Totenham Riots

Isakenaz wrote:

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: Just to let everyone know I really could care less about what happens in the United Kingdom. Im just speaking out against the tendency of many who insist that all workers should unite against the Capitalist system regardless of Nationality. I dont care about the fate of proletarians who do not belong to my Nation. If they want to free themselves from Capitalism then more power to them. I just wont help them because it is none of my business.

That's fair enough, I don't give a toss about you either.

Do you seriously think that English working class people could join forces with Negro ( or even Irish) working class people in order to overthrow Capitalism? Because, my friend, such a thing is impossible.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:And what evidence is there that would prove economic conditions caused the riots?

Many of these rioters may have a steady source of income for all we know.

The riot occurred due to a man being shot by the police. That has absolutely nothing to do with economics whatsoever.

Im sorry but blaming Capitalism for everything is just as idiotic as blaming Multiracialism for everything.

Both of these systems are bad.

Just to let everyone know I really could care less about what happens in the United Kingdom. Im just speaking out against the tendency of many who insist that all workers should unite against the Capitalist system regardless of Nationality. I dont care about the fate of proletarians who do not belong to my Nation. If they want to free themselves from Capitalism then more power to them. I just wont help them because it is none of my business.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:

Admin wrote:And what evidence is there that would prove economic conditions caused the riots?

The community in which this started and the overall nature of its expansion.

Many of these rioters may have a steady source of income for all we know.

Don't be naive. Even if many of these people have some source of income, it's clearly not enough to accord them with a decent standard of living. To reduce this to nothing more than a question of employment is erroneous — though unemployment and declining standards of living do certainty play a role in this. Poverty and economic inequality (of both a longstanding and recent nature) are also a big part of this.

The riot occurred due to a man being shot by the police. That has absolutely nothing to do with economics whatsoever.

That is merely what triggered it. It could have been anything. The fact of the matter is that many of these young men are haven't anything to lose. If they enjoyed middle class or upper class standards of living, very few of them would be inclined to jeopardize their futures by engaging the establishment in such a way. And almost none of them would be inclined to loot.

To rule out the economic factors which foster resentment towards the establishment and merely attribute this to the biological constitutions of the rioters (a growing number of which are European, by the way) is to engage in the same sort of faulty reasoning reactionaries — who have an interest in maintaining the fundamentals of the status quo — are guilty of.

Im sorry but blaming Capitalism for everything is just as idiotic as blaming Multiracialism for everything.

Well, you appear to be tilting towards the latter position. (But even if you are inclined to blame ethnic pluralism for this, you would still be indirectly faulting the capitalist system for it.)

Show me a riot that breaks out in a bourgeois community and I will happy to not fault the fundamentals of the capitalist system for it.

Both of these systems are bad.

Agreed.

Just to let everyone know I really could care less about what happens in the United Kingdom. Im just speaking out against the tendency of many who insist that all workers should unite against the Capitalist system regardless of Nationality. I dont care about the fate of proletarians who do not belong to my Nation. If they want to free themselves from Capitalism then more power to them. I just wont help them because it is none of my business.

It's reasonable to assume that a socialist revolution is incapable of succeeding or maintaining its gains (especially in smaller countries) without international support or an international political climate that is conducive to the emergence of such states. That much should be obvious to any socialist.

Furthermore, I don't agree with notion that socialists who turn their backs on the role of international working class solidarity are somehow 'better' nationalists than those of us who push back against such a tendency. In fact, I think a convincing case could be made to the contrary. For those socialist-nationalists who are not willing to support—or accept support from—fellow socialist revolutionaries, irrespective of their nationalities, are condemning their own people to failure. (It provides the bourgeois establishment—which is inherently international in character—with an undue advantage.)

Isakenaz wrote:Rebel Warrior 59:

May I ask which nation you refer to as yours the Hungarian nation or the Australian one where you live?

As for your statement;

Do you seriously think that English working class people could join forces with Negro ( or even Irish) working class people in order to overthrow Capitalism? Because, my friend, such a thing is impossible.

Why do you deem it impossible? Do you imagine a world of individual nations existing together in splendid isolation?

