Could a Majority multinational Revolution still work?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Supposing an international revolution did take place, but with the exception of a large yet minority group of states and regions, would the goal of communism still succeed?

In example, if there was a revolution in over 60% of the world's nation states, yet 40% of them still remained in a capitalist or other form of government, would we not then have the material conditions for true communism alongside the power to defend against incursion? (assuming the remaining countries either deteriorate or become some weird Nazi-esque fascist collaberation)

[RedHammer]

I think it would degenerate into a "Cold War" type scenario, on a larger scale than before.

It also depends on which particular countries avoid revolution. If none of the industrialized, developed countries are among those that experience revolution, that would cripple the revolutionary states, and create a neat global divide between developed and not.

An important point is that whatever countries experience revolution, it is imperative that developed nations be among them.

So in answer to your question, it depends on geography and the particular scenario. I can give you a more specific answer if you tell me which countries would or wouldn't experience revolution.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

That's an issue I'm concerned about.

I don't support an invasion of other countries, but self defense is acceptable (if they attack first, we'll finish the job). But I do support intervention, meaning we supply other revolutions with troops, logistics etc, while still respecting their independence.

As such, I have no problem with (and support) spreading propaganda etc to start the revolutions in these countries.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

That's an issue I'm concerned about.

I don't support an invasion of other countries, but self defense is acceptable (if they attack first, we'll finish the job). But I do support intervention, meaning we supply other revolutions with troops, logistics etc, while still respecting their independence.

As such, I have no problem with (and support) spreading propaganda etc to start the revolutions in these countries.

I agree that self defence would certainly be neccesary in such a scenario, but what if it comes to the point that the opposition begins conducting support for counter-revolutions? Would we then assume an offensive?



I think it would degenerate into a "Cold War" type scenario, on a larger scale than before.

It also depends on which particular countries avoid revolution. If none of the industrialized, developed countries are among those that experience revolution, that would cripple the revolutionary states, and create a neat global divide between developed and not.

An important point is that whatever countries experience revolution, it is imperative that developed nations be among them.

So in answer to your question, it depends on geography and the particular scenario. I can give you a more specific answer if you tell me which countries would or wouldn't experience revolution.

I had definitely meant a revolution composed of both underdeveloped and developed nations (Composed of both poverty stricken and stable countries, something vaguely along the lines of...say.... all of Oceania, most of Turkistan and Arabia, all of Africa and South America, alongside small parts of mediterranian and eastern Europe?)

And if you think the outcome would be considered closer to a Cold War-esque scenario, do you then think that conflict is inevitable?
Would Capitalism, without the resources or the exploitable power behind it, not inevitably decay and become more frantic in such a situation?

[RedHammer]

I had definitely meant a revolution composed of both underdeveloped and developed nations (Composed of both poverty stricken and stable countries, something vaguely along the lines of...say.... all of Oceania, most of Turkistan and Arabia, all of Africa and South America, alongside small parts of mediterranian and eastern Europe?) Then we would have much improved chances at holding onto the revolution.


And if you think the outcome would be considered closer to a Cold War-esque scenario, do you then think that conflict is inevitable? Possibly. Remember, the only thing that really kept the Soviet Union and the United States from going at it was the threat of nuclear war; that's a threat that is still around today. I definitely expect the reactionaries to try their hardest to undermine the revolution, support reactionary groups, support proxy wars, etc

If it did come down to a conventional conflict, it'd be incredibly bloody and costly.


Would Capitalism, without the resources or the exploitable power behind it, not inevitably decay and become more frantic in such a situation?I definitely think so. If revolution occurred in most of the third world, the impact would be felt soon enough in the reactionary first world states. Class divisions would become starker; class unrest more intense. I suspect that the reactionary elements within those countries would become desperate and would resort to increasingly extreme xenophobia, racism, and nationalism. Blind nationalism is what keeps the workers down.

I'd definitely expect a rise of neo-fascism.

[JPSartre12]

I definitely think so. If revolution occurred in most of the third world, the impact would be felt soon enough in the reactionary first world states. Class divisions would become starker; class unrest more intense. I suspect that the reactionary elements within those countries would become desperate and would resort to increasingly extreme xenophobia, racism, and nationalism. Blind nationalism is what keeps the workers down.

I'd definitely expect a rise of neo-fascism.

I agree 100% with you, comrade. The reactionary politics in the First World would be incredible. Talks about how communists and socialists "hate liberty" and so on and so forth would permeate right-wing rhetoric :rolleyes: But back to the original question ...


Supposing an international revolution did take place, but with the exception of a large yet minority group of states and regions, would the goal of communism still succeed?

If there's going to be any revolution, it has to be international - if we're going to take a lesson from Stalin's USSR, I'd say that it would be that you cannot have socialism in one country. If there are outside capitalist forces surrounding, they will move in wage war against you, and wear you down. The revolution cannot be isolated - ff proletarian revolutions take place around the entire globe together, I'm not saying that they're guaranteed to win (I'm certainly hoping that they do!), but I'd say that we have a much better chance.

[jookyle]

It really does depend on what countries have had their revolution. If it's "third world" countries, they just get invaded or have a coup backed by the CIA and what not. If countries in the "first world" are having socialist revolutions than how te rest of the world is going to function afterword depends what that country(countries) is/are. Let's the scandinavian countries actually become socialist countries, the rest of the world would probably be able to carry on capitalism with out being hurt too much from these countries turning to socialism. Not that the capitalists wouldn't take a hit but, it wouldn't cause the capitalist empire to crumble. To create a dominano effect across the globe, a major economic country will have to become socialist. Anyone who thinks there's going to be an international revolution all at the same time is kidding themselves. But when major economic player gets taken out of the game the whole world will change and it will be up to the socialists in those countries to make sure in the aftermath of a changing world economy, that the socialists prevail and not other forces with in the country.

[Blake's Baby]

Anyone who thinks that a country or small group of countries can become 'socialist' is both kidding themselves and trying to get the rest of the planet to believe a lie. Not that they know necessarily that they're lying - they may just be deluded and actually believe that they're speaking the truth - but many of the rest of us know already.

'The revolution' is a process that will occur across the globe. It is identical with the world civil war. Even if 'the revolution' succeeds in Burma or Mexico or Egypt or Norway or all of them, plus Sweden and Germany and Guatemala and Vietnam and Thailand and Israel, if it does not also succeed in all the other countries of the world, it has failed. Capitalism and the state need to be overthrown worldwide; while this process is ongoing, this is 'the world revolution'.

Capitalism is an international system, the bourgeoisise is an international class, and the proletariat is an international class. Socialism in one country makes no more sense than socialism in one city or in one street or in one house. Only by world revolution will the international proletariat be able to reorganise society. That world revolution is the process of dispossessing capitalists everywhere and abolishing property. Doing it locally and thinking that's an end to it can only lead to devastating failure.