revolution in a developed country

[redcannon]

when Russia underwent its revolution, it was a very backward country, filled with uneducated peasants (instead of workers) and an economy based on a worthless currency. Lenin proposed trained revolutionaries would start the revolution because the majority of Russia was uneducated and couldn't understand communism.

(i know most of the info from above will be corrected, but try to stick to the point of the following question)

do you think a communist revolution could be not only possible but successful in a more developed country? Trotsky himself said that America would be great because of it's stable economy and educated people.
If the revolution had occurred in perhaps France or Germany in the early 1900s, do you think it would have had better results than what happened in Russia?

[Rawthentic]

In essence, yes, a communist revolution has a better chance at success than in an underdeveloped country that has a small proletariat and adverse material conditions. In America for example, we have the infrastructure and working class that could have the possibility of achieving direct worker control.

There are many takes on this, but it is important to understand the communism is a "1st world ideology.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

It could potentially work out quite well. In a society with massive access to varied information sources and a relatively educated populace revolution would appear to be a lot less drawn-out and a lot less potentially harmful to the cause.

[KC]

Lenin proposed trained revolutionaries would start the revolution because the majority of Russia was uneducated and couldn't understand communism.

This is untrue. Lenin believed that revolutionaries that were knowledgable about revolutionary theory and experienced in the class struggle would lead the workers to revolution, which is exactly what Marx discussed in the Manifesto.


There are many takes on this, but it is important to understand the communism is a "1st world ideology.

No it isn't; it's a proletarian ideology.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria+March 06, 2007 09:42 am--> (hastalavictoria @ March 06, 2007 09:42 am) In essence, yes, a communist revolution has a better chance at success than in an underdeveloped country that has a small proletariat and adverse material conditions. In America for example, we have the infrastructure and working class that could have the possibility of achieving direct worker control.
[/b]
Yes those stupid third world workers who need some first world workers to help them. Would you stop your showing the fucking chauvinism and this bigotry towards the workers of Asia and Africa ?


Originally posted by hastalavictoria+--> (hastalavictoria)
There are many takes on this, but it is important to understand the communism is a "1st world ideology.
[/b]

So why did Marx say in manifesto the " Workers of the world to unite" instead of "Workers of the first world to unite" ?


[email protected]
when Russia underwent its revolution, it was a very backward country, filled with uneducated peasants (instead of workers) and an economy based on a worthless currency. Lenin proposed trained revolutionaries would start the revolution because the majority of Russia was uneducated and couldn't understand communism.

First thing you have to do is first go and learn some thing by Lenin before saying really some thing stupid and attribute it to him.


redcannon
If the revolution had occurred in perhaps France or Germany in the early 1900s, do you think it would have had better results than what happened in Russia?

But unfortunately it was the stupid uneducated Russian workers and peasants who first revolted against capitalism. So fuck off.


This thread is a shining example of stupidity of some revolutionary left posters.

[Rawthentic]

Yes those stupid third world workers who need some first world workers to help them. Would you stop your showing the fucking chauvinism and this bigotry towards the workers of Asia and Africa ?

I could easily rant on and on and cuss you out, but whats the use? I wont go down to your level. Nowhere did I say that the workers could not undertake proletarian revolution in underdeveloped nations, I merely stated that it would be more of a challenge due to adverse material conditions. Please reread my post, maybe reread it twice or even three times, maybe you'll be able to see things more clearly, aside from your narrow ideology.


So why did Marx say in manifesto the " Workers of the world to unite" instead of "Workers of the first world to unite" ?
This is the sort of shit that I speak of. Communism is a "first world" ideology, because it is there that the proletariat is more advanced than anywhere else, it is the overwhelming majority compared to the underdeveloped nations. Marx spelled out quite clearly where he thought that the communist revolution would first occur: in advanced capitalist nations with the infrastructure to support socialism. This is not to say that oppressed peoples in underdeveloped nations cannot attempt at socialist revolution; they always have and always will. They will face greater difficulties, mainly that of administering what would have been a bourgeois revolution, industrializing to create the infrastructure for socialism, and fighting off savage imperialist attacks. If all this makes me a "first world chauvinist and a bigot", then I say, so be it.

[RNK]

Considering most of Marx's ideology revolved around the idea that a fuedal/peasant state must first industrialize and develop a large proletarian class, it would seem to me that by default those sentiments would cast a shadow on revolutions in countries not dominated by a developed proletariat.

That said, I wouldn't say that revolutions in 3rd world countries would be harder. It'd be different. Although in the developed world we have an economic system capable of sustaining socialism, we also have a heavily fortified apparatus for state control. Simply put, it is harder to start a revolution in the first place. In the 3rd world, although they lack the means to be able to easily sustein socialism, they do have it easier when it comes to starting a revolution.

[KC]

They will face greater difficulties, mainly that of administering what would have been a bourgeois revolution, industrializing to create the infrastructure for socialism, and fighting off savage imperialist attacks.

I'd say that about 95-99% of these countries are already capitalist and wouldn't have to "administer...a bourgeois revolution".

