Revolution and the Third World

[scimitar]

Hey, guys. I have a question regarding the revolution of the proletariat that Marx/Engels describe.

In the modern sense, would it be more desirable for these revolutions to occur in the developing (i.e. "Third World") before spreading to the developed countries, or should revolution begin in the developed countries?

The reason I ask is because revolution seems unlikely in the US and the UK at this point in time, but the conditions are ripe in such countries as Nepal and Kyrgyzstan.

Thanks.

[More Fire for the People]

Ideally the revolution would happen in both the third world and first world and China and North Korea to boot but the only places there seem to be revolutionary potential now is in the third world.

I guess we will have to wait for fascism in the first world before people start doing something.

The problem though with revolutions in the third world is that they do not have an organized industrial sector and cannot strategically plan agricultural so central planning can be an expected failure.

If a revolution were to take place in the third world they must first go through modern capitalism, social democracy or state-capitalism, and then socialism.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

In the modern sense, would it be more desirable for these revolutions to occur in the developing (i.e. "Third World") before spreading to the developed countries, or should revolution begin in the developed countries?

It would be better if the Revolution started in the "First World" - since it is the strongest and most consuming "world" above all others.

A revolution in, for example, Mongolia wouldn't do very much since that country doesn't have any strong significant political or military power in the world today. It would result in boycotting and blockades, probably from both Russia, China and the US.

And in Mongolia's case this wouldn't be very good since Mongolia is surrounded by both Russia (in the north) and China (in the south), which means that both Russia and China can decide wheter any "trade"/help gets to Mongolia or not (since the only way into Mongolia is, obviously, through either Russian or Chinese aerospace/roads/railways).

Adding to that - since neither Russia or China seems to be very friendly towards the idea of Revolution and Socialism, and since they both are capitalist empires, the case for Mongolia would be very though.

Now, imagine if the Revolution happened in the United States, China or Russia. These countries are influential in both military supremacy and politics - an example of that is the global US culture (McDonalds, action-monkey-movies from Hollywood, Windows, other corporational stuff).

Since a Revolution would change pretty much of that, either directly or transformal, this culture would eventually cease to exist or be replaced by the more human and just system of Socialism.

US politics would also change - from consuming power, attacking and occupying other countries, discrimination of homosexuals and women, the strong-Church-belief into more democratic, just, equal and humane diplomatic relations based on the option of making people happy.

Of course, this is one theory. Another one is that all "poor"/"Third World" countries have some kind of common Revolution - because who will the "First World" exploit if there are no countries to be exploited? But the thing is that all, or a big majority, of "Third World" countries joins the common Revolution - else it would probably end much like my example of Mongolia (see above).

Or, as one of my friends said, maybe the people who colonizes Mars or builds a base on the Moon (however that would work out) revolts and establishes a system of Socialisms.

I can only say that the sooner - the better. I'm sure most of you agree :D .


I guess we will have to wait for fascism in the first world before people start doing something.

We are thinking the same thing. I too don't see a Revolution anytime soon in the "First World" - some kind of fascist overtaking will maybe become a stimulation or call for Revolution when it happens.

I really do hope this isn't necessary - I fear that at the time when fascism starts all over it may have a very strong technological upper-hand: that is, the constant survelliance, the call for stronger laws and police (because of the "terrorist threat" or some other, future threat), nanomachines, much more effective propaganda machines, much better weapons, robotics - you name it.

In plain: Imagine the Third Reich happening in the 2030's, instead of the 1930's.

[Hiero]

Super Mario Conspiracy, you have missed the point that most of the worlds wealth is plundered from 3rd world countries. If these countries complete their revolution (Nepal, Peru and others are in revolution) the imperialist countries would lose their wealth base. Untill this happens middle class jobs kept getting created, its hard to tell people to join a revolution when there is no material basis for it.


I guess we will have to wait for fascism in the first world before people start doing something.

If Fascism does come in, which only happens when the ruling class start to lose it power. It doesn't mean that the revolution to overthrow it will be socialist.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

Super Mario Conspiracy, you have missed the point that most of the worlds wealth is plundered from 3rd world countries.

No, I did mention it quite clearly:

"Of course, this is one theory. Another one is that all "poor"/"Third World" countries have some kind of common Revolution - because who will the "First World" exploit if there are no countries to be exploited?"


If these countries complete their revolution (Nepal, Peru and others are in revolution) the imperialist countries would lose their wealth base. Untill this happens middle class jobs kept getting created, its hard to tell people to join a revolution when there is no material basis for it.

Yes, this is what I said - and as I said the imperialists wouldn't be very affected if one or two "Third/Second World" countries revolted.

Why? There are two thing the imperialists would do if such situation would happen in say Peru or Nepal:

1. They would just move on to the next "Third/Second World" country.
2. They would most probably start a boycott and blockade the country that revolted, not to mention all the propaganda that would be directed at that country.

Now, what would happen if the majority or all of the "Third World" countries revolted? Only then would the imperialists loose their power base because there are no other "Third World" countries left to exploit.

For example: Cuba isn't exploited by the US, but the imperialist power base has not been disrupted.


If Fascism does come in, which only happens when the ruling class start to lose it power.

Did the ruling class loose it's power when the European Union was put into place? No - they just gained more power. It is capitalist unions like these that can slowly turn the world into fascism.

Another example is Bush's new Patriot Act laws in the US. The "War on Terror" seems to have ended ages ago, yet no one questions "the Act". No one questioned democracy and freedom of speach when it was reduced and spitted on during the Cold War.