Why can't "Socialism in One Country" work?

[Fourth Internationalist]

If there was only a socialist revolution in one country (say others had not yet occured or were not successful), is there a way for the country to be socialist?

[Blake's Baby]

Not according to those of us who think that 1-socialist society is only possible after capitalism and 2-capitalism needs to be abolished as a world system (because that's what it is).

If you have a different definition of socialism, then I suppose. If you think it's state-run capitalism, or some kind of collectivism with wages and a state, then, yeah.

[subcp]

It would depend on whether or not that first country to overthrow the ruling-class and crush the state was engaged in a national revolution, or if it was a preliminary (early) victory of a worldwide revolutionary crisis (like that between 1917-1927). Communist revolution is not instantaneous, everywhere and automatically complete- but it is a worldwide revolution because capitalism is the first (and will be the last) globally integrated mode of production. When the Russian Empire fell to the power of the worker's councils and revolutionary working-class, it was the opening shot of the revolutionary crisis, which was worldwide and touched nearly everywhere in some manner from the early victories of the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia, to the establishment of worker's councils in the November Revolution in Germany, the formation of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, all the way to the end of the revolutionary wave in the UK General Strike in 1926 and the Shanghai Commune in 1927- the proletariat attempted to overthrow capitalism. Had this revolution been successful, Russia would not have been isolated; in short order, the new worker's council based societies of Western Europe, America, Asia and everywhere else would have been there. But the revolution was not successful, so the Soviet Republic in Russia was isolated and strangled of revolutionary energy. Since it did not succeed, Russia was reabsorbed back into the political and economic arena of global capitalism.

However, the above definition, that some parts of the world will necessarily be 'first' to succeed in a working-class revolution before the rest of the world, is not what Socialism In One Country is referring to. In SIOC, a nation that had undergone a successful proletarian revolution can undergo 'socialist construction' on its own (generally through state capitalist measures). This is not communism, and is not what Marx wrote all of those books to promote.

The larger explanation to why SIOC is not possible is because capitalism is a global system; the entire globe, since the completion of the world market, is necessary for global capitalism to continue in operation. If a major nation was suddenly pulled out of the market, especially since the restructuring of capitalism following the return of crisis in the 1960's and the collapse of the Bretton-Woods system in 1971, it would seriously disrupt (perhaps to an unprecedented degree) capital processes; hell, look at the projections for what would happen if a relatively minor economic power like Greece exits the Eurozone and defaults on its debts. Point being, communism is not a system that can co-exist with capitalism. Capitalism will not allow it- it will starve that nation of imports of necessary goods; and since restructuring in-particular, every nation is interdependent on everyone else for goods and services. Manufacturing has been shuffled to specific zones on the Earth; specific zones produce the majority of agricultural and meat/dairy products to the rest of the globe, etc. The means of production, constant capital, has been concentrated and zoned for an interconnected global market.

[Fourth Internationalist]

However, the above definition, that some parts of the world will necessarily be 'first' to succeed in a working-class revolution before the rest of the world, is not what Socialism In One Country is referring to. In SIOC, a nation that had undergone a successful proletarian revolution can undergo 'socialist construction' on its own (generally through state capitalist measures). This is not communism, and is not what Marx wrote all of those books to promote.

So if a country is say the first to succeed in a revolution, or is the only one that has succeeded while the others failed, what would that country do in the meantime? If it can't become socialist, what would it do?

[Luís Henrique]

So if a country is say the first to succeed in a revolution, or is the only one that has succeeded while the others failed, what would that country do in the meantime? If it can't become socialist, what would it do?

Try to become socialist, even knowing it is impossible. And trying to help revolution succeed elsewhere, as it is the only actual way forward.

Luís Henrique

[Fourth Internationalist]

Try to become socialist, even knowing it is impossible. And trying to help revolution succeed elsewhere, as it is the only actual way forward.

Luís Henrique. Dd

What do you mean by try to become socialist?

[ind_com]

If there was only a socialist revolution in one country (say others had not yet occured or were not successful), is there a way for the country to be socialist?

Yes. The alternative of construction of socialism is capitulation.

[subcp]

So if a country is say the first to succeed in a revolution, or is the only one that has succeeded while the others failed, what would that country do in the meantime? If it can't become socialist, what would it do?

