The effect a revolution would have...

[Raúl Duke]

Lets say that a 1st world highly industrialized country that's a major player/part of the world economy has a revolution that establishes a anarchist, communist, or socialist society...

What predictable effects would that have on the world market? Would it worsen economic conditions (to the point that resistance and revolution spreads) abroad? Which countries would likely be affected by this wave of deteriorating economic conditions and revolution?

(A question I was pondering while in AP Macroeconomics class...)

[spartan]

A major Capitalist nation having a Socialist revolution and then becoming a Socialist state would effect the world economy so badly, to the Capitalists in the other Capitalist nations that is, that the other Capitalist nations will do exactly the same thing as they did when Russia had there Socialist revolution and that is to send in there troops.

That is why Socialism in one country is on the whole a bad idea as, unless you are in the unique situation that Russia was at in 1917, your Socialist states chances of survival, especially in this day and age, is slim to say the least.

That is why global worldwide revolution is the answer as when we win there will be no Capitalist states left to stop us from progressing.

[Raúl Duke]

My question is not exactly what kind of response to expect from the other capitalists...but what effects would a revolution (in a 1st world country) have on the world economy (what are the macroeconomic effects of a 1st world country's revolution).

Either way, Russia is not necessarily the best example since it wasn't that advanced compared to Britain, France, Germany, and the US.

I suppose ComradeRed or someone with economical knowledge (Hammer?) could answer this question...

[spartan]

Well i suppose that it is one market lost to the international Bourgeoisie as usually in a Socialist State the Government or the workers own everything not the international Bourgeoisie.

So the Bourgeoisie lose all of that, now Socialist, states resources and shit to buy and invest in.

And the Bourgeoisie who have already invested before the revolution will probably never see there money again!

That is often the reason why Socialist states are always invaded by Capitalist superpowers as the Capitalist states lose all of that, now Socialist, states riches such as resources and what the Bourgeoisie can invest etc.

I think that ultimately the worldwide economy could after a few years of stability have another great depression if a major Capitalist nation successfully becomes Socialist.

Indeed the great depression that resulted from the stock market crash of 1928 was not just the after effects of WW1 and Weimar Germany but the effect of having a Socialist Russia not willing to sell out there resources to the Capitalists in the west.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:43 pm
My question is not exactly what kind of response to expect from the other capitalists...but what effects would a revolution (in a 1st world country) have on the world economy (what are the macroeconomic effects of a 1st world country's revolution).

Either way, Russia is not necessarily the best example since it wasn't that advanced compared to Britain, France, Germany, and the US.

I suppose ComradeRed or someone with economical knowledge (Hammer?) could answer this question...



Well, suppose it occurred in the US. The capitalist world economy would crash, and the capitalist world powers would have to, for the moment, attempt to adjust to the loss of their major [i]financial market. On the other hand, the capitalists would feel free to dump the US$ currency, unlike now where they fear that such dumping would cause the crash.

[EDIT: Some posters below have overstated the military potential of the US, but I haven't mentioned it here because of the EU, China, and even the Japanese "Self Defense" Forces.]

As for your "Russia" remark, I can give you three modern equivalents:

China - Real problems arise here because of the outsourcing of manufacturing TO China. Since much of manufacturing is capital-intensive (unlike services), all that industrial capital investment by developed countries would be lost.

Saudi Arabia - Oil. Because Saudi Aramco is the most "entrepreneurial" national oil company in the world, the sudden loss of this company would force other countries to turn elsewhere, perhaps by cozying to Iran and/or Venezuela.

Russia (again) - Gas and arms markets, plus perhaps nuclear material being stolen.



A successful, near-simultaneous (if not simultaneous altogether) seizure of power by the working class in three of the four countries above (two if one of them is the US itself) would cripple the capitalist world economy beyond repair.

EDIT: NOTE, however, that a revolution in just one country isn't enough. Even if the US alone underwent such, yes there'd be a crash, but I did mention the capitalists dumping US$ currency and setting up shop financially elsewhere. JAPAN's recent privatization of its postal service, for example, resulted in the creation of the WORLD'S LARGEST BANK! (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/05/business/web.0705japan.php)

[Raúl Duke]

[I'm more of a "business" person, BTW. wink.gif ]

no prob.

:)

SO such a revolution would have devastating effects to the world economy (although more than 1 revolution would be "lethal").

What happens if a revolution occurred simultaneously in a major financial market and a major industrial market?

Also, would the loss of a major market create extensive revolution-conducive conditions?
(Thus, would it turn from a "single revolution" to a more "international phenomenon" of resistance/revolution affecting many countries; making the idea of world revolution {left communist style?} more probable.)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Ummm, I think it's safe to assume that by the time revolutions start occurring in the most advanced capitalist nations, capitalism itself will be on the brink of final defeat. After all, revolutions in such nations are extremely unlikely unless most of the rest of the world has already gone socialist.

As for a (successful) revolution in the United States, that would mark the end of global capitalism altogether. If the capitalists lose the protection of the enormously powerful US military, they might as well cut their losses and surrender right then and there.

