Lenin, Socialism in One Country and other interesting things.

[Cumannach]

The best rebuttal to claims that the policies of the Bolsheviks after 1917, in a state of civil war and encircled by enemies, 21 of whom had declared war, are a precedent to the Stalinists alliances with the bourgeosies of western Europe against the vanguard's in those countries, are quotes by Lenin:

Today, when I hear our tactics in signing the Brest-Litovsk Treaty being attacked by the Socialist-Revolutionaries, for instance, or when I hear Comrade Lansbury say, in a conversation with me, "Our British trade union leaders say that if it was permissible for the Bolsheviks to compromise, it is permissible for them to compromise too", I usually reply by first of all giving a simple and "popular" example:
Imagine that your car is held up by armed bandits. You hand them over your money, passport, revolver and car. In return you are rid of the pleasant company of the bandits. That is unquestionably a compromise. "Do ut des" (I "give" you money, fire-arms and a car "so that you give" me the opportunity to get away from you with a whole skin). It would, however, be difficult to find a sane man who would declare such a compromise to be "inadmissible on principle", or who would call the compromiser an accomplice of the bandits (even though the bandits might use the car and the firearms for further robberies). Our compromise with the bandits of German imperialism was just that kind of compromise.

But when, in 1914-18 and then in 1918-20, the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries in Russia, the Scheidemannites (and to a large extent the Kautskyites) in Germany, Otto Bauer and Friedrich Adler (to say nothing of the Renners and Co.) in Austria, the Renaudels and Longuets and Co. in France, the Fabians, the Independents and the Labourites in Britain entered into compromises with the bandits of their own bourgeoisie, and sometimes of the "Allied" bourgeoisie, and against the revolutionary proletariat of their own countries, all these gentlemen were actually acting as accomplices in banditry.

The conclusion is clear: to reject compromises "on principle", to reject the permissibility of compromises in general, no matter of what kind, is childishness, which it is difficult even to consider seriously. A political leader who desires to be useful to the revolutionary proletariat must be able to distinguish concrete cases of compromises that are inexcusable and are an expression of opportunism and treachery; he must direct all the force of criticism, the full intensity of merciless exposure and relentless war, against these concrete compromises, and not allow the past masters of "practical" socialism and the parliamentary Jesuits to dodge and wriggle out of responsibility by means of disquisitions on "compromises in general". It is in this way that the "leaders,, of the British trade unions, as well as of the Fabian society and the "Independent" Labour Party, dodge responsibility for the treachery they have perpetrated’ for having made a compromise that is really tantamount to the worst kind of opportunism, treachery and betrayal.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...0/lwc/ch04.htm

Likewise on the issue of socialism and a workers state, I have no need to grope around int he dark when such great theoretical advances were made almost a century ago, which sadly under the twin evils of stalinism and reformism our movement has retreated from. So again I will quote Lenin:

Socialism means the abolition of classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all it could to abolish classes. But classes cannot be abolished at one stroke.

And classes still remain and will remain in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship will become unnecessary when classes disappear. Without the dictatorship of the proletariat they will not disappear.

Classes have remained, but in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat every class has undergone a change, and the relations between the classes have also changed. The class struggle does not disappear under the dictatorship of the proletariat; it merely assumes different forms.

Under capitalism the proletariat was an oppressed class, a class which had been deprived of the means of production, the only class which stood directly and completely opposed to the bourgeoisie, and therefore the only one capable of being revolutionary to the very end. Having overthrown the bourgeoisie and conquered political power, the proletariat has become the ruling class; it wields state power, it exercises control over means of production already socialised; it guides the wavering and intermediary elements and classes; it crushes the increasingly stubborn resistance of the exploiters.

All these are specific tasks of the class struggle, tasks which the proletariat formerly did not and could not have set itself.

