The problem with "socialism in one country"? [Archive]

View Full Version : The problem with "socialism in one country"?

stud40111

2nd January 2010, 15:49

This question, again, is from a newbie, so please bear with me.

Many leftists believe that where the USSR went wrong was when it adopted a policy of "Socialism in one country" (or something to that effect) rather opting for a global, worldwide transformation.

My question is, what makes that bad? For those who criticize that philosophy, what makes that policy something that would retard the growth of communism/socialism globally?

If anybody could shed light on the above, I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

ReggaeCat

2nd January 2010, 15:54

Autodidakt

2nd January 2010, 16:09

I would say the USSR ultimately failed not because it was 'socialism in one country' but because it was not socialist at all. Socialism is the use of democracy in economics by the proletariat. Because the USSR wanted to build larger and more nuclear weapons (it succeeded) than the United States. They used too much money to do this and bankrupted the State, thereby destroying the Soviet economy because the Soviet economy was based on the State. If there had been real economic democracy (Socialism) in the USSR, the people would have prevented the State from wasting that money, knowing that they already had enough weapons to destroy the world four times.

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd January 2010, 16:23

We discussed this recently in detail, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-one-country-t123138/index.html

where I was able to show (1) that Lenin rejected it and (2) that history has refuted the idea, and many times.

This is connected with the idea of introducing 'socialism from above', also discussed recently here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-below-t124985/index.html

In order for an isolated, and backward 'socialist' country to develop the productive forces it has to (1) enter into military competition with the imperialist powers (or suffer invasion and/or destruction), and to do that it has to (2) super-exploit the working class of that country. For this to work a terror-state apparatus has to be set up to keep the proletariat in line. This means that yet another round of class struggle must emerge, and another revolution becomes necessary (as we saw in Hungary in 1956, for example).

Either that, or the inefficiency of bureaucratic, central planning causes the whole thing to collapse anyway - as we saw in the former USSR and E Europe. Alternatively, such states have to adopt free market capitalism, as we now see in China and Vietnam -- and, of course, in the former 'Eastern Block'.

ReggaeCat

2nd January 2010, 16:24

ReggaeCat

2nd January 2010, 16:27

[QUOTE=Rosa Lichtenstein;1640095] (2) that history has refuted the idea, and many times.

/QUOTE]

im sorry what exactly do you mean by history refuting something...???who's history??written by who?

Rjevan

2nd January 2010, 17:07

where I was able to show (1) that Lenin rejected it and (2) that history has refuted the idea, and many times.
Rosa, leave that history part aside, how do you explain those comments of Lenin then? The quotes in the former thread again:

I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.

Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states... A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm
The bold part is an example of Lenin's superior logic and I really can't understand why this point is ignored or why some people refuse to see it. It is just as he said, therefore there is no other way, no other possibility than socialism in one country!

And a few new ones:

If the exploiters are defeated in one country only" says Lenin, "and this, of course, is the typical case, since a simultaneous revolution in a number of countries is a rare exception...
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch04.htm

Then Marx and Engles:

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007

And Stalin outlines:

Formerly, the victory of the revolution in one country was considered impossible, on the assumption that it would require the combined action of the proletarians of all or at least of a majority of the advanced countries to achieve victory over the bourgeoisie. Now this point of view no longer fits in with the facts. Now we must proceed from the possibility of such a victory, for the uneven and spasmodic character of the development of the various capitalist countries under the conditions of imperialism, the development within imperialism of catastrophic contradictions leading to inevitable wars, the growth of the revolutionary movement in all countries of the world-all this leads, not only to the possibility, but also to the necessity of the victory of the proletariat in individual countries. The history of the revolution in Russia is direct proof of this. At the same time, however, it must be borne in mind, that the overthrow of the bourgeoisie can be successfully accomplished only when certain absolutely necessary conditions exist, in the absence of which there can be even no question of the proletariat taking power.
...
But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of the 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.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch03.htm
This clearly illustrates that it is totally ridiculous to claim that Stalin "abondoned the Marxist theory of world revolution and created National Bolshevism" or similar statements. All he did was bearing the teachings of Lenin in mind and acting accordingly.

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd January 2010, 17:07

ReggaeCat: well, these former 'socialist' states are no more. Unless you think they still exist, history has indeed refuted the idea.

Rjevan

2nd January 2010, 17:15

ReggaeCat: well, these former 'socialist' states are no more. Unless you think they still exist, history has indeed refuted the idea.
Yes, thanks to our revisionist friends. But this doesn't in the least prove that that "history has refuted the idea of socialism in one country", all this proves is that there were reactionary elements in the Bolshevik Party in the USSR, in the CPC in China and in the PPSH in Albania. Let's say Trotsky came to power, after his death some Mensheviks rise and ruin "his" USSR - does that refute Trotskyism then?

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd January 2010, 17:34

Rjevan, thanks for those quotations, but Trotsky deals with them in The Third International after Lenin, where he quoted Lenin extensively:

In fact, here is part of Trotsky's compilation of quotations from Lenin that show that he (Lenin) agreed with his (Trotsky's) analysis of SIOC:

Then follow those words of mine which Stalin presented at the Seventh Plenum of the ECCI as the most vicious expression of “Trotskyism,” i.e., as “lack of faith” in the inner forces of the revolution and the hope for aid from without. “And if this [the development of the revolution in other countries – L.T.] were not to occur, it would be hopeless to think (this is borne out both by historical experience and by theoretical considerations) that a revolutionary Russia, for instance, could hold out in face of conservative Europe, or that a socialist Germany could remain isolated in a capitalist world.” [6]

On the basis of this and two or three similar quotations is founded the condemnation pronounced against “Trotskyism” by the Seventh Plenum as having allegedly held on this “fundamental question” a position “which has nothing in common with Leninism.” Let us, therefore, pause for a moment and listen to Lenin himself.

On March 7, 1918, he said a propos of the Brest-Litovsk peace:

“This is a lesson to us because the absolute truth is that without a revolution in Germany, we shall perish.” [7]

A week later he said:

“World imperialism cannot live side by side with a victorious advancing social revolution.” [8]

A few weeks later, on April 23, Lenin said:

“Our backwardness has thrust us forward and we will perish if we are unable to hold out until we meet with the mighty support of the insurrectionary workers of other countries.” [9]

But perhaps this was all said under the special influence of the Brest-Litovsk crisis? No ! In March 1919, Lenin again repeated:

“We do not live merely in a state but in a system of states and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for any length of time is inconceivable. In the end one or the other must triumph.” [10]

A year later, on April 7, 1920, Lenin reiterates:

“Capitalism, if taken on an international scale, is even now, not only in a military but also in an economic sense, stronger than the Soviet power. We must proceed from this fundamental consideration and never forget it.” [11]

On November 27, 1920, Lenin, in dealing with the question of concessions, said:

“We have now passed from the arena of war to the arena of peace and we have not forgotten that war will come again. As long as capitalism and socialism remain side by side we cannot live peacefully – the one or the other will be the victor in the end. An obituary will be sung either over the death of world capitalism or the death of the Soviet Republic. At present we have only a respite in the war.” [12]

But perhaps the continued existence of the Soviet Republic impelled Lenin to “recognize his mistake” and renounce his “lack of faith in the inner force” of the October Revolution?

At the Third Congress of the Comintern in July 1921, Lenin declared in the theses on the tactics of the Communist Party of Russia:

“An equilibrium has been created, which though extremely precarious and unstable, nevertheless enables the socialist republic to maintain its existence within capitalist surroundings, although of course not for any great length of time.”

Again, on July 5, 1921, Lenin stated point-blank at one of the sessions of the Congress:

"It was clear to us that without aid from the international world revolution, a victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible. Even prior to the revolution, as well as after it, we thought that the revolution would also occur either immediately or at least very soon in other backward countries and in the more highly developed capitalist countries, otherwise we would perish. Notwithstanding this conviction, we did our utmost to preserve the Soviet system under any circumstances and at all costs, because we know that we are working not only for ourselves but also for the international revolution.” [13]

How infinitely removed are these words, so superb in their simplicity and permeated with the spirit of internationalism, from the present smug fabrications of the epigones!...

Our party program is based entirely upon the international conditions underlying the October Revolution and the socialist construction. To prove this, one need only transcribe the entire theoretical part of our program. Here we will confine ourselves merely to pointing out that when, during the Eighth Congress of our party, the late Podbelsky inferred that some formulations of the program had reference only to the revolution in Russia, Lenin replied as follows in his concluding speech on the question of the party program (March 19, 1919):

“Podbelsky has raised objections to a paragraph which speaks of the pending social revolution ... His argument is obviously unfounded because our program deals with the social revolution on a world scale.” [14]

It will not be out of place here to point out that at about the same time Lenin suggested that our party should change its name from the Communist Party of Russia to the Communist Party, so as to emphasize still further that it is a party of international revolution. I was the only one voting for Lenin’s motion in the Central Committee. However, he did not bring the matter before the Congress in view of the foundation of the Third International. This position is proof of the fact that there was not even an inkling of socialism in one country at that time. That alone is the reason why the party program does not condemn this “theory” but merely excludes it.

This question will at once appear in a different light if we recall that on April 29, 1918, Lenin said in his report to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviet government:

“It is hardly to be expected that our next generation, which will be more highly developed, will effect a complete transition to socialism.” [19]

On December 3, 1919, at the Congress of Communes and Artels, Lenin spoke even more bluntly, saying:

“We know that we cannot establish a socialist order at the present time. It will be well if our children and perhaps our grandchildren will be able to establish it.” [20]

...A few months later, November 20, 1915, Lenin wrote specially on Russia, saying:

“The task of the proletariat follows obviously from this actual state of affairs. This task is a bold, heroic, revolutionary struggle against the monarchy (the slogans of the January conference of 1912 – the ’Three Whales’s), a struggle which would attract all democratic masses, that is, first and foremost the peasantry. At the same time, a relentless struggle must be waged against chauvinism, a struggle for the socialist revolution in Europe in alliance with its proletariat. The war crisis has strengthened the economic and political factors impelling the petty bourgeoisie, including the peasantry, towards the Left. Therein lies the objective basis of the absolute possibility of the victory of the democratic revolution in Russia. That the objective conditions for a socialist revolution have fully matured in Western Europe, was recognized before the war by all influential socialists of all advanced countries.” [21]

Thus, in 1915, Lenin clearly spoke of a democratic revolution in Russia and of a socialist revolution in Western Europe. In passing, as if speaking of something which is self-evident, he mentions that in Western Europe, distinct from Russia, in contrast to Russia, the conditions for a socialist revolution have “fully matured.” But the authors of the new theory, the authors of the draft program, simply ignore this quotation – one of many – which squarely and directly refers to Russia, just as they ignore hundreds of other passages, as they ignore all of Lenin’s works.

