Vulnerable Country?

[Lost In Translation]

As we all know, everything needs a beginning. This includes our revolution.

My point is, which country that does not have a socialist background, and is not currently leftist AT ALL, would you think is a good place to start our revolution?

[GPDP]

I'd say the good ol' US of A.

[Lost In Translation]

What? And get raided by the FBI? (see Fox News thread)

[Decolonize The Left]

If we believe in a revolution being a global action, then we start wherever we are. For many of us here on this board that means the USA. And yes, I believe it is a fine place to start. We were founded by a revolution after all....

- August

[dirtycommiebastard]

You should actively work wherever you are.

The issue is having the correct theoretical position to start with and the proper analysis of the material conditions in which you live to begin your work.

[Comrade Vasilev]

Global revolution is an ultra-left Trotskyite dream, it will never happen. Socialist movements the world over must adapt to their own environments seeing as the development of capitalism is at different stages over the world.

Anyways, the 'global revolution' is nothing but a call for ultranationalist imperialism.

[dirtycommiebastard]

Global revolution is an ultra-left Trotskyite dream, it will never happen.Even the worst Stalinists I know are going to laugh when they read this.


Socialist movements the world over must adapt to their own environments seeing as the development of capitalism is at different stages over the world. Yes, but you are denying that revolution in one country will have major social implications in other countries around the world. It is up to communists in other countries to follow suit in the tracks of the revolution. Socialism cannot survive on its own. Cuba is doing great, have you noticed?


Anyways, the 'global revolution' is nothing but a call for ultranationalist imperialism.

:lol:

[RedAnarchist]

Global revolution is an ultra-left Trotskyite dream, it will never happen. Socialist movements the world over must adapt to their own environments seeing as the development of capitalism is at different stages over the world.

Anyways, the 'global revolution' is nothing but a call for ultranationalist imperialism.

Ever heard of Bogovich? Krommando? Any of those names ring a bell?

[OI OI OI]

Global revolution is an ultra-left Trotskyite dream,So you are saying that communism is a utopian dream?:(


it will never happen. This is like hearing an ignorant saying " Communism can never work, stop dreaming it'll never happen".



Socialist movements the world over must adapt to their own environments seeing as the development of capitalism is at different stages over the world.We all know that, but that does not mean that we support socialism in one country, which is a different issue.

Anyways, the 'global revolution' is nothing but a call for ultranationalist imperialism.What?


Seriously all this propaganda against the permanent revolution and the negation of international revolution makes me very sad.
It is clear that the poster "Comrade Vasilev" does not know what he /she is talking about. It is just a repeat of the same old propaganda.
It's a shame.

By the way Trotskyists never talk about simultaneous revolution ! We understand uneven development!


To respond to the OP, the "best place to start a revolution" given these objective conditions would be South and Central America and Pakistan .
Although the objective conditions are not something static (obviously:))
We might have a pre-revolutionary or revolutionary period in the next decade in any country in the world.
So as dirtycommiebastard pointed out, we have to prepare the revolutionary party now in the calm, so we can have it ready and strong when that time comes.

[Comrade Vasilev]

You don't think Trots are a joke, how about you go to http://www.fifthinternational.org/ (lol it's not a joke)

[RedAnarchist]

You don't think Trots are a joke, how about you go to http://www.fifthinternational.org/ (lol it's not a joke)

Can you actually tell us why you think its a joke, or is the sectarianism strangling your brain?

[OI OI OI]

You don't think Trots are a joke, how about you go to http://www.fifthinternational.org/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.fifthinternational.org/) (lol it's not a joke)

First of all not all of Trots support that group , actualy the majority doesn't.
But where 's the problem in trying to build a new international since Stalin disbanded the Third one in 1943 and in the 60s the 4rth one was disbanded?

Your posts are not constructive.
Therefore I have to give you a negative rep.

[Lost In Translation]

Global revolution is an ultra-left Trotskyite dream, it will never happen.What are you doing here, if you think global revolution is nothing but a dream? Global revolution isn't restricted to Trotskyite thinking. In the end, all communists would want the entire world to be communist.



Socialist movements the world over must adapt to their own environments seeing as the development of capitalism is at different stages over the world....and that affects us how...? Are we expected to wait out the situation?


Anyways, the 'global revolution' is nothing but a call for ultranationalist imperialism.Ok then, if that's the case, let's all go on coffee break and disband this website, seeing as what we're aiming towards seems to be what we're against.

negative rep for you, "comrade"




EDIT: I was so close to clicking that link in your signature, OI OI OI. so close.

[OI OI OI]

EDIT: I was so close to clicking that link in your signature, OI OI OI. so close.

haha :)


...and that affects us how...? Are we expected to wait out the situation?

Of course there is a need for a revolutionary situation in order to be a revolution.
The crime of the stalinists was not that they talk of uneven development .
It is more that they boycotted international revolution for the benefit of the bureaucracy.
One method was the Menshevik Stage theory that betrayed the proletariat in several cases such as in China in 1927 , in Spain in 1936 and elswhere.
Another method to betray the international revolution was by eliminating the "counter revolutionaries" (most notably in Spain where while the POUMists and the anarchists were fighting fascism the Stalinists were fighting anarchism and trotskyism for the most part)
Another method linked to the Stage theory is the peoples fronts. Although Lenin spoke against these kinds of actions especialy in the objective conditions where Stalinists implemented them , the "Marxist-Leninists" (stalinists) implemented them in several occasions resulting into defeat. The most pecualiar time was in Germany in the early 30ies where the Stalinists allied with the Nazis.

Now why would the bureaucracy betray internationalism? Because its position would be shaken if a revolution happened and a real workers state came into power. Even china which was itself a deformed workers state due to many reasons created a lot of problems to the bureaucracy. That's why the prefered controlled revolutions such as in Eastern Europe after WW2.

All these disastrous methods and ideas belong to the dust-bin of history. The revolutionary movement needs to focus on the real ideas of Leninism . Internationalism , Permanent Revolution , Workers democratic control.
Then we can achieve workers governments globaly.

Remember that wrong theory results always into defeat.
Good theory results into success always taking into account the objective and subjective conditions. By subjective conditions I mean the revolutionary party.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

"Taking up the revolution" is a rhetorical device used by Paulites in defense of their pseudo-libertarian agenda. They're creating a Freedom Project (trademark?) in New Hampshire to spin the state. I would actually be interested in seeing this occur, just to see what mess would come out of no regulation. Duties are driven on a national level towards an international goal. I would like to see just one self-declared socialist country permit social and economic freedoms (equality of marriage/no state marriage, free abortion service, open speech, no censored documents, bottom-up workers' councils, limited drug restrictions).

[danyboy27]

Global revolution is an ultra-left Trotskyite dream, it will never happen. Socialist movements the world over must adapt to their own environments seeing as the development of capitalism is at different stages over the world.


i agree on that, and i think that, most of us failed to adapt to the world of today. We are rehearsing stuff over and over, repeating the same stuff, over and over and over, without much result, we are still using the old methods: riot, manifestation, propaganda, being anti-american etc. And beccause of that we loose support, and spoil time, material, and popularity.

i have seen multiples communist manifestation, and actions here, all it achieved was making people rally together on the side of the bourgeoisie, making people pissed to death.

for exemple, they did a manifestation against the war during a military parade in my city, they tried to block the parade, provoke police, and it was all planned TO HAVE VISIBILITY! its miserably failed, and all the publicity they got was negative, again, most of the people in my city supported the soldier that was on the parade, mainly beccause they just came back of a rough 6 year in afghanistan. i really cant believe the lack of understanding of those peoples, to me its all basic, normal stuff, and the more they will continue in this way here, the more they gonna be hated.

[Dros]

As we all know, everything needs a beginning. This includes our revolution.

My point is, which country that does not have a socialist background, and is not currently leftist AT ALL, would you think is a good place to start our revolution?

Where you live.