The class of exploiters, the landowners and capitalists, has not disappeared and cannot disappear all at once under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The exploiters have been smashed, but not destroyed. They still have an inter national base in the form of international capital, of which they are a branch. They still retain certain means of production in part, they still have money, they still have vast social connections. Because they have been defeated, the energy of their resistance has increased a hundred and a thousandfold. The “art” of state, military and economic administration gives them a superiority, and a very great superiority, so that their importance is incomparably greater than their numerical proportion of the population. The class struggle waged by the overthrown exploiters against the victorious vanguard of the exploited, i.e., the proletariat, has become incomparably more bitter. And it cannot be otherwise in the case of a revolution, unless this concept is replaced (as it is by all the heroes of the Second International) by reformist illusions

So firstly the difference between a workers and socialism is obvious here and I havenothing to add.

Secondly, just to be clear: Lenin is arguing that the bourgeosie is international, and that in the face of a revolution in one country its reaction cannot be other "a hundred and a thousandfold" more "bitter" than it previously was, and that the illusion of "peaceful coexistence" is a "reformist illusion".

In the the second point, Lenin points out that the bourgeoisie do not simply give up after they have lost state power. Surely this is no news to Stalin. In chapter IV of "Foundations of Leninism" ( Stalin 1924 - http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...nism/index.htm) he begins by quoting Lenin's numerous statements to the effect that the resistance of the bourgoisie grows fiercer as their end grows nearer. This is the reason for all of the strife during the collectivization of capitalist agriculture, the neccesity for the multiple purgings of petty-bourgeois, saboteurs, spies and so on, as well as the reason behind the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, and the Western connivance to bring it about. The project of building socialist production requires no assumption that the resistance of the exploiters somewhere evaporated. Fundamental Marxism is enough to understand the whole reason of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to repress bourgeois resistance.

He also states that the bourgeoisie are international. But nowhere above does he state that the new socialist state cannot start constructing socialism while not at war with the remaining bourgeoisie still in control of the other nation states. He was at the helm when the Soviet Union at last made the uneasy peace with the bourgeois states of Europe and set about the task of changing the production relations.

I'm not clear about what difference you mean between a workers state and socialism. Do you mean the difference between socialism in one country and global socialism?

[Zurdito]

In the the second point, Lenin points out that the bourgeoisie do not simply give up after they have lost state power. Surely this is no news to Stalin. In chapter IV of "Foundations of Leninism" ( Stalin 1924 - http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...nism/index.htm) he begins by quoting Lenin's numerous statements to the effect that the resistance of the bourgoisie grows fiercer as their end grows nearer. This is the reason for all of the strife during the collectivization of capitalist agriculture, the neccesity for the multiple purgings of petty-bourgeois, saboteurs, spies and so on, as well as the reason behind the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, and the Western connivance to bring it about. The project of building socialist production requires no assumption that the resistance of the exploiters somewhere evaporated. Fundamental Marxism is enough to understand the whole reason of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to repress bourgeois resistance.

He also states that the bourgeoisie are international. But nowhere above does he state that the new socialist state cannot start constructing socialism while not at war with the remaining bourgeoisie still in control of the other nation states. He was at the helm when the Soviet Union at last made the uneasy peace with the bourgeois states of Europe and set about the task of changing the production relations.

I'm not clear and what difference you mean between a workers state and socialism. Do you mean the difference between socialism in one country and global socialism?

All I mean is that a workers state does not necessarilly imply that socialism is in place. Lenin knew this. From "The Role and Functions of the Trade Unions under the New Economic Policy", written in 1922:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...921/dec/30.htm

As long as classes exist, the class struggle is inevitable. In the period of transition from capitalism to socialism the existence of classes is inevitable; and the Programme of the Russian Communist Party definitely states that we are taking only the first steps in the transition from capitalism to socialism. Hence, the Communist Party, the Soviet government and the trade unions must frankly admit the existence of an economic struggle and its inevitability until the electrification of industry and agriculture is completed—at least in the main—and until small production and the supremacy of the market are thereby cut off at the roots.

Therefore, Lenin clearly recognised that a workers state existed in Russia, but that it had not yet succesfully implanted socialism.

The issue here is also not about "starting constructing socialism". With all respect I think we shouldn't talk about it in the abstract. Let's be concrete. Did Lenin at any point say that Russia could succesfully acheive socialism without a revolution in the advanced countries?

