Try not to get depressed by this.
So I'm generally a pretty optimistic person about revolution. But lately I've been giving myself a bit of a reality check.
In a revolution, we seize the means of production, and we start producing under our own self-management, not for profit but for need. But how can we produce anything at all when production has become so globalized? For anything to be made requires inputs be shipped from all over the world.
It's not like "socialism in one country" as unworkable is a new concept. But in the past, like during Russia 1917, it seemed like all they needed was a block of a few industrialized countries to have had revolutions. (Even then, long term it would have had to be global, but in the short-term and medium-term this could have worked.)
But now, it seems there would have to be successful revolutions in most of the world all within a very short period of time. If not we'll not be able to produce fuck all, will quickly be starved out. Even if we have a few regions going, it will be practically impossible to transport goods back and forth, because of militarized blockades. Counterrevolutionary militaries would just blow up our ships.
I know revolutions inspire each other, but for successful revolutions to occur in most of the world all within a short period of time, seems unrealistic.
This is one of the reasons I get so excited about this "open source hardware" movement http://libcom.org/forums/general/open-source-hardware-relates-post-scarcity-13032014 because it allows us to produce a wide variety of goods using local materials ... but I kind of doubt this will be adopted on a mass-scale for at least a few generations.
I guess in the grand scheme of humanity that's not far off, but it means we'll all be missing out. It also means that we won't be able to have a revolution before global warming causes a massive collapse, which could potentially lead to our extinction, or a second dark ages of many centuries (or perhaps even millennia).
But maybe I'm being too pessimistic?
Can comment on articles and discussions
I think the increasing globalization that we've undergone offers possiiblities for both revolution and counter-revokution. Any serious eruption will not be easily contained. The methods of counterrevolution can be counterproductive- strangle a baby in one crib and you'll wake up another. Unfortunately revolution involves a lot of death- wehether military or other forms of violence. But since globalization unifies humanity more and more , any act of genocide against one population will be taken as an act of genocide against everybody. I believe humans have a fair sense of solidarity, even if it is obscured by ideology and pathology. Waking up the whole house doesn't take much these days if the first few cries are loud and strong enuff. The arab insurrections seem to me like a model of how uprisings can catch on , and the development the different powers take in trying to manage them.