Can we address the viewpoints that revolution can only happen in the third world or that revolution can only happen in the first world? The former passes itself off as an analysis of the material conditions of our time and the latter seems to be misguided dogmatism to Marx. In reality Marx didn't say that communist revolution can only happen in the first world. Marx said that revolutions would most likely happen in first world countries like England and Germany at the time, because they were at the forefront of capitalist development (ie., the first world was the only actually capitalist world) and therefore were facing the worst of capitalism at that time. This doesn't mean "revolution can only happen in the first world" (or only could at that time) and it also doesn't mean "revolution can only happen where the contradictions of capitalism are the worst."
To quote Marx on the subject: "We must give a direct warning against those hypocritical friends who declare their agreement with the principle, but who are doubtful of it's feasibility because the world is not yet ripe for it. They have no intention of bringing this ripeness about, but prefer rather to revert, in this depraved earthly existence to man's general fate of depravity."
TL;DR Both sides misrepresent Marx and set revolutionary movements back
Global doesn't mean overnight. The revolution will be long.
Indeed, but in order to carry it on the global stage when "it starts", we need to be ready. That is: we need to build an international party and an international State right now. Not in the first world or the third world, but in both.
Matthew Murphy
assumptions about the revolution being overnight spontaneous insurrection are really bad praxis, I agree. Too many movements have failed trying to replicate things like the October Revolution in conditions that don't support it.
I disagree with your saying that there needs to be an international party, but I'm busy now so I'll respond to that later
Zachary Scott
A national party would pave the way to its submission to the national interest of the country where the proletariat first succeeded in taking power. That's precisely what happened after October.
Jack Barnes
The third world is even more accepting of the pains of capitalism than the first.
Third world workers are even more willing to accept harsh conditions and low pay, even less likely to be educated on their rights, more willing to turn on their fellow workers, more open to nationalism/racism/religion and selling out for wealth, and have little chance to build a successful socialist movement.
Ryder Miller
NT just curious, are you a part of or sympathetic to any Maoist group?
This. I find it really hard to argue against this point.
Camden Martin
On the contrary, it's pretty simple to argue against this "point":
Bentley Bennett
First, what kind of revolution do you have on mind? Revolutions mostly happen in places where life is not good, so thirld world is closer to revolution than first, however successful communist revolution require party with intelligent people following decent ideology, so revolution in first world/ post soviet countries have bigger chance of success. Also, we need to dissolve the EU and start preparing ourselves, good timing is always during the economic crisis.
Grayson Adams
How exactly do you intend to achieve such a thing?
Xavier Perry
not an argument
Mason King
checked If I would know the answer, I would not be on Holla Forums but preparing my own bolshevik party.
I guess the best chances will be when workers in germany start striking.
Gabriel Torres
I know, that's why I answered with a "no".
Elijah Garcia
You mean that it would require a successful seizing of power in Germany (October-like) in order to dissolve the EU? But then it would be outright class war, why bother about this bourgeois structure specifically? I mean, Germany would be expelled from the EU anyway.
James Ortiz
I don't believe there can be EU without germany. They have strongest economy in the EU and provide workers in "less fortunate" countries with hope that their situation will be same in some time.
William Mitchell
I understand but, given you have a "Bolshevik Germany", why bother about the UE?
Zachary Gutierrez
Do you mean "the industrialized word" or "the post-industrialized world?"
Samuel Smith
A revolution can only happen in the third world. A revolution can only succeed in the first world.
Robert Richardson
Right. A Bolshevik Germany would suddenly justify the EU!
Adrian Lee
woohoo comrade, this thought never stumbled to my mind, I think I'll have wet dream tonight. But I think I do not understand your question, do you understand that EU laws are effectively prohibiting nationalizing of borgerious's properties?
Jordan Flores
This is not specific to the EU. The national states within it prohibit it as well, it is their role as bourgeois states.
My point is: the German federal republic, the United kingdom, the Italian republic, etc., will be effectively demolished during the revolution, so of course the EU will share this fate, but why target the EU specifically?
Joshua Roberts
The US needs to be in a state of civil war before a world revolution could ever occur. If the US military were distracted long enough, then it couldn't be used to support American puppets and put down "terrorist" uprisings. It doesn't even have to be leftists fighting the government, it could just be a myriad of separatists and right wing fringe. We already know they aren't averse to taking over land to prove a point.
Even this is probably too much to hope for, tho.
Jaxon Hill
We also know they never managed to handle Iraq or Afghanistan. The capacities of the US army are quite overestimated tbh.
Ian Wood
I think I didn't express myself clearly enough.
There need to be revolution in each state separately. If some group would try to overthrow EU parliament directly, people would freak out too much and viola, new world war is here.
Also, sure, bourgeois states are defending private property, but if I'd want to make revolution in my county, I know who exactly do I need to kill in order to recreate state.
And If I'd want to overthrow my state while being member of EU, well, there would be tremendous consequences, and instead of world war my country could be easily divided between neighbouring states.
Kayden Bell
I'm not a part of a group, considering there aren't any near me (although I've been working on getting in touch with some local socialists, if I can find any.) As far as sympathies go, in the US I'm a fan of the various Red Guards and Serve The People organizations around and know a good deal of people involved with them in various places. Outside of the US is a much longer list :P
Considering there are some pretty damn popular socialist movements in the third world I don't think that's correct. That's a very first world chauvinist position to take.