What was Lenin’s position on this question immediately before the October period? On leaving Switzerland after the February 1917 revolution, Lenin addressed a letter to the Swiss workers in which he declared:

“Russia is a peasant country, one of the most backward countries of Europe. Socialism cannot be immediately triumphant there but the peasant character of the country with the huge tracts of land in the hands of the feudal aristocracy and landowners, can, on the basis of the experience of 1905, give a tremendous sweep to the bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia and make our revolution a prelude to the world socialist revolution, a step towards it ... The Russian proletariat cannot by its own forces victoriously complete the socialist revolution. But it can give the Russian revolution dimensions such as will create the most favorable conditions for it, such as will in a certain sense begin it. It can facilitate matters for the entrance into a decisive battle on the part of its main and most reliable ally, the European and American socialist proletariat.” [22]...

We purposely did not deal here with innumerable articles and speeches from 1905 to 1923 in which Lenin asserts and repeats most categorically that without a victorious world revolution we are doomed to failure, that it is impossible to defeat the bourgeoisie economically in one country, particularly a backward country, that the task of building a socialist society is in its very essence an international task – from which Lenin drew conclusions which may be “pessimistic” to the promulgators of the new national reactionary utopia but which are sufficiently optimistic from the viewpoint of revolutionary internationalism. We concentrate our argument here only on the passages which the authors of the draft have themselves chosen in order to create the “necessary and sufficient” prerequisites for their utopia. And we see that their whole structure crumbles the moment it is touched.

However, we consider it in place to present at least one of Lenin’s direct statements on the controversial question which does not need any comment and will not permit any false interpretation.

“We have emphasized in many of our works; in all our speeches, and in our entire press that the situation in Russia is not the same as in the advanced capitalist countries, that we have in Russia a minority of industrial workers and an overwhelming majority of small agrarians. The social revolution in such a country can be finally successful only on two conditions: first, on the condition that it is given timely support by the social revolution in one or more advanced countries ... second, that there be an agreement between the proletariat which establishes the dictatorship or holds state power in its hands and the majority of the peasant population ...

“We know that only an agreement with the peasantry can save the socialist revolution in Russia so long as the revolution in other countries has not arrived.” [26]

We hope that this passage is sufficiently instructive. First, Lenin himself emphasizes in it that the ideas advanced by him have been developed “in many of our works, in all our speeches, and in our entire press”; secondly, this perspective was envisaged by Lenin not in 1915, two years prior to the October Revolution, but in 1921, the fourth year after the October Revolution.

What Stalin’s views on this question were in 1905 or 1915 we have absolutely no means of knowing as there are no documents whatever on the subject. But in 1924, Stalin outlined Lenin’s views on the building of socialism, as follows:

“The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism – the organization of socialist production – still remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie, the efforts of one country are sufficient – the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary ...

“Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution.” [28]

One must concede that the “characteristic features of the Leninist theory” are outlined here quite correctly. In the later editions of Stalin’s book this passage was altered to read in just the opposite way and the “characteristic features of the Leninist theory” were proclaimed within a year as ... Trotskyism. The Seventh Plenum of the ECCI passed its decision, not on the basis of the 1924 edition but of the 1926 edition....

At the Eleventh Congress, that is, at the last Congress at which Lenin had the opportunity to speak to the party, he issued a timely warning that the party would have to undergo another test: "... a test to which we shall be put by the Russian and international market to which we are subordinated, with which we are connected and from which we cannot escape."...

“So long as our Soviet Republic [says Lenin] remains an isolated borderland surrounded by the entire capitalist world, so long will it be an absolutely ridiculous fantasy and utopianism to think of our complete economic independence and of the disappearance of any of our dangers.” [36]....

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/index.htm

From The Third International After Lenin.

The commentary in between the quotations is Trotsky's.

The numbers in square brackets are references, in all but one instance, to Lenin's works. Details can be found at the above link.

Looking at your quotations:

I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.

This refers to revolutions breaking out in each country, not socialism in one country.

Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states... A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states

This does not say that socialism is possible in one country, only that socialism can be victorious in one country, that is, that workers can seize power. Same point as the previous one.

About the above, Trotsky says the following:

In 1915 Lenin said: “Uneven economic and political development is an unconditional law of capitalism. Hence it follows that the triumph of socialism is, to begin with, possible in a few, or even in a single capitalist country. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and having organized socialist production at home, would be up in arms against the rest of the capitalist world, attracting oppressed classes of other countries to its side, causing insurrections in those countries against the capitalists, and acting, in case of need, even with military power against the exploiting classes and their governments.” [16]
What did Lenin have in mind? Only that the victory of socialism in the sense of the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat is possible at first in one country, which because of this very fact, will be counterposed to the capitalist world. The proletarian state, in order to be able to resist an attack and to assume a revolutionary offensive of its own, will first have to “organize socialist production at home,” i.e., it will have to organize the operation of the factories taken from the capitalists. That is all. Such a “victory of socialism” was, as is shown, first achieved in Russia, and the first workers’ state, in order to defend itself against world intervention, had first of all to “organize socialist production at home,” or to create trusts of “a consistently socialist type.” By the victory of socialism in one country, Lenin consequently did not cherish the fantasy of a self-sufficient socialist society, and in a backward country at that, but something much more realistic, namely, what the October Revolution had achieved in our country during the first period of its existence.

Does this, perhaps, require proof? So many proofs can be adduced that the only difficulty lies in making the best choice.
In his theses on war and peace (January 7, 1918) Lenin spoke of the “necessity of a certain period of time, at least several months, for the victory of socialism in Russia ...” [17]

At the beginning of the same year, i.e., 1918, Lenin, in his article entitled “On Left Wing Childishness and Petty Bourgeois Tendencies,” directed against Bukharin, wrote the following: “If, let us say, state capitalism could be established in our country within six months, that would be a tremendous achievement and the surest guarantee that within a year socialism will be definitely established and will have become invincible.” [18]

How could Lenin have set so short a period for the “definite establishment of socialism”? What material-productive and social content did he put into these words?

This question will at once appear in a different light if we recall that on April 29, 1918, Lenin said in his report to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviet government: “It is hardly to be expected that our next generation, which will be more highly developed, will effect a complete transition to socialism.” [19]

On December 3, 1919, at the Congress of Communes and Artels, Lenin spoke even more bluntly, saying: “We know that we cannot establish a socialist order at the present time. It will be well if our children and perhaps our grandchildren will be able to establish it.” [20]

In which of these two cases was Lenin right? Was it when he spoke of the “definite establishment of socialism” within twelve months, or when he left it not for our children but our grandchildren to “establish the socialist order”?

Lenin was right in both cases, for he had in mind two entirely different and incommensurable stages of socialist construction.
By the “definite establishment of socialism” in the first case, Lenin meant not the building of a socialist society within a year’s time or even “several months,” that is, he did not mean that the classes will be done away with, that the contradictions between city and country will be eliminated; he meant the restoration of production in mills and factories in the hands of the proletarian state, and thus the assuring of the possibility to exchange products between city and country. The very shortness of the term is in itself a sure key to an understanding of the whole perspective.

Of course, even for this elementary task, too short a term was set at the beginning of 1918. It was this purely practical “miscalculation” that Lenin derided at the Fourth Congress of the Comintern when he said “we were more foolish then than we are now.” But “we had a correct view of the general perspectives and did not for a moment believe that it is possible to set up a complete ’socialist order’ in the course of twelve months and in a backward country at that.” The attainment of this main and final goal – the construction of a socialist society – was left by Lenin to three whole generations – ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.
Is it not clear that in his article of 1915, Lenin meant by the organization of “socialist production,” not the creation of a socialist society but an immeasurably more elementary task which has already been realized by us in the USSR? Otherwise, one would have to arrive at the absurd conclusion that, according to Lenin, the proletarian party, having captured power, “postpones” the revolutionary war until the third generation.

Such is the sorry position of the main stronghold of the new theory in so far as the 1915 quotation is concerned. However, what is sadder still is the fact that Lenin wrote this passage not in application to Russia. He was speaking of Europe in contrast to Russia. This follows not only from the content of the quoted article devoted to the question of the United States of Europe, but also from Lenin’s entire position at the time. A few months later, November 20, 1915, Lenin wrote specially on Russia, saying:

“The task of the proletariat follows obviously from this actual state of affairs. This task is a bold, heroic, revolutionary struggle against the monarchy (the slogans of the January conference of 1912 – the ’Three Whales’s), a struggle which would attract all democratic masses, that is, first and foremost the peasantry. At the same time, a relentless struggle must be waged against chauvinism, a struggle for the socialist revolution in Europe in alliance with its proletariat. The war crisis has strengthened the economic and political factors impelling the petty bourgeoisie, including the peasantry, towards the Left. Therein lies the objective basis of the absolute possibility of the victory of the democratic revolution in Russia. That the objective conditions for a socialist revolution have fully matured in Western Europe, was recognized before the war by all influential socialists of all advanced countries.” [21]

Thus, in 1915, Lenin clearly spoke of a democratic revolution in Russia and of a socialist revolution in Western Europe. In passing, as if speaking of something which is self-evident, he mentions that in Western Europe, distinct from Russia, in contrast to Russia, the conditions for a socialist revolution have “fully matured.” But the authors of the new theory, the authors of the draft program, simply ignore this quotation – one of many – which squarely and directly refers to Russia, just as they ignore hundreds of other passages, as they ignore all of Lenin’s works. Instead of taking notice of this, they snatch, as we have seen, at another passage that refers to Western Europe, ascribe to it a meaning which it cannot and does not contain, attach this ascribed meaning to Russia, a country to which the passage has no reference, and on this “foundation” erect their new theory.

