How do M-L ...

[StoneFrog]

I was wondering with socialism in one country how can you insure that socialism can move onto the next stage? It feel like a big gap would be needed to be crossed to move from socialism to communism; this is increased by the size of the centralization in in say a country like Russia, Canada etc...

[Rooster]

This is a misnomer. Socialism is not a distinct stage in between capitalism and communism. If it was, then they should be able to point out what mode of production was prevalent under it. It would also imply that there would have to be a revolution to proceed onto the next stage, if it was indeed distinct. Saying that it would take for the state to whither away, to grant the working masses communism, is like saying that reformism from above would solve the world's problems. Of course, history has shown that these states did little in the way of whithering away anyway.

[StoneFrog]

Maybe i should call it as "First Phase" and "Higher Phase" of communism like Lenin.

[Iron Felix]

"How do M-L" and then "socialism in one country". It's a joke right?

Why would a stalinist regiem "insure that socialism can move onto the next stage". I don't think you understand the point, it's not supposed to insure that. It did insure capitalism though, so at least it insured something.

[Bolshy]

StoneFrog wrote: "I was wondering with socialism in one country how can you insure that socialism can move onto the next stage? It feel like a big gap would be needed to be crossed to move from socialism to communism; this is increased by the size of the centralization in in say a country like Russia, Canada etc..."

Imperialism (capitalist globalization) is the greatest obstacle to the progress of the international working class.

Therefore, imperialism must be weakened and ultimately defeated through international Anti-imperialist solidarity; ie., unity of all Anti-imperialist forces.

With imperialism defeated, the world will be safe for socialism and advancement to communism.

:)

[Khalid]

This is a misnomer. Socialism is not a distinct stage in between capitalism and communism. If it was, then they should be able to point out what mode of production was prevalent under it. It would also imply that there would have to be a revolution to proceed onto the next stage, if it was indeed distinct. Saying that it would take for the state to whither away, to grant the working masses communism, is like saying that reformism from above would solve the world's problems. Of course, history has shown that these states did little in the way of whithering away anyway.

Transition from capitalism to imperialism did not need a revolution. The ruling class didn't change. Transition from socialism to communism can't happen the same way?

Just asking.

[Iron Felix]

There you are incorrect. Marx defined Socialism as a stage that supersedes Capitalism and precedes Communism. Primitive Communism ---> Slave society ---> Feudalism ---> Capitalism ---> Socialism ---> Communism. Classical Marxism and Marxism-Leninism clearly distinguish between Socialism and Communism.

[StoneFrog]

"How do M-L" and then "socialism in one country". It's a joke right?

Why would a stalinist regiem "insure that socialism can move onto the next stage". I don't think you understand the point, it's not supposed to insure that. It did insure capitalism though, so at least it insured something.

What ever.

[ArrowLance]

"How do M-L" and then "socialism in one country". It's a joke right?

Why would a stalinist regiem "insure that socialism can move onto the next stage". I don't think you understand the point, it's not supposed to insure that. It did insure capitalism though, so at least it insured something.

Stalinist regimes as you say actually have done a lot to promote socialism and democracy worldwide, not just in their countries. The fact that there are existing successful communist states alone bolsters the international proletariat's confidence and resources.

I assure you that it did not ensure capitalism. (A little joke, and it has rhymes!)

[thefinalmarch]

Transition from capitalism to imperialism did not need a revolution. The ruling class didn't change. Transition from socialism to communism can't happen the same way?

Just asking.
Imperialism is not a distinct mode of production like capitalism and communism are.

I believe that by imperialism you are referring to a stage in capitalism's development. I don't believe that theory is entirely correct. Imperialism has always existed in every class society, and even early bourgeois society was no exception. The imperialism in early bourgeois society was simply latent as opposed to observable, manifest imperialism. It is always in the interests of the bourgeoisie to find new sources of labour. All bourgeois are prospective imperialists of some sort.

[Iron Felix]

Stalinist regimes as you say actually have done a lot to promote socialism and democracy worldwide, not just in their countries. The fact that there are existing successful communist states alone bolsters the international proletariat's confidence and resources.

I assure you that it did not ensure capitalism. (A little joke, and it has rhymes!)
I won't reply to the first part of your statement since, at least I hope, you're joking. How can you say "communist state"? This is a contradiction, communism is stateless and classless.

[Nox]

I was wondering with socialism in one country how can you insure that socialism can move onto the next stage? It feel like a big gap would be needed to be crossed to move from socialism to communism; this is increased by the size of the centralization in in say a country like Russia, Canada etc...

You can't get Communism in one country... I think you need to look up what 'Socialism in one country' actually means.

[Iron Felix]

Imperialism is not a distinct mode of production like capitalism and communism are.

I believe that by imperialism you are referring to a stage in capitalism's development. I don't believe that theory is entirely correct. Imperialism has always existed in every class society, and even early bourgeois society was no exception. The imperialism in early bourgeois society was simply latent as opposed to observable, manifest imperialism. It is always in the interests of the bourgeoisie to find new sources of labour. All bourgeois are prospective imperialists of some sort.
No, you are not correct. Perhaps Vladimir Ilyich will help you. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm).

[Tim Cornelis]

Maybe i should call it as "First Phase" and "Higher Phase" of communism like Lenin.

Well actually it was Marx who called it lower and higher phase communism and Lenin who introduced "socialism" as to mean lower phase communism and "communism" for higher phase communism.

[RedMarxist]

Please, EDUCATE yourself first before asking such naive, if good intentioned questions. I also think, in this case, Engels can help you quite a bit in his Principles of Communism:

Q #19:"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?"

Engel's Answer: "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."

[Iron Felix]

You can't have Socialism in one country either, as Engels said.


Edit: RedMarxist beat me to it.

[runequester]

You can start in one country, but it can't end in one country.

(huh, that kinda sounds like a slogan)

[Art Vandelay]

Please, EDUCATE yourself first before asking such naive, if good intentioned questions. I also think, in this case, Engels can help you quite a bit in his Principles of Communism:

Q #19:"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?"

Engel's Answer: "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."

He is trying to educate himself by posting in the learning forum, why be condescending? The left could seriously attract more followers if they were not jumped on whenever they asked a question deemed "naive." Our job as revolutionaries is to attract new members not turn them away.

[RedMarxist]

sorry, I did not mean to come off as rude. Just trying to give some helpful advice.

[KurtFF8]

It always strikes me as odd to criticize Marxism-Leninism for "socialism in one country." It's as if those critics are saying "your problem is that you're not spreading your system that we're violently attacking!"

The criticism also seems to place the role of world revolution on those particular states they disdain. By which I mean that it was the USSR's fault that the revolutions didn't succeed in Western Europe and that they just needed to...revolution there?

My point is that "socialism in one country" was essentially indeed a retreat, not meant to be some alternative to international revolution. And the idea of withering away of the state is essentially impossible when there are imperialist powers knocking at the door of every successful revolution seems to be suicide. That is assuming that the withering away of the state is merely a political choice in the first place, which of course it's not.

[StoneFrog]

- First i wasn't inferring that communism would develop in one country
- My concerns where with the state centralism and the process to move into communism
- I wasn't trying to criticizes anyone and i was just asking a valid question

Iron Felix you can go to hell with your ultra sectarian bullshit, im no ML but at least i want to learn about them. I think people have forgotten what this section of the site DOES.

[KurtFF8]

I didn't meant to imply that you or anyone was being critical. I was just pointing out what I see as a contradiction in the criticism of the concept of "socialism in one country" and to an extent defending it.