North Korea and the Ideology of Juche

[Koba Junior]

Democratic Korea, whether that is a misnomer or not, has already experienced its bourgeois-democratic revolution. It has not yet experienced a socialist revolution, and this is due in large part to the ideology of Kim Il-Sung, called "juche." Juche is a revisionist ideology with four major deviations from Marxism-Leninism:



Leader worship - While it is true that cults of personality can and have persisted under Marxist-Leninist regimes, the supremacy of the head of the Party under juche is something that is absolutely unquestioned. Kim Jong-un, as it stands, is the leader of the Workers' Party and the military, the latter of which considered under juche the prime force of socialist revolution, rather than the proletariat.
Militarism - In this context, "militarism" is used to mean the idea that the military is the primary moving force behind the revolutionary construction of socialism, rather than the only true revolutionary class: the proletariat. While it is true that Marxist-Leninist regimes have historically been quite militaristic in that the armed forces were held in high regard, Marxism-Leninism recognizes that the only true revolutionary class to exist is the proletariat, and that the proletariat is the primary force behind the construction of socialism.
Man as above or beyond historical laws - Juche posits that in the determination of society, rather than historical conditions and laws, man is the sole factor that decides the shape of society and the outcome of revolutionary activity. Marxism-Leninism, on the other hand, recognizes that such things are determined materially and historically, and that, while the actions and decisions of the masses play a very decisive role, these do not act outside of natural laws that govern the processes of social development.
"Transformation" of the bourgeoisie - Perhaps the most damning of juche's ideological deviations from Marxism-Leninism is the role the national bourgeoisie plays in the construction of socialism, according to Kim Il-Sung. By juche, through education and persuasion, the national bourgeoisie is considered to be able to be transformed into "socialist working people." Marxism-Leninism, on the other hand, recognizes that a class's relation to the mode of production in a society determines their revolutionary capacity. The bourgeoisie in Democratic Korea was not expropriated, but rather "persuaded" to build what the Kims call "socialism." In reality, the persistence of the capitalist class simply means that capitalism itself persists.

Whether you stand in solidarity with Democratic Korea on the issue of the country's efforts against the imperialist machinations of stronger capitalist countries, it is important to acknowledge that the country is plagued by revisionism that has seen the persistence of capitalism.

[Art Vandelay]

It has not yet experienced a socialist revolution, and this is due in large part to the ideology of Kim Il-Sung, called "juche."

Ugh..I feel like a broken record, but I have to point out how ridiculous this is to have been written by a "communist." You are not a materialist.

[Koba Junior]

Ugh..I feel like a broken record, but I have to point out how ridiculous this is to have been written by a "communist." You are not a materialist.

The hostility is unneeded. As a communist, you would recognize that revisionist tendencies themselves have material causes; I figured, since I was among leftists, that this would have been understood. Since I was clearly wrong, what you could have done, instead of acting like an ass, would have been to ask for clarification of my point. (It's also interesting how you neglected to read quite literally any of the rest of my post.)

[Art Vandelay]

The hostility is unneeded. As a communist, you would recognize that revisionist tendencies themselves have material causes; I figured, since I was among leftists, that this would have been understood. Since I was clearly wrong, what you could have done, instead of acting like an ass, would have been to ask for clarification of my point. (It's also interesting how you neglected to read quite literally any of the rest of my post.)

I read all of your post, but only felt interested in addressing the one point which I quoted. Obviously Juche has its own material causes, but from that it does not follow that socialism some how has been hindered in North Korea because of an ideology; idealism at its finest.

[Koba Junior]

I read all of your post, but only felt interested in addressing the one point which I quoted. Obviously Juche has its own material causes, but from that it does not follow that socialism some how has been hindered in North Korea because of an ideology; idealism at its finest.

The ideology has affected the mechanism of the state, thus the conditions of the whole country. That being said, it isn't as though I said the ideology exists in a vacuum. The effects that material conditions have in a given situation can manifest in a number of ways; in this case, it has manifested as a revisionist state ideology. Perhaps I made a mistake in attributing the conditions of Democratic Korea to the ideology rather than to the material conditions that manifested that ideology, but, again, the civil thing to have done would have been to call attention to the error in wording, rather than to accuse a fellow leftist of idealism right off the bat.

