Socialism in one country [Archive]

reb

13th January 2014, 21:30

Socialism is not a good idea. It is not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. Real communism is the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. Not enforce them in dressed up capitalism with a heavy does of nationalism. The working class has no ready made utopias to introduce par decret du people. Socialism in one country is a betrayal of revolution and communism and a revision of the revolutionary content of Marxism, the result of a dumbed down vulgar materialism and bourgeois sentimentality.

celticnachos

13th January 2014, 21:32

You're right it's a good idea a rational one too. It works too, we can see this in the DPRK and Cuba. However, global control by the working people is still the ultimate goal. Comrades have to utilize democratic centralism, and commit to plans of actions and ideas step by step.

Per Levy

13th January 2014, 21:34

first post and right away flame bate, mmh. well next thread should be about kronstadt then, those tend to got well.

anyway...

What are your thoughts on socialism in one country?

bogus theory that assumes that capitalism can be abolished in a small part of the world while the rest of the world, with wich that one country is still trading with mind you, stays capitalist and both can somehow coexist.

I think it's a good idea, safer than socialism in multiple countries

wouldnt that be then several socialisms in several single countrys?

(revolution could go wrong in other countries and your plans will fail)

my plans will fail? and wasnt the idea of SioC was thought out when the russian revolution was allready dead and done?

Per Levy

13th January 2014, 21:39

You're right it's a good idea a rational one too. It works too, we can see this in the DPRK and Cuba.

lol

However, global control by the working people is still the ultimate goal.

how does the working class in cuba and north korea have control over anything? they dont own the means of production, they have no political power either.

Comrades have to utilize democratic centralism, and commit to plans of actions and ideas step by step.

plans and ideas that have failed miserably?

celticnachos

13th January 2014, 21:43

first post and right away flame bate, mmh. well next thread should be about kronstadt then, those tend to got well.

anyway...

bogus theory that assumes that capitalism can be abolished in a small part of the world while the rest of the world, with wich that one country is still trading with mind you, stays capitalist and both can somehow coexist.

wouldnt that be then several socialisms in several single countrys?

my plans will fail? and wasnt the idea of SioC was thought out when the russian revolution was allready dead and done?

You can always argue that you can't have socialism unless you control the entire world, but with that method of thinking socialism will probably never exist. No mode of production has been implemented in every part of the world instantly in human history, the fact is that modes of production co-exist until one is crushed. There are always going to be countries where the bourgeoisie are victorious, however in countries that they lose the grounds of socialism can be implemented.

SovietCommie

13th January 2014, 21:49

“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.”

– Lenin, Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14th May 1918, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.

Socialism is an international system, but it has to start somewhere.

reb

13th January 2014, 21:52

reb

13th January 2014, 21:54

Comrade Jacob

13th January 2014, 21:57

People love to look at it and think: "One country, wtf?!" It's about establishing a socialist-state in countries that have had a successful revolution and let it aid other revolutions as a state power while the world revolutions happens. (In theory) And is opposite to the concept of permanent revolution which is the theory that the world revolution must happen at one time to be successful which can work. (OMFG from a Stalinist?)
I just see things in stages.
Stalin isn't even needed in the name which is why sometimes it's just called Marxist-Leninism.

Why do I bother it's going to come up in a week again.

celticnachos

13th January 2014, 21:59

So, if it works so well, what happened to all of these "socialist" countries? They are improving, the quality of life has improved in these countries tenfold because of their socialist measures. Improving in the midst of a capitalist strangehold as they struggle against imperialist powers, and abiding to the principles of Marxism-Leninism as a practical way of achieving fulfilling and equal lives.

reb

13th January 2014, 22:00

They are improving, and have improved the quality of life has improved in these countries tenfold because of their socialist measures. Improving in the midst of a capitalist strangehold as they struggle against imperialist powers, and abiding to the principles of Marxism-Leninism as a practical way of achieving fulfilling and equal lives.

The Soviet Union is improving? That's news to me.

celticnachos

13th January 2014, 22:03

The Soviet Union is improving? That's news to me.

I said the DPRK and Cuba, the Soviet Union no longer exists.

Thirsty Crow

13th January 2014, 22:06

You can always argue that you can't have socialism unless you control the entire world, but with that method of thinking socialism will probably never exist.
No one should think that the project is anything other than hellishly problematic and an extreme difficulty to achieve.

No mode of production has been implemented in every part of the world instantly in human history, the fact is that modes of production co-exist until one is crushed.
Two problems here:

1) pure straw man - no opponent of the theory behind and the politics of SiOC claims the necessity of instantaneous implementation (apart from the fact that modes of production aren't implemented at all; that would be policies, and I'm afraid that your wording actually betrays your faulty theoretical and political perspective)

2) conflating the historical conditions of the spread out of social relations of production based on capital (extermination of feudal remnants) with that of a potentially developing communism. In other words, even though it made all sense to claim the capitalist mode of production existed in a limited geographical territory, it makes no sense to generalize this basically historical insight into a theoretical postulate about communism.

Sinister Intents

13th January 2014, 22:09

What are your thoughts on socialism in one country?
I think it's a good idea, safer than socialism in multiple countries (revolution could go wrong in other countries and your plans will fail) and with the right country, it's feasible.
I want to know more about it so I thought, why not ask it here?

Socialism in one country will fail because socialism must be global. Socialism in one country may last a short time but will fail and decay to capitalism. Engels brings up socialism I. One country in the Principles Of Communism I believe. Socialism must be global because socialism requires the abolition of States. States are tools of class rule and ate inherently anti socialist because socialism is international and the working peoe have no country and require no country.

Per Levy

13th January 2014, 22:19

And is opposite to the concept of permanent revolution which is the theory that the world revolution must happen at one time to be successful which can work.

i hate to bring it to you but you dont know what the permanet revolution is, that the revolution is supposed to happen everywhere at the same time(wich is a pretty redicilous idea that no one actually supports) isnt it.

reb

13th January 2014, 22:24

I said the DPRK and Cuba, the Soviet Union no longer exists.

OH YOU DONT SAY!

PAnd is opposite to the concept of permanent revolution which is the theory that the world revolution must happen at one time to be successful which can work. (OMFG from a Stalinist?)
I just see things in stages.
Stalin isn't even needed in the name which is why sometimes it's just called Marxist-Leninism.

Why do I bother it's going to come up in a week again.

And just like a stalinist, you don't know what you are talking about. This is not what permanent revolution means. Permanent revolution was a way for Trotsky to argue that you could have a socialist revolution in a backwards capitalist country like Russia. It is hardly the opposite of socialism in one country. And this stagest view of history is something that only vulgar materailists talk about.

Sea

13th January 2014, 22:48

lol

how does the working class in cuba and north korea have control over anything? they dont own the means of production, they have no political power either.

plans and ideas that have failed miserably?Are you sure it wasn't satire?

edit: oh fuck it looks like they were serious, well, if it was satire they probably woulda included China too instead of just DPRK And Cuba. Gotta go un-thank that post..

ArisVelouxiotis

13th January 2014, 22:57

Are you sure it wasn't satire?

edit: oh fuck it looks like they were serious, well, if it was satire they probably woulda included China too instead of just DPRK And Cuba. Gotta go un-thank that post..

Everytime somebody talks about DPRK I have to sit 2-3 mins to see if it was sarcasm or not.:lol:
To the OP:History has proved that it failed miserably

Ceallach_the_Witch

13th January 2014, 23:52

. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.”

I suspect I'm among those criticised here and I have to say the following.