[RNK]

I wouldn't. Take Africa, for example. Africa is almost completely unindustrialized, and most countries are run by a very small group of elite, super-rich officials, land-owners who operate with the consent of the ruling class, with the vast majority of the population made up of peasants and serfs. They may have some "capitalisation" insofar as external, international corporations that have made deals with the rulers of those countries, to come in and create oil refineries or mines or whatever, but the extensive system of capitalism is definately not there. The majority of the population is not made up of slave-labourers who sell their working ability to capitalists who own the means of capital and material production.

[RedLenin]

do you think a communist revolution could be not only possible but successful in a more developed country?
Yes. But, it won't happen in a developed country first. Capitalism will break at the weakest points, in the countries with the most exploitation and the least use of cultural hegemony. Though these countries have a small proletariat, they can still have a revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Trotsky covered how this could happen with his theory of the Permanent Revolution, which was put into practice in 1917. In underdeveloped countries, the proletariat, allied with the poor peasantry, must take power and carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution; land reform, national unity, etc. However, the Proletariat must immediately continue with the socialist tasks; expropriation of the bourgeoisie, workers control, a nationalized planned economy, etc.

So it is possible for the Proletariat in a backward country to take power and bring about socialism. However, international support from first world nations will be essential, as socialism cannot exist in one country. So the Permanent Revolution is permanent in two ways: the proletariat must come to power and carry out the taks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution, and the revolution must take place on an international level.

[BobKKKindle$]

Revolution is a developing country will (especially in the event that the revolution does not develop in developed countries) require the institution of a system of forced accumulation as part of the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to develop the industry required to destroy Capitalist incursions. This would perhaps entail the existence of a state apparatus and a class of economic managers which would impede any attempt to develop worker's self management and Socialism.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:57 am
when Russia underwent its revolution, it was a very backward country, filled with uneducated peasants (instead of workers) and an economy based on a worthless currency.
Economies aren't based on currencies, currencies are based in economies... and on the State credibility.

Wherever a revolutionary situation takes place, currency will devaluate and become nearly worthless. Currency is a promise, by the State, that it will exchange real wealth for coloured and signed pieces of paper. If the State cannot be trusted, then its currency is worthless. If the State is trusted, then there is no revolutionary situation.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:12 am
There are many takes on this, but it is important to understand the communism is a "1st world ideology.
No, of course not.

What is a "first world ideology" is some kind of silly pride some first world workers have in being "properly exploited" by their own capitalists.

Beneath it, there is a wrong comprehension of what capitalism is and how it evolves historically. Capitalism is not a "first world phenomenon", it is the predominant mode of production both in the first and third worlds. And revolution isn't "closer" where this mode of production produces more wealth, but where the capitalist State is politically weaker. This can be in the first or in the third world, but it cannot be mechanically reduced to the economic dimension. Revolution is a political phenomenon; misunderstanding it as an economic phenomenon is what is called "economicism".

Luís Henrique

[Vargha Poralli]

Hastalavctoria

You say that communism is a first world phenomenon. So what should we the workers in Asia and africa do ? Wait until materially advanced "First World" workers to carry out a revolution ?

LSD opinion is not final. You call yourself a Marxist but you have never understood what Marx meant. I suggest you to read his works again and analyse them.

[Rawthentic]

I will drop the idea of it being a "1st world" ideology, I think I was mistaken here. Yet, socialism has a better possibility of survival in advanced nations with a greater infrastructure. g.ram, this does not negate the possibility of successful socialism in underdeveloped nations. I never said anything contrary to this. And I'll be fucked if I don't understand Marxism. Its typical for people with narrow ideologies like you, g.ram, to accuse me of not understanding Marxism.

RedLenin sums up pretty good what I mean:


Yes. But, it won't happen in a developed country first. Capitalism will break at the weakest points, in the countries with the most exploitation and the least use of cultural hegemony. Though these countries have a small proletariat, they can still have a revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Trotsky covered how this could happen with his theory of the Permanent Revolution, which was put into practice in 1917. In underdeveloped countries, the proletariat, allied with the poor peasantry, must take power and carry out the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution; land reform, national unity, etc. However, the Proletariat must immediately continue with the socialist tasks; expropriation of the bourgeoisie, workers control, a nationalized planned economy, etc.

So it is possible for the Proletariat in a backward country to take power and bring about socialism. However, international support from first world nations will be essential, as socialism cannot exist in one country. So the Permanent Revolution is permanent in two ways: the proletariat must come to power and carry out the taks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution, and the revolution must take place on an international level.

Yet bobkindles shows what can happen, and what has happened as a result of revolutions in underdeveloped nations:


Revolution is a developing country will (especially in the event that the revolution does not develop in developed countries) require the institution of a system of forced accumulation as part of the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to develop the industry required to destroy Capitalist incursions. This would perhaps entail the existence of a state apparatus and a class of economic managers which would impede any attempt to develop worker's self management and Socialism.

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:06 am
Yes those stupid third world workers who need some first world workers to help them. Would you stop your showing the fucking chauvinism and this bigotry towards the workers of Asia and Africa ?
What the hell are you going on about? All he is saying is that communism would have more success in an advanced country, which makes sense to me.

I don't understand why you're telling him to go read Marx when it was Marx who said that a country must reach its highest stage of capitalism in order to undergo a successful revolution. Perhaps you should go back and study?

[Rawthentic]

Thanks comrade Jello for clearing that up. It seems like people here take ideological criticisms as personal ones; it shows the narrowness of one's personality and thinking.

[( R )evolution]

g.ram shut the fuck up. State your point but not in a way that fucking degrades anyone who is asking questions. That is really gonna get us some where right?

Back onto topic. I actually believe that a revolution in a 3rd world country would be a lot easier than in 1st world countries. Rallying the oppressed is a lot easier than trying to educate the workers in 1st world countries. Workers in first world countries live very nice compared to other people in 3rd world countries. So they aren't excataly more hearing to communist theory. But in 3rd world countries the workers there are feeling the wrath and oppression that capitalism creates so they will directly connect to the possibility of equality under socialism. But there would need to be some modifactions to socialist doctrine because as in Russia (Lenin's time) most of these 3rd world countries are not devoplved enough to sustain a real communist transition.

In the US, there is massive bourgeois control. If you were to go out into the street today and call for revolution than you would be shunned out as a loser and crazy. Because when the normal american looks around them they see a society that is filled with riches and everyone leaves pretty good why should we revolt???? But in a 3rd world country the common workers live with maybe 4$ a week living in a fucking cardboard box so when they hear the messege than will join the revolution.

Also, western nations (1st world nations) they have pretty strong militarizes that could squash any small rebellion. We would need almost full workers support to have a successful revolution.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:53 pm
What the hell are you going on about? All he is saying is that communism would have more success in an advanced country, which makes sense to me.

I don't understand why you're telling him to go read Marx when it was Marx who said that a country must reach its highest stage of capitalism in order to undergo a successful revolution. Perhaps you should go back and study?
Capitalism != technology
Advanced capitalism != advanced technology
Highest stage of capitalism != latest stage of technology

Capitalism is a set of social relationships, not a set of technologies. While capitalism is incompatible with excessively low or excessively high levels of technology, the advancement of capitalist social relationships is not the same, and cannot be measured by, the technological advancement of a given society.

Luís Henrique

[Rawthentic]

Luis, I want to know something here. Doesnt the advancement of capitalist social relationships proportional to more developed productive forces, and thus greater technology?

I may be wrong, but I do want to clear that up. I also want to say that I never state that socialism is not possible in "3rd world" nations, merely that its building and keeping will be more difficult there due to adverse material conditions.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:59 pm
Luis, I want to know something here. Doesnt the advancement of capitalist social relationships proportional to more developed productive forces, and thus greater technology?
No. They are related, for you cannot have capitalism if the productive forces are not sufficiently developed - but the relation is not one of "proportionality".

If you look at the technological level in any third-world country today, you will see that it is much more advanced than in first world countries 150 years ago. If we were to apply an a-historical method to the relations between technology and capitalism, we would come to the following absurd reasoning:

1. If we consider Thailand, as of 2007, to be not capitalist, for its tech levels are lower than the US;

2. then we would have to consider England, as of 1857, to be even less capitalist than Thailand, for its tech levels were even lower;

3. Thence, we must admit that whatever Karl Marx analysed in his Das Kapital was not capitalism at all.


I may be wrong, but I do want to clear that up. I also want to say that I never state that socialism is not possible in "3rd world" nations, merely that its building and keeping will be more difficult there due to adverse material conditions.

Fine, this is reasonable. What would be wrong would be your sentence "communism is a first world ideology", but I see you recanted that.

Luís Henrique

[Vargha Poralli]

I don't understand why you're telling him to go read Marx when it was Marx who said that a country must reach its highest stage of capitalism in order to undergo a successful revolution. Perhaps you should go back and study?

Marx had also said

"One has to "leave philosophy aside" (Wigand, p. 187, cf. Hess, Die letzten Philosophen, p. 8), one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality, for which there exists also an enormous amount of literary material, unknown, of course, to the philosophers... Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as masturbation and sexual love."

The point he made is actually about Historical Materialism that he was only proposing a guideline to historical research , and was not providing any substantive "theory of history" or "grand philosophy of history", let alone a "master-key to history".Unfortunately hastalavictoria and you are expressing what he had advised no to do.

Reaching a scientific understanding was hard work. Conscientious, painstaking research was required, instead of philosophical speculation and unwarranted, sweeping generalisations.

hastavictoria Marxism is more than Marx. I know you hate it but Lenin's and Trotsky's works are also biggest addition to Marxism. If you are rejecting their theories you should read and understand what they wrote and come to a decision. You should not come to decision because LSD said so.


I also want to say that I never state that socialism is not possible in "3rd world" nations, merely that its building and keeping will be more difficult there due to adverse material conditions.

Which fits for the "first world too". That is why Lenin said when there is State there will be no freedom when there is freedom there will be no state.

Communism is not a doctrine. It is a movement. And it is not a thing that would works only in the first world or 3rd world. When there is no world wide revolution after a revolution in a advanced sountry there too Socialism would dengenrate to bureaucratic regime.

Thank you Luis. I too learned something from your post :)