Recuperation or violent repression (Hungary 1919, Finland 1918). Since we're not likely to have red and white guards battling it out on horseback with tachanka's next time around, it'll likely look less like a civil war and more like a massive participation of workers in mass assemblies (Greece 2008-2011), state power collapses when the army won't engage in the level of violent suppression necessary to beat back such a deep revolutionary crisis (sort of what happened in Egypt), workers revolt against the bourgeois parties and their lackeys and realize their power via relation to production (Italy 1969), take over their workplaces (Argentina 2001), all over.

If you take what happened in Argentina as an example, the state had lost authority, owner-bosses were fleeing, and workers in many examples seized their workplaces- but since it wasn't a moment in a global revolutionary crisis, the new state regime legislated and thus recuperated by legally defining and recognizing the worker-seized factories and businesses. In Spain the zones where rural communes and collective worker control of factories (Catalonia) was smashed with military force and re-integrated into the state. When the dozen allied and white guard military's couldn't physically smash the Soviet Republic in Russia (RSFSR; prior to formation of USSR), it started doing business with it.

[Green Girl]

If there was only a socialist revolution in one country (say others had not yet occured or were not successful), is there a way for the country to be socialist?

For a country to pull that off they would have to be able to thrive being cutoff from the capitalist world because the capitalists would want such a venture to fail.

I believe America actually has the resources to pull it off, we used to manufacture everything at home and we could again and we have oil reserves. If the rest of the world put an embargo on us, I think we would still thrive. And then cause workers in other countries to rise up in revolution by our example, until the whole world was communist.

There are other larger countries in the world that likely would be able support a socialist revolution with a capitalist embargo.

Even if there was no embargo a real communist country going it alone would have to cut themselves off from the capitalist world because trade with capitalist countries would involve exploitation of that countries workers.

[subcp]

The problem is that a country, even one as large and packed with natural resources as the US, Russia and China, have enormous importance in the capitalist world economy. Unlike a country like Greece or Ireland or Nigeria or Yemen, which could be brought back in line with the global economy via massive repression (after economic shocks concurrent with that nations importance in the global economy), if one of the 'superpowers' fell to revolution, we would be facing the barbarism side of 'socialism or barbarism' paradigm: in which case it would be a material necessity for the revolution to be worldwide. We're already on a race to the bottom regarding living standards and quality of life; capitalism is in its senile decay.

But those resources will be the basis of a human community based on the old phrase, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" (and desires) when the revolutionary crisis becomes a communist world.

[Luís Henrique]

What do you mean by try to become socialist?

Power to workers in the workplaces; reduction of working hours (if the working class is to be the ruling class, it needs the time to rule, that doesn't exist if you have to work eight hours a day) and establishing democratic rule inside the workplaces; trying to put up a system of distribution that can replace the market; establishment of democratic rules for managing society at large.

These measures, in an isolated country, will quite probably lead to defeat. But the other option is to reinstate the power of capital within the isolated country, which in the end is just another kind of defeat.

Luís Henrique

[ind_com]

Power to workers in the workplaces; reduction of working hours (if the working class is to be the ruling class, it needs the time to rule, that doesn't exist if you have to work eight hours a day) and establishing democratic rule inside the workplaces; trying to put up a system of distribution that can replace the market; establishment of democratic rules for managing society at large.

These measures, in an isolated country, will quite probably lead to defeat. But the other option is to reinstate the power of capital within the isolated country, which in the end is just another kind of defeat.

Luís Henrique

How will it lead to defeat if you manage to put the working class directly in charge?

[Luís Henrique]

How will it lead to defeat if you manage to put the working class directly in charge?

Because if we are in an isolated country, the military of the other countries will invade and defeat us.

Luís Henrique

[ind_com]

Because if we are in an isolated country, the military of the other countries will invade and defeat us.

Luís Henrique

Yes, in case we fail to pose a real military threat to the invading capitalist countries.

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, in case we fail to pose a real military threat to the invading capitalist countries.

... but to pose a real military threat to the invading countries we need to produce weapons and ammonitions as much as we can, and there goes the reduction of working hours, and with it democracy and the workers' power within the workplace.

And quite certainly we would need an actual army, disciplined and organised "from above" to be able to defeat the invading armies. And there goes democracy in society at large, too.

