 | This articlerelies excessively onreferences toprimary sources. Please improve this article by addingsecondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Socialism in one country" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(November 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Socialism in one country[a] was aSoviet state policy to strengthen socialism within the country rather than socialism globally. Given the defeats of the1917–1923 Europeancommunist revolutions,[b]Joseph Stalin developed and encouraged the theory of the possibility of constructing socialism in the Soviet Union alone.[1] The theory was eventually adopted as Soviet state policy.
As a political theory, its exponents argue that it contradicts neitherworld revolution norworld communism. The theory opposesLeon Trotsky's theory ofpermanent revolution and thecommunist left's theory of world revolution.
Initially, all leading Soviet figures including Stalin agreed that the success of world socialism was a precondition for the survival of the Soviet Union. Stalin expressed this view in his pamphlet, "Foundations of Leninism."[2][3] However, he would later change this position in December 1924 during the succession struggle against Trotsky and theLeft Opposition.[4]
The theory was criticized by Trotsky andGrigory Zinoviev as antithetical to Marxist principles while the theoretical framework was supported byNikolai Bukharin.[5]
The defeat of severalproletarian revolutions in countries likeGermany andHungary endedBolsheviks' hopes for an imminent world revolution and prompted them to focus on developing socialism in the Soviet Union alone, as advocated byJoseph Stalin. In the first edition ofThe Foundations of Leninism (1924), Stalin was still a follower of theclassical Marxist idea that revolution in one country is insufficient.Vladimir Lenin died in January 1924 and by the end of that year in the second edition of the book Stalin's position started to turn around as he claimed that "the proletariat can and must build the socialist society in one country".[6]
In April 1925,Nikolai Bukharin elaborated the issue in his brochureCan We Build Socialism in One Country in the Absence of the Victory of the West-European Proletariat? and theSoviet Union adopted socialism in one country as state policy after Stalin's January 1926 articleOn the Issues of Leninism.[7] 1925–1926 signaled a shift in the immediate activity of theCommunist International from world revolution towards a defense of the Soviet state. This period was known up to 1928 as the Second Period, mirroring the shift in the Soviet Union fromwar communism to theNew Economic Policy.[8]
In his 1915 articleOn the Slogan for a United States of Europe, Lenin explained that due to uneven development, the victory of socialism would occur first in one or several countries.[9][10] However, historians likeE.H. Carr have argued that by "victory of socialism", Lenin only meant the seizure of power by socialists, and not the construction of socialism in the sense of the first phase of communism.[11] Besides, Lenin explicitly said many times that the construction of socialism was not possible in one country alone.[12][13][14]
« ...we have always emphasized that we view things from an international perspective and that it is impossible to accomplish such a task as a socialist revolution in a single country... » Lenin, 1920[15]
Grigory Zinoviev andLeon Trotsky vigorously criticized the theory of socialism in one country. In particular,Trotskyists often claimed and still claim that socialism in one country opposes both the basic tenets ofMarxism andLenin's particular beliefs[16] that the final success of socialism in one country depends upon the revolution's degree of success in proletarian revolutions in the more advanced countries ofWestern Europe.[17] Notably, they cited Lenin's words at the March 1918 Seventh Congress where Lenin had argued that the success of the Soviet revolution inextricably depended on the success of socialist revolutions in other countries.[18] However, in this address, Lenin had emphasized being realistic and pragmatic rather, cautioning against wishful thinking that would place too much faith in the immediate success of a world revolution.[19]
Friedrich Engels, when answering the question, "Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?" strongly argued in the negative, basing his argument upon the economic and historic importance of the world market, claiming that it had "already brought all the peoples of the Earth, [...] into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others".[20]
The defeat of all the1917–1923 revolutions in Europe, exceptRussia, affected the Bolsheviks' and especially Lenin's hopes for an imminent world revolution. Lenin expressed this, stating he was not expecting a pre-defined date for other nations to achieve the same revolution in his 1918Letter to American Workers.[21]
With theproletarian revolutions in other countries having been either crushed or altogether failed to materialize, the nascent Soviet Union found itself encircled by capitalist or pre-capitalist states. According to the interpretation of Lenin's writings by the exponents of socialism in one country, Lenin laid down a long-term future course of action for the nascent Soviet state and itsvanguard theR.C.P.(B.), prioritizing strengthening the nascent Soviet state internally so as to ensure its survival. The plan was based on, firstly, building a close class alliance between theproletariat and the vast masses of the smallpeasantry (with assured proletarian leadership of the peasantry), and secondly, constructing a complete socialist society in Russia whilst patiently awaiting and aiding the worldwideclass struggle to mature into aworld revolution in order to hasten the final victory of socialism.
In his pamphlet,The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, Lenin argued that Russia had to overtake advanced countries in economic output as well as political advancement.[22]
In his speech delivered at the Plenum of the C.P.S.U.(B.), Stalin observed that the aforementioned was written by Lenin as early as in September 1917, on the eve ofOctober Revolution, during theimperialist war.[23]
Opponents of this interpretation, notably Leon Trotsky, have contended that the Lenin quotes adduced in support of socialism on one country are taken out of context. They argue that in the 1915 articleOn the Slogan for a United States of Europe the expression "triumph of socialism [...] possible in [...] a single capitalist country" in context refers only to the initial establishment of a proletarian political and economic regime and not to the eventual construction of a complete socialist society which would take generations. As for the quote from the 1923 articleOn Cooperation, Trotsky maintains that the passage speaking of "necessary and sufficient" prerequisites for the transition to socialism is concerned only with the "socio-organisational" and political prerequisites, but not with the "material-productive" and cultural ones which Russia still lacked.[24]
HistorianIsaac Deutscher in his biographical account of Stalin noted thatMarxist theoreticians in the 1920s took a condescending view of Stalin's formulations and doctrine of "socialism in one country". Deutscher recounted a party meeting in whichDavid Riazanov, Soviet historian and founder ofMarx-Engels Institute derided Stalin with the words "Stop it Koba, don't make a fool of yourself. Everybody knows that theory is not exactly your field".[25]
According to political scientist Baruch Knei-Paz, Trotsky's theory of "permanent revolution" was grossly misrepresented by Stalin asdefeatist and adventurist in antithesis to his proposed "socialism in one country" policy to secure victory during the succession struggle. Knei-Paz argued that Trotsky encouraged revolutions in Europe but was not at any time proposing "reckless confrontations" with the capitalist world.[26]
Stalin presented the theory of socialism in one country as a further development of Leninism based on Lenin's aforementioned quotations. In his 14 February 1938 article titledResponse to Comrade Ivanov, formulated as an answer to a question of a "comrade Ivanov" mailed toPravda newspaper, Stalin splits the question in two parts. The first side of the question is in terms of the internal relations within the Soviet Union, whether it is possible to construct the socialist society by defeating the local bourgeoisie and fostering the union of workers and peasants.[27]
Stalin quotes Lenin that "we have all that is necessary for the building of a complete socialist society" and claims that the socialist society has for the most part been indeed constructed. The second side of the question is in terms of external relations and whether the victory of the socialism is "final", i.e. whether capitalism cannot possibly be restored. Here, Stalin cites Lenin that the final victory is possible only on the international scale and only with the help of the workers of other countries.[27]
Marxist historianIsaac Deutscher traces Stalin's socialism in one country policy to the publication ofThe Foundations of Leninism which emphasized the policy of isolationism and economic development in opposition to Trotsky's policy ofpermanent revolution.[28]
In a 1936 interview with journalistRoy W. Howard, Stalin articulated his rejection ofexporting the revolution and stated that "We never had such plans and intentions" and that "The export of revolution is nonsense".[29][30][31]
The slogan was parodied in the novelMoscow 2042, where communism in one city was built.[32]
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 alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world.
[S]ocialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois.
