Communist revolution in the third world

[anomaly]

Does everyone here accept that communist revolution is 'impossible' in the third world? Redstar, we've previously debated this, so you may want to hold back your usual comments.

I, for one, think it is entriely possible that a small commune may be created in the third world. With the abundance of farmland in the third world, self-sufficiency, all be it a 'primitive' one, could be attained rather easily. But such a commune would allow for the peasantry to control their own farms, and so they may have a more luxurious life than they currently have. If the commune is small enough, there is reason to believe that the imperialist machine may ignore it for the most part. The home nation may do the same, that is ignore it, simply because of its small size. It may prove to be a waste of time trying to destroy the commune. And this all assumes the commune was obtained through violent means. This is the likely means, but other means of obtaining the land are possible. and if another commune pops up, trade could be initiated, and they would advance, however slowly. This idea seems beneficial for the peasantry, even if it is not acceptable for individual ideas of communism. What do you think?

[Longshot7]

I think communism is so stupid!!!! just the mere idea of the government controlling me is the complete opposite of what I believe in and I think you commies r just misinformed punks who have never been to a communist country before and you guys just think its cool to rebel.
I tell you all to GROW UP and realize what communism is really about and that is CONTOL

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sounds like a scaled down peasant-centric version form of council communism to me. You have to understand that communism, at least the form advocated by most of those who call themselves communists, is not a utopian idea. We're not idealists who want to make things better as an act of kindness.

Communism is the society that results from a working class which is victorious in the class struggle.

Now as far as third world revolutions:

Whether they can establish socialism, as the stage of transfer from capitalism to communism, can and has been argued. I think they can be described as socialist, because they are a part of the complete world socialist revolution.

These bastions of socialism, in their very existance, undermine the whole of world capitalism because capitalism is propped up today by the exploitation of the labor and material resources of these countries. It is the break of these countries from the grips of imperialism that brings about the crises and collapse of capitalism.

So, while these third world countries won't be able to achieve communism without revolutions occuring in the advanced countries, at the same time, revolution in the advanced countries may never happen, or at least be delayed for a very long time without the revolutions in the third world.

Third world revolutions, regardless of the "ism" they claim, should generally be supported, by all means, by communists around the world, as long as they promise to break from imperialism.

If anything is unclear I can elaborate this position much further, but as of now it is very late so I've attempted to keep this concise.

As to "Longshot7," I'd suggest studying, at least the basics, before you begain to attack somthing that you obviously have little to no understanding of.

[anomaly]

In this argument, comrade, I'm not concerned about whether this particular idea of 'peasant communism' meets the criteria for 'actual communism' (that is, more advanced proletarian communism...I've no illusions about utopian communism). My simple suggestion is that this idea (call it what you will) may be a way to better the lives of the peasantry without going through a period of state capitalism and the usual 'waiting' for communism. They have the material resources needed, so I say do it!

Also, I think we have another restriction in the case of longshot.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But, you do understand, this khmer-rougeist idea is infact reactionary as it aims to move BACKWARDS (from semi-fuedal capitalism to communalism).

[anomaly]

You can argue the 'reactionary' nature of such a concept all you like. That is beside the point. The question is will such a move make the life of people in the third world materially better? I think it will. The self-sufficiency itself would accomplish that. If there is adequete food for everyone, their lives become materially better! You reactionary argument is also quite flawed. It may prove 'reactionary' (which, in and of itself is of little importance) in the beginning, but, as I have previously argued, the relative technology in the commune will certainly increase if trade can be established. That is, if the idea catches fire, and another commune pops up (a hopeful possibility is that such revolution that initially produces only one, small commune may prove a domino effect), the 'reactionary' nature of the commune can be most easily reversed.

Wasn't there a philosopher that said evolution does not always mean that the new product will be superior to the old? Whoever said that, I think it proves true in this case. From the peasants' perspective, this 'semi-feudal capitalism' is worse than communalism.

Again, however, I hardly think the label of the product of such a revolution is important. What is important is whether the lives of the peasants materially improve. That is the only thing that matters.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You have to understand that communism, at least the form advicated by most of those who call themselves communists, is not a utopian idea. We're not idealists who want to make things better as an act of kindness.

Emphasis added to what I said earlier.

If you understand the class struggle and human society in a materialist way than you know that society progresses in stages: from communalism (primitive communism) to the slave state, from the slave state to feudalism, from feudalism to capitalism, from capitalism to socialism. So naturally any advance forward is progressive, objectively, and any retrograde is reactionary.

Sorry, If you don't think a revolution against capitalism is "important," us communists think it's the most important.

[anomaly]

Are you trying to say I'm not a communist?? In my opinion such a society would be communist! As I said, think what you will. It meets the criteria for communism (no state, no capital, no class, no official hierarchy). Just because it's an agrarian commune does not mean it's not a commune!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I'm basing it on what you said comrade. Communists are revolutionary and progressive and uphold that communism is the most advanced stage of human society. Any attempt to move backwards, no matter how good the intention, is still reactionary. Were the Khmer Rouge communists?

[Colombia]

There is no denying that a socialist state in the 3rd world will give the people much more freedom than before. The thing I find hard to beleive is that such a state could improve it's standard of living without some sort of help from an industrialized state. Another issue is the fact that seeing that it is the 3rd world, exploitation by richer nations will arise and I doubt the socialists will be able to successfully counter that. It is impossible for any nation, let alone a 3rd world nation, to be self-sufficient. In order to thrive, this nation would have to begin trade with the rich capitalist nations and like I said before, in order to survive, they would have to suffer being used by the capitalists because they cannot sustain themselves.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 02:39 PM
I'm basing it on what you said comrade. Communists are revolutionary and progressive and uphold that communism is the most advanced stage of human society. Any attempt to move backwards, no matter how good the intention, is still reactionary. Were the Khmer Rouge communists?
But this is an argument for moving them forward! How can such an argument be labeled 'reactionary'? Communism is the most advanced stage of human society. There is nothing in there about the technology of communism. It is the highest stage of human society. Is society dependent upon technology? You seem to be saying so! Does it bother you that this communism is not accompanied by your commonplace Western technology?

From a Western point of view only is this move reactionary (also from a socialist point of view...you are a socialist, correct?). Relative to the current position of the peasantry in 'backward' nations, this is a progressive, revolutionary move.

As long an area can be self-sufficient (even if this can only be done with trade), communism is possible.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There's no such thing as a socialist. I'm a communist. Socialism is the stage of transfer from capitalism to communism. Saying you're a socialist is like saying you like to cook, but you hate to make food. People that say they are socialist are either 1. Trying to hide their communist outlook as to not scare folks away or 2. Are social-dems that are trying to put a human face on capitalism, but not abolish it

And even though you didn't say it clearly you got to my main point (somewhere in there). Society IS BASED on the means of production and the relation of them. You cannot have communism, or even socialism if the means of production are not developed to be socialized.

I think you have alot of reading to do. www.marxists.org

either that, or you advocate a Khmer Rougue strategy for the third world, and I sincerely hope that's not the case.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This might make it easier, an example that I've seen Redstar make before.

Picture human society like a building and communism is the fifth floor. You can't build the fifth floor before you build the third and fourth.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 05:52 AM
As long an area can be self-sufficient (even if this can only be done with trade), communism is possible.
And how do you propose to make a 3rd world nation self-sufficient. Do you plan on doing what Stalin did? Just the fact that this 3rd world nation would have to trade with bigger, stronger industrialized nations for goods should be basis enough to show that it cannot work.

[MoscowFarewell]

Che proved it was in 3rd world countries.

[Colombia]

Not sure what you mean but if I guess you right you are implying that Cuba becae self-sufficient? This isn't the case because Cuba had the aid of the USSR.

[Leif]

I believe that a small and possibly poor nation would have an easier time going to a communist country than a large imperialistic one. The small or exploited know all too well the horrors of capitalism, while the imperialists bask in it's pillaged wealth. A communist country is intended to be progressive, so they would abandon whatever monarchy or capitalistic laws and build up from there. They could modify the current buildings to fit the uses of the new government, temporarily at least. Eventually once the nation can produce more than it uses, it can start selling products (as in Zapatista coffee or technology or whatever possible and unexploitive) it can destroy the old buildings, thus giving the impression that the communist way is the new way of progress (and also to signify the death of the old way in the country)

And as a Communist in Kansas, I call myself a Democratic Socialist instead of a communist because to me the combination of democracy and a socialist economy means communism. However to Kansans uneducated in the dialect of Marx and what communism really means, communism to them is Stalin, and thus they think that is what I want to accomplish.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Democratic socialism = bourgeois liberalism, not communism

[MoscowFarewell]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 09:07 PM
Not sure what you mean but if I guess you right you are implying that Cuba becae self-sufficient? This isn't the case because Cuba had the aid of the USSR.
I was regarding to revolution was possible, not entirely successful hehe.

[CANDYMAN1]

Is it necessary to ask if a communist revolution in the #rd world is possible? What did we see in the 80's in Nicaragua and El Salvador? Even in Guatemala there was an attempt to move toward the left which was crushed by a genocide. I dont think it is necesary for a country to be developed, technologically advanced, or even have a strong industrial sector. The people in the 3rd are ones that are most hurt capitalism and in some places are I believe are starting to wake up. Latin American countries are started to move toward the left and reject imperialism like in Venezuela and Bolivia. These two countries also happen to be rich in natural resources such as oil and natural gas. This will help them survive the transition because it will be hard for the US and the international community to isolate them because these 2 commodities are badly needed. As in Bolivia as in countries in central asia the people are also starting to rebel against there represive and over centralized governments. This is bad for communism. The communist state is centraliezed so I believe even if they do turn to communism they will eventually reject it. You would basically be one class of rulers for another and any government's desire is to consolidate power and ensure it's perpetutation. I believe a communist society might seem better would actually be a step backward. Although an anarchist society would be an improvement I don't think it is likely to happen

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 09:39 PM
Is it necessary to ask if a communist revolution in the #rd world is possible? What did we see in the 80's in Nicaragua and El Salvador? Even in Guatemala there was an attempt to move toward the left which was crushed by a genocide. I dont think it is necesary for a country to be developed, technologically advanced, or even have a strong industrial sector. The people in the 3rd are ones that are most hurt capitalism and in some places are I believe are starting to wake up. Latin American countries are started to move toward the left and reject imperialism like in Venezuela and Bolivia. These two countries also happen to be rich in natural resources such as oil and natural gas. This will help them survive the transition because it will be hard for the US and the international community to isolate them because these 2 commodities are badly needed. As in Bolivia as in countries in central asia the people are also starting to rebel against there represive and over centralized governments. This is bad for communism. The communist state is centraliezed so I believe even if they do turn to communism they will eventually reject it. You would basically be one class of rulers for another and any government's desire is to consolidate power and ensure it's perpetutation. I believe a communist society might seem better would actually be a step backward. Although an anarchist society would be an improvement I don't think it is likely to happen
Communism has no government.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 01:21 AM
There's no such thing as a socialist. I'm a communist. Socialism is the stage of transfer from capitalism to communism. Saying you're a socialist is like saying you like to cook, but you hate to make food. People that say they are socialist are either 1. Trying to hide their communist outlook as to not scare folks away or 2. Are social-dems that are trying to put a human face on capitalism, but not abolish it

And even though you didn't say it clearly you got to my main point (somewhere in there). Society IS BASED on the means of production and the relation of them. You cannot have communism, or even socialism if the means of production are not developed to be socialized.

I think you have alot of reading to do. www.marxists.org

either that, or you advocate a Khmer Rougue strategy for the third world, and I sincerely hope that's not the case.
If you want socialism first, then I'd say you are a socialist. I suppose you'd call me an anarchist, since I do not think a stage of socialism is neccesary.

