts to an anti-imperialist struggle within a bastion of imperialism, where the focus is more on assisting revolutions across the globe, than within the US itself. This I feel will be necessary as the result of limited conscious workers to carry out any mass activities.

Optimally this strategy will not be necessary, and in the case that it is, it would be preferred if it would only be a secondary focus of the struggle, but if the US working class retains such a low level of class conscioussness than this path will be inevitable. Ultimately what I anticipate will happen is that revolutions will commence elsewhere across the globe (likely in places where the US bourgiose has enslaved a substantial amount of labor) and a militant anti-war movement would do a service to the revolting proletarians. The success of these revolutions would decrease the US standard of living, mobilizing an increased segment of the American working population, and allowing for mass revolutionary activity.

[RedHammer]

Ultimately what I anticipate will happen is that revolutions will commence elsewhere across the globe (likely in places where the US bourgiose has enslaved a substantial amount of labor) and a militant anti-war movement would do a service to the revolting proletarians. The success of these revolutions would decrease the US standard of living, mobilizing an increased segment of the American working population, and allowing for mass revolutionary activity.

That is the way I see it happening. Other places in the world have greater class consciousness and class warfare; I see the US as being the last bastion of capitalism, ultimately, because of how reactionary the population is. It will likely be among the last, and not the first, countries to experience revolution.


I agree a hundred percent with Positivist. The first outbreaks will happen once the economic crisis goes into the double dip, and eventually we'll have a full blown depression, which will mobilize the world's masses against capitalism as it did a hundred years ago. Honestly the world is over ripened, and places like Mexico are developing a lumpen class instead of a larger working class, which dangers revolutionary possibilities. Greece, Algeria, Italy, Ireland, Russia all have huge working class populations who are militarising, however it's up to the militants to provide new leadership, differing from the older, opportunistic, conservative generation of Trumkas and Tony Blairs. Obviously the goal of communists worldwide is to build parties, and aggitate during times of struggles to build alternate organs of political power, which needs to triumph. Independent (from bourgeois socialist) grassroots workers, students, minority, and overall community organizations need to be organized in large cities.

Agreed. You bring up an interesting point about the lumpenproletariat; why are they dangerous, and can America's large lumpenproletariat population become a significant risk or impediment to revolution? Can they experience class consciousness?