Discuss!

Okay this is the theory section, lets 'theorize'.

Engels is primarilly responsible for the idea that permeates leftist thinking that socialism cannot exist in a single country.
Why can't it?

Isakenaz wrote:Okay this is the theory section, lets 'theorize'.

Engels is primarilly responsible for the idea that permeates leftist thinking that socialism cannot exist in a single country.
Why can't it?

In some ways Engels was correct, in others he was wrong. Let's take the case of the Soviet Union as a concrete example.

Immediately following the Bolshevik Revolution, there was (predictably) a reactionary counter-revolution which unfolded. However, the reactionaries in the White Army weren't merely domestic Russians, they were assisted by over a dozen capitalist nations (e.g., the United States, Great Britain, Finland, Italy, France, Greece, etc.) As we all know, the Red Army ultimately defeated the counter-revolutionaries, but shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union was literally encircled by its enemies. Even after the USSR successfully annexed most of Eastern Europe and was able to get much of the Central Asia and the Far East under its sphere of influence, it had to divert countless resources into maintaining an expensive arms race with the United States.

Following the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the economies of Cuba and North Korea began stagnating significantly because they were (and still are) suffering from economic sanctions (such as trade embargoes) the capitalist West has imposed on them. The former Soviet Union is also partially to blame for their current predicament, due to its "socialist division of labor" (otherwise known as "comparative advantage" in bourgeois economics) policy, which essentially forced the nations under its sphere of influence to specialize in one form of production—in the case of Cuba, they encouraged the nation to focus on mainly producing sugar—which is a recipe for disaster should something happen which disrupts trade in some way. If Cuba had diversified its investments into other forms of production, it would have had the infrastructure necessary to be a bit more self-sufficient today.

Where Engels was wrong (and the same could be said for most internationalists in general) was thinking that accepting the idea that socialism couldn't exist in one nation necessarily implies that a borderless, culturally homogenized world is a requisite condition for socialism to flourish. It isn't. The reason the USSR didn't allow most of the countries in the Eastern bloc to possess an adequate degree of political and cultural autonomy was because it needed firm control over those nation's resources in order for GOSPLAN to carry out centralized economic planning successfully and because the Soviet leaders grossly underestimated the extent to which nationalism could galvanize non-Russian nations to rebel against their hegemony.

The United States is currently the epicenter of bourgeois imperialism, but it could just as easily be the European Union or China tomorrow. Until North America, Europe, and China become socialist, no single socialist country will be safe from outside interference or attack. That doesn't mean a socialist state the size of the United States or Russia can't defend itself, but it does mean that such a state will have to divert valuable resources into excessive military production. Over the long term, I'm quite convinced that an isolated socialist nation is undoubtedly going to face enormous problems that might result in said nation's downfall.

Celtiberian wrote:In some ways Engels was correct, in others he was wrong. Let's take the case of the Soviet Union as a concrete example.

Immediately following the Bolshevik Revolution, there was (predictably) a reactionary counter-revolution which unfolded. However, the reactionaries in the White Army weren't merely domestic Russians, they were assisted by over a dozen capitalist nations (e.g., the United States, Great Britain, Finland, Italy, France Greece, etc.) As we all know, the Red Army ultimately defeated the counter-revolutionaries, but shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union was literally encircled by its enemies. Even after the USSR successfully annexed most of Eastern Europe and was able to get much of the Central Asia and the Far East under its sphere of influence, it had to divert countless resources into maintaining an expensive arms race with the United States.

Following the dismantling of the Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea's economies began stagnating significantly because they were (and still are) suffering from economic sanctions (such as trade embargoes) the capitalist West has imposed on them. The Soviet Union was also partially to blame for their current predicament, due to its "socialist division of labor" (otherwise known as "comparative advantage" in bourgeois economics) policy, which essentially forced the nations under its sphere of influence to specialize in one form of production—in the case of Cuba, they encouraged the nation to focus on mainly producing sugar—which is a recipe for disaster, should something happen which disrupts trade in some way. If Cuba had diversified its investments into other forms of production, it would have had the infrastructure necessary to be a bit more self-sufficient today.

Where Engels (and most internationalists in general) was wrong was thinking that accepting the idea that socialism couldn't exist in one nation necessarily implies that a borderless, culturally homogenized world is a requisite condition for socialism to flourish. It isn't. The reason the USSR didn't allow most of the countries in the Eastern bloc an to possess an adequate degree of political and cultural autonomy was because it needed firm control over those nation's resources in order for GOSPLAN to carry out centralized economic planning successfully and because the Soviet leaders grossly underestimated the extent to which nationalism could galvanize non-Russian nations to rebel against their hegemony.

The United States is currently epicenter of bourgeois imperialism, but it could just as easily be the European Union or China tomorrow. Until North America, Europe, and China become socialist nations, no single socialist country will be safe from outside interference or attack. That doesn't mean a socialist state the size of the United States or Russia can't defend itself, but it does mean that such a state will have to divert valuable resources into excessive military production. Over the long run, I'm quite convinced that an isolated socialist nation is undoubtedly going to face enormous problems that might result in said nation's downfall.

I agree. National Socialist Germany was another prime example.

Isakenaz wrote:Okay this is the theory section, lets 'theorize'.

Engels is primarilly responsible for the idea that permeates leftist thinking that socialism cannot exist in a single country.
Why can't it?

I believe you are referring to Engels' elaboration on the necessity of the revolution against capitalism to be international in character (featured in his work, The Principles of Communism). Now, while this point may initially appear somewhat nuanced, cosmopolitans have long used that argument as a criticism against anti-revisionism, as well as any socialist movements that dare to emphasize national solidarity. With respect to the former group, I find that the argument is largely true. (After all, history has repeatedly shown what the capitalist West does to such 'rogue states'.) As relates to the latter groups, however, no one can reasonably argue that, in a post-revolutionary context (one that has effectively eliminated the threat of capitalism in the critical areas of the world), the composition of the socialist world order must be cosmopolitan —dispensing with any form of national identity or autonomy.

Therefore I find the need to distinguish sound tactical considerations from the cosmopolitan values of certain neo-Utopians to be rather important.

Celtiberian wrote:In some ways Engels was correct, in others he was wrong. Let's take the case of the Soviet Union as a concrete example.

Immediately following the Bolshevik Revolution, there was (predictably) a reactionary counter-revolution which unfolded. However, the reactionaries in the White Army weren't merely domestic Russians, they were assisted by over a dozen capitalist nations (e.g., the United States, Great Britain, Finland, Italy, France, Greece, etc.) As we all know, the Red Army ultimately defeated the counter-revolutionaries, but shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union was literally encircled by its enemies. Even after the USSR successfully annexed most of Eastern Europe and was able to get much of the Central Asia and the Far East under its sphere of influence, it had to divert countless resources into maintaining an expensive arms race with the United States.

Following the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the economies of Cuba and North Korea began stagnating significantly because they were (and still are) suffering from economic sanctions (such as trade embargoes) the capitalist West has imposed on them. The former Soviet Union is also partially to blame for their current predicament, due to its "socialist division of labor" (otherwise known as "comparative advantage" in bourgeois economics) policy, which essentially forced the nations under its sphere of influence to specialize in one form of production—in the case of Cuba, they encouraged the nation to focus on mainly producing sugar—which is a recipe for disaster should something happen which disrupts trade in some way. If Cuba had diversified its investments into other forms of production, it would have had the infrastructure necessary to be a bit more self-sufficient today.

Where Engels was wrong (and the same could be said for most internationalists in general) was thinking that accepting the idea that socialism couldn't exist in one nation necessarily implies that a borderless, culturally homogenized world is a requisite condition for socialism to flourish. It isn't. The reason the USSR didn't allow most of the countries in the Eastern bloc to possess an adequate degree of political and cultural autonomy was because it needed firm control over those nation's resources in order for GOSPLAN to carry out centralized economic planning successfully and because the Soviet leaders grossly underestimated the extent to which nationalism could galvanize non-Russian nations to rebel against their hegemony.

The United States is currently the epicenter of bourgeois imperialism, but it could just as easily be the European Union or China tomorrow. Until North America, Europe, and China become socialist, no single socialist country will be safe from outside interference or attack. That doesn't mean a socialist state the size of the United States or Russia can't defend itself, but it does mean that such a state will have to divert valuable resources into excessive military production. Over the long term, I'm quite convinced that an isolated socialist nation is undoubtedly going to face enormous problems that might result in said nation's downfall.

I absolutely agree, trouble is the 'internationalist' left (allthough the 'misguided left' is probably a better title) use the idea that socialism in a single nation is impossible as an excuse to do nothing. Even Lenin and his Bolshevik cadre believed that revolution could be exported, so they had to believe contrary to Engels that socialism could exist in a single nation, if only for a short time.
For example the revolution in Russia could be sustained until the 'real' revolution began in Germany.

