Socialist paradox - is it even possible?

[Eastside Revolt]

This may be a little early in my understanding of politics and economics to be asking this question. But didn't Marx assume that the revolution would have to happen in the industrialized first world? otherwise a surplus was impossible to achieve?

The problem I am having with this is that the indrialized world (right now) is the last place that anyone is thinking revolution. In South America people are thinking revolution. But it does't matter how many socialist governments pop-up there, they are all economiclly starved by the west. And in the west there is not enough oppression to fuel a revolution. It seems that even Cuba is bound to fall when Castro and his brother die. Could someone who has a better understanding of all this, and is probably more of an optomist, enlighten me as to a different way of looking at this.

[Conghaileach]

There is oppression in the West, but the bourgeoisie distract us with consumerism and tell us how much better off we are than the rest of the world. They control the media. It's only when the people of the industrialised nations are able to waken up and see through the lies, and see capitalists for what they are, that there will ever be hope of a revolution.

[Eastside Revolt]

Yeah, but we kind of need self-motivation for that. And I find that there just isn't. I also didn't mean that we AREN'T oppressed, just that we aren't oppressed enough (ie starving en mass).

[Jaha]

if the working countries go socialist, we will lose our cheap labor and then there is potencial for mass starving. then there is the motivation. then there is the revolution.

[Eastside Revolt]

Well Said, I just hope that the working countries can handle it for long enogh to cause that kind of effect.

[redstar2000]

redcanada, you are quite right to point out that, if Marx was right, communist revolution is supposed to happen FIRST in the advanced capitalist countries.

That's why my personal opinion is that it will happen in the European Union first...however unlikely that may look at the moment.

Of course, Marx MIGHT have been wrong...but that would really open a can of worms.

What seems to happen in the less-advanced capitalist countries is that a small minority of the people in those countries--radical intellectuals and advanced workers--want to "jump over" the whole period of capitalist development and proceed directly to socialism.

I certainly don't blame them for trying...but the results have not been happy ones.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Perhaps revolution is suposed to hapen in the rich nations first because fear of revolution in countries that they depend on for the basics of living, mean that poorer countries are kept in check. The revolution could come from someone inside, using theoretical "freedom" to unmask the falseness created by the west. This would cause certain panic and uncertainty, and then who knows...He said it himself "The capitalist system carried within itself the seeds of its own destruction." Karl Marx

[ravengod]

red star i agree
i myself see an outburst in the european union in the following years
it is true initially they are trying to build capitalism
but europe as always in history will provide a huge surprise
for our benefit

[ComradeJunichi]

Have I mentioned my theory before? Theory behind the conspiracy of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the decline of the EU? It's quite interesting :)

Anyway...The Marxist paradox? Not all socialists are stern believers of Marx.

Why do you think Cuba will fall after Fidel and Raul? Is that just a random guess or do you have a reason? Frankly, I don't know because I have not looked into Cuban officials and loyal members of the party.

A number of socialist governments forming in Latin America actually does have an effect. They will no longer be *****es of the rich elite minority and the West. Like Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, (Ecuador) are the axis of evil. No longer needing the theft of the US.

I'm not sure if a revolution or change would occur in the wealthy west. I still am studying, so I wouldn't know what to say.

[Eastside Revolt]

True, I am sticking to Marx's word a little tightly. But how on Earth is any country going to survive a bad year unless they have some profit or surplus to be spent. My words on Cuba are mostly random guessing, you're right. I'm suspicios of Cuba mostly 'cause Castro hasn't stepped down yet. I would love to hear your theory on 9/11 juni.