As for the global revolution, what I think Vasilev was referring to was the fact that the the global revolution will not manifest itself as a simultaneous socialist revolution world wide and will instead take the shape of many revolutions in different parts of the world over a period of time as conditions become more revolutionary due to uneven global development under capitalism. Several "left" deviationist trends (Trots, Left "commies", Anarchists) sometimes operate under the deluded view that revolution is going to be some sort of massive, simultaneous, global uprising that will swiftly sweep away all capitalism.

[OI OI OI]

Several "left" deviationist trends (Trots, Left "commies", Anarchists) sometimes operate under the deluded view that revolution is going to be some sort of massive, simultaneous, global uprising that will swiftly sweep away all capitalism.

Yes indeed.
The revolution is planned to be at 11 o clock on May 29th 2012.
Cmon drosera99 you are more serious than that.
You know that Trots and many others do not think like that. That is not permanent revolution and internationalism.

[Dros]

Yes indeed.
The revolution is planned to be at 11 o clock on May 29th 2012.
Cmon drosera99 you are more serious than that.
You know that Trots and many others do not think like that. That is not permanent revolution and internationalism.

Certainly not as a whole. But you'd be surprised to see how many do. There are a lot of people who believe in some kind of Domino Effect type theory! In fact, there is a clear basis for this in the Russian Revolution. Trotsky thought that he could export the Russian Revolution to Western Europe. A lot of people oppose Socialism in One Country on the grounds that it looses sight of world revolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. What Stalin is saying (and what Trotsky missed in 1918) is that revolution is a product of material conditions that don't exist everywhere simultaneously and never will because Capitalism causes compartmentalized and uneven development on a global scale. So, the revolution's global nature takes a long time to manifest itself precisely because it can't be exported nor can it be truly global and simultaneous.

As for anarchism, without a state, they wouldn't last. That means they would have to have a global, simultaneous revolution, which is equally impossible.

I know anarchists who believe that there will be this global uprising.

[OI OI OI]

ertainly not as a whole. But you'd be surprised to see how many do. There are a lot of people who believe in some kind of Domino Effect type theory! In fact, there is a clear basis for this in the Russian Revolution. Trotsky thought that he could export the Russian Revolution to Western Europe. A lot of people oppose Socialism in One Country on the grounds that it looses sight of world revolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. What Stalin is saying (and what Trotsky missed in 1918) is that revolution is a product of material conditions that don't exist everywhere simultaneously and never will because Capitalism causes compartmentalized and uneven development on a global scale. So, the revolution's global nature takes a long time to manifest itself precisely because it can't be exported nor can it be truly global and simultaneous.

Look there are countries though with similar objective conditions. I know what socialism in one country means and I don't agree with it (some Trots have no idea what it means)
The domino effect is not a wrong theory, because a revolution can happen lets say in Venezuela and like a "domino" it spreads to countries with similar objective conditions(the whole of south america , etc)

Socialism in one country is anti-dialectic in one sense. In the sense that it does not see the objective conditions as changing but as static. So a revolution in Venezuela can create a revolution in Ecuador , in Brazil etc etc and in that path we should work.

Also socialism in one country can be proved catastrophic if put together with the stage theory as it has been proven in history through China, Germany etc. I will remind you that in China an opportunity for revolution was lost in 1927 due to this Menshevik theory that Stalin had. Also the situation in todays Nepal where the Permanent Revolution is neglected to the theory of the stages we see how an opportuniry of constructing socialism is lost.
We need to put those ideas in the dust-bin of history.


Also lets not kid around. Trotsky knew that a revolution is a product of the material conditions and it takes it into account in the Permanent Revolution .

[Dros]

Look there are countries though with similar objective conditions. I know what socialism in one country means and I don't agree with it (some Trots have no idea what it means)
The domino effect is not a wrong theory, because a revolution can happen lets say in Venezuela and like a "domino" it spreads to countries with similar objective conditions(the whole of south america , etc)

But it doesn't happen. And I don't think you're ever going to see a revolution spread like that because revolutionary situations rarely occur in congruent areas.


Socialism in one country is anti-dialectic in one sense. In the sense that it does not see the objective conditions as changing but as static.

How is that? In fact, quite the opposite is true. Socialism in One Country is the only theory on this issue that does see objective conditions as changing.


