Socialism in one country?

[Rainsborough]

Okay, I know it's a contentious question, but please be kind. Having had this brought up in another thread, and learning, could someone explain why socialism is not possible in a single country?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Socialism, in the sense of the word that is interchangeable with Communism (i.e. a stateless, classless society) cannot exist in one country. Firstly, you have the basic premise of a stateless society - obviously if you are a country surrounded by hostile powers, you will need some form of state (national government leadership, self-defence and some protectionist economic measures) to stop the country from either collapsing or being overrun.

Secondly, if other countries are hostile, then you will need to trade with other countries to get either favourable or fair trading terms (look at Cuba, for example). Now, this may be trade with countries that are not neccessarily Socialist, but are the 'enemy of my enemy', such as Venezuela's trading relationship with Iran. Thus, what often happens is that, in order to balance the terms of trade (imports v exports), trade with Capitalist nations is neccessary, many of the best goods must be sold to satisfy the terms of trade (in Cuba, for example, you can find some wonderful lobster, but it is not legal in the domestic market, as the government needs to export it to raise funds).

One country, surrounded by hostile neighbours, can never be stateless, moneyless or wholly autarkical. Thus, it cannot be communist. Of course, there is a sense of the word Socialism that is somewhat detached from the term that describes a classless society, but the word Socialism, as denoted in the phrase 'Socialism in one country', is the form of the word that is interchangeable with communism, as Marx originally used it.

[ContrarianLemming]

the above answer is highly biased towards Leninism

the general consensus if that socalism cannot survive in any form when surrounded by hostiles who will do anything to destroy it, hence the believe in constantly spreading revolution, sort of like the American manifest destiny.

[M-26-7]

Okay, I know it's a contentious question, but please be kind. Having had this brought up in another thread, and learning, could someone explain why socialism is not possible in a single country?

In my opinion, the best answer is entirely economic. Socialism in one country is impossible for the same reason that it is not plausible to go out and create workers' co-ops in the midst of capitalism and expect them to magically expand and take over the whole economy. They can't do so; they will be forced to incorporate hierarchy, forced to run themselves along increasingly capitalist lines (Tayloristic division of labor, bosses, etc.), in a word: forced to compete. It is objectively impossible to retain socialist relations of production under such conditions for more than a short time.

Socialism is universal cooperation replacing competition. That is its great benefit. But it also constitutes its greatest challenge. There is no way to sustain little pockets of cooperation while competition prevails as the general rule. Well, the same thing applies to big pockets of cooperation, i.e., countries which attempt to unilaterally construct socialist societies.

A large country, like Russia or China, might be able to last for a while - even a few decades - before entirely capitulating to capitalism or state capitalism. A smaller country like Nepal might not even have enough resources within itself to establish any form of socialism in the first place. But as history shows, a few decades is the absolute upper limit, even for some of the biggest countries in the world (which Russia and China are), of time for which socialism in one country can last before collapsing completely.

The best that can ever be hoped for, when socialism in one country is attempted, is an ironic situation of Communist Party members/state bureaucrats ruling over the workplace like capitalist bosses, in an attempt to compete with the capitalist countries. Or you could have a country which refuses any kind of capitulation to capitalist relations of production, and refuses to trade with capitalist countries; but as a result, it would stagnate economically and would rapidly fall behind the rest of the world.

I have always found it odd that Leninists are so adamant (and correctly so) about building a revolutionary movement rather than lapsing into illegalism, lifestylism, or other individualized and localized acts of resistance, yet at the same time, and in total contradiction to this position, they are in favor of building socialism in one country and don't see any major objections to trying to do so. Yet socialism in one country fails for the exact same reasons that it would fail to declare a single workplace a "liberated zone" in the midst of a capitalist national economy. "Socialism in one country" is the exact same issue, writ large.

[Rainsborough]

So, and one question leads to another, if Socialism in one Country is impossible, whether due to economics or not, then the next question has to be how could Russia, following the revolution, ever have achieved Socialism? As no matter how far the borders had expanded, and no matter how many Countries joined the USSR, it would always be a single Country surrounded by hostile enemies.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

the above answer is highly biased towards Leninism

the general consensus if that socalism cannot survive in any form when surrounded by hostiles who will do anything to destroy it, hence the believe in constantly spreading revolution, sort of like the American manifest destiny.

I'm not a Leninist.

[Catillina]

I join a question. What would we do, if it's possible to make communsim in one single country(-->isolated)??