What of this?

If the exploiters are defeated in one country only" says Lenin, "and this, of course, is the typical case, since a simultaneous revolution in a number of countries is a rare exception...

Well, who has ever denied this? But what has this got to do with the possibility of creating socialism in one country? Same with the quotation from the Communist Manifesto.

This clearly illustrates that it is totally ridiculous to claim that Stalin "abandoned the Marxist theory of world revolution and created National Bolshevism" or similar statements.

But as we can see, this is exactly what he did; that is why he altered the first edition of The Problems of Leninism, quoted above.

Thirsty Crow

2nd January 2010, 18:19

ehm....im talking always about the ussr till 1953..i cannot accept an soviet union that rejects stalin.so...ussr didn't failed,cotrary it led the fire in the balkans to be almost all of it socialist....albania was a good example of how antireformist socialist country should look like....even with that...look at tsarist russia ...look at other countries at the same time with ussr and if not the same surely ussr had better conditions and laws..(most of them anyways..):D but let's live ussr alone...albania,cuba,eastern germany,china,korea, they had their times with good leaders to do great things..i mean all this shit about korea and usa is because usa fears korea....
In fact, it+s completely wrong to assume that the leadership of the Party "rejected" Stalin after his death. On the contrary, Stalin's revision of both Lenin and Marx via Engels overdetermined the ideological construction of the superstructure in Soviet society (for example, Marx's concept of the revolution was solidified into a rigid and "scientific" system of what exactly needs to be done; if I remember correctly, the discipline was entitled "scientific communism", and this development took place in the 70s).

All in all, one shoudn't allow his hatred towards imperiocapitalism (ain't that a cool term :D) hinder his critical evaluation of "socialist states". I hope you won't be offended, but you should learn this lesson.

Hit The North

2nd January 2010, 18:36

Of course the question of how long one victorious socialist revolution could survive in isolation depends upon in which country it happens. A revolution in a 21st century United States of America could survive much longer than in the kind of economically under-developed nation Russia was in 1917. In Lenin's time a prolonged isolation might have been possible in Germany, Great Britain, France and the USA and practically nowhere else. Of course, a revolution in a nation which occupies a position of great gravitational power within the world economy, would also produce such a seismic upheaval in the global capitalist mode of production, that a prolonged period of isolation would be less likely.

It's a mistake to see these questions in the abstract. We should always focus on their concrete occurrence. The question is really whether the situation of a bankrupt, semi-feudal and war-ravaged territory like the Soviet Union, confronting decades of economic and political isolation and hostility from the most powerful capitalist nations, and having to stimulate, out of urgent necessity, its own industrial revolution, is the most propitious in which the most humane society known in history (i.e. socialism) could flourish?

ReggaeCat

2nd January 2010, 19:02

In fact, it+s completely wrong to assume that the leadership of the Party "rejected" Stalin after his death. On the contrary, Stalin's revision of both Lenin and Marx via Engels overdetermined the ideological construction of the superstructure in Soviet society (for example, Marx's concept of the revolution was solidified into a rigid and "scientific" system of what exactly needs to be done; if I remember correctly, the discipline was entitled "scientific communism", and this development took place in the 70s).

All in all, one shoudn't allow his hatred towards imperiocapitalism (ain't that a cool term :D) hinder his critical evaluation of "socialist states". I hope you won't be offended, but you should learn this lesson.

what do you mean sorry aint that good at english...:blushing:

about the socialist states dont exist anymore...well...http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1991march&Year=1991
people didnt wanted to let the ussr go....for fucking sake...it took 40 years of reforms and revisionism to make ussr a filthy country...they even let the private property in a socialist state ...i mean lolwut?
it took america about 70 years to actually make people beleive the russians were bloodthirsty people...please get your shit straight...

Rjevan

2nd January 2010, 21:44

Rjevan, thanks for those quotations, but Trotsky deals with them in The Third International after Lenin, where he quoted Lenin extensively:

“This is a lesson to us because the absolute truth is that without a revolution in Germany, we shall perish.”
Sorry, but here Lenin simply was mistaken, as we all know the USSR did not perish (at least not because no revolution happened in Germany, as we know quite the contrary happened and still the USSR didn't collapse because of this). And I am sure Lenin did realise that, too, since he lived till 1924 and there was not a sign of the USSR perishing.

“World imperialism cannot live side by side with a victorious advancing social revolution.”
Indeed. But where does Stalin claim that it can? This would be the theory of "Peaceful Coexistence", advocated by our favourite traitor and reactionary, Mr. Khrushchev, who was heavily condemned (amongst other things) exactly because of this theory by Mao, Hoxha and almost every Anti-Revisionist/Marxist-Leninist who ever lived. I have already posted the Stalin quote and I would be very interested to see how he "altered it in order to proclaim Leninism as Trotskyism" since the quote I provided is what you get at MIA and what I read in my copy from 1967... seems his altering wasn't done too effectively.

The theory of "socialism in one country" does not claim that socialism in the USSR has been achieved and that now world revolution is not necessary anymore and "peaceful coexistence" with the capitalists is needed and welcomed, as some people like e.g. Trotsky seem to think. On the contrary, it claims that it is possible to build up socialism in one isolated country, surrounded by capitalist countries in order to create a tool for world revolution which actively supports the communist struggels in the whole world then and weakens the bourgeoise states, both indirectly and directly to achieve the world revolution in the end. This is the theory and Stalin never claimed that world revolution is unnecessary.

“Our backwardness has thrust us forward and we will perish if we are unable to hold out until we meet with the mighty support of the insurrectionary workers of other countries.”
See my answer to the first quote.

“We do not live merely in a state but in a system of states and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for any length of time is inconceivable. In the end one or the other must triumph.”
Of course! Again, please, where did Stalin ever claim that the USSR can live in peace with the capitalist states? This is what Khrushchev did, who was by no means a "Stalinist", as even Trotsky himself would have to agree. I can dig up lots of Stalin quotes where he speaks about the vital necessity for the USSR to prepare for a fight with the capitalist world before, during, and after WWII till his very end.

“Capitalism, if taken on an international scale, is even now, not only in a military but also in an economic sense, stronger than the Soviet power. We must proceed from this fundamental consideration and never forget it.”

“We have now passed from the arena of war to the arena of peace and we have not forgotten that war will come again. As long as capitalism and socialism remain side by side we cannot live peacefully – the one or the other will be the victor in the end. An obituary will be sung either over the death of world capitalism or the death of the Soviet Republic. At present we have only a respite in the war.”

“An equilibrium has been created, which though extremely precarious and unstable, nevertheless enables the socialist republic to maintain its existence within capitalist surroundings, although of course not for any great length of time.”

Very true. "At present we have only a respite in the war" is almost literally what Stalin used to say on various occasions. See answers above.

"It was clear to us that without aid from the international world revolution, a victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible. Even prior to the revolution, as well as after it, we thought that the revolution would also occur either immediately or at least very soon in other backward countries and in the more highly developed capitalist countries, otherwise we would perish. Notwithstanding this conviction, we did our utmost to preserve the Soviet system under any circumstances and at all costs, because we know that we are working not only for ourselves but also for the international revolution.”
Emphasis on "we thought" and "we would". And as Marxist-Leninist Stalin also never claimed to work for himslef/the USSR alone but also reminded his comrades several times that the USSR must be "a tool to achieve world revolution", words "so superb in their simplicity and permeated with the spirit of internationalism" that Trotsky could not act otherwise than to ignore them.

This position is proof of the fact that there was not even an inkling of socialism in one country at that time. That alone is the reason why the party program does not condemn this “theory” but merely excludes it.

This position is just proof that Lenin merely excluded that somebody like Trotsky could interpret socialism in one country as national bolshevism, which is indeed quite absurd. Not many people would have managed to do so... Once again, Stalin very much "deals with the social revolution on a world scale"

“It is hardly to be expected that our next generation, which will be more highly developed, will effect a complete transition to socialism.”

“We know that we cannot establish a socialist order at the present time. It will be well if our children and perhaps our grandchildren will be able to establish it.”

Where did Stalin delcare that the "complete transition to socialism", not to speak of a socialist order world wide was achieved?

“The task of the proletariat follows obviously from this actual state of affairs. This task is a bold, heroic, revolutionary struggle against the monarchy (the slogans of the January conference of 1912 – the ’Three Whales’s), a struggle which would attract all democratic masses, that is, first and foremost the peasantry. At the same time, a relentless struggle must be waged against chauvinism, a struggle for the socialist revolution in Europe in alliance with its proletariat. The war crisis has strengthened the economic and political factors impelling the petty bourgeoisie, including the peasantry, towards the Left. Therein lies the objective basis of the absolute possibility of the victory of the democratic revolution in Russia. That the objective conditions for a socialist revolution have fully matured in Western Europe, was recognized before the war by all influential socialists of all advanced countries.”
Once again, where did Stalin claim to ignore Europe and to not support the struggle of the proletariat there...

“Russia is a peasant country, one of the most backward countries of Europe. Socialism cannot be immediately triumphant there but the peasant character of the country with the huge tracts of land in the hands of the feudal aristocracy and landowners, can, on the basis of the experience of 1905, give a tremendous sweep to the bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia and make our revolution a prelude to the world socialist revolution, a step towards it ... The Russian proletariat cannot by its own forces victoriously complete the socialist revolution. But it can give the Russian revolution dimensions such as will create the most favorable conditions for it, such as will in a certain sense begin it. It can facilitate matters for the entrance into a decisive battle on the part of its main and most reliable ally, the European and American socialist proletariat.”
One more time I refer to answers given above and add that it is a well known fact that the Russian proletariat indeed "couldn't by its own focres complete the socialist revolution" but with the help of the peasants it could, as Lenin knew probably best and as he refered dozens of times to the peasants as "loyal allies of the proletariat without whom the revolution would have been impossible", as also Leon "simply ignore this quotation, just as they ignore hundreds of other passages, as they ignore all of Lenin’s works" Trotsky should know very well. Look who's talking...

