Are Socialism in One Country and Proletarian Internationalism opposites?

[Lokomotive293]

l hear lots of people claim that Socialism in one country and Proletarian Internationalism are opposites. I don't really understand, why that would be the case, though. Is securing peace and even modest prosperity for a significant part of the world, freeing the world from fascism, and helping national liberation movements around the world not internationalism? Or, on a much smaller scale, the way Cuba is helping other countries, e.g. with their doctors? And, would all of that have been possible if the CPSU had rejected building socialism in the Soviet Union, and instead started a suicidal war against the Imperialist countries?

Also, not to start a who's-better-at-quoting-Lenin-contest, but, didn't Lenin acknowledge that socialism first had to be built in Russia, before they could take care of other countries, when he voted to sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? And didn't Trotsky's position not to sign it cause great damage for the young Soviet Union?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

In dealing with pure theory they are not opposites as [Proletarian] Internationalism simply means the working class helping each other despite borders. Attempting to build socialism in the confines of a single country has no bearing on comradely assistance. In a nutshell, basically.

[Blake's Baby]

You're mixing up a whole load of stuff there in my opinion.

1-socialism in one country is impossible, because socialism is predicated on the end of capitalism and therefore (as captalism has developed into a world system) can only be built globally; so 'socilsim in one country' is actually not socialism, it is state-capitalism. State capitalism in one country is certainly possible.

2-'securing peace and even modest prosperity for a significant part of the world' is not socialism, not is 'helping people with doctors'. At best it is welfare capitalism.

3-helping 'national liberation movements' is not internationalism it's nationalism. 'National liberation moveents' are in the final analysis movements for national capital. We do not make the proletariat stronger by strengthening the bourgeoisie, we do not make the proletariat stronger by tying it to national capital, we don't make the proletariat stronger by swapping a foreign bourgeoisie for a local one. In short, we don't make the proletariat stronger by supporting its enemies.

4-a suicidal war has nothing to do with it, the revolution is a revolution against capital not a war in favour of it. The world revolution burned out in the 1920s. We lost. We should stop pretending that we won.

5-Lenin was very confused (and confusing) about what he thought 'socialism' was but his entire strategy was predicated on the imminant revolution in Germany. He never (as far as I'm aware) believed that socialism could be established in Russia alone.

[Lokomotive293]

You're mixing up a whole load of stuff there in my opinion.

1-socialism in one country is impossible, because socialism is predicated on the end of capitalism and therefore (as captalism has developed into a world system) can only be built globally; so 'socilsim in one country' is actually not socialism, it is state-capitalism. State capitalism in one country is certainly possible.

I believe you are confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is always a temporary stage, and as such, it can be built in one country. Of course, always with the aim towards a communist world.


2-'securing peace and even modest prosperity for a significant part of the world' is not socialism, not is 'helping people with doctors'. At best it is welfare capitalism.

I agree that alone doesn't make socialism, but it's something socialism did, and it's also something it did quite well. I was naming those examples as examples of proletarian internationalism and the successes of socialist countries.


3-helping 'national liberation movements' is not internationalism it's nationalism. 'National liberation moveents' are in the final analysis movements for national capital. We do not make the proletariat stronger by strengthening the bourgeoisie, we do not make the proletariat stronger by tying it to national capital, we don't make the proletariat stronger by swapping a foreign bourgeoisie for a local one. In short, we don't make the proletariat stronger by supporting its enemies.

This is something where I would very much disagree. The proletariat of a nation oppressed by an Imperialist country is never going to be able to carry through a socialist revolution if it doesn't first free itself from Imperialist oppression. Also, helping it's colonies free themselves is a quite effective way to fight Imperialism, which means that the proletariat in Imperialist nations will also profit from the success of national liberation movements.
Refusing to support national liberation, because it is "bourgeois", is to support national oppression and Imperialism.


4-a suicidal war has nothing to do with it, the revolution is a revolution against capital not a war in favour of it. The world revolution burned out in the 1920s. We lost. We should stop pretending that we won.

Then what's the alternative to building socialism in one country, if the world revolution doesn't happen? According to a lot of opponents of socialism in one country, it should have been exporting the revolution by force (i.e. war)

[subcp]

Communist revolution does not separate its means from its ends. Consequently, it will not firstly take over (or dispense with) political power, and then only secondly change society. Both will proceed at the same time and reinforce each other, or both will be doomed. Communisation can only happen in a society torn by mass work stoppages, huge street demos, widespread occupation of public buildings and workplaces, riots, insurgency attempts, a loss of control by the State over more and more groups of people and areas, in other words an upheaval powerful enough for social transformation to go deeper than an addition of piecemeal adjustments. Resisting anti-revolutionary armed bodies involves our ability to demoralise and neutralise them, and to fight back when they attack. As the momentum of communisation grows, it pushes its advantages, raises the stakes and resorts less and less to violence, but only a rose-tinted view can believe in bloodless major historical change.”

-Troploin

If the mission of the working-class is to abolish capitalism and all classes, this would include the state; the state is not a neutral instrument depending on whose hands it in. A 'worker's state' is a contradiction.

The 'national liberation' movements, aside from simply swapping a foreign with a local bourgeoisie, ask workers to line up with their hangmen. In the interests of foreign policy, the Soviet Union supported the Kemalists in Turkey- even while members of the young Communist Party of Turkey were being rounded up and executed. Chinese Communists were ordered to enter and support (the Soviet Union gave substantial aid) to the Koumintang- the same KMT that massacred the revolutionary Chinese proletariat in the Shanghai Commune of 1927.

The clearest example which demonstrates the oxymoron of 'workers state' is the bloody crushing of the workers revolution in Hungary in 1956 by Soviet tanks. Workers in Hungary, who were still exploited along traditional capitalist lines (extracted surplus value, alienated from the means of production and what they produce, wage labor), organized soviets (worker's councils) and overthrew the state- a state that was operated by a bureaucracy at the head of which was a Communist Party. Following this the Soviet Union sent in tanks, repressed the students and workers revolt, and reestablished a CP bureaucracy at the head of the state.

Proletarian internationalism is signified by examples of the workers holding signs in Tahrir Square that read "Solidarity with Wisconsin Workers" while both the Arab Spring and the protests in Madison were going on. It is not the foreign policy of states that call themselves 'socialist'.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I believe you are confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is always a temporary stage, and as such, it can be built in one country. Of course, always with the aim towards a communist world.


What you are doing here is bastardising, even liquidating, the entire Marxist conception of Socialism. Socialism, as a temporary stage towards communism, is a meaningless term if one is a Marxist and an historical materialist.

Let me ask you this: if we are historical materialists, who understand the history of the world hitherto in terms of class struggle (between oppressors and oppressed) under various defined modes of production (Ancient, Asiatic, Feudal and currently Capitalist), then how can a temporary stage even exist? Socialism, as a temporary stage, is either communism-lite (i.e. working towards no states, not strengthening the state, working towards the liquidation of class war, not intensifying it as happened in the USSR) or welfare-capitalism. You seem to paint it as the latter.


I agree that alone doesn't make socialism, but it's something socialism did, and it's also something it did quite well. I was naming those examples as examples of proletarian internationalism and the successes of socialist countries.

This is a moot point as, in the Marxian sense, these countries were not even slightly on the path to communism. Call it Socialism if you want, but that is a meaningless and empty term in the way you are using it.


