The USA is the most suitable country for socialism. Communism will come there sooner than in other countries

Is he right?

America used to have a huge somewhat radical labor movement. It does not have one now.

Yes, because it has one crucial thing that no other country has.
Immunity from US invasion.

I always heard that Engels thought Britain would be the key to global socialism.

It also used to have a pretty strong industrial capacity as well, but it exported most of that.
Big issue with implementing a "socialism in one country" type scenario in the us is it would require either massive investment in industry or rely on trade, which correspondly would subject it to being choked off by capitalist nations. Thus, while us revolution would be beneficial to ending imperialism and setting the stage for worldwide revolution, it cannot be an "end all be all", in and of itself

Sayid Qutb or some other Islamist argued that because America was so materialistic that nothing would be easier then for America to go over to communism once capitalism quit delivering the goods.

American culture has destroyed all trace of pre-capitalist heritage through its overbearing but innovative business culture and extreme commodity fetishism.

I don't necessarily believe "its habeening XDDDD" yet but I think there are upsides in its favor.

Yes, sorry Turd Worldists. It's lack of feudal history helps.

What if we has Socialism in Fifty States and the USSA shifted gears and used the imperialist infrastructure to export communism to the rest of the world?

kek

The American imperialist machine isn't independent, it depends on cooperation with its many allies and proxies around the world like the Israelis, Saudis, British, Germans, Japanese, South Koreans, Pakistanis, etc. They would all abandon them as soon as it went commie and America's global influence would vanish.

Would it be justified for a socialist America to fire its nukes against the imperialist countries?

No.

Obviously not. Social progress doesn't work like this.
The Hegemon of one formation will become the pariah of the next. Because the previous formation works for it so good, that they will cling to it until maximum decay.
Roman Empire was the greatest slavery power, but at feudalism it failed completely. Holy Roman Empire and Poland was the greatest feudal states, but at absolutism it failed. Spain, France and Russia were the greatest absolute powers, but they didn't fare well at constitutionalism.

China will be like Britain in socialism, being able to reform without much fuss, adopting good stuff that other countries will bleed for.

Socialism in one country is as real as capitalism in one country - meaning it is.

Precisely.

Meaning it's not.

Capitalism started in very few countries: Merchant republics, and in full swing in Britain and Lowlands.

Many countries used slavery and feudalism until very recently

We could industrialize with complete automation after we become communist, I'll help.

Considering China, they might just invade for taking down their foxconn factories.
Plus the porky that will flee to some liberal shithole will send their paramilitary and mercs.

… and then it expanded.


… that is, until capitalism wiped them out.

This is no accident: capital must expand at any cost, it cannot coexist with any other mode of production, including communism.

It factually coexisted with other modes of production for around 500 years somehow…

It factually conquered the world and wiped them out at an increasingly fast rate.

Man people really don't get what a huge difference there is between current nuclear weapons and the ones dropped on Japan. One bomb would be enough to destroy a country just by virtue of the area it would cover in fallout. The ecological ramifications would be disastrous for everyone. The real question is how to stop imperialist countries from deploying nukes when communism seems unstoppable otherwise.

SOON

This.

Well, mathmatically, there are different sizes of infinitude, meaning "never" can happen before "never". So I guess he's right.

I unironically predict that the United States is going to be where the revolution starts, for three reasons. One, it's really big and decentralized; this has given birth to a highway system that's incredibly important to the country as well as many suburbs empowered by the resources the highway brings in. This has given birth to a ludicrously important trucking industry, which is going to lead to a gigantic amount of people losing their jobs and depriving them and their families of their livelihoods in a few years due to automation. That means those people are going to be mad as hell and will have very little to lose. Two, though Capital is the true global hegemon the United States has played a great role in ensuring Capital's dominance. Were the United States to go rogue, Capital would not only be robbed of a lot of its geopolitical power but that power would be able to turned right back at it. Thirdly, it's really big and resource-rich. It's theoretically possible to run an autarky in the US if necessary; it would not be possible to do so in most other territories governed by a state of such a body.

I mean, it's theoretically possible that the Third Worldists are right and those lot will rise up to stop delivering exports of raw mats which would sink the thing, or that the elites in the CCP are legitimate geniuses who are actually going to create the conditions for communism on their own, but I think most other hypotheses besides those two and my own are probably terrible.

He was but cold war propaganda turned them into the ultimate class cucks.

REED DID NOTHING WRONG: THE MINUTEMEN DESERVED IT.

look at this idiot and laugh

I don't see why socialism couldn't start small in one or a few countries and then precede to wipe capitalism using the same logic. That was precisely what the capitalists were afraid would happen during the Cold War which started in 1917 and not 1947 or 1945 or whatever the capitalists want you to think

The revolution can and it must start in one or a few countries. It will start by abolishing as much property as it can in these few countries.

But, and this a huge difference from when capitalism was born, we all live now in one single, global society: the social division of labour encompasses the whole world, and there is no going back to autarky without reducing drastically the productive forces below the capitalist level.

So abolishing property and advancing toward socialism in the first few countries must go hand-in-hand with spreading the revolution, otherwise any so-called progress will be meaningless.

Socialism is a type of society. It will not exist before it takes down the society it's born in: global capitalism.

That's what they were afraid after October and WWI indeed, but by the end of the 1920's they could sleep safe and sound: we had lost this opportunity to spread the revolution, and the USSR's dictatorship of the proletariat had been crushed by the counter-revolution.

I guess the spread of socialism to 1/3 of the world after WWII didn't count then. I guess the post-WWII red scares had nothing to do with the prospect that socialism might expand even further.

There was no socialism in the USSR. It wasn't even a dictatorship of the proletariat by the end of the 1920's for God's sake.

Indeed: it had everything to do with the prospect that the imperialist power that was Russia might expand even further.