Socialist country?

[NorwegianCommunist]

Has there ever been a socialist country?
Where the workers controlled the means of production?

Without a leader that can dictate what everyone is going to do etc?
:confused:

[Grenzer]

Depends on who you ask.

During the Russian Civil War the dictatorship of the proletariat existed, but the socialist mode of production was not fully established. The NEP was a further retreat from achieving socialism in technical terms. Marxist-Leninists will say that Stalin's collectivization effectively ended the period of State Capitalism in Russia and established the socialist mode of production. Non Marxist-Leninists will argue that by the time State Capitalism was dismantled in Russia that the dictatorship of the proletariat no longer existed, so that it could not have been socialism. You'll just have to look at the facts and determine for yourself.

[NorwegianCommunist]

Marxist-Leninism is when a country uses Marx's ideas, but IN one country?Thats what Lenin wanted, correct?

[Grenzer]

Marxist-Leninism is when a country uses Marx's ideas, but IN one country?Thats what Lenin wanted, correct?

No, Marxism-Leninism is a doctrine established by Stalin, Marx himself has nothing to do with its creation. Whether the theory of Socialism in One Country is something that Lenin supported is debatable. Not being a Leninist myself, I don't feel compelled to persuade you whether Lenin really did support Socialism in One Country. The best thing to do is to read his works, then decide on your own.

I personally oppose the theory of Socialism in One Country, but not too long before his death Lenin expressed confidence that socialism could be established.


State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country.

This was written in his work, The Tax in Kind, in early 1921. With the defeat of revolution in Germany, it seems fairly unambiguous that he believed socialism could be established despite the grim outlook for the spread of revolution internationally. Personally I think it was delusional thinking.

[Prometeo liberado]

Didn't a thread just get closed for what I beleive is about to happen? Albania anyone?:(

[Ostrinski]

There has never been actual socialism. However, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat has been established a few times such as in Paris, Russia, and Catalonia, but those of course were all failures.

I wouldn't concern yourself with this question, as if you look around you today, socialism does not exist. That necessarily means that all socialist revolutions have failed.

[Grenzer]

Didn't a thread just get closed for what I beleive is about to happen? Albania anyone?:(

Not if we can behave maturely and avoid childish jokes about bunkers and spamming images. Hopefully this thread can serve to be informative and constructive. Not that I am accusing you: other than Bostana, all the Marxist-Leninists behaved appropriately in that conversation; it was the anti-Hoxha crowd that turned it into shit.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

"Socialism is the revolutionary Phase of Communism" - Lenin. I have understood Socialism as being the struggle for

1. the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" [Power Struggle]
2. and Workers Control [Class Struggle]

Many Leninists will disagree with my second point. Marxism IMO is the study of capitalism, its dynamics and its evolution. So applying "Marxism" to an underdeveloped agrarian society is not incorrect, it is just against a fleeting point that Marx did not see, (mainly that the higher that capitalism is developed, the more its contradictions become inherent and therefore, he thought, revolutionary class struggle). But history proved incorrect of this point, revolutions have started mainly in badly beaten countries and Lenin corrected this point in his 'Theory of the Weakest Link', self-explainable really, this economic theory can be applied to Greece's current situation. But without sidetracking here too far, i believe Marx gave some very obvious suggestions, basic points, that Socialism ('a highly advanced capitalist society') IS the struggle for the changing the relation of the worker to his production, the ending of alienation and workplace/economic autocracy. This is contrary to what Lenin saw as Socialism that he described in 'The Impending Catastrophe and how to Combat it', stating that:

"For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."
This statement is not compatible with Marxist class theory and traditional use of the term Socialism. First, you should know that Lenin wrote this in 1917 and might have been thinking that where the revolutions in highly advanced Capitalist-Imperialist Germany were to be a year later, would be his kind of definition of a State-Monopolist-Capitalist "Socialism" for a short time until they went over to Communism. I sadly cannot find any good Leninist description of WHEN the workers where to take over their production and get rid of their capitalist masters.

I believe Lenin thought the transition to Pan-European, historical transition into, "Socialism" would happen relatively fast and he was proven right; the revolutions fired up throughout all of Germany just a few months after the October Revolution in 1918-1919, Austria 1919, in Hungary 1919, Italy 1920; but they were all, except Hungary, bloodily beaten down and without strong&experienced revolutionary vanguard parties.

If I were to sum it up, "Socialism in a Backward Country is Backward Socialism", there are two choices for developing countries: try to use the Marxist-Leninist "State-Monopolist-Capitalism" and become a new USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, or become a Socialist-Libertarian EZLN-type bastion for the Internationale Workers' Struggle.

Citations:
'Can We Go Forward If We Fear To Advance Towards Socialism?' -Vladimir Lenin, marxists . o r g

[Prometeo liberado]

The OP brings up a very good point that should bring out some very enlightening and educational points of view. If your standard for socialism is, and I am assuming it is, workers democratic ownership of the means of production then I believe there is no clear answer. In the Soviet Union the workers councils(soviets) did indeed run and manage the factories for some time. Now the question is how long must this be in place before a society rightfully be called Socialist? Popular reasoning suggest that the word "Socialist" can be defined as an adjective, verb and noun. So by those parameters defining a country as socialist is like building a sand castle submerged in murky water.
I prefer to just use the noun definition when referring to the collective revolutionary governments that existed. Best if you took this venture on in a country by country basis.

[daft punk]

Marxist-Leninism is when a country uses Marx's ideas, but IN one country?Thats what Lenin wanted, correct?
incorrect. Marxist-Leninist is neither Marxist or Leninist.

[daft punk]

Whether the theory of Socialism in One Country is something that Lenin supported is debatable.
It is not debatable, I did a thread on this very topic.



I personally oppose the theory of Socialism in One Country, but not too long before his death Lenin expressed confidence that socialism could be established.
No ho didnt. Here is my thread

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-one-country-t168025/index.html

see the OP for the closest Lenin got to SIOC.

If you go to the article, On Cooperation, he says:

"Indeed, the power of the state over all large-scale means of production, political power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured proletarian leadership of the peasantry, etc. — is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society out of cooperatives, out of cooperatives alone, which we formerly ridiculed as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to treat as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society? It is still not the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for it. It is this very circumstance that is underestimated by many of our practical workers. They look down upon cooperative societies, failing to appreciate their exceptional importance, first, from the standpoint of principal (the means of production are owned by the state), and, second, from the standpoint of transition to the new system by means that are the simplest, easiest and most acceptable to the peasant.
But this again is a fundamental importance. It is one thing to draw out fantastic plans for building socialism through all sorts of workers associations, and quite another to learn to build socialism in practice in such a way that every small peasant could take part in it. That is the very stage we have now reached. And there is no doubt that, having reached it, we are taking too little advantage of it."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm



His point is not to say socialism can be built in one country, but to emphasise the importance of building co-operatives for the poor peasants. He goes on:


"Strictly speaking, there is “only” one thing we have left to do and that is to make our people so “enlightened” that they understand all the advantages of everybody participating in the work of the cooperatives, and organizes participation. “only” the fact. There are now no other devices needed to advance to socialism. But to achieve this “only", there must be a veritable revolution—the entire people must go through a period of cultural development."




"But it will take a whole historical epoch to get the entire population into the work of the cooperatives through NEP. At best we can achieve this in one or two decades. Nevertheless, it will be a distinct historical epoch, and without this historical epoch, without universal literacy, without a proper degree of efficiency, without training the population sufficiently to acquire the habit of book reading, and without the material basis for this, without a certain sufficiency to safeguard against, say, bad harvests, famine, etc.—without this we shall not achieve our object."


"In conclusion: a number of economic, financial and banking privileges must be granted to the cooperatives—this is the way our socialist state must promote the new principle on which the population must be organized. But this is only the general outline of the task; it does not define and depict in detail the entire content of the practical task, i.e., we must find what form of “bonus” to give for joining the cooperatives (and the terms on which we should give it), the form of bonus by which we shall assist the cooperative sufficiently, the form of bonus that will produce the civilized cooperator. And given social ownership of the means of production, given the class victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, the system of civilized cooperators is the system of socialism."
(bolded, my emphasis)


Well that never happened, Stalin did the opposite, realised his mistake, and was forced to forcibly collectivise, but only to save his ass from the kulaks.



Nowhere in the above does Lenin specifically say socialism can be built in one country. His point is to emphasise a dramatic new policy- focus on cooperatives for the poor peasants. A brilliant idea Trotsky tried to continue but Stalin dropped.

[NorwegianCommunist]

Then what is Marxism-Leninism?
In a short answar please :p

[daft punk]

"Socialism is the revolutionary Phase of Communism" - Lenin. I have understood Socialism as being the struggle for

1. the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" [Power Struggle]
2. and Workers Control [Class Struggle]

Many Leninists will disagree with my second point. Marxism IMO is the study of capitalism, its dynamics and its evolution. So applying "Marxism" to an underdeveloped agrarian society is not incorrect, it is just against a fleeting point that Marx did not see, (mainly that the higher that capitalism is developed, the more its contradictions become inherent and therefore, he thought, revolutionary class struggle). But history proved incorrect of this point, revolutions have started mainly in badly beaten countries and Lenin corrected this point in his 'Theory of the Weakest Link', self-explainable really, this economic theory can be applied to Greece's current situation. But without sidetracking here too far, i believe Marx gave some very obvious suggestions, basic points, that Socialism ('a highly advanced capitalist society') IS the struggle for the changing the relation of the worker to his production, the ending of alienation and workplace/economic autocracy. This is contrary to what Lenin saw as Socialism that he described in 'The Impending Catastrophe and how to Combat it', stating that:

"For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."
This statement is not compatible with Marxist class theory and traditional use of the term Socialism. First, you should know that Lenin wrote this in 1917 and might have been thinking that where the revolutions in highly advanced Capitalist-Imperialist Germany were to be a year later, would be his kind of definition of a State-Monopolist-Capitalist "Socialism" for a short time until they went over to Communism. I sadly cannot find any good Leninist description of WHEN the workers where to take over their production and get rid of their capitalist masters.

I believe Lenin thought the transition to Pan-European, historical transition into, "Socialism" would happen relatively fast and he was proven right; the revolutions fired up throughout all of Germany just a few months after the October Revolution in 1918-1919, Austria 1919, in Hungary 1919, Italy 1920; but they were all, except Hungary, bloodily beaten down and without strong&experienced revolutionary vanguard parties.

If I were to sum it up, "Socialism in a Backward Country is Backward Socialism", there are two choices for developing countries: try to use the Marxist-Leninist "State-Monopolist-Capitalism" and become a new USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, or become a Socialist-Libertarian EZLN-type bastion for the Internationale Workers' Struggle.

Citations:
'Can We Go Forward If We Fear To Advance Towards Socialism?' -Vladimir Lenin, marxists . o r g


Lenin mainly said that socialism in Russia would need the help of several advanced countries, he adopted Trotsky's view basically, which was an extension of what Marx and Engels had written.

[robbo203]

Lenin mainly said that socialism in Russia would need the help of several advanced countries, he adopted Trotsky's view basically, which was an extension of what Marx and Engels had written.


It would need a damn sight more than just "the help of several advanced countries".

It would need mass socialist consiousness and the desire to create a non-market stateless alternative to capitalism - not only in Russia but elsewhere too. And it would also need an advanced industrial infrastructure to permit a genuine socialist society to come into existence.

Needless to say neither of these conditions obtained in Russia at the time

[Omsk]

No, Marxism-Leninism is a doctrine established by Stalin, Marx himself has nothing to do with its creation.


No,(not looking to start some kind of a 'sectarian' war or something) - but by definition,Marxism-Leninism is the political stream of ideas and theories put up forward by Marx,and the various theories put up forward by Vladimir Lenin.Stalin did not 'create' Marxism-Leninism,although he had a number of theories.



Then what is Marxism-Leninism?
In a short answar please


See above.

[Ocean Seal]

Has there ever been a socialist country?
Where the workers controlled the means of production?

Without a leader that can dictate what everyone is going to do etc?
:confused:
Yes there have been socialist nations.
I think we almost unilaterally agree that the Paris Commune was socialist (nitpicking aside). Not only that, but it was also the model for proletarian dictature.

USSR
Soviet Russia should be considered socialist by every metric from 1917-1920 (in my opinion). This was when the whole of the countries production was controlled by the workers with the guidance of a workers state to maximize the uses of the means of production.
From this point to the early thirties the workers were empowered and had a say in production. However, the necessity to grow the means of production began to intertwine it with the capitalist economy. And as such it experienced the wave that the great depression in the advanced capitalist economies had caused.
After 1934 the party began to squabble uselessly with more sinister intentions and after 1936 the party ceased to be a vanguard party of the proletariat and rather a factional organization for itself. Hence rendering workers control to be quite useless.
In the Khrushchev era the Soviet Union began to implement market capitalist
reforms. Such were the result of the bureaucratic opportunism which grew out of the thirties. Kosygin's reforms can be said to be for the most part a failure and not a result of a previous stagnating economy (because the Soviet Union was anything but stagnating at this point in history). However, the elements of market capitalism lead to slow growth in the 70's which was further exacerbated by a war. This war was part of an anti-imperialist struggle against America. That much I can say. However, to say that the Soviet Union was extending proletarian internationalism to Afghanistan or that it did not have its own state interests at stake here would be false. Then Gorbachev came along and destroyed the Soviet Union against popular vote and commenced and era of corruption and neoliberalism all over the Eastern bloc where mafias ruled and people lost all the reforms gained earlier in exchange for crime and poverty.