Although I believe that the liberation of the working class must be an international movement (and I don't think it's necessary at this point to elaborate on why I don't think it can be a national/nationalist movement) I certainly don't think that one day everyone is going to magically drop tools and say "that's enough, it's socialism time." Nor, I suspect, does anyone else who shares an "internationalist" view of the post-capitalist society.

Although I'm aware there is plenty of room for argument and disagreement on this point, I suspect that in the appropriate conditions, we might expect proletarian revolution to spark off in particular areas - but then rapidly "spill over" spreading across the globe. It's not particularly important where it begins (although I suppose good transport links and solid infrastructure helps) and it's even less important (to the point of utter insignificance) what the ethicity or nationality or whatever of whoever is revolting is. Apart from the fact they pose a physical barrier it's largely a good idea to disregard borders - working people have no country, after all.

G4b3n

14th January 2014, 00:05

celticnachos

14th January 2014, 01:19

LeftCrusade, you deserve a fair and practical response to your question. I would not pay attention to much of the liberal drivel, here is what comrade Lenin and Stalin said about the matter.

"“Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of
capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several
or even in one capitalist country, taken singly. The victorious proletariat
of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised its
own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world,
the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of
other countries ... A free union of nations in socialism is impossible
without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle by the socialist
republics against the backward states.”
(V.I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 21, p. 342)

"But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. Lenin expressed this thought succinctly when he said that the task of the victorious revolution is to do "the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries. (Stalin, Vol. XXIII: The Foundations of Leninism, p. 385)"

celticnachos

14th January 2014, 01:59

OH YOU DONT SAY!

And just like a stalinist, you don't know what you are talking about. This is not what permanent revolution means. Permanent revolution was a way for Trotsky to argue that you could have a socialist revolution in a backwards capitalist country like Russia. It is hardly the opposite of socialism in one country. And this stagest view of history is something that only vulgar materailists talk about.

The theory of permanent revolution brought about by Trotsky was his romanticized interpretation of Marx, originally Engels and Marx made use of the term with practical limitations. Trotsky's adventurist and pseudo-Marxist phraseology is precisely how Jacob described it.

Per Levy

14th January 2014, 11:00

The theory of permanent revolution brought about by Trotsky was his romanticized interpretation of Marx, originally Engels and Marx made use of the term with practical limitations. Trotsky's adventurist and pseudo-Marxist phraseology is precisely how Jacob described it.

have you actually ever read the permanent revolution by trotsky? it is exactly as reb says it is. its ok if you havnt read it but be honest about it and dont write so much pseudo-marxist bs.

LeftCrusade

14th January 2014, 11:00

Double post, sorry

LeftCrusade

14th January 2014, 11:04

first post and right away flame bate, mmh. well next thread should be about kronstadt then, those tend to got well.

anyway...

bogus theory that assumes that capitalism can be abolished in a small part of the world while the rest of the world, with wich that one country is still trading with mind you, stays capitalist and both can somehow coexist.

wouldnt that be then several socialisms in several single countrys?

my plans will fail? and wasnt the idea of SioC was thought out when the russian revolution was allready dead and done?

First of all, I never intended a flame war.

Bogus theory? Why?
And I didn't say anything about trading. But now I will, no trading between capitalist and communist countries. I think, if you want sioc, you should be self-sufficient, so you don't need to trade.

I also said I think sioc is safer. I'm not talking about Stalin. I said 'I', not Stalin.

Zukunftsmusik

14th January 2014, 11:26

What are your thoughts on socialism in one country?
I think it's a good idea, safer than socialism in multiple countries (revolution could go wrong in other countries and your plans will fail) and with the right country, it's feasible.
I want to know more about it so I thought, why not ask it here?

Sorry to be so frank, but I don't think your reasons for supporting this idea is any good, and they seem very poorly thought through. To understand you position I think you need to explain exactly what you mean by socialism.

What is crucial here is to see the theory and politics of SioC in historical context. To say a theory (or in this case, an ideology) is good is worth nothing if you don't see it in the context of how and when it arose.

MMillions

14th January 2014, 13:08

But what are the implications for a marxist movement in a specific country that strives to overthrow capitalist production and the social relations that comes with it, if communism cannot exist in a single country? Is it a futile endeavor? Should we just support internationalist unions/the largest organisation to gather the working class or something like syndikalism? Sorry if this is a confusing post, it's my first.

LeftCrusade

14th January 2014, 16:05

Sorry to be so frank, but I don't think your reasons for supporting this idea is any good, and they seem very poorly thought through. To understand you position I think you need to explain exactly what you mean by socialism.

What is crucial here is to see the theory and politics of SioC in historical context. To say a theory (or in this case, an ideology) is good is worth nothing if you don't see it in the context of how and when it arose.

You're right about that. That's why I'm here, on this forum to learn more about it.
And explaining what I mean as socialism, a society in which the means of production and profits are in the hands of the working class. (Sorry if I use words which not exist in English, I'm from Holland so I translated some Dutch terms to English, I hope the translations went right;))

I know it went wrong in history, but that doesn't say it also goes wrong in the future. Mistakes were made, we can learn from that. Saying sioc can't work, because, look at the past, it didn't work then so it won't work now. That's the same as saying communism doesn't work, look at the past, didn't work then wont work now. As I said, mistakes were made, we can learn from that.

I honestly don't care how or when the idea arose, I care about the idea itself. Is it a 'good idea'? Is it feasible? Is it better than the alternatives?

But thank you for your criticism.

reb

14th January 2014, 16:41

have you actually ever read the permanent revolution by trotsky? it is exactly as reb says it is. its ok if you havnt read it but be honest about it and dont write so much pseudo-marxist bs.

Really, the only reason that Stalinists denounce it without ever actually knowing what it is is because at this point in history, Lenin moved towards Trotsky's position with the April Theses and away from Stalin who was still wanting to participate with the provisional government.

Zukunftsmusik

14th January 2014, 16:59

I know it went wrong in history, but that doesn't say it also goes wrong in the future. Mistakes were made, we can learn from that. Saying sioc can't work, because, look at the past, it didn't work then so it won't work now. That's the same as saying communism doesn't work, look at the past, didn't work then wont work now. As I said, mistakes were made, we can learn from that.

I honestly don't care how or when the idea arose, I care about the idea itself. Is it a 'good idea'? Is it feasible? Is it better than the alternatives?

But thank you for your criticism.

See, the problem is precisely to ignore how and when it arose, because then you would be aware of the reasons this ideology occurred, and this would answer your own questions. It was a "good idea" for the Soviet government at the time, because the world revolution died out, and Russia/the SU was isolated. It wasn't feasible because, if you look through the ideological veil, socialism wasn't "built", capital was restructured and modernised. And lastly, as the european revolutionary wave ebbed, the Soviet government was left with no other options - ie, there were no alternatives.

SioC didn't occurr because of "mistakes", it's precisely the ideology that marks the end and failure of the Russian revolution.

LeftCrusade

14th January 2014, 17:25

See, the problem is precisely to ignore how and when it arose, because then you would be aware of the reasons this ideology occurred, and this would answer your own questions. It was a "good idea" for the Soviet government at the time, because the world revolution died out, and Russia/the SU was isolated. It wasn't feasible because, if you look through the ideological veil, socialism wasn't "built", capital was restructured and modernised. And lastly, as the european revolutionary wave ebbed, the Soviet government was left with no other options - ie, there were no alternatives.

