Where could a revolution begin?

[Red Star Rising]

I know, Marx said in the Communist Manifesto that the proletariat as a whole must overthrow the capitalist system, regardless of nationality. But still, I think that the spark must be lit in one country where there is an above average concentration of class-conscious workers and sympathetic intellectuals that also has the means to sustain itself (there would have to be a good enough industrial base to support a socialist welfare service economy).

My own beliefs on the parameters for revolution are:
1) A developed country - if it happens in a poor country, where the idea might be more attractive admittedly, the capitalists in the first world could point at the poverty they created and say "look at the state that socialism left that shit-hole in!"...again. However, if a developed country is the first to go red then the disgruntled workers of the third world would think "look how great it is over there compared to the way we live under capitalism, lets smash capitalism!"

2) A good mix of production and service industry - without the potential for a sustainable industrial base there is a less obvious proletariat and it would be harder for socialism to sustain itself. With a service industry already in place, it would be less difficult for collectivised welfare to be put in place; workers could simply seize control of it themselves and continue to operate it (with reforms of course) rather than a centralised bureaucratic state organising everything.

3) A fairly anti-establishment younger generation who are ore open to Marxist ideas and have the means of accessing them from an unbiased perspective. If the younger generation are open to the prospect of "I don't get to have more things than other people because of the job I do" then greed could be cut from the economy pretty easily and quickly .

4) A democratic system that exists but in an imperfect state - people need to be angry enough at how current "democracy" favours the rich and is very elitist but if it is a country ruled with an iron fist then it seems more likely to be replaced by a similar regime - any vanguard party MUST have the intention of preserving democracy to avoid bureaucracy and a new class divide emerging in the form of a political elite. People need to be open to the concepts of freedom of speech and angry enough with the current social and political order of things to want to reform it.

5) A developed capitalistic economy faced with financial crisis that is widely known to have been caused by greedy capitalists, again. Weak capital and anger at capitalism would create the social conditions required for the removal both.

6)A number of neighbouring countries in a similar situation - it would make it more likely that revolution would spill over to them too, preventing isolationism.

Anything anybody has to add or remove? and any ideas on examples of nations where these conditions exist or may exist in the future?

[Chomskyan]

I think the US is a prime candidate. Many people know that these things (what the Bougeoisie are up to) are going on, but they haven't been exposed to an alternative (Socialism) yet. In fact, they are fooled by the Bourgeoisie into thinking that Obama is a Socialist and that we currently are living under Socialism. The Latin American countries are very attuned to Socialist ideology last I checked, as well.

I also think Spain and Greece could be candidates for this. I've also heard Italy is not very happy about the corruption and theft in their country. Heck, even in Germany there are anti-capitalist sentiments. The Social Democratic Party has moved to the Left (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-04/merkel-slams-spd-for-coalition-with-anti-capitalist-left-party.html) to work with Die Linke.

I think the set-off will be yet another inevitable financial collapse. The last one almost toppled the whole capitalist system, the next is bound to do the same.

[Red Star Rising]

I think the US is a prime candidate. Many people know that these things (what the Bougeoisie are up to) are going on, but they haven't been exposed to an alternative (Socialism) yet. In fact, they are fooled by the Bourgeoisie into thinking that Obama is a Socialist and that we currently are living under Socialism. The Latin American countries are very attuned to Socialist ideology last I checked, as well.

I also think Spain and Greece could be candidates for this. I've also heard Italy is not very happy about the corruption and theft in their country. Heck, even in Germany there are anti-capitalist sentiments. The Social Democratic Party has moved to the Left (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-04/merkel-slams-spd-for-coalition-with-anti-capitalist-left-party.html) to work with Die Linke.

I think the set-off will be yet another inevitable financial collapse. The last one almost toppled the whole capitalist system, the next is bound to do the same.

US seems to have the right kind of economic situation. But I fear that the anti-socialist tendency of the average american is simply too deeply ingrained for this to be a realistic possibility - US students undergo subtle but effective indoctrination from the age that they are old enough to even pronounce the word "Communism" (and often before).

