Why not an international socialist party?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Karl Marx did not title his pamphlet Manifesto of the Communist Parties for a good reason, you know.

Which brings me to my two questions on the revolutionary vanguard in today's world. First, the political: why can't EVERY revolutionary "state-socialist" group get past their sectarian differences on historically moot points (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65114) (link), take extreme advantage of the Internet and other information technology, and jointly establish an intercontinental revolutionary vanguard party, with national operations being conducted by "cells" or "chapters"?

[Council communists should hop aboard, too, and to hell with "national-local considerations" as the excuse for national parties. The only way for workers' councils to spring up even before revolution is for the vanguard party to spread political consciousness.]

Second, the historical: why wasn't such a party founded in the first place instead of the Second International? After all, the so-called "First International" did not consist of various political parties, and was itself dedicated to the creation of an intercontinental communist party.

[BOZG]

There are already a number of internationals.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 09:28 am
There are already a number of internationals.
^^^ Which I said are irrelevant in today's globalized world. One vanguard party is enough, not a whole sectarian bunch and their associated "internationals." :(

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:24 am
Karl Marx did not title his pamphlet Manifesto of the Communist Parties for a good reason, you know.
Yeah, because it was written for one, namely the Communist League.

[Leo]

Hammer; it doesn't work that way. We are not forming a party because we can't form a revolutionary party in a non-revolutionary period. The party does not create class struggle; class struggle creates the party as only the class can make the proletarian revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Then why are there sooo many self-styled "revolutionary parties" out there?

[Leo]

There are three possibilities; 1) those parties are not really parties but fractions or currents 2) those parties had sunk into opportunism 3) those parties are not really revolutionary.

It is interesting to see someone who is not a left communist calling for the world party - I don't see stuff like that often, well I haven't ever seen it. Are you a Bordigist or something like that?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 14, 2007 09:03 pm
It is interesting to see someone who is not a left communist calling for the world party - I don't see stuff like that often, well I haven't ever seen it. Are you a Bordigist or something like that?
Never heard of him. Anyhow, here's my opinion:

Back then, those behind the Second International had the chance to form a "world vanguard" - even without advanced communications like the Internet - but did not take advantage of it because of the constraints of "orthodox Marxism" (the Kautskyites). The only excuse for the Comintern's existence - as opposed to an expanded vanguard party ("guided" by the Bolsheviks) - is its creation in REACTION to the social-democratic betrayal, and the Soviet republic's post-CW isolation.

With advanced communications technology today, and with the sectarian irrelevancies giving way to "revolution or reformism," there is a need for such a world party. [Heck, there are even efforts to replace the Internet right now with something more advanced. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070414/ap_on_hi_te/rebuilding_the_internet_8)]

As for left-communists, they should definitely join. Even the "infantile disorder" of which Lenin spoke - "the mistake of Left doctrinairism in communism [ - ] is at present a thousand times less dangerous and less significant than that of Right doctrinairism." Also, for all the talk of Bolshevik organisational prowess, they weren't that organized until after October.

[Leo]

Never heard of him.

He was the founder of the Italian Communist Party and later on he was a prominent figure of the Italian Communist Left. He and his followers formed an organization called the International Communist Party, which became quite large but then exploded in the 80s because the Bordigists still defended all of the positions of the Communist International which lead them to failure. They considered themselves to be ultra-Leninists or pure-Leninists, opposed to Stalinism as counter-revolutionary and Trotskyism as opportunistic.


Back then, those behind the Second International had the chance to form a "world vanguard" - even without advanced communications like the Internet - but did not take advantage of it because of the constraints of "orthodox Marxism" (the Kautskyites). The only excuse for the Comintern's existence - as opposed to an expanded vanguard party ("guided" by the Bolsheviks) - is its creation in REACTION to the social-democratic betrayal, and the Soviet republic's post-CW isolation.

With advanced communications technology today, and with the sectarian irrelevancies giving way to "revolution or reformism," there is a need for such a world party. [Heck, there are even efforts to replace the Internet right now.]

