Lenin and Socialism in One Country

[The Man]

I thought I'd post some of the works of Lenin saying he supports Socialism in One Country. I'd like to hear Trotskyist responses.


Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm



The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be otherwise under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois. This is bound to create not only friction, but a direct attempt on the part of the bourgeoisie of other countries to crush the socialist state’s victorious proletariat. In such cases, a war on our part would be a legitimate and just war. It would be a war for socialism, for the liberation of other nations from the bourgeoisie. Engels was perfectly right when, in his letter to Kautsky of September 12, 1882, he clearly stated that it was possible for already victorious socialism to wage “defensive wars”. What he had in mind was defense of the victorious proletariat against the bourgeoisie of other countries.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/i.htm

[Dogs On Acid]

Socialism in one country isn't self-sustainable without capitalist reforms in the long run, and will always be a temporary solution. I guess it's always better than a bourgeois system though...

[thesadmafioso]

The key thought which you must keep in mind when reading these excepts is that this concept was viewed as less than ideal. Lenin also knew full well that Russia would not be able to maintain a revolution in optimal conditions without the support of an international revolution, and thus he advocated tirelessly for such during the immediate aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Socialism in one country was something viewed by Lenin as an acceptable yet more importantly provisional holding pattern to assume while waiting for the rest of the old status quo to be swept away by the coming of international revolution.

[Dogs On Acid]

Once Stalin promoted Socialism in one country, the revolution was already doomed. It was a 3rd world country clinging on to an isolated, semi-socialistic system. It would of required a revolution to take part in Europe to survive, because that's were all the technology and advanced machinery was at the time .

[Stalin was right]

Wow it's almost like the USSR required a massive industrialization effort to build the necessary capital goods to later massively increase the production of consumer goods, and the USSR did that with a very minor drop in standard of living for a few years and an explosion in the standard of living after the first 5 year plan.

Thanks for saying what even mainstream economists recognize, that the industrialization effort launched by the USSR ahead of all the other third world countries and made it a superpower.

[North Star]

When Lenin refers to "one country" he does not mean Russia. He is talking about Germany, France or the UK which had a better chance in Lenin's eyes of having a successful socialist revolution. These passages come from 1915 and 1916 before Lenin's April Theses where he decided to go for revolution in Russia hoping Germany would follow suit.

[Q]

You would have thought that after a whole historical epoch of failure and contrarevolution, people would do a little better than taking a few Lenin quotes out of context to "prove their point".

Whatever, cool story bro.

[bcbm]

meanwhile in the 21st century...

[Martin Blank]

Ah, "socialism in a single country"! A theory for those who think the rest of the world's bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie would never dare to interfere in the development of a workers' republic. :rolleyes:

[Born in the USSR]

Revolution has occurred only in Russia. European proletariat preferred to be lackeys of the bourgeoisie,European leftists could only prattle.The conclusion:Stalin is blamed for all!

[Per Levy]

Revolution has occurred only in Russia. European proletariat preferred to be lackeys of the bourgeoisie,European leftists could only prattle.The conclusion:Stalin is blamed for all!

first of all russia is a part of europe(as well as asia), second of all there were several revolutions to that time(the german, the finish, the hungarian, to name a few) but these were crushed by the iron heel of the bourgeoisie. not to mention that the russian revolution almost did got crushed as well. and third of all, "European leftists could only prattle", oh really, luxemburg and liebknecht could only prattle, its not like they died for what they belived(and thats just one example of many). its funny you sound more like a russian nationalist then a communist/socialist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I thought I'd post some of the works of Lenin saying he supports Socialism in One Country. I'd like to hear Trotskyist responses.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm I had to look these up to find the context for the quotes and in this first one Lenin is making an argument against the idea that socialists should support a call for a "United States of Europe". Gee, I wonder why I never read this particular article - it's so, um, relevant - activists are always agitating for a United States of the World [/sarcasm]. From skimming the argument, it seems like the debate was if a "U.S.ofE" would make conditions better for revolution and he is arguing against this and saying in the abstract you could call for a U.S. of the World under socialist conditions but that would also lead to the mistaken idea that there has to be an end of nation-states before socialism is possible. He says this is mistaken because socialist revolution should not be seen as one event but as an epoch of change and various upheavals. He ends the argument with the quote above, which, as a trotskyist, sounds to me like a proto-permanent revolution argument. In other words, a revolution in one place can encourage and support revolutions in other places for the goal of working class victory everywhere. Socialism in one country actively sought accommodation when it suited the national needs more than the international and the Comintern pushed for CPs in other countries to also make peace during the cold war even when there were local possibilities to renew or aid existing struggles.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/i.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/i.htm)I don't think trotskyism argues against the idea that revolution will likely happen in different places at different rates - this is part of the reason it's important to organize in non-revolutionary times too because a revolution somewhere else could trigger a sudden upsurge in struggle as even the mixed popular revolutions in North Africa have done to a limited extent. Here Lenin is arguing against the idea that socialists should oppose wars in the abstract - he is saying that because worker revolutions will probably not go off simultaneously in one smooth sweep, revolutionary workers will have to be prepared to defend their gains and possibly come to the aid of revolutions elsewhere.

