Has a revolution ever happened when times were good and the Empire was at it's height? Seems intuitive that great change requires great sorrow to motivate that change. It's why ironically Britain might be the most likely anglo nation to radicalize given how fucked they are.
Well the key point here is that the break in the colonizing relation is what would cause the very bad years, and the point that the English working class had material interests in aligning with global imperialist capital and that their relative comfort was created via this extractive relationship with the world. Cut the colonizers off and they will eventually implode and the true class conflict will come to a head. Marx was barely starting to investigate in this direction when he passed, and Lenin continued his work to its logical end
Yes, the largest times of growth for socialist and communist parties after 1848 was during times of economic growth and expansion. If misery and poverty is what creates a self conscious working class then South Asia and Africa would be communist. Iraq would have become more communist after America's brutal invasion instead of more reactionary.
South Asia is predominantly socialist. There are strong socialist movements in Latin America and Africa as well. If not for imperialist interference and the collapse of the USSR most of these places would be communist.
Every Marxist-Leninist revolution has happened in poor colonized nations, none happened in rich core nations.
Poor and deteriorating conditions within a capitalist society is a prerequisite for revolution. It’s necessary but not sufficient, revolutionary consciousness and organized Marxist parties are also necessary
Which South Asian country is predominantly socialist? The control of some regions in India is left to socialist parties because they do not present a threat to the country at all and collaborate in making the country stronger and more attractive for foreign investment.
If not for imperialist interference and the collapse of the USSR most of these places would be communist.
There will always be imperial interference unless there is a revolution in the heart of capital. This is a given. It will always happen. Local collaborators will even invite invaders.
I never said imperialist bourgie dictatorships are going to suddenly stop doing imperialism on their own whim. I said that it is the duty of communists within imperialist nations to work towards destroying their own empire before all else. They need to be a fifth column and internal division, focused on annihilation of their own bourgeois state above all other concerns. The reason imperialism was so potent throughout the 20th century was because socialists within imperialist nations were social chauvinists and refused to do what was necessary. They formed the anarcho-Trotskyist-hippy anti-communist left and contented themselves with moral purity tests, attacking socialism, feeding into the red scare and fence sitting. This was all under the backdrop of unions being decimated by neoliberals, all radical movements being snuffed out, communism in the west being crushed. That mistake must not be repeated
Has a revolution ever happened when times were good and the Empire was at it's height? Seems intuitive that great change requires great sorrow to motivate that change. It's why ironically Britain might be the most likely anglo nation to radicalize given how fucked they are.
Well the key point here is that the break in the colonizing relation is what would cause the very bad years, and the point that the English working class had material interests in aligning with global imperialist capital and that their relative comfort was created via this extractive relationship with the world. Cut the colonizers off and they will eventually implode and the true class conflict will come to a head. Marx was barely starting to investigate in this direction when he passed, and Lenin continued his work to its logical end
Yes, the largest times of growth for socialist and communist parties after 1848 was during times of economic growth and expansion. If misery and poverty is what creates a self conscious working class then South Asia and Africa would be communist. Iraq would have become more communist after America's brutal invasion instead of more reactionary.
South Asia is predominantly socialist. There are strong socialist movements in Latin America and Africa as well. If not for imperialist interference and the collapse of the USSR most of these places would be communist.
Every Marxist-Leninist revolution has happened in poor colonized nations, none happened in rich core nations.
Poor and deteriorating conditions within a capitalist society is a prerequisite for revolution. It’s necessary but not sufficient, revolutionary consciousness and organized Marxist parties are also necessary
Which South Asian country is predominantly socialist? The control of some regions in India is left to socialist parties because they do not present a threat to the country at all and collaborate in making the country stronger and more attractive for foreign investment.
There will always be imperial interference unless there is a revolution in the heart of capital. This is a given. It will always happen. Local collaborators will even invite invaders.
Laos, Vietnam, China.
I never said imperialist bourgie dictatorships are going to suddenly stop doing imperialism on their own whim. I said that it is the duty of communists within imperialist nations to work towards destroying their own empire before all else. They need to be a fifth column and internal division, focused on annihilation of their own bourgeois state above all other concerns. The reason imperialism was so potent throughout the 20th century was because socialists within imperialist nations were social chauvinists and refused to do what was necessary. They formed the anarcho-Trotskyist-hippy anti-communist left and contented themselves with moral purity tests, attacking socialism, feeding into the red scare and fence sitting. This was all under the backdrop of unions being decimated by neoliberals, all radical movements being snuffed out, communism in the west being crushed. That mistake must not be repeated
Wasn't mass starvation caused by potato crop failures a key component in the 1848 revolutions?
Pre 1848 and 1848 revolutions are not Marxist.
So which revolutions are you specifically referring to? I'm not disputing, just asking.