Wrong place at a wrong time?

[Red_or_Dead]

Ive been thinking a lot about why attempts of a global revolution failed in the 20th century. What Ive come up with is that the revolutions happened in wrong places at wrong times.

I believe that Marx said that revolutions should take place in countries that had been industrialized, and where there was a big base of proletarians that would support the revolution in their country. Clearly that was not the case in Russia, and I believe that China was pretty much the same, as were pretty much all countries that had revolutions (at least in those cases where communists took power for a longer period of time).

Then there is the "wrong time" bit. I think that the world in the first half of the 20th century was far from ready for a real global revolution, and I think that it is far from ready at present. Capitalism still hasnt reached its full potential, the differences between the rich and the poor, the opressors and the opressed, are still not big enough to reveal capitalism for what it really is, at least to the eyes of the general public. And while I despise globalisation at its present capitalistic form, on the other hand I see it as a big opportunity, as it may well be a blueprint on how a future global revolution will be spread. Well, I would hope that it wouldnt be as vilolent, but that imo belongs to a whole different discussion.

Also, I think that in general people today are more educated, and are becoming more educated, than people from a 100 years ago, which I believe is an important factor.

To sum it up: capitalism needs to expand and develop even further, in order to reach conditions that are favorable for a global revolution. The revolutions that happened so far were in wrong countries, at wrong times, and as a result they were unsucsesfull.

Oh, and I put this into history forum, because my main point is that the revolutions that happened thus far were unsuccsefull because of the above stated. If any of you mods thinks it would be better somewhere else, please move it.

[careyprice31]

I agree with you.

In my opinion any (revolutionary) leftist who says the revolution should happen now needs to be dragged over the arctic ice pack on their bare tush.

The world isn't ready for that revolution. I think you are right, and I think most of revleft would agree with you actually.

(I hope so).

;)

[Holden Caulfield]

i think that the theory of permenant revolution would imply (to me) that the 'business' of carrying out revolution is a constant activity and although Russia wasn't ready for communism, if they revolution had happened earlier or had been not a period of war then we would have seen this manifest itself in real life

a Soviet Russia could have aided, even in minimal ways the German communist movements that occured 1919-23 (this would have severly changed i realise), then also the aiding of Chinese communists and the other east asian communist movements, then Spain would have also fallen to the cause,

etc..

so i do think that wrong place wrong time does apply, but i suppose my point is that we must always be working towards it as it might just be the right time somewhere we least expect and this could cause an unforseeable chain reaction,

i was hoping Chavez could start something in Latin America however the looming presance of the USA severly hinders any chance of that becoming a rapid 'continent wide revolution'

[ComradeOm]

I believe that Marx said that revolutions should take place in countries that had been industrialized, and where there was a big base of proletarians that would support the revolution in their country. Clearly that was not the case in Russia, and I believe that China was pretty much the same, as were pretty much all countries that had revolutions (at least in those cases where communists took power for a longer period of time)You and I can sit back in (relative) comfort and talk about the "wrong time" or the "wrong place" but the fact is that in 1917 Russia saw a revolution that completely eclipsed anything that had, or has since, occured in the industrialised West.

So take your analysis one step further and ask why these revolutions occured... not why they failed

[BIG BROTHER]

I agree also with comradeom, also at least Lennin believed that enstead of waiting for capitalism to fully develop, it should be attacked at its weakest, when it isn't fully developed.

[Red_or_Dead]

a Soviet Russia could have aided, even in minimal ways the German communist movements that occured 1919-23 (this would have severly changed i realise), then also the aiding of Chinese communists and the other east asian communist movements, then Spain would have also fallen to the cause,



Well, it could, and it did in many cases, but in despite of that we havent seen a genuine global revolution. If I go back to my point on globalisation, I think that the conditions for a world revolution will be established when capitalism enters a big crisis on a global level. If a revolution happens only in one country, and then not for a very long time in others... Well, then we have the situation that has already existed in USSR before WW2.



so i do think that wrong place wrong time does apply, but i suppose my point is that we must always be working towards it as it might just be the right time somewhere we least expect and this could cause an unforseeable chain reaction,


With that I agree. I think that above all we should always "keep the flame burning", or so to speak, keep the movement alive, so that when an opportunity does come, we will always stand with a clear alternative to the capitalist system.


You and I can sit back in (relative) comfort and talk about the "wrong time" or the "wrong place" but the fact is that in 1917 Russia saw a revolution that completely eclipsed anything that had, or has since, occured in the industrialised West.

So take your analysis one step further and ask why these revolutions occured... not why they failed

That is true as well, but we have to keep in mind that in despite of everything, all the achievements, all the gains and everything, it ultimatly failed.

Im not familiar enough with the conditions of pre-revolution Russia, but as I said above - no matter what was the cause for the revolution, ultimatly it failed to achieve its goal.

