socialism has to use capitalism to industries ?

[spice756]

Some people say a country has to use capitalism to industries not socialism to industries .Some thing that a country is detached from other resource like food ,machinery ,wood and tools so on.

Why not start a industrial revolution like the 1800's? Why did Cuba or China not build factories and just keep on using farms ?

And imported goods from the USSR that is a little silly.

[Lynx]

It is difficult to build a self-sufficient yet modern society in just one country.

[spice756]

Well may be true for Cuba and some other smaller countries that socialism in one country is hard :(:(but Stalin in the USSR built socialism in one country .

Sorry I don't understand enough about why some appose this.If Canada wanted to built socialism in one country would you say no?

[Sam_b]

Sorry I don't understand enough about why some appose this.If Canada wanted to built socialism in one country would you say no?

Yes, I would say no: because it simply doesn't work.

It is absolutely impossible to build this idea of 'socialism in one country' because it becomes inverted and isolated. You can't have a worker's state in a sea of capitalism, history has shown it isn't viable.

Lets look at the important part of your question; namely If Canada wanted to built (sic) socialism in once country. First of all - who do we mean by 'Canada'? Do we mean the state and bureaucracy in a top-down fashion? If so, then this project is doomed from the start: remember that the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class and emphatically not the state. If we do mean the working class, then we may get a little bit further, but for what gain? Look at what happened to the likes of the Soviet Union, especially far back into its formation. What was the first response of capitalism and imperialist states to do? Yes, form a counter-revolutionary force to try and take back the gains of the working class.

Thankfully, this attempt failed, but who is to say what happens if this situation arises again? Can this one country survive completely surrounded by capitalist trade embargos, restrictions and a policy of isolationism? I would say not. Our main goal is to create a stateless, classless system: such a state cannot be manufactured when the majority of the world still is under capitalist and stateless rule where the working class is disenfranchised. I would also argue that the class loyalties of workers would be compromised, which leads into the idea of 'human nature' and the like. A class conscious proletariat would not wish to isolate itself from the worldwide working class while the rest of their class is being exploited, and often brutally. This is what a lot of socialists mean when they say that 'workers have no borders' - the idea of a nation state is upheld by capitalism and thus by implementing socialism in one country, a socialist system would be build based on one of our enemies' own rules and methods of division.

On the subject of your assertion that Stalin 'built socialism in one country', I would reject this, and (stereotypically perhaps) point you in the direction of Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm).

[spice756]

Yes, I would say no: because it simply doesn't work.

It is absolutely impossible to build this idea of 'socialism in one country' because it becomes inverted and isolated. You can't have a worker's state in a sea of capitalism, history has shown it isn't viable.


I believe it depends on the country and resource.Has the US was capitalism and was isolated from world :lol:it was not to www2 to the US imperialism started .And going from a manufactoring to a service industry now.The industrial revolution was in the UK and all other countries got goods from the UK.All other countries in the world needed the UK but the UK did not need them.One of the major problems with the industrial revolution was overproduction of goods and had major problems do to overproduction of goods .

Go to any store all production are tracked and logged in the computer.Many companies do this too.It is to deal with overproduction problems.The companies and stores are almost like plan community.If GM sale 10 cars a month on average they not going make 80 cars in a month .The only reason price goes down is competition and monoply does not make the price go down.

Under communism and socialism profit is not in charge , so we want overproduction to bring the cost down or give out for free.In a capitalism society the capitalists goal is profit and market control.The capitalists does not want the product to be cheap and make has much profit on it has he or she can.The only way to bring the cost down is competition .But under communism and socialism profit is not in charge so competition is not needed.Has state or workers main goal is over overproduction and to bring the cost down or give it out for free.


It is only after ww2 world started to interact , before that countries where isolated .The industrial revolution was excellent the problem was there was no laws and exploitation was on a scare unacceptable todays standard.


The USSR had production well over the US and was not affected under the great depression.The USSR had no factories and was in ruins the economy destroyed doing war and all that.And Stalin 5 year plan built a fantastic country with heavy industry and the economy boom.But sure he over worked people and was too harsh .But he built socialism in one country .But much can be said about Mao that his goal was too high and too fast and lead to maassive food shortage doing the great leap forward.

Cuba is small country not that many people and resource , but China and the USSR is a big country and alot more resource than Cuba.

I'm not sure about Canada how much we sale or buy to other countries:(:( if it is only 20% Canada could do it well if it is 80% may be not.I don't know if we have enough people and resource .Also the climate is not good.So it is hard to say if Stalin 5 year plan would work in Canada.

[Sam_b]

it was not to www2 to the US imperialism started

Wrong. What about the colonies, slavery? Any history book will tell you that your assertion simply isn't true.


other countries in the world needed the UK but the UK did not need them

Because of British imperialism, ie the British Empire.


Under communism and socialism profit is not in charge , so we want overproduction to bring the cost down or give out for free.In a capitalism society the capitalists goal is profit and market control.The capitalists does not want the product to be cheap and make has much profit on it has he or she can.The only way to bring the cost down is competition .But under communism and socialism profit is not in charge so competition is not needed.Has state or workers main goal is over overproduction and to bring the cost down or give it out for free.


Communism and capitalism cannot exist side by side.


It is only after ww2 world started to interact , before that countries where isolated

Incorrect.


