Capitalism has the upper hand?

[Q]

I read an interesting letter in this weeks' WW (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/793/letters.php) and I thought I'd post it here for some discussion:


Got it in one

I am currently researching Marxism as part of my philosophy course and I am struggling to understand the debate over internationalism versus the Stalinist concept of ‘socialism in one country’.

Whilst I agree that internationalism is preferable, given that a universal brotherhood of man is desirable, I cannot see why socialism in one country is doomed to failure, as the Trotskyists argue. Is it because socialism in one country cannot compete with rival capitalist countries, even when that country has resources as vast as Russia? Does this not tacitly admit that a capitalist economy is stronger than a socialist one?

Or is it more to do with the hostilities invoked by being a socialist country in a sea of capitalist ones? But why then can’t the socialist country defend itself? Again, this seems to point to a tacit admittance that the socialist economy is necessarily weaker.

I think this is an important debate because, whilst I can see socialists winning power in the odd country, I can’t see the revolution spreading unless that country is doing well, and therefore internationalism can never come to fruition. The Weekly Worker argues that the European Union should go socialist. But would this ‘socialism in several countries’ not carry the same problems as that faced by Soviet Russia?

How would you reply to it? :)

[NecroCommie]

No one claims socialist economy is stronger, it is just more ethical. It is ridiculous to take economic success as a value of it's own, for strong economy does not equal good economy. This has always been my answer to anyone even remotely implying that strong economy is better. The strength of the economy is not relevant anymore to quarantee personal freedoms for everyone and scientific progress. All the prerequisites for economically equal and sustainable world are met, and the only thing holding us back is the backwards competition between the leeching elite factions, aka capitalist states.

Besides, socialism in one country is not abondoning internationalism as is often thought, and my personal reason for internationalism is the class war. Capitalist countries will collectively concentrate all effort to topple worker control anywhere in the world. Even if socialist economies were "stronger", without ridiculously large support structures they are doomed to fail.



But would this ‘socialism in several countries’ not carry the same problems as that faced by Soviet Russia?

No, because the material conditions are ripe. EU is not only heavily industrial, but is actually one of the leading industrial reagons on this globe.

[core_1]

Of course a 'socialist' country would provoke fast intervention from sorrounding capitalist states, however this is only half of the issue here. Accepting socialism in one country would be defeating much of the purpose of revolution, as capitalism is a global system which theoretically recognises no borders. The system plunges humanity into a cycle of wars and has started creating mass environmental degradation. Capitalism is dangerous to humanity as a whole and therefore domestic exploitation is only part of the problem and is reinforcing these looming catastrophes. People are free to settle for 'socialism' in one country, but they are essentially ignoring the responsibility of the global proletariat in eradicating these world disaters. One country adopting a planned economy won't stop the threat of world war between imperialist powers and the destruction of the ecosphere.

[Parker]

I read an interesting letter in this weeks' WW (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/793/letters.php) and I thought I'd post it here for some discussion:




Whilst I agree that internationalism is preferable, given that a universal brotherhood of man is desirable, I cannot see why socialism in one country is doomed to failure, as the Trotskyists argue. Is it because socialism in one country cannot compete with rival capitalist countries, even when that country has resources as vast as Russia? Does this not tacitly admit that a capitalist economy is stronger than a socialist one?




How would you reply to it? :)

Socialism in one country presupposes the revolution already gone awry. If I recall correctly, the socialism in one country policy came after Stalin had secured his grip on power.

To promote SIOC from the get-go would just be reactionary politics, imho.

[FSL]

The final victory of socialism can only be in a global scale, of course the whole world won't go red in a day and of course a country will happen to be the first one to have a revolution on its grounds and start building socialism.

So you could answer to the letter by saying socialism in one country is not doomed to failure and that this is only supported by petty-bourgeois currents in the leftist movement such as trotskyism.

[el_chavista]

Socialism in one country presupposes the revolution already gone awry. If I recall correctly, the socialism in one country policy came after Stalin had secured his grip on power.

To promote SIOC from the get-go would just be reactionary politics, imho.
Stalin got convinced for good of SIOC after the URSS became stable.
Now as an imaginative exercise, let us suppose that Stalin would have done what Marxism is all about -substituting the State by transferring political power to the organized working class. Would that SIOC have survived the WW2 and lasted till our days?

[Luisrah]

I read an interesting letter in this weeks' WW (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/793/letters.php) and I thought I'd post it here for some discussion:



How would you reply to it? :)

Necro Commie said it all.

