Communism In One Country

[AK]

Can Communism occur in one country (or many - but not the entire world) after the state has "withered away"? Could the state withering away whilst the country being surrounded by other states even be possible? You could also look at communes and Anarchist Spain as similar examples but could a Communist society be developed in one country?

[Chambered Word]

In my opinion, communism - a stateless, classless society - in one country would be practically impossible. Although socialism (a dictatorship of the proletariat) in one country is possible it's very difficult. Look at how the US responded to the USSR, Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile etc. I think Trotsky was correct in arguing for world revolution, although I don't think it has to occur all at the same time (I'm not sure exactly what Trotskyists believe in regard to this).

[AK]

I think Trotsky was correct in arguing for world revolution, although I don't think it has to occur all at the same time (I'm not sure exactly what Trotskyists believe in regard to this).
In a perfect world, the worldwide revolution would be simultaneous. However I think this is impossible due to conditions being different in each state.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Many people on these forums seem to get confused as to what the concept of "socialism in one country" refers. It does not refer to opposing world revolution. My conception of this is that world revolution needs to be understood as a unified process (which has historically been a common shortcoming in the communist movement), but also one which won't take place in an overnight way. World revolution should be understood as a single (not a disjointed), protracted struggle in which the individual socialist country should be understood as a base area from which struggle can be expanded. The law of uneven development and historical experience I think show that revolutionary victories will tend to take place in a country-by-country way (though not absolutely) that will consume an entire historical epoch.

As to the possibility of achieving communism in one country, I'm more skeptical. I tend to view the process of revolution as almost inherently a pretty dialectical one in which revolutionary advances to some degree both at the national level and the international level depend on one-another for success. It's also worth noting though that I definitely see socialism as necessarily being consistently a period of revolutionary transition, not a period in which you simply build up the economy or whatever. You have to be continually advancing in your revolution even just in order to maintain it. That's also a crucial part of the reason why, in my view, world revolution has to be a unified process. While, like Lenin, my conception of communism is that of a classless society, not by definition a stateless society (the state "withers away" under communist, not socialist conditions), I seriously doubt you could sustain communism even in a way that includes the proletarian state in the continued absence of the complete defeat of the enemy.

[Ismail]

Stalin once said that theoretically it's possible (as anything can be done theoretically), but that in reality it would be impossible.

Stalin himself noted the challenges of building socialism (much less the final victory) in one country in 1938 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm):


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.

This, of course, does not mean that we must sit with folded arms and wait for assistance from outside.

On the contrary, this assistance of the international proletariat must be combined with our work to strengthen the defence of our country, to strengthen the Red Army and the Red Navy, to mobilise the whole country for the purpose of resisting military attack and attempts to restore bourgeois relations.

This is what Lenin says on this score :

"We are living not merely in a State but in a system of States, and it is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue to coexist for a long period side by side with imperialist States. Ultimately one or other must conquer. Meanwhile, a number of terrible clashes between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois States is inevitable. This means that if the proletariat, as the ruling class, wants to and will rule, it must prove this also by military organization." (Collected Works, Vol. 24. P. 122.)

And further :

"We are surrounded by people, classes and governments which openly express their hatred for us. We must remember that we are at all times but a hair's breadth from invasion." (Collected Works, Vol. 27. P. 117.)

This is said sharply and strongly but honestly and truthfully without embellishment as Lenin was able to speak...

Indeed, it would be ridiculous and stupid to close our eyes to the capitalist encirclement and to think that our external enemies, the fascists, for example, will not, if the opportunity arises, make an attempt at a military attack upon the U.S.S.R. Only blind braggarts or masked enemies who desire to lull the vigilance of our people can think like that...

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.

[AK]

Some of these posts seem to think I'm talking about Socialism. I know the difference between socialism and communism. I'm wondering if it's possible to create a sort of communist enclave outside the borders of surrounding states after many years of socialist development and the state withering away.

[Chambered Word]

Some of these posts seem to think I'm talking about Socialism. I know the difference between socialism and communism. I'm wondering if it's possible to create a sort of communist enclave outside the borders of surrounding states after many years of socialist development and the state withering away.

If that's what you mean, in some ways it's possible but like we've already established it's not an easy process.

Look at the Greek anarchist neighbourhoods. It can be done, but requires constant work and progress to maintain (such as maintaining physical defense against outside forces).

I don't believe the whole world must become socialist and then communist at the same time. Socialist nations may provide assistance to revolutionary elements in capitalist nations to spread socialism. Once the last bourgeois forces have been defeated the socialist world that isn't already rid of the state will be free to become communist.

[Dimentio]

Can Communism occur in one country (or many - but not the entire world) after the state has "withered away"? Could the state withering away whilst the country being surrounded by other states even be possible? You could also look at communes and Anarchist Spain as similar examples but could a Communist society be developed in one country?

We should not look at countries. We should look at regions. Socialism or communism might very well be possible in Australia or Brazil, but not in Nepal or Albania because of the size of the countries in question.

[The Vegan Marxist]

If that's what you mean, in some ways it's possible but like we've already established it's not an easy process.

Look at the Greek anarchist neighbourhoods. It can be done, but requires constant work and progress to maintain (such as maintaining physical defense against outside forces).

I don't believe the whole world must become socialist and then communist at the same time. Socialist nations may provide assistance to revolutionary elements in capitalist nations to spread socialism. Once the last bourgeois forces have been defeated the socialist world that isn't already rid of the state will be free to become communist.

But if the close possibility of building Socialism in one country is next to almost impossible, then wouldn't it be an even more difficult process to achieve Communism, due to the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would need a complete cooperation by all the workers in that country?

[Kayser_Soso]

Can Communism occur in one country (or many - but not the entire world) after the state has "withered away"? Could the state withering away whilst the country being surrounded by other states even be possible? You could also look at communes and Anarchist Spain as similar examples but could a Communist society be developed in one country?

Those anarchist communes only managed to be established in the first place because of the destabilization caused by the military rebellion, and subsequently the nationalist won, easily brushing aside anarchists in most of the battles where they encountered them.

Communism as we understand it cannot exist in one country. Maybe 'little c' communism, that is a lifestyle based on a commune, can exist in many places, but it would necessarily be quite small and based on dedicated volunteers who want to live in that lifestyle. Such communes do still exist.

[Ismail]

Maybe 'little c' communism, that is a lifestyle based on a commune, can exist in many places, but it would necessarily be quite small and based on dedicated volunteers who want to live in that lifestyle. Such communes do still exist.A great exposé (as it were) of such "self-sustaining; non-capitalist" communes can be found here: http://ravenresist.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/you-can-run-but-you-cant-hide/

[Winter]

Communism can't be developed in one country. There has to be a proletarian state to defend the country from capitalist infiltraitors and invaders. Could there be Communism in one country if all the other countries in the world were Socialist? I think it would be possible, but unwise, seeing that so long as a state apparatus exists there is a chance for revisionists to take control of it.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Ismail:

Just as a casual thought on the quote by Stalin you provided, I'd like to comment on the following aspect:


On the contrary, this assistance of the international proletariat must be combined with our work to strengthen the defence of our country, to strengthen the Red Army and the Red Navy, to mobilise the whole country for the purpose of resisting military attack and attempts to restore bourgeois relations.

I would very sharply criticize the limits inherent in this perspective. We need to keep in mind the context in which this statement was made. This was the period in which the Soviet Union was pushing the whole united front against fascism orientation on the world communist movement, essentially subjugating it to Soviet defense needs. It's in that context that we can properly understand the solely defensive nature of the position Stalin described in the quote above. Therein Stalin was advancing the idea of world revolution as a disjointed process rather than as a unified one. This was nationalistically promoting an exaggerated emphasis on Soviet military buildup at the expense of everything else, including the recognition of revolutionary opportunities arising elsewhere, such as clearly emerged in Spain during this period.

It also fails to recognize the possibility of capitalist restoration from within through the possibility of new bourgeois forces arising.


Originally posted by The Duck That Goes Quack:
I'm wondering if it's possible to create a sort of communist enclave outside the borders of surrounding states after many years of socialist development and the state withering away.I echo the sentiments of Kayser_Soso on this subject.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Communism in One Country is a juxtaposition in itself. Communism is a stateless, classless society, yet a 'Country' is, by definition, synonomous with the existence of a state. So the short answer to your question is, no.

In another sense also no, because if there are other hostile nations in existence, they would simply undermine the notion of the withering away of the state - it is simply not possible to rapidly move society towards Communism whilst also fighting a revolutionary war. Defeat your enemies first, then move towards Communism.

[Dimentio]

A country don't need a state to defend itself exactly.

