So when the revolution comes should it start in third world countries or imperialist states? And should it start in the rural areas first or the urban ones. Please give me your thoughts.

Revolution already has come. It started in third world countries. It will end in imperialist states. Rural and Urban. Ongoing. It's not something that's going to start one day and end the next. It's a fucking global revolution, not cricket.

Depends on what sort of revolution you speak of. Revolution is indeed happening throughout the third world. However, these are bourgeoisie in nature, involving peasantry, which are extremely reactionary by nature. Although, in Nepal, their revolution is under the communist flag, but is being led by peasants in absence of the proletariat. The problem is, the material conditions are not present in Nepal for socialism to take hold, after the revolution. They simply do not have the infrastructure for socialism.

In the absence of a class-conscious proletariat, the country will then need to make 'compromises' in order to maintain socialism. Although my hopes go out to these people, I suspect this 'brand' of communism can only result in a bureaucratic state-capitalist society.

A communist revolution must come from countries with the most prominent class divisions between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and will come at a time when the bourgeoisie have pushed the petty-bourgeoisie into the lower class strata. However, perhaps once an advanced capitalist, industrialized country goes through a communist revolution, they may be able to nurture socialism in a less developed country that has a lack of proletariat.

In the urban versus rural argument.

Rural fighting would be slower paced, on a more set piece basis and will claim less lives.

Urban warfare would require well trained and intelligent fighters. The death toll would be catastrophic. The harsh and ironic thing is that urban warfare is more successful in winning revolution.

Also with urban revolution you get the factor of chaos on your side, if we struck in an urban area their would be widespread panic which if we used correctly could work out in our favor. But I still think rural is the place to start, like said before it has less casualties and you gain more land, but if their is to be a serious revolution it ill have to be everywhere at once.

This is a bit of a misnomer... it would appear third world revolution, although I'm not discounting the possibility as a whole, more often develops into a more advanced bourgeois revolution. It is very much a revolution to develop capitalism to the full (whether it be free, regulated, or state) -- to advance those nations as much as possible, where previously even if they've had "capitalism." It has done little to advance as capitalism has in the imperialist nations.

I suspect you will find that the revolutions of the imperialist nations will be far more final, and a secondary revolution or at the very least, strong influence from new socialist nations there, will be required to establish socialism in the third world. In this sense, the most advanced capitalist nations make in there first.

Of course, this is all theory -- only time will tell us the truth.

Dibs go to comradekurt on this, who I did not realize made a similar argument earlier. Sorry Comrade Kurt, I just read the post I responded to and jumped right on it... maybe some day I'll learn to read the whole thread first.

Revolution this, revolution that. Like the brother said there are many revolutions going on in third world countries.

Perhaps I was a bit unclear in what I meant. I don't see the revolutions in the third world as independent, but as part of an integrated whole. Much like you wouldn't call an insurrection in NY, NY the "new york revolution" and another a few weeks later in boston, MA the "boston revolution" but include both as a US revolution, so too I would group all revolutions in the last century as one entire global revolution.

It matters little what was achieved in these past third-world revolutions when approaching it as a global revolution. I tend to think of them as initial sparks in a revolutionary engine; while they do little on their own, they eventually culminate into greater and more wide-spread revolutionary acts until ignition reaches full steam, and the feul begins to burn steadily.

Like the brother already said the revolution already begun. Revolution is a process. The revolution did not end at the Revolutionary War. The revolution did not end with Nat Turner, Vessey, Assata Shakur, Fred Hampton, Huey Newton, Malcolm X, Dr King,etc.

It's a movement. But what are you doing to progress this movement is the true question. Are you an armchair revolutionary? The revolution will not be televised.

But is it the initial development of socialist revolution or is it the finalization of bourgeois development?

You do realise how much money Assata Shakur is making by selling Tupacs work to be on weak albums.

I would say both. The development of the bourgeois is necessarily the development of its own destruction. How many of us, truthfully, would know much of anything about communism had it not been for the so-called "communist" revolutions throught the third world, whether they were actually communist or not? These revolutions could've easily been called bourgeois revolutions in another world--would the destruction of capitalism be furthered in the same manner if it were so? I honestly can't see how it would have been.

Whether we like it or not, most of us, at some point, depend upon the russian revolution as the origin for our current knowledge of marxism, communism, and leftism in general. If lenin siezed control of the state in the name of capitalism, I have a feeling that we, as a loose-knit group, wouldn't even be half as numerous as we are now.

We tend to forget that revolution includes the spread of revolutionary ideas. Those, above all, serve as the spark for the rest of it.

Once we have guns. Now go back to your chillin'-room and watch some goddamn TV and mellow out! Then, we will call your when "the game starts". That's the fuckin' codeword, jerk, renember'rat. Oh, and it'll be free barbecue and AK-47's FOR EVERYONE! (So don't give me that bullshit that it has been a reknowned terrorist-gun/rifle, YEAH I KNOW, so what? We're not unjusticeful! No killings of -unarmed- civilians)

If a western country fell to revolution imagine the impact on the international community. On a global scale no-one really cares if Uzbekistan or Burkina Faso have civil wars; to them its just another small country with no impact on the world's economy or politics.

If a first world nation had a revolution then the west would be hurt badly and maybe the chance of revolutionary success worldwide would be a lot higher.

The revolution can only first occur in third world countries because the imperialist countries lack revolutionary potential.

The revolution in the third world would quickly spill out across borders into imperialist countries and then we could rely on the urban proletarian and rural poor to assist in the revolution in the imperialist world.

Everyday it's around you, you live neck-deep in revolution and yet never seem to realise.

Well said.

Currently as a political organiser im looking into potential hotspots and such forth. Its only the conservative sort of believers who are happy with their government. The centre, far left and far right are pissed off.

The mind.

Once we have held the revolution inside ourselves, and we are ready to fully take on the responsibility of revolution. I don't know if many people, myself included, have yet.

From the RCP's Draft Programme (highly relevent to this thread)



Revolution Means Waging People’s War

The RCP,USA bases itself on the fundamental truth that this system cannot be reformed, and that revolution in the U.S. will mean revolutionary war! Mao Tsetung teaches us: “The revolutionary war is a war of the masses, it can be waged only by mobilizing the masses and relying on them.”

Today, more and more, the oppressed people, especially those among the younger generation, hate the world they are forced to live in and recognize the system will never change. They say “the oppressors will never stop doing what they are doing—it only gets worse. If they want war, let’s give them war!” We say, “Yes! Let’s give them war, BUT let’s do it for real and let’s do it to win!” Let’s do it with the orientation, strategy and doctrine that will provide the means for the masses to go up against and actually defeat the powerful armed forces of the imperialists.

Only a revolutionary people’s war, led by a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party, will lead to the seizure of power by the proletariat, and enable it to establish its dictatorship and bring into being a new society that will serve the interests of the masses of people and, above all, will serve as a base area for the world proletarian revolution. Mao Tsetung said, “The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history.”

for the rest of this