DaringMehring
4th September 2011, 21:21
Probably one of the most muddled up subjects in socialist theory. I am writing this to try to look at it as objectively as possible, but also in as simple terms as possible.
A TALKING POINT IN POWER POLITICS
It is basic Marxism, from "The Internationale" to "Workers of the world unite!" that the proletariat is an international class and its victory or defeat must be international.
After the Russian revolution, the other revolutions of Europe stalled or were defeated. Most of all, Germany. But that didn't mean that the USSR should give up and become a capitalist state because the international revolution had failed. They needed to keep fighting for the eventual victory of socialism.
At this point, around the time of Lenin's last sentient year, 1923, Trotsky, Stalin, and the rest of the CP expressed these opinions. For instance, Stalin said that of course the revolution must spread, and Trotsky expressed his confidence that the USSR could hold out as a bulwark for the next revolutionary wave.
But with Lenin's death, there were power politics going on for leadership, at that time Trotsky was isolated and attacked by most of the rest of the leadership, headed by the troika of Stalin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev.
This is when the debate over "socialism in one country" versus "world revolution" first flared up, and it was largely an invented controversy used by each side to rally its troops.
The troika side was based on the emergent bureaucratic stratum. To them, "socialism in one country" was appealing because it promised them, that their positions would not be risked in provoking confrontations with the capitalist. The troika played this up, making a specter for them of "Trotsky's adventurism" when it came to revolution.
For Trotsky's side, which consisted mainly of veteran revolutionaries, "world revolution" was a convenient slogan because it accused the troika of being complacent and betraying the ideals that Marxist revolutionaries had fought for so long. This was a good motivator as various works of art of the early soviet period, eg Aelita Queen of Mars, show that there was a generalized fear of usurpation of the revolution.
In the end Trotsky was defeated and dumped out.
LITTLE IMMEDIATE DIFFERENCE
The biggest international blunder of Stalin et al in the 20s was ordering the Chinese to submit to the KMT and surrender their weapons, which directly led to the massacre of the revolutionary proletariat of China.
But can this mistake be put down to "Socialism in one country?" I've already established it was an invented controversy at first. While submitting to national bourgeoisies is a hallmark defect of Socialism in one country, in this case, the Comintern quickly changed policy to the "Third Period" which was radical and ultra-left, whereby there was no collaboration allowed even with social democrats.
So, it seems more likely the Chinese disaster was just a stupid blunder by the ruling clique rather than a product of their SIOC theory.
The Third Period was an ultra-left, but actually quite healthy and productive policy. If you look at Stalin quotations from this period, you will be able to find some proper internationalist revolutionary statements.
TIME TELLS
As the bureaucracy solidified and the revolutionary tradition was submerged, SIOC actually got wings. It was no coincidence that this coincided with the emergent threat to the bureaucracy of Nazism. SIOC was always tied to the bureaucracy's desire to avoid conflict and maintain domestic privilege, at first only in emergent form, but later, full-blown.
The main and most deadly symptom was the Popular Front. The Popular Front, which put the CPs in submission to the bourgeois democrats, was a right deviation. While the Third Period was a left deviation, as Lenin said, right deviations are one hundred times more dangerous than left deviations.
Other symptoms include: dissolving the Comintern; changing the anthem of the USSR away from "The Internationale."
Later, another betrayal of the socialist ideal, when other countries had socialist revolutions, such as China, they did not join the USSR. The whole concept of the USSR, as outlined by Lenin, was to be an internationalist amalgamation of all socialists --- one world soviet socialist state. Kazakhstan, Armenia, etc. were not in the USSR because they were former Imperial possessions of Russia. That would just be another form of Imperialism, which was anathema to Lenin. They were in it because it was expected that all socialist countries should be in it. But by the time of China's revolution, that idea had been thoroughly supplanted by SIOC.
The horrible but predictable result -- these SIOC countries ended up becoming enemies.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN POLITICALLY
If SIOC versus world revolution was at first a mainly propagandistic distinction, but as the old revolutionary tradition was consumed by the emergent bureaucracy, became a real but already decided issue, what are the political implications?
1) The Comintern. Should all CPs federate into one body that is the highest governing entity?
According to the structure, theoretically the Comintern should have ruled over the USSR, on behalf of the world communist movement. As it happened, the Comintern was first transformed into a pawn of the USSR, and then dissolved.
2) Relations to the bourgeoisie. Should the workers of a given country submit in their class struggle, in order to create a situation that will be more favorable to a socialist country? If so, who should make this decision -- a Comintern, or the socialist country in question?
3) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Should this mean all socialist countries, in a federal structure (like the USA with states and an overarching government) or was it proper that it meant USSR (former Tsarist Empire) with all the other nations keeping their independence?
