Lenin, Stalin and Adolfo on Socialism in One Country

Hugh Rodwell m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se
Sat Sep 28 16:24:32 MDT 1996


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

Adolfo persists in his thoroughly illogical and untrustworthy
misinterpretation of Lenin.


>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".

Why, if it's such a great quote, was it censored from subsequent editions
of the Foundations of Leninism?

And spare us the casuistry of that "guarantee" tripe.



>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.

Lenin did not speak of the complete socialist society as "possible,
achievable, sustainable and defendable" in the Soviet Union as you claim.

You stated in another posting that Lenin just enumerated the development of
Soviet agriculture. This is wrong. He was advocating the voluntary,
state-aided formation of cooperatives as a solution to the agricultural
crisis. The full-scale development of cooperatives which might form the
basis of a powerful socialist economy (non-capitalist in transition to
socialism) in the Soviet Union did not exist. Stalin's policies, first of
kulakism and then of compulsory collectivization, smashed any chance the
Soviet Union might have had of getting to the starting point of the
*possibility* Lenin saw in this article.



>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?

You mean to tell me that communism couldn't be achieved if Russia hadn't
achieved a complete socialism when the revolutions "came along" in the
advanced countries? What *are* you dribbling on about?

Since when did successful revolutions just "come along"?? Revolutionary
situations turn up as the contradictions in society work themselves out,
but successful revolutions are made by revolutionary parties with varying
degrees of socialist consciousness.


>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

As I said, cooperatives on a mass voluntary scale had *not* been
established in the Soviet Union -- which you seem to prefer to call Russia
-- when Lenin wrote his article.

>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.

You're mad, Adolfo. Stalin didn't press ahead with cooperatives, especially
not voluntary coops. First he encouraged the kulaks, then he collectivized
in a vicious compulsive frenzy.

If socialism of a very advanced nature had ever shone upon this earth,
instead of out of Joe Stalin's arse, nothing and nobody would ever have
been able to stop the workers in the rest of the world from making damn
sure they got some of the good stuff for themselves too.

As with Louis P, discussion with Adolfo is a non-starter. All polemics with
either of these two have no other goal but to meet their lies and slander,
and then to refute their disgraceful travesties of Marxism and
revolutionary politics.

Their trash is nothing personal, otherwise it would be totally pointless
answering it. It represents on the one hand the phosphorescing death throes
of Moscow Trials Stalinism, still tenaciously leeching on to the workers'
movement, and on the other an amalgam of left Social-Democracy,
Euro-Communist neo-Stalinism and Pabloism in capitulation to the
bourgeois-democratic counter-revolution. Its common denominator is
Menshevism, and its social roots are the intelligentsia and the labour
aristocracy. It is united by its hatred of Bolshevik organization,
internationalism and independent working class mobilization.

Cheers,

Hugh




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




More information about the Marxism mailing list