So a revolution in Venezuela can create a revolution in Ecuador , in Brazil etc etc and in that path we should work.

It doesn't happen because there is no reason why there would be revolutionary situations in all of these countries simultaneously.


Also socialism in one country can be proved catastrophic if put together with the stage theory as it has been proven in history through China, Germany etc.

1.) Why is that?
2.) What do you mean by two stage theory? (that term is used so often to describe different things).


Also the situation in todays Nepal where the Permanent Revolution is neglected to the theory of the stages we see how an opportuniry of constructing socialism is lost.

I agree here. But that's not due to Socialism in One Country but to flat out revisionist ideas in the party leadership.


Also lets not kid around. Trotsky knew that a revolution is a product of the material conditions and it takes it into account in the Permanent Revolution.

He said that. But his theories are profoundly anti-materialist.

[OI OI OI]

But it doesn't happen. And I don't think you're ever going to see a revolution spread like that because revolutionary situations rarely occur in congruent areas.

What?? When a revolution was in Germany and unfortunately failed that was a revolution that happened in neighboring areas. Germany-Russia




How is that? In fact, quite the opposite is true. Socialism in One Country is the only theory on this issue that does see objective conditions as changing.

No. It is a mockery of dialectics . It says that socialism can happen in one country (which is impossible because socialism needs to have a greater development of production than capitalism and it cannot happen in one country because ANY given country does not have adequate resources for that) and then when objective conditions because ripe then a revolution can happen in another country (socialism in two countries:rolleyes:) and then in another , and another. It sees history moving as a straight line .
Sometimes 20 years seem like 24 hours and sometimes 20 years can only be summed up in 24 hours paraphrasing Engels. The progress of history is a dialectical one. Therefore we can understand the dialectical relationship between countries and how dialecticaly the are affect eachother. A revolution in Russia forced the German proletariat to speed up their revolutionary conclusion and abandon Katskyism (class collaborationism) .

The material conditions of South America are ripe of revolution. In Every country. The objective factor exists. The subjective factor(the revolutionary party) exists (even as just a nucleus). Therefore a revolution in any country in South america can dialectically change the situation in any other South american country from a pre-revolutionary one to a revolutionary one. Thats why Trotsky's theory is dialectic because it takes into account the interelation between the proletariat of different countries and how a revolution in one country creates a revolutionary situation in another country. Stalin's theory does not take that into account therefore it views history as moving in a straight line therefore it is anti-dialectic therefore it is wrong. (I hope Roza does not see this )




It doesn't happen because there is no reason why there would be revolutionary situations in all of these countries simultaneously.

A pre-revolutionary situation exists in Venezuela. IF a revolution happens there taking into account that a pre-revolutionary situation exists in most other south american countries , the Venezuelan revolution can change the course of events in other countries by dialecticaly interacting with the conditions of other countries and therefore creating a revolutionary situation in most countries of south America. If the revolution in those countries is successfull at this level will depend on the subjective factor which is the revolutionary party and this is why trotkyists build internationals :)




1.) Why is that?
2.) What do you mean by two stage theory? (that term is used so often to describe different things).


1) Degeneration of the workers state if left isolated
2) Mostly I mean that
-" Hey we can't have a socialist revolution in Nepal because it is a backwards country. We need to bring the capitalist revolution first. Therefore we will let the progressive(:lol::lol:) bourgeois make the capitalist revolution first and we'll sit around and do nothing!"

Forgeting of course that the bourgeoisie in backwards countries is tied t foreign capital and therefore is not progressive any more so the workers need to carry out the "capitalist revolution" themselves! What was applied in Russia for Marx's sake! C'mon now . You don't find this hipocritical ? They are calling themselves Bolsheviks but they are only a caricature of Bolshevism , they call themselves Marxist but still a caricature. They are pathetic.

Also this example:

-"Hey we cannot have a workers revolution in China (because it is 1927 and China was a backwards country then) , therefore we have to ally ourselves with the "progressive" Kuomintang and get slaughtered"

These are some examples .There are more unfortunately.