[28350]

I'm not a Leninist.
Even I could tell that, based on this:

Socialism, in the sense of the word that is interchangeable with Communism (i.e. a stateless, classless society)

There's no reason to run around screaming about Leninist biases, tyvm. It's very telling when you do and there are none.

[Lyev]

Oh gosh not this again, if it's ok with you, I'll just quote stuff I've said from previous thread:


The fundmentals tenants that underlie Trotskyism.Determinism, idealism, defeatism and pessimism are what originally drew me towards Trotsky's line of thought, yes. And you're quite right when you say criticism without positing a better alternative is "meaningless", hence why Trotsky spent a while formulating "permanent revolution", as a counter-tendency to SIOC. And to say that Trotsky et al were all "country-revolutionary" anyway is poppycock. The Opposition had wide support; the central committees of the mass-based parties in Poland and France protested against the attacks on Trotsky. Anyway, on the subject, in his own words (emphasis mine):
In the event of a decisive victory of the revolution, power will pass into the hands of that class which plays a leading role in the struggle - in other words, into the hands of the proletariat... The political domination of the proletariat is incompatible with its economic enslavement. No matter under what political flag the proletariat has come to power, it is obliged to take the path of socialist policy.

[...]

Should the Russian proletariat find itself in power..., it will encounter the organized hostility of world reaction, and on the other hand will find a readiness on the part of the world proletariat to give organized support... It will have no alternative but to link the fate of its political rule, and, hence, the fate of the whole Russian revolution, with the fate of the socialist revolution in Europe.Following the defeat of the Spartacists in Germany in 1919 the immediate possibility of revolution quickly "spreading" became less and less tangible. So the bureaucratic clique sat down and decided to start building socialism "at a snail's pace", in Bukharin's words. The same quotes seem to be dug up every time a debate concerning SIOC appears, but I'll dig them out anyway. With the threat of imperialist invasion ever-looming, why on earth did the regime start preparing for long-term isolation and entrenchment? A prerequisite for the socialist transition is utilizing to their utmost the most advanced productive forces. As Marx said:
...this development of productive forces... is an absolutely necessary practical premise [of socialism] because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced.And yet Stalin time and time again claims that "socialism" is achievable within national boundaries.
If we knew in advance that we are not equal to the task [of building socialism in Russia by itself], then why the devil did we have to make the October revolution? If we have managed for eight years, why should we not manage in the ninth, tenth or fortieth year?
The party always took as its starting point the idea that the victory of socialism in one country means the possibility to build socialism in that country, and that this task can be accomplished with the forces of a singly country!
...we are capable of completely building a socialist society by our own efforts and without the victory of the revolution in the West, but that, by itself alone, our country cannot guarantee itself against encroachments by international capital—for that the victory of the revolution in several Western countries is needed. The possibility of completely building socialism in our country is one thing, the possibility of guaranteeing our country against encroachments by international capital is another.Stalin thought there was "no need to inject the international factor into our [Russia's] socialist development." One of the main qualms I have Stalin and co.'s analysis is that they perceived military intervention as the only threat to the development of socialism. Following this, a monopoly on foreign trade was established, without consideration of the USSR's relationship with other capitalist powers, on the whole, in the world economy. Whilst this was a valuable tool for defence, it clearly highlighted Soviet dependence on the world economy, and its relative weakness in productive forces, next to the western developed capitalist countries. Hence why the Left Opposition tried to fight for a much quicker development of industry, and modernisation at a much greater rate. As Trotsky wrote:
Marxism takes its point of departure from world economy, not as a sum of national parts but as a mighty and independent reality which has been created by the international division of labor and the world market, and which in our epoch imperiously dominates the national markets. The productive forces of capitalist society have long ago outgrown the national boundaries. The imperialist war (of 1914-1918) was one of the expressions of this fact. In respect of the technique of production, socialist society must represent a stage higher than capitalism. To aim at building a nationally isolated socialist society means, in spite of all passing successes, to pull the productive forces backward even as compared with capitalism. To attempt, regardless of the geographical, cultural and historical conditions of the country’s development, which constitutes a part of the world unity, to realize a shut-off proportionality of all branches of economy within a national framework, means to pursue a reactionary utopia.I'll also add that if we conclude that socialism is, indeed, suitable in one country, and re-orientate production to develop "at a snail's pace", then this can only lead to defencist policies, as regards Soviet foreign policy in relation to the international proletarian movement on the whole. Building for socialism in this defensive way, in Russia alone, with the bureaucrats crossing their fingers against foreign intervention leads to "a collaborationist policy toward the foreign bourgeoisie with the object of averting intervention", as Trotsky said. Just one example of this is the Soviet Union joining the League of Nations, which in Bolshevik party program, drafted at the 1919 Congress by Lenin "will direct its future efforts to the suppression of revolutionary movements." I think that just about covers everything, I'll come back to this later. There's also the matter of the nationalist sentiment stirred up by SIOC, especially when it was adopted as the official policy of the Comintern. It was used to justify the Soviet dominance in the worldwide movement, and their role as "leaders" of the international proletariat.

