Where should the revolution start: Third or First?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Should the revolution start in a third or first world country? Or does it not matter where? I am unsure about this issue, although I am leaning towards a Marxian interpretation. I am quite curious about what anarchists say on this matter, though.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Communist revolutions will take place in advanced capitalist countries first. Bourgeois revolutions happen in third world countries. That's my anarchist perspective, which is based on a marxian analysis and historical materialism anyways, so....

[Enragé]

preferably in a 1st world country

it could happen in a third world country but such a revolution would need a revolution in a 1st world country to survive/prosper

[Ol' Dirty]

What we need is a rapid wave of seccessions in many countries, rich and poor, so many that the Capitalists and Fascists can't react quickly enough.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

I would say a 1st world because, they would have more means to get the revolution started, being able to have better communication, and a higher literacy rate, and better health care, it would seem that once people see the error that is capitalism, a revolution would spread like wild fire through a 1st world "country."

[KC]

A third world revolution is needed to spark a first world revolution.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 09:47 PM
A third world revolution is needed to spark a first world revolution.
Why? If this is true why hasn't it happened yet, how many third world revolutions have there been?

[CLOCKWORK ORANGE]

Well all these first world economies rely on low third world wages.

If all the third world becomes communist what exactly will a country like the U.S be left with?

[KC]

Why?

Because according to Marxist economics, as capitalism develops the condition of the working class increasingly gets worse. According to imperialism, since the primary exploitation of the proletariat has been exported to third world countries to maintain profit margins, the condition of the working class in these exploiting countries will get worse before that of the first world. The working class in countries exploited by imperialism will feel the pressure much sooner than the working class in the imperialist countries. CO said it well:


Well all these first world economies rely on low third world wages.



If this is true why hasn't it happened yet, how many third world revolutions have there been?

It hasn't happened yet because there have been no revolutions in countries crucial to imperialist economic stability. Also, because many of these revolutions have in some way fucked up (some right from the beginning) and some even don't see the imperialists as the enemy and continue to do business with them.



If all the third world becomes communist what exactly will a country like the U.S be left with?

I doubt that these third world countries will become communist, and these revolutions don't even have to be socialist. They just have to be anti-imperialist to the point where they disrupt the economic stability of the imperialist nations enough to spark revolution in those countries.

[CLOCKWORK ORANGE]

I doubt that these third world countries will become communist, and these revolutions don't even have to be socialist. They just have to be anti-imperialist to the point where they disrupt the economic stability of the imperialist nations enough to spark revolution in those countries.
Yeah it's highly unlikely especially in our life time.

But the fact remains that rich Western economies rely on low-wage production in the third world. Revolutions must start there.

[KC]

But the fact remains that rich Western economies rely on low-wage production in the third world. Revolutions must start there.

Yes. The next task would be to determine which countries these imperialist countries most heavily rely upon to stay afloat, and to analyze the condition of the working class in those countries, and to determine if a revolution is possible in the near future.

[CLOCKWORK ORANGE]

Yes. The next task would be to determine which countries these imperialist countries most heavily rely upon to stay afloat, and to analyze the condition of the working class in those countries, and to determine if a revolution is possible in the near future.

China <_<

Mexico

Indonesia

Peru

[More Fire for the People]

In my opinion a workers&#39; revolution will occur first in the "third world". However, workers&#39; revolution does not always or rather neccessarily dictate a socialist revolution. Most likely these revolutions will carry out national liberation, anti-imperialism, workers&#39; management in the urban centres, and a "bourgeois" revolution in the countryside.

Through this process the "first world" will face financial crisis [most likely a depression] leading to dissent and mass radicalization — as the first world, i.e. imperialists, rely on the profits acquired from the third world. However, the material conditions that create revolutionary situations could also be created by localized financial crisis and unemployment caused by destruction of the welfare state — ex. France.

[wet blanket]

A real socialist revolution will occur in an industrialized area with a very strong and organized working class that can start taking control of and changing society as soon as it can, without any political/militant &#39;vanguard&#39; parties.

[red_che]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 3 2006, 09:59 PM
Should the revolution start in a third or first world country? Or does it not matter where? I am unsure about this issue, although I am leaning towards a Marxian interpretation. I am quite curious about what anarchists say on this matter, though.
The communist revolution (proletarian revolution) would start where the basis for it can be found. The communist revolution is a revolution against bourgeois private property and exploitation, so wherever there is bourgeois property and exploitation there would be revolution. However, this situation cannot be found solely in the most advanced capitalist societies. Because even in the third world countries, there are bourgeois (capitalist relations of production) that exist or are ongoing, especially during this period of monopoly capitalism where bourgeois/capitalist exploitation and property are all over the globe.

