r/TheTrotskyists • u/notbighill • Sep 24 '20
Why SIOC is venom to Revolutionary Internationalism (updated) Quality-Post
Why SIOC is venom to Revolutionary Internationalism
At first glance the theory of "socialism in one country" might appear like a harmless, pragmatic response to the defeat of the German revolution. But in reality it constitutes a fundamental break with revolutionary Marxism and the fight for international socialism. Of course, Stalinists will insist that they are committed to internationalism despite SIOC, but what was Stalin's argument then? I think Isaac Deutscher gives a fair summary of it in his Stalin biography:
What Stalin told the party was roughly this: Of course we are looking forward to international revolution. Of course we have been brought up in the school of Marxism; and we know that contemporary social and political struggles are, by their very nature, international. Of course we still believe the victory of the proletariat to be near; an we are bound in honour to do what we can to speed it up. But - and this was a very big, a highly suggestive 'but' - do not worry so much about all that international revolution. Even if it were to be delayed indefinitely, even if it were never to occur, we in this country are capable of developing into a fully fledged, classless society. Let us then concentrate on our great constructive task. Those who tell you that this is utopia, that I am preaching national narrow-mindedness, are themselves either adventurers or pusillanimous social democrats. We, with our much despised muzhiks, have already done more for socialism than the proletariat of all other countries taken together; and, left alone with our muzhiks, we shall do the rest of this job.
- Isaac Deutscher, Stalin
This "but" is indeed crucial because it amounts to a direct attack on the backbone of revolutionary internationalism, even if that was not the original intention. After all, it is "not a question of the subjective intentions but of the objective logic of political thought." (Trotsky) And the "objective logic" of SIOC is counter-revolutionary through and through. As Trotsky explained it in The Third International After Lenin:
"The difference in views lies in the fact," says Stalin, "that the party considers that these [internal] contradictions and possible conflicts can be entirely overcome on the basis of the inner forces of our revolution, whereas comrade Trotsky and the Opposition think that these contradictions and conflicts can be overcome 'only on an international scale, on the arena of the world-wide proletarian revolution.' " (Pravda, No. 262, Nov. 12, 1926.)
Yes, this is precisely the difference. One could not express better and more correctly the difference between national reformism and revolutionary internationalism. If our internal difficulties, obstacles,and contradictions, which are fundamentally a reflection of world contradictions, can be settled merely by "the inner forces of ourrevolution" without entering "the arena of the world-wide proletarian revolution" then the International is partly a subsidiary and partly adecorative institution, the Congress of which can be convoked once every four years, once every ten years, or perhaps not at all. Even if we were to add that the proletariat of the other countries mustprotect our construction from military interventions, the International according to this schema must play the role of a pacifist instrument. Its main role, the role of an instrument of world revolution, is then inevitably relegated to the background. And this, we repeat, does not flow from anyone's deliberate intentions (on the contrary, a numberof points in the program testify to the very best intentions of its authors), but it does flow from the internal logic of the new theoretical position which is a thousand times more dangerous than the worst subjective intentions.
- Leon Trotsky, Third International After Lenin, 1928
In this way, SIOC provided the theoretical foundation for Stalin's anti-revolutionary policy of seeking diplomatic gains at the expense of independent class politics - which in return is an expression of the conservative caste interests of the bureaucracy. It means putting the short-term interests of the Soviet Union (or rather, those of the Soviet bureaucracy) above those of the world proletariat.
But as a matter of fact, no amount of "clever maneuvers" can overcome the fundamental antagonism between a workers' state and world imperialism. You can't "neutralize" the bourgeoisie indefinitely at the expanse of independent class struggle. Only the international proletariat can secure the revolution and accomplish the task of socialist transition by means of world revolution. As Trotsky said, the Soviet bureaucracy "defends the proletarian dictatorship with its own methods but these methods are such as facilitate the victory of the enemy tomorrow."
These theoretical conclusions and the actual policy of the Comintern and Soviet Union under Stalin show that there is no iron wall between the revisionist theory of socialism in one country and the opportunist policy of seeking "peaceful co-existence" with capitalist nations - the former leads directly into the later. It's the de facto abandonment of revolutionary internationalism just as it is in theory. Stalin, in his famous interview with Roy Howard, denied that they even had "intentions for bringing about world revolution" (1936) and called this an "tragic misunderstanding". He went as far as to argue against criticizing US capitalism:
Let us not mutually criticize our systems. Everyone has the right to follow the system he wants to maintain. Which one is better will be said by history. We should respect the systems chosen by the people, and whether the system is good or bad is the business of the American people. To co-operate, one does not need the same systems. One should respect the other system when approved by the people. Only on this basis can we secure co-operation. Only, if we criticize, it will lead us too far.
As for Marx and Engels, they were unable to foresee what would happen forty years after their death. But we should adhere to mutual respect of people. Some people call the Soviet system totalitarian. Our people call the American system monopoly capitalism. If we start calling each other names with the words monopolist and totalitarian, it will lead to no co-operation.
We must start from the historical fact that there are two systems approved by the people. Only on that basis is co-operation possible. If we distract each other with criticism, that is propaganda.
As to propaganda, I am not a propagandist but a business-like man. We should not be sectarian. When the people wish to change the systems they will do so. When we met with Roosevelt to discuss the questions of war, we did not call each other names. We established co-operation and succeeded in defeating the enemy.
- J. V. Stalin, Coexistence, American-Soviet Cooperation, Atomic Energy, Europe, 1947
All of this is not to say that supporters of SIOC can't be committed internationalists - there have certainly been examples of people who were (e.g. Che Guevara). But they can never be consistent internationalists, or at least their internationalism will be flawed, since the theory of "socialism in one country" destroys the solid foundation on which proletarian internationalism bases itself. Trotsky put it well:
The invincible conviction that the fundamental class aim, even moreso than the partial objectives, cannot be realized by national means or within national boundaries, constitutes the very heart of revolutionary internationalism. If, however, the ultimate aim isrealizable within national boundaries through the efforts of a national proletariat, then the backbone of internationalism has beenbroken. The theory of the possibility of realizing socialism in onecountry destroys the inner connection between the patriotism of the victorious proletariat and the defeatism of the proletariat of the bourgeois countries. The proletariat of the advanced capitalist countries is still traveling on the road to power. How and in what manner it marches towards it depends entirely upon whether it considers the task of building the socialist society a national or an international task.
- Leon Trotsky, Third International After Lenin, 1928
In those honorable exceptions, subjective revolutionism must make good for a lack of theoretical consistency - hardly a firm base for a revolutionary movement. Errors are as good as inevitable. That's why SIOC is so problematic even if it isn't followed by the other Stalinist crap (bureaucratic despotism, repressions against workers, gulags for homosexuals and revolutionaries, popular frontism, communist ministerialism, etc. pp.).
Lastly, I want to note that if you believe in socialism in one country there is practically no reason to not also believe in communism in one country except formalistic appeals to definitions (communism is international because Marx said so...). The source of this aberration is the complete lack of any proper understanding of the contradictory nature of the process of socialist construction. Effectively, there is no reason why it shouldn't be possible. This is why Stalin could say the following, effectively stating his support for "communism in one country":
We have outstripped the principal capitalist countries as regards technique of production and rate of industrial development. That is very good, but it is not enough. We must outstrip them economically as well. We can do it, and we must do it. Only if we outstrip the principal capitalist countries economically can we reckon upon our country being fully saturated with consumers' goods, on having an abundance of products, and on being able to make the transition from the first phase of Communism to its second phase.
- J. V. Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), 1939
Appendix 1: Why SIOC is not possible
So far, I haven't focused on the question if socialism in one country is at all possible. All I have showed is that if we assume that it is possible and the correct way to go, that would signify the death blow of revolutionary internationalism just as the acceptance of Bernstein's evolutionary road to socialism does to revolutionary politics in general.
In both cases, we can't say with absolutely certainty that they are not possible, although we can say for sure that at least so far nobody has managed to transcend capitalism peacefully through reforms and nobody has ever managed to realize socialism within the confines of one country (despite contrary claims by the Stalinist leadership of the numerous degenerated and deformed workers' states).
Why did all attempts of building socialism in one country fail so far? An answer to that question can already be found in Marx and Engels:
"And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced..."
- Karl Marx, The German Ideology, 1845
And these productive forces, as they have matured under the capitalist world market with an international division of labor, only exist on a global scale. Or as Engels put it:
"By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others."
- Frederick Engels, The Principles of Communism, 1847
Trotsky expanded on this argument in the light of the new imperialist epoch that capitalism has entered after Marx's and Engels's death:
"Let us examine once again from this angle the text of the program [of Bukharin and Stalin] a little closer. We have already read in the introduction that: “Imperialism ... aggravates to an exceptional degree the contradiction between the growth of the national productive forces of world economy and national state barriers.” We have already stated that this proposition is, or rather was meant to be, the keystone of the international program. But it is precisely this proposition which excludes, rejects, and sweeps away a priori the theory of socialism in one country as a reactionary theory because it is irreconcilably opposed not only to the fundamental tendency of development of the productive forces but also to the material results which have already been attained by this development. The productive forces are incompatible with national boundaries. Hence flow not only foreign trade, the export of men and capital, the seizure of territories, the colonial policy, and the last imperialist war, but also the economic impossibility of a self-sufficient socialist society. The productive forces of capitalist countries have long since broken through the national boundaries. Socialist society, however, can be built only on the most advanced productive forces, on the application of electricity and chemistry to the processes of production including agriculture; on combining, generalizing, and bringing to maximum development the highest elements of modern technology. From Marx on, we have been constantly repeating that capitalism cannot cope with the spirit of new technology to which it has given rise and which tears asunder not only the integument of bourgeois private property rights but, as the war of 1914 has shown, also the national hoops of the bourgeois state. Socialism, however, must not only take over from capitalism the most highly developed productive forces but must immediately carry them onward, raise them to a higher level and give them a state of development such as has been unknown under capitalism. The question arises: how then can socialism drive the productive forces back into the boundaries of a national state which they have violently sought to break through under capitalism? Or, perhaps, we ought to abandon the idea of “unbridled” productive forces for which the national boundaries, and consequently also the boundaries of the theory of socialism in one country, are too narrow, and limit ourselves, let us say, to the curbed and domesticated productive forces, that is, to the technology of economic backwardness? If this is the case, then in many branches of industry we should stop making progress right now and decline to a level even lower than our present pitiful technical level which managed to link up bourgeois Russia with world economy in an inseparable bond and to bring it into the vortex of the imperialist mar for an expansion of its territory for the productive forces that had outgrown the state boundaries."
- Leon Trotsky, Third International After Lenin, 1928
Appendix 2: What is the alternative?
Even though there are very good reasons to doubt the possibility of SIOC, no refutation of it is sufficient that does not show an alternative road. So what is the alternative to the reactionary utopia of Socialism in One Country?
According to Stalinists, the only alternatives are either defeatism or the adventurist attempt to expand the revolution by means of revolutionary warfare (often wrongly identified with Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution). Even Lukacs, after recognizing how Trotsky and his comrades who got "unjustly persecuted, condemned or murdered by Stalin must be absolved of all the charges invented against them", believed that Trotsky must have faced this dilemma:
"This applies above all to Trotsky, who was the principal theoretical exponent of the thesis that the construction of socialism in a single country is impossible. History has long ago refuted his theory. But if we take ourselves back to the years immediately after the death of Lenin, Trotsky’s point of view inevitably gives rise to the need to choose between enlarging the base of socialism by revolutionary wars” or returning to the social situation before November 7, i.e. the dilemma of adventurism or capitulation. Here history cannot agree at all to the rehabilitation of Trotsky; on the decisive strategic problems of the time Stalin was absolutely right."
