Socialism in one what?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I've always had issues with both the proponents and the critics of "socialism in one country," and I'd like to put them forward.

The fundamental problem is that the concept of a "country" is undefined. Could we really say that the same constraints apply to someone trying to build socialism in Brazil alone and someone trying to build socialism in Austria alone? Countries come in various sizes and levels of development. Ten small countries are not necessarily better suited for socialism than one big country.

One the one hand, there is clearly a limit on how small a socialist country can be if it wishes to survive against a hostile capitalist world. No one would suggest that a revolution in Luxemburg alone would stand any chance of success if it did not quickly spread to neighboring countries, for example.

On the other hand, it seems absurd to insist that socialism cannot be developed effectively until the revolution has spread to every last corner of the globe. If capitalism has been abolished everywhere except for Tunisia, Bhutan and New Zealand, for instance, I think we can safely proceed with the construction of socialism in the rest of the world and not have to wait for the last few revolutions to occur.

So, clearly, the construction of socialism can proceed within a given territory (a country or a group of countries) once that territory has reached a certain size with respect to the capitalist world. What size, exactly? That is a matter for debate.

But I will make the following claim: The dispute between proponents of "socialism in one country" and their opponents cannot be one of fundamental principles, but only one of degree. Any Stalinist can agree that a country may be too small to build socialism alone, and any Trotskyist can agree that once the revolution has spread to a certain fraction of the world we may build socialism within that territory. The question is not "can we build socialism in one country" but rather "what is the minimum size of a socialist society, in terms of territory, population or prior economic development."

[Cult of Reason]

You miss another important consideration: natural resources within a territory.

Myself, I think that any purely Socialist system, which would be autarkik by its very nature, would need a territory on a continental scale under its influence. For example, I could envision Socialism across Europe, or North America, but not just Germany or Canada.

In order to have workable Communism, specifically, that would be self-sustainable in the long term, you need:

1. Sufficient natural resources within the territory to produce an abundance of goods and services (or equivalent recyclable materials)

2. Sufficient technology/productive power within that territory to process said resources into an abundance of goods and services.

3. Sufficient people trained to operate and manage such machinery.

1 excludes all territories below a certain size, all territories without oil (currently), coal, significant arable land, iron etc.. 2 excludes all territories below a certain level of development, such as Africa or Central Asia. 3 is similar to 2 in this respect.

So, basically, possibilities are restricted to North America, Europe + Russia, Europe + Middle East, possibly Australia, possibly South America, possibly China etc.. This is in descending order of likelihood. North America is certain.

[Panda Tse Tung]

You miss another important consideration: natural resources within a territory.


Which is basically the most important aspect.



The fundamental problem is that the concept of a "country" is undefined.

Not true.

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/.../1913/03.htm#s1 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm#s1)

[Die Neue Zeit]

My problem is the usage of the word "socialism" within "socialism in one country."

There are three possible historical stages at debate here: socialism proper, the DOTP proper (herein referred to by me as "proletocracy," as someone else highlighted the antiquated nature of Marx's phrase (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71331&view=findpost&p=1292391750)), and something called "revolutionary democracy" (Lenin's RDDOTPP).

Only one poster replied to this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71399) of mine in the History thread on the third historical stage:


To start off, was/is "revolutionary democracy" in one underdeveloped country possible?

[Here, "revolutionary democracy" refers to the "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry," or RDDOTPP for short, and not the DOTP proper.]

"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. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm) (Lenin, On the Slogan for a United States of Europe, 1915)

In there, I see two contradictory statements within the same paragraph.

On the other hand:

"Comrade Trotsky speaks of a 'workers' state'. May I say that this is an abstraction. It was natural for us to write about a workers' state in 1917; but it is now a patent error to say: 'Since this is a workers’ state without any bourgeoisie, against whom then is the working class to be protected, and for what purpose?' The whole point is that it is not quite a workers' state. That is where Comrade Trotsky makes one of his main mistakes. We have got down from general principles to practical discussion and decrees, and here we are being dragged back and prevented from tackling the business at hand. This will not do. For one thing, ours is not actually a workers’ state but a workers’ and peasants’ state." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm) (Lenin, The Trade Unions, The Present Situation, And Trotsky's Mistakes, 1920)




Originally posted by Edric O+--> (Edric O)On the other hand, it seems absurd to insist that socialism cannot be developed effectively until the revolution has spread to every last corner of the globe. If capitalism has been abolished everywhere except for Tunisia, Bhutan and New Zealand, for instance, I think we can safely proceed with the construction of socialism in the rest of the world and not have to wait for the last few revolutions to occur.

But I will make the following claim: The dispute between proponents of "socialism in one country" and their opponents cannot be one of fundamental principles, but only one of degree. Any Stalinist can agree that a country may be too small to build socialism alone, and any Trotskyist can agree that once the revolution has spread to a certain fraction of the world we may build socialism within that territory. The question is not "can we build socialism in one country" but rather "what is the minimum size of a socialist society, in terms of territory, population or prior economic development."[/b]

For practical purposes, I'd actually agree with you (being an ex of both), taking into consideration Haraldur's comments. I'd also include in your analysis every itsy-bitsy little island country and every itsy-bitsy island territory of the US (Samoa, Guam, etc.).




Haraldur
Myself, I think that any purely Socialist system, which would be autarkic by its very nature, would need a territory on a continental scale under its influence. For example, I could envision Socialism across Europe, or North America, but not just Germany or Canada.

...

So, basically, possibilities are restricted to North America, Europe + Russia, Europe + Middle East, possibly Australia, possibly South America, possibly China etc.. This is in descending order of likelihood. North America is certain.

Sadly, I don't think you're thinking "large" enough. :(

Even if the old COMECON/Warsaw Pact got its collective act together (instead of being separate autarkic economies) and then buddied up with the PRC, Albania, and Yugoslavia, it still wouldn't work. :(

[Ironically, it was under the Brezhnev admin that the Soviets realized this partly.]