Prospects of Revolution in Britain?

[Sir Aunty Christ]

I think, politically, Britain is more or less ripe for a revolution. If you look at the situation we have three main parties in Parliament who offer different shades of conservatism but if this means Britain is politically ready, is it socially ready?

By this I mean are the general public properly understand the issues which necessitate revolution? And if there is a degree of understanding, would they join us?

[tatu]

Personally, I think that there is still a lot of work to be done in Britain. We need to let people know that there is no compromising with the parliamentary system, no compromising with the social chauvinists (Read: These April Theses by Lenin). Also, we need to smash the right wing and correct the distorted and falsified views regarding immigrants and asylum seekers. A large majority of people have been lulled into a false sense of security by the three main political parties - Labour, Conservatives and Liberal democrats.

[More Fire for the People]

I believe Britian will be ready for revolutionary action in a matter of a year or two. The problem is, there is no real communist-workers vanguard party to direct the revolution when it happens. Without a vanguard, the masses political fuel burns up in a matter of weeks (May 1968) but with a vanguard party the revolution can be succesful (October 1917).

What I encourage my British comrades to do in the mean time: Exposing anti-Muslim fascism for what is and how to comabt it;
Denouncing Labour's fascism;
Building a vanguard party of the masses to direct the proletarian revolution;
Devising a method of protracted urban insurrection and executing it;

[commiecrusader]

Britain is far from ready for a revolution. Whilst the public is becoming weary of the same brand of Conservative politics being offered by all 3 main parties, this is simply manifesting itself in a general disinterest in politics in any form, be it voting or revolution. In short, the UK is experiencing a political malaise. Much much work needs to be done to shatter all remnants of fascism, such as the BNP, and to demonstrate to and convince the public that something can be done to improve their lot in life, and that of everyone else, and that the method required to achieve this is...

REVOLUTION

[bolshevik butcher]

Britain was in a mtuch better state for a revolution in the '70s. Today the situation is getting better, support for the elft is growing but saying a reovlution is immenent is opitmistic to say the least.

[Des]

im 22 now.. and I bet that even if i live to the average age (77?) there wont be a revoultion or close too...

but the tories will have regained power several times by then!

[ComradeOm]

Revolution remains highly unlikely in any form throughout the West. The capitalist ruling class have been highly successful in buying off the lower classes. There's so much money sloshing around the system that even the lowest classes are buying into the capitalist dream in the form of "chav culture". Only when the economic situation worsens and the capitalists can no longer afford to be so generous will we have rising discontent.

[visceroid]

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 4 2005, 08:33 PM
Without a vanguard, the masses political fuel burns up in a matter of weeks (May 1968) but with a vanguard party the revolution can be succesful (October 1917).

i personally, and i believe many would agree with me, but i would much rather a failure like 68' than a successful october, though we would all prefer a sucessful 68'

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

As Socialists were are natural romantics, but some of the blind, irrational optimism here is ridiculous.

The Parliamentary system here is not going to be budged. It is imprinted on British society and the British life. Ifyou think anything will be achieved in any way other thanby Parliamentary means, you simply do not understand the political landscape of this country enough and it's history. There will be no great revolution here, only reform.

You must also consider the public in this country. Take off your Socialist tinted glasses and you will notice that this society is one of the most comfortable and, indeed, fairest socities in the world. Don't get me wrong, I know it's faults just as much as you, but other countries are far worse. We offer free healthcare, education and security to every citizen and though the quality of the services may differ around the country, this is much more than what can be said for other countries. Therefore, the public are far from open to revolutionary mobilization. Labout of the Kinnock years painted a horrific picture of Socialism in the minds of those who do not follow politics in depth.

Optimistic revolutionaries must get some sense of direction. I mean rational direction. We must use the parliamentary system as that is the only way we will get anywhere.

[bolshevik butcher]

Optimistic revolutionaries must get some sense of direction. I mean rational direction. We must use the parliamentary system as that is the only way we will get anywhere.

There is some truth in this place, parliemnt is certainly a good platform for socilaists to spread there message from, but we can't impliment the priniciples of soiclaism from it. And we cannot afford to be exclusivley parlimetary, i dont think we need to be like the ssp who have gona all wishy washy and left nationalist, partly because they're exclusivle activity seems to be parliment.

