Where would the revolution start?

[Orcris]

Out of all the different regions of the world, where would a communist revolution start? Most developed countries are too entrenched in capitalism for a proletarian revolution to start there, although I don't think it could succeed without spreading to those countries fast. I don't know enough about African politics to comment on them. I don't know about developing countries in east Asia, but the developed countries such as Japan and South Korea are conservative.

I'd say that the revolution would start in Latin America or the Middle East. Latin Americans elected socialists like Chávez, and support leftists like the Castros. Once Assad finally falls in Syria, a new wave of revolutions will probably sweep across the Arabian Peninsula. It's possible that socialists could gain control in these. Where do you think a proletarian revolution would start?

[ind_com]

You sure the revolution hasn't started already? There are countries both in Latin America and Asia where the working classes are arming themselves and seizing control of territories.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I think the Middle East would be one of the last places actually since Islamism is popular there and they're directly opposed to socialism and suppress socialist movements. I'm inclined to say it would begin in East Asian countries, and possibly Eastern Europe and Russia would be next since there's already plenty of nostalgia there for socialism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It'll probably start in a place you've never heard of.

I mean how many people prior to 2011 would think that this place:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Sidi_Bouzid.jpg/320px-Sidi_Bouzid.jpg

...would be the catalyst for important political developments for years to come?

[Einkarl]

Latin America or Eastern Asia. I think Eastern Europe is a little too unrealistic. But really a revolution could happen anywhere and at any time

[Brutus]

The revolution starts in our hearts and minds

[Aurora]

Egypt and Greece are very exciting prospects, Egypt has already had a revolution and the bourgeois discredit themselves daily, on the negative side the socialists are new and inexperienced and a large part are tied to the bourgeois.
The Greek workers already support the reformist socialists and the communists are more experienced giving them a better chance of irreconcilable opposition and winning support from workers when the reformists show their limitations.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'd actually go as far as to say that the entire Mediterranean is pretty interesting politically.

[RebelDog]

I don't care where it starts, so long as it spreads.

[ellipsis]

I'm confused, Chavez was a socialists, but Castro merely a leftist?

[Raúl Duke]

I heard that in China, "worker strikes too common to suppress."
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/worker-strikes-in-china-too-common-to-suppress-20130221-2es8a.html

While I doubt that revolution may spark first in China, but if at least an organized mass strike/general strike occurred it could cause some big effects internationally.
A revolution in China may strike a lethal blow to the world economy.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

My bet would be on Central or South America. Not only do they have a long and militant history of struggle, recent years have also seen an increase in the size and concentration of the working classes as industrialization continues. As a result, many of the countries have some of the lowest percentages of support for capitalism. The Oaxaca uprising in 2006 and the continued (or even growing!) strength of the Zapatista movement also highlight the continued possibility for revolution in the region.

[Rafiq]

I think the Middle East would be one of the last places actually since Islamism is popular there

oh is it?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Greece or Spain, or any of the western European countries finally facing capitalism without its human face.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I heard that in China, "worker strikes too common to suppress."
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/worker-strikes-in-china-too-common-to-suppress-20130221-2es8a.html

While I doubt that revolution may spark first in China, but if at least an organized mass strike/general strike occurred it could cause some big effects internationally.
A revolution in China may strike a lethal blow to the world economy.

What would a worker's uprising look like in a country run by a "Communist" party fully engaging in Statist Capitalism? Could it end up being a liberal, anti-statist one instead of a worker's one? Would it look like something else?


My bet would be on Central or South America. Not only do they have a long and militant history of struggle, recent years have also seen an increase in the size and concentration of the working classes as industrialization continues. As a result, many of the countries have some of the lowest percentages of support for capitalism. The Oaxaca uprising in 2006 and the continued (or even growing!) strength of the Zapatista movement also highlight the continued possibility for revolution in the region.

Mexico, Central and South America is always tense, but it's hard to predict where in the area the next uprising will occur. Honduras? Chile? Colombia? Somewhere in southern Mexico?

[Riveraxis]

You sure the revolution hasn't started already? There are countries both in Latin America and Asia where the working classes are arming themselves and seizing control of territories.

Like which countries? I'd like to hear more about that!

[Manic Impressive]

The revolution will start in the country where capitalism is most advanced. This would mean the USA. However, due to the workers movement and general level of political consciousness among the American working class being so retarded another country may be first probably somewhere in western Europe possibly Japan. Though my money would still be on the USA quickly followed by western Europe.

