permanent revolution and socialism in one country

[Comrade Alex]

A friend of mine once pointed out that socialism in one country and permanent revolution
Can be applied at the same time and work together
Although not to keen on details he stated that the building up socialism in one country could be a permanent process that works alongside world revolution eventually rooting out capitalism I advocate niether Trotskyism nor Stalinism but
What I'm asking is
Is thier any sense to this and is this a plausible idea
What do you guys think?

[fractal-vortex]

Socialism means a production that is socially controlled, i.e. by the society. The experience of the USSR, and others, like China, has proved that this is impossible when a transitional state is surrounded by imperialists. Socialism in one country is a Stalinist rhetoric.

[Nevsky]

"Socialism in one country" is part of internationalist strategy. Many of Stalin's opponents - and sadly most of the stupid nationalist Stalin supporters, too - try to make it look like a russian national-chauvinist idea but that is wrong. Stalin was as much an internationalist communist as Trotsky, the real difference between them lies in the means of achieving international socialist victory. Trotsky wanted "permanent revolution", whereas Stalin chose the strategy of "socialism in one country, i.e. building up socialism in the USSR first, in order to prove socialism's superiority as a system and to create a strong fortress of international communism; no long term nationalist deviation from leninism was intended.

"What is meant by the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country?

It means the possibility of solving the contradictions between the proletariat and the peasantry by means of the internal forces of our country, the possibility of the proletariat seizing power and using that power to build a complete socialist society in our country, with the sympathy and the support of the proletarians of other countries, but without the preliminary victory of the proletarian revolution in other countries.

Without, such a possibility, building socialism is building without prospects, building without being sure that socialism will be completely built. It is no use engaging in building socialism without being sure that we can build it completely, without being sure that the technical backwardness of our country is not an insuperable obstacle to the building of a complete socialist society. To deny such a possibility means disbelief in the cause of building socialism, departure from Leninism.

What is meant by the impossibility of the complete, final victory of socialism in one country without the victory of the revolution in other countries?

It means the impossibility of having a full guarantee against intervention, and consequently against the restoration of the bourgeois order, without the victory of the revolution in at least a number of countries. To deny this indisputable thesis means departure from internationalism, departure from Leninism." (Stalin, Concerning Questions of Leninism, Chapter 6)

[Sudsy]

The Trotskyist idea of Permanent Revolution sounds more like using Marxist terms to describe social democracy`s ideas of reform as opposed to revolution. Change and progress must always take place under socialism but Stalin`s declaration of Socialism In One Country was the USSR claiming its independence in an imperialist world.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The Trotskyist idea of Permanent Revolution sounds more like using Marxist terms to describe social democracy`s ideas of reform as opposed to revolution. Change and progress must always take place under socialism but Stalin`s declaration of Socialism In One Country was the USSR claiming its independence in an imperialist world.

In fact, the theory of permanent revolution implies that even bourgeois reforms are impossible to achieve in the present social conditions; that successful struggles for democratic rights can only be led by the proletariat in an alliance with the peasantry, and that democratic revolutions organically develop into socialist revolutions. It has precisely nothing to do with reformism, unless someone considers fighting for democratic reforms to be reformism, in which case the labour movement is reformist in general, excepting the most minor section of the ultra-left.

Stalin, in fact, did not dismiss the theory of the permanent revolution in general; he rejected Trotsky's specific formulation, which included the impossibility of socialism in one country.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

The Trotskyist idea of Permanent Revolution sounds more like using Marxist terms to describe social democracy`s ideas of reform as opposed to revolution. Change and progress must always take place under socialism but Stalin`s declaration of Socialism In One Country was the USSR claiming its independence in an imperialist world.
Interesting statement. please explain?

[Lord Hargreaves]

Trotskyism may seem "utopian" or whatever to orthodox Marxist-Leninists (Stalinists) because of the way it insists on the international element being primary, but the "realist" Stalinist alternative in the USSR was a human disaster.