Neither quote contradicts permanent revolution in a major way nor do they support the policy of "socialism in one country". In fact, in practice they contradict the "one country" policies since he is arguing that the point of even trying to sustain socialism in one region is that that revolution is part of a larger process of workers revolution - whereas "Socialism in One Country" tried to make a virtue of being confined to one country after the international revolutionary wave following WWI had gone down in flames.

[Born in the USSR]

An accusation of nationalism is not new.I looked at the old Revleft pages and found that nearly all Russian were accused of it.Such a bad nation are those Russians,they should be nuked.But in fact I see here much more symptoms of hidden racism,subconscious sense of European superiority.A dismissive attitude to the experience of revolutions in other countries is one of symptomes of the national arrogance.

[Martin Blank]

An accusation of nationalism is not new.I looked at the old Revleft pages and found that nearly all Russian were accused of it.

All the Russians were accused of nationalism ... except those who were internationalist. Go figure.


Such a bad nation are those Russians,they should be nuked.

No. See, here's your problem: Communists reject the idea of there being "reactionary" races or nationalities; we analyze and make a determination based on class consciousness and social being. So it is not a case of Russia being a "bad nation". It is a case of reactionary (bourgeois) nationalism being spread among Russian workers by so-called "communist" parties that are dominated and led by the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie.


But in fact I see here much more symptoms of hidden racism,subconscious sense of European superiority.A dismissive attitude to the experience of revolutions in other countries is one of symptoms of the national arrogance.

Again, communists do not believe in "reactionary" or "superior" races and nationalities. We leave that crap to the fascists. I also would say that almost no one here would have a "dismissive" attitude about the October Revolution, except maybe the reactionaries trapped in the Opposing Ideologies forum.

[ZeroNowhere]

All Russians are nationalists who should be put to death through an overdose of radiation, and only Western Europe deserves to rule the world. This can be seen in the degeneracy of modern Indian politics since the British were driven out, leaving us helpless in the weakness inherent to our brown skins as opposed to the greater power and finesse of white people like Usain Bolt. Likewise, it could be said that Stalin is not to be blamed for the purges, but rather the fickleness of Russian blood. However, if I were to elaborate upon this, you may accuse me erroneously of being a racist due to your Russian ways, and being a member of the Russian communist party I doubt that you would be capable of rational debate on any subject let alone this one, so I shall leave the subject at that.

In actual fact, however, far from being bourgeois lackeys, the First World proletariat is the only truly revolutionary proletariat. The Third World (ie. non-white) proletariat live in a poor area and hence rely upon the bourgeoisie in order to develop their own productive powers to the point of developed capitalism, unlike the First World proletariat who experience a lack of wealth in crises which contrasts with their actual social wealth. The Third World experiences a daily crisis of undeveloped and weak capitalism, and hence capital still exists as a productive force, albeit one fettered by its international nature, while the First World proletariat experiences a cylical crisis of overly developed capitalism, and hence one which points beyond capital to its transcension.

As such, the Third World proletariat are lackeys of the bourgeoisie. QED.

