Results 1 to 20 of 47
Why can't "Socialism in One Country" work?
If there was only a socialist revolution in one country (say others had not yet occured or were not successful), is there a way for the country to be socialist?
Not according to those of us who think that 1-socialist society is only possible after capitalism and 2-capitalism needs to be abolished as a world system (because that's what it is).
If you have a different definition of socialism, then I suppose. If you think it's state-run capitalism, or some kind of collectivism with wages and a state, then, yeah.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
It would depend on whether or not that first country to overthrow the ruling-class and crush the state was engaged in a national revolution, or if it was a preliminary (early) victory of a worldwide revolutionary crisis (like that between 1917-1927). Communist revolution is not instantaneous, everywhere and automatically complete- but it is a worldwide revolution because capitalism is the first (and will be the last) globally integrated mode of production. When the Russian Empire fell to the power of the worker's councils and revolutionary working-class, it was the opening shot of the revolutionary crisis, which was worldwide and touched nearly everywhere in some manner from the early victories of the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia, to the establishment of worker's councils in the November Revolution in Germany, the formation of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, all the way to the end of the revolutionary wave in the UK General Strike in 1926 and the Shanghai Commune in 1927- the proletariat attempted to overthrow capitalism. Had this revolution been successful, Russia would not have been isolated; in short order, the new worker's council based societies of Western Europe, America, Asia and everywhere else would have been there. But the revolution was not successful, so the Soviet Republic in Russia was isolated and strangled of revolutionary energy. Since it did not succeed, Russia was reabsorbed back into the political and economic arena of global capitalism.
However, the above definition, that some parts of the world will necessarily be 'first' to succeed in a working-class revolution before the rest of the world, is not what Socialism In One Country is referring to. In SIOC, a nation that had undergone a successful proletarian revolution can undergo 'socialist construction' on its own (generally through state capitalist measures). This is not communism, and is not what Marx wrote all of those books to promote.
The larger explanation to why SIOC is not possible is because capitalism is a global system; the entire globe, since the completion of the world market, is necessary for global capitalism to continue in operation. If a major nation was suddenly pulled out of the market, especially since the restructuring of capitalism following the return of crisis in the 1960's and the collapse of the Bretton-Woods system in 1971, it would seriously disrupt (perhaps to an unprecedented degree) capital processes; hell, look at the projections for what would happen if a relatively minor economic power like Greece exits the Eurozone and defaults on its debts. Point being, communism is not a system that can co-exist with capitalism. Capitalism will not allow it- it will starve that nation of imports of necessary goods; and since restructuring in-particular, every nation is interdependent on everyone else for goods and services. Manufacturing has been shuffled to specific zones on the Earth; specific zones produce the majority of agricultural and meat/dairy products to the rest of the globe, etc. The means of production, constant capital, has been concentrated and zoned for an interconnected global market.
So if a country is say the first to succeed in a revolution, or is the only one that has succeeded while the others failed, what would that country do in the meantime? If it can't become socialist, what would it do?
Try to become socialist, even knowing it is impossible. And trying to help revolution succeed elsewhere, as it is the only actual way forward.
Luís Henrique
What do you mean by try to become socialist?
Yes. The alternative of construction of socialism is capitulation.
Recuperation or violent repression (Hungary 1919, Finland 1918). Since we're not likely to have red and white guards battling it out on horseback with tachanka's next time around, it'll likely look less like a civil war and more like a massive participation of workers in mass assemblies (Greece 2008-2011), state power collapses when the army won't engage in the level of violent suppression necessary to beat back such a deep revolutionary crisis (sort of what happened in Egypt), workers revolt against the bourgeois parties and their lackeys and realize their power via relation to production (Italy 1969), take over their workplaces (Argentina 2001), all over.
If you take what happened in Argentina as an example, the state had lost authority, owner-bosses were fleeing, and workers in many examples seized their workplaces- but since it wasn't a moment in a global revolutionary crisis, the new state regime legislated and thus recuperated by legally defining and recognizing the worker-seized factories and businesses. In Spain the zones where rural communes and collective worker control of factories (Catalonia) was smashed with military force and re-integrated into the state. When the dozen allied and white guard military's couldn't physically smash the Soviet Republic in Russia (RSFSR; prior to formation of USSR), it started doing business with it.
For a country to pull that off they would have to be able to thrive being cutoff from the capitalist world because the capitalists would want such a venture to fail.
I believe America actually has the resources to pull it off, we used to manufacture everything at home and we could again and we have oil reserves. If the rest of the world put an embargo on us, I think we would still thrive. And then cause workers in other countries to rise up in revolution by our example, until the whole world was communist.
There are other larger countries in the world that likely would be able support a socialist revolution with a capitalist embargo.