Isakenaz wrote:I absolutely agree, trouble is the 'internationalist' left (allthough the 'misguided left' is probably a better title) use the idea that socialism in a single nation is impossible as an excuse to do nothing. Even Lenin and his Bolshevik cadre believed that revolution could be exported, so they had to believe contrary to Engels that socialism could exist in a single nation, if only for a short time.
For example the revolution in Russia could be sustained until the 'real' revolution began in Germany.

Indeed, what better excuse for passivity than to say socialism in one country is "Stalinist," reactionary, impossible, (fill in the blank)? How these misguided "leftists" believe some spontaneous international revolution is ever going to occur is completely beyond me. Revolution is only feasible on the national level and, from there, subsequent revolutions can be assisted internationally. As I said in my previous post, all that really concerns me is North America, Europe, China, and maybe Japan—the rest of the world is far too impoverished and/or disorganized to serve as a suitable area from which the bourgeoisie can mount any sort of substantial counter-offensive. Socialism must take root in the aforementioned regions of the world if it's to exist peacefully, in my opinion.

Celtiberian wrote:Indeed, what better excuse for passivity than to say socialism in one country is "Stalinist," reactionary, impossible, (fill in the blank)? How these misguided "leftists" believe some spontaneous international revolution is ever going to occur is completely beyond me. Revolution is only feasible on the national level and, from there, subsequent revolutions can be assisted internationally. As I said in my previous post, all that really concerns me is North America, Europe, China, and maybe Japan—the rest of the world is far too impoverished and/or disorganized to serve as a suitable area from which the bourgeoisie can mount any sort of substantial counter-offensive. Socialism must take root in the aforementioned regions of the world if it's to exist peacefully, in my opinion.

I do not see why any European Socialist Nationalist should be concerned with China or Japan. If the Chinese and/or the Japanese want to establish a Socialist Nationalist system then more power to them but that should be up to them. I believe that each Socialist Nationalist should focus on whatever Nation they belong to. Cooperation with kindred Nations ( if neccesary) shouldnt be ruled out but cooperating with non kindred Nations ( like the Chinese and Japanese) is unnecessary, useless, and unacceptable in my opinion.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:I do not see why any European Socialist Nationalist should be concerned with China or Japan. If the Chinese and/or the Japanese want to establish a Socialist Nationalist system then more power to them but that should be up to them. I believe that each Socialist Nationalist should focus on whatever Nation they belong to. Cooperation with kindred Nations ( if neccesary) shouldnt be ruled out but cooperating with non kindred Nations ( like the Chinese and Japanese) is unnecessary, useless, and unacceptable in my opinion.

I disagree. I see no sense in arbitrarily refusing to cooperate with nations that are not "kindred." In this age of global communication, resource shortages, and unprecedented international exchange, it is crucial that we approach each sovereign nation with neutrality and amenability, regardless of any racial considerations. As far as socialist nationalist revolution is concerned, I am in full agreement that such must be undertaken on a national level and that socialism must take root in either North America, Europe, China, or perhaps Japan if it is to be successfully implemented anywhere else.

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:I disagree. I see no sense in arbitrarily refusing to cooperate with nations that are not "kindred." In this age of global communication, resource shortages, and unprecedented international exchange, it is crucial that we approach each sovereign nation with neutrality and amenability, regardless of any racial considerations. As far as socialist nationalist revolution is concerned, I am in full agreement that such must be undertaken on a national level and that socialism must take root in either North America, Europe, China, or perhaps Japan if it is to be successfully implemented anywhere else.

Im not being totally arbitrary here. Even if China and Japan were to establish a Socialist Nationalist regime then they could still pose a threat to the entire European world. Both Nations are becoming stronger day by day while the European world is weakening. China may especially be ready to launch an invasion against the European Continent. I simply do not trust either Nation enough to be prepared to cooperate with them. There are far too many Imperialistic and Chauvinistic Chinese and Japanese people in this day and age. As for the question of socialism taking root: A Socialist Nationalist should concentrate on formenting revolution among the members of whatever Nation he or she belongs to. Sitting around and waiting for a more powerful Nation to revolt is a waste of time. Of course many will say that outside intervention could cause a Socialist Nationalist revolt in a small Nation to fail but that is a risk every Nation must take. A Nation can only be liberated by itself and itself only. Relying on foreigners is bad strategy.

I must also say that I do not see the point of exporting revolution. Each Nation should decide what they want for themselves. A Socialist Nationalist should not be concerned with what sort of regime Nations other than his or her own choose to have.