[Thirsty Crow]

An accusation of nationalism is not new.I looked at the old Revleft pages and found that nearly all Russian were accused of it.Such a bad nation are those Russians,they should be nuked.But in fact I see here much more symptoms of hidden racism,subconscious sense of European superiority.A dismissive attitude to the experience of revolutions in other countries is one of symptomes of the national arrogance.
Wow, there's a neat trick, a "dismissive attitude" (that is - criticism) towards the development of the social revolution in Russia, and its counter-revolution, is in fact a sing of nationalism. Criticising nationalism from an internationalist point of view is, in fact, nationalist.

Can't you come up with something saner than this?

[Threetune]

The key thought which you must keep in mind when reading these excepts is that this concept was viewed as less than ideal. Lenin also knew full well that Russia would not be able to maintain a revolution in optimal conditions without the support of an international revolution, and thus he advocated tirelessly for such during the immediate aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Socialism in one country was something viewed by Lenin as an acceptable yet more importantly provisional holding pattern to assume while waiting for the rest of the old status quo to be swept away by the coming of international revolution.

This is what goes to the hart or rather the head of most of the disputation on Revleft. What Lenin is attacking as always is idealism, of either the sentimental childish variety or the gross opportunism of cowardly class treachery.

Marxism-Leninism has never advanced the notion that all can be accomplished “after the revolution” only fools and opportunists do that. The point is to get the dictatorship in place, then strengthen it and develop it against imperialism to the point at which it is no longer necessary. This talk above about “less than ideal” and “optimal conditions” is pointless. There are no “optimal conditions” anywhere ever, not in Germany, or Britain in the 1920s or 2020s.

There are always going to be what look like insurmountable obstacles to building socialism and communism AFTER any revolutionary seizure of power, the revolution is the easy bit. Having to cope with the aftermath of the struggle to impose the working class dictatorship and all the historical garbage of capitalism and feudalism is the challenge for humanity. And we can’t even begin to think about that in any detail in anything but the most abstract fashion until we know what the struggle has left us with.

If this debate encourages more reading of Lenin rather than reading others interpretations, that will be good, very good. The now predicable complaining whinge about quoting Lenin should be drowned out by even more good apt quotes on the subject, like this one:

“The workers were never separated by a Great Wall of China from the old society. And they have preserved a good deal of the traditional mentality of capitalist society. The workers are building a new society without themselves having become new people, or cleansed of the filth of the old world; they are still standing up to their knees in that filth. We can only dream of clearing the filth away. It would be utterly utopian to think this could be done all at once. It would be so utopian that in practice it would only postpone socialism to kingdom come.”

“No, that is not the way we intend to build socialism. We are building while still standing on the soil of capitalist society, combating all those weaknesses and shortcomings which also affect the working people and which tend to drag the proletariat down. There are many old separatist habits and customs of the small holder in this struggle, and we still feel the effects of the old maxim: “Every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost.” There used to be quite enough of that in every trade union, in every factory, which often thought only of itself, and left everything else to the tender care of the Lord and our betters. We have been through all that, and know the cost. It has been the cause of so many mistakes, so many dreadful mistakes, that now, on the strength of that experience, we give our comrades a most emphatic warning against any arbitrary action in this field. Instead of building socialism, it would mean we had all succumbed to the weaknesses of capitalism.” Lenin.

[Born in the USSR]

Ah, "socialism in a single country"!

Yes, I see a neglect in this contemptuous phrase.And this is not mine,this is your problem.

OK,socialism in one country is worse than socialism in many countries,nobody argues.But if the USSR was left alone,whose is this fault?Now Cuba and N Korea are alone.Is it is their fault or the fault of "the First World proletariat ,the only truly revolutionary proletariat",who cannot or do not want to make any practical or moral support for these countries?Why according to your logic are always blamed those who get ahead,not those who drag behind?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In what way is this a thread for the Politics section?

Stop with your sectarianism and do something to advance the interests of the poor and oppressed in the world.:rolleyes:

[Martin Blank]

Yeah. This should probably go to Theory.

Thread moved.

[Jimmie Higgins]

OK,socialism in one country is worse than socialism in many countries,nobody argues.But if the USSR was left alone,whose is this fault?Now Cuba and N Korea are alone.Is it is their fault or the fault of "the First World proletariat ,the only truly revolutionary proletariat",who cannot or do not want to make any practical or moral support for these countries?Why according to your logic are always blamed those who get ahead,not those who drags behind?I don't think anyone would deney that the Russian working class was - through the process of struggle - the vanguard of the international workers movement at the time of the revolution - besides this is not a moral judgement of workers as a group of workers.