2nd Congress of the Communsit International:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...ul/x03.htm#fw1

We in Russia are often obliged to compromise, to bide our time, since we are weaker than the international imperialists, yet we know that we are defending the interests of this mass of a thousand and a quarter million people. For the time being, we are hampered by barriers, prejudices and ignorance which are receding into the past with every passing hour; but we are more and more becoming representatives and genuine defenders of this 70 per cent of the world’s population, this mass of working and exploited people. It is with pride that we can say: at the First Congress we were in fact merely propagandists; we were only spreading the fundamental ideas among tbe world’s proletariat; we only issued the call for struggle; we were merely asking where the people were who were capable of taking this path. Today the advanced proletariat is everywhere with us. A proletarian army exists everywhere, although sometimes it is poorly organised and needs reorganising. If our comrades in all lands help us now to organise a united army, no shortcomings will prevent us from accomplishing our task. That task is the world proletarian revolution, the creation of a world Soviet republic.

And from the third:

The result is a state of equilibrium which, although highly unstable and precarious, enables the Socialist Republic to exist—not for long, of course—within the capitalist encirclement

But of course this is no substitute for you reading the speech yourself and making your own mind up. It is online. To my understanding, Lenin is arguing that the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia is being forced to implement state capitalist policies - which while, being dialectical, Lenin would understand was a step towards socialism - would not mean arguing that socialism could be successfully built and maintained in Russia alone in the long term. For example, from the same speech:

Of course, we did not all agree on the question of state capitalism at once. But we are very pleased to note in this connection that our peasantry has been developing, that it has fully realised the historical significance of the struggle we are waging at the present time. Ordinary peasants from the most remote districts have come to us and said: “What! We have expelled our capitalists, the capitalists who speak Russian, and now foreign capitalists are coming!” Does not this show that our peasants have developed? There is no need to explain to a worker who is versed in economics why this is necessary. We have been so ruined by seven years of war that it will take many years to restore our industry. We must pay for our backwardness and weakness, and for the lessons we are now learning and must learn. Those who want to learn must pay for the tuition. We must explain this to one and all, and if we prove it in practice, the vast masses of the peasants and workers will agree with us, because in this way their condition will be immediately improved, and because it will ensure the possibility of restoring our industry. What compels us to do this? We are not alone in the world. We exist in a system of capitalist states. [19]. . . On one side, there are the colonial countries, but they cannot help us yet. On the other side, there are the capitalist countries, but they are our enemies. The result is a certain equilibrium, a very poor one, it is true. Nevertheless, we must reckon with the fact. We must not shut our eyes to it if we want to exist. Either we score an immediate victory over the whole bourgeoisie, or we pay the tribute.

We admit quite openly, and do not conceal the fact, that concessions in the system of state capitalism mean paying tribute to capitalism. But we gain time, and gaining time means gaining everything, particularly in the period of equilibrium, when our foreign comrades are preparing thoroughly for their revolution. The more thorough their preparations, the more certain will the victory be. Meanwhile, however, we shall have to pay the tribute.

So, to summarise my argument: Lenin did not believe in socialism in one country, he believed that the soviet federation in Russia was only a step in the world revolution.

Obviously being a step forward, would not imply abandoning it when the international revolution did not preceed as expected. Tortksy never argued this. But LEnin is clear in many works in the era (see the polemic against Trotsky and Bukharin for example on Trade Unions) of the need for the workers to wage a class struggle within the Soviet Union to keep the bureaucracy in check. Both Lenin and Trotsky acknowledged that a bureaucracy was inevitable as long as the Soviet Union was isolated,a nd that it was part of the transitional nature of the state. For this reaosn Trotsky defended the workers state against restoration and attack, but opposed the bureaucracies self-interested policies and betrayal of the working classes in the advanced countries, through initially ultra-left and then opportunist and social chauvinist policies which anyone can show were the complete opposite of Lenin's positions on issues such as trade union work, parliamentarism, the national question, democratic demands, and class independence.

Necessity and material conditions imposed certain policies on the Bolsheviks in the early years of their rule, but Lenin rejected the idea of specific compromises being used by traitors to justify "compromise in general", as my quote of Lenin in the post you originally quoted shows.