'Permanent revolution' is an extremely vague concept, and not one that Trotsky can even claim credit for.

This is a valid question, one that I've asked myself and have not yet received an answer for. If there is a single country in which revolutionary forces have developed the strength to topple the ruling class and build a system in which the oppressed hold power, what should they do? The logical conclusion of the Trotskyist line of thought is that unless there is a revolutionary situation around the world they shouldn't bother. After all, it is *inevitable* that their revolution will be defeated. Why should they bother? What's the point?

History shows us clearly that even in times of great revolutionary upheaval, revolutions tend to only succeed in one or a few isolated countries at a time. The task in front of us is to figure out how to help the revolution survive in an isolated country while hastening and awaiting the spread of the revolution overseas.

It's not enough to just say unless the revolution spreads it's inevitably doomed and leave it at that. That offers you a seemingly satisfactory explanation for what went wrong in the USSR, but it's not a constructive position. You can't spread a revolution around the world through willpower! We need to study the question of what went wrong in the 20th century revolutions a lot more deeply than the usual Trotskyist analysis goes.I'm not sure you read my post? The qualm I have isn't directly with the socialism existing in one country, or committed revolutionaries trying to build socialism whilst the revolution hasn't spread, it's with "socialism in one country", as expounded by Stalin, Bukharin et al. Firstly, after the revolution failed to "spread", after things went pear-shaped in Germany, the ruling bureaucracy in Russia entrenched themselves in for the long haul, with the intention of building socialism "at a snail's pace", rather than industrialize and modernize at a faster pace to keep up with the leading capitalist powers. At the time, there didn't seem to be much of a conception of the Soviet relations to the world economy on a whole. Russia isolated itself: Stalin bluntly insisted that there was "no need to inject the international factor into our socialist development." Russia, with it's domination of Comintern as a tool for defence of the interests of Soviet national policy, knowingly or not, began to sever its interests with that of the global proletariat movement.

As Trotsky (rightly so, in my opinion) pointed out, this mindset and policy only had one end to it's nationalist route. He said building socialism in isolation, in this defencist manner could only lead to "a collaborationist policy toward the foreign bourgeoisie with the object of averting intervention." This was demonstrated in the example I gave of the Soviet Union's inauguration into the League of Nations, whereby the bureaucratic clique chose to side with the national bourgeoisie, of foreign capitalist countries, rather than serve the interests of the international proletarian movement on a whole. Of the League of Nations Lenin remarked, in the draft program of the 1919 Congress, that it "will direct its future efforts to the suppression of revolutionary movements." Do you see what I'm getting at? "Socialism in one country" --> isolationism, defencism, autarky, "snail's pace" --> subordination of international proletariat in favour of immediate Soviet national interests.(Emphasis mine.)

[scarletghoul]

The first stage of socialism is of course possible in one country. You just need workers' control of the means of production and there you go. It's a lot easier when the workers control a large and diverse territory like the USSR as they then are less reliant on trade with capitalist countries, but it's still possible to have socialism in a small country like Cuba.

History, and the state of present societies (mostly Cuba and North Korea), shows clearly that it's possible to achieve socialism in one country at a time. Furthermore, history also shows that this is the only possible path to world revolution. Having socialist base countries has proved vital in helping revolutionary movements elsewhere.

However, the issue of the higher stage of communism, that is, classless stateless society, is a separate one, and I don't think the statelessness can be achieved without at least a majority of the worlds' territory.

Also, socialism can not be sustained in one country; it must help other revolutions triumph in order to survive.

But yes, socialism certainly can and must exist in one country. Then 2, then 3, and so on.

[The Red Next Door]

Socialism in one Country is the most realistic way to go, because you can not expect the whole world to arise from the slumbers, all at once. You have to do it, one at a time and not sit on your ass waiting for the Whole world to rise up against Capitalism. You have to do it yourself in your country. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong and living an utopian la la la la land. After you do that help other achieve the same goal as scarletghoul just said.

[Lyev]

Socialism in one Country is the most realistic way to go, because you can not expect the whole world to arise from the slumbers, all at once. You have to do it, one at a time and not sit on your ass waiting for the Whole world to rise up against Capitalism. You have to do it yourself in your country. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong and living an utopian la la la la land. After you do that help other achieve the same goal as scarletghoul just said.So would the adherents to SIOC, as it was put into practice under Stalin, deny that such a theory is conducive to a compromise in the interests of the international proletarian movement, in favour of immediate national Soviet interests?

[M-26-7]

Socialism in one Country is the most realistic way to go, because you can not expect the whole world to arise from the slumbers, all at once. You have to do it, one at a time and not sit on your ass waiting for the Whole world to rise up against Capitalism. You have to do it yourself in your country. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong and living an utopian la la la la land. After you do that help other achieve the same goal as scarletghoul just said.

No one who argues against socialism in one country is saying that revolution won't happen country by country, so that is a strawman. Every Marxist, and probably most anarchists, accept Marx's statement that "Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle." All Bolsheviks accepted that. However, many of them did not accept the idea of socialism in one country, and the majority were murdered for refusing to accept it. So you might ask yourself what the difference is between the two concepts.

Can you address the failure of socialism in one country to ever establish lasting socialism, anywhere? Are we closer to world socialism now than we were in the 1930's when Stalin started building socialism in one country? Or has the Soviet Union collapsed, China and Vietnam gone capitalist, Cuba gone destitute, and North Korea gone even more destitute? Socialism in one country seems to have a very poor track record for achieving world socialism, so it might be a good idea to at least take the arguments against it seriously instead of dismissing them with a wave of your hand. If socialism in one country is the only "realistic" way to go, then surely someone can point to one single place where it has succeeded in establishing socialist relations of production more than temporarily?

[The Red Next Door]

No one who argues against socialism in one country is saying that revolution won't happen country by country, so that is a strawman. Every Marxist, and probably most anarchists, accept Marx's statement that "Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle." All Bolsheviks accepted that. However, many of them did not accept the idea of socialism in one country, and the majority were murdered for refusing to accept it. So you might ask yourself what the difference is between the two concepts.

Can you address the failure of socialism in one country to ever establish lasting socialism, anywhere? Are we closer to world socialism now than we were in the 1930's when Stalin started building socialism in one country? Or has the Soviet Union collapsed, China and Vietnam gone capitalist, Cuba gone destitute, and North Korea gone even more destitute? Socialism in one country seems to have a very poor track record for achieving world socialism, so it might be a good idea to at least take the arguments against it seriously instead of dismissing them with a wave of your hand. If socialism in one country is the only "realistic" way to go, then surely someone can point to one single place where it has succeeded in establishing socialist relations of production more than temporarily?


First off, The soviet Union became the steaming pile of neoliberalism, is because of revisionism in the party, and the same with China. First there was a revolutionary situation today, We would not sit on our asses, waiting for other to rise up. You do not see, people waiting in Colombia, Nepal, Venezuela or Bolivia. or The Philippines. From looking at the UNCEF and WHO reports on cuba and the NK, they are trying to build themselves out of being destitute.

[The Red Next Door]

So would the adherents to SIOC, as it was put into practice under Stalin, deny that such a theory is conducive to a compromise in the interests of the international proletarian movement, in favour of immediate national Soviet interests?

Stalin and Trotsky are D-E-A-D, and they are never coming back. We are focusing on a revolution happening in this Era, and it is never going to happen, if we practice some Utopian Bullshit. Like permanent revolution.

[Bright Banana Beard]

So would the adherents to SIOC, as it was put into practice under Stalin, deny that such a theory is conducive to a compromise in the interests of the international proletarian movement, in favour of immediate national Soviet interests?

What international proletarian movement, if there is anything? We could done of these taskes.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Socialism in one country is the idea, proposed by Stalin, that one country can achieve communism whilst other nations remain capitalist. This idea came from the fact that every other communist revolution from 1917-1921 in Europe had failed except for Russia. The idea is antithetical to Marxist socialism.

