Socialism in one country: why Stalin abandoned Marxism
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 08. 2024
- In a few short years, the Communist International went from being a beacon of internationalism and world revolution to a tool for the narrow, national interests of the Soviet bureaucracy. How and why did this happen?
In this talk, Jack Tye Wilson provides a Marxist response to Stalin's "theory" of 'socialism in one country', and outlines the disastrous consequences of the Comintern's abandonment of internationalism.
🌐 Check out Socialist Appeal's website for theory, news, and analysis: socialist.net/
✊ Join the fight for revolution with the International Marxist Tendency: socialist.net/join
📰 Subscribe to the Socialist Appeal newspaper: socialist.net/subscribe
🚩 Subscribe to the Revolution Scotland newspaper: revolution.scot/subscribe
💸 Support the fight for revolution by making a donation: socialist.net/donate
📚 Head to Wellred Books for titles covering Stalinism, the USSR, and more: wellredbooks.c...
Not that I particularly like Stalin, but using his interview to a capitalist journalist, did you think he would say "yes we are planning revolution, fear us"? At the time USSR was trying to repair it's relations with other countries, while building their industries.
Also at the same time Stalin was assisting chinese communists in their revolution. So no, he didn't completely abandon global revolution.
Stalin didn't abandon world revolution!!!!
The chinese revolution which crucially failed in 27 because of Stage Theory as advocated then by Stalin and Bukharin, something taken straight from the Mensheviks?
And USSR spent voluntaries to help communist in Spain to fight against fascism in spain civil war
We saw how well that went in 1927... Helping other nations communists is kinda pointless if your theory is so inconsistent and wrong that it keeps on getting more communists killed than helping. And instead of recognising their mistakes, they doubled down, acting like everyones better on their own and dissolving the comintern to please the allies. Not to mention the times they actively used the fucken comintern to hold back foreign working class movements to fruitlessly get into the good graces of westetn capitalist states..
Socialism can exist in one country or several or the world.
If socialism can't exist in one country, what do you have in that country? Capitalism. That's why Trotsky's line is reformist.
@@zekesmith4274 Another clown who had Marxism explained to him by Hakim videos and is now completely confused. Trotsky never claimed that socialism cannot exist in a country. Rather, he declared that building socialism in one country alone instead of continuing to work for world revolution is a naive opportunist illusion. He declared, following Lenin, that the isolation resulting from such pseudo-Marxism called "Socialism in one country" must inevitably lead to more isolation, degneration and the restoration of capitalism. And history has proved Lenin and Trotsky right against you revisionists.
100 years after we're now back to the same trotskists' BS again? I guess some people just never learn...
Totally agree. Trotskyism is "left" in form but "right" in essence. It's counter revolution in disguise . That's why they are cheerleaders for all the so-called colour revolutions - from Lebanon to Ukraine.
Stalin was still human, you know. Debating about theoretical events while sitting on a couch is one thing, but having to actually apply Marxist theory in practice can sometimes be entirely different. Did Stalin personally make bad calls, and were some Soviet political decisions opportunistic? Absolutely. Does that mean that "Stalin abandoned Marxism" or "the USSR was not socialist"? Of course not. In real life you have objective material constraints that limit the degree to which you can apply theory in practice. For example, trading and having pacts with the Nazis before the war, or dismantling the Comintern later, were essentially opportunistic, but for a good reason - taking a "purely Marxist" position of "not making any deals with imperialists" would've possibly resulted in the declaration war and the subsequent utter destruction of the USSR. Is it possible that, in retrospective, some of those opportunistic political steps were incorrect and unnecessary? Absolutely, but it's relatively easy to analyze and criticize them only because we're looking at them in retrospect.
In the end, to make a based opinion regarding Stalin, one should read the man's books. He did write a lot.
This is Trotskyite bunkum...
No doubt for you lot, Solidarity in Poland was positive..
And how about Libya, were you lot amongst the vile trots calling for a no fly zone as imperialist NATO saught to unseat Gadaffi ?
Don't alarm bells start to ring once you discover that you're onside with imperialism?
i wish these ideas were more widespread in today's modern socialist organizations.
If you want to help us spread these ideas, then get organised with us!
socialist.net/join
@@revolutionarycommunistsOne question please.
@@anshumanjaiswal5787 A shame they didnt respond. May I ask what your question was if you wouldnt mind?
@@ambasutori9053 Yes please..
The question is which socialism /communism is Real socialism/communism...
Stalinism
Trotskyism
Or left communism ( council communism)
@@anshumanjaiswal5787 sorry for the delay, shits been stressful.
Now, to answer your question I must first say that as a member of the IMT/RCI I am of course biased towards trotskyism/bolshevik-leninism (self-descriptor). Irregardless I will to the best of my ability try to explain the differences between the three tendencies and why i do believe Bolshevik-Leninism is superior. It will be lengthy, so beware. If youd prefer a tldr just tell me
They quoted Stalin out of context (classic trotskyist move), here is the full part of the interview which is relevant to world revolution:
"Howard : May there not be an element of danger in the genuine fear existent in what you term capitalistic countries of an intent on the part of the Soviet Union to force its political theories on other nations?
Stalin : There is no justification whatever for such fears. If you think that Soviet people want to change the face of surrounding states, and by forcible means at that, you are entirely mistaken. Of course, Soviet people would like to see the face of surrounding states changed, but that is the business of the surrounding states. I fail to see what danger the surrounding states can perceive in the ideas of the Soviet people if these states are really sitting firmly in the saddle.
Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?
Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.
Howard : You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.
Stalin : This is the product of a misunderstanding.
Howard : A tragic misunderstanding?
Stalin : No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic.
You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society.
But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated."
My comment: As you can see, Stalin is just trying to convince the imperialist powers that USSR won't interfere with them, if you read the rest of the interview, it is clear they are doing this to make the imperialist powers leave them alone.
They are all the same, shame on them
Considering Stalinist policy towards revolutionary movements what Stalin is saying is that the bureaucracy is content if there are no further revolutions. That is not Marxist.
Yes to directly intervene in a country where the working class is not revolutionary is adventurism. But there are so many other ways to support the revolutionary movement around the world that they could have engaged in. That was the whole point of the third international. An international that was first corrupted by stalinism and then disbanded to please the allies
Spoken like the counterrevolutionary turd he was
and yet, the actions of the USSR speak louder than your interpretation here. If Stalin was so uninterested in precipitating revolution in other countries, he sure went about not doing that in an interesting way
Why would Stalin reveal his plans to american journalist? This can't be used as a fact of abandonment of revolution.
Howard : What situation or condition, in your opinion, furnishes the chief war menace today?
Stalin : Capitalism.
Howard : In which specific manifestation of capitalism?
Stalin : Its imperialist, usurpatory manifestation.
You remember how the first World War arose. It arose out of the desire to re-divide the world. Today we have the same background. There are capitalist states which consider that they were cheated in the previous redistribution of spheres of influence, territories, sources of raw materials, markets, etc., and which would want another redivision that would be in their favour. Capitalism, in its imperialist phase, is a system which considers war to be a legitimate instrument for settling international disputes, a legal method in fact, if not in law.
Howard : May there not be an element of danger in the genuine fear existent in what you term capitalistic countries of an intent on the part of the Soviet Union to force its political theories on other nations?
Stalin : There is no justification whatever for such fears. If you think that Soviet people want to change the face of surrounding states, and by forcible means at that, you are entirely mistaken. Of course, Soviet people would like to see the face of surrounding states changed, but that is the business of the surrounding states. I fail to see what danger the surrounding states can perceive in the ideas of the Soviet people if these states are really sitting firmly in the saddle.
Howard : Does this, your statement, mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions for bringing about world revolution?
Stalin : We never had such plans and intentions.
Howard : You appreciate, no doubt, Mr. Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression.
Stalin : This is the product of a misunderstanding.
Howard : A tragic misunderstanding?
Stalin : No, a comical one. Or, perhaps, tragicomic.
You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society.
But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated.
Quick question, in which countries are workers not oppressed?
It's good that you provided the full context of the quotation cited at the start of this talk. However, I don't see that Stalin refutes the main point that the 'new classless society' which he refers to as then being built in the Soviet Union would be doomed not to last without socialist revolutions attaining power around the world.
The West has always chosen Facism over Communism, fearing worker solidarity.
The economic trend most worrisome is the "privatization" of social programs with Private Equity money (NHS, etc.).
Banking, infrastructure, education should be Nationalized. Corporatism focuses on maximum profit, over the well being of society.
Great comment, and I'll add that the more privatization that occurs, the more the owners need a return on their investment, which extracts an accelerating amount of wealth out of the system, from those who have to pay for what should be free or low cost to the owners. The need for profits is always accelerating, and doing so beyond the means of the "economy" to supply the owners with those profits. This is why debt is by far the largest market. It's completely artificial because it's a legal construct - all virtual (legal).
Oh so is not capitalism after all huh? It’s Facism all along…
FYI (for anyone interested) -- this talk was delivered during the summer camp of the Marxist Student Federation (held in the Peak District), on Saturday July 15, 2023.
