Question for leftcoms/Trots/etc regarding socialism in one country

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Being a Marxist-Leninist, I obviously do believe that socialism can be achieved or at least partially built in one country should the revolution not spread.

But to the Trotskyists and Left Communists and whatnot - for what material reason can socialism not be built in one country? It's obviously not ideal, and SIOC was more or less a doctrine of necessity, but I see no reason why, materially, socialism cannot be built in one country. Anyhow though I don't mean this to be a debate thread, just asking anti-SIOC people to clarify their views on it.

Also, as a side question, what do most Trotskyists believe was the proper course of action when the revolution did not immediately spread into West Europe? You wouldn't agree that 70 years of war communism would be a bad idea?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Also, as a side question, what do most Trotskyists believe was the proper course of action when the revolution did not immediately spread into West Europe? You wouldn't agree that 70 years of war communism would be a bad idea?

I think Trotskyists want to spread socialism by force, sort of like how neo-conservatives want to spread "democracy" by force.

[Zulu]

Here is a Marxist-Lenininst - not oppostion, - but an important consideration that must be always kept in mind when thinking SiOC. It's foreign trade. As long as there remains a capitalist world market and our socialist one country participates in it, it remains at least partially subject to the economic laws of capitalism. (Plus all those people who go to the capitalist countries and enjoy the all the luxuries of capitalism... But we can purge them, cant' we?)

So first of all, our one country needs to be big to begin with, to be able to achieve a large extent of self-sufficiency. And then we have to constantly promote socialist revolutions in other countries, so that we could build ourselves a socialist camp, within which we could introduce exchange of products in a way that conforms more with the socialist mode of production.

[Art Vandelay]

Here is a Marxist-Lenininst - not oppostion, - but an important consideration that must be always kept in mind when thinking SiOC. It's foreign trade. As long as there remains a capitalist world market and our socialist one country participates in it, it remains at least partially subject to the economic laws of capitalism. (Plus all those people who go to the capitalist countries and enjoy the all the luxuries of capitalism... But we can purge them, cant' we?)

So first of all, our one country needs to be big to begin with, to be able to achieve a large extent of self-sufficiency. And then we have to constantly promote socialist revolutions in other countries, so that we could build ourselves a socialist camp, within which we could introduce exchange of products in a way that conforms more with the socialist mode of production.

This. Capitalism is a global system, the capitalist mode of production cannot be surpassed while still "subject to the economic laws of capitalism." Perhaps there would exist some different characteristics to the specific capitalist country (in reference to the attempted sioc) but it would be capitalist none the less.

My boy Engels actually directly addressed the question of whether or not socialism would be possible in one country:


Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

[Koba Junior]

What is to be done, then, when the revolution breaks out in one country and not another? What do the proletariat of a nation do when they are alone in fighting their national bourgeoisie?

[Kronsteen]

It's actually a very good question - and like most good questions, the usual response is a quote from Marx or Lenin that's expected to settle the issue forever.

I don't have a fully worked out answer, but here's my attempt.

First of all, put to one side the exact definiton of socialism. It might be a state planned economy geared toward maximal quality of life, or one where everything's decided by vote, or just one where there's no ruling class. That's a whole other thorny issue.

Now, I think there are two notions of 'socialism in one country'. One involves a country that has socialism, is self-sufficient, and doesn't interact with the rest of the world. It doesn't trade, have wars, spy, or have any but the barest minimum of diplomatic relations with the capitalist world.

The other is a socialist country that isn't isolationist.

So is the former possible even in principle? A country as large as China or Russia probably could be self-sufficient at a high industrial level. In Britain or the Canary Islands, I doubt it.

Socialism needs plentiful raw materials, industry, many different technologies and lots of people to develop and run them. Socialism on a small scale would be a classless hunter gatherer society, or at best a giant kibbutz. I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't fight in a revolution for that.

How to avoid war with the outside world? The capitalist countries will be afraid of the revolution spreading, so will be inclined to exterminate anything which looks to their populations like a viable, attractive alternative to capitalism.

Even if they don't, they'll have periodic crises, and one way out of a crisis is expansion, which means invasion and war.

You could buy time with non-agression treaties, making compromises in your socialism and your ability to resist invasion to do so. And eventually they'll break the treaty's anyway.

Even if our hypothetical socialist country has an enormous military force - to be used strictly in defence only, and maintained for decades just waiting till it's needed - and has developed a Dr Strangelove doomsday device...I reckon war will eventually come.

Could our country survive such a war with socialism intact? The experience of Russia suggests not.

So what about the non-isolationist model? Interacting with capitalist countries generally means trading with them.

That would involve reorganising the economy to produce goods that other countries want, and therefore entering into competition with anyone else producing those goods. In effect, our socialist country would become capitalist.

[jookyle]

What is to be done, then, when the revolution breaks out in one country and not another? What do the proletariat of a nation do when they are alone in fighting their national bourgeoisie?

No one thinks the revolution is going to happen in multiple countries on the same day, no matter how preferable it would be. The idea is to spread the revolution; to take an active role in propagating,starting, and assisting the revolution in other countries. It's about fighting capitalism on a global scale.

[Koba Junior]

No one thinks the revolution is going to happen in multiple countries on the same day, no matter how preferable it would be. The idea is to spread the revolution; to take an active role in propagating,starting, and assisting the revolution in other countries. It's about fighting capitalism on a global scale.

But what is to be done with the economies that are spreading that revolution? What is to be done about production in those countries?

[Art Vandelay]

But what is to be done with the economies that are spreading that revolution? What is to be done about production in those countries?

If the revolution fails to spread, you may as well put a bullet in your head, cause you ain't surpassing capital.

"If I fail to win my case, there is nothing left for us (the proletarian class and myself) but to slit our throats."

[jookyle]

But what is to be done with the economies that are spreading that revolution? What is to be done about production in those countries?

Well, there's really two parts to this answer. The first being that it would be silly strategically so have the revolution happen one day and then just start moving into another country(countries) the very next day. Obviously there needs to be a period of strengthening and securing the orignal country. The other part is that there's no reason why you can't have an international focus while also having a domestic one. The two do not contradict each other.

To another point, you're going to have a strong economy in a country that's alone in it's socialism. Look at Cuba and the hardships it's gone over with food and resources because of how capitalist countries have put embargos and what not against it. If we're not fighting capitalism on a global scale we're only hurting ourselves because the capitalist countries are sure as hell going to be fighting us.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think Trotskyists want to spread socialism by force, sort of like how neo-conservatives want to spread "democracy" by force.Is that why people call us Tankies, because of all the countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia that Trotsky "liberated" and then "re-liberated" when there were protests?:lol:

To the OP: Socialism in one country is generally not seen as workable because capitalism is an interconnected world-system. For Russia specifically, hardly any marxists believed that Russia could achieve socialism because while it had some of the largest factories in the world, it was still under-developed and it's late entry into capitalist relations meant that the industry Russia did have was shaped around the needs of European capitalism rather than the basic needs of the local population. Additionally since the country was under-developed it lacked the large surplus of wealth in more established capitalist countries. But since the working class was already in revolt, new debates arouse around the Revolution and it was argued that a worker's revolution in Russia would push a radicalizing Europe over the brink and lead to Revolutions in other more powerful economies (Germany). When the revolutionary wave retreated is when Socialism in One country became an option and the USSR perused that path. I think this policy then led to the entrenchment of the bureaucracy that acted as a class to modernize Russia's economy through the state in ways that an organic bourgeois had in England and so on. So without the surplus and capacity of fully established capitalism, Russia had to do it's own primitive accumulation - involving the transfer of remaining feudal relations and forced-labor, and so on.