[Art Vandelay]

The ideology has affected the mechanism of the state, thus the conditions of the whole country. That being said, it isn't as though I said the ideology exists in a vacuum. The effects that material conditions have in a given situation can manifest in a number of ways; in this case, it has manifested as a revisionist state ideology. Perhaps I made a mistake in attributing the conditions of Democratic Korea to the ideology rather than to the material conditions that manifested that ideology, but, again, the civil thing to have done would have been to call attention to the error in wording, rather than to accuse a fellow leftist of idealism right off the bat.

Agreed, you seem well tempered and able to conduct an actual discussion. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for most of your comrades, which is why I was probably a little out of hand. Plus I am hung over and grumpy, my apologies.

[ShitBricks]

Well NK is totally fked up. Goods aren't allocated efficiently, hunger ensues, and the people are brainwashed to make the leader seem like a savior. Stalinism at best.

[Koba Junior]

Agreed, you seem well tempered and able to conduct an actual discussion. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for most of your comrades, which is why I was probably a little out of hand. Plus I am hung over and grumpy, my apologies.

Thank you, comrade. And I understand about being hung over and grumpy, believe me.

[Drosophila]

Ugh..I feel like a broken record, but I have to point out how ridiculous this is to have been written by a "communist." You are not a materialist.

What's wrong with attacking Juche?

[Omsk]

He is not objecting to an attack on the revisionist ideology Juche,but the notion that Juche alone could have shaped the country and the current state of affairs. Juche is a revisionist ideology which has a huge mark on the DPRK,and it was a product of the very conditions in the country and the opportunism which was a child of the complicated socio-economic state of the country. However,since "Materialism!!" became a good line for those either lazy or simply deprived of the necessary knowledge required to successfully analyze the situation,premature conclusions should not be a surprise.The "pragmatism of the persistent creative Marxists" is not something which can be fully characterized using a 'great theory' view of the world.Marx and Engels talked of this and warned future readers,those who would actually read learn and listen.

[Art Vandelay]

What's wrong with attacking Juche?

Nothing.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Split from the "Mission Impossible" thread.

[OnlyCommunistYouKnow]

Well NK is totally fked up. Goods aren't allocated efficiently, hunger ensues, and the people are brainwashed to make the leader seem like a savior. Stalinism at best.

You're funny.

[NoPasaran1936]

Is Juche pronounced like douche?

[Permanent Revolutionary]

The problem with NK is not revisionism, but the abandonment of basic Marxist principles.
In NK (as it was in the Soviet Union) you have a ruling class of military officials and bureaucrats, who enrich themselves while the common people starve.
You have a ruling dynasty, who are worshipped like gods.

This is not Marxism, this is not socialism.
And no, I will not stand in solidarity with such a country.

[JAM]

The problem with NK is not revisionism, but the abandonment of basic Marxist principles.

Revisionism is the abandonment of basic Marxist principles.



In NK (as it was in the Soviet Union) you have a ruling class of military officials and bureaucrats, who enrich themselves while the common people starve.


You had a ruling class of of military officials and bureaucrats, who enriched themselves while the common people starved in the USSR?

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Yup, there were famines in the USSR.

[JAM]

Yup, there were famines in the USSR.

I don't know if you understood why I emphasized those words.

USSR leaders enriched themselves during the famines?

Besides, you had famines caused by war effects (1921-1923, 1947) and Class struggles (1933). In none of them you can put the sole responsibility on USSR leadership. I'm certain that this wasn't the case of North Korea.

[kashkin]

Revisionism is the abandonment of basic Marxist principles.


Sweet Jesus, are you crazy? Because there is something wrong with revising principles and ideas if they don't work.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Is Juche pronounced like douche?

Lol, it's hard to tell if this is serious or not!

I can see why you might think that, but no it's not. It's pronounced Jew-Ch-A

[JAM]

Sweet Jesus, are you crazy? Because there is something wrong with revising principles and ideas if they don't work.

I am crazy? Are you crazy? Because I didn't understand what the hell you intended to say. If you have something against anti-revisionism just explain yourself in a intelligible manner.

[kashkin]

Every time someone says something critical of Stalin, the USSR, etc, MLs start ranting and raving about anti-revisionism as if it is the next Bubonic Plague. It's almost as if you guys think there is something wrong with criticising people.

[JAM]

Every time someone says something critical of Stalin, the USSR, etc, MLs start ranting and raving about anti-revisionism as if it is the next Bubonic Plague. It's almost as if you guys think there is something wrong with criticising people.

First of all, my quote that you used was intended to clarify what Oyggjaframi said in his post since he was wrongfully separating the term revisionism from what the term truly means: the abandonment of basic marxist principles. You could have quoted instead other posts where I really criticized NK for being revisionist.