SioC didn't occurr because of "mistakes", it's precisely the ideology that marks the end and failure of the Russian revolution.0

You are talking about world revolution. Yes, world revolution would be great. But, it needs to be the perfect timing to get a real 'world revolution', and not that only, but their are a lot of factors which may go wrong. That's why I don't count on world revolution, but rather something more feasible.
SiOC, one country, so, less factors that could go wrong.
Why it went wrong in USSR?
Foreign countries were putting pressure on them. Don't forget the civil wars. At that time, SiOC was almost impossible because of those bad factors. But at this time, you don't have that (or way less than then).

'SioC didn't occurr because of "mistakes", it's precisely the ideology that marks the end and failure of the Russian revolution.'

I didn't say SioC occured because of mistakes. I said mistakes were made, not SioC was occured because of mistakes.
The Russian Revolution failed before that. When the German revolution went wrong, it already was nearly impossible. Also, the USSR became a totalitarian dictatorship, and it didn't went to a society controlled by the workers.

So, I dont think SioC marked the end and failure of the Russian revolution.

celticnachos

14th January 2014, 20:29

Really, the only reason that Stalinists denounce it without ever actually knowing what it is is because at this point in history, Lenin moved towards Trotsky's position with the April Theses and away from Stalin who was still wanting to participate with the provisional government.

Lenin was highly critical of Trotsky's position on a lot of issues.

In Lenin's The Right of Nations to Self-Determination he states:

"Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other."

At the Second All-Russia Congress of Miners in 1921 after the October Revolution Lenin states:

"Comrade Trotsky says that Comrades Tomsky and Lozovsky--trade unionists both--are guilty of cultivating in their midst a spirit of hostility for the new men. But this is monstrous. Only someone in the lunatic fringe can say a thing like that ... That is just why Trotsky’s whole approach is wrong. I could have analyzed any one of his theses, but it would take me hours, and you would all be bored to death. Every thesis reveals the same thoroughly wrong approach."

I can keep quoting Lenin on how he abhorred Trotsky, but his programs were rejected by the party and Trotskyism continues to be an indisposed ideology today.

Remus Bleys

14th January 2014, 20:33

words.
yes lenins and trotskys position on national liberation and unionists are both totally fucking relevant to permanent revolution and socialism in one country!

reb

14th January 2014, 20:52

Lenin was highly critical of Trotsky's position on a lot of issues.

In Lenin's The Right of Nations to Self-Determination he states:

"Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other."

At the Second All-Russia Congress of Miners in 1921 after the October Revolution Lenin states:

"Comrade Trotsky says that Comrades Tomsky and Lozovsky--trade unionists both--are guilty of cultivating in their midst a spirit of hostility for the new men. But this is monstrous. Only someone in the lunatic fringe can say a thing like that ... That is just why Trotsky’s whole approach is wrong. I could have analyzed any one of his theses, but it would take me hours, and you would all be bored to death. Every thesis reveals the same thoroughly wrong approach."

I can keep quoting Lenin on how he abhorred Trotsky, but his programs were rejected by the party and Trotskyism continues to be an indisposed ideology today.

This has nothing to do with what was being said. What is wrong with you? Are you really just a cookie cutter stalinist?

celticnachos

15th January 2014, 01:26

This has nothing to do with what was being said. What is wrong with you? Are you really just a cookie cutter stalinist?

No I'm a cookie cutter stalinist, you're right. I didn't know basic understanding of economic history was less important than tendency. That's certainly not idealistic enough of me, I'm sure there are lots of thinkers like you in underdeveloped nations.

Lenin directly refutes permanent revolution.

In "Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity" Lenin writes,

"The only ground the “Tushino turncoats” have for claiming that they stand above groups is that they “borrow” their ideas from one group one day and from another the next day. Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901—03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as “Lenin’s cudgel”. At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i. e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that “between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf”. In 1904—05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left “permanent revolution” theory. In 1906—07, he approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg."

Also in 1918, Lenin says,

"I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense." (Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14 May 1918, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.).

Trotskyism serves the interests of monopoly capital and hasn't been prevalent in the real world, ever.

reb

15th January 2014, 01:57

No I'm a cookie cutter stalinist, you're right. I didn't know basic understanding of economic history was less important than tendency. That's certainly not idealistic enough of me, I'm sure there are lots of thinkers like you in underdeveloped nations.

Lenin directly refutes permanent revolution.

In "Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity" Lenin writes,

"The only ground the “Tushino turncoats” have for claiming that they stand above groups is that they “borrow” their ideas from one group one day and from another the next day. Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901—03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as “Lenin’s cudgel”. At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i. e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that “between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf”. In 1904—05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left “permanent revolution” theory. In 1906—07, he approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg."

Also in 1918, Lenin says,

"I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense." (Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14 May 1918, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.).

Trotskyism serves the interests of monopoly capital and hasn't been prevalent in the real world, ever.

Are you completely stupid? I'm pretty sure that you are now just copying and pasting moronic stuff from some Stalinist website filled with quotes, just like any other religious nut with their books. Your first quote is from before the April Theses, the time period from which we are talking about and the second again has nothing to do with this time period. In fact, it more or less supports Trotsky's idea of permanent revolution.

celticnachos

15th January 2014, 02:12

Are you completely stupid? I'm pretty sure that you are now just copying and pasting moronic stuff from some Stalinist website filled with quotes, just like any other religious nut with their books. Your first quote is from before the April Theses, the time period from which we are talking about and the second again has nothing to do with this time period. In fact, it more or less supports Trotsky's idea of permanent revolution.

Get real, I get the impression that you haven't read any of Lenin's works, the 1918 quote directly argues against it's premise. Lenin understood the bigotry of the one stage argument, and I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the April Theses that suggests Lenin adopted Trotsky's theory. Lenin wanted nothing to do with Trotsky, and Trotsky even had his own negative opinion about Lenin.

From the Communist Manifesto,

"But they (the communists) never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin."

Communists can work with the bourgeoisie in some scenarios to achieve victory for the working class. For example, communists support the secular bourgeoisie in the Middle East opposing the Taliban. As it is a major priority to rid of religious fascists. These are stages in national development, as socialist revolution cannot happen in the midst of fascist control.

Per Levy

15th January 2014, 10:33

Get real, I get the impression that you haven't read any of Lenin's works, the 1918 quote directly argues against it's premise. Lenin understood the bigotry of the stages argument, and I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the April Theses that suggests Lenin adopted Trotsky's theory. Lenin wanted nothing to do with Trotsky, and Trotsky even had his own negative opinion about Lenin.

is that why trotsky became one of the biggest lenin fanboys to ever live? also a dedicated trot will find quotes of lenin where he praises trotsky, nothing of that is relevant for the discussion though. stop switching topics all the time, the question was if you have any idea waht the permant revolution is and so far you have proven that you dont know what it is but it doesnt stop from writing bs about it.

From the Communist Manifesto,

cause the communist mainfesto isnt extremly outdated(it was even outdated when marx still lived) and wasnt meant for a complety different time and situation, right? as far as im concerned the communist manifesto is a nice, short read that is only interesting in its analytical parts.

Communists can work with the bourgeoisie in some scenarios to achieve victory for the working class.

so a victory for the bourgoisie is a victory for the working class? classcolaboration is shite tbh.

These are stages in national development, as socialist revolution cannot happen in the midst of fascist control.

"Lenin understood the bigotry of the stages argument", i see.

Comrade #138672

15th January 2014, 10:59

Socialism in one country is like syndicalism in one factory.

LeftCrusade

15th January 2014, 13:39

Socialism in one country is like syndicalism in one factory.