This is the history of the Soviet Union whatever you want to call socialism/ building socialism/degenerate workers state/state capitalism/capitalism is up to you.

[Tim Cornelis]

Soviet Russia should be considered socialist by every metric from 1917-1920 (in my opinion). This was when the whole of the countries production was controlled by the workers with the guidance of a workers state to maximize the uses of the means of production.

I hope this doesn't become sectarian squibbing, but are you aware of War Communism?
According to wikipedia:
War communism or military communism (Russian: Военный коммунизм, 1918–1921) was the economic and political system that existed in Soviet Russia during the Russian Civil War, from 1918 to 1921 ... All industry was nationalized and strict centralized management was introduced ... Discipline for workers was strict, and strikers could be shot.

Regarding this, (EDIT: it was Leo Pasvolsky) commented:


As for the rank and file of the workmen, the new system was scarcely conducive to enthusiasm on their part. In the first place they were forced to give up definitely the idea that the workmen employed in each particular enterprise were going to own or at least control that enterprise. This idea had been carefully inculcated in them by the demagogical agitators, and the introduction of nationalization was, indeed, a disappointment to them. For under the system of nationalized industry, the workmen became simply servants of the state, forced to submit to the officials appointed by the state in precisely the same manner in which they had been formerly forced to submit to private entrepreneurs and their managers. Moreover, immediately after the apparatus of management was somewhat put together under nationalization, the Soviet authorities began to exact labour discipline, which, naturally, appeared so hard and prosaic to the rank and file of the workmen after the revolutionary carousal, that the task of obtaining efficiency under the circumstances became increasingly difficult.

He was describing a decree from 1918.

So, clearly the workers, after 1917, did no longer control the means of production, instead one-man management was introduced.

[Ismail]

Then what is Marxism-Leninism?
In a short answar please :pIt depends on who answers.

To Trotskyists and Left-Coms it's just another word for "Stalinist."
In the USSR up to 1956 it meant the line of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.
In the USSR after 1956 the term was used to mean Marx, Engels and Lenin, whereas Stalin was denounced for supposedly violating "socialist legality" and having "dogmatic" positions on various issues.

The USSR, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Albania and China have all been ruled by "Marxist-Leninist" parties in some way, so there isn't just one definition. If I had to provide one it'd basically just be "they uphold Lenin in some form but are against Trotsky."


Regarding this, Preobrazkheny (I think his name was) commentedNo, that was Leo Pasvolsky, some Democrat who served in the FDR administration and who wrote a book in 1921 about "Bolshevist Russia." Preobrazhensky was a Left-Communist within the Bolshevik ranks who was later one of the economists associated with the Left Opposition.

[Caj]

Has there ever been a socialist country?

No. Socialism in a country is impossible. It is an inherently global phenomenon.


Where the workers controlled the means of production?

There have been several instances of this throughout history, the most prominent of which were Russia from November 1917 to mid-1918, the Paris Commune of 1871, the Bavarian Republic of 1919, the Ukrainian Free Territory from 1918-1921, the anarchist regions of Spain in the mid-1930s, and several others.

Because these revolutions never spread internationally, however, they couldn't really be described as socialist. They were doomed to fail in the abolition of classes and result in the re-institution of bourgeois class rule. These experiments could perhaps be described as socialistic or in the revolutionary transition to classlessness, as they were certainly accurate representations of the DotP.

[daft punk]

It would need a damn sight more than just "the help of several advanced countries".

It would need mass socialist consiousness and the desire to create a non-market stateless alternative to capitalism - not only in Russia but elsewhere too. And it would also need an advanced industrial infrastructure to permit a genuine socialist society to come into existence.

Needless to say neither of these conditions obtained in Russia at the time

there was support from the workers for socialism

[Grenzer]

Nowhere in the above does Lenin specifically say socialism can be built in one country. His point is to emphasise a dramatic new policy- focus on cooperatives for the poor peasants. A brilliant idea Trotsky tried to continue but Stalin dropped.

Read my quote again. He directly said in 1922 that he believed that "socialism" would become invincible in "this country" within the span of a few years. In addition, none of those quotes are an outright rejection of Socialism in One Country, and their meaning can be debated. I'll repeat it again since you seem to have difficulty understanding, he directly states that if State Capitalism could be established in Russia, that Russia would be well on its way to socialism and that socialism could then easily be achieved within several years at most. It's worth mentioning that one of the quotes you put up there against SiOC in reality supports it. It's also important to note that there is no mention of the spread of revolution, or the aid of other countries. The fairly direct implication, taken with the obvious fact that international revolution had failed by this point, is that Socialism in One Country was indeed possible(in his opinion). I'm not sure why you have such a hysterical fear of Lenin supporting Socialism in One Country, the worst that means is that Lenin was wrong. Of course the Orthodox Trotskyist view is that Lenin wasn't a human being, but a god, in fact, and that he was incapable of erring.

I don't support Socialism in One Country, and this thread seems to be becoming another discussion about it, but it really does seem like Lenin supported it.

[Rooster]

I think we almost unilaterally agree that the Paris Commune was socialist (nitpicking aside)

Oh? Who's this we that you are speaking of? It certainly can't be the majority considering that Marx said that the Paris Commune was not socialist and nor could it be. I would hardly call that nit picking.

[Ostrinski]

Oh? Who's this we that you are speaking of? It certainly can't be the majority considering that Marx said that the Paris Commune was not socialist and nor could it be. I would hardly call that nit picking.Indeed.

It is one thing to establish worker's control over the means of production and another thing entirely to actually establish a socialist mode of production. Though worker's control over the mop is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient conditon.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.”
– Lenin, Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14th May 1918, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.

Socialism in one country ^^^

[dodger]

Thanks for double/double posting---it enabled a dunce like me to grasp what Lenin was saying. Clear as day. Commistar.

[robbo203]

there was support from the workers for socialism

Really?

Are you seriously suggesting that a majority of Russian workers understood and wanted to introduce a moneyless wageless stateless alternative to capitalism?


Can you substantiate this claim?

[PhantomRei]

Aren't countries kind of in opposition to the concept of socialism?

[daft punk]

Read my quote again. He directly said in 1922 that he believed that "socialism" would become invincible in "this country" within the span of a few years.

