In Defense of Socialism in One Country
Excerpts from our in-progress book
Socialism in one country is a concept that Joseph Stalin contributed to Marxism-Leninism. Socialism can be constructed in one country, contrary to the idea that the revolution must be spread to the whole world before socialism is actually constructed and its relations of productions are established. While many Marxists believed in the second idea, it soon proved to be incorrect; revolutions in the European countries—including in Germany and Hungary—had failed because of bourgeois reaction toward them and due to errors in practice, so the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and other nearby soviet republics (countries run by workers’ councils at all levels, from local levels to the national level) were by themselves (and when they united into the USSR, they were the only socialist country on Earth). Trying to force socialism into other countries through military intervention would lead to a united bourgeois attack on the USSR. This is why Stalin had to try constructing socialism in the USSR alone.
Leon Trotsky opposed Stalin’s plans. Despite initially opposing the New Economic Policy and wanting to collectivize agriculture as fast as possible, he soon opposed Stalin’s plan to collectivize agriculture and begin socialist industrialization, claiming that it was impossible without foreign support from any richer socialist state (such as what Germany would have been if its revolution succeeded). Stalin, and the USSR’s proletariat and peasantry, proved Trotsky wrong; they industrialized and developed the Soviet economy in 10 years, becoming a powerhouse only behind the capitalist-imperialist US. Chapter Three of Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend says:
Moreover, affirming that socialism could be achieved in one (large) country, Stalin gave new dignity and identity to the Russian nation, thus overcoming the frightening crisis—ideological but also economic—suffered after the defeat and chaos of the First World War, to find historical continuity at last. But for that very reason his adversaries denounced him for “treason”, while for Stalin and his supporters the traitors were those who, with their adventurism, facilitated the intervention of foreign powers, and in the last analysis, put in danger the survival of the Russian nation that was at this time the vanguard of the revolutionary cause. [Source]
In Chapter Three of Foundations of Leninism, Stalin says:
Formerly, the victory of the revolution in one country was considered impossible, on the assumption that it would require the combined action of the proletarians of all or at least of a majority of the advanced countries to achieve victory over the bourgeoisie. Now this point of view no longer fits in with the facts. Now we must proceed from the possibility of such a victory, for the uneven and spasmodic character of the development of the various capitalist countries under the conditions of imperialism, the development within imperialism of catastrophic contradictions leading to inevitable wars, the growth of the revolutionary movement in all countries of the world-all this leads, not only to the possibility, but also to the necessity of the victory of the proletariat in individual countries. The history of the revolution in Russia is direct proof of this. At the same time, however, it must be borne in mind that the overthrow of the bourgeoisie can be successfully accomplished only when certain absolutely necessary conditions exist, in the absence of which there can be even no question of the proletariat taking power. …
But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of the revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. [Source]
As we can see, Stalin’s goal was not to hinder the revolution, but promote it. The USSR would eventually come to spread socialism in other countries because that is what socialist countries seek to do in the long run (even if at first they refuse to do so because they cannot). However, the country did not try to force socialism on others; it aided people’s existing struggles for socialism, ensuring that it would only develop in the proper material conditions. We can learn from this, for when a new socialist state forms, it will probably have to build socialism at home before it spreads the revolution.
We must firmly oppose Trotskyist deviations of Marxism-Leninism. Trotskyists think that socialism cannot be constructed in one country, and they mix up the democratic and socialist revolutions that underdeveloped countries must have; they oppose the peasantry, believing that they must be subordinate to the proletariat [Source]. Trotskyites counter our theories with the “Permanent Revolution” which supports the absolute spread of socialist revolution, even through military intervention and war. This means that a socialist or socialist-oriented country that adopts this theory must invade other countries, pitting them against the entire bourgeoisie.