South america is the other way around - they are politically open to it but if it happened there the west would back them into a corner and not let it flourish just like they did with Cuba, that's why it would have to be a developed country.

Spain and Greece aren't a bad guess, I think that the influence of the church in Spain might hold things back a bit but pope Francis has openly stated his rather left-wing ideology so that might change. I don't know much about Greece but I know that its economy has pretty much collapsed, they have become pretty economically and politically stagnate as far as the rest of the world is concerned so there might not be a big enough global impact; people would say "oh poor little Greece, what silly shenanigans are they up to now?" Who knows, that could go either way.

It would need to be something that would shake the world to the core, something that can't be ignored or brushed off, I thought Germany was the best bet too, but the misgivings about socialism due to the DDR are still very real, and I fear that if Socialists took over they might try to replicate that again and that would be tragic and probably fatal to any hope of "redemption" for Communists.

France or Britain perhaps? They're probably a big enough deal for the rest of the world to worry about, but IDK if their economies could support themselves (thanks a lot, Thatcher). Europe looks like the winning bet, but nowhere is QUITE right.

[Red Star Rising]

I think the set-off will be yet another inevitable financial collapse. The last one almost toppled the whole capitalist system, the next is bound to do the same.

And no greedy unions to deflect the blame onto either. Seriously though, we need to unfuck-up the unions to get anything done.

[Tim Cornelis]

Based on objective and subjective conditions, South Africa appears to be the closest. Objective conditions:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1364&pictureid=11837

http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11 ;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.592 90322580644;ti=2003$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid =tyadrylIpQ1K_iHP407374Q;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS ;iid=rcO6CXqmEjV-wS-29qejCpw;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuy j0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0 ;by=grp$map_x;scale=lin;dataMin=0.174;dataMax=0.94 3$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=3.2;dataMax=99$map_s;sma =49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=

There's an positive correlation between human development and wage-labour. Of course, this has as affect that in developed capitalist countries class contrast diminishes, and not increases as was initially predicted by Marx -- and therefore less potential for the development of class consciousness. South Africa has comparatively low human development, but a high working class. It may be coincidental it may be not, but it also appears to have the most militant working class.

In the subjective realm, we see militant African nationalist Stalinism rise with the demagogue Malema (unfortunately), we see trade union militancy, and we see successful far-left movements like Abahlali baseMjondolo.

[Red Star Rising]

Based on objective and subjective conditions, South Africa appears to be the closest. Objective conditions:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1364&pictureid=11837

http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11 ;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.592 90322580644;ti=2003$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid =tyadrylIpQ1K_iHP407374Q;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS ;iid=rcO6CXqmEjV-wS-29qejCpw;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuy j0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0 ;by=grp$map_x;scale=lin;dataMin=0.174;dataMax=0.94 3$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=3.2;dataMax=99$map_s;sma =49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=

There's an positive correlation between human development and wage-labour. Of course, this has as affect that in developed capitalist countries class contrast diminishes, and not increases as was initially predicted by Marx -- and therefore less potential for the development of class consciousness. South Africa has comparatively low human development, but a high working class. It may be coincidental it may be not, but it also appears to have the most militant working class.

In the subjective realm, we see militant African nationalist Stalinism rise with the demagogue Malema (unfortunately), we see trade union militancy, and we see successful far-left movements like Abahlali baseMjondolo.

One of their greatest national heroes was maybe, maybe not, a Communist. That helps. The social problems and corruption that South Africa is stricken with could help start a revolution or it could just cause a new socialist government to be....inadvisable. No socialist country on earth is a better option than militant Stalinism.

I am of the view the somewhere western European would be best, but the objective economic conditions aren't as ripe I suppose, maybe if 2 or 3 countries join in very quickly it could work but IDK.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

A better question might be: where does revolution need to start in order to light the touchpaper for a worldwide transformation?