Bladridigan wrote:Rebel Warrior, let me try and see if I can convince you of the merits of revolutionary internationalism. Firstly, revolutionary internationalism is not incompatible with nationalism, in fact it is supported by many nationalists, such as ourselves.

Secondly, if nationalism can be defined as the pursuit as the national interest, then it is very nationalistic to support revolutionary internationalism, because it is the interests of every nation to overthrow the (international) capitalist system.

As Celtiberian once said, if a socialist revolution succeeded in a single European country, it would immediately be pressured by the remaining capitalist states into reaction.

Here is a historical example of this phenomenon; when the October Revolution brought Bolshevism to Russia, it was immediately invaded by the Allies, in an attempt to strangle the new Soviet state in its infancy.

If Hungary were to experience a socialist revolution tomorrow, the capitalist states would destroy it within a year.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Your claim ( that if socialism succeeded in a single European country then it would be overthrown by foreign Capitalists) is unfounded. First of all you speak as if all the Capitalists of the world would conspire to overthrow a Socialist revolt in a single country. That is a faulty idea. Remember that the number one concern of Capitalists is money. How would they profit from sending off tons of people to war in order to rein in a single country ( especially one as little as Hungary)? Arms manufacturers dont like unprofitable wars you know. Second Capitalists compete with each other. Do you seriously think that Japanese Capitalists would team up with German Capitalists in order to crush a Socialist Nationalist revolt in Hungary? Hell no! That would mean one side could lose tons of profit. Last of all the Capitalist forces could be beaten back.

Therefore I am not at all convinced of the merits of " Revolutionary Internationalism".

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Internationalism and Nationalism are polar opposites. Internationalism is the belief that the interests of some International group should be upheld while Nationalism is the belief that the interests of a particular Nation must be upheld. What you call " revolutionary internationalism" doesnt seem to be Internationalism at all. It seems to be a useless tactical ploy.

No it is not in the interest of any Nation to overthrow the International Capitalist system. Why would it be? The proletarians of a certain Nation are not exploited by a Capitalist system located halfway around the world. All the proletarians of a certain Nation need to do is to confiscate the property of multinational Capitalists ( located in their homeland) as well as the property of local Capitalists and presto they would be freed from the shackles of Capitalism. This would not take any sort of " International Workers Solidarity".

Your claim ( that if socialism succeeded in a single European country then it would be overthrown by foreign Capitalists) is unfounded. First of all you speak as if all the Capitalists of the world would conspire to overthrow a Socialist revolt in a single country. That is a faulty idea. Remember that the number one concern of Capitalists is money. How would they profit from sending off tons of people to war in order to rein in a single country ( especially one as little as Hungary)? Arms manufacturers dont like unprofitable wars you know. Second Capitalists compete with each other. Do you seriously think that Japanese Capitalists would team up with German Capitalists in order to crush a Socialist Nationalist revolt in Hungary? Hell no! That would mean one side could lose tons of profit. Last of all the Capitalist forces could be beaten back.

Therefore I am not at all convinced of the merits of " Revolutionary Internationalism".

Bladridigan wrote:I'll respond to your post section by section.

1). Internationalism is not the opposite of nationalism, cosmopolitanism is. If you read the "opposing views" section of this forum, you will notice that one of the sections is labelled "Cosmopolitans". It is decidedly not labelled "Internationalists", and for a good reason. If nationalism is the support for ones nation, and proletarian internationalism is the support for the international proletariat, they are not incompatible, on condition that supporting the interests of the international proletariat serves the interests of your particular nation.
There is nothing "useless" about revolutionary internationalism, to the contrary, it is vital to our success, especially in minor states, such as Serbia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. Major world powers, such as America, could survive on their own.

2). First of all, I find your knowledge of capitalism lacking. International capitalism is not international simply because it exists in multiple countries, it is international because of the international economic dependency it creates, and hence international exploitation. Do you know how the stock market operates? Is it not possible to own capital in multiple foreign states?

Is it not possible for transnational corporations to own production plants in America, Germany, Italy, and Hungary? What do you think they would do if they lost their property during a socialist revolution in Hungary? They would pressure the American, German, and Italian governments to help them recover their lost property (and hence their lost profits). The states would then react by pressuring socialist Hungary in turn, by means of economic sanctions (as is the case with Cuba), invasion (as was the case with Vietnam), etc. The fact that Hungary has no nuclear missiles complicates things further, an invasion by NATO could therefore be a possibility.