It is just a matter of who are ready to start the comunist revolution. In the third world, they do it in two stages (democratic revolution and then socialist revolution), while in the first world, they go straight to socialist revolution.

[OkaCrisis]

Don&#39;t you think that if any 3rd world country went through anything resembling a real revolution, that the capitalist/imperialist countries (that exploit and feed off of it) would just stand idly by?
I think that if any 3rd world country had a revolution, that actually posed a threat to imperial/capitalist interests and values, they would be invaded and torn to pieces...

It has to be first world revolutions. The revolution will be global only when the power of first world nations is abolished. Or else they&#39;ll simply either a) invade/destroy the new &#39;nation&#39;, or, b) move somewhere else and exploit some other 3rd world country for its wares. (Cuba is a great example.)

Gotta be first world. :hammer:

[Decolonize The Left]

On revolution in the first or third world:

I find this discussion to be rather pointless. Who are we to declare where a revolution should occur? Is a revolution not the rising up of the people against their oppressors? Futhermore, such stipulation as to which nation it should occur in is complete speculation. Only those who toil under the hand of the capitalist corporations in the third world know whether or not they are suffering from what we call relative deprivation. If yes, then they will be angry and possibly rise. If no, then the time is not right.

Yet if we speak of the revolution in the first world, without speaking of how such revolutionary ideas will be transmitted, we are enaging in pointless debate. The K-Mart worker in (insert town name), Kentucky, has no knowledge of the true ideologies of communism or anarchism. This worker, should he/she come to the point of anger and uprising, would follow the first word of hope, be it nationalistic, fascist, or communist/anarchist. This is the situation which requires are attention - we the people who understand (at least partially) the concepts proposed by Marx, among others. It is us who must devote our time, not to pondering where or when the revolution will occur, rather to how we wish the revolution to result. If it be communism or anarchism, it is our job, as seers of the entire system, it is our responsability to the ideologies, to not let them be tainted or abused by those who seek power. We must relay the concepts proposed in such ideologies in commonsense language which will allow the worker to understand why he/she is oppressed in his/her own language. We must not belch ideological rhetoric into the face of someone who cannot comprehend our words and who will most likely consider us crazy, only further enhancing the common understandings of communism and anarchism. We must step to the worker and attempt to bring the ideas forth in such a manner as is sensical, logical, and rational. Only then will we see anything which resembles the beginnings of a true communist or anarchist revolution.

-- August

[CombatLiberalism]

It&#39;s not a matter of declaring where a revolution should occur -- as long as you are daydreaming, you might as well say revolution should occur everywhere all at once. It is a matter of material analysis: Revolution will happen in the Third World first.

[YKTMX]

What material analysis is that then?

[KC]

What material analysis is that then?

See my previous posts in this thread.

[YKTMX]

Because according to Marxist economics, as capitalism develops the condition of the working class increasingly gets worse.

It&#39;s not as simple that.

Inequality will grow, yes, and the class becomes relatively worse off. But the conditions of the working class don&#39;t neccessarily have to go "down", not in a linear way anyway. Capitaliam can, or could, deliver reforms. The increases in living standards after the war were real, not imagined.


to imperialism, since the primary exploitation of the proletariat has been exported to third world countries to maintain profit margins

That&#39;s not the point at all. It&#39;s simply not true that most profits are made in the third world. Lenin&#39;s argument was that big capital exports its surplus to oppressed countries. Yes, capital has lower labour costs in the third world, but there&#39;s other factors to be considered. Third world workers are less productive than first world workers (for obvious reasons, they&#39;re less healthy, less educated, work longer hours etc).


the condition of the working class in these exploiting countries will get worse before that of the first world.

Well, imperialism actually created the working class in many of these coountries, such as Russia. Therefore, the workers in these countries start from a relatviely "low base" compared to workers in the advanced countries.

[KC]

It&#39;s not as simple that.

Of course it isn&#39;t. That is why I said it was "according to Marxist economics."


But the conditions of the working class don&#39;t neccessarily have to go "down", not in a linear way anyway.

Sure they don&#39;t. But they will certainly exhibit a downward trend.


The increases in living standards after the war were real, not imagined.

The increases in living standards were required to implement to save capitalism. These reforms were possible because the capitalists were willing to lose a portion of their profits to save capitalism by implementing acts such as the New Deal.

However, as capitalism develops, the rate of profit tends to fall. Because of this, it will become increasingly less likely for capitalists to give rights to workers; on the contrary, as capitalism degenerates we will see capitalists actually strip workers of their rights.

[YKTMX]

Of course it isn&#39;t. That is why I said it was "according to Marxist economics."


No, my point was that in Marxist economics it&#39;s not that simple.

The tendency of the rate of profit to fall is exactly that, a tendency. Marx chose his words very carefully, because if capitalism exhibited this behaviour all time, that is, if profits were always falling, then capitalism would always be in crisis, and no recovery or concessions would ever be possible. Which is patently a nonsense.


That is why Marx never argued such a thing.

[black magick hustla]

I don&#39;t really know.

It is very easy to lean at the Marxian theory of socialist revolution. The whole thing about developing capitalism in order to have commodity abundance, and thus be prepared for socialism is really persuasive. The peasantry happens to be very reactionary and limited by its very simple way of life.

However, there is also a "primitivist" side in me.

Anarchism hit very hard in spain because spain was almost completely agricultural. Peasants weren&#39;t used to "compete" in the workplace, and they had a strong communal heritage. Indeed, the most "revolutionary" communities in spain were agricultural, like the ones in Aragons. In Barcelona, there was a kind of workers&#39; capitalism, were worker owned factories but still had many capitalist traits. A kind of "factory nationalism" developed in industralized areas, were workers&#39; factories would compete between each other.

Another example could be the mexican peasantry. Many of the mexican peasants worked in collective lands called "ejidos", and they generally worked exclusively for self sufficiency, rather than commodity abundance.

Indeed, the Mexican state had a hard time assimilating the communal indigenous way of life to the competitive nature of capitalism&#33;

The modern proletarian has been molded for a while by bourgeois values and bourgeois conditions. The modern worker in his leisure time is exposed to an almost perfect mechanism of conditioning through mass communication and the workplace. Competition, that is, trying to fuck others in order to rise in the capitalist hierarchy is often encouraged by the bourgeoisie.

The average peasant, even with its ignorance, does things much more directly than the average modern worker. Because of the advanced nature of capitalism, specialists take over the "difficult jobs" and reduce the average worker to a mere spectator. A peasant lis surrounded by more rustic conditions and is much more used to make alot of stuff by himself because there aren&#39;t specialists to do it for him.

Peasants are also much less alienated from each other, and alot more social. They have stronger community ties than modern workers.

I am certainly going to give a chance to the "modern form" of socialism. However, if this doesn&#39;t works maybe primitivism is the only answer.

[anomaly]

It is not a question of &#39;should&#39;. The question of &#39;should&#39; is completely irrelevant.

The question is, where will it happen?

Unless one does not accept historical materialism (and there is no reason not to), the obvious answer is the so-called 1st world. 3rd world revolutions will produce modern capitalism. Not communism.

So there&#39;s one &#39;anarchist opinion&#39; for you.

[Revolution_89]

I agree with anomaly. If a revolution was to start in the third world, countries like the America will try to stop it claiming that they want to spread "democracy" and since communism is a bad word in America, most people will buy into it.

[coda]

isn&#39;t the question interpretated as which revolution will be the linchpin in bringing down Captitalism once and for all?

As long as there is a Captalist world market intact, any isolated communist revolution is bound to be behest to it.

I&#39;ve heard the arguments of third world revolution and the effects of neo-globalization there, but I&#39;m not convinced. Before globalization, there was Capitalism. Globalization fluctuates, and it&#39;s profits are dependent on first world buying power. Imperialism has the bigger effect in consolidating Capitalism, and contingent upon first world militarization, wealth and Super Power status.

So, I would think, First World Super Power nations need to be crushed to bring down the end of world-wide Capitalism.

[cyu]

If a revolution happened in the most powerful nation in the world, it would certainly make it much easier for revolutions to happen in other parts of the world. Even if the super power didn&#39;t actively encourage other revolutions, at least it would leave threats to capitalism alone, instead of feeling threatened by it.

However, as anti-capitalist revolutions are expected to come from those too miserable to take capitalism much longer, I think it&#39;s much more likely to happen in countries were misery is more widespread. Chiapas, Venezuela, and Bolivia were certainly not very advanced economically, but they more readily see the deficiencies of capitalism if living conditions are almost universally poor. (Not that all those places had the level of anti-capitalist revolution I&#39;d hope for, of course.)

[Revolution_89]

In order to stop capitalism the heads must be cut off first. Although it may be easier for the people in countries like Bolivia and Venezuela to see whats wrong with capitalism, the people who need to see it are the people living in the most powerful nation. Without them removing the head of capitalism, a revolution will not be successful.