Capitalism is global and has global hegemony. Thus, the need for spreading socialist workers' revolutions into every corner of the planet.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: Im not being totally arbitrary here. Even if China and Japan were to establish a Socialist Nationalist regime then they could still pose a threat to the entire European world. Both Nations are becoming stronger day by day while the European world is weakening. China may especially be ready to launch an invasion against the European Continent. I simply do not trust either Nation enough to be prepared to cooperate with them. There are far too many Imperialistic and Chauvinistic Chinese and Japanese people in this day and age. As for the question of socialism taking root: A Socialist Nationalist should concentrate on formenting revolution among the members of whatever Nation he or she belongs to. Sitting around and waiting for a more powerful Nation to revolt is a waste of time. Of course many will say that outside intervention could cause a Socialist Nationalist revolt in a small Nation to fail but that is a risk every Nation must take. A Nation can only be liberated by itself and itself only. Relying on foreigners is bad strategy.

From an economic point of view, neither China nor Japan have any greater motive to launch a full-scale invasion of any Western nation than any other Western nation. Japan, in particular, has historically maintained amicable and amenable relations with Western countries. As far as the foreign policy of either one is concerned, it is more probable that they will display greater hostility toward each other than to the West, including the United States (especially toward the United States). I see no reason to outright refuse to cooperate with said nations when so much can be gained from honest exchange. Due to the global extent of capitalism, it is highly unlikely that Europe and the United States are somehow standing upon more delicate footing than Japan and China, especially when one considers that the bulk of the international bourgeois power hegemony is tied to the fates of both.

With respect to the rest of your post, I stand in general agreement. Revolution should be instigated independent of any international collaboration and within the confines of individual sovereign states.

Socialism is inherently anti-globalist as its primary aim is to protect the local integrity of its tenets. Spreading socialism outside of the immediate borders is, where reasonable, a secondary aim.

Worker co-operatives may have solidarity with international agencies, but relations would remain rather sentimental. I do not know how collectives would possibily interact internationally without falling into games over who profits from who. Sovereign unity is required for co-operation. Outside of that is a minefield of exploitation.

I do not want to raise vision of imperalism, but I think socialism, in regards to its exportation, should be built upon a strong centre. It other words, it should lead by example, and offer assistence to those abroad where and when they ask of it.

I have yet to read every reply, but I will say that the reasoning in my opinion is obvious. If there are still capitalist countries, those countries can still wage war and destroy the socialist countries. Lenin said "uneven development is a law of capitalism" and Stalin was in line with Lenin.

Here is a good video (in my opinion) about the whole concept from a collaborator I know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH27xUceWps

Where Engels was wrong (and the same could be said for most internationalists in general) was thinking that accepting the idea that socialism couldn't exist in one nation necessarily implies that a borderless, culturally homogenized world is a requisite condition for socialism to flourish.

Where did Engels say this? I have read a good amount of Marx, but only bits of Engels.

Capitalism is global and has global hegemony. Thus, the need for spreading socialist workers' revolutions into every corner of the planet.

Correct. Eventually. But it must be applied to national conditions and build in one country first.

Im not being totally arbitrary here. Even if China and Japan were to establish a Socialist Nationalist regime then they could still pose a threat to the entire European world. Both Nations are becoming stronger day by day while the European world is weakening. China may especially be ready to launch an invasion against the European Continent. I simply do not trust either Nation enough to be prepared to cooperate with them. There are far too many Imperialistic and Chauvinistic Chinese and Japanese people in this day and age. As for the question of socialism taking root: A Socialist Nationalist should concentrate on formenting revolution among the members of whatever Nation he or she belongs to. Sitting around and waiting for a more powerful Nation to revolt is a waste of time. Of course many will say that outside intervention could cause a Socialist Nationalist revolt in a small Nation to fail but that is a risk every Nation must take. A Nation can only be liberated by itself and itself only. Relying on foreigners is bad strategy.

Wars are fought often between people who look alike. Genocides are often committed against people who look alike.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: I must also say that I do not see the point of exporting revolution. Each Nation should decide what they want for themselves. A Socialist Nationalist should not be concerned with what sort of regime Nations other than his or her own choose to have.

Such an approach would be fine in a world without capitalism, but I'm talking about the here and now. Capitalism is an inherently expansive system and the bourgeoisie are a very class conscious lot. If, say, Greece were to become a genuinely socialist country next year, it wouldn't last very long. Why? Economic strangulation (e.g., trade embargoes, sanctions of various kinds, etc.) And even if a hypothetically socialist Greece were capable of withstanding the ensuing economic strangulation, it wouldn't be long before outright military intervention was taken up. The dispossessed Greek bourgeoisie and multinational corporations would seek out and find nations willing to violently reestablish their rule over Greece. This, however, doesn't mean that the Greek proletariat shouldn't fight for liberation, but it does mean that we have to be realistic about our expectations. Hopefully, a socialist victory in any Western nation (even relatively peripheral ones, like Greece) would serve as an inspiration for the proletariat in other nations to also engage in revolution—thereby increasing the likelihood of overall victory.