This is something where I would very much disagree. The proletariat of a nation oppressed by an Imperialist country is never going to be able to carry through a socialist revolution if it doesn't first free itself from Imperialist oppression. Also, helping it's colonies free themselves is a quite effective way to fight Imperialism, which means that the proletariat in Imperialist nations will also profit from the success of national liberation movements.
Refusing to support national liberation, because it is "bourgeois", is to support national oppression and Imperialism.

Again, unless you can prove that Socialism, your temporary mode of production (whatever that means) is tied to the Marxist conceptualisation of history and the idea of communism, then this really is, again, a moot point. Besides, there are a ton of countries that have been relatively free from imperial influence and haven't gone onto establish Socialism. Indeed, Leninists seem drawn to some of the most reactionary, and in some cases most imperial regimes (Iran, Iraq, China, DPRK) in the name of 'anti-imperialism'. This strategy has got the left - and the proletariat - nowhere, because it's a false theory based on false assumptions.


Then what's the alternative to building socialism in one country, if the world revolution doesn't happen? According to a lot of opponents of socialism in one country, it should have been exporting the revolution by force (i.e. war)

This is a ridiculous strawman. Faced with overwhelming evidence that teh USSR was, by and large, a capitalist country existing in a capitalist world, you resort to 'so what else should be have done? war?'. That's not the argument. The argument here is merely that we shouldn't be puppets managing capitalism under the (false) guise of Socialism, because as we can see very clearly with hindsight, all it does is hinder the proletariat in the long-run and damage the prospects for their emancipation.

[Blake's Baby]

I believe you are confusing socialism with communism. Socialism is always a temporary stage, and as such, it can be built in one country. Of course, always with the aim towards a communist world...

I believe you're drawing a distinction between 'socialism' and 'communism' that doesn't exist.



...
I agree that alone doesn't make socialism, but it's something socialism did, and it's also something it did quite well. I was naming those examples as examples of proletarian internationalism and the successes of socialist countries....

Except it wasn't 'socialism', they weren't 'socialist' countries, they were capitalist countries. You can go around saying you like what some capitalist countries did, but that doesn't make it socialism.



...
This is something where I would very much disagree. The proletariat of a nation oppressed by an Imperialist country is never going to be able to carry through a socialist revolution if it doesn't first free itself from Imperialist oppression. Also, helping it's colonies free themselves is a quite effective way to fight Imperialism, which means that the proletariat in Imperialist nations will also profit from the success of national liberation movements.
Refusing to support national liberation, because it is "bourgeois", is to support national oppression and Imperialism...

Supporting 'national liberation' is supporting nationalism and imperialism.



...
Then what's the alternative to building socialism in one country, if the world revolution doesn't happen? According to a lot of opponents of socialism in one country, it should have been exporting the revolution by force (i.e. war)

What's the alternative to developing AIDS, if you don't have cancer? If the revolution fails, it fails. The 'alternative' is barbarism - they're the only alternatives on offer. Socialism or barbarism. The revolution failed, socialism was for the moment impossible, there was no alternative to barbarism. So we got barbarism.

I don't think 'exporting revolution by force' works at all. Did Poland 1920 teach you nothing? Revolution cannot be exported at the point of a bayonet.

The proletarian territory must do everything it can to promote revolution - not handing over communists to Ataturk, re-arming Germany against its own working class, supporting the KMT as they suppressed the Shanghai Commune etc.

[hetz]

1-socialism in one country is impossible, because socialism is predicated on the end of capitalism and therefore (as captalism has developed into a world system) can only be built globally; so 'socilsim in one country' is actually not socialism, it is state-capitalism.Capitalism is a global system in so far as the whole world is more or less a part of the global capitalist economy. But in many countries in the world the general level of development of productive forces and all that comes with that is very low compared to developed capitalist countries, and so is the proletarian class, whether it be class conscious or not. On the other hand class consciousness in developed countries is weak even compared to the situation from a hundred years ago.

Marx and Engels talked first of all about socialism in America, the Netherlands, UK, France Germany... and later perhaps Russia.



Supporting 'national liberation' is supporting nationalism and imperialism.
Acording to what logic?

[Sea]

In dealing with pure theory they are not opposites as [Proletarian] Internationalism simply means the working class helping each other despite borders. Attempting to build socialism in the confines of a single country has no bearing on comradely assistance. In a nutshell, basically.And of course there's the ever-important distinction between self-sufficiency / SoiC as (what seems like) a solemn necessity versus as a core part of ideology.


Acording to what logic?When it comes to a statement like that, I don't think logic is the justification you should be looking for...

[Conscript]

Acording to what logic?

It's a conclusion that came with the era of imperialism, when the bourgeoisie was no longer revolutionary and the nation-state is just yet another reactionary contender in world imperialism. It represents the degeneration of the bourgeois revolution into chauvinism, national rivalry, and a retreat from liberal principles. The formerly revolutionary bourgeoisie began aligning to ultra-reactionaries like monarchists for the sake of preserving the reactionary, anti-worker interests of the nation-state in the web of imperialism. Capitalism has reached its final stage, it's time for it to be overthrown, which means dismantling the nation-state.

In our time there can be no 'national liberation' without an international socialist revolution. Workers in a particular nation would just trade the war and oppression of one ruling class for another, except it's a 'national' ruling class and therefore all is well. Capitalism remains completely untouched, and the revolution is buried before it even lives, channeled into irrelevance by the nat lib folk.

National antagonisms will only be solved by international socialism, as national antagonisms only exist because of capitalism and the state. Nat lib is just the foreign policy of the counter-revolutionary soviet state projecting its imperialist interests across the world, supporting any nationalist that's an enemy of the west, and channeling working class dissent into national liberation, an ultimately reactionary goal sponsored by reactionary nationalists, the stalinists of the USSR.

[hetz]

Nat lib is just the foreign policy of the counter-revolutionary soviet state projecting its imperialist interests across the world, supporting any nationalist that's an enemy of the west, and channeling working class dissent into national liberation, an ultimately reactionary goal sponsored by reactionary nationalists, the stalinists of the USSR.
Didn't the pre-1914 communists/socialists/social-democrats ( ... ) support the liberation of subjugated peoples and the freeing of colonies of imperialist powers?

[Lokomotive293]

It's a conclusion that came with the era of imperialism, when the bourgeoisie was no longer revolutionary and the nation-state is just yet another reactionary contender in world imperialism. It represents the degeneration of the bourgeois revolution into chauvinism, national rivalry, and a retreat from liberal principles. The formerly revolutionary bourgeoisie began aligning to ultra-reactionaries like monarchists for the sake of preserving the reactionary, anti-worker interests of the nation-state in the web of imperialism. Capitalism has reached its final stage, it's time for it to be overthrown, which means dismantling the nation-state.

In our time there can be no 'national liberation' without an international socialist revolution. Workers in a particular nation would just trade the war and oppression of one ruling class for another, except it's a 'national' ruling class and therefore all is well. Capitalism remains completely untouched, and the revolution is buried before it even lives, channeled into irrelevance by the nat lib folk.

National antagonisms will only be solved by international socialism, as national antagonisms only exist because of capitalism and the state. Nat lib is just the foreign policy of the counter-revolutionary soviet state projecting its imperialist interests across the world, supporting any nationalist that's an enemy of the west, and channeling working class dissent into national liberation, an ultimately reactionary goal sponsored by reactionary nationalists, the stalinists of the USSR.

If you want to call Lenin (and the overwhelming majority of Communists) a reactionary nationalist supporting the "foreign policy of the counter-revolutionary soviet state" (Before it existed, mind me), go ahead.

There is a difference between the nationalism of an Imperialist nation and that of an oppressed nation. Also, the bourgeoisie is not entirely reactionary everywhere in the world. That is due to the uneven development of different parts of the world, which is one of the features of Imperialism. In many parts of the world, the bourgeoisie has not yet made its revolution, has not yet built its own nation state. Of course, the bourgeoisie is inconsequent, parts of it often collaborate with the Imperialist oppressors. That is why the most revolutionary class, the working class, must push for national liberation. And the more the working class is involved in the process, the easier it will be to, once national liberation has been achieved, fight for socialism. As I said before, for an oppressed country, it is impossible to have a socialist revolution, without first freeing itself from Imperialist oppression.
And, if that is not convincing, as I also said before, an Imperialist country needs colonies. The more of them it loses, the weaker it gets, and that can only be an advantage for the working class in said Imperialist country.

Saying "There can be no national liberation without an international socialist revolution" is simply a cop-out, and in the end, it means supporting Imperialism. What are you going to tell the Kurds, who are trying to liberate themselves from Turkish oppression, or the Palestinians? That they must wait for the "international socialist revolution", before they can fight for their freedom? What if that "international socialist revolution" remains but wishful thinking if we don't fight Imperialism any way we can?

Btw, the core element of overthrowing capitalism is not "dismantling the nation state", that can (and will) happen later, it is depriving the bourgeoisie of its ownership of the means of production, and of its political power.

[Tim Cornelis]

Saying "There can be no national liberation without an international socialist revolution" is simply a cop-out, and in the end, it means supporting Imperialism. What are you going to tell the Kurds, who are trying to liberate themselves from Turkish oppression, or the Palestinians? That they must wait for the "international socialist revolution", before they can fight for their freedom? What if that "international socialist revolution" remains but wishful thinking if we don't fight Imperialism any way we can?

They fight Turkish oppression only to replace it with Kurdish oppression. There can be no liberation without communism. They don't have to await the revolution if they actively fight for it. You presume they must wait for others to initiate the revolution, why can't they?

[Green Girl]

1-socialism in one country is impossible, because socialism is predicated on the end of capitalism and therefore (as captalism has developed into a world system) can only be built globally; so 'socilsim in one country' is actually not socialism, it is state-capitalism. State capitalism in one country is certainly possible.


Saying "There can be no national liberation without an international socialist revolution" is simply a cop-out, and in the end, it means supporting Imperialism.

I have a question? What if that country were to completely and totally cut itself off from the capitalist world and have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with them? That way they are not involved in the exploitation of workers anywhere in the world? Let's say that country progresses to full communism with no money and each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs and wants.

Wouldn't such a country be a shinning example for the rest of the world? And citizens in other countries demand the workers paradise of this unnamed country until the whole world is communist.

And as new countries embrace communism, all of them agree not to trade with the capitalist world for reasons such as non-exploitation of the workers.

I think doing nothing is worse than doing something, but that is just my personal opinion.

[Comrade Bong]

I do not believe so. i believe socialism in one country is a good way to start a proletrian world. It was blatant after WWI that a quick revolution to bring socialism to europe could not work. It failed in germany, hungary and few other places. Therefore one has to build up first so that when the time has come, that there could be successful revolutions elsewhere

[hetz]

They fight Turkish oppression only to replace it with Kurdish oppression.
But that doesn't mean a democratic Kurdish republic isn't worth fighting for. Kurds, IIRC, aren't even allowed to speak their own language in the Turkish parliament and so on. Turkey is less democratic than, I dunno, Belarus.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Didn't the pre-1914 communists/socialists/social-democrats ( ... ) support the liberation of subjugated peoples and the freeing of colonies of imperialist powers?
How does this, pray tell, translate into supporting a local capitalist coup?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It's a conclusion that came with the era of imperialism, when the bourgeoisie was no longer revolutionary and the nation-state is just yet another reactionary contender in world imperialism.

I'd disagree and to make my point I'll cite an article I recently wrote on contemporary imperialism in Senegal.

http://aroundthepear.blogspot.com/2012/12/imperialism-in-senegal-when-capitalism.html

[Ilyich]

I think a common misconception is that the Stalinists actually want socialism in one country. From what I understand, they don't; they would prefer socialism in many (all) countries but see the prospect of building socialism in one country as possible and a last resort. Personally, I don't think building socialism in one country, especially a backward country, is possible but that's not what this thread is really about. I just wanted to clear that up.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

They fight Turkish oppression only to replace it with Kurdish oppression. There can be no liberation without communism. They don't have to await the revolution if they actively fight for it. You presume they must wait for others to initiate the revolution, why can't they?

This just flatly isn't true. Sure, it isn't complete liberation, but you have to understand that the opression of nationalities isn't imagined, it's a real concrete thing. The Irish in the north faced genocide at the hands of the british, and the Kurds face a massive amount of oppression. The problem with your argument is that you assume that capitalist oppression is the only form of oppression which only reveals that you have the privilege of living in a non-imperialized nation.

Marxists can't be dogmatic, national oppression is real and must be fought tooth and nail. Just because it doesn't always result in socialism doesn't mean that it shouldn't be fought. I am sure that there are many other forms of oppression that you oppose, but surely you don't oppose them because they necessarily lead to socialism. Why should national oppression, one of the worst forms of oppresion that has come about from capitalism, be an exception from this

[Lokomotive293]

What you are doing here is bastardising, even liquidating, the entire Marxist conception of Socialism. Socialism, as a temporary stage towards communism, is a meaningless term if one is a Marxist and an historical materialist.

Let me ask you this: if we are historical materialists, who understand the history of the world hitherto in terms of class struggle (between oppressors and oppressed) under various defined modes of production (Ancient, Asiatic, Feudal and currently Capitalist), then how can a temporary stage even exist? Socialism, as a temporary stage, is either communism-lite (i.e. working towards no states, not strengthening the state, working towards the liquidation of class war, not intensifying it as happened in the USSR) or welfare-capitalism. You seem to paint it as the latter.

I don't see how I would be "bastardizing the Marxist conception of Socialism", when Marx himself talked of a lower and higher stage of communism.
I also don't see how, if we think dialectically, strengthening the state and working towards no states, or intensifying the class struggle and working towards the liquidation of class war are in any way mutually exclusive.


This is a moot point as, in the Marxian sense, these countries were not even slightly on the path to communism. Call it Socialism if you want, but that is a meaningless and empty term in the way you are using it.

That is your interpretation.


Again, unless you can prove that Socialism, your temporary mode of production (whatever that means) is tied to the Marxist conceptualisation of history and the idea of communism, then this really is, again, a moot point. Besides, there are a ton of countries that have been relatively free from imperial influence and haven't gone onto establish Socialism. Indeed, Leninists seem drawn to some of the most reactionary, and in some cases most imperial regimes (Iran, Iraq, China, DPRK) in the name of 'anti-imperialism'. This strategy has got the left - and the proletariat - nowhere, because it's a false theory based on false assumptions.

See what has already been posted about this topic. National liberation doesn't automatically lead to socialism, but socialism is impossible without national liberation. Also, I don't see how Iran or the DPRK are imperialist countries.