[Cumannach]

All I mean is that a workers state does not necessarilly imply that socialism is in place. Lenin knew this. From "The Role and Functions of the Trade Unions under the New Economic Policy", written in 1922:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...921/dec/30.htm

Therefore, Lenin clearly recognised that a workers state existed in Russia, but that it had not yet succesfully implanted socialism.

The issue here is also not about "starting constructing socialism". With all respect I think we shouldn't talk about it in the abstract. Let's be concrete. Did Lenin at any point say that Russia could succesfully acheive socialism without a revolution in the advanced countries?

2nd Congress of the Communsit International:

...

To my understanding, Lenin is arguing that the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia is being forced to implement state capitalist policies - which while, being dialectical, Lenin would understand was a step towards socialism - would not mean arguing that socialism could be successfully built and maintained in Russia alone in the long term. For example, from the same speech:

So, to summarise my argument: Lenin did not believe in socialism in one country, he believed that the soviet federation in Russia was only a step in the world revolution.

Obviously being a step forward, would not imply abandoning it when the international revolution did not preceed as expected. Tortksy never argued this. But LEnin is clear in many works in the era (see the polemic against Trotsky and Bukharin for example on Trade Unions) of the need for the workers to wage a class struggle within the Soviet Union to keep the bureaucracy in check. Both Lenin and Trotsky acknowledged that a bureaucracy was inevitable as long as the Soviet Union was isolated,a nd that it was part of the transitional nature of the state. For this reaosn Trotsky defended the workers state against restoration and attack, but opposed the bureaucracies self-interested policies and betrayal of the working classes in the advanced countries, through initially ultra-left and then opportunist and social chauvinist policies which anyone can show were the complete opposite of Lenin's positions on issues such as trade union work, parliamentarism, the national question, democratic demands, and class independence.

I think you're making a jump from your first statement, 'Lenin recognised that a workers state existed in Russia, but that it had not succesfully implanted socialism' to your later conclusion 'Lenin did not believe socialism was possible in one country.'

In the second part, I believe you make, what I think, is a common mistake among Trotskyists; confusing two different things (1) the achievement of a fully socialist society in one country alone, existing amidst capitalist countries for some length of time and (2) the achievement of a fully socialist society in one country which cannot be destroyed by and suffer capitalist restoration due to foreign (outside) capitalist intervention, and which is forever secure, no matter what happens in the other countries.

These are two different propositions. Did Lenin think (1) was possible?

"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states."

("On the Slogan for a United States of Europe") Lenin-1915

(http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...915/aug/23.htm)

"Indeed, the power of the state over all large-scale means of production, political power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured proletarian leadership of the peasantry, etc. — is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society out of cooperatives, out of cooperatives alone, which we formerly ridiculed as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to treat as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society? It is still not the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for it."

("On Cooperation") Lenin-1923

(http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...923/jan/06.htm)

Yes, and I think it's fairly obvious that neither he nor Stalin believed (2) was possible. If socialism continued to fail to take root in other countries, sooner or later, it was very likely the capitalists would bring about the downfall of the one socialist country. But this does not mean because (2) is impossible, (1) should not be attempted-on the contrary, the surest way of bringing about world Socialism was via an attempt at building socialism in one country at least first, so that as Lenin said, one part of the world has already become socialist, and all the other countries can benefit from the help, moral and material, and learn from the example of it, hopefully helping their causes enough to bring about their own successful revolutions, and the toppling of capitalist states one by one, group by group and altogether. But to attempt socialism in one country is not to believe that this must happen but to make it as likely as possible that it will happen. Russia, notwithstanding it's small proletariat and backwards agriculture was in a very good position to build socialism thanks to it's huge size and vast resources.