Well a world party can not be founded artificially. It has to be linked organically to the working class and can be formed, as a real world party, only as a result of a revolutionary wave, a new wave of class struggle. Had it been possible to successfully form the revolutionary party without the disease of opportunism in a counter-revolutionary or a non-revolutionary period, we would have done it - we would have been able to do it. Bordigists tried it and they failed. Today there are, I think five International Communist Parties. Left communists were arguing for the world communist party for a long time, since the days of the Stalinist counter revolution. Later on, communist left grew and spread to different parts of the world thanks to the increase in class struggle and the problems experienced by the decadent capitalist system. We will form the revolutionary party when we are physically able to and we will physically be able to form it when the material conditions are ripe, when the working class is struggling. Yet this doesn't mean the communist organization, current, fraction or whatever which we are in and which we use to create the basis of the future world communist party, which we use to intervene to class struggle shouldn't be centralized internationally.


As for left-communists, they should definitely join.

We are the only ones calling for the world communist party, of course we will join when it is formed. The question is, who else will join?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 14, 2007 10:01 pm
He was the founder of the Italian Communist Party and later on he was a prominent figure of the Italian Communist Left. He and his followers formed an organization called the International Communist Party, which became quite large but then exploded in the 80s because the Bordigists still defended all of the positions of the Communist International which lead them to failure. They considered themselves to be ultra-Leninists or pure-Leninists, opposed to Stalinism as counter-revolutionary and Trotskyism as opportunistic.

I read his rather interesting wiki bio just now. He didn't defend every position of even the early Communist International. Are you saying his followers defended the Stalinist Comintern? :huh:


Well a world party can not be founded artificially. It has to be linked organically to the working class and can be formed, as a real world party, only as a result of a revolutionary wave, a new wave of class struggle. Had it been possible to successfully form the revolutionary party without the disease of opportunism in a counter-revolutionary or a non-revolutionary period, we would have done it - we would have been able to do it. Bordigists tried it and they failed. Today there are, I think five International Communist Parties. Left communists were arguing for the world communist party for a long time, since the days of the Stalinist counter revolution. Later on, the communist left grew and spread to different parts of the world thanks to the increase in class struggle and the problems experienced by the decadent capitalist system. We will form the revolutionary party when we are physically able to and we will physically be able to form it when the material conditions are ripe, when the working class is struggling. Yet this doesn't mean the communist organization, current, fraction or whatever which we are in and which we use to create the basis of the future world communist party, which we use to intervene to class struggle shouldn't be centralized internationally.

We are the only ones calling for the world communist party, of course we will join when it is formed. The question is, who else will join?

Interesting, but your hesitance to form that party is due to your lack of appreciation for "Leninist vanguardism" - even if the class struggle has already existed since the dawn of capitalism! At least you aren't "opportunistic," as opposed to the so-called Bolshevik-Leninists (Trotskyite sectarians), so-called Marxist-Leninists (Stalinist national-socialists), and their respective party leaderships.

[Leo]

I read his rather interesting wiki bio just now. He didn't defend every position of even the early Communist International. Are you saying his followers defended the Stalinist Comintern?

No, no, no, of course not. They only defended the first two congresses.


Interesting, but your hesitance to form that party is due to your lack of appreciation for "Leninist vanguardism."

Well, no, my hesitance to form the party is due to the fact that I know that not more than one thousand people want to form the revolutionary party consciously. As I said, there are several hundreds of little sects, all claiming to be the party. Yet when you look at historical revolutionary parties, you see that they were huge. They weren't huge because their leaders were brilliant propagandists; they were huge because the working class was engaged in a revolutionary struggle.

On this issue and Lenin, here's an interesting text written by probably the most solid international left communist group:

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/100_theses.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'll one-up you with TWO links (same site ;) ):

Have we become "Leninists"? - part 1 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists)
Have we become "Leninists"? - part 2 (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/97/leninists2)

I will say this of the above in a key difference of mine with them: one can be a "pure Leninist" (following Lenin's Marxism) without being either a "Bolshevik-Leninist" or "Marxist-Leninist."


There is no doubt that the world communist party of tomorrow will not be formed without Lenin’s contributions in the matter of principle, theory, politics, and organisation. The real — and not merely verbal — re-appropriation of these gains, along with their rigorous and systematic application to today’s conditions, is one of the most important tasks for today’s little communist groups, if they are to contribute to the process of formation of this Party.

