Defense of Socialism In One Country

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

What would be the defense of this theory from a Marxist-Leninist (of any variant) or from a non-Marxist-Leninist? The name itself seems totally paradoxical as socialism was always intended by Marx and Engels to be international in its character, to my knowledge.

[RedKobra]

In simple terms; consolidation. It views the global revolution occurring over a prolonged period of time and standing a far better chance of spreading if there are base camps (so to speak) of Socialism, base camps such as the USSR.

[ComradeAllende]

My understanding of it was that it was a purely strategic move to deal with the "exceptional" characteristics of the October Revolution, which failed to spread across Europe. A Leninist (or Marxist-Leninist) would probably argue that the theory was necessary to deal with the catastrophes facing Russia after the October Revolution, including the emergence of the White movement, foreign intervention by former Allies, and the failure of proletarian revolution to succeed in industrialized countries like Germany and Great Britain (which would ease Russia's industrialization programme).

[Mr. Piccolo]

Most responses have already covered the main defenses of Socialism in One Country that I know of. Also in the peculiar case of Russia there was a need to industrialize in order to have the material base to defend the USSR from future attacks. This required a period of peace to develop the material/productive forces of the country.

[Comrade #138672]

I would not defend it. It is a theory reflecting the desperation of the USSR in the absence of the world revolution. It is not something we should advocate today.


"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 the 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." – Friedrich Engels, The Principles of Communism, 1847

[RedKobra]

I would not defend it. It is a theory reflecting the desperation of the USSR in the absence of the world revolution. It is not something we should advocate today.

Of course the 'out' that the CPSU found was that Marx and Engels had not foreseen that the revolutions would occur in largely undeveloped, peasant countries like Russia and China. Where as, barring the catastrophic attempt in Germany, none of the industrial heavyweight countries ever came close to having a revolution. The CPSU thus asserted that the rules were different for isolated, underdeveloped countries, like Russia. Marx and Engels assumed that the conquered industrialised, developed "base camps" would both act as "base camps" for the revolution and be defining defeats to Capital (because obviously Capitalists would have to flee to the more underdeveloped parts of the world). The CPSU theorised that given that not only did no revolution not have these developed base camps, Capital still DID. Hence the need for a new strategy. Socialism in One Country.

[Comrade #138672]

Of course the 'out' that the CPSU found was that Marx and Engels had not foreseen that the revolutions would occur in largely undeveloped, peasant countries like Russia and China. Where as, barring the catastrophic attempt in Germany, none of the industrial heavyweight countries ever came close to having a revolution. The CPSU thus asserted that the rules were different for isolated, underdeveloped countries, like Russia. Marx and Engels assumed that the conquered industrialised, developed "base camps" would both act as "base camps" for the revolution and be defining defeats to Capital (because obviously Capitalists would have to flee to the more underdeveloped parts of the world). The CPSU theorised that given that not only did no revolution not have these developed base camps, Capital still DID. Hence the need for a new strategy. Socialism in One Country.I still think Marx and Engels were right about that. Instead of leading us the way, the USSR eventually collapsed. It demonstrated that Socialism In One Country did not work and that a world revolution is needed instead.

[Hit The North]

My understanding of it was that it was a purely strategic move to deal with the "exceptional" characteristics of the October Revolution, which failed to spread across Europe. A Leninist (or Marxist-Leninist) would probably argue that the theory was necessary to deal with the catastrophes facing Russia after the October Revolution, including the emergence of the White movement, foreign intervention by former Allies, and the failure of proletarian revolution to succeed in industrialized countries like Germany and Great Britain (which would ease Russia's industrialization programme).

The problem being that 'socialism in one country' was formulated after the crises of October had been rectified (apart, obviously, from the spread of the revolution). Lenin did not formulate this paradoxical theory. It was the Stalinists who developed this unMarxist position, making a virtue of the USSR's isolation and lending legitimacy to the state bureaucracy.

...

[RedKobra]

For what its worth I still believe that the logic of Socialism in One Country is sound, if you are only considering consolidation. The consolidation of control over private capital, of consolidation against foreign threats and of control over infrastructure. Where it starts to unravel is that SiOC can never develop beyond State Capitalism. You can't even get to Socialism because that requires some form of workers democracy which is inconceivable in a consolidated state.

How we extricate ourselves from this riddle is the sixty four thousand ruble question.

[Comrade #138672]

I understand why the USSR adopted SiOC. Ideologies are reflections of the material conditions, and SiOC reflected the desperation and backwardness of the USSR pretty well. When socialism is (or was) the goal, and you can do no better than state capitalism, then it is only natural that such paradoxical ideologies arise.

I just do not understand why people still think of it as valid today. With all the information we have today, it should be obvious what it meant.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Where as, barring the catastrophic attempt in Germany, none of the industrial heavyweight countries ever came close to having a revolution.

That's simply not true. Even if you dismiss the Paris Commune, the German revolution, the Hungarian Soviet Republic and so on, there is the example of the British general strike. How was the strike defeated? Through the good graces of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the gravediggers of revolutions everywhere, armed with their theory of "socialism in one country" as a cudgel. It's not that they advocated a revolutionary "base" (although even this sort of language - it's military language, the language of guerrilla warfare suited for Maoist peasant adventures but not for a proletarian revolution), it's that they advocated against world revolution so as to not spoil the relationship the USSR was building with world imperialism.

[Emmett Till]

That's simply not true. Even if you dismiss the Paris Commune, the German revolution, the Hungarian Soviet Republic and so on, there is the example of the British general strike. How was the strike defeated? Through the good graces of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the gravediggers of revolutions everywhere, armed with their theory of "socialism in one country" as a cudgel. It's not that they advocated a revolutionary "base" (although even this sort of language - it's military language, the language of guerrilla warfare suited for Maoist peasant adventures but not for a proletarian revolution), it's that they advocated against world revolution so as to not spoil the relationship the USSR was building with world imperialism.

Or rather, at that point, not to spoil their relationship with the British trade union bureaucracy in the Anglo-Soviet Committee.

Had the CPGB not capitulated to the union bureaucracy, could there have been a proletarian revolution on the spot? Well, the CPGB probably wasn't strong enough yet for that, and the British working class probably wasn't quite ready to seize power. But a correct line would have enabled the CPGB to become a truly mass revolutionary party, ready to lead a future revolution in a future revolutionary crisis in the 1930s after the Great Depression hit.

OTOH, China in 1927 most definitely could have seen a proletarian victory if the CCP had not capitulated to Chiang Kai-Shek and the KMT, under orders from Moscow.

And whether or not a correct revolutionary line would have led to a workers revolution in Germany in 1923, quite possible but not certain, most certainly in the German crisis of the early '30s, objectively Hitler's victory was an improbable development, in the last analysis due to the extremely false political line imposed on the KPD by the Comintern that the socialists were "social-fascists" and there should be no unity with them even vs. Hitler.

Even at that point, an abrupt Stalinist change in course would have prevented Hitler's victory. The SPD and KPD between them had far more social weight than the brownshirts, the police were, supposedly at least, under SPD command and therefore not the ideal tool to crush the SPD at any rate, and the army was greatly limited under Versailles as to both size and armament.

If a correct revolutionary course had been followed in 1923, and the brief status of relative equality in strength between SPD and KPD were at minimum permanent or even have given way to greater KPD strength, then a communist revolution in the early '30s in the grand social crisis in Germany which even the better bourgeois historians recognize as terminal for Weimar, would have been about as close to an easy affair as one could ever possibly expect.

[ComradeAllende]

The problem being that 'socialism in one country' was formulated after the crises of October had been rectified (apart, obviously, from the spread of the revolution). Lenin did not formulate this paradoxical theory. It was the Stalinists who developed this unMarxist position, making a virtue of the USSR's isolation and lending legitimacy to the state bureaucracy.

...

What I meant was that "socialism in one country" wasn't a theory formulated from Marxist analysis but simply a strategic move given the failure of proletarian revolution in Europe (particularly Germany and the UK). Lenin didn't come up with the theory because he was still dedicated (at least in theory) to internationalist revolution; the Stalinists turned Lenin's inward focus on industrialization in the USSR into a "Marxist theory" as a move of power, justifying their actions in the Comintern and their rejection of internationalist revolution as "counter-revolutionary" and "subversive" to the socialist cause. To Lenin, "socialism in one country" was the state of affairs that he had to deal with; to Stalin and his acolytes, it was a "theory" that justified their actions.