SioC

Well,as for socialism in one country,my opinion is that it was not an idea,it was more a needed change of revolutionary strategy.(After the revolutions in the interwar period failed) The problem with the SiOC debate is that the both of the sides use interpretations of Lenins words and present them as arguments for thier own ideas. (SiOC by Stalin and world revolution by Trotsky)
There are various works and quotes by Lenin that the arguing sides use.

If you ask me,i think that we should definitely strive toward a world revolution,but the SiOC is needed if the economic and political factors are against the revolutionary socialist movement and the revolutionary state.And during the period of the SiOC a movement needs an international,which would ensure that revolutionary movements grow and fight for the cause in the countries which have not been hit by the revolution.

The truly debate socialism in one country you first must understand the "time" in which the tactic was conceived. After the success of the Russian Revolution it seemed a communism was unstoppable and about to sweep the world into a new age. But then the shock of the century came when the Communist revolutions did not take hold in Western Europe. Stalin and Trotsky both came up with different reasons for the failures, as well as different tactics to counter.

Trotsky view of the failures was grounded in idealism. He pointed out that the reason they failed was because they do not happen simultaneously and therefore governments of other countries were able to intervene against the revolution. Therefore he wanted to set up a planet wide network so that the revolutions can all happen at the same time.

Stalin on the other hand feel the failure from the point of lack of support from socialist countries. He realized that the support that they could get is restricted to their current industrial capacity. This means that the reason why they failed in Western Europe was because the Soviet Union did not have the industrial capacity to back the revolutions in other countries. This is the idea behind socialism in one country, to build up the industrial capacity of at least one socialist nation. So the revolutions in the future would never fail due to lack of support.

I find the whole matter blown out of proportion. Comrade Stalin makes a great point of pointing out the context of the debate. So as far as the theory, I see no reason why a socialist country cannot try to industrialize and improve infrastructure. It doesn't have to wait for the rest of the world to catch up.

Whenever I've asked Trotsykists, "Does world revolution mean that the whole world will have revolution all at once?" And they always say, "No. It will take time and go from country to country." I seriously do not see how that is any different from what we ML believe. There is no difference. We too believe that revolutions will go from country to country. And yes, the socialist countries can try to help other revolutionary movements in other countries (but that doesn't mean total military intervention, mind you) to get their revolutions.

Honestly, all I've gotten out of the Trotskyists is that they are just pissed that Stalin got power in the party and Stalin didn't. I don't believe any claims that Trotsky would have been any less "authoritarian" as Stalin. He would have had purges and tried to kick out political opponents from the party.

My thoughts as well. To be honest where I think the confusion comes from in regards to Trotskyists is the fact that in The Revolution Betrayed Trotsky plainly states that Socialism can not be reached at all until the World Revolution. Though it seems most Trotskyists reject this notion that or their party programs lie. I find that the longer Trotsky was in the exile the more mud he began to sling in hopes of someone caring what he had to say. It seems even his followers don't agree with some of his statements though some LeftComs seem to.

Yeah. And from what I can see, the Trotskyists, despite being all about "world revolution", tend to hate absolutely every other Trotskyist party and organization in the world and claim that there's is the only true Trotskyist one that can carry out the revolution, even though the only communist movements that have scared the capitalists shitless over the years have been ML ones.

I find Trotskyist Parties like Trotsky himself become far too Theory oriented and spend little time outside of their books. Trotsky was notoriously bad for closing himself off from everyone and just studying. Not so bad on an individual level but it seems that Trotskyist parties have an urge to do everything Trotsky did to the tenth power thus the obsession with being correct on theoretical matters and the constant splintering due to theoretical matters.

This obsession with ultra-leftist theoretical positions, as well as the incoherence brought from it in the organisational affairs, are the main reasons of trotskyite's sectarianism. Trotskyism opportunist genesis gave it a truly petty-bourgeois nature, obviously it is very popular among those of petty-bourgeois origins, students included.

If it wasn't by the secret speech in 1956 and the events of 1989 to 1991, Trotskyism would have never been able to survive it's founder's death, for example the badly organised ''Fourth International'', if we can call it that way, had it's first major split in 1953, that is a major split in already extensively weaker organisation. It is possible to say Trotskyism is today mostly an echo of its 1970's an 80's rebirth, Geary Healy, Tony Cliff, Tariq Ali and others come to mind.

I know you all probably know this, and it was all a rather confuse choise of words, but the obsession with the pursuit of the correct theoretical line is not something bad per se. The real problem lies in two factors that must always be remembered, does the line that is pursuit by the organisation is proletarian and revolutionary in nature? And are both of this natures put to proof through revolutionary practice?

PS: More threads like these in the ml group would be awesome.

Yes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking correct theoretical lines. That is one of the roles of the proletarian revolutionary party. But never forget that we are materialists. We derive our correct theoretical thinking from real world examples and practice. I'm going to through out the old Maoist mantra: theory-practice-learn from the masses-redefine theory-put into practice again-repeat. Our theoretical line needs to be supported with real-world figures, facts, and actions. History teaches us so much. And the Trotskyists and other "ultra-leftists" get too bogged down in theory to ever be able to carry through anything in real life.