I rarely post about marxist theory, especially as of late, but after passing through several blogs where the idea of 'Socialism in One Country' has been debated, I'd like to devote this entry to what it means.
Background Info...
It is October 1917 and the bolsheviks, through revolts by various soviets (worker councils), have seized power and establish the world's first socialist state. Now it is March 1921 and the New Economic Policy is passed through the course of the 10th Soviet Congress. The NEP would also usher in the "War Communism" policies intended to end the armed civil war in the Soviet Union. The NEP would essentially, restore State Capitalism in the USSR. The descision was not easy to come by, and after very slow economic progress, and Lenin's death; the bolshevik party would split on what to do next. By the end of 1924, after the utter failure of Communist Revolutions in the industrialized parts of Europe (ie Germany) from 1917 until 1924, Stalin and later Bakhurin decided that industrialization of the Soviet Union was paramount and that the Soviet Union must concentrate on building socialism in one country.
the Definition
Socialism in One Country was not a call for the USSR to be Republican Socialist, but rather, a bold plan to industrialize the Soviet Union by giving the power to people. This was the opposite of what advocates of the "permanent revolution" were calling for; continuation of State Capitalism until global revolution occurs, despite the fact that Lenin only intended the NEP to be an emergency measure. By no means, was socialism in one country, a "Nationalist" plan. Anyone else who had been elected to General Sectretary of the Party, would have to concentrate on a similiar plan because the Soviet Union was, at that time, a backwards agarian based economy with little industry. Before the Soviet Union could provide aid and arms to other revolutions it had to attain the basic infarstructure to do so. After the Soviet Union had been industrialized, it would aid revolutions and spread socialism as evident in how the Soviet Union provided aid and arms to Chinese Communist Party after WWII and then later provided engineers and monetary aid in the first five year plan.
China would be in a similiar position. After Kruschev took control of the CPSU through basically, a revisionist coup; China was left to stand alone as the last power that was advancing towards communism. Thus it was left with no choice but to industrialize immediatley before aiding other revolutions, which it would (Vietnam, North Korea). Today, Maoists like myself believe that socialism in one country can be achieved and are major internationalists (the two major Maoist groups are the Maoist Internationalist Movement and the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement). Essentially, we don't take the defeatist approach that supporters of the permanent revolution take; every communist revolution should revert to state-capitalism until worldwide revolution. We think that every communist revolution should both, take a great leap towards socialism as well as try to aid other revolutions. Feel free to disagree. I look forward to comments and disagreement from Dave, RE, and others who I have talked to about this topic.
Background Info...
It is October 1917 and the bolsheviks, through revolts by various soviets (worker councils), have seized power and establish the world's first socialist state. Now it is March 1921 and the New Economic Policy is passed through the course of the 10th Soviet Congress. The NEP would also usher in the "War Communism" policies intended to end the armed civil war in the Soviet Union. The NEP would essentially, restore State Capitalism in the USSR. The descision was not easy to come by, and after very slow economic progress, and Lenin's death; the bolshevik party would split on what to do next. By the end of 1924, after the utter failure of Communist Revolutions in the industrialized parts of Europe (ie Germany) from 1917 until 1924, Stalin and later Bakhurin decided that industrialization of the Soviet Union was paramount and that the Soviet Union must concentrate on building socialism in one country.
the Definition
Socialism in One Country was not a call for the USSR to be Republican Socialist, but rather, a bold plan to industrialize the Soviet Union by giving the power to people. This was the opposite of what advocates of the "permanent revolution" were calling for; continuation of State Capitalism until global revolution occurs, despite the fact that Lenin only intended the NEP to be an emergency measure. By no means, was socialism in one country, a "Nationalist" plan. Anyone else who had been elected to General Sectretary of the Party, would have to concentrate on a similiar plan because the Soviet Union was, at that time, a backwards agarian based economy with little industry. Before the Soviet Union could provide aid and arms to other revolutions it had to attain the basic infarstructure to do so. After the Soviet Union had been industrialized, it would aid revolutions and spread socialism as evident in how the Soviet Union provided aid and arms to Chinese Communist Party after WWII and then later provided engineers and monetary aid in the first five year plan.
China would be in a similiar position. After Kruschev took control of the CPSU through basically, a revisionist coup; China was left to stand alone as the last power that was advancing towards communism. Thus it was left with no choice but to industrialize immediatley before aiding other revolutions, which it would (Vietnam, North Korea). Today, Maoists like myself believe that socialism in one country can be achieved and are major internationalists (the two major Maoist groups are the Maoist Internationalist Movement and the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement). Essentially, we don't take the defeatist approach that supporters of the permanent revolution take; every communist revolution should revert to state-capitalism until worldwide revolution. We think that every communist revolution should both, take a great leap towards socialism as well as try to aid other revolutions. Feel free to disagree. I look forward to comments and disagreement from Dave, RE, and others who I have talked to about this topic.
OMG LH you took so much pain in theorising this bullshit just to justify monstrous crimes of one individual in the name of socialism.
Number one Stalin did not come up with this Shit originally. It was brought up much earlier by Bukharin.Later it was attributed to Stalin.
In practice Stalin's "theory" of socialism in one country** just meant opposition to socialism in other countries.Just follow the acts of Comintern after 1930. It is the evidence for it.It was used by Stalin as a bogeyman to make deal with Imperialist governments.First he ordered KPD to take an Ultraleft stance and thus paved the way to Hitler.And then to oppose fascists he directed CPs to form Popular Fronts by compromising much with liberal parties.And when imperialists still didn't trust him he made a deal with Hitler.And when in the beginning of WW2 Comintern vehemently condemned the Allies fro "Launching the War against Hitler" and when Hitler invaded Soviet Union again Stalin and his Comintern lackeys sucked cock of Imperialists.Stalin had to suck so much that he disbanded Comintern to gain trust of Roosevelt(Of course everything was ruined by Truman)
And this whole Industrialisation of USSR was originally an idea of Trotsky who proposed it during the fall of 1920 after the civil war is over(In Russia technically speaking). Once he deposed Trotsky successfully Stalin carried out Trotsky's idea in the name of his own.
And you seem to confuse Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution with the theory of world wide workers revolution.Permanent revolution essentially means in Semi-Feudal and Backward countries(Like Russia that day)the bourgeoisie is too weak and unwilling to carry out its task of democratic revolution so it is the task of workers to carry it out making the revolution "PERMANENT".
Stalin whatever he may claim is not a Socialist(His actions at least were not actions of a socialist). As i have said before Both Mao and Stalin were Napoleans of Socialism.They defeated the Ultimate purpose of the revolutions.
** Mao did the same to Naxalites. During the 1971 Bangladeshi liberation war(between India and Mukthi Bahini on one side and Pakistan on the other) he asked the CPI(ML) to support Pakistan which at that time is a Political suicide. Charu Majumdar opposed this proposition but CPI(ML) went on to carry out Mao's orders after expelling him.The result Maoists never regained the Popular sympathy which they lost during that time.
g.ram
OMG LH you took so much pain in theorising this bullshit just to justify monstrous crimes of one individual in the name of socialism.
No I'm actually not justifying anything, I'm pointing out why it came about and what it means. I was talking to someone who claimed Stalin was a National Socialist for his theory of Socialism in One Country so I thought I'd clarify what it really means. Also, I spent maybe 15 to 20 minutes on this so calm down.
Number one Stalin did not come up with this Shit originally. It was brought up much earlier by Bukharin.Later it was attributed to Stalin.
Wrong. Stalin came up with it in 1924 after every revolution in the west had failed and War Communism and the NEP didn't work well. From Wikipedia:
"Socialism in One Country was a thesis put forward by Joseph Stalin in 1924 and further supported by Nikolai Bukharin that given the catastrophic failures of all communist revolutions in Europe from 1917-1921 except their own, rather than relying on the idea that an underdeveloped and agrarian country like Russia would be able to build socialism with help from successful revolutionary governments in the more industrialized parts of Europe, the Soviet Union should begin to strengthen itself internally."
and
"In the first edition of the book Osnovy Leninizma (Foundations of Leninism, 1924), Stalin was still a follower of Lenin's idea that revolution in one country is insufficient. But by the end of that year, in the second edition of the book, his position started to turn around. "...proletariat can and must build the socialist society in one country". In April 1925 Bukharin elaborated the issue in his brochure Can We Build Socialism in One Country in the Absence of the Victory of the West-European Proletariat? "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_one_country
In practice Stalin's "theory" of socialism in one country** just meant opposition to socialism in other countries.Just follow the acts of Comintern after 1930. It is the evidence for it.It was used by Stalin as a bogeyman to make deal with Imperialist governments.First he ordered KPD to take an Ultraleft stance and thus paved the way to Hitler.And then to oppose fascists he directed CPs to form Popular Fronts by compromising much with liberal parties.And when imperialists still didn't trust him he made a deal with Hitler.And when in the beginning of WW2 Comintern vehemently condemned the Allies fro "Launching the War against Hitler" and when Hitler invaded Soviet Union again Stalin and his Comintern lackeys sucked cock of Imperialists.Stalin had to suck so much that he disbanded Comintern to gain trust of Roosevelt(Of course everything was ruined by Truman)
No that's nonsense. Stalin did what anybody with half a brain would do, attempt to ally with the enemy of your enemy. Think about what the cost of WWI had been for Russia in both lives and infarstructure. The Soviet Union was semi-industrialized at that time and the last thing it wanted was to take on the Nazis by itself thus destroying all progress made.
And this whole Industrialisation of USSR was originally an idea of Trotsky who proposed it during the fall of 1920 after the civil war is over(In Russia technically speaking). Once he deposed Trotsky successfully Stalin carried out Trotsky's idea in the name of his own.
No not really. Trotsky just wanted to turn the USSR into a large gulag by "militarizing" labor and instituting "strict labor discipline". He and Lenin split on that and it sorta ended when Lenin called him a bitch and told him to stfu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotsky#1920
Your use of the term 'state capitalism' was where the first red flag went up (not the socialist kind). State capitalism is an economic instance in which the state utilizes corporations to promote and benefit the government. State capitalism is almost exclusively a fascist ideal. I like to call it 'selective capitalism', seeing only corporations which benefit the government are allowed to remain open in a relatively undisturbed, free market.
Trotsky didn't promote this by any means. What he did promote was comparable to democratic socialism, in that a democratically-controlled government provides the basic needs of the people.
However, as you pointed out Trotsky believed this would only be necessary so long as the permanent revolution was being undertaken, after which the world would like in an internationalist communist society.
This is where I take issue with Trotsky, in that I don't believe in the final step (communism).
...What was I talking about again?
I replied to your post on my blog (On Che) regarding the topic of socialism in one country. The Soviet Union's "states" were autonomous in name only. The truth is that none of those states could take a piss without the Kremlin's approval. After all, Stalin executed masses of people in Ukraine for their land; I wonder if they had the opportunity to vote on that...
And I will give you Maoists as being internationalist, although as I pointed out Mao's interests in encouraging revolution in North Korea and Vietnam were undertaken to oppose U.S. imperialism rather than because he identified with the international community.
I think it's pretty indicative of the true nature of Maoism when we look at what the three "Maoist" states have become...
a) China is one of the biggest players in the world market. Capitalism has re=-emerged after an era of stifled rights and living in fear.
b) Vietnam is also becoming more and more capitalist, not to mention submissive to U.S. hegemony.
c) North Korea is one of the worst terror states in the world and denies their people adequate food and rights.
Maybe Trotskyist groups have never had a revolution themselves but I'm willing to wait so long as their revolution doesn't turn out anything like Mao's. Shit, based on the results, anything but Mao.
Your use of the term 'state capitalism' was where the first red flag went up (not the socialist kind). State capitalism is an economic instance in which the state utilizes corporations to promote and benefit the government. State capitalism is almost exclusively a fascist ideal. I like to call it 'selective capitalism', seeing only corporations which benefit the government are allowed to remain open in a relatively undisturbed, free market.
State Capitalism CAN be purely a economic statement (ie China post Mao) but when Maoists like myself use it, it usually means that a country has undergone a wave of counterrevolution which has paved the road to capitalism as opposed to communism. In the USSR, this took the form of the Krushchev revisionist coup, while in North Korea, this took the form of basically fuedal repression.
Trotsky didn't promote this by any means. What he did promote was comparable to democratic socialism, in that a democratically-controlled government provides the basic needs of the people.
Have you heard of Khronsdadt? Trotsky took the position that he thought would be the most beneficial.
This is where I take issue with Trotsky, in that I don't believe in the final step (communism).
That's because marxists view socialism as purely a transition to communism and that as long as there is a state, there will be repression of classes.
a) China is one of the biggest players in the world market. Capitalism has re=-emerged after an era of stifled rights and living in fear.
China has become capitalist because their was a coup in the party. Stifled rights and living in fear? The cultural revolution was the first and last time Chinese People would be encouraged to critiscize their government.
Also, Vietnam and North Korea aren't and never were. They just recieved aid in their revolutions.
Whoa! I had completely forgot about Kronstadt... Although Trotsky was under political pressure at the time, especially since the rebellion took place just a few years after the fledgling revolution began, it's hard to excuse him on that. Clearly the sailors were in the right... Hm...
As for the cultural revolution, you were granted freedom of speech and press... So long as you weren't labeled "counter-revolutionary" by the government.
See, I think this is where you and I digress the most on socialism is that I don't view counter-revolutionaries as a threat after the revolution. After all, if the bourgeois is in the minority and socialism is all it's cracked up to be, why would anyone pay the counter-revolutionaries any credence? As a democratic socialist, I believe that everyone, even reactionaries should be granted freedom of speech. Mao definitely didn't.
Also, speaking out about the government wasn't encouraged. Get your facts right. People were encouraged to speak out against past governmental officials, but when it came to speaking out against the revolution itself (mentioned before) or the current government, you could expect imprisonment at the least. Case in point, the Democracy Wall which was closed down in 1979 because people were speaking out against communism itself. Freedom of speech? I get more of that in capitalist America!
I'm definitely considering writing a post on Communist China and Mao Zedong. Look for it in the near future. I anticipate the ensuing debate.
No well that's not really what I think. I think that dissent and critiscism should be encouraged along with mass participation of the government. This is the Mass Line, and it is a key tenet of Maoism. I suggest massline.info for more information on that. I also am an advocate of Democratic Centralism: Freedom of critiscism, unity of action. I just believe that as a marxist, we should make critical and unbias analysis of past socialist states while considering their material conditions.
The Democracy wall had nothing to do with the cultural revolution. It appeared after and was closed town by the revisionists because there was too much anti-Deng, pro-Maoist critiscism going up on it.
During the Cultural Revolution, People were told to "Bombard the Headquarters". Those were Mao's own words to the students and workers in the red guards on the eve of the CR. He told them essentially, to completely critiscize the bourgieousie traditions left over from Chiang Kai-Shek's regime in every place, including the Party Headquarters.
Wait, so do you concur that China ran completely askew after the Cultural Revolution, or even later when Mao died in 1976? That's certainly a step in the right direction, although I still hold that the Cultural Revolution was ultimately a negative force for the people of China.
However, I will admit that you have convinced me that Chiang Kai-shek was ultimately a worse leader than Mao.
Cheers!
Wait, so do you concur that China ran completely askew after the Cultural Revolution, or even later when Mao died in 1976? That's certainly a step in the right direction, although I still hold that the Cultural Revolution was ultimately a negative force for the people of China.
yeah. the cultural revolution ended in 1976 when Mao died and Deng Xioping came into power and convicted the Gang of Four. Deng Xioping was a reactionary and a revisionist who opened up the Chinese market to companies like Nike and Wal-Mart as well as bascially set the stage for capitalism. It was essentially a coup.
However, I will admit that you have convinced me that Chiang Kai-shek was ultimately a worse leader than Mao.
Cheers!
cheers to you aswell Dave for a good debate and I wishe you a happy new year.
We have to staunchly defend the dicatatorship of the proletraiat and therefore refute New Left and Trotsykite trends.REmember that Trotskyitse did not even support Vietnam's struggle aginst America.During the Great Patriotic War Trotsky called for the overhrow f Socilaist U.S S.R which is a contradiction and against the protection of Socialism.
Stalinmade groos errors but saved the First Socialist State by winning the World WAr.Following Trotskism the Chinsese Revolution would have failed as the concept of New Democracy would not arise .(like calling for Socialist Revolutioon in India and Latin America)Stain suprssed democari centralism but we must remeber the conditin sto wich the U.S.S R was subjected to in that era.
Comrade Mao too made errors but the Cultural revolution was ahitoric movement for the advance of Socilaism.To defend Socilaim we have to tresolutely defend the teachings of Marx -Lenin -Stalin and Mao.
Unfortunatey the REvolutionary Internationlitst Movement prematurely calls for aCommunsit International ignoring the hitory of the Comintern(dissolution in 1943.The C.C.P NEVER CALLED FOR EVEN IN THE 19560'S)The R.C.P erroneosuly criticsises Mao's International line claiming he gave graeter emphasis on combating the Soviet Union than U.S A,failing to undersatnd China's then tactical line.
We have to refute all wrong trends like multi-party system Etc.The most relevant point however is for the allowing of dissent within a Socialist Society to further evelp the dictaorship of the proletariat and refute the personality cult which took place in the Mao era.
Friendly note, MIM is not an organization. They do not have more than five members, it is totally unreliable.
The RIM includes several political parties, some of which are or have engaged in armed struggle.
There are other major Maoist forces, particularly in the Philippines, Turkey and India.
MIM is not "major" in any way except the internet addiction of one verbose person.