Exodus- Real revolution within our lives

[gla22]

Let's do a thought experiment of an exodus of radical leftwingers that would all go and live in a small top medium sized unstable country. It might take a few years but with a influx of 10,000 leftists to certain areas working cohesively for a period of 5 years the possibility of revolution could be huge. Concentrations of leftists have proved their value repeatedly in historical context and in contemporary examples. This sort of dedicated influx and infiltration could have a huge influence. I have the feeling that without more concentrated leftist sentiment revolution within our lives will be non-exsistent. What do the rest of the members of the board think regarding this?

[FreeFocus]

This sounds like something right-wing libertarians were trying to pull off with the Free State Project (not saying that to bash the idea, please don't interpret it that way). I think numerous problems arise with it, though. While it would be an effective way to provide a model for outside communities it seems, we would run the risk of isolating ourselves and descending into irrelevance it seems. In other words, by concentrating ourselves, would the model diffuse or would it dissipate?

Furthermore, by concentrating ourselves, we'd get subverted and attacked to no end, all at once. That being said, though, there's potential in the idea, and of course I could be wrong. There are historical models that suggest this idea can succeed, and there are also some that suggest it can't. I suppose it depends on implementation and the real-life validity of the model.

[professorchaos]

He's not saying we form our own state; the plan is to concentrate in an existing area.

[FreeFocus]

I wasn't suggesting that a state be formed either, and I didn't misinterpret what he was saying. The Free State Project I mentioned was trying to get 20,000 right-wing libertarians to move to a chosen state (New Hampshire, a few western states, etc were some of the candidates) to influence local politics and reduce the scope of government. I hope you didn't think I meant forming a separate country or something. :lol:

I'm interpreting what he said as a suggestion that leftists concentrate themselves in certain communities so as to exert maximum influence on them.

[gla22]

yeah. That we concentrate in an existing unstable state and that within 5 years we will have a leftist revolution. It seems that at a certain degree of concentration things really start happening at the local level and people get turned to the left by the social conditions and the mentality of the community. In the U.S
1. Current leftists are too isolated to make much progress except in certain outposts such as Eugene and Berkley
2. People in the U.S have a history of hating the radical left (McCarthyism ect.)
3. The material conditions in the U.S are not right for revolution.

There is certain prerequisites for leftist revolution:
1. Strong Political dissent
2. The proper material conditions

If the left concentrated in a country with these conditions we could have ourselves a revolution in less than a decade.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

A communist revolution is a global revolution. The concept of "countries" (aka nations aka states) is a no-factor with communism; the proletariat or working class spans all political boundaries.

The working class has been somewhat blinded to the fact that they share more in common with the working class of other nations then with the upper class within their own nation. Partially communication is responsible, esp. in areas that are primarily mono-lingual, and it is partially responsible to proximity, but the main reason is the phenomenon of "nationality"; a political tool developed long ago by political powers to maintain the status quo, and to influence popular opinion to fit their agendas (such is the case in many wars.)

The reality, however, is that the revolution is not a matter of nation vs. nation, but working class vs. the elite (no matter where they may be.) As long as there is a bourgeois presence anywhere, then the revolution is not over.

Of course we should support these revolutions such as you describe, but we cannot forget the rest of the world; including where you or I, or other potential revolutionaries may currently be located, no matter how unlikely a communist revolution seems any time in the foreseeable future in some places (that you or I, or anybody else may or may not reside.)

If a scenario as the one described took place, then the status quo would remain; even if the leftist radicals chose not to set/recognize a sovereign boundary, every other (imperialistic and capitalistic) nation would. The area affected would become as another Cuba; a socialist island among the sea of nations. Yes, there would be steps in the right direction, for that country, but as revolutionaries, we would be responsible for the big picture; global revolution.

I think perhaps what you are getting at is sort of an "avalanche" approach; we'll start the revolution here, and then neighbouring areas will see how good we have it and start their own, repeat until global communism has been achieved. However, if history has taught us one lesson, it is that the world does not work that way; if so, haven't there been enough attempts?

Sooner or later, (usually sooner), imperialistic and capitalist countries isolate these nations, and soon the concept of a "stateless society" (a concept that is not optional, but required when one speaks of communism), has been forgotten. Whether the futility has become apparent to the revolutionaries, or whether the need to protect and maintain what progress has been achieved, I don't know, but defense against counter-revolutions and/or invasions requires "drawing lines in the sand"; and a "we will protect our new way of life beyond this point" mentality; resulting in national boundaries being drawn.

Sometimes, as we are all aware, the imperialistic and capitalistic countries will not only rely on political and economic isolation, but outright war to quell revolutions before they escalate globally.

Lastly, there are also cases in history of people who use these opportunities to create their own faux revolutions to obtain and then maintain power for themselves; sometimes this happens within the original revolution (usually manifested as a counter-revolution), and sometimes this happens in a secondary revolution (such as the Khymer Rouge.) In either case, it ruins the big picture.

For these reasons (and probably countless others I have missed), a global revolution will not occur originating from one concentrated area. An "avalanche" theory for distributing the communist revolution makes as much sense as the "trickle down" economic theory for distributing wealth.

For a global revolution, it must be just that; global.