There is no point just making an arbitrary decision on which country is closest to some kind of vaguely leftist political transformation, and making that our cause de celebre for a generation. We have done that in the past with ideologies like Marxism-Leninism, Maoism etc., and all this serves to do is narrow our political focus and often adopt wrong political solutions to put square political pegs into round holes.

[Red Star Rising]

A better question might be: where does revolution need to start in order to light the touchpaper for a worldwide transformation?

There is no point just making an arbitrary decision on which country is closest to some kind of vaguely leftist political transformation, and making that our cause de celebre for a generation. We have done that in the past with ideologies like Marxism-Leninism, Maoism etc., and all this serves to do is narrow our political focus and often adopt wrong political solutions to put square political pegs into round holes.

That's what I was saying in the original post - where are conditions right but also where would a revolution be a major hit to capitalism and an inspiration to the rest of the world - Germany for example is a major economic player in Europe and has enough influence and has an industrial base. If Germany became socialist half the EU probably might, Greece certainly. That's why I think Europe has to be where it starts, the countries are sufficiently connected politically to cause revolution to spread and they are big enough economically to frighten Capitalism.

Still, if we look at it your way America would perhaps be best seeing as how globally powerful both economically and politically it is. But expecting America to embrace Communism is just silly.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That's what I was saying in the original post - where are conditions right but also where would a revolution be a major hit to capitalism and an inspiration to the rest of the world - Germany for example is a major economic player in Europe and has enough influence and has an industrial base. If Germany became socialist half the EU probably might, Greece certainly. That's why I think Europe has to be where it starts, the countries are sufficiently connected politically to cause revolution to spread and they are big enough economically to frighten Capitalism.

Still, if we look at it your way America would perhaps be best seeing as how globally powerful both economically and politically it is. But expecting America to embrace Communism is just silly.

Germany is the most fiscally conservative country in Europe, though (Britain apart). And I think Germany is, economic uncertainty notwithstanding, one of the most stable countries in the EU currently.

I would say though that there will never be a world transformation away from capitalism until the major centres of capital - US, China, the Eurozone - have ended.

Whilst globalisation once provided a great opportunity for opposition to capitalism, I think that now power blocs in Europe, the BRIC countries and the ever-expanding Russia have now solidified, it represents a great physical challenge to actually have the means to overthrow such centres of political and economic power.

[Red Star Rising]

Germany is the most fiscally conservative country in Europe, though (Britain apart). And I think Germany is, economic uncertainty notwithstanding, one of the most stable countries in the EU currently.

I would say though that there will never be a world transformation away from capitalism until the major centres of capital - US, China, the Eurozone - have ended.

Whilst globalisation once provided a great opportunity for opposition to capitalism, I think that now power blocs in Europe, the BRIC countries and the ever-expanding Russia have now solidified, it represents a great physical challenge to actually have the means to overthrow such centres of political and economic power.

I don't think that the current political state ought to even be considered - what matters is peoples' general attitudes and what material conditions can change that. The 2008 crash caused widespread disillusionment in neo-liberalism and, with Germany's economy facing a possible decline, fiscal conservatism might seem less attractive. And while I agree that Britain is much more neo-liberal since thatcher, just watch what happens when anyone tries to take down the NHS. I don't even think UKIP would.

And while the blocs of capitalistic power throughout the world pose an immediate challenge, some of their biggest economies becoming socialist would seriously ruin capitalism's day - the rest of the EU simply could not ignore it like they could if countries were still fairly isolated. Now that nations have "intercourse in every direction" revolution could spread more easily. A repeat of 2008 could provide the breakthrough needed I think, with Europe's economy going pretty much to shit again people would seriously start looking for alternatives, regardless of how solid the power of capitalism might seem to be.

