Socialism in one country

[bezdomni]

In "The Principles of Communism" Engels wrote:


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.

This seems to be completely contradictory to Stalin's system of Socialism in One country, as it blatantly says that socialism must work as a world system and with a world revolution.

Is there a Stalinist response to this that keeps within the lines of marxism, or would one have to deviate from traditional marxism in order to effectively respond to this?

[barista.marxista]

Stalin's theory of "Socialism in one country" was the logical outgrowth of the condition of Leninism at the time. Prior to the October Revolution, Leninism was completely dependent on Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution. That is, the Russian Revolution would inspire the first-world proletariat to rise up (particularly Germany), and that was the only way a third-world country could build socialism. When the post-October Revolutions failed, then the Bolsheviks were stuck. They could either abandon their control of Russia (which obviously would not happen), or they could attempt industrialization themselves. The latter is what happened, and the only way it couldn've happened as extraordinarily as it did (they achieved in fifteen years what it took the first world well over a hundred) was through Stalin. The brute force, complete bureaucratization, and the disregard for democracy was necessary in order to secure Russia's dominance in the face of capitalist imperialism and the growing fascist scourge. This control saw itself form in the last years of Lenin's life, which he spent justifying the totalitarian efforts of the Russian state (such as subordinating the soviets to the Party, crushing the Krondstadt rebellion, etc.).

I'm not defending Stalin. I'm not a Leninist. I just think Stalinism is the natural outgrowth of Leninism when permanent revolution proved to be wrong. Leninism has shown itself to be quite apt at creating a bourgeois revolution as a result of the theory that the few "professional revolutionaries" lead for the many.

[redstar2000]

In addition to which, the Russian Empire was more than "one country"...in fact, it was widely regarded back in the early 20th century as "the prison of nations".

Given the constraints of the Leninist paradigm, Stalin's conclusion was quite logical...the USSR occupied approximately 1/6th of the Earth's surface with a population in the hundreds of millions.

Had these nations been integrated into the USSR in a genuinely egalitarian fashion, it's quite possible that the USSR would have done a lot better than it did.

But as it turned out, the USSR was just the Russian Empire under a different name. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:22 PM
Stalin's theory of "Socialism in one country" was the logical outgrowth of the condition of Leninism at the time. Prior to the October Revolution, Leninism was completely dependent on Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution. That is, the Russian Revolution would inspire the first-world proletariat to rise up (particularly Germany), and that was the only way a third-world country could build socialism. When the post-October Revolutions failed, then the Bolsheviks were stuck. They could either abandon their control of Russia (which obviously would not happen), or they could attempt industrialization themselves. The latter is what happened, and the only way it couldn've happened as extraordinarily as it did (they achieved in fifteen years what it took the first world well over a hundred) was through Stalin. The brute force, complete bureaucratization, and the disregard for democracy was necessary in order to secure Russia's dominance in the face of capitalist imperialism and the growing fascist scourge. This control saw itself form in the last years of Lenin's life, which he spent justifying the totalitarian efforts of the Russian state (such as subordinating the soviets to the Party, crushing the Krondstadt rebellion, etc.).

I'm not defending Stalin. I'm not a Leninist. I just think Stalinism is the natural outgrowth of Leninism when permanent revolution proved to be wrong. Leninism has shown itself to be quite apt at creating a bourgeois revolution as a result of the theory that the few "professional revolutionaries" lead for the many.
This is yet another reason to reject Leninism, IMHO.

Certainly, as an Anarchist, I would consider that the Russian experiment (which included the suppression of Kronstadt and the betrayal and suppression of Nestor Makhno's army in the Ukraine) is a shining example of what Leninism can lead to.

Hardly a glowing recommendation.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:50 PM
In addition to which, the Russian Empire was more than "one country"...in fact, it was widely regarded back in the early 20th century as "the prison of nations".

Given the constraints of the Leninist paradigm, Stalin's conclusion was quite logical...the USSR occupied approximately 1/6th of the Earth's surface with a population in the hundreds of millions.

Had these nations been integrated into the USSR in a genuinely egalitarian fashion, it's quite possible that the USSR would have done a lot better than it did.

But as it turned out, the USSR was just the Russian Empire under a different name. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Quite logical? Are you aware that Lenin was opposed to Stalin, in addition to how he adopted the Theory of Permanent Revolution in his April Theses?

It is so annoying to see people complaining about Leninism when they have absolutely no idea what it really is.