[Thirsty Crow]

It would be interesting to extrapolate the exact definition of capitalism from SIOC proponents' claim that socialism has been achieved in USSR during Stalin or whatever period the claim appeared (the claim was that socialism is achieved, meaning, there is no trace of capitalist productive relations whatsoever).


The first stage of socialism is of course possible in one country. You just need workers' control of the means of production and there you go.
And this is a hallmark of SIOC proponents' reflection on the capitalist mode of production. It's a mode of production wherein workers don't control the means of production, but the bosses.

[M-26-7]

First off, The soviet Union became the steaming pile of neoliberalism, is because of revisionism in the party, and the same with China.

OK. And why was there "revisionism" in these parties? Why does "revisionism" always seem to creep in, among people who seemed like good communists a few years earlier--Hell, good enough to put their lives at risk staging a revolution? Do you think there might be a pattern here, maybe something deeper going on than simply an overnight spontaneous change of ideology, from communism to "revisionism"?


First there was a revolutionary situation today, We would not sit on our asses, waiting for other to rise up. You do not see, people waiting in Colombia, Nepal, Venezuela or Bolivia. or The Philippines.

No one would ever say that the people in a country should not stage a revolution when the conditions are ripe, and furthermore, this has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of socialism in one country, which concerns the running of a country after a successful revolution. Not to be condescending, but at this point I am wondering if you know the history of the term "socialism in one country" and what it actually refers to.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Socialism in one country is the idea, proposed by Stalin, that one country can achieve communism whilst other nations remain capitalist. This idea came from the fact that every other communist revolution from 1917-1921 in Europe had failed except for Russia. The idea is antithetical to Marxist socialism.

It's relevant to note that communism is the ultimate stage and presupposes the withering away of the state, so there is no way that "socialism in one country = communism." Did Stalin actually say that "communism" was achievable in the Soviet Union, rather than socialism (which he claimed to have finished building in the 1930s)? I doubt that you will find it any of his writings or speeches, because as he makes clear, socialism in one country cannot mean the withering away of the state (therefore socialism in one country isn't communism).

I know that Khrushchev was stupid enough to actually promise the Soviet people to achieve "communism by 1980" when he was in power, but I'm reluctant to believe that Stalin even discussed the possibility of that.

What he actually said was something altogether different --



"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.)

Then, reflecting on that and quoting this paragraph a year later (1938), he writes



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.

No less ridiculous would it be to deny that in the event of the slightest success of military intervention, the interventionists would try to destroy the Soviet system in the districts they occupied and restore the bourgeois system.

Did not Denikin and Kolchak restore the bourgeois system in the districts they occupied? Are the fascists any better than Denikin or Kolchak?
Only blockheads or masked enemies who with their boastfulness want to conceal their hostility and are striving to demobilise the people, can deny the danger of military intervention and attempts at restoration as long as the capitalist encirclement exists.

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.

It follows that this question contains two different problems :

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.

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.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.

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.

But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved.
More than that: the second problem cannot be solved in the way that we solved the first problem, i.e., solely by the efforts of our country.

The second problem can be solved only by combining the serious efforts of the international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of the whole of our Soviet people. . .

("On the Final Victory of Socialism
in the U.S.S.R.", letter to Ivanov, 12 February 1938)

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm

Essentially, Stalin simply used the term "socialism" to the termination of class oppositions in the USSR after ending the NEP policy and the elimination of the kulaks.

Both Stalin and Trotsky were in favor of the triumph of communists everywhere and were for further strengthening economic planning and the Soviet state, and the differences between them are often magnified out of proportion for sectarian reasons.

IMO the more interesting part of Trotsky's thought is his critique of the bureucracy and ideas about injecting more democracy into the party in the USSR.

[Lyev]

Stalin and Trotsky are D-E-A-D, and they are never coming back. We are focusing on a revolution happening in this Era, and it is never going to happen, if we practice some Utopian Bullshit. Like permanent revolution.Don't talk to me like I am a 7-year-old. It's not a very nice way to address people - I know how to spell the word "dead" by the way, thanks though. And I know that we are focusing on revolutionary emancipation today. Capitalism, as a world system, has developed and changed since the 1930s. What precisely do you mean by some "Utopian Bullshit"? Could you elaborate on this concept? It's funny that you accuse me of utopianism whilst defending Stalin though because, as Luxemburg once remarked, "only the working class, through its own activity, can make the word flesh", (emphasis mine). In other words, no-one can bring about socialism on your behalf, i.e. "socialism-from-above", as described in Draper's The Two Souls of Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/). The bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet Unionwas precisely socialism being given down to the working class.And it should be incredibly clear to you, and anyone else in fact, that whilst socialists worldwide are focused on revolution today, that lessons can be learnt from studying the past. The Bolsheviks, in preparation for 1917, studiously studied the French revolution, the Paris commune and the failed 1905 revolution.