But the problem with the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea isn't that it's just too bad that it was only single countries, the problem is that they either did not maintain, achieve, or even care about the self-emancipation of the working class. The question of socialism in one country is not a location question, we are not hoping for a revolution in France because it has a pleasant climate or because such and such workers are "better" than others. It's that, as Russia and all the other examples show, without taking surplus into their own hands, workers can not maintain their own rule. So instead we got "Socialism in one country" which as a policy creates industrial power on the backs of workers and also represses workers in order to accomplish this.

In some ways I feel like the surplus question is more anachronistic now. A revolution in Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, India etc, might have a much better chance of holding out longer than Russia did in the early 20s even if it is still unsustainable in the long-run. But the interrconnections of global capitalism would still make any major worker's revolution where workers actually control the means of production democratically an instant global question and probably create both backlash from the capitalists and encourage revolutions in other places.

[A.R.Amistad]

but a direct attempt on the part of the bourgeoisie of other countries to crush the socialist state’s victorious proletariat. In such cases, a war on our part would be a legitimate and just war. It would be a war for socialism, for the liberation of other nations from the bourgeoisie
Even in that quote, Lenin talks about the revolution in one country as a catalyst for international revolution , the "liberation of other nations" from the bourgeoisie

If only Stalin had applied this to his policy toward the Chinese revolution instead of allowing them to be butchered by the Kuomintang. I hear the strawman argument against Trotskyism that we demand a socialist revolution to occur in all countries at the same time. No where in any Trotskyist writings have I seen anything of the such.

Also, in response to nationalistic Russians at the time who were concerned only with the interests of the Russian nation alone, Lenin says this in November 1918:


"The facts of history have proved to those Russian patriots who will hear of nothing but the immediate interests of their country conceived in the old style, that the transformation of our Russian revolution into a socialist revolution, was not an adventure but a necessity since there was no other choice; Anglo-French and American imperialism. will inevitably strangle the independence and freedom of Russia unless the world-wide socialist revolution, world-wide Bolshevism, triumphs."

A simple reading of everything Lenin and everyone in the Bolsehvik/communist movement of the time wrote, particularly for the Comintern, one cannot atribute "socialism in one country" to Lenin except through quotes misinterpreted or taken out of context, such as the first one where Lenin continues to stress internationalism. Lets not forget that even stalin used to find the idea of "socialism in one country" ridiculous! (before it was opportunistically beneficial for him politically)

Stalin


"The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a proletarian government in one country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of socialism. The main task of socialism - the organisation of socialist production - remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible. Tooverthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient - the history of our revolution bears this out. For the final victory of Socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary.
"Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution."

[Martin Blank]

OK,socialism in one country is worse than socialism in many countries, nobody argues. But if the USSR was left alone, whose is this fault?

Certainly not that of the proletariat of the rest of Europe. The workers of Europe repeatedly sought to come to the aid of the RSFSR, beginning within a year of the October Revolution itself. The problem in many cases was that the organizations that were trusted by the working class had bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leaderships that did their best to keep them chained to the ruling classes (in other cases, such as Hungary, the workers' republic was defeated and overrun by a hostile military force). In the period following the October Revolution (1918-1921), it was Social Democracy that kept workers chained to the exploiting and oppressing classes. In the decades since, it was the parties of the Communist International that fulfilled that role. From Britain to China to Germany to France to Spain to Italy, both before and after the Second World War, the "official" Communist parties kept the European working class from carrying out its own emancipation by subordinating the program and activity of the proletariat to the wishes and demands of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. By that time, however, the petty bourgeoisie was already the ruling class the USSR, so having other workers' republics (i.e., transitional semi-states where the working class had all power in its hands) would have threatened the bureaucracy.


Now Cuba and N Korea are alone. Is it their fault or the fault of "the First World proletariat, the only truly revolutionary proletariat", who cannot or do not want to make any practical or moral support for these countries?

Apparently, you did not realize the ZeroNowhere was being sarcastic. Anyway....

