Is imperialism inevitable in a Stalinist country?

[The Cheshire Cat]

This is probably a very dumb question and I might take things for granted while not everyone agrees to those things, but I'm still triying to learn here.

I've been told that a socialist/communist society needs to be able to produce everything what the population demands, because the people need to be self-sustainable. However, most countries will be unable to produce everything what the population demands due to their climate and natural circumstances.

According to the Stalinist theory, socialism in one country should be possible. But according to the theory above it will not be possible in most countries because most countries are not able to produce everything.

So that would require trade with another country, which seems unlikely, or it requires imperialism. If you were able to conquer area's which would make it possible to be self-sustainable, you could produce enough to meet the demands of the people.

But imperialism is un-socialist/un-communist. So could someone explain to me where I made mistakes in my thinking?

[daft punk]

This is probably a very dumb question and I might take things for granted while not everyone agrees to those things, but I'm still triying to learn here.

I've been told that a socialist/communist society needs to be able to produce everything what the population demands, because the people need to be self-sustainable. However, most countries will be unable to produce everything what the population demands due to their climate and natural circumstances.

According to the Stalinist theory, socialism in one country should be possible. But according to the theory above it will not be possible in most countries because most countries are not able to produce everything.

So that would require trade with another country, which seems unlikely, or it requires imperialism. If you were able to conquer area's which would make it possible to be self-sustainable, you could produce enough to meet the demands of the people.

But imperialism is un-socialist/un-communist. So could someone explain to me where I made mistakes in my thinking?

I think you answered your own question. Socialism is not possible in one country, the USSR was not socialist, there has never been a socialist country.

To have socialism you would need a workers democracy in several advanced countries working together. They would have to prove to the rest of the world that their system was better. Then the whole world would go socialist and soon there would be no countries.

[Trash Bazooka]

Back when the USSR was around, the individual SSRs traded with each other. The idea was that self-sufficiency, or autarky, was needed. It didn't get as far as it needed to be, but it was a good first step. I don't think that imperialism is inevitable in a Stalinist country, because I assume that the whole point is to spread the idea of revolution to other, neighbouring countries so that they overthrow their respective governments, and eventually have an entity large enough where autarky is possible through trading of necessary resources in between "member states" (like the SSRs). I don't know if that really counts as autarky since it involves trade, but I distinguish that this trading between individual SSRs is different than a trade between, say the US and Germany, for example. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[The Cheshire Cat]

To have socialism you would need a workers democracy in several advanced countries working together.

There were several countries during the USSR era that were/claimed to be socialist. Weren't they able to traide among eachother and get the suplies they needed?

[Blake's Baby]

They certainly claimed to be socialist; but that doesn't mean they were socialist. I can claim to be the Pope or even, as a popular English expression has it, 'a Dutchman'. But I am neither the Bishop of Rome nor a native of the Netherlands.

Tricky stuff, saying things that aren't true.

[The Cheshire Cat]

They certainly claimed to be socialist; but that doesn't mean they were socialist. I can claim to be the Pope or even, as a popular English expression has it, 'a Dutchman'. But I am neither the Bishop of Rome nor a native of the Netherlands.

Tricky stuff, saying things that aren't true.

I'm not saying they were socialist. I'm just asking a question on a Stalinism-related topic and I'm hoping to get answers from Non-Stalinists and Stalinists

[Zulu]

According to the Stalinist theory, socialism in one country should be possible.

First of all, there is no "Stalinist" theory. All the stuff Stalin ever said about the "socialism in one country" was based on Lenin's works. And then, it inevitably had a clause that the victory of socialism in one country cannot be final.

Basic socialism means public property on the means of production and centralized economic planning. That may be brought about rather easily. But yes, to make your socialism "full" you'll have to get both bananas from tropics and blue-berries from the North.

Trading with capitalist countries in not so much impossible, as it is undesirable (because participating in the world market turns you into a collective capitalist in the end), so yeah, you have to work in the direction of expanding the socialist system throughout the world.





But imperialism is un-socialist/un-communist. So could someone explain to me where I made mistakes in my thinking?

The capitalists and nationalists all over the world will, of course, call it "imperialism", just as a thief or a murderer is often the loudest one at the crime scene demanding justice.

But the communists call it liberation from the yoke of capital.




There were several countries during the USSR era that were/claimed to be socialist. Weren't they able to traide among eachother and get the suplies they needed?
Do the research on what the COMECON was.


.

[The Cheshire Cat]

First of all, there is no "Stalinist" theory.

Stalin's based his believes on the idea's of Lenin (who based his on the idea's of Marx) and he changed some things and expanded other things. So did Trotsky. If that's correct, than you could call it a Stalinist theory, right?


The capitalists and nationalists all over the world will, of course, call it "imperialism", just as a thief or a murderer is often the loudest one at the crime scene demanding justice.