“We have emphasized in many of our works; in all our speeches, and in our entire press that the situation in Russia is not the same as in the advanced capitalist countries, that we have in Russia a minority of industrial workers and an overwhelming majority of small agrarians. The social revolution in such a country can be finally successful only on two conditions: first, on the condition that it is given timely support by the social revolution in one or more advanced countries ... second, that there be an agreement between the proletariat which establishes the dictatorship or holds state power in its hands and the majority of the peasant population ...

“We know that only an agreement with the peasantry can save the socialist revolution in Russia so long as the revolution in other countries has not arrived.”
Fine, so what's the problem then? An agreement with the peasantry saved the socialist revolution in Russia indeed and the USSR worked towards the world revolution. How does that disprove socialism in one country?

“So long as our Soviet Republic [says Lenin] remains an isolated borderland surrounded by the entire capitalist world, so long will it be an absolutely ridiculous fantasy and utopianism to think of our complete economic independence and of the disappearance of any of our dangers.”
Indeed. Also quoted by Stalin and absolutely compatible with the idea of socialism in one country, nobody claimed that all dangers vanised now. And the economy experienced an almost supernatural boost under Stalin's leadership which even can't be denied by Trotsky.

Lenin consequently did not cherish the fantasy of a self-sufficient socialist society, and in a backward country at that, but something much more realistic, namely, what the October Revolution had achieved in our country during the first period of its existence.

Realistic, I wouldn't have never thought that Trotsky knew this word! Seriously, what is unrealistic about socialism in one country? Didn't history prove that this was perhapes the most realistic thing one could promote at that time? Should I post some statistics about industrial and economical growth in the USSR compared to the other European countries and the USA? Some statistics on improved living conditions, illiteracy and much more compared with tsarist Russia? Indeed, if somebody would tell me about this without any evidence I would also say this is utopian fantasy but it's historical facts. And just because Trotsky ridicules the idea of socialism in one country this doesn't mean that it failed and that I have to ignore all historical facts on this topic which illustrate that it not only worked but worked incredibly good and was the only sollution the USSR had at that time if they wanted to survive.

And for the "Lenin acknowledged that it takes more than one generation to build socialism": where did Stalin claim otherwise? Suddenly all his struggles for the build up of socialism, which are usually gladly brought up as sign of his paranoia and thirst for blood, the purges, the struggle against the kulaks and so on, are forgotten and ignored, the struggles which were nothing but the war against the enemies of socialism who hindered, sabotaged and harmed the successful build up of socialism on every possible occasion, like Lenin predicted in many of his works!

Finally, let's hear Stalin's comments on this:

Trotsky has been fighting Leninism since 1904. From 1904 until the February Revolution in 1917 he hung around the Mensheviks, desperately fighting Lenin's Party all the time. During that period Trotsky suffered a number of defeats at the hand of Lenin's Party.
During the period from the October Revolution to 1922, Trotsky, already a member of the Bolshevik Party, managed to make two "grand" sorties against Lenin and his Party: in 1918—on the question of the Brest Peace; and in 1921—on the trade-union question. Both those sorties ended in Trotsky being defeated.
Later, Trotsky made a number of fresh sorties against the Party (1923, 1924, 1926, 1927) and each sortie ended in Trotsky suffering a fresh defeat.
Is it not obvious from all this that Trotsky's fight against the Leninist Party has deep, far-reaching historical roots? Is it not obvious from this that the struggle the Party is now waging against Trotskyism is a continuation of the struggle that the Party, headed by Lenin, waged from 1904 onwards?
...
Lastly, the fourth question—that of the state of the communist forces throughout the world. Only the blind can deny that the Communist Parties are growing throughout the world, from China to America, from Britain to Germany. Only the blind can deny that the elements of the crisis of capitalism are growing and not diminishing. Only the blind can deny that the progress in the building of socialism in our country, the successes of our policy within the country, are one of the chief reasons for the growth of the communist movement throughout the world. Only the blind can deny the progressive increase in influence and prestige of the Communist International in all countries of the world.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/10/23.htm

Lyev

2nd January 2010, 22:05

I've been quite perplexed and interested by this issue; I think sometimes the contention arises in debates about socialism in one country (SIOC) because Trotskyists often have a different definition of SIOC than Stalinists, or any other proponents of the theory. I think my problem with advocates of SIOC is how they define any alterntative to problem of Russia or any other under-devoloped countries going through a revolutionary upheaval. I don't think SIOC is nationalist, but then again I don't it is wholly internationalist either. Lenin and Stalin ill-define the alternatives to SIOC. Here's a quote from Stalin that helps me with my point:
as the victory of the revolution in the West is rather late in coming, nothing remains for us to do, apparently, but to loaf around. (emphasis mine) I do not know where Stalin is getting this stuff from because absolutely no one is espousing anything that says we should all "loaf around" post-revolution. This is where internationalists and exponents of SIOC part ways, I think. (If I'm wrong here in my definition(s) could someone please set me straight, by the way? Thanks.) Anyway, the criteria for socialism differs in one key respect for Stalin and internationalists. As I said, no one is planning to loaf around after a revolution, yet Stalin thinks socialism is achieved in one country. Whatever it has been achieved, in my eyes, it's not wholly socialism, because it's isolated. Socialism, for me at least is near-global before it's socialism. Russia was an undeveloped, feudalistic country and did not have the suffienct productive forces to initiate socialism in one country. Marx posited that a capitalism-socialism transition needed the best and most productive forces left over from capitalism; Russia needed the resources from other countries to strive forward, or else face a thermidor effect. So, Stalin, and perhaps Lenin to an extent, thought that socialism was feasible and achievable in one country. I think that sums it up. (Bearing in mind I'm not too well read on the subject so if I've got some stuff wrong could someone clarify?) However, one more point, I do acknoweldge that the USSR under went some pretty horrible famine/famines and Nazi invasion, amongst other problems, so it must of been a hugely difficult situation for Stalin et al. ruling the country at that time.

FSL

2nd January 2010, 22:26

In fact, it+s completely wrong to assume that the leadership of the Party "rejected" Stalin after his death. On the contrary, Stalin's revision of both Lenin and Marx via Engels overdetermined the ideological construction of the superstructure in Soviet society (for example, Marx's concept of the revolution was solidified into a rigid and "scientific" system of what exactly needs to be done; if I remember correctly, the discipline was entitled "scientific communism", and this development took place in the 70s).

All in all, one shoudn't allow his hatred towards imperiocapitalism (ain't that a cool term :D) hinder his critical evaluation of "socialist states". I hope you won't be offended, but you should learn this lesson.

We don't have to assume anything on that matter. The party did reject Stalin or better the policies he argued for, starting in the 20th Congress and continuing in the next ones.

You could say what was Stalin's revisionism though, that'd be helpful.

I do not know where Stalin is getting this stuff from because absolutely no one is espousing anything that says we should all "loaf around" post-revolution

What should we do then?

mikelepore

2nd January 2010, 22:26

It's a Trotskyist rationalization to make it possible to blame everything on Stalin, to avoid having to admit that it was under Lenin that the Soviet Union became autocratic.

Lyev

2nd January 2010, 22:42

What should we do then?
Well we should carry forging socialism as normal. My point was that exponents of SIOC and international part ways only defining the criteria for socialism. As far as I see it, exponents of SIOC (Stalinists, Leninists, Maoists(?) etc.) think that socialism is and can be achieved in one, singular country. In my opinion, socialism is only feasible socialism with the revolutionary uprising of several fully devoloped, capitalist countries. (By the way I prefer to use socialism in as an umbrella term in the pre-Leninist sense).

FSL

2nd January 2010, 22:44

It's a Trotskyist rationalization to make it possible to blame everything on Stalin, to avoid having to admit that it was under Lenin that the Soviet Union became autocratic.

Again, would be great if you substanciated your criticism, it helps the conversation.

Autocratic points to regimes where the land-owning nobility is the rulling class. Is that what happened in the Soviet Union, according to you?

Or maybe you were trying to say that under Lenin the dictatorship of the proletariat became more dictatorial?

Well we should carry forging socialism as normal. My point was that exponents of SIOC and international part ways only defining the criteria for socialism. As far as I see it, exponents of SIOC (Stalinists, Leninists, Maoists(?) etc.) think that socialism is and can be achieved in one, singular country. In my opinion, socialism is only feasible socialism with the revolutionary uprising of several fully devoloped, capitalist countries. (By the way I prefer to use socialism in as an umbrella term in the pre-Leninist sense).

Okey. What is normal then? Do we nationalize industries and the land and make up a plan for the economy?

RED DAVE

2nd January 2010, 23:00

FSL

2nd January 2010, 23:18

Okay, but it would be nice if you had a source from this assertion.

It is sometimes asked "We have abolished the exploiting classes; there are no longer any hostile classes in the country; there is nobody to suppress; hence there is no more need for the state; it must die away. - Why then do we not help our Socialist state to die away? Why do we not strive to put an end to it? Is it not time to throw out all this rubbish of a state?"
Or further : "The exploiting classes have already been abolished in our country; Socialism has been built in the main; we are advancing towards Communism.
Now, the Marxist doctrine of the state says that there is to be no state under Communism. - Why then do we not help our Socialist state to die away?
Is it not time we relegated the state to the museum of antiquities?
These questions show that those who ask them have conscientiously memorized certain propositions contained in the doctrine of Marx and Engels about the state. But they also show that these comrades have failed to understand the essential meaning of this doctrine; that they have failed to realise in what historical conditions the various propositions of this doctrine were elaborated; and, what is more, that they do not understand present-day international conditions, have overlooked the capitalist encirclement and the dangers it entails for the Socialist country.
These questions not only betray an underestimation of the capitalist encirclement, but also an underestimation of the role and significance of the bourgeois states and their organs, which send spies, assassins and wreckers into our country and are waiting for a favourable opportunity to attack it by armed force.