3). As for war being too expensive, it certainly hasn't prevented America and various coalition forces from invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, nor did it prevent America from invading Vietnam (as someone else pointed out) during its socialist revolution. As for arms manufacturers, they positively love war! There is no such thing as an unprofitable war for the arms industry, who do you think got all the big contracts for the war in Iraq. The fact that capitalists compete with one another does not negate the fact that they also share common interests, such as breaking up unions and keeping wages low, etc. To posit that they have no collective interests is as absurd as saying that there is no such thing as a national interest, because each individual has their own interests.

Lastly, with a state as small as Hungary, practically any major power that invades will probably succeed.

The USA only invaded Vietnam due to the existence of the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union did not exist then the USA probably wouldnt have gave a damn.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:That i a gross oversimplification of the whole matter. Vietnam wasn't any strategic position, and wasn't a potential industrialized country like Korea, and yet, the US still invaded.

Besides, if we go with that criteria, then there is "still" China, North Korea, or Cuba, and i don't think the US would want the "commies" spread much more than that now, would they? And it's so easy for the to come up with another "Allende" coup, just send the F-15s.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: The point is the US government is nearing bankruptcy and they are also spending a lot of money on the military. Does it look like they will be willing to invade some small European country because of a Socialist revolt? I think its very unlikely.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Im not saying poverty had no role in starting the riot. Then again Im not sure what exactly caused the riot. The media writes that it was because of a man getting shot by the police. That may be true and it may not be true. I dont live in that area of the UK, therefore I am in no position to find out the real truth. Then again I dont really care. The reason I responded in the first place is because I disagree with the tendency of many people who cheer on these rioters just because they are defying authority.

I hate the Establishment that is ruling over my Nation ( I also hate the Establishment of the country I am currently living in) but I would never cheer on random people who rioted against it. The only way forward is to support those who share your aims. Cheering on any random person who throws bricks at police cars is a waste of time. You will get nowhere with such an attitude.

Now how am I tilting towards the latter position? I never wrote that Multiracialism is to blame for this riot.

Tell you the truth I dont believe there is a primary problem. Liberalism, Democracy, Capitalism, Conservatism, Immigration, etc are all bad in my eyes. I dont think either of them are THE primary problem ( and to be honest I dont really care which one is). I am opposed to all of these things.

I dont see why it should be obvious. It is possible for the members of a Nation to destroy Capitalism in whatever Country they inhabit. International workers solidarity is not required for such a thing to happen.

I never wrote that Socialists who think like I do are better than the ones that dont. I also dont see how I would be condemning my people to failure if I dont care about international proletarian solidarity. My people are in a dire situation. They dont have the time to sit on their butts, waiting for others to help them. They must help themselves.

Ghost Wolf wrote:Staying on topic on the riots, I would have to say that these events haven't been "uprisings," nor "insurrections." The main reason why the youth riots spreading across the UK are currently purposeless is because they are setting fire and destroying community-owned businesses, terrorizing neighborhoods, and being violent for violence's sake.

They lack purpose, therefore we cannot support those that are currently rioting. They may say "screw the system" but they have no tactical mentality at all. We're looking for people who plan things and have serious ambitions.

Should these events evolve into something worthwhile, such as the "right" institutions being targeted, then we can have a little more sympathy for their actions.

We agree with their sentiments. But we need to expect from them the right approaches.

Watching the left's reaction to the London Riots, I am reminded of a discussion between philosopher Michel Foucault and French Maoist militants in 1971. The Maoists argued in favor of setting up a "people's court" to pass judgement on the police whereas Foucault took the contrary position and insisted instead on uncoordinated, unconstrained brutal "popular justice."

