Question

[National Revolutionary]

Is there anything wrong with socialism in one country ?

[Kiev Communard]

Is there anything wrong with socialism in one country ?

Let's put it simply: no socioceconomic system could survive and prosper by being purposefully limited to some (sometimes insignificant) piece of land. That was true for early capitalism, that must be true for socialism as well.

[National Revolutionary]

Socialism worked in Russia for the longest while by itself. So why would it need work socialism ? The USSR survived by itself unitl 1991. I know there were other socialist country's but the USSR helped most of them, basically surviving by itself.

[NecroCommie]

And let us correct one common misconseption. Socialism in one country does not mean that socialism should be cornered into one country by design. It is an attitude, according to which socialism should be built: "as if it were the last revolution on earth" In practice this means priorization on the building of heavy industry.

[National Revolutionary]

o i never knew that... still i think one country's socialism could work.

[ComradeOm]

To quote an old post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-one-countryi-t140313/index.html?p=1836629&highlight=socialism+country#post1836629) of mine (because I'm lazy):

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.

[RED DAVE]

Socialism worked in Russia for the longest while by itself. So why would it need work socialism ? The USSR survived by itself unitl 1991. I know there were other socialist country's but the USSR helped most of them, basically surviving by itself.Some people need to learn that when there is no workers control of industry, there is no socialism.

Socialism can't survive in one country because the economy of the world is now a global system. The market, not the say the military, pressure (if not overt attack) on a socialist country would be enormous. It would be subject to boycotts, attacks, etc.

Socialism will be international, or it will not be at all.

RED DAVE

[Widerstand]

There is. Aside from it going against the internationalist tradition, 'socialism in one country' implies economic isolationism, which is impossible in a lot of countries due to their size, natural resources, level of industrialization, and so on. I think the country best suitable for a working 'socialism in one country' would be the USA, though of course the USA turning socialist is vastly utopian scenario.

Personally, I don't think it's a good option, as isolationism does more harm than good.

[Psy]

And let us correct one common misconseption. Socialism in one country does not mean that socialism should be cornered into one country by design. It is an attitude, according to which socialism should be built: "as if it were the last revolution on earth" In practice this means priorization on the building of heavy industry.

Lets have a thought experiment, lets say the Warsaw pact was ahead of the west and workers from around the world fled in droves to immigrate to it. Imagine what this migration of workers to the Warsaw pact would do to class consciousnesses outside the Warsaw pact nations? I.E why would the Black Panthers bother fighting in the USA if they could migrate to the Warsaw pact nations (if the Warsaw pact nations already had higher living standards then the USA), there would be a good chance the entire black population of the USA in that scenario would just up and leave allowing the racists of the USA have no opposition within the boundaries of the USA that would increase the odds of a fascist revolution in the USA.

Now if you think about it, there is a even larger flaw in the Warsaw pact sucking up all militant workers of the world and that is resources as boundaries would not expanding just the population.

[Tifosi]

I think the country best suitable for a working 'socialism in one country' would be the USA, though of course the USA turning socialist is vastly utopian scenario.

You could say this for any large country with many materials within it's borders e.g Canada, Russia. The larger the country, the easier it is for that country to survive in a hostile world. Canada would most likely have a better chance coping with isolation than Guyana.

[StoneFrog]

Socialism worked in Russia for the longest while by itself. So why would it need work socialism ? The USSR survived by itself unitl 1991. I know there were other socialist country's but the USSR helped most of them, basically surviving by itself.

Its called imperialism on the part of the USSR, it was able to last because of imperialism.