[Lyev]

What international proletarian movement, if there is anything? We could done of these taskes.What are you talking about?

[The Red Next Door]

Don't talk to me like I am a 7-year-old. It's not a very nice way to address people - I know how to spell the word "dead" by the way, thanks though. And I know that we are focusing on revolutionary emancipation today. Capitalism, as a world system, has developed and changed since the 1930s. What precisely do you mean by some "Utopian Bullshit"? Could you elaborate on this concept? It's funny that you accuse me of utopianism whilst defending Stalin though because, as Luxemburg once remarked, "only the working class, through its own activity, can make the word flesh", (emphasis mine). In other words, no-one can bring about socialism on your behalf, i.e. "socialism-from-above", as described in Draper's The Two Souls of Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/). The bureaucratic degeneration of the Soviet Unionwas precisely socialism being given down to the working class.And it should be incredibly clear to you, and anyone else in fact, that whilst socialists worldwide are focused on revolution today, that lessons can be learnt from studying the past. The Bolsheviks, in preparation for 1917, studiously studied the French revolution, the Paris commune and the failed 1905 revolution.


I am not defending Stalin, I do not even give a fuck about him or trotsky. I am not saying that we should push socialism on the behave of others, I am just saying that, the world is not going to rise up, all at once.

[The Red Next Door]

I am wondering if you know the history of the term "socialism in one country" and what it actually refers to.

Explain, to me what it refer to.

[Thirsty Crow]

Explain, to me what it refer to.
It refers to the practical possibility of total abolition of capitalist relations of production (and wider social relation these produce) within a single country. In other words, it refers to the belief that an altogether new type of society can be achieved in a single country.
Or in yet other words, it refers to the belief that there were no more antagonistic classes within the Soviet society.

[Radek]

So, and one question leads to another, if Socialism in one Country is impossible, whether due to economics or not, then the next question has to be how could Russia, following the revolution, ever have achieved Socialism? As no matter how far the borders had expanded, and no matter how many Countries joined the USSR, it would always be a single Country surrounded by hostile enemies.
The Russian revolution was premised on the idea that it would help to spark revolutions in Europe and Asia. Thus all efforts went into into this. The best summation of it, despite his being a controversial figure, was Trotsky's statement upon being appointed Commissar for Foreign Affairs that he would "publish a few revolutionary proclamations and then close shop." Meanwhile, in practice we see that peace with Germany during WW1 was postponed as long as physically possible, based on the belief that Germany would soon become revolutionary -- indeed, at first a majority voted to continue the war as a 'revolutionary war' (though Lenin himself opposed the idea). Hope of this began to fade only in 1921.

So to answer your question, they didn't expect to achieve socialism while surrounded by hostile capitalist states, because they didn't expect to be surrounded by capitalist states for long. Once the civil war ended (thus opening up new diplomatic possibilities) and the European revolutions failed (thus closing down old hopes) things began to change in ways that had never been anticipated.

On the wider subject, the main problem I have with 'socialism in one country' is that it turned the USSR from a support of the communist movement into an entity to be supported by the communist movement. Now, on the face of it this isn't an issue -- of course communists should support the young Soviet state. However, issues do begin to arise when global communist tactics are based on the goal of advancing Soviet foreign policy or one faction in a CPSU power-struggle, rather than achieving social revolution.

[Thirsty Crow]

On the wider subject, the main problem I have with 'socialism in one country' is that it turned the USSR from a support of the communist movement into an entity to be supported by the communist movement. Now, on the face of it this isn't an issue -- of course communists should support the you Soviet state. However, issues do begin to arise when global communist tactics are based on the goal of advancing Soviet foreign policy or one faction in a CPSU power-struggle, rather than achieving social revolution.
In my opinion, that was one of the most important historical outcomes of this idea/proclamation, and a tragic one.

[Old Man Diogenes]

I'm not a Leninist.

I would have said it was a more Marxist leaning explanation, apologies if you don't regard yourself as one of those either.

[Bright Banana Beard]

What are you talking about?

What you are saying that they should have never done to improve their condition because it just a obstacle to the world revolution, but this isn't a case.

