A UNIFIED SOCIALIST STATE IS THE ESSENTIAL PRECURSOR AND MEANS OF WORLD REVOLUTION!

A UNIFIED SOCIALIST STATE IS THE ESSENTIAL PRECURSOR AND MEANS OF WORLD REVOLUTION!

Let us suppose Communist theory develops somewhat differently. (The change to theory might be in Marx's 19th century books, or in the early 20th century, but the practical effect is in the 20th)

A central tenet, just like atheism, nationalisation, etc., is that world workers' revolution will be a gradual process:

1. First there will be a communist revolution in one state.

2. Some capitalist states may try to destroy that state, but others will also to gain advantage over other capitalist states by coming to accommodation/trade with the communist state.

3. The communist state, although initially outnumbered/outgunned by the capitalist states will be able to survive by playing them off against each other, temporary alliances, etc. In short, because the capitalist state is *unified*, but the capitalist world is disunified.

4. Eventually the communist state will expand, by new revolutions, militarily defeating weaker capitalist states, etc. It is essential that socialist areas maintain their unity in order to defeat the capitalists -- A UNIFIED SOCIALIST STATE IS THE ESSENTIAL PRECURSOR AND MEANS OF WORLD REVOLUTION!

In other worlds, new socialist areas are to be incorporated (annexed) to the socalist state.

5. The goal is eventually to annex the whole world.
 
Your proposal is definitly not radical enough to prevail against the capitalist states. Also, education is an essential step in the process. The communist state must engage the people in a dialogue about and a reimagining of the concepts of values, obligations, freedoms, duties, rights and responsibilities. This educational process must be intense, compulsory and manditory. Without it, the workers revolution will eventually be washed away like a sand castle on the sea shore.
 
Also, you can't double-deuce the Capitalists that long. Especially in the 1900 when everybody has just had about enough of Revolutions, even a moderate one and everybody will try to keep the status quo.
 
Also, you can't double-deuce the Capitalists that long. Especially in the 1900 when everybody has just had about enough of Revolutions, even a moderate one and everybody will try to keep the status quo.

I'm saying it's a right or correct or good political theory. I'm saying it's a _possible_ theory.

Let me summarize it, the theory, this way

1. Capitalist States = Disunitied, fight among themselves = wasteful
2. Communist State = United = not wasteful
3. Therefore 2 will eventually beat 1

The follow-up is that once the first communist state is established (USSR?), any subsequent communist states established _must_ be incorporated (annexed) into the former.
 
Too revolutionary.
Evolution is proper way to go.

The best way would be to have a unified capitalist state first- socialism is too nice to take over the world, capitalism could easily buy out the world (ala Britain).

The trouble with 19th century socialism is it was too early, the world was only just getting the hang of capitalism. The age of socialism is really only just dawning post-war...ish. And there'll be a lengthy transition period.
e.g. the age of feudalism only really totally lost its bulk around Napoleonic wars. In the 19th century capitalism remains the progressive force.
 

HueyLong

Banned
I can just see some Flashman-esque work with socialists trying to follow Marx's plans of supporting capitalism (especially in India) and their bumbling attempts at it.

MAN1: So, why'd you work for the East India Company?
MAN2: Socialism.
<MAN1 looks at attire of MAN2, then mansion in background>
MAN2: Eventual socialism.
 
Top