[Aurora]

The revolution will start in the country where capitalism is most advanced. This would mean the USA. However, due to the workers movement and general level of political consciousness among the American working class being so retarded another country may be first probably somewhere in western Europe possibly Japan. Though my money would still be on the USA quickly followed by western Europe.
Historically revolutions have broken out in the weakest link of capitalism not the strongest, Russia, China etc. That's one of the great contradictions of the epoch of socialist revolution, that a country being underdeveloped creates the conditions for revolutionary consciousness and upheaval while this very backwardness precludes the possibility of creating socialism.

The USA may be the country with the best developed economy for socialism but it's the consciousness of the masses that determines the possibility of revolution and as you correctly state the American proletarians are far behind their counterparts elsewhere.

[ind_com]

Like which countries? I'd like to hear more about that!

India, the Philippines, Colombia. These movements, particularly the one in India, are hated by most pacifists and internet leftists btw.

[Brutus]

The best thing about revolutions is that they are usually unpredictable. The march revolution in Russia started of as a celebration for international women's day.

[Dear Leader]

I think it doesn't matter where it starts, so long as it stays true to it's ideals. I'm hoping that with the death of Hugo Chavez, the Bolivarian revolution will remain socialist, fighting against the bourgeoisie at home and abroad (imperialists like the USA). If it can survive, I think it will continue to urge more revolutions.

[Brutus]

I think it doesn't matter where it starts, so long as it stays true to it's ideals. I'm hoping that with the death of Hugo Chavez, the Bolivarian revolution will remain socialist, fighting against the bourgeoisie at home and abroad (imperialists like the USA). If it can survive, I think it will continue to urge more revolutions.

Social democracy is hardly revolutionary

[Flying Trotsky]

I think Baader Meinhoff got it right- the revolution is a change in people before anything else. With that in mind, the revolution is already started all around the world (and has been for some time)- the real question is, where will the first bastion of Marxism be?

My guess would be for some extremely poor country (first worlders be damned)- Bangladesh is where I'd put my money.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Like which countries? I'd like to hear more about that!

Well the largest revolution is the Communist Revolution in India. The Communist Party of India (Maoist) has already organized an army and has captured a significant amount of territory in India. Here is a picture of the land they either control or are active in:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_HQzfBWTW70o/TKtuBMuJQZI/AAAAAAAAADg/S01y2UcASrE/s200/the-red-corridor.jpg

Lately there have been some setbacks in the Indian Revolution after 2010, however recently there looks like there might be some hope that the tatitical retreat could return to an offensive. The Communist Party of Manipur (Manipur is an oppressed nation in India) was formed recently and last year violent confrontations with the state have increased by 60%. Also many of the nationalist groups in that area that were going to sign ceasefires with the state have began to withdraw from peacetalks and have expressed a more coherent socialist ideology. Also documents were leaked from the CPI(Maoist)
that stated that they intend to launch an offensive to capture Orrisa. Also recently I read a report that the map above might soon be updated to include Mysore in the Red Corridor. Additionally they've learned how to take down helicopters with sniper rifles so that removes a significant advantage that the Indian state had. So while they are still on the run for now I think in the long term the Indian Revolution will be able to turn the table.


And while there is less information about the Philippines, recently the Communist Party of the Philippines released a statement that they should be capable of taking state power in about ten years. The New People's Army has already captured alot of territory and for the last couple of years they have been making great strides against the state. Simon Martin, the exiled leader of the CPP has tried to negotiate a ceasefire with the state but a statement I read from the leader of the party in the Philippines stated that they will not stand down until they've achieved victory. So Simon is probably talking out of his ass to get himself out of prison.

[Tim Cornelis]

My money is on Latin America. It has a large working class, large inequality, and high poverty. However, 75% of Brazil's population supports free markets, one of the highest in the world. Mexico, in contrast, has one of the lowest support rates for free markets.

Source: GlobeScan Poll.

Spain, Portugal, Greece are also interesting, but the leading far-left ideologies are hardly revolutionary.

India also has a significant working class, but unfortunately many support dead-end "communists." Not entirely relevant, but acceptance of homosexuality in India is very low (less than 10%) while in Latin America it's circa 50%. In Egypt (also named by someone) has a 1% 'acceptance rate'.

The FARC-EP is likely to give up its war for "social justice" (i.e. welfare) and does not have popular support (less than 5%) to actually execute a revolution. The Kurdish KCK/PYD, in contrast, enjoys 30% popular support amongst Syrian Kurds (they claim 70%), but their attempted revolution will likewise fail. Minority revolution ends in minority rule. Simple as that. The same goes for Maoists in India, the Philippines, and, fortunately Maoists stop naming it, Nepal. And likewise Maoists will stop naming the Philippines and India after their inevitable demise or failure.