But the communists call it liberation from the yoke of capital.

That's right, I forgot about revolutions, how silly of me:lol:
Communists should be constantly busy supporting revolutions worldwide, that way all the resources will become available and communism will succeed. How could i possibly forget that:P (This might sound sarcastic; it isn't).

[daft punk]

There were several countries during the USSR era that were/claimed to be socialist. Weren't they able to traide among eachother and get the suplies they needed?

They were not socialist, they were dictatorships. Socialism needs huge amounts of democracy to work. In 1918, Lenin said Russia was a million times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy. Well you couldnt describe Russia like that in later years, it became a one man dictatorship. If Russia had been socialist it wouldnt have crushed the 1936 revolution in Spain. If the German communists had listened to Trotsky they would have stopped Hitler getting into power. The Stalinist's plan at the end of WW2 was for Eastern Europe and all other countries to be capitalist. It was that plan failing that resulted in the other states. Mao wanted China to be capitalist, so did Stalin. there was no plan for world socialism whatsoever. Mao wanted socialism after several decades of managed capitalism. When I say managed, I do mean free market, just with communists having a big presence in government. Anyway, yes they traded, they acted like separate countries though, there was little or no internationalism. The capitalist-communist coalitions fell apart and America started the cold war because Stalin was not managing to keep his promise to deliver capitalism. America tried Marshall aid to prevent revolution, but it backfired bigtime. America wanted Russia to be a donor and Stalin was not having that, so he got the Eastern European countries to boycott it. Plus, Russia needed satellite states to a certain extent for defence, materials and industry.

[daft punk]

First of all, there is no "Stalinist" theory. All the stuff Stalin ever said about the "socialism in one country" was based on Lenin's works. And then, it inevitably had a clause that the victory of socialism in one country cannot be final.

No, Stalin wasn't big on theory was he? I believe it was invented by Bukharin and Stalin ran with it.

But we have been through this. I have shown that Stalin himself rejected socialism in one country in early 1924, and then changed his mind. Lenin did not say socialism in one country.


In April 1924, in the first edition of his book Foundations of Leninism, Stalin had explicitly rejected the idea that socialism could be constructed in one country. He wrote: “Is it possible to attain the final victory of socialism in one country, without the combined efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries? No, it is not. The efforts of one country are enough for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. This is what the history of our revolution tells us. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, especially a peasant country like ours, are not enough. For this we must have the efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries. Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution.”
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#stalinism

Please note the exact wording, this is Stalin parroting standard basic Marxist ABC, nothing wrong with that, it was exactly what Lenin and Trotsky, plus Marx and Engels, and all other Bolsheviks believed.

Lenin, 1922:


"But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile power 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 vertigo, particularly at high altitudes). And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; 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." (Works, vol. 33, page 206, our emphasis)"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/x01.htm

[Atsushi]

If Russia had been socialist it wouldnt have crushed the 1936 revolution in Spain.

Actually the Soviet-Union was the only country which did support the Republican army, while alsmost all other (capitalist) countries did support Franco.

But according to the Trotskyist analysis, Stalin is always the major reason why everyting goes wrong.

[Zulu]

Stalin's based his believes on the idea's of Lenin (who based his on the idea's of Marx) and he changed some things and expanded other things. So did Trotsky. If that's correct, than you could call it a Stalinist theory, right?

Stalin believed that his personal theoretical input was minimal and that he merely was interpreting what Lenin's views meant for every particular moment. You can call it what you will, of course, but it's important that you know and understand why not every "Stalinist" would advocate building "socialism in one country" now, despite maintaining that back in the 1920s that policy was justified.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Stalin believed that his personal theoretical input was minimal and that he merely was interpreting what Lenin's views meant for every particular moment.

So that would make it impossible to be a Stalinist but not a Leninist? Apart from wether you like Stalin or Lenin better, I mean.

[The Cheshire Cat]

The capitalist-communist coalitions fell apart and America started the cold war because Stalin was not managing to keep his promise to deliver capitalism.

Are you saying America made a deal with Stalin to deliver capitalism?


America tried Marshall aid to prevent revolution, but it backfired bigtime. America wanted Russia to be a donor and Stalin was not having that, so he got the Eastern European countries to boycott it. Plus, Russia needed satellite states to a certain extent for defence, materials and industry.

How did it exactly backfire? And what do you mean with the last sentence?

[Nox]

But imperialism is un-socialist/un-communist.

So is Stalinism ;)

[Omsk]

Its is impossible to be a Marxist-Leninist and not be a Leninist.