The passage of 1915, from which the famous phrase was derived, related primarily to the seizure of power, not to the building of a socialist economy; nor can it be shown that Lenin had Russia in mind at all. The context suggests that Lenin was trying to counter a possible argument of, say, the German workers, that they could not start a revolution because the French workers could not be counted on to rise simultaneously. Zinoviev later deprived himself of an argument by his apparent unwillingness to admit that the passage did not refer to Russia (G. Zinoviev, Leniniam (1925), pp. 297-298); but Kamenev argued cogently that it applied, and could only apply, to western Europe (XV Konferentsiya Vsesoyuznoi Kommunisticheskoi Partii (B) (1927), p. 475). In Trotsky's view this passage from Lenin had been "turned upside down and interpreted in an illiterate manner" (L. Trotsky, Permanentnaya Revolyutsiya (Berlin, 1930), p. 125). The two later passages seemed at first sight more convincing. But Lenin in 1918 had already described Bolshevik strategy as being "to carry out the maximum that can be achieved in one country in order to develop, support and encourage revolution in all countries " (Lenin, Sochineniya, xxiii, 385; the context, both in the original and in a quotation of this passage in March 1923 in Stalin, Sochineniya, v, 179, strongly stressed the international aims of Bolshevism). It is not clear that Lenin, if challenged, would have considered himself to have gone beyond this in the two later passages.
.svg)
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)CS1 maint: publisher location (link)It was clear to us that without the support of the international world revolution the victory of the proletarian revolution was impossible. Before the revolution, and even after it, we thought: either revolution breaks out in the other countries, in the capitalistically more developed countries, immediately, or at least very quickly, or we must perish. In spite of this conviction, we did all we possibly could to preserve the Soviet system under all circumstances, come what may, because we knew that we were not only working for ourselves, but also for the international revolution. We knew this, we repeatedly expressed this conviction before the October Revolution, immediately after it, and at the time we signed the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty. And, generally speaking, this was correct.
Regarded from the world-historical point of view, there would doubtlessly be no hope of the ultimate victory of our revolution if it were to remain alone, if there were no revolutionary movements in other countries. When the Bolshevik Party tackled the job alone, it did so in the firm conviction that the revolution was maturing in all countries and that in the end—but not at the very beginning—no matter what difficulties we experienced, no matter what defeats were in store for us, the world socialist revolution would come—because it is coming; would mature— because it is maturing and will reach full maturity. I repeat, our salvation from all these difficulties is an all Europe revolution.
In such a country, the socialist revolution can triumph only on two conditions. First, if it is given timely support by a socialist revolution in one or several advanced countries. As you know, we have done very much indeed in comparison with the past to bring about this condition, but far from enough to make it a reality.
...а мы всегда подчеркивали, что смотрим с международной точки зрения, и что в одной стране совершить такое дело, как социалисти ческая революция, нельзя...
Regarded from the world-historical point of view, there would doubtlessly be no hope of the ultimate victory of our revolution if it were to remain alone, if there were no revolutionary movements in other countries. [...] I repeat, our salvation from all these difficulties is an all Europe revolution. [...] At all events, under all conceivable circumstances, if the German revolution does not come, we are doomed.
Yes, we shall see the world revolution, but for the time being it is a very good fairy-tale, a very beautiful fairy-tale—I quite understand children liking beautiful fairy-tales. But I ask, is it proper for a serious revolutionary to believe in fairy-tales? There is an element of reality in every fairy-tale. If you told children fairy-tales in which the cock and the cat did not converse in human language they would not be interested. In the same way, if you tell the people that civil war will break out in Germany and also guarantee that instead of a clash with imperialism we shall have a field revolution on a world-wide scale, the people will say you are deceiving them. In doing this you will be overcoming the difficulties with which history has confronted us only in your own minds, by your own wishes. It will be a good thing if the German proletariat is able to take action. But have you measured it, have you discovered an instrument that will show that the German revolution will break out on such-and-such a day? [...] If the revolution breaks out, everything is saved. Of course! But if it does not turn out as we desire, if it does not achieve victory tomorrow—what then? Then the masses will say to you, you acted like gamblers—you staked everything on a fortunate turn of events that did not take place, you proved to be unequal to the situation that actually arose instead of the world revolution, which will inevitably come, but which has not yet reached maturity.
We are banking on the inevitability of the world revolution, but this does not mean that we are such fools as to bank on the revolution inevitably coming on a definite and early date.
The revolution has resulted in Russia catching up with the advanced countries in a few months, as far as herpolitical system is concerned. But that is not enough. The war is inexorable; it puts the alternative with ruthless severity: either perish or overtake and outstrip the advanced countrieseconomically as well.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link){{cite journal}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}:|work= ignored (help){{cite book}}:|work= ignored (help)