I don't know how worthwhile it would be to even give a thorough explanation, since you seem to have no concept of class analysis and would likely not be concerned with what I'd have to say.


Why according to your logic are always blamed those who get ahead, not those who drags behind?

I don't blame Russian workers for "socialism in a single country" or the petty-bourgeois "bureaucratic socialism" that created the theory as a justification for its existence. They had no hand in that theory, just as they no longer had any hand in the Soviet state or economy after 1920. The Russian proletariat cannot be held responsible for the actions of the petty-bourgeois identity thieves who masqueraded as "Communists" any more than the proletariat of Europe can be held responsible for the betrayals of those who called themselves "Socialists" or "Communists".

Could the proletariat of Europe have broken from these identity thieves and marched forward toward revolution? Yes, but that would have required a program that was consistently communist and an organization large enough to be able to win the majority of the working class to it. Of course, the problem was that any attempt to build a proletarian movement like that was usually physically assaulted and attacked by the combined efforts of the organizations and institutions of the ruling classes (the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie), including the "official" Communists.

[Rainsborough]

Originally Posted by Threetune http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2157154#post2157154)
If this debate encourages more reading of Lenin rather than reading others interpretations, that will be good, very good.

If only.

[Born in the USSR]

Imagine one or several units of the proletarian army that dashed forward, but not being supported by other units, were surrounded and took an all-round defense.In these circumstances act not Constitution or Charter of Human Rights,but a military regulations and orders to the commander.The only way to alleviate their situation is a breakthrough of other units.

[Martin Blank]

Imagine one or several units of the proletarian army that dashed forward, but not being supported by other units, were surrounded and took an all-round defense. In these circumstances act not Constitution or Charter of Human Rights, but a military regulations and orders to the commander. The only way to alleviate their situation is a breakthrough of other units.

I understand what you're saying here. My question would be, then, why would that group of surrounded units of the proletarian army send or promote commanders and chiefs into the other, non-surrounded units who only lead the army to defeat over and over again? Do the commanders of those surrounded detachments wish to lose? Or, have they proposed a sweetheart deal to their supposed enemies that guarantees their own survival for a time in exchange for annihilating the rest of the army?

[Born in the USSR]

Certainly not that of the proletariat of the rest of Europe. The workers of Europe repeatedly sought to come to the aid of the RSFSR, beginning within a year of the October Revolution itself. The problem in many cases was that the organizations that were trusted by the working class had bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leaderships that did their best to keep them chained to the ruling classes (in other cases, such as Hungary, the workers' republic was defeated and overrun by a hostile military force). In the period following the October Revolution (1918-1921), it was Social Democracy that kept workers chained to the exploiting and oppressing classes. In the decades since, it was the parties of the Communist International that fulfilled that role. From Britain to China to Germany to France to Spain to Italy, both before and after the Second World War, the "official" Communist parties kept the European working class from carrying out its own emancipation by subordinating the program and activity of the proletariat to the wishes and demands of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. By that time, however, the petty bourgeoisie was already the ruling class the USSR, so having other workers' republics (i.e., transitional semi-states where the working class had all power in its hands) would have threatened the bureaucracy.

This is only an ideological cover of inactivity.The USSR could be bad but what prevented you to do your revolution better? In this case the USSR would have had much less defects.


you seem to have no concept of class analysis. If you mean the class analysis of the Soviet society,I tried to make it in my blog,although it is not finished.

[Born in the USSR]

I understand what you're saying here. My question would be, then, why would that group of surrounded units of the proletarian army send or promote commanders and chiefs into the other, non-surrounded units who only lead the army to defeat over and over again? Do the commanders of those surrounded detachments wish to lose? Or, have they proposed a sweetheart deal to their supposed enemies that guarantees their own survival for a time in exchange for annihilating the rest of the army?

I do not quite understand what do you mean.Those advance units are a base,a jumping-off ground of the proletarian army,they facilitate the position of other units,attracting a main enemy force.But they can not hold on forever without the help of the main forces.This is all interconnected and you're tearing this connection proclaiming:"The vanguard is bad,down with the vanguard!"Hell,but you do not have better,and this does not excuse an inactivity or a betrayal of the avant-garde.

[Martin Blank]

This is only an ideological cover for of inactivity. The USSR could be bad but what prevented you to do your revolution better? In this case the USSR would have had much less defects.