[MarxSchmarx]

Why does it have to have a central focus? What you call a spark can happen anywhere. Look at the Arab spring. It required a self immolator in Tunisia but its greatest triumphs and dramatic outcomes have been elsewhere. To be successful, the anti capitalist movement must be robust everywhere, but just as it was an unemployed street fruit vendor who set off a crazy chain reaction, there is little reason to think the inspirational spark need be geographically restricted. The key is not where it originates, but ow to sustain and amplify its path once it is underway. This latter point must be very locale specific, and
Iikely what works in place a wouldn't carry over to place b without a lot of planning.

[Red Star Rising]

Why does it have to have a central focus? What you call a spark can happen anywhere. Look at the Arab spring. It required a self immolator in Tunisia but its greatest triumphs and dramatic outcomes have been elsewhere. To be successful, the anti capitalist movement must be robust everywhere, but just as it was an unemployed street fruit vendor who set off a crazy chain reaction, there is little reason to think the inspirational spark need be geographically restricted. The key is not where it originates, but ow to sustain and amplify its path once it is underway. This latter point must be very locale specific, and
Iikely what works in place a wouldn't carry over to place b without a lot of planning.

Yes, I don't deny that. But it would have to start somewhere, I'm asking where exactly the self immolator would be. The trouble is, the better the socioeconomic conditions from a material perspective, the less class conscious people see to get.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, the spark could be anywhere. Tim has proposed South Africa. What about Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Bangladesh, Greece, Spain, Croatia...?

There need to be three metrics to this I think (we were having this conversation recently on a different thread); you need to measure the immediate 'strength' of the working class, the weakness of the ruling class (not so much use in a strong proletariat if the state is even stronger), and I think the long-term capacity of the working class to resist, which isn't necessarily the same as its immediate strength.

I think in somewhere like Tunisia, during the 'Arab Spring', the state was forced to concede some demands (removing the president, for example) out of extreme weakness, even though the working class wasn't particularly strong and didn't really have the capacity to continue with the struggle.

In Egypt on the other hand, the working class seems more organised and more capable of continuing to fight - even though the state is also stronger.

In the end I think there could be any 'spark'. But where will the sparks catch, that's a bit trickier. It's not about where the 'self-immolator' is.

[MarxSchmarx]

Yes, I don't deny that. But it would have to start somewhere, I'm asking where exactly the self immolator would be. The trouble is, the better the socioeconomic conditions from a material perspective, the less class conscious people see to get.

"Where exactly"? I trust you don't seriously expect me to answer that, but the bigger question is why should that matter? If the logs are damp, no amount of matchlighting will be of any use.

As to well off-people being less class conscious, it bears repeating that what I think you mean by "socioeconomic conditions" are relative. I think it's unquestionably true, for instance, that Chinese migrant factory workers have "better socioeconomic conditions from a material perspective" than their peasant forebearers. But I'd be surprised if any one of them aren't acutely aware of how precarious their economic existince is, and how it is so incredibly dependent upon their ability to provide a useful service to the capitalist class.

Perhaps there is less solidarity, yes, but that comes with the atomization of individuals under capitalism. True, the left has not found a good way to deal with this problem (well, at least since the early 20th century) compared to, say, the reactionaries who appeal to naked nostalgia and the basest of our instincts. But that's why leftists have to reach across borders, gender, etc... and build a uniquely working-class solidarity, right?


Well, the spark could be anywhere. Tim has proposed South Africa. What about Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Bangladesh, Greece, Spain, Croatia...?

There need to be three metrics to this I think (we were having this conversation recently on a different thread); you need to measure the immediate 'strength' of the working class, the weakness of the ruling class (not so much use in a strong proletariat if the state is even stronger), and I think the long-term capacity of the working class to resist, which isn't necessarily the same as its immediate strength.

I think in somewhere like Tunisia, during the 'Arab Spring', the state was forced to concede some demands (removing the president, for example) out of extreme weakness, even though the working class wasn't particularly strong and didn't really have the capacity to continue with the struggle.

In Egypt on the other hand, the working class seems more organised and more capable of continuing to fight - even though the state is also stronger.

In the end I think there could be any 'spark'. But where will the sparks catch, that's a bit trickier. It's not about where the 'self-immolator' is.

