socialism in one country
iwp.ilo at ix.netcom.com
Wed Feb 14 00:25:17 MST 1996
>Uncle Lou (P),
>1) Doesn't this debate really go back to Lenin's position on the Brest
>treaty where he took on Trotsky and others on making the peace and
>the fledgling socialism in Russia. And didn't he roundly reject
>position of continuing to press Germany in the name of permanent
>and the 'expected' uprising of the German workers?
What is your source on this,Scott? Trotsky never proposed to
"continuing to press Germany". Rather he supported the possition
of "Neither peace nor war". Lenin disagreed. Then Lenin nominated
Trotsky for the Brest's negotiations and the rest is history. I
believe Lenin was right on this one, but is completely unrelated
with the "Theory of Socialism in one Country" which is a complete
responsability of Stalin. Lenin had the *opposite* position to
that of Stalin. Did you read the book on resolutions and minutes
of the Third Four Congresess of the Third InternationaL?
>2) What should Russia's position have been? Or more to the point what
>opposite of 'socialism in one country' when that's all you have so
>Should those in the one country simply hand it back over to the
>and in effect say, 'sorry, the world proletariat isn't ready yet so
>give it up until a better time?'
You first recognize you never read Trotsky and then try to
caricaturize Trotsky's position on Stalin's theory of "Socialism
in one country". Not to make to obstruse for you I will
encapsulate the concept for you:
"Socialism in one country is a reactionary, isolationist policy
of the Soviet bureaucracy that basically sustain that a socialist
system can emerge in a capitalist-dominated world. The
dictatorship of the proletariat is only, and I stress *only*
a transitional form of regime in a trasitional society towards
socialism. Socialism is not possible until a significant number
of advanced countries achieve a revolutionary process through which
capitalism is overthrown. This *have nothing to do* with a
so-called critcism of the Stalinists that we, revolutionary
marxists, are not for the defense of revolutions or transitional
regimes in their confrontation with imperialism and capitalism.
It has to do with the reactionary illussion of bureaucrats that,
having failed and miserably retreating from internationalism and
international revolution, now asserts that that doesn't
matter,since socialism and communism can be built and lived in
in complete isolation from world reality.
On the other hand, Socialism in one country specify that
international revolution have to be supeditated to the interests
of the Soviet Union -- rather, of its bureaucracy and not the
other way around as Lenin has established"
I'm not trying to be funny, I really don't
>see the point. It seems to me that it is highly unlikely that
>will simultaneously happen in every, or even most, countries at one
There you go again, Scott. You are just confusing revolution
with socialism. While the first is necessary for the second,
the second needs the first to be international to become.
Neither Trotsky, nor any trotskyist to my knowledge has ever
wrote or defended the idea that "revolution will simultaneously
happen in every, or even ,most, countries at one time".
Got it?. BTW, you're being funny.
Recommendation: Read Trotsky. Your complaint that is
complicated... sounds like Charlotte. Is that your only
excuse?. Read this: "Trotsky, with his writting talents has made
history and theory accesible to young readers and workers. There
are very few revolutionaries who write with such clarity". Want
to guess who wrote that one, Scott?
>That'll do for starters.
> --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism