The unity and diversity of the world revolutionary process.

[Revolution Hero]

Socialistic revolution has national and international significance, as it is prepared and diplays itself, being in close conection with the development of the whole system of the social relations on the world arena. The contradictions of capitalism, which define the inevitability of the socialistic revolution, are of the international character. The transnational corporations penetrate into the most distant points of the globe, making all states dependent both economically and politically. It doesn't matter where socialistic revolution takes place in such conditions, as it undermines the whole imperialistic front and influence on the world development anyway.
Lenin made a brilliant conclusion about the possibility of the victory of the socialism originally in some or even in one separately taken capitalist state. Lenin connected this conclusion with the law of uneven capitalistic development, which takes conflict, spasmodic character in the imperialistic epoch.
The point of the uneven economical development of the capitalist states is that some states abruptly go forward in their development, but are left behind by the others later. It leads to the acute conflicts and war clashes between imperialistic powers, in the conditions of their struggle for the world dominance.
Uneven political development means that revolutionary processes are developing with unequal pace in the different states. Therefore, it is obvious that the revolutionary downfall of capitalism will happen in the different states at the different time.
The World socialistic revolution is formed by the number of stages, which are separated by the long or short periods of time. Revolutions in the different states become relatively independent links of the single world socialistic revolution, which envelops the whole historical epoch.

[redstar2000]

Not on the same planet I live on.

Consider: a trans-national oil company builds a huge complex in a backward country. ALL of the highly-skilled labor comes from one or more western countries; the "natives" are employed as laborers. This complex is so enormous that it actually employs locally 0.01% of the working class in that country.

Does that make this backward country ripe for communist revolution? Have pigs learned to fly where you live?

A marxist analysis would suggest that IF capitalism endured long enough (a big IF), then the level of development would be approximately the same throughout the world and any communist revolution in one country would spread quickly around the world (much like a small piece of ice dropped in a container of water at exactly 0 degrees C will cause the whole container to quickly freeze).

But, RH, what you're really doing is just repeating the patchwork Leninist rationale for the Russian Revolution; I say patchwork because you won't find anything in Lenin PRIOR to October 1917 that suggests any such thing. EVERYONE in those long-gone times knew that unless there were revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries, the chances of socialism in backward countries amounted to two: slim and none.

They were right.

True, "communist" (really nationalist/bourgeois) revolutions in backward countries temporarily weaken the international imperialist structure...but it's TEMPORARY. If they occurred in truly ENORMOUS numbers, maybe then they might provoke a real communist revolution in an advanced capitalist country...maybe.

But, if you're a marxist, you cannot avoid the central marxist observation: communist revolution is made by the working class in an advanced capitalist country. Pseudo-revolutions by vanguard parties that degenerate into capitalists within a generation or two DON'T COUNT.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:04 am on Nov. 13, 2002
Not on the same planet I live on.

Consider: a trans-national oil company builds a huge complex in a backward country. ALL of the highly-skilled labor comes from one or more western countries; the "natives" are employed as laborers. This complex is so enormous that it actually employs locally 0.01% of the working class in that country.

Does that make this backward country ripe for communist revolution? Have pigs learned to fly where you live?

A marxist analysis would suggest that IF capitalism endured long enough (a big IF), then the level of development would be approximately the same throughout the world and any communist revolution in one country would spread quickly around the world (much like a small piece of ice dropped in a container of water at exactly 0 degrees C will cause the whole container to quickly freeze).

But, RH, what you're really doing is just repeating the patchwork Leninist rationale for the Russian Revolution; I say patchwork because you won't find anything in Lenin PRIOR to October 1917 that suggests any such thing. EVERYONE in those long-gone times knew that unless there were revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries, the chances of socialism in backward countries amounted to two: slim and none.

They were right.

True, "communist" (really nationalist/bourgeois) revolutions in backward countries temporarily weaken the international imperialist structure...but it's TEMPORARY. If they occurred in truly ENORMOUS numbers, maybe then they might provoke a real communist revolution in an advanced capitalist country...maybe.

But, if you're a marxist, you cannot avoid the central marxist observation: communist revolution is made by the working class in an advanced capitalist country. Pseudo-revolutions by vanguard parties that degenerate into capitalists within a generation or two DON'T COUNT.





quote:"Not on the same planet I live on."

Do you live on Mars or some other planet?

quote:"Consider: a trans-national oil company builds a huge complex in a backward country. ALL of the highly-skilled labor comes from one or more western countries; the "natives" are employed as laborers. This complex is so enormous that it actually employs locally 0.01% of the working class in that country"




It is so easy to create an example whcih would serve the proof of your arguements, isn't it? You better give me some exact sources and figures, so I will consider THEM, not the fairy tails you have said. Also the case of trans- national oil company is not the best one to study. What about corporations , like " Nike", "Reebok" et.c., which settle their branches in the Third World countries, only because the labour force is very cheap over there, therefore they will make more profit.

quote:"Does that make this backward country ripe for communist revolution? "