[sanpal]

Communism in higher phase when the State is withering away is not possible, but communism of lower phase during proletarian socialism (period DotP) is very possible, and more to say, it must to appear in that period otherwise the Proletarian revolution was vain.

[Glenn Beck]

Some of these posts seem to think I'm talking about Socialism. I know the difference between socialism and communism. I'm wondering if it's possible to create a sort of communist enclave outside the borders of surrounding states after many years of socialist development and the state withering away.

Certain types of anarchists and autonomists believe that it is not only indeed possible to create spheres of activity outside of the domination of capital and the state, but that this is the main form that anti-capitalist activity should take, largely due to arguments surrounding their anarchist views about the unsuitability of the state as a progressive agent, the undesirability/impossibility of a socialist transition, etc. However this is more of a commune-ism than the concept of communism in Marxism that is a fully developed mode of production that develops over time after the bourgeoisie is overthrown in a mass revolution of the working class. This concept of autonomous spheres of communism arising without mass revolution, on the other hand, is not necessarily conceived of in Marxist terms of working class revolution (although it is sometimes justified in such terms and phrased as 'workers directly taking control of their lives' or something along those lines) but rather may take many forms. Some have theorized things as transient as internet file-sharing and potlucks among friends to be forms of resistance that temporarily push back the domination of capital. Theories of this type generally inform movements like politically motivated squats, free stores, and some intentional communes.

[Dimentio]

I think that some kind of hybrid form between communism and socialism is possible on large areas which are fairly well-defensable.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think it might be possible across several or even just a couple of countries, preferably the most powerful ones, but not in one. The rule of Stalin, the Warsaw pact etc is proof that even across many countries and with the best intentions, it is difficult to prevent it falling to internal corruption and hostile foreign bourgeoisie forces.

Trying to operate it in one only results in it being crushed by foreign counter-revolutionary aggression, both militarilly and economic.

[Dimentio]

I think it might be possible across several or even just a couple of countries, preferably the most powerful ones, but not in one. The rule of Stalin, the Warsaw pact etc is proof that even across many countries and with the best intentions, it is difficult to prevent it falling to internal corruption and hostile bourgeoisie forces.

Trying to operate it in one only results in it being crushed by foreign counter-revolutionary aggression, both militarilly and economic.

We are not talking socialism now, but communism. I think it would be possible on maybe one continent or something like that.

[Dr Mindbender]

We are not talking socialism now, but communism. I think it would be possible on maybe one continent or something like that.

Some are of the belief that socialism is a necessary half way house in the dismantling of the current system.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

More than one person here has defined communism as a "stateless, classless society". The former part of that, from a Leninist perspective however, is actually untrue, I would point out.


"...the dictatorship of the proletariat is a ‘political transition period’.... But Marx goes on to speak of ‘the future nature of the state of communist society’!! Thus, there will be a state even in ‘communist society’!!"

--Vladimir Lenin, from Marxism on the StateThus, in a Leninist understanding, the "withering away" of the state isn't, as in the anarchist formulation, a prerequisite for the achievement of communism, but a consequence of the achievement of communism. A communist state of affairs is first achieved, then the state is abolished, not the other way around. I think we need to have a deep understanding of that if we're to pursue this topic further.

It's with this understanding that we can grasp the correctness of what Winter had to say: that "communism can't be developed in one country". As in to say that it might be achieved, but can't plausibly reach its stateless form previous to the complete defeat of the enemy on the world stage beyond the possibility of restoration. New bourgeois forces, after all, can still arise even after the enemy is initially defeated on the world stage as a result of the remaining unevenness still present in merely socialist societies. New bourgeois forces can be developed out of this remaining unevenness. Thus we see what Winter was saying in concluding: "Could there be Communism in one country if all the other countries in the world were Socialist? I think it would be possible, but unwise, seeing that so long as a state apparatus exists there is a chance for revisionists to take control of it". I, however, tend to lean more toward the skeptical side of that statement and see capitalist restoration in such a scenario as not only possible, but likely.

[Kayser_Soso]

You should remember that while some people used the term "socialism" to describe the transitional society, it has also been called "the lower form of communism", so that doesn't necessarily mean that the state would exist under the "higher form of communism"(each according to ability, to each according to needs). But even under the latter there may be some kind of accounting/distribution structure to keep track of what is being produced and how much is being consumed.