What can a workers state, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, be if it is not the wielding of the state power to change the relations of production and organise production on a socialist basis? It could only else be the enforcement of capitalist production relations, of the exploitation of the proletariat - by the proletariat! There's no question of using the state power to simply continue to enforce the old capitalist relations, standing still without any definite movement- it doesn't make any sense. The expressions, 'build socialism', 'the construction of socialism', and 'organisation of socialist production' refer to parts of the whole process which must begin with the Revolution. All of these, and the whole period from the Revolution to Communism are generally referred to as 'Socialism', and the country concerned, 'Socialist'. At the beginning, when the state power has only been won, it's understandable to say 'socialism is not yet built', the construction of 'socialism is not yet begun'- but this refers to the fact that no great distance has been gone towards altering the relations, changing the economy from a capitalist to socialist system, not that the journey has not begun and is not in progress and that no distance at all has been traversed. As soon as the working class grabs power, it uses it to start hacking away at it's chains. To suggest that the proletariat could seize state power but not have any ability to use this power significantly differently to the bourgeoisie because of material conditions, is at best pure reformism, at worst utter defeatism, in both cases anti-socialist.

[Kassad]

This is one thing that consistently bothers me; on this forum and during other discussions or debates. I don't care who you quote. Ever. Just because Lenin, Marx, Bakunin or Chomsky says something, doesn't mean it's necessarily right. The quotes that they made are consistently relevant based on the society they were a part of, but when attempting to ideologically apply Marxism-Leninism to the modern society through a revolution of the working class, we cannot sit in our armchairs and claim ideological superiority because we can quote someone or because that quote may have been relevant at the time.

Frankly, Lenin's ideology of a revolution and its ability to spread should be considered incredibly basic and here's why: he didn't live to see any other revolution with his own eyes, spare the Bolshevik victory in Russia. He did not witness the revolution in China, Cuba or Vietnam, as we know. The formation of the Soviet Union was the first wide-scale revolution of the proletariat that liberated the people from the bourgeoisie dictatorship and implemented a state ruled by the proletariat. Granted, socialism was never totally established, as if a worker is still starving, there is no socialism.

If Lenin were alive right now, it would be very simple for him to realize that the theory and desire of a revolution of the industrial proletariat in industrialized and often imperialist countries does not happen easily. In fact, it has yet to really come. All socialist revolutions have occured in impoverished nations with little technological development or social innovation. Regardless of this not being ideal for us, it is a noticeable trend in the liberation of the proletariat. Basically, it has been shown by history that these impoverished nations are quickly pounced by imperialist and corporate entities that see their profit margin being potentially threatened.

In the face of imperialist intervention and colonialist threats, there is no other means of combating the corporate capitalism than through united development. The Soviet Union and China failed to collaborate, thanks to revisionism of Marxist principles in those states. The Soviet Union collapsed and it is tiresome and nearly impossible to find traces of socialism in China. Cuba stands resolute in the face of American imperialism, but due to the American blockade and influence in the world, as well as Cuba's under-developed industry, it is left alone in its struggle.

Thus, we see very easily that socialist revolutions are increasingly difficult and seemingly impossible to achieve in industrialized states, as bourgeoisie propaganda and conditioning in the capitalist state through education and manipulation make it incredibly difficult to establish a militant movement. Therefore, if impoverished states reach revolutionary fervor but are quickly threatened, the only means of establishing any form of resistance is through united revolutionary struggle. The workers struggle has no borders and petty excuses for emancipation such as national liberation should not be praised unless it acknowledges global workers struggle, as they are often divisive and the potential for unity with other worldwide proletarians is unlikely.

Can socialism exist in one country? Sure. It has to start somewhere, but in the end, can it flourish, industrialize and maintain itself? Unlikely, as the bourgeoisie dictatorship stretches from all corners of the globe and the only way to defeat it is a united workers struggle. It is the duty of revolutionary socialists to dismiss divisive nationalistic chauvinism and other forms of separatism in the proletarian struggle for liberation. It is dogmatic and orthodox to cling to quotes, for human evolution didn't end with us growing thumbs. It is a consistent development, as is all of political and economic theory. Anything to the contrary is absurd.

Well fuck, I sound like a Trotskyist. I need a shower.

[Vanguard1917]

Can socialism exist in one country? Sure.

How do you define socialism?

