Synchronised Revolutions

[Comrade #138672]

I'm slowly starting to see that communism must exist globally or not at all. This raises new questions.

What about the revolution? Should the revolution happen globally -- everywhere at once -- for it to have the greatest impact? The downside is that it's less likely to happen everywhere at once than somewhere locally. Is it "OK" for a revolution to happen locally or will this buy the capitalists the time to respond more strategically making a global revolution less likely to happen?

If it should be synchronised then I wonder how this will be set up. How will this be coordinated? Can we expect the internet to play a huge role in this? What will capitalists do to prevent the organisation?

[Art Vandelay]

Through the process known as "globalization" the nation-states which make up the world, have been come further and further intertwined economically, culturally, etc.... What this means is, unlike past revolutions (feudal, capitalist, etc.) this proletariat revolution will progress much more rapidly. This is also demonstrated by Engels in that quote I posted in your other thread. While one would be absurd to expect for the revolutions to break out literally simultaneously around the globe, the proletarian revolution will most likely have to progress fairly quickly if it is to be successful.

[helot]

I don't think a global revolution will happen in all places at the same time. The key is for it to spread and keep spreading until it engulfs the entire planet. What kind of time frame is required i'm unsure about but i'd expect that it would need to spread to a second country within a year for it to get off to a good start.

[t.crow]

Certainly it is "ok" for a local revolution, as this may be the spark that ignites further uprising, such as the "arab spring" that has been an ongoing struggle or the recent "occupy" movements (though as far as I have seen, their influence has been little, and protests have been opportunities for hipsters to seem revolutionary and cool). I think a global revolution would be circumstantial, so when the time is right and the people are of a certain, collective mindset, we shall see different versions of the same struggle all over the world. It may not necessarily be one organized effort the world over by one group or network, but a shared disgust with our rulers that pushes a revolution to fruition. I agree with you as well, helot, this uprising would have to spread to another country within a year, or even less, for any decent, solid and long lasting global effect. The internet I suspect would have a massive part to do in all of this, as has been seen doing so in modern times regarding such organization, though I dont think it would be the "end all be all" tool used by revolutionaries. Word of mouth, online networking, and guerrilla "advertising" like massive public art installations regarding the respective movement would drive the early revolution. As far as capitalist counters, well, I suppose they would react as they always have, with violence and propaganda, which any sincere revolutionary would have to tactically navigate in order to gain the favor and trust of the indecisive, average joe citizen.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Heres the thing about revolution, it is not 'made' or fabricated out of thin air by any organization or the working class or bourgeoisie by themselves. Revolution only happens in periods of massive capitalist crisis. And as seen in history, revolutions tend to start in one locale (in a nation-state) or in areas with extremely similar culture which transcends national borders.

After the 1917 revolution, many short lived revolutions sprung up across the globe and certainly across eastern europe. After the rebellion in Tunisia ousted Ben-Ali, rebellions popped up all across the 'arab world' (though i would not call them revolutions since none of the rebellions have produced an actual change in class relations)

Dont look at it as if one set plan will make it happen. All things are in motion. Also, back to the issue of organizations and class. History has shown that in periods of extreme capitalist crisis, and when there is strong organization amongst the working class, have there been attempted or successful revolutions. Without some form of organization, it is likely it could end up as nothing more than pockets of insurrection or rioting. Though, organization can quickly develop during those periods as well.


there are so many variables that it cannot be 'planned' years in advance. And what it really amounts to is in non-revolutionary periods, you agitate, and in revolutionary periods (periods of crisis when it looks most likely a revolution is possible) its taking advantage of when the ruling class is at its weakest and the working class is at its strongest.





Also, spreading revolution isnt like playing a strategy game. you dont invade another country to bring them socialism. There is no set time table or anything. BUT! A revolution is always 'on the clock' if it exists in a world still dominated by capital. Khrushchev was wrong on this and had the naive outlook that because socialism is a superior system, it will outlast capitalism/imperialism and that imperialism is 'on the clock'