Socialism: all or nothing?

[Easterbrook]

Could one nation be socialist/communist without the entire world becoming socialist/communist?

For example, in the next few years, could we see Cuba become a communist utopia even without the rest of the world becoming socialist/communist?

Or is socialism/communism an all or nothing thing: either the entire world adopts communism/socialism, or no nation can successfully adopt it?

I ask this because Cuba, in my opinion, is more 'communist' than the US. I would see Cubans as being more accepting of our political views. Thus, were some of us move down to Cuba, we could more easily influence politics there and bring about a communist utopia.

Why not seek to bring about change in an nation that is more receptive to our message?

Edit: I apologize if I posted this in the wrong forum. I've been lurking for a bit, just registered an hour ago, and didn't know that I could post in more than just the OI forum. Also, I'm not trying to equate socialism with communism; they are different.

[apathy maybe]

If you are of an "opposing ideology" (should strictly mean, if you are a capitalist, in the vast majority of cases), then you should only post in OI. Otherwise, you are welcome to post everywhere.


As to your question, it depends on who you ask. Various Marxists will give various answers about the possibilities regarding specific regions. Personally, I find it doubtful to imagine a 'country' that is purely 'communist', in a world that is generally capitalist. However, I don't doubt that an anarchist society could exist in a capitalist world, how big, and with what sort of influence I don't know. It really depends on "materialist conditions".

Edit: As to state socialist countries, they can exist, how socialist they could really be is a different question...

[Dr Mindbender]

the answer is no. The lesson of the soviet union has taught us that socialism/communism cannot survive in isolation and will inevitably lead the state capitalism.
Socialist economies cannot exist with prominent capitalist ones because of conflicting interests. The Capitalist superpower will do all it can to undermine and discredit any threat to it's ideaology.

[Marsella]

I would be interested in how Stalinists respond to this, if their analysis differs at all from Leninists.


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. Engels,The Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

And US, I don't think that the Soviet Union taught us that 'socialism/communism' cannot survive in isolation. Sure, that is one reason for its 'failure.' But there are many factors besides that. This isn't aimed at you, but it seems like a cop-out to blame the USSR's collapse on the international capitalism; if anything, it proved that the 'free' market rules over state capitalism.

[Ismail]

People misunderstand "Socialism in one country" as "Socialism in one country, forever with no care to expand"

Even Albania, which was one of the most isolated nations in the world in the 70's, did its best to expand Marxist-Leninism beyond its borders in Canada, Peru, and so on. Hoxha wrote various works denouncing reformists and "Eurocommunism" and advised party members in other nations on how to combat them. I think that if the Soviet Union did not turn revisionist after Stalin's death, things would of went differently. It was the Khrushchevite views of "peaceful co-existence" among other things that led to the death of the USSR.

Socialism in one country is about denying the view that you need to immediately go from one country to the next, and then the next, and so on in a fairly quick progression in order to lead to a Communist society. We believe this is an idealistic and in some ways social-imperialistic view for the most part.

The goal of Socialism in one country is to make sure that Socialism is in the lead against the bourgeois in the world. Under Stalin, anti-colonial and Communist movements were set up in Vietnam, China, Albania, Yugoslavia, and so on. (Also, didn't the Soviets support Indian independence from the UK?)

The DPRK is an example of "Socialism in one country" taken literally. They make virtually no effort to spread Socialism to other nations (no, not by bombs, which shouldn't be done, but by words) and Juche is a joke of an ideology that renounced Marxist-Leninism by the 1990's.

[Prairie Fire]

I'm with Mr.Die on this one.

The theory of "socialism in one country" saw the greatest proliferation of world socialism and triumphant national liberation movements.

Socialism in one country also does not refute the concept of a completely socialist world, (which is a necesity); it just takes a more practical and serious outlook on it.
The theory of socialism in one country, as Mr.Die states, was NEVER intended to be isolationist; it was intended to build a base for revolution, if you will, and expand outwards from there.

Also, though, it is technically possible for a nation to be self-sustaining under socialism. Many nations such as Albania, China, DPRK (to some extent) achieved this. Self-reliance and international socialist revolution are not opposed to one another; they go hand in hand.

So while the ultimate goal must always be world socialism, the immediate goal is usually building a base in one country.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 11:49 pm
I'm with Mr.Die on this one.

The theory of "socialism in one country" saw the greatest proliferation of world socialism and triumphant national liberation movements.

Socialism in one country also does not refute the concept of a completely socialist world, (which is a necesity); it just takes a more practical and serious outlook on it.
The theory of socialism in one country, as Mr.Die states, was NEVER intended to be isolationist; it was intended to build a base for revolution, if you will, and expand outwards from there.

Also, though, it is technically possible for a nation to be self-sustaining under socialism. Many nations such as Albania, China, DPRK (to some extent) achieved this. Self-reliance and international socialist revolution are not opposed to one another; they go hand in hand.

So while the ultimate goal must always be world socialism, the immediate goal is usually building a base in one country.

This makes practical sense, since it is generally not realistic to expect a simutaneous, worldwide socialist revolt. Better to focus amongst the people of a particular region, ethnic group culture, as it is easier to mobilise to think and act locally first, then branch out. If you can't get the locals on your side, the chance of mobilising the folks four thousand miles away is fairly nil.

Naturally, "National" Socialism has been, and will be, the result of such efforts.

[RevSkeptic]

the answer is no. The lesson of the soviet union has taught us that socialism/communism cannot survive in isolation and will inevitably lead the state capitalism.

The state capitalism that you refer to is simply the hierarchy of power. This is a natural system to evolve if one hand holds the money bag while the other hand holds the wrench or pitch fork.

Would the new "revolutionary" government still use money? I already know the answer to that one.


Socialist economies cannot exist with prominent capitalist ones because of conflicting interests. The Capitalist superpower will do all it can to undermine and discredit any threat to it's ideaology.

As it stands now, Socialists economies are ruled with the government being national inc. with Capitalist economies it's lots of separate competing incs.

The question is how would a Stalin or Mao be avoidable in such a set up? Or do you think it's quite alright to have 1 super boss as long as you follow "company rules". What if I disagree or don't want to follow this particular company's rules? Whoops, we don't want to get too loud on what's going to happen to me then would we? :o

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Trots tend to forget that it is the "FINAL victory" of Communism that depends on world revolution, not that socialism just couldn't be built in one country at all. Incidentily however, advances in computer technology and past experience can bring about a form of socialism that is far closer to Communism, with less glaring differentials and such. The fact is that a revolutionary situation does not exist in all countries at once.

As for Stalin or Mao; we first have to examine what is the actual truth of those times. Then, we must look at the conditions of those countries and those places. In the future we will have to face tough decisions as well, but we now have the benefit of hindsight.

[Publius]

It's possible to be a socialist and not a Marxist and, in that sense, sure there can be isolated socialisms.