Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

World revolution or Socialism in one country(Options added)

POST REPLY

.

Trotsky's World revolution
8
28%
Stalin's Socialism in one state.
10
34%
Mixed
8
28%
Other
3
10%
 
Total votes : 29
Soviet cogitations: 91
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2011, 09:04
Pioneer
Post 10 Jun 2012, 07:24
Which do you support more?
Last edited by moonjosh on 10 Jun 2012, 12:35, edited 3 times in total.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 10 Jun 2012, 08:54
Both. Stalin said, IIRC, that "SiOC" is the neccessary precursor to the world revolution.
:/
Good thread though
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 57
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Oct 2009, 09:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 10 Jun 2012, 10:11
We need "an other" option.

It depends, "socialism in one state" never meant that, there will be no "world revolution" or the revolution will/shall stop at the said country only.
It just means compromising, as Lenin said : "one step back" for "two step forward".
Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division; and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts.
Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 10 Jun 2012, 11:03
Do you mean in the context of the Early Soviet Union? Beacuse in that case, I'd go with Socialism in one country.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 10 Jun 2012, 11:49
Quote:
Beacuse in that case, I'd go with Socialism in one country.

Why?
Sorry for the one-liner.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 10 Jun 2012, 20:13
No communist, if presented with the chance for world revolution, would turn such a thing down for only victory in one country. That would run counter to our entire worldview.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 11 Jun 2012, 02:14
Dagoth Ur wrote:
No communist, if presented with the chance for world revolution, would turn such a thing down for only victory in one country. That would run counter to our entire worldview.
^This.

Fellow Comrade wrote:
Do you mean in the context of the Early Soviet Union?
Yes exactly.. do we mean then or now?
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 139
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2010, 21:39
Pioneer
Post 15 Jun 2012, 15:02
I voted for "socialism in one country".

The question is not: Should the world revolution take place or not? The question is: What are we going to do if this does not happen in the near future? Stalin said that we can do it in one country as well, at least as long as the world revolution does not take place; according to Stalin, the world revolution could be organised step by step, from country to country. However, Trotsky said that this was not possible, that the socialist revolution depended on the world revolution. But what should we do if the world revolution does not take place? Either we could try to spread the socialist revolution by fire and sword (what would lead to the defeat of socialism), or we simply had to give up. Either this or that way, making socialism dependant on the world revolution would lead to the defeat of the socialist revolution.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1655
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Jul 2011, 09:57
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 15 Jun 2012, 22:40
One country, obviously.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3711
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2006, 04:49
Ideology: Juche
Old Bolshevik
Post 15 Jun 2012, 22:53
Mixed: I think that Stalin's Socialism in one state was the correct way, but I also advocate giving aid to any Communist or Anti-Imperialist movement.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 16 Jun 2012, 01:52
Oncle Joe said that you could obtain the complete victory of socialism in one country, but not its final victory. It means that, even if you build a strong sociakist country, as long as capitalism survives in other parts of the world, you won't be safe. Therefore, you need worldwide revolution. I should vote mixed, because it was Stalin's line. However, the author of this poll thought that Stalin's line was against worldwide revolution. frag it! I will vote for Stalin anyway ! And frag this automatic 1984 censorship on SE which does not allow drunk people to write their beloved words !

Yes, well, still please refrain from attempting to circumvent it. -RD
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 16 Jun 2012, 02:29
I love how this has turned into yet another Stalin vs. Trotsky thread... where the Stalinists feel compelled to vote for SIOC lest someone make the mistake of thinking they actually supported Trotsky's line.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 16 Jun 2012, 15:31
"Socialism in one country" was never a political decision. SIOC isn't "Stalin's line" or anything, it just happened because the revolution in Europe did not happen, due to reasons entirely outside the Soviet Russian government's control. Then, when socialism in one country had become an objective truth, Stalin was more or less forced to find a way to productively deal with that situation. Proclaiming SIOC wasn't a move based on any kind on theory, it was just a description of the status quo.

What Trotsky criticizes about this is that socialism would never be able to overtake the capitalist economy if it's confined to one country (or a couple of them) with the entire global imperialist economy fighting against them. Since socialism is supposed to be a higher socioeconomic formation than capitalism (and therefore, necessarily, on a higher level of production), what we're left with is an absurd caricature of socialism.

He was completely right.

Voted for world revolution. Even though I've got to say that socialism in one continent seems somewhat more realistic.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 16 Jun 2012, 15:44
Quote:
What Trotsky criticizes about this is that socialism would never be able to overtake the capitalist economy if it's confined to one country (or a couple of them) with the entire global imperialist economy fighting against them.

I think that the issue wasn't "overtaking the whole world", but first of all building a powerful economy to ensure the country's safety against intervention and so on.

Relevant:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... /01/18.htm

Quote:
We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.

But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.

But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved.

More than that : the second problem cannot be solved in the way that we solved the first problem, i.e., solely by the efforts of our country.

