Socialism in One Country

[Led Zeppelin]

The debate is COMRADE CRUM/Brick versus Random Precision on Socialism in one country, CR in favor, RP opposed.

This thread will close in one week, unless of course someone has to make an important point or reply, then the opportunity is given to round up the debate.

No one besides the debaters is allowed to post here. If you do your post will be removed.

The first member in the thread title is the member in favor of the proposition, the second the member opposed, this will be the same for other threads so that it is easier to identify the positions by the titles.

GO!

[Comrade Rage]

Random Precision, why do you believe that revolutionaries in (say America) can not build socialism in America until some other country (or block of countries) has it's revolution. Shouldn't we build socialism where we can rather than holding off until another country has had it's revolution? Won't our example inspire others in the world to make their own revolutions? Also, if we don't make significant socio-economic gains after the revolution, won't that discourage people in other nations from making their own revolutions?

[Random Precision]

Random Precision, why do you believe that revolutionaries in (say America) can not build socialism in America until some other country (or block of countries) has it's revolution. Shouldn't we build socialism where we can rather than holding off until another country has had it's revolution?

First, I think we must review exactly what socialism is in order to get a handle on if it may be realized in just one country.

In order to reach socialism, the means of production must be advanced, the country in question cannot merely sustain the pre-revolutionary level of economic production and distribution. This is how Engels puts it in Part 3 of Anti-Duhring:

The expansive force of the means of production bursts the bonds that the capitalist mode of production had imposed upon them. Their deliverance from these bonds is the one precondition for an unbroken, constantly accelerated development of the productive forces, and therewith for a practically unlimited increase of production itself. Nor is this all. The socialised appropriation of the means of production does away, not only with the present artificial restrictions upon production, but also with the positive waste and devastation of productive forces and products that are at the present time the inevitable concomitants of production, and that reach their height in the crises. Further, it sets free for the community at large a mass of means of production and of products, by doing away with the senseless extravagance of the ruling classes of today and their political representatives. The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialised production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties — this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.

This advancement cannot be done in isolation, especially with the advent of globalization that has inextricably tied together the economies of all capitalist nation-states. We can of course reorganize production and distribution to be more democratic under a workers' state, but production cannot be stepped up to the level requisite for socialism in one country alone.

To use your example of the United States: its economy is tied inextricably to other countries, the large trade deficit to China being an item that is constantly in the news. Of course, there would not be much hope for revolutionaries in the short term to make up the loss of trade it would incur by withdrawing itself from the global capitalist system. A revolutionary United States would have to recoup this elsewhere, eventually from resuming trade with those nations in which the revolution has been victorious. Furthermore, if the revolution only occurred in the United States, so many of our commodities are manufactured outside the country that we would essentially have to start from scratch in many industries.

But might I add that your proposed scenario of the US surviving as an isolated workers state in the long term is highly unlikely, since a socialist revolution here would essentially tear out the guts of international finance capital. The other countries of the world would go socialist as rapidly as dominoes fall over.

Won't our example inspire others in the world to make their own revolutions?

This question assumes that it is possible to construct socialism in one country. But in the single case I know of (October 1917) the revolution itself served to do that, and by 1920 the credence the revolution had given the Communist Parties of Europe allowed them to secure a large foothold in those countries' labor movement. So I would say that the same would be the revolution itself would provide inspiration to foreign revolutionaries.

Also, if we don't make significant socio-economic gains after the revolution, won't that discourage people in other nations from making their own revolutions?

To add to that last, the democratization of the means of production under a workers state should provide enough initial inspiration for foreign revolutionaries, if they need that inspiration in the first place. Revolutionaries are typically motivated to their work by the inherent contradictions and inequity under capitalism in their own countries.

[Comrade Rage]

First, I think we must review exactly what socialism is in order to get a handle on if it may be realized in just one country.

In order to reach socialism, the means of production must be advanced, the country in question cannot merely sustain the pre-revolutionary level of economic production and distribution.

I wholeheartedly agree that it must be advanced, however what would be keeping that from happening here?

This advancement cannot be done in isolation, especially with the advent of globalization that has inextricably tied together the economies of all capitalist nation-states.

The revolution will effectively isolate us from that anyway. We can't rely on trade with capitalist nations because they will probably embargo anything that we make. With the majority of consumer goods coming from China, this will not be hard for them to do.

I don't think our goal should be to work within the context of global capitalism anyway, we should provide a socialist alternative to it, trade should be fair.

We can of course reorganize production and distribution to be more democratic under a workers' state, but production cannot be stepped up to the level requisite for socialism in one country alone.

Why not? We have enough natural resources to do so.

To use your example of the United States: its economy is tied inextricably to other countries, the large trade deficit to China being an item that is constantly in the news. Of course, there would not be much hope for revolutionaries in the short term to make up the loss of trade it would incur by withdrawing itself from the global capitalist system. A revolutionary United States would have to recoup this elsewhere, eventually from resuming trade with those nations in which the revolution has been victorious. Furthermore, if the revolution only occurred in the United States, so many of our commodities are manufactured outside the country that we would essentially have to start from scratch in many industries.

As for China, they are dependent on American copper and aluminum, for instance. This can be used for our advantage in the short term. I don't think we should focus on trade with socialist nations to recoup our losses, I think we ought to institute a robust re-industrialization plan. Seize the empty factories, and reactivate them. We could do this by using the remaining automotive plants in America to build the machinery necessary to run these factories.

But might I add that your proposed scenario of the US surviving as an isolated workers state in the long term is highly unlikely, since a socialist revolution here would essentially tear out the guts of international finance capital. The other countries of the world would go socialist as rapidly as dominoes fall over.

I would hope so, but with China surpassing America as the preeminant capitalist superpower this would become unlikely.

This question assumes that it is possible to construct socialism in one country. But in the single case I know of (October 1917) the revolution itself served to do that, and by 1920 the credence the revolution had given the Communist Parties of Europe allowed them to secure a large foothold in those countries' labor movement. So I would say that the same would be the revolution itself would provide inspiration to foreign revolutionaries.

I certainly hope so, but you know what the capitalists and their anarchist, allies would say: 'the revolution will just be a change of masters. The proletariat is crazy if they think they'll ever create a classless society, the revolution won't amount to democratic control of the MOP', etc. The victory of socialism must be gained before most proletarians in the world will trust the revolutionaries.

To add to that last, the democratization of the means of production under a workers state should provide enough initial inspiration for foreign revolutionaries, if they need that inspiration in the first place. Revolutionaries are typically motivated to their work by the inherent contradictions and inequity under capitalism in their own countries.

That premise ignores the severe anti-communist bigotry that persists in the world that plays on the Soviet failures of the 50's, 60's and 70's. One of the first things that capitalists say when someone talks about communism, is that 'since it failed in the USSR, it won't work here', 'look at what happened in the USSR', etc. I don't think that proletarians need any foreign inspiration to realize that capitalism is unfair, but they will need it in order to consider Marxism-Leninism as a viable alternative.

[Random Precision]

I wholeheartedly agree that it must be advanced, however what would be keeping that from happening here?

The giant amount of natural resources necessary for a country the size of the United States to undergo re-industrialization, for one thing.

The revolution will effectively isolate us from that anyway. We can't rely on trade with capitalist nations because they will probably embargo anything that we make. With the majority of consumer goods coming from China, this will not be hard for them to do.

But doesn't that contradict what you say below (about China being dependent on American copper and aluminum)?

I don't think our goal should be to work within the context of global capitalism anyway, we should provide a socialist alternative to it, trade should be fair.

Explain what you mean.

Why not? We have enough natural resources to do so.

Really? What about oil? It's obviously a resource that would be required in huge amounts for the kind of re-industrialization plan you're talking about, and I just don't see that we have enough of it to do so. Chromium is a metal required in nearly every metallurgical process that the United States has just about zero of; we depend on South Africa for it, which has 70% of the world's chrome reserves. There are various other rare metals and such I could cite that the United States simply does not possess, and which would be necessary for re-industrialization.

As for China, they are dependent on American copper and aluminum, for instance. This can be used for our advantage in the short term. I don't think we should focus on trade with socialist nations to recoup our losses, I think we ought to institute a robust re-industrialization plan. Seize the empty factories, and reactivate them. We could do this by using the remaining automotive plants in America to build the machinery necessary to run these factories.

In the first place, as I've said such a plan would need a massive amount of resources that we simply do not have.

Furthermore (and this is a thread I see running throughout your post) you are turning necessity into a virtue, much as the early proponents (Bukharin and Stalin) of socialism in one country did. For your argument to stand, one must assume a situation in which the United States has a revolution, the buildup for which did not affect revolutionary movements in any other countries and the event of which held no implications for those countries, or which were somehow swept aside.

What I am saying is that, were there to be a revolution in the United States, we could expect at least several other countries to have revolutions as well, especially nations in Latin America, most of which have close ties to the United States. The US today is the unchallenged imperialist power, and as such a revolution here would mean a massive political shift in the world already.

Clearly, there would be no need for your plan if socialist revolutions in several other countries were to follow the one in the United States, as I'm suggesting. The workers states could then proceed to trade fairly, with the endpoint being economic integration as they advance toward socialism.

I would hope so, but with China surpassing America as the preeminant capitalist superpower this would become unlikely.

That would, of course, depend on the extent to which they're able to develop their finance capital. But, since we are assuming a socialist revolution in the United States, I would be careful of drawing conclusions from the current international situation.

I certainly hope so, but you know what the capitalists and their anarchist, allies would say: 'the revolution will just be a change of masters. The proletariat is crazy if they think they'll ever create a classless society, the revolution won't amount to democratic control of the MOP', etc. The victory of socialism must be gained before most proletarians in the world will trust the revolutionaries.

First, I wish you wouldn't take cheap shots at anarchists. Most anarchists in Russia supported the October Revolution (it was an anarchist sailor from Kronstadt who disbanded the Constituent Assembly, for instance) and many anarchist activists went on to become Bolsheviks, like Victor Serge.

Second, here you are again assuming that socialism in one country can be accomplished, while I think the historical record has shown that it cannot.

Besides, where would we be if we were always thinking about what our enemies will say?

That premise ignores the severe anti-communist bigotry that persists in the world that plays on the Soviet failures of the 50's, 60's and 70's. One of the first things that capitalists say when someone talks about communism, is that 'since it failed in the USSR, it won't work here', 'look at what happened in the USSR', etc. I don't think that proletarians need any foreign inspiration to realize that capitalism is unfair, but they will need it in order to consider Marxism-Leninism as a viable alternative.

I wouldn't be so quick to cast doubt on the rest of the world. In Latin America, people are turning to socialism in large numbers, like in Bolivia and Venezuela, despite the reformist leadership their movements suffer from. The bottom line is that the bigotry you mention is largely fading, and only remains present in this country, for the most part.

Plus, in a situation where today's foremost anti-communist country goes communist, I would question how much anti-communist sentiment actually remains.

[Led Zeppelin]

The debate has been open for over a week.

The thread will be closed tomorrow and then a winner will be chosen by a poll.

Any last comments?

[Random Precision]

Yes. I think there are several points that have not been brought up in the debate, unfortunately:

1. At this point in world history, the United States is by no means the most likely nation to have a successful workers' revolution.
2. To advance the means of production into socialism will require the further integration of national economies, a process that globalization of capitalism has been pushing forward for some time already.
3. Therefore, the first country to go communist in the next revolutionary wave will depend just as much on other countries for "the final victory of socialism" as the Bolsheviks did in October of 1917.
4. The historical record has made it clear that socialism cannot be accomplished within the confines of national boundaries. What occurred in the Soviet Union was a bureaucracy-headed form of state capitalism. I am surprised that this was not a major point of contention, as the issue of "socialism in one country" has for all purposes become obsolete and only of historical interest, like in debates about the nature of the USSR.

[Comrade Rage]

The giant amount of natural resources necessary for a country the size of the United States to undergo re-industrialization, for one thing.

I am not suggesting that there will be NO trade, of course there will be. What I am saying is that a world revolution will not be a prerequisite for America to attain socialism. Some may, but the majority of countries probably won't.

But doesn't that contradict what you say below (about China being dependent on American copper and aluminum)?

I wasn't clear, but that was an estimation of the future. China probably will surpass America as the preeminent capitalist country before America has a revolution.

Explain what you mean.

Essentially what I mean is that there should be safeguards to ensure that the new workers' government doesn't exploit poor nations. For instance, products made in these countries are made in sweatshops today. Under a workers state (I would hope that) we don't take advantage of their current standards of living to pay them pennies a day. They would recieve wages comparable to what people would recieve in America.

This would mostly affect farmers and others who produce raw materials or crops like jute or coffee.

Really? What about oil? It's obviously a resource that would be required in huge amounts for the kind of re-industrialization plan you're talking about, and I just don't see that we have enough of it to do so.

What about coal? We already have several power plants that run on Clean Coal Technology, and it takes (probably) about as much as four or five years to build a coal plant.

In regards to oil: if the workers state could keep on good terms with the Canadians and Venezuelans while drilling off-shore we could produce the same amount of oil as we have today, since most our oil comes from Canada anyway.

Chromium is a metal required in nearly every metallurgical process that the United States has just about zero of; we depend on South Africa for it, which has 70% of the world's chrome reserves. There are various other rare metals and such I could cite that the United States simply does not possess, and which would be necessary for re-industrialization.

We can always negotiate trade deals with the South Africans, who I think would be open to our cause. As for the other nations, we can trade with them as well.

First, I wish you wouldn't take cheap shots at anarchists. Most anarchists in Russia supported the October Revolution (it was an anarchist sailor from Kronstadt who disbanded the Constituent Assembly, for instance) and many anarchist activists went on to become Bolsheviks, like Victor Serge.

I guess you were right, I was a little out of line on that.

Besides, where would we be if we were always thinking about what our enemies will say?

It's not so much as worrying about what they say, it's about whether or not the workers will believe them.

I wouldn't be so quick to cast doubt on the rest of the world. In Latin America, people are turning to socialism in large numbers, like in Bolivia and Venezuela, despite the reformist leadership their movements suffer from. The bottom line is that the bigotry you mention is largely fading, and only remains present in this country, for the most part
Plus, in a situation where today's foremost anti-communist country goes communist, I would question how much anti-communist sentiment actually remains.

I think that China and the EU would be the biggest enemies of socialism.

[QUOTE=Random Precision;1156588]Yes. I think there are several points that have not been brought up in the debate, unfortunately:

1. At this point in world history, the United States is by no means the most likely nation to have a successful workers' revolution.

I just wanted to use the US as an example, because it is the industrial nation that I am most familiar with.

4. The historical record has made it clear that socialism cannot be accomplished within the confines of national boundaries. What occurred in the Soviet Union was a bureaucracy-headed form of state capitalism. I am surprised that this was not a major point of contention, as the issue of "socialism in one country" has for all purposes become obsolete and only of historical interest, like in debates about the nature of the USSR.

I didn't want to make this just another debate on the USSR though. I wanted to debate someone on whether it was possible today.

[Random Precision]

I am not suggesting that there will be NO trade, of course there will be. What I am saying is that a world revolution will not be a prerequisite for America to attain socialism. Some may, but the majority of countries probably won't.

The key phrase being "some may". The rest of your comments, once again, turns necessity into a virtue.

I wasn't clear, but that was an estimation of the future. China probably will surpass America as the preeminent capitalist country before America has a revolution.

Like I said, this will depend on what extent the Chinese are able to develop their capital.

Essentially what I mean is that there should be safeguards to ensure that the new workers' government doesn't exploit poor nations. For instance, products made in these countries are made in sweatshops today. Under a workers state (I would hope that) we don't take advantage of their current standards of living to pay them pennies a day. They would recieve wages comparable to what people would recieve in America.

This would mostly affect farmers and others who produce raw materials or crops like jute or coffee.

I agree completely. In the case that a revolutionary United States is isolated, I think these practices would help break us out of it (assuming, of course, the capitalist nations will trade with us).

What about coal? We already have several power plants that run on Clean Coal Technology, and it takes (probably) about as much as four or five years to build a coal plant.

Clean Coal Technology is still in its very early stages of production, and it will need a lot of work until it is a reasonable alternative to oil.

In regards to oil: if the workers state could keep on good terms with the Canadians and Venezuelans while drilling off-shore we could produce the same amount of oil as we have today, since most our oil comes from Canada anyway.

No. According to the Department of Energy, we get 19.4% of our crude oil imports from Canada and 9.7% from Venezuela. Saudi Arabia and Nigeria are also up there.

We can always negotiate trade deals with the South Africans, who I think would be open to our cause. As for the other nations, we can trade with them as well.

It's dangerous to think that any capitalist government would be "open to the cause". The last time a workers' revolution happened, the capitalist powers of the day sponsored the invasion of its territory by 21 armies!

I guess you were right, I was a little out of line on that.
It's not so much as worrying about what they say, it's about whether or not the workers will believe them.

True enough. But the revolutionary movement does not just depend on the success of foreign nation, it depends on the revolutionary work done at home. To say otherwise is to fetishize that success, and increases dependence on the one nation that has gone communist. We know what can happen with that...

I think that China and the EU would be the biggest enemies of socialism.

It's certainly possible. But a post-revolutionary United States would more likely look toward prospects in Latin America rather than Asia or Europe, at least immediately.

I just wanted to use the US as an example, because it is the industrial nation that I am most familiar with.

I didn't want to make this just another debate on the USSR though. I wanted to debate someone on whether it was possible today.

And you have my thanks for that. This has most certainly been interesting.

[Led Zeppelin]

If Brick has no further comments I'll close the thread and start the poll to determine the winner.

[Comrade Rage]

Just came in. Yes. I'd like to respond to Random Precision's post.

[Comrade Rage]

Like I said, this will depend on what extent the Chinese are able to develop their capital.

They're developing it pretty well.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...s/ch.html#Econ
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...s/us.html#Econ
There is only $6 trillion in difference between the two GDPs. China has an 11.43 % growth rate, while the US has a 2.2% growth rate.

Clean Coal Technology is still in its very early stages of production, and it will need a lot of work until it is a reasonable alternative to oil.

It probably will advance, but even if it doesn't it will probably be used as a stop-gap, like it is now.

No. According to the Department of Energy, we get 19.4% of our crude oil imports from Canada and 9.7% from Venezuela. Saudi Arabia and Nigeria are also up there.

Sorry about that I misspoke. Canada is our leading supplier, but it doesn't produce a majority of our oil.

It's dangerous to think that any capitalist government would be "open to the cause". The last time a workers' revolution happened, the capitalist powers of the day sponsored the invasion of its territory by 21 armies!

I'm just talking about trade, though. I don't think that we should let our guard down with capitalist countries, but we'll probably have to do some trade with them.

True enough. But the revolutionary movement does not just depend on the success of foreign nation, it depends on the revolutionary work done at home. To say otherwise is to fetishize that success, and increases dependence on the one nation that has gone communist. We know what can happen with that...

It depends on both. I wasn't saying that it just depends on what happens in foreign lands, but what happens in foreign lands certainly impacts revolutionary struggles in other countries, especially in the age of the internet when information about revolutionary struggles around the world has become accessible.

It's certainly possible. But a post-revolutionary United States would more likely look toward prospects in Latin America rather than Asia or Europe, at least immediately.

I think that the prospect for revolution is good in those areas, actually. I'm rather doubtful that any counter-revolution will be launched by a Latin American country.

And you have my thanks for that. This has most certainly been interesting.

This was a good debate, even though I got bogged down by hypotheticals. You're a good person to debate with.

[Led Zeppelin]

Random Precision has just told me that he's done as well.

Poll to determine winner started here: Link

I'll close this for now, and open it up and move it to the general forum after the poll is done.