The USSR had production well over the US and was not affected under the great depression

Wrong again. Indeed the Soviet Union did not suffer at the hands of the depression but manufacturing and production output was not to the scale of the US at all: growth, if my memory serves me correctly, possibly got up to half of that of the US at its greatest stage.


But he built socialism in one country

No, he really didn't. The Soviet model at that time was exceptionally top-down with a lack of worker's power. Factories were not under democratic worker's control in any sense, the 'glorious' constitution at the time granting freedom of speech and assembly was ignored. What do you mean by 'socialism' if you are making this assertion?


So it is hard to say if Stalin 5 year plan would work in Canada.

The five year plans were essentially there to build up industry. What would be the need in Canada, an already industrialised country?

[spice756]

it was not to www2 to the US imperialism started
Wrong. What about the colonies, slavery? Any history book will tell you that your assertion simply isn't true.


That was imperialism but nothing to do with the industrial revolution .



other countries in the world needed the UK but the UK did not need them

Because of British imperialism, ie the British Empire


Ya but I'm talking about the industrial revolution .



No, he really didn't. The Soviet model at that time was exceptionally top-down with a lack of worker's power. Factories were not under democratic worker's control in any sense, the 'glorious' constitution at the time granting freedom of speech and assembly was ignored. What do you mean by 'socialism' if you are making this assertion?



Yes it was totalitarian but the economy was socialism not the political side.


The five year plans were essentially there to build up industry. What would be the need in Canada, an already industrialised country?


So you saying Canada is not imperialism?

[Comrada J]

These days import/export makes such a huge component in an country's economy. So as soon as you start the revolution the cappies put sanctions and embargoes on your country (and probably invade as well). This why it's imperative to spread the revolution across the world as fast as possible.

However another important factor these days would be oil, countries with large oil reserves have a lot more power on the world stage thus have lot more success at keeping their unpopular culture and policies alive. So attaining these resources is necessary if you want global influence.

[Tower of Bebel]

Some people say a country has to use capitalism to industries not socialism to industries .Some thing that a country is detached from other resource like food ,machinery ,wood and tools so on.

Why not start a industrial revolution like the 1800's? Why did Cuba or China not build factories and just keep on using farms ?

And imported goods from the USSR that is a little silly.
Industrialization is a(n inevitable) historical process, not a command. A peasant-majority economy has a tendency towards capitalism, yet imperialist oppression makes it almost impossible for today's primitive economies to industrialize without permanent subordination to foreign capital.

You need the materials to build an industrialized country and you also need to preserve the "bond" between workers and peasant in a "socialist" (in intensions) country. Either through the cheapest exploitation and most undemocratic of your peasant population or through international revolutions involving the developed West.

[Sam_b]

That was imperialism but nothing to do with the industrial revolution .
:rolleyes: You didn't mention the industrial revolution until half way through your post, which of course was irrelevant anyway to your assertion that US Imperialism didn't start until after WW2.


Ya but I'm talking about the industrial revolution .

Again, what has that got to do with it? Before the mass industrialisation of Britain countries were trading, primarily in the likes of sugar and spices with it; and this continued even after industrialisation. That doesn't deteriorate from my point.


but the economy was socialism

Again, I disagree. You've yet to define what you mean by this, saying it is socialist isn't enough. Personally I suggest you read Tony Cliff's The Nature of Stalinist Russia, in particular this chapter: Russia's Transformation From A Worker's State to a Capitalist State (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1948/stalruss/ch04.htm). Read it and let me know what you think, and if it is in fact compatable with socialism.


So you saying Canada is not imperialism?

You're confusing the issue: what has that got to do with the five year plan(s), which were primarily focused on rapid economic growth and production?

[spice756]

You didn't mention the industrial revolution until half way through your post, which of course was irrelevant anyway to your assertion that US Imperialism didn't start until after WW2.




Again, what has that got to do with it? Before the mass industrialisation of Britain countries were trading, primarily in the likes of sugar and spices with it; and this continued even after industrialisation. That doesn't deteriorate from my point.



So you saying before the industrial revolution ,doing the industrial revolution and after the industrial revolution they where Imperialism ?

And all along the US was Imperialism even before 1820 ?The US has always been Imperialism and never has the US in history been not Imperialism .

The industrial revolution does not work if it is not Imperialism ?So you saying there has been no country in history that is capitalism with out trade.

And the industrial revolution does not work with out trade?

[#FF0000]

So you saying before the industrial revolution ,doing the industrial revolution and after the industrial revolution they where Imperialism ?

Well, yes. They were.



And all along the US was Imperialism even before 1820 ?The US has always been Imperialism and never has the US in history been not Imperialism .

I don't know about that. One could make an argument that westward expansion was a sort of imperialism, but the US was certainly imperialist before World War 2. See; the Spanish American war in 1898.

[Sam_b]

So you saying before the industrial revolution ,doing the industrial revolution and after the industrial revolution they where Imperialism ?

Yes.

As for the rest of your post, I'm struggling to understand you. You seem to be switching positions left, right and centre.

[spice756]

dam so for industrial revolution to work it needs to be Imperialism or trade with other countries.

And there has been no capitalistism country that has not traded with other countries.So all capitalistism country has traded with other countries.

Even the USSR traded with other countries and could not isolate itself.