If the Bourgeoisie is in the majority (such as in Australia where I am from) what is to be done if there is to be a revolution of the Proleteriat?
The proletariat will rule, even if they are not the majority. They will represent the will of the global majority.
How can you abolish classes if the Proleteriat is not in the position to do so because they are not the largest class?
The proletariat were not in the majority in russia.
The Bourgeoisie is over 50% in Australia, it is the largest of the classes in Australia.
Surely a Dictatorship of the Proleteriat would not be truly democratic and just if the majority of the populance were/are in fact Bourgeoisie?
Democracy is the rule of the majority. We are internationalists, so we do not see the 50% bourgeoise in australia as the majority. The small proletariat in australia would represent the global proletariat, thus it is democratic.
And another question.. Why are you so sure that if one country experiences a Proleterian Revolution, other countries around them will follow suit?
A successful revolution in one country certainly inspires the proletariat abroad, and may spark a revolution in other countries. But the conditions must be right in those countries for the revolution to happen.
Surely their media and the such can suppress knowledge of the revolution or portray in a bad light? Or what if the Proleteriat of another country just DON'T revolt? Can the one which did experience the revolution survive? The Stalinists think it can, but others think not... so if it can't, what then? Everyone with a brain thinks that the revolution can survive for a while in one country alone. Lenin thought so, its not just stalin. And no one beleives communism can be reached in one country alone. Heres a post that one of our members (criticizeeverythingalways) just recently made, that explains alot.
Originally posted by
[email protected] Oct 15 2006, 03:57 PM
Stalin added only very little to Leninism aside from his idea of socialism in one nation.
The idea of socialism in one country did not originate with Stalin.
V.I. Lenin, Our Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htm)
Infinitely stereotyped, for instance, is the argument they learned by rote during the development of West-European Social-Democracy, namely, that we are not yet ripe for socialism, but as certain "learned" gentleman among them put it, the objective economic premises for socialism do not exist in our country. Does it not occur to any of them to ask: what about the people that found itself in a revolutionary situation such as that created during the first imperialist war? Might it not, influenced by the hopelessness of its situation, fling itself into a struggle that would offer it at least some chance of securing conditions for the further development of civilization that were somewhat unusual?
"The development of the productive forces of Russia has not yet attained the level that makes socialism possible." All the heroes of the Second International, including, of course, Sukhanov, beat the drums about this proposition. They keep harping on this incontrovertible proposition in a thousand different keys, and think that it is decisive criterion of our revolution.
But what if the situation, which drew Russia into the imperialist world war that involved every more or less influential West European country and made her a witness of the eve of the revolutions maturing or partly already begun in the East, gave rise to circumstances that put Russia and her development in a position which enabled us to achieve precisely that combination of a "peasant war" with the working-class movement suggested in 1856 by no less a Marxist than Marx himself as a possible prospect for Prussia?
What if the complete hopelessness of the situation, by stimulating the efforts of the workers and peasants tenfold, offered us the opportunity to create the fundamental requisites of civilization in a different way from that of the West European countries? Has that altered the general line of development of world history? Has that altered the basic relations between the basic classes of all the countries that are being, or have been, drawn into the general course of world history?
If a definite level of culture is required for the building of socialism (although nobody can say just what that definite "level of culture" is, for it differs in every Western European country), why cannot we began by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture in a revolutionary way, and then, with the aid of the workers' and peasants' government and Soviet system, proceed to overtake the other nations?
January 16, 1923
II
You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?
It was possible to build socialism in one country. Did that mean the final victory of socialism was possible in one country alone? No.
V.I. Lenin, Achievements and Difficulties of the Soviet Government (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/ADSG19.html)
Complete and final victory on a world scale cannot be achieved in Russia alone; it can be achieved only when the proletariat is victorious in at least all the advanced countries, or, at all events, in some of the largest of the advanced countries. Only then shall we be able to say with absolute confidence that the cause of the proletariat has triumphed, that our first objective -- the overthrow of capitalism -- has been achieved.
We have achieved this objective in one country, and this confronts us with a second task. Since Soviet power has been established, since the bourgeoisie has been overthrown in one country, the second task is to wage the struggle on a world scale, on a different plane, the struggle of the proletarian state surrounded by capitalist states.
This situation is an entirely novel and difficult one.
On the other hand, since the rule of the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, the main task is to organise the development of the country.
Contrary to what the Trotskyites will tell you, Stalin held the same views. In a letter he wrote to a comrade in 1938:
J.V. Stalin, On the Final Victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. (http://www.marx2mao.com/PDFs/StWorks14.pdf)
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.
Hence, "Stalinism" is none other than Marxism-Leninism.