Luís Henrique

[ind_com]

... but to pose a real military threat to the invading countries we need to produce weapons and ammonitions as much as we can, and there goes the reduction of working hours, and with it democracy and the workers' power within the workplace.

I think this is not true in the age of nuclear and biological weapons. We can have a few of those and we will be left in peace. Also, from a very early stage, we need to focus on internationalism and try to have organization in as many countries as possible, so that if they attack us, they face the threat of revolution at home.



And quite certainly we would need an actual army, disciplined and organised "from above" to be able to defeat the invading armies. And there goes democracy in society at large, too.

Luís Henrique
In the front, we can have special detachments organized for a specific period of time, in a top down manner. But in the rest of the army the leaders can be elected normally. I don't see a problem with that.

[Luís Henrique]

I think this is not true in the age of nuclear and biological weapons. We can have a few of those and we will be left in peace.

Biological weapons are, I fear, very ineffective. Nuclear weapons, well, if we can get hold of them, perhaps. But I suppose they will doubt our bluff, and realise we wouldn't be actually able to shoot them first.


Also, from a very early stage, we need to focus on internationalism and try to have organization in as many countries as possible,

Which is going to be difficult if we are threatening the workers abroad with nuclear annihilation...


so that if they attack us, they face the threat of revolution at home.

They must face the threat of revolution at home even if they don't attack us; it cannot be some kind of currency.


In the front, we can have special detachments organized for a specific period of time, in a top down manner. But in the rest of the army the leaders can be elected normally. I don't see a problem with that.

I see; unless the military threat is repealed very soon and very efficiently, such kind of war will tend to degenerate into all-scale war, involving not a few special detachments, but whole armies of tenths of millions.

There is no way out; without spreading the revolution worldwide, it is doomed.

Luís Henrique

[ind_com]

Biological weapons are, I fear, very ineffective. Nuclear weapons, well, if we can get hold of them, perhaps. But I suppose they will doubt our bluff, and realise we wouldn't be actually able to shoot them first.



Which is going to be difficult if we are threatening the workers abroad with nuclear annihilation...

Or, the nuclear threat will enable the workers to see the futility of war. Hence they will shift more towards the revolutionary side and declare class war in their own country.


They must face the threat of revolution at home even if they don't attack us; it cannot be some kind of currency.

If they attack us, their regular armies are engaged, hence their domestic proletariat will be at an advantageous point, if they have they have the necessary organizational strength.


I see; unless the military threat is repealed very soon and very efficiently, such kind of war will tend to degenerate into all-scale war, involving not a few special detachments, but whole armies of tenths of millions.

There is no way out; without spreading the revolution worldwide, it is doomed.

Luís Henrique

What I meant is, our armies shall consist of a few top-down structured special detachments, and a much larger democratic army. We will have our whole population armed and organized into a people's militia, which will have democratic elections and decision-making. This will be the base force. The special forces will be required for special actions, swift annihilation of targeted enemy units and other guerrilla actions.

[Luís Henrique]

Or, the nuclear threat will enable the workers to see the futility of war.

It doesn't seem to happen. Threats of brutal aggresion will more likely make workers rally under the bourgeoisie to the banner of national defence.


What I meant is, our armies shall consist of a few top-down structured special detachments, and a much larger democratic army. We will have our whole population armed and organized into a people's militia, which will have democratic elections and decision-making. This will be the base force. The special forces will be required for special actions, swift annihilation of targeted enemy units and other guerrilla actions.I don't think a people's militia is of any actual use in modern conventional warfare. Who will drive the tanks and fly the planes? Those have to be specialists, which requires a regular army, which requires top-down structures.

War, in and of itself, is a classist activity. We can certainly engage in it for a limited time, but if it becomes a habit, it will require classist structures.

"Simultaneous revolution" is nothing but a Stalinist cop-out; it is obvious that revolutions will happen at different times in different countries. But an isolated country cannot actually build socialism; if revolutions don't erupt and succeed in a significant part of the world in a reasonable span of time - in the same "revolutionary wave", I would say - it is practically certain that revolution will be reversed in isolated countries.

Luís Henrique

[subcp]

"Simultaneous revolution" is nothing but a Stalinist cop-out; it is obvious that revolutions will happen at different times in different countries. But an isolated country cannot actually build socialism; if revolutions don't erupt and succeed in a significant part of the world in a reasonable span of time - in the same "revolutionary wave", I would say - it is practically certain that revolution will be reversed in isolated countries.

