No.409820
What is the materialist explanation for communist and radical revolutions almost exclusively happening in extremely conservative/reactionary societies? I mran come on 1917 Russia, the bastion of traditionalism and Christianity in Europe suddenly murders the Emperor, burns churches, legalizes abortion, abolishes torture and corporal punishment, grants women full rights and absolutely anhilliates the landowning class which was a staple of Russian society for centuries. And a majority of the population embraces it enthusiastically with very sparse and unpopular rebellions. Hell, anarchism became popular.
Then we got Spain, the home of the inquisitioin suddenly have the catholic church dismembered by angry citizens. Not to mention China, Mongolia, Cambodia and others. I know workers were suffering especially bad in these countries, but some of these people valued their traditions more than a full stomach and wouldn't the local communist leaders simply ditch the cultural part of the revolution and just embrace redistribution and collectivization under a nationalist anti imperialist banner.
Why did the countries that were seen as the most spooked so eager to embrace an ideology that promised to turn upside down everything they ever knew and create something new and radical, while the historical hotspots of enlightened intellectuals and philosophers like france,Italy and Germany never even came close to having a successful revolution and turned out to have the most disinterested and passive populace.
I just don't understand the paradox of the most radical and open minded societies (by 20th century standards) ended up being the most passive while revolution swept exclusively parts of the world that were hostile to this kind of "blasphemy".
Does living under repressive traditionalism create rebelious generations waiting for the right moment to erupt or is it more complex? I'd like to hear some opinions. Why did we have the most sucess in the most unlikely of places that even Marx wrote off as too spooked? Hell even afghanistan had a sucessful revolution and people there have a 1400s mindset.
>>
No.409972
>“In Southeast Asia as well as in India and certain countries of Africa and even Latin America, there exist some social conditions comparable to those that brought on the Chinese revolution. Each country has its own problems, and solutions will vary widely, yet I wonder if you agree that social revolutions will occur which may borrow much from the Chinese?”
>Anti-feudal and anti-capitalist sentiments combined with opposition to imperialism and neo-colonialism, he replied, grew out of oppression and wrongs of the past. Wherever the latter existed there would be revolutions, but in most of the countries I was talking about, the people were merely seeking national independence, not socialism—quite another matter. European countries had also had anti-feudal revolutions. Though the United States had had no real feudal period, still it had fought a progressive war of independence from British colonialism, and then a civil war to establish a free labor market. Washington and Lincoln had been great men of the time.
>“Among the roughly three-fifths of the earth which belongs in the third world category, very acute problems exist, as we know. The gap between the ratio of population growth and growth of production is growing more disadvantageous. The gap between their every-falling standard of living and that of the affluent countries is rapidly widening. Under such conditions, will time wait for the Soviet Union to demonstrate the superiority of the socialist system—and then wait a century for parliamentarianism to arise in the underdeveloped areas and peacefully establish socialism?”
>Mao thought it would not wait so long.
>I asked whether the question did not perhaps touch upon the nexus of China’s ideological dispute with the Soviet Union. He agreed that it did.
>“Do you think it would be possible to complete not only the national liberation of emerging nations of the third world, but also their modernization, without another world war?”
>Use of the word “complete” must give one pause, he said. Most of the countries concerned were still very far from socialist revolutions. In some there were no Communist Parties at all, while in others there were only revisionists. It was said that Latin America had 20 Communist Parties and of these 18 had issued resolutions against China. One thing was certain. Where severe oppression existed there would be revolution.https://newrepublic.com/article/119916/edgar-snow-interview-china-chairman-mao-zedong >>
No.409985
This is a lot less complicated than you think. The less repressive societies were more accommodating to the demands of would be revolutionaries. Meanwhile the societies that didn't compromise at all generated a revolution