Socialism in one country

[Sinister Intents]

I would like to discuss 'Socialism in one country.' Does anyone think this is a feasible idea and why? I've seen this thread before but I wanted to see the discussion play out again.To me the entire idea isn't feasible and iscan oxymoron because you can't have a socialist country as well as socialism needing to be a globalized system, not run by a state and class system.

[Hrafn]

"wanted to see the discussion play out again"

You fucking sadist :crying:

[Sinister Intents]

"wanted to see the discussion play out again"

You fucking sadist :crying:

It gives new users and inexperienced users a chance to discuss theory. :)

[Zoroaster]

From "The Principles of Communism" by Friedrich Engels:

"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range."

[Tim Cornelis]

Note that Engels spoke of an is, not an ought. He did not conceive of the revolution being isolated and would inevitably spread. As practice has revealed, revolutionary territories can and do become isolated under certain conditions. So the question still is, can these territories become socialist?

There are those who say "socialism is by definition global and stateless" and therefore it cannot, but this is a bunch of sophistry used to kill debate. The global scope and the statelessness of a socialist society arise out of the base of both capitalism and socialism, but are not in itself part of the base of society. Rather, the answer needs to be sought in the global interconnectivity of capital and the exchange of commodities. As long as there is capital spread around the globe, isolated revolutionary territories will be compelled to continue trade and therefore continue to operate with the value-form; and therefore socialism cannot exist in one country -- it will always remain locked between capitalism and socialism, until capital elsewhere is undermined and deconstructed through social revolution.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I would like to discuss 'Socialism in one country.' Does anyone think this is a feasible idea and why? I've seen this thread before but I wanted to see the discussion play out again.To me the entire idea isn't feasible and iscan oxymoron because you can't have a socialist country as well as socialism needing to be a globalized system, not run by a state and class system.

Yes cuz Stalin

[Broviet Union]

I honestly don't see how a state that practiced SIOC would not eventually degenerate into bourgeois nationalism by the very logic of being "one state against the world."

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I honestly don't see how a state that practiced SIOC would not eventually degenerate into bourgeois nationalism by the very logic of being "one state against the world."

This is pretty silly

[Broviet Union]

This is pretty silly

Not really. It is pretty much what has happened again and again, not least in China. But thanks for the contentless criticism.

[bropasaran]

I would like to discuss 'Socialism in one country.' Does anyone think this is a feasible idea and why? I've seen this thread before but I wanted to see the discussion play out again.To me the entire idea isn't feasible and iscan oxymoron because you can't have a socialist country as well as socialism needing to be a globalized system, not run by a state and class system.
Something being unfeasible doesn't make it an "oxymoron", unless by feasible you mean possible, not sustainable.

If you claim that socialism in one country isn't possible, you are wrong because there is no presupposed determinant of scale in the definition of socialism; if you claim that socialism in one country isn't sustainable, I can't imagine a reason for anyone to disagree with that, if one knows even rudimentary facts about international relations (imperialism).

[Deep Sea]

To quote Lenin:



Thirdly, the victory of socialism in one country does not at one stroke eliminate all wars in general. On the contrary, it presupposes wars. The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be otherwise under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois. This is bound to create not only friction, but a direct attempt on the part of the bourgeoisie of other countries to crush the socialist state’s victorious proletariat. In such cases, a war on our part would be a legitimate and just war. It would be a war for socialism, for the liberation of other nations from the bourgeoisie. Engels was perfectly right when, in his letter to Kautsky of September 12, 1882, he clearly stated that it was possible for already victorious socialism to wage “defensive wars”. What he had in mind was defense of the victorious proletariat against the bourgeoisie of other countries.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/i.htm

[motion denied]

To quote Lenin:



https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/i.htm


Oh, it must be true then...

Oh wait



Socialism means the abolition of classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all it could to abolish classes. But classes cannot be abolished at one stroke.
And classes still remain and will remain in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship will become unnecessary when classes disappear. Without the dictatorship of the proletariat they will not disappear.

Source. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm)
It is astonishing how, after the XXth century, some people still have the nerves to parrot SioC. It's unbelievable, really, concrete experiences (and failures) speak more than a handful of quotes. It doesn't matter if Lenin said it was possible (which is arguable in itself) or that he said it was impossible (he did). What matter is: history has shown that it's not possible to go beyond capital in one (or a handful) of countries. As Rosa said, "The aim of its journey – its emancipation depends on this – is whether the proletariat can learn from its own errors. Self-criticism, remorseless, cruel, and going to the core of things is the life’s breath and light of the proletarian movement. [...] But socialism will be lost only if the international proletariat fails to measure the depth of this fall, if it refuses to learn from it."