I agree here. But that's not due to Socialism in One Country but to flat out revisionist ideas in the party leadership.
It's not then the Stage theory ? Are you kidding me ?
What you need to flag out is the revisionist idea of socialism in one country and the stage theory which is Menshevik also!




He said that. But his theories are profoundly anti-materialist.

Proof. Give me examples and explain how each one of the is anti-materialist.

[Dros]

What?? When a revolution was in Germany and unfortunately failed that was a revolution that happened in neighboring areas. Germany-Russia

The point being, it failed.


It says that socialism can happen in one country (which is impossible because socialism needs to have a greater development of production than capitalism

I think you will find that this is dangerously close to Menshevism.


and it cannot happen in one country because ANY given country does not have adequate resources for that)

This argument makes no sense. First of all, a country does not imply a standard geographic area. China is quite different from the Vatican City in terms of size and resources. Socialism can and in fact has been built in China but probably could not be built in the Vatican City alone. Secondly, as you expand the area of any given surface of the globe, you also expand the demand for products as more population falls under your purview. So have more area does not necessarily increase the amount of resources you have at your disposal relative to the amount of products you have to provide.


It sees history moving as a straight line .

How?


Sometimes 20 years seem like 24 hours and sometimes 20 years can only be summed up in 24 hours paraphrasing Engels. The progress of history is a dialectical one. Therefore we can understand the dialectical relationship between countries and how dialecticaly the are affect eachother. A revolution in Russia forced the German proletariat to speed up their revolutionary conclusion and abandon Katskyism (class collaborationism) .

No. Because of WWI and the reparations being payed by Germany a revolutionary situation developed. Sadly, there wasn't a Marxist-Leninist party capable of leading the revolution. And it failed. It is not an example of exporting the revolution. It is an example of a war causing revolutionary situations to develop in close countries in a relatively brief period of time.


The material conditions of South America are ripe of revolution.

Maybe...


In Every country. The objective factor exists.

No. This is an idealist view of historical development. The objective factors for a revolutionary situation entail a powerful crisis for the state and an increase in class antagonisms.


The subjective factor(the revolutionary party) exists (even as just a nucleus).

No. There are only a few revolutionary parties in South America. Two or three. There's one in Columbia and it's quite weak and there's one in Argentina. In Peru there's the Shining Path but they're almost all dead.


Therefore a revolution in any country in South america can dialectically change the situation in any other South american country from a pre-revolutionary one to a revolutionary one.

No. It can't. This is an assertion based on no analysis and disproved by history.


Thats why Trotsky's theory is dialectic because it takes into account the interelation between the proletariat of different countries and how a revolution in one country creates a revolutionary situation in another country.

This has failed every single time. And the reason is because the theory is profoundly anti-materialist and not even really dialectical.


Stalin's theory does not take that into account therefore it views history as moving in a straight line therefore it is anti-dialectic therefore it is wrong. (I hope Roza does not see this )

:lol:

No it does not. Stalin's theory is the only theory that understands the nature of capitalist development as profoundly nonlinear and uneven.


A pre-revolutionary situation exists in Venezuela.

How is that?!

What exists in Venezuela is a populist left bourgeois democrat.


IF a revolution happens there taking into account that a pre-revolutionary situation exists in most other south american countries , the Venezuelan revolution can change the course of events in other countries by dialecticaly interacting with the conditions of other countries and therefore creating a revolutionary situation in most countries of south America. If the revolution in those countries is successfull at this level will depend on the subjective factor which is the revolutionary party and this is why trotkyists build internationals

This is a pleasant dream with no basis in any reality. 1.) Revolutions do not spread. You've never supported the argument that a revolution in one country makes the Proletariat in another country more revolutionary. You've simply stated that there's a dialectical relationship. 2.) You've never shown there to be a revolutionary situation in any South American country. 3.) There is a stark lack of real revolutionary leadership in South America.


1) Degeneration of the workers state if left isolated

:lol::lol::lol:

1.) I don't believe in "worker's states".
2.) There's no reason that it will "degenerate" due to isolation.