So what you're saying (roughly) is that there is some technological 'level' that people must aspire to in order to create communism. A society is based on social relations, not the means of production. If the people are without class, then we can call such a society communism. To say that we can only have communism after we reach a certain point of technological progress is to say that there will not exist any agricultural communes. the level of society may be influenced by the means of production, but it is not determined by them. It is more determined by what you say next: the relation to the means of production (which explains why people are without class). Your arguments are those of an orthodox Marxist, claiming that only what Marx said may be viewed as true. I agree that it may prove difficult to construct a commune in the third world, but we cannot rule out that possiblity (that is, unless one is an orthodox Marxist).


I do not think I have 'some reading to do', as you insultingly suggest. rather, I think you need to open up that horribly closed mind of yours.

What is this Khmer Rouge strategy?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Firstly, I'm a Communist. Communism is based on the scientific theories of Karl Marx & Frederich Engels, along with the contributions of many others. If you want to outright reject historical materialism and the class struggle, that's fine (I guess), but you're not a communist, socialist, or -- to be quiet honest -- any sort of realistic person.

You say you have nothing to read, and that I have to open my mind, yet you're not familiar with the Khmer Rouge -- or infact even with the most basic principles of Marxism! That's fine if you're new to all, etc. But for you to debate, you have to have at least some kind of footing. I think, and I'm saying this in a non-insulting way here, that you need to read some basic works of Marxism, if you're serious about the overthrow of capitalism and liberation of humankind.

[Paradox]

Look at Venezuela. They say "Socialism is the way," but what are they doing? They're trading. With who? Russia, China, Cuba, etc.. What are these places? Capitalist/State Capitalist. A truly Communist society must be global in scale. It can't survive in one nation. We're not saying living conditions can't be improved, but we're also definitely not saying Communism can exist in one place, let alone a poor 'Third World" nation. Sure there are decision making processes that are along the lines of how Communist society would operate -as always I refer you to the Zapatista communities :P - but that doesn't make them Communist. I mean the Zapatistas want more help, more development, access to quality medical care, etc., etc.. And how do you get such technology? Through development! That's why industrialization and Capitalism are prerequisites for the establishment of Communism. Independent State Capitalism will develop a nation faster than capitalism invovling outside control. For an example, again look to Venezuela. To say "let's skip industrialization!" is to say "let's fail!" Communism therefore cannot be the outcome of revolutions in the "Third World." But again, this does not mean that living conditions cannot be improved.

More Venezuelas to develop the "Third World!" And Zapatista style direct democracy for government in Communism!

[Axel1917]

If a revolution is to happen in the Third World, it must be internationalist and support revolution in other nations, especially the advanced ones, to prevent it from degenerating. Trotsky's Theory of Permanent Revolution is completely applicable to this.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 02:23 AM
Firstly, I'm a Communist. Communism is based on the scientific theories of Karl Marx & Frederich Engels, along with the contributions of many others. If you want to outright reject historical materialism and the class struggle, that's fine (I guess), but you're not a communist, socialist, or -- to be quiet honest -- any sort of realistic person.