Secondly, revisionism is indeed the abandonment of basic marxist principles: you have Maoism which changed the revolutionary role from the proletariat to the peasantry; you have eurocommunism which renounced to the revolutionary path; you have in this thread a detailed explanation on why Juche clashes with basic marxist principles, and so on.

It's not an obsession but rather a clarification in order to avoid a misunderstanding of Marxism-Leninism by people with none or low knowledge about it.

And who spoke about Stalin anyway?

[kashkin]

Ah, my apologies, usually in my experience anti-revisionism has been used by MLs as a cry to support the USSR.

But regarding revisionism, I see nothing wrong with revising basic marxist principles provided a traditional marxist analysis doesn't fit material conditions. That is certainly not the case in NK.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

First of all, my quote that you used was intended to clarify what Oyggjaframi said in his post since he was wrongfully separating the term revisionism from what the term truly means: the abandonment of basic marxist principles. You could have quoted instead other posts where I really criticized NK for being revisionist.

I won't concede that my definition of revisionism is incorrect.
The abandonment of Marxist principles is just that, an abondonment.

The word revisionism has become a slur to be thrown at fellow socialists (comrades!) who do not subscribe to your interpretation of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

If we look at the word in it's singularity, it's what it really means, revision, a new intepretion, and this does not have to be a bad thing.
Lenin said it so well:

It is essential to grasp the incontestable truth that a Marxist must take cognisance of real life, of the true facts of reality, and not cling to a theory of yesterday, which, like all theories, at best only outlines the main and the general, only comes near to embracing life in all its complexity.
Imperialism: The Highest State of Capitalism

[JAM]

I won't concede that my definition of revisionism is incorrect.
The abandonment of Marxist principles is just that, an abondonment.

I gave you clearly examples above of how revisionists theories abandon Marxist principles.


The word revisionism has become a slur to be thrown at fellow socialists (comrades!) who do not subscribe to your interpretation of Marx, Engels and Lenin.I personally don't use it with that intention. I have stronger words than just "revisionist" to throw at my "fellow socialists".


If we look at the word in it's singularity, it's what it really means, revision, a new intepretion, and this does not have to be a bad thing.
Lenin said it so well:

Imperialism: The Highest State of CapitalismOne thing is develop the theory from its basic principles that's what Lenin meant and did, other thing is develop a new theory by changing those basic principles.

For example, Marx was the first to put forward the idea of a party within the working class. Lenin developed the idea into the vanguard party. Was this changing a Marxist principle? No. He merely developed the idea from its Marxist base. Revisionism is precisely abandoning Marxist Principles.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

For example, Marx was the first to put forward the idea of a party within the working class. Lenin developed the idea into the vanguard party. Was this changing a Marxist principle? No. He merely developed the idea from its Marxist base.

This is revisionism, in the truest sense of the word. How you use it is of no importance to me.

[JAM]

This is revisionism, in the truest sense of the word. How you use it is of no importance to me.

Actually it isn't even in the sense you give to the word. The idea of a vanguard party came from Karl Marx himself:

"The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."

The Communist Manifesto (1848)

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Actually it isn't even in the sense you give to the word. The idea of a vanguard party came from Karl Marx himself:

"The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."

The Communist Manifesto (1848)

Well.... That is a question of interpretation. Personally I don't see this as Marx arguing for the formation of a political "Vanguard Party" which must lead the revolution. I see him arguing that the communists are the ones who understand what has to be done, and who must lead the revolution. That is not quite the same as a vanguard party.
I'll let Lenin have the honor of the Vanguard.

[JAM]

I see him arguing that the communists are the ones who understand what has to be done, and who must lead the revolution.

You just gave a short definition of the Vanguard Party.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

You just gave a short definition of the Vanguard Party.

No, the Vanguard Party is an isolated political entity, a revolutionary elite cut off from the proletariat.
What I interpret from Marx's writing is that the communist must lead the revolutionary struggle, but they are still part of the proletariat.

[JAM]

No, the Vanguard Party is an isolated political entity, a revolutionary elite cut off from the proletariat.
What I interpret from Marx's writing is that the communist must lead the revolutionary struggle, but they are still part of the proletariat.

Wrong. The vanguard party comes from the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat. In this sense its still part of the proletariat.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

As I stated earlier, it comes down to interpretation.

[JAM]

As I stated earlier, it comes down to interpretation.