Foucault theorized that any attempt to create a judicial system, even a judicial system purportedly run by the people, would simply replicate the power structure that we intended to oppose. Nor did he shy away from taking this argument to its logical conclusion. Foucault went as far as embracing historic examples of disturbing mob behavior, explicitly recalling, and implicitly endorsing, the rash of extrajudicial executions carried out during the French Revolution's September Massacres of 1792 when over a thousand people were murdered by revolutionaries. This, for Foucault, was what "popular justice" looks like and even the "moral ideology" that finds these illegal outbursts repellant "must be submitted to the scrutiny of the most rigorous criticism." The Maoists, on the other hand, insisted that the people's fury ought to be channeled into appropriate (albeit revolutionary) party structures.

What Foucault and the Maoists were debating goes to the heart of how we imagine revolutionary change will take place. Will the revolution be an uncontrolled insurrection – whose symptoms include looting in the streets of London, for example – where the people's rage against consumerism is fully released and their judgements implicitly trusted? Or, will we fear the mob and act, more or less explicitly on the side of power and the status quo, to quell and control the released flows – grabbing a broom to keep the streets clean for the next day's ecocidal shopping?

This is, for me, the fundamental point: at what point does a riot become a revolution? Must the London youth don Black Bloc attire and shout utopian anarchist slogans while burning cop cars before their acts are recognized as a kind of political rebellion? Must they be able to articulate themselves in a way that is intelligible to readers of Alain Badiou, Giorgio Agamben and Antonio Negri before their riotous flashmobs are acknowledged as the highest form of networked insurrection yet achieved? I suspect that when revolution comes, the ones who have been too long waiting for it will be the very ones who miss it. For they will be too accustomed to looking in the wrong direction, waiting for the wrong words, the wrong actors, the wrong kinds of political deeds.

We are in a revolutionary moment. Prepare yourself: this global insurrection will unfold in ways we lefties may not like. There might be violence, although we desire nonviolence, and there might be pillaging, although we desire the peaceful transfer of wealth. But, let us pause to consider before passing knee-jerk judgement on the forces unleashed even if they do not act as we would prefer. Before we rush to set up approved structures of dissent, we should ask ourselves why we are so invested in denying that rioting is a legitimate political act. Rather than trying to channel, control or dissipate these forces, we must learn to play off of the chaos of the released flows.

"It is from the point of view of property that there are thieves and stealing," Foucault insisted at the end of his discussion. When we always see looting as nothing but thieving and refuse to grant to it the status of a conscious political act, an outburst of "popular justice" against a corrupt and corrupting capitalist system, we are assuming the point of view of the very forces we are trying to overthrow. The same goes for when we condemn any insurrectionary act that is not accompanied by an insurrectionary tract.

The London Riots may not be pretty but as the old-lefty adage goes: "Revolution is not a dinner party, nor an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly, and modestly. A revolution is an insurrection…" And the London Riots are, whether we like it or not, what an insurrection might look like if the forces of capitalism do not peacefully, voluntarily relinquish their stranglehold. http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/blackspot-blog/rioting-revolutionary.html

Admin wrote:

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Im not saying poverty had no role in starting the riot. Then again Im not sure what exactly caused the riot. The media writes that it was because of a man getting shot by the police. That may be true and it may not be true. I dont live in that area of the UK, therefore I am in no position to find out the real truth. Then again I dont really care. The reason I responded in the first place is because I disagree with the tendency of many people who cheer on these rioters just because they are defying authority.

Well, to be clear, you did say this "has absolutely nothing to do with economics whatsoever" and went on to repudiate the tendency of some to underscore its economic framework.

I hate the Establishment that is ruling over my Nation ( I also hate the Establishment of the country I am currently living in) but I would never cheer on random people who rioted against it. The only way forward is to support those who share your aims. Cheering on any random person who throws bricks at police cars is a waste of time. You will get nowhere with such an attitude.

No one here was or is 'cheering on' the actions taking place on the streets of Britain — much of which is devoid of proper direction and is causing undue harm to innocent bystanders. However, we are not condemning them either. What we are condemning is the system that has led to this sad state of affairs. And let there be no doubt that the blame lies squarely at the heart of the economic system that has so shaped society as to create such acute inequality, abject poverty, institutional discrimination, etc. Such factors are what foster the sort of animosity that eventually comes to destabilize society.

Now how am I tilting towards the latter position? I never wrote that Multiracialism is to blame for this riot.

Fair enough. I apologize for having suggested as much.

