Simultaneous Revolution

[Karl Marx's Camel]

This was just a thought that crossed my mind.

What's the point of having communist parties not capable of movement, standing silent watching events go by?

Instead of isolated events of rebellion and revolution, communists parties all over the world should adopt for military use, i.e. militarize, and start revolution. Everyone more or less at the same time, all together.

Wherever the marxists would gain some territory, training bases would be established in order to train revolutionaries. That is why Guevara and the other Cubans traveled to Congo. They trained the Congolese. The plan was to make Congo a giant training base for revolutionares all over the Africa (this was also the goal of the revolution in Bolivia). Congo lies in the middle of Africa (just as Bolivia lies in the middle of South America). A perfect location.

Anywyas, I think to continiously seek to spread the revolution across the globe is very important. We should create a giant mess, a morass all over the place. The capitalist nations, with perhaps the exception of a few, wouldn't have resources to actively support others, and we would slowly see the capitalist nations sink into the mire.

A capitalist nation will need a lot of intelligence and a huge bulk of soldiers in order to defeat an active and determined guerilla; It is the nature of guerilla warfare: Their lines are not fixed, and because some of them might operate in rural areas, they will never know where we would be, forcing them to deploy forces everywhere. The result would be a large military force standing immobile.

The US is caught up in a quagmire in Iraq, a relatively little country. Imagine the US trying to defeat or hold a foreign nation under control against a united enemy in four or five countries.

So when we win in some places, these will be used as training bases for other places. The revolutionary state would supply these with equipment and advisors. These advisors could be used to lead troops, companies, batallions and plan operations in conjugation with other movements.

The advantage of a guerilla struggle is that only a few individuals are needed to create chaos and wide disruption. A party or a strict organization could mobilize much greater numbers,

A struggle starting from the party can give us the possibility to mobilize relatively quickly. Those active or members of the party would have little against revolution in the first place. Most would be prepared. The enemy would most likely not be prepared for wide scale guerilla movements unified beyond borders.

I don't know. I'm tired. That might be why I am writing this. Maybe I'm utopian, but it crossed my mind, and at least to me the thought was fascinating.


Your thoughts?

[Iepilei]

Current American based technology is adapting more to the desert and mountain regions with it's expeditions into the middle east to secure interests. What needs to be done is establishment in a location that is undesirable to the average American soldier.

Someplace hot, dry, and damp. Just like Viet Nam. Because of the extremes in conditions, the VC could move undetected through Jungles, mask traps, and because of their adaptation to the environment, avoid environmental harshness. Nothing has a bigger damper on morale than the environment.

:ph34r:

[KptnKrill]

If you are into the guerilla idea, why not start a guerilla movement / affinity group?

If I may say so, most of you "revolutionary" communists seem to be satisfied with talking about the ideal society, or just waiting for the moment most opportune. You share your schemes and ideas of a great communist state, yet none of you seem to act....

Why wait? It has always seemed to me that reactionary revolutions are the most violent and condemned by outsiders (thus they are tampered by outside forces)... Why wait for it to get to that point? Nip it in the bud.

I'm against the use of violence, but I'm even more against doing nothing... After all, which is the worser crime?

[redstar2000]

Up to now, "simultaneous" revolutions (or at least rebellions) have been regional, not global.

That's because the material conditions that underpin uprisings tend to be similar across a region...but very different around the world.

Something is clearly "happening" in Latin America at the present time...at the very least, the conditions there seem to point in the direction of a radical bourgeois revolution across the entire continent.

And maybe more...who can say?

But until material conditions are more or less the same all over the world, a "global revolution", in my opinion, is not really possible.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Iepilei]

The problem is, with revolution, you can't just start one. Usually a first "encounter" is devised to show the world the intent. It must be televised, so that the world can see and hear of it.

Again, I say, technology holds the key to our revolution. With the ever expanding global information systems, our revolution won't just be seen... it will be heard.