I think the Middle East would be one of the last places actually since Islamism is popular there and they're directly opposed to socialism and suppress socialist movements. I'm inclined to say it would begin in East Asian countries, and possibly Eastern Europe and Russia would be next since there's already plenty of nostalgia there for socialism.

If Eastern Europe's social attitudes are anything like Russia's, it's unlikely. Russia's majority favours a strong leader over civil liberties, such attitudes are hardly fertile for self-emancipation. Additionally, it's very conservative, nationalist, etc.

Source: Globescan Poll


I heard that in China, "worker strikes too common to suppress."
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/worker-strikes-in-china-too-common-to-suppress-20130221-2es8a.html

While I doubt that revolution may spark first in China, but if at least an organized mass strike/general strike occurred it could cause some big effects internationally.
A revolution in China may strike a lethal blow to the world economy.

75% of China's urban population favours free markets.

Source: Globescan Poll

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Minority revolution ends in minority rule.


This is a bit off topic but all I will say is that you ought to read some Bordiga. Other than that I have no desire to derail the thread over this theoretical issue.


Simple as that. The same goes for Maoists in India, the Philippines, and, fortunately Maoists stop naming it, Nepal. And likewise Maoists will stop naming the Philippines and India after their inevitable demise or failure.


The Left-Wing faction of the Nepalese ruling party split of and is preparing for a second revolution. They've already assembled an army of 8,000 men and they are waiting for the moment. I think that within the months we'll see a second Nepalese Revolution.

And it looks like you've researched neither India or the Philippines. The original stragety of the CPI(Maoist) was to spread PPW throughout the country. Now they are refocusing their efforts on reducing their causilties and spreading into the cities to prepare for insurrection. They have been sucessful in both efforts. They have increased their influence in the trade union movement and
in the past 2 years they have taken significantly less losses. And as I've said before the Philippines is looking pretty good.

So, let's cut the pessimism and have faith in our comrades in the east, shall we?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

If Eastern Europe's social attitudes are anything like Russia's, it's unlikely. Russia's majority favours a strong leader over civil liberties, such attitudes are hardly fertile for self-emancipation. Additionally, it's very conservative, nationalist, etc.

http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2011/12/Anniv-of-Fall-of-Soviet-Union-20110044.png


We can extange statistics all day, but instead of factmongering let's look at what these views translate into praxis. If we adopt the belief that we are approaching a revolutionary epoch then we can say with confidence that we ought to be focusing our practice on preparing for this revolution and spreading class consciousness. If we are not in the revolutionary Epoch then we fight for reforms to preserve the relevancy of our movement until capitalism finds it's self in crisis and we can begin to speak of revolution.

For the sake of Praxis, I think the first view is the best.

Edited for the presence of a oneliner.

[Tim Cornelis]

This is a bit off topic but all I will say is that you ought to read some Bordiga. Other than that I have no desire to derail the thread over this theoretical issue.

I have read a bit, he supports soviets, soviets is majority rule.



The Left-Wing faction of the Nepalese ruling party split of and is preparing for a second revolution. They've already assembled an army of 8,000 men and they are waiting for the moment. I think that within the months we'll see a second Nepalese Revolution.

And it looks like you've researched neither India or the Philippines. The original stragety of the CPI(Maoist) was to spread PPW throughout the country. Now they are refocusing their efforts on reducing their causilties and spreading into the cities to prepare for insurrection. They have been sucessful in both efforts. They have increased their influence in the trade union movement and
in the past 2 years they have taken significantly less losses. And as I've said before the Philippines is looking pretty good.

So, let's cut the pessimism and have faith in our comrades in the east, shall we?

Pessimism until proven unnecessary.


http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2011/12/Anniv-of-Fall-of-Soviet-Union-20110044.png


We can extange statistics all day, but instead of factmongering let's look at what these views translate into praxis. If we adopt the belief that we are approaching a revolutionary epoch then we can say with confidence that we ought to be focusing our practice on preparing for this revolution and spreading class consciousness. If we are not in the revolutionary Epoch then we fight for reforms to preserve the relevancy of our movement until capitalism finds it's self in crisis and we can begin to speak of revolution.

For the sake of Praxis, I think the first view is the best.

http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2012/05/Russia0032.png

Strong leader > democracy = little prospect for self-emancipation

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I have read a bit, he supports soviets, soviets is majority rule.


Demonstrably false, but again this isn't the point of the thread.


The dictatorship advocated by marxism is necessary because it cannot be unanimously accepted and furthermore it will not have the naiveté to abdicate for lack of having a majority of votes, if such a thing were ascertainable. Precisely because it declares this it will not run the risk of being confused with a dictatorship of men or groups of men who take control of the government and substitute themselves for the working class. The revolution requires a dictatorship, because it would be ridiculous to subordinate the revolution to a 100 % acceptance or a 51 % majority. Wherever these figures are displayed, it means that the revolution has been betrayed.