[Dimentio]

Okay, I know it's a contentious question, but please be kind. Having had this brought up in another thread, and learning, could someone explain why socialism is not possible in a single country?

Its probably possible in a very large country.

But not Nepal, Cuba, Albania, Sweden etc...

[robbo203]

I am not defending Stalin, I do not even give a fuck about him or trotsky. I am not saying that we should push socialism on the behave of others, I am just saying that, the world is not going to rise up, all at once.


Interesting in this connection is an excerpt from The German Ideology which I post below with the relevant bit in bold:

This "alienation" (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an "intolerable" power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity "propertyless," and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers – the utterly precarious position of labour – power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life – presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a "world-historical" existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.

Development of the Productive Forces as a Material Premise of Communism] http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

My take on all this is that that Marx position on this is basically correct but in obvious need of qualification:

I dont think it is a question anymore of the "dominant peoples" (ie. the developed world) acting to insititute communism but of workers (and indeed peasants) throughout the world doing this.

And I dont think we should interpret this act being done "simultaneously" too literally but we can certainly envisage communism/socialism being established everywhere within a very short space of time - perhaps a few years at most

I say this for several reasons one of which would be the domino effect caused by establishment of a genuinely communist society in one part of the world where other parts of the world were still under residual capitalism. Another reason is that it is almost inconceivable that communist ideas could take off in one part of the world and not make an impact elsewhere given today's highly developed systems of telecommunications. A further reason still would be the proactive efforts of growing communist movements around the world to direct resources and effort internationally to even out spatial imbalances in the spread of communist consciousness...

[ComradeOm]

First of all let's be clear that SOIC was always a debate very much rooted in the the circumstance of early 20th C Russia where a nominally workers' state reigned over a predominately semi-feudal mode of production and there was little hope of revolution in the more advanced European nations. It was never intended, at least not initially, to be spun into some core element of Communist doctrine. Essentially the question is not, "Could the Soviet state place the means of production in the hands of the workers?" (which it couldn't/didn't) but whether the USSR could mobilise its internal resources to create a socialist economy out of backwardness. It couldn't

So I don't really think the theory is all that relevant today and certainly not worth defending rabidly. There is a legitimate debate to be had as to whether a more advanced nation (than 19th C Russia) could transition to socialism while waiting for the ROTW to 'catch up' but I'd tend to view this as a question to be tackled if and when it arises rather than getting worked up about it now. Given that I don't feel particularly strongly about it (outside of the historical aspect of course) I'd tend to concur with Engels (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-theory-faq-t23569/index.html):


Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries -- that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

[Lyev]

I am not defending Stalin, I do not even give a fuck about him or trotsky. I am not saying that we should push socialism on the behave of others, I am just saying that, the world is not going to rise up, all at once.Precisely and wouldn't this assertion conclude that socialism in one country is, in fact, completely erroneous? the part I emphasized sort of implies the clarification of the theory of combined and uneven development. This theory acknowledges that the development of capitalism globally is by no means uniform, and that some countries that entered into a capitalist mode of production later than others will sometimes lag behind technologically and economically, in the way of machinery, agriculture etc., but will also contain the weak vestiges of archaic feudal structures, as well as an emerging weak bourgeoisie. In such a country (like Russia or China), the ruling class is too weak and will not carry through bourgeois-democratic revolution like the bourgeoisie naturally, so to speak, overthrew the aristocracy in France or perhaps similarly to how things panned out here in England - the industrial revolution pretty much started here.

So, the conclusion that Trotsky drew from this is that the proletariat (but not necessarily exclusive) must carry through this revolutionary change, as expounded in the theory of permanent revolution. It should also be noted, due to the backwardness of such a country as Russia or China that the proletariat will be relatively small. Indeed, the working class population in China was just below 2% in 1949 whereas it was roughly 11% in 1917 Russia. Also the high concentration of the proletariat in few areas, whilst they're lacking in numerical strength, is further conducive to the socialist movement being able to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution effectively; most workers in Russia in the time were in and around the big cities and towns like St. Petersburg.

