World revolution and Global conflict

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

If we imagine in a scenario in the near future, that comprises of the western world weakened and the United $tates now with none of its former hegemonic statues. In this future the main oil and gas supplying countries (OPEC) has changed from trading oil in U$ dollars to Chinese or another currency.

Thus hugely effecting the workers in both the U$ and Europe. If the workers were now suffering to even greater levels than before and revolutionary consciousness was achieved to the level where a revolution happened.

What would the people first action be?

How would a country like the UK, which is a largely unarmed populace, be able to destroy and the national army, the police and any corporate armies/police, if they exist?

For arguments sake, let’s assumed the workers had taken all the major cities in the UK, London Edinburgh, and Manchester ect. The revolution was preparing for socialism, while the rest of world caught up.

What would happen then?

Assuming the united $tates and western Europe were to a similar level of class consciousness would it be plausible for the UK revolutionaries to travel to those places and try and help a revolution along?

Meanwhile, given the dependence of capitalist economies on trading to be secure and with the western revolution, this would most likely lead to international military action against revolutionary countries since, the newly imperialist countries have, at that point, nothing to lose.

So how would, a workers army, largely untrained in the use of Submarines and flying Mig’s, fight a counter-revolutionary war against the rest of the capitalist world?

That seems a very daunting prospect.

Is the only hope for western revolution, or any communist revolution, the simultaneous world revolution? If that is what is required, we all will be waiting a very long time I would think.

So please, try and answer some of the question and tell me your views on how to create and defend a world revolution.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:23 AM
If we imagine in a scenario in the near future, that comprises of the western world weakened and the United $tates now with none of its former hegemonic statues. In this future the main oil and gas supplying countries (OPEC) has changed from trading oil in U$ dollars to Chinese or another currency.

Thus hugely effecting the workers in both the U$ and Europe. If the workers were now suffering to even greater levels than before and revolutionary consciousness was achieved to the level where a revolution happened.

What would the people first action be?

How would a country like the UK, which is a largely unarmed populace, be able to destroy and the national army, the police and any corporate armies/police, if they exist?

For arguments sake, let’s assumed the workers had taken all the major cities in the UK, London Edinburgh, and Manchester ect. The revolution was preparing for socialism, while the rest of world caught up.

What would happen then?

Assuming the united $tates and western Europe were to a similar level of class consciousness would it be plausible for the UK revolutionaries to travel to those places and try and help a revolution along?

Meanwhile, given the dependence of capitalist economies on trading to be secure and with the western revolution, this would most likely lead to international military action against revolutionary countries since, the newly imperialist countries have, at that point, nothing to lose.

So how would, a workers army, largely untrained in the use of Submarines and flying Mig’s, fight a counter-revolutionary war against the rest of the capitalist world?

That seems a very daunting prospect.

Is the only hope for western revolution, or any communist revolution, the simultaneous world revolution? If that is what is required, we all will be waiting a very long time I would think.

So please, try and answer some of the question and tell me your views on how to create and defend a world revolution.
WEll, I believ that the peoples first action would be huge protests and mass strikes. This would create a destabilization inthe country that would force the government to take reppressive measures. As this happened, radical groups would probably form and start attacking the government. As the governments actions worsened, the people would take side with the guerilla groups or the fighters.

Well, even if the uk is largely unamrmed, there are always ways to obtain weapons. (smugglers, countries, army). As the revolution progresses, most if the weapons of the revolutionary fighters would be taken from the actual army. And keep in mind that the revolution is of the peoples will, a huge army wont kill it. Also, there are more people than soldiers.

IN the case that the revolution did succeed, it would be very likely that other workers would realize that this was possible and would opt for the same kind of change. It would be like a chain reaction of the oppressed workers (Hopefully). It also depends on the conditions of the other countries. Armies like the US and its allies would end agents to kill the revolutionaries and end the revolution. But as many as they kill, they cant kill a revolution.

Assuming that the class conciousness was alive in the US, it would be great for others to HELP the revolution. not take it over, for the revolutoin must be of the actual workers to truly succeed. Proletarian internationalism would be a duty of the successful revolutionaries to spread revolution around. Doing this would ensure the success of many revolutions because of the amount of consciousness inthe world of a new society of liberty and justice.


If the the UK was the only one to succeed in the revolution, then large capitalist countries would interfere and try to take the country over for "democracy." This wouldnt be good, for the revolutonaries wouldnt have many allies. The best hope for revoluton to succeed would be for revoluton around the world to make alliances and help eachother out economically and politically. Comrade. do not lose faith in the revolution. You must know that what you are doing is right and help to create it. Let us fight for the "impossible" for the possible has already been said and done!

[gewehr_3]

If the movement was that strong, Most soldiers come from lower class families and wouldnt they sympathise with their comrades fighting for equality and rise up against their officers? I would hope that would happen but after they join the military they are bombarded with propaganda So it is the duty of the movement to educate the soldiers on the situation and have them join the movement.

[Rawthentic]

yes, Gewehr, very well said, I forgot to mention that comrade

[ItalianCommie]

I read that somethig like two-thirds of the Russian armed forces are declaredly communist and vote the communist parties in Russia. There are also quite a few illegal militias formed by these soldiers. Revolutionary possibility?

I hope they aren't all Stalinists...

