Lenin "On Cooperation" Jan 1923

hariette spierings hariette at easynet.co.uk
Mon Sep 30 09:21:14 MDT 1996


>4. Lenin does not make it clear how these two ends are to be achieved,
>whether through revolution in the West, or purely within the Soviet Union.
>
>5. To the extent that he thought these ends could be achieved purely within
>the Soviet Union, history proved him wrong. The Apparatus became more
>entrenched until it became a new ruling class, quantity having been
>transformed into quality. The  level of development of the material  means
>of production, in the end, was  increased through the virtual enslavement of
>the working class.

Lenin spoke of the POSSIBILITY of succeeding in building complete socialism
in ONE country, not of the certainty of success.  He held, correctly that
ALL the necessary and SUFFICIENT conditions for this enterprise were in
place but also pointed out that was NOT YET THE BUILDING OF SOCIALISM, just
sufficient conditions to attempt this task with a POSSIBILITY of success.

A possibility of success implies the existence of many possibilities of
FAILURE too - that is why Stalin, a Leninists - refused to give IRON CLAD
GUARANTEES that the job could be achieved.

Neither Lenin, nor Stalin ever deceived the working class about the daunting
difficulties of this enterprise.  However, the issue with the Trotskyst
dogmatists is when they claim that Lenin "unlike Stalin" believed that there
was NO POSSIBILITY AT ALL of building socialism in ONE country.  That is
what has been proven ABSOLUTELY false.



>6. The polemic: "Our opponents have told us more than once that we are
>under-taking the rash task of implanting Socialism in an insufficiently
>cultured country." seems to be directed at the Menshevik position that
>Russia first had to have a bourgeois revolution and go through a borgeois
>period of development. This is not really relevant to the debate we have
>been having except for the fact that Adolfo seems to equate Menshevism with
>Trotskyism

Trotskysm - taken to mean what is specific in Trotsky's ideas as different
>from those of Lenin (and therefore the basis of Trotskysm as a separate and
anti-Leninist doctrine) is diubtedlessly a form of Menshevism.  Before
Trotsky abandoned his own platform and applied to become a Bolshevik -
accepting Lenin's plataform - Lenin characterised him as a "semi-Menshevik".

The gentlemen from the Trotskyst sects themselves claim that the basis of
their Trotskysm is that they believe that SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY IS
IMPOSSIBLE.  I have proven that those views do not correspond to Lenin's, so
their Trotskysm is a reversion to Trotsky's own former (prior to 1917)
semi-Menshevik views, which in fact in that very regard were - and continue
to be - identical to those of the gentlemen of the II International who also
fully DENY THE POSSIBILITY OF BUILDING SOCIALISM IN ONE or in any country -
for that matter - as well as the revolution itself, and the proletarian
dictatorship most of all.


Trotskysm, as a specific doctrine, is semi-Menshevism and always was.



>
>Tony Hartin
>


Adolfo



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




More information about the Marxism mailing list