[Amusing Scrotum]

i personally, and i believe many would agree with me, but i would much rather a failure like 68' than a successful october, though we would all prefer a sucessful 68'

I couldn't agree more.


As Socialists were are natural romantics, but some of the blind, irrational optimism here is ridiculous.

The Parliamentary system here is not going to be budged. It is imprinted on British society and the British life. Ifyou think anything will be achieved in any way other thanby Parliamentary means, you simply do not understand the political landscape of this country enough and it's history. There will be no great revolution here, only reform.

You must also consider the public in this country. Take off your Socialist tinted glasses and you will notice that this society is one of the most comfortable and, indeed, fairest socities in the world. Don't get me wrong, I know it's faults just as much as you, but other countries are far worse. We offer free healthcare, education and security to every citizen and though the quality of the services may differ around the country, this is much more than what can be said for other countries. Therefore, the public are far from open to revolutionary mobilization. Labout of the Kinnock years painted a horrific picture of Socialism in the minds of those who do not follow politics in depth.

Optimistic revolutionaries must get some sense of direction. I mean rational direction. We must use the parliamentary system as that is the only way we will get anywhere

Very true. If we in Britain choose to ignore the Parliamentary system completely, we are in effect handicapping ourselves, just so when there is no revolutionary activity through Parliament, we can say "We told you so". We need, above anything else, to use the current democratic systems to advance Socialism. If we ignore Parliament altogether, we will be ignoring the best stage from which to express our ideals.

Add to this, that for the first time ever the British public in general, is to the left of a Labour Government and we perhaps have as good a time as any, to get a strong Socialist presence in both Parliament and local councils.

If reform is the only way we are likely to get Socialism in Britain, then I say "Bring on the reform".

[Redmau5]

Without a vanguard, the masses political fuel burns up in a matter of weeks (May 1968) but with a vanguard party the revolution can be succesful (October 1917).

It doesn't matter if the Revolution is successful if there is very little to show for it afterwards.


The Parliamentary system here is not going to be budged. It is imprinted on British society and the British life. Ifyou think anything will be achieved in any way other thanby Parliamentary means, you simply do not understand the political landscape of this country enough and it's history. There will be no great revolution here, only reform.

What? Absolute shit. People say that capitalism is "imprinted on society" and that people won't change their ways. Does that mean we give up?

Parliamentary politics doesn't work. You can't change the system by becoming part of it.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

What? Absolute shit. People say that capitalism is "imprinted on society"

Well I wasn't saying that, was I?


Parliamentary politics doesn't work. You can't change the system by becoming part of it.

You're losing the context. We're talking about getting the British public to believe in Socialism. This country has a history, some of it ugly, some of it great, of progression through reform. I don't see why a revolution cannot be acheived through parliamentary means. It would certainly be more legitimate. I have to question whether or not some of you people's distrust of the parliamentary system is due to a lack of belief in Socialism. You only think we can acheive it through a "glorious revolution". But doing it that way would isolate many millions through all classes. A parliamentary revolutionary party is the only way forward and people will only say that is a contradiction because you all have some studenty belief that we can acheive an October revolution or land our own Granma at Plymouth dock. Forget it, times have changed.

[r`n`l]

So it is better to wait until 3rd world countryes do something and change it for you?

I think that western countries should be the ones in which the end of their capitalistic imperialism system must be started coz with people being quiet in west 3rd world will be inferior to them coz ways west people have to stop it are better then in nonwest countries

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

What?

Are you sure you were replying to my post?

[r`n`l]

well i am replaying too all saying that nonwest countries are ready for the changes that need to hapen on west and i don`t know how it will hapen but just saying that it is in intrest of British and US governant to let people think about changes in a hundred years so indirectly you are actualy doing what they want ( that refers to waiting for 100ys)

i am not from UK just wanted to give you my opinion as an outsider

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I understand you're not British so I'm not having a go at you, but I barely understaood what you mean.

I think you were saying everyone outside the West is waiting for our countries to react to how badly we're run. If that's what you mean, then we know that. What we're discussing is how the change is going to come based on the feeling amongst the public. Something which you're not really able to comment on.

[YKTMX]

Well, I suppose I stand somewhere in between some of the comrades "optimism" and Socialismo's rather dire, reformist predictions.