[aristos]

If a captured territory is large enough, has a vast amount of resources and a big enough population SIOC is possible. However a certain set of conditions has to be met for this to function.
It needs to have:
- adequate protection to deter foreign attacks;
- a highly developed industry or at least a robust potential for fast mass industrialisation
- An educated population, so that it can achieve adequate scientific autarky
- An enlightened population, that can quickly discard the indoctrinations of the old
regime, or failing that a strong vanguard ( a necessity in any case) that has the power
to forcibly strip away those prejudices.

These prerequisites are for various reasons very hard to come by.
However, theoretically such a territory would even be able to achieve full blown communism for its citizens, but only on condition that it is insulated in an authoritarian protective layer (think a dedicated warrior caste) - needless to say such an arrangement
can easily give rise to many organisational problems, that could turn out to be so severe that the territory degenerates and eventually collapses.

For what it's worth the Soviet Union of the mid 80s had all the above mentioned prerequisites and was ideally positioned to go fully socialist - all that was absent was a revolutionary vanguard to make a new revolution from within (aka a large scale palace coup).

[Koba Junior]

If the revolution fails to spread, you may as well put a bullet in your head, cause you ain't surpassing capital.

"If I fail to win my case, there is nothing left for us (the proletarian class and myself) but to slit our throats."

That has to be the most defeatist, anti-communistic thing I've yet read on this board.

[Koba Junior]

Well, there's really two parts to this answer. The first being that it would be silly strategically so have the revolution happen one day and then just start moving into another country(countries) the very next day. Obviously there needs to be a period of strengthening and securing the orignal country. The other part is that there's no reason why you can't have an international focus while also having a domestic one. The two do not contradict each other.

To another point, you're going to have a strong economy in a country that's alone in it's socialism. Look at Cuba and the hardships it's gone over with food and resources because of how capitalist countries have put embargos and what not against it. If we're not fighting capitalism on a global scale we're only hurting ourselves because the capitalist countries are sure as hell going to be fighting us.

Constructing socialism and strengthening it in one country, as you said, does not have to contradict the spread of revolution to other countries. It's just that people seem to think that a proletarian mode of production, rather than a bourgeois one, cannot exist if the territory is surrounded by capitalist production, that somehow workers cannot direct production if capitalists direct production in close proximity. Perhaps it is that socialism cannot survive for long without intense support of revolution in surrounding countries, but I believe socialism can exist in one country and not act against the interests of proletarian internationalism.

[jookyle]

Constructing socialism and strengthening it in one country, as you said, does not have to contradict the spread of revolution to other countries. It's just that people seem to think that a proletarian mode of production, rather than a bourgeois one, cannot exist if the territory is surrounded by capitalist production, that somehow workers cannot direct production if capitalists direct production in close proximity. Perhaps it is that socialism cannot survive for long without intense support of revolution in surrounding countries, but I believe socialism can exist in one country and not act against the interests of proletarian internationalism.

Well it would have to at some point. Like I said before, I don't think anyone expects multiple countries to have a successful revolution all in the same day. But the point is to always be internationally minded and internationally oriented and be making preparations to internationally continue the revolution. Both for the survival of socialism and to defeat capitalism. To simply say stop the revolutionary cause because you won in what ever you country you're in is to betray the entire cause. A socialist victory in one country should be used as the spring board to keep the revolution going internationally. Remember, it's workers of the world unite!

[Koba Junior]

Well it would have to at some point. Like I said before, I don't think anyone expects multiple countries to have a successful revolution all in the same day. But the point is to always be internationally minded and internationally oriented and be making preparations to internationally continue the revolution. Both for the survival of socialism and to defeat capitalism. To simply say stop the revolutionary cause because you won in what ever you country you're in is to betray the entire cause. A socialist victory in one country should be used as the spring board to keep the revolution going internationally. Remember, it's workers of the world unite!

I would definitely not disagree with you there.

[Rooster]

Constructing socialism and strengthening it in one country, as you said, does not have to contradict the spread of revolution to other countries. It's just that people seem to think that a proletarian mode of production, rather than a bourgeois one, cannot exist if the territory is surrounded by capitalist production, that somehow workers cannot direct production if capitalists direct production in close proximity. Perhaps it is that socialism cannot survive for long without intense support of revolution in surrounding countries, but I believe socialism can exist in one country and not act against the interests of proletarian internationalism.

Again the same old utopianism. You don't construct socialism, that's such a stupid phrase that it's almost beyond belief. Strengthening it doesn't make sense either, in the context of "constructing" it in one country, because the only way to strengthen it is for revolution to crop up everywhere. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a socialist revolution that's attempting to surpass capitalist relations if all you're going to end up with is a welfare state that'll eventually collapse?

[JAM]

Well it would have to at some point. Like I said before, I don't think anyone expects multiple countries to have a successful revolution all in the same day. But the point is to always be internationally minded and internationally oriented and be making preparations to internationally continue the revolution. Both for the survival of socialism and to defeat capitalism.!


Socialism in One Country doesn't mean abandon the international struggle or not to be internationally oriented.

[Koba Junior]

Again the same old utopianism. You don't construct socialism, that's such a stupid phrase that it's almost beyond belief. Strengthening it doesn't make sense either, in the context of "constructing" it in one country, because the only way to strengthen it is for revolution to crop up everywhere. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a socialist revolution that's attempting to surpass capitalist relations if all you're going to end up with is a welfare state that'll eventually collapse?

It's interesting how none of your responses actually contain counter-arguments, just childish insults and ranting.

[Art Vandelay]

That has to be the most defeatist, anti-communistic thing I've yet read on this board.

Hahaha I guess being a materialist is anti-communist now :rolleyes:. What is your opinion on that Engels quote that I provided? I guess Engels was a "defeatist, anti-communist" as well?

[Art Vandelay]

It's interesting how none of your responses actually contain counter-arguments, just childish insults and ranting.

Are you kidding? Do not address his counter argument, so then you can claim he did not make one, got it.

[Koba Junior]

Hahaha I guess being a materialist is anti-communist now :rolleyes:. What is your opinion on that Engels quote that I provided? I guess Engels was a "defeatist, anti-communist" as well?

Preferring to commit suicide because of a temporary setback has nothing to do with materialism. Why not live for revolution instead of needlessly dying for it? Engels quote was not defeatist, but your use of it certainly was.

[Koba Junior]

Are you kidding? Do not address his counter argument, so then you can claim he did not make one, got it.

Right. Calling something "stupid" and "utopian" without explaining why it is is an actual argument.

[Art Vandelay]

Right. Calling something "stupid" and "utopian" without explaining why it is is an actual argument.

