Regional Proletarian Revolution: What to do without world following?

[Sabot Cat]

It was a long and bloody conflict, but a rag-tag bunch of anti-capitalist revolutionary forces of the working class in an average region of the world have seized their factories, offices and other workplaces from the clutches of the bourgeoisie. The conventional armed forces have been bested and their equipment seized, although there is likely going to be irregular attacks from reactionary forces. However, the revolution failed to inspire others even in bordering countries because the crisis that triggered it was localized, and maximal international pressure will likely be applied against the proletariat of this region.

Now, socialism in one country is often justly critiqued because that nation will still be a cog in the greater capitalist system. Socialism is a necessarily international mode of production, which means that the proletariat of this region cannot establish it there.

However, the working class of this country can't very well write off this hard-won war as a complete loss, or kindly hand back the means of production and hope for better luck next time. So what should they do, specifically, to maintain the gains of the regional proletarian revolution?

[tuwix]

Nothing, to be honest.

An attempt to normalize affairs with capitalist countries would demand a creation of en elite who will definitely destroy a class power in region... Then nothing can be really done.

[Sabot Cat]

Nothing, to be honest.

An attempt to normalize affairs with capitalist countries would demand a creation of en elite who will definitely destroy a class power in region... Then nothing can be really done.

So, they should just give up? And how? Is there a way to minimize their losses?

There has to be a stopgap solution they can have in place until their comrades around the world join them.

[ckaihatsu]

If it's really in a 'holding pattern' for a sustained period of time, perhaps it could be thought of as the world's 'best charity', or something like that, so as to garner increasing and expanding sympathy from all over the world on a continuing basis.

Instead of slipping *backward* into fixed domestic borders and normalized relations with capitalist nation-states, it could look for more-modest nominal *growth* through lesser-than-large-scale, less-formal transactions with any and all sympathetic parties that would extend favorable terms to the unsteady revolution, wherever it might be in space and time.

We might see this as an ongoing 'economic voting', if a more-decisive world *political* overthrow of the bourgeoisie was less-than-forthcoming.

Historically consider how global public opinion responded to the U.S.' 9/11 in 2001, or, arguably, to the earthquake in Haiti in 2010. (Meaning that if an event of world-historical magnitude like a partial revolution happened over a fairly large local region, it could be seen by broader opinion as a *humanitarian* situation, if conditions of stalling prevailed.)

[Sabot Cat]

That's an interesting idea. So if I'm understanding correctly, they wouldn't engage the world as a nation-state, but as an international political-economic organization which currently encompasses the territory held and is supported by a network of sympathetic donors.

However, it raises questions about the internal economy of the territory. Should they use currency? Who should be the beneficiaries of these donations? Should there be an internal market? How should it all be administrated?

[Creative Destruction]

So, they should just give up? And how? Is there a way to minimize their losses?

There has to be a stopgap solution they can have in place until their comrades around the world join them.

Not necessarily give up. They keep defending themselves until perhaps a critical mass can be reached. But if they can't, it would probably end up like the Paris Commune.

These things, though, take a lot of push and pull. The capitalist class wasn't established in one revolution. It took the course of several decades and a few civil wars/revolutions for capitalism to be established in Europe. It's just, unfortunately, the working class hasn't been as resilient, for whatever reason, so we have almost a 100 year gap between the last time there was a worker's revolution and now.

You get knocked off the horse, but get back in the saddle if you want to get anywhere.

[Creative Destruction]

That's an interesting idea. So if I'm understanding correctly, they wouldn't engage the world as a nation-state, but as an international political-economic organization which currently encompasses the territory held and is supported by a network of sympathetic donors.

However, it raises questions about the internal economy of the territory. Should they use currency? Who should be the beneficiaries of these donations? Should there be an internal market? How should it all be administrated?

Once the proletariat has appropriated political power, there needs to be some clear program or goals they need to implement to prepare for a socialist society. Marx proposed a plank in the Communist Manifesto, but some of these things need to be rethought as they've already come and gone (industrialization of agriculture, etc.) This is really the work of the revolutionary workers, though.

[Sabot Cat]

Not necessarily give up. They keep defending themselves until perhaps a critical mass can be reached.

What are the best strategies for defense? What kind of organizational methods make for a resilient revolutionary working class?

Once the proletariat has appropriated political power, there needs to be some clear program or goals they need to implement to prepare for a socialist society. Marx proposed a plank in the Communist Manifesto, but some of these things need to be rethought as they've already come and gone (industrialization of agriculture, etc.)

I think we should rethink them and figure them out, then.

This is really the work of the revolutionary workers, though.

Right, which hopefully includes us, I would think. I want to have ideas in mind that are well thought-out, deliberated over when we have the time, resources and clarity that comes from not being in the midst of a major revolution.

[ckaihatsu]

That's an interesting idea. So if I'm understanding correctly, they wouldn't engage the world as a nation-state, but as an international political-economic organization which currently encompasses the territory held and is supported by a network of sympathetic donors.

Thanks.

Here's from a recent post at another thread that kind of ties-in with this point....

[I]f the conditions in one particularly hot spot happen to be barricades in the streets and the kicking out of managers in all factories nearby, that's *most likely* not happening in just that one spot, worldwide. Conditions like that would probably result from more-generalized upheavals everywhere else, since the capitalist economy is near-fully-worldwide and well-integrated throughout.

Why only one particular country? Why in a focused tight cluster and not in more-*diffuse* patterns of factory takeovers on all continents, instead -- ? And why should we speak only of one 'snapshot' in time, and not of *evolving* conditions that are enlarging and spreading over several areas and maybe being repressed and shrinking in other locations -- ?

I'm seeing the conventional academic-type mindset here which tends to conform to linear and rigid constructions, while the world actually operates in more-complexified kinds of ways.

---

However, it raises questions about the internal economy of the territory. Should they use currency?

Here's from another recent post:

[I]'ve come to the determination that a post-capitalist social order *would* need the utility and flexibility of a money-like vehicle, but such could *not*, by definition, facilitate commodity-production:

[If] simple basics like ham and yogurt couldn't be readily produced by the communistic gift economy, and were 'scarce' in relation to actual mass demand, they *would* be considered 'luxury goods' in economic terms, and would be *discretionary* in terms of public consumption.

Such a situation would *encourage* liberated-labor -- such as it would be -- to 'step up' to supply its labor for the production of ham and yogurt, because the scarcity and mass demand would encourage others to put in their own labor to earn labor credits, to provide increasing rates of labor credits to those who would be able to produce the much-demanded ham and yogurt. (Note that the ham and yogurt goods themselves would never be 'bought' or 'sold', because the labor credits are only used in regard to labor-*hours* worked, and *not* for exchangeability with any goods, because that would be commodity production.)

This kind of liberated-production assumes that the means of production have been *liberated* and collectivized, so there wouldn't be any need for any kind of finance or capital-based 'ownership' there.

(See my blog entry.)

Also:


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram




---

Who should be the beneficiaries of these donations?

I suppose the nascent revolutionary social order would just have to collectively administer these funds as foreign currency reserves. The point wouldn't be to *grow* or *finance-with* these funds, necessarily, since such financial-type duties could possibly be at odds with more-direct revolutionary *political* efforts.

The funds could certainly be used for political propaganda purposes, and any 'emergency'-type uses, wherever the use of hard currency became absolutely necessary. Their steady accumulation would also serve as a kind of ongoing 'benchmark' of popular progress, measured by-the-dollar.


---

Should there be an internal market?

No, there should be nothing that resembles commodity-production in the least, so no 'market socialism', no revolutionary separatism, no communal-based syndicalism. Here's why:

[W]hat I'm hearing -- and please correct me on any misunderstanding here -- is that, no matter what the size, each commune would provide a direct distribution of its production *internally* to within its boundaries, while making certain goods available for exchanges *externally*, to other communes.

If this is the case then this is basically a patchwork *syndicalism*, and is not full communism. The existence of *any* exchanges, anywhere, implies an implicit *valuation* taking place, since communes could very well find themselves in competition with other ones, for the production of something for export. (One commune might be able to produce the thing for *less* in commensurate exchange, than another.)

Communism implies a full, unvarying 'direct distribution' so as to avoid any kind of exchanges whatsoever, so as to obviate exchange values entirely.

---

How should it all be administrated?

Here's from a model I developed, for your (the reader's) consideration:

Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property

Associated material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources have no quantifiable value -- are considered as attachments to the production process

labor [supply] -- Labor supply is selected and paid for with existing (or debt-based) labor credits

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily

[...]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

[Sabot Cat]

Thanks for your well thought-out response ckaihatsu. It pretty much answered every question I had or could think of, and it all seems theoretically sound too. Kudos.

[ckaihatsu]

Thanks for your well thought-out response ckaihastu. It pretty much answered every question I had or could think of, and it all seems theoretically sound too. Kudos.

Thanks, 'ppreciate that. It's what I was / have been going for.

Got any questions about how to spell my username correctly -- ?

= )

[Sabot Cat]

Thanks, 'ppreciate that. It's what I was / have been going for.

Got any questions about how to spell my username correctly -- ?

= )

Not when copying and pasting it is an option, no.