Explain, you say a nice sentence. But you didn't support it with anything. If you want to convince any of us, please give arguments.

reb

15th January 2014, 22:37

Get real, I get the impression that you haven't read any of Lenin's works, the 1918 quote directly argues against it's premise. Lenin understood the bigotry of the one stage argument, and I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the April Theses that suggests Lenin adopted Trotsky's theory. Lenin wanted nothing to do with Trotsky, and Trotsky even had his own negative opinion about Lenin.

From the Communist Manifesto,

"But they (the communists) never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin."

Communists can work with the bourgeoisie in some scenarios to achieve victory for the working class. For example, communists support the secular bourgeoisie in the Middle East opposing the Taliban. As it is a major priority to rid of religious fascists. These are stages in national development, as socialist revolution cannot happen in the midst of fascist control.

You're pretty funny. First of, even if I haven't read much Lenin, I can certainly read that snippet you posted. Comparing that with what I know permanent revolution to be, I can easily see that Lenin is at least accepting the same position, or close to, of Trotsky. It is the same position that Lenin held with the April Theses against Stalin's position of participating with the provisional government. You seem to at least now accept this fact, are trying to still uphold Stalin and stalinism in the face of everything, and are now trying to tell us that communists should work with the bourgeoisie. It's hard to tell if you are a troll or just a stalinist because you both display about the same amount of knowledge of marxism.

celticnachos

16th January 2014, 01:54

You're pretty funny. First of, even if I haven't read much Lenin, I can certainly read that snippet you posted. Comparing that with what I know permanent revolution to be, I can easily see that Lenin is at least accepting the same position, or close to, of Trotsky. It is the same position that Lenin held with the April Theses against Stalin's position of participating with the provisional government. You seem to at least now accept this fact, are trying to still uphold Stalin and stalinism in the face of everything, and are now trying to tell us that communists should work with the bourgeoisie. It's hard to tell if you are a troll or just a stalinist because you both display about the same amount of knowledge of marxism.

It's a historical fact that communists have worked with the bourgeoisie in some cases to achieve victory for the working class, everything communists do are for the benefit of the working people. Do you not understand how things work in stages of national development? Or are you completely ignorant to that fact? The Vietnamese had to liberate Vietnam from American and French colonialism before they could run the government and build socialism. Ho Chi Minh and Mao both used class collaborationist politics to liberate their countries, and then focused on building socialism, because it's a necessary step. We must use as many weapons as we can against the bourgeoisie, as Marx said. I'm not upholding Stalin in the face of everything, Marxism-Leninism correctly applied requires the criticism of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, ect.. it is only correct.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

16th January 2014, 02:32

It's a historical fact that communists have worked with the bourgeoisie in some cases to achieve victory for the working class, everything communists do are for the benefit of the working people. Do you not understand how things work in stages of national development? Or are you completely ignorant to that fact? The Vietnamese had to liberate Vietnam from American and French colonialism before they could run the government and build socialism. Ho Chi Minh and Mao both used class collaborationist politics to liberate their countries, and then focused on building socialism, because it's a necessary step. We must use as many weapons as we can against the bourgeoisie, as Marx said. I'm not upholding Stalin in the face of everything, Marxism-Leninism correctly applied requires the criticism of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, ect.. it is only correct.

Is China of today communist, too? Or is it one of those sudden revisions you don't count because... something or other makes it not good unlike all those other revisions you are enamoured with.

celticnachos

16th January 2014, 02:48

Is China of today communist, too? Or is it one of those sudden revisions you don't count because... something or other makes it not good unlike all those other revisions you are enamoured with.

Yes Chinese politics are revisionist and China has deformed back to capitalism, that is undeniable fact.

Sinister Intents

16th January 2014, 02:50

Yes Chinese politics are revisionist and China has deformed back to capitalism, that is undeniable fact.

The DPRK are excessively revisionist and capitalist as well.

Ledur

16th January 2014, 17:08

Yes Chinese politics are revisionist and China has deformed back to capitalism, that is undeniable fact.

CCP say that they're in the first phase of socialism, that means they're taking over capitalism's means of production. Xiaoping didn't believe China could be socialist being an agrarian country, so they had to build up a complete industrial park from scratch using West's technology.

According to them, they're doing it in a confucian way, not marxist.

They say it would last for around 100 years, and then they'd turn marxist again, spreading the revolution to the world.

Honestly I don't believe it; China is by far the most capitalist country in the world at the moment, and reforms are leading to more capitalism, but it's impossible to predict the future.

Dictator

3rd June 2014, 08:14

Not sure why there's so much hostility to the Socialism in one country idea - after all, sometimes it's the only practical way.

One country is better than no country, and the revolution can always be exported.

Ven0m

3rd June 2014, 16:36

better than socialism in no country!

Remus Bleys

3rd June 2014, 16:46

better than socialism in no country!

Yes because everything is totally voluntarist and we can just will shit into being. Basic understanding of materialism? nah, I'd rather sound radical instead

ProletariatPower

3rd June 2014, 16:52

It's not a practical way. Every attempt to establish Socialism in one country has failed. Not only that but the very idea is against Marxism, people have a very limited understanding of this in some ways but the USSR was not Communist, was never Communist and never even claimed to be Communist (although of course Stalin did claim that they had achieved Socialism). They claimed that they were 'leading the road to Communism' effectively, they maintained currency, they maintained a whole host of Capitalist institutions. You cannot maintain such institutions globally without maintaining Capitalism as the global dominant force and therefore the force determining your country's society. States don't exist in a plastic bubble. Even if you believe in the USSR and for some reason believe it was a great thing you should recognise that it would of required the whole world to be following the same system to implement genuine Socialism. All the countries named by people as 'successes' here have always been state capitalist, sorry to ruin all the Russophiles' dreams but it's just the truth. Socialist movements can exist in power in one country but they will remain in a Capitalist system until Capitalism is globally overcome and we advance beyond it. You cannot have Socialism in one country, only Socialist movements.

Evil Stalinist Overlord

3rd June 2014, 17:34

From the post above:

Even if you believe in the USSR and for some reason believe it was a great thing you should recognise that it would of required the whole world to be following the same system to implement genuine Socialism.

I think a lot of people in this thread are confusing Socialism (the Dictatorship of the Proletariat) with Communism (a stateless, classless society). We do not know what Communism will look like, in truth, but we do have historical examples of the working class coming to power through the leadership of a Communist Party. We can learn from their triumphs and their mistakes, which were many, but Socialism, understood as the existence of a Worker's State, must necessarily coexist for a time with Capitalism. It's absurd to suggest it can happen everywhere at once or that the work of solidifying people's power and dealing with urgent social issues should be neglected in the service of fighting Capitalism somewhere else all the time and with every resource. How are the workers supposed to believe in Communism if they don't use it to satisfy their most immediate needs, anyway?

Once this is achieved, then and only then can the people's government move towards building true utopian endgame communism.

(Anarchists put themselves in a bit of a contradiction here, I believe, when they reject Socialism In One Country but celebrate local uprisings and small-scale liberated communities, which are also coexisting with capitalism (and much more vulnerable to it that a State, I might add). I don't mean to badmouth Anarchism in bad faith, I'm just pointing out something that popped into my head)

Blake's Baby

3rd June 2014, 19:28

What makes you think that socialism is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat? Can you show me somewhere in Marx where he says that please?

Slavic

3rd June 2014, 21:48

From the post above:
I think a lot of people in this thread are confusing Socialism (the Dictatorship of the Proletariat) with Communism (a stateless, classless society). We do not know what Communism will look like, in truth, but we do have historical examples of the working class coming to power through the leadership of a Communist Party. We can learn from their triumphs and their mistakes, which were many, but Socialism, understood as the existence of a Worker's State, must necessarily coexist for a time with Capitalism. It's absurd to suggest it can happen everywhere at once or that the work of solidifying people's power and dealing with urgent social issues should be neglected in the service of fighting Capitalism somewhere else all the time and with every resource. How are the workers supposed to believe in Communism if they don't use it to satisfy their most immediate needs, anyway?

Once this is achieved, then and only then can the people's government move towards building true utopian endgame communism.

The issue here is that this understanding necessitates a socialist state to create the international revolution as opposed to a socialist movement creating the international revolution.

Movements create socialist states, not the other way around. If there is no socialist movement or high worker consciousness outside the socialist state, then that state will become stagnant and no amount of "exporting revolution" will change that.

Ven0m

4th June 2014, 06:13

Yes because everything is totally voluntarist and we can just will shit into being. Basic understanding of materialism? nah, I'd rather sound radical instead

what are you talking about merkin?

Evil Stalinist Overlord

5th June 2014, 01:40

What makes you think that socialism is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat? Can you show me somewhere in Marx where he says that please?

Here:

Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society —Karl Marx, 1852[8]

The issue here is that this understanding necessitates a socialist state to create the international revolution as opposed to a socialist movement creating the international revolution.

Movements create socialist states, not the other way around. If there is no socialist movement or high worker consciousness outside the socialist state, then that state will become stagnant and no amount of "exporting revolution" will change that.

The "movement" already exists in that there is class struggle and many disparate socialist currents working already. Yes, this movement should move more and more towards unity and a correct line, but a great way of achieving that is with successful revolutions that inspire confidence and electrify the international working class. Refusing to partake in non-worldwide movements or whatever is a way of refusing to triumph, of refusing to take the obvious first step in international revolution.
To put it simply, if you build Socialism in one country, the movement will come flocking, avid to follow and promote it in their own homelands.

jookyle

5th June 2014, 02:37

Socialism in one country is not a concept in which the definition is literally expressed in the term. Socialism in one country is nothing more than an official anti-imperialist stance of the USSR during the Stalin era. All it meant was socialism would not be spread by way of invasion from the Soviet Union.

Blake's Baby

7th June 2014, 12:38

What makes you think that socialism is the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat? Can you show me somewhere in Marx where he says that please?

Here:

"Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society" —Karl Marx, 1852

Right. The Letter to Weydemeyer (helps if you quote sources).

A concise explanation of what the dictatorship of the proletariat is.

What I asked, was, can you show where Marx says that socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Dave B

9th June 2014, 18:19

FYI

Actually Lenin in an article in 1915 agreed with the principal of socialism in one country or several countries; although intrinsically this explicitly ruled out socialism in Russia then.

Despite this it used to be a very popular anti trotskyist passage with the Stalinists, who obviously used it completely out of context.

The whole article is quite interesting and as regards socialism in one or several countries, it probably reflects the standard position of the leftwing of the second international at the time.

On the Slogan for a United States of Europe

Published: Sotsial-Demokrat No. 44, August 23, 1915.

Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm

Sinister Intents

9th June 2014, 23:19

A question based on the title: How long could socialism in one 'country' last? So long as it can expand to a size large enough to tackle the massive capitalism nations? I understand that socialism in one country is a contradiction in terms since socialism is statelessness and classlessness

MarcusJuniusBrutus

9th June 2014, 23:44

responding to the original post:

I think socialism in one country is a good start, but humanity really needs to move beyond the whole concept of nation states.

Psycho P and the Freight Train

9th June 2014, 23:48

I guess I don't understand why people cannot separate the concept of socialism developing in certain areas first from Stalinism.

It seems to me common sense that some areas will achieve it before others. How is socialism going to happen in every part of the world all at once?

Sinister Intents

9th June 2014, 23:55

I guess I don't understand why people cannot separate the concept of socialism developing in certain areas first from Stalinism.

That does make sense, but the capitalists will trample upon it because socialists contradict the interests of the capitalists. Perhaps if the whole of Asia, Africa and Europe became socialist first and the Americas are a cesspool of capitalism destroying the planet and fighting socialists?

Socialism in one 'country' just isn't feasible, it must be global or it will be crushed, and it must be global just the same as capitalism needs to be global. If capitalism cannot expand it will surely die. So perhaps somewhere along the lines socialism will just start to take the place in a bizarre overthrowal that happens to be bloodless? Which non-violence is very much impossible, for the bourgeoisie won't give up power without a fight, lest they all die of some horrible tragedy which is another unlikely thing.

It seems to me common sense that some areas will achieve it before others. How is socialism going to happen in every part of the world all at once?

The revolution must continue to spread from it's epicenter. From it's starting point it should spread like wild-fire so long as it goes unhindered. The revolution will most likely smolder on for a long time while revolutionaries are locked in a permanent revolution until further notice. When all states are smashed, and all classes gutted and splattered to the ground in a grand equalizing scenario, when the capitalist system and patriarchal rule are destroyed there will exist socialism.

Psycho P and the Freight Train

10th June 2014, 00:21

That does make sense, but the capitalists will trample upon it because socialists contradict the interests of the capitalists. Perhaps if the whole of Asia, Africa and Europe became socialist first and the Americas are a cesspool of capitalism destroying the planet and fighting socialists?

Socialism in one 'country' just isn't feasible, it must be global or it will be crushed, and it must be global just the same as capitalism needs to be global. If capitalism cannot expand it will surely die. So perhaps somewhere along the lines socialism will just start to take the place in a bizarre overthrowal that happens to be bloodless? Which non-violence is very much impossible, for the bourgeoisie won't give up power without a fight, lest they all die of some horrible tragedy which is another unlikely thing.

The revolution must continue to spread from it's epicenter. From it's starting point it should spread like wild-fire so long as it goes unhindered. The revolution will most likely smolder on for a long time while revolutionaries are locked in a permanent revolution until further notice. When all states are smashed, and all classes gutted and splattered to the ground in a grand equalizing scenario, when the capitalist system and patriarchal rule are destroyed there will exist socialism.

Well see I agree with this in that the revolution must continue until it reaches all of the world. But I guess my question is, why can't one place achieve socialism and use its resources to fund proletarian uprisings around the world? And then merge with other places that have achieved socialism and set up mutualistic exchanges of supplies?

Here's a random example. Let's say Japan has a revolution. It seizes all property for the workers, kicks out corporations, eliminates the bourgeoisie (eliminate as in eliminate class struggle), and such. And let's say revolutionary Japan arms themselves against foreign invasions.

Of course, it is difficult for one country to sustain itself, but it is distributing supplies best it can. Now let's say France has a revolution in the same manner. Now these two states, led democratically by the workers, exchange supplies with each other based on need. And they also distribute pamphlets and such into capitalist countries and agitate the need for revolution.

Wouldn't that be ok? Then eventually, let's say China has a revolution. Now China and Japan become on entity and eliminate borders between the two as they are right next to each other. That's what I see happening.

It seems as if people on this board in many cases think that the revolution is just a constant wave that must immediately spread. To me that is too idealistic.

Sinister Intents

10th June 2014, 01:16

Well see I agree with this in that the revolution must continue until it reaches all of the world. But I guess my question is, why can't one place achieve socialism and use its resources to fund proletarian uprisings around the world? And then merge with other places that have achieved socialism and set up mutualistic exchanges of supplies?

Here's a random example. Let's say Japan has a revolution. It seizes all property for the workers, kicks out corporations, eliminates the bourgeoisie (eliminate as in eliminate class struggle), and such. And let's say revolutionary Japan arms themselves against foreign invasions.

Of course, it is difficult for one country to sustain itself, but it is distributing supplies best it can. Now let's say France has a revolution in the same manner. Now these two states, led democratically by the workers, exchange supplies with each other based on need. And they also distribute pamphlets and such into capitalist countries and agitate the need for revolution.

Wouldn't that be ok? Then eventually, let's say China has a revolution. Now China and Japan become on entity and eliminate borders between the two as they are right next to each other. That's what I see happening.

It seems as if people on this board in many cases think that the revolution is just a constant wave that must immediately spread. To me that is too idealistic.

Alright, this would require a state to exist, and it really wouldn't be socialism in the true sense. If anything it'd be a state capitalist society within the communist party in power and leading the way. It'd be a state and what do states do? They oppress and suppress a producing class, for the benefit of the bosses. The bosses seeing themselves as revolutionaries though, and the oppressed perhaps being knowledgeable of the system they're under, and realizing it isn't socialism, but maybe they could hold this society in a semi-socialistic way, but still it's not socialism, perhaps it could be looked at as a DotP, but a Stalinist one. With socialism in one nation, yet this is an oxymoron because socialism is statelessness and classlessness. Socialism is freedom of association and mutual exchange, socialism is a society of utmost equality for it lacks an oppressive class system, and a suppressive state. It also lacks a monetary system that upholds and/or creates a class system, and feeds the state at the expense of the oppressed and suppressed lower classes. In essence this socialism in one nation must become a state itself, contradicting socialism itself, but it is an idea with potential if the party in control of the state are truly communists. To me the state must be smashed and organizations be created that take over the transitory means without utilizing a state and waging a permanent civil war against the capitalist powers.

Psycho P and the Freight Train

10th June 2014, 01:25

Alright, this would require a state to exist, and it really wouldn't be socialism in the true sense. If anything it'd be a state capitalist society within the communist party in power and leading the way. It'd be a state and what do states do? They oppress and suppress a producing class, for the benefit of the bosses. The bosses seeing themselves as revolutionaries though, and the oppressed perhaps being knowledgeable of the system they're under, and realizing it isn't socialism, but maybe they could hold this society in a semi-socialistic way, but still it's not socialism, perhaps it could be looked at as a DotP, but a Stalinist one. With socialism in one nation, yet this is an oxymoron because socialism is statelessness and classlessness. Socialism is freedom of association and mutual exchange, socialism is a society of utmost equality for it lacks an oppressive class system, and a suppressive state. It also lacks a monetary system that upholds and/or creates a class system, and feeds the state at the expense of the oppressed and suppressed lower classes. In essence this socialism in one nation must become a state itself, contradicting socialism itself, but it is an idea with potential if the party in control of the state are truly communists. To me the state must be smashed and organizations be created that take over the transitory means without utilizing a state and waging a permanent civil war against the capitalist powers.

I see what you're saying. However, what if the workers controlled the means of production democratically? And nobody had a privileged relationship to management of materials as opposed to bureaucratic institutions of so-called socialist countries in the past?

Take what you imagine a world communist society to look like and now just apply that exact system to a confined area. I'll use the Paris Commune as an example. Their society was largely democratic with elected delegates that were immediately recallable by the people. They also had an organic military defense force that had sprung up from people forming militias organizing by neighborhood.

In this case, the state really would wither away as more places reach revolution. New territory is added, and now more recallable delegates are added. See what I'm saying?

Sea

10th June 2014, 01:34

Sinister Intents

10th June 2014, 01:37

I see what you're saying. However, what if the workers controlled the means of production democratically? And nobody had a privileged relationship to management of materials as opposed to bureaucratic institutions of so-called socialist countries in the past?

Of course this state capitalist society could be more democratic, but it is still a state, and statism is inherently anti-democratic. Democracy meaning power of the people in Latin if I'm remembering correctly, and with a state in power this isn't a democracy, but a bourgeois democracy. Of course voting can exist, but the same party that is in control is the deciding a ruling factor in the matter. The state tramples democracy to keep itself in check, it suppresses and oppresses through various means. Police forces and militaries maintain the fear of anyone overthrowing this state, for states are oppressive. The state seeks to defend and maintain itself, and the people have no control, the organs that give control to the whole of the people, merely become puppets of the state. It'll decay into bureaucracy regardless, it will resemble capitalism because it will be capitalism, but state capitalism with a revolutionary party leading it.

Take what you imagine a world communist society to look like and now just apply that exact system to a confined area. I'll use the Paris Commune as an example. Their society was largely democratic with elected delegates that were immediately recallable by the people. They also had an organic military defense force that had sprung up from people forming militias organizing by neighborhood.

Lo and behold the Paris Commune no longer exists, it got trampled and crushed by outside powers and it was damned from the start. Yet what a great example of workers control of the means of production. It still faded and decayed back to capitalist existence.

In this case, the state really would wither away as more places reach revolution. New territory is added, and now more recallable delegates are added. See what I'm saying?

I do see what you're saying, but what will truly allow the state to wither away? What if the party in control doesn't want to give up it's power and the state creates this unstoppable monster. This massive state will eventually fall apart under it's own weight. Much like the Roman empire it will splinter into multiple states. Another thing I can extrapolate is that more towards specific centers such as cities, the state will wither and fade with the class system as the world becomes increasingly socialistic and the revolution comes to an exponential halt.

Psycho P and the Freight Train

10th June 2014, 02:03

Of course this state capitalist society could be more democratic, but it is still a state, and statism is inherently anti-democratic. Democracy meaning power of the people in Latin if I'm remembering correctly, and with a state in power this isn't a democracy, but a bourgeois democracy. Of course voting can exist, but the same party that is in control is the deciding a ruling factor in the matter. The state tramples democracy to keep itself in check, it suppresses and oppresses through various means. Police forces and militaries maintain the fear of anyone overthrowing this state, for states are oppressive. The state seeks to defend and maintain itself, and the people have no control, the organs that give control to the whole of the people, merely become puppets of the state. It'll decay into bureaucracy regardless, it will resemble capitalism because it will be capitalism, but state capitalism with a revolutionary party leading it.

Lo and behold the Paris Commune no longer exists, it got trampled and crushed by outside powers and it was damned from the start. Yet what a great example of workers control of the means of production. It still faded and decayed back to capitalist existence.

I do see what you're saying, but what will truly allow the state to wither away? What if the party in control doesn't want to give up it's power and the state creates this unstoppable monster. This massive state will eventually fall apart under it's own weight. Much like the Roman empire it will splinter into multiple states. Another thing I can extrapolate is that more towards specific centers such as cities, the state will wither and fade with the class system as the world becomes increasingly socialistic and the revolution comes to an exponential halt.

Hmm ok so your argument seems to be that with my viewpoint, one of two things will happen. Either it will collapse or it will devolve into tyranny. That's not unreasonable as there are many examples of this happening for sure.

My question to you then is, what is a better alternative? How would the wave of revolution spread organically throughout the world?

Sinister Intents

10th June 2014, 02:09

Hmm ok so your argument seems to be that with my viewpoint, one of two things will happen. Either it will collapse or it will devolve into tyranny. That's not unreasonable as there are many examples of this happening for sure.

Partly, it could go any number of ways really. We can't predict what will specifically happen to it, it could go according to plan and lead directly to communism. My evidence of this going awry comes from what DotPs and Vanguards have achieved in the past.

My question to you then is, what is a better alternative? How would the wave of revolution spread organically throughout the world?

Regardless of what an alternative will be, each method will require authoritarian means of transition, whether it be organizations that lead transition from capitalism to communism and combat the capitalist powers with militias and such, or if it's a DotP, each way will have it's strengths and weaknesses. I say let it play out the way it will happen the most natural and bloodless, and capitalism will fall on its face dead eventually, and hopefully this doesn't bring us into further barbarism, or bring us into extinction, hopefully it brings us to a progressive socialist future. I don't advocate any specific set method, I believe in permanent revolution to spread the revolution around the world

Psycho P and the Freight Train

10th June 2014, 02:26

Partly, it could go any number of ways really. We can't predict what will specifically happen to it, it could go according to plan and lead directly to communism. My evidence of this going awry comes from what DotPs and Vanguards have achieved in the past.

Regardless of what an alternative will be, each method will require authoritarian means of transition, whether it be organizations that lead transition from capitalism to communism and combat the capitalist powers with militias and such, or if it's a DotP, each way will have it's strengths and weaknesses. I say let it play out the way it will happen the most natural and bloodless, and capitalism will fall on its face dead eventually, and hopefully this doesn't bring us into further barbarism, or bring us into extinction, hopefully it brings us to a progressive socialist future. I don't advocate any specific set method, I believe in permanent revolution to spread the revolution around the world

Hmm, well fair enough. Makes sense :)

Sinister Intents

10th June 2014, 02:28

Hmm, well fair enough. Makes sense :)

I hope I didn't seem rude :(

ALso what political tendency do you most identify with?

Psycho P and the Freight Train

10th June 2014, 02:30

I hope I didn't seem rude :(

ALso what political tendency do you most identify with?

No, not at all. You're probably the least rude person on this forum, haha.

I mainly identify with anarchist-syndicalism but I recognize the need for practicality, hence why I show some support for Cuba (not modern day Cuba) and certain programs put forth by some self-proclaimed socialist countries.

Anti-Traditional

11th June 2014, 10:16

Danielle Ni Dhighe

11th June 2014, 12:24

Anyone got an answer to this quote? To be honest it does look like Lenin supports the idea of SIOC.
And we have nearly a century of experience to see how it turned out.

Left Voice

11th June 2014, 12:33

We shouldn't misrepresent what Lenin meant by that, though. There was an (evidently correct) assumption that a proletarian revolution was not going to occur in capitalist nations any time soon, but Lenin felt that the revolution in Russia need not necessarily wait for the rest. There is wisdom here - revolutions can't necessarily be predicted, even Lenin himself wouldn't have predicted the 1917 revolution to occur exactly when it did. In such a context, there are credible arguments in support of maintaining and consolidating the revolution.

However, this really shouldn't be confused with the later 'socialism in one country' policy, which was more more of an attempt to coexist with the west. Lenin still saw it as an element in the process of international socialism and supporting overseas revolutions. Stalin enacted the policy to demonstrate to the west that this was not his aim.

Farseer

11th June 2014, 13:32

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

11th June 2014, 15:36

Didn't Stalin argue that he was constructing socialism in one country? And that had constructed socialism in the main, but it could only be finished when the entire world turned red? I'm not very knowledgeable on Stalin so I might be completely wrong but that's what I remember.

If that's true, isn't it a really weird debate as all socialists would want to start utilising socialist policies once they gain power eventhough it won't bring them full blown socialism? Basically, what I'm saying is that Stalin contributed nothing useful to socialist theory.

He started of like that, in his Foundations of Leninism he says that "the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured...For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed". He changed his position a few years later in a follow-up called Concerning Questions of Leninism and notes that it is no longer correct and was directed against Trotskyists and only accurate in that discussion. He criticises Zinoviev for holding the "muddled and anti-Leninist “thesis”" that "we can engage in building socialism “within the limits of one country,” although it is impossible to build it completely" and says "we can and must build a complete socialist society, for we have at our disposal all that is necessary and sufficient for this building." Then in 1946 he even replied that "“Communism in one country” is perfectly possible, especially in a country like the Soviet Union" to questions by a correspondent of the Sunday Times.

Whether he was right or not is another question, I would answer negatively. Most countries would not be able to feed themselves in autarchy. Though I don't think some bizarre insurrectionist "world revolution at once" idea is realistic either. We should build organisations that attempt to seize power on a large enough scale to function as a sustainable beachhead(e.g., North America, East Asia, EU), but socialism or communism in one country (or one continent) is rather absurd.

Five Year Plan

11th June 2014, 20:10

Dave B

12th June 2014, 19:18

also from "Lenin" in 1915

V. I. Lenin

Draft Resolution of the International Socialist Women’s Conference

Resolution Motioned by the C. C. Delegation

......By taking the initiative in staging demonstrations and revolutionary manifestations, working women, marching hand in hand with the proletarians, could usher in a new era of proletarian struggle in the course of which the proletariat will win socialism in the more advanced countries, and a democratic republic in the more backward ones............

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jun/01b.htm

Blake's Baby

15th June 2014, 01:19

Five Year Plan

30th June 2014, 01:37

Yes, well, Lenin was in 1915 still wedded to the notion that each country had to develop in stages, instead of seeing that it was international capitalism's developments that were of crucial importance. Was the task of the working class, in the early 20th century, to struggle for socialism, as the SPGB asserted at the time? Or was it, as Lenin then claimed, to struggle for the 'democratic republic' in less-developed countries?

I think the SPGB were right. I know you don't. Do you think Lenin was right?

I don't think this is fair at all, and actually ignores the more obvious point about how Lenin (and other Bolsheviks as well) often used "socialism" to refer to several things: a socialist form of state, i.e. a workers' state presiding over a transitional society, as in "the [political] victory of socialism"; a socialist form of production: the establishment of trusts and firms of a "consistently socialist type" (or socialist form). These usages of "socialism" actually refer to forms appropriate to the development of socialism, not the substantive establishment of socialism proper.

Stalinists ignore the distinction between the form and the substance, in order to substitute the former for the latter, as a way of providing a veneer of actual socialism over relations that clearly have only the most tenuous and formal relationship to what Marx and Lenin envisioned as a communist society in its lower phase.

Trotsky does a reasonably good job of going over all this in his work The Third International after Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/ti02.htm#p1-05).

Thirsty Crow

30th June 2014, 01:58

Stalinists ignore the distinction between the form and the substance, in order to substitute the former for the latter, as a way of providing a veneer of actual socialism over relations that clearly have only the most tenuous and formal relationship to what Marx and Lenin envisioned as a communist society in its lower phase.

Oh yes, one of my favorite high concepts battle, that of content (or more along traditional philosophical lines here - substance) and form. That's a field ripe for all sorts of mystification.

This alleged distinction falls apart when we consider the idea of the social form of the product - that of the commodity, which is pretty much crucial for Marxist criticism. What does this mean? Well, simply that the ideas found above about "socialist firms" (what specifically makes a form here?) as "forms" is mere vague talk, nothing more.

Anyway, this idea that you can disconnect the vessel from the thing inside it as if we're dealing with a glass of wine is completely useless. For instance, the idea of the socialist form of state as separate from...the substance (which substance, the substance of what?) ignores the fact that specific ways of governing are already a kind of effective social relations to begin with.

Five Year Plan

30th June 2014, 02:07

Oh yes, one of my favorite high concepts battle, that of content (or more along traditional philosophical lines here - substance) and form. That's a field ripe for all sorts of mystification.

This alleged distinction falls apart when we consider the idea of the social form of the product - that of the commodity, which is pretty much crucial for Marxist criticism. What does this mean? Well, simply that the ideas found above about "socialist firms" (what specifically makes a form here?) as "forms" is mere vague talk, nothing more.

Anyway, this idea that you can disconnect the vessel from the thing inside it as if we're dealing with a glass of wine is completely useless. For instance, the idea of the socialist form of state as separate from...the substance (which substance, the substance of what?) ignores the fact that specific ways of governing are already a kind of effective social relations to begin with.

I'm not sure why you think what I said was vague or mystifying. Of course firms of a socialist type will continue to produce items that have a commodity form during the process of transitioning from capitalism to socialism. Only as egalitarian democratic planning on a society-wide scale is achieved does the commodity form disappear. The point here is that production that is socialist in form does not require, and is not geared toward, making commodities.

As an example, present-day democratically run co-ops are socialist in form, but are of course thoroughly capitalist in substance. Yet, when merged together ("centralized" into the great bogey man "state capitalism") under a workers' state, they can be channeled to the goal of incrementally establishing fully socialist production without tinkering with the fundamentals of their system of organization.

This can be confusing, I suppose, to the newcomer, but these are important distinctions and connections to make, as they allow a fine precision in the use of terminology and in isolating and examining specific aspects of concrete social phenomena, how they relate to the existing state of affairs, and how they might be changed in some way to make them integral to different political tasks in the future. For people who don't want to rise above the level of moralistic sloganeering, or a politics of perpetual opposition, I suppose these sorts of things are so many irrelevant distractions.

The Modern Prometheus

30th June 2014, 03:29

While i believe that Socialism must be international to work i hardly think a revolution will pop off in every country at the same time. Also what Lenin said still holds true in some places as the working class has not yet evolved enough to become a revolutionary force. I think implementing Socialism within one country is fine and dandy as long as the goal is to increase revolution worldwide and not fall into the counter revolutionary measures that places like the Soviet Union, China, Albania, etc fell into by ending up doing more fighting against the so called subversives (Trotskists, Titoists. whatever label they used) within the working class movement thus weakening the proletariat then by fighting the bourgeois. In a sense these revolutions turned in on themselves more or less instead of helping to further the goal of Communism around the globe.

exeexe

30th June 2014, 04:07

Well ISIS got a caliphate in one country in a part of Iraq, and no (white) army went to war against them?

Trap Queen Voxxy

30th June 2014, 04:17

consuming negativity

30th June 2014, 04:27

Anyone who would agree with everything or nothing that Stalin did is choosing to over-simplify things, and the conditions that produced and were shaped by Stalin will never again exist, not even in Russia. I think that it is important to understand who he was, who he wasn't, and what he did and did not do before and during the USSR. Understanding and critically analyzing the policy of "socialism in one country" and what exactly that meant in the context of Stalin and his time are integral to learning from his successes, his mistakes, and everything in between. It is most useful to us by discussing what led to the circumstances that brought it about, and what role it played in shaping the circumstances to come. There is a lot more blanket condemnation or attempt at rehabilitation than there is learning or intelligent discussion in this thread, and I don't really find much of it particularly useful.

Brotto RÃ¼hle

30th June 2014, 19:48

I don't think this is fair at all, and actually ignores the more obvious point about how Lenin (and other Bolsheviks as well) often used "socialism" to refer to several things: a socialist form of state, i.e. a workers' state presiding over a transitional society, as in "the [political] victory of socialism"; a socialist form of production: the establishment of trusts and firms of a "consistently socialist type" (or socialist form). These usages of "socialism" actually refer to forms appropriate to the development of socialism, not the substantive establishment of socialism proper.Yeah, Leninists need to learn to read Lenin, and differentiate when Lenin speaks of socialism as "the movement" and socialism as the "first stage of communist society".

Also need to learn that there is no "transitional society" spoken of by Lenin.

Five Year Plan

30th June 2014, 19:56

Yeah, Leninists need to learn to read Lenin, and differentiate when Lenin speaks of socialism as "the movement" and socialism as the "first stage of communist society".

I agree. That is another way that Lenin uses "socialism."

Also need to learn that there is no "transitional society" spoken of by Lenin."The first fact that has been established most accurately by the whole theory of development, by science as a whole--a fact that was ignored by the utopians, and is ignored by the present-day opportunists, who are afraid of the socialist revolution--is that, historically, there must undoubtedly be a special stage, or a special phase, of transition from capitalism to communism." Lenin, State and Revolution, Chapter 5

What was that about learning to read Lenin?

Brotto RÃ¼hle

30th June 2014, 22:49

I agree. That is another way that Lenin uses "socialism."

"The first fact that has been established most accurately by the whole theory of development, by science as a whole--a fact that was ignored by the utopians, and is ignored by the present-day opportunists, who are afraid of the socialist revolution--is that, historically, there must undoubtedly be a special stage, or a special phase, of transition from capitalism to communism." Lenin, State and Revolution, Chapter 5

What was that about learning to read Lenin?

Where does he say transitional society? Or transitional mode of production?

Again, Lenin contradicts himself a lot. Specifically on topics about the DOTP, state capitalism etc.

Five Year Plan

30th June 2014, 23:03

Where does he say transitional society? Or transitional mode of production?

Again, Lenin contradicts himself a lot. Specifically on topics about the DOTP, state capitalism etc.

Lenin talks about a "special stage of transition from capitalism to communism," yet you think that Lenin isn't talking about a society in transition from one to the other (or a "transitional society") because he doesn't use the exact phrase "transitional society"? If the society isn't in transition, what thing do you think Lenin in that quote is describing as transitioning from capitalism to communism? The moon?

Your argument is analogous to claiming that my statement "the sky is blue" contains no evidence that I am speaking about a "blue sky." Why? Well because my statement nowhere contains the exact phrase "blue sky."

It's grasping a straws, really.

Anti-Traditional

30th June 2014, 23:25

Lenin talks about a "special stage of transition from capitalism to communism," yet you think that Lenin isn't talking about a society in transition from one to the other (or a "transitional society") because he doesn't use the exact phrase "transitional society"? If the society isn't in transition, what thing do you think Lenin in that quote is describing as transitioning from capitalism to communism? The moon?

Your argument is analogous to claiming that my statement "the sky is blue" contains no evidence that I am speaking about a "blue sky." Why? Well because my statement nowhere contains the exact phrase "blue sky."

It's grasping a straws, really.

Could it be that Lenin is referring to the DOTP and not a mode of production seperate from Capitalism and Communism called 'socialism'?

Five Year Plan

30th June 2014, 23:39

Could it be that Lenin is referring to the DOTP and not a mode of production seperate from Capitalism and Communism called 'socialism'?

The DotP is a feature of and oversees the "phase of transition" from capitalism to socialism, which occurs in a society in transition from one to the other (or a "transitional society").

Lenin in the next paragraph then quotes Marx: "Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Notice that in the quote of Marx's, which Lenin uses to buttress his own position refers not a state or a state form, but to a society between capitalist society and communist society, undergoing "the revolutionary transformation" from one to the other. He then talks about how this social transformation "corresponds" to a state form, which, as I said, oversees the transition.

Rae has heard all this before, has no sufficient response to it, and so just pops up from time to time in random threads to keep repeating his thoroughly discredited assertions, only to ignore once more the raft of clear textual evidence which people invariably bring to his attention, and which indicate the opposite of what he claims. Look through his posting history and you'll see this.