You really didn't get my point. I meant that if the socialist revolution starts in any of the countries, which are exploited by the foreign capital, and if this revolution is victorious, then this revolution will not only destroy the bourgeios class of the country where it happens, but will also make a serious harm to the international capital.

quote: " A marxist analysis would suggest that IF capitalism endured long enough (a big IF), then the level of development would be approximately the same throughout the world and any communist revolution in one country would spread quickly around the world"

Actually, according to the Marxism - Leninism , the level of the development of different countries will never reach the equal point, as the capital of one country always exploits the other country ( the one which is not very developed), hence the latter would never get a chance to become as developed , as the one which exploits it.


quote:" But, RH, what you're really doing is just repeating the patchwork Leninist rationale for the Russian Revolution; I say patchwork because you won't find anything in Lenin PRIOR to October 1917 that suggests any such thing. EVERYONE in those long-gone times knew that unless there were revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries, the chances of socialism in backward countries amounted to two"

First of all, Lenin was confident that socialistic revolution would happen in the Russian Empire, he knew it before the October of 1917.
Russian Empire wasn't the most developed capitalistic state of that time, therefore the October revolution proved that socialistic revolution could happen in any state, which had revolutionary situation.

I agree with the last part, but can you name any socialistic revolution , which took a victory in the developed capitalistic state?

quote:"True, "communist" (really nationalist/bourgeois) revolutions in backward countries temporarily weaken the international imperialist structure...but it's TEMPORARY. "

1.You should have written not ( really nationalist/ bourgeois), but ( national- liberation).
2. Temporary? Bullshit. Revolutions weaken the international imperialistic system step by step, each revolution is the step forward to the total destruction of the imperialism.

quote:" But, if you're a marxist, you cannot avoid the central marxist observation: communist revolution is made by the working class in an advanced capitalist country. Pseudo-revolutions by vanguard parties that degenerate into capitalists within a generation or two DON'T COUNT. "

Another anti-marxist bullshit.
I have already asked you a question, haven't I?

[Conghaileach]

from Revolution Hero:
You really didn't get my point. I meant that if the socialist revolution starts in any of the countries, which are exploited by the foreign capital, and if this revolution is victorious, then this revolution will not only destroy the bourgeios class of the country where it happens, but will also make a serious harm to the international capital.

You mentioned Nike/Reebok sweatshops in these underdeveloped countries. If a socialist revolution took place in one of these countries, then a new Nike/Reebok factory could simply be set up in another country where cheap labour is readily available.

It would have no great impact on international capital.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from CiaranB on 12:02 am on Nov. 18, 2002
from Revolution Hero:
You really didn't get my point. I meant that if the socialist revolution starts in any of the countries, which are exploited by the foreign capital, and if this revolution is victorious, then this revolution will not only destroy the bourgeios class of the country where it happens, but will also make a serious harm to the international capital.

You mentioned Nike/Reebok sweatshops in these underdeveloped countries. If a socialist revolution took place in one of these countries, then a new Nike/Reebok factory could simply be set up in another country where cheap labour is readily available.

It would have no great impact on international capital.

To say the truth, I have just named these corporations for an example. Do you really think that only Nike and Reebok are guilty for the oppression of millions? Not , actually.
Each underdeveloped country is exploited by the numerous international companies, the soil of these countries is robbed by the international capital, the people of such countries live in poverty. In contrary, the capitalists make huge profit by the means of exploitation of the foreign and "sovereign" states.
If socialistic revolution take a victory in one of the underdeveloped countries, then the market of this exact country will be forever closed for the international bourgeois bandits. Imperialistic capital would lose a certain amount of it's profit, and of course, it would weaken the whole imperialistic system.

"then a new Nike/Reebok factory could simply be set up in another country where cheap labour is readily available."

Keep in mind 2 things:
1. It is not just about Nike/Reebok.
2. All spheres of the imperialistic influence were divided among bourgeois bastards long time ago. You wouldn't be able to find an underdeveloped state, which is not exploited by the foreign capital.

EACH SOCIALISTIC VICTORY IS KNOCK DOWN, WHICH MAKES IMPERIALISM CLOSER TO KNOCK OUT EACH TIME IT HAPPENS!

[Conghaileach]

I understand what you're saying, but unfortunately there's no shortage of exploitable labour.

I know you were talking about more than just Nike and Reebok, but I want to use them just as an example.
If the Nike/Reebok company moves its factory to another country, or even to a first world country where they'll have to pay workers more, all they have to do make up any lost profit is increase the price of their goods. In the case of these labels, the name tag is more important than the product itself or the price - there will be people buying them.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from CiaranB on 3:28 am on Nov. 19, 2002
I understand what you're saying, but unfortunately there's no shortage of exploitable labour.

I know you were talking about more than just Nike and Reebok, but I want to use them just as an example.
If the Nike/Reebok company moves its factory to another country, or even to a first world country where they'll have to pay workers more, all they have to do make up any lost profit is increase the price of their goods. In the case of these labels, the name tag is more important than the product itself or the price - there will be people buying them.

You have mentioned the price increase. GOOD.
Don't you think that the demand would become lower, when the price becomes higher , than it used to be?
See, those capitalists are already in recession.