This is a ridiculous strawman. Faced with overwhelming evidence that teh USSR was, by and large, a capitalist country existing in a capitalist world, you resort to 'so what else should be have done? war?'. That's not the argument. The argument here is merely that we shouldn't be puppets managing capitalism under the (false) guise of Socialism, because as we can see very clearly with hindsight, all it does is hinder the proletariat in the long-run and damage the prospects for their emancipation.

I have never yet seen "overwhelming evidence that the USSR was a capitalist country." The question what else should have been done (screaming "world revolution" doesn't help) is a very valid question, and the proposal that the USSR should wage revolutionary war against the Imperialist countries was a real proposal of opponents of socialism in one country at the time, so this is hardly a strawman. I still believe that the USSR did the international working class an indispensable service, and that, had it started a war against all the more powerful Imperialist nations instead of making peace with them (as far as possible) and starting to build socialism, none of this would have been possible.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't see how I would be "bastardizing the Marxist conception of Socialism", when Marx himself talked of a lower and higher stage of communism...

But he didn't call one of them 'socialism'.

We (Marxists) use 'lower' and 'higher' stage of communism. You think that 'lower stage of communism' = 'socialism'. It doesn't, not to Marxists. Furthermore, there's perennial confusion that 'lower stage of communism' = dictatorship of the proletariat. Or that 'socialism' = dictatorship of the proletariat. Neither of these are accurate.

In 1881 (I was reminded recently) Marx wrote to Domela Nieuwenhuis (a prominent Dutch Socialist) to say that Paris Commune was for the most part 'not socialist, nor could it be'. And yet, Engels also declared 'if you want to know what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is, look at the Paris Commune'.

So the commune was 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' (because it was a micro-state administered by and for the workers) but it wasn't 'socialist' - because it didn't transcend capitalism. The Commune might have proclaimed the Universal Republic but it couldn't make it a reality.

The Soviet Union even in its earliest days (when the working class was still in charge) likewise could be seen as 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' (quickly overtaken by the dictatorship of the party) but was not 'socialist' in that capitalism was not overcome, just altered. There was a still a working class producing commodities for wage labour after the revolution, no matter the particuarly inefficient statised forms of doing so that existed in the SU.

[Psy]

l hear lots of people claim that Socialism in one country and Proletarian Internationalism are opposites. I don't really understand, why that would be the case, though. Is securing peace and even modest prosperity for a significant part of the world, freeing the world from fascism, and helping national liberation movements around the world not internationalism? Or, on a much smaller scale, the way Cuba is helping other countries, e.g. with their doctors? And, would all of that have been possible if the CPSU had rejected building socialism in the Soviet Union, and instead started a suicidal war against the Imperialist countries?


The problem is that no peace can exist between a workers state and bourgeoisie state, and there is only two ways to keep the imperialist armies out of a workers state. One is to have a military more powerful then all the imperialist armies put together like the Warsaw Pact did yet this is not cheap and causes a huge drain on the economy. The other is to spread revolution so bourgeoisie states have to fight within their own borders and are on the defensive rather then the offensive.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I have a question? What if that country were to completely and totally cut itself off from the capitalist world and have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with them? That way they are not involved in the exploitation of workers anywhere in the world? Let's say that country progresses to full communism with no money and each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs and wants.

Wouldn't such a country be a shinning example for the rest of the world? And citizens in other countries demand the workers paradise of this unnamed country until the whole world is communist.

And as new countries embrace communism, all of them agree not to trade with the capitalist world for reasons such as non-exploitation of the workers.

I think doing nothing is worse than doing something, but that is just my personal opinion.
"If." This is a total abstraction. If it could be done that would be great. It cannot, so let's move on. For one thing no single nation probably possesses enough resources to do this. Second, the rest of the world would not exactly leave them alone. How many imperialist countries sent armies to fight the nascent USSR? Seventeen, I believe.

So, comrade, let us suppose that the US had a socialist revolution and decided to build socialism in one country. What would happen? Well, you wouldn't need to do that because the Mexican, Canadian, Latin American and European revolutions would follow forthwith. And it would be the duty of the USSA to see to it that the revolution spread to the rest of the world.

SIOC was the political line of the Soviet bureaucracy as jettisoned revolutionary internationalism to 1) placate a very restive and huge peasantry, and 2) to try to hold on to power in the USSR. It was about rejecting internationalism and embracing nationalism. It had nothing to do with building socialism.

[Jack]

You're mixing up a whole load of stuff there in my opinion.

1-socialism in one country is impossible, because socialism is predicated on the end of capitalism and therefore (as captalism has developed into a world system) can only be built globally; so 'socilsim in one country' is actually not socialism, it is state-capitalism. State capitalism in one country is certainly possible.

2-'securing peace and even modest prosperity for a significant part of the world' is not socialism, not is 'helping people with doctors'. At best it is welfare capitalism.

Capitalism didn't immediately develop as a worldwide system, when the first elements of the capitalist production model began to appear in England or France it didn't make the entire world Capitalist, Capitalism was developing and in some parts of the world still is developing. It's not like in 1776 we can say that the world suddenly became Capitalist because that's when Wealth of Nations came out, China, India, Africa, Latin America, etc all weren't capitalist until at least a century later. In the same way this can be applied to the development of Socialism.


3-helping 'national liberation movements' is not internationalism it's nationalism. 'National liberation moveents' are in the final analysis movements for national capital. We do not make the proletariat stronger by strengthening the bourgeoisie, we do not make the proletariat stronger by tying it to national capital, we don't make the proletariat stronger by swapping a foreign bourgeoisie for a local one. In short, we don't make the proletariat stronger by supporting its enemies.


Supporting national self determination, cultural preservation, and fights against repressive states isn't internationalist? Supporting the fight against imperialism isn't a proletarian interest? Please tell me why people shouldn't fight against colonialism.

How do you reach such bourgeois utopian views of an international revolution?

[Psy]

Capitalism didn't immediately develop as a worldwide system, when the first elements of the capitalist production model began to appear in England or France it didn't make the entire world Capitalist, Capitalism was developing and in some parts of the world still is developing. It's not like in 1776 we can say that the world suddenly became Capitalist because that's when Wealth of Nations came out, China, India, Africa, Latin America, etc all weren't capitalist until at least a century later. In the same way this can be applied to the development of Socialism.

We are not fighting isolationist feudal nobility that spend most of their time waging war against other fiefdoms within the same monarchy, we are not capitalists that can simply buy power like the first British capitalists. Unlike when capitalists challenged feudalism we are against a monolithic foe that sees its interests everyone and not just in tiny fiefdoms.

[Jack]

We are not fighting isolationist feudal nobility that spend most of their time waging war against other fiefdoms within the same monarchy, we are not capitalists that can simply buy power like the first British capitalists. Unlike when capitalists challenged feudalism we are against a monolithic foe that sees its interests everyone and not just in tiny fiefdoms.

While that's some lovely rhetoric, I don't see where it negates my point.

[Paul Pott]

No. Proletarian Internationalism is a basic tenet of Marxism-Leninism ("Stalinism")

One problem is the name - Socialism in ten nations can still be SIOC.

[Psy]

While that's some lovely rhetoric, I don't see where it negates my point.

You can't have a gradual transition as the constant need for expanding markets means capitalists as a class has to own the entire Earth. If workers own any means of production capitalists will instantly seize it by force to increase their rate of profit.