~Bordiga

Class Party and Proletarian Dictatorship



Strong leader > democracy = little prospect for self-emancipation

Democracy is a paper tiger, I think the disdain towards capitalism in the other statistics I've shown is far more important. Besides, as I've said factmongering is useless because we can come to a million different conclusions that are all wrong because they rely on a single source or a single view. Dialetically speaking, every system is a unity of contradictions and theory and praxis should reflect this, not the one sidedness of declaring one view correct from one source, when another source contradicts it.

[Tim Cornelis]

Demonstrably false, but again this isn't the point of the thread.

That sentence prior the underlined seems to support my case.




Democracy is a paper tiger, I think the disdain towards capitalism in the other statistics I've shown is far more important. Besides, as I've said factmongering is useless because we can come to a million different conclusions that are all wrong because they rely on a single source or a single view. Dialetically speaking, every system is a unity of contradictions and theory should reflect this, not the one sidedness of declaring one view correct from one source, when another source contradicts it.

Opposing capitalism + supporting a strong leader = ??? Certainly not communist revolution. More likely, favouring neo-Stalinist (note: not Marxist-Leninism) policies of state control over industries and state management of capital under the leadership of a Red Putin.

You can't separate one from the other, it's mostly the same people that believe it. Willing to sacrifice liberal democracy for a strong leader or economy sounds mighty proto-fascist. Again, this runs counter to self-emancipation.

[Let's Get Free]

I don't know where it will start, but there is a problem that hasn't really been accounted for in communist discourse because if it is true then there isn't any point. That is, all of the proletarian insurrections of the past were carried out by populations who still remembered being something other than proletarians. That exists in few nations in the world today.

[l'Enfermé]

the revolution will start in our hearts, comrades

lololol

[Lenina Rosenweg]

South Africa would be a very good candidate. For the past twenty years or so the governing Tripartate Alliance has functioned to keep the South African working class under control for global capital.They are no longer capable of doing this and the country is close to an explosion.

Egypt, Greece, Spain and Portugal are in pre-revolutionary situations.

The problem everywhere is the "subjective factor", after decades of neo-liberalism and the collapse of the Eastern Block, and the collapse or treason of communist and socdem parties the working class must rebuild its leadership cadre. This is happening however.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

That sentence prior the underlined seems to support my case.

Demonstrably false again. Bordiga does not support the rule of the non-proletarian minority, but he does believe in a layered working class with an advanced layer that forms the Communist Party. to quote Bordiga



Precisely because the Communist Party is the organisation of proletarians who have achieved this class consciousness, the aim of the party will be, by its propaganda, to win elective posts for its members within the social organisation. The dictatorship of the proletariat will therefore be the dictatorship of the Communist Party
~Bordiga

Theses of the Abstentionist Communist Faction of the Italian Socialist Party



Opposing capitalism + supporting a strong leader = ??? Certainly not communist revolution.

You can't separate one from the other
Is this true?

Mao once said that what differentiates crude empiricism and science is that crude empiricism only looks at a thing from one angle and fails to view every side of the contradiction. The mathematical formula you presented is a perfect example of crude empiricism. So, let's drop the crude empiricism and fact mongering and let's try to look at it from both angles?

Are the statistics you've presented good or bad? Neither and both simultaneously. One of the laws of Dialectical Materialism is that things go through rapid and instantaneous state changes, so these ideas themselves can be flipped on their heads or done away all together in a revolutionary Epoch.

So, with the dialetical perspective in mind, is the importance of the economy over the political system a good thing or a bad thing? Neither and both Simultaneously. On one hand it expresses what could be viewed on one side as political apathy, on the otherhand it expresses a rejection of the political in favor of the material. And as we know that they are not fond of capitalism, the importance of the economy over the political system leaves the possibility of an interest in overturning the political system and changing the mode of production. After all, a focus on the mode of production is far more important to the revolutionary process than whether or not they are fond of Liberal Democracy.

Is a desire for strong leadership over multi party democracy a bad thing? On one hand it could be interpreted as a desire for a Red Putin. And yet all things are vulnerable to rapid state changes. A contempt for multi-party democracy can be a contempt for liberal concept of multi class democracy in favor of single class proletarian dictatorship.

All things go through rapid changes, everything is an expression of the unity of it's contradictions, all things are flipped on their head. With all of these things in mind, I believe that a revolution and fascism are extremely likely. In terms of Praxis this does not translate into pessimism, but simple the view that as Communists we need to get our act together because we can both win and fail. Both options are both extremely likely depending on how history unravel. But the only thing that isn't possible is for the world not to change, because the world has done nothing but change since the beginning of time.

