Trotsky and the world market

[Questionable]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#n37

I was reading Trotsky out of curiosity, and I came across a section where he was condemning socialism in one country. I'll admit that I had a bit of trouble understanding his argument, but he seemed to be suggesting that the Soviet Union could not help but be part of the world market, nor could they surpass it. Which leads me to some questions:

Why could the Soviet Union not separate itself from the world market and build socialism, in Trotsky's view?
Trotsky seems to be saying that the productive forces of capitalism are much stronger than the Soviet Union. Wasn't his viewpoint proven wrong by Russia surpassing the West in many aspects, such as healthcare, and defeating the Nazi invasion, or am I misunderstanding the argument?

A sectarian shitstorm is inevitable, I know, but I simply want to understand the opposing side's arguments.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

When you have your answer post as much here so I can close this thread as soon as possible.

[jookyle]

Why could the Soviet Union not separate itself from the world market and build socialism, in Trotsky's view?


It's not that it couldn't separate itself but it wouldn't do well in doing so as it would be facing economic and possibly military(which it probably would have had it not developed nuclear capabilities) oppression from everywhere else that would side with the West. And Russia really didn't separate itself in a sense. The Warsaw pact allowed the "socialism" of the USSR to expand into eastern Europe and form things like Council for Mutual Economic Assistance which allowed resource sharing among the countries. Russia to this day still utilizes the raw materials it has in it's reserves that it gained from eastern European mines. To take your example of healthcare, there were several advances made in medicine in the west that were sold to eastern European countries and then were able to be distributed to the other "communist" countries because of the Warsaw pact. Although that could spawn a whole other thread as eastern European counties were later sold the polio vaccine in the 60's that most likely led to the AIDs virus.


Trotsky seems to be saying that the productive forces of capitalism are much stronger than the Soviet Union. Wasn't his viewpoint proven wrong by Russia surpassing the West in many aspects, such as healthcare, and defeating the Nazi invasion, or am I misunderstanding the argument?


Well, the idea isn't really foreign to Marxist theory but, it has more to do with material production rather than services like healthcare. Many Marxists wrote specifically that socialism takes over the highest level of capitalist production. Lenin himself stressed this quite a bit. And since such a mode of production had never really been established in russia as there wasn't exactly a whole lot of time between February and October, is why things like NEP and such were created, as a way to spawn these higher levels of production that were seen in the more advanced industrial nations. This is why Trotsky proposes Permanent Revolution over Stagiest Theory. And things like the Five Year Plan were more in line with Permanent Revolution anyways. Although, personally, as one who does not see the USSR ever reaching socialism, it's not too in line with it.

[Blanquist]

The best healthcare was still in the west, although only for those who could afford it.

The question of all questions is the productivity of labor. Could the USSR raise it above the west? No, it couldn't in principle (as Trotsky, or any sane person could understand) and of course western capitalism always had the edge.

Again, the productivity of labor is the mother of all questions and arguments. It is the only thing that matters. The only true measure of progress.

Trotsky was proven right.

[Geiseric]

Well it's impossible for the USSR to exist alone for the same reason that Cuba had a rough time after the castroist revolution. They couldn't sell their nationalised sugar products to the U.S. since there was an embargo, same as the early U.S.S.R. so they needed a trading outlet. Russia couldn't produce all of the advanced machinery it needed to industrialise, which is why some kind of international "trade" would have been necessary during the USSR's industrialisation. However this doesn't mean to throw the other revolutionaries under the train for the good of the trade agreements, like Cominntern did. Some trotskyists and leninists see the trading with Social Dem germany as a bad move in the early 1920s.

[Questionable]

When you have your answer post as much here so I can close this thread as soon as possible.

Okay, question answered. Thank you all.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

When you have your answer post as much here so I can close this thread as soon as possible.
Is this because you are worried about a "sectarian shitstorm"? Maybe it's just me, but I like a good polemical free-for-all. Why be so preemptive?