It is fact that Stalin and Mao made Russia and China give a huge step.
Russia catched up with the capitalist countries (in terms of economy) in 10 years or what.

The wealth that the bourgeoisie control for their luxuries is much more vast than everyone thinks. Socialism plays Robin Hood here, but the money from the rich is a lot. Really.
And the wealth that can be generated from that wealth is a lot too, because it won't all go to luxuries and maintaining imperialism.

But even if socialism's economy was ''worse'' than capitalism's, Necro Commie said it, the best economy is that that keeps everyone with good living conditions.
You can't have a good economy if one guy starves and another eats everything by himself.

[mykittyhasaboner]

No one claims socialist economy is stronger, it is just more ethical.
Except it is stronger. History shows that a commodity producing economy will industrialize much faster under state planning than, to paraphrase Stalin, the anarchy of production under a market system.

It is ridiculous to take economic success as a value of it's own, for strong economy does not equal good economy.
This is undeniably true, however an ethical economy like that of the Soviet Union during the initial five year plans, would necessitate a strong economic foundation to succeed, and it did.




Of course a 'socialist' country would provoke fast intervention from sorrounding capitalist states, however this is only half of the issue here. Accepting socialism in one country would be defeating much of the purpose of revolution, as capitalism is a global system which theoretically recognises no borders.
Well if you see the concept of "SioC" as a concept which declares that the final victory of socialism will be only in one country then you have clearly misunderstood it.


People are free to settle for 'socialism' in one country, but they are essentially ignoring the responsibility of the global proletariat in eradicating these world disaters.
I don't think anyone ever "settled" for socialism in just one country, especially in the case of the development of Russia and the other countries of the Soviet Union.


One country adopting a planned economy won't stop the threat of world war between imperialist powers and the destruction of the ecosphere.
Excpet nowhere has anyone claimed that establishing a planned economy in one country will stop imperialism.

Socialism in one country presupposes the revolution already gone awry.
No quite the contrary, it means "the revolution" has succeeded in a given country and is trying to maintain power, so that in the future other countries can join their bloc.

If I recall correctly, the socialism in one country policy came after Stalin had secured his grip on power.
You recall wrong; Stalin and Bukharin introduced the theory in the twenties.


To promote SIOC from the get-go would just be reactionary politics, imho.
An outstanding claim, unfortunately for you it makes no sense.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Whilst I agree that internationalism is preferable, given that a universal brotherhood of man is desirable, I cannot see why socialism in one country is doomed to failure, as the Trotskyists argue. Is it because socialism in one country cannot compete with rival capitalist countries, even when that country has resources as vast as Russia? Does this not tacitly admit that a capitalist economy is stronger than a socialist one?

I'd say competition with capitalists countries would be the exact reason socialism in one country can not be socialist. Competition in the USSR meant that worker's demands and interests were at best secondary to the needs of the state. If there is a real socialist society and workers need more bread or cars, it's easy for people to self-motivate ramping up production. If "socialism from above" wants to produce more cars or steel in order to compete with capitalist production, then the bosses are going to have to give incentives or force workers to produce more. In addition, since capitalism profits from exploitation, competition with capitalists means either working people harder for less money or reducing wages. Forced labor and work camps are essentially the logic of competing with capitalist economies.


Or is it more to do with the hostilities invoked by being a socialist country in a sea of capitalist ones? But why then can’t the socialist country defend itself? Again, this seems to point to a tacit admittance that the socialist economy is necessarily weaker.In regards to the "weakness" argument: if we are talking about state-capitalism vs. free-market capitalism, many stalinists argue that the USSR's production was actually stronger. In a way they are correct: the USSR essentially was able to re-create a couple of hundred years of capitalist development in two decades. Japan and Germany and other countries were able to use state power to "catch-up" to industrialized countries as well. State policies in the US in the 30s and 40s built the highway system, dams, bridges, and the world's largest military (as far as boats and planes and tanks and so on) in the space of years. The free-market could not accomplish any of these tasks even though they benefit capitalism because there is no immediate return for investors.

However, weather or not the economy of the USSR was "good" or "bad" from a capitalist perspective, the main point is that it was bad for workers; workers had no power, and the impressive rapid industrialization of some countries was done on the backs of the working class.

The bigger question for me regarding "socialism in one country" is what happens now when there are hardly any countries as unindustrialized as Russia was? Brazil or Egypt or India have resources, labor, as well as advanced means of production - could a real socialist country (with democratic rule by worker councils or some similar mechanism for working class power) hold out under these circumstances?