Your quote:


Perhaps it is that socialism cannot survive for long without intense support of revolution in surrounding countries.

Brooster:


Otherwise, what's the point in even having a socialist revolution that's attempting to surpass capitalist relations if all you're going to end up with is a welfare state that'll eventually collapse?

That is a genuine question you conviently ignored. Also I was not actually advocating people to commit suicide, the fact that this even has to be explained it a little silly. I was using it to make a point, ever heard of hyperbole? Also once again you failed to address the Engels quote (I am starting to see a trend here).

Edit (just thought I would add this here, seeing as how this was ignored as well):


You don't construct socialism

[Koba Junior]

To address Brooster's "argument," the establishment of a progressive mode of production is worth the effort, even if it may only be temporary. It's only through such an establishment that the revolution can make any progress at any point in the world. To wait for the entire world to simultaneously develop a socialist mode of production is ridiculous. As for Engels's quote, it means nothing to me. Communism is the next stage in human development; even in hyperbole, to kill oneself over a setback is inherently defeatist. I don't care if Engels was willing to put a bullet in his head, but I sincerely doubt he would abandon revolution over a setback.

Also, stop being an ass.

[Koba Junior]

Edit (just thought I would add this here, seeing as how this was ignored as well) ...

Saying "you don't construct socialism" is not the same as making an argument as to why one doesn't construct socialism. It's a worthless statement. Now you see why I ignored it. And I'm not going to let your snide, hostile comment bait me into addressing worthless trolling any further.

[Art Vandelay]

To address Brooster's "argument," the establishment of a progressive mode of production is worth the effort, even if it may only be temporary.

There would be no "progressive mode of production" it would be a capitalist mode of production; subjected to the laws of capitalism, like fascism, liberal democracies, or soviet state capitalism.


As for Engels's quote, it means nothing to me.

The co-founder of marxism directly refutes one of the cornerstones of your ideology and it means nothing to you?


Communism is the next stage in human development; even in hyperbole, to kill oneself over a setback is inherently defeatist. I don't care if Engels was willing to put a bullet in his head, but I sincerely doubt he would abandon revolution over a setback.

Its not as simple as a setback. If global revolution stagnates and does not spread, capitalism will be kicking for a while longer. Perhaps you are fine living under capitalism, but I am not. The only thing keeping me going on a day to day basis is the thought that shit can change. During my life if global revolution fails, securing in its failure the continued existence of capitalism for the rest of my life, then I will gladly put a bullet in my head.


Also, stop being an ass.

I wish I could.

[Koba Junior]

There would be no "progressive mode of production" it would be a capitalist mode of production; subjected to the laws of capitalism, like fascism, liberal democracies, or soviet state capitalism.

You know you're not speaking to someone who believes capitalism existed under Stalin. Now, if you mean Khrushchev or other revisionists ...


The co-founder of marxism directly refutes one of the cornerstones of your ideology and it means nothing to you?

I was pretty clear in explaining that I disagreed with your creative interpretation of the quote. But if Engels wrote "Communism is impossible," I would be glad to discard that comment.


Its not as simple as a setback. If global revolution stagnates and does not spread, capitalism will be kicking for a while longer. Perhaps you are fine living under capitalism, but I am not. The only thing keeping me going on a day to day basis is the thought that shit can change. During my life if global revolution fails, securing in its failure the continued existence of capitalism for the rest of my life, then I will gladly put a bullet in my head.

So you would rather die than live to fight for the resurrection of the revolution and the future implementation of socialism? You deserve nothing more than that bullet, comrade.


I wish I could.

So do I.

[Rusty Shackleford]

This. Capitalism is a global system, the capitalist mode of production cannot be surpassed while still "subject to the economic laws of capitalism." Perhaps there would exist some different characteristics to the specific capitalist country (in reference to the attempted sioc) but it would be capitalist none the less.

My boy Engels actually directly addressed the question of whether or not socialism would be possible in one country:
it seems engels was getting a bit ahead of himself on the whole the revolution must be simultaneous, but just after he draws himself back to saying at least the advanced capitalist countries.


a territory in which the working class is in control doesnt somehow become capitalist by existing on the same planet as a territory where the bourgeoisie is in control. Trading with the US or Germany did not make the SU capitalist. thats like saying buying a nice car and having a job makes you capitalist or smoking a cohiba makes you a communist.

[Art Vandelay]

You know you're not speaking to someone who believes capitalism existed under Stalin. Now, if you mean Khrushchev or other revisionists ...

Yeah because a mode of production quantitatively changes from the abandonment of certain ideas :rolleyes:. Idealism much.


I was pretty clear in explaining that I disagreed with your creative interpretation of the quote. But if Engels wrote "Communism is impossible," I would be glad to discard that comment.

You never actually addressed to substance of the quote though.


So you would rather die than live to fight for the resurrection of the revolution and the future implementation of socialism? You deserve nothing more than that bullet, comrade.

Don't tempt me; I am a depressed alcoholic who reads revleft everyday. More than anything else, reading revleft everyday will make one loose faith in the possibility of proletarian revolution.


So do I.

Join the club, my girlfriend, family, bandmates, friends, could probably use the company.

[Art Vandelay]

it seems engels was getting a bit ahead of himself on the whole the revolution must be simultaneous, but just after he draws himself back to saying at least the advanced capitalist countries.

Exactly, not a backwards feudal country where the majority of the population are peasants.


a territory in which the working class is in control doesnt somehow become capitalist by existing on the same planet as a territory where the bourgeoisie is in control.

I never said anything to contradict that.


Trading with the US or Germany did not make the SU capitalist. thats like saying buying a nice car and having a job makes you capitalist or smoking a cohiba makes you a communist.

That is a horrible analogy.

[Koba Junior]

Yeah because a mode of production quantitatively changes from the abandonment of certain ideas :rolleyes:. Idealism much.

You're right. It's not like the ideas held by the people in charge have anything to do with how things are run.


You never actually addressed to substance of the quote though.

I most certainly did. Now who's doing the ignoring?


Don't tempt me; I am a depressed alcoholic who reads revleft everyday. More than anything else, reading revleft everyday will make one loose faith in the possibility of proletarian revolution.

I apologize. I am also depressed. I spoke out of anger. Please do not take seriously my comment about the bullet.


Join the club, my girlfriend, family, bandmates, friends, could probably use the company.

A band? Really?

[Art Vandelay]

You're right. It's not like the ideas held by the people in charge have anything to do with how things are run.

Humans have the ability to change things yes, but largely humans are prisoners to the material conditions. So no, simply the abandonment of certain ideas will not change material conditions or the mode of production. I am really not even sure how you would attempt to say that it was not an idealist statement.


I most certainly did. Now who's doing the ignoring?

I will go back and re-read again later tonight or tomorrow when I have more time, maybe I missed it.


I apologize. I am also depressed. I spoke out of anger. Please do not take seriously my comment about the bullet.

Don't worry my comment was tounge and cheeck:p. I wouldn't let someone on the internet dictate whether or not I took my own life.


A band? Really?

Yupp.