Are you asking me what I would have done differently than Lenin and the Bolsheviks?


If you mean the class analysis of the Soviet society, I tried to make it in my blog, although it is not finished.

No, I meant that it appears you do not analyze based on class, but nationality. Hence your blaming of the European proletariat for what became of the USSR.

[Martin Blank]

I do not quite understand what do you mean. Those advance units are a base, a jumping-off ground of the proletarian army, they facilitate the position of other units, attracting a main enemy force. But they can not hold on forever without the help of the main forces. This is all interconnected and you're tearing this connection proclaiming: "The vanguard is bad, down with the vanguard!" Hell, but you do not have better, and this does not excuse an inactivity or a betrayal of the avant-garde.

No. Actually, I'm pointing out that the commanders of that "base" were supporting their inept and cowardly counterparts in other countries, betraying the "vanguard" at every step. I'm not saying, "Down with the vanguard!" I'm saying, "Down with the traitors who betray the vanguard and lead them to the slaughter!"

[thesadmafioso]

This is what goes to the hart or rather the head of most of the disputation on Revleft. What Lenin is attacking as always is idealism, of either the sentimental childish variety or the gross opportunism of cowardly class treachery.

Marxism-Leninism has never advanced the notion that all can be accomplished “after the revolution” only fools and opportunists do that. The point is to get the dictatorship in place, then strengthen it and develop it against imperialism to the point at which it is no longer necessary. This talk above about “less than ideal” and “optimal conditions” is pointless. There are no “optimal conditions” anywhere ever, not in Germany, or Britain in the 1920s or 2020s.

There are always going to be what look like insurmountable obstacles to building socialism and communism AFTER any revolutionary seizure of power, the revolution is the easy bit. Having to cope with the aftermath of the struggle to impose the working class dictatorship and all the historical garbage of capitalism and feudalism is the challenge for humanity. And we can’t even begin to think about that in any detail in anything but the most abstract fashion until we know what the struggle has left us with.

If this debate encourages more reading of Lenin rather than reading others interpretations, that will be good, very good. The now predicable complaining whinge about quoting Lenin should be drowned out by even more good apt quotes on the subject, like this one:

“The workers were never separated by a Great Wall of China from the old society. And they have preserved a good deal of the traditional mentality of capitalist society. The workers are building a new society without themselves having become new people, or cleansed of the filth of the old world; they are still standing up to their knees in that filth. We can only dream of clearing the filth away. It would be utterly utopian to think this could be done all at once. It would be so utopian that in practice it would only postpone socialism to kingdom come.”

“No, that is not the way we intend to build socialism. We are building while still standing on the soil of capitalist society, combating all those weaknesses and shortcomings which also affect the working people and which tend to drag the proletariat down. There are many old separatist habits and customs of the small holder in this struggle, and we still feel the effects of the old maxim: “Every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost.” There used to be quite enough of that in every trade union, in every factory, which often thought only of itself, and left everything else to the tender care of the Lord and our betters. We have been through all that, and know the cost. It has been the cause of so many mistakes, so many dreadful mistakes, that now, on the strength of that experience, we give our comrades a most emphatic warning against any arbitrary action in this field. Instead of building socialism, it would mean we had all succumbed to the weaknesses of capitalism.” Lenin.

Socialism will be in a constant state of siege if it is forced to live in the vacuum of a capitalist dominated world and it will inevitably fall victim to its economic isolation. I am sorry if my choice in tentative language offended you, but such is the reality of this situation. Socialism in one state is necessary in some instances, but it is not a course which can be maintained indefinitely. Hence my choice in language. I hardly see how this concept can be considered idealistic, childish, sentimental, traitorous to class, or treachery.

[Born in the USSR]

Are you asking me what I would have done differently than Lenin and the Bolsheviks?

Does this this have to do to the question of socialism in a single country?


Hence your blaming of the European proletariat for what became of the USSR.Why not?I 'm blaming for the defeat of socialism also foreign proletariat.USSR stood out for 70 years against global capitalism almost single-handedly,this is long enough.You are blaming only the USSR.Feel the difference.


Actually, I'm pointing out that the commanders of that "base" were supporting their inept and cowardly counterparts in other countries, betraying the "vanguard" at every step. I'm not saying, "Down with the vanguard!" I'm saying, "Down with the traitors who betray the vanguard and lead them to the slaughter!"

That is, you want to say that the point is not in the balance of power "socialism-capitalism",the point is only in the leaders of socialism,that is in subjective factor?

[Threetune]

Socialism will be in a constant state of siege if it is forced to live in the vacuum of a capitalist dominated world and it will inevitably fall victim to its economic isolation. I am sorry if my choice in tentative language offended you, but such is the reality of this situation. Socialism in one state is necessary in some instances, but it is not a course which can be maintained indefinitely. Hence my choice in language. I hardly see how this concept can be considered idealistic, childish, sentimental, traitorous to class, or treachery.


Hang on. Firstly I wasn’t having a go at you particularly, simply picking up on some remakes as examples but the more I read your defence, which I note carefully sidestepped your original remakes, the more I’m convinced of the accuracy of my criticism of your first post.

You’re use of what you call tentative language referring to the 1917 revolutionary conditions as being “less than ideal” and lack of “optimal conditions” clearly suggests that an “ideal” and “optimal conditions” could exist somehow. You even make this explicit by saying:

“The key thought which you must keep in mind when reading these excepts is that this concept was viewed as less than ideal”.


So, if the reader keeps this “ key thought… in mind”, it’s fair to ask, what exactly are the “ideal” and “optimal conditions” you’re alluding to which you say weren’t present in Russia? And the only answer for Marxism-Leninism is, they don’t exist, only “in mind”. They are the none-existent “ideals” against which you ask us to judge the reality, which BTW you interestingly call a “concept”.

I’m entirely justified in pointing out that this ‘method’ of “idealist” debate about revolutionary Russia is prevalent on Revleft as a consequence of decades of academic, legalistic anti-communist, anti-Leninist argumentation spewing out of capitalist editorial rooms and universities throughout Western Europe and the US.

Revolutions in ‘advanced’ Germany and Britain as well as Russia in 1917 would have been better, of course, much better, but still never ever “ideal” or “optimal” having as they would, to face all that war civil war and revolution leaves in its wake on top of the legacy of capitalist culture weighing down every forward movement. And so it is now and will be for all future revolutions. As I said, talk of “ideal” or “optimal” is pointless.

And as Lenin never tired of saying its either sentimental childish, idealistic naivety, or opportunist anti-communist treachery by ‘lefts’ who overtly or covertly attack the dictatorship of the proletariat from the high heavenly ground of the “ideal”.

[thesadmafioso]

Hang on. Firstly I wasn’t having a go at you particularly, simply picking up on some remakes as examples but the more I read your defence, which I note carefully sidestepped your original remakes, the more I’m convinced of the accuracy of my criticism of your first post.

You’re use of what you call tentative language referring to the 1917 revolutionary conditions as being “less than ideal” and lack of “optimal conditions” clearly suggests that an “ideal” and “optimal conditions” could exist somehow. You even make this explicit by saying:

“The key thought which you must keep in mind when reading these excepts is that this concept was viewed as less than ideal”.


So, if the reader keeps this “ key thought… in mind”, it’s fair to ask, what exactly are the “ideal” and “optimal conditions” you’re alluding to which you say weren’t present in Russia? And the only answer for Marxism-Leninism is, they don’t exist, only “in mind”. They are the none-existent “ideals” against which you ask us to judge the reality, which BTW you interestingly call a “concept”.

I’m entirely justified in pointing out that this ‘method’ of “idealist” debate about revolutionary Russia is prevalent on Revleft as a consequence of decades of academic, legalistic anti-communist, anti-Leninist argumentation spewing out of capitalist editorial rooms and universities throughout Western Europe and the US.

Revolutions in ‘advanced’ Germany and Britain as well as Russia in 1917 would have been better, of course, much better, but still never ever “ideal” or “optimal” having as they would, to face all that war civil war and revolution leaves in its wake on top of the legacy of capitalist culture weighing down every forward movement. And so it is now and will be for all future revolutions. As I said, talk of “ideal” or “optimal” is pointless.