Even if there was no embargo a real communist country going it alone would have to cut themselves off from the capitalist world because trade with capitalist countries would involve exploitation of that countries workers.
Let's occupy the world.
The problem is that a country, even one as large and packed with natural resources as the US, Russia and China, have enormous importance in the capitalist world economy. Unlike a country like Greece or Ireland or Nigeria or Yemen, which could be brought back in line with the global economy via massive repression (after economic shocks concurrent with that nations importance in the global economy), if one of the 'superpowers' fell to revolution, we would be facing the barbarism side of 'socialism or barbarism' paradigm: in which case it would be a material necessity for the revolution to be worldwide. We're already on a race to the bottom regarding living standards and quality of life; capitalism is in its senile decay.
But those resources will be the basis of a human community based on the old phrase, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" (and desires) when the revolutionary crisis becomes a communist world.
Power to workers in the workplaces; reduction of working hours (if the working class is to be the ruling class, it needs the time to rule, that doesn't exist if you have to work eight hours a day) and establishing democratic rule inside the workplaces; trying to put up a system of distribution that can replace the market; establishment of democratic rules for managing society at large.
These measures, in an isolated country, will quite probably lead to defeat. But the other option is to reinstate the power of capital within the isolated country, which in the end is just another kind of defeat.
Luís Henrique
How will it lead to defeat if you manage to put the working class directly in charge?
Because if we are in an isolated country, the military of the other countries will invade and defeat us.
Luís Henrique
Yes, in case we fail to pose a real military threat to the invading capitalist countries.
... but to pose a real military threat to the invading countries we need to produce weapons and ammonitions as much as we can, and there goes the reduction of working hours, and with it democracy and the workers' power within the workplace.
And quite certainly we would need an actual army, disciplined and organised "from above" to be able to defeat the invading armies. And there goes democracy in society at large, too.
Luís Henrique
I think this is not true in the age of nuclear and biological weapons. We can have a few of those and we will be left in peace. Also, from a very early stage, we need to focus on internationalism and try to have organization in as many countries as possible, so that if they attack us, they face the threat of revolution at home.
In the front, we can have special detachments organized for a specific period of time, in a top down manner. But in the rest of the army the leaders can be elected normally. I don't see a problem with that.
Biological weapons are, I fear, very ineffective. Nuclear weapons, well, if we can get hold of them, perhaps. But I suppose they will doubt our bluff, and realise we wouldn't be actually able to shoot them first.
Which is going to be difficult if we are threatening the workers abroad with nuclear annihilation...
They must face the threat of revolution at home even if they don't attack us; it cannot be some kind of currency.
I see; unless the military threat is repealed very soon and very efficiently, such kind of war will tend to degenerate into all-scale war, involving not a few special detachments, but whole armies of tenths of millions.
There is no way out; without spreading the revolution worldwide, it is doomed.
Luís Henrique
Or, the nuclear threat will enable the workers to see the futility of war. Hence they will shift more towards the revolutionary side and declare class war in their own country.
If they attack us, their regular armies are engaged, hence their domestic proletariat will be at an advantageous point, if they have they have the necessary organizational strength.
What I meant is, our armies shall consist of a few top-down structured special detachments, and a much larger democratic army. We will have our whole population armed and organized into a people's militia, which will have democratic elections and decision-making. This will be the base force. The special forces will be required for special actions, swift annihilation of targeted enemy units and other guerrilla actions.
It doesn't seem to happen. Threats of brutal aggresion will more likely make workers rally under the bourgeoisie to the banner of national defence.
I don't think a people's militia is of any actual use in modern conventional warfare. Who will drive the tanks and fly the planes? Those have to be specialists, which requires a regular army, which requires top-down structures.
War, in and of itself, is a classist activity. We can certainly engage in it for a limited time, but if it becomes a habit, it will require classist structures.
"Simultaneous revolution" is nothing but a Stalinist cop-out; it is obvious that revolutions will happen at different times in different countries. But an isolated country cannot actually build socialism; if revolutions don't erupt and succeed in a significant part of the world in a reasonable span of time - in the same "revolutionary wave", I would say - it is practically certain that revolution will be reversed in isolated countries.
Luís Henrique
This. The idea that it will be a battle of territory rather than a generalized movement to abolish capitalism and establish socialism is in line with 2nd International type thinking- that we can evolve into socialism through reforms or making gains and keeping them, incrementally (up to and including running nation-states). I don't think thermonuclear warfare and weaponized small-pox is going to be unleashed against a large minority of the human population during a deep revolutionary crisis (why would professional militaries continue to operate when the state is dissolving and the basis of the economy is erased from under their feet?). Military specialism ("spetzy's") and modern war machines aren't necessary to abolish capitalism-
You can't shoot a social relationship.
