Communism in one country?

[Maximum Marxist]

I see sometmes on these forums some people say you can't have communism/socialism in one country and like Stalin tried doing it but it's a bad idea everyone has to be. Why is it that it wouldn't work one country?

[Broletariat]

I think it's because we essentially have a global division of labour due to geographic distribution of resources.

EG one country isn't self-sustaining.

An added difficulty would be that the capitalist nations would try to fuck up the communist ones.

[taka því rólega]

Exactly. Autarky isn't feasible with the vast range of widespread resources necessary to maintain a modern country - especially with the sanctions that would be undoubtedly imposed on a communist country by the fearful world of capitalism.

[Rooster]

What I thought of the problem with the USSR was that it was a mostly backward country in comparison to the industrial and economic output of the other European powers. When the USSR became isolated, it had to increase it's industrial and economic capacity, resulting in the loss of much of the social gains of the revolution. What they were hoping for was the revolution to spread or for other revolutions to sprout up in the more advanced regions so that things could be evened out, that the USSR didn't have to try and advance at such a pace. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Psy]

Because one country won't have the means to produce everything thus will have to trade on the capitalist market that means production for exchange value.

[Lanky Wanker]

I think that trading with capitalist countries would also be hard once/if the communist countries reached the point of having no currency/money.

[Commissar Rykov]

The reality is the Revolution must spread in order to keep it from becoming isolated and stagnated. Does that mean a World Revolution? No but if you don't have other nations follow with you then you are literally left holding the bag. The idea of socialism in one country was less about an ideology and more to do with the reality the Bolsheviks faced. Stalin in order to preserve the Revolution had to make the USSR an armed camp.

[Dr Mindbender]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14

[Anarchrusty]

Alright. Discuss.

[Savage]

The reality is the Revolution must spread in order to keep it from becoming isolated and stagnated. Does that mean a World Revolution? No*

*Yes

[Savage]

It's probably valuble to look at the answer Engels gave to the possibility of 'revolution in one country':


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 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.

[Magón]

I think that trading with capitalist countries would also be hard once/if the communist countries reached the point of having no currency/money.

Before a Communist country could even reach a no currency system in the first place, the world would have to be taken completely over by Communism. Not just a couple Communist countries in South America, one in Africa, a few scattered across Europe/Asia, etc. The entire world has to reach actual Communism together.

[Revmind84]

Stalin's policy was an expression of revisionism.

[Ismail]

Stalin's view was that the USSR could build socialism in the main. He said that if it were, say, Haiti that had a communist revolution, then they'd be doomed. After World War II Stalin began saying that the US economy and other capitalist states were pretty much doomed to defeat. He said to Milovan Đilas sometime around 1947 that, in his view, capitalism would collapse sometime in the 1960's. Stalin actually did begin talking about the "construction of communism" in the USSR and was becoming increasingly interested in it at this point, but he died before he could really elaborate on it. Basically socialism is the lower stage of communism, and thus the USSR would be continuously building up socialism until it reached communism as world revolution spread. Or something. It was discussed in the 1930's too, but again it never got far. Khrushchev subsequently hijacked the discussion to declare that the dictatorship of the proletariat was irrelevant and that communism would be achieved by 1980.

It is notable that in the late 1940's and early 1950's the Soviet view on Eastern Europe was that capitalism would triumph in these countries individually if they did not work collectively under the leadership of the "country of socialism," the USSR, to forward People's Democracy until socialist construction was completed in the main for each of them.

Kautsky was the guy who notably originated the idea of individual socialist states existing next to each other with more or less self-reliant (or striving to be self-reliant) economies. Lenin was probably influenced by him a fair bit. Lenin's view was that WWI had transformed the Russian situation into a revolutionary one owing to the misery of both the proletarians and the peasantry, and the fact that the bourgeois forces would be unable to competently hold onto power so long as the Bolsheviks were able to lead by example in both the bourgeois-democratic and then the socialist revolutions.


It's probably valuble to look at the answer Engels gave to the possibility of 'revolution in one country'If we take it literally then Soviet Russia was more or less doomed after the failure of the German revolution.

Here's a quote (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/feb/28.htm) from Lenin:

"Perhaps the authors believe that the interests of the world revolution forbid making any peace at all with imperialists? ... The incorrectness of this view (which was rejected, for example, by a majority of the Petrograd opponents of peace) is as clear as day. A socialist republic surrounded by imperialist powers could not, from this point of view, conclude any economic treaties, and could not exist at all, without flying to the moon.

