Socialism in One Country

[Baseball]

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.

Then the alternative is the expectation of an instantaneous, successful, world wide revolution.
Talk about utopian.

The reality remains that socialists will have to think about a world in which a capitalist and socialist community exists side by side.

[Rafiq]

Then the alternative is the expectation of an instantaneous, successful, world wide revolution.
Talk about utopian.

The reality remains that socialists will have to think about a world in which a capitalist and socialist community exists side by side.

There was a time in which the same was for feudalism and capitalism. What's important to understand is that developed countries, or developing superpowers (China) will have to fall to the red star or there can be no revolution, not one that would last at least, anywhere. I'm not one for playing the guessing game, but should a national proletariat require assistance in combating their class enemy in some far off, remote place, should they ask, I don't imagine anyone would hesitate.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Then the alternative is the expectation of an instantaneous, successful, world wide revolution.
Talk about utopian.

The reality remains that socialists will have to think about a world in which a capitalist and socialist community exists side by side.

Okay, you might have a point there.
There will not be an instantanious, similtaniuous revolution.

Let's refrase the question: Is socialism in one country holdable?

In that case, i'd have to say no.
Two ideologies which are oposed so much, will eventualy lead to a stand-off situation, which in turn leads to war and the inevitible disapearence of one.

[Conscript]

Then the alternative is the expectation of an instantaneous, successful, world wide revolution.

Nope, but that sure would be the quickest way.

Socialism must spread internationally to survive, because it must abolish the world's capital, or at least the majority of it. If its left untouched, the states, imperialists, and the proletariat are too. That doesn't mean it has to be instantaneous, just that it'll pretty much stay a DoTP if there wasn't already a counter-revolution, within the party or not.

The USSR and China had done no such thing. They were led by revisionists who based their power on the peasantry, and weren't really internationalist, they weren't very different from the other contenders in world imperialism.

[Brutus]

Orwell does ridiculously simplify it though. If you read Russian history, you would know that Trotsky's theory would have lead to the collapse of Russia

[Zukunftsmusik]

Then the alternative is the expectation of an instantaneous, successful, world wide revolution.
Talk about utopian.

The reality remains that socialists will have to think about a world in which a capitalist and socialist community exists side by side.

Socialism and capitalism is a question of totality. If the proletariat took power in several "superpowers", they could start worry with starting to abolishing classes. Until that is possible, the proletariat will hold political power through its dictatorship over the other classes. This is a phase were capitalist class relations still exist, but a phase were these relations are on their way to be abolished. Only when the proletariat has gained power in the whole world/most of the world/the "superpowers", can we begin to talk about socialism.

Tl;dr: Socialism =/= Dictatorship of the proletariat. We need movement from the old society to the new, that very movement is the DotP. You can have DotP in one country, you can't have socialism in one country (while all other countries are capitalist).

[Ostrinski]

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

Most of us reject these standards. You can't just triumphantly declare something that the rest of us including other Leninists scoff at.

I have nothing but contempt for what I see as an adulterated perversion of who was an otherwise distinguished Marxist and powerful asset of the international working class.

[Baseball]

holdable[/I]?
ne.

that is a very fair question two ask. because to answer it requires the socialist to think about socialism in terms of socialism. it isn't enough to simply say get rid of the capitalist and the problem is solved.

[Baseball]

Socialism and capitalism is a question of totality. If the proletariat took power in several "superpowers", they could start worry with starting to abolishing classes. Until that is possible, the proletariat will hold political power through its dictatorship over the other classes. This is a phase were capitalist class relations still exist, but a phase were these relations are on their way to be abolished. Only when the proletariat has gained power in the whole world/most of the world/the "superpowers", can we begin to talk about socialism.

Tl;dr: Socialism =/= Dictatorship of the proletariat. We need movement from the old society to the new, that very movement is the DotP. You can have DotP in one country, you can't have socialism in one country (while all other countries are capitalist).

call it what you want- you still have to get from point A to point B. blaming obstacles in the road, rather than the road being traveled, or the vehicle 1 is in, is not being serious.

[Baseball]

Nope, but that sure would be the quickest way.

Socialism must spread internationally to survive, because it must abolish the world's capital, or at least the majority of it. If its left untouched, the states, imperialists, and the proletariat are too. That doesn't mean it has to be instantaneous, just that it'll pretty much stay a DoTP if there wasn't already a counter-revolution, within the party or not.

The USSR and China had done no such thing. They were led by revisionists who based their power on the peasantry, and weren't really internationalist, they weren't very different from the other contenders in world imperialism.

the question that was asked in the OP was how a socialist commumitu might function side by side a capitalist one during this transition period. Saying it has move "fast" doesn't really explain anything.