So, to be brief and crude, take your pessimism and shove it. We are being presented with only two choices, Socialism or Barbarism. There are no other paths to take and that is fundamentally a good thing because while it leaves the possibility of disaster it opens up the oppertuinity for something greater than our species has every achieved.

[subcp]

One of the central capitalist nations, which will likely link up with existing struggles in the developing nations where there are near constant mass strikes/mass action- the historic experience of the central proletariat, with its centuries of worker's movement history and revolutionary experiences, plus the setting of the most developed (over-developed/senile) capitalism, are likely where it will start. I think the speed at which is spreads will be similar to the timeline of OWS: in the span of something like 6-7 weeks there were similar forms and content in major cities everywhere on Earth. I think the forms of the proletarian revolution (councils, committee's, assemblies, instantly revocable worker-delegates) will spread to the constant and ongoing struggles in places like Bangladesh, India, China- link up and in short order the movement for communism will crush bourgeois power, all states and be on the way toward abolishing classes and value.

[Crabbensmasher]

This is a really hard question.
You would think China, given the terrible conditions for the working class there, but here's the thing; just like in the former USSR, a lot of people believed in the political system, they just wanted to improve material comforts. I don't think there would really be a revolution unless they start political liberalization. And given their capitalistic tendencies, they could quell troubles easily. There's nothing like consumerism to discourage a war. Keeps them nice and docile.

I'm thinking possibly North Africa, depending what the Muslim brotherhood parties do. Definitely not the middle east. They had their time with Arab Socialism, which would discourage many from affiliating with a left organization. They're also deeply conservative.

Africa would be similar to the middle east. They had their time with communist parties during the cold war, and a lot of them still remain in power, despite major reforms.
The only exception to that is South Africa, which has had massive labour troubles recently, or Angola, which has a communist party in power now as well as a very oppressed working class.

As for the remainder of the Mediterranean, they seem out of the question unless many of their ties with the rest of Europe were somehow severed. Right now Greece is being led more so by Germany than itself.

Top countries in my opinion

South Africa
India?
Columbia (Anywhere in South America really)
Angola
Anywhere North Africa

Anyway, I'm just guessing. All of this could probably go out the window if the world get's flipped upside down.

[20ARM13]

The revolutionary battle has already begun. And the centre stage is Africa. The race however, is not between Communism and capitalism, but that of Communism and religion. And as events in Nigeria and Mali show, we are lagging behind. Thanks mainly to a lack of a workers education. Religion is the master of ignorance. It is up to us in the "developed" world to take the education to Africa, because Africa is screaming out for Communism.

[Manic Impressive]

Historically revolutions have broken out in the weakest link of capitalism not the strongest, Russia, China etc. That's one of the great contradictions of the epoch of socialist revolution, that a country being underdeveloped creates the conditions for revolutionary consciousness and upheaval while this very backwardness precludes the possibility of creating socialism.

The USA may be the country with the best developed economy for socialism but it's the consciousness of the masses that determines the possibility of revolution and as you correctly state the American proletarians are far behind their counterparts elsewhere.
The reason the revolution (and by revolution I mean the only one that succeeds) will be in an advanced capitalist society is due to consciousness being determined by "social being" which in turn is determined by production. The higher the level of production the higher the level of consciousness.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The reason the revolution (and by revolution I mean the only one that succeeds) will be in an advanced capitalist society is due to consciousness being determined by "social being" which in turn is determined by production. The higher the level of production the higher the level of consciousness.

"Consciousness" (which I think is a troubling concept anyway, but that's another topic) is very low in the United States.

[ind_com]

The reason the revolution (and by revolution I mean the only one that succeeds) will be in an advanced capitalist society is due to consciousness being determined by "social being" which in turn is determined by production. The higher the level of production the higher the level of consciousness.

This is not clear to me. How does producing fancy goods alone make one realize that he needs to participate in class war?

[Brutus]

the revolution will start in our hearts, comrades

lololol

Cardio is needed to be a revolutionary comrade.

[Manic Impressive]

"Consciousness" (which I think is a troubling concept anyway, but that's another topic) is very low in the United States.
Conciousness is a fundamental part of the materialist conception of history so it troubles me that the concept troubles you. As for the second part please refer to my original post in this thread.

This is not clear to me. How does producing fancy goods alone make one realize that he needs to participate in class war?
It's not the type of goods that determine consciousness but how they are produced.

The mode of production is a social process. It is both necessary for our survival and is necessarily social due to our dependency on the cooperation of others to produce. For this reason it determines our "social being".