Trotskyists claim that their theory is “internationalist” against Stalin’s “chauvinism” or whatever, but in reality they are focusing on the universal aspect of the revolution (the fact that it will spread) and not the particular aspects (the fact that it will start in one country, be built and developed in one country, and then be used as a base to start the spread of revolution). In Chapter Three of Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend, it states the following:
Just as ignoring and avoiding personal responsibilities in relation to one’s own kids and relatives doesn’t represent a true overcoming of domestic responsibilities, neither is it synonymous with internationalism to lose sight of the fact that the concrete possibilities and tasks of revolutionary transformation are first centered in a determined national terrain. Distance and indifference to one’s own country can certainly have a non-progressive meaning…
Stalin understands this well, as the speech delivered on February 4th, 1931 demonstrates. On this occasion, he presents himself as a revolutionary and internationalist leader, who is at the same time a statesman and Russian national leader, committed to resolving the problems that have held back the nation for some time: “we Bolsheviks, who have carried out three revolutions, who have emerged victorious from a hard civil war”, must also deal with the problem of overcoming Russia’s traditional industrial backwardness and military weakness. “In the past we had no nation, nor could we have one”; with the overthrow of the old regime and the arrival of Soviet power, national nihilism is more unwise than ever, the revolutionary cause is at the same time the cause of the nation. The emphasis now appears to shift from the class struggle (with its internationalist dimension) to the construction of the national economy. But more precisely, in the concrete political situation that’s been created, the class struggle becomes the task of achieving technological and economic development for the socialist country, putting it in the position of confronting the terrible challenge that’s approaching, and offering a real contribution to the emancipatory and internationalist cause. The class struggle not only takes on a national dimension, but it appears to configure itself in Soviet Russia as a banal and routine task: “in the period of reconstruction, expertise decides everything”; therefore, it is necessary “to learn skills” and become “masters of science”. In fact, this new task is no less difficult and demanding than the storming of the Winter Palace: “We Bolsheviks must conquer science” and becomes “specialists”; it’s certainly not an easy objective to reach, but “there’s no fortress Bolsheviks can’t storm”. The policy during the Great Patriotic War finds its first expression in the years when Soviet Russia is committed to a colossal endeavor of industrialization and reinforcing national defense.
In the lead-up to Nazi aggression, we have seen Stalin stress the need to link “national sentiment and the idea of the nation” to “a healthy nationalism, correctly understood, with proletarian internationalism”. In the concrete situation that arose following the Third Reich’s expansionist offensive, universalism’s advance passed through the concrete and individual struggles of the nations determined not to let themselves be reduced to slavery at the service of Hitler’s master race; truly advancing internationalism was the resistance by nations most directly threatened by the Nazi empire’s program of enslavement. Just three years earlier, as confirmation of the fact that we are in the middle of a learning process that’s encouraged or imposed by the concrete necessity of developing the struggles of national resistance against imperialism, Mao Tse-Tung states: “To separate the content of internationalism from its national form is the habit of those who don’t understand anything about internationalism. With regards to us, however, we must closely link them together. Some of our worst errors were committed because of it, and they must be corrected with the utmost dedication”. Gramsci similarly distinguishes between “cosmopolitanism” and an “internationalism” which knows—and in fact must know—how to be “profoundly national” as well. [Source]
As stated above, the Permanent Revolution theory totally ignores the particular aspects of the proletarian revolution within certain countries, and it places too much emphasis on the universal aspect of the worldwide proletarian revolution. This is an idealist, metaphysical, impractical, and frankly absurd way to look at the socialist revolution. That is why socialism in one country is not only possible, but at first necessary!
The USSR was an example of socialism being built in one country. Despite the entire capitalist-imperialist world surrounding it, it was able to collectivize agriculture, socialize industry, and develop the economy at a rapid pace. Anti-communists make fantastical myths about what happened in the USSR’s socialist construction, but the fact is that the country created a strong socialist society without immediately spreading the system. Only in World War 2 did it have to support revolutions in Eastern Europe and Asia with soldiers, and even then it remained cautious and did not press too far into capitalist territory. China and Albania had similar conditions, too, for most of the “socialist world” turned revisionist in the 1950’s; though they had each other, they remained under threat from imperialism, so they had to build socialism in their countries and not spread it militarily. Again, it provided support for revolutionaries worldwide and encouraged them, but it did not try to force revolution in countries where conditions were not ripe. In all of these cases, socialism was built in a far better way than it would have been with Trotsky’s policies.
Ideally, socialism will spread easily, but when it does not, socialism must be built in the few socialist countries or even the one socialist state that exists.