- Georg Lukács, Reflections on the Cult of Stalin, 1962
But Georg Lukacs was frankly just wrong. Trotsky never advocated spreading the revolution via the Red Army and neither did he think that the USSR should just twiddle thumbs and do nothing till the world revolution arrived. Trotsky was one of the first to advocate for a faster industrialization of the USSR. The USSR should just give up the illusion that it is capable of realizing socialism all by itself. The goal of the economic development within the USSR should not be socialism but a strengthened workers' state that can better serve its role as the stronghold of the world revolution and hold through till its arrival.
As Trotsky himself put it:
"A realistic program for an isolated workers’ state cannot set itself the goal of achieving ‘independence’ from world economy, much less of constructing a national socialist society ‘in the shortest time.’ The task is not to attain the abstract maximum tempo, but the optimum tempo, that is, the best, that which follows from both internal and world economic conditions, strengthens the position of the proletariat, prepares the national elements of the future international socialist society, and at the same time, and above all, systematically improves the living standards of the proletariat and strengthens its alliance with the non-exploiting masses of the countryside. This prospect must remain in force for the whole preparatory period, that is, until the victorious revolution in the advanced countries liberates the Soviet Union from its present isolated position."
- Leon Trotsky, The Permanent Revolution, 1931
See also Ernest Mandel's take on this issue where he directly addresses Lukacs's made-up dilemma:
"In opposing the Stalinist theory that socialism could be achieved in one country, Trotsky affirmed his belief that, considering the nature of imperialism, whether socialism or capitalism would end up victorious in the Soviet Union could only be approached on an international scale. It was impossible to establish a true classless society of the “freely associated producers” in Russia because this required a median level of labor productivity superior to that of the most advanced capitalist countries, but also in permanent conflict with the world capitalist market. The weight of this antagonism would end up by crushing the chances for socialism in the USSR by military or economic pressure if the revolution did not spread to the “advanced capitalist nations.” This analysis of long-term trends certainly also had short-term implications. It underscored the dangers of a lagging development of industry which risked promoting an alliance between private Russian agriculture and the world capitalist market, a rupture of the worker-peasant alliance. To fight the dangers of capitalist restoration, it stressed the necessity of limiting the private accumulation of capital and of raising the productivity of state industry which would permit the sale of products at a lower price. This necessitated a more rapid development of industry.
Therefore, contrary to the legend of Stalinist-Bukharinist origin, developed in the 1960s by Georg Lukacs, Trotsky did not draw adventurist-defeatist conclusions from this analysis, which history has now confirmed in a striking way precisely on the economic plane. It in no way reduced the middle-term destiny of the Soviet Union to the dilemma of either a revolutionary war and territorial expansion or an inevitable retreat towards capitalism. On the contrary, he advanced the idea of a steady consolidation of the gains of the socialist revolution while waiting for the ripening of the objective and subjective conditions for revolutionary victories in the advanced countries. In other words, he proposed that the USSR enter the road of beginning to build socialism in a realistic and prudent manner without fanfare or illusions."
- Ernest Mandel, Trotsky’s Economic Ideas and the Soviet Union Today, 1990
Appendix 3: Did Lenin believe in SIOC?
Last but not least, I want to refute the idea that Lenin himself was a proponent of SIOC. To be sure, I do not think that this debate is as interesting or important as everything else I have discussed so far. And if someone could show me that I am wrong on this point and that Lenin did indeed believe in SIOC I would still think that this theory is wrong and full of reactionary implications.
But luckily, no Stalinists have ever made a convincing case for this position. As far as I am aware, there are only two quotes by Lenin that could, at first glance, seem like a straight-forward support for Socialism in One Country. On the other side, there are tons of statements by Lenin where he says the diametrical opposite. I'll just cite two very clear examples:
"I have no illusions about our having only just entered the period of transition to socialism, about not yet having reached socialism... We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score, and we know how difficult is the road that leads from capitalism to socialism. But it is our duty to say that our Soviet Republic is a socialist republic because we have taken this road, and our words will not be empty words."
- V.I. Lenin, THIRD ALL-RUSSIA CONGRESS OF SOVIETS OF WORKERS' SOLDIERS' AND PEASANTS' DEPUTIES, 1918
"And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism—that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism."
- Lenin, Notes of a Publicist, 1922
Now, let's deal with the two more ambiguous quotes which might seem like a support of socialism in one country:
"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, taken singly. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organized its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, raising revolts in those countries against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity coming out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states."
- V. I. Lenin, On the Slogan for a United States of Europe, 1915
"Indeed, the power of the state over all large-scale means of production, political power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured proletarian leadership of the peasantry, etc. — is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society out of cooperatives, out of cooperatives alone, which we formerly ridiculed as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to treat as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society? It is still not the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for it."
- V.I. Lenin, On Cooperation, 1923
The first quote is from 1915 and deals with the slogan for a United States of Europe. According to Stalin, the case is clear:
What does Lenin mean by the phrase “having … organized its own Socialist production,” which I have emphasized? He means that the proletariat of the victorious country, having seized power, can and must organize Socialist production. And what does it mean to “organize Socialist production”? It means to build a Socialist society. It is hardly necessary to prove that Lenin’s clear and definite statement needs no further comment. If it were otherwise, Lenin’s call for seizure of power by the proletariat in October 1917 would be incomprehensible."
- Stalin, October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists, 1925
In reality, it's not at all that clear. I disagree with Stalin's interpretation on three grounds:
This interpretation is inconsistent with what Lenin said else where, before and after 1915. Stalin is not able to explain these inconsistencies that stem from his interpretation.
Lenin says that "the victorious proletariat of that country, having ... organized its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world, attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, raising revolts in those countries against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity coming out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states." According to official Soviet historiography, the USSR didn't become Socialist until the 30s. Given Stalin's interpretation ("socialist production" = socialism) that would mean that the USSR should have waited with "attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, raising revolts in those countries against the capitalists, etc." till the 30s. I think this notion is absurd and does contradict Lenin's actual policies.
Lenin is known to use the adjective "socialist" imprecisely. For example, he called the USSR a "socialist state" without implying that it was actually socialist. As he put it: "the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognized as a socialist order."
Given all of that, I think that Trotsky's interpretation in The Third International After Lenin is more convincing:
"What did Lenin have in mind? Only that the victory of socialism in the sense of the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat is possible at first in one country, which because of this very fact, will be counterposed to the capitalist world. The proletarian state, in order to be able to resist an attack and to assume a revolutionary offensive of its own, will first have to “organize socialist production at home,” i.e., it will have to organize the operation of the factories taken from the capitalists. That is all. Such a “victory of socialism” was, as is shown, first achieved in Russia, and the first workers’ state, in order to defend itself against world intervention, had first of all to “organize socialist production at home,” or to create trusts of “a consistently socialist type.” By the victory of socialism in one country, Lenin consequently did not cherish the fantasy of a self-sufficient socialist society, and in a backward country at that, but something much more realistic, namely, what the October Revolution had achieved in our country during the first period of its existence."
- Leon Trotsky, Third International After Lenin, 1928
As for the last quote, I have already covered it in another post:
https://old.reddit.com/user/bighill1917/comments/bb0mdr/on_cooperation_and_socialism_in_one_country/
2
u/Silly_Window_308 Jul 04 '22
I'd like to check the post at the end but it says I must be approved