Possibility of a local revolution

[jullia]

Hi everybody,

I open this thread to talk about the possibility of a local revolution. And for one state to become a socialist one.

In history there are some exemple of state or groups as the commune, Cuba, URSS... who adopt a socialist organistaion.
Some disapear because they lost war or because they are totally isolate. But it doesn't change the facts that those states stay during decennies.

More than the isolation, the biggest problem is socialism is still a "young way of thinking" compare to capitalism. Some adjustement need to be done. And people need to be more confortable with this ideas.
For exemple North Korea have good relation with China and some other country. I don't beleive the fail come from a lack of "friendly state" but more from the leaders of North Korea. They are crazy, arrogants and incompetents

So in my ideas, a socialist state can survive if he keep some good relations with his neighboors and have some big backup economy.
That is totally possible as Russia, China might help a nation who make this choice.

[Zhi]

Don't be absurd, every state which has experienced isolated, localised revolutions have failed on all fronts and have done nothing but promote human suffering. Economically all the local revolutionary states have failed, as naturally they experience embargoes and proxy wars around them.

The example you cited concerning the DPRK is absurd given that it has experienced utter shambles of the human development index. The premise about having good relationships with other states shows a genuine absence of any knowledge about Realpolitik and geopolitics anyway. And what on Earth is a "big backup economy"?

[Slavic]

Don't be absurd, every state which has experienced isolated, localised revolutions have failed on all fronts and have done nothing but promote human suffering. Economically all the local revolutionary states have failed, as naturally they experience embargoes and proxy wars around them.

The example you cited concerning the DPRK is absurd given that it has experienced utter shambles of the human development index. The premise about having good relationships with other states shows a genuine absence of any knowledge about Realpolitik and geopolitics anyway. And what on Earth is a "big backup economy"?

Not even bringing the horrible living conditions into focus, but these states did not even accomplish marxism 101; elimination of capital. DPRK, USSR, China, Cuba etc. all states which transferred capital from the hands of individuals into the hands of state bureaucrats.

There is no difference between working for a wage under McDonalds or The Peoples McDonalds.

[Zhi]

Completely agree.

[jullia]

The premise about having good relationships with other states shows a genuine absence of any knowledge about Realpolitik and geopolitics anyway. And what on Earth is a "big backup economy"?

The Realpolitik don't go in your argument. For Realpolitik reasons a capitalists state can choose to make trade and exchange with a socialist one.
If a state become socialist, you really think he will be totally isolate? It's wrong.

I don't really see the problem with this premise...

For the embargo, Cuba was under embargo by their biggest neighboor during decenies and you can't say they fail in all the front.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think that imagining an isolated "socialist state" is maybe tackling the problem the wrong way - or, so historical experience would seem to suggest. I mean this also in the sense that looking at the state as the site where socialism is realized (or not) misses the point.

So, for example, looking at Cuba, rather than arguing about the character of the state, I think it's in a sense more useful to look at the everyday lives of Cubans, and how they have and have not been transformed since the revolution. I think it's pretty clear that in some ways they have been, and, in many ways, the global rule of capital is still felt quite acutely.

The Zapatistas are another interesting example - it seems like their communities have been transformed quite radically. But, again, they face certain practical limits. I think the Mexican context more broadly is particularly interesting, because it seems the effective sovereignty of the Mexican state is increasingly limited - so that asking about "the state" doesn't really tell us much about the real governance taking place in pretty big swaths of the country.

All of which is to say - in a roundabout way - that revolutions certainly begin locally. They transform lives and communities in ways that can't be understood by looking at states. I also think that socialism has to be understood as more about "depth" than width. How fundamental are the transformations that take place, or could take place? How does a "local" character act as a real limit to the depth of those transformations?

[gef-gons]

E S L hampers a comrade's ability to properly communicate her/his ideas. Critical analysis ought not to focus on the poorly worded point but rather the germ of the point.
You (or me for that matter) could come off sounding like a jerk rather than a supportive
comrade trying to 'correct' a sister/brother.
Style, in this sense, becomes function.

[Decolonize The Left]

I think it ultimately depends on what you mean by 'socialist.'

