This thread is permanently archived
Revolution: When, where, how?
| Nowadays government has to much control over lifes of their citizens. As one anonimous russian once said "Welcome to the cybergulag".
Every "contra" movement is overwatched. Every serious "contra" movement is taking down quickly.
| >>933982 Situation can be compared to progressed cold war than war. Also it should have be better used word armed conflict. Also define "world", because some african countries are for example neutral. Also west countries didn't join conflict, but only gived economical sanctions and supported ukraine by war technologies/money. These activies aren't new, take in mind for example conflicts in Vietnam, Korea, some civil wars etc.
| Just is here difference that Russia did decided to do activity directly. Probably could suppose that Europe won't do any activities, and that Ukraine will give up, which didn't happen. And Russian government is probably surprised that they decided to defend. Conflict now is little bit "freezen", now is situation more compared to usage war when no side is progressing, or really slowly. And is now difficult to imagine that Ukraine or Russia would do anything game-changing now.
| This conflict is somehow also "positive". For example China can see that "blitzkrieg" is not most likely effective way of fighting with any country. Any country can be easily attacked, but difficulty to control. And is now probably unlikely that would going to try take control over Taiwan. Also this conflict is paradoxically supporting piece in Europe. (It's maybe hypocritical, but Russia really don't have any potential to cause WW3, and is addicted on other countries now)
| Putinism ideology is maybe moving to times of WW conflicts, but all countries are now going by way of diplomacy. Only real threat is usage of nuclear weapons, but it is unlikely that would any side decide to use them. I see marxism theories as trash, (only marxism economy are making sense but together with other economic models.) Countries with highest revolutionary potential are probably these what are strongly decided again something and they want change it.
| But revolution in developed countries is very unlikely. (Theoretically it is possible by hybrid war - mainly by "information war"), but i'm not aware about that it would be really effective. Also these activities are monitored by national securities of countries. There is my view to recent developments
polit: stable, libright oriented
economic: stagflation
social: stable (but getting over economical problems)
tech: rising (as always)
| >>1da03a Russia doesn't look like they're going to be making headway anytime soon, but given time, maybe after winter, to train the mobilized units and adapt them to Ukrainian tactics, they might get on equal footing.
Agreed that revolution doesn't look like a possibility, but it feels like a societal collapse is oncoming. Something *bad* is going to happen, everybody feels it, but nobody knows what it's going to be. Human society needs a reset, and we haven't had one in a while.
| Feel like the question assumes some things that are no longer. Desire has been captured by capital pretty well so even if there is revolutionary fervor it's immediately commercialized and made inept. See BLM, left wing populism and the rise and fall of trump.
As long as the majority of first world countries aren't starving and have an ample supply of onaholes revolution is a pretty infantile idea.
| >>934056
Maybe... maybe not. If we can hold out for another generation the political climate will be a lot different than how it is today, because the younger demographics overwhelmingly vote for more progressive ideas (North America, northern, western, central Europe). If only young peoples votes(ages 18 to 29) mattered today all these regions would be ruled by progressive political parties.
| Record many people in the ages 18 to 29 voted for more progressive ideas these last 6 years. On the other side, the silent generation (age 69 to 86) are much more likely to vote on conservative views. What's interesting is that the generation that followed the silent generation (baby boomers, those age 50 to 68) is substantially less likely to vote for conservative views.
| This means that there's likely gonna be a huge shift in the political climate in the western world once the silent generation dies off.
And it makes a lot of sense why this is happening. The young voters today are well aware that their future has been stolen from them. It wasn't long ago that we had a world where one person with a high school education could support a family of 5 comfortably. This was real. It was *normal.* It was stolen from you by right wing political parties.
| So no, I do not believe that a societal collapse is oncoming. As long as we can keep democraphy alive we'll have a brighter future ahead.
Young people today are the most educated demographic that has ever existed on this earth, and they are well aware that almost all of our collective problems here in the west are due to massive income inequality and poor wealth distribution. The rich are getting richer at the expense of every single one of us.
| So they have to vote progressive if they want a future, because right wing populism will continue to siphon wealth from the masses to the elite 1%, as it always have.
Right wing populism is literally killing us all. Climate change, the massive inflation(aka price gouging), our two most recent economic depressions, our massive income inequality, our poor wealth distrubition, even our declining health are all direct results of conservative political actions(or inactions).
| Revolution can also come in from the anti-state movements by means of just exploiting the inherent inneficiencies of the state or maybe a new technological breakthrough
| The increase of economical diferences comes from the managerial tendencies more present in our times, it is inherent to the state be it any wing of the political spectrum, the ring wing "populism" is a defanged animal that really doesnt achieves nothing more than more justification for more expansive.
| These are all the reasons why people feel our society is becoming unstable. The income inequality and wealth distrubition compared to only 30 or even 20 years ago is staggingly shocking.
In 1993 the richest person had a networth of $9 billion in todays money. The following year he had $8.5 billion. Compare that to Jeff Bezos $170 billion...
https://www.best-infographics.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/19/Top-10-Billionaires-Their-Wealth-Timeline-scaled.jpg
| Control* and taking in account that by any chanche this group achieves power it will be just as bad as the former in power.
| Also yeah ofcourse the economical gap and climate deterioration will get worse for it because they are shielded from the market corrections by state subsidies and just plain corporatist practices by the state, every regulation in this system is made from and for the regulators.
| CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,322% since 1978. CEOs were paid 351 times as much as a typical worker in 2020, yet we are generating more wealth than ever before in history.
So, you know. Tax the rich, raise the wages, focus on green energy, minimize pollution, make price gouging illegal, break up monopolies, make education free etc. These are all ideas that conservative parties tend to block in progress.
| Bruh, conservatives are just progresives driving at the speed limit, they cant conserve shit, these troubles are from the progresive nature of state power and these interests groups just redistribute the common joe money for his "own good" or some bullshit reason when in reality is for corpo bail out or war expenditure, everything else are the crumbs needed to keep everyone else anesthesied about this using bread an circuses
| >>933998
The russian government is owned by the russian oligarchy. Estate/Government in itself isn't the problem. The problem is the economic-political system, called "capitalism" which in the end is the absolute reign of the capitalist class over the working class. Bourgeois Democracy is fake democracy.
| >>>934240
>Tax the rich, raise the wages, focus on green energy, minimize pollution, make price gouging illegal, break up monopolies, make education free etc. These are all ideas that conservative parties tend to block in progress.
The problem is not only conservative parties to this. Also (or especially) liberal but even social democratic parties blocked such measurements and made neoliberal politics. The point were reforms could fix this shit lays probably beyond us right now.
| However, since I'm OP i emphazize my core questions:
Which countries do you think have currently the greatest revolutionary potential and which ones are helplessly fallen to the bourgeoisie?
| >>934270 South America is slowly putting socialists back in power and so far the US hasn't been trying to undermine it, at least not from what I've seen. Central Europe has potential, though the nature of it is more fascist. Eastern Europe has already fallen to fascism. India is too much of a mess for anything to change. Recent events have me keeping an eye on China. Australia is the one with the least potential, whether reform or revolution.
These are my quick observations for now
| You cant escape the iron law of oligarchy, it will cone that these socialists goverments will only become the new oligarchy, heck the veru concept comes from a guys observation of the german socialists parties of his time
| >>934295
Even thought socialist governments often failed so far (partially horribly), there is an important difference to non- or even more anti-socialist governments: They have a different claim that they can be measured with. I have no expectations from a pro-capitalist government, no matter if liberal or conservative. On the long therm, they always will pave the way for nationalism, imperialism or even fascism. It's just necessary in order to keep the status quo.
| >>934295
Beside that, I'm not advocating for socialists, which usually want to change the system through reforms. I don't believe in this anymore. What I'm talking about is a truly revolutionary movement that seeks to change things fundamentally. Yes revolutions are unpredictable and may turn out as something as bad or even worse than what they overthrew in the first place. But at some point people have nothing to loose anyways - and we are coming closer to this point again daily.
| >>934295
I would already be satisfied to see the oligarchy burn and suffer in the first place. What comes after them is a different story. I see a chance in it. Chances comes with risks. No one can say if things become better if they are changed, but everyone should understand that they'll never become better if things don't change.
| >>934474 Pretty words, but the majority of communist revolutions result in mass starvation followed by a hyper totalitarian state. The only one to come better off was Vietnam, and not by that much either. The chances of success is low, and the consequences of failure too much.
Granted, there was that one Latin American country that could've had things go well until the CIA destabilized it by installing a fascist puppet, but that's still an exception.
| Not that I would be opposed to it, mind. It would certainly shake up the hubris of the modern Romans that are we. I'm just saying your hope is better placed elsewhere. For starters, most revolutions target the central state, only to submit themselves to ambitious figures who had no qualms demolishing the pillars of a stable society. Congratulations, you've found a new master who has no problem treating you as the dog you are.
| I see more value to more 'local revolutions'. Worker's rights protests resulted in unions. Unions are socialist in nature, but the struggle that lead up to them weren't necessarily under the banner of a complete social/political overhaul. This can be done with other issues, like the global housing crisis slowly building up a movement trying to bring attention to it.
Don't unite men to chase after an unattainable ideal, we just need to let them know their rights and fight for them.
| Though if you still have a boner for revolution, seccessionism is an option. Would make more sense to separate if the rest of the nation doesn't agree with the region's way of life, pros being the new government doesn't have to worry too much about putting down dissenters (as revolutionary governments are wont to do) and would have an easier time managing and developing a smaller plot of land. If only the Cascadians and Texans weren't such pussies, unlike the Quebecers.
| >>934541
>but the majority of communist revolutions result in mass starvation
Majority of capitalist systems result in a divided class society that only can kept together by force and with irrational ideologies including nationalism, imperialism, and world wars.
So what now?
Overthrowing absolutism and feudalism was also good and necessary - even if if the former revolutionaries became the new oppressors. No one who's right in mind wants back the "god chosen" incest dynasties.
| >>934541
In other words: the risk of failing is generally inherent to any kind of change. It's not a specific issue of communism. How to fight assholes that do a lot of shit (and anti-communist powers were far from being innocent freedom fighters most of the time) without becoming an asshole doing bad stuff too? How to fight power without the usage power?
Also mass starvation is historically not specific to failed communist approaches. Mass starvation also occurred in capitalism.
| >>934583
>Don't unite men to chase after an unattainable ideal, we just need to let them know their rights and fight for them.
The problem is that people who are separated in national, religious, ethnic, racial or other made-up divisions are rather receptive for leaders that tell them "their" rights are exlusive rights as members of those divisions. And they can declare oppressing people from other divisions as their right. That's what's happening all the time.
| >>76ab95 You fight only to reintroduce the very things you hated. Mass starvation happens everywhere, yes, but the fact it's a common occurrence after a revolution points to something wrong, and that's because farmers were taxed for their crops like serfs, and anyone who refuses to contribute is a traitor to the state. This is feudalism, but under a new name. After just a generation, that trauma is passed down, and society completely suppressed their revolutionary potential.
| Also, you're forgetting that nations had a history of imperialism far before modern history. Capitalism isn't the cause, merely an extension of it, where the focus shifted from total to economical dominance. The root of the problem is elsewhere, and it's not something we can truly fix.
>>934752 So what, are you suggesting we remove the concept of 'rights'?
| I would say that China looks the best for potential revolutionary changes, but not really revolution since that already occurred.Everyone should read Lenin, especially what is to be done, and state and rev. Then look in to Guerilla warfare, I don't think it's impossible for revolution to occur in somewhere like the US.But central and southern america are making great strides in furthering the needs of workers. Someone mentioned local movements that is what venezuela is doing iirc
| Gbtfo commiebitch
| >>935409 *feudalizes your mouth*
*forces serfs to fuck your mouth for one day every week without pay*
| >>935060
I assume you speak of the mass starvation in the ukrainian soviet republic due to stalinists politics and/or in china due to maoist politics. Of course I agree that those politics were horribly wrong, but were they really an unavoidable result of communist and socialist ideas and revolution? I would say it was rather a perversion done by power hungry individuals and an elitistic bureaucrats. Lenin himself condemned this bureaucracy often and warned his comrades of stalin.
| Mao and Stalin were just too stupid to recognize what is going on. The only thing they were good at, was gaining power and securing their position. But while those kind of people always are a threat to revolutionary goals, they are ALWAYS a threat to people in this system. It is well known how far anti-communist forces are ready to go to fight anyone who they suspect to be against them. And those includes not only revolutionaries but also reformists, minorities and other countries.
| >>935096
I would also recommend "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" by Lenin. Even some statements are debatable, the core assumption is VERY up to date.
What do you think about russia? Is there a chance for communists to get back into power if Putins regime is loosing the war? From what I can tell so far the CPRF officially is pretty truceful towards the reactionist regime. They remind me of the cowardish "castle peace politics" by german socialists during WW1.
| >>935677 i think that social system what they have now, mobilisation etc. are pretty close to defination of communism, also economical transformations what they do now. Also they don't have human rights. So technically they in some form have it already.
This thread is permanently archived
| As the world is moving back to the times before the two last world wars and there is no revolutionary power on the stage makes me questioning if, when and where we should start to overthrow this rotten system? Should we wait until world war three? Which countries do you think have higher revolutionary potential and which ones are more likely dominated by reactionist forces? How do you classify the recent (polit/economic/social/tech) developments and what do you expect coming next?