Happy now?

As of this morning, the only two examples of "socialism in one country" (actually, of course, state capitalism) are Cuba and North Korea: two countries whose combined population is less than that of California.

RED DAVE

Soviet Union rallied millions of workers from every place on earth in support of a revolution. Cuba, albeit small, continues to inspire people to this day.

RED DAVE

2nd January 2010, 23:51

The theory of "socialism in one country" does not claim that socialism in the USSR has been achieved and that now world revolution is not necessary anymore and "peaceful coexistence" with the capitalists is needed and welcomed, as some people like e.g. Trotsky seem to think. On the contrary, it claims that it is possible to build up socialism in one isolated country, surrounded by capitalist countries in order to create a tool for world revolution which actively supports the communist struggels in the whole world then and weakens the bourgeoise states, both indirectly and directly to achieve the world revolution in the end. This is the theory and Stalin never claimed that world revolution is unnecessary.
Okay, but it would be nice if you had a source from this assertion.
It is sometimes asked "We have abolished the exploiting classes; there are no longer any hostile classes in the country; there is nobody to suppress; hence there is no more need for the state; it must die away. - Why then do we not help our Socialist state to die away? Why do we not strive to put an end to it? Is it not time to throw out all this rubbish of a state?"

Or further : "The exploiting classes have already been abolished in our country; Socialism has been built in the main; we are advancing towards Communism.

Now, the Marxist doctrine of the state says that there is to be no state under Communism. - Why then do we not help our Socialist state to die away?

Is it not time we relegated the state to the museum of antiquities?

These questions show that those who ask them have conscientiously memorized certain propositions contained in the doctrine of Marx and Engels about the state. But they also show that these comrades have failed to understand the essential meaning of this doctrine; that they have failed to realise in what historical conditions the various propositions of this doctrine were elaborated; and, what is more, that they do not understand present-day international conditions, have overlooked the capitalist encirclement and the dangers it entails for the Socialist country.

These questions not only betray an underestimation of the capitalist encirclement, but also an underestimation of the role and significance of the bourgeois states and their organs, which send spies, assassins and wreckers into our country and are waiting for a favourable opportunity to attack it by armed force.(para breaks added)

Happy now?Reading Stalin always reminds me of having to gargle with broken glass.

And, of course, everything Stalin said about abolishing classes was bullshit.

As of this morning, the only two examples of "socialism in one country" (actually, of course, state capitalism) are Cuba and North Korea: two countries whose combined population is less than that of California.
Soviet Union rallied millions of workers from every place on earth in support of a revolution. Cuba, albeit small, continues to inspire people to this day.The millions who were rallied by the Soviet Union were rallying to support a lie. And, as happened in France in '68, the Communist parties were berayers of the workers.

The USSR was state capitalism, which morphed seamlessly into corporate capitalism. Same with China, the Eastern European countries, Vietnam.

As for Cuba and North Korea, what will people have learned if and when these two state capitalist countries become capitlaist as seems likely?

RED DAVE

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd January 2010, 23:56

Rjevan, thanks for the reply; I'll respond to any parts of it that others haven't replied to, in a day or so. I'm away for a while.

Rjevan

3rd January 2010, 00:01

Okay, but it would be nice if you had a source from this assertion.
Assertion? A source? I really hope you don't expect me now to post all quotes Lenin and Stalin ever made about the ongoing struggle to build up socialism and the necessity for the USSR to spread revolution, achieve world revolution and to be prepared for a war with the capitalist states. If you do I have to give up. Not becuase there is a lack of such material but becuase there are literally tons of such quotes which one stumbles about in almost every major work of Lenin and Stalin.

Here is an excerpt of the XIV Party Congress of the CPSU (B) in 1925, where the policy of socialism in one country was adopted:

The basic and new feature, the decisive feature that has affected all the events in the sphere of foreign relations during this period, is the fact that a certain temporary equilibrium of forces has been established between our country, which is building socialism, and the countries of the capitalist world, an equilibrium which has determined the present period of "peaceful co-existence" [Mind the inverted commas!] between the Land of Soviets and the capitalist countries. What we at one time regarded as a brief respite after the war has become a whole period of respite. Hence a certain equilibrium of forces and a certain period of "peaceful co-existence" between the bourgeois world and the proletarian world.
...
What are the tasks in the sphere of the international revolutionary movement?
The tasks are, firstly, to work in the direction of strengthening the Communist Parties in the West, of their winning a majority among the masses of the workers. Secondly, to work in the direction of intensifying the struggle of the workers in the West for trade-union unity, for strengthening the friendship between the proletariat in our Union and the proletariat in the capitalist countries. This includes the pilgrimages of which I have spoken and the significance of which I described above. Thirdly, to work in the direction of strengthening the link between the proletariat in our country and the movement for liberation in the oppressed countries, for they are our allies in the struggle against imperialism. And fourthly, to work in the direction of strengthening the socialist elements in our country, in the direction of the victory of these elements over the capitalist elements, a victory that will be of decisive significance for revolutionising the workers of all countries. Usually, when speaking about our Party's tasks in the sphere of the international revolutionary movement, our comrades confine themselves to the first three tasks and forget about the fourth task, namely, that our struggle in our country, the struggle for the victory of the socialist elements in our country over the capitalist elements, our struggle in the work of construction, is also of international significance, for our country is the base of the international revolution, for our country is the principal lever for expanding the international revolutionary movement; and if our work of construction here, in our country, proceeds at the proper tempo, it means that we are performing our work in all the other channels of the international revolutionary movement precisely in the way the Party demands that we should perform it.
Such are the Party's tasks in the sphere of the international revolutionary movement

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1925/12/18.htm
Satisfied? I can bring up dozens more of these, explicitly stating that "total socialism" is not yet achieved in the USSR but that the struggle goes on, just as Lenin predicted and that the building of socialism in the USSR mus have the aim to provide a tool for the world proletariat in their fight against capitalism and imperialism and that one of the prior tasks of the USSR is to speard revolution and support the communist parties world wide because isolated the USSR can't survive.

If anybody still has doubts, I am eagerly waiting for Stalin quotes (no, not Trotsky quotes, I said Stalin quotes) which prove that he dismissed world revolution, praised Russian national chauvinism (quite the contrary!) and declared that the USSR has fully achieved socialism or communism and is now save from capitalist intervention and doesn't need to fight imperialism and support communist parties world wide anymore. Good luck finding them!

Well, scratch that theory.

As of this morning, the only two examples of "socialism in one country" (actually, of course, state capitalism) are Cuba and North Korea: two countries whose combined population is less than that of California.
North Korea is no example for socialism in one country as the DPRK is not even socialist, they subscribe to the Juche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche) theory. And it doesn't matter how large or small the population of Cuba is, the fact that Cuba survived as independent socialist nation despite the international blockade headed by the USA since the 60s and the fall of the USSR speaks for itself. And that the USSR exists no more is, as I said before no proof for the failure of socialism in one country (which proved to be very successful) but for the fatal effect of revisionism and the need to combat it wherever raises.

Rjevan, thanks for the reply; I'll respond to any parts of it that others haven't replied to, in a day or so. I'm away for a while.
Sure, no problem.

RED DAVE

3rd January 2010, 00:06

And that the USSR exists no more is, as I said before no proof for the failure of socialism in one country (which proved to be very successful) but for the fatal effect of revisionism and the need to combat it wherever raises.How do you account for the fact that this "revisionism" was able to arise with the CPSU and transform a so-called socialist country into a capitalist country roughly 70 years after a socialist revolution?

RED DAVE

Canadian Red

3rd January 2010, 00:12

First off I wouldnt say the USSR was Socialism in one country because it was more of a union of Communist countries. The Soviet Union failed because of a lot of bad political decisions made during and after the time of Stalin. I would argue that the USSR never achieved true Socialism anyways.

Rjevan

3rd January 2010, 00:27

FSL

3rd January 2010, 00:38

How do you account for the fact that this "revisionism" was able to arise with the CPSU and transform a so-called socialist country into a capitalist country roughly 70 years after a socialist revolution?

RED DAVE

"There remains a long way to go in constructing the economic base, and the temptation is very great to follow the beaten track of material interest as the lever with which to accelerate development.
There is the danger that the forest will not be seen for the trees. The pipe dream that socialism can be achieved with the help of the dull instruments left to us by capitalism (the commodity as the economic cell, profitability, individual material interest as a lever, etc.) can lead into a blind alley. When you wind up there after having traveled a long distance with many crossroads, it is hard to figure out just where you took the wrong turn. Meanwhile, the economic foundation that has been laid has done its work of undermining the development of consciousness. To build communism it is necessary, simultaneous with the new material foundations, to build the new man and woman."

Socialism is not communism. In the base of socialism we still find elements of the capitalistic society, like the antitheses between manual and mental labour or workers and peasants. These will of course seek to be "expressed" in the superstructure as a political current. That current was revisionism.
These dangers are of course known to all communists and it is why we consider the existence of a proletarian state that will be able to fight them back necessary. You're free to check inner-party debates (amazing how there were debates in the party) to see which side is defending what.

The words I quoted belong to a despicable Stalinist who goes by the name Ernesto Guevara, by the way. He, being an actual Marxist and not a comic relief in revolutionary politics as the likes of Tony Cliff, was able to make a real analysis of the Soviet Union and its problems.

3rd January 2010, 00:42

Socialism in one country can only work if many countries adopt that policy, which isnt really one country then is it.

Axle

3rd January 2010, 00:44

Socialism in one country isn't something to strive for. The only reason for its creation was in response to the USSR's backwardness and isolation after the failure of all other revolutions.

It would've been irrelevant had Russia been at the same economic level as Germany at the time of the October Revolution (or if Germany's revolution had succeeded), even if it had still been the only initially successful revolution because, as Marxism tells us...a successful socialist revolution in a fully developed capitalist country will necessarily lead to others. However, since the USSR was so backward, it didn't have the economic clout for this to happen.

There's really nothing wrong with Socialism in one country, its the natural progression a socialist revolution would take in an undeveloped country, but there is absolutlely no reason for a first world country to take that path in event of a revolution.

RED DAVE

3rd January 2010, 00:48

How do you account for the fact that this "revisionism" was able to arise with the CPSU and transform a so-called socialist country into a capitalist country roughly 70 years after a socialist revolution?
Revisionism came to power with Khrushchev after Stalin's death. He betrayed and slandered Stalin's legacy and upheld deeply reactionary and counter-revolutionary theories (and is responisble for deeply reactionary and counter-revolutionary actions as well) which was the reason why China and Albania split with the USSR. So roughly since the 60s revisionism ruled, Marxism-Leninism was never restored and our beloved friend Gorby then managed to totally destroy the remains of the USSR. Short but valuable read about Gorby: "My ambition was to liquidate communism (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/gorbach.htm)"Nice to blame Khruschev instead of Stalin, but you are begging several questions:

(1) How could revisionism have arisen in the CPSU when Stalin proclaimed, during the 30s, the liquidation of all class antagonisms?

(2) How did the basic conditionss of labor change under Khruschev? Did the workers have control of industry, socialism, and then lose it?

(3) How did the above happen without any significant conflict in the USSR, either within the CPSU or within the USSR itself?

Of course, (1), (2) and (3) are easily answered if you realize that state capialism had triumphed by the late 1920s.

Anyway, I'd say it's really far fetched to balme Stalin for the shit his successor(s) did, this would mean that Trotskyists would have to see Leninism as a failed theory and would be forced to balme Lenin for Stalin's "crimes".Start thinking and stop cursing. It was obvious by the early 1920s that the USSR was in deep trouble, with the failure of the revolutions in the West. Why else institute the NEP? The system that basically, virtually seamlessly, went from state capitalism to corporate capitalism was pretty much in place by 1930.

The only thing he could have done to prevent this is more purging, so that we could disgustedly add Khrushchev (and some others) today to the honorable list of "genuine communists and true revolutionaries, slayed by the red fascist Stalin".How about Stalin, that great leader of the proletariat, appealing to the working class to fight against these so-called revisionists? Of course, that would have meant that CPSU was the political party of the bureaucracy not the working class!

RED DAVE

Rjevan

3rd January 2010, 17:06

(1) How could revisionism have arisen in the CPSU when Stalin proclaimed, during the 30s, the liquidation of all class antagonisms?
As we can see there was no liquidation of all class antagonism, I assume you refer to Stalin's "On the final victory of socialism in the USSR" from 1938 but when we take a closer look we can see the following passage, which is also a good addition to some points of my argumentation when replying to Rosa:

Can our working class and our peasantry, by their own efforts, without the serious assistance of the working class in capitalist countries, overcome the bourgeoisie of other countries in the same way as we overcame our own bourgeoisie? In other words :
Can we regard the victory of Socialism in our country as final, i.e., as being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism, assuming that Socialism is victorious only in one country and that the capitalist encirclement continues to exist?
Leninism answers these problems in the negative.
Leninism teaches that "the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale" (c.f. resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union).
This means that the serious assistance of the international proletariat is a force without which the problem of the final victory of Socialism in one country cannot be solved.

On the basis of these premises Stalin stated in "Problems of Leninism" that :
"The final victory of Socialism is the full guarantee against attempts at intervention, and that means against restoration, for any serious attempt at restoration can take place only with serious support from outside, only with the support of international capital.
"Hence the support of our revolution by the workers of all countries, and still more, the victory of the workers in at least several countries, is a necessary condition for fully guaranteeing the first victorious country against attempts at intervention and restoration, a necessary condition for the final victory of Socialism," (Problems of Leninism, 1937. P. 134.)

Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?
Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.

We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.
But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.

I would like unpleasant things like capitalist encirclement, the danger of military attack, the danger of the restoration of capitalism, etc., to be things of the past. Unfortunately, however, these unpleasant things still exist.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm
Sadly Stalin was also right this time...

(2) How did the basic conditionss of labor change under Khruschev? Did the workers have control of industry, socialism, and then lose it?
Since I don't have enough time now to start an in-depth outline of Anti-Revisionist critics of Khrushchev I'll link you to Hoxha's work "The Khruschevites (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1976/khruschevites/index.htm)" wich lists in-depth what changes happened after Stalin's death and under Nikita's rule. Also this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1465657&postcount=8) could be interesting.

(3) How did the above happen without any significant conflict in the USSR, either within the CPSU or within the USSR itself?
Who said it did happen "without any significant conflict"? Wiki on the Anti-Party Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Party_Group) and a thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-revisionists-t110869/index.html) about this topic which might answer further questions.

Of course, (1), (2) and (3) are easily answered if you realize that state capialism had triumphed by the late 1920s.
Of course, but the easy way out is not necessarily the best one, not to speak of the right one.

Start thinking and stop cursing. It was obvious by the early 1920s that the USSR was in deep trouble, with the failure of the revolutions in the West. Why else institute the NEP? The system that basically, virtually seamlessly, went from state capitalism to corporate capitalism was pretty much in place by 1930.
Who claimed the USSR was not in trouble? But after this peroid economy excperience a massive boost. Just take a look at the indexes here (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/REC39.html#s0), just scroll down and look at the numbers of the various charts. Decline? Deep trouble? Failure of socialism in one country and perisihing of the USSR?

How about Stalin, that great leader of the proletariat, appealing to the working class to fight against these so-called revisionists? Of course, that would have meant that CPSU was the political party of the bureaucracy not the working class!
Stalin was dead when revisionism rose to power but as we can see in the quote above he was aware of the danger and he appealed to the working class to fight liberalism, opportunism and other reactionary tendencies. If those tendencies have already entered the party they have to be removed by the party. Do I have to quote Lenin now, speaking of reactionary elements ("who only deserve to be shot") inflitrating the vaguard party and trying to liquidate the dictatorship of the proletariat from within? In this case these elements triumphed.

RED DAVE

3rd January 2010, 17:25

Do I have to quote Lenin now, speaking of reactionary elements ("who only deserve to be shot") inflitrating the vaguard party and trying to liquidate the dictatorship of the proletariat from within? In this case these elements triumphed.They sure did, by the end of the 1920s, and Stalin was their leader.

RED DAVE

mikelepore

4th January 2010, 15:58

Autocratic points to regimes where the land-owning nobility is the rulling class. Is that what happened in the Soviet Union, according to you?

Autocratic means the concentration of political power in a single ruler. Unless Lenin's administration had to be repeatedly reaffirmed by the people through open debates and contested elections, he was a single ruler.

Or maybe you were trying to say that under Lenin the dictatorship of the proletariat became more dictatorial?

Under Lenin, the officer of his political party became a ruling class. The invention of this new kind of institution, the capability of the officers of a political party to be a ruling class, which Marx and Engels had no name for, was what the 1917 revolution accomplished.

FSL

4th January 2010, 17:59

Autocratic means the concentration of political power in a single ruler. Unless Lenin's administration had to be repeatedly reaffirmed by the people through open debates and contested elections, he was a single ruler.

Under Lenin, the officer of his political party became a ruling class. The invention of this new kind of institution, the capability of the officers of a political party to be a ruling class, which Marx and Engels had no name for, was what the 1917 revolution accomplished.

Lenin's administration was repeateadly reaffirmed by people who took the bolshevicks' side -and won- in the civil war while repelling armies of a more than a dozen imperialist states.

You're free to think that there was a rulling class in the ussr that had no ownership of the means of production or even ownership of the economy's products. I'd say that this is not really a materialistic analysis, however.

And in any case, this has nothing to do with whether the policy of socialism in one country adopted in the 20s and put in practice in 1928 is viable.

robbo203

4th January 2010, 18:19

RED DAVE[/COLOR]

Red Dave

This is spot on. And the evidence is accumulating that the shift from Soviet state capitalism to corporate capitalism, as you call it, was carried out by a "revolution from above" and not as a result of any groundswell of opinion from below. The Soviet capitalist class or "red bourgeoisie" as I call them were pivotal in the shift of allegiance from Soviet to Republican institutions and from Gorbachev to Yeltsin. Some in the party-state eilte were already begining to make alliances with the wheelers and dealers in the black economy - the soviet mafia - years earlier and when the shock therapy of privatisation came along in the early 90s, it was these red bourgeoise that got their grubby hands on the state assets being sold off at rock bottom prices. 43% of the Russian oligarchs today were previously high ranking members of the pseudo communist party of the Soviet Union. Elsewhere in Eastern Europe such as Romania the figure is much higher.

What an utterly devastating end to that now completely discredited theory propounded by Lenin that his glorious vanguard party should be entrusted to lead the workers to the promised land!

Psy

4th January 2010, 18:45

They also wanted to start revolts in other countries and make socialism worldwide and one country at a time since the capitalist beastes wont allow revolts worldwide...look after WWII...it wasnt in 1 country for sure...also i want to hears trotskies to tell their opinion about this...i think it works perfectly well if used right.
Yet they all followed socialism in one country thus why the soviet block was able to fall, if the soviet block was a single interdependent economic system it would have been near impossible for capitalists to break it up as the flow of commodities would have been collectively planed for the entire soviet block (from Russia to the GDR). For example how could the GDR merge with FRG if was already merged with the entire Soviet block including Russia, China, North Korea and Vietnam and GDR, image if peasents from Vietnam simply migrated to the GDR due to the lack of borders within the soviet block you think the FRG would wanted to take the GDR with a bunch of non-German workers? More importantly do you think they would take over the GDR if there was no clear borders bettwen the GDR since there was no restrictions to travel bettwen soviet nations thus GDR and Poland didn't exist as nation state with clearly defined terriotories and instead were overlapping regional powers to the larger soviet block.

Without Socialism in one country the U.S.S.R could have just let Eastern Europe form as a single collective mass of socialists making the breakup of soviet block very problematic for the west since it would have meant recarving up Eastern Europe.