This means any workers taking means of production will have to escalate to a world revolution or it will fail as the capitalists will be ganging up on the revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

Capitalism didn't immediately develop as a worldwide system, when the first elements of the capitalist production model began to appear in England or France it didn't make the entire world Capitalist, Capitalism was developing and in some parts of the world still is developing. It's not like in 1776 we can say that the world suddenly became Capitalist because that's when Wealth of Nations came out, China, India, Africa, Latin America, etc all weren't capitalist until at least a century later...

This is quite true, and I don't disagree with any of it.


...
... In the same way this can be applied to the development of Socialism...

No, really it can't. The major difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism is an exploitative social system, which (because it was replacing another exploitative social system) can accommodate itself to other class systems.

The bourgeoisie could develo its power inside feudalism because it was an exploitative system, it could build its power on the back of the exploited proletariat. The proletariat can't build its economic power inside capitalism, as we have no other class to exploit and are too busy being exploited by the bourgeoisie.

Capitalism didn't replace a world-system either, whereas capitalism is a world system, in fact it's the first world economic system, that's kinda the point. As a world system (unlike feudalism) it must be overthrown as a world system.

So, for all those reasons, really really not.




Supporting national self determination, cultural preservation, and fights against repressive states isn't internationalist? Supporting the fight against imperialism isn't a proletarian interest? Please tell me why people shouldn't fight against colonialism...

'colonialism'? What fucking century are you in? are you seriously asking 'supprting nationalism isn't internationalism?' - because, yeah, nationalism isn't internationalism.


...How do you reach such bourgeois utopian views of an international revolution?

By rejecting the Second International liberalism that you seem so fond of. Fuck your bourgeois 19th-century romantic liberalism.

[Lokomotive293]

'colonialism'? What fucking century are you in? are you seriously asking 'supprting nationalism isn't internationalism?' - because, yeah, nationalism isn't internationalism.

Are you seriously claiming that colonialism (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't exist today? That there are no Imperialists oppressing and exploiting entire nations?
And, again the question: What should the working class in an oppressed nation do? Accept the oppression, because fighting it would be "nationalism" (which, of course, is always, under any circumstances, evil, and not a historical concept, that has had different roles in different historical circumstances)?

[Althusser]

What about the Vietnamese fighting French colonialism? Ho Chi Minh was a patriot before a communist or anything else for that matter. Also, I'd much rather support the goals of an Arab Nationalist like Arafat before supporting Hamas or the Zionists.

[Blake's Baby]

Are you seriously claiming that colonialism (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't exist today?...

Do you think there are really 'colonialist' nations? Countries invading others and shipping their populations there to rule over the locals? I really don't think that's happened since the British colonised East Africa in the late 19th century. Possibly you could say that China was the last colonialist power given what it's doing in Tibet, but even Israel can't be seen to be 'colonialist' in that sense.


... That there are no Imperialists oppressing and exploiting entire nations?...

Imperialism isn't the same as colonialism.

What 'exploited nations' are there? Can you name them? Can you then explain which nations are doing the bad old Imperialism (or as it may or may not be colonialism) on them?

Every nation is imperialist. Imperialism isn't a policy, it's not a matter of 'good' capitalists and 'bad' capitalists - it's an inescapable consequence of the era we're in. The difference is not between 'imperialist' and 'oppressed' nations but between successful and unsuccessful imperialist nations.

Supporting unsuccessful imperialists so they become successful isn't strengthening the working class, it's strengthening capitalism. Why would we want to do that?



...And, again the question: What should the working class in an oppressed nation do? Accept the oppression, because fighting it would be "nationalism" (which, of course, is always, under any circumstances, evil, and not a historical concept, that has had different roles in different historical circumstances)?

What oppressed nations do you mean, Palestine and Tibet? or do you mean the working class in all nations, because you're somehow implying that they're not oppressed. All workers, wherever they live, should be struggling against capitalism and the state, not for it.

[Comrade #138672]

The point is not to isolate the revolution in a single country. This is what 'Socialism in one country' does. That is why it is incompatible with International Socialism.

However, I can understand how the idea of 'Socialism in one country' came to be. For Russia there was no other way, since other revolutions had failed. They were on their own and 'Socialism in one country' simply reflected this. Of course, they were doomed from then on. It was a desperate struggle for survival. You don't simply give up. Eventually Capitalist Imperialism made it impossible for the USSR to continue to exist and Trotsky turned out to be right.

[robbo203]

This just flatly isn't true. Sure, it isn't complete liberation, but you have to understand that the opression of nationalities isn't imagined, it's a real concrete thing. The Irish in the north faced genocide at the hands of the british, and the Kurds face a massive amount of oppression. The problem with your argument is that you assume that capitalist oppression is the only form of oppression which only reveals that you have the privilege of living in a non-imperialized nation.

Marxists can't be dogmatic, national oppression is real and must be fought tooth and nail. Just because it doesn't always result in socialism doesn't mean that it shouldn't be fought. I am sure that there are many other forms of oppression that you oppose, but surely you don't oppose them because they necessarily lead to socialism. Why should national oppression, one of the worst forms of oppresion that has come about from capitalism, be an exception from this

Depending on that you mean by fighting "national oppression" the comparison with other forms of oppresion does not hold. Socialists reject racism and sexism, for example, because such things divide the working class and detract from the development of class consciousness. But so too does nationalism and the so called national liberation struggle which implicitly binds the workers to the capitalists within a pseudo-national identity

If that is what you mean by fighting national oppression then, no , we should definitely not be doing this but, on the contrary, should be fighting tooth and nail against nationalism every bit as much as against racism or sexism. National oppression after all is sustained by the nationalism of those doing the oppressing and we have witnessed often enough how those who were once "nationally oppressed" have themselves become the oppressors of other so called nations in their midst.

The lesson is to be absolutely clear what you mean by "fighting national oppression" and to steer well clear of anything that smacks in the least of nationalism itself

[keystone]

proletarian internationalism entails seizing power in different places and this would not take place not simultaneously worldwide. revolution in the real world is a messy process, going block by block, city by city, country by country. sometimes you lose territory and then gain it back.

the emergence of no other social system in the past was predicated on some international seizure of power at the same time: capitalism took centuries to develop before a single nation-state became "capitalist" - and as a global system it has only recently infiltrated the furthest reaches of the globe which still bear the marks of feudalism, caste systems, and slavery.

it does not seem far-fetched to me to see socialism emerging over many decades on a world scale, with some countries having revolutions and some being restored to capitalism, and periods of conflict and warfare between the socialist states and the remaining capitalist/imperialist powers.

i never understood just how idealized one's thought process would have to be to adopt the trotskyist/ultra-"left" perspect of a worldwide simultaneous seizure of power, and reject any real revolution because it didn't fit a notion invented in one of their pamphlets.

[Geiseric]

Well if words mean what I think they used to mean, as in definitions of words are unchanged, the literal meaning of those two terms would be the polar opposite.

[Geiseric]

l hear lots of people claim that Socialism in one country and Proletarian Internationalism are opposites. I don't really understand, why that would be the case, though. Is securing peace and even modest prosperity for a significant part of the world, freeing the world from fascism, and helping national liberation movements around the world not internationalism? Or, on a much smaller scale, the way Cuba is helping other countries, e.g. with their doctors? And, would all of that have been possible if the CPSU had rejected building socialism in the Soviet Union, and instead started a suicidal war against the Imperialist countries?

