Why are Marxists obsessed with Global Revolution

aren't there a lot of monastic / religious communities throughout history which already functions like that?

Communism seems very possible, if only they left out the revolution and kill the bourgeois part, nobody will be bothered with them either

>Communism can't survive in the world at large unless everyone does it
TROTSKY GET OFF MY BOARD REEEEE

One of the biggest problems with communism is the rhetoric and the type of people it can attract.
Village scale communism that just wants to do it's own thing sounds comfy as fuck, the government should just leave these kind of communes alone.

I feel like Marxists their obsession with reckonings are their downfall.
They can't conceive of a more boring but efficient way out. Zizek kind of has it too, at times, but at least he admits at the most reasoned of junctures that simple changes and even theology tier discussions can have an effect.

But most leftists are fucking idiots. And the most pubescent ones need this Wagnerian clash of titans. Smashing racism in the street. Overturning a government through swaths of people waving red flags, triumphantly charging against the oppressors on the steps of a government building.
Sure. You can do it that way. And lead everything into the fucking shitter 9,99/10 chances.

this x 1000

If the revolution happens in one country, capitalists abroad will just conquer that country.

A global revolution, or at least a powerful socialist bloc, is necessary to defend from imperialism.

Yeah, communism is about socialist communes working together in the absence of the state. Such a society would both be radically local and radically global simultaneously.

National governments would no longer exist.

Problem is that it can't happen without the revolution and kill the bourgeoisie part

Because the fundamental worldview that leads people towards Marxism is the idea that all humans are equally valuable and deserve equal protection from lives of servitude, etc. It's a collectivist position.

What's the "opposite / alternative / whatever" to Marxism? It's gotta be some kind of individualism that emphasize individuals and smaller associations competing. So it's not going to require or necessarily desire universal adoption.

I'm not on either side, but this is the actual explanation to the OPs question.

Icepick brain had a point, how can communism succeed when capitalist forces outside are strong enough to defeat it?

epik meme dood XDD!!!

Is there any historical precedent for a transnational global revolution happening all at once all in ideological lockstep with each other?

I am sick and tired of this. Every day I come to Veeky Forums, and every day there is at least one thread up with an OP image of an attractive old man dressed sharply and posing seductively. It's probably the same one or two people who do it honestly. Let me tell you something, you faggot pieces of shit who are doing this: you are the poster child for everything that is wrong in literature, art, and society as a whole today. You are incapable of coming up with anything creative, thought provoking, or of substance, and you lack even the smallest modicum of intelligence, so you use "style" and "class" and "respectability" in place of it and to draw attention to yourself, because that's the only way your SHIT "creation" and ideas would ever get seen by anyone. And before you say anything, this has NOTHING to do with the fact that I am an hormone addled teenager. Anyway, I will be petitioning the owner of this website to ban your asses, so enjoy being able to post here while it lasts, because it's not going to last long, just like you that one time you convinced your Old gym teacher to let you fuck him.

Lol commies are the no.1 easiest to spot by outstanding displays of butthurtery.

>I am sick and tired of this. Every day I come to Veeky Forums, and every day there is at least one thread up with an OP image of an attractive old man dressed sharply and posing seductively. It's probably the same one or two people who do it honestly. Let me tell you something, you faggot pieces of shit who are doing this: you are the poster child for everything that is wrong in literature, art, and society as a whole today. You are incapable of coming up with anything creative, thought provoking, or of substance, and you lack even the smallest modicum of intelligence, so you use "style" and "class" and "respectability" in place of it and to draw attention to yourself, because that's the only way your SHIT "creation" and ideas would ever get seen by anyone. And before you say anything, this has NOTHING to do with the fact that I am an hormone addled teenager. Anyway, I will be petitioning the owner of this website to ban your asses, so enjoy being able to post here while it lasts, because it's not going to last long, just like you that one time you convinced your Old gym teacher to let you fuck him.

>what is wrong with having a focus on local civilizations?

Nothing, its been done before pleanty of times ans still is being done. Its just Radical capitalist extremists killed a lot of these fuckin Guerrillas off

>Communism would also work a lot better in local....
Same argument for every style of government.

Look it's like this.

Childhood is thinking Democracy is the true form of government and everyone has a say.

Adulthood is realizing the world population is too big to govern everyone properly and everyone is just fucked.

All the in between shit is just still having faith in humanity, no matter how little or big that faith is.

I envy most people who argue politics, keep trying to save the world you innocent young minds!

...

Of course not. Revolutions are informed by the social and natural conditions that create them.

Well fuck it's still better to make attempts at it than not to.

You don't need to govern tons of people directly anyways. Just make incentives to have them do what you want, that's what subsidies and shit are for. The market solves all.

>what is wrong with having a focus more on local civilizations
Well, they tried that. It was called "socialism in one country" and it was really stupid and shitty

The market solves all by destroying all

Which is why the third world and climate change exists.

Thats not true at all

thats a generalization. its not true

Because a deracinated, globalized, internationalist word is the Jewish wet dream. They know that if the goyim have some sort of group identity and their own nation, the Jews are getting pogrom'd, so they strive to create a society where no identity exists.

Contrast this to Bismarck's Staatssozialismus and National Socialism (Strasser and Rohm, not Hitler), both of which are extremely nationalistic and sratist.

tldr interbationalism is a code word for jewishness

Because then you have Operation Condor and capitalist interventionism.

Mate look up the labour theory of value, marxists actually unironically believe a turd sandwich that took a million man-hours to make would be the most valuable object on earth.

They're a retarded bunch, there's not much logic or reason to what they do.

This is pretty much accurate. Communism only works when the whole world's doing it, but since you can't get the whole world to agree on it, it'll never function properly. It's part of why the Soviet Union had to create a walled sphere of influence against the west because the west would out compete them in various fields.

nice meme

not an argument

Care to provide anything that proves it wrong?

Prove me wrong bish

muh Plymouth colony commune

>what is wrong with having a focus more on local civilizations, local cultures instead of trying to fit the whole world under 1 system.
Because Communism can't directly compete with capitalism. It only works properly when everyone is communist at the same time.

These kind of retards are why I still feel compelled to defend marxism even if it's ultimately wrong.

Because you're a Jew. I don't even mean it as an insult, it's just a fact. Note how both libertarianism and Marxist communism strongly push globalization, internationalism and borderless world, and both are Jewish in origin. The organic, European forms of socialism don't push this nonsense and are very nationalist and territorial. This is also why the Eastern Bloc basically became fervently nationalist after Stalin purged the Jews from the soviets and the NKVD.

I even understand it from your point of view, it's just self preservation. But don't be mad or shocked when the goyim aren't hopping on board after they realize it only serves your own interests and not theirs.

You communoboos are the most pathetic psuedo-intellectuals on the planet

>Faced with logical conclusions drawn from historical results of the introduction of communism
>Nuh uh
>not muh true gommunism
>it'd work if we all just got along better

Fuck off.

I think the global nature of socialism (which would be the transitional stage to communism) arises from the fact that capitalist industry is incredibly global or at least socialised. That is to say, capitalist enterprise needs the cooperation of many workers not only in terms of materials that are transported across the world but also through the labour process itself.

What is weird about a capitalist society is that the social surplus generated by the socialised work force is then appropriated privately for the capitalist to generate profit. This means that a great deal of economic and therefore political power is in the hands of a few who are not democratically accountable to the many.

Socialism therefore is the state affairs where thanks to capitalism we have the material conditions for socialism in the form of socialised global production facilities but control of those facilities is in the hands of the working masses.

Don't those same monastic communities have strictly enforced hierarchical systems, where membership is preconditioned on the fact that you accept these systems as an imitation of the divine on Earth and all the ritual and pomp that comes with that?

Not an argument.

>libertarianism
>internationalism
nope

>European forms of socialism don't push this nonsense and are very nationalist and territorial.
Nope, just take a look at European forms of socialism nowadays.

>This is also why the Eastern Bloc basically became fervently nationalist after Stalin purged the Jews from the soviets and the NKVD.
Akshuelly USSR was nationalist almost since the beggining in order to replace old Russian imperialism, read about korenizaciya. Stalin later crushed the dream of some nations that had grown a bit too conscious due to Lenin's program.

Rest of block was only nationalist as long as the nationalism was pro-Russian (Czech nationalism encouraged, Polish not).

> the introduction of communism

Where have statelessness, classlessness, and propertylessness all taken root in the same place at the same time at any point in human history post-early agriculture? We've only recently reached the point where we can actually sustain such a society

The Russian Revolution was analogous to the French Revolution in that it propelled Russia into capitalism by destroying the political remnants of feudalism in Russia. All the dreamers and whiny idealists from the early Soviet Union may have thought that they would genuinely be able to establish socialism, but as it turns out it wasn't the time.

>it'd work if we all just got along better

You misunderstand. Humans already get along well enough for communism to work, the issue would be figuring out how to structure society in such a way that we can enable people to associate freely while still preserving the liberties of others.

Not necessarily "global", but any social system that is at odds with the established social systems of the world needs to export itself, or it's gonna have a problem exporting its products.

What makes you think that communism/socialism/anything marxism related has anything to do with centralization?

Don't you think it would be smarter to think that maybe a lot of those countries centralized their industries out of a need for rapid industrialization rather than ideology?

Communism and Socialism can most definitely be work like that, in fact, it's stupid to think that smart philosophers would be so arrogant to assume everyone in the world would want to live in a centralized world where I had to share my toothbrush.

Ever heard of Democratic Confederalism?

>What makes you think that communism/socialism/anything marxism related has anything to do with centralization?
Well there is the bit about Marx's preference for unitary over federal republics
Guy wasn't too hot on federalism, that was proudhonist turf.

>Because you're a Jew
False.

>both are Jewish in origin
False.

>The organic, European forms of socialism don't push this nonsense and are very nationalist and territorial
False as a generalization.

Try reading instead of pretending to be a mentalist and vomiting propaganda from /pol/ infopics.