[Koba Junior]

Humans have the ability to change things yes, but largely humans are prisoners to the material conditions. So no, simply the abandonment of certain ideas will not change material conditions or the mode of production. I am really not even sure how you would attempt to say that it was not an idealist statement.

We've actually been over this before. See quite literally any of my posts regarding the material causes of revisionism.

[Tim Finnegan]

[...]a proletarian mode of production, rather than a bourgeois one[...]
Problem you've got here, mate, is that this is completely self-contradictory. The proletariat exists exclusively in relationship to the bourgeoisie, as a participant in the bourgeois mode of production. If you abolish the bourgeois mode of production, you abolish the proletariat, and if you still have the proletariat, you still have the bourgeois mode of production. There's no in-between.

[roy]

But what is to be done with the economies that are spreading that revolution? What is to be done about production in those countries?

that would obviously be a matter for the workers in those countries... perhaps it would catch on if they started organising themselves absence the presence of a state?

[Blake's Baby]

it seems engels was getting a bit ahead of himself on the whole the revolution must be simultaneous, but just after he draws himself back to saying at least the advanced capitalist countries...

Because Engels wrote at a time when the 'non-capitalist' (actually, 'capitalising') countries were the colonial empires of the capitalist metropoles - what you had was centres of capitalism, and colonies. Now we are in a situation where the colonies are 'free' and more developed in terms of capitalism. Now the world revolution must truely be global - in Engels' day revolution in Britain would mean revolution-by-proxy across a quarter of the globe, revolution in France 1/6 of the globe, revolution in the Netherlands would mean revolution in Indonesia too; now that won't happen and all those former colonies also must have their revolutions.


...
a territory in which the working class is in control doesnt somehow become capitalist by existing on the same planet as a territory where the bourgeoisie is in control...

...a territory in which the working class is in control doesn't somehow stop being capitalist because it has a new flag...

Fixed that for you.


... Trading with the US or Germany did not make the SU capitalist...

Think you'll find that's one of the things that did make it capitalist. Not as in 'caused it to be capitalist' (because it never stopped being capitalist) but 'was a confirmation that it was capitalist'. Commodity production and wage labour... that's what makes a system capitalist.


... thats like saying buying a nice car and having a job makes you capitalist or smoking a cohiba makes you a communist.

It's really not, it's like saying wearing a badge that says 'I'm nice' doesn't stop you being an asshole.

[Tim Cornelis]

My boy Engels actually directly addressed the question of whether or not socialism would be possible in one country:

Engels' quote is not an accurate criticism, for the following reasons:

First, Engels said the spread of socialism would be globally, because people are interconnected globally already.

Second, the question here is, what do you do when the revolution does not spread beyond national borders.

Third, you reply by saying it would spread globally.

It's circular reasoning. Engels did not say socialism in one country was impossible, he said it would not happen, which is different.

So the question still is, what would be needed to be done if the revolution fails to spread beyond the national borders?

Saying you would need mass suicide (even symbolically) isn't helpful. It implies you just fought and died for the emancipation of the proletariat, but since this emancipation does not spread abroad, you give power back to the capitalist class. This would and will never happen. Can you imagine if this Spanish revolution of 1936 during the Spanish civil war (1936-1939) was actually successful in that Franco and his troops were beaten, but since socialism would not spread throughout Europe, the Spanish socialists, communists, and anarchists just ask Franco to come back and take over the country? It's ridiculous if you think about it.

[Tim Finnegan]

Engels' quote is not an accurate criticism, for the following reasons:

First, Engels said the spread of socialism would be globally, because people are interconnected globally already.

Second, the question here is, what do you do when the revolution does not spread beyond national borders.

Third, you reply by saying it would spread globally.

It's circular reasoning. Engels did not say socialism in one country was impossible, he said it would not happen, which is different.
Not in practice, it isn't. Engels isn't merely saying that the revolution will be global, but that it must be global; that a revolution which fails to internationalise itself will collapse, and that's exactly what the Russian example shows us. It doesn't matter if, as in your Spanish example, power was maintained by more authentic revolutionaries, or even if a system of radically democratic and self-management industries was developed, until a social revolution as distinct from a political rebellion was undertaken, it would not be socialism, it would simply be a radical social democracy.

We can no more talk about "what to do if the revolution fails to spread" than we can talk about "what to do if I fail to breathe". All we can discuss is how to most respectfully dispose of the corpse.

[Rooster]

It's interesting how none of your responses actually contain counter-arguments, just childish insults and ranting.

It's not my fault that you lack any rudimentary Marxist theory.


Right. Calling something "stupid" and "utopian" without explaining why it is is an actual argument.

I did say why. It's because you think you'll have to construct socialism after capitalism.


To address Brooster's "argument," the establishment of a progressive mode of production is worth the effort, even if it may only be temporary. It's only through such an establishment that the revolution can make any progress at any point in the world. To wait for the entire world to simultaneously develop a socialist mode of production is ridiculous. As for Engels's quote, it means nothing to me. Communism is the next stage in human development; even in hyperbole, to kill oneself over a setback is inherently defeatist. I don't care if Engels was willing to put a bullet in his head, but I sincerely doubt he would abandon revolution over a setback.

Also, stop being an ass.

And this doesn't address why you're wrong at all. It just shows much more clearly at how confused and infantile your theory is.

[Rooster]

Saying "you don't construct socialism" is not the same as making an argument as to why one doesn't construct socialism. It's a worthless statement. Now you see why I ignored it. And I'm not going to let your snide, hostile comment bait me into addressing worthless trolling any further.

It's painfully obvious that you have no idea where socialism comes from and why it's the thing that comes after capitalism. You ignored it because you have no idea what I'm talking about because you clearly don't know anything. Socialism is created within capitalism. It's not something brought from without. Why the fuck am I having to even explain this like I was explaining it to a child?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I don't understand what the anti-SIOC people's course of action would be then. Uneven development of nations under capitalism makes simultaneous international revolution impossible. We aren't in the epoch of Marx anymore, we're in the epoch of imperialism, and quite a few things have changed from the days where classical Marxism still fully applies.

The internal contradictions of capitalism within one country can be solved, and no one has yet provided a counter-argument to that. The issue that you're all arguing on is the external/international contradictions of capitalism. External contradictions cannot be overcome by the victory of socialism in one country, that goes without saying. If the external contradictions are yet to be solved (eg, by revolution in multiple countries), then we have not reached the final victory of socialism.


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.



It follows that this question contains two different problems :
1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and
2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration. [...] We have already solved the first problem.
(Source: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm)



But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. Lenin expressed this thought succinctly when he said that the task of the victorious revolution is to do "the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries."
(Source: Stalin, Vol. XXIII: The Foundations of Leninism pg. 385)

What would you say the proper course of actions to have been, then, when the revolution did not spread to western Europe? Just give up and do nothing?

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't understand what the anti-SIOC people's course of action would be then. Uneven development of nations under capitalism makes simultaneous international revolution impossible.
Nobody's saying that it has to be simultaneous. Revolution isn't even simultaneous in a single city, let alone on a global scale. What's important is that it emerges as a single movement, that there's a continuity of activity that spreads across the globe. A revolution can't be paused, can't be put into a deep freeze until circumstances are more favourable, it has to keep moving or it dies. "Socialism in one country", in attempting to do just that, can only represent the collapse of the revolution as a revolutionary movement.