I tend to agree with this way of viewing things. And another factor I think is the vibrancy and progressiveness of youth culture. Such an approach has not only obvious demographic implications (as in America, where the younger generations skew much further left than older generations) but I think also fosters a sense of innovation (as was, for better or worse, recognized in Maoist China). For instance, I wouldn't be very surprised if this is why Russia which faces tremendous demographic problems, is so keen on promoting reactionary and conformist youth culture. This is in contrast to Iran or Brazil, not to mention the Arab world, where the youths have been at the vanguard of challenging ruling class ideology. I'd wager the youth of much of the global north lies somewhere in between these two extremes. But I am very optimistic, given the general triumph of social liberalism and the atrocious employment prospects for so many young people that this balance can be tipped strongly in favor of the left, if only the left could figure out how to make itself relevant again.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wasn't the working class in Tunisia actually pretty strong? I was under the impression that militant and/or far-left forces still held quite a bit of sway over the UGTT, for example

[theuproar]

US seems to have the right kind of economic situation. But I fear that the anti-socialist tendency of the average american is simply too deeply ingrained for this to be a realistic possibility - US students undergo subtle but effective indoctrination from the age that they are old enough to even pronounce the word "Communism" (and often before).


I agree with these statements almost 100%. We are in a post-capitalist state of economics here that is potentially incredibly potent, ie Hardt/Negri biopolitics and the consolidation of social interaction as capital.

However, the poor understanding of socialism and idealized celebration of the individual (almost to a creepy, sociopathic degree) will negate much of that potentiality.

Maybe in a more ethnically-homogenous area with a smaller land mass.

[TheBigREDOne]

As unlikely as it is, how tactically important is America for a revolution?

[Blake's Baby]

Strategically important rather than tactically, if that really means anything in a context where our involvement will not be as a general staff but as shock troops.

It is the American working class that will bring down the US. Not some internet lefties. Without destroying the US, the revolution I think is doomed. But it certainly isn't one of the first places I expect it to break out.

[Creative Destruction]

one interesting idea, maybe, is the idea of organizing to produce continent wide revolutions. American working class works with Canadian and Mexican working classes, doing cross border work and what not. the working class on the American/Mexican borders are pretty entwined, with a lot of people working in Mexico and living in the United States (or sometimes, vice-versa.)

i think some real imagining needs to go on about what processes we will have to do in order for a socialist revolution to succeed. not blue-printing -- so allowing for real material conditions to change things as we go along, but just to have some vague idea. it's not going to be just enough to lay our hands on the means of production; there are other issues like organizing supply chains, how to begin changing the mode of remuneration so people can begin receiving goods from the commons, figuring out the amount of work and the nature of work that might need to happen, how to reorganize or rebuild institutions (like schools, hospitals, libraries and what not.) the long-term strength of the working class, as Blake's Baby points out, is a vital importance, but we also need to be cognizant that this is going to be a whole break and should conceive what that really means for our daily lives.

as a side note, i'm uncomfortable with necessarily separating "lefties" from "the working class." i'm a revolutionary leftist who is also working class, not one or the other. i feel like by separating the two necessarily, as distinct concepts, it still gives an air that revolutionary politics is just academic masturbation rather than a struggle to change material conditions.

[Blake's Baby]

OK.

I'm uncomfortable with leftists thinking they're going to bring about the revolution. Of course we're part of the working class, my comment wasn't intended to imply that we aren't; but we exist in a context of low class struggle and until the working class starts to struggle more massively, what we do as 'internet leftists' matters for very little.

[Creative Destruction]

fair enough.

[Red Star Rising]

I'm uncomfortable with leftists thinking they're going to bring about the revolution. Of course we're part of the working class, my comment wasn't intended to imply that we aren't; but we exist in a context of low class struggle and until the working class starts to struggle more massively, what we do as 'internet leftists' matters for very little.

I can understand why you consider it futile, but why would it discomfort you? We can dream can't we?