You say you have nothing to read, and that I have to open my mind, yet you're not familiar with the Khmer Rouge -- or infact even with the most basic principles of Marxism! That's fine if you're new to all, etc. But for you to debate, you have to have at least some kind of footing. I think, and I'm saying this in a non-insulting way here, that you need to read some basic works of Marxism, if you're serious about the overthrow of capitalism and liberation of humankind.
I thought you'd do something like this. Simply because I don't know what the 'Khmer Rouge' was, I need to crack that book and start reading, otherwise I'm 'not serious' about overthrowing capitalism. I'd say that you, a socialist, is the one who is not serious here. What I've mentioned, to attempt to get back on topic, is no 'reactionary' argument. It is simply a way of getting to communism without socialism, and you, being the orthodox Marxist that you are, don't like it. I'm sure this is because it doesn't involve thy holy socialism. I've read Marx, thank you. Perhaps next time you should attempt to debate before making blind assertions. You assume far too much, and you think far too highly of yourself. If you'd like to debate, I'm right here, but if you want to continue to make these nice likely assertions (by the way, you're dead wrong), then I'll have to kindly tell you to fuck off.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:25 PM
Look at Venezuela. They say "Socialism is the way," but what are they doing? They're trading. With who? Russia, China, Cuba, etc.. What are these places? Capitalist/State Capitalist. A truly Communist society must be global in scale. It can't survive in one nation. We're not saying living conditions can't be improved, but we're also definitely not saying Communism can exist in one place, let alone a poor 'Third World" nation. Sure there are decision making processes that are along the lines of how Communist society would operate -as always I refer you to the Zapatista communities :P - but that doesn't make them Communist. I mean the Zapatistas want more help, more development, access to quality medical care, etc., etc.. And how do you get such technology? Through development! That's why industrialization and Capitalism are prerequisites for the establishment of Communism. Independent State Capitalism will develop a nation faster than capitalism invovling outside control. For an example, again look to Venezuela. To say "let's skip industrialization!" is to say "let's fail!" Communism therefore cannot be the outcome of revolutions in the "Third World." But again, this does not mean that living conditions cannot be improved.

More Venezuelas to develop the "Third World!" And Zapatista style direct democracy for government in Communism!
You misinterpret my aims. Is it neccesary for a commune to be, at first, industrialized? No, communism is entirely based upon society. But, must a commune idustrialize? Certainly! I make no attempt to suggest that an agrarian 'peasant commune' should stay that way. If you've been reading along, you'll notice that I say that trade between communes (and perhaps between a commune and the Zapatistas, Cuba, Venezuela...if they accept) is desired. This is, if you'd like to think about it this way, about simple chronology. CompaneroDeLibertad is stuck in his orthodox mentality about chronology: first this must happen, then this, etc. Must it be so? Is chronology really so important? Perhaps we can first create the commune, and then industrialize it through trade. I do not want any group of people to skip industrialization, but that does not mean that communism for them is impossible. Shall we wait generations for this industrialization to happen, and only then go on to communism? Or shall we have communism relatively soon, and begin with a primitive agrarian commune and then industrialize? Note that this road is only a possibility, as it is up to the people, ultimately, to decide if they will revolutionize, and the result.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If you've read Marx then you a. didn't understand his theories or b. outright "bagged" them.

Historical materialism teaches us that human societies progress in the following way: Communialism -> Slave State - > Feudalism -> Capitalism -> Socialism -> Communism

Anything that moves counter-current to that is, by definition, reactionary.

The end.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 10:55 PM
If you've read Marx then you a. didn't understand his theories or b. outright "bagged" them.

Historical materialism teaches us that human societies progress in the following way: Communialism -> Slave State - > Feudalism -> Capitalism -> Socialism -> Communism

Anything that moves counter-current to that is, by definition, reactionary.

The end.
I agree with Redstar on this: socialism has proven to be a stage which can and should be skipped. I'm sure you've talked with him about it before. If you'd like to present a case for socialism, start your own thread, and I'll be quite willing to debate you (I actually began a thread previously, a long time ago, but not much happened).

This does, however, prove without doubt the points I made above: that you are a. and orthodox Marxist and b. are stuck in your orthodox chronology.

To respond to what you said, I understood Marx's theories full well. However, I see that socialism has proved a failure in the past, and so it is time to move on.

[Leif]

CompaneroDeLiberated, I believe you misinterpret my intentions. when it comes to my personal politics, I would rather go straight to the Zapastista commune style of society than the Norweigan welfare state (although I support the Norweigan worker's party, merely on principle alone hoping they are for the destruction of the state and the liberation of the working man and womyn).
I call myself a democratic socialist because it doesn't scare the frightful kansans (whom I am immersed in, living in kansas and all). I would rather be able to speak honestly about my politics, and around some I am able to, but in my fassad to the masses I must put on a mask as not to scare them with my true face (which they percieve as truely evil, for the dollar is worshiped here)