Wether you admire one person more than the other [Stalin,Lenin] has little to do with the actualy ideological questions,in the 21. century,no one will trouble themselves too much with historical figures,it is the tactics,works,learning,that is of the greatest value.You should admire certain people,but hese people are long gone,we,as advancing elements in the capitalist system,should not cover ourselves with the bones of former revolutionaries,we should strive to be as pragmatic as we can,full of energy and eager for work.But the story always has two sides,and in that way,we should study the works of former revolutonaries,learn from their huge work,expirience,and find ways to keep their thoughts alive,as the thoughts and actions of former revolutionaries are our concrete foundation.

@Student:

Hello,here is an account (Just for a read) from Molotov on the Marshall Plan:

There was much turmoil. But if Western writers believe we were wrong to refuse the Marshall Plan, we must have done the right thing. Absolutely. We can prove it now as easily as two times two is four. At first we decided in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to propose to all the socialist countries that they participate; but we quickly realized that was wrong. The imperialists were drawing us into their company, but as subordinates. We would have been absolutely dependent on them....
Chuev, Feliks. Molotov Remembers. Chicago: I. R. Dee, 1993, p. 62


On the account of the USSR-East Bloc diplomatic/economic relations:

As a result of dislocations from the war, particularly in those economies already at a low, partly feudal level, all possible assistance was needed to move the whole bloc of nations toward socialism. And this the USSR, although devastated by the war, provided as best it could, giving both economic aid and political assistance; within the bloc the better-off nations, such is Czechoslovakia, aided the weaker ones. In 1949 the whole bloc formed the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON). That these efforts soon paid off is clear from the economic figures. For instance, Hungary, which had produced a yearly average of 600,000 tons of steel in the years 1936-38, produced 1,540,000 in 1953. It has, as we have noted, been contended that Stalin used these nations as virtual colonies to supply raw materials for the USSR. But although the USSR certainly needed all the help it could get, there is no evidence of a colonial-like exploitation. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that the USSR often gave material and professional aid that it could well have used itself. The relationship in essence was that of the proletarian alliance that Stalin had earlier described, a relationship between a socialist country and a group of countries trying to move toward socialism.
Cameron, Kenneth Neill. Stalin, Man of Contradiction. Toronto: NC Press, c1987, p. 100

Another example,is Albania.It recieved great help from the USSR.

[The Cheshire Cat]

But from what I've read so far, there are little to none ideological differences between Stalinism (which apparently doesn't exist, since he stole the idea's from Bukharin who based them on Lenin's idea's) and Leninism. So how could one choose a tendency (I'm not saying one must do that; even better, I believe it would be much better of no one chose a tendency because it only divides us while we are all striving for the same: communism) if there the same?

And is Marxism-Leninism another name for Stalinism?

[Armchair War Criminal]

Historically, the only case I can think of of a state socialist country engaging in conquest for (on generous interpretation) resource access would be the Soviet invasion of Finland, for a second warm-water port. Even that's a stretch, but I could easily be forgetting something. The strongest example is probably Soviet pressure on Cuba towards sugar monoculture.

One could argue that the limited factor endowments of a single country may have, instead, facilitated revisionism by making trade with the capitalist powers more enticing. North Korea seems like a strong counterexample to this theory, though. How balanced were Albanian factor endowments?


And is Marxism-Leninism another name for Stalinism?Marxism-Leninism is the self-description of the ideology of those who get described by others as "Stalinists," yes. "Stalinism" in this thread means state socialism or especially autarkic state socialism, and would for example apply to North Korea even though North Korea no longer self-describes as Marxist-Leninist.

Actually, now that I think about it Tawatinsuyu looks like a plausible example, though of course there are a lot of confounds there (no strong rival states, the superiority of offensive warfare in that period, &c.)

[The Cheshire Cat]

Marxism-Leninism is the self-description of the ideology of those who get described by others as "Stalinists," yes. "Stalinism" in this thread means state socialism or especially autarkic state socialism, and would for example apply to North Korea even though North Korea no longer self-describes as Marxist-Leninist.

So Stalinists say that they are 'following' Lenin's idea's, while non-Stalinists say that they are following Stalin's (or Bukharin's) misinterpretation's or something?

And is there a difference between state capitalism and state socialism?

[daft punk]

Are you saying America made a deal with Stalin to deliver capitalism?

Yes, see this
http://www.marxists.org/subject/stalinism/origins-future/ch2-1.htm





Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2360219#post2360219)
"America tried Marshall aid to prevent revolution, but it backfired bigtime. America wanted Russia to be a donor and Stalin was not having that, so he got the Eastern European countries to boycott it. Plus, Russia needed satellite states to a certain extent for defence, materials and industry. "

" How did it exactly backfire? And what do you mean with the last sentence?

Well, as I described, see also the link above. The last sentence, yeah, it gets complicated. I think if you read the article linked you will have a good idea. What I am saying is you can want more than one thing, and the balance can change. Stalin and Churchill carved up Europe and many countries were to be shared. But this plan failed because capitalism is very unstable in backward countries.