The internal contradictions of capitalism within one country can be solved, and no one has yet provided a counter-argument to that. The issue that you're all arguing on is the external/international contradictions of capitalism. External contradictions cannot be overcome by the victory of socialism in one country, that goes without saying. If the external contradictions are yet to be solved (eg, by revolution in multiple countries), then we have not reached the final victory of socialism.

What the fuck is an "external contradiction"?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Nobody's saying that it has to be simultaneous. Revolution isn't even simultaneous in a single city, let alone on a global scale. What's important is that it emerges as a single movement, that there's a continuity of activity that spreads across the globe. A revolution can't be paused, can't be put into a deep freeze until circumstances are more favourable, it has to keep moving or it dies. "Socialism in one country", in attempting to do just that, can only represent the collapse of the revolution as a revolutionary movement.

With uneven development under capitalism, don't you think that's a bit... unlikely? It's not as if building socialism in one country implies giving up on proletarian internationalism. Stalin himself clearly stated that the support of western European workers was vital to the success of the revolution.


What the fuck is an "external contradiction"?
To quote Zulu above:

It's foreign trade. As long as there remains a capitalist world market and our socialist one country participates in it, it remains at least partially subject to the economic laws of capitalism. (Plus all those people who go to the capitalist countries and enjoy the all the luxuries of capitalism... But we can purge them, cant' we?)

That's a great part of it. Stalin acknowledged that the final victory of socialism, in which those economic laws of capitalism would cease to apply - is impossible in one country.

Another part of it would be the fact that the possibility of intervention from the capitalist world and the complete negation of the victory of socialism in one country, therefore it can't be said that the victory of socialism in one country is the final victory.

[Tim Finnegan]

With uneven development under capitalism, don't you think that's a bit... unlikely?
No, I don't.


It's not as if building socialism in one country implies giving up on proletarian internationalism. Stalin himself clearly stated that the support of western European workers was vital to the success of the revolution.Yes, it does.


That's a great part of it. Stalin acknowledged that the final victory of socialism, in which those economic laws of capitalism would cease to apply - is impossible in one country.
Social revolution is the negation of capital. If the laws of capitalism still apply, then it's not revolution.


Another part of it would be the fact that the possibility of intervention from the capitalist world and the complete negation of the victory of socialism in one country, therefore it can't be said that the victory of socialism in one country is the final victory."Final victory of socialism" is vacuous sloganeering with no theoretical content of any kind.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

No, I don't.
That's a bit idealist though, don't you think?

Yes, it does.

That being the crux of the matter.
For what materially-based reason is that so?

I don't see how attempt to reach the highest stage of socialistic development internally possible correlates to the chance of revolution spreading, or implies giving up on supporting proletarian revolution worldwide.


No, I don't.
"Final victory of socialism" is vacuous sloganeering with no theoretical content of any kind.
How? You expect capitalism to overcome all of its contradictions in a day?

[Art Vandelay]

Engels' quote is not an accurate criticism, for the following reasons:

Okay.


First, Engels said the spread of socialism would be globally, because people are interconnected globally already.

Engels said the revolution must be global, big difference, especially in context of a discussion about Socialism In One Country.


Second, the question here is, what do you do when the revolution does not spread beyond national borders.

Indeed.


Third, you reply by saying it would spread globally.

I responded with the same answer Engels would have given, the revolution must be global.


It's circular reasoning. Engels did not say socialism in one country was impossible, he said it would not happen, which is different.

The question was is socialism possible in one country? the very first sentence in the quote is one word: No. How does Engels not say it was impossible then?


So the question still is, what would be needed to be done if the revolution fails to spread beyond the national borders?

To which I will give you the same answer, there is nothing to be done! You are fucked. I guess you could get the troops ready and try to help spark revolutions by force but other than that there is not much to do. No measures taken inside the country will in anyway magically transform the mode of production.


Saying you would need mass suicide (even symbolically) isn't helpful. It implies you just fought and died for the emancipation of the proletariat, but since this emancipation does not spread abroad, you give power back to the capitalist class.

So the USSR then was a genuine workers state, Tim?


This would and will never happen. Can you imagine if this Spanish revolution of 1936 during the Spanish civil war (1936-1939) was actually successful in that Franco and his troops were beaten, but since socialism would not spread throughout Europe, the Spanish socialists, communists, and anarchists just ask Franco to come back and take over the country? It's ridiculous if you think about it.

No I am not saying give them back the territory to Franco, but regardless of what those revolutionaries and the working class does, the best they'll come up with is a welfare state if the revolution stagnates.

[Art Vandelay]

"Final victory of socialism" is vacuous sloganeering with no theoretical content of any kind.

This. I have seen a few other empty political platitudes tossed around as well.

[Tim Finnegan]

That's a bit idealist though, don't you think?
Nope.


For what materially-based reason is that so?

I don't see how attempt to reach the highest stage of socialistic development internally possible correlates to the chance of revolution spreading, or implies giving up on supporting proletarian revolution worldwide.You cannot abolish capitalism while continuing to participate in it.


How? You expect capitalism to overcome all of its contradictions in a day?I don't expect capitalism to do anything.

[wsg1991]

so tell me , entering in a competition in a global market with a capitalist country would make you capitalist ? that's sound strange . and from some of this comments around , there is defeatism , and acknowledge that socialist countries are less productive and enable to compete with others , never modernize it's own means of production ,
my opinion that socialism in one country is a challenge that revolutionary there should know it's consequence : any economic achievement will spread the revolution in other countries ( same as happened in the Arab spring ) . any failure would counted as a failure of socialism ( ex socialism was associated with dictatorship inefficiency and USSR by normal people see i can make the difference , i wouldn't expect uneducated worker to do that ) . Of course any country claiming it's socialist will support any similar regime \ revolutionary movement , since it can be a valuable ally BTW , you will attract the hostility of all Imperialist country since your success is a virus ( as Kissinger describe it ) and this may result an over expansion of military which will hinder your economic . good or bad idea ? it surely a risk :confused:

[Tim Finnegan]

so tell me , entering in a competition in a global market with a capitalist country would make you capitalist ? that's sound strange .
The global market is capitalism, so that's a bit like asking "if you entered into a football match against a football team, would you be playing football"?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Capitalism is a global entity, it has a ferocious drive to reproduce itself. Another way to say this is that capitalism, as a system, contaminates, subverts and then assimilates every non-capitalist society it has ever come into contact with.Capitalism and non-capitalism simply cannot co-exist for a long period of time.

The planet today is completely capitalist. There are earlier "modes of production"-feudalism, hunter gatherer societies, etc but they are subsumed under capitalism. Feudal land owners in India, Latin America, etc fully participate and orient their exploitation to the world economy.

In 1917 Russia was a weak, backward, devastated society. It is not possible to create socialism in a society of scarcity. Scarcity implies hierarchy.Socialism presupposes the abundance made possible but subverted by capitalism. What can and should be done is create a staging area in order to build and spread socialism. The Russian Revolution presupposed a socialist revolution in Germany. If this had occured, Soviet and world history would have been dramatically different.