Tell you the truth I dont believe there is a primary problem. Liberalism, Democracy, Capitalism, Conservatism, Immigration, etc are all bad in my eyes. I dont think either of them are THE primary problem ( and to be honest I dont really care which one is). I am opposed to all of these things.

I would recommend that you consider exploring the role the (capitalist) economic framework plays in all of other factors you just cited. Without having a sufficient appreciation for the impact capitalism has upon contemporary sociopolitical phenomena, you run the risk of humoring certain political red herrings.

I dont see why it should be obvious. It is possible for the members of a Nation to destroy Capitalism in whatever Country they inhabit. International workers solidarity is not required for such a thing to happen.

I disagree. You must understand that abolishing the institutional framework of capitalism is not as simple as you appear to be suggesting. If you want to see what happens to a small country that attempts to liberate itself from bourgeois hegemony, look no further than Cuba. The U.S. response to Castro's nationalization of American corporate properties was to impose its historic trade embargo — which further escalated following Cuba's subsequent relations with the Soviet Union. This eventually led to attempts to both engage the Cubans militarily (à la the Bay of Pigs Invasion), subvert elements of the Cuban government, and assassinate Castro.

Of course, one could attribute some of this to Cuba's role in the Cold War. But consider the fact that the hostilities have long outlived the conclusion of the Cold War and that they began when the U.S. decided to punish the Cuban people for Castro's nationalizations of American property. Now consider what would happen elsewhere in world, in an age of global capitalism — wherein foreign business interests are deeply entrenched practically everywhere.

I never wrote that Socialists who think like I do are better than the ones that dont. I also dont see how I would be condemning my people to failure if I dont care about international proletarian solidarity. My people are in a dire situation. They dont have the time to sit on their butts, waiting for others to help them. They must help themselves.

See above. Furthermore, no one is suggesting that socialist revolutionaries 'sit on their butts' and wait for others to aid them. What I am suggesting, however, is that it is manifestly unwise and counterproductive to turn your back upon the mere notion of an international revolutionary struggle. If you sincerely wish to achieve socialist revolution — and safeguard the gains thereof — as well as maintain peaceful coexistence with other peoples, the most prudent course of action is one which maintains a reasonable international framework. Such a framework must be amenable to receiving foreign support and cooperating in international affairs.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:1. Internationalism is the opposite of Nationalism. This should be obvious. Also you should know Proletarian Internationalism is wholly incompatible with Nationalism. Must I quote Marx and Engels to prove my point?

2. I am perfectly aware of the fact that Capitalists can own property in many parts of the world. However my point was that the proletariat of a single Nation can take away the property of both foreign and local Capitalists thereby ending Capitalism in their homeland, without the help of proletarians not belonging to the same Nation as them.

You are making things too simple. First of all why would the governments of Non Socialist countries do as the Capitalists tell them? How would they benefit? You should also know that the governments of far too many European countries are doing rather poorly. They have enough problems of their own ( such as being close to bankruptcy) than to send troops to Hungary to put down some Socialist rebellion. As for economic sanctions: They can bring them and the entire Hungarian Nation will laugh. Our agricultural products will fetch their price in any Asian market. The Asian Capitalists ( by the way) wouldnt give a damn about doing business with a Socialist country.

3. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam are totally different animals. The USA only invaded Vietnam due to the existence of the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union did not exist then the USA probably wouldnt have gave a damn. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with Socialism. And yes there can be an unprofitable war for the arms industry? Would you want to sell arms to the troops of a nearly bankrupt government? I think not. Of course Capitalists have common interests but to suggest that if Hungary were to become Socialist then all Capitalists worldwide would conspire to crush it is totally ridiculous. Also you seem to know nothing of Hungarian guerrilla warfare my friend. It took the Soviet troops weeks to crush the Hungarian rebels in 56. And those soldiers were very tough. Now, if there were enough 56 style Hungarian guerrillas, how long would it take for todays punified American or West European troops to crush them? 10 years? Maybe 20? I mean just look at how they havent managed to crush the Afghans in 9 years. Needless to say no government could afford such a long war in these times.

