Theoretical corner.

There are a lot of threads about history,the history of the USSR,the history of the workers liberation movement,and everything that is linked with it.That is good,it helps people learn and understand the past,and trough the study process which is both interesting and informative,people make their own theories and arguments,to use in the dicussion with the various groups who like to criticize everything and expect that no-one will answer to their accusations and prove that the accusations are wrong.But,a specific thread for the discussion of Marxist,and Leninist theory does not exist.Yet.This is such a thread,as i think we should debate about theory more.First of all,i dont think we should concentrate on a single subject,but on a number of them,from the DOTP to the SIOC,we could discuss about the important theoretical work of various people during the time period of 1917 - 1990.

So,do you agree?What could be the first topic?

"Socialism in One Country"? That seems to be an oft criticised and misinterpreted concept amongst the Ultra-Left who prefer the utopian Trotskyist idea of Permanent Revolution (the term being, of course, appropriated by Trots). So maybe that should be one of the first things discussed here?

Hmh i agree,as it is the most debated theory within the Marxist-Leninist movement.I personally don't know why there is such anger directed toward the theory of SiOC,esentially,its a completely adequate and legitimate revolutionary theory,it's not against internationalism,its not against the advancing of the revolution,it was more of a tactical plan,something which was needed.Its a realist theory,because,lets be honest,there where little chances that the revolution would spread to entire Europe duruing the period after Lenin's death.

"SIOC" isn't really a "theory," Trots and Left-Coms just pretend it is.

I will correct myself: It was a necessity.That's what i originally wanted to say.The term i should have used is: Strategy.

Yeah, that is a good idea. It will help those who have less theoretical knowledge (myself included) to learn more about M-Lism, which will make our arguments stronger, on Revleft and IRL.

I'd call SIOC a concept or strategy whatever the case it is a part of Marxist-Leninist theory.

Anyway, I think so much anger is directed at SIOC because it has been retconned as the most important key difference between Marxist-Leninism and Trotskyism and because revisionists don't seem to know what the term means; they seem to think SIOC means that Socialism should only happen in the USSR (former Russian Empire) and think it made it policy to oppose all revolutions outside the Soviet Union (history however shows that the M-L USSR did support revolution in other countries). I can't count how many times M-Ls have had to explain what the term actually means or where it came from.

not saying we drop the bar low or patronizing. Can we perhaps look at class. Everyone must have somethin' to say on that subject... It is modern up to the minute and vitally important with many theories impacting against from both sides of the Atlantic. Clarity tells us who we are. Nation is another subject that gets people crossing themselves or reaching for the garlic.

LABOUR PARTY.....100yrs ago....We conjured it up into existence. What were we thinking? Perhap we need to whip and scourge our collective selves. There surely is no other we can blame.

I always thought that it was meant to help build up Communism in one country so that way it would be stronger and be able to spread to other countries.

"Socialism in One Country"? That seems to be an oft criticised and misinterpreted concept amongst the Ultra-Left who prefer the utopian Trotskyist idea of Permanent Revolution (the term being, of course, appropriated by Trots). So maybe that should be one of the first things discussed here?

In regards to SOIC, Lenin made his stance quite clear even before J.V Stalin came up with the entire concept of SOIC.
“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.”

– Lenin, Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14th May 1918, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.

Socialism in one country should be reguarded as small, reasonsble and necessary steps on the road to achiveing world-wide communism. I believe the main issue with trotskyist, anarchist and left communist theories is that they are all built around the hope that every worker in the world will just drop everything at once and say "revolution time!" and it's fair to say any sane person would agree that this is a riduculace logic.

In regards to SOIC, Lenin made his stance quite clear even before J.V Stalin came up with the entire concept of SOIC.
“I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.”

– Lenin, Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14th May 1918, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.

An oft ignored speech among non-M-Ls!