Also read In Defence Of October for a quick explanation of that re Russia.


But from what I've read so far, there are little to none ideological differences between Stalinism (which apparently doesn't exist, since he stole the idea's from Bukharin who based them on Lenin's idea's) and Leninism. So how could one choose a tendency (I'm not saying one must do that; even better, I believe it would be much better of no one chose a tendency because it only divides us while we are all striving for the same: communism) if there the same?

And is Marxism-Leninism another name for Stalinism?

Yes M-L means Stalinism.

No Stalinism is not close to Leninism, it is the complete opposite.

[Armchair War Criminal]

And is there a difference between state capitalism and state socialism?
"State socialism" means the same thing as "actually existing socialism" or "degenerated workers' states" or whatever term you prefer. "State capitalism" sometimes means that and sometimes means completely different things.

[Zulu]

So that would make it impossible to be a Stalinist but not a Leninist? Apart from wether you like Stalin or Lenin better, I mean.

It's possible to be a "Stalinist" and even hate Lenin at the same time. But you have to believe in some other Stalin than the one who really walked the Earth some time ago (and that happens a lot, thanks to the bourgeois propaganda).

[Rooster]

And is there a difference between state capitalism and state socialism?

No, not really. Fundamentally, they both describe a capitalist economic system with the state controlling the economy. This also happens to be where many Stalinist begin to leave a Marxist understanding of political economy, class, historical materialism, etc.

[A Marxist Historian]

This is probably a very dumb question and I might take things for granted while not everyone agrees to those things, but I'm still triying to learn here.

I've been told that a socialist/communist society needs to be able to produce everything what the population demands, because the people need to be self-sustainable. However, most countries will be unable to produce everything what the population demands due to their climate and natural circumstances.

According to the Stalinist theory, socialism in one country should be possible. But according to the theory above it will not be possible in most countries because most countries are not able to produce everything.

So that would require trade with another country, which seems unlikely, or it requires imperialism. If you were able to conquer area's which would make it possible to be self-sustainable, you could produce enough to meet the demands of the people.

But imperialism is un-socialist/un-communist. So could someone explain to me where I made mistakes in my thinking?

Just on the OP, as the real issues involved have been discussed in innumerable threads, and I, like I suspect many other posters, am finally getting tired of repeating myself.

Even under Lenin, when you had an absolutely bitter hatred of the Soviet Russia, with not less than 18 countries invading from the outside to overthrow the regime, as soon as the Civil War ended and the immediate possibility of overthrowing the regime was over, the capitalists rushed to trade with the USSR.

Why? Because what's capitalism all about anyway? Making a buck, obviously.

Now, a really small country with few natural resources, let's say Greece for example, could easily be strangled if it tried to create an isolated socialist republic. But such a country would be in no position to conquer anybody anyway, so the point is moot.

In practice, even the Stalinist USSR only quite briefly toyed with economic exploitation of its neighbors, in Stalin's last years. As the USSR was not a capitalist country, it had no need to exploit Eastern Europe economically, in fact gave Eastern European countries, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. lots of economic aid.

So from a Marxist POV, the USSR was never imperialist, except perhaps in the immediate aftermath of WWII, and even then, given that the Eastern European countries that factories etc. that were taken and shipped off to the USSR had all contributed troops to the Nazi invasion of the USSR, with the huge damage and loss of life caused, you could argue that this was just a crude and admittedly very bourgeois form of justice.

-M.H.-

[The Cheshire Cat]

Just on the OP, as the real issues involved have been discussed in innumerable threads, and I, like I suspect many other posters, am finally getting tired of repeating myself.

Even under Lenin, when you had an absolutely bitter hatred of the Soviet Russia, with not less than 18 countries invading from the outside to overthrow the regime, as soon as the Civil War ended and the immediate possibility of overthrowing the regime was over, the capitalists rushed to trade with the USSR.

Why? Because what's capitalism all about anyway? Making a buck, obviously.

Now, a really small country with few natural resources, let's say Greece for example, could easily be strangled if it tried to create an isolated socialist republic. But such a country would be in no position to conquer anybody anyway, so the point is moot.

In practice, even the Stalinist USSR only quite briefly toyed with economic exploitation of its neighbors, in Stalin's last years. As the USSR was not a capitalist country, it had no need to exploit Eastern Europe economically, in fact gave Eastern European countries, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. lots of economic aid.

So from a Marxist POV, the USSR was never imperialist, except perhaps in the immediate aftermath of WWII, and even then, given that the Eastern European countries that factories etc. that were taken and shipped off to the USSR had all contributed troops to the Nazi invasion of the USSR, with the huge damage and loss of life caused, you could argue that this was just a crude and admittedly very bourgeois form of justice.

-M.H.-

Ok, Thanks for your answer.