The West is a better launching pad for the development and global export of socialism given its democratic traditions and respect for individual rights. Socialism in other regions should not be prioritized because all of the attempts result in non-democratic, non-socialist, bureaucratic ruling-class regimes. Socialists around the world should move to NATO countries and organize there, creating a libertarian communist superpower capable of leading global socialist development.
The exact sequence involves probably peripheral countries with democratic traditions around the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Europe as possibly early leaders or early followers. Then at some point the pendulum weight of industrializing BRIC countries can swing, followed in the end by the entirety of the developing world.
In the case of newly-formed socialist republics in the West, absolute priority has to be given to securing the stability of these systems over moralistic Leftist concerns about how it is done.
For examples, the dominant culture of the Left supports extreme radical proposals such as pure unrestricted open borders. But in reality, it is likely that socialist revolution occurs on the basis of a political coalition consisting of workers persuaded toward socialism because it serves their economic needs and empowers them as workers on a non-moralistic basis, but that coalition may begin to erode if they believe that socialism means that they are going to be inundated by foreigners to the point of turning them into foreigners in their own country, and losing their culture, their neighborhood identity, and their cultural identity. For example, only 50% of New York City speaks English at home, and while that may work for New York City, the mass native proletarian base that brought about the revolution might not be comfortable with that all throughout the USA.
“Without an alliance with non-Communists in the most diverse spheres of activity there can be no question of any successful communist construction.”
-Lenin, The Significance of Militant Materialism (1922)
Likewise, Leftists may propose a sacrificial level of global development aid that cuts into the standard of living of the Western working class, again jeopardizing domestic support for the socialist system itself. This would be foolish. We can balance domestic stability with a reasonable level of support for global socialist development, thus alleviating the conditions in the developing world which cause the very refugee influx into the first world that cause reactionary populist xenophobic destabilization threats against the first world socialist republics in the first place.
Or it may simply be a case of order vs. chaos. It may be necessary to fully integrate the existing population into structures of full employment and a functioning economy before letting a country be destabilized by potentially massive levels of immigration from an altered world situation. It may be necessary to preserve stable civic order, and thus the developed economic infrastructure which serves as the basis of socialism, through methods that don’t immediately match perfect Leftist ideals.
In the event that the tradeoff becomes a choice between securing the stability of socialism in a first-world nation at the expense of open borders or aid to the third world, or jeopardizing socialism in a first-world nation in favor of open borders or development projects in the third world, ABSOLUTE PRIORITY MUST BE GIVEN TO THE FIRST WORLD DEVELOPED SOCIALIST COUNTRIES. Only advanced, developed countries have the material basis for a socialism that is truly democratic, and therefore truly socialist. Socialism can therefore be extended from the first world possibly to the third world, but hoping that the third world will advance to sufficiently mature conditions for socialist democracy midway through the process of development, or midway through the formation of a culture of democratic norms and individual rights, is far too much of a gamble. The infrastructural and economic material base and democratic norms in the first world countries must be protected in order to secure the existence of socialism, rather than let it fall apart in the hope of a gamble that it could possibly take root in the developing world. Given that this is literally a scenario in which the existence of socialism is being defended against destabilization and the reversion into reactionary political economies that accompanies all social collapses, this priority must be imposed at literally any cost. Though it resembles the doctrine of socialism in one country, it is not precisely. Its aspirations are international — but it does accept the reality of time, the reality of delays to that full international blooming, the reality of delays between the emergence of the first infant proletarian states and the total, final, complete resolution of the global humanitarian crisis of hunger, development, and displacement.
There is a serious risk that moralistic elements of the Left will lose touch with the proletarian coalition on which workers’ power rests, and rush to emphasize global relief, global development, refugee intake, and immediate open borders over all other considerations out of moralism, humanitarian impulses, and their own complexes of guilt and shame. EMERGING SOCIALISM COULD LITERALLY BE KILLED BY ITS OWN CONSCIENCE. We must be the stern hand that says No, while keeping in mind that conscience is the ultimate goal. But we may be surprised by the rush of enthusiasm and the outpouring of moralism that accompanies a youthful socialist society, and be overwhelmed by the sheer extent of restraint we are compelled to impose to prevent collapse. Impose it we must.
We must protect socialism from the chaos and collapse of inundation even if it hurts. Managing scarcity in a post-revolutionary situation is a scary thing. That doesn’t mean we can avoid it, but it also doesn’t mean we have to collapse into mistaking the bureaucratic oligarchies of the third world for actual socialism, which merely create a new problem of class society instead of resolving the entire problem we are trying to solve. We must manage the scarcity judiciously, so that we don’t collapse below the threshold from a socialist society with some lingering rules in place, to a bureaucratic class society that is no longer socialism. Accomplishing this may involve firmly managing the uncomfortable balance between the West and the rest, the developed and the undeveloped world.