The main issue here is that Lenin interpretation of the working class vanguard party coincided with Marx's.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

The main issue here is that Lenin interpretation of the working class vanguard party coincided with Marx's.

Why is Lenin then credited universally for the theory of the Vanguard Party.
This is what happens when you oppose "revisionism" this harshly. You force yourself to shoehorn those aspects of a newer socialist ideology into Marx's original writings.

Why can't you just accept that the socialist ideology is a "fluid" idea, which can be revised upon when old ideas don't fit into new materialistic conditions?

[kashkin]

Marx's use of Communist is very different from Lenin's idea of a vanguard party, Marx was referring to revolutionaries, in comparison to his use of the term socialist, referring to utopian/Fabian/democratic socialists.

Yes, Lenin's vanguard came from the proletariat but was to be made up of militant activists who are primarily engaged in politics, therefore placing them 'beyond' (for a lack of a better word) the proletariat.

[JAM]

Why is Lenin then credited universally for the theory of the Vanguard Party.

Perhaps because Lenin went further than Marx.



This is what happens when you oppose "revisionism" this harshly. You force yourself to shoehorn those aspects of a newer socialist ideology into Marx's original writings.

It wasn't Lenin's case as I proved to you with the vanguard party.



Why can't you just accept that the socialist ideology is a "fluid" idea, which can be revised upon when old ideas don't fit into new materialistic conditions?

Because revisionist theories are usually made to justify opportunistic positions by the ones who revise the original Marxist principles. You have a perfect example with Eurocommunism for instance.

Moreover, revisionist theories usually leads to tragedies and disasters like Perestroika in the revisionist USSR, Great Leap Forward in Maoist China, Juche North Korea and so on.

[JAM]

Marx's use of Communist is very different from Lenin's idea of a vanguard party, Marx was referring to revolutionaries, in comparison to his use of the term socialist, referring to utopian/Fabian/democratic socialists.

Yes, Lenin's vanguard came from the proletariat but was to be made up of militant activists who are primarily engaged in politics, therefore placing them 'beyond' (for a lack of a better word) the proletariat.

And what revolutionaries are but militant activists who are primarily engaged in politics?

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Moreover, revisionist theories usually leads to tragedies and disasters like Perestroika in the revisionist USSR, Great Leap Forward in Maoist China, Juche North Korea and so on.

It's funny how you connect the Perestroika to a "revisionist" USSR. Surely Stalin was also a revisionist, by your criteria, was he not?

[JAM]

It's funny how you connect the Perestroika to a "revisionist" USSR. Surely Stalin was also a revisionist, by your criteria, was he not?

No. As far as I can remember he didn't revise anything.

Tell me why you think Stalin was revisionist. What did he revise?

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Does Socialism in One Country ring a bell?

[JAM]

Does Socialism in One Country ring a bell?

If you knew something of what you are talking about you won't say this and I'm gonna show you why.

Tell me what Socialism in One Country revise in Marxist basic principles.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Isn't it obvious?
One of the basic tenets of Marxism is internationalism, that is the struggle against capitalism through a international revolution by the proletariat. The theory of Socialism in One Country abandons this tenet.

[JAM]

Isn't it obvious?
One of the basic tenets of Marxism is internationalism, that is the struggle against capitalism through a international revolution by the proletariat. The theory of Socialism in One Country abandons this tenet.

I assumed that you were gonna say this. No, it doesn't abandon. Look at how Stalin defined it:

"Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?


Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.


We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.


But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final."

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Are you implying that the theory of socialism in one country, is the same as a world socialist revolution? Only that by SIOC it progresses slower?

This is a very dubious interpretation, in my opinion.
Stalin was happy to have "socialism" in the USSR, which really wasn't more than state capitalism.

[JAM]

Are you implying that the theory of socialism in one country, is the same as a world socialist revolution? Only that by SIOC it progresses slower?

Yes I am. USSR alone couldn't make a world revolution as you should understand.




This is a very dubious interpretation, in my opinion.

Why it is dubious? I just quoted the man himself.



Stalin was happy to have "socialism" in the USSR, which really wasn't more than state capitalism.

Stalin was indeed happy to have socialism in USSR as expected from someone socialist, however he never gave up from spreading revolution abroad and the period post WW II confirmed it (although you have the Spanish civil war example before it where USSR supported the republican side.)

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Yes I am. USSR alone couldn't make a world revolution as you should understand.

Of course it couldn't, but that was because of Stalin's politics. If he had stopped fascism from rising in Europe, the story may have been an other.


Why it is dubious? I just quoted the man himself.

