Trotsky and the theory of SiOC.

[Zulu]

OK, it's been high time for everybody to learn the grim truth, that the real father of the theory of SiOC was none other than Leon Trotsky himself.

You see, guys, SiOC directly follows from Trotsky's theory of the "Permanent revolution", which says proletariat should take power and get on with transforming the economic basis on a national level in any country, regardless of its stage of capitalist development and the state of revolutionary affairs in the most advanced industrial countries.

Just read carefully, for example, this couple of articles by Trotsky, and see for yourself, if he thought socialist construction in Soviet Russia was to any degree predicated on the revolution in the West or whatever...

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/20.htm
http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/21.htm


Moreover, Trotsky even was blatant enough to admit (in an appendix to "Revolution Betrayed" (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch12.htm) unobtrusively called "Socialism in One Country") that Stalin had in fact never expounded on such a theory, as if he wanted to confirm the following Stalin's statement:

"Mr. Campbell still further stretches the truth when he puts such words into the mouth of Stalin as that "under Trotsky there had been an attempt to spread communism throughout the world; that this was the primary cause of the break between hirnself [i.e., Stalin] and Trotsky; that Trotsky believed in universal communism, while he [Stalin] worked to confine his efforts to his own country." Only people who have deserted to the camp of the Kautskys and the Welses can believe such stuff and nonsense, in which the facts are turned upside-down."
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1932/11/30.htm


But don't take my or even Stalin's word on it.

Read the '1973 book ''Leon Trotsky & the Politics of Isolation'' by Richard B. Day (https://vk.com/doc138422017_187640105?hash=80a03f0390fb301878&dl=237c7161fb372b2c50).

[jookyle]

I disagree on two points. Permeant revolution and SiOC are not exclusively at odds or agreement with one another. A socialist movement could hold both theories for practice. Which brings me to my second point in that SiOC has never been used by MLs and whoever else who upholds the theory to mean literally, socialism in on country and one country only. And there are many primary sources to back that up. The SiOC concept was applied to the Soviet Union as a stance against spreading socialism across the world by unwanted force; it was a measure to prevent the Soviet Union from acting in the name of social imperialism; this was obviously thrown out the window later on the Soviet Unions history. Permanent revolution (which I do not agree with) is not in opposition to this, but in opposition to the two stage theory (meaning capitalism has to happen before socialism can). Trotsky, as you pointed out, did often take a stance closer to social imperialism, but in all fairness that doesn't directly come out of permanent revolution, although PR could be used, and has been used, to validate it.

[Zulu]

Trotsky, as you pointed out, did often take a stance closer to social imperialism

I didn't point this out. Or I did, but not in the sense you seem to imply. In fact I think that Stalin was pretty much poised at spreading socialism by force (to secure it's "final victory" which, as he never forgot to emphasize while writing on the subject, was possible only on the global level). Trotsky, on the contrary, was always talking about socialism in separate countries - Russia, Germany, China, US, emphasizing that proletariat in any country should not wait other countries to tag along.

Trotsky wanted industrialization in Soviet Russia from the get-go, in order to build socialism in Soviet Russia and that's it, simple as it sounds.

Stalin initially thought socialism in Russia wasn't achievable ahead of Europe, so he, for instance, wasn't even supporting the monopoly of foreign trade when that question arose as the NEP was instituted by Lenin. But after the European working class as a whole clearly proved to have succumbed to opportunism, Stalin began the industrialization of the USSR, basically to build lots tanks to crush imperialism, just as certain Lenin's works of 1916 (from which the expression "victory of socialist revolution in one country" actually comes) suggested. Unfortunately, he missed the terrible blow from Hitler which pretty much doomed the effort, although the game wasn't completely lost until after Khrushchev.

And, by the way, spreading revolution by force is not "social imperialism", it's world revolution. Social imperialism is capitalism in its highest stage (imperialism) disguising itself in red paraphernalia (something which happened in the USSR as it forfeited the spread of revolution - by force or otherwise - in favor of spreading good old "political influence" with respect to the same of the other imperialist superpower; same story in the PRC).

[Geiseric]

No he knew that industrializing the fSU was a necessity, not some far fetched socialist utopia, in order to survive and support foreign revolutionaries. SioC was known to be doublespeak, since it actually came from Bukharin who used SioC to support the NEP.