A nation the size of the United States or Russia, possessing comparable resources, could become socialist and stand a decent chance at surviving for an appreciable amount of time. However, that nation would be under constant threat by the remaining capitalist territories (namely: the European Union, China, and possibly Japan). I'm not suggesting that the aforementioned capitalist territories be invaded by a foreign entity, which would impose socialism onto reluctant populations, but I am suggesting that organic socialist movements in those areas be supported (with tactical/strategic assistance, as well as material assistance). Capitalist powers behave in a comparable manner constantly (i.e., the United States arming the Contras in Nicaragua), so a socialist foreign policy must also be devised so as to ensure the proliferation of anti-capitalist movements.

I'm certainly not saying that the Western world and the Far East needs to support the free flow of populations and/or culturally homogenize, far from it. But peaceful coexistence and economic trade are obviously preferable when compared with the alternative—the constant threat of war (which today could very well result in outright nuclear holocaust).

Celtiberian wrote:Such an approach would be fine in a world without capitalism, but I'm talking about the here and now. Capitalism is an inherently expansive system and the bourgeoisie are a very class conscious lot. If, say, Greece were to become a genuinely socialist country next year, it wouldn't last very long. Why? Economic strangulation (e.g., trade embargoes, sanctions of various kinds, etc.) And even if a hypothetically socialist Greece were capable of withstanding the ensuing economic strangulation, it wouldn't be long before outright military intervention was taken up. The dispossessed Greek bourgeoisie and multinational corporations would seek out and find nations willing to violently reestablish their rule over Greece. This, however, doesn't mean that the Greek proletariat shouldn't fight for liberation, but it does mean that we have to be realistic about our expectations. Hopefully, a socialist victory in any Western nation (even relatively peripheral ones, like Greece) would serve as an inspiration for the proletariat in other nations to also engage in revolution—thereby increasing the likelihood of overall victory.

A nation the size of the United States or Russia, possessing comparable resources, could become socialist and stand a decent chance at surviving for an appreciable amount of time. However, that nation would be under constant threat by the remaining capitalist territories (namely: the European Union, China, and possibly Japan). I'm not suggesting that the aforementioned capitalist territories be invaded by a foreign entity, which would impose socialism onto reluctant populations, but I am suggesting that organic socialist movements in those areas be supported (with tactical/strategic assistance, as well as material assistance). Capitalist powers behave in a comparable manner constantly (i.e., the United States arming the Contras in Nicaragua), so a socialist foreign policy must also be devised so as to ensure the proliferation of anti-capitalist movements.

I'm certainly not saying that the Western world and the Far East needs to support the free flow of populations and/or culturally homogenize, far from it. But peaceful coexistence and economic trade are obviously preferable when compared with the alternative—the constant threat of war (which today could very well result in outright nuclear holocaust).

Non-sense. You've gone from one vague point (only superpowers can achieve socialism) to the issue about cultural homogenization being unnecessary. Where do I start?

Socialism can be embraced by any collective of workers who are determined enough to assert their own right above the imaginery/imposed rights of their captialist 'superiors'. It is a question of willpower not just raw economics. You should know this!

Yes, I am reving you up. Because you should be posting better stuff than this. Don't be so ambiguous.

MOREOVER, the matter of homogenization is paramount. I should make another thread about it if you doubt such strength. Sure, a liberal 'free to do' ideal is productive in the sense of gross co-operation, but only limited productivity can be gained from it. You should see modern times as a shining example of unproductive 'free to do' economics. Workers, together, homogenized, unified, collectivifed (?), can expand their own agenda so long as they hold more economic leverage than their 'management class'. We should not be afraid of hardship, since there would be many strikes (unsuccessful) ahead of us. But ultimately, I think, strength will prevail. We can outlast them. After all, whom is the parasite, really? We have to rid ourselves of this sickness.

godlessnorth wrote:Socialism can be embraced by any collective of workers who are determined enough to assert their own right above the imaginery/imposed rights of their captialist 'superiors'. It is a question of willpower not just raw economics. You should know this!

Socialist cooperatives can exist within capitalist nations, of this there is no question. But it's exceedingly difficult for islands of socialism to exist within a sea of capitalism. Why? International capitalist competition (which effectively leads to a race to the bottom, insofar as wages are concerned), and private finance (which systematically discriminates against lending to labor-managed firms because private lenders cannot exert sufficient control over the operational policy of such firms). The same goes for small socialist nations attempting to exist in a world dominated by capital; I already explained why throughout this thread.