I don't think that Britain is, barring some kind of unforseen disaster, a "year or two" from a revolutionary situation. Nor do I think that the British are unwinnable to revolutionary politics. Socialismo is, of course, completely wrong to say the UK is "one of the fairest" countries in the world - in fact, a third of our population live in poverty and inequality is higher than anywhere else in western Europe.

What we do have is a working class still, by and large, wedded to Labourism. We don't have a tradition of mass Marxist or radical parties (unlike, say, France or Italy). What we need is for the big Unions to make a decisive break with the old reformist party, like some of the unions did in Germany this year. That will open up some space for a new working class party to grow, whether it be Respect or anyone else.

What is clear beyond doubt is that the parliamentary road leads nowhere. We've had leftish Labour government in the past, but as we all know they are powerless.

[violencia.Proletariat]

i talk to some people who live there online, and if i told them they are soon ready for revolution, they would laught at me ;)

[enigma2517]

Political parties are a bourgeosie invention.

So is parliment.

How do you expect to use this to bring about a proletarian revolution?

Its the wrong tool for the job.

Would you try and end feudalism by joining the church or sucking up to the gentry?

It sounds ridiculous, but so is using the capitalist republic to create an international communist....whatever

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I diasgree that you can call something bourgeois when it is god-knows how many centuries old. The concept of a bourgeois doesn't even belong in that time. Yes, Parliament is run by the bourgeois now, but I don't accept your argument that we cannot work within it.

[Redmau5]

Well I wasn't saying that, was I?

I was using a comparison. You were saying that the parliamentary system was "imprinted" on the British, and therefore they cannot be changed to anything other than parliamentary politics. I was saying that alot people believe capitalism is the best society we can have. But that doesn't mean they can't be made to believe otherwise. The same goes for the British public and their parliamentary system.


You're losing the context. We're talking about getting the British public to believe in Socialism.

I'm not losing any context. Im from the north of Ireland, so I have a fairly good idea about British politics. And im not interested in getting them interested in Socialism, I'm interested in Communism.


I don't see why a revolution cannot be acheived through parliamentary means.

That sounds more like evolution than revolution. Plus, how are the workers supposed to be represented at parliament? By "leaders" ? The workers have to lead their own revolution. They don't need any bourgeoisie politician acting "in their interests".


It would certainly be more legitimate.

You really care about bourgeois law and legitimacy?


I have to question whether or not some of you people's distrust of the parliamentary system is due to a lack of belief in Socialism.

People's distrust of th parliamentary system has nothing to do with a lack of belief in socialism. It does however, have something to do with their lack of belief in the parliamentary system.


You only think we can acheive it through a "glorious revolution".

Yes I do.


But doing it that way would isolate many millions through all classes.

If you are referring to isolating the middle-classes, I honestly couldn't care how isolated they become. And I don't see how millions of workers will be isolated, seeing they will be the ones fighting for the Revolution.


A parliamentary revolutionary party is the only way forward

:lol: . You honestly believe that the only way to bring about the demise of the bourgeois state is to become part of that state?


you all have some studenty belief that we can acheive an October revolution

Not very many people want another October Revolution, considering it didn't do much for communism. But I do believe the vast majority of socialists, communists and anarchists want a worker's revolution, and I believe that it is inevitable. Maybe not now, or in 10 years, or in 30 years, but it will happen.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Political parties are a bourgeosie invention.

So is parliment.


You seem not to realise the victories the working class movement has achieved by using Parliament.

Parliament undoubtedly has bourgeois elements, however British or for that matter European Parliamentary systems are lights years ahead of America in terms of workers' representation. We are now being dragged towards the American model of detached democracy, which we must fight, however Parliament still remains a system that the workers' can use for their struggle, when it is coupled by strong, active and boisterous Unions.


Not very many people want another October Revolution, considering it didn't do much for communism. But I do believe the vast majority of socialists, communists and anarchists want a worker's revolution, and I believe that it is inevitable. Maybe not now, or in 10 years, or in 30 years, but it will happen.


Yes, but unless Socialist opinions already have a foothold in the public conscience, then we will likely lose out to reactionary groups, espousing Nationalism and Racism.
We need to have Socialist opinions being heard in the mainstream, if we are ever going to have a chance of seeing a Socialist revolution in Britain. Because quite logically, people are never going to conduct a revolution for a belief they know little or nothing about.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Exactly my points, just much better worded.


I'm not losing any context. Im from the north of Ireland, so I have a fairly good idea about British politics. And im not interested in getting them interested in Socialism, I'm interested in Communism.

I'm not interested in labels or terminology. Call it what you want, socialism, communism. I'm looking for a free and fair society. That thing we're always promised but know we're never going to get. Plus, I wasn't questioning your knowledge about politics, I was saying you were losing touch with the context. You don't need any qualifications or knowledge to stay in touch with a context.



That sounds more like evolution than revolution. Plus, how are the workers supposed to be represented at parliament? By "leaders" ? The workers have to lead their own revolution. They don't need any bourgeoisie politician acting "in their interests".

This sounds extremely confused. My point (and I think this is Armchair.Socialism's point) is that we need the right people and the right leaders to lead a parliamentary struggle. Nobody was suggesting for a minute that we use Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Charles Clarke to help further out cause through parliament. With the right people, it can work. That is my whole point. You've sort of backed it up by saying that.


You really care about bourgeois law and legitimacy?

Again, call it what you want. I care about humane legitimacy.



If you are referring to isolating the middle-classes, I honestly couldn't care how isolated they become.

And thank you for strengthening my view that you "revolutionaries" would only bring human illegitimacy. So you just want a revenge state? That's basically what you're saying.


I think you have the wrong mindset to argue with me. Because it seems you have a deep distrust of people in general. You couldn't even understand that I meant we need new leaders to take us into parliament and if you did understand that, you showed no sign that you would put your faith in anyone. Of course, however, this is the criteria of a part-time "revolutionary"

[tatu]

But how can we guarantee that parliamentary means won’t attract opportunist nut jobs? Why do you think socialism failed the first time round?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

How can you guarantee any method would attract the wrong people? Just like the October Revolution?

This is the distrust I'm speaking of. Why can nobody put their trust in other people? Maybe it's because nobody arguing is a Socialist.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Exactly my points, just much better worded.


Thank you. ;)


But how can we guarantee that parliamentary means won’t attract opportunist nut jobs? Why do you think socialism failed the first time round?

I would have to echo Socialsmo o Muerte's sentiments that the possibility of opportunist infiltration, is there with both the Parliamentary and Revolutionary method.

However, what everyone must remember is that we must trust the people, those we fight for, to see through this opportunism. We must be willing to believe that Socialism will win out against counter revolutionary ideals. Because if we don't believe this and take the other route of paranoia and repression. Which was rife in Russia. We end up persecuting those we claim to represent.

Personally I would rather risk counter revolution and opportunists, than implement a paranoid police state, that discriminates against those we wish to liberate.

[The Grey Blur]

If you look at the situation we have three main parties in Parliament who offer different shades of conservatism

Don't you live in Ireland?

Anyway, England will never revolt in such a manner as you describe, I mean, there is dissatisfaction but the sheer amount of control corporations, the media and the Government exudes over the working class, dumbing their minds and creating a legion of apathetic, consumerist youth means revolution is at best unlikely and could even be downright impossible.

I hope that wasn't too negative...

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

It was negative. But, let's face it, politics is negative right now.

I don't think I need to say anymre that I fully agree with Armchair.Socialism.

The distrust you seem to have of people will surely only create a self-fulfilling prophecy anyway.

We must advance in a way the British public feel comfortable with. And that is only by parliamentary means. I don't believe Cromwell fought for nothing.

[Tekun]

Yeah, Socialismo o Muerte's gotta point

Britain is far from a revolution, the living standard is comfortable
The people have become comformist, and the working man is far from organized for a revolution

Yet, if the Brits wanna start a revolution; then I'll support them

But I rather see us working towards a revolution in countries like Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or South Africa then in Europe
The lower class support in these nations would be amazing

Lets concentrate on the nations with a staggering degree of poverty, oppression, and unrest

Lets free Haiti

[bolshevik butcher]

What's the situtation like in haiti? Is chavez popular there?

[slim]

I got an email for a petition from enemy board yesterday calling for the end of the "american dictatorship".

