Is there a historical precedent for multiple communist revolutions all occurring simultaneously across the globe all in...

Sounds magical fam

But that's just Europe. Substantial yes but a far cry from the kind of world wide revolution communism calls for.

What circumstances would trigger literally all of humanity to unite in such a way?

Imminent extinction

What good would a communist revolution do at that point?

I guess it requires a chance of reversal

Nope. It's like trying to build complex thing without blueprints, or win a war without using a map (or officers - Vanguard).

You can't always wing it.

Practically all the industry at the time was Europe (1848), or Europe and US (post-WWI).

For all intents and purposes it was civilized world.

So at this point we still have to wait until Africa and South America industrialise?

What are you talking about?

You equivocated industry with the (civilized) world. Thus a world wide revolution would require the entire world to be industrialized. Africa is still very rural.

Why? As long as revolution takes over core industrial centres, the rest will follow.

If your original excuse for the post world war I revolutions being restricted to Europe was because only europe was industrialized, why should it be any different this time around?

What "excuse"?

By any chance, are you arguing with me about something?

I repeat: I don't understand what are you trying to say or what you are talking about. It's like half of your posts gets chewed off.

Why you do you think it should be different? In what context? Why "should"?

And when did we even start talking about new revolution? If that's what is going on here.

You're saying revolution only occurred in the industrialized parts of the world, thus it was a "world" revolution.

Thus a "world" revolution would only occur today in parts of the world where there industry.

How/why would sustinence farmers in Africa participate in this "world" revolution then?

Does a world revolution only mean the industrialized parts revolt?

No. I didn't claim either of this.

Nor this.

Go away, crazy user. And bother me no more.

No, it means that DoP will have to be a thing for a certain amount of time.

isolated revolution on the periphery is guaranteed to fail, isolated revolution in a center of capitalism? that has bog potential

If america elected a radical socialist (with the express goal of replacing capitalism) government (substantial enough control to not get filibustered by the minority party), I think it could have a very good chance of succeeding

That's how I read it as well tbh

Nope. And it never will happen.

What were you reading?

The question was if there were massive simultaneous uprisings in different regions.

I said - yes. For all intents and purposes - it happened. Twice, if you consider 1848 to be "communist" (because people are dumb). Post-WWII could be blamed on Soviet agents.

I never said either was "the world revolution". Simply clarified, that if either of those would've succeeded, they would've been good enough for the purpose taking over the rest of the world: it would've been a piece of cake since most the world was the colonies of European states - extremely dependant on Europe and (except US by WWI) without the means to produce modern technologies.

Then user pulls some nonsense about industrialization in Africa being necessary. What the actual fuck?

No, it means revolutionary regions will be stuck in the transition (not socialism) until the revolution spreads across the rest of the world.

This.

Considering the degree to which modern nations are tied together by globalized capitalism and communications technology, any major capitalist crisis would spread rapidly across the entire planet, and incite people to revolt in the name of socialism (or fascism).

Plus if one politically significant nation experiences a successful revolution, the whole world will be watching and taking note.