Ismail

5th January 2010, 04:26

Without Socialism in one country the U.S.S.R could have just let Eastern Europe form as a single collective mass of socialists making the breakup of soviet block very problematic for the west since it would have meant recarving up Eastern Europe.Either that or various people would wage wars of national liberation against a revisionist and national-chauvinist Russian-dominated superstate.

In fact, one of the main reasons for the Hungarian uprising of 1956 was that society was becoming too "Sovietized" (which was a legit complaint), and becoming a SSR would have sped that process along x200.

Regardless, Stalin had a forward-looking policy.

"Stalin indeed looked forward to profiting from an Anglo-German conflict. In a letter of September 7 [1939] to Georgii Dimitrov, the head of the Communist International, Stalin wrote that 'we are not against' a war between capitalist states in which they 'would weaken each other.' Hitler, nolens volens [aka unwillingly], was on his way to destroying the capitalist system. Poland, Stalin added, was just another 'bourgeois fascist state,' and 'What would be wrong if in the destruction of Poland [as a bourgeois state] we spread the socialist system to new inhabitants in new territories?'"
(Alfred Erich Senn. Lithuania 1940: Revolution from Above. New York: 2007. p. 21.)

Psy

5th January 2010, 05:43

Either that or various people would wage wars of national liberation against a revisionist and national-chauvinist Russian-dominated superstate.

In fact, one of the main reasons for the Hungarian uprising of 1956 was that society was becoming too "Sovietized" (which was a legit complaint), and becoming a SSR would have sped that process along x200.

I'm not talking about Hungary becoming a SSR, remember the U.S.S.R was not how Lenin wanted to structure the governing body On the Establishment of the U.S.S.R. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/sep/26.htm). Expanding Lenin's idea to the rest of Easter Europe would have meat Russia would only be a equal member over the central plan thus no more dominating over Hungary then New York State dominates over the state California in the USA. Also the free movement of workers would have meant none of the former nations would have been able to hold a national identity for long.

FSL

5th January 2010, 20:03

Yet they all followed socialism in one country thus why the soviet block was able to fall, if the soviet block was a single interdependent economic system it would have been near impossible for capitalists to break it up as the flow of commodities would have been collectively planed for the entire soviet block (from Russia to the GDR). For example how could the GDR merge with FRG if was already merged with the entire Soviet block including Russia, China, North Korea and Vietnam and GDR, image if peasents from Vietnam simply migrated to the GDR due to the lack of borders within the soviet block you think the FRG would wanted to take the GDR with a bunch of non-German workers? More importantly do you think they would take over the GDR if there was no clear borders bettwen the GDR since there was no restrictions to travel bettwen soviet nations thus GDR and Poland didn't exist as nation state with clearly defined terriotories and instead were overlapping regional powers to the larger soviet block.

Without Socialism in one country the U.S.S.R could have just let Eastern Europe form as a single collective mass of socialists making the breakup of soviet block very problematic for the west since it would have meant recarving up Eastern Europe.

The Soviet Union was a single interdependent economic system. The central plan involved the all-union economy, so Russia didn't have a separate socialism to the one of Belarus for example.

There was also economic cooperation among socialist countries. For example, the Sino-Soviet treaty signed in 1950 meant the largest ever transfer of resourses and know-how from USSR to China. One more example is the founding of COMECON.

However, a thing that should not happen is have economic integration the way we see it in capitalist formations like the US or the EU. For example, in the US everyone knows that the film industry is concentrated for the most part in the state of California (with Hollywood). In the EU, there remains a deep divide between countries like Greece or Spain who are to become gigantic tourist resorts and the industrialized north.

In socialism that can't be the case. If people are to have the opportunity to develop their personality to the fullest and without obstacles, then they should have the chance of choosing their profession without exceptions. Each country (or each area if you prefer) should balance its growth in every sector to allow that. Otherwise, we'd have just another capitalist division of labour where everyone who wants to be an actor or director must end up, say, in Leningrad and where everyone born in a coastal area has to compromise with the idea of only working as a waiter, a bartender or a receptionist.

After 1956 there was indeed an effort to make such a division of labour among countries with USSR staying the industrial powerhouse and other countries focusing on becoming its "breadbasket". Another example is Cuba focusing only on the production of sugar, much like it had been doing since then. Even if this plan wasn't accepted in its totality, USSR did remain the big boy of the socialist block.

Now, going past all that, you are suggesting that all these countries basically merged into one? Because that demand at that point first ignores the economic reality, as these were economies that differed alot from each other (which is why the EU sets rules on which countries can enter and also why the integration advances slowly) and also the reality of the then existing superstructure. People would be extremely opposed to erasing the borders, effectively dissolving their countries. These ideas mature slowly as a result of changes in the workings of the economy. The European Union has been around for decades but the thought of forging a strong, unifying, "european identity" has been gathering much ground only lately.
Also, you're overstimating what the free movement of workers can bring. People rarely leave the place they were born unless they are facing serious problems. This is more evident in Europe today where there are culture barriers to account for too. The only reason Vietnamese would migrate en masse to GDR was if they couldn't find a job where they were, which would obviously be a failure of socialism

In fact, one of the main reasons for the Hungarian uprising of 1956 was that society was becoming too "Sovietized" (which was a legit complaint),

The Hungarian uprising had its base of support in those who belonged in the right wing of the Independent Smallholder's party. The loss of national indepence was the last thing in their mind.

Psy

5th January 2010, 21:04

The Soviet Union was a single interdependent economic system. The central plan involved the all-union economy, so Russia didn't have a separate socialism to the one of Belarus for example.

Not as a competent one, GOSPLAN was horribly bureaucratic. When Moscow University in 1967 computer engineers presented a plan to automate the planning process via a computer network like what would later be Chile's Cybersyn but far more advanced GOSPLAN ignored it fearing the proposed supercomputer and network as a threat to their cushy jobs.

There was also economic cooperation among socialist countries. For example, the Sino-Soviet treaty signed in 1950 meant the largest ever transfer of resourses and know-how from USSR to China. One more example is the founding of COMECON.

Yet there was no real deep interconnecting of economies, for example even if Moscow University got to build their planning super computer there would be huge obsticles to pluging it into factories, warehouses and stores in the Warsaw Pact countries.

However, a thing that should not happen is have economic integration the way we see it in capitalist formations like the US or the EU. For example, in the US everyone knows that the film industry is concentrated for the most part in the state of California (with Hollywood). In the EU, there remains a deep divide between countries like Greece or Spain who are to become gigantic tourist resorts and the industrialized north.

In socialism that can't be the case. If people are to have the opportunity to develop their personality to the fullest and without obstacles, then they should have the chance of choosing their profession without exceptions. Each country (or each area if you prefer) should balance its growth in every sector to allow that. Otherwise, we'd have just another capitalist division of labour where everyone who wants to be an actor or director must end up, say, in Leningrad and where everyone born in a coastal area has to compromise with the idea of only working as a waiter, a bartender or a receptionist.

That was not my point, my point was a marco overall plan to cordinate the surpluses and shortfalls across the entire system.

After 1956 there was indeed an effort to make such a division of labour among countries with USSR staying the industrial powerhouse and other countries focusing on becoming its "breadbasket". Another example is Cuba focusing only on the production of sugar, much like it had been doing since then. Even if this plan wasn't accepted in its totality, USSR did remain the big boy of the socialist block.

I didn't meant for the USSR to be the big boy of the socialist block, again I meant there was a fully intrgrated socialist block making it a hassle to break them up, for example GDR being nearly impossible to break away from Poland due to all their computer systems being interconnected with Poland and their computers system being interconnected to the Russia's computer systems as what Moscow Univerity wanted to build was an Internet with powerful computers to annalize the overal economy which could have easily been expanded (with the political will) to all of the Warsaw Pact, China, North Korea and Vietnam.

Now, going past all that, you are suggesting that all these countries basically merged into one? Because that demand at that point first ignores the economic reality, as these were economies that differed alot from each other (which is why the EU sets rules on which countries can enter and also why the integration advances slowly) and also the reality of the then existing superstructure.

I'm suggesting centrial planning not just at the level of each of these nations but centrial planning at the world level (the socialist world)

People would be extremely opposed to erasing the borders, effectively dissolving their countries.

At the end of WWII it wouldn't be so much erasing borders as simply not drawing up new ones and letting regional power overlap meaning the GDR's authority would overlap into Poland and vice versa.

Also, you're overstimating what the free movement of workers can bring. People rarely leave the place they were born unless they are facing serious problems. This is more evident in Europe today where there are culture barriers to account for too. The only reason Vietnamese would migrate en masse to GDR was if they couldn't find a job where they were, which would obviously be a failure of socialism.

People do move around once they are given the freedom to do so, one big reason is to mate (thus having free movement would have dramatically increase mating across nationalities). As for Vietnamese migrate en masse to GDR well a brutal war tend to result is massive amount of refugees thus with free movement refugees from Vietnam would be free to relocate in the Warsaw Pact, this wouldn't be a failure of socialism as people don't tent to like to live on battlefields.

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st February 2010, 09:17

Rjevan:

Sorry, but here Lenin simply was mistaken, as we all know the USSR did not perish (at least not because no revolution happened in Germany, as we know quite the contrary happened and still the USSR didn't collapse because of this). And I am sure Lenin did realise that, too, since he lived till 1924 and there was not a sign of the USSR perishing.

1) The issue is not whether Lenin was right or wrong, but whether he supported the doctrine of 'Socialism in One Country'. Plainly he did not.

2) By 1924, Lenin was aware that the revolution was becoming bureaucratically deformed. So it was well on the way to destroying itself.

3) Stalin, of course, did crush the soviets, replacing workers' democracy with top down dictat.

4) And the imperialist states did indeed try to crush the former USSR (the most concerted attempt led by Hitler after Stalin signed a pact with him). Had the Stalinist regime not introduced State Capitalism in the USSR, and caught up with the imperialist powers in 20 years (as Stalin himself said), they (the Nazis) would have crushed the former USSR. So, even if Lenin wasn't strictly correct, he was right that the workers' state could not survive if the German revolution, etc., did not succeed.