[Blake's Baby]

Because I think 'leftists' thinking that they're going to accomplish the revolution is harmful to the working class's own ability to organise, which I think is what will really bring about the revolution. It's 'the Left', basically, that has destroyed the prospect of revolution.

[Red Star Rising]

Because I think 'leftists' thinking that they're going to accomplish the revolution is harmful to the working class's own ability to organise, which I think is what will really bring about the revolution. It's 'the Left', basically, that has destroyed the prospect of revolution.

Does not hampering the organisation of the proletariat mean excluding ourselves from such a momentous occasion? Or not prospecting on how it might happen so to be prepared for any eventuality?

Like you rightly said, people are less class conscious nowadays, so society just needs a little push to get the ball rolling. It doesn't seem to be pushing itself, so the organisation of unions and political movements, particularly amongst students and the like, would surely help?

[Blake's Baby]

Does not hampering the organisation of the proletariat mean excluding ourselves from such a momentous occasion? Or not prospecting on how it might happen so to be prepared for any eventuality?...

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

I'm talking about 'leftists' who think they will make the revolution. You seem to be talking about abstaining from any organising. They're not the same thing.

The revolution will be made by the working class, not some socialists. If you think that the revolution is the task of a self-appointed political group, then I think you're already part of the counter-revolution.

If, however, you think that political groups should be part of the revolution, then I agree with you. The thing is, at the moment we aren't 'part' of anything, because there is little movement to be part of.


...Like you rightly said, people are less class conscious nowadays, so society just needs a little push to get the ball rolling. It doesn't seem to be pushing itself, so the organisation of unions and political movements, particularly amongst students and the like, would surely help?

We don't organise the working class. They're not puppets doing our bidding. The working class organises itself. We organise among the working class.

[Red Star Rising]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

I'm talking about 'leftists' who think they will make the revolution. You seem to be talking about abstaining from any organising. They're not the same thing.

The revolution will be made by the working class, not some socialists. If you think that the revolution is the task of a self-appointed political group, then I think you're already part of the counter-revolution.

If, however, you think that political groups should be part of the revolution, then I agree with you. The thing is, at the moment we aren't 'part' of anything, because there is little movement to be part of.



We don't organise the working class. They're not puppets doing our bidding. The working class organises itself. We organise among the working class.

I'm not suggesting we organise the working class like sheep dogs, but we certainly need to help facilitate it - there is literally no competent voice of the left in politics any more. Communism is just not seen as an option by anyone who is not properly informed about it. And this is sadly true of most of the modern proletariat.

Today in Rochester thousands of working class people flocked to vote UKIP, largely due to the populist, left-wing rhetoric they used to promote far-right nationalism. Not that we should in any way model ourselves on UKIP, I'm just saying that we should at least help to build a bridge between the proletariat and Communism whilst robbing the far right of their populist bullshit to expose them for the pricks they are - the left wing alternative just doesn't exist yet in the minds of the people who would otherwise support it.

[Blake's Baby]

Oh, I agree, but that isn't about deciding what the workers need and then railing at them for not doing it.

At present the best we can do is to swim against the tide; let the working class know there is an alternative, basically.

[Comrade #138672]

OK.

I'm uncomfortable with leftists thinking they're going to bring about the revolution. Of course we're part of the working class, my comment wasn't intended to imply that we aren't; but we exist in a context of low class struggle and until the working class starts to struggle more massively, what we do as 'internet leftists' matters for very little.I hope leftists do not restrict their activities to the internet... The internet is useful, but it is only a learning tool.

[RedKobra]

A better question might be: where does revolution need to start in order to light the touchpaper for a worldwide transformation?

There is no point just making an arbitrary decision on which country is closest to some kind of vaguely leftist political transformation, and making that our cause de celebre for a generation. We have done that in the past with ideologies like Marxism-Leninism, Maoism etc., and all this serves to do is narrow our political focus and often adopt wrong political solutions to put square political pegs into round holes.

agree with this.

As for the post about revolution in Britian.........lol, no chance.