Perhaps the authors believe that the interests of the world revolution require that it should be given a push, and that such a push can be given only by war, never by peace, which might give the people the impression that imperialism was being 'legitimised'? Such a 'theory' would be completely at variance with Marxism, for Marxism has always been opposed to 'pushing' revolutions, which develop with the growing acuteness of the class antagonisms that engender revolutions. Such a theory would be tantamount to the view that armed uprising is a form of struggle which is obligatory always and under all conditions. Actually, however, the interests of the world revolution demand that Soviet power, having overthrown the bourgeoisie in our country, should help that revolution, but that it should choose a form of help which is commensurate with its own strength. To help the socialist revolution on an international scale by accepting the possibility of defeat of that revolution in one's own country is a view that does not follow even from the 'pushing' theory....

Twist and turn them how you will, but you can find no logic in the authors' contentions. There are no sensible arguments to support the view that 'in the interests of the world revolution it is expedient to accept the possibility of losing Soviet power'."

And another (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/mar/x01.htm):

"Complete and final victory on a world scale cannot be achieved in Russia alone; it can be achieved only when the proletariat is victorious in at least all the advanced countries, or, at all events, in some of the largest of the advanced countries. Only then shall we be able to say with absolute confidence that the cause of the proletariat has triumphed, that our first objective—the overthrow of capitalism—has been achieved.

We have achieved this objective in one country, and this confronts us with a second task. Since Soviet power has been established, since the bourgeoisie has been overthrown in one country, the second task is to wage the struggle on a world scale, on a different plane, the struggle of the proletarian state surrounded by capitalist states.

This situation is an entirely novel and difficult one.

On the other hand, since the rule of the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, the main task is to organise the development of the country."

In addition (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf/24d.htm) before the Bolsheviks even took power:

"Comrade Rykov says that socialism must come from other countries with a more developed industry. But that is not so. Nobody can say who will begin it and who will end it. That is not Marxism; it is a parody of Marxism. Marx said that France would begin it and Germany would finish it. But the Russian proletariat has achieved more than anybody else.

If we had said, 'No tsar, but a dictatorship of the proletariat', well, this would have meant skipping over the petty bourgeoisie. But what we are saying is—help the revolution through the Soviets. We must not lapse into reformism We are fighting to win, not to lose. At the worst we count on partial success. Even if we suffer defeat we shall achieve partial success. We shall get reforms. Reforms are an auxiliary instrument of the class struggle.

Further, Comrade Rykov says that there is no period of transition from capitalism to socialism. That is not so. It is a break with Marxism."

There's also this quote (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm) from Lenin in 1922: "The economic power in the hands of the proletarian state of Russia is quite adequate to ensure the transition to communism."

The Russian edition of Lenin's Collected Works Vol. 43, p. 228 also has the following (http://vilenin.eu/t43/p228): "Is it conceivable to implement a direct transition from what predominates in Russia today to socialism? Yes, it is conceivable to a certain extent, but only under one condition which we now accurately know thanks to vast and complete scientific work. This condition is electrification."


Before a Communist country could even reach a no currency system in the first place, the world would have to be taken completely over by Communism. Not just a couple Communist countries in South America, one in Africa, a few scattered across Europe/Asia, etc. The entire world has to reach actual Communism together.Correct. For one thing, it means that the productive forces of more or less the whole world are developed and interconnected to an extent that you really don't need to regulate anything with currency anymore.

[Savage]

If we take it literally then Soviet Russia was more or less doomed after the failure of the German revolution.

Why should we not take this simple, straight forward message literally? And, the revolution actually was arguably doomed after the failure of the German Revolution, it had well and truly failed by the early 20's, but this is obviously not something that you would agree with and is probably not worth the time arguing in detail (in this thread).

Of course certain types of revolution can be achieved within the boundaries of certain nations, but we are not talking about revolutions in general, we are specifically talking about socialist revolutions, which is what Engels was refering to. Lenin mostly certainly believed that a socialist revolution (as in one that actually achieves socialism) is not possible in one country:

"We never harboured the illusion that the forces of the proletariat and the revolutionary people of any one country, however heroic and however organised and disciplined they might be, could overthrow international imperialism. That can be done only by the joint efforts of the workers of the world We never deceived ourselves into thinking this could be done by the efforts of one country alone. We knew that our efforts were inevitably leading to a worldwide revolution, and that the war begun by the imperialist governments could not be stopped by the efforts of those governments themselves. It can be stopped only by the efforts of all workers; and when we came to power, our task was to retain that power, that torch of socialism, so that it might scatter as many sparks as possible to add to the growing flames of socialist revolution." (LCW, Vol. 28, pp. 24-5.)