The theory of "socialism in one country" does not claim that socialism in the USSR has been achieved and that now world revolution is not necessary anymore and "peaceful coexistence" with the capitalists is needed and welcomed, as some people like e.g. Trotsky seem to think. On the contrary, it claims that it is possible to build up socialism in one isolated country, surrounded by capitalist countries in order to create a tool for world revolution which actively supports the communist struggles in the whole world then and weakens the bourgeoisie states, both indirectly and directly to achieve the world revolution in the end. This is the theory and Stalin never claimed that world revolution is unnecessary.

Perhaps you can provide a quote or a reference where Trotsky says this? The point is that in order to try to build socialism in one country you end up with its opposite -- as indeed happened. I have explained in other threads here why this is so.

In response to this comment of Lenin's:

“We do not live merely in a state but in a system of states and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for any length of time is inconceivable. In the end one or the other must triumph.”

You reply:

Again, please, where did Stalin ever claim that the USSR can live in peace with the capitalist states? This is what Khrushchev did, who was by no means a "Stalinist", as even Trotsky himself would have to agree. I can dig up lots of Stalin quotes where he speaks about the vital necessity for the USSR to prepare for a fight with the capitalist world before, during, and after WWII till his very end.

Where does Lenin mention peaceful co-existence? The point, again, is that in trying to compete with the imperialist powers, as Bobk's posts here have shown, the Stalinist regime had to engage in rapid accumulation, and this meant that it had to super-exploit the working class, denying it democratic control, and thus destroying the soviet system from within.

Seriously, what is unrealistic about socialism in one country?

This, it seems to me, contradicts much of what you argue in your reply. As this confirms:

Didn't history prove that this was perhaps the most realistic thing one could promote at that time?

Well, it wasn't built in the former USSR, or anywhere else, for that matter, and history has refuted the idea that it can be. This also confirms the view that you think socialism was created in the former USSR, contrary to what you seem to be arguing above.

Should I post some statistics about industrial and economical growth in the USSR compared to the other European countries and the USA? Some statistics on improved living conditions, illiteracy and much more compared with tsarist Russia? Indeed, if somebody would tell me about this without any evidence I would also say this is utopian fantasy but it's historical facts. And just because Trotsky ridicules the idea of socialism in one country this doesn't mean that it failed and that I have to ignore all historical facts on this topic which illustrate that it not only worked but worked incredibly good and was the only solution the USSR had at that time if they wanted to survive.

No one is denying that growth in the USSR was stunning, but as I pointed out above, this could only be achieved at the cost of the super-exploitation and oppression of the working class, and the peasants. But, growth is not socialism. If it were, then the USA must be 3/4 socialist!

You end by quoting familiar Stalinist smears against Trotsky, but let's see what Stalin himself believed before he abandoned Leninism:

“The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism – the organization of socialist production – still remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie, the efforts of one country are sufficient – the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary...

“Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution.”

Bold added.

Soon after, Stalin changed his mind, and argued the exact opposite.

Much else that you say either ignores what Lenin in fact said, or distorts it, as I have pointed out.

LeninistKing

4th February 2010, 19:48

True: Socialism in 1, 2 or 3 countries in a world full of capitalist-countries is almost impossible. That's why I believe a lot more in the thesis of Trotksy of socialism in all countries for socialism to be feasable

.

We discussed this recently in detail, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-one-country-t123138/index.html

where I was able to show (1) that Lenin rejected it and (2) that history has refuted the idea, and many times.

This is connected with the idea of introducing 'socialism from above', also discussed recently here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-below-t124985/index.html

In order for an isolated, and backward 'socialist' country to develop the productive forces it has to (1) enter into military competition with the imperialist powers (or suffer invasion and/or destruction), and to do that it has to (2) super-exploit the working class of that country. For this to work a terror-state apparatus has to be set up to keep the proletariat in line. This means that yet another round of class struggle must emerge, and another revolution becomes necessary (as we saw in Hungary in 1956, for example).

Either that, or the inefficiency of bureaucratic, central planning causes the whole thing to collapse anyway - as we saw in the former USSR and E Europe. Alternatively, such states have to adopt free market capitalism, as we now see in China and Vietnam -- and, of course, in the former 'Eastern Block'.

Invincible Summer

4th February 2010, 22:19

So... everyone country is just going to become socialist at once in some serendipitous turn of events?

Interesting.

Niccolò Rossi

5th February 2010, 02:46

So... everyone country is just going to become socialist at once in some serendipitous turn of events?

Interesting.

You are confusing socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Of course proletarian revolutions will occur initially on a national scale and will not be simulatenous internationally (saying this, without revolution spreading to other nations quickly, counter-revolution is an inevitability). However, socialism by contrast is and can only be a world system. Russia was not socialist in November 1917!

5th February 2010, 03:30

The Soviet Union was a single interdependent economic system. The central plan involved the all-union economy, so Russia didn't have a separate socialism to the one of Belarus for example.

But as you later on prove, there was a plan to implement a division of labour in each country, plus there were massive amounts of chauvinism and bureaucracy at most levels. One example in the highest ups, might be Soviet leaders deciding to choose people from their own backyards. Stalin choosing Georgians to be around him, Brezhnev choosing Ukrainians, it filters down to the lower levels too.

There was also economic cooperation among socialist countries. For example, the Sino-Soviet treaty signed in 1950 meant the largest ever transfer of resourses and know-how from USSR to China. One more example is the founding of COMECON.

A federative world socialist republic shouldn't be like that. It's abundantly clear that every economy must aid each other fully in times of need, ideally yeah they'd be centralised as much as possible, but splitting along the lines of fairly unequally applied standard 'revisionism' is just wrong in the way they did, in most of the cases it indicates a high level of national self-importance.

Now, going past all that, you are suggesting that all these countries basically merged into one? Because that demand at that point first ignores the economic reality, as these were economies that differed alot from each other (which is why the EU sets rules on which countries can enter and also why the integration advances slowly) and also the reality of the then existing superstructure. People would be extremely opposed to erasing the borders, effectively dissolving their countries. These ideas mature slowly as a result of changes in the workings of the economy. The European Union has been around for decades but the thought of forging a strong, unifying, "european identity" has been gathering much ground only lately.
Also, you're overstimating what the free movement of workers can bring. People rarely leave the place they were born unless they are facing serious problems. This is more evident in Europe today where there are culture barriers to account for too. The only reason Vietnamese would migrate en masse to GDR was if they couldn't find a job where they were, which would obviously be a failure of socialism

But then you establish national chauvinism, the same thing happens when you act regionalist as you have rightly pointed out about the EU. I know quite a few people who want a "EUROPEAN EMPIRE" that "kicks arabs out" and all the rest of that shit, it's pretty disgusting to witness and it has led to blatant chauvinism against the Eastern European states with shit about "filthy polaks" and what not. Freedom of movement and the elimination of national/regional chauvinism to the fullest extent possible is vitally important in establishing socialism.

The Hungarian uprising had its base of support in those who belonged in the right wing of the Independent Smallholder's party. The loss of national indepence was the last thing in their mind.

Is that why the newly formed MSzMP, from the old CP, sanctioned the Hungarian worker's councils and had quite a bit of respect from the Soviets at first? Granted, it was proposed by the "coalition government" that it all become just another faceless imperialist social-democracy, but that demand was eroded down and faded away thankfully, then of course the revolution was crushed as a counterrevolution regardless.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2010, 03:44

Rise Like Lions:

So... everyone country is just going to become socialist at once in some serendipitous turn of events?

Interesting.

May I suggest you read this thread before you jump to this hasty conclusion? If you do you will see that that is not what is being argued.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2010, 03:50

LeninistKing:

True: Socialism in 1, 2 or 3 countries in a world full of capitalist-countries is almost impossible. That's why I believe a lot more in the thesis of Trotksy of socialism in all countries for socialism to be feasable

Ok, but as Bob the Builder pointed out, if the USA and a handful of major capitalist economies (UK, Germany, Japan, France, Italy, S.Korea,...) experience a revolution, this will provide the productive capacity to make socialism possible, while the revolution spreads wider.

LeninistKing

5th February 2010, 05:10

Hello, indeed, and if people in those countries and societies were like most of us in this forum, there would be an easier and faster change toward socialism, by supporting their socialist parties and socialist movements within those nations. But you know how most people in the developed (Big 8 industrial nations are), the majority of people of industrial rich nations are relatively economically stable compared to the societies of poorer nations: (Haiti, Nepal, Bolivia, Guatemala, Somalia, Yemen etc.) and thats why we see more revolutionary hunger in poor nations. However the economy is also getting real bad in rich nations.

But with the help of the internet, socialism is becoming more mainstream ideology in the developed rich nations, however in the developed nations there is an excess of individualism and tons of different weird ideologies like libertarianism, far-right populism, as options and alternatives to traditional political parties, etc. which is an impediment to create Socialist United Fronts in rich nations.

But we have to think possitive.

.

LeninistKing:

Ok, but as Bob the Builder pointed out, if the USA and a handful of major capitalist economies (UK, Germany, Japan, France, Italy, S.Korea,...) experience a revolution, this will provide the productive capacity to make socialism possible, while the revolution spreads wider.

Rosa Lichtenstein

5th February 2010, 05:56

LeninistKing:

indeed, and if people in those countries and societies were like most of us in this forum, there would be an easier and faster change toward socialism, by supporting their socialist parties and socialist movements within those nations. But you know how most people in the developed (Big 8 industrial nations are), the majority of people of industrial rich nations are relatively economically stable compared to the societies of poorer nations: (Haiti, Nepal, Bolivia, Guatemala, Somalia, Yemen etc.) and thats why we see more revolutionary hunger in poor nations. However the economy is also getting real bad in rich nations.

Well, I was specifically speaking about revolutions in the 'advanced' economies, and in such circumstances, the opinions of the vast majority of workers will have been radicalised, or, plainly, there won't be a revolution!

Whether such revolutions will ever take place is, of course, a separate issue.