The revolution did not spread. This is the root cause of why Russia, China and the rest of the "actually existing sociast" countries eventually became capitalist.

For socialism to succeed you must kill the monster by its throat.

[wsg1991]

The global market is capitalism, so that's a bit like asking "if you entered into a football match against a football team, would you be playing football"?

first i don't think we define capitalism the same , my problem is that i want to abolish a system of exploiter \ exploited relation , i don't see market as something undesired or should be destroyed , but smart answer

[MustCrushCapitalism]

You cannot abolish capitalism while continuing to participate in it.

The victory of socialism in one country doesn't assume abolition of international capitalism, but only the overcoming of the contradictions of capitalism internally (within national borders, eg, liquidation of the national bourgeoisie).

That doesn't mean the struggle against capitalism internationally ends. The very existence of socialism in one country is a stepping stone - this state must support proletarian struggle worldwide through whatever means it can.

That was actually a great mistake of Stalin, I'd say that in his later years (beginning in the 40s) he'd begun to give up on spreading the revolution to the west under the guise of "peaceful coexistence" and whatnot.

[Art Vandelay]

first i don't think we define capitalism the same , my problem is that i want to abolish a system of exploiter \ exploited relation , i don't see market as something undesired or should be destroyed , but smart answer

I believe market "socialists" get restricted here, you are walking on thin ice, choose your steps wisely.

[Tim Cornelis]

Not in practice, it isn't. Engels isn't merely saying that the revolution will be global, but that it must be global; that a revolution which fails to internationalise itself will collapse, and that's exactly what the Russian example shows us. It doesn't matter if, as in your Spanish example, power was maintained by more authentic revolutionaries, or even if a system of radically democratic and self-management industries was developed, until a social revolution as distinct from a political rebellion was undertaken, it would not be socialism, it would simply be a radical social democracy.

We can no more talk about "what to do if the revolution fails to spread" than we can talk about "what to do if I fail to breathe". All we can discuss is how to most respectfully dispose of the corpse.

Engels is not saying the revolution must be global, that is your personal interpretative of what he said. But read closely, he is always speaking about how it will be such and such, not about how it will have to be such and such:


Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

He is saying the revolution will be global. Correct? But he is not saying it must, he is just saying it will be global.


Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

He is saying that the revolution will be global, or at least continental. He is not saying it must be global, but that it will be global. Correct?


It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

He is saying how the revolution will spread. He is not saying the revolution must be global.


It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

Will, but not must.

Engels clearly and continually said the revolution will be global, he was being descriptive, not prescriptive.


Okay.
Engels said the revolution must be global, big difference, especially in context of a discussion about Socialism In One Country.

See above.


I responded with the same answer Engels would have given, the revolution must be global.

Firstly, he did not say it must be global, he said it will be global (see above). Secondly, it is evading the question:

A: "What has to be done if the revolution is confined to one nation-state"
The reply would be:
B: "It must be global"
A: "Of course, but what if it isn't global"
B: "It must be global"

You are then not answering the question.


The question was is socialism possible in one country? the very first sentence in the quote is one word: No. How does Engels not say it was impossible then?

No, the question is: Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? The answer he gives is descriptive, that is to say, he is arguing that even if we wanted the revolution to be confined to one country, we couldn't do this. He is not being normative/prescriptive, but positive/descriptive.


To which I will give you the same answer, there is nothing to be done! You are fucked. I guess you could get the troops ready and try to help spark revolutions by force but other than that there is not much to do. No measures taken inside the country will [not] in anyway magically transform the mode of production.

Okey.


So the USSR then was a genuine workers state, Tim?

I'm merely playing the devil's advocate. I was just unsatisfied with the answers given. It still wouldn't be a workers' state even if socialism in one country was possible.


No I am not saying give them back the territory to Franco, but regardless of what those revolutionaries and the working class does, the best they'll come up with is a welfare state if the revolution stagnates.

Okey.

[Tim Finnegan]

Engels is not saying the revolution must be global, that is your personal interpretative of what he said. But read closely, he is always speaking about how it will be such and such, not about how it will have to be such and such:
I think that you're introducing a distinction between "will" and "must" that is foreign to the original text. Marx and Engels were very careful about parsing out the different levels of abstraction appropriate to discussing historical processes, and at this level what is being discussed is not simply a series of predictions for some allegedly imminent uprising, but the character of the historical process of proletarian revolution. "Must" and "will" become one and the same thing, because the fundamental characteristics of the process of the self-emancipation of the proletariat are determined by the nature of capitalist society rather than by individual wills, and those characteristics which Engels identifies as demanding a rapid internationalisation of the movement, namely, economic and political globalisation, are more true today than they were even in 1917.

[Art Vandelay]

I think that you're introducing a distinction between "will" and "must" that is foreign to the original text. Marx and Engels were very careful about parsing out the different levels of abstraction appropriate to discussing historical processes, and at this level what is being discussed is not simply a series of predictions for some allegedly imminent uprising, but the character of the historical process of proletarian revolution. "Must" and "will" become one and the same thing, because the fundamental characteristics of the process of the self-emancipation of the proletariat are determined by the nature of capitalist society rather than by individual wills, and those characteristics which Engels identifies as demanding a rapid internationalisation of the movement, namely, economic and political globalisation, are more true today than they were even in 1917.

Not only is it more true today then in 1917, 1917 also demonstrated the accuracy of Engels claim.

[Blake's Baby]

The victory of socialism in one country doesn't assume abolition of international capitalism, but only the overcoming of the contradictions of capitalism internally (within national borders, eg, liquidation of the national bourgeoisie)...

So it's national socialism you're talking about?




That doesn't mean the struggle against capitalism internationally ends. The very existence of socialism in one country is a stepping stone - this state must support proletarian struggle worldwide through whatever means it can.

That was actually a great mistake of Stalin, I'd say that in his later years (beginning in the 40s) he'd begun to give up on spreading the revolution to the west under the guise of "peaceful coexistence" and whatnot.

1934 the USSR entered the 'den of thieves' as Lenin called it. A pretty definitive moment in determining whether or not the Soviet Union was another imperialist power - when it was accepted as such by the other members of the League of Nations.

[Koba Junior]

It would be very interesting to see if Brooster can form an actual argument and forgo the puerile nastiness. As for constructing socialism, I find it a little humorous that I'm the utopian one for not expecting socialism to just happen in the vacuum of capitalism, as if nothing needs to be planned or changed after the capitalists are expropriated.

[Koba Junior]

Problem you've got here, mate, is that this is completely self-contradictory. The proletariat exists exclusively in relationship to the bourgeoisie, as a participant in the bourgeois mode of production. If you abolish the bourgeois mode of production, you abolish the proletariat, and if you still have the proletariat, you still have the bourgeois mode of production. There's no in-between.

That doesn't necessarily follow. The bourgeois mode of production is necessarily characterized by the class control of production by the bourgeoisie. Expropriating the bourgeoisie and turning over power over production to the proletariat brings a new class character to the mode of production. The people who constitute the proletariat and their consciousness as determined by their relationship to the productive forces under capitalism do not simply vanish merely because the character of production has been altered.

[Tim Finnegan]

That doesn't necessarily follow.
No, it pretty much does does. Shitty Second International positivism is shitty.

[Koba Junior]

No, it pretty much does does. Shitty Second International positivism is shitty.

As Monty Python has taught us, contradiction is not the same as argument.

[wsg1991]

don't worry we still have few more years to fight as neither Socialism in a single country or in the world is NOT going to happen any time soon ,

[Tim Finnegan]

As Monty Python has taught us, contradiction is not the same as argument.
I already explained ir the first time: the proletariat do not exist independently of the capitalist mode of production, so any society with a proletariat is by definition capitalist. The conception of class as something ontologically prior to the mode of production, as emerging from a "relationship to the means of production" (as if a machine press could enter into social relations) rather than from relationships to other members of society, is, as I said, shitty Second International positivism, and frankly I'm humouring you even by pointing it out.

[Koba Junior]

I already explained ir the first time: the proletariat do not exist independently of the capitalist mode of production, so any society with a proletariat is by definition capitalist. The conception of class as something ontologically prior to the mode of production, as emerging from a "relationship to the means of production" (as if a machine press could enter into social relations) rather than from relationships to other members of society, is, as I said, shitty Second International positivism, and frankly I'm humouring you even by pointing it out.

That doesn't even begin to address my counter-argument. People's historically determined consciousness does not change in the instant that the character of production does.

[Leo]

But to the Trotskyists and Left Communists and whatnot - for what material reason can socialism not be built in one country? It's obviously not ideal, and SIOC was more or less a doctrine of necessity, but I see no reason why, materially, socialism cannot be built in one country. Anyhow though I don't mean this to be a debate thread, just asking anti-SIOC people to clarify their views on it.

First of all, the idea that socialism can only be built after the world revolution, that it can't be built in a single country isn't an invention of either the left communists or Trotsky. It is a position traditionally held by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Luxemburg among many other prominent proletarian revolutionaries.

In The Principles of Communism, Engels says:


Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries (...) It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces (...) It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.


As for Lenin, the quote a resident Stalinist proudly displays in his signature actually has got nothing to do with the idea of socialism in one country or building socialism. Here's the full quote, as quoted by Stalin himself:


[T]hat 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.

Emphasis mine. Lenin is talking about those who criticized the taking of power by the workers councils. His more developed response to these people was that such an act would mark a signal for the world revolution, and incite the working masses of all countries to join the Russian proletariat in its revolutionary wave.

However Lenin never held that socialism could be built in one country. In his Report On The Activities Of The Council Of People’s Commissars to the Third All-Russia Congress Of Soviets Of Workers’, Soldiers’ And Peasants’ Deputies[/URL] held in 1918 Lenin says:


We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score, and we know how difficult is the road that leads from capitalism to socialism. But it is our duty to say that our Soviet Republic is a socialist republic because we have taken this road, and our words will riot be empty words (...) The final victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible. Our contingent of workers and peasants which is upholding Soviet power is one of the contingents of the great world army, which at present has been split by the world war, but which is striving for unity, and every piece of information, every fragment of a report about our revolution, every name, the proletariat greets with loud and sympathetic cheers, because it knows that in Russia the common cause is being pursued, the cause of the proletariat’s uprising, the international socialist revolution (...) [T]he Russian working and exploited classes, have the honour of being the vanguard of the international socialist revolution; we can now see clearly how far the development of the revolution will go. The Russian began it—the German, the Frenchman and the Englishman will finish it, and socialism will be victorious.

In 1919, in his Report on The All-Russia Central Executive Committee And The Council Of Peoples Commissars to the Seventh All-Russian Congress Of Soviets[URL="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/dec/05.htm#fw01"] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/jan/10.htm#n1) Lenin again says:


Both prior to October and during the October Revolution, we always said that we regard ourselves and can only regard ourselves as one of the contingents of the international proletarian army, a contingent which came to the fore, not because of its level of development and preparedness, but because of Russia’s exceptional conditions; we always said that the victory of the socialist revolution, therefore, can only be regarded as final when it becomes the victory of the proletariat in at least several advanced countries.

In 1920, in a speech delivered at a meeting of Cells’ Secretaries Of The Moscow Organisation Of The R.C.P.(B.), Lenin again says:


The Mensheviks assert that we are pledged to defeating the world bourgeoisie on our own. We have, however, always said that we are only a single link in the chain of the world revolution, and have never set ourselves the aim of achieving victory by our own means.

And contrary to what Stalinists claim, Lenin didn't change these positions and were defending them even as late as in 1922:


But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile powers of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions (and vertigo, particularly at high altitudes). And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism—that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism.

After having made the necessary quotations, I will add the obvious arguments to why socialism can't be built in a single country. First of all, unless working classes of the other countries start following the example, the revolution in a single country is doomed to suffer a counter-revolution, either a counter-revolution from the outside, as the Paris Commune suffered or one from the inside, like the Stalin regime in Russia which murdered an overwhelming majority of the Bolshevik Party of 1917 and before as well as other revolutionaries and rejoined the major imperialist forces of the world. In other words, unless the ruling classes of the other countries of the world don't have their hands full with the struggles of their own proletarians, they will never leave a victorious revolution alone. And because of this but also as long as there are exploited workers elsewhere, the victorious proletariat of a single country will remain at war with the ruling classes of all the other countries and one cannot build socialism while fighting a war. Added to this is the fact that the resources of a single country, no matter how large, is never going to be enough to build socialism for socialism is not the state working proletarians to death as it was in Stalin's Russia. To start the period of transition towards communism, the world proletariat will need to have all the resources of the world at its disposal.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

I would also like to add, that the Revolution does not necessarily have to be spread by militaristic rebellions and uprisings. Revolutions can spread by the will of the people, if the people can stand united and protest or initiate strikes. We saw an example of this last year, in the Arabic Spring. But somewhere a violent rebellion is needed, as was the case in Libya.

[Tim Finnegan]

That doesn't even begin to address my counter-argument. People's historically determined consciousness does not change in the instant that the character of production does.
You don't have a counter-argument, you're just reaffirming your shitty positivism over and over.

[Koba Junior]

You don't have a counter-argument, you're just reaffirming your shitty positivism over and over.

That's one way to duck out of an argument.

[Tim Finnegan]

That's one way to duck out of an argument.
It's a boring argument.

[Koba Junior]

It's a boring argument.

Good excuse.

[wsg1991]

I would also like to add, that the Revolution does not necessarily have to be spread by militaristic rebellions and uprisings. Revolutions can spread by the will of the people, if the people can stand united and protest or initiate strikes. We saw an example of this last year, in the Arabic Spring. But somewhere a violent rebellion is needed, as was the case in Libya.

i don't consider Lybia a revolution , But the arab spring although not a socialist revolution should be studied , as it can show how revolution spreads , and what can counter revolutionary do , in 21 Century

[wsg1991]

after reading both team arguments , i think socialist revolution can happens in one country . but i would such revolution to happen in a strong economic\ military country able to resist capitalists Hostility and helps revolutionary in other countries . i think you guys should study how arab spring happened since it can be very useful , as it shows how successful revolutionary attempts can spread revolutionary waves can one country to another (Egypt ) , while one failure ( Bahrain , Jordan , Iraq , Algeria , Qatar ) could halt it , also see how imperialist did use the momentum such as Libya to topple an anti USA dictator . the Tunisian uprising was about freedom , dignity , jobs and for economic reasons . Tunisia , perhaps has the strongest Arab Union , and the high educated population compared to other arab countries , not to mention the socio-economic difference . So i wouldn't expect say Saudi Arabia , who's population is deeply indoctrinated , and FAT (duo to their high wage ) to join any revolutionary offensive , or Libyans , who had pretty lousy education \ no unions to join either . see Revolutionary conditions are ready in one country , absent in others ? should we wait 20 years so others be ready ?

[wsg1991]

i didn't mention how many arab dictator did try to contain the revolutionary waves . Example real election in Algeria \ Morocco . subsidies to many consumer goods in many others . now if theoretically any success happens in Tunisia or Egypt , that would create extra pressure \ momentum , which if a vanguard party or anything look like organised leadership can use that , even in the absence of organised leadership , the masses would do that ( although they will became easy prey for counter revolutionary ) . in history any successful revolutionary that attempt can incite similar movement to appear even if not socialist \ " proletariat type " . i can name national liberation movement \ petty bourgeois revolution here in the 50ies and 60 ies . chavez success did spawn parties his type in other place in South america . Henry Kissinger :a region that falls out of control can become a "virus" that will "spread contagion" ( quote from losing the world American decline part 1 , noam chomsky )

[wsg1991]

* note
henry kissinger quote is not scientifically correct but you get the point , as infected cells do not became Virus , but became Virus production machines

[Permanent Revolutionary]

i don't consider Lybia a revolution

Of course it was a revolution. An overthrow of a government followed by constitutional changes is definitely a revolution.
Sadly, socialists have failed to pounce on the opportunity brought on by the Arab Spring

[wsg1991]

Of course it was a revolution. An overthrow of a government followed by constitutional changes is definitely a revolution.
Sadly, socialists have failed to pounce on the opportunity brought on by the Arab Spring

let's not argue about this and focus on the subject ,

[Zulu]

Of course it was a revolution.
Unless it's a counterrevolution.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That has to be the most defeatist, anti-communistic thing I've yet read on this board.

Why is defeatism anti-communist?

As communists, we are not believers in possibilism. We believe in communism or nothing. That is where this defeatism comes from.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Of course it was a revolution. An overthrow of a government followed by constitutional changes is definitely a revolution.
Sadly, socialists have failed to pounce on the opportunity brought on by the Arab Spring

Not a Socialist Revolution, though.

[Geiseric]

If anything these were capitalist bourgeois political revolutions against a different section of the bourgeoisie. Look at whose in power now, the Islamists and the Liberal NATO puppets. Both bourgeois ideologies, however this doesn't mean that a popular struggle was in motion as well. However at this moment it's simply exchanging one capitalist for another in the Arab spring situation.

These are all in the motion of privatising the oil and natural gas reserves as well, which is something that Ghadaffi, Ben Ali, and the FLN in Algeria have been all doing. The opposition to the privatisation is the workers unions and currently existing organizations in all of the countries that don't have workers parties, which Algeria has.

[wsg1991]

If anything these were capitalist bourgeois political revolutions against a different section of the bourgeoisie. Look at whose in power now, the Islamists and the Liberal NATO puppets. Both bourgeois ideologies, however this doesn't mean that a popular struggle was in motion as well. However at this moment it's simply exchanging one capitalist for another in the Arab spring situation.

These are all in the motion of privatising the oil and natural gas reserves as well, which is something that Ghadaffi, Ben Ali, and the FLN in Algeria have been all doing. The opposition to the privatisation is the workers unions and currently existing organizations in all of the countries that don't have workers parties, which Algeria has.

now i think i did explain that the revolution were for Economic \ social \ democratic reasons led by poor \ jobless people and unions did there part as the biggest protest in Tunisia was in 13 January 2011 Sfax ( my city ) was organized by the union . what USA managed to do is to alter the natural course which would be minimum a social democratic government . how by supporting Islamists as you mentioned . Ben Ali and Mubarak were doing a good job . Ben ali economic minister ( and later prime minister ) did do a massive privatizing in 1999 , and Mubarak's has nothing to add , sense AL Sadat already did his job by selling a 18 years of industrialization (Nasser \ free officers ) CHEAPLY to private powers . there was no reason to remove those "good secular dictators" . btw most of the bourgeois adapts it's simple to grow a beard , and wear white Robes ( islamic version ) .


as Islamists proved to be incompetent . liberals might regain power ,



it was not certainly a part of ''Bourgeois against others '' you should remember the opportunistic nature of that class and western power , it will simply change support if a party became incapable of keeping the population content, I can name event relatives of the ex Ben Ali , that now are supporting the new ruling party ( nahdha : muslim brotherhood in Tunisia )

[wsg1991]

SO Trotskysts , what should we do according to Trotsky ? wait a ''global Spring ''

[Blake's Baby]

Do you mean 'should we delay the overthrow of capitalism and the state in one territory until all territories are ready?'

No. If the working class is in the position of conquering state power and taking control of society with the aim of reorganising production for need, then I wholeheartedly support its effort to do just that, even if it's only ready to do it (first) in one area.

On the other hand, I don't see anywhere that the working class is poised to overthrow the state... perhaps we should be sayimg to the MLs, 'if you think you can, why aren't you doing it?'

The revolution is a worldwide process because capitalism is global, the bourgeoisie is global and the working class is global. Globally, the working class makes its revolution. It doesn't do it completely evenly, certainly not when (as in 1917-1923) it was beginning during a massive inter-imperialist war. That, among other things (the betrayal of the social-patriots for example) divided and disorientated the working class.

[TheMyth]

All of SIOC and ML is revisionism .
If you don't belive take a look at Engels :
Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Frederick Engels
London, on the 20th anniversary
of the Paris Commune, March 18, 1891.

[Lucretia]

The answer to this question was basically given on page one by Jimmie Higgins. Capitalism has created an international division labor which, for the most part, makes modern states interdependent on one another for production and therefore trade.

If you have a proletarian revolution in only a single country, without revolution proceeding in a somewhat timely manner (years, say) internationally, what you end up with is a system of economic competition by which the proletarian state seeks to maintain its trade balance, which requires it compete with capitalist countries in terms of developing its forces of production, which in turn requires it to "plan" according to the law of value -- which of course signals the resumption of capitalist chaos, the market, etc., and the end of democratic planning. The alternative to this chain of events is to risk a comparative deterioration regarding the state's forces of production and economic productivity, which then makes it vulnerable to imperialist expansion.

As Finnegan said, this means that a dictatorship of the proletariat must necessarily be a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (indeed, the only times Marx talks about the DToP, he always precedes the phrase with "revolutionary"). If the revolution does not expand, it will wither and die in the face of an economic system -- quite contrary to socialism -- whose only goal is expansion.