[Vanguard1917]

Lenin argued that the establishment of socialism first required the working class establishing its control over the state apparatus after the revolution. Only then, Lenin argued, could steps be taken to establish socialism -- which Lenin defined as workers regulating production.

"Until workers’ control has become a fact, until the advanced workers have organised and carried out a victorious and ruthless crusade against the violators of this control, or against those who are careless in matters of control, it will be impossible to pass from the first step (from workers’ control) to the second step towards socialism, i.e., to pass on to workers’ regulation of production."
- Lenin, 'The Immediate Tasts of the Soviet Government (1918) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...18/mar/x03.htm)

In other words, the workers can begin the work of forming a socialist society (workers' regulation of production) once they have secured their political power.

[Zurdito]

This is one thing that consistently bothers me; on this forum and during other discussions or debates. I don't care who you quote. Ever. Just because Lenin, Marx, Bakunin or Chomsky says something, doesn't mean it's necessarily right.

The original discussion was about whether Lenin believed socialism was possible in one country, and whether Trotskyism represents Leninism.

Nobody said a Lenin quote is proof in itself of its own truth.

However I think it's much more educational to read Lenin than to read the ramblings of someone on a forum, so while I am flattered you would rather read my words than Lenins (!?!), I think that Lenin has already explained certain concepts, and the best way to explain them is simply to quote him. the same goes with most great scientists - usually when you want to learn on a subject, you want to read what the best minds had to say. I find it curious that you object to this.

Of course if you wanted to quote to me "better" thinkers, I could see your logic, but you don't you state "I don't care who you quote". Well, you should care, very much.

If it "bothers" you, you should find something more improtant to get irritated about.

As for the rest of your psot, I simply don't agree, I think Lenin had a better understanding of the situations in the advanced countries than most marxists int hose countries had, and this is because of his profound understanding of marxism, dialectics and therefore of the transcendent reality he was living under - imeprialism - which was worth a thousand "pragmattic" arguments. That reality has remained fundamentally the same - the vision Lenin states of capitalism in his theory of imperialism remains fundamentally correct today, and therefore so does his vision on how to combat it.

Of course we are not tlaking about tactics here, but principles. Tactics are specific to the situation but the principles of revolutionary polticis remain the same as ling as imperialism exists.

Cummanach - I was not arguing that that specific quote showed that Lenin thought socialism was impossible in one country, i was simply showing that he differentiated between a workers state and socialism.

His other quotes though, and the whole spirit of the speech to the 3rd International, are clear: the revolution is Russia cannot succesfully establish socialism without breaking its capitalist encirclement, and the advance of the world revolution.

I will reply to the rest of your post when I have more time.

[Led Zeppelin]

What can a workers state, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, be if it is not the wielding of the state power to change the relations of production and organise production on a socialist basis? It could only else be the enforcement of capitalist production relations, of the exploitation of the proletariat - by the proletariat!

Well, yeah, you may be surprised by it but that's actually exactly what Lenin had in mind, and he took into account the surprise-factor among people who suddenly thought about it in this way by also adding an exclamation mark:

In its first phase, or first stage, communism cannot as yet be fully mature economically and entirely free from traditions or vestiges of capitalism. Hence the interesting phenomenon that communism in its first phase retains "the narrow horizon of bourgeois law". Of course, bourgeois law in regard to the distribution of consumer goods inevitably presupposes the existence of the bourgeois state, for law is nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the rules of law.

It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie!

This may sound like a paradox or simply a dialectical conundrum of which Marxism is often accused by people who have not taken the slightest trouble to study its extraordinarily profound content.

But in fact, remnants of the old, surviving in the new, confront us in life at every step, both in nature and in society. And Marx did not arbitrarily insert a scrap of “bourgeois” law into communism, but indicated what is economically and politically inevitable in a society emerging out of the womb of capitalism.