Didnt see that. He says it in "Left Wing" Childishness in which he attacks the left coms in 1918. In the Tax In Kind in 1921 he is quoting himself from 1918. But he says socialism will be invincible, not that it will have been accomplished. he expected socialism to take a generation or two, and need the help of other more advanced countries:

"Communism is the highest stage in the development of socialism, when people work because they realise the necessity of working for the common good. We know that we cannot establish a socialist order now—God grant that it may be established in our country in our children’s time, or perhaps in our grandchildren’s time."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/nov/04.htm

He did not always point out that they needed the help of advanced countries, because it was so obvious. However he did say it many times:

"the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism. We are still alone and in a backward country"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/x01.htm

"In such a country, the socialist revolution can triumph only on two conditions. First, if it is given timely support by a socialist revolution in one or several advanced countries. As you know, we have done very much indeed in comparison with the past to bring about this condition, but far from enough to make it a reality."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/10thcong/ch03.htm

"our main difficulties over the past four years have been due to the fact that the West European capitalists managed to bring the war to an end and stave oft revolution."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/feb/06.htm

"We have been alone for 5 years; there is as yet no revolution in any other countries; war and hunger. Shall we perish?"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/13b.htm



In addition, none of those quotes are an outright rejection of Socialism in One Country, and their meaning can be debated.

see the above plus my thread on Socialism in One Country. Even Stalin said it was totally impossible in early 1924. Marx and Engels said it was impossible. Everyone said it was impossible.

The key point is that in the mid 20s Russia was alone and backward, so building socialism would be almost impossible. Trotsky wanted to try, to hold out for other countries, to spread the revolution to secure it, to win over the poor peasants, Lenin wanted the same, Stalin however got power and wanted none of that, so the death of the revolution was sealed by Stalin.



I'll repeat it again since you seem to have difficulty understanding, he directly states that if State Capitalism could be established in Russia, that Russia would be well on its way to socialism and that socialism could then easily be achieved within several years at most.

No he does not say socialism "could then be easily ACHIEVED" he says "socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country"

Please stick to the exact wording, and do not ignore the forest because you see a patch of ground without a tree within it. A permanent hold is not the same thing, nor is invincible. This wording is about a process not a finished product. Just compare it to "it may be established in our country in our children’s time, or perhaps in our grandchildren’s time" or "But it will take a whole historical epoch to get the entire population into the work of the cooperatives through NEP. At best we can achieve this in one or two decades." The latter quote is not even talking about socialism, but simply about getting the poor peasants into cooperatives.




It's worth mentioning that one of the quotes you put up there against SiOC in reality supports it.

which one? How? When? Where?



It's also important to note that there is no mention of the spread of revolution, or the aid of other countries. The fairly direct implication, taken with the obvious fact that international revolution had failed by this point, is that Socialism in One Country was indeed possible(in his opinion). I'm not sure why you have such a hysterical fear of Lenin supporting Socialism in One Country, the worst that means is that Lenin was wrong. Of course the Orthodox Trotskyist view is that Lenin wasn't a human being, but a god, in fact, and that he was incapable of erring.

I don't support Socialism in One Country, and this thread seems to be becoming another discussion about it, but it really does seem like Lenin supported it.

see the above. He does say a couple of things that seem slightly that way out of context, and at certain times he was trying to sound positive and stress certain things to certain people. Eg in On Cooperation he is trying to emphasise the need for enticing poor peasants into cooperatives. So he says that is how they can build socialism.

The fact is that even when the Bolsheviks were stagist, ie expected the first socialist revolution to be in an advanced country, it was simply the norm to assume that the revolution was gonna have to be international.

This is why they had the four internationals. This is why Marx and Engels said:

"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got."

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Working Men of All Countries, Unite! "



Obviously if they were isolated they would have to make the best of things, try to stay positive. If Lenin had survived and he and Trotsky had run the show with Stalin relegated to a street sweeper, they might have let a bit of SIOC creep in, hard to say. But Lenin said far more against it than the one or two bits you can mine that in isolation seem to convey support for SIOC.



As I said in my OP in the SIOC thread, even Stalin, even in 1924, said unambiguously that SIOC was unthinkable, not just in the sense of being safe from outside attack, but the actual socialist construction itself.


The nearest you are gonna find is things like this:


"We know that so long as there is no revolution in other countries, only agreement with the peasantry can save the socialist revolution in Russia."


This was in 1921 at the 10th congress, already mentioned above. However that is a huge 'if', bearing in mind they were just staring the NEP.


He is saying there that because Russia is so backward, without the aid of advanced countries, they would need a long transition, and alliance with the poor peasants. He says this could save the SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, he does not say they can BUILD A SOCIALIST ECONOMY in one country.



A revolution is not the finished product.

[daft punk]

Really?

Are you seriously suggesting that a majority of Russian workers understood and wanted to introduce a moneyless wageless stateless alternative to capitalism?


Can you substantiate this claim?


Party Votes[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election,_1917#cite_n ote-0) Percent Deputies Socialist-Revolutionary Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist-Revolutionary_Party) (SRs) 17,100,000 41.0 380 Bolsheviks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union) 9,800,000 23.5 168 Constitutional Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Democratic_Party) (Cadets) 2,000,000 4.8 17 Mensheviks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menshevik) 1,360,000 3.3 18 Others 11,140,000 26.7 120 Total (turnout 48.44%) 41,700,000 100


Constituent Assembly elections 1917

Note that the SR party split at roughly the same time, so the election did not represent the split into Left and Right. In fact many peasants voted SR thinking they were voting for Left SRs but got Right. Also the Left were the majority but the leaders were Right.

As you can see the SRs got the most, but most of that support was for Left SRs who at the time were prepared to enter a coalition government with the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks only had 23% of the vote, but it was all based in the cities and among the soldiers on the Western front, the two critical areas.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Russian_Constituent_Assembly_Election_1917.png

[Grenzer]

Didnt see that. He says it in "Left Wing" Childishness in which he attacks the left coms in 1918. In the Tax In Kind in 1921 he is quoting himself from 1918. But he says socialism will be invincible, not that it will have been accomplished. he expected socialism to take a generation or two, and need the help of other more advanced countries:


I guess you'll have to read it again. He says specifically that if state capitalism is established in six months, then socialism could be established within a year of state capitalism's establishment.


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

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

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

Hmm.. another example of Lenin endorsing the principles behind Socialism in One Country.


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

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

This situation is an entirely novel and difficult one.

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

What do you know, it's Lenin supporting Socialism in One Country again! He says the final victory of socialism cannot be achieved in one country, but that the socialist mode of production can certainly be established in one country.

The fact is that Lenin supported Socialism in One Country. The only alternative is that he believed that the Bolsheviks should simply announce: "Sorry folks, it looks like international revolution has failed, we might as well pack up, go home, and let the bourgeoisie take over again. Maybe we'll have better luck next time." This is what you are suggesting. If this was the truth, then he would have announced something to this effect in 1921. Again, I have to state that I don't understand you hysteria over the possibility than Lenin supported Socialism in One Country(other than the fact that it completely debunks the premise of your ideology). Lenin clearly supports the concept behind Socialism in One Country, this doesn't mean you have to accept it as being fundamentally correct. I don't; but not being a Leninist, I don't feel any compulsion to.

Lenin clearly states that he believes the spread of socialism to several advanced countries is only needed to achieve the final victory of socialism, not that it is needed to establish socialism in one country. The Trotskyist notion of permanent revolution in the context of being supported by Lenin can only be established when the words of Lenin are deliberately taken out of context and in an incomplete fashion, as I have shown here.