To concentrate these potential revolutionaries to one place would weaken the position of the revolution in any other areas.

I now step down from the soapbox.http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/1106.gif

[FreeFocus]

I agree with Sheep here. I guess I wasn't directly addressing gla22's idea of concentrating ourselves in a country; I was thinking more so along the lines of concentrating ourselves in particular communities/cities in order to effect change. But I'm of the opinion that "socialism in one country" fails. Big time. It might be even worse with this idea because leftists from around the world would be leaving other places to concentrate themselves, thereby weakening potential leftist gains in the countries they came from.

[freakazoid]

The Free State Project I mentioned was trying to get 20,000 right-wing libertarians to move to a chosen state (New Hampshire, a few western states, etc were some of the candidates) to influence local politics and reduce the scope of government.

Partly correct, only on a technicality, :p The idea was once there were at least 20,000 people signed up that they would then all move to the chosen state, New Hampshire, that way they could have enough time to get everything ready to move. A lot of people had a problem with the state New Hampshire because they felt that it was to heavily populated and they felt a state like Montana would be better suited. And the reason needed for a smaller population would be so that they could more easily affect local politics.


A communist revolution is a global revolution. The concept of "countries" (aka nations aka states) is a no-factor with communism; the proletariat or working class spans all political boundaries.

It has to start somewhere.


he area affected would become as another Cuba; a socialist island among the sea of nations.

The problem with that is Cuba is literally an island.


Yes, there would be steps in the right direction, for that country, but as revolutionaries, we would be responsible for the big picture; global revolution.

I think perhaps what you are getting at is sort of an "avalanche" approach; we'll start the revolution here, and then neighbouring areas will see how good we have it and start their own, repeat until global communism has been achieved. However, if history has taught us one lesson, it is that the world does not work that way; if so, haven't there been enough attempts?

I'm going to be using the US for my examples. If some type of leftist movement, be it through reformism, :rolleyes:, or through revolution, where to take place in some state, let's use Montana for the same reason as those in the Free State Project,
then I think it would spread to the other states. Because unlike Cuba, which is completely isolated by water, a state like Montana is not. It can influence the surrounding areas and end up turning into a countrywide revolution, and because Montana is up against the border with Canada that makes it even more likely to spread across to another country.

Dang I need to get back to work on my idea, almost branched off again. :)


Whether the futility has become apparent to the revolutionaries, or whether the need to protect and maintain what progress has been achieved, I don't know, but defense against counter-revolutions and/or invasions requires "drawing lines in the sand"; and a "we will protect our new way of life beyond this point" mentality; resulting in national boundaries being drawn.

Just because there are lines drawn in the sand doesn't all of a sudden turn it away from a stateless society, it can still operate as one. If needed we could still view everything without boundaries, just that this area, like say Montana, is safe for us to travel :D.


Sometimes, as we are all aware, the imperialistic and capitalistic countries will not only rely on political and economic isolation, but outright war to quell revolutions before they escalate globally.

No one said it would be easy.


Lastly, there are also cases in history of people who use these opportunities to create their own faux revolutions to obtain and then maintain power for themselves; sometimes this happens within the original revolution (usually manifested as a counter-revolution), and sometimes this happens in a secondary revolution (such as the Khymer Rouge.) In either case, it ruins the big picture.

This MUST be dealt with.


To concentrate these potential revolutionaries to one place would weaken the position of the revolution in any other areas.

Because it is really working spread out thin.

Can't wait to hear your response. Oh and... your an idiot, :D mwuahahahaha

[Plagueround]

The left would have to decide on a general position before consolidating together for a widespread movement, otherwise such a movement would be doomed to infighting. As for choosing Montana, I'm not sure 20,000 leftists would make the dent you would be hoping for in a state of 950,000+ people, mostly conservative.

But, as Freakazoid said:


It has to start somewhere.

And


No one said it would be easy.

[freakazoid]

The left would have to decide on a general position before consolidating together for a widespread movement, otherwise such a movement would be doomed to infighting.

Oh yeah, definitely would need to hammer out the details, and everyone would need to remember that we are all in this together, so solidarity people. NO sectarianism among leftists! Wouldn't want to have a repeat of Spain, :(.


As for choosing Montana, I'm not sure 20,000 leftists would make the dent you would be hoping for in a state of 950,000+ people, mostly conservative.

Dang, that is less than I thought. The point of the 20,000 was only as a way to set a loose date to act. Of course it's not like once 20,000 is reached we would be like, "None shall pass." :lol:
I looked up population statistics, http://www.ceic.commerce.state.mt.us/EstimatesPlacePop.asp In certain areas 20,000 would easily make a HUGE dent. Seeing as how some counties only have less than 10,000 people. 35 counties have less than 10,000 people out of 55 counties, of course I might of missed counted but it would be close then. And there are a few more counties that would be added if you were to go up to 15,000 and just a couple more if up to 20,000. So basically lots of places to choose from, :D And with numbers like that the conservatives wouldn't be much of a problem. And I'm sure we could even get a lot to our side. Lots of farmland which mean farmers. Plus a lot of distrust for big government, so I'm sure anarchism would be the best method of attracting them to our side.