[Cullmac]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:28 PM
If the movement was that strong, Most soldiers come from lower class families and wouldnt they sympathise with their comrades fighting for equality and rise up against their officers? I would hope that would happen but after they join the military they are bombarded with propaganda So it is the duty of the movement to educate the soldiers on the situation and have them join the movement.
That is a very good point comrade, for example in 1917 a Russian officer loyal to the Tsar was giving orders to his squad, he was telling them that they were going to use a show of force on the people and shoot into the crowed. But the soldiers, knowing their family and friends were in the crowds spat at the officer who ran away, one of the soldiers then shot him in the back. So yes if the vast proportion of the population supported an uprising it is reasonable to assume that soldiers would also take part. Although if we&#39;re using the UK as an example a large part of the armed forces is ran by the aristocracy (still <_< )

[Janus]

Yes, indoctrinating the armed forces is a very important issue. If not, then the army will just become a mindless tool of the reactionary government.

However, another important policy would be arming the workers themselves and create a militia. The people must help in defending their own revolution if they want it to survive. Remember what happened in Guatemala with the government of Arbenz. He refused to arm the people which allowed the CIA funded counter-revolutionaries to sweep him away.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Would it be likely that the military would split between the revolution and officers who oppose it.

Also, how do revolutions repel counter-revolutionaries? During the early 19th century, the russian revolution was able to survive(sort of anyway) because the nature of the warfare was far less advanced.

Today wouldnt even the most steadfast revolutionaries and worker militia&#39;s be easily destroyed by a proffessional army?

im not trying to be too negative, just trying to clear up things in my head. lol if thats possible.

cheers

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham
If we imagine in a scenario in the near future...

How "near"?

Revolutionaries are impatient by temperament...we want a communist revolution "yesterday"&#33;

But I think if we are serious, then we have to pay close attention to "how things are actually going".

In my opinion, 2050 looks like a "good guess" for western Europe...probably beginning in France but with Germany and the U.K. joining in quickly.

The year 2100 seems more reasonable for North America...we have a lot of crap that remains to be disposed of here -- Christianity being the outstanding obstacle to revolutionary consciousness in the U.S.


Is the only hope for western revolution, or any communist revolution, the simultaneous world revolution?

Fortunately no. What we need is a "bloc" of advanced communist societies...large enough to make an imperialist invasion too costly to undertake.

We don&#39;t even need a professional army; all we need is 100 nukes and the means to deliver them against any invader.

Our enemies will fuss and fume and make all kinds of threats...but not even a global capitalist coalition will want to seriously contemplate wholesale nuclear destruction.

Of course, that means that we have to be "tough-minded" about this option.

We cannot afford to lose -- the resulting "white terrors" are simply unacceptable.

I&#39;m sure there will be revolutionaries who will want to "beg off" and say that we "shouldn&#39;t be so ruthless", etc.

That&#39;s a sentiment that, if implemented, will guarantee our destruction.

So...no Gandhi bullshit&#33; If the imperialists dare to attack us, they lose their cities&#33; :angry:

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

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I was thinking in terms of &#39;near&#39; being from 100-200 years.

Would a revolutionary era likely be coupled with inter-imperialist wars?

I ask this because from the past (I think) we can see two separate tendencies from imperialist countries.

Firstly, they will invade other countries, in alliances, if a given country threatens the "free" movement of capital (not democracy). For example the U&#036; joining in against fascism in WW2, after the 1917 revolution, also U&#036; interference in the Korean War and Vietnam, and now Iraq.

Secondly, people like Fukyama, often suggest that capitalist countries do not declare war on each other.

However, we have only lived in an advanced capitalist world where the U&#036; and other capitalist countries had to work together in order to defeat "communism”.

And again, after the collapse of the Soviets, the U&#036; has been totally dominant as it has military, economic and political power over the entire world, meaning most countries that want to stay secure will kowtow to U&#036; hegemony.

Therefore, the imperialist countries do not need to war against each other because they just exploit lesser developed places.

So, if there is no great enemy in the future for the imperialists, and hegemonic power is far more uncertain, doesn’t that mean they might fight among themselves? Until of course revolution anyway.

Oh and Redstar, if the Campaign for nuke disarmament got their way in the future, and it actually happened, (not that I think it will) would revolutions be almost continually doomed?

Its quite ironic how the U&#036;&#39;s own deterrent could be used against them.

Ps
This might not make total coherence as I had no sleep last night.

[KC]

My guess would be around 50 years. With the way China is progressing and with the means of production increasing on such a massive scale, it can&#39;t be much longer until the revolution happens, regardless of Christianity.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:25 PM
I read that somethig like two-thirds of the Russian armed forces are declaredly communist and vote the communist parties in Russia. There are also quite a few illegal militias formed by these soldiers. Revolutionary possibility?
In Russia soldiers vote the way their officers tell them to.

Its a pity that there are so few conscript armies around these days. Those organisations could almost be relied upon to join any revolution.

[Vendetta]

I think the only (extremely effective) measure of revolution would be a worldwide revolution, or one in the currently major countries, such as the US, UK, France, Russia, and China.

The reason being simply because the US will almost gladly quell any revolutions in it&#39;s current state, regardless of what the revolutionaries are fighting for.

But yeah, conscript armies would certainly be a help if they were still in style.

Edit: Or a revolution with enough followers.