Link

[Cumannach]

Well, yeah, you may be surprised by it but that's actually exactly what Lenin had in mind, and he took into account the surprise-factor among people who suddenly thought about it in this way by also adding an exclamation mark:


Link

No , you've mixed up what Lenin was saying here:

The extract you took is from "State and Revolution", from the chapter discussing the transition from Capitalism to Communism. Lenin is explaining that during the transition from capitalism to communism, during socialism, bourgeois law continues to exist, in the sense that the right of each person to the value of the product of his labour and only to that value is the right that is upheld and enforced by the state, rather than the situation under communism where the right of each person is to their needs, not just to the value of the product of their labour, taking into account the fact that not everybody is born with an equal capacity for labour. This right to the product of your labour is a bourgeois right, not a communist right.

Here is the argument, a few paragraphs above what you quoted;

"And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products."

("State and Revolution") Lenin

And that is the general context of this;

"In its first phase, or first stage, communism cannot as yet be fully mature economically and entirely free from traditions or vestiges of capitalism. Hence the interesting phenomenon that communism in its first phase retains "the narrow horizon of bourgeois law". Of course, bourgeois law in regard to the distribution of consumer goods inevitably presupposes the existence of the bourgeois state, for law is nothing without an apparatus capable of enforcing the observance of the rules of law.

It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie!"

("State and Revolution") Lenin

Obviously Lenin is not saying here that the state established by a proletarian revolution, the overthrow of the bourgeois state power, is itself but a bourgeois state. You can't possibly have supposed that?! He's saying the socialist state neccesarily preserves for certain times, certain elements inherited from the old state as it carries on it's work of changing the relations of production, of 'building socialism', of Socialism, the transition to Communism. I don't know how you could honestly mix it up like that.

[Led Zeppelin]

Obviously Lenin is not saying here that the state established by a proletarian revolution, the overthrow of the bourgeois state power, is itself but a bourgeois state. You can't possibly have supposed that?!

Well, no, he doesn't say it's "but a bourgeois state", he says that it has the elements of a bourgeois state for a certain period of time because it enforces bourgeois methods of distribution, among other things.

He says that literally.

He's saying the socialist state neccesarily preserves for certain times, certain elements inherited from the old state as it carries on it's work of changing the relations of production, of 'building socialism', of Socialism, the transition to Communism.

I know, and you were saying that a worker's state which does not "change the relations of production and organise production on a socialist basis" could "only else be the enforcement of capitalist production relations, of the exploitation of the proletariat - by the proletariat!"

That's wrong, since relations of production and distribution cannot be "organized on a socialist basis" when there is no material basis for it, and capitalism does not allow for such a material basis to exist so it has to be developed post-revolution. The aforementioned relations will remain bourgeois relations until the development of the material conditions allows for a socialist basis, and the workers' state has to enforce those relations.

I don't know how you could honestly mix it up like that.

You don't know because I didn't do any mixing up; you did.

Anyway, could we please keep these little snides out of this discussion? They serve no purpose.

[Cumannach]

I know, and you were saying that a worker's state which does not "change the relations of production and organise production on a socialist basis" could "only else be the enforcement of capitalist production relations, of the exploitation of the proletariat - by the proletariat!"

That's wrong, since relations of production and distribution cannot be "organized on a socialist basis" when there is no material basis for it, and capitalism does not allow for such a material basis to exist so it has to be developed post-revolution. The aforementioned relations will remain bourgeois relations until the development of the material conditions allows for a socialist basis, and the workers' state has to enforce those relations.

What material conditions exactly do you have in mind that do not allow the proletariat to immediately begin the work of changing the relations of production? NEP was not capitalism. Although the term has another meaning used by others, Lenin once used the term 'state capitalism' to refer to part of NEP, in so much as it allowed for certain characteristics of a bourgeois economy such as private enterprises, concessions, private trade, money circulation etc. This was nothing equivalent to a bourgeois economy which had not been already modified, whose production relations had not already begun to be changed. The state already held the banks and large industry as well as the control on foreign trade. NEP was a period when much of the structure of capitalism had already been changed and when limited forms of capitalism where allowed to promote strategic aims, and address specific policies like the peasantry question. It was not capitalism.

This is what I mean when I say that, Lenin's Russia was not just a normal bourgeois state where the proletariat happened to have state power. It was constructing socialism. If you want to separate the NEP from full socialist industrialization and total expropriation and call it 'preparing the conditions for constructing socialism' and the latter 'constructing socialism', fine, that's just wordplay, they were both state policies with the definite and immediate aim of bringing about the final victory of socialism in the SU.