[Baseball]

There was a time in which the same was for feudalism and capitalism. What's important to understand is that developed countries, or developing superpowers (China) will have to fall to the red star or there can be no revolution, not one that would last at least, anywhere. I'm not one for playing the guessing game, but should a national proletariat require assistance in combating their class enemy in some far off, remote place, should they ask, I don't imagine anyone would hesitate.

Regardless of whether socialism can stand without victory in all or part of the developed or developing world, the 2 will have to exist side by side for an undetermined period of time.
how does socialism function in such circumstances?

[Zukunftsmusik]

call it what you want- you still have to get from point A to point B. blaming obstacles in the road, rather than the road being traveled, or the vehicle 1 is in, is not being serious.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. I know we have to go from point A to B, that's exactly what I said. I don't really understand your last sentence. Of course there are obstacles in the road, the counter revolution being the main one.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Petr Kropotkins opinion on a socialist society in a capitalist world.

The letter is on a proposed settlement, but i feel it applies to the case of a country too.
He can explain better than i can.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Socialism needs to be worldwide so "Socialism in one country" would certainly fail. People should be working to make revolutions happen everywhere.

[Jason]

Okay, you might have a point there.
There will not be an instantanious, similtaniuous revolution.

Let's refrase the question: Is socialism in one country holdable?

In that case, i'd have to say no.
Two ideologies which are oposed so much, will eventualy lead to a stand-off situation, which in turn leads to war and the inevitible disapearence of one.

You have a point there. Note: That was the story of the Soviet Union and it's satellites. The arms race practically drained them, because capitalist nations would never co-exist with them. On the other hand, the arms race didn't drain the west due to imperalist profit. So, anyhow, one of Marx's main ideas: "Revolution must take place in developed nations" was proven true.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

You have a point there. Note: That was the story of the Soviet Union and it's satellites. The arms race practically drained them, because capitalist nations would never co-exist with them. On the other hand, the arms race didn't drain the west due to imperalist profit. So, anyhow, one of Marx's main ideas: "Revolution must take place in developed nations" was proven true.

The whole USSR-"socialism"-thing was the mean reason for the wicked west not working with the Soviet Union. It's true that they were drained of capital and thus were forced to collapse.
But (a big but, you'll see) what the above also implies, is that if the Soviet Union needed capital, it therefore means that the USSR was never truly socialist. It was capitalist (whatever form it was).

It shouldn't have colapsed on capital, but of depletion of food and other important goods for living.
Now the Soviet Union would have been big enough for self-sufficiency. Other (smaller) countries, depending on import big time, would eventually starve to death.

But i think the biggest reason for solo-socialisms would perish is by the hand of capitalist/impirialist-warmongers who (like the US back in the 80's) see it as the 'free' worlds biggest thread and will eventually stop it by force.

[fabian]

IMO, socialism in one country is not impossible, there is nothing in socialism itself that would prevent it from properly functioning in a single country or county or municipality, but it is highly improbable- because the capitalism in other countries around it that would attack it and destroy it, as happened with the only two large-scale socialist societies that were established- Free Territory of Ukraine and Revolutionary Catalonia and Andalusia.

[Baseball]

I don't understand what you're getting at here. I know we have to go from point A to B, that's exactly what I said. I don't really understand your last sentence. Of course there are obstacles in the road, the counter revolution being the main one.

You are suggesting that problems associated during some sort of transitional period (dictatorship of the proleteriat) is not a reflection upon socialism as a whole.
I am suggesting that it is.

[Baseball]

You have a point there. Note: That was the story of the Soviet Union and it's satellites. The arms race practically drained them, because capitalist nations would never co-exist with them. On the other hand, the arms race didn't drain the west due to imperalist profit. So, anyhow, one of Marx's main ideas: "Revolution must take place in developed nations" was proven true.

The standard hereabouts, that socialism needs to be worldwide else it will perish, suggests they must have problems co-existing with capitalist nations.

But, if you can explain that the success of the capitalist world and the failure of the socialist one, is due to an inherent strength of the former, doesn't that sort of suggest that the system with that strength is better than the one without it?

What would happen to the world, after the world-wide socialist revolt, when it replaces a superior system of economic organization, with an inferior one?

[Ele'ill]

You are suggesting that problems associated during some sort of transitional period (dictatorship of the proleteriat) is not a reflection upon socialism as a whole.
I am suggesting that it is.

having issues with the dotp doesn't wipe out the possibility of revolution and social transformation or whatever it means you have issues with a particular theory