This. The idea that it will be a battle of territory rather than a generalized movement to abolish capitalism and establish socialism is in line with 2nd International type thinking- that we can evolve into socialism through reforms or making gains and keeping them, incrementally (up to and including running nation-states). I don't think thermonuclear warfare and weaponized small-pox is going to be unleashed against a large minority of the human population during a deep revolutionary crisis (why would professional militaries continue to operate when the state is dissolving and the basis of the economy is erased from under their feet?). Military specialism ("spetzy's") and modern war machines aren't necessary to abolish capitalism-

You can't shoot a social relationship.

[Decolonize The Left]

If there was only a socialist revolution in one country (say others had not yet occured or were not successful), is there a way for the country to be socialist?

Capitalism is a global system. It has reached and integrated almost every corner of the globe. Hence any revolution which attempts to destroy this system and replace it with another must be likewise global.

[hetz]

Capitalism wasn't really global in Marx's time though.

[subcp]

It was developing that way at that time- by 1914 there really weren't anymore pre-capitalist regions of the globe that could be 'claimed' by the central capitalist countries (hence the inter-imperialist world war 1). Marx and Engels both lived through the development of capitalism on a global level, and died not that many years before every area on Earth had been 'claimed' by a colonizer (and those colonizing countries turning on each other as a result).

[Blake's Baby]

Capitalism wasn't really global in Marx's time though.

This is true. Capitalism started as a local system, and replaced local systems.

However, what it did is 1-concentrate capital; 2-establish a proletariat; and 3-create the world market. I otehr words, it set the stage for world socialism and did so by becoming a flobal system.

Marx and Engels were wrong about many things, and one of the was constantly seeing the globalising dynamics of capitalism - the stuff in the Manifesto about capitalism 'battering down the Chinese Walls of protectionism' and all that - as being the completion of the world market. They kept thinking that they were living in times that were truly revolutionary, in which capitalism had no historic tasks left. But really, all revolutionaries since the beginning of the 20th century have analysed capitalism as being obsolete, moribund or decadent, haven't they?

[Luís Henrique]

But really, all revolutionaries since the beginning of the 20th century have analysed capitalism as being obsolete, moribund or decadent, haven't they?

It is difficult to be a revolutionary when you actually believe capitalism is still a progressive force.

Luís Henrique

[subcp]

It's hard to predict how capitalism will orient itself to meet the challenges created by the capitalist mode of production itself; becoming a 'fetter on further development of the productive forces'. We may yet see new depths of exploitation unthinkable in the present. But it can be argued that since those days, a working-class revolution was the only solution; then and now. It's too close to determinism/mechanistic to want capital to develop itself as fully as possible (i.e. must we wait until Afghanistan, New Guinea, industrializes like China and then exports those jobs to another, poorer nation, and become post-Fordist too?) before propagandizing the overthrow of capitalism. Some people still argue that because there are remnants of the peasantry in pockets of the globe that capitalism still hasn't fulfilled its historic task. If it were up to these kinds of arguments, we'd be waiting until Trotsky's catastrophism prophecies come true (day after never).

[ind_com]

It doesn't seem to happen. Threats of brutal aggresion will more likely make workers rally under the bourgeoisie to the banner of national defence.


Usually if an invaded country bites back real well, then we have these 'bring our boys home campaigns'.


I don't think a people's militia is of any actual use in modern conventional warfare. Who will drive the tanks and fly the planes? Those have to be specialists, which requires a regular army, which requires top-down structures.

War, in and of itself, is a classist activity. We can certainly engage in it for a limited time, but if it becomes a habit, it will require classist structures.

"Simultaneous revolution" is nothing but a Stalinist cop-out; it is obvious that revolutions will happen at different times in different countries. But an isolated country cannot actually build socialism; if revolutions don't erupt and succeed in a significant part of the world in a reasonable span of time - in the same "revolutionary wave", I would say - it is practically certain that revolution will be reversed in isolated countries.

Luís Henrique

These tasks do seem impossibly difficult sometimes, but if we expect to create true workers democracies in the workplaces; getting rid of even the technical requirements of managers and other specialists, then probably the same goes for the military too.

In the case of a revolution, even preparation for seizure of power in a single country requires a long time, in which the state tries to militarily crush the revolutionary forces. So, we are always in a state of war, after the revolutionary movement gains some momentum, and this can happen even decades before the actual nationwide seizure of power. In the course of seizing power in smaller areas, we keep developing those areas to help us sustain our movement. This can be applied to a whole country as well.

[goalkeeper]

the needs and demands of the proletariat are often subordinated to the whims and needs of the "one country" as it meanders around the murky world of bourgeois world politics.

[Luís Henrique]

Usually if an invaded country bites back real well, then we have these 'bring our boys home campaigns'.

This isn't related to the idea of threatening nuclear anihillation of imperialist countries.


These tasks do seem impossibly difficult sometimes, but if we expect to create true workers democracies in the workplaces; getting rid of even the technical requirements of managers and other specialists, then probably the same goes for the military too.

We expect to get rid of the military, don't you?


In the case of a revolution, even preparation for seizure of power in a single country requires a long time, in which the state tries to militarily crush the revolutionary forces.

No, usually not. The weapon the bourgeois State uses against revolutionary force is the police, not the military.


So, we are always in a state of war, after the revolutionary movement gains some momentum, and this can happen even decades before the actual nationwide seizure of power.

This is the rule concerning bourgeois or peasant revolutions; I don't think it will hold for proletarian insurrections.


In the course of seizing power in smaller areas, we keep developing those areas to help us sustain our movement. This can be applied to a whole country as well.

This necessarily leads into suppression of workers' power in workplaces, and consequently in society in general. The cost of "developing areas" is overwork - quite certainly brutal overwork.

Luís Henrique

[RedMaterialist]

Capitalism wasn't really global in Marx's time though.

"Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land...

"The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere."

Marx and Engels. Manifesto

[RedMaterialist]

Why can't "Socialism in one country work?"

I think the Soviet Union provided the answer to that question, at least in a practical sense. Once a socialist state fully develops it begins to wither away and die, because there is no class left for the workers (or the bureaucracy) to suppress, and thus, no reason for the existence of the state. The capitalists, big and small, are all dead. However, when the state collapses, the capitalists in the rest of the world come in and re-establish capitalism, either monopolist or state-owned, etc.

Obviously, the ideal situation would be pre-socialist workers' states existing in all major countries of the world; then, more or less at the same time, all of these states would collapse, leaving a communist world.

The question, then, is worldwide communism possible without worldwide revolution, particularly in Western Europe and the U.S.?

[Sir Comradical]

It can "work" but under constraints. If a country is large enough and has enough resources it can certainly continue to maintain collective property relations however the economic life of the state will be disciplined by international economic conditions. For example it will have to sell commodities on the open market to import the goods it needs which imposes competition on the workers state. Regardless of the reality that these forces constrain socialism's full potential, the fact that the capitalist class didn't exist in these countries, was itself a major step up from capitalism and therefore worth defending.

[Geiseric]

Well it didn't "work," because the ones who came up with the theory had the same interests in restoring capitalism as the bureaucrats who eventually did it anyways. The only thing communists anywhere can do to continue the chance of a revolution is to complete the revolution everywhere else in the planet, with no exceptions, because INEVITABLY the capitalists will invade, or like with the fSU, counter revolution will restore capitalism from the state which takes charge of the economy and military, which still has to adjust to deal with the threat of capitalism.

Think about how much money the fSU spent on military spending compared to any other country in the world, that is why SioC can't work, because the existance of a state makes socialism impossible.

[Catma]

For example it will have to sell commodities on the open market to import the goods it needs which imposes competition on the workers state.Not only that, the methods used to produce those good in the countries being traded with would have to be considered as part of the system in this hypothetical country. Thus, it would not be wholly socialist, as it relies in part on extracting labor from workers, even if they are in another country.

To think a nuke is a deterrent is to fail to understand the nature of war. War is everything from nukes to newspapers; from secret agents to superweapons. The capitalist world engaged all socialist countries (whatever that means) in the 20th century, using all means to attempt to destabilize the state. There is no way to "not be attacked" by the capitalist powers; regardless of deterrents, they will constantly look for any opening to destroy us.

In terms of trade, countries can be played off one another and be forced to increase productivity, which comes at the expense of the workers. If you need to trade, that is just another vulnerability.

[ind_com]

Well it didn't "work," because the ones who came up with the theory had the same interests in restoring capitalism as the bureaucrats who eventually did it anyways. The only thing communists anywhere can do to continue the chance of a revolution is to complete the revolution everywhere else in the planet, with no exceptions, because INEVITABLY the capitalists will invade, or like with the fSU, counter revolution will restore capitalism from the state which takes charge of the economy and military, which still has to adjust to deal with the threat of capitalism.

Think about how much money the fSU spent on military spending compared to any other country in the world, that is why SioC can't work, because the existance of a state makes socialism impossible.

Ah.

[Geiseric]

Ah.

Isn't there a quote from Lenin, "When there is a state there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there is no state."

[ind_com]

Isn't there a quote from Lenin, "When there is a state there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there is no state."

I'm not sure whether Lenin said exactly that or not, but he talked of a socialist state on several occasions.

[l'Enfermé]

^Lenin viewed socialism ("the first phase of communism") as a society where the means of production are already common property, and the State has "withered" to the extent that classes no longer exist, thus the State's main function as an organ of class dictatorship is no valid, but the State has yet to "wither away completely" - that happens only under the "higher phase of communist society" (The State and Revolution).

[Geiseric]

He didn't define the DotP as socialism, he was clear that it was a transitionary stage. The N.E.P. happened under the bolsheviks who had political rule, however that, and the planned economies through russia and eastern europe were not completely socialist, as we saw from the capitalist restoration from the state which ruled the fSU, which after a long period of time was inevitable.

[Blake's Baby]

"Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land...

"The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere."

Marx and Engels. Manifesto

Yes; but the fact that this is sometimes in the past tense - 'has established the world market' - and sometimes in the present - 'chases... it must' - expresses some ambiguity as to whether this process is complete or still ongoing.

In short - when Marx and Engels thought it was complete, they were wrong (as they later realised, even decades after the Manifesto was published); but the process is surely complete now, 160-odd years after the Manifesto was published. Capitalism has changed a lot since 1848.

[Let's Get Free]

Socialism will, and must, be a wageless, moneyless, worldwide society of common (not state) ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution. There can be no state in a socialist society, and "socialism in one country" implies the existence of one.

[Brutus]

I believe you are confusing socialism with communism, in socialism a state must exist so it can be used to destroy the bourgeoisie, then, once the world has rid itself of capitalism and the capitalists, and the workers control society, the state no longer has to defend the working class' gains or oppress the former oppressors, it is useless, and dies, or withers away.

[Blake's Baby]

I believe you're differentiating between socialist society and communist society, which is a difference that doesn't exist in the writings of Marx or Kropotkin or any other socialist writers of the later 19th century.

Then you're confusing socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Sepehr]

In a single country especially one without a big popluation or rich natrual resouces and one that is economcally cut off from the rest of the world that countries people may not be able to afford much luxury. But if that country was capatilist then there would be maybe 10-50 billionaires and the rest of that people would be starving, homeless, and illiterate. So I say socialism conquers capatilism no matter what! In honor of Fidel Castro who transformed a poor and starving nation with a very high homeless population and a high percent of illiteracy to a country where there is not one homeless person, 100% literacy, free healthcare and dental care for all, and no starving people!

[Geiseric]

Everybody is overcomplicating this, if SioC wants to function, it needs to maintain a gigantic defensive army, which off the bat makes socialism impossible due to the resources put into the defense of the rest of the planned economy.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm not sure whether Lenin said exactly that or not, but he talked of a socialist state on several occasions.

He does; it is in State and Revolution, in the very beginning of chapter 4th, just after a quotation of Marx.

And he does talk about a "socialist State" there, as well as he repeatedly, even didactically, identifies "socialism" with Marx's "lower phase of communism".

But he fails to directly address the issue of national boundaries in that work.

Luís Henrique

[Geiseric]

He does; it is in State and Revolution, in the very beginning of chapter 4th, just after a quotation of Marx.

And he does talk about a "socialist State" there, as well as he repeatedly, even didactically, identifies "socialism" with Marx's "lower phase of communism".

But he fails to directly address the issue of national boundaries in that work.

Luís Henrique

He does address that, his entire point was that the revolution would have to spread outside of national boundaries, which it did.