I'm not sure what you're saying in the second paragraph. Capitalism is the material conditions for Socialism, as Marx pointed out. Lenin's 'workers state' as I pointed out above, did not enforce bourgeois relations, only certain bourgeois features of economy and limited bourgeois relations in private light industry and the concessions.

[Zurdito]

Cummanach:

In the second part, I believe you make, what I think, is a common mistake among Trotskyists; confusing two different things (1) the achievement of a fully socialist society in one country alone, existing amidst capitalist countries for some length of time and (2) the achievement of a fully socialist society in one country which cannot be destroyed by and suffer capitalist restoration due to foreign (outside) capitalist intervention, and which is forever secure, no matter what happens in the other countries.

Luckily you were detailed enough to mention "for some length of time".

And this is exactly the point. We can find quotes by Lenin talking about the imminence of socialism in Russia, because is making propaganda to a class in struggle, a class with a historical, global destiny, which was still progressing in Russia, due to the reasons given in the original quotes which started this thread - i.e. that there was still room for state capitalist progress in Russia - and because of the "unstable international equilibrium" which he talks about in his addresses to the Communist International, quoted in this thread.

But Lenin is also completely clear that this is an unstable situation, a matter of chance which gives the international revolution some time to recuperate itself. Therefore the idea of "some length of time" - i.e. decades - of "peaceful coexistence" with capitalism, is not only absent from Lenin's works, but the complete opposite of them, as quotes here have shown. He understood the Russian revolution as a moment in an international process.

Socialism is the transition to communism, Lenin could talk about the advance toward socialism in Russia in 1923 because the workers state was still making progress with the peasantry and developing its material conditions while advancing workers control. Obviously progress is relative and depends on your starting base.

You cannot talk about being in "transition" when you are going backwards in terms of workers control and supporting counterrevolution and bourgeois dmeocratic revolutions - which Lenin rejects explicity in the epoch of imperialism even for semi-colonies let alone for countries like Spain (I can find quotes if you want).

[Cumannach]

Cummanach:

Luckily you were detailed enough to mention "for some length of time".

Yes, because that's the crucial point. There's nothing that precludes the building of socialism in one country as long as the revolution has been able to succeed in defending itself from the world bourgeoisie. This does not mean that because socialism has been achieved to a large degree in that country that it is then 'safe' forever, that it cannot fall in the future, by outside intervention.

But Lenin is also completely clear that this is an unstable situation, a matter of chance which gives the international revolution some time to recuperate itself. Therefore the idea of "some length of time" - i.e. decades - of "peaceful coexistence" with capitalism, is not only absent from Lenin's works, but the complete opposite of them, as quotes here have shown. He understood the Russian revolution as a moment in an international process.

Yes he is clear that it is an unstable situation, as is Stalin in his writings. But there's no implication that socialism shouldn't be attempted.

How can you say that the idea of some length of time of coexistence is absent from Lenin's writings when I've already quoted two instances of it, one from before and one from well after the Revolution?

Lenin did understand the Revolution as an international process, so did Stalin and all the Bolsheviks. The national bourgeois democratic revolutions were stretched out over many, many decades, why would Socialism have to conquer the world in a matter of months?

Socialism is the transition to communism, Lenin could talk about the advance toward socialism in Russia in 1923 because the workers state was still making progress with the peasantry and developing its material conditions while advancing workers control. Obviously progress is relative and depends on your starting base.

As long as there's a movement, a transition is taking place, and as long as it's consciously and intentionally directed away from Capitalism and towards Communism, it can be legitimately called Socialism. Stalin himself would often talk about having assured the final victory and then of having achieved the final victory of Socialism (in one country, the USSR- though it could all be destroyed by the capitalist nations) in his successive reports to the congress, but this could hardly be construed to mean that everything he was doing up to that speech, during the 30's was not, in his mind, the exercise of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in changing the relations of production, and organizing a socialist economy (socialism). Likewise, with Lenin and his "Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic".