I’m watching the DNC, and it’s made me even more aware of the power of liberal bourgeois democracies to let out a little revolutionary energy whenever it gets close to the edge, through concessional policies, like New Deal policies or whatever Kamala might do if she wins, or even the act of voting and campaigning itself. Do they have to go through a fascism phase first, or has there been a liberal bourgeois democracy that has successfully had a socialist revolution? Will it take new theory to figure it out?
So far it appears, around the world, self-proclaimed communist parties that engage in electoralism subsequently are hampered by the constraints of bourgois democracy. I would be happy to be given examples that prove otherwise.
chile? venezula? (while i hear venezula isn’t a full out socialist, they are defying the us hegemony with a tint of communism because to be communist/full socialist would scare the national bougiouse [what i hear atleast])
Chile got owned for reasons connected to being demsoc and venezuela isn’t even nominally socialist, it’s just progressive.
I think yanks blowing up the president is a bigger reason for Chile getting owned
The whole reason why you need a vanguard party and a revolution is so you can marshal enough strength to keep your project from being toppled down just like that.
They got owned because they didn’t have control of the state, they just had elected office and, iirc, even took measures towards civilian disarmament on top of that, so when the military, which was just the same military as before Allende took office, did a coup, of course they succeeded.
As Lenin repeated many times (quoting I believe Marx), socialists cannot merely lay hold of the ready-made state machinery. That’s exactly what Allende did and it would have been very difficult for it to produce any other outcome.
In those countries the lack of democratic centralism is plain to see and if one is fearing bourgois sentiments then the authority of power still resides in the parasitic classes with all the failings that structure brings. The dictatorship of the proleteriat is a necessity to advance social development; it is hard enough battling imperialist and fascist forces let alone concede space for their “freedom of expression” with the weight of brutalising capital behind them.
Czar Nicholas and his Romanov dynasty were pretty damn liberal in pre-Soviet Russia, up to and including him spending most of his time doing foreign tourism, playing tennis, and sending his soldiers off to die for trivial reasons.
The western powers saw him as some grand cosmopolitan “reform” czar that was giving them what they wanted until that Great War thing.
Russia wasn’t a liberal country, it was a feudal monarchy, and the transition was from feudalism -> socialism, with peasants forming the basis of the revolutionary army (same for China, Vietnam, DPRK, etc). See my other comment but so far there hasn’t been any historical case (besides the USSR dragging east germany into socialism) of a capitalist -> socialist transition.
I may have used the term too loosely, but at the time, the western powers did see Nicholas II as some enlightened “reasonable” cosmopolitan reformist that they could shape like clay.
I mean, although it wasn’t by voting, technically, the USSR was birthed out of the destruction of the provisional, nominally liberal gov’t of Russia, led by Kerensky…
Totally forgot about that. Although in my defense, I’m still getting to that point in the Revolutions podcast (the Tsar just stepped down) and I definitely need to do more reading on that period since I heard the podcast will probably start getting pretty lib soon. I was predicting that it was going to be a more nominally socialist democratic government than liberal democracy because Kerensky was an SR and I was predicting the Bolsheviks were going to take it over from the SR’s or Mensheviks or something, but like I said, haven’t reached that part yet and haven’t done enough reading on the period yet lol.
Technically Russia was under a short lived liberal provisional government when the Bolshevik revolution happened and not the Tsar’s regime. The Spanish Civil war is a strange case where both a fascist insurgency and a socialist revolution broke out from a liberal government at the same time, unfortunately the fascists ended up coming out on top there. China too is kinda similar where both the CPC and Chiang’s nationalists splintered out from the liberal Beiyang government.
I forgot about the fact that the Tsar was down by the time the Bolsheviks took over. I thought they took it over from other socialists, though, because he was an SR. I’m still getting to that point in the Revolutions podcast admittedly lol, and need to do more reading on that period lol.
I don’t believe that the Beiyang government warrants the term liberal, if I’m being honest… what justifies the label?
I suppose it’s a bit murky perhaps as China at the time simply wasn’t at a stage of development where it could be clearly designated between capitalism and socialism, and the Beiyang government during it’s time mostly just had it’s hands full bringing about very basic rights and reforms that were deprived during the Qing era. I’ve heard that there is still debate within China if Sun Yat-Sen’s vision for China was more in line with socialism or liberalism, I simply deemed Beiyang China as liberal since it couldn’t clearly be designated as socialist.
it hardly even warrants the term government either
It’s a warlord-nation area, essentially…
I also didn’t realize Spain had a liberal government before the Civil War. I guess I always figured it was a monarchy like everywhere else, but a quick read on Wikipedia shows it was a democratic liberal government and the monarchy was deposed 5 or so years earlier. Thanks for that interesting fact and unique case.
Between this and the Russia example, I wonder if the beginning of a liberal bourgeois democracy is it at its weakest. Socialism feels so hopeless now in the US, with how strong and entrenched it’s liberal bourgeois institutions are now. But then the Roman Republic fell after hundreds of years, and we haven’t really had capitalism that long yet, so maybe it’s possible with the right conditions.
We should really focus on who holds economic power, and what the primary mode of production was. And in both Russia and China, it was feudalism, and feudal landlords who held power over a largely peasant population.
Not really (with maybe the exception of east germany, but not through any internal revolution, but dragged into a socialism by the USSR after WW2). Every country that became socialist was previously a feudal monarchy, and largely produced an agricultural surplus.
One of Lenin’s major correction’s to Marx and Engels, was that capitalism does not break in it’s birthplaces, where capitalism is most entrenched, but in the weakest links in the chain, where capitalist industry and power is still in a precarious position.
This was the case in Russia, China, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, - etc.
Old comment about this:
Start MoP -> End Examples Clan Socialist Mongolia Clan Feudal Germany Clan Slave West Africa Slave Capitalist US Feudal Capitalist Western Europe Feudal Socialist USSR, China, DPRK, Vietnam, Cuba Capitalist Socialist East Germany Socialist Capitalist USSR Feudal Slave Roman Republic Slave Feudal Late Roman Empire (Colonate) Note:
- Marx and Engels wrong abt birthplaces transition.
- Almost every one of these transitions came through war.
- The most common socialist transition is not from capitalist -> socialist, but feudal -> socialist
Also to your point, if there is a list of countries most likely to have a revolution, IMO the US would be dead last on the list. Far more likely would be a few countries taking the socialist road in South America, and Africa. Also possibly Russia, which some comrades have commented on.
Well that’s depressing. But makes sense.
Africa;
Angola and Barkina Faso.
The Angolan revolution happened while they where trying to institute liberal democracy (by torturing and raping for there colonial masters)