[Larissa]

I've posted something about this in the "armed revolution" topic.
I'll paste it here...
I was just reading Chairman Mao's last post, and there is something really important that he points out and we should always bear in mind: When he says "The US socialist movement is very weak for obvious reasons. And in the the developed eastern countries there are similar problems", we have to realize that a socialist movement or revolution, etc, is most likely to occur or develop in poorer countries rather than in "rich" ones. What I mean is that, when a developed capitalist country is apparently "running ok", not many people seek for a change. The opposite is more evident in developing/third world countries were Capitalism destroys the life and possibilities of most people living in such countries. Socialism there arises as an urgent need, while in developed countries it becomes more like a soft or intellectual movement even if it is not.
Go to: http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...ic=444&start=20 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=12&topic=444&start=20)

[Eastside Revolt]

See I agree with you. The problem for me is that the revolution, and socialism won't survive in third world countries, because the yankees wont let them survive. And so.... the paradox.

[Spartaco]

I think that the global form of capitalism which isdeveloping can only be fought on a world-wide scale. Globalisation tends to concetrate the proletariat in the third world countries and the bourgeoise mainly in the us, canada and europe (if we see where the things that we use are made we generally read made in taiwan, made in china, made in the philippines etc). The fact that our western countries are more "bourgeoise" would also explain why communist movements arent as strong here. So if the proletariat should unite in overthrowing the bourgeoisie the process would involve more than 1 country.

[Eastside Revolt]

The problem with overthrowing the boresoise in the west is that there is so much wealth that alot of the prolateriate are able to live as the boresoise do. So it's hard to draw distinctions, and motivate people in that direction. To alot of people it would be like overthrowing their equals, many won't see the point.

[Socialist Pig]

Quote: from CiaranB on 2:25 am on Jan. 12, 2003
They control the media.


They also own everything else.

[ravengod]

red canada i cannot help agreeing with you
we both think the same
indeed we need capitalist development in order to implement communism
yes marx said that
it s the evolution of property owning forms
first capitalism then communism
the paradox appears because of some sick minds who try implementing communism in countries far from achieving the conditions
those are the leaders of commie countries which i despise the most
they are blind and too full of themselves
it s not a socialist paradox
it s a human paradox

[Eastside Revolt]

As much as I agree with you, I wouldn't go as far as calling them "sick minds". I'd say I agree with most of tha things that I have happened to read by and about Marx. I haven't read enough to call myself a Marxist. In my mind Marx was no prophet, and everything that man thinks-up and creates can be added to, twisted around, and improved upon. I am somewhat convinced that in "some" situations communism can work in a pre-industrialized society. To be honest I am rather fuck-up in the head myself.

[RynoISM]

Marx paints a paradox with his writings in that he expects a revolution to happen in a first world industrialized nation. However, in modern America and first world countries a large percentage of the population is falling into bourgeoisie status.

This is not the group of people that Marx predicted would create a communist revolution. Most of the first world countries today are digging a deeper hole for the third world countries to pull themselves out of. This makes the bourgeoisie society very large, but still not as large as the proletariat. While in third world countries the potential for revolution is much higher due to the low affluency and a large proletariat worker base.

The problem with the American proletariat is he has been manipulated to only expecting a simple life of turmoil, beer, and football. They become lazy and do not have any expectation of life. They wish for a "better" life, but rarely take action. Call me pessimistic, but this is destroying the chance for revolution.

[Eastside Revolt]

Dude, I don't mean to insult you, and I like I've said before I am not a Marxist. But, what do you think prolateriat means? I always thought it meant that you have nothing to sell or make a living off of except your work. I don't know how many people you think live in the first world, and have any way to live except by their own work. The problem I see with the "proletariat" in the first world is the we are bassically "brainwashed" into thinking this is the freest we can be, and that we don't have anything to do with the starving masses elsewhere and on our city streets.

[Red Revolution]

ok, lets put down this fact first, for the revolution to succeed then heavy public support is needed, che said it himself. Now, look at first world countries especcially the U$, you would never get the support. So I think we have to agree that in the starving countries where the first world countriies are foolishly putting not enough effort into a revolution would be an excellent concept as they supply, as said previosly in this thread, all the first worlds primary recorses.

[Eastside Revolt]

I understand that the third world is starving and what not, but I'm not so sure that there is popular support for a socialist revolution there, just lokk at the problems that Che ran into in Bolivia.