Words are wind, comrade.


Stalin was indeed happy to have socialism in USSR as expected from someone socialist, however he never gave up from spreading revolution abroad and the period post WW II confirmed it (although you have the Spanish civil war example before it where USSR supported the republican side.)

What Stalin had, was not true socialism, whatever which way you turn it.

[JAM]

Of course it couldn't, but that was because of Stalin's politics. If he had stopped fascism from rising in Europe, the story may have been an other.

Your affirmation is somewhat ironic due to the fact that is credit to Stalin the victory over fascism and Nazism in Europe, although I prefer to credit that victory to the Russian people that despite the mistakes and atrocities of its leadership had an enormous abnegation capacity to overcome the Nazi aggression.



Words are wind, comrade.

Indeed they are. Trotsky is a good example of it. But in this case that I provided that expression doesn't apply since the man didn't change his position until his death in 1953.




What Stalin had, was not true socialism, whatever which way you turn it.

True. USSR was never true socialist since its inception. The October Revolution was more a coup than a genuine popular uprising. I just think that you can't blame particularly Stalin for not having socialism in Russia. He just inherited a repressive machine and took advantage of it over his opponents, mainly Trotsky. That's why Trotsky spent his last years regretting the positions which he took in the past, specially the ban of factions and a heavy repression on workers (Trotsky even defended concentration camps to "undisciplined workers"). If you wanna blame Stalin, you'll have to blame Trotsky and Lenin as well.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Your affirmation is somewhat ironic due to the fact that is credit to Stalin the victory over fascism and Nazism in Europe
You're forgetting something here, comrade. If Stalin hadn't purged a major part of the Red Army high command, the Nazis wouldn't have been so successful in the initial invasion of the Soviet Union.
Also, it would have been quite unnecessary had he listened to Trotsky and stopped the fascists in the beginning.


Indeed they are. Trotsky is a good example of it. But in this case that I provided that expression doesn't apply since the man didn't change his position until his death in 1953.


My point was, that what he's saying, is not what he did, so it doesn't matter that he didn't change his mind.

For the last point. Yeas, Lenin and Trotsky both had regrets and are partially to blame for the rise of Stalin. But surely that does not excuse Stalin.

[JAM]

You're forgetting something here, comrade. If Stalin hadn't purged a major part of the Red Army high command, the Nazis wouldn't have been so successful in the initial invasion of the Soviet Union.
Also, it would have been quite unnecessary had he listened to Trotsky and stopped the fascists in the beginning.


That was one of the mistakes I talked about in my previous posts. However, the fact that the Nazis were initially successful in USSR's invasion doesn't mean that Stalin allowed fascism to rise in Europe as they weren't successful in the end to defeat the Red Army.

The question is that the German Communist Party did indeed try to form an alliance with SPD but the SPD rejected any approximation with KPD.

Trotsky position is also somewhat confusing. He was against Popular Fronts but he was favorable to an alliance between KPD and SPD in Germany.




My point was, that what he's saying, is not what he did, so it doesn't matter that he didn't change his mind.

But he did. He supported the republican side during the spanish civil war, North Korea in the Korean War, Eastern Europe, etc. If he had neglected the international aspect of the revolution would he have done this? No.


For the last point. Yeas, Lenin and Trotsky both had regrets and are partially to blame for the rise of Stalin. But surely that does not excuse Stalin.

Of course not. The point is that nobody is in condition to accuse anyone since the three men basically represented the very same thing even if Trotsky and Lenin had regrets in the later period of their lives as they did.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

How the hell did a thread about North Korea and Juche end up as a Stalin vs. Trotsky debate between trots and stalinoids?:confused:



Trotsky position is also somewhat confusing. He was against Popular Fronts but he was favorable to an alliance between KPD and SPD in Germany.
It´s really not confusing. He advocated the so- called united front which meant communists should seek alliance with workers who supported social democracy for certain struggles and actions. It presupposes that social democracy is a workers party despite it´s loyalty to the capitalist system, since it´s rooted in the trade unions and many workers see it as their party (this is Trotsky´s position, not mine). The united front was meant to be a class alliance despite different political loyalties.
The Popular front was something a bit different. It was supposed to be a political anti- fascist alliance not just between workers and "workers parties", but also involving liberal bourgeois parties and anti- fascist bourgeois. Keep in mind, I´m not upholding Trotsky´s position, just explaining it. I do understand why an alliance between communists and social democracy in Germany at the time was not possible, and maybe it would not have changed much.