[h&s]

Britain is far from a revolution, the living standard is comfortable
Thats not the point. When our living standard is attacked - like it is now - people get angry. When we get told we have to work until we're 70, union rights are virtually abolished in many professions, for shit wages, and that after all that we get poverty level pensions, people get angry.
We just have to wait until this and the fact that Parliament can not solve everything becomes clear.


But I rather see us working towards a revolution in countries like Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or South Africa then in Europe
The lower class support in these nations would be amazing

Lets concentrate on the nations with a staggering degree of poverty, oppression, and unrest

Revolution will happen in these countries first, but I see no reason to 'prefer' that. Sure they are far poorer than other countrys, but it is only a world revolution that can bring all countrys to be equal. And a revolution in a Western country is going to speed that process up alot. Once the Western countries start going, it won't stop.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by Rage Against The [email protected] 6 2005, 08:07 PM

If you look at the situation we have three main parties in Parliament who offer different shades of conservatism

Don't you live in Ireland?
Yeah, I do - but the same applies (capitalist parties etc. etc.).

[Tekun]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 7 2005, 03:55 PM
Thats not the point. When our living standard is attacked - like it is now - people get angry. When we get told we have to work until we're 70, union rights are virtually abolished in many professions, for shit wages, and that after all that we get poverty level pensions, people get angry.
We just have to wait until this and the fact that Parliament can not solve everything becomes clear.

Revolution will happen in these countries first, but I see no reason to 'prefer' that. Sure they are far poorer than other countrys, but it is only a world revolution that can bring all countrys to be equal. And a revolution in a Western country is going to speed that process up alot. Once the Western countries start going, it won't stop.
It might not be the point, but tha truth of the matter is that Haitian ppl die everyday as a result of the poverty and unrest, I highly doubt this occurs in Britain

Theres an urgecy in Haiti :ph34r:

The living standard of Britain might be under attack, but at least they have a living standard and paying jobs
The Haitians are far from havin a living standard, they'll die waiting for a living standard
And their jobs do nothing but keep them chained to poverty

IF the Brits are angry then they should take appropriate measures, theres enough resources and intellectuals for them to take action
Yet, this is almost impossible in Haiti, with the poverty and unrest its impossible for tha people to unite and create a revolution

Thats why we should take care of the countries where the ppl are really suffering, then countries where the ppl's egos or pockets are suffering

For example:
Two men are in the sea and are in danger of drowning
One man has a life vest
Another man does not

I rather rescue the man who doesn't have a life vest kuz theres an urgency of him drowning first (Haiti)
Then I'll rescue the man with the life vest (Britain)

Ya dig? ;)

[slim]

I would rather have revolution in Britain before Haiti for several reasons,

Just because the people of Britain have higher materialistic standards of living than Haiti, does not mean that we should put up with it just because others are worse off.
If you were being beaten up by a policeman and a comrade was being beaten up by three would you not first fight back and strike down your oppressor before coming to the aid of your comrade?

Another reason is that it is not expected by the capitalist bourgoisie. Haiti has military police trained to put down dissidents and has american aid just around the corner. Britain has an army of 100,000 that is overstretched across the commonwealth and would never dare attack their own people because of the way they were brought up. British military would not kill their brothers for £117 a day when they could have a safer job with less risk and earn more. Anyone who stands in our way will be seen as a psychopath who is against the will of the people and will receive treatment as such. Soldiers in Haiti however fight so they can feed their families, if they stop then im sure their officers will not be so lenient and they will starve.

Another reason is that Britain has a first rate road system and capturing ground will not take long at all. I could march on London in two days or in about an hour by car. Plus the climate is not as severe for campaigning, a mild climate in the summer will aid us and we will not suffer from the effects of campaigning in the Carribean which will need good healthcare supplies.

To be honest campaigning in Britain will be much easier to win and will hurt the capitalists a lot more. Britain would be a decisive victory worth nearly two trillion dollars a year and will not attract as much attention from overseas. It will have more international support than if we freed Haiti. Haiti is insignificant economically and the states could easily attack again and again with its war machine with no international condemnation. Haiti will eventually fall to capitalist forces and will be a great loss of life on our part. It cannot be a victory. Britain can.

Do chara,

Slim. HRA.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 11:06 AM
I would rather have revolution in Britain before Haiti
:unsure: Oh well, if you prefer it...