Also, not to start a who's-better-at-quoting-Lenin-contest, but, didn't Lenin acknowledge that socialism first had to be built in Russia, before they could take care of other countries, when he voted to sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? And didn't Trotsky's position not to sign it cause great damage for the young Soviet Union?

What? Your history is wrong, Trotsky wrote the Brest Litovsk treaty, and signed it, taking Russia out of WW1.

What do you mean "before they could take care of other countries"? It was never a bolshevik concept that comintern should sell out mass communist parties to popular fronts, or to join organizations such as the U.N. It was a bolshevik concept to further class consciousness through objective victories, leading the working class to a revolution, but that ideal is incompatable with SioC because for SioC to work, Stalin needed to persuade the Capitalists to give the fSU some breathing room and investments, which necessitated stopping the struggles to overthrow the capitalist governments. That's the best way I could put it.

[Ostrinski]

What? Your history is wrong, Trotsky wrote the Brest Litovsk treaty, and signed it, taking Russia out of WW1.Trotsky was the head of the delegation but on February 10 announced that Russia would be withdrawing from negotiations because of frustration with continued German demands for more territory.

[Lokomotive293]

Do you think there are really 'colonialist' nations? Countries invading others and shipping their populations there to rule over the locals? I really don't think that's happened since the British colonised East Africa in the late 19th century. Possibly you could say that China was the last colonialist power given what it's doing in Tibet, but even Israel can't be seen to be 'colonialist' in that sense.

You have a very narrow view of what is "colonialism", and maybe, as I said, it is the wrong word. I am talking about Imperialist countries dominating other countries, through the export of capital, the corruption of their governments, foreign debt, and yes, even real military power. What do you think Afghanistan or Iraq are about? Or Libya and Syria? What about the domination of most of Latin America by the US? Germany's domination of the EU?


Imperialism isn't the same as colonialism.

Never said it was.


What 'exploited nations' are there? Can you name them? Can you then explain which nations are doing the bad old Imperialism (or as it may or may not be colonialism) on them?

See above, and there are many more examples.


Every nation is imperialist. Imperialism isn't a policy, it's not a matter of 'good' capitalists and 'bad' capitalists - it's an inescapable consequence of the era we're in. The difference is not between 'imperialist' and 'oppressed' nations but between successful and unsuccessful imperialist nations.

No, not every nation is Imperialist. Imperialism is a certain stage in capitalist development only a few nations have reached. It is that highest stage of capitalism, where "free competition" turns into monopoly, and a few nations are dividing the world between each other, and constantly fighting for redivision.

For further read: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/


Supporting unsuccessful imperialists so they become successful isn't strengthening the working class, it's strengthening capitalism. Why would we want to do that?

That is not what anyone is proposing.


What oppressed nations do you mean, Palestine and Tibet? or do you mean the working class in all nations, because you're somehow implying that they're not oppressed. All workers, wherever they live, should be struggling against capitalism and the state, not for it.

Nowhere was I saying that workers in Imperialist nations are not oppressed. Or are we saying that male workers are not oppressed, when we point out the double oppression of women?
Btw, I don't believe Tibet is an oppressed nation, but that is a topic for a thread on its own.

[Lokomotive293]

What? Your history is wrong, Trotsky wrote the Brest Litovsk treaty, and signed it, taking Russia out of WW1.

What do you mean "before they could take care of other countries"? It was never a bolshevik concept that comintern should sell out mass communist parties to popular fronts, or to join organizations such as the U.N. It was a bolshevik concept to further class consciousness through objective victories, leading the working class to a revolution, but that ideal is incompatable with SioC because for SioC to work, Stalin needed to persuade the Capitalists to give the fSU some breathing room and investments, which necessitated stopping the struggles to overthrow the capitalist governments. That's the best way I could put it.

Trotsky argued for "neither war nor peace", which meant not signing any peace treaty and demobilizing the army at the same time, as he thought, the German revolution was soon to come. Only when that resulted in the Germans taking even more Russian territory did Lenin's proposal to sign the peace get a majority.

Peaceful coexistence is a concept that was developed by Lenin, btw, and "breathing room" was absolutely necessary for the USSR to survive. Yes, some decisions are made out of necessity, or taking into consideration the real material circumstances. The overthrow of capitalism and the building of communism is not as easy as some portray it, it's a long and hard process of ups and downs, advances and retreats.
Forming alliances (if temporary) with other classes is an indispensable part of the struggle for socialism and communism. With who and for what is, again, a question of circumstances, and popular fronts have nothing to do with "selling out Communist parties".

[Blake's Baby]

proletarian internationalism entails seizing power in different places and this would not take place not simultaneously worldwide. revolution in the real world is a messy process, going block by block, city by city, country by country. sometimes you lose territory and then gain it back...

Yes, I think you're right that the revolution will be a long messy process.


...the emergence of no other social system in the past was predicated on some international seizure of power at the same time: capitalism took centuries to develop before a single nation-state became "capitalist" - and as a global system it has only recently infiltrated the furthest reaches of the globe which still bear the marks of feudalism, caste systems, and slavery...

But what has this to do with socialism? Capitalism wasn't overthrowing a world-system; but capitalism is a world-system, the first world-system, that's part of the point.

Furthermore, capitalism developed inside feudalism because it was another exploitative system - socialism isn't, unless you're hiding a slave-class we build socialism on. Socialism isn't built inside capitalism, it's predicated on the suppression of capitalism.


...it does not seem far-fetched to me to see socialism emerging over many decades on a world scale, with some countries having revolutions and some being restored to capitalism, and periods of conflict and warfare between the socialist states and the remaining capitalist/imperialist powers...

You're really conflating proletarian power with socialism here. The dictatorship of the proletriat isn't socialism.


...i never understood just how idealized one's thought process would have to be to adopt the trotskyist/ultra-"left" perspect of a worldwide simultaneous seizure of power, and reject any real revolution because it didn't fit a notion invented in one of their pamphlets.

No 'ultra-left' or Trotskyist, not even Lenin, believes in a "worldwide simultaneous seizure of power". So, you can be as unbelieving as you like about something that only exists in your own imagination.

The seizure of power is something that will take time. The world revolution - or if you like, world civil war - will not take place upon the instant.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Are you seriously claiming that colonialism (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't exist today? That there are no Imperialists oppressing and exploiting entire nations?
And, again the question: What should the working class in an oppressed nation do? Accept the oppression, because fighting it would be "nationalism" (which, of course, is always, under any circumstances, evil, and not a historical concept, that has had different roles in different historical circumstances)?
Your point about colonialism, or if one prefers, neo-colonialism is a good one. But the idea that Lenin ever said anything suggesting that they had to build socialism in the USSR before spreading elsewhere suggests you have not read much Lenin. Lenin and the Bolsheviks always stressed that the world revolution took precedence over the Russian Revolution. You will note, under dire domestic circumstances, they spent much time and effort to build the Communist International, by itself a powerful demonstration to their commitment to internationalism.

SIOC is a program that historically was absolutely counterposed to revolutionary internationalism. In the USSR it was put forward to placate a restive peasantry and to bolster the position of the emerging bureaucracy. In the abstract building SIOC or at least doing the best that you can, is fine. But of course, you can't build socialism in a single country for reasons that other comrades have enumerated above. SIOC is an oxymoron.