If you mean a more traditional, structural, interpretation then, no, an isolated revolution cannot succeed because the working class is a global class - it does not recognize national boundaries in its relationship to the means of production.

If you mean a more anarchist/insurrectionist interpretation then maybe, but unlikely as such a revolution would entail the dissolution of a large, geopolitical state. Hence the 'country' would not be able to defend itself in relationship to foreign national aggressors and the revolution would ultimately fail.

I think that when we speak of revolution we should be looking at it in a larger and precisely smaller sense: i.e. it requires class consciousness (global) and it requires communal activity (local). Two sides of the same coin, if you like.

[Zhi]

The problem with your premise is that you have made an assumption that if states have good relationships that means it is static and there won't be any hostility, just look at the Middle East and Eastern Asia for that evidence. States are Machiavellian.

[Zhi]

Most socialist states, or any *real* socialist state has been isolationists. They rightfully don't want to be integrated again into a global economy which is subjected to bipolar movements of price and economic forces. I am not saying this is always wrong, but you cannot seriously be making the argument that a geopolitically isolated socialist state it somehow going to be integrated into various capitalist organisations and the international economy?

[Blake's Baby]

jullia, the thing is, that capitalism is predicated on producing goods for a market, and wage labour. If a country produces for the world market and has a waged working class doing the production, which your 'socialist country' would have, then it is in fact a capitalist country.

[Zhi]

I think the real problem here is employing words which correspondent to history rather than theoretical actuality.

[Vogel]

Yes, individual states can become communist, individual business can and do. Heard of Mondragon? But, because it is not worldwide, it will have to deal with global capitalism. Probably seen as a threat too.

[jullia]

The problem with your premise is that you have made an assumption that if states have good relationships that means it is static and there won't be any hostility, just look at the Middle East and Eastern Asia for that evidence. States are Machiavellian.

Like you says all the state are hostile to the others. Even the ones who considers themselfs as ally, spy without hesitation.

A small state don't necessary need to be a member of all thoses organisations.

[PhoenixAsh]

Socialism can only be established in a region which is completely self sustainable in all its production needs and independend from any outside sources.

[Kingfish]

Socialism can only be established in a region which is completely self sustainable in all its production needs and independend from any outside sources. Which is something that is almost impossible to do small scale unless people are willing to accept a vastly lower quality of life. As a hypothetical Had the farmers in this territory been part a commune/collective and lived along very primitive standards [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River] would it be correct to say that it would qualify as a communist nation?

[jullia]

Which is something that is almost impossible to do small scale unless people are willing to accept a vastly lower quality of life. As a hypothetical Had the farmers in this territory been part a commune/collective and lived along very primitive standards [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River] would it be correct to say that it would qualify as a communist nation?

I opened a thread about micronation
http://www.revleft.com/vb/micronation-t191827/index.html?t=191827
I beleive this kind of community can be very interesting and a good publicity to promote socialist ideas.

I don't know Hutt River in particular and if they are really socialism or not. I don't think so as they are a principality. But probably there way of life can be closer in some aspects to communism.

[flouPOWER]

Local revolution cannot survive. Generally if socialism won't be established worldwide it's most likely to utterly fail. What we need are communes everywhere, through a global revolution. The working class has no nationality and only luben working class may cherish it national identity.
You see there can be no socialist state, if capitalism still exists. The power of multinational companies capitalists won't give up their power and means of productions so easily in the ex- capitalist now socialist state (most likely to end up as a state capitalist).
Socialism in one country is a stalinist idea that has utterly failed.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, individual states can become communist, individual business can and do. Heard of Mondragon? But, because it is not worldwide, it will have to deal with global capitalism. Probably seen as a threat too.

Mondragon is a terrible organisation which exploits workers mercilessly. It operates as a capitalist business. It's just that the original shareholders work for it too. It's about as socialist as John Lewis or Co-operative Stores. Laying off salaried employees (not co-op members) in France, having overseas divisions producing goods, it works like any other capitalist enterprise.

There's some good stuff here:

http://autonomies.org/en/2014/08/anti-capitalist-economies-in-post-15m-spain-mondragon-cooperatives-and-okupations/