Again, it's not my personal opinion; but clearly, it's what Lenin believed.

[robbo203]

He is saying there that because Russia is so backward, without the aid of advanced countries, they would need a long transition, and alliance with the poor peasants. He says this could save the SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, he does not say they can BUILD A SOCIALIST ECONOMY in one country.

Once agaion the same old delusional argument....

If genuine socialism was not the outcome of the Bolshevik Revolution - and you agree it was not - then there is no way on earth you can logically justify the claim that that revolution was a "socialist revolution". None at all.

It wasn't even a "failed socialist revolution" or an "attempted socialist revolution" because there simply was not the mass conscious support for a non market wageless stateless alternative to capitalism (which is what socialism actually means in Marxian terms). Not even Lenin believed this and he explicitly admitted this as I showed in an earlier post.


The great majority of Russian workers were NOT - repeat NOT - socialist in these terms - let alone the great majority of the population as a whole - and so the subjective preconditions for a socialist revolution, which Marx and Engels spelt out, were entirely absent in Russia. Engels own view expressed in a private letter was that Russia was approaching its "1789" - in other words, the Russian equivalent of the French Bourgeois revolution. Engels was spot on. Thats exactly what happened. It took the more resolute and determined Bosheviks to carry through the capitalist revolution to its bitter conclusion, tentatively and indecisively commenced under Kerensky, and to sweep away finally the pre-capitalist barriers to capitalist development. Thats exactly what happened. The Bolshevik Revolution was a capitalist revolution dressed up in the rhetoric of socialism just as the French revolution was a capitalist revolution has dressed up in the rhetoric of libertarianism and egalitarianism.

The claim that what was established was a so called "workers state" is, of course, absurd and even more so is the positively crankish debate around whether this state was "deformed" or "degenerated" . Apart from anything else, a so called worker's state (which was in realitya pparty dictatorship over the proletariat) does not describe a mode of production but rather a political arrangement. The mode of production prevailing in post revolutionary Russia was clearly based on generalised wage labour and therefore equally clearly from a Marxian perspective, capitalist in nature


It could not have been otherwise given that, in Russia, there was clearly no mass support for socialism. (Lenin would try in vain to get round this by redefining the term "socialism" to equate it with state capitalism and that is essentially the same tactic you are using - by defining socialism to mean something other than what it originally denoted). I challenged you to provide even a smidgeon of evidence to show that a majority of workers - or even a significant minority of them- supported socialism in the original Marxian sense of the world and I note you have thus far declined to do so. And for good reason: no such evidence exists

The fact that socialism was not established in Russia has precious little to do with the fact that no assistance was offered from the advanced countries. You keep banging on about this but can you not see that it it is really quite irrelevant. Even if significant support for the Bolsheviks from other countries has been forthcoming it would have made no difference to the non socialist outcome of the Bolshevik revolution. There is simply no way on earth you can impose socialism on a non-socialist majority


This is the crucial point on which every Leninist, Trotskyist or Stalinist I have ever known, refuse to be drawn on. They simply have no answer to it at all. I suspect that is because they know in their heart of hearts that even to attempt to seriously answer this point will expose their claim that the Bolshevik revolution was a "socialist" revolution to be the sham that it demonstrably is.

[Grenzer]

This is the crucial point on which every Leninist, Trotskyist or Stalinist I have ever known, refuse to be drawn on. They simply have no answer to it at all. I suspect that is because they know in their heart of hearts that even to attempt to seriously answer this point will expose their claim that the Bolshevik revolution was a "socialist" revolution to be the sham that it demonstrably is.

Yeah, it's kind of weird how they do that.

Lenin himself admitted that it wasn't really an socialist revolution, and he stated in 1921 that the establishment of State Capitalism would actually be an improvement in the state of affairs.

If it was a socialist revolution then class distinctions and the state would have ceased to exist.

[robbo203]

Party Votes[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election,_1917#cite_n ote-0) Percent Deputies Socialist-Revolutionary Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist-Revolutionary_Party) (SRs) 17,100,000 41.0 380 Bolsheviks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union) 9,800,000 23.5 168 Constitutional Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Democratic_Party) (Cadets) 2,000,000 4.8 17 Mensheviks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menshevik) 1,360,000 3.3 18 Others 11,140,000 26.7 120 Total (turnout 48.44%) 41,700,000 100





You have absolutely evaded my question - yet again.

I have never doubted that the Bolsheviks has considerable support among the workers.(at least to begin with) My question was did this support translate into mass consciuous support the idea of non market wageless stateless alternative to capitalism (Marxian socialism).

The answe is emphatically NO . The workers flocked to the Bolsheviks because of its reform programme and NOT because they wanted Marxian style socialism

[daft punk]

I guess you'll have to read it again. He says specifically that if state capitalism is established in six months, then socialism could be established within a year of state capitalism's establishment.

No he doesnt he says
"If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country. "

Stop twisting these words. This is the wording from "Left Wing" Childishness in which he attacks the ultraleft.






Hmm.. another example of Lenin endorsing the principles behind Socialism in One Country.

You have a vivid imagination. Nowhere in that does he talk about socialism in one country. Stop making stuff up!




Originally Posted by Lenin http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2388727#post2388727)
"Complete and final victory on a world scale cannot be achieved in Russia alone; it can be achieved only when the proletariat is victorious in at least all the advanced countries, or, at all events, in some of the largest of the advanced countries. Only then shall we be able to say with absolute confidence that the cause of the proletariat has triumphed, that our first objective—the overthrow of capitalism—has been achieved.

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

This situation is an entirely novel and difficult one.

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


What do you know, it's Lenin supporting Socialism in One Country again! He says the final victory of socialism cannot be achieved in one country, but that the socialist mode of production can certainly be established in one country.

He say what he says. You are desperately trying to claim he is saying SIOC when he says no such thing! He says the opposite, that several advanced countries need to have overthrown capitalism before they can even say they have safely achieved the first objective, let alone the establishment of socialism!




The fact is that Lenin supported Socialism in One Country.

Just give up, you are sounding like a Stalinist, a finger in each ear singing la la la.




The only alternative is that he believed that the Bolsheviks should simply announce: "Sorry folks, it looks like international revolution has failed, we might as well pack up, go home, and let the bourgeoisie take over again. Maybe we'll have better luck next time."

No, dont be stupid. He wanted to do what he could, make the best of it, take little steps in the right direction and hope to fend of bourgeois restoration, while hoping for revolutions in advanced countries.







This is what you are suggesting. If this was the truth, then he would have announced something to this effect in 1921. Again, I have to state that I don't understand you hysteria over the possibility than Lenin supported Socialism in One Country(other than the fact that it completely debunks the premise of your ideology). Lenin clearly supports the concept behind Socialism in One Country, this doesn't mean you have to accept it as being fundamentally correct. I don't; but not being a Leninist, I don't feel any compulsion to.

No. I am a scientist. I weigh up the evidence objectively. If new evidence comes along I revise my theory. Nothing has come up to show that Lenin had any serious vision of completing a socialist construction in one country. No Marxist though that, not even Stalin. Why are you arguing all this now when you could have done it on my SIOC thread?






Lenin clearly states that he believes the spread of socialism to several advanced countries is only needed to achieve the final victory of socialism, not that it is needed to establish socialism in one country.

No he is not. Dont make shit up. I have been through all the final bollocks with the Stalinists, it is their pet subject. You have to be clear what final is, and it is usually meant either of 3 things - safe from attack, safe from capitalist restoration, or socialist construction. Obviously the first one is not gonna be achieved until most of the world has workers governments, it goes without saying. Ditto basically the second one. The third is what we are arguing over and I covered this in the OP of my SIOC thread showing that Stalin specifically stated:

"...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... For the final victory of socialism, for the organization 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." (Quoted in Woods and Grant, Lenin and Trotsky: What They Really Stood For, pages 108-109)

[/quote]
Well Stalin was no theorist, he would basically parrot other people eg Lenin.




The Trotskyist notion of permanent revolution in the context of being supported by Lenin can only be established when the words of Lenin are deliberately taken out of context and in an incomplete fashion, as I have shown here.

Again, it's not my personal opinion; but clearly, it's what Lenin believed.

No, you haven't. Please, give up this repetition of wild claims backed by rephrasing quotes into what you want to believe.


Trotsky:

"John Reed tells how at one of the Petrograd meetings at the Obukhovsky factory a soldier from the Rumanian front shouted “We will hold on with all our might until the peoples of the whole world rise to help us.” This formula did not fall from the sky, and it was not thought of either by the nameless soldier or by Reed. It was grafted into the masses by Bolshevik agitators. The voice of the soldier from the Rumanian front was the voice of the party, the voice of the October revolution."

"If Rosa Luxemberg, who in her prison was following with passionate and jealous attention the deeds and words of the Bolsheviks, had caught in them a shadow of national socialism, she would have sounded the alarm at once. In those days she was very sternly – in the essence mistakenly – criticising the policies of the Bolsheviks. But no. Here is what she wrote about the general line of the party: “The fact that the Bolsheviks in their policy have steered their course entirely towards the world revolution of the proletariat is precisely the most brilliant testimony to their political far-sightedness, their principled firmness and the bold scope of their policy”"

"At the second Congress of Soviets, at the moment of the seizure of power, Trotsky said: “If the people of Europe do not rise and crush imperialism, we will be crushed – that is indubitable. Either the Russian revolution will raise the whirlwind of struggle in the west, or the capitalists of all countries will strangle our revolution.” “There is a third road,” shouted a voice from the benches. Was this perhaps Stalin’s voice? No, it was the voice of a Menshevik. It was some years before Bolsheviks discovered that “third road.”"

"“From the very beginning of the Russian revolution ...,” wrote Bukharin on January 28, 1918, “the party of the revolutionary proletariat has declared: either the international revolution, unleashed by the revolution in Russia, will strangle the war and capital, or international capital will strangle the Russian revolution.” But was not Bukharin. who then headed the advocates of revolutionary war with Germany, attributing the views of his faction to the whole party? However natural such a supposition may be, it is flatly contradicted by the documents.

The minutes of the Central Committee for 1917 and the beginning of 1918 – published in 1929 – in spite of abridgements and a tendentious editing, offer invaluable testimony upon this question too. “At the session of January 11, 1918, Comrade Sergeiev (Artem) points out that all the orators are agreed upon the fact that our socialist republic is threatened with destruction in the failure of a socialist revolution in the west.” Sergeiev stood for the position of Lenin – that is, for signing the peace. Nobody contradicted Sergeiev. All three of the contending groups competed in appealing to one and the same general premise: Without a world revolution we will not pull through.

Stalin, to be sure, introduced a special note into the debate. He based the necessity of signing a separate peace upon the fact that: “There is no revolutionary movement in the west, there are no facts, there is only a potentiality, and we can’t figure on potentialities.” Although still far from the theory of socialism in a separate country, he nevertheless clearly revealed in these words his organic distrust of the international movement. “We cannot figure on potentialities.” Lenin immediately drew aside “in certain parts” from this Stalinist support. “It is true that the revolution in the west has not yet begun,” he said. “However, if in view of this we should change our tactics, then we should be traitors to international socialism.” If he, Lenin, favoured an immediate separate peace, it was not because he did not believe in the revolutionary movement in the west, and still less because he believed in the viability of an isolated Russian revolution: “It is important for us to hold out until the coming of a general socialist revolution, and we can achieve this only by signing the peace.” The meaning of the Brest capitulation was summed up for Lenin in the words “breathing spell.”

The minutes testify that after this warning from Lenin, Stalin sought an opportunity to correct himself. “Session of February 23, 1918. Comrade Stalin: ... We also are staking our play upon a revolution, but you are reckoning in weeks, and [we] in months.” Stalin here repeats verbatim the formula of Lenin. The distance between the two wings in the Central Committee on the question of the world revolution was the distance between weeks and months.

When defending the signing of the Brest peace at the seventh Congress of the party in March 1918, Lenin said: “It is absolutely true that without a German revolution we will perish. We will perish perhaps not in Petersburg nor in Moscow, but in Vladivostok, or some other remote place whither we will have to retreat but in any case, under all possible or conceivable eventualities, if the German revolution does not begin, we perish.” It is not only a question of Germany, however. “International imperialism ... which represents a gigantic actual power ... could in no case and under no conditions live side by side with the Soviet Republic. Here a conflict would be inevitable. Here ... is the greatest historic problem ... the necessity of evoking an international revolution.” In the secret decision adopted, we read: “The Congress sees the most reliable guarantee of the consolidation of the socialist revolution which has won the victory in Russia only in its conversion into an international workers’ revolution.”

Some days later Lenin made a report to the Congress of Soviets: “Worldwide imperialism and the triumphal march of a social revolution cannot live side by side.” On April 23 he said at a session of the Moscow soviet: “Our backwardness has pushed us forward, and we shall perish if we cannot hold out until we meet a mighty support on the port of the insurrectionary workers of other countries.” “We must retreat (before imperialism) even to the Urals,” he writes in May 1918, “for that is the sole chance of winning time for the maturing of the revolution in the west ...”"


read more at the link
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch50.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch50.htm

[daft punk]

Once agaion the same old delusional argument....

If genuine socialism was not the outcome of the Bolshevik Revolution - and you agree it was not - then there is no way on earth you can logically justify the claim that that revolution was a "socialist revolution". None at all.

It was a revolution led by socialists, with a socialist programme, hoping for it to be the spark for world socialism. Therefore I think you can call it socialist revolution. Lenin did.