[hetz]

In the USSR it was put forward to placate a restive peasantry
How is that so? I mean Stalinism is remembered for immense state violence, some might even call it an open war against the peasantry that started in the late 20s and continued for a few years.
I'm not sure if "SIOC" was that relevant before Stalin came to power.

[keystone]

thanks for answering some things here, BB. a few thoughts:



But what has this to do with socialism? Capitalism wasn't overthrowing a world-system; but capitalism is a world-system, the first world-system, that's part of the point.

Furthermore, capitalism developed inside feudalism because it was another exploitative system - socialism isn't, unless you're hiding a slave-class we build socialism on. Socialism isn't built inside capitalism, it's predicated on the suppression of capitalism.

...


You're really conflating proletarian power with socialism here. The dictatorship of the proletriat isn't socialism.


i think i see the issue you are raising here. since socialism isn't exploitative how can its emergence be intertwined at all with the existing capitalist system?

i understand socialism as emerging organically from the contradiction between the socialized nature of the productive process developed under capitalism and the privatized appropriation of the wealth of that process. while not trying to be teleological/religious about it, it is somewhat a "next logical step" for humanity to take in developing our ability to organize the means of producing our needs for life.

how do we propose dealing with the law of value immediately after the seizure of power? this also cuts to the question of proletarian power versus socialism - what vocabulary are we using? sometimes a lot of the debates we have can be cleared up in some respects by figuring out what we mean when using certain words.

my view, shared by some, is that the term socialism itself refers to the transitional period of "dictatorship of the proletariat"/proletarian power between capitalism and a worldwide communist society. i know that trotsky and many influenced by the associated school of thought do not use this term, and use the word "socialism" for what i would call communism (damn it, even from the grave the guy is trolling us!).

right now i am reading a book called "on the transition to socialism" by paul sweezy and charles bettleheim. in it, the two debate what exactly socialism means. i think i like bettleheim's definition:



What characterizes socialism as opposed to capitalism is not (as your [Sweezy's] article suggests) the existence or non-existence of market relationships, money, and prices, but the existence of the domination of the proletariat, of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is through the exercise of this dictatorship in all areas--economic, political, ideological--that market relations can be progressively eliminated by means of concrete measures adapted to concrete situations and conjunctures. This elimination cannot be "decreed" or "proclaimed." It requires political strategy and political tactics. When these are lacking, the finest proclamations may lead to the opposite of one's stated (and hoped for) goal.
(Sweezy, Paul and Charles Bettleheim, On the Transition to Socialism. Monthly Review Press 1971, pg. 19)


from this perspective, we can look at socialism as the dictatorship of the proletariat on the road to communism. this is not necessarily defined by certain forms (ie the debate on markets and prices that sweezy and bettleheim are having) but by the overall direction of the state apparatus and whether it has been alienated from the masses and no longer moving in the direction towards abolition of class distinctions and their material basis in the means of production.



No 'ultra-left' or Trotskyist, not even Lenin, believes in a "worldwide simultaneous seizure of power". So, you can be as unbelieving as you like about something that only exists in your own imagination.

The seizure of power is something that will take time. The world revolution - or if you like, world civil war - will not take place upon the instant.

so, can you speak more to what the process would look like for those who are unfamiliar with the "socialism everywhere at once" perspective? when the proletariat takes power in one country they just wait a few decades, don't run an economy or change anything until everywhere else is ready? i won't be more facetious than that, but i really would like to see some thoughts on this.

[Blake's Baby]

...
i think i see the issue you are raising here. since socialism isn't exploitative how can its emergence be intertwined at all with the existing capitalist system?...

Something like that.



...

how do we propose dealing with the law of value immediately after the seizure of power? this also cuts to the question of proletarian power versus socialism - what vocabulary are we using? sometimes a lot of the debates we have can be cleared up in some respects by figuring out what we mean when using certain words.

my view, shared by some, is that the term socialism itself refers to the transitional period of "dictatorship of the proletariat"/proletarian power between capitalism and a worldwide communist society. i know that trotsky and many influenced by the associated school of thought do not use this term, and use the word "socialism" for what i would call communism (damn it, even from the grave the guy is trolling us!)...

It's nothing to do with Trotsky, neither Marx nor Engels saw 'socialism' as a stage between capitalism and communism. You can use words however you like, but expect other people to contest your usage. As a Marxist I'll use 'socialism' the way I think Marx used it.

Marx clearly differentiated three different 'stages' if you like - the dictatorship of the proletariat, when the working class seizes state power; the lower stage of communism, when production has been reorganised to provide for human needs, but has not managed to overcome all the deficiencies left to it by capitalism; and the higher phase of communism, when production is truly possible for the fulfillment of all human needs.

In this scheme, the dictatorship of the proletariat must be equal to the world revolutionary war. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a class-society in a particular territory, and it's surrounded by other territories where the propletariat hasn't yet taken power.



...right now i am reading a book called "on the transition to socialism" by paul sweezy and charles bettleheim. in it, the two debate what exactly socialism means. i think i like bettleheim's definition:...

I don't. I think it's much easier not to mistake capitalism for socialism.






...

so, can you speak more to what the process would look like for those who are unfamiliar with the "socialism everywhere at once" perspective? when the proletariat takes power in one country they just wait a few decades, don't run an economy or change anything until everywhere else is ready? i won't be more facetious than that, but i really would like to see some thoughts on this.

Be as facetious as you like; mock on in ignorance if you wish.

How could the dictatorship of the proletariat survive 'decades'? The best example we have - the early Soviet Republic - only lasted about 18 months as something genuinely resembling the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Paris Commune lasted 2 months. The Anarchist Collectives in Spain were re-integrated into the state in a matter of months too. Unless the revolution quickly extends itself, it is dead. It has to break out of its national boundaries very rapidly.

So, no, the proletariat doesn't take power in one country and do nothing for decades. That's a foolish notion. If it did it would have already lost, 19 years ago.

Because socialism - or communism - can't develop a new economy inside capitalism, the economic transformation can only take place after the proletariat seizes power. Because the new productive arrangements are predicated on the destruction of capitalism as a world system, they too must be worldwide. So the abolition of capitalism, not here or there but worldwide, is the starting point for the creation of a new communist society.

From the first attempt at a seizure of power by the proletariat, to the final defeat of capitalism, that's the world revolution. When the proletariat takes power in one place, its immediate aims would be, I should think, securing supplies and provisions to feed the population of the revolutionary territory, suppressing pro-capitalist elements 'at home', and helping the working class in neighbouring countries struggling against the bourgeoisie there, while fighting off the encircling capitalists who will no doubt be attempting to invade. Economically, I expect what will happen will look something like 'War Communism'. There doesn't seem to me to be much alternative to rationing and a certain amount of militarisation of the economy.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

Concerning the question on OP, I say Socialism in One Country is not opposed to Proletarian Internationalism. For example, was it or was it not proletarian internationalism when the USSR bought sugar from Cuba? Was it or was it not proletarian internationalism the USSR-Cuba co-op?

As for not supporting national liberation movements, I find it hideous. It is tragic how people who have never experienced external domination, experienced not having a nation can set aside such a struggle. National liberation movements are a part of the identity of people, about their sovereignty. Or does anyone think that the working class of a third-world country could liberate itself without liberating their nation from external domination? That's what 'Patria o Muerte' stood for. In Nicaragua, for example, many Sandinistas got to Marx through their nationalism.
I do not intend to be offensive, but come on.