She was right about it in 1915, she is right now.

[Deep Sea]

Oh waitThis paragraph has nothing to do with whether socialism is possible in one country. It's about the distinction between socialism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.


It is astonishing how, after the XXth century, some people still have the nerves to parrot SioC.What's actually amazing is people still pretend this is some sort of interesting argument, and not the phrasemongering ramblings of anti-communist imperialist Labor Bureaucrats waiting in the wings.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

just off the top of my head it has always seemed to me to be a capitulation to the idea that borders/countries are a particularly valid idea in the context of revolution which has always seemed odd to me. Why should a revolution by people who (one would hope) have no respect for the old order suddenly have respect for borders? I'm aware that I'm probably getting some of this wrong but unless I am mistaken it's not like a game where you can clearly demarcate territories into 'revolutionary' and 'not revolutionary'.

[ReindeerThistle]

Per the Law of Uneven Development, while you can, and.must, build socialism in your nation, after you have seized state power, you cannot maintain it without an international struggle.

The distinction is important, because socialism in Russia looked different than socialism in Cuba looks. You have to have national liberation FIRST.

Since none of the other 3rd International Parties won, Russia could have been an example. Instead, the rest of the CI used Russia as an excuse NOT to have a revolution.

[ReindeerThistle]

Currently, the world we live in is bordered. But nations are NOT just borders, but also common cultural and economic bonds. Before you can install socialism, you must overthrow the current government structure. You do it in an arena of historic determination -- which today are nations.

Socialism will not survive in one nation, to be sure, but it can be built in that nation of historic determination. Cuba is a great example, since they have built an amazing socialist system, while exporting their successful medical and education programs to the world.

[motion denied]

This paragraph has nothing to do with whether socialism is possible in one country. It's about the distinction between socialism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Yes, socialism being the "abolition of classes", a classless society, as opposed to the DotP. It's safe to conclude that Lenin did not conceive socialism, a classless society, in one country possible, isn't it?


What's actually amazing is people still pretend this is some sort of interesting argument, and not the phrasemongering ramblings of anti-communist imperialist Labor Bureaucrats waiting in the wings.

"anti-communist imperialist Labor Bureaucrats". Talk about phrasemongering.

[Deep Sea]

Yes, socialism being the "abolition of classes", a classless society, as opposed to the DotP.That is correct. The two are different.


It's safe to conclude that Lenin did not conceive socialism, a classless society, in one country possible, isn't it?Nowhere does Lenin say this, and nowhere is it justified by the text. You can have a "classless society" in "one country." Nothing Lenin says leads one to think otherwise. In fact, Lenin says the exact opposite, as I've already demonstrated.


"anti-communist imperialist Labor Bureaucrats". Talk about phrasemongeringMost Oppressor Nation "leftists" love to make up any excuse for refusing to support the USSR. Cause they're either part of the Labor Bureaucracy or waiting in the wings, for when their imperialist masters need people to spout some R-r-r-r-evolutionary phrases.



The prospect of partitioning China elicited from Hobson the following economic appraisal: “The greater part of Western Europe might then assume the appearance and character already exhibited by tracts of country in the South of England, in the Riviera, and in the tourist-ridden or residential parts of Italy and Switzerland, little clusters of wealthy aristocrats drawing dividends and pensions from the Far East, with a somewhat larger group of professional retainers and tradesmen and a larger body of personal servants and workers in the transport trade and in the final stages of production of the more perishable goods: all the main arterial industries would have disappeared, the staple foods and semi-manufactures flowing in as tribute from Asia and Africa.... We have foreshadowed the possibility of even a larger alliance of Western states, a European federation of Great Powers which, so far from forwarding the cause of world civilisation, might introduce the gigantic peril of a Western parasitism, a group of advanced industrial nations, whose upper classes drew vast tribute from Asia and Africa, with which they supported great tame masses of retainers, no longer engaged in the staple industries of agriculture and manufacture, but kept in the performance of personal or minor industrial services under the control of a new financial aristocracy. Let those who would scout such a theory [he should have said: prospect] as undeserving of consideration examine the economic and social condition of districts in Southern England today which are already reduced to this condition, and reflect upon the vast extension of such a system which might be rendered feasible by the subjection of China to the economic control of similar groups of financiers, investors [rentiers] and political and business officials, draining the greatest potential reservoir of profit the world has ever known, in order to consume it in Europe. The situation is far too complex, the play of world forces far too incalculable, to render this or any other single interpretation of the future very probable; but the influences which govern the imperialism of Western Europe today are moving in this direction, and, unless counteracted or diverted, make towards such a consummation.”

Hobson, the social-liberal, fails to see that this “counteraction” can be offered only by the revolutionary proletariat and only in the form of a social revolution. But then he is a social-liberal! Nevertheless, as early as 1902 he had an excellent insight into the meaning and significance of a “United States of Europe” (be it said for the benefit of Trotsky the Kautskyite!) and of all that is now being glossed over by the hypocritical Kautskyites of various countries, namely, that the opportunists (social-chauvinists) are working hand in glove with the imperialist bourgeoisie precisely towards creating an imperialist Europe on the backs of Asia and Africa, and that objectively the opportunists are a section of the petty bourgeoisie and of a certain strata of the working class who have been bribed out of imperialist superprofits and converted to watchdogs of capitalism and corruptors of the labour movement

Imperialism and the Split in Socialism (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm)

[Zoroaster]

Christ, this thread went to shit quickly. Also, I don't like the USSR but that doesn't mean I'm a spy.

[Slavic]

Christ, this thread went to shit quickly. Also, I don't like the USSR but that doesn't mean I'm a spy.

Well that is because Deep Sea is in this discussion.

DotP =/= Socialism

DotP in one country, sure
Socialism in one country, impossible

Nothing against a good ol' fashion DotP, but it is not socialism but a state that has the potential to develop into a socialist society.

[Sinister Intents]

What this thread tells me is that SioC is possible under certain circumstances, like size of the land and population. But I still think it in reality is not feasible because Stalin :rolleyes: Anarchy in one country would be just as infeasible as SioC, hostile forces outside, stagnation, internal problem would arise potentially. Oh yeah organic centralism in one country cold tots work

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Well that is because Deep Sea is in this discussion.

DotP =/= Socialism

DotP in one country, sure
Socialism in one country, impossible

Nothing against a good ol' fashion DotP, but it is not socialism but a state that has the potential to develop into a socialist society.

You stagey Marxists are pretty weird. First, we're told, there must be a transitional stage (Socialism) before there can be a stateless, classless society (Communism). This transitional stage including the state, wage differentials and the wage system and other such things. Now, all of that is the DoTP or something? Like I don't get it.

[Slavic]

You stagey Marxists are pretty weird. First, we're told, there must be a transitional stage (Socialism) before there can be a stateless, classless society (Communism). This transitional stage including the state, wage differentials and the wage system and other such things. Now, all of that is the DoTP or something? Like I don't get it.


Oooo your quick, making me google Stacy Marxists.

I honestly don't know anything. I basically just see the DotP as a tool of war; the people using state like structures to combat capitalist states. Honestly if a DotP needs to be formed, then it is pretty much a doomed revolution since there wasn't enough international support to throw the bums out all at once.

[Sinister Intents]

Oooo your quick, making me google Stacy Marxists.

I honestly don't know anything. I basically just see the DotP as a tool of war; the people using state like structures to combat capitalist states. Honestly if a DotP needs to be formed, then it is pretty much a doomed revolution since there wasn't enough international support to throw the bums out all at once.

Sucks is typing all this on a cellphone baked like a potato in a cozy oven of warm deliciousness. Have you read Lenins State and Revolution?

[Slavic]

Sucks is typing all this on a cellphone baked like a potato in a cozy oven of warm deliciousness. Have you read Lenins State and Revolution?

Reading is for nerds. NERDS!!!

I haven't read any of Lenin's work out of sheer principal that I am lazy.

[Sinister Intents]

Reading is for nerds. NERDS!!!

I haven't read any of Lenin's work out of sheer principal that I am lazy.

Fair enough! ! Within it there are several points I disagree with, especially when he discusses anarchist, he sounds like the stereotypical Marxist in that case imo. Did he even read any anarchist literature outside of specific writings? I read an interview of him with Makhno and he shows no understanding of the fact that anarchists are materialists. He insists upon them being idealists and opportunists. Lenin has written decent works though which in this case State and Revolution is pretty short and to the point despite my ideological disagreeances with Mr. Ulyanov (Lenin). I believe direct revolution is the best way, and to establish non authoritarian and decentralized organizations is a great way forward, anatchist transition would function like the DotP, but without a centralized authority, no capitalist stage, it'd be anarchic federation. I've made it principle to understand the DotP and it's just as feasible and dangerous as anarchist federation imo

[Art Vandelay]

Fair enough! ! Within it there are several points I disagree with, especially when he discusses anarchist, he sounds like the stereotypical Marxist in that case imo. Did he even read any anarchist literature outside of specific writings? I read an interview of him with Makhno and he shows no understanding of the fact that anarchists are materialists. He insists upon them being idealists and opportunists. Lenin has written decent works though which in this case State and Revolution is pretty short and to the point despite my ideological disagreeances with Mr. Ulyanov (Lenin). I believe direct revolution is the best way, and to establish non authoritarian and decentralized organizations is a great way forward, anatchist transition would function like the DotP, but without a centralized authority, no capitalist stage, it'd be anarchic federation. I've made it principle to understand the DotP and it's just as feasible and dangerous as anarchist federation imo

To be quite honest, if you have read state and revolution, then you clearly didn't understand it.

[Sinister Intents]

To be quite honest, if you have read state and revolution, then you clearly didn't understand it.

I read it 5 years ago, so I probably should read it again. There is no denying Lenin presents a ton of great information and well thought out ideas congruous with Marx. I highly disagree with what he says of anarchists in State and Revolution

[Art Vandelay]

I read it 5 years ago, so I probably should read it again. There is no denying Lenin presents a ton of great information and well thought out ideas congruous with Marx. I highly disagree with what he says of anarchists in State and Revolution

I'd suggest reading it again.

[Sinister Intents]

I'd suggest reading it again.

I'll do so again! I've nothing better to do, plus I'm getting back into Marxism. Not becoming one but you know what I mean. What supplements to this?

[Buttscratcher]

I think socialism in one country is to be implemented before socialism itself is reached, in a time when the working class isn't the only class yet therefore the burgeoisie has to be suppressed. Therefore, although my views are sort of positive on socialism in one country, I don't consider it to be socialism but rather something that predates it.

[The Intransigent Faction]

As awesome as it would be, I doubt we'll see a simultaneous revolt against capitalists in every corner of the globe all at once, or even necessarily at around the same time. There will be some sort of "stage" wherein the revolution is still spreading. If that's going to last rather than "degenerate", though, it cannot rely on some kind of figurehead personality or bureaucracy pushing an otherwise "backward" working class not fully and actively conscious of its own class interests.

I know none of the above is really a novel contribution, but I think it deserves emphasis. Some sort of stage prior to fully global revolution will happen if there's a socialist revolution, but not in the sense that Stalin meant it of coexistence with bourgeois states outside of a "socialist country". There can't be any pretense of not interfering with the internal politics of bourgeois states (and the United States in particular).

[renalenin]

The slogan comes from Stalin doesn't it? It is OK I suppose to build socialism after the working class and its allies have taken the state and the organs of the state. But this does not mean surrender on the global stage.

The problem with Khrushchev was that 'coexistence' implied giving up on revolution worldwide, which I doubt Lenin would ever have supported.

Comrades should deduce that socialism in one country is essential but that it does not negate our obligation to support socialism in all countries.

:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

[John Nada]

There was a certain Trotskyite revisionist ;) who had arguments similar to many on this thread.
Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?

Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.

It follows that this question contains two different problems :

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.

We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.

But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.

But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved.

More than that : the second problem cannot be solved in the way that we solved the first problem, i.e., solely by the efforts of our country.

The second problem can be solved only by combining the serious efforts of the international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of the whole of our Soviet people.

The international proletarian ties between the working class of the U.S.S.R. and the working class in bourgeois countries must be increased and strengthened; the political assistance of the working class in the bourgeois countries for the working class of our country must be organized in the event of a military attack on our country; and also every assistance of the working class of our country for the working class in bourgeois countries must be organized; our Red Army, Red Navy, Red Air Fleet, and the Chemical and Air Defence Society must be increased and strengthened to the utmost. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm

I don't understand what this debate is about if no one thought that socialism could be completely achieved in only a single country. Is it a Rorschach test on whether the USSR was "the greatest thing ever"/"a monstrosity"?

[motion denied]

No, more like "are you a communist or a reactionary wrecker?"

Not really.

No, it is.