Yes, I am reving you up. Because you should be posting better stuff than this. Don't be so ambiguous.

Precisely what have I been ambiguous about?

MOREOVER, the matter of homogenization is paramount. I should make another thread about it if you doubt such strength. Sure, a liberal 'free to do' ideal is productive in the sense of gross co-operation, but only limited productivity can be gained from it. You should see modern times as a shining example of unproductive 'free to do' economics. Workers, together, homogenized, unified, collectivifed (?), can expand their own agenda so long as they hold more economic leverage than their 'management class'. We should not be afraid of hardship, since there would be many strikes (unsuccessful) ahead of us. But ultimately, I think, strength will prevail. We can outlast them. After all, whom is the parasite, really? We have to rid ourselves of this sickness.

You completely misunderstood what I wrote. I specifically said: "I'm certainly not saying that the Western world and the Far East needs to support the free flow of populations and/or culturally homogenize, far from it." In other words, the Western world need not culturally intermingle or fuse (aka, homogenize) with the Far East in order to cooperate peacefully. I never suggested that internal homogeneity wasn't vital to the construction of a socialist nation—as a matter of fact, I have dozens of posts throughout this form stating the exact opposite.

Celtiberian wrote:Such an approach would be fine in a world without capitalism, but I'm talking about the here and now. Capitalism is an inherently expansive system and the bourgeoisie are a very class conscious lot. If, say, Greece were to become a genuinely socialist country next year, it wouldn't last very long. Why? Economic strangulation (e.g., trade embargoes, sanctions of various kinds, etc.) And even if a hypothetically socialist Greece were capable of withstanding the ensuing economic strangulation, it wouldn't be long before outright military intervention was taken up. The dispossessed Greek bourgeoisie and multinational corporations would seek out and find nations willing to violently reestablish their rule over Greece. This, however, doesn't mean that the Greek proletariat shouldn't fight for liberation, but it does mean that we have to be realistic about our expectations. Hopefully, a socialist victory in any Western nation (even relatively peripheral ones, like Greece) would serve as an inspiration for the proletariat in other nations to also engage in revolution—thereby increasing the likelihood of overall victory.

A nation the size of the United States or Russia, possessing comparable resources, could become socialist and stand a decent chance at surviving for an appreciable amount of time. However, that nation would be under constant threat by the remaining capitalist territories (namely: the European Union, China, and possibly Japan). I'm not suggesting that the aforementioned capitalist territories be invaded by a foreign entity, which would impose socialism onto reluctant populations, but I am suggesting that organic socialist movements in those areas be supported (with tactical/strategic assistance, as well as material assistance). Capitalist powers behave in a comparable manner constantly (i.e., the United States arming the Contras in Nicaragua), so a socialist foreign policy must also be devised so as to ensure the proliferation of anti-capitalist movements.

I'm certainly not saying that the Western world and the Far East needs to support the free flow of populations and/or culturally homogenize, far from it. But peaceful coexistence and economic trade are obviously preferable when compared with the alternative—the constant threat of war (which today could very well result in outright nuclear holocaust).

I totally disagree. Each Nation must fight for its own liberation by itself. No Nation can depend on another in order to achieve its own liberation. What you speak of may indeed happen ( that is foreign Capitalists crushing a Socialist Nationalist revolution) but revolution must be started in spite of it.

The foreign policy of a Socialist Nationalist government should not concern itself with ensuring the proliferation of Anti Capitalist movements abroad. That should be none of their concern. The goal of a Socialist Nationalist should be a National Socialist revolution. Not an International Socialist one.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:I totally disagree. Each Nation must fight for its own liberation by itself. No Nation can depend on another in order to achieve its own liberation. What you speak of may indeed happen ( that is foreign Capitalists crushing a Socialist Nationalist revolution) but revolution must be started in spite of it.

I don't deny the importance of organic, national revolution—far from it. Revolutions must take place from within, there's no doubt whatsoever about that. But I do believe that established socialist nations should assist anti-capitalist uprisings whenever and wherever possible.

The foreign policy of a Socialist Nationalist government should not concern itself with ensuring the proliferation of Anti Capitalist movements abroad. That should be none of their concern. The goal of a Socialist Nationalist should be a National Socialist revolution. Not an International Socialist one.

If a Socialist Nationalist state is actually serious about its own survival, then it will support kindred movements abroad. Capital will not simply sit idly by while its international markets begin closing and positive examples of another form of production start to threaten the bourgeoisie's very existence. As long as the world is dominated by capital, no isolated socialist nation stands much of a chance at survival.