Another question is, has history proved that socialism in one country is impossible, in the long run, as Marx-Lenin predicted?
----------------------------------------
thanks for reading
A TALKING POINT IN POWER POLITICS
It is basic Marxism, from "The Internationale" to "Workers of the world unite!" that the proletariat is an international class and its victory or defeat must be international.
After the Russian revolution, the other revolutions of Europe stalled or were defeated. Most of all, Germany. But that didn't mean that the USSR should give up and become a capitalist state because the international revolution had failed. They needed to keep fighting for the eventual victory of socialism.
At this point, around the time of Lenin's last sentient year, 1923, Trotsky, Stalin, and the rest of the CP expressed these opinions. For instance, Stalin said that of course the revolution must spread, and Trotsky expressed his confidence that the USSR could hold out as a bulwark for the next revolutionary wave.
But with Lenin's death, there were power politics going on for leadership, at that time Trotsky was isolated and attacked by most of the rest of the leadership, headed by the troika of Stalin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev.
This is when the debate over "socialism in one country" versus "world revolution" first flared up, and it was largely an invented controversy used by each side to rally its troops.
The troika side was based on the emergent bureaucratic stratum. To them, "socialism in one country" was appealing because it promised them, that their positions would not be risked in provoking confrontations with the capitalist. The troika played this up, making a specter for them of "Trotsky's adventurism" when it came to revolution.
For Trotsky's side, which consisted mainly of veteran revolutionaries, "world revolution" was a convenient slogan because it accused the troika of being complacent and betraying the ideals that Marxist revolutionaries had fought for so long. This was a good motivator as various works of art of the early soviet period, eg Aelita Queen of Mars, show that there was a generalized fear of usurpation of the revolution.
In the end Trotsky was defeated and dumped out.
LITTLE IMMEDIATE DIFFERENCE
The biggest international blunder of Stalin et al in the 20s was ordering the Chinese to submit to the KMT and surrender their weapons, which directly led to the massacre of the revolutionary proletariat of China.
But can this mistake be put down to "Socialism in one country?" I've already established it was an invented controversy at first. While submitting to national bourgeoisies is a hallmark defect of Socialism in one country, in this case, the Comintern quickly changed policy to the "Third Period" which was radical and ultra-left, whereby there was no collaboration allowed even with social democrats.
So, it seems more likely the Chinese disaster was just a stupid blunder by the ruling clique rather than a product of their SIOC theory.
The Third Period was an ultra-left, but actually quite healthy and productive policy. If you look at Stalin quotations from this period, you will be able to find some proper internationalist revolutionary statements.
TIME TELLS
As the bureaucracy solidified and the revolutionary tradition was submerged, SIOC actually got wings. It was no coincidence that this coincided with the emergent threat to the bureaucracy of Nazism. SIOC was always tied to the bureaucracy's desire to avoid conflict and maintain domestic privilege, at first only in emergent form, but later, full-blown.
The main and most deadly symptom was the Popular Front. The Popular Front, which put the CPs in submission to the bourgeois democrats, was a right deviation. While the Third Period was a left deviation, as Lenin said, right deviations are one hundred times more dangerous than left deviations.
Other symptoms include: dissolving the Comintern; changing the anthem of the USSR away from "The Internationale."
Later, another betrayal of the socialist ideal, when other countries had socialist revolutions, such as China, they did not join the USSR. The whole concept of the USSR, as outlined by Lenin, was to be an internationalist amalgamation of all socialists --- one world soviet socialist state. Kazakhstan, Armenia, etc. were not in the USSR because they were former Imperial possessions of Russia. That would just be another form of Imperialism, which was anathema to Lenin. They were in it because it was expected that all socialist countries should be in it. But by the time of China's revolution, that idea had been thoroughly supplanted by SIOC.
The horrible but predictable result -- these SIOC countries ended up becoming enemies.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN POLITICALLY
If SIOC versus world revolution was at first a mainly propagandistic distinction, but as the old revolutionary tradition was consumed by the emergent bureaucracy, became a real but already decided issue, what are the political implications?
1) The Comintern. Should all CPs federate into one body that is the highest governing entity?
According to the structure, theoretically the Comintern should have ruled over the USSR, on behalf of the world communist movement. As it happened, the Comintern was first transformed into a pawn of the USSR, and then dissolved.
2) Relations to the bourgeoisie. Should the workers of a given country submit in their class struggle, in order to create a situation that will be more favorable to a socialist country? If so, who should make this decision -- a Comintern, or the socialist country in question?
3) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Should this mean all socialist countries, in a federal structure (like the USA with states and an overarching government) or was it proper that it meant USSR (former Tsarist Empire) with all the other nations keeping their independence?
Another question is, has history proved that socialism in one country is impossible, in the long run, as Marx-Lenin predicted?
----------------------------------------
thanks for reading