Capitalism imposes parasitic processes which disrupt the cycle of production and siphon off social wealth (surplus value). Instead of the core necessities i.e. Production (social wealth) > Distribution > Consumption capitalism adds the market > exchange > Profit. The most important part of the cycle for the worker is consumption the most important part of the cycle for the capitalist is profit. Consumption to the capitalist is only necasserry in that it sustains those who produce. Consumption will always be sacrificed for profit. This determines that workers will always come into conflict with capitalists. Through this conflict workers become aware of their situation and the necessity of their own interests within the cycle of production. Thus as Marx said "social being determines consciousness". It's also the reason for his more famous quote from the manifesto
The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. As we can see the mode of production determines social being. Social being determines consciousness. So the level of development of production determines the level of consciousness of workers. Capitalism, the mode of production, is at it's most developed in the USA and to a very slightly lesser degree in Western Europe. However, as capitalism is a global system and is developed everywhere and taking into account the advances in technology allowing workers to communicate over vast distances (as we are doing now) the spread of class consciousness will be largely global and will spread relatively quickly as we have seen with the "arab spring" inspiring uprisings across the region and things like occupy around the rest of the world.

[Rafiq]

I think Baader Meinhoff got it right- the revolution is a change in people before anything else. With that in mind, the revolution is already started all around the world (and has been for some time)- the real question is, where will the first bastion of Marxism be?

My guess would be for some extremely poor country (first worlders be damned)- Bangladesh is where I'd put my money.

I despise this moralist notion of "change yourself before revolution". Forgive me if this is not what you meant, but it is complete garbage. There are actual-existing conditions which can give rise to mediocre forms of class consciousness. It is not people by themselves that change, but real-existing conditions which can give birth to those changes.

[Rafiq]

My money is on Latin America. It has a large working class, large inequality, and high poverty. However, 75% of Brazil's population supports free markets, one of the highest in the world. Mexico, in contrast, has one of the lowest support rates for free markets.


75% of China's urban population favours free markets.


Tim, stop embarrassing yourself. All of those surveys are taken out of context to a great extent. What do free markets mean to 75% of China's population? And the same for Brazil? I would like to see the survey once more with the question changed to "Are you in favor of unregulated markets" and so on. Free markets can mean, I don't know, consumerism or whatever.

And this still an extremely unstable form of false consciousness. With the development of capitalism in both of those countries, forms of false consciousness which are more oriented towards "social democracy" in Europe or the United States are more effective in suppressing class consciousness.

[subcp]

This question does pick at your own individual understanding of class consciousness. A lot of posts suggest communism is an idea that must be accepted (and that very low standards of living contribute to this) before there can be a proletarian revolution; class consciousness is determined by the class struggle, but doesn't disappear when the open struggle is over. Engels and Trotsky put forward that it is sharp changes in living conditions (regardless of direction- higher or lower) and crisis that lead to the cracks through which the workers solution to capitalism can be put forward.

Workers traditionally will accept very low standards of living until the class struggle aggravates existing tensions (for ex. the Great Upheaval in the US 1877- in the context of economic depression, day to day class struggle erupted into armed insurrection). If poor living conditions are what lead to revolt and consciousness, how do you explain the eruptions in Western Europe and the US (and Japan etc. - the central capitalist nations) between the end of WWII and culminating in 1968-1973; the French May, Hot Autumn, being exclamation points in a time of enormous unrest and open struggle. The working-class, in general, in the central capitalist nations, had never had a higher standard of living (and perpetual rising wages, benefits and quality of life for a couple decades after the war)- so how do you explain the eruption of severe antagonistic class struggle?

[Rafiq]

http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2012/05/Russia0032.png

Strong leader > democracy = little prospect for self-emancipation

Yet again tim demonstrates is inability to recognize the process in which class consciousness develops and functions. Again, it's bullshit taken out of context. "Democracy" to Eastern Europeans amounts to the same thing it meant to them twenty years ago, namely, liberalist capitalism. Almost on a universal scale democracy is a meaningless term, it is a category in itself where it does not belong. Take "democratic socialists". What purpose is their existence other than to demonstrate their identification with both bourgeois democracy and 'socialism'?

It is better for these kinds of unstable forms of false consciousness to be manifested than this dynamic and durable form of liberalism which exists in western countries. The fact that people reject democracy in Eastern Europe is a sign that there is a vacuum waiting to be filled, that forms of ideological hegemony have not been fully developed. The same goes for the middle east, etc.

[Rafiq]

Opposing capitalism + supporting a strong leader = ??? Certainly not communist revolution. More likely, favouring neo-Stalinist (note: not Marxist-Leninism) policies of state control over industries and state management of capital under the leadership of a Red Putin.