Finally, the reason the revolution is "permanent" is twofold: the proletarian-led nature of such a revolution very much compels the process to be carried through into a socialist transition of society, therefore protecting and crystallizing the gains made via the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Secondly, it follows from this that the socialist revolution must not be confined to one single country because, as Trotsky once remarked (emphasis mine), "Marxism takes its point of departure from world economy, not as a sum of national parts but as a mighty and independent reality which has been created by the international division of labor and the world market, and which in our epoch imperiously dominates the national markets." And as he goes onto say,
The productive forces of capitalist society have long ago outgrown the national boundaries. The imperialist war (of 1914-1918) was one of the expressions of this fact. In respect of the technique of production, socialist society must represent a stage higher than capitalism. To aim at building a nationally isolated socialist society means, in spite of all passing successes, to pull the productive forces backward even as compared with capitalism. To attempt, regardless of the geographical, cultural and historical conditions of the country’s development, which constitutes a part of the world unity, to realize a shut-off proportionality of all branches of economy within a national framework, means to pursue a reactionary utopia.A revolutionary socialist transformation of society quite clearly necessitates acknowledgment of the world economy as one single entity, glued together by imperialism and the domination of finance capital, and therefore renders near-compulsory the spreading of revolution, wouldn't you agree? Now, people seem to think it's amusing to jibe at how Trotskyists merely wait, or expect the revolution to spread in a "magical Trotskyist rainbow" (scarletghoul's words - very poetic, thanks), but I would argue, as I have done in this thread and previous ones, that the policies of the Soviet Union with Stalin at it's head were in no way, shape or form conducive to the widening and enriching of the global prolaterian movement (see my post below). As I have said, the immediate interests of the Soviet Union, at an national level, were frequently put to the top of the list of the Comintern hence gravely compromising the interests of the global proletariat.

[Lyev]

What you are saying that they should have never done to improve their condition because it just a obstacle to the world revolution, but this isn't a case.You're completely twisting my words, and again not making complete sense whilst doing it. The fundamental interests of the international proletarian movement should have been fitted around the policies of the Soviet Union, and therefore the Comintern, as the SU dominated it, along with the Stalinized communist parties elsewhere in Europe. However, I do not think the class-collaborationist policies of the Soviet Union should have been fitted around the global proletarian movement, where the daily life of the international working class was merely a backdrop to Stalin and co.'s politicking.

[Kayser_Soso]

The problem is that people use this term socialism in one country to try to reduce all the actions of the USSR down to one policy enshrined in a single phrase. In this way they ignore about 30 years of very important history. It is simply incorrect to state the USSR did not attempt to spread revolution after 1924. Whether it did this enough, or whether it did this in the right way is another matter, distorted as it is by the fact that we have hindsight now. Even Stalin himself didn't believe in "socialism in one country." (He said so)

Lenin said that while revolution stalled in other countries it would have to be constructed in one or a few countries until such time as it could spread further. In a sense, this is exactly what happened at the end of WWII. The only problem was that far from being the cold-calculating authoritarian dictator, Stalin got REALLY naive about post-war relations and the motives of his allies. This is evident from private conversations brought to light in Stalin's Wars by Geoffery Roberts. It is possible thus that the USSR missed a great opportunity to spread socialism even further in Europe and establish governments very different from that of the USSR(indeed this is how Stalin originally viewed these governments, as being established by something other than by the Russian menthod). Of course we again have the benefit of hindsight in this matter.

But then again, why bother with complicated historical analysis when we can sum up decades of decisions and policies with the phrase "socialism in one country"? And always remember kids- if one guy's policies didn't work in real life, it automatically means that the alternatives must have been superior, and would have worked without fail!

[Thirsty Crow]

And always remember kids- if one guy's policies didn't work in real life, it automatically means that the alternatives must have been superior, and would have worked without fail!

Yeah, remember - if one guy's policies didn't work in real life, maybe we ought to avoid them in the future, and maybe that's because they are totally inadequate to the changed material and cultural conditions.
And always remember, if you say, oh I dunno, five times that black is white, maybe it will become so in real life!

[Kayser_Soso]

Yeah, remember - if one guy's policies didn't work in real life, maybe we ought to avoid them in the future, and maybe that's because they are totally inadequate to the changed material and cultural conditions.
And always remember, if you say, oh I dunno, five times that black is white, maybe it will become so in real life!

Oh I'm TOTALLY burned now because as it turns out, my entire conception of a revolutionary program was based on copying every action of the Soviet leadership to the very letter, regardless of the country or the fact that it's 2010!! DAMN!!!

[S.Artesian]

Its probably possible in a very large country.

But not Nepal, Cuba, Albania, Sweden etc...

Russia was a large country, and still is a large country. The Soviet Union was even larger. Was socialism established in that one large country, or in that larger union?