And that's exactly what we want.

:ph34r:

[Zingu]

I think NWOG's point is that revolutions must not be isolated in one country, since historically; socialist countries could not survive alone in a hostile capitalist enviroment. That a revolution really has to be beyond borders and spread fast; not just die down once it is finished in one country; it has to spread.....like we are seeing in Central and South America.

[Roses in the Hospital]

I don't think Revolution should be forced. When the world is ready for Revolution (economically, sociologically etc.) it will happen, but on it's own terms. The development of State Capatalisms like China and the USSR show what happens when revolutionaries try to 'jump the gun...'

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I think NWOG's point is that revolutions must not be isolated in one country

Yes.


, since historically; socialist countries could not survive alone in a hostile capitalist enviroment.

Well, historically... The Soviet Union survived alone for decades, but that's not really interesitng, because the nation was attacked by the Whites, by the US, by Japan, France, Great Britain, Germany etc.

Capitalist nations can very well destabilize and crush a socialist nation, nevermind a marxist uprising. That is why there has to be a spread of revolution everywhere, or at least, as many places as possible. To have a backward socialist nation surrounded by well-equipped capitalist states is suicide.



That a revolution really has to be beyond borders and spread fast; not just die down once it is finished in one country; it has to spread.....


Yes, exactly.


I don't think Revolution should be forced.

Who said "forced"? A revolution has to start at some point, and in most, if not all cases, a revolution has been created by a minority.

I doubt the Cuban revolution would have happen if the revolutionaries would have a similar attitude.

But I do agree with you that there must be popular support among the population. But to think that 100 percent of the exploited would rise up against the bourgeoisie, is in my opinion, utopian.

[Redcarpet]

Well, we don't all belive in violence. I myself am a gradualist socialist. Violence is not a solution to the problems of humankind it is part of them!

Now you and others may think revolution means a violent takeover but it doesn't. It simply means radical change.

[rice349]

In theory this is a very good idea and ultimately if it could be done would be the best solution to global capitalism; however, there is and always has been extreme difficulty in uniting guerilla and rebel forces with each other. Just as their is a broad spectrum of overall political beliefs, there is just as broad a spectrum amongst communists/socialists/leftists. Maoists, Marxists, Stalinists, Anarchists are often times not willing to sacrifice their own agenda in order to achieve world-wide revolution. Then their comes into play the difference in tactics. Some groups believe in absolute guerilla warfare to fight against capitalist, bourgeoisie pigs; while others prefer a much more peaceful, but less effective approach. This creates resentment, and some labelling others as less-revolutioanary and so forward. I believe that once socialism (en route to communism) is strongly established in one nation, it is the duty of that nation to help unite revolutionaries abroad (globally not just regionally) and help spread marxism-leninism in the fight against their oppressors.

[synthesis]

Strategically, this theory sounds good. When applied to reality, however, we will find a situation completely different, one which reveals the folly of using the Leninist guerilla strategy in the present day.

First, simultaneous revolution in the third world would be more or less meaningless in terms of permanent, historical progression. The U.S.A. is more powerful and more entrenched than it has ever been - quelling a revolution, especially one whose resources must be stretched globally, would be like swatting a fly. And, of course, as the 20th century taught us, a pre-industrial society cannot sustain a socialist economy for any meaningful amount of time.

At the present time, violent revolution in the industrialized nations would fail without question. Here's why: Guerrillas in agrarian countries could rely on the rural population for food and shelter from the elements and the counter-revolutionary inquisition, as the peasantry and agricultural laborers were often the most sympathetic to Red forces.

However, in the U.S., Canada, and Europe, the rural population is easily the most reactionary sector of the constituency. Toothless hicks who still think blacks should be forced to work in cotton fields cannot be depended on for support.

Right now, the industrial nations are literally glaciers of reaction. But glaciers melt, and when they do, we need to be there to shatter the whole structure to pieces and build it anew.