2) Mostly I mean that
-" Hey we can't have a socialist revolution in Nepal because it is a backwards country. We need to bring the capitalist revolution first. Therefore we will let the progressive(:lol::lol:) bourgeois make the capitalist revolution first and we'll sit around and do nothing!"

Right... Stalin was a Bolshevik and took that very position.


Forgeting of course that the bourgeoisie in backwards countries is tied t foreign capital and therefore is not progressive any more so the workers need to carry out the "capitalist revolution" themselves! What was applied in Russia for Marx's sake! C'mon now .

:lol:

Haven't I already agreed with your view of the Nepali "Maoists"?


You don't find this hipocritical ? They are calling themselves Bolsheviks but they are only a caricature of Bolshevism , they call themselves Marxist but still a caricature. They are pathetic.

Revisionist leadership...


"Hey we cannot have a workers revolution in China (because it is 1927 and China was a backwards country then) , therefore we have to ally ourselves with the "progressive" Kuomintang and get slaughtered"

I'm sure that decision had nothing to do with imperialist domination...:rolleyes:


It's not then the Stage theory ? Are you kidding me ?
What you need to flag out is the revisionist idea of socialism in one country and the stage theory which is Menshevik also!

What and who are you talking about?



Proof. Give me examples and explain how each one of the is anti-materialist.

Which ones? I've already done this for the "exportation of the revolution" thingy.

[OI OI OI]

I will respond soon I m very busy right now
I just come on revleft for like 5 minutes a day and I have no time

[Hessian Peel]

As we all know, everything needs a beginning. This includes our revolution.

My point is, which country that does not have a socialist background, and is not currently leftist AT ALL, would you think is a good place to start our revolution?

I think only a handful of 1st world exploiter-nations have revolutionary potential, and even at they're nowhere near where they need to be. Speaking as an Irish communist I would regard the revolutionary potential of this country as zero. Diddly squat. The boat, bus and train were all missed in the late 60s/early 70s. Both states could have been destroyed, but as we know they weren't.

Maybe now with things taking a downturn in the supposedly invincible Celtic Tiger economy and with the cracks showing in the so-called peace process we'll see a revival. A new Republican Movement will be needed, one pursuing the correct political line and incorporating a whole myriad of smaller struggles.

Basically I believe capitalistic imperialism will be overturned in the 3rd world.

We're behind enemies lines here. :(

[OI OI OI]

The point being, it failed.

Can you not make the distinction between a subjective factor for a socialist revolution and an objective factor? The objective factor existed thats why there was a workers uprising in Germany. And there would be no workers uprising without the impetus of the Russian Revolution. So that proves that the counciousness of the proletairat are dialecticaly interconnected. A leap in the conciousness of the Russian proletariat translated into the Russian Revolution , helped the German proletariat to come into revolutionary conclusions as well.

That being said the existence of the objective factor proves Trotsky right . What was missing in Germany was the subjective factor, ie a revolutionary party with Bolshevik traditions. Unfortunately although Rosa Luxemburg was a great revolutionary she had great organizational flaws , so did the other leaders of the KPD. Also her arrest was devastating as there were no cadres to replace her(another mistake from Rosa) .




I think you will find that this is dangerously close to Menshevism.

I am not saying that socialism cannot happen in a backwards country!
On the contrary I am a strong proponent of the Permanent revolution which proves that a revolution can happen in a backwards country and there should be no alliances with the local bourgeoisie as it is not progressive.


I am saying that socialism cannot be achieved in one country, not a workers revolution. Simply because in order to achieve socialism you need higher productive forces than capitalism. And no country has the means of creating better productive forces than capitalism on its own . Not even a huge country like Russia(or the US).

Simply because that ALL the resources(natural,capital etc) do not exist in one country but are spread out in many countries. (To say it in a simple manner)



This argument makes no sense. First of all, a country does not imply a standard geographic area. China is quite different from the Vatican City in terms of size and resources. Socialism can and in fact has been built in China but probably could not be built in the Vatican City alone. Secondly, as you expand the area of any given surface of the globe, you also expand the demand for products as more population falls under your purview. So have more area does not necessarily increase the amount of resources you have at your disposal relative to the amount of products you have to provide.