[slim]

Okay, it would be beneficial for the left to have revolution in Britain rather than Haiti. Do not assume that i have selfish reasons. I have justified my reasons so it is not just a backless opinion but an opinion worthy of consideration.

[Tekun]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:13 PM
Okay, it would be beneficial for the left to have revolution in Britain rather than Haiti. Do not assume that i have selfish reasons. I have justified my reasons so it is not just a backless opinion but an opinion worthy of consideration.
Respected!

Its just that Haitians are in dire need of change, there on their way to extinction

And it doesn't really matter if the Haiti has an army to combat dissidents, Guy Philippe recently helped lead a successful revolution that overthrew Aristide, so why not do the same with Haitian socialists leading the charge?

[slim]

I would love to free the people of Haiti. I would love to see the peace and justice i will fight for, i would love to have a family and secure their safety, i would love to live till i am old. I cannot guarantee these things but the paths i choose give me a good chance of getting these things.

Imagine after the revolution in the UK. How will the world react? There will never have been such a nation on Earth before. Imagine if the people advocated that Haiti should be free. We will descend on the corrupt government and smash them aside with the people of Haiti alongside us.

We are the generation that has been chosen by history and fate to end corruption, end slavery, end gross inequalities. Bring justice, peace, education, freedom and life.

Do chara,

Slim

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

So was my Mum's generation in the 60's.

Don't fill your head with that sort of romantic crap, it will get us nowhere.

[Amusing Scrotum]

So was my Mum's generation in the 60's.

Don't fill your head with that sort of romantic crap, it will get us nowhere.

Yeah my Mum was part of that generation too. The generation that thought it would change the world.

Yet what has that generation produced? The most prominent Socialist in Britain from that decade, a man MI5 described as a "Hard line revolutionary Socialist", is Jack Straw, and I think everyone here will agree that Jacky boy is an idiot.

Silly notions that a generation or group are destined to change the world. Inevitably leads to complacency and failure.

[h&s]

Originally posted by Tekun+Oct 8 2005, 12:59 AM--> (Tekun @ Oct 8 2005, 12:59 AM)
h&[email protected] 7 2005, 03:55 PM
Thats not the point. When our living standard is attacked - like it is now - people get angry. When we get told we have to work until we're 70, union rights are virtually abolished in many professions, for shit wages, and that after all that we get poverty level pensions, people get angry.
We just have to wait until this and the fact that Parliament can not solve everything becomes clear.

Revolution will happen in these countries first, but I see no reason to 'prefer' that. Sure they are far poorer than other countrys, but it is only a world revolution that can bring all countrys to be equal. And a revolution in a Western country is going to speed that process up alot. Once the Western countries start going, it won't stop.
It might not be the point, but tha truth of the matter is that Haitian ppl die everyday as a result of the poverty and unrest, I highly doubt this occurs in Britain

Theres an urgecy in Haiti :ph34r:

The living standard of Britain might be under attack, but at least they have a living standard and paying jobs
The Haitians are far from havin a living standard, they'll die waiting for a living standard
And their jobs do nothing but keep them chained to poverty

IF the Brits are angry then they should take appropriate measures, theres enough resources and intellectuals for them to take action
Yet, this is almost impossible in Haiti, with the poverty and unrest its impossible for tha people to unite and create a revolution

Thats why we should take care of the countries where the ppl are really suffering, then countries where the ppl's egos or pockets are suffering

For example:
Two men are in the sea and are in danger of drowning
One man has a life vest
Another man does not

I rather rescue the man who doesn't have a life vest kuz theres an urgency of him drowning first (Haiti)
Then I'll rescue the man with the life vest (Britain)

Ya dig? ;) [/b]
Yes Haiti 'needs' revolution far more urgently than the UK does, but that is far to simple a way to look at it.
The fate of working and other oppressed peoples all around the earth is forever linked.
Without the UK going socialist, Haiti would not be able to remain socialist, and without Haiti going socialist the UK would not be able to remain socialist.
Do you get my point?
The very nature of revolution means that it needs to take place everywhere (within a reasonable time period - not at exactly the same time of course), otherwise it will fail.
You can not chose one country over another, but if a western country such as the UK, as slim has pointed out, has a revolution, things will be a lot easier for the rest of the world.