[Awful Reality]

It failed because Stalin (and the whole Soviet Union) failed to promote any worldwide revolution- "Socialism in one Country." Had he supported Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 1930s, and given greater support to Spain during the civil war, the world would be very different today.

By the time the Soviet Union did begin helping out revolutions, it became too little, too late.

I believe that conditions are maturing so that withing 15 years something revlutionary could occur- in a rather big way. I've posted my theories elsewhere on revleft

:trotski:

[ComradeOm]

That is true as well, but we have to keep in mind that in despite of everything, all the achievements, all the gains and everything, it ultimatly failed.

Im not familiar enough with the conditions of pre-revolution Russia, but as I said above - no matter what was the cause for the revolution, ultimatly it failed to achieve its goal.And so the Russian proletariat should not have even tried? Or perhaps you think that the eventual failure of the Russian and Chinese Revolutions somehow diminishes their importance and role in history? Such thinking displays a lack of understanding as to just what a revolution is in the first place

People - be they workers and peasants or capitalists and professionals - do not suddenly decide one day to stage a bloody revolt. A revolution is first and foremost the culmination of socio-economic trends that drastically weaken the ruling class and regime while simultaneously strengthening the revolutionary segments of society. That is what occured in Russia 1917 and what has been conspicuous in its absence from Western Europe

To argue about the "right time" and the "right place" completely misses the point that revolutions are inherently linked to the time and the place of their creation. You cannot simply import the Russian Revolution (or the Red Army!) into Western Europe and expect better results. So, to return to my original post, I suggest that you study the causes for the revolution in Russia and the possibles reasons why such events have not been seen in Europe or the US

[Tower of Bebel]

Ive been thinking a lot about why attempts of a global revolution failed in the 20th century. What Ive come up with is that the revolutions happened in wrong places at wrong times.

I believe that Marx said that revolutions should take place in countries that had been industrialized, and where there was a big base of proletarians that would support the revolution in their country. Clearly that was not the case in Russia, and I believe that China was pretty much the same, as were pretty much all countries that had revolutions (at least in those cases where communists took power for a longer period of time).

Then there is the "wrong time" bit. I think that the world in the first half of the 20th century was far from ready for a real global revolution, and I think that it is far from ready at present. Capitalism still hasnt reached its full potential, the differences between the rich and the poor, the opressors and the opressed, are still not big enough to reveal capitalism for what it really is, at least to the eyes of the general public. And while I despise globalisation at its present capitalistic form, on the other hand I see it as a big opportunity, as it may well be a blueprint on how a future global revolution will be spread. Well, I would hope that it wouldnt be as vilolent, but that imo belongs to a whole different discussion.

Also, I think that in general people today are more educated, and are becoming more educated, than people from a 100 years ago, which I believe is an important factor.

To sum it up: capitalism needs to expand and develop even further, in order to reach conditions that are favorable for a global revolution. The revolutions that happened so far were in wrong countries, at wrong times, and as a result they were unsucsesfull.

Oh, and I put this into history forum, because my main point is that the revolutions that happened thus far were unsuccsefull because of the above stated. If any of you mods thinks it would be better somewhere else, please move it.

I hope you don't believe that capitalism can be equally developed all over the world. There will always be a semi-feudal 'Third World'. The bourgeoisie over there isn't storng enough to finish its bourgeois-democratic tasks. It thought Marx abandonned the idea that capitalism could develop all over the world in the same way as in France, Belgium and Brittain at that time. Lenin was right, and it was the right time. All that socialism needs is a sucesful overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat in the main industrialized countries.
Yet, today most industrialized countries seem stronger and better protected than a century ago, yet think of the consequences of a proletarian revolution in the USA today? The dependance of Chinese capitalism on the USA makes it fearful of any revolution or economic disaster in the States. Also the EU, an export region, would tremble by a victory by the American proletariat over its bourgeios oppressors!

The reason why the international revolution of 1917-1927 failed was because of the defeat of the German proletariat. Remember that there were revolutions/revolts in Hungary, Austria, Germany (!), Russia, Italy (!), China (!), Finland, Ireland (!), ..., etc. all in one way or another related to each other. Germany was the key to releasing the USSR from its isolation and it would have been the signal for the proletariat in England, France, Belgium, ... and etc. to revolt against capitalist/imperialist oppression.

[Red_or_Dead]

It failed because Stalin (and the whole Soviet Union) failed to promote any worldwide revolution- "Socialism in one Country." Had he supported Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 1930s, and given greater support to Spain during the civil war, the world would be very different today.

By the time the Soviet Union did begin helping out revolutions, it became too little, too late.

I believe that conditions are maturing so that withing 15 years something revlutionary could occur- in a rather big way. I've posted my theories elsewhere on revleft



Maybe. We will never know for sure. There was a lot that the USSR could do more and better, but I think that if Stalin would do as you say, it still wouldnt be good enough, since big cappie countries like UK, France and the USA would still remain capitalist.


