Round and round the mulberry bush we go but you will not answer any questions about some of your absurd positions.
A successful proletarian revolution that led to a dictatorship of the proletariat was impossible in all but a few Western European nations in the early 20th Century. It was impossible in Russia in 1917.
Please either refute that or admit it is true.
A successful proletarian revolution that led to a dictatorship of the proletariat was impossible in China in 1927. It was also impossible in China in 1949.
Please either refute that or admit it is true.
One of the reasons that Marx's "model" of the world broke down was that the nations that "got past the post first" e.g. the "first wave" of bourgeois national revolutions conquered and subjugated much of the rest of the earth. This allowed them to become "rich" while it kept the rest of the earth "poor." This requires a "new model" to be created. The old model is broken.
Please either refute that or admit it is true.
You people can dance and sing and you read books (sort of the way a fundamentalist Christian reads the Bible) but I find it really hard to believe you have ever done anything in the real world or you would know the difference between "theory" and being "concrete" unlike Noa Rodman who seems to think that saying the words "socialism in one country" is something concrete.
"Socialism in one Country" was .................................. a "theory" ding dong. And not even an honest one.
It wasn't even real.
That was Devoration not me. And he didn't argue it could be the ruling class of any nation-state, minority or majority. It has nothing to do with being the 'ruling class of a nation-state'. You are asking me to explain how devoration thinks something that he doesn't think, in order to fit your strawman.
Are you seriously arguing that the existence of the proletariat and the disappearance of the peasantry worldwide has no bearing on the question of which class will be the revolutionary instigators of socialism? That's what it looks like.
Was it intended to? I was under the impression that it was intended to map out the development of the capitalisation of agriculture over the last 140 years or so. If you wish, you can collect all the statistics on the numbers of peasants (large and small) in Russia as compared to the number of proletarians, and stare at them for ever, it won't tell you the shape of the next revolutionary wave. It won't really tell you much about the last either, unfortunately.
The proletariat, because of its role in production, because it is the exploited class par excellence under capitalism, is the class that can overthrow capitalism. The peasantry, which was a significant number of people in Russia and indeed worldwide in 1917, is not a revolutionary class because independent producers are not a class that has a future under capitalism; the relations of production that they represent look backwards not forwards. They are as a class (not always as individuals obviously) consevative not progressive. Their interests (as a class) do not point towards socialism.
So; the point about the quote from the Manifesto was to demnstrate that under capitalism the other stratas of society are increasingly irrelevant. More irrelevant now than in 1917, still in 1917 not entirely relevant to the question of world revolution. And it is the question of world revolution that you consistently fail to grapple with. If you want to claim that 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' was impossible in Russia, I agree with you. I'm not sure that anyone here really defends the notion that the early Soviet Republic was the dictatorship of the proletariat, finished, done. My understanding is that it was a truncated part of the process of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was geographically truncated because the revolution did not successfully spread, and it was temporally truncated because the counter-revolution overwhelmed it.This is why Rosa Luxemburg for instance says that the conundrums of the Russian revolution cannot be solved in Russia.
The Soviet Republic, in short, was not what the October Revolution was for, it wasn't an end in itself. It was, instead, an attempt to hold on in an unstable situation, a temporary fix. That it moved from being a means to an end (the extension of the world revolution) to an end in itself (a stable 'proletarian bastion' ie an imperialist state) is the tragedy of the counter-revolution. It has little to do with how many peasants there were in Russia.