Your taking my argument out of context!!!!!!!
But just to prove you wrong with a simple question, "Can China be energy self-sufficient"?
The answer is obviously NO , so socialism cannot be built in China alone because China does not have ALL the resources needed for creating greater productive forces than capitalism. But in an area like China combined with Russia and the rest of Europe, you are able to build socialism.


How?

Because socialism in one country cannot understand the dialectical relationship between the proletariat of different countries. Duh!


How is that?!

What exists in Venezuela is a populist left bourgeois democrat.

You se the tree but you miss the forest just like a "marxist" would say that no revolutionary situation existed in Russia in early 1917 . In Venezuela we see huge leaps in the conciousness of the working class and a thirst for revolutionary ideas. The situation amongst the people of Venezuela is far advanced than the situation in any other country and we can safely describe it as a pre-revolutionary situation. The proletariat will as usual try all its options , lose the illusions on Chavez and socialism of the 21st century(which is a joke) , and move to revolutionary conclusions very fast.
the marxist groups that cannot see it are simply blind.


This is a pleasant dream with no basis in any reality. 1.) Revolutions do not spread. You've never supported the argument that a revolution in one country makes the Proletariat in another country more revolutionary. You've simply stated that there's a dialectical relationship.

I wasn't that clear on my previous posts but I got into more detail on that in this post.



2.) You've never shown there to be a revolutionary situation in any South American country.

I never stated that. I simply argued that a pre-revolutionary situation exists in Venezuela and now I add Bolivia. That could lead to a revolutionary situation in those countries.


3.) There is a stark lack of real revolutionary leadership in South America.

We have different subjective opinions on what is a real marxist leadership. I personaly see as a potential leaderhip of the movement a Trotskyist party(being a Trotskyist) , you see a Maoist or Stalinist "non revisionist" party.
With the gains made from the IMT in Venezuela in the last 6 years I am certain that in Venezuela at least the subjective factor exists.


1.) I don't believe in "worker's states".

So what is a state just after the revolution and until socialism ? If not a workers state...


2.) There's no reason that it will "degenerate" due to isolation.

There are a lot of reasons. The main one being the effect of the isolation to the economy. More scarcity=more degeneration and less workers democracy for obvious reasons.



Right... Stalin was a Bolshevik and took that very position.

So you mean that alliances with the bourgeoisie in a backwards country in order to establish a capitalist revolution is a Bolshevik position?
Wow! Then You probably never heard the polemics of Lenin against the Mensheviks who had exactly the same position with what you describe as Bolshevik. Lenin always believed in class independence and no alliances with the bourgeoisie. In a backwards country the bourgeoisie is never revolutionary as it is tied in foreign capital and local semi-feudalism. Lenin always argued that the workers should carry out the capitalist revolution with no alliances with the bourgeoisie. The Stage Theory WANTS alliances with the bourgeoisie. So it is clearly ajnti-Bolshevik .
Therefore Stalin was not a Bolshevik .




Haven't I already agreed with your view of the Nepali "Maoists"?


The Nepali Maoists are applying Stalin's Stage theory. So in you books they should be all good!



Revisionist leadership..

I am talking about the stalinists in general.


I'm sure that decision had nothing to do with imperialist domination...http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif
Allying with the Kuomintang in a common front against the bourgeoisie is justified because of imperialist domination? There should never be alliances between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in no occasion as the bourgeoisie is clearly not progressive in any situation. The proletariat alone with an alliance with the peasantry and layers of the petit bourgeoisie should fight imperialism , autocracy (whatever you name it) but always reserving its class independence. Just like Lenin never relied on the Cadets, we as Marxist-Leninists should never rely on the bourgeoisie.



What and who are you talking about?

I am saying that the Stage Theory is a Menshevik theory( thinking that there is a progressive bourgeoisie and that the proletariat should go under their wing because only them can complete the capitalist revolution).

Socialism in One country is vulgar Marxism . It is pure revisionism.


Which ones? I've already done this for the "exportation of the revolution" thingy.

Well I proved you wrong about that one.
I hope you can admit it.