[Sandino]

"Question 19: Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

Answer: No. Large-scale industry, already by creating the world market, has so linked up all the peoples of the earth, and especially the civilised peoples, that each people is dependent on what happens to another. Further, in all civilised countries large-scale industry has so levelled social development that in all these countries the bourgeoisie and the proletariat have become the two decisive classes of society and the struggle between them the main struggle of the day. The communist revolution will therefore be no merely national one.... It is a worldwide revolution and will therefore be worldwide in scope.”
-From Principles of Communism, by Frederick Engels (1847)

"But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. The principle task of socialism--the organization of soicalist production--has still to be fulfilled. Can this task be fulfilled, can the final victory of socialism be achieved in one country, without the joint efforts of the proletarians in several advanced countries? No, it cannot. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient; this is proved by the history of our revolution. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of Socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of a peasant country like Russia, are insufficient; for that, the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are required."

The preceding sentences, which express a virtually unanimous position of the Bolsheviks before 1924, were written by J.V. Stalin in the early part of 1924 in Foundations of Leninism. By the end of the year, in his Problems of Leninism, he had repudiated his former position and asserted the opposite, that socialism can be built in one country alone. He had to withdraw the first edition of Foundations of Leninism and renounce it as apocryphal!

The "theory" of "socialism in one country" was to become a loyalty test for cadres who wished to move up, or even remain in the CP. Stalin arrived at this "theory" half-gropingly, at first putting it forward to counter Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. Despite its patent absurdity, it won support in the ever more conservative bureaucracy, as it served to solidify the brittle layer that would soon usurp political power, and it also gave hope to the people who were growing despondent at the failure of the proletarian revolutions in Europe.

The "theory" of "socialism in one country" was the key theoretical foundation for Stalinism. It resulted in an amazing zig-zagging in foreign policy, from class collaboration to ultra-left adventurism and everything in between. And, it also allowed for the malilgnant growth of the bureaucracy into a caricature of socialism represented by the totalitarian state.

The Trotskyists fought against this "theory," at many times at the cost of their very lives.

The final repudiation of the "theory" of "socialism in one country" was shown in 1992, when the Stalinists in the Kremlin liquidated the USSR.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

"Question 19: Will it be possible for this revolution to take place [only] in one country alone?

Answer: No. Large-scale industry, already by creating the world market, has so linked up all the peoples of the earth, and especially the civilised peoples, that each people is dependent on what happens to another. Further, in all civilised countries large-scale industry has so levelled social development that in all these countries the bourgeoisie and the proletariat have become the two decisive classes of society and the struggle between them the main struggle of the day. The communist revolution will therefore be no merely national one.... It is a worldwide revolution and will therefore be worldwide in scope.”

-From Principles of Communism, by Frederick Engels (1847)


I don't see how this statement by F. Engels denies the possibility of establishment of socialism in a seperate country. All it talks about is the inevitability of the world proletarian revolution.

[Sandino]

I don't see how this statement by F. Engels denies the possibility of establishment of socialism in a seperate country. All it talks about is the inevitability of the world proletarian revolution.

Perhaps, then, this quote makes it clearer:

"Can this task be fulfilled, can the final victory of socialism be achieved in one country, without the joint efforts of the proletarians in several advanced countries? No, it cannot."
-J.V. Stalin, Foundations of Leninsm (1924)

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I don't see how this statement by F. Engels denies the possibility of establishment of socialism in a seperate country. All it talks about is the inevitability of the world proletarian revolution.

Perhaps, then, this quote makes it clearer:

"Can this task be fulfilled, can the final victory of socialism be achieved in one country, without the joint efforts of the proletarians in several advanced countries? No, it cannot."
-J.V. Stalin, Foundations of Leninsm (1924)

Stop begging the question! Although that particular extract from the earlier quote you gave from the 'Foundations of Leninism' (1924 ed) hardly makes a case against socialism in one country (the problem occurs when Stalin denies the economic basis for socialism in one country), Stalin's own early misconceptions can hardly clear anything up. You, above all, should know this.


P.S.

May I please have the EXACT source of that quote from the 'Foundations'? Thank you.

[Sandino]

Stop begging the question! Although that particular extract from the earlier quote you gave from the 'Foundations of Leninism' (1924 ed) hardly makes a case against socialism in one country (the problem occurs when Stalin denies the economic basis for socialism in one country), Stalin's own early misconceptions can hardly clear anything up. You, above all, should know this.

You are missing the point. The point is that all Bolsheviks, including Stalin, thought that the revolution would have to be international, that it would take revolutions in at least two or three advanced capitalist states, in order for the Russian revolution to survive.

This is patently obvious. Socialism cannot be built in isolation. The imperialists have a vicious arsenal at their fingertips with which to undermine states that rip themselves out of the world capitalist market. The siege can only be resisted for so long before the state begins to degenerate.

May I please have the EXACT source of that quote from the 'Foundations'? Thank you.

Here you go! It's on page 37.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

You are missing the point. The point is that all Bolsheviks, including Stalin, thought that the revolution would have to be international, that it would take revolutions in at least two or three advanced capitalist states, in order for the Russian revolution to survive.

In contrast to you, I must really be considered as "gifted". The distinction between making a point, and missing one should be clear even to the mentally impaired. Pity that it isn't clear to the Trotskyites.

My dearest Sandino, you do actually realise that you have made no such point for me to miss, right? The only point you are now finally begging to make, in my eyes, is one that shows you as a grossly hypocritical eclectic. I first doubted this impression, but now it only seems that you, yourself, have confirmed it.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

Trots don't understand...that socialism in one country is not anti-internationalist...and in no way prevents or inhibits a world-wide proletariat revolution.

They don't understand circumstances and stages...

They don't understand that socialism in one country was a necessary reality for the Russian circumstances...nor do they understand that it is only temporary...and is in fact necessary for a bases to launch off an international revolution.

The fact remains however...that by the 1950s half the world was in communist revolution...so the validity of socialism in one country has already been proven by history.

Let the Trots battle it out in their armchair revolutions whether it happens or not...thats what Trots are best at...hitting walls with their heads...History has already proven its validity...

[Koba SE]

OK Sarditsky....

If we are going to use the Great Leaders quotes... at least put the full meaning with them... Here I'll save you the time!

But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not.

I think this says VERY CLEARLY that the international socialist revolution can ONLY be brought through an example and constant struggle against imperialism bringing socialism further and broader in the course of its progression. Notice that the victorious country can and must build a socialist society... This of course means that socialism in ONE nation is required in order to serve as a vehicle for assisting and furthering the global revolution of the proletariat.

Also take note of 'FINAL VICTORY IN SOCIALISM' ... are you stating that Socialism is not the total elimination of class society? Are you stating that socialism is not progressive but instead something immediate? I think the fact of the matter is that you have made it your personal conquest to defeat any opposing 'factions', even if they are true communists. In doing so you have blinded yourself to dialectial thinking. You cannot admit error or fault because you are too busy on your crusade to destroy your opponents. But such is the nature of Trotskyism and the question of 'unity'.

Allow me to expose what you Trotskyists really mean when you cry about 'unity'

http://www.marx2mao.org/Stalin/ESP13.html#s1iii

I dont think it could possibly said better! and it is only proven by your polemics when your not busy trying to unite a coalition of corrupted principles.

Let us now turn to the Engles quote:

The communist revolution will therefore be no merely national one.... It is a worldwide revolution and will therefore be worldwide in scope.”

Of course its not a national revolution and by all means it is a world wide revolution, that is not denied by Comrade Stalin. Comrade Stalin has merely expanded and built a solution to enacting the global revolution. No matter how much you Mensheviks want it, you cannot wave a magic wand and have a communist society. Communist society comes through a consistent and hard struggle against the capitalist world order.. Socialism in one nation is the first phase of initiating the global revolution. You being fond of war communism should understand you need a platform in which to launch the proletarian army.

I have noticed you like to write and I actually printed out your article on Chomsky as it was rather long... After reading it and some of your posts I have come to the same conclusion Lenin had on Trotsky...

All that glitters is not gold and while Trotsky's words certainly do shine they are meaningless -- Vladamir Illyich

[jaakko]

Reminder:
Socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Therefore, announcing 'complete victory of socialism' in USSR in the 1930's didn't mean some 'complete socialism' was achieved. There's no such thing as 'complete socialism' as that would already be communism. The 'complete victory of socialism' only meant that capitalism was no longer dominant, that socialist transition was proceeding in all branches of production, that socialism had surpassed capitalist relations of production on the large scale, that the bourgeoisie had been liquidated as an economic class.

Stalin never underestimated the need for a struggle against the attempts of both domestic and foreign reactionary forces. Stalin made the thesis that during the building of socialism the class struggle intensifies and takes ever more complex forms.

It goes without saying that 'building socialism in one country' couldn't be theoretically opposed to the world revolutionary process.

[Sandino]

Of course its not a national revolution and by all means it is a world wide revolution, that is not denied by Comrade Stalin. Comrade Stalin has merely expanded and built a solution to enacting the global revolution. No matter how much you Mensheviks want it, you cannot wave a magic wand and have a communist society.

The contrary is the case. After the death of Lenin, the Stalinist faction drifted more and more toward Menshevism, adopting the "stagist" theory of revolution, and repudiating the Leninist-Trotskyist theories on socialist revolution.

This is seen clearly in their actions, despite whatever lies they told. For instance, in 1926, the Stalinists instructed the Chinese Communist Party to enter the Kuomintang, asserting that the "progressive" bourgeois forces in China could lead a revolution. That would be roughly equivalent to the Bolsheviks entering the Cadet party in 1917.

This happened repeatedly. In 1936, the Stalinists liquidated the Communists in Spain who would not enter into a "popular front" with the bourgeois government in Madrid, leading to Franco's victory.

In 1958 the Stalinists instructed the Iraq Communist Party to enter into a "popular front" with Kassim, and not to try to take power when they could have.

The correct theory of revolution in countries with combined and uneven developlement is the theory of permanent revolution, adopted by Lenin in all of its particulars. The bourgeoisie in backward countries can play no independent role, and a subordination of the proletariat to the "progressive" bourgeois forces is suicide. Only the proletariat, supported by the peasantry, can make a successful revolution, and only if the revolution goes directly to socialist measures, i.e. is made permanent.

"Socialim in one country" is not the doctrine that a socialist revolution has to start in one country.

No fucking shit it has to start in one country!

The question is over whether socialism can be built in one country. The example of the USSR shows us that it is not possible.

Jeez, haven't you heard of the failure of Stalinism? Stalinism is dead!

Down with Stalinism! Up with Bolshevism!

[jaakko]

From: http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/marxism/Cl6.html
x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x

11. THE REVOLUTIONARY PROCESS IN A DEVELOPED CAPITALIST COUNTRY CONSISTS OF A SINGLE STAGE -- THAT OF SOCIALIST REVOLUTION.
THE REVOLUTIONARY PROCESS IN A COLONIAL-TYPE COUNTRY CONSISTS OF TWO STAGES. WHAT ARE THEY?

Firstly, the stage of national-democratic revolution, of national liberation, directed against foreign domination;

Secondly, the stage of socialist revolution.

12. THE CAPITALIST CLASS IN A COLONIAL-TYPE COUNTRY CONSISTS OF TWO SECTIONS. WHAT ARE THEY?

Firstly, the comprador capitalists (involved particularly in finance and commerce) who are dependent upon the dominating foreign power and have an objective interest in supporting it; and secondly, the national capitalists (particularly those involved in industry) whose interests and advancement are frustrated by the dominating foreign power and who therefore have an objective interest in ending foreign domination.

13. WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES IN A COLONIAL-TYPE COUNTRY HAVE AN OBJECTIVE INTEREST IN 1) OPPOSING AND 2) SUPPORTING NATIONAL- DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION?

The landlord class and the comprador capitalist class have an objective interest in opposing national-democratic revolution. The national capitalists, the middle and poor peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the working class have an objective interest in supporting it.

14. WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES IN A COLONIAL-TYPE COUNTRY HAVE AN OBJECTIVE INTEREST IN 1) OPPOSING AND 2) SUPPORTING SOCIALIST REVOLUTION?

The landlord class, the urban and rural capitalist class and the better-off strata of the urban petty bourgeoisie, have an objective interest in opposing the socialist revolution.

The poorer strata of the peasantry, the poorer strata of the urban petty bourgeoisie, and the working class have an objective interest in supporting it.

15. WHY DO MARXIST-LENINISTS, WHOSE FUNDAMENTAL AIM IS TO BRING ABOUT A SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, SUPPORT A NATIONAL-DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION IN A COLONIAL-TYPE COUNTRY AS THE FIRST STAGE IN THE REVOLUTIONARY PROCESS THERE?

Because the national-democratic revolution enables certain class forces opposed to the socialist revolution (the landlords and comprador capitalists) to be defeated by a wider coalition of classes than those which stand to gain by the socialist revolution.

16. WHAT, THEN, IS THE MARXIST-LENINIST STRATEGY IN RELATION TO THE NATIONAL-DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION IN A COLONIAL-TYPE COUNTRY?

To support it as an essential preliminary stage in the revolutionary process in a colonial-type country;
to strive to build the broadest possible united front embracing all social classes which have an objective interst in supporting the national-democratic revolution;
to strive to win leadership by the working class of this anti-imperialist united front, and the leadersip of the working class by the Marxist-Leninist Party:
to strive to transform the national-democratic revolution uninterruptedly into a socialist revolution.
The Trotskyist slogan in a colonial-type country of 'Socialism Now', which seeks to skip over an essential stage in the revolution, objectively assists the enemies of socialism.

17. WHAT ARE THE AIMS OF THE NATIONAL CAPITALISTS IN A COLONIAL- TYPE COUNTRY IN RELATION TO THE NATIONAL-DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION?

To strive to lead the national-democratic revolution and to hold the revolutionary process at this stage so as to establish a capitalist state in which they, the national capitalists, hold political power and exploit the working people for themselves.

In a colonial-type country where there is a developed working class led by a Marxist-Leninist Party, a class struggle takes place during the development of the national-democratic revolution between the working class and the national capitalist class for leadership of the revolutionary process. If the working class is seen to be winning this leadership, the national capitalists will inevitably desert the national-democratic revolution and go over to the side of counter-revolution -- preferring a subordinate position as exploiters to the complete loss in a socialist revolution of their 'right' to exploit.

[Sandino]

The landlord class and the comprador capitalist class have an objective interest in opposing national-democratic revolution. The national capitalists, the middle and poor peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the working class have an objective interest in supporting it.

Let me get this straight. The comprador capitalist class opposes national-democratic revolution, but the national capitalists have an interest in supporting it?

This is Stalinism, i.e. Menshevism. Tell me, comrade, how you separate the comprador capitalist class from the national capitalist class.

[jaakko]

The landlord class and the comprador capitalist class have an objective interest in opposing national-democratic revolution. The national capitalists, the middle and poor peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the working class have an objective interest in supporting it.

Let me get this straight. The comprador capitalist class opposes national-democratic revolution, but the national capitalists have an interest in supporting it?

This is Stalinism, i.e. Menshevism. Tell me, comrade, how you separate the comprador capitalist class from the national capitalist class.

I don't see what's your problem, except the "Stalinism" part. Read below:

"12. THE CAPITALIST CLASS IN A COLONIAL-TYPE COUNTRY CONSISTS OF TWO SECTIONS. WHAT ARE THEY?

Firstly, the comprador capitalists (involved particularly in finance and commerce) who are dependent upon the dominating foreign power and have an objective interest in supporting it; and secondly, the national capitalists (particularly those involved in industry) whose interests and advancement are frustrated by the dominating foreign power and who therefore have an objective interest in ending foreign domination."

From this it's clear that it's not mine or anyone's mission to create such division, because this division objectively exists in colonial-type countries. Or does all of the capitalist class in these countries enjoy from the imperialist domination? That's not true. We've seen examples where the national bourgeoisie of many countries have took up the struggle for national liberation and against imperialism, while the other section has sided with the imperialists. This is an objective fact. But the job of the communists is participate in the national liberation struggle and strive to win leadership to the proletariat from the national bourgeoisie (which is tends to leave the national-democratic revolution more or less uncompleted and is known to be unreliable in the struggle for national sovereignty once it has taken power).

[Sandino]

Firstly, the comprador capitalists (involved particularly in finance and commerce) who are dependent upon the dominating foreign power and have an objective interest in supporting it; and secondly, the national capitalists (particularly those involved in industry) whose interests and advancement are frustrated by the dominating foreign power and who therefore have an objective interest in ending foreign domination."

This division is mythical. None of the bourgeoisies in backward countries are independent of the imperialist powers, but all depend for their existence, in some way or another, on imperialism. Look at Venezuela, for example, where the bourgeoisie is united in opposition to the petty-bourgeois Hugo Chavez and his proletarian/peasant base. There is no "national bourgeoisie" opposing the "comprador bourgeoisie." Class interests are determined by the relations of property in the means of production, not nationalism. Nationalism is used to maintain the rule of capital, but you can't split up a class into "national" and "comprador."

This division was used by the Stalinists as a cover for subordinating liberation movements to their "own" bourgeoisies. This contrasted with the Marxist position as exemplified by people like Liebknecht, who proclaimed, "The main enemy is at home!"

The Stalinist revisionists stood Marxism on its head by proclaiming that the certain elements of the bourgeoisie, the ever-elusive "progressive" wing, can play some progressive role. This is a revision of Marxism-Leninism, for it proclaims that the main struggle is one between "progressives" and "reactionaries," and not between classes.

This revisionism led the Stalinists back into the stagist theory of revolution, applied to both the backward countries and the advanced capitalist states. But, the stages don't apply to countries with combined and uneven development, because the world is already ruled by imperialism. The stages from feudalism to capitalism to socialism only apply to those states that have already gone through a bourgeois-democratic revolution. The backward states will not be able to go through a bourgeois-democratic revolution, due to their dependence on foreign capital, but the proletariat, supported by the peasantry, must pass directly to the socialist stage.

History has shown repeatedly that the stagist theory is wrong for backward states. Every time the proletariat has been subordinated to some "progressive" bourgeoisie, the result has been disaster, such as in the mass slaughter of tens of thousands of workers by the "progressive" Kuomintang, or the military coup against the "progressive" Kassim in Iraq when the CIA stooge Saddam Hussein was installed in power. More recently, the workers of South Africa were subordinated to a petty-bourgeois front group (the ANC), instead of attempting to sieze power. The result was that, while apartheid was overthrown in principle, it remains in practice.

You Stalinists should try to learn from history.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The contrary is the case. After the death of Lenin, the Stalinist faction drifted more and more toward Menshevism, adopting the "stagist" theory of revolution, and repudiating the Leninist-Trotskyist theories on socialist revolution.

That's incorrect. Menshevists based their theory of revolutionary process on a necessity of a long-lasting bourgeois-democratic government, preceding the proletarian revolution. Contrary to this, the 'Popular Front' principle was enacted merely as a temporary tactic with immediate, as opposed to long-term goals.

This is seen clearly in their actions, despite whatever lies they told. For instance, in 1926, the Stalinists instructed the Chinese Communist Party to enter the Kuomintang, asserting that the "progressive" bourgeois forces in China could lead a revolution. That would be roughly equivalent to the Bolsheviks entering the Cadet party in 1917.

I wonder; can you even begin to equal, even if only on the most superficial basis, the social, political, and cultural development of the early 20th century Russia to that of 20th century feudal China?

This happened repeatedly. In 1936, the Stalinists liquidated the Communists in Spain who would not enter into a "popular front" with the bourgeois government in Madrid, leading to Franco's victory.

The foolishly undisciplined behaviour that consequently undermined the overall fighting efficiency of the Republican government, hence leading to the final victory of Spanish fascism, makes justified every ounce of punishment these so-called “communists” received.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

This division was used by the Stalinists as a cover for subordinating liberation movements to their "own" bourgeoisies. This contrasted with the Marxist position as exemplified by people like Liebknecht, who proclaimed, "The main enemy is at home!"

Interestingly, Stalin has actually, and quite rightly, been criticized for adopting the Liebknecht proclamation. Please read.

"The theoretical strategic consequences which Stalin drew from the [Ribbentrop-Molotov] pact were fatal to the whole revolutionary workers' movement. The war between Hitler Germany and the European powers was declared an imperialist war, like the first World War. This meant that the strategic formulas of Lenin, correct in their time ("the real enemy is in your own country," "transformation of imperialist war into civil war," etc.) had to remain in force unchanged for countries which wanted and had to defend themselves against Hitlerite fascism."

- G. Lukacs, Reflections on the Cult of Stalin

[Ixa]

Trots don't understand...that socialism in one country is not anti-internationalist...and in no way prevents or inhibits a world-wide proletariat revolution.

They don't understand circumstances and stages...

They don't understand that socialism in one country was a necessary reality for the Russian circumstances...nor do they understand that it is only temporary...and is in fact necessary for a bases to launch off an international revolution.

The fact remains however...that by the 1950s half the world was in communist revolution...so the validity of socialism in one country has already been proven by history.

Let the Trots battle it out in their armchair revolutions whether it happens or not...thats what Trots are best at...hitting walls with their heads...History has already proven its validity...

I am all agreement.

[Sandino]

Interestingly, Stalin has actually, and quite rightly, been criticized for adopting the Liebknecht proclamation. Please read.

Stalinism was not characterized by a consistent position, but rather a series of incredible zig-zags from class collaboration to ultra-left adventurism. For instance, after instructing the Chinese CP to enter the Guomindang, which led to the slaughter of tens of thousands of workers at the hands of the "progressive" Guomindang, the Stalinists shifted to a position of ultra-leftism, trying to out-Trotsky Trotsky, who had furiously opposed the entry.

The problem was that the Stalinists were driven not by a principled revolutionary doctrine, but by the need to strenghten their own position.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Stalinism was not characterized by a consistent position [...]

In so far as this is seen in the light of Stalin's weakness as an intellectual, you're quite right. But qualitatively, such contradiction is incomparable to, and thus unconcerned with the historical backing you just ascribed to it.

The problem was that the Stalinists were driven not by a principled revolutionary doctrine, but by the need to strenghten their own position.

The dynamics of the Soviet and 'Communist Party' structure and system could not have allowed that to be a fact. Stalinism, even according to Trotskyites, is a conscious political tendency, and as such, is incompatible with political indecisiveness/vacillations.

[Sandino]

The dynamics of the Soviet and 'Communist Party' structure and system could not have allowed that to be a fact. Stalinism, even according to Trotskyites, is a conscious political tendency, and as such, is incompatible with political indecisiveness/vacillations.

Of course it is. In fact, it flows logically from the consciousness of the Stalinist faction. Being motivated by their own personal power, they had to constantly shift their position with regard to policies within and without the soviet state.

Stalinism is not a revolutionary Marxist tendency. It is a tendency toward the raising to power of a privileged caste. All other considerations are secondary. The zig-zags in the Stalinist policies are explained by the fact that they were a parasitical excresence resting on proletarian property forms. So, they were forced, at times, to act in the interests of the workers, such is in the collectivization of the 1930's, or the intervention in Afghanistan. But, whenever possible, they attempted to raise themselves above the workers.

It was only the decades of Stalinist repression that was able to demoralize the proletariat to the point where they did not even fight to defend their own state in 1992.