should the revolution start in the "big" countries

[perdido]

I was reading through the communist manifesto again and I came across this:

"United action, of the leading civilized countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat."

Does this mean that communism should be put in place within the big capitalist countries first for it to succeed? I personally feel that communism should be implemented in smaller countries like in latin america or africa and form trade blocs to increase their power and then the revolutions in the big countries will come. What are your thoughts?

[A CLOCKWORK ORANGE]

Capitalism in the rich Western countries rely heavily on low-wage production in the third world. Revolutions must start in the third world.

[Keyser]

However, it is the 'Western' capitalist industrial nations which have the military power and economic power to impose the global order of imperialism and capitalism on the 'third world'/global south.

Many nations in the global south have tried to break with imperialism and capitalism in the past and have for a number of reasons, either been crushed under the jackboot of imperialist nations (Nicaragua, Greneda etc...) or have returned to the capitalist system on their own accord (Tanzania, Angola, Mozambique etc...) due to the huge pressure, both economic and other that has been placed upon them.

If the global south were to be forever free from any imperialist threat, then the imperialist nations would themselves have to undergo a social revolution to dismantle the states that impose that very imperialism on the global south.

However, those nations that have broken free from the current order of imperialism and capitalism/neo-liberalism, deserve our support when they face a possibile or actual imperialist attack.

[Severian]

Revolutions occur where they occur, not where somebody decides they should. They can't be pulled out of a hat, or simply postponed either. So it's pretty pointless to discuss that.

But the Manifesto is right, that before revolutions can result in the "emancipation of the working class", aka communism - they'll need to occur in some of the most economically advanced countries.

'Course revolutions in any countries help bring revolutions in other countries closer....

[Whitten]

Things have changed since Marx's day. The third world are now the real proletariat to the bourgeois. If a revolution is to occur, it must be a proletarian one. Naturally a revolution in modern society will occur in the third world, and cripple the bourgeois means of production, or force them to exploit the first world proletarians more, increasing the chances of revolution in the now struggeling "first world".

[rouchambeau]

Does this mean that communism should be put in place within the big capitalist countries first for it to succeed?
Not in itself.

[Rodack]

Originally posted by A CLOCKWORK [email protected] 30 2006, 05:15 PM
Capitalism in the rich Western countries rely heavily on low-wage production in the third world. Revolutions must start in the third world.
The Great Depression of 1929 was our best chance to achieve Socialism/Communism in the United States and the world for that matter. Unfortunately WW2 got in the way and changed the whole dynamics. Lennin was right when he said that Socialism is an infantile disorder of Communism and I believe it would be safe to say that Liberalism is an infantile disorder of Socialism. However, I digress, Our best chance to achieve the glory days of 1933 is to somehow create an economic colapse that will usher in Socialism/Communism and the masses would gladly accept an ideology that will keep food in their stomachs, comrades

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:49 PM
Things have changed since Marx's day. The third world are now the real proletariat to the bourgeois. If a revolution is to occur, it must be a proletarian one. Naturally a revolution in modern society will occur in the third world, and cripple the bourgeois means of production, or force them to exploit the first world proletarians more, increasing the chances of revolution in the now struggeling "first world".
That could easily go 2 ways. Ever the captalists in the first world countries are left with no other choice, but to start exploiting the proletarians in their own first world countries which the first world workers won't stand for and revolt or the Captalists could easily start a war against the socialised third world and brainwash the first world workers to join the fight. All they have to do is tell them that it's a war for their freedom against the axis of evil and if they don't fight then they are unpatriotic.

I don't mean to offend anyone living in America, but the truth is the average American worker has been so brainwashed through captalist propaganda that they will die in order to defend the Captalist American way of life for the rich in hopes that maybe one day they too will achieve the fairytale rags to riches American dream.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

First of all, most Third World nations don't have the kind of industry required for Communism to work. Any revolution in these countries would, at best, fall down on the same economic problems experienced by the Soviet Union in its early years.

Also, any Socialist state set up in a Third World country would undoubtedly be crushed by the military and economic power of the Capitalist First World (probably the latter).

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

A revolution will occur in the third world first. But it is possible that it will just occur in the world. Transportation is becoming more advanced. If we reach a time where people can zip back and forth between say Africa and the US, there are going to be a lot of hungry people wanting justice.

[rouchambeau]

I personally feel that communism should be implemented in smaller countries like in latin america or africa and form trade blocs to increase their power and then the revolutions in the big countries will come.

10 points to anyone who can pick out the contradiction in this sentence.

[bolshevik butcher]

This part of socialist theory is arguably now slightly out of date. While it was highly relevant at the time today most countries even in the third world have an indusitralised capitalist economy.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 07:32 PM

I personally feel that communism should be implemented in smaller countries like in latin america or africa and form trade blocs to increase their power and then the revolutions in the big countries will come.

10 points to anyone who can pick out the contradiction in this sentence.
latin america isnt a country,

neither is africa


latin america is a region, africa is a continent

[bolshevik butcher]

emm I think that they meant in countries in Latin America and Africa.

[Darth Revan]

I doubt a revolution will happen in the west its most likely to happen in the 3 world countries most people in the west have a negative view on communism <_<

[bolshevik butcher]

I wouldnt rule out revolutionary movments in the west just yetm, remember the events in France earlier this year. French society is paticularly volatile just now. However Latin America is the centre of socialist movments just now.

[rouchambeau]

QUOTE (rouchambeau @ Oct 1 2006, 07:32 PM)
QUOTE
I personally feel that communism should be implemented in smaller countries like in latin america or africa and form trade blocs to increase their power and then the revolutions in the big countries will come.



10 points to anyone who can pick out the contradiction in this sentence.


latin america isnt a country,

neither is africa


latin america is a region, africa is a continent
Not quite the one I was looking for.

[RevSouth]

The way I see it, either way it can turn out resulting in revolution.

If the revolution starts in Western Europe, U.S. and Canada, Japan, etcetera, due to wealth inequality, greater exploitation by the rulers, tension over immigration and jobs, such as the riots in France last year, whichever, I feel it would inevitably spill over into the third world. The imperialist money starts to mean less, or it becomes more authoritarian, as their leaders see what is happening in the big countries and tighten the noose, so to speak.

On the other hand, global revolution could start in the so called third world, probably due to class tension, whatever the issue, if a large majority in the third world revolt, and reject trade with the first world, and instead collaberate and cooperate with one another, it would probably throw the first world countries into chaos, without cheap manufactured goods, oil, and the like. Wealth inequality is definitely going to grow in this case.

Either way, a revolution has to be international, and in all likelihood, intercontinental to be successful. We&#39;ve seen that national revolutions are not permanently successful, as it is hard to exist without trading with the cappies for needed resources.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by A CLOCKWORK [email protected] 30 2006, 05:15 PM
Capitalism in the rich Western countries rely heavily on low-wage production in the third world. Revolutions must start in the third world.
Right but they must have the support of the first world countries that can provide economic and military aid.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by LoneRed+Oct 1 2006, 08:07 PM--> (LoneRed @ Oct 1 2006, 08:07 PM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 07:32 PM

I personally feel that communism should be implemented in smaller countries like in latin america or africa and form trade blocs to increase their power and then the revolutions in the big countries will come.

10 points to anyone who can pick out the contradiction in this sentence.
latin america isnt a country,

neither is africa


latin america is a region, africa is a continent [/b]
he said smaller countries like in Latin America and Africa.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 07:19 AM
Also, any Socialist state set up in a Third World country would undoubtedly be crushed by the military and economic power of the Capitalist First World (probably the latter).
Then it is the responsibility of first world comrades to engage in acts of sabotage and worse to prevent first world military and economic forces from attacking the revolutionary nations.

[Rodack]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 1 2006, 09:12 PM
I wouldnt rule out revolutionary movments in the west just yetm, remember the events in France earlier this year. French society is paticularly volatile just now. However Latin America is the centre of socialist movments just now.
The events in France earlier this year was not created by people who were politically oppressed, these upraisings accurred because of religious oppression by Judeo Christians against Islamic fundimentalism. France took a huge risk by allowing Muslims to flood their country all in the name of Fraternity, Liberty and egality. Without somekind of political structure, France must continue its course towards a Communistic Society if it is to stand any chance of surviving. This foolish religious movement only distracts from its goal of a utopian society.

The Eiffel Tower should be melted down and made into guns. The symbolic nature of possesing a gun that was made from the Eiffel Tower would instill a sence of pride and loyalty to rid the country of the Bourgeois class

Thank You Comrades

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Then it is the responsibility of first world comrades to engage in acts of sabotage and worse to prevent first world military and economic forces from attacking the revolutionary nations.
Okay, disregarding all other factors...

The only situation we could create with enough magnitude to effectively compromise a First World nation&#39;s ability to wage war on Third World nations is a full-blown revolution.

And of course, considering the technology available to First World nations today, which would allow them to compromise a weak and unstable Socialist Third World government in a matter of days, and further considering that said First World country could in the first place use its military and economic power to aid the old regime in said Third World country and prevent a revolution from succeeding there, I would say that the only suitable time for a revolution in the First World country is before the attempted revolution in the Third World country, if the revolution in the Third World country is to succeed.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:37 PM


Then it is the responsibility of first world comrades to engage in acts of sabotage and worse to prevent first world military and economic forces from attacking the revolutionary nations.
Okay, disregarding all other factors...

The only situation we could create with enough magnitude to effectively compromise a First World nation&#39;s ability to wage war on Third World nations is a full-blown revolution.
I would have to disagree. There is a litany of "actions" a small group could engage in domestically to hinder an international military action. Troop Staging Barracks, Fuel Depots, Munition Factories, Vessels in Dock. It all depends how dedicated a group you have. The belly of the beast is the easiest to attack.

[Severian]

Originally posted by rev&#045;stoic+Oct 2 2006, 05:44 PM--> (rev&#045;stoic &#064; Oct 2 2006, 05:44 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 04:37 PM


Then it is the responsibility of first world comrades to engage in acts of sabotage and worse to prevent first world military and economic forces from attacking the revolutionary nations.
Okay, disregarding all other factors...

The only situation we could create with enough magnitude to effectively compromise a First World nation&#39;s ability to wage war on Third World nations is a full-blown revolution.
I would have to disagree. There is a litany of "actions" a small group could engage in domestically to hinder an international military action. Troop Staging Barracks, Fuel Depots, Munition Factories, Vessels in Dock. It all depends how dedicated a group you have. The belly of the beast is the easiest to attack. [/b]
All massively counterproductive, unless maybe we&#39;re talking about a revolutionary situation. Under most conditions, sabotage is unlikely to happen on a scale that would be significant materially - but would help the ruling class whip up patriotic fervor and suppress all opposition to the war.

Lenin described this kind of action as "helping the government defeat the revolutionaries" and that remains accurate under most conditions.

There are things that can be done short of revolution, which do have a material effect on the course of the war. For example:

1. Any kind of strike in the war industries, transport, etc. - even if it&#39;s not explicitly or consciously for antiwar reasons.

2. Anything that affects the morale and motivation of people in the military. They&#39;re not that separate from the rest of society - if many people are questioning if the war&#39;s worth fighting, that&#39;ll be true in the military as well.

Publicly advocating this kind of action can also cause legal problems for the board.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by Severian+Oct 2 2006, 09:28 PM--> (Severian &#064; Oct 2 2006, 09:28 PM)
Originally posted by rev&#045;[email protected] 2 2006, 05:44 PM

[email protected] 2 2006, 04:37 PM


Then it is the responsibility of first world comrades to engage in acts of sabotage and worse to prevent first world military and economic forces from attacking the revolutionary nations.
Okay, disregarding all other factors...

The only situation we could create with enough magnitude to effectively compromise a First World nation&#39;s ability to wage war on Third World nations is a full-blown revolution.
I would have to disagree. There is a litany of "actions" a small group could engage in domestically to hinder an international military action. Troop Staging Barracks, Fuel Depots, Munition Factories, Vessels in Dock. It all depends how dedicated a group you have. The belly of the beast is the easiest to attack.
All massively counterproductive, unless maybe we&#39;re talking about a revolutionary situation. Under most conditions, sabotage is unlikely to happen on a scale that would be significant materially - but would help the ruling class whip up patriotic fervor and suppress all opposition to the war. [/b]
First of all, in the coming age, the scenario of "whip up patriotic fervor and suppress all opposition to the war" is not an eventuality, but a reality within the United States. 90% of Americans would gladly enslave the world rather than pay &#036;5 a gallon for gas.

Secondly, I was not describing actions of revolution, but rather actions of resistance. Vive la Resistance. In a country which has no hope of revolution, and is actively crushing revolutions globally, any self-proclaimed revolutionary that does not see the necessity of violent resistance to the point of death is, in my humble opinion, a bourgeois-inadequate-wannabie-worm who deserves nothing better than 88 grains of jacked hollow point lead from a 7.62 automatic.

Thirdly, the public opinion of a public which gladly embraces their fascist leaders matters slightly less than two shits to me. And don&#39;t bother me with anti-war or anti-Bush or anti-Republican sentiment; every American leader since and including Wilson has been on the side of global domination. In fact, I&#39;ll go so far as to say that every US president or major politician (with the exception in both cases of Thomas Jefferson) have all served the same devil of domination.

Fourthly and finally... "All massively counterproductive":
If you sink a ship destined for the conflict, that is productive.
If you destroy a factory making shells for the conflict, that is productive.
If you bomb a barracks and kill a thousand soldiers destined for the conflict, that is 1000 less killers of true revolutionaries.

And don&#39;t give me "the soldiers don&#39;t have a choice, they are just following orders."

Every soldier has a choice.
Every solider has a gun.
Every solider had the timed honored tradition... of fragging their commanding officer.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I would have to disagree. There is a litany of "actions" a small group could engage in domestically to hinder an international military action. Troop Staging Barracks, Fuel Depots, Munition Factories, Vessels in Dock. It all depends how dedicated a group you have. The belly of the beast is the easiest to attack.
There is no way a "resistance" group in the US (you have established the US as a suitable example in your last post) could succeed in destroying enough Troop Staging Barracks, Fuel Depots, Munition Factories or Vessels to compromise the war effort. In most cases, the agent wouldn&#39;t get anywhere near close enough to the target to cause any real damage, before s/he is hauled off to rot in a prison camp for the duration of the war at least. You think the US don&#39;t have security at home?


First of all, in the coming age, the scenario of "whip up patriotic fervor and suppress all opposition to the war" is not an eventuality, but a reality within the United States. 90% of Americans would gladly enslave the world rather than pay &#036;5 a gallon for gas.
What&#39;s your point? It is a well known fact that attacks on home soil can be used to justify acts of aggression against foreign sovereignty. Proof? Gulf War II. Are you saying the same can&#39;t happen again?



Secondly, I was not describing actions of revolution, but rather actions of resistance. Vive la Resistance. In a country which has no hope of revolution, and is actively crushing revolutions globally, any self-proclaimed revolutionary that does not see the necessity of violent resistance to the point of death is, in my humble opinion, a bourgeois-inadequate-wannabie-worm who deserves nothing better than 88 grains of jacked hollow point lead from a 7.62 automatic.
As has been discussed previously, acts of resistance would be insufficient. Also, while many "self-proclaimed revolutionar[ies]" such as yourself believe that violent resistance to the point of death is necessary, any self-proclaimed Communist would understand that dying isn&#39;t worth a damn thing unless it achieves something.

Why do you think said country would have no hope of revolution? Because all the revolutionaries went and got themselves blown up&#33;&#33;



Thirdly, the public opinion of a public which gladly embraces their fascist leaders matters slightly less than two shits to me. And don&#39;t bother me with anti-war or anti-Bush or anti-Republican sentiment; every American leader since and including Wilson has been on the side of global domination. In fact, I&#39;ll go so far as to say that every US president or major politician (with the exception in both cases of Thomas Jefferson) have all served the same devil of domination.
The opinion of the US public may mean nothing to you, but it means a hell of a lot to the US public, surprisingly.


Fourthly and finally... "All massively counterproductive":
If you sink a ship destined for the conflict, that is productive.
If you destroy a factory making shells for the conflict, that is productive.
If you bomb a barracks and kill a thousand soldiers destined for the conflict, that is 1000 less killers of true revolutionaries.
How easy is it to sink a ship? Or destroy a factory? Or bomb a barracks and kill a thousand soldiers?

Furthermore, how many men would be lost should the above attempts fail, and just how productive is that?