You could easily argue that building socialism in one country - especially in a country of poverty, such as Russia in 1917 - is no more an immediate, pragmatic, achievable a goal than insisting on "permanent revolution". It frightens me that people cannot see that if Stalinism=socialism, then it truly is the case that socialism failed and socialism must be discarded as immoral.

[Emmeka]

Although not to keen on details he stated that the building up socialism in one country could be a permanent process that works alongside world revolution eventually rooting out

This is more or less what Lenin and Stalin had to say. That it was possible for socialism to exist in a single nation, as an "island" within a capitalist world, but that there needs to be a struggle towards a global revolution supported by this single country.

Permanent revolution takes only the latter part of that statement - that there needs to be a struggle to globally overthrow the bourgeoisie before socialism can truly exist.

PS - I tend to identify "socialism in one country" as a Leninist concept, not a Stalinist one. Quite a few times Lenin suggested socialism was possible in a single country, such as when he stated that "the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone" (On The Slogan for a United States of Europe, 1915). Stalin's addendum was more or less that is was "necessary" for the communist movement to support these "islands" and to seek to create more and more when a global revolution is not perceived to be possible:


"The final victory of socialism is the full guarantee against attempts at intervention, and hence against restoration, for any serious attempt at restoration can take place only with serious support from outside, only with the support of international capital. Therefore, the support of our revolution by the workers of all countries, and still more the victory of the workers in at least several countries, is a necessary condition for fully guaranteeing the first victorious country against attempts at intervention and restoration, a necessary condition for the final victory of socialism"

- The Results of the Work of the Fourteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B.) Stalin, 1925

[Old Bolshie]

This is more or less what Lenin and Stalin had to say. That it was possible for socialism to exist in a single nation, as an "island" within a capitalist world, but that there needs to be a struggle towards a global revolution supported by this single country.

Even considering that Lenin believed in SIOC (which I doubt pretty much as Lenin was claiming 2 years after the United States of Europe Slogan that without a German revolution their revolution was doomed) his attitude towards the Comintern was radical different from Stalin's one. While during Lenin's leadership the Comintern reunited every year, with Stalin the Comintern was practically disbanded and the communist parties outside of USSR became international affiliates of CPSU. This reveals that both had two very different ideas about the global revolution which cannot be associated to each other.



PS - I tend to identify "socialism in one country" as a Leninist concept, not a Stalinist one. Quite a few times Lenin suggested socialism was possible in a single country, such as when he stated that "the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone" (On The Slogan for a United States of Europe, 1915). Stalin's addendum was more or less that is was "necessary" for the communist movement to support these "islands" and to seek to create more and more when a global revolution is not perceived to be possible:

There's a difference between a suggestion and a elaborated doctrine adopted as a state policy. That is why SOIC is a considered a Stalinist concept and not a Leninist one. As I said above Lenin recognized the need of the revolution to spread in order to the Russia revolution to survive and until 1923 there was a fully commitment of USSR in spreading it(the last major attempt was that year in Germany). After that the SOIC was imposed and the international revolution was relegated to a secondary position.

[Emmeka]

After that the SOIC was imposed and the international revolution was relegated to a secondary position.

This is more or less my point. At various times Lenin claimed that it would be possible for socialism to exist in a single country, at a time when a global revolution is in a lull, but that it would be extremely unideal since this country would most likely be "doomed" to fall, outnumbered as it would be among a sea of capitalist nations (as you said about Lenin's position on the failed German revolution and its implications for Russia). Lenin made it an absolute priority to export the revolution and support revolutions elsewhere.

Stalin turned that on its head - it was possible and necessary for single socialist countries to exist, and these countries must focus on fortifying themselves, and communists worldwide should focus on support this single socialist nation as well as creating more single socialist nations. Lenin merely stated that it was possible.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It frightens me that people cannot see that if Stalinism=socialism, then it truly is the case that socialism failed and socialism must be discarded as immoral.

Really? The socio-economic system that brought democracy to the factories, achieved industrialization with the smallest amount of bloodshed in world history and turned Russia from a third world country wrecked by war into the second largest economy, and defeated fascism, is immoral? Of course not. I would say that it is the most moral system to bless this earth. The only reason why that model ought to be discarded is because it did last nearly long enough to be viable.



After that the SOIC was imposed and the international revolution was relegated to a secondary position.

Here's the thing though, after the revolution failed and workers weren't interested in taking arms, then what would putting revolution first actually mean in practice without workers making actual revolution, wouldn't this be the subsitutionism that Left-Comms are constantly talking about. More importantly, wouldn't forcing revolution on other countries, because it would be forced if the workers aren't doing it themselves, be social-imperialism and therefore the exact opposite of internationalism?

[Geiseric]

"Socialism in one country" is part of internationalist strategy. Many of Stalin's opponents - and sadly most of the stupid nationalist Stalin supporters, too - try to make it look like a russian national-chauvinist idea but that is wrong. Stalin was as much an internationalist communist as Trotsky, the real difference between them lies in the means of achieving international socialist victory. Trotsky wanted "permanent revolution", whereas Stalin chose the strategy of "socialism in one country, i.e. building up socialism in the USSR first, in order to prove socialism's superiority as a system and to create a strong fortress of international communism; no long term nationalist deviation from leninism was intended.

"What is meant by the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country?

It means the possibility of solving the contradictions between the proletariat and the peasantry by means of the internal forces of our country, the possibility of the proletariat seizing power and using that power to build a complete socialist society in our country, with the sympathy and the support of the proletarians of other countries, but without the preliminary victory of the proletarian revolution in other countries.

Without, such a possibility, building socialism is building without prospects, building without being sure that socialism will be completely built. It is no use engaging in building socialism without being sure that we can build it completely, without being sure that the technical backwardness of our country is not an insuperable obstacle to the building of a complete socialist society. To deny such a possibility means disbelief in the cause of building socialism, departure from Leninism.

What is meant by the impossibility of the complete, final victory of socialism in one country without the victory of the revolution in other countries?

It means the impossibility of having a full guarantee against intervention, and consequently against the restoration of the bourgeois order, without the victory of the revolution in at least a number of countries. To deny this indisputable thesis means departure from internationalism, departure from Leninism." (Stalin, Concerning Questions of Leninism, Chapter 6)

The victory of socialism in one country means the seizure of power by the working class. That happened in the USSR. However he never said "A workers state can create and maintain socialism indefinately while surrounded by capitalist countries."

Even if he did say it he would be wrong. There are countless other quotes from him, which you can find if you search "Lenin Internationalist Quotes" or something like that on google, which would maintain the fact he believed that an international revolution was of absolute necessity.

To start one off here's one:


It is not national interests we are upholding — we claim that the interests of socialism, the interests of world socialism, rank higher than national interests, higher than the interests of the state. We are defenders of the socialist fatherland.

Address to the Party Central Committee (14 May 1918); Collected Works, Vol. 27, pp. 365-381

[Old Bolshie]

Here's the thing though, after the revolution failed and workers weren't interested in taking arms, then what would putting revolution first actually mean in practice without workers making actual revolution, wouldn't this be the subsitutionism that Left-Comms are constantly talking about. More importantly, wouldn't forcing revolution on other countries, because it would be forced if the workers aren't doing it themselves, be social-imperialism and therefore the exact opposite of internationalism?

You are confusing the issue here. What happened for instance in the Eastern Europe after WWII was an occupation and submission of several countries to one country. This is what you would call "social-imperialism". There was no revolution (forced or not) in those countries.

This was not definitely the case of what the Bolsheviks were planning for spreading the revolution during Lenin's leadership. They were helping the German working class through their communist party (in coordination with it) to launch a proletarian revolution in Germany.

I also strongly disagree with you when you say that after the revolution failed the workers weren't interested in taking arms specially after the 1929 crisis shortly before the rise of Hitler in Germany.