[Ramachandra]

As for a (successful) revolution in the United States, that would mark the end of global capitalism altogether.
Yeah and it will be a countless valuble power to the revolution of the world :P US is the engine of global capitalism.The coolapse of the engine will stop everything and will give birth to a new begining.a new social order.If the US becomes socialist then the under developed nations will enjoy a big slice of benifits.Instead of exploitation solidarity towards development will take place.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

but what effects would a revolution (in a 1st world country) have on the world economy (what are the macroeconomic effects of a 1st world country's revolution).


A first world country experiencing internal problems of that nature is enough to send the stock markets into panic-mode. How the other countries respond is up in the air, but it's highly unlikely anyone would go unscathed. .

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 30, 2007 03:40 am
As for a (successful) revolution in the United States, that would mark the end of global capitalism altogether. If the capitalists lose the protection of the enormously powerful US military, they might as well cut their losses and surrender right then and there.
I said above that this would NOT be the case.

I think you're overestimating the power of the US military, considering: that the EU has some military might of its own (the Brits, French, and even the Germans), that ditto with Russia and China (and perhaps Japan, too), and that Western EU nations have more "advanced" police forces than the US (because of more receptiveness there towards invasion of privacy).

And even then, I highlighted the financial reasons for "otherwise" above. :(

The "revolutionary euphoria" exhibited by most of the posters here so far is, alas, just like Lenin's during the Soviet-Polish war. :(

[Raúl Duke]

I said above that this would NOT be the case.



The "revolutionary euphoria" exhibited by most of the posters

Of course a single revolution doesn't mean good-bye for capitalism (that would be idealist, although I bet it would weaken most countries into revolutionary conditions that might or might not end up into revolution); my question was just posed to see an idea of how much damage could be expected to the world market in case of a revolution in a major market of the world economy.

I suppose my question has been answered...


setting up shop financially elsewhere. JAPAN's recent privatization of its postal service, for example, resulted in the creation of the WORLD'S LARGEST BANK!

By this you mean that the capitalist could set up (or go to) a different market somewhere else (i.e. You mentioned that the US was a major financial market, but this bank increases the importance of Japan's financial market. So basically even if they did lose the US and incur loses, they could "jump back up" by going to a different market. Did I get this right?)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 02:35 am

setting up shop financially elsewhere. JAPAN's recent privatization of its postal service, for example, resulted in the creation of the WORLD'S LARGEST BANK!

By this you mean that the capitalist could set up (or go to) a different market somewhere else (i.e. You mentioned that the US was a major financial market, but this bank increases the importance of Japan's financial market. So basically even if they did lose the US and incur loses, they could "jump back up" by going to a different market. Did I get this right?)
To be fair, I did say that the US was the world's #1 financial market. But yes, I did say that the financial capitalists abroad would be free to dump all their US$ holdings (the financial crash having occurred already) and set up shop elsewhere.

In regards to the importance of Japan's financial market, I don't know how the bank rankings have changed in recent years, but I remember this news article from 2004 (which resulting in a merged bank eclipsing a German bank):

Japan Merger Creates World's Largest Bank (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54352-2004Jul16.html)


TOKYO, July 16 -- Two of Japan's biggest financial institutions on Friday announced plans to merge and create the world's largest bank, underscoring growing sentiments that the country's long troubled banking system has significantly improved.

The marriage of Mitsubishi Tokyo Financial Group Inc., Japan's second-largest bank, with UFJ Holdings Inc., the fourth-biggest, would create an institution with some $1.7 trillion in assets, outstripping the country's current leader, Mizuho Financial Group, and the global leader, Citigroup Inc. The newly forged company would have nearly 80,000 employees and more than 1,000 branches around the world.

The details of the planned merger remained to be resolved through negotiations to be held in coming days, officials from the two banks said at a news conference Friday evening. Earlier on Friday, the banks notified the Tokyo Stock Exchange that they are pursuing an agreement and hope to have a preliminary deal signed by the end of the month, with the objective of completing the merger by September 2005.

Other banks seemed likely to mount legal challenges, but if the deal is consummated, Japan's financial system would be dominated by three vast conglomerates: the combined UFJ-Mitsubishi group alongside Mizuho and the Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group.

For more on Mitsubishi UFJ today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_UFJ_Financial_Group

The world's largest banks in 2006 (http://www.euromoney.com/article.asp?articleid=1079885&PositionID=Popular)

[Surprisingly, the Euromoney article above has a whole bunch of American banks above Mitsubishi JFJ. I know the difference between total assets and shareholders' equity, but come on! :huh: ]

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Instead of thinking of highly industrialized countries, you should think of China, India, the Phillipines, and Indonesia. A real socialist revolution in China, and then subsequent revolutions in those other places, will basically cut the femoral arteries of the global economy. Watch what happens to America or Europe when they can't get their sweatshop goods from South Asia. Game over.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 01, 2007 04:58 am
Instead of thinking of highly industrialized countries, you should think of China, India, the Phillipines, and Indonesia. A real socialist revolution in China, and then subsequent revolutions in those other places, will basically cut the femoral arteries of the global economy. Watch what happens to America or Europe when they can't get their sweatshop goods from South Asia. Game over.
Those countries aren't fully industrialized yet. Do we really need to disprove the notion that you can skip industrialization and go straight into socialism again? Neoliberalism has ensured it's own death. If the Western nations fail, the "third world" producers have nowhere to sell their goods other than themselves.