The second problem can be solved only by combining the serious efforts of the international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of the whole of our Soviet people.


In Stalin's time they only spoke of reaching and overtaking the most powerful capitalist country of that time ( the US of course ), which was not only an objective neccessity but something that the USSR came close to achieving. In 1940 it was the world's second economy.

Quote:
Since socialism is supposed to be a higher socioeconomic formation than capitalism (and therefore, necessarily, on a higher level of production), what we're left with is an absurd caricature of socialism.

What exactly does that mean in terms of how much iron, coal, electricity and so on is produced? How can you have a "higher level of production" in a country that industrialized in 10 years and whose people were only learning how to live in a modern society?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5148
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 16 Jun 2012, 19:43
Voted world revolution, socialism is impossible in one country.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 16 Jun 2012, 19:46
And yet Lenin clearly says otherwise:

Quote:
A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism—about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.

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. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... aug/23.htm
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 16 Jun 2012, 20:29
Quote:
The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism.


Yeah, that's the "democratic dictatorship" bullshit which he later corrected in State and Revolution, when he adopted the position of permanent revolution. Stalin and Kamenev on the other hand never understood the significance of this error, which is why they consistently argued against the seizure of power in 1917: The "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" was to fulfill the objectives of the bourgeois revolution. What they didn't understand (and what Lenin didn't understand either, back in 1915), is that such a slogan is meaningless unless you clarify which class takes the leadership in such a constellation, unless you clarify that this class is the proletariat, and that therefore the dictatorship of the proletariat is the political organization of the fulfillment of the goals of the bourgeois revolution.

Quote:
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 ... A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.


Compare this to Stalin, who never dared to "interfere" in the "internal matters" of other countries!
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 16 Jun 2012, 20:57
Quote:
Yeah, that's the "democratic dictatorship" bullshit which he later corrected in State and Revolution, when he adopted the position of permanent revolution.

Could you quote the relevant part?

Quote:
The "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" was to fulfill the objectives of the bourgeois revolution. What they didn't understand (and what Lenin didn't understand either, back in 1915), is that such a slogan is meaningless unless you clarify which class takes the leadership in such a constellation, unless you clarify that this class is the proletariat, and that therefore the dictatorship of the proletariat is the political organization of the fulfillment of the goals of the bourgeois revolution.

Yes, Lenin in late 1918 writes that our revolution is a bourgeois revolution so long as we march with the peasantry as a whole. This has been as clear as clear can be to us; we have said it hundreds and thousands of times since 1905, and we have never attempted to skip this necessary stage of the historical process or abolish it by decrees. . . . But in 1917, beginning with April, long before the October Revolution, before we seized* power, we publicly declared and explained to the people: the revolution cannot now stop at this stage, for the country has gone forward, capitalism has advanced, ruin has reached unprecedented dimensions, which (whether one likes it or not) will demand steps forward, to socialism; for there is no other way of advancing, of saving the country, which is racked by war, and of alleviating the sufferings of the toilers and exploited. Things turned out just as we said they would. The course taken by the revolution confirmed the correctness of our reasoning. First, with the ‘whole’ of the peasantry against the monarchy, against the landlords, against the medieval regime (and to that extent the revolution remains bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic). Then, with the poor peasantry, with the semi-proletarians, with all the exploited, against capitalism, including the rural rich, the kulaks, the profiteers,* and to that extent the revolution becomes a socialist one.

Stalin often, from what i know, acknowledges this as a proper line.

Quote:
Compare this to Stalin, who never dared to "interfere" in the "internal matters" of other countries!

Are you referring to that interview with Emil Ludwig? You have to look at this in the context, which is an interview with a Western Liberal.


As for "socialism in one country" being impossible, here's what Lenin said in 1923:

Quote:
As a matter of fact, the political power of the Soviet over all large-scale means of production, the power in the state in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat, etc, …is not this all that is necessary in order from the co-operatives – from the co-operatives alone, which we formerly treated as huckstering, and which, from a certain aspect, we have the right to treat as such now, under the new economic policy – is not this all that is necessary in order to build a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist society but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building.”
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5148
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 16 Jun 2012, 21:08
But russia was not even one of these capitalist countries, it was supposed tco be a signal for revolution in them, due to its unique link in the chain of imperialism. Everything depended on the success of revolution in places like germany, not russia where the vast majority of people were illiterate peasants.

Lenin never spoke of actually building socialism in russia, he even spoke against it in his april theses. He wanted state capitalism similar to what existed in germany, as that would industrialize and electrify the country.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 16 Jun 2012, 21:18
Lenin:

Quote:
I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.”


Quote:
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.


Quote:
When we are told that the victory of socialism is possible only on a world scale, we regard this merely as an attempt, a particularly hopeless attempt, on the part of the bourgeoisie and its voluntary and involuntary supporters to distort the irrefutable truth. The ‘final’ victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible.”
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron