Bullshit! Socialism in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was possible as demonstrated by Stalin and the collective Soviet leadership and embraced by the Soviet working class. It was ONLY because of socialism that the Soviet Union was able to achieve so much. Trying to change the world is very complex and so it's inevitable that some mistakes will happen so it's no good being idealistic and complaining that things are not 100% correct.
Trotsky will and was always wrong, that's why no country ever will be or was ever trotskiyst. You have to create socialism based off of principles that are realistic to solving various contradictions within every society and country. Socialism is not a blueprint, it will look different in every country, that's why we are scientific and not utopian socialists. You will never be able to create a global movement, not only is it not possible but it also extremely naive, otherwise Trotskyists would have done it a LONG time ago seeing how much time, money and energy they spend on their political parties. It's nothing more than a glorified bookclub being harsh critics from the sidelines.
The idea of an international workers' movement does not come from Trotsky, you can trace it all the way back to Marx and Engels and the time of the International Workingmen's Association, also known as the First International. Lenin, Luxemburg, Liebkecht, Connolly, Trotsky, and a host of other brilliant revolutionaries were part of the Second International, to which every mass socialist party belonged. The Third International, founded after WW1 had led to the collapse of the Second, was created by the Bolsheviks, with Lenin at their head. He oversaw its creation and devoted a lot of time, energy, and resources to its healthy development. Why do this if, as you say, a global movement is impossible? This was at a critical moment for the young Soviet republic, the years 1919-1922 were a desperate time, during which the Russian workers were holding on to power by the skin of their teeth. That Lenin devoted so much time to this in the middle of a Civil war and economic crisis shows that it was seen as vitally important to the survival of the USSR, and the communist future of humankind.
that'ws like asking if off-the-grid living is possible in a society that will tax your land annually in dollars that require you to be 'on grid' to accumulate.
@@The80sWolf_ Ok, but you're gonna need to replace those solar panels at some point, and that means work, or selling in the marketplace, and at some point you're going to have to have a SS# and pay taxes, and thus you'll never truly get 'off the grid' in this age of total information awareness. And the solar panels are just one of the many appurtenances and conveniences that you're gonna want to have - some others off the top of my head include (but are not limited to): matches (flint and steel kinda sucks), salt (you can make your own if you live near a sea, or have access to an underground salt mine - and it's kinda a requirement to keep alive - your livestock would need it also, assuming you have any).....antibiotics (they're a little thing but quite important when you get an infection), gunpowder (assuming you're planning on hunting your foods with modern firearms you'll actually need to do your own loading but you could conceivably make black powder the old fashioned way with lots of saltpetre and urine. According to one AI, it would take several months for one person to produce and refine enough human urine into the necessary saltpetre required to produce the blackpowder (I mean the entire production) and then you still have the problem of storage and actually doing the refining/processing of the materials - drying and such - all of which takes a lot of space and would become like a settlment. Once you start having a settlement you get noticed and youre not gonna be off the grid for long after they notice the urine sitting out in the sun slowly evaporating so you can collect he nitrates.
@@Polit_Burro solar panels? weapons? Wtf are you talking about? You can literally go in the deepest jungle and nobody would discover you or tax you. Theres tribes even today that are isolated
@@The80sWolf_ "Nobody would find you if you went into the deepest forest or jungle and lived off grid": Try it out and you will very soon come to the conclusion it doesn't work. As soon as you buy groceries, need a bank account, have a cell phone or any other device or really interact with the living in any way, shape or form, you are legal toast.
At least in Russia and later USSR + could do it quite successfully: During so-called World economic crisis around 1929 they had always 16% growth rate, became the first country in space and jet/rocket engines, hypersound planes, best social security, free health insurance peace etc. etc. and finally stopped at least the early colonialism. But without exploitation and against the rest of the (capitalist) world it was too hard to develop a better socialism and of course impossible to reach communism, where not only capital, but also money as mean of exchange and wealth aggregation would be stopped and people rule themselfs without a state apparatus. There can not be a democatic decission of nuclear retalliation when the nuke missile strucks within minutes.
"Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration? Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country. It follows that this question contains two different problems : 1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and 2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration. We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country. We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries. But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final. But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved. More than that : the second problem cannot be solved in the way that we solved the first problem, i.e., solely by the efforts of our country. The second problem can be solved only by combining the serious efforts of the international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of the whole of our Soviet people." Stalin
Then why did Stalin dissolve the Comintern and betray multiple