It wasn't even a "failed socialist revolution" or an "attempted socialist revolution" because there simply was not the mass conscious support for a non market wageless stateless alternative to capitalism (which is what socialism actually means in Marxian terms). Not even Lenin believed this and he explicitly admitted this as I showed in an earlier post.

I dunno about moneyless society, that's a bit of an extreme slogan seeing as it would take decades. You have to give the masses slogans they will be able to relate to, eg land to the peasants, nationalise the banks etc.

You dont have to get everyone singing 'Imagine' round a camp fire to have a socialist revolution.




The great majority of Russian workers were NOT - repeat NOT - socialist in these terms - let alone the great majority of the population as a whole - and so the subjective preconditions for a socialist revolution, which Marx and Engels spelt out, were entirely absent in Russia.

No, this is simplistic horseshit I have dealt with numerous times and Marx and Engels were not the stagists you try to portray them to be in some bizarre version of Stalinist garbage.

Marx and Engels:
"Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/o/b.htm#obshchina), though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development."
Karl Marx & Frederick Engels
January 21, 1882, London"


I'm sure I have already quoted this to you.






Engels own view expressed in a private letter was that Russia was approaching its "1789" - in other words, the Russian equivalent of the French Bourgeois revolution. Engels was spot on. Thats exactly what happened. It took the more resolute and determined Bosheviks to carry through the capitalist revolution to its bitter conclusion, tentatively and indecisively commenced under Kerensky, and to sweep away finally the pre-capitalist barriers to capitalist development.

lol!









Thats exactly what happened. The Bolshevik Revolution was a capitalist revolution dressed up in the rhetoric of socialism just as the French revolution was a capitalist revolution has dressed up in the rhetoric of libertarianism and egalitarianism.

lol



The claim that what was established was a so called "workers state" is, of course, absurd

The economy was nationalised ffs.





and even more so is the positively crankish debate around whether this state was "deformed" or "degenerated" . Apart from anything else, a so called worker's state (which was in realitya pparty dictatorship over the proletariat) does not describe a mode of production but rather a political arrangement. The mode of production prevailing in post revolutionary Russia was clearly based on generalised wage labour and therefore equally clearly from a Marxian perspective, capitalist in nature

The economy was nationalised. That is not capitalism. Your argument is rubbish.



It could not have been otherwise given that, in Russia, there was clearly no mass support for socialism. (Lenin would try in vain to get round this by redefining the term "socialism" to equate it with state capitalism and that is essentially the same tactic you are using - by defining socialism to mean something other than what it originally denoted). I challenged you to provide even a smidgeon of evidence to show that a majority of workers - or even a significant minority of them- supported socialism in the original Marxian sense of the world and I note you have thus far declined to do so. And for good reason: no such evidence exists

er, the revolution? You know, and the Red victory in the civil war? What the fuck do you think that was?





The fact that socialism was not established in Russia has precious little to do with the fact that no assistance was offered from the advanced countries.

I can give you a hundred quotes from Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky to show that it was.




You keep banging on about this but can you not see that it it is really quite irrelevant. Even if significant support for the Bolsheviks from other countries has been forthcoming it would have made no difference to the non socialist outcome of the Bolshevik revolution. There is simply no way on earth you can impose socialism on a non-socialist majority

Lenin had a cunning plan. Subsidise cooperatives for poor peasants. Help them get mechanised. Socialism by the back door. Besides, you forget the Bolsheviks gave the peasants land to farm.



This is the crucial point on which every Leninist, Trotskyist or Stalinist I have ever known, refuse to be drawn on. They simply have no answer to it at all. I suspect that is because they know in their heart of hearts that even to attempt to seriously answer this point will expose their claim that the Bolshevik revolution was a "socialist" revolution to be the sham that it demonstrably is.

pmsl! You actually believe the rubbish you are typing.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch50.htm

"The resolution of Lenin ratified by the April conference reads: “The proletariat of Russia, taking action in one of the most backward countries of Europe among the masses of a petty-peasant population, cannot set itself the goal of an immediate realisation of the socialist transformation.” Although in these initial lines firmly clinging to the theoretical tradition of the party, the resolution does, however, take a decisive step on a new road. It declares: The impossibility of an independent socialist transformation in peasant Russia does not in any case give us the right to renounce the conquest of power, not only for the sake of democratic tasks, but also in the name of “a series of practically ripened steps towards socialism,” such as the nationalisation of land, control over the banks and so forth. Anti-capitalist measures may receive a further development thanks to the presence of “the objective premises of a socialist revolution ... in the more highly developed of the advanced countries.” This must be our starting point. “To talk only of Russian conditions,” explains Lenin in his speech, “is a mistake ... What tasks will rise before the Russian proletariat in case the world-wide movement brings us face to face with a social revolution – that is the principal question taken up in this resolution.” It is clear that the new point of departure occupied by the party in April 1917, after Lenin had won his victory over the democratic limitedness of the “old Bolsheviks,” is as different from the theory of socialism in a separate country as heaven is from earth!"


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/x01.htm
"We are still alone and in a backward country, a country that was ruined more than others, but we have accomplished a great deal."

[Tim Cornelis]

The economy was nationalised ffs.



The economy was nationalised. That is not capitalism. Your argument is rubbish.



Nationalisation.... If this is what qualifies as "socialist" then firefighters, police, as well as the Dutch ABN Amro Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABN_AMRO) are socialist. Clearly this is not the case.

The capitalist mode of production (particularly the relations of production, wage labour) were nationalised, but socialism requires its abolition, not its nationalisation.

[daft punk]

Nationalisation.... If this is what qualifies as "socialist" then firefighters, police, as well as the Dutch ABN Amro Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABN_AMRO) are socialist. Clearly this is not the case.

The capitalist mode of production (particularly the relations of production, wage labour) were nationalised, but socialism requires its abolition, not its nationalisation.

Firefighters and police are nationalised because it suits the capitalist ruling class to have these basic functions run by the state. The bank was taken over in a bailout move, because of the 2008 crisis. In Britain we had loads of industries nationalised but it was not done (mostly) my socialists, was not done in a socialist way, was part of a capitalist system.

The Bolsheviks were a workers party trying to abolish capitalism. Big difference.

[Tim Cornelis]

Firefighters and police are nationalised because it suits the capitalist ruling class to have these basic functions run by the state. The bank was taken over in a bailout move, because of the 2008 crisis. In Britain we had loads of industries nationalised but it was not done (mostly) my socialists, was not done in a socialist way, was part of a capitalist system.

The Bolsheviks were a workers party trying to abolish capitalism. Big difference.

Such idealist mumbo-jumbo this is. According to you it's the ideas behind something that matters, not the action.

Nationalisation with the idea of socialism is still not socialism, unless there is a transformation of the relations of production, and thereby a change of the mode of production.