[JAM]

How the hell did a thread about North Korea and Juche end up as a Stalin vs. Trotsky debate between trots and stalinoids?:confused:

Perhaps because this wasn't a debate between trots and stalinoids but rather a reasonable and decent discussion about the socialist past until you came here and flame it with your meaningless commentary.



It´s really not confusing. He advocated the so- called united front which meant communists should seek alliance with workers who supported social democracy for certain struggles and actions. It presupposes that social democracy is a workers party despite it´s loyalty to the capitalist system, since it´s rooted in the trade unions and many workers see it as their party (this is Trotsky´s position, not mine). The united front was meant to be a class alliance despite different political loyalties.
The Popular front was something a bit different. It was supposed to be a political anti- fascist alliance not just between workers and "workers parties", but also involving liberal bourgeois parties and anti- fascist bourgeois. Keep in mind, I´m not upholding Trotsky´s position, just explaining it. I do understand why an alliance between communists and social democracy in Germany at the time was not possible, and maybe it would not have changed much.

Your explanation would be convincing if I didn't know little things about SPD's past but happens that I know that SPD allied itself with fascists to crush the communist revolution of 1919. SPD was so much bourgeoisie as the other parties involved in the Popular Fronts. Therefore, I'm still confused by Trotsky position...

[Grenzer]

Isn't it obvious?
One of the basic tenets of Marxism is internationalism, that is the struggle against capitalism through a international revolution by the proletariat. The theory of Socialism in One Country abandons this tenet.

Although I am not a supporter of Socialism in One Country, I don't think you can really say it's an abandonment of internationalism. I would say that orthodox Stalinism is a departure from internationalism, but as the result of policies and positions other than SiOC.

What's really at stake here is the definition of Socialism, which was redefined from it's classical Marxist context by Lenin. Lenin defined Socialism as "State Capitalism turned to the benefit of the people". If anyone is the revisionist here, it's Lenin; and by Lenin's definition, Socialism in One Country is entirely possible. People seem to overlook certain facts to spare Lenin from a scathing critique, which we should not do. Stalinism is really just the organic evolution of Lenin's political doctrine given the material conditions that existed in Russia. Furthermore, many of the key tenets of Stalinism already existed in Soviet ideology at the time of Lenin's death, such as the concept of an alliance between the proletariat and peasantry, not being so much a proletarian dictatorship as what Lenin defined as the "join dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry".

This separation of Lenin from Stalin is the stuff of great man idealism, and in many ways there is a clear continuity between them. Although I would consider myself a nominal supporter of Lenin, we should not succumb to idealist interpretations of history by sparing Lenin entirely from what we call "Stalinism".

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Your explanation would be convincing if I didn't know little things about SPD's past but happens that I know that SPD allied itself with fascists to crush the communist revolution of 1919. SPD was so much bourgeoisie as the other parties involved in the Popular Fronts. Therefore, I'm still confused by Trotsky position...
I knew this "little thing" as well, it´s common knowledge (among commies anyway). I don´t consider SPD or social democracy in general to be a workers party but Trotsky did and that was the basis of his position. We can have whatever opinion of Trotsky´s position we like, but as wrong as it may have been it´s not that confusing if you understand what it presupposes.

[Art Vandelay]

Although I am not a supporter of Socialism in One Country, I don't think you can really say it's an abandonment of internationalism. I would say that orthodox Stalinism is a departure from internationalism, but as the result of policies and positions other than SiOC.

What's really at stake here is the definition of Socialism, which was redefined from it's classical Marxist context by Lenin. Lenin defined Socialism as "State Capitalism turned to the benefit of the people". If anyone is the revisionist here, it's Lenin; and by Lenin's definition, Socialism in One Country is entirely possible. People seem to overlook certain facts to spare Lenin from a scathing critique, which we should not do. Stalinism is really just the organic evolution of Lenin's political doctrine given the material conditions that existed in Russia. Furthermore, many of the key tenets of Stalinism already existed in Soviet ideology at the time of Lenin's death, such as the concept of an alliance between the proletariat and peasantry, not being so much a proletarian dictatorship as what Lenin defined as the "join dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry".

This separation of Lenin from Stalin is the stuff of great man idealism, and in many ways there is a clear continuity between them. Although I would consider myself a nominal supporter of Lenin, we should not succumb to idealist interpretations of history by sparing Lenin entirely from what we call "Stalinism".

So basically yes, it is impossible. Who gives a shit if Lenin fabricated some half ass excuse for what he defined socialism as?