[Leo]

I'll one-up you with TWO links (same site ;) ):

It is quite a good site after all.

I sent you a pm.

[Whitten]

Funny how you call for unity, while still using terms like "The infantile disorder" and "Stalinist national-socialists).

The problem is what would a united world socialist party do? It ever accepts a line and pursues it, which will alienate everyone who doesn't follow that line. Or it will become so uncommitted that it will be impotent with indecision.

You talk about historicly moot points, but you fail to keep in mind that these "moot points" will come up again in future revolutions, when they wont be moot, and what is to happen then?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:24 am
Which brings me to my two questions on the revolutionary vanguard in today's world. First, the political: why can't EVERY revolutionary "state-socialist" group get past their sectarian differences on historically moot points (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65114), take extreme advantage of the Internet and other information technology, and jointly establish an intercontinental revolutionary vanguard party, with national operations being conducted by "cells"?
Welcome to how things have been for about 200 years.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ As I said above, the absence of the Internet back then isn't a legitimate excuse (re. the Second International).


Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:37 am
Funny how you call for unity, while still using terms like "The infantile disorder" and "Stalinist national-socialists").
Only within the context of, as I said, historically moot points (theoretical discussions on the post-revolutionary situation, NOT discussions on revolution itself).


The problem is what would a united world socialist party do? It ever accepts a line and pursues it, which will alienate everyone who doesn't follow that line.

Isn't it the same thing with the current sectarians and their national parties? <_<

The idea here is to get together on basic principles and have everyone stick in out after thoroughly lengthy discussions. After all, you didn't see guys like Bukharin and Tomsky bolt out if some position of theirs was defeated, did you?


Or it will become so uncommitted that it will be impotent with indecision.

That's where revolutionary-minded figures like Lenin and Luxemburg come in - to prevent the new party from becoming a talking shop, even with its national "cells" / "chapters," and to prevent the alienation.


You talk about historically moot points, but you fail to keep in mind that these "moot points" will come up again in future revolutions, when they wont be moot, and what is to happen then?

After the world socialist revolution, how can the old point of national moderation vs. aggressive internationalism come about? The whole debate between Stalin and Trotsky was within a national party ruling a country surrounded by capitalist states.

[BreadBros]

There is already one Leninist group that advocates one worldwide party instead of internationals and that advocates the party replacing the state appartus: the Progressive Labor Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Labor_Party). Judging by your posts its probably not what you&#39;re looking for, but since you were asking there is one.

[Severian]

Revolutionary organizations based in specific countries, as sections of an international, are needed for a reason: existing states can only be overthrown within their existing borders.

Marx and Engels, BTW, usually used "party" to refer to a broad trend or movement, not an organization. That&#39;s why it was the Communist League but the Manifesto of the Communist Party. A lot of stupid arguments come from this terminological difference.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There is an international organization: the Free People&#39;s Movement (http://www.fpm-mgl.org)

[Whitten]

After the world socialist revolution, how can the old point of national moderation vs. aggressive internationalism come about? The whole debate between Stalin and Trotsky was within a national party ruling a country surrounded by capitalist states.

But a world revolution wont occur everywhere at the same rate, Marx and Engles were very clear on this, and Lenin then showed it to be even more true.

So what happens when the "revolution" has created a workers state in Country A but the rest of the world is still behind? Obviously we focus our efforts on proliferating the revolution around the world, but what does Country A do? Does it just remain in some strange semi-socialist status until the rest of the world is caught up or does it proceed ahead with socialism in one country?

Also, where will (or even "can" , I should probably say) the revolution occur first? England followed by the other leading first world nations as Marx thought, or in the exploited third world as Lenin later showed?

These are not "historical moot points"; they are very real a fundamental questions of practice which need to be ansered.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Severian+April 16, 2007 05:41 am--> (Severian @ April 16, 2007 05:41 am) Revolutionary organizations based in specific countries, as sections of an international, are needed for a reason: existing states can only be overthrown within their existing borders. [/b]
Sorry for the disagreement, but can't the international party have "cells" / "chapters" to do the overthrowing in particular nation-states - as I said above?