You saying that "there was nationalisation" and thereby implying this means socialism, then the police are socialist because it's nationalised. Just because the "idea" behind it is different doesn't mean anything, it's idealism and utopian.

[robbo203]

It was a revolution led by socialists, with a socialist programme, hoping for it to be the spark for world socialism. Therefore I think you can call it socialist revolution. Lenin did.


I dunno about moneyless society, that's a bit of an extreme slogan seeing as it would take decades. You have to give the masses slogans they will be able to relate to, eg land to the peasants, nationalise the banks etc.

You dont have to get everyone singing 'Imagine' round a camp fire to have a socialist revolution.".

Well, l I think this just about says it all, doesnt it? "I dunno about moneyless society" indeed! You saying that confirms everything I suspected about you. And I Iove the oh-so -conservative and conventional subtext you convey that to talk of getting rid of money is a "bit of an extreme slogan". Right on, mate! The Federation of Conservative Students are right behind you on that score! What will the nation come to should we ever contemplate getting rid of money, eh? Think of the poor bankers being deprived of their fat bonuses!

Lets face it. You haven't got a clue - not a clue! - what the issue is about at all, have you? I've been trying to tell you in the most diplomatic terms I can possibly muster ( and Im rapidly running out of options here) that in order to even begin talking about whether or not a "socialist" revolution took place in Russia 1917, you have to define what you mean by "socialism". Do you not grasp this very simple point?

Now, I have spelt out very clearly and concisely , if I might say so, what I mean by "socialism". It is a term that was generally used interchangeably with the term "communism" - right up to the early 20th century when the definition of "socialism" was RADICALLY changed - most notably by Lenin. Prior to that, people like Marx, Engels, Bebel, Morris, Kropotkin commonly understood "socialism" to mean a society

- without wage labor.
- without buying and selling
- without money
- without classes
- without a state

This is what I mean by socialism. This is , as I say, what was generally meant by "socialism" before Lenin (and to a certain extent also, Kautsky) changed its meaning. You , on the other hand, go along with the Leninist definition of "socialism"; I dont. Did you not realise this?

Now I asked you quite clearly if there was any evidence to back up your claim that the Bolshevik Revolution was a "socialist " revolution in the sense that I clearly specified - that there was a majority of workers who wanted and understood socialism as I defined it above (basically, the Marxian definition of socialism). I explained why you have to have a majority who wanted socialism in this sense because without that, there is no way such a system could effectively work . That should have been obvious to you.

Your response. however, was evasive right from the start and, if I might say so, not a little dishonest

First of all you wittered on inanely about the breakdown of the election results for constituent Assembly elections 1917 - like bloody Peter Snow on the BBC - as if this was somehow meant to be an answer to my question. You know as well as I do that I couldnt care a toss what the actual results were if what the voters were voting for was not socialism in the sense that we are - or I have been - talking about.

Then you come out with this truly breathtaking claim that it must have been a socialist revolutiuon cos "It was a revolution led by socialists, with a socialist programme, hoping for it to be the spark for world socialism. Therefore I think you can call it socialist revolution".

Really? And did this prigamme call for the abolition of the wages system , getting rid of the state, eliminating money and buying and selling., NO IT FRIGGIN WELL DID NOT. The programme that you call a"socialist programme " might well be summed up by the popular Bolshevik slogan of "Peace, Land and Bread" - fine setiments indeed but its got fuck all to do with socialism. Absolutely fuck all.


This is the point that you just can't seem to get into that head of yours.. For you, it must have been a "socialist programme" cos Lenin called it a socialist progamme. Fine. By the same token the programme advanced by our fine upstanding millionaire champagne socialist , Tony Blair, must have been socialist because, after all, "our Tony" calls himself a socialist, doesnt he? You and your comrades in SPEW should therefore be supporting the Labour Party and that Marxist revolutionary Ed Mililabnd - afterall you were once in the Labour Party - by that logic. Come to think of it the Nazis called themselves national ...er.. "socialists". Do you advocate supporting the Nazis? I sincerley hope not

So let me spell it out to you in no uncertain terms - if nationalising the banks etc etc is what you call "socialism" - then, as a socialist, I want fuck all to do with your "socialism". Actually I will go further than it - I will vigorously oppose it tooth and nail as a complete diversion from the struggle to achieve a decent and humane spociety. It is of no advantage whatosever to myself and my fellow workers. None at all. All Im interested in is the real thing - real socialism - not your half baked half arsed anti-working class state capitalism. If that makes me not a socialist in your eyes, then so be it.





No, this is simplistic horseshit I have dealt with numerous times and Marx and Engels were not the stagists you try to portray them to be in some bizarre version of Stalinist garbage.

Marx and Engels:
"Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development."
Karl Marx & Frederick Engels
January 21, 1882, London"


I'm sure I have already quoted this to you.




What in the name of all that is holy and sacred are you wittering on about now??? WTF has the obshchina got anything to do with what we are talking about it> My point to which you responded above was simply this

The great majority of Russian workers were NOT - repeat NOT - socialist in these terms - let alone the great majority of the population as a whole - and so the subjective preconditions for a socialist revolution, which Marx and Engels spelt out, were entirely absent in Russia.


How on earth does this relate to the questiuon of the obshchina? You are making no sense at all





The economy was nationalised. That is not capitalism. Your argument is rubbish.


Really? Presumably Engels was talking rubbish too when he wrote

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. It is rather brought to a head Socialism Utopian and Scientific

But do be my guest. Do explain to me and others on this list how exactly the position of worker employed by a nationalisied industry is any different in any fundamental sense from the position of a worker employed by a private corporation. You know, I would really love to know just what the fuck it is you are on about and what is so great and wonderful about "nationalisation" that merits the support of us workers.

I cant see it myself but then I just am ordinary common-or-garden prole not privy to penetrating insights of those accomplished dialecticians in the Vanguard Party who have that unnerving ability to be able to square the circle whenever they are called upon to do so:rolleyes:

[Aurora]

-snip- lenin quote -snip-

Socialism in one country ^^^

Em wrong, Lenin doesn't mention anything about socialism in one country, you misunderstand about the process of revolution, revolution isn't socialism, revolution is when the working class seize state power and use it to destroy and dismantle capitalism, this will of course happen in one or a few countries first but must spread across the entire world to be assured of the victory over capitalism. Then and only then will classes become history and it will be possible for the state to wither and we will have socialism.
The Paris Commune was a revolutionary uprising, a proletarian dictatorship, and Marx says that most of it was in no way socialist nor could it have been.
The revolution in Russia happened in 1917 and certainly they took more radical measures than the Commune but Marx is still correct, Russia was not socialist nor could it have been, all Bolsheviks recognized this of course which is why it wasn't until the bureaucracy triumphed that Stalin announced the complete triumph of socialism in 1934, changing the meaning of socialism from a classless society post capitalism to the USSR, a society still far behind the advanced capitalism of the west in terms of productivity culture etc