Socialism In One Country

I've always thought that this is one of the most misrepresented and least explained theories by both Anti-Revisionist's as well as other leftists, all though I'm not entirely versed in the theory myself. I've always seen it as a pragmatic position the Soviet Union adopted after all hopes of international revolution had dwindled, but obviously some might disagree. Sorry, I don't really have much else to give people to work with, but this subject has been bugging me for a bit and I'm wondering what you all would have to say.

Stalin never promoted the ideology of 'socialism in one country' to mean that socialism would only be created in one country and that each revolutionary struggle would be disunified; the working class struggles being inconsistent with eachother. There's no source to support such a claim. Stalin and Lenin both realized that, contrary to Marx's theory, socialism would not take hold in industrialized nations and spread from nation to nation at the same general time. Revolutionary struggles, as history has shown us, vary based on national characteristics and the general ripeness and organization of the working class to forge revolution.

Socialism in one country does not mean that a socialist state would be isolated from other international revolutions. To the contrary, it means that each socialist country must develop and industrialize as if it would be the only socialist revolution. A nation must be prepared to defend itself from reactionary counterrevolution, as well as imperialism that attempts to undermine the struggle in favor of corporate and bourgeois interests. All workers struggles are united, but each struggle is unique based on industrial development and the preparation of the revolutionary vanguard.

A modern example would be Cuba. Cuba is not isolated from revolutionary struggle, as it collaborated with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China to maintain the workers state. Regardless, due to revisionism in China and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba is currently left to fend mostly for itself; standing defiantly in the face of the United States' military threats and imperialist exploitation. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the eastern socialist bloc, Cuba is left to fend for itself and it is experiencing serious setbacks because Fidel Castro did not make the nation totally self-sufficient; relying on Soviet trade and commodities to maintain itself. There is nothing wrong with revolutionary internationalism and collaboration, but there is a point in which self-sufficiency is imperative.

As I have said, all workers struggles must unite, regardless of borders. Regardless, each workers state must properly industrialize and maintain its strength, for revolutions are not fool-proof. Revisionism has brought down many revolutions that have been ignited by the working class, but the proper application of Marxism-Leninism can secure that socialism will thrive and continue, whether united with other nations or forced into isolation. One must not misread Stalin and Lenin's statements, as both of them rationally explain why socialism must spread to bring about world revolution, but we realize that the world is not surreal. Revolutions do not happen at the same time and often times, revisionism will bring economic turbulence or a rift between socialist states. Only through internal strengthening of the workers state can revolution hope to flourish.

Just wondering, can someone link me to the text (or whatever) in which Stalin actually laid out the policy of socialism in one country?

Here's a very brief comment from Stalin that sums it up well: http://marxists.org/reference/archiv...1926/02/10.htm

Thanks; when it comes to theoretical issues I like to get it straight from the horse's mouth before forming my opinion. I always found it suspicious when people talked about Stalin being against international revolution, when Eastern Europe and North Korea found socialism during the time of Stalin's rule.

Stalin never promoted the ideology of 'socialism in one country' to mean that socialism would only be created in one country and that each revolutionary struggle would be disunified; the working class struggles being inconsistent with eachother. There's no source to support such a claim. Stalin and Lenin both realized that, contrary to Marx's theory, socialism would not take hold in industrialized nations and spread from nation to nation at the same general time. Revolutionary struggles, as history has shown us, vary based on national characteristics and the general ripeness and organization of the working class to forge revolution.

Socialism in one country does not mean that a socialist state would be isolated from other international revolutions. To the contrary, it means that each socialist country must develop and industrialize as if it would be the only socialist revolution. A nation must be prepared to defend itself from reactionary counterrevolution, as well as imperialism that attempts to undermine the struggle in favor of corporate and bourgeois interests. All workers struggles are united, but each struggle is unique based on industrial development and the preparation of the revolutionary vanguard.

A modern example would be Cuba. Cuba is not isolated from revolutionary struggle, as it collaborated with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China to maintain the workers state. Regardless, due to revisionism in China and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba is currently left to fend mostly for itself; standing defiantly in the face of the United States' military threats and imperialist exploitation. Fidel Castro, a supporter and advocate of Marxism-Leninism, did not attempt to seclude Cuba from other socialist nations, but instead, united with them and prepared Cuba for a time in the future in which it may need to swim on its own. That time has come and thanks to the proper ideological application of socialism in one country, Cuba manages to maintain universal healthcare, education for all, housing for all its citizens and proper food and water distribution. Had Cuba not worked towards inner strength, it would be rational to say that the island would have embraced revisionist policies and likely fallen back into the hands of Western colonial states; forced under the hand of bourgeois democracy and manipulation.

As I have said, all workers struggles must unite, regardless of borders. Regardless, each workers state must properly industrialize and maintain its strength, for revolutions are not fool-proof. Revisionism has brought down many revolutions that have been ignited by the working class, but the proper application of Marxism-Leninism can secure that socialism will thrive and continue, whether united with other nations or forced into isolation. One must not misread Stalin and Lenin's statements, as both of them rationally explain why socialism must spread to bring about world revolution, but we realize that the world is not surreal. Revolutions do not happen at the same time and often times, revisionism will bring economic turbulence or a rift between socialist states. Only through internal strengthening of the workers state can revolution hope to flourish.

I agree with everything said here, and it really only reassures what I previously thought of "Socialism in One Country", but with much better narration and clarity.

Thanks for the link to what Stalin wrote about this very question too.

Animal Farm really skewered that idea.

I did enjoy the book Animal Farm though.