And so the Russian proletariat should not have even tried? Or perhaps you think that the eventual failure of the Russian and Chinese Revolutions somehow diminishes their importance and role in history? Such thinking displays a lack of understanding as to just what a revolution is in the first place


I did not say that. The Russian proletariat was right to do what they did, and if nothing else they provided us with a great historical example, from which we can all learn a lot. When one day a world-wide revolution does occur, I think that one of the most important things to do will be to look back and examine what went wrong the first time, what can be improved, and what must be avoided. All those revolutions play a VERY important role in history. Not to mention of course all the benefits that the Russian revolution brought to the people.



People - be they workers and peasants or capitalists and professionals - do not suddenly decide one day to stage a bloody revolt. A revolution is first and foremost the culmination of socio-economic trends that drastically weaken the ruling class and regime while simultaneously strengthening the revolutionary segments of society. That is what occured in Russia 1917 and what has been conspicuous in its absence from Western Europe

To argue about the "right time" and the "right place" completely misses the point that revolutions are inherently linked to the time and the place of their creation. You cannot simply import the Russian Revolution (or the Red Army!) into Western Europe and expect better results. So, to return to my original post, I suggest that you study the causes for the revolution in Russia and the possibles reasons why such events have not been seen in Europe or the US

I agree. Specialy with the first paragraph. What is my point is that a global revolution has not occured, and imo that is one of the reasons as to why socialist states ultimately collapsed (with a few exceptions that remain to this day). As to why a global revolution has not occured, I think that it is because those countries that had revolutions were not the right ones to trigger a world wide revolution. Sure, those countries that had revolutions had all the "ingredients", but others obviously did not.


I hope you don't believe that capitalism can be equally developed all over the world. There will always be a semi-feudal 'Third World'. The bourgeoisie over there isn't storng enough to finish its bourgeois-democratic tasks. It thought Marx abandonned the idea that capitalism could develop all over the world in the same way as in France, Belgium and Brittain at that time. Lenin was right, and it was the right time. All that socialism needs is a sucesful overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat in the main industrialized countries.
Yet, today most industrialized countries seem stronger and better protected than a century ago, yet think of the consequences of a proletarian revolution in the USA today? The dependance of Chinese capitalism on the USA makes it fearful of any revolution or economic disaster in the States. Also the EU, an export region, would tremble by a victory by the American proletariat over its bourgeios oppressors!



I guess it wont be equally developed. Imo it is enough that capitalism is sufficently spread, so that when a global crisis occurs (which is imo inevitable) it hits everywhere, and making the best possible ground for a world-wide revolution. And if one thing is certain is that capitalism is spreading. It is developing, counquering new markets, expanding its influence, so that the whole world is becoming a playground for the modern bourgeoisie.

[Tower of Bebel]

I guess it wont be equally developed. Imo it is enough that capitalism is sufficently spread, so that when a global crisis occurs (which is imo inevitable) it hits everywhere, and making the best possible ground for a world-wide revolution. And if one thing is certain is that capitalism is spreading. It is developing, counquering new markets, expanding its influence, so that the whole world is becoming a playground for the modern bourgeoisie.

The markets are stuffed. New products are made to develop new markets, peoples are persuaded to loan as much money as possible to strenghten their purchasing power and now suddenly capitalists have noticed that their consumers, their labourers, cannot pay their debts. Capitalism is going to a new crisis, and because of the exploitation of what was previously the USSR and because of the capitalist development of China the world is going to see a much bigger crisis than the one of 1929.

Capitalism cannot expand (it couldn't since the 70's) as much as it just after WW2. The releave felt after the implosion of the USSR, the temporary releave of crisis which was developing since the late 60's is now gone, since even the USSR and China cannot buy those products that are filling the markets. Now that the US, the country which consumed the most, is reaching a recession you can count on it that a new capitalist crisis will hit the world.

[Red_or_Dead]

The markets are stuffed. New products are made to develop new markets, peoples are persuaded to loan as much money as possible to strenghten their purchasing power and now suddenly capitalists have noticed that their consumers, their labourers, cannot pay their debts. Capitalism is going to a new crisis, and because of the exploitation of what was previously the USSR and because of the capitalist development of China the world is going to see a much bigger crisis than the one of 1929.

Capitalism cannot expand (it couldn't since the 70's) as much as it just after WW2. The releave felt after the implosion of the USSR, the temporary releave of crisis which was developing since the late 60's is now gone, since even the USSR and China cannot buy those products that are filling the markets. Now that the US, the country which consumed the most, is reaching a recession you can count on it that a new capitalist crisis will hit the world.


In that case, all we need to do is be prepared. Im not sure that the next big crisis of capitalism will be the last one (as there were many before), but its something that we will have to wait and see.