Lenin, Stalin and Adolfo on Socialism in One Country

hariette spierings hariette at easynet.co.uk
Sat Sep 28 09:08:14 MDT 1996


Ok Hugh - you want some Logic - let's give it to you.


First - you we take this as you accepting the accuracy - never mind the
interpretation, we will get to that later I am talking of the ACCURACy, of
the fact that Lenin actually said what Stalin says in This work - and also
in Foundations of Leninism?


That is how it would appear:  Hugh recognises that Lenin actually said that.
Unlike Vladimr who accusses me of fabrication.  At least Hugh says it is a
genuine quotation, no matter how Stalin may have mis-applied it.  Is that
the case Rodwell?

>Let's have the quotation again:
>
>>"As a matter of fact, state power over all large scale means of production,
>>>state power 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 THIS NOT
>>>ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR BUILDING A COMPLETE SOCIALIST SOCIETY from the
>>>cooperatives, from the cooperatives alone which we FORMERLY looked down upon
>>>as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have a right to look down
>>>upon as such now, under the NEP?  This is NOT YET the building of socialist
>>>society, but IT IS ALL THAT IS NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT FOR THIS BUILDING"
>>>(See V. I. Lenin Complete Works Vol XXVII, Russian Edition, page 392)
>>
>>Moreover the same quotation appear in English - and giving the same source
>>(do not worry so much about sources that things like this cannot but prompt
>>others to look it up themselves and that will work to your disadvantage) in
>>Stalin's pamphlet "October Revolution and Tactics of Russian Communists",
>>published in 1924
>
>Well, now we know where your Lenin quotes come from and why you don't give
>us any better indication of the occasion of Lenin's remarks.
>
>Also it's very important to know what part of 1924 we're looking at. Stalin
>wrote the following in February 1924:
>
>        The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment
>of a proletarian government  in one country does not yet guarantee the
>complete victory of  socialism. The main task of socialism -- the
>organization of socialist production -- remains ahead. Can this task be
>accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be
>attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced
>countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie, the
>efforts of one country are sufficient -- the history of our revolution
>bears this out. For the final victory of Socialism, for the organization of
>socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a
>peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the
>proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary.
>
>        Such on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist
>theory of the proletarian revolution.
>
>(Foundations of Leninism)
>
>Of course, by the end of 1924, Stalin had repudiated his own Leninism and
>Trotskyism on this point, and replaced the above with its opposite.
>
>
>>when Trotsky - should that had been a "falsification" on
>>Stalin's part was in full capacity to contest it and make his rights as a
>>member of the Party.  He did not contest it, I can't see why YOU - his
>>SERIOUS disciple - are contesting this now in a "libelous" fashion?  Run out
>>of ideas about how to wriggle out of that hook, Hugh? Or what?
>
>Trotsky repudiated Stalin's misunderstanding of such declarations of Lenin
>as the one you quote. He didn't necessarily reject Lenin's quotes as false
>because they were manipulated against him. Stalin frequently played that
>trick, however, suppressing inconvenient quotes and even falsifying his own
>past statements.
>
>Then Adolfo shows us he can't read:
>
>>Moreover, Lenin - contrary to your vague assertions about some other
>>"in-pectore" conditions that according to you he did not mention - ACTUALLY
>>SAYS VERY CLEARLY (except of course, for Jehova's Witnesses and SERIOUS
>>Trots): "ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE BUILDING A COMPLETE SOCIALIST
>>SOCIETY" - "All that is NECESSARY" Hugh! - i.e ALL THE CONDITIONS without
>>exception!.  OR don't you understand English?
>
>That little "i.e." is too fragile a bridge for all the weight Adolfo puts
>on it: "ALL THE CONDITIONS without exception". If this were the case, why
>does Lenin start his sentence with:
>
>        This is NOT YET the building of socialist society
>

So for Rodwell a POSSIBILITY FOR WHICH ALL THE NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT
CONDITIONS EXIST is equivalent to the lack of conditions.  No. It is only
equivalent to the lack of IMPLEMENTATION of the necessary work UPON THE
SUFFICIENT AND COMPLETE CONDITIONS in order to transform a POSSIBILITY INTO
A REALITY.  Did you take a degree in obfuscation?  Or don't you understand
the meaning of the English language?



>Adolfo half admits the force of Marxist objections to the stupidities of
>the theory of Socialism in One Country when he backtracks to talk about
>*beginning*, so why doesn't he go the whole hog and explain why Lenin talks
>about "NOT YET the building of socialist society"?
>
>        NOT YET THE BUILDING OF SOCIALIST SOCIETY
>
>        NOT YET THE BUILDING OF SOCIALIST SOCIETY
>
>        NOT YET THE BUILDING OF SOCIALIST SOCIETY
>
>The obvious meaning of this, is that given the international preconditions
>I mentioned in my last post, with the proletarian dictatorship having
>hegemony
>or near-hegemony in the world market, or as the Stalin quote has it:
>
>        Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism
>in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of
>several advanced countries? No, this is impossible.
>
>-- the meaning is that the measures taken by October in Russia are
>sufficient preconditions for beginning to build towards socialism right
>away within the Soviet Union, regardless of the existence of self-owning
>peasant masses even, but *not yet* sufficient preconditions for *achieving*
>socialism.
>
>To round off, if this quote by Lenin is so incredibly important -- and all
>the armwaving makes me think that Adolfo must ascribe magical powers and
>Papal infallibility to it -- how come Stalin just a few years later went
>and wiped out the  "many millions of small and very small peasants" as a
>class by his policies of forced collectivization.
>
>I thought that the Lenin quote hallowed by Stalin's blessing had just
>taught us that:
>
>>Moreover, Lenin - contrary to your vague assertions about some other
>>"in-pectore" conditions that according to you he did not mention - ACTUALLY
>>SAYS VERY CLEARLY (except of course, for Jehova's Witnesses and SERIOUS
>>Trots): "ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE BUILDING A COMPLETE SOCIALIST
>>SOCIETY" - "All that is NECESSARY" Hugh! - i.e ALL THE CONDITIONS without
>>exception!.  OR don't you understand English?
>
>Perhaps Stalin's the one who didn't understand plain English -- if ALL THE
>CONDITIONS WITHOUT EXCEPTION are present, on Lenin's and even more
>importantly Stalin's say-so, why the need to remove the "many millions of
>small and very small peasants" just a few years later? Or perhaps Lenin
>didn't express himself quite clearly enough. Perhaps he meant to say:
>except the bit about the "many millions of small and very small peasants".
>Perhaps he meant to say: except the NOT YET bit. Perhaps he meant to say:
>except every bit that Stalin might find embarrassing when he finds himself
>driven by unforeseen circumstances to make some new 180 degree turn and tie
>himself in theoretical knots again.
>
>What does your Little Stalinist Compendium say about that?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Hugh
>


So you want a GUARANTEE that having ALL THE NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT
CONDITIONS socialism WILL BE BUILT AND COMPLETED FOR SURE and that THE
POSSIBILITY OF DOING JUST THAT should automatically trnasform itself into
its reality?

Isn't this sheer methaphysics?

You correctly quote Stalin:

        The overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishment
>of a proletarian government  in one country does not yet guarantee the
>complete victory of  socialism.

Yes - Stalin here does not say that we do not have all the conditions for
the building of a complete socialist society.  ONLY THAT THERE IS NO
GUARANTEE OF SUCCESS.  That the socialist Transformation is not in Lenin's
words: "The Nevsky Prospek" something that you cannot get into your head, so
why should even attempt to distinguish between a GUARANTEE and a POSSIBILITY?

Lets continue with what Stalin said:

The main task of socialism -- the
>organization of socialist production -- remains ahead. Can this task be
>accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be
>attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced
>countries? No, this is impossible. To overthrow the bourgeoisie, the
>efforts of one country are sufficient -- the history of our revolution
>bears this out. For the final victory of Socialism, for the organization of
>socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of such a
>peasant country as Russia, are insufficient. For this the efforts of the
>proletarians of several advanced countries are necessary.
>
>        Such on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist
>theory of the proletarian revolution.


Of course, and that is what you do not understand, that THIS POSSIBILITY,
which is YET NOT SOCIALISM but a possibility WITHOUT ANY IRON CLAD
GUARANTEES of success, can not achieve its FINAL VICTORY in one country
alone and without "the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced
countries".  But that in order to achieve that final victory one must STRIVE
IN PRACTICE to BUILD - since ALL THE NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS
EXIST - as ennumerated by Lenin and summed up as "ALL" the conditions
without exception - IN ONE'S ONE COUNTRY the COMPLETE SOCIALIST SOCIETY that
Lenin sppoke of AS POSSIBLE, ACHIEVABLE and sustainable and defendable UNTIL
THE efforts of the proletarians "of several advanced countries could bear
fruit" and then the FINAL VICTORY of socialism and of the transition to
communist on a world scale COULD BE REGARDED AS GUARANTEED.

In this Stalin was a Leninist by affirming both the POSSIBILITY - and more
over for acting upon that possibility - and denying that there could be iron
clad guarantees of FINAL VICTORY without the victory of the world
proletarian revolution.  A complete socialism had in any case to be achieved
in Russia so that it could merge with that of the other advanced countries
when their revolutions came along, otherwise how could communism be achieved?

The fact that the POSSIBILITY has suffered a setback does not deny its
existance, the completeness and sufficiency of the necessary conditions for
putting this possibility into practice - a question that is always
impossible to understand for a metaphysician like you - nor the correctness
of Stalin of pressing ahead with this possibility and the great successes
that were achieved in this endeavour.  SOCIALISM of a very advanced nature
shone upon this earth.  Only the Animal Framers like you and Orwell deny this!

FOR YOU, the posibility did not exist and the effort to do something to turn
this possibility - defying all difficulties - into reality is the great
crime of Stalin!  The proletariat thinks otherwise!


Adolfo



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list