Sometimes ultra-leftists seem to be a bit fatalist as OP said. How would the world revolution 'happen' almost simultaneously? Guess what, another country's help for a weak revolutionary group would not help a lot. If there is no popular support, no matter how well equipped a group is.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

From the first attempt at a seizure of power by the proletariat, to the final defeat of capitalism, that's the world revolution. When the proletariat takes power in one place, its immediate aims would be, I should think, securing supplies and provisions to feed the population of the revolutionary territory, suppressing pro-capitalist elements 'at home', and helping the working class in neighbouring countries struggling against the bourgeoisie there, while fighting off the encircling capitalists who will no doubt be attempting to invade. Economically, I expect what will happen will look something like 'War Communism'. There doesn't seem to me to be much alternative to rationing and a certain amount of militarisation of the economy.

It is all fun and games when written down on a website, right? Not always it is possible to suppress internal and external reactionaries and, concomitantly, support other revolutions throughout the world.



Unless the revolution quickly extends itself, it is dead. It has to break out of its national boundaries very rapidly.


Yeah, again, it is easy to imagine or say. You seem to super-estimate the impact of a revolution. As if a revolution happens anywhere in the world, it will automatically expand to everywhere. In the 'Critique of Gotha Program' Marx said that the proletarian struggle is national on its form but ultimately international.
The Revolution is not like an insurrection, it is prepared years and years before.

Sorry for the double post.

[Blake's Baby]

... In the 'Critique of Gotha Program' Marx said that the proletarian struggle is national on its form but ultimately international...

What he actually said was "It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle -- insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form"."

So, not a national struggle 'in substance' but a national struggle 'in form'. Why 'in form'? Because the working class in Angola can't struggle against the bourgeoisie in Afghanistan, that's why.

Please go and read the Critique of the Gotha Prgramme 1.5 and realise that what you are proposing, like Lassalle's 'international brotherhood... in the framework of national states', is precisely what Marx was arguing against.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

What he actually said was "It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle -- insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form"."

That is actually what I was trying to say.



Please go and read the Critique of the Gotha Prgramme 1.5 and realise that what you are proposing, like Lassalle's 'international brotherhood... in the framework of national states', is precisely what Marx was arguing against.

I do not see where we diverge.
If it is because of National Liberation Movements, one cannot think about a proletarian revolution when one's nation is still dependent. Marx criticizes the programme of the United Workers' Party of Germany, a party within one of the most evolved (economically speaking) countries of his time.
When it comes to the situations of countries which conquered their independence only on XIX century, things are different. Cuba, as we know, became truly independent - because being a big Casino for US rich is not independence - after taking down Batista, in the 1950s; only then, could the peasantry and the young proletariat think of building socialism.

I agree, however, that to take a step forward, to really reach socialism, the revolution must transcend the national borders.

[Blake's Baby]

That is actually what I was trying to say...

I know. I hoped that finding the actual quote, instead of just posting an approximation, might allow you to see where you were wrong, and that Marx was arguing against the idea that there was a possibility of a collection of states that 'became socialist' and then joined up, which is I think what your conception is.

Of course 'in form' the revolution is national, because the working class (though an international class) is where it is, in different existing countries. Because of this, the working class in Britain must overthrow the bourgeoisie in Britain while the working class in China must overthrow the bourgeoisie in China and the working class in Cuba must overthrow the bourgeoisie in Cuba ('national in form') - but the working class, worldwide, must overthrow capitalism and the state, worldwide, for socialism/communism (a classless communal society) to be established ('not national in substance').




I do not see where we diverge.
If it is because of National Liberation Movements, one cannot think about a proletarian revolution when one's nation is still dependent. Marx criticizes the programme of the United Workers' Party of Germany, a party within one of the most evolved (economically speaking) countries of his time.
When it comes to the situations of countries which conquered their independence only on XIX century, things are different. Cuba, as we know, became truly independent - because being a big Casino for US rich is not independence - after taking down Batista, in the 1950s; only then, could the peasantry and the young proletariat think of building socialism.

I agree, however, that to take a step forward, to really reach socialism, the revolution must transcend the national borders.

Only then could the capitalist bureaucracy in Cuba develop national capitalism as a client of Russian imperialism, do you mean? All that happened between 1959-61 is Cuba changed sides from the American Bloc to the Russia Bloc. See also China moving from Russian Bloc to American Bloc between 1960-74, Nicaragua moving from American to Russian in 1979, etc.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

I know. I hoped that finding the actual quote, instead of just posting an approximation, might allow you to see where you were wrong, and that Marx was arguing against the idea that there was a possibility of a collection of states that 'became socialist' and then joined up, which is I think what your conception is.

I don't think I was clear, then. My point is: it is possible to link National Liberation movements with socialist movement in the case of dependent countries; it only depends on the coalition of forces. I am not saying that a country alone can reach socialism, or two or three countries, for that matter.



Of course 'in form' the revolution is national, because the working class (though an international class) is where it is, in different existing countries. Because of this, the working class in Britain must overthrow the bourgeoisie in Britain while the working class in China must overthrow the bourgeoisie in China and the working class in Cuba must overthrow the bourgeoisie in Cuba ('national in form') - but the working class, worldwide, must overthrow capitalism and the state, worldwide, for socialism/communism (a classless communal society) to be established ('not national in substance').

Fully agree.


Only then could the capitalist bureaucracy in Cuba develop national capitalism as a client of Russian imperialism, do you mean? All that happened between 1959-61 is Cuba changed sides from the American Bloc to the Russia Bloc. See also China moving from Russian Bloc to American Bloc between 1960-74, Nicaragua moving from American to Russian in 1979, etc.

Well, Cuba had to pluralize national production to survive, because exporting sugar and cigars would not do. And after the Embargo, they became even more dependent from USSR. But of course, we can ignore and condemn the 'Cuban bureaucracy' and the post-revolutionary achievements such as democracy and quality of life.

Again, if Socialism cannot be built in separate countries, one cannot blame Cuba for not taking step forward, since, despite all isolation, the revolutionary struggle persists for more than 50 years now.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't think I was clear, then. My point is: it is possible to link National Liberation movements with socialist movement in the case of dependent countries; it only depends on the coalition of forces. I am not saying that a country alone can reach socialism, or two or three countries, for that matter...

I don't think it's possible to link 'nationalism' and 'socialism' at all. What do you mean by 'dependent' countries? There are no colonial Empires any more, not even France. Really, as I said earlier, the only places where this might apply would be Tibet and maybe the Occupied Territories.



...
Well, Cuba had to pluralize national production to survive, because exporting sugar and cigars would not do. And after the Embargo, they became even more dependent from USSR. But of course, we can ignore and condemn the 'Cuban bureaucracy' and the post-revolutionary achievements such as democracy and quality of life...

Cuba would have survived anyway. The island wouldn't sink because of a crap economy. The regime might not have survived, though as it was a based on a well-armed group of guerrillas, it probably would.


...Again, if Socialism cannot be built in separate countries, one cannot blame Cuba for not taking step forward, since, despite all isolation, the revolutionary struggle persists for more than 50 years now.

I don't think there's much of a movement to overthrow the current government, so I have to disagree with you there. I don't 'condemn' Cuba for not taking steps toward socialism, I condemn them (like all other capitalist governments) for being capitalist.