And last of all what do you expect my people to do? Hold up signs saying " Hey International Proletariat come help us"? We cannot afford to wait for the rising of other Nations. Time is running out. In closing I will say that what you speak of is not impossible but it sure as hell aint certain. Therefore my Nation has a chance of breaking the chains of Capitalism without the help of some International Proletariat.

Bladridigan wrote:1). No, proletarian internationalism is not the opposite of nationalism, that would be cosmopolitanism, as I've already said. As for Marx and Engels, they actually supported nationalism is certain instances, for example they supported Bismarck's unification of Germany, because it would unite the German proletariat. However, they also opposed Balkan nationalism, because they perceived it as being nothing more than an extension of reactionary Russian foreign policy, and therefore harmful to proletarian interests.

What we're doing is switching that around, Marx and Engels supported nationalism whenever it served advanced proletarian interests, we should support proletarian internationalism whenever it advances the national interest.

2). Yes, I know what your point was, and my point is that such a socialist revolution wouldn't survive. I've already given you the example of revolutionary Russia, after the October Revolution the Allied military forces attempted to destroy the Bolshevik government. Russia survived in part because it is the world's largest country. Hungary is a tiny country compared to Russia.

3). And why do you think the US was opposed to the USSR? Because it was socialist, and their policy was to contain socialism, not allow it to spread. America invaded Iraq to preserve its petrodollar hegemony, it invaded because their economic interests, their profits, were threatened. The arms industry is actually entirely irrelevant to this argument, yes, war is expensive, but has that stopped America from invading Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya? Those wars are incredibly expensive, but that doesn't stop our government from invading, does it?

The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was not an example of guerrilla warfare, the only documented incidence of guerrilla warfare during the uprising was during a ten day period outside the city of Pecs. Furthermore, the situation then was entirely different, a capitalist invasion of a socialist Hungary would not be a rerun of what happened half a century ago. Oh, and by the way, the Soviets won that fight. To say that the Soviet troops of 1956 were 'tough' and that modern American infantry are 'punified', whatever that is supposed to mean, is besides the point.

Finally, nobody expects you to wait for foreign proletarians to come to your assistance, and I never said you should, and I think you know that perfectly well. Yes, go ahead and see if you can effect a socialist revolution in Hungary, but don'y be surprised if neighboring capitalist states treat your own as a pariah.

EDIT: If there are any responses to this post, I will respond to them on Monday, I'm going to be gone over the weekend.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Well then what is the difference between Internationalism and Nationalism if they are not polar opposites? I know that Marx and Engels ( as well as many other Marxist Communists) supported nationalist movements for tactical reasons however why should you refer to this tactical ploy ( favored by you and other members of this forum) as " Proletarian Internationalism"? Why use a term invented by Anti Nationalists ( such as Marx and Engels)? Also I still do not see how what you call Proletarian Internationalism would advance the interests of the Hungarian nation.

Of course it is not certain that such a revolution would survive but it is possible.

Like I wrote before it is not inevitable that Capitalist controlled forces would invade Hungary if a Socialist revolt broke out. It would also be possible for Hungary to survive economic sanctions ( by trading with East Asian countries). Therefore I see no need for what you propose.

Arms manufacturers dont like unprofitable wars. A very long drawn out war can be unprofitable because it can make production and delivery quotas hard to fulfill.

As for the American military: Just take a look at them. They havent been able to crush a bunch of ill equipped desert tribesmen in the past 9 years.

Remember that the US is close to bankruptcy and is already spending tons of money on its war in Afghanistan. If it even considered to invade Hungary , it would go even deeper into economic hardship. Also the US citizens would not be very pleased. Not to mention pretty much all the West European states are in pretty bad shape right now as well.

Oh and if you dont expect me to wait for foreign proletarians to come to my Nations assistance then what do you expect me to do with your idea of Proletarian Internationalism?

Celtiberian wrote:

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Well then what is the difference between Internationalism and Nationalism if they are not polar opposites? I know that Marx and Engels ( as well as many other Marxist Communists) supported nationalist movements for tactical reasons however why should you refer to this tactical ploy ( favored by you and other members of this forum) as " Proletarian Internationalism"? Why use a term invented by Anti Nationalists ( such as Marx and Engels)? Also I still do not see how what you call Proletarian Internationalism would advance the interests of the Hungarian nation.

The desirability (or lackthereof) of employing the term "Proletarian Internationalism" notwithstanding, the reason why international socialist solidarity would be beneficial to a hypothetically socialist Hungarian nation is because it would assist Hungary in defending itself from the threat of capitalist imperialism.

As I'm sure you recall, you and I have engaged in this exact debate in the past, but I'm okay reiterating my main points for the sake of our newer members.

Of course it is not certain that such a revolution would survive but it is possible.

Some of us are more concerned with minimizing the likelihood of having our respective revolutions being defeated than we are of ensuring our revolutions are carried out as organically and isolated as possible.

Like I wrote before it is not inevitable that Capitalist controlled forces would invade Hungary if a Socialist revolt broke out. It would also be possible for Hungary to survive economic sanctions ( by trading with East Asian countries). Therefore I see no need for what you propose.

I'm afraid history proves you wrong on this, comrade. The bourgeoisie is perfectly willing to incur the financial losses necessary to stop the spread of socialism—the relatively high corporate and progressive income tax rates enacted during the Cold War are evidence of this. Why? Because capitalists fear, more than anything, the "threat of a good example." As Noam Chomsky elaborates,

"The U.S. will not permit constructive programs in its own domains, so it must ensure that they are destroyed elsewhere to terminate 'the threat of a good example.' And elite opinion will ensure that no such topics enter the arena of discussion, in respectable circles. Rather, the framework of discussion established by Operation Truth must be adopted, with no deviation tolerated, though it is then permitted to raise timid questions about whether the Administration has selected the right means to achieve its 'noble objectives.'"
Chomsky, Noam. Turning the Tide: U.S. Intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace, p. 275

As for the possibility of averting the disater trade embargoes and other economic sanctions can cause by trading with East Asia, for example, you forget just how heavily controlled and interconnected trade currently is. If, say, China were to consider trading with a socialist Hungary, they would risk disrupting their more lucrative trade deals with the United States.

Arms manufacturers dont like unprofitable wars. A very long drawn out war can be unprofitable because it can make production and delivery quotas hard to fulfill.

Are you serious? Arms manufacturers positively love any and all wars. The longer they last, the better. I honestly don't understand how you came to the conclusion that a delay in fulfilling quotas would somehow result in an unbearable loss of profit. The fact their orders could be large enough to render quotas difficult to meet would only be a testament to how much money they'd already be making off those contracts.

As for the American military: Just take a look at them. They havent been able to crush a bunch of ill equipped desert tribesmen in the past 9 years.

Yes, but those "ill equipped desert tribesmen" are highly organized and willing to go so far as to commit suicide just for the possibility their death will kill an "infidel." (Most proletarians in the secular West would not be nearly as willing to risk that much in a revolution). Moreover, the urban terrain American soldiers face in Iraq, and the mountainous terrain they face in Afghanistan, have made the wars extremely difficult to engage in.

Remember that the US is close to bankruptcy and is already spending tons of money on its war in Afghanistan. If it even considered to invade Hungary , it would go even deeper into economic hardship. Also the US citizens would not be very pleased. Not to mention pretty much all the West European states are in pretty bad shape right now as well.

Your entire example depends on a socialist revolution occurring in Hungary within the next few years. Furthermore, the "debt" the United States is currently faced with is not nearly as problematic as the conservative pundits make it out to be. I assure you, if socialism were to arise in Europe again, the bourgeois states would collectively destroy it before it even had the opportunity to present itself as a threat to their interests. The will of the American people is of no consequence to the foreign policy the government follows—the majority of the nation has been opposed to the Iraq War from its outset, and to the war in Afghanistan for years now, but nothing of substance has been done to end either one.

Oh and if you dont expect me to wait for foreign proletarians to come to my Nations assistance then what do you expect me to do with your idea of Proletarian Internationalism?

The idea is simple: Once a geopolitically significant socialist nation emerges, it extends assistance (in the form of weaponry and/or military expertise) to proletarian uprises abroad. Those nations, in turn, extend similar assistance to subsequent socialist movements. This mutual aid continues until global capitalism has been defeated, thereby enabling each socialist nation to develop itself autonomously and to peacefully coexist with its neighbors.