Celtiberian wrote:I don't deny the importance of organic, national revolution—far from it. Revolutions must take place from within, of that there's no question. But I do believe that established socialist nations should assist those movement when and where possible.

Okay then let us say a Socialist Nationalist revolution occurs in the United States and it is successful. Now why the hell should a Socialist Nationalist goverment , once coming into power in the United States, support Socialist Nationalist movements in ( lets say) Nigeria? I dont hate Nigerians ( or any other Nation for that matter) but I dont see the point of why a hypothetical American Socialist Nationalist government should help them achieve a Socialist Nationalist revolution. If a Nation wants a regime change then it is up to it and it only to overthrow the regime it wants to overthrow.

If a Socialist Nationalist state is actually serious about its own survival, then it will support kindred movements abroad. Capital simply will not stand idly by while its international markets begin closing and positive examples of another form of production threaten the bourgeoisie's very existence. As long as the world is dominated by capital, not isolated socialist nation stands much of a chance at survival.

I do not see why Capitalists would use their power to crush a Socialist Nationalist government in some unimportant country. They might do so with some important one but not necessarily with an economically unimportant country. Then again I do not oppose your idea in principle however I believe that any sort of cooperation between Socialist Nationalist movements ( whose members belong to different Nations) must be between kindred Nations. If ( let us say) a Socialist Nationalist government in Sweden supports Socialist Nationalist movements in Denmark ( for the purpose of surviving) then I see nothing wrong with that. But I dont see the point of it supporting Socialist Nationalist movements in say Chad.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:
I do not see why Capitalists would use their power to crush a Socialist Nationalist government in some unimportant country.

You mean like the Americans did in Vietnam etc, in response to their fears of the 'Domino Effect'?

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Okay then let us say a Socialist Nationalist revolution occurs in the United States and it is successful. Now why the hell should a Socialist Nationalist goverment , once coming into power in the United States, support Socialist Nationalist movements in ( lets say) Nigeria? I dont hate Nigerians ( or any other Nation for that matter) but I dont see the point of why a hypothetical American Socialist Nationalist government should help them achieve a Socialist Nationalist revolution.

You'll notice that throughout my discussion on this subject, I've focused my attention exclusively on North America, Europe, and East Asia. The reason I did so was because "the rest of the world is far too impoverished and/or disorganized to serve as a suitable area from which the bourgeoisie can mount any sort of substantial counter-offensive." Assisting a socialist revolution in Nigeria wouldn't accomplish anything of importance and, therefore, shouldn't be a priority. In fact, the only real reason a global superpower like the USSR, for example, ever assisted Third World revolutions was because the Soviets wanted access to those nation's natural resources—it was essentially a form of social-imperialism. (There were obviously also geopolitical gains to be had by having as many nations under the Soviet sphere of influence as possible.)

I repeat: If a Socialist Nationalist state is actually serious about its own survival, then it will support kindred movements abroad. Capital will not simply sit idly by while its international markets begin closing and positive examples of another form of production start to threaten the bourgeoisie's very existence. As long as the world is dominated by capital, no isolated socialist nation stands much of a chance at survival.

If a Nation wants a regime change then it is up to it and it only to overthrow the regime it wants to overthrow.

That's easier said than done. You have to understand that the proletariat is at a significant disadvantage throughout the world. Even though we're numerically much stronger than the bourgeoisie, they have the power of the military and police behind them. It's in the interest of any given Socialist Nationalist state to give tactical and material assistance to popular socialist upsurges. I defer you to Revolutionary Wolf's post for more on this.

I do not see why Capitalists would use their power to crush a Socialist Nationalist government in some unimportant country. They might do so with some important one but not necessarily with an economically unimportant country.

This isn't necessarily the case, as the history of the Cold War proves (e.g., the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Iran–Contra affair, Pinochet's coup d'état, the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran, the Bay of Pigs Invasion, etc.)

Celtiberian wrote:You'll notice that throughout my discussion on this subject, I've focused my attention exclusively on North America, Europe, and East Asia. The reason I did so was because "the rest of the world is far too impoverished and/or disorganized to serve as a suitable area from which the bourgeoisie can mount any sort of substantial counter-offensive." Assisting a socialist revolution in Nigeria wouldn't accomplish anything of importance and, therefore, shouldn't be a priority. In fact, the only real reason a global superpower like the USSR, for example, ever assisted Third World revolutions was because the Soviets wanted access to those nation's natural resources—it was essentially a form of social-imperialism. (There was obviously also geopolitical gains to be had by having as many nations under the Soviet sphere of influence as possible.)