[The reason I advocate this internationalization with national "cells" / "chapters" is because of the democratic centralism question, which stifles political opportunists claiming to "contribute" to socialist theory in their national circumstances. While left-communist Leo has good points, I advocate such not because I'm flirting with left communism, but because of the circumstantial discussive unity question (including democratic centralism).]


Whitten[/i]@April 16, 2007 8:48 am
So what happens when the "revolution" has created a workers state in Country A but the rest of the world is still behind? Obviously we focus our efforts on proliferating the revolution around the world, but what does Country A do? Does it just remain in some strange semi-socialist status until the rest of the world is caught up or does it proceed ahead with socialism in one country?

Third option: aggressive socialization at home - as much as possible (even when knowing that real socialism can't never be achieved at home until internationalized) - AND aggressive internationalism abroad (Stalin was a reactionary sellout, of course).

This is where my thread on the transition to socialism kicks in (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65240&st=0) (link).


Also, where will (or even "can" , I should probably say) the revolution occur first? England followed by the other leading first world nations as Marx thought, or in the exploited third world as Lenin later showed?

These are not "historical moot points"; they are very real a fundamental questions of practice which need to be ansered.

You're forgetting one thing: Lenin was in the middle of the road, between Marx and (his peculiarly Euro-centric diffusionism) and the agrarian-"socialist" Mao (and his reactionary anti-diffusionism). You can't have that revolution occur in, say, some destitute African country. South America, Mexico, China, Russia, etc. - on the other hand - are in the middle of the road.

[Tiparith]

I agree that an international movement is neccessary, in fact, pivotal to the success. I live in Canada and if we were to organize a movement here without extending it into America we would be slaughtered the second we began to pick off goverment soldiers. A strong international movement is neccessary paticularly so that if say France is on the verge of revolution we could command supporters across Europe and Northern Africa to move into France to bolster our forces. However at the same time when it comes to like building support and public relations actions and all that jazz having nation cells is completely fine. Keep in mind that that is inherently nationalistic and shouldn&#39;t be completey neccessary. A communist commander looks at a border and sees nothing but a heavily defended targer awaiting there attention. What nation it is is irrelevent.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 04:35 pm
I agree that an international movement is neccessary, in fact, pivotal to the success. I live in Canada and if we were to organize a movement here without extending it into America we would be slaughtered the second we began to pick off goverment soldiers. A strong international movement is neccessary paticularly so that if say France is on the verge of revolution we could command supporters across Europe and Northern Africa to move into France to bolster our forces. However at the same time when it comes to like building support and public relations actions and all that jazz having nation cells is completely fine. Keep in mind that that is inherently nationalistic and shouldn&#39;t be completely neccessary. A communist commander looks at a border and sees nothing but a heavily defended target awaiting there attention. What nation it is is irrelevent.
^^^ Well said. In fact, the existence of national "cells" bolsters the potential for success when there&#39;s an opportunity (something which even opportunists would like, no?). :)

This is a revolutionary extension of Lenin&#39;s "probing with the bayonet" - but instead of the Red Army (which WILL come later, anyway), whole revolutionary vanguards... :)

[Prairie Fire]

<_< I&#39;m not sure I agree with the concept of an international party right off of the bat...

We have to remember that what works for Canada isn&#39;t necesarily going to work for Bolivia; Because of this, it is somewhat absurd to try and create one global party, because the working class of all nations are NOT living under the same conditions; The circumstances are different in every nation. While in Canada and the US, being poor means that you sleep in a shelter and get groceries from the food bank, in Burkina Faso and Bangledash, being poor means you&#39;re fucking starving and homeless. While it is feasable to create a general framework for revolution and a unified set of prinicpals, it is insane to try create a general line for the entire world, because circumstances are different. Marx understodd this, hence he laid down ten points in the manifesto of the communist party, but specifically said that things would differ from country to country.

I&#39;m not saying in time that this wouldn&#39;t be possible, but all things in good time.
For now, the best hope of all workers is to revive one, unified international, which could perform many of the same functions quoted by Comrade Tiparith.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:59 pm
<_< I&#39;m not sure I agree with the concept of an international party right off of the bat...

We have to remember that what works for Canada isn&#39;t necesarily going to work for Bolivia.
^^^ That&#39;s why there would be national "cells," no? <_<

Globalization so far has been limited to corporations, labour unions, and NGOs - why not entire political parties? The tension between opportunistic spontaneity and centralized organization is there: let&#39;s take it to a global level.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Exactly. Capital has been global.


We have to remember that what works for Canada isn&#39;t necesarily going to work for Bolivia; Because of this, it is somewhat absurd to try and create one global party, because the working class of all nations are NOT living under the same conditions;

Who is saying an international organization should mechanically apply the same formula to each country? The FPM is organized around a set of basic principles, with each branch applying them (and the communist method) to their locality. The delegates of each branch in one country make up a National Steering Committee, and one delegate from each of those committees comes together as the International Steering Committee.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 19, 2007 05:37 am
The delegates of each branch in one country make up a National Steering Committee, and one delegate from each of those committees comes together as the International Steering Committee.
^^^ That still sounds too decentralized, if you ask me. The role of national branches/"cells" relative to the international party as a whole should be one of more "subordination." In fact, that "International Steering Committee" is no different from Gorbachev&#39;s half-baked Politburo "reforms" in 1990, which reduced that body&#39;s power.

Furthermore, that&#39;s like the U.S. Senate: smaller branches have disproportionately greater influence than larger ones.

I would say that delegates from each "cell" should make up a party congress - at least one delegate per cell - but that A) congressional composition should be based more on the number of party members operating in a particular "cell," and B) utmost flexibility should be applied in determining central committee membership. After all, Lenin was an exiled litterateur. ;)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

All branches are subordinate to the ISC; but the ISC itself is formed by delegates from each country, which are subject to recall by the members in that country at any time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 20, 2007 01:38 am
All branches are subordinate to the ISC; but the ISC itself is formed by delegates from each country, which are subject to recall by the members in that country at any time.
^^^ I did not question the subordination of the branches, but notice how I used the word "cells." That implies increased subordination, and less prominence of national divisions - especially ones such as what you describe above. The existence of recall is irrelevant. The international party should operate just like the opportunist national parties - with the same centralization and obscurity of regional divisions - but on a global scale.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Hammer+April 16, 2007 06:52 pm--> (Hammer @ April 16, 2007 06:52 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 05:41 am
Revolutionary organizations based in specific countries, as sections of an international, are needed for a reason: existing states can only be overthrown within their existing borders.
Sorry for the disagreement, but can&#39;t the international party have "cells" to do the overthrowing in particular nation-states - as I said above? [/b]
Isn&#39;t this a somewhat semantic difference?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Nope - one implies more centralization, while the other implies loose affiliation and dedication to mere principles, like the Communist International&#39;s Twenty-One Conditions.

[DrFreeman09]

The only thing that I really want to point out in regards to an international party is that the direction from the highest parts should be minimal with regards to the specific measures carried out in specific states. Different nations have different conditions and different measures may be necessary from nation-to-nation.

The reason why Marx said that "no particular stress" should be given to the "10 planks of communism" in Section II of the Manifesto was that he knew that the mehods and principles used in different nations would vary.

But appart from that, I agree that an international vanguard could be a great tool for organizing the masses in many nations and overcoming sectarianism and reformism.

As for the structure and nature of this party, you have already seen part of Ben's "Party of the Future" essay. The whole thing is here: http://leninism.org/pof/index.htm

This was written more recently and is easier to read: http://struggle.net/struggle/ben/2007/cargo-1-intro.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Wouldn't that be a return to Second International politics, though (I said above that the international vanguard could have organized as a proper party at the time of the Second International's formation, and I also critiqued the not-a-party form of organization the Third International adopted)? I know about Marx's "law of uneven development" (which Stalinists can use and have used to justify "socialism in one country") but isn't the goal of proletocracy to eliminate this?

[spartan]

The idea of an international Socialist party has always appealed to me.

Though i do think that an international federation of Socialist parties, who can work together on most issues, would be sufficient enough for the purpose of showing a united front to the enemy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't know about the sufficiency of mere "federations" - even those like the Bordigist IBRP (as opposed to the ICC).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/defence-china-t72800/index.html?p=1093656#post1093656



Thanks for that, RNK, that definition of "social-imperialism" makes more sense and could certainly be used to refer to the USSR and the PRC - although I would not say it is universally applicable to every aspect of each country's foreign policy, and it also not a dynamic that can be ascribed to the alleged "revisionist" seizure of power, because Stalin's foreign policy also exhibited "social-imperialist" features, for example, his invasion and subsequent annexation of Poland in 1939. "Social-imperialism" is therefore a characteristic of bureaucratic degeneration.

Didn't the Red Army under Trotsky and Tukachevsky do the exact same thing after revolutionary agitprop didn't pan out? :rolleyes:

Again, as I said above, Bonapartist (yes, I'll use this Trotskyist term, since it properly describes what I am about to say) "social imperialism" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Even from my somewhat "Bordigist" perspective of international revolutionary organization (one world social-proletocratic party PROPER - not just another "international" - coordinating the revolution), one national "chapter" could be called upon to exercise its control over the national military in order to spread the revolution... should more cooperative efforts fail (ie, Social-Imperialist Country A attacks Bourgeois Country B if Country B's national "chapter" - even with significant aid from the national "chapters" in surrounding countries - is obstructed by reactionary forces).

If "Social-Imperialist Country A" happens to be the USA, and "Bourgeois Country B" happens to be either Canada or especially Mexico (the latter because of surrounding "chapters" in Central America, including one in Cuba)...

There could also be two or more cooperating "social-imperialist" countries carrying out this kind of activity if revolutions in less developed countries don't pan out.

If a social-proletocratic revolution occurred in both China and Australia, but was stalled in, say, Indonesia (even after supportive efforts by the Australian, Malaysian, and other surrounding national "chapters"), the Chinese national "chapter" could be called upon by the central Party organization to rally the military and link it up with the military under the control of the Australian national "chapter" - to overthrow Indonesian bourgeois rule by external means.

[lombas]

Because establishing a party for 6 billion people is asking for trouble?

[RNK]

A socialist United Nations? Hoorah. :glare:

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That wasn't the gist of my somewhat Bordigist post, though. :confused:


Different nations have different conditions and different measures may be necessary from nation-to-nation.

Consider this, though:

The circulation of capital can defeat isolated revolutions through currency devaluation. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-theory-imperialism-t69324/index.html)

[Bastable]

utmost flexibility should be applied in determining central committee membership. After all, Lenin was an exiled litterateur. ;)

What's that???

[chegitz guevara]

Because establishing a party for 6 billion people is asking for trouble?

Really, can you imagine the line for the bathroom?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Your point being? :confused:

Anyhow, this Learning post by gilhyle (on one Vollmar and "socialism in one country") was quite interesting:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-one-country-t75823/index.html


Whatever might have once been true, time will make the Bordiga-ist view true, though not particularly Bordiga-ist. What is at issue however, in the real world is what is to be done when one country progresses to a workers state with no immediate prospect of an international revolution. Vollmar was not really dealing with that but playing with the ideas of State Socialism as pushed by Bismarck.

Perhaps gilhyle was referring to my post above on the surprising benefits of "social imperialism":



Again, as I said above, Bonapartist (yes, I'll use this Trotskyist term, since it properly describes what I am about to say) "social imperialism" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Even from my somewhat "Bordigist" perspective of international revolutionary organization (one world social-proletocratic party PROPER - not just another "international" - coordinating the revolution), one national "chapter" could be called upon to exercise its control over the national military in order to spread the revolution... should more cooperative efforts fail (ie, Social-Imperialist Country A attacks Bourgeois Country B if Country B's national "chapter" - even with significant aid from the national "chapters" in surrounding countries - is obstructed by reactionary forces).If "Social-Imperialist Country A" happens to be the USA, and "Bourgeois Country B" happens to be either Canada or especially Mexico (the latter because of surrounding "chapters" in Central America, including one in Cuba)...

There could also be two or more cooperating "social-imperialist" countries carrying out this kind of activity if revolutions in less developed countries don't pan out.

If a social-proletocratic revolution occurred in both China and Australia, but was stalled in, say, Indonesia (even after supportive efforts by the Australian, Malaysian, and other surrounding national "chapters"), the Chinese national "chapter" could be called upon by the central Party organization to rally the military and link it up with the military under the control of the Australian national "chapter" - to overthrow Indonesian bourgeois rule by external means.