8th November 1918:
"From the very beginning of the October Revolution, foreign policy and international relations have been the main question facing us. Not merely because from now on all the states of the world are being firmly linked by imperialism into one, dirty, bloody mass, but because the complete victory of the socialist revolution in one country alone is inconceivable and demands the most active co-operation of at least several advanced countries, which do not include Russia We have never been so near to world proletarian revolution as we are now. We have proved we were not mistaken in banking on world proletarian revolution Even if they crush one country, they can never crush the world proletarian revolution, they will only add fuel to the flames that will consume them all." (LCW, Vol. 28, pp. 151-64.)

5th December 1919:
"Both prior to October and during the October Revolution, we always said that we regard ourselves and can only regard ourselves as one of the contingents of the international proletarian army We always said that the victory of the socialist revolution therefore, can only be regarded as final when it becomes the victory of the proletariat in at least several advanced countries." (LCW, Vol. 30, pp. 207-8.)

20th November 1920:
"The Mensheviks assert that we are pledged to defeating the world bourgeoisie on our own. We have, however, always said that we are only a single link in the chain of the world revolution, and have never set ourselves the aim of achieving victory by our own means." (LCW, Vol. 31, p. 431.)

End of February 1922:
"But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile powers of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions And there is absolutely nothing terrible in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism - that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism." (LCW, Vol. 33, p. 206.)

[Ismail]

Lenin mostly certainly believed that a socialist revolution (as in one that actually achieves socialism) is not possible in one country:To quote the 8th November 1918 one: "We have proved we were not mistaken in banking on world proletarian revolution Even if they crush one country, they can never crush the world proletarian revolution, they will only add fuel to the flames that will consume them all."

That was pretty obviously written/spoken with a rather desperate tone considering that 1918 was the beginning of the civil war. Even then as Lenin said (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm) a few months earlier: "We have been 'defencists' since October 20, 1917. I have said this more than once very definitely, and you dare not deny this. It is precisely in the interests of 'strengthening the connection' with international socialism that we are in duty bound to defend our socialist fatherland. Those who treat frivolously the defence of the country in which the proletariat has already achieved victory are the ones who destroy the connection with international socialism."

More importantly, he said in 1921 that (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/27.htm): "It turned out that although we did not receive the swift and direct support of the working people of the world that we had counted on, and which we had regarded as the basis of the whole of our policy, we did receive support of another kind, which was not direct or swift—the sympathy of the workers and peasants, the farm workers, throughout the world, even in the countries most hostile to us, the sympathy that was great enough to be the final and most decisive source, the decisive reason for the complete failure of all the attacks directed against us. This sympathy consolidated the alliance of the working people of all countries which we had proclaimed and which had been implemented within the borders of our Republic, and which had its effect on all countries. No matter how precarious this support may be, as long as capitalism exists in other countries (this we must of course see clearly and frankly acknowledge), we may say that it is something we can rely on."

After this Lenin became increasingly occupied with domestic Soviet events.


5th December 1919:
"Both prior to October and during the October Revolution, we always said that we regard ourselves and can only regard ourselves as one of the contingents of the international proletarian army We always said that the victory of the socialist revolution therefore, can only be regarded as final when it becomes the victory of the proletariat in at least several advanced countries." (LCW, Vol. 30, pp. 207-8.)Indeed. Stalin concurred (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."


20th November 1920:
"The Mensheviks assert that we are pledged to defeating the world bourgeoisie on our own. We have, however, always said that we are only a single link in the chain of the world revolution, and have never set ourselves the aim of achieving victory by our own means." (LCW, Vol. 31, p. 431.)Again, yes. Normal Marxist-Leninist position there. As Stalin said (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/03/01.htm) in 1936: "You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution."


"But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile powers of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions And there is absolutely nothing terrible in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism - that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism." (LCW, Vol. 33, p. 206.)As you can see in the post I made he pretty obviously thought that socialism could begin construction.

November 1922 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/20.htm): "Socialism is no longer a matter of the distant future, or an abstract picture, or an icon. Our opinion of icons is the same—a very bad one. We have brought socialism into everyday life and must here see how matters stand. That is the task of our day, the task of our epoch. Permit me to conclude by expressing confidence that difficult as this task may be, new as it may be compared with our previous task, and numerous as the difficulties may be that it entails, we shall all—not in a day, but in a few years—all of us together fulfil it whatever the cost, so that NEP Russia will become socialist Russia."

January 1923 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm): "Indeed, since political power is in the hands of the working-class, since this political power owns all the means of production, the only task, indeed, that remains for us is to organize the population in cooperative societies. With most of the population organizing cooperatives, the socialism which in the past was legitimately treated with ridicule, scorn and contempt by those who were rightly convinced that it was necessary to wage the class struggle, the struggle for political power, etc., will achieve its aim automatically... Indeed, the power of the state over all large-scale means of production, political power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured proletarian leadership of the peasantry, etc. ... Is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society? It is still not the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for it."

[Savage]

My statement was that Lenin did not believe that a national capital could be transformed into a socialist society, you haven't provided me with any information to support this. What you have provided me with is evidence that Lenin believed that his regime could 'build' certain aspects of society in order to benefit the further international socialist revolution, which is not the same thing, and not something that I particularily care about. You seem to be arguing that Lenin was an internationalist but that he also believed the 'construction' of socialism could begin in a single country, I am saying that he did not believe single countries could be socialist (which is interchangle with communist for me), at the moment we are not even arguing. This is also detached from the Engels quote which you originally objected to, Lenins understanding of socialism was different to that of Marx and Engels, you can argue that he improved or expanded upon their theory, but it is not exactly the same.

[Ismail]

My statement was that Lenin did not believe that a national capital could be transformed into a socialist society, you haven't provided me with any information to support this. What you have provided me with is evidence that Lenin believed that his regime could 'build' certain aspects of society in order to benefit the further international socialist revolution, which is not the same thing, and not something that I particularily care about.I'm pretty sure anyone reading the quotes I provided would take from them the view of Lenin's that socialism could be built in the main. The final victory of socialism, as both Lenin and Stalin pointed out, could only be accomplished more or less on a world scale.


Lenins understanding of socialism was different to that of Marx and Engels, you can argue that he improved or expanded upon their theory, but it is not exactly the same.Well I am a Marxist-Leninist...

[Savage]

I'm pretty sure anyone reading the quotes I provided would take from them the view of Lenin's that socialism could be built in the main. The final victory of socialism, as both Lenin and Stalin pointed out, could only be accomplished more or less on a world scale.

I've never understood this 'final victory' stuff, does it actually have any material basis or is it just rhetoric? If the 'final victory' meant a fully functioning socialist society, then that still doesn't prove that Lenin believed in 'socialism in one country', but I'm pretty sure that you don't believe him or Stalin to have believed in this, anyway, this is getting further and further away from the Engels quote, which I'm sure you would agree supports the argument that a communist revolution must be international if it is to achieve communism.

[Ismail]

I've never understood this 'final victory' stuff, does it actually have any material basis or is it just rhetoric?In a 1926 letter (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/02/10.htm) Stalin stated that:

There was also talk at the congress of the final victory of socialism. What does that mean? It means a full guarantee against the intervention of foreign capitalists and the restoration of the old order in our country as the result of an armed struggle by those capitalists against our country. Can we, by our own efforts, ensure this guarantee, that is, render armed intervention on the part of international capital impossible? No, we cannot. That is something to be done jointly by ourselves and the proletarians of the entire West. International capital can be finally curbed only by the efforts of the working class of all countries, or at least of the major European countries. For that the victory of the revolution in several European countries is indispensable—without it the final victory of socialism is impossible.

What follows then in conclusion?

It follows that 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.
anyway, this is getting further and further away from the Engels quote, which I'm sure you would agree supports the argument that a communist revolution must be international if it is to achieve communism.It's fairly obvious that Marx and Engels held differing views on the subject than Lenin and Stalin. Ironically, as Erik Van Ree notes, Stalin criticized Engels a fair bit in his private notations on Engels' works on various subjects, including the state.

[Savage]

It follows that 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.So quite obviously he did believe that a completely socialist society could be constructed in one country, but that it wouldn't be safe from capitalist powers.


It's fairly obvious that Marx and Engels held differing views on the subject than Lenin and Stalin. Ironically, as Erik Van Ree notes, Stalin criticized Engels a fair bit in his private notations on Engels' works on various subjects, including the state.So you started this discussion with me because you believe Engels to have been wrong? Or did the Engels quote not really have anything to do with this? So much for 'anti-revisionism' :D

[Ismail]

So quite obviously he did believe that a completely socialist society could be constructed in one country, but that it wouldn't be safe from capitalist powers.More or less, yes.

Check this out: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/03/10.htm

In part III-4 Stalin begins talking about Engels and the role of the state in socialism.

[Savage]

More or less, yes.

Check this out: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/03/10.htm

In part III-4 Stalin begins talking about Engels and the role of the state in socialism.

Thanks for the link, I knew that Stalin mentioned 'state communism' as a possibility but I had never read it in his own words.