Stalin did not abandon marxism. He was a hero and my Stalinism is not a thing. Stalin was just a Marxist Leninist. Stalin just realized that the Soviet union was way too weak to spread socialism across Europe. Stalin ended Industrialize and urbanized as well as introduced most of the aspects of socialism to the USSR there anytime when it was on a low level of economic development. He rapidly industrialized and brought the USSR to a higher level of economic development, the whole time, fearing and invasion that did come defeated that invasion and then spread socialism across Eastern Europe.
Absolute rubbish,socialism in one country was not an abandonment of internationalism,it was a policy born out of the conditions at the time,following the first world war many workers uprisings had failed the soviet union at that time during the 30s was the world's only workers state surrounded by countries hostile it and bent on its destruction,it was necessary to turn the USSR into a fortress,Stalin was a very skilled statesman and said these things in a bid to buy time for the USSR to rearm,trotskyists also overlook the USSRs steadfast support for the Spanish Republic during the Spanish civil war, you overlook that after the second world war half of Europe where under the rule of socialist governments.
www.youtube.com/@charlesworth8699 completely agree with you!
It may be true that the USSR had steadfast support for the republic, but that is also why Franco won. Because stalin insisted on a popular front, and therefore keeping the civil war inside capitalist borders, he hamstrung the working class, and effectively made their defeat inevitable. For example, the communist party broke up worker comitees, workers militas and even gave back land which agricultural workers had seized, back to their original owner. Stalin and his bureaucracy handicapped the fight against fascism. They did this everywhere in europe, and they are chiefly responsible for Hitlers coming to power, with their insane term of "social-fascism".
If you don't have socialism in one country, what do you have? Capitalism. That's why Trotsky's line is reformist.
If you have socialism in one country only, you'll have dysfunctional socialism that will eventually collapse due to its own isolation or turn into perversions of the communist idea as can be seen in North Korea today. It's not without reason that it's "workers of the world, unite!"
0:45 Right after that Stalin said: "You see, we Marxists believe that a revolution will also take place in other countries. But it will take place only when the revolutionaries in those countries think it possible, or necessary. The export of revolution is nonsense. Every country will make its own revolution if it wants to, and if it does not want to, there will be no revolution. For example, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it, and now we are building a new, classless society. But to assert that we want to make a revolution in other countries, to interfere in their lives, means saying what is untrue, and what we have never advocated."
You trotskyists never fail to amaze.
I think I generally agree with you in your critique of Stalinism. However, there is a very serious question about what to do when the world revolution fails and the proletariat fails to take power in the imperial core. So the question becomes: if not socialism in one country, then WHAT exactly instead of socialism here in Russia given that the revolution has failed to expand to Western Europe? What to do here in this country in the absence of an immediate world revolution?
The revolution is over. The bums lost.
-The Big Lebowski
@@GrantRussell705 Communism is for the moment, not long-range, like the hard drug lifestyle.
Well there were other revolutionary situations, derailed by stalinism, such as China, Britain, France. In Spain the stalinists came to play an openly counter-revolutionary role because to truth is not only was the soviet bureaucracy not interested in revolution they feared it as a potential threat to their own priviliges. Then there was the colonial question where the stalinists proved completely unreliable as they were cozying up to Britain and france. It's no accident that two countries which saw the strongest trotskyist movements was Vietnam and Sri Lanka. What was needed in the Soviet Union was a political revolution against the bureacracy.
Provide assistance, inspiration, and lessons to the world working class. The question is not so much what you should do, but what you _shouldn’t_ do. You absolutely should not turn a cold shoulder on international communist movements that reach out for help, and _certainly_ not aid the imperialists in crushing them.
@@user-bo9yp1zp5u The focused mind produces. It has no desire for the unfocused, unproductive minds of imperialism and communism.
🥰⛏️
It was an interesting talk, but I have to downvote because I just watched 40 minutes of this and the title question is never answered. We already knew that Stalin adopted the "socialism in one country" policy. I was really looking forward to a discussion of the reasons he felt he needed to do so.
Yes, indeed! This is bla...bla of the Trotskyiets!!! "Socialism in one country"was not Stalin's idea, but Lenin"s!!!!! Stalin, as a good disciple of Lenin, has just put in practice the idea and the theory proposed by Lenin!
While it may not have gotten emphasis, an argument for why he did so is in there (which viewers may take or leave as they wish): namely, that Stalin was ultimately propped up by the bureaucracy, whose power he represented; and that it was the interests of that bureaucratic class that were ultimately served by abandoning international working class revolution in favor of having 'socialism in one country.'
(26:20) Referring here to the Shanghai Massacre of 1927.
Socialism in one country originates from Lenin NOT Stalin
Report On Foreign Policy: Delivered At A Joint Meeting Of The All-Russia Central Executive Committee And The Moscow Soviet by Lenin 1918
"I know that there are, of course, wiseacres with a high opinion of themselves and even calling themselves socialists, who assert that power should not have been taken until the revolution broke out in all countries. They do not realise that in saying this they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the working classes carry out a revolution on an international scale means that everyone will remain suspended in mid-air. This is senseless."
Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity by Lenin 1914
"Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i. e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that “between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf”. In 1904-05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left “permanent revolution” theory."
The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution: I by Lenin 1916
"Thirdly, the victory of socialism in one country does not at one stroke eliminate all wars in general. On the contrary, it presupposes wars. The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be otherwise under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois. This is bound to create not only friction, but a direct attempt on the part of the bourgeoisie of other countries to crush the socialist state’s victorious proletariat. In such cases, a war on our part would be a legitimate and just war. It would be a war for socialism, for the liberation of other nations from the bourgeoisie. Engels was perfectly right when, in his letter to Kautsky of September 12, 1882, he clearly stated that it was possible for already victorious socialism to wage “defensive wars”. What he had in mind was defense of the victorious proletariat against the bourgeoisie of other countries."
None of these quotes is Lenin advocating for socialism in one country.
He is talking about the childish ''socialists'' who claim that you should just wait until revolution and socialism breaks out in all countries until you take power, and socialists who think that the world revolution means that the revolution happens all at once, everywhere and at the same time.
Because there are so many manufactured Stalinist lies about Trotskys theory of the permanent revolution and what it means (it doesn't mean any of this), you would be surprised to know that Lenins position in the first and third quote is exactly like Trotskys position.
Then you randomly threw in a Lenin-quote about Trotsky which tells nothing about Lenins position. They didn't have a good relationship at the time, and tendencies to want to work alongside the mensheviks (which trotsky mistakenly were famously in favour of) were present in the Bolshevik party ranks aswell - which is why you find so many quotes from Lenin bashing Trotsky, to prevent a crisis in the Bolshevik party. They agreed on all political aspects.
You should just read Lenin and Trotsky if you want to know their true positions on this, not do quote grabbing out of context. But if you like quotes, here are some Lenin-quotes provided by Trotsky in defence of internationalism:
''On the basis of this and two or three similar quotations is founded the condemnation pronounced against “Trotskyism” by the Seventh Plenum as having allegedly held on this “fundamental question” a position “which has nothing in common with Leninism.” Let us, therefore, pause for a moment and listen to Lenin himself.
On March 7, 1918, he said a propos of the Brest-Litovsk peace: “This is a lesson to us because the absolute truth is that without a revolution in Germany, we shall perish.” [7]
A week later he said: “World imperialism cannot live side by side with a victorious advancing social revolution.” [8]
A few weeks later, on April 23, Lenin said: “Our backwardness has thrust us forward and we will perish if we are unable to hold out until we meet with the mighty support of the insurrectionary workers of other countries.” (Our emphasis) [9]
But perhaps this was all said under the special influence of the Brest-Litovsk crisis? No ! In March 1919, Lenin again repeated: “We do not live merely in a state but in a system of states and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for any length of time is inconceivable. In the end one or the other must triumph.” [10]
A year later, on April 7, 1920, Lenin reiterates: “Capitalism, if taken on an international scale, is even now, not only in a military but also in an economic sense, stronger than the Soviet power. We must proceed from this fundamental consideration and never forget it.” [11]
On November 27, 1920, Lenin, in dealing with the question of concessions, said: “We have now passed from the arena of war to the arena of peace and we have not forgotten that war will come again. As long as capitalism and socialism remain side by side we cannot live peacefully - the one or the other will be the victor in the end. An obituary will be sung either over the death of world capitalism or the death of the Soviet Republic. At present we have only a respite in the war.” [12]
But perhaps the continued existence of the Soviet Republic impelled Lenin to “recognize his mistake” and renounce his “lack of faith in the inner force” of the October Revolution?
At the Third Congress of the Comintern in July 1921, Lenin declared in the theses on the tactics of the Communist Party of Russia: “An equilibrium has been created, which though extremely precarious and unstable, nevertheless enables the socialist republic to maintain its existence within capitalist surroundings, although of course not for any great length of time.”
Again, on July 5, 1921, Lenin stated point-blank at one of the sessions of the Congress: ‘It was clear to us that without aid from the international world revolution, a victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible. Even prior to the revolution, as well as after it, we thought that the revolution would also occur either immediately or at least very soon in other backward countries and in the more highly developed capitalist countries, otherwise we would perish. Notwithstanding this conviction, we did our utmost to preserve the Soviet system under any circumstances and at all costs, because we know that we are working not only for ourselves but also for the international revolution.” [13]
How infinitely removed are these words, so superb in their simplicity and permeated with the spirit of internationalism, from the present smug fabrications of the epigones!''
-Trotsky
Dawg we literally debunked this in your first comment, the victory of socialism as Lenin is referring here means the victory of the workers state that desires to go towards socialism, and not that it has the mode of production of socialism.
Lenin is making it clear here that a victory of socialism is referring to a victory of a workers state rather than the victory of the socialist mode of production due to them presupposing the abolition of classes, money, and withering away of the state.
But we can address each quotes point by point if you like.
In the first quotes Lenin says
"I know that there are, of course, wiseacres with a high opinion of themselves and even calling themselves socialists, who assert that power should not have been taken until the revolution broke out in all countries. They do not realise that in saying this they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the working classes carry out a revolution on an international scale means that everyone will remain suspended in mid-air."- Vladimir Lenin, Report On Foreign Policy.
This quote doesn't debunk the video though, all this quote means is that Russia due to their historical relation of having peasant communes established where peasants would work with each other to meet up with surplus taxes given by landlords which were still around by the time the Russian Revolution was taking place, would lay a good foundation for communism to arise when the rest of the world, were to have successful socialist revolutions. Vladimir Lenin himself says this in the same work.
"The basic contradictions between the imperialist powers have led to such a merciless struggle that, while recognising its hopelessness, neither the one, nor the other group is in a position to extricate itself at will from the iron grip of this war. The war has brought out two main contradictions, which in their turn have determined the socialist Soviet Republic’s present international position. The first is the battle being waged on the Western front between Germany and Britain, which has reached an extreme degree of ferocity. We have heard on more than one occasion representatives of the two belligerent groups promise and assure their own people and other peoples that all that is required is one more last effort for the enemy to be subdued, the fatherland defended and the interests of civilisation and of the war of liberation saved for all time. The longer this terrible struggle drags on and the deeper the belligerent countries become involved, the further off is the way out of this interminable war. And it is the violence of this conflict that makes extremely difficult, well-nigh impossible, an alliance of the great imperialist powers against the Soviet Republic, which in the bare half-year of Its existence has won the warm regard and the most whole-hearted sympathy of the class-conscious workers of the world."- Vladimir Lenin, Ibid.
Now on the second quote, completely out of context and even historical context as well.
1903-1915 Trotsky was a Left-Menshevik that was proposing for unity between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, he would soon change his mind while in New York after reading Hegel, Marx, and Engels deeply in 1916 and joined the Bolsheviks in 1917. By this understanding of works without historical context, then Lenin was always an uncritical Kautsky supporter because he was influenced by Kautsky when he first joined the socialist movement but that is false because Lenin broke with Kautskyism in 1905 same with Luxemburg and Liebknecht at the same time, and Pannekoek in 1907.
Also the disruption of unity quote was more to critique the liquidationism of Trotsky's stageism that he incorperated apart of his argument at the time, because it was on the basis of Plekhanov's philosophy rather than Marx. But that doesn't negate the fundamental theory of permanent revolution which is that *the socialist revolution emerges from a bourgeois revolution in revolutionary situations of great interest*
Which we know Lenin believed in from this quote.
"Let us dwell on the contentions of those who hold to such a point of view. By participating in the provisional government, we are told, Social-Democracy would have the power in its hands; but as the party of the proletariat, Social-Democracy cannot hold the power without attempting to put our maximum programme into effect, i.e., without attempting to bring about the socialist revolution. In such an undertaking it would, at the present time, inevitably come to grief, discredit itself, and play into the hands of the reactionaries. Hence, participation by Social-Democrats in a provisional revolutionary government is inadmissible.
**This argument is based on a misconception; it confounds the democratic revolution with the socialist revolution, the struggle for the republic (including our entire minimum programme) with the struggle for socialism. If Social-Democracy sought to make the socialist revolution its immediate aim, it would assuredly discredit itself. It is precisely such vague and hazy ideas of our “Socialists-Revolutionaries” that Social-Democracy has always combated. For this reason Social-Democracy has constantly stressed the bourgeois nature of the impending revolution in Russia and insisted on a clear line of demarcation between the democratic minimum programme and the socialist maximum programme. Some Social-Democrats, who are inclined to yield to spontaneity, might forget all this in time of revolution, but not the Party as a whole. The adherents of this erroneous view make an idol of spontaneity in their belief that the march of events will compel the Social-Democratic Party in such a position to set about achieving the socialist revolution, despite itself. Were this so, our programme would be incorrect, it would not be in keeping with the “march of events”, which is exactly what the spontaneity worshippers fear; they fear for the correctness of our programme**. But this fear (a psychological explanation of which we attempted to give in our articles) is entirely baseless. Our programme is correct. And the march of events will assuredly confirm this more and more fully as time goes on. It is the march of events that will “impose” upon us the imperative necessity of waging a furious struggle for the republic and, in practice, guide our forces, the forces of the politically active proletariat, in this direction. **It is the march of events that will, in the democratic revolution, inevitably impose upon us such a host of allies from among the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry, whose real needs will demand the implementation of our minimum programme, that any concern over too rapid a transition to the maximum programme is simply absurd.**"- Vladimir Lenin, The Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry.
And finally for the third quote, Leon Trotsky himself addresses this quotes in The Third International After Lenin by Leon Trotsky and I highly recommend you read it, but in short he says this (because this was the quote Stalin himself cited against Trotsky in 1926-27 during the bureaucratization period of the Communist International).
"Is it not clear that in his article of 1916, Lenin meant by the organization of “socialist production,” not the creation of a socialist society but an immeasurably more elementary task which has already been realized by us in the USSR? Otherwise, one would have to arrive at the absurd conclusion that, according to Lenin, the proletarian party, having captured power, “postpones” the revolutionary war until the third generation.
Such is the sorry position of the main stronghold of the new theory in so far as the 1916 quotation is concerned. However, what is sadder still is the fact that Lenin wrote this passage not in application to Russia. He was speaking of Europe in contrast to Russia. This follows not only from the content of the quoted article devoted to the question of the United States of Europe, but also from Lenin’s entire position at the time."- Leon Trotsky, The Third International After Lenin
Tldr version, in the beginning of the work Lenin makes it clear that he speaks of socialism possible in a hypothetical United States of Europe is the tendency of the United Workers States to get to socialism, rather than actually having a socialist mode of production. This is made clear in the first three introductory paragraphs.
Lenin is making it clear here that a victory of socialism is referring to a victory of a workers state rather than the victory of the socialist mode of production due to them presupposing the abolition of classes, money, and withering away of the state.
Why aren't China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, etc still considered deformed (from birth) workers states? (37:27) Complete Socialism hasn't been achieved in those countries, but they haven't abandoned the project altogether. Russia abandoned the socialist model during the rape by the oligarchs and the West and therefore can no longer be called a (degenerated) workers state. Yet under Putin the RF has retained, actually re-atained elements of an advanced social democratic state. Trotskyists should defend workers states and reforms that strengthen or empower the working class in bourgeois states as well as post workers states like Russia and Eastern Europe.
@spirochristlovers Are they not? I have to yet see any trot group claim Cuba, Vietnam or NK as anything other than degenerated Workers States. The only debate is on China, which has seen capitalist restoration that was gradual, but thorough to the point that not much is left of the original workers state the central party nowadays consisting of bourgeois elements who have found great use in the state tools wrested from workers in the 70s, including state planning.
Aside from that, whilst I do not believe that the RF trying to reverse some of the destruction caused by shock therapy through renationalisation and reimplementation of the most important industries and basic systems of welfare suffice to qualify it as a social democracy. Especially since its state as it stands right now is profoundly bonapartist in nature
www.youtube.com/@accidentallycommunist COMPLETELY AGREED Those who disagree, please show and put Lenin's works which contradict the above citations
Did i read a different text from Stalin because he did not abandon marxism? And you dont seem to understand what "Socialism in one country" means, anyone can build socailism. It doesnt reject internationalism, infact its the idea of patriotic internationalism. However socialism will come in waves you can't expect the first successful revolutions to liberate the world by force.
The first 2 paragraphs"THE defeats of the Italian and German proletariats, accentuated by the events in Britain and China, left Soviet Russia isolated. The Communist International under Lenin had hoped that an international revolution would support the proletarian revolution in Russia. The international revolution, however, apparently was not immediate. The Russian working class found itself surrounded externally by a hostile capitalist world with which it had to deal, and internally with a vast peasantry composing the overwhelming majority of the population. The thin red line of Bolsheviks would now have an exceedingly hard time to hold the fort.
The difficulty necessarily was aggravated when the New Economic Policy was introduced. The NEP itself was a sign that a certain retreat was inevitable and that, to survive, the Russians had to make concessions to world capitalism. Under Lenin, the retreat was mainly an economic one. Foreign capital was sought, free trade was established, and domestic capitalism to a considerable extent was revived, but politically the proletariat kept firm control, so that capitalist competition served merely to stimulate the productivity of the country and to consolidate the hold of the working class dictatorship." -chapter 44 Socialism in one country
It will come in waves because it is anti human, a forced and unnatural way of life that only leads to death and misery. It comes in waves because idiots continue to think “this time it’s gonna work,” right before they once again take humanity right up against the gates of hell.
@@rustattack1312 The US and Brit militaries came close to destroying the Russian Revolution in WW1. Think of the tens of millions not murdered by Lenin,Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot,etc.
Stalin was reactionary through and through. He was power hungry--not a true marxist.
@@TeaParty1776 Why are you here? You're clearly just a troll.
Viva o Internacionalismo
On the Slogan for a United States of Europe by Lenin 1915
"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"
I think Trotsky himself made a response because this was the quote Stalin himself cited against Trotsky in 1926-27 during the bureaucratization period of the Communist International
"Is it not clear that in his article of 1915, Lenin meant by the organization of “socialist production,” not the creation of a socialist society but an immeasurably more elementary task which has already been realized by us in the USSR? Otherwise, one would have to arrive at the absurd conclusion that, according to Lenin, the proletarian party, having captured power, “postpones” the revolutionary war until the third generation.
Such is the sorry position of the main stronghold of the new theory in so far as the 1915 quotation is concerned. However, what is sadder still is the fact that Lenin wrote this passage not in application to Russia. He was speaking of Europe in contrast to Russia. This follows not only from the content of the quoted article devoted to the question of the United States of Europe, but also from Lenin’s entire position at the time."- Leon Trotsky, The Third International After Lenin
Tldr version, in the beginning of the work Lenin makes it clear that he speaks of socialism possible in a hypothetical United States of Europe is the tendency of the United Workers States to get to socialism, rather than actually having a socialist mode of production. This is made clear in the first three introductory paragraphs.
"At our conference the debate on this question assumed a purely political character. Perhaps this was partly caused by the Central Committee’s Manifesto having formulated this slogan as a forthright political one (“the immediate political slogan...”, as it says there); not only did it advance the slogan of a republican United States of Europe, but expressly emphasised that this slogan is meaningless and false “without the revolutionary overthrow of the German, Austrian and Russian monarchies”.
It would be quite wrong to object to such a presentation of the question within the limits of a political appraisal of this slogan-e.g., to argue that it obscures or weakens, etc., the slogan of a socialist revolution. Political changes of a truly democratic nature, and especially political revolutions, can under no circumstances whatsoever either obscure or weaken the slogan of a socialist revolution. On the contrary, they always bring it closer, extend its basis, and draw new sections of the petty bourgeoisie and the semi-proletarian masses into the socialist struggle. On the other hand, political revolutions are inevitable in the course of the socialist revolution, which should not be regarded as a single act, but as a period of turbulent political and economic upheavals, the most intense class struggle, civil war, revolutions, and counter-revolutions."- Vladimir Lenin, On the Slogan of the United States of Europe
Lenin is making it clear here that a victory of socialism is referring to a victory of a workers state rather than the victory of the socialist mode of production due to them presupposing the abolition of classes, money, and whithering away of the state.
I'll let Trotsky have the final word:
*The Third International After Lenin*
[...] On the basis of this and two or three similar quotations is founded the condemnation pronounced against “Trotskyism” by the Seventh Plenum as having allegedly held on this “fundamental question” a position “which has nothing in common with Leninism.” Let us, therefore, pause for a moment and listen to Lenin himself.
On March 7, 1918, he said a propos of the Brest-Litovsk peace: “This is a lesson to us because the absolute truth is that without a revolution in Germany, we shall perish.” [7]
A week later he said: “World imperialism cannot live side by side with a victorious advancing social revolution.” [8]
A few weeks later, on April 23, Lenin said: “Our backwardness has thrust us forward and we will perish if we are unable to hold out until we meet with the mighty support of the insurrectionary workers of other countries.” (Our emphasis) [9]
But perhaps this was all said under the special influence of the Brest-Litovsk crisis? No ! In March 1919, Lenin again repeated: “We do not live merely in a state but in a system of states and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with imperialist states for any length of time is inconceivable. In the end one or the other must triumph.” [10]
A year later, on April 7, 1920, Lenin reiterates: “Capitalism, if taken on an international scale, is even now, not only in a military but also in an economic sense, stronger than the Soviet power. We must proceed from this fundamental consideration and never forget it.” [11]
On November 27, 1920, Lenin, in dealing with the question of concessions, said: “We have now passed from the arena of war to the arena of peace and we have not forgotten that war will come again. As long as capitalism and socialism remain side by side we cannot live peacefully - the one or the other will be the victor in the end. An obituary will be sung either over the death of world capitalism or the death of the Soviet Republic. At present we have only a respite in the war.” [12]
But perhaps the continued existence of the Soviet Republic impelled Lenin to “recognize his mistake” and renounce his “lack of faith in the inner force” of the October Revolution?
At the Third Congress of the Comintern in July 1921, Lenin declared in the theses on the tactics of the Communist Party of Russia: “An equilibrium has been created, which though extremely precarious and unstable, nevertheless enables the socialist republic to maintain its existence within capitalist surroundings, although of course not for any great length of time.”
Again, on July 5, 1921, Lenin stated point-blank at one of the sessions of the Congress: ‘It was clear to us that without aid from the international world revolution, a victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible. Even prior to the revolution, as well as after it, we thought that the revolution would also occur either immediately or at least very soon in other backward countries and in the more highly developed capitalist countries, otherwise we would perish. Notwithstanding this conviction, we did our utmost to preserve the Soviet system under any circumstances and at all costs, because we know that we are working not only for ourselves but also for the international revolution.” [13]
How infinitely removed are these words, so superb in their simplicity and permeated with the spirit of internationalism, from the present smug fabrications of the epigones!
-Leon Trotsky
Ironically his dream was partially achieved by the EU from a certain POV.
""Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism."- can you think of a Communist country in which this didn't apply?
@lochnessmunster1189 that's under a false presupposition that there has been a change to the mode of production to gone far beyond capitalism, which there has not. If you agree that Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, all these countries you consider were or are "communist" had an uneven economic and political development compared to other countries, then you yourself are laying the most logical conclusions that these countries were capitalist in nature. Because commodity production still had a dominant role and thus a system to exchange these commodities was in place as well.
But from my past debates with you personally, you have very contradictory arguments where you say either that these countries were Communist, then people like me point out that would presuppose the abolition of classes, money, and the state which did not happen and couldn't happen, then you give the counter-arguement that then communism is impossible, which then proves another point that you're alternative is not that much different than Russia, China, etc. As well shows lack of understanding of epochs, because by that understanding, capitalism was impossible in 1776 or 1789 in the end days of feudalism and colonialism yet here we are in capitalism and imperialism because of the constant changing nature of history and human social development that negates functions and with absolute negation or negation of the negation arises a new phenomenon. Which either way is contradictory to the very method you use or at least have used towards me and others as I seen on this platform.
Nice try trotskyists
permanent revolution is the most beautiful thing ive heard for years
It's anti marxist trash, and Trotsky was an opportunist
You know this was TROTSKY idea
@@lucasoares2995 yet curiously, was first iterated by marx in 1850 in a speech to the communist league...
@@marks7167 Did you read Lenin's April Theses?
@@Kyogre9600 no
📍27:48
Socialism in One Country was a Stalinist program . Permanent Revolution was a Trotskyist program . One was counter revolutionary and obe was revolutionary .
One theory succeeded, albeit temporarily. The other theory’s (predominantly middle class student) followers continue to advocate for a theory that has never succeeded or influenced any successful revolution anywhere. They spend more time selling newspapers and propagating bourgeois demonization of their historic arch-rival than actually helping working people.
Trotskyism is simply Marxism for the middle classes. It acts as the carrier of bourgeois influences into the ranks of the proletariat, masquerading behind a cloak of orthodox Marxism.
@@Dave.93actually Lenin's theory was very much in line with the theory of permanent revolution. He eventually fully adopted it in his April Thesis of 1917, which made thr successful October Revolution possible. So actually the theory of permanent revolution was successful in October 1917. Unfortunately Lenin didn't adopt it before 1917, so Stalinists still use his arguments from before 1917, which are partially based on him not fully understanding it.
@@rfvtgbzhn What point does this statement prove? The conditions in 1917 were much different to those of 1924.
Trots always go to "But Lenin said...", as if Lenin was a big fan of Trotsky. Trots never speak of Lenin's criticisms of Trotsky; Instead they exaggerate his criticisms of Stalin.
Trots are unable to objectively see the accomplishments of the USSR during the Stalin era simply because they're forever seething because their guy didn't get the job in 1924.
Trotsky came from wealth. He could never know the real struggle of working people and neither do most of his followers... who're mostly middle class students larping as Bolsheviks.
Let's not forget in 1903, when the great division between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks took definite form, Trotsky allied himself with the Mensheviks. In one way or another he fought Bolshevism until late in the summer of 1917.
Trots act like Stalin was anti "permanent revolution" when really it's just not a realistic goal. Socialism must succeed in one country to inspire, influence and assist others. Do trots really think Stalin didn't care about the existence of global capitalist dominance? (Idk actually, probably)
The (what should have been) "permanent revolution" in the USSR eventually collapsed and was dissolved because successive incompetent anti-Stalinist leaders mismanaged it.
Trotskyism has never and will never achieve anything for workers.
@@rfvtgbzhn Yes Lenin embraced Permanent Revolution and Trotsky embraced vanguardism
@@Dave.93 Trotskyism might have achieved more if we hadn't been sabotaged and murdered by Stalinists for almost a century. Socialism in one country is completely counterrevolutionary and anti-Marxist by its very nature. Your precious so called "Marxism-Leninism" has never and never will achieve anything for the workers of the world. Well other than oppression, mass murder, and a return to capitalism every single time.