Socialism in One Country

On the Animal Farm thread somebody said, "socialism in one country doesn't work.". Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.

Although you could have used the search-function, as there are lots of posts about this already.

Anyway, it's impossible. There are others here who can explain it better.

Read these:

Book Animal Farm

Why can't "Socialism in One Country" work?

You know Animal Farm is fiction right?
I mean isn't it more effective to read actual critiques of SioC instead?
I won't go to much into it, but I think that Orwell certainely had extremely reactionary viewpoints in his best known books. Certainely the whole power corrupts, humans are pigs, nothing changes stuff is the usual anti-communist argument. It's a shame because his books before 1984 and Animal Farm were quite good.

I don't think socialism in one country can work, as socialism is a world system, just like capitalism.
You can begin to build socialism, but can't make the final leap to socialism, or communism (the latter of which Stalin acknowledged). All countries that attempt to build socialism on their own will be restored to capitalism, if they do not spread the revolution.
This has been proven in many, if not all cases of Marxist-Leninist countries, which usually abandon 'socialism' after the leader dies, as has been shown with hoxha, Mao, Tito, etc.

Tito's Yugoslavia was not Marxist-Leninist nor was Mao's China.

Not really sure why you're quoting me, but i don't know the book. Only know some SciFi by Orwell (two short stories).
Not my kind of writer.

I just saw this thread and i saw this question very often. Tought i'd respond.

Socialism is a stateless classless society, it cannot exist until capital has been surpassed globally. You can't just whip up a new mode of production, out of thin air, within the confines of a state.

My bad. I thought you recommended the book Animal Farm but it's just the title of the thread you linked to. To be fair, the thread is about the book.

I don't think he is that reactionary in all honesty. His politics weren't the best, but he was somewhat of a socialist.

How is human beings portrayed as pigs and not a single chance of change not reactionary?
Human beings are just evil aren't they?

Orwell's politics were horrible.

If you're referring to animal farm you're going to have to explain further

He wasn't a misanthrope, I don't think he would of subscribed to that notion at all.

Fair enough, I was probably being a bit charitable.

Well, in the beginning of the book man is portrayed as the evil, the capitalist:
“Why then do we continue in this miserable condition? Because nearly the whole of the produce of our labour is stolen from us by human beings. There, comrades, is the answer to all our problems. It is summed up in a single word--Man. Man is the only real enemy we have. Remove Man from the scene, and the root cause of hunger and overwork is abolished for ever.”

In the end of the book:
“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

The usual power corrupts bollocks. No sign of chnage, power will make the pigs turn into evil. Same for 1984 were there is no sign of change at the end of the book.

Well, he sure does a good job acting like one.

Indeed, you were.

That's Communism. Leninism and Neo-Leninism defines socialism as the dictatorship of the proletariat within the confinds of a nation state. And no, I don't give a shit about any quotes you can give me from the holy Marx. If Marx didn't forsee that the revolution could fail to spread to the world and be confined to one country, then he was wrong plain and simple. The question that should be asked is what do you do when revolution only suceeded in one country. I don't give the slightest shit if SIOC is revisionist since Marxism is a science that requires constant revision. Just give me a concrete, realistic, non-defeatist approach that has a chance of working

Revisionism isn't just about re-writting Marxist theories/principles, but to rewrite or manipulate them in such a way that takes away all of Marxism's revolutionary content. So what is the revisionist approach? The one that approaches reality as it is and accepts the fact communists will have to adapt their work to all situations or the one that considers all work useless if it doesn't lead to a very specific and improbable outcome?

Call me a pessimist or a revisionist, frankly I would consider those compliments coming from a Maoist (although you're my favorite Maoist), so that is really no objection as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if Lenin equated the DOTP (and by extension state capitalism) with socialism, but he was wrong (this is coming from a Leninist). Both communism and socialism are stateless and classless.

What is revisionist is revising what class is revolutionary in capitalist society from a Marxist standpoint.

This is honestly a critique of capitalists not human nature; this should be planely obvious.

Power corrupts is a ridiculous argument; you'll see nothing out of me to dispute that. In fact that is the criticism that I usually put against anarchists.

Proof?

In all honesty, as a fan of neither your politics or Orwell's, I must say his were better then yours. You're probably my favorite M-L and its about time you dropped that nonsense, since you're too intelligent and too much of a critical thinker to subscribe to said view.

Socialism in one country was the only choice for Stalin, because of isolation. Later he did gain some allies, by force, that is :rolleyes:

Does that make it something we should support though?

If you define socialism as what the fSU had, then obviously it's possible. Most of us, though, use socialism and communism interchangeably, and define it as the proletarian movement that abolishes capitalism. Were classes abolished in fSU? Was capitalism abolished? These are important questions linked to this.

I think it's funny that you claim "we" - those who see socialism and communism as the same thing - see Marx as "holy", when you yourself do the same with Lenin. because Lenin had another definition doesn't mean his was correct. Using your own logic you see Lenin as "holy".

The question isn't "can it work?", the question is "what was it"? SIOC was an ideology that grew naturally out of the isolation of the russian revolution - a justification, if you will. As an ideology it's a mystification of what really happened, and believing in SIOC today is still an ideology and a dead end.