I repeat: If a Socialist Nationalist state is actually serious about its own survival, then it will support kindred movements abroad. Capital will not simply sit idly by while its international markets begin closing and positive examples of another form of production start to threaten the bourgeoisie's very existence. As long as the world is dominated by capital, no isolated socialist nation stands much of a chance at survival.

Okay then let me use another example: If let us say Socialist Nationalist governments came to power in every single European Continental and Colonial ( by that I mean the USA,Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Russia) country then why would they have to support Socialist Nationalist movements in East Asia?

As for what you say about Capitalists trying to crush Socialist Nationalist countries: They may try but they may not necessarily succeed. It is not at all certain ( as you imply) that if a Socialist Nationalist government came to power in one country , it would then be crushed by the Capitalists. Other countries might follow suit if that happened. It is also possible for a single isolated Nation to defeat a might power. Did the Afghans not defeat the mighty British and Soviet Armies? I tell you: If a small but nonetheless warlike Nation ( on lets say the European Continent) awoke and stood up to the Capitalists it would have a very good chance at defeating them. Not to mention the fact that if a Nation wants to liberate itself it must be prepared to fight to the death. I, for one, would much rather have my Nation go totally extinct while fighting honorably for its survival , than for it to survive in total slavery.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Okay then let me use another example: If let us say Socialist Nationalist governments came to power in every single European Continental and Colonial ( by that I mean the USA,Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Russia) country then why would they have to support Socialist Nationalist movements in East Asia?

If Socialist Nationalism was to be established on a continental basis (using your examples of Europe, North America, and Australia) the problem would be mitigated to an appreciable extent, though not completely solved. China and Japan are economically and militarily world powers—the former more so than the latter—and they're capitalist. Considering the expansionary dynamic of capitalist firms (and particularly the barbaric interests of the military-industrial complex), it would only be a matter of time until East Asia began to set its geopolitical and economic sights upon the Western world. Now, a powerful bloc of Socialist Nationalist states acting in unison to repel such an invasion would most likely succeed, but lives and resources can be saved by preventing such wars from occurring in the first place. There already exists large masses of discontented proletarians in China and, increasingly, Japan who will be the vehicles for liberation in those countries; a Socialist Nationalist state would do well to tactically (and in a very careful manner) support the movements for socialism in the Far East. I'm not talking about sending billions of dollars or foreign troops into those nations, but merely providing minor provisions for arms and political and military expert assistance to the anti-capitalist movements.

As for what you say about Capitalists trying to crush Socialist Nationalist countries: They may try but they may not necessarily succeed. It is not at all certain ( as you imply) that if a Socialist Nationalist government came to power in one country , it would then be crushed by the Capitalists.

You're right, an isolated Socialist Nationalist state might be able to succeed in maintaining its power, but that's predicated on numerous factors (e.g., the size of the population, how developed the nation's military and infrastructure is, how the domestic counter-revolutionaries were dealt with, how self-sufficient the nation is insofar as natural resources are concerned, etc.) Obviously, some nations are better equipped than others—as I discussed previously, I believe countries like the United States and Russia would be in a relatively better position.

Other countries might follow suit if that happened.

True.

It is also possible for a single isolated Nation to defeat a might power. Did the Afghans not defeat the mighty British and Soviet Armies?

They did, but notice in the case of the Soviet War in Afghanistan, the USSR had actually been winning the war until the CIA provided al-Qaida (and other, more indigenous, Afghan groups) with military assistance—in the form of training and weaponry. In recent years, it's becoming increasingly difficult for smaller nations to remain truly autonomous in light of the vast improvements in military technology that have occurred.

I tell you: If a small but nonetheless warlike Nation ( on lets say the European Continent) awoke and stood up to the Capitalists it would have a very good chance at defeating them. Not to mention the fact that if a Nation wants to liberate itself it must be prepared to fight to the death. I, for one, would much rather have my Nation go totally extinct while fighting honorably for its survival , than for it to survive in total slavery.

To my knowledge, there isn't a single state in contemporary Europe which possesses the necessary Spartan-like spirit which would serve to enable it to be able to successfully defeat the bourgeois, imperialist superpowers on its own. Such a mentality would take at least a generation to fully cultivate.

Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that socialist nations give up their rights to national sovereignty here, I'm simply saying that it's advisable for socialist nations (which possess a concern for their own well being) to assist kindred movements abroad. With that said, it really seems as though neither one of us will be able to change the others mind at this point, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree?