One Counrty Socialism

[Il Medico]

I have recently come to the understanding of what this term actually applies to. I still disagree, preferring a more traditional Marxist view of the revolution. However, I feel that this should be discussed and explained. I trust, Marxist-Leninist will be to explain it better. I invite them to explain their theory here.

[Q]

What is your current understanding of it then and why do you still disagree with it?

[Il Medico]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=2070 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2070)This is, unless the Marxist-Leninist don't what they are talking about, but it is their theory, so they should.
I still think that the only way to defend countries that go socialist is to quickly spread the revolution to the rest of the world. My opinion that the approach stated by Kassad and others will not work. History supports this, because in the past it has failed, in every instance, to start and sustain the revolution. I am sure they will blame this on the revisionist, but I still disagree with thier theroies.

[Q]

The link is dead.

Also, I don't follow this:

My opinion that the approach stated by Kassad and others will work. History supports this, because in the past it has failed, in every instance, to start and sustain the revolution.
You probably meant "My opinion that the approach stated by Kassad and others will not work"?

[h9socialist]

"Socialism in one country" was originally a Stalinist economic concept. Lenin and Trotsky were both skeptical about the viability of the Soviet Union without economic relations to a larger community of socialist countries. In 1919, they saw Germany as ripe for revolution -- Germany was far more industrially advanced than Russia at that time. Stalin's "socialism in one country" was an idea meant to counteract the fact that by the late 1920's there had been no socialist revolutions in any of the major capitalist nations (Russia was feudal with a very underdeveloped bourgeoisie in 1917). The problem with one country socialism is the resources for a modern economy are unevenly spread around the globe. Consequently, there's some truth in the capitalist concept of "comparative advantage." Che ran into this problem in the early 1960's when he led the effort to diversify the Cuban economy, so it would not be so dependent upon sugar exports. It was not a successful effort, in part because Cuba by itself had limited resources, and because Soviet trade rules bordered on capitalism. This is borne out by Che's speech to the Afro-Asian Conference in 1965. "Socialism in one country" can be too easily subverted by hostile capitalist powers -- and more is needed for a socialist economic block than the Soviet Union and a few war-torn satellite countries. In the end. Comandante Guevara was absolutely correct to say that new rules of trade were necessary among socialist countries -- rules that would be truly "socialistic" -- but getting an industrial economy to redefine "value' and eliminate "surplus value" from economic exchange is difficult even for socialist countries.

[Q]

*whoops*

[Il Medico]

The link is dead.
Damn, well if your interested, it was in the Marxist-Leninist group, under the discussion 'Socialism in one country" posted by mykittyhasaboner.


Also, I don't follow this:

You probably meant "My opinion that the approach stated by Kassad and others will not work"?
Yes you are right. Typo, I already fixed it.

[h9socialist]

One thing worth noting . . . a major socialist experiment is going on in Latin America right now. Think of how many countries now have ruling socialist governments: Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Brazil, Guatemala and El Salvador. The Left is making a lot of headway in Latin America -- and that list should be augmented by the vanguard nation of Cuba. "Socialism in one country" is irrelevant in Latin America, because there are several nations on their way to socialsim. Perhaps it's an imperfect socialism, but it's progress that was unimaginable a generation ago. In an ironic, and less bloody way, Che's dream of a socialist revolution in Latin America that can stand up to imperialism is taking root. The question may not be starting a bunch of new revolutions as much as growing the revolution that's already happening so that national borders can't contain it.

[LeninBalls]

Here


Socialism in one country was never really a theory that was supposed to lodge into Marxist practise, and by no means is it still.

It was just a more or less a placeholder, to strengthen a backwards poverty stricken nation for the inevitable fascist hordes of Nazi Germany and the global scale, when revolution in Europe had clearly failed and wouldn't get back on it's feet for a while, until socialism can be spread again (in this case post ww2)

From Lenin;

"If you are unable to adapt yourself, if you are not inclined to crawl on your belly in the mud, you are not a revolutionary but a chatterbox; and I propose this, not because I like it, but because we have no other road, because history has not been kind enough to bring the revolution to maturity everywhere simultaneously." (Lenin, Political Report of the CC to the Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the RCP, March 7 1918, Collected Works, Vol 27).
‘The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in the various countries. It cannot be otherwise under the commodity production system. From this, it follows irrefutably that Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time’. (V. I. Lenin: C. W. Russ. Ed. Vol. 19; p.325)."

Like said earlier, socialism in one country through Stalin's eyes (the "pioneer" of it), was only a temporary measure to pump up the USSR until revolution is ripe again. I mean, you might as well industrialize and strenghten your socialist country for the time being until socialism is ready to be released again like post WWI, right?

""For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. Lenin expressed this thought succinctly when he said that the task of the victorious revolution is to do "the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries. (Stalin, Vol. XXIII: The Foundations of Leninism, p. 385)"

And by "spreading revolution" from a country from a country, you can't. Unless you sent hundreds of spies and tried to coup a nation and/or invade it cuz u can.

[Il Medico]

One thing worth noting . . . a major socialist experiment is going on in Latin America right now. Think of how many countries now have ruling socialist governments: Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Brazil, Guatemala and El Salvador. The Left is making a lot of headway in Latin America -- and that list should be augmented by the vanguard nation of Cuba. "Socialism in one country" is irrelevant in Latin America, because there are several nations on their way to socialsim. Perhaps it's an imperfect socialism, but it's progress that was unimaginable a generation ago. In an ironic, and less bloody way, Che's dream of a socialist revolution in Latin America that can stand up to imperialism is taking root. The question may not be starting a bunch of new revolutions as much as growing the revolution that's already happening so that national borders can't contain it.
I completely agree. The wide support for leftism in Latin America makes it a prefect candidate for the revolution to start and spread quickly. However, the draw back is that these countries aren't as developed and risk falling into the situation the USSR did. Another place that revolution could spring up is Europe. The western European powers have been hugely hurt by the failure of the American version of Capitalism. They most likely will start to lean towards social democracy, similar to Latin America or Sweden (who isn't doing that bad right now). These nations have all the requirements set forth by Marx. The revolution would also easily spread because to the increased openness of Europe due to the EU.

[h9socialist]

Comrade LeninBalls (whew!) -- you need a revolutionary vanguard, not a lot of spies. To revolution requires class consciousness, not coup de 'tats. There was a revealing bit of dialogue in Stephan Soderbeergh's "Che" -- in the decisive battle in Santa Clara Che tells the local commander "This is a revolution, not a coup!" The distinction is made: coups are from on high. Revolutions result from mass movements. How many banana-republic dictators (right and left) have come and gone in the time since the Cuban revolution triumphed? The answer is "a lot." That's because real revolutions (like Cuba) have popular support and participation. Coups and putsches do not.

[Kassad]

Stalin never promoted the ideology of 'socialism in one country' to mean that socialism would only be created in one country and that each revolutionary struggle would be disunified; the working class struggles being inconsistent with eachother. There's no source to support such a claim. Stalin and Lenin both realized that, contrary to Marx's theory, socialism would not take hold in industrialized nations and spread from nation to nation at the same general time. Revolutionary struggles, as history has shown us, vary based on national characteristics and the general ripeness and organization of the working class to forge revolution.

Socialism in one country does not mean that a socialist state would be isolated from other international revolutions. To the contrary, it means that each socialist country must develop and industrialize as if it would be the only socialist revolution. A nation must be prepared to defend itself from reactionary counterrevolution, as well as imperialism that attempts to undermine the struggle in favor of corporate and bourgeois interests. All workers struggles are united, but each struggle is unique based on industrial development and the preparation of the revolutionary vanguard.

A modern example would be Cuba. Cuba is not isolated from revolutionary struggle, as it collaborated with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China to maintain the workers state. Regardless, due to revisionism in China and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba is currently left to fend mostly for itself; standing defiantly in the face of the United States' military threats and imperialist exploitation. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the eastern socialist bloc, Cuba is left to fend for itself and it is experiencing serious setbacks because Fidel Castro did not make the nation totally self-sufficient; relying on Soviet trade and commodities to maintain itself. There is nothing wrong with revolutionary internationalism and collaboration, but there is a point in which self-sufficiency is imperative.

As I have said, all workers struggles must unite, regardless of borders. Regardless, each workers state must properly industrialize and maintain its strength, for revolutions are not fool-proof. Revisionism has brought down many revolutions that have been ignited by the working class, but the proper application of Marxism-Leninism can secure that socialism will thrive and continue, whether united with other nations or forced into isolation. One must not misread Stalin and Lenin's statements, as both of them rationally explain why socialism must spread to bring about world revolution, but we realize that the world is not surreal. Revolutions do not happen at the same time and often times, revisionism will bring economic turbulence or a rift between socialist states. Only through internal strengthening of the workers state can revolution hope to flourish.

[LeninBalls]

Comrade LeninBalls (whew!) -- you need a revolutionary vanguard, not a lot of spies. To revolution requires class consciousness, not coup de 'tats. There was a revealing bit of dialogue in Stephan Soderbeergh's "Che" -- in the decisive battle in Santa Clara Che tells the local commander "This is a revolution, not a coup!" The distinction is made: coups are from on high. Revolutions result from mass movements. How many banana-republic dictators (right and left) have come and gone in the time since the Cuban revolution triumphed? The answer is "a lot." That's because real revolutions (like Cuba) have popular support and participation. Coups and putsches do not.

Yes you do, I'm not denying that. But you can't force vanguards and class consciousness onto other countries, it's something that happens gradually in their own country. There's nothing wrong with giving a little class consciousness to other countries, but it won't be enough to cause a full scale revolution.

Like you said for Cuba, real revolutions require support from the populace, something a country cannot transfer onto another.

Admittedly one of the flaws of Stalin was that he tried to instate revolution to other countries after he went through eastern Europe en route Nazi Germany. By doing this, as in, shoving "revolution" down their throats without telling them what's happening, these countries developed unpopular state capitalist governments that demonized the Marxist movement.

[mykittyhasaboner]

"Socialism in one country" was originally a Stalinist economic concept. Lenin and Trotsky were both skeptical about the viability of the Soviet Union without economic relations to a larger community of socialist countries. In 1919, they saw Germany as ripe for revolution -- Germany was far more industrially advanced than Russia at that time. Stalin's "socialism in one country" was an idea meant to counteract the fact that by the late 1920's there had been no socialist revolutions in any of the major capitalist nations (Russia was feudal with a very underdeveloped bourgeoisie in 1917).
Yup.



The problem with one country socialism is the resources for a modern economy are unevenly spread around the globe. Consequently, there's some truth in the capitalist concept of "comparative advantage."This is true, the point was that Russia and the other republics had a wide range of resources already within their own territory. Hence the Soviet Union didn't really need to rely on other nations for major resources and the like.


Che ran into this problem in the early 1960's when he led the effort to diversify the Cuban economy, so it would not be so dependent upon sugar exports. It was not a successful effort, in part because Cuba by itself had limited resources, and because Soviet trade rules bordered on capitalism. The first part of this was correct, but how did the trade between Cuba and the Soviet Union border on capitalism? I would agree that the reliance of Cuban sugar exports in exchange for fuel in order to sustain an economy is cumbersome, and that Soviet trade at this time was defined by the need to import food and borrow from the West.

To be honest I don't see how 'comparative advantage' has much to do with Cuba in relevance to 'Socialism in One Country'; while Cuba could make sugar like crazy and sell it for a pretty decent price, this type of international cooperation with the socialist camp would cease in 1991. If we're talking about Cuba and whether 'Socialism in One Country' is possible, then we should be talking about the present state of Cuba as well as during the Special Period.


This is borne out by Che's speech to the Afro-Asian Conference in 1965. "Socialism in one country" can be too easily subverted by hostile capitalist powers -- and more is needed for a socialist economic block than the Soviet Union and a few war-torn satellite countries.In the long run, yes. However it is possible to sustain a proletarian dictatorship in one country for some period of time, before other countries undergo their own revolutions.


In the end. Comandante Guevara was absolutely correct to say that new rules of trade were necessary among socialist countries -- rules that would be truly "socialistic" -- but getting an industrial economy to redefine "value' and eliminate "surplus value" from economic exchange is difficult even for socialist countries.Right, because all socialist revolutions that have taken and held power had hardly finished the process of primitive accumulation, so of course it was difficult.


One thing worth noting . . . a major socialist experiment is going on in Latin America right now. Think of how many countries now have ruling socialist governments: Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Brazil, Guatemala and El Salvador.
I'm sorry but none of those government's are socialist worker's states. While there may have been significant gains made by the mass movements which got Chavez and the like elected, those countries still operate within a bourgeois framework, and have not expropriated the capitalist classes of said countries, and consolidated state power for the workers and peasants.



The Left is making a lot of headway in Latin America -- and that list should be augmented by the vanguard nation of Cuba. "Socialism in one country" is irrelevant in Latin America, because there are several nations on their way to socialsim. Perhaps it's an imperfect socialism, but it's progress that was unimaginable a generation ago. In an ironic, and less bloody way, Che's dream of a socialist revolution in Latin America that can stand up to imperialism is taking root. The question may not be starting a bunch of new revolutions as much as growing the revolution that's already happening so that national borders can't contain it.There has not been any revolution in Latin America; the only country that has undergone a socialist revolution, and exists as a worker's state is Cuba.

[Il Medico]

Stalin never promoted the ideology of 'socialism in one country' to mean that socialism would only be created in one country and that each revolutionary struggle would be disunified; the working class struggles being inconsistent with eachother. There's no source to support such a claim. Stalin and Lenin both realized that, contrary to Marx's theory, socialism would not take hold in industrialized nations and spread from nation to nation at the same general time. Revolutionary struggles, as history has shown us, vary based on national characteristics and the general ripeness and organization of the working class to forge revolution.

Socialism in one country does not mean that a socialist state would be isolated from other international revolutions. To the contrary, it means that each socialist country must develop and industrialize as if it would be the only socialist revolution. A nation must be prepared to defend itself from reactionary counterrevolution, as well as imperialism that attempts to undermine the struggle in favor of corporate and bourgeois interests. All workers struggles are united, but each struggle is unique based on industrial development and the preparation of the revolutionary vanguard.

A modern example would be Cuba. Cuba is not isolated from revolutionary struggle, as it collaborated with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China to maintain the workers state. Regardless, due to revisionism in China and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba is currently left to fend mostly for itself; standing defiantly in the face of the United States' military threats and imperialist exploitation. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the eastern socialist bloc, Cuba is left to fend for itself and it is experiencing serious setbacks because Fidel Castro did not make the nation totally self-sufficient; relying on Soviet trade and commodities to maintain itself. There is nothing wrong with revolutionary internationalism and collaboration, but there is a point in which self-sufficiency is imperative.

As I have said, all workers struggles must unite, regardless of borders. Regardless, each workers state must properly industrialize and maintain its strength, for revolutions are not fool-proof. Revisionism has brought down many revolutions that have been ignited by the working class, but the proper application of Marxism-Leninism can secure that socialism will thrive and continue, whether united with other nations or forced into isolation. One must not misread Stalin and Lenin's statements, as both of them rationally explain why socialism must spread to bring about world revolution, but we realize that the world is not surreal. Revolutions do not happen at the same time and often times, revisionism will bring economic turbulence or a rift between socialist states. Only through internal strengthening of the workers state can revolution hope to flourish.
Yay! Copy & Paste! Still a good explanation Kassad. But I still disagree with it (the theory, not the explanation).

[Kassad]

Yay! Copy & Paste! Still a good explanation Kassad. But I still disagree with it (the theory, not the explanation).

It's a copy and paste of my own argument. I have it saved for this type of discussion. Why is that an issue?

[Il Medico]

It's a copy and paste of my own argument. I have it saved for this type of discussion. Why is that an issue?
It's not, in fact my crap link at the beginning was this argument of yours.