You can't separate one from the other, it's mostly the same people that believe it. Willing to sacrifice liberal democracy for a strong leader or economy sounds mighty proto-fascist. Again, this runs counter to self-emancipation.

Tim sure has a great understanding of ideology. This rationalist, simplistic understanding of it forces him to understand it on a conscious, superficial level that he can add and subtract in meaningless equations which just as abstract as his own adherence to Communism. No, nostalgia is not an indicator of impending revolution or whatever. But what it does demonstrate is that there exists a vacuum, ideologically, i.e. people are looking for solutions, they are not satisfied with things as they are.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

greece or spain, or any of the western european countries finally facing capitalism without its human face.

you forget about portugal!!!!

[Durruti's friend]

My money is on Europe. It has the best ratio between advanced capitalism and has a somewhat developed class conscience. America has capitalism, but the people aren't organized at all. In Europe, I believe the Mediterranean is interesting.

Unfortunately, the powderkeg of Europe has succumbed to nationalists but everything is possible...

Except for Europe, I believe Latin America has potential. Bolivarianism has brought social-democracy there and the people just might want more.

[subcp]

The large (and incredibly lucid) article in the newest issue of Insurgent Notes also puts forward a revolutionary outburst in Europe linking to the generalized struggles in the periphery:



Yet China, with 100,000-plus “incidents” a year of riots, land disputes between peasants and party officials, not to mention the impressive strikes of 2010, is a powder keg. The regime’s legitimacy ever since 1978 has rested on delivering 8–10 percent annual economic growth and the resulting jobs and rising incomes. It may attempt to implement an updated “German” corporatist model of free unions and enterprise committees, combined with increased domestic consumption to substitute for declining exports, but the obstacles and risks are great.


Meanwhile, the depth of the crisis in the West has, after decades of rollback, increasingly the proletariat in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France and even the United States doing what “it is compelled to do” (Marx) by crisis conditions.


When this deepening ferment in the West meets a similar ferment in China, the linkups that failed in 1848 and 1917 (the latter being the turning point of history when history didn’t turn, as CLR James put it) may “turn the world upside down” far more than the “bourgeois revolution with red flags” of 1949 ever did.




http://insurgentnotes.com/2013/03/fictitious-capital-and-contracted-social-reproduction-today-china-and-permanent-revolution/

[cyu]

Cyprus.

Seriously though, Cyprus is just another added venue. Every time people stand up for themselves against the wealthy, it's another instance of revolution. This isn't to say they succeed - often the military resources held by the capitalist's minions are just too strong to defeat - at least not immediately.

But who is to say when any conflict is ultimately over? If someone who mugs a capitalist is put in prison for 20 years, that isn't to say his "revolution" has been defeated.

It ain't over until the fat lady sings.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Conciousness is a fundamental part of the materialist conception of history so it troubles me that the concept troubles you.

"Nihilist Communism" presents a pretty effective (if a bit mechanistic and flawed) argument against the leftist missionary approach to "class consciousness".


As for the second part please refer to my original post in this thread.

Your first post really didn't give any insight into your argument. If the USA really does have the most advanced productive system, and your theory holds true, then it doesn't make sense that consciousness is so low here. And in fact, aside from a number of much celebrated movements and events here (like the IWW for example), "class consciousness" in the USA has always been low, compared to other countries. That doesn't make any sense if one subscribes to the purely mechanistic notion of "advanced production = advanced consciousness".

[Rafiq]

"Nihilist Communism" presents a pretty effective (if a bit mechanistic and flawed) argument against the leftist missionary approach to "class consciousness".


Both "Nihilist Communism", and, as you say, this missionary approach are invalid. Trade Union consciousness develops organically, but it is not enough. To reach full levels of class consciousness the proletariat requires direction from more advanced members of it's class. Without the pre-requisite of trade-union consciousness, which develops organically, attempts to solidify full class consciousness are rendered ineffective.

[homegrown terror]

if the FARC could clean up their act a bit in the human rights department, i think they'd have enough popular support to take the countryside of Colombia on a march to bogota and start the revolution. their proximity to the panama canal means that if they could seize control in colombia, they could control a vast amount of trade in the americas, and use that strategic advantage to force the revolution northward. a lot of the capitalist governments in central america are rather disorganised, and pockets of leftist sympathisers dot the land, which could give forces a fairly clear shot at least as far as mexico. at that point i think the EZLN would see a time to act, start pressing southward, and eventually unite central america under a red flag. this in turn would present a powerful ally to leftist groups lying underground in the US, and make it in fact theoretically possible to take at very least the border states.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Both "Nihilist Communism", and, as you say, this missionary approach are invalid. Trade Union consciousness develops organically, but it is not enough. To reach full levels of class consciousness the proletariat requires direction from more advanced members of it's class.

Well that's basically what NC argues, although not in those terms. It argues that the struggle develops organically but also needs the intervention of the pro-revolutionary milieu at a certain stage, aka the more "politically advanced" members of the class.

[subcp]

Both "Nihilist Communism", and, as you say, this missionary approach are invalid. Trade Union consciousness develops organically, but it is not enough. To reach full levels of class consciousness the proletariat requires direction from more advanced members of it's class. Without the pre-requisite of trade-union consciousness, which develops organically, attempts to solidify full class consciousness are rendered ineffective.

Like Os wrote, nihcom just attacks the 'pro-revolutionaries have to convert x number of workers who then convince x number more workers until we have enough convinced and converted workers to communism: then revolution' model.

The ICC's subterranean maturation of consciousness theory is the most comprehensive and realistic view of class consciousness I've come across. They posit that in times of struggle, class consciousness rises- but after the open struggle is over, the lessons and experiences do not 'disappear' but remain part of the memories and thoughts of those involved. So when mass strikes broke out in Poland, the experiences of 1956, 1970, 1976 all play a part in the subterranean maturation of consciousness- so that when the advanced forms of struggle (geographic committee's, inter-firm or joint-strike committee's, mandated and recallable worker-delegates, etc.) immediately form, and there are parallel's to prior struggles, we see how class consciousness develops and informs future struggles.

This would also apply to international adoption of other workers' forms and content of struggle: like the Wisconsin public sector workers taking inspiration from the Egyptian textile workers and the Arab Spring, which in turn informed Occupy and the Indignados.

The other aspect is the development of pro-revolutionary minorities: that we (communists) are an organic creation of the working-class in struggle, our individual exposure to struggle and the environment it creates (among other factors). In that sense it follows Bordiga's biological analogies: that the communist minority is a tissue of the working-class (rather than an external agent that is outside of the proletariat). So another indicator of rising class consciousness (in the context of the subterranean maturation of consciousness) is a growing communist minority, new revolutionary organizations, new generations seeking the traditions and ideas of the worker's movement, etc.

I think this theory is in line with the critiques of Nihilist Communism, and with the view that class consciousness is not the sole property of the communist minority (who then transmit this to the proletariat) via Kautsky/Lenin. If the class struggle is a subjective agent within capitalism, the communist minority is a subjective agent within a subjective agent; or just one (necessary) portion of the only class with revolutionary agency- the proletariat.

But this theory is also opposed to the mechanistic/determinist conceptions of other communists who don't view us as external or outside the working-class (who don't follow the Kautsky/Lenin schema)- those that think consciousness is a spontaneous creation, only in the heat of open struggle, which then disappears when the struggle is over or periods of reflux and retreat for the class struggle.

In either case, it falls within a political tradition which views the revolution as necessarily starting in the central capitalist nations due to the history and experience of the central proletariat. Others make the argument that the working-class is too 'young' yet in developing nations- only a generation or 2 removed from the countryside.

[Dear Leader]

Social democracy is hardly revolutionary
What do you mean?

[Comrade Nasser]

NARNIA? :laugh:

[Aurora]

The reason the revolution (and by revolution I mean the only one that succeeds) will be in an advanced capitalist society is due to consciousness being determined by "social being" which in turn is determined by production. The higher the level of production the higher the level of consciousness.
That's vulgar materialism, social being determines consciousness, social being is not determined primarily by production as you say but by the relations of production, which means in this context the relationship of the proletarian to the capitalist: the contradiction of social production and individual appropriation, this is what determines that workers are capable of developing a consciousness that is antagonistic to capitalism. This relation doesn't just exist in the advanced countries but in all countries today.

Reality proves your mechanical 'higher production: higher consciousness' wrong in innumerable instances, in every country production is more developed than it was yet consciousness in the most advanced countries is much lower than it was, the USA has no IWW no SPA no SLP no CP no SWP etc
So there must be other factors which condition the development of consciousness since clearly the development of production alone doesn't.

There are a multitude of these factors, in Paris 1871 it was the approach of a foreign army, in Russia 1917 it was crises in land, war, democracy and food. Today revolutionary consciousness is most likely facilitated by unemployment, housing repossession, austerity and food insecurity, conditions differing in every country of course.

[Philosophos]

Well I haven't really watched news from around the world to see what is going on to different countries. I believe it's Spain since they have huge left history on their backs. I really wish I could say Greece too but... no... not yet...

[homegrown terror]

i would love to see the revolution start somewhere in the mediterranean, just for the reason of potentially capturing the vatican.