And as Lenin never tired of saying its either sentimental childish, idealistic naivety, or opportunist anti-communist treachery by ‘lefts’ who overtly or covertly attack the dictatorship of the proletariat from the high heavenly ground of the “ideal”.



I was referring more to the post revolution era of Soviet history with my comments, as that would be the context wherein these comments would take up a practical relevance to the actual situation at hand. In 1917 the preconditions of capitalism may not of been fully developed, but that does not mean that they could not of been supplemented with international struggle and cooperation as well. The Bolshevik Revolution came very close to igniting a spark of revolution that very well may of encompassed a multitude of other nations, and even if it did not it was still something which would be progressive for workers movements across the globe.

I hardly see how you can equate my line on this matter to being anti communist based solely upon the fact that I have not unequivocally lavished praise upon the circumstances of 1917. They were more than fitting enough for a revolution and it would of been foolish not to make use of the opportunity, but they were still not at a point which would of facilitated the most effective revolutionary movement. Though the fact still remains that without continued international efforts beyond the revolution, it was doomed to fall stagnant and to collapse given enough time.

[Rooster]

An accusation of nationalism is not new.

I wonder why....

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2152350&postcount=36

[Thirsty Crow]

I wonder why....

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2152350&postcount=36
Wow, never thought I would see a "communist" labelling me as "subhuman".

[Kronsteen]

There are several questions here:

* Did Lenin actually believe that socialism could be built and maintained in one country, or only that it could be built in one country but if it didn't spread it couldnt't be maintained?

* If the former, was it something Lenin consistantly believed, or was it a passing phase in his intellectual development?

* If he did constistantly believe it, does the rest of Leninism collapse if that plank is removed?

This thread essentially is a rehash of a discussion on the OP's blog: http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1683

[Art Vandelay]

"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." – Friedrich Engels, The Principles of Communism, 1847

Seems pretty clear what Engles would of thought of it and I am sure Marx's opinion would not of differed to much. For a tendency that is so against revisionism and vehemently attacks it, it seems the socialism in one country is about as revisionist as it gets.

[Art Vandelay]

Another quote I found that I think could be useful for the discussion:

"The absolute truth is that without a revolution in Germany we shall perish."

- Lenin

[bietan jarrai]

It's pretty obvious that one country can not survive as socialist alone for too long - looking at the present situation of the DPRK for example - because the imperialist and capitalist potencies aren't going to leave it alone. Cuba is also struggling, and it can't be said it is still socialist, more like a country and people that are striving for socialism. So yes, socialism can happen in one country, but the revolution must happen in multiple countries, not necessarily at once (we are internationalists after all, wouldn't saying socialism can and should happen in one country alone be a rather nationalist position?).

In the USSR, the result was a reformist state that was controlled by bureaucracy rather than the workers, and that's before Stalin's death. Not that if Trotsky had "won the battle" it would have worked out better.

[Paul Cockshott]

The USSR was many countries.

[bietan jarrai]

The USSR was many countries.
I meant Russia, which I believe anyway was the main political force in the USSR.

[Connolly16ir.net]

Socialism in one country is not viable in the slightest, particularly in the west, that is why Cuba has had to make compromises and revert to reformism in some cases. For a communist or socialist revolution to succeed in one country, those around it must also go through revolution, that is being real. That is why internationalism is an important aspect of communism.

[Paul Cockshott]

I was pointing out the ambiguity of One Country, socialism in one state can be viable for decades, especially in Welt Reiche like the old Russian and British empires or the USA or China.

[Weezer]

From the Principles of Communism, Question 19 by Engels:


— 19 —
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 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.


That being said, socialism in one country was a historical phase. It may have had relevance in the USSR at the time, but I don't know think it has any relevance today, unless somehow history repeats itself and several countries, including major industrial ones, but all those fail except for the revolution in the most backward society.

Starting socialism in one country? Okay, that's reasonable. Keeping it in one country? When it's surrounded by hostile capitalist nations and will eventually make concessions to the free market? No, that's not okay and it won't work.

There's another name for keeping socialism in one place or several isolated places: Utopian socialism.

[Paul Cockshott]

Starting socialism in one country? Okay, that's reasonable. Keeping it in one country? When it's surrounded by hostile capitalist nations and will eventually make concessions to the free market? No, that's not okay and it won't work.
That sums it up well.