Why is "socialism inherently an international effort?"

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 8 2011 11:18
Why is "socialism inherently an international effort?"
devoration1 wrote:
socialism is inherently an international effort

Dumb question. Obviously it would be preferable but why is it inherently an international effort? Is it just the assumption that one country can't possibly have all the necessary industries for production? Also, who are the main proponents of this view, everyone except Stalin? Obviously Marx told the workers of the world to unite, but did he ever say that international revolution was a necessity?

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jul 8 2011 11:40
yoda's walking stick wrote:
devoration1 wrote:
socialism is inherently an international effort

Dumb question. Obviously it would be preferable but why is it inherently an international effort? Is it just the assumption that one country can't possibly have all the necessary industries for production?

its not just an assumption, it is a reality, it also applies to resources like minerals as well as industry.
its also the face that if one country on its own went socialist on its own, then all the remaining capitalist countries would attack it economical and militarily.

also the working classes of different countries are not truly isolated from each other, i wouldn't think the working class of one country could achieve the consenes and organisation required to achieve socialism while the working class in the rest of the world remainder unchanged

Aflwydd
Offline
Joined: 22-05-11
Jul 8 2011 12:33

If one country had all the necessary industries and materials for production, why would they need to import anything? There was a massive war in Africa a few years ago over materials that we demanded, and one of the main reasons that imperialism has always existed is because different countries have access to different minerals and materials that we want.

Socialism in one country could not exist for long. The capitalist forces wouldn't allow such a threat to its global hegemony.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jul 8 2011 12:37

Whereas any meaningful socialism in one country is likely to be impossible (for the reasons radical graffiti gives), there is no reason why is would absolutely need to be completely worldwide if at least a significant part of the globe were socialist/communist/anarcho-communist. But the more of the world we had on our side, the less likely it'd be to end in tears.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Jul 8 2011 12:47

Isn't there a principle "as long as anybody else is not free, then I too cannot be free" (forget the standard wording, but that's the gist of it). Even if (a very big IF)"socialism in one country" were a technical possibility, what kind of society would we be developing if we ignored solidarity with miserable proletarians struggling in other parts of the world? And why the question in the first place?

yoda's walking stick
Offline
Joined: 6-04-11
Jul 8 2011 20:49
Samotnaf wrote:
Even if (a very big IF)"socialism in one country" were a technical possibility, what kind of society would we be developing if we ignored solidarity with miserable proletarians struggling in other parts of the world?

Moralizer!!!!!

Seriously, I agree with you. I never get what the fuck people mean when they accuse people of moralizing though. It basically seems to be a way for the accuser to feel better about their lack of compassion in an area in which the accused is compassionate. It's completely arbitrary and self-serving.

Onikage's picture
Onikage
Offline
Joined: 25-06-11
Jul 8 2011 21:03

Morally, the idea of leaving people languishing under the yoke of the oligarchs while the rest of us were free of the cunts would, to be frank, be impossible to stomach.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Jul 8 2011 22:18
Quote:
Dumb question

No! Great question!

To be reductive - as an anarchists, or people who want to live in an libertarian communist society - we should and do, recognise no borders.

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jul 8 2011 23:01

Because the world is currently extraordinarily linked through a world division of labor in production, through cultural interchange, through migration, through the Internet, through the potential for military invasion, because each region needs the other as a model for what both revolution and counter-revolution looks like, etc.

Certainly, any remaining capitalist zones would militarily hostile to a revolution. And a communist society couldn't remain a military organization very long.

Also, just about every bourgeois nationalist and democrat and every "utopian" thinker tends to imagine that a revolution will stop at national boundaries. Communists are unusual in thinking otherwise, however much it might be standard here.

devoration1's picture
devoration1
Offline
Joined: 18-07-10
Jul 9 2011 04:14
Quote:
And a communist society couldn't remain a military organization very long.

I think that the posters who have responded thus far have all listed excellent answers to the question, this point is one that I think gets past the 'moral' or even economic concerns. The establishment of a military apparatus to guard against internal threats (political counter-revolutionaries, terrorists, corruption, espionage) and external enemies (the most powerful militaries of the capitalist world) creates a 'necessary cancer' until the revolution is successful internationally or is recuperated by world capital in defeat. The history of the RSFSR, the blockade and foreign interventions by a dozen nations, civil war, political and military repression, etc is highly instructive.

Angelus Novus
Offline
Joined: 27-07-06
Jul 9 2011 13:20

I would say socialism is inherently anti-national.

Read this.

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jul 10 2011 01:22

It's not like you have to chose.

Revolution will need to be both anti-nationalist, anti-nation-state and coordinated on a world-wide basis.

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Jul 10 2011 08:18

Trade of resources is key. This is why the US, in it's policy of containment, would economically isolate any nation attempting socialism.If the USA were, tomorrow, cut off from its global network of trade and parasitic economic relations with the third world the western capitalist system would immediately come to an end. This is why Russia failed, this is why Venezuela will fail, this is why the Spanish revolution foaled etc. You could perhaps build some agrarian commune in isolation but that's not socialism. Hell, Jim Jones tried that and failed due to lack of resources.

Socialism (be it Anarchism or Marxism) is about providing material abundance via industry and no one nation/area has the necessary resources to get to advanced communism without a global network of trade/commerce.

mojo.rhythm's picture
mojo.rhythm
Offline
Joined: 24-07-11
Jul 25 2011 13:01
Quote:
Why is "socialism inherently an international effort?"

It especially has to be in this day and age, since the world is run by a combination of states and unaccountable private corporations. Private tyranny has become so extreme, that it can cripple the economy of any government it dislikes with capital flight. This creates a dilemma for anyone who wants to impose strong progressive taxation, raise the minimum wage to respectable levels, vastly strengthen trade unions, or attempt to enact any other irrational policy that actually helps people in need. If populist policies like that make it through, mass capital flight will ensue, usually within days or even hours, fleeing to a country that is more favorable to foreign investment. This is why revolution in just one country can be potentially disastrous for the livelihood of its people.

Private tyrannies leech off the state; they depend upon its monopoly of violence to protect their property, fund them with public money, bail them out, reward them with special favors, and so on. Imagine what happens when there is a worldwide revolution. States across the globe dissolve, and institutional structures operated by the participants assume the role they once played: the regulation of force. There would be no states to enforce fascist corporate hierarchies, no states willing to safeguard corporate ownership of the means of production, no states left to mollycoddle private power and provide corporations and big firms with public subsidies; no states willing to play the traditional role expected of them, to "protect the minority of the opulent from the majority."

Imagine states worldwide being abolished, and replaced with an inter-linked web of institutions directly controlled and operated by the public, who immediately turn on the private robber barons that have masterfully exploited them. This would be poetic justice of the most romantic kind. Corporate power would be impotent. Capital flight would become an empty threat. Where would they flee too? Another revolutionary country where the proletariat is seizing power?

That is one reason why the revolution is international. It is the only way to crush private tyranny and domination.

Alexander Roxwell
Offline
Joined: 19-07-10
Jul 27 2011 01:35

A better question than:

Why is "socialism inherently an international effort?"

Might be:

What does the statement that "socialism [is] inherantly an international effort" mean exactly?

The tempo of class struggle can be and is radically different from one land to another. Are we supposed to "fight against" that? How?

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Jul 27 2011 03:19
Alexander Roxwell wrote:
A better question than:

Why is "socialism inherently an international effort?"

Might be:

What does the statement that "socialism [is] inherantly an international effort" mean exactly?

The tempo of class struggle can be and is radically different from one land to another. Are we supposed to "fight against" that? How?

Yes. The tempo is utterly different. Which is why more and more countries are having riots and street occupations as a response to austerity measures, and why you repeatedly hear people active in the various movements commenting about their inspiration from others. roll eyes

CRUD's picture
CRUD
Offline
Joined: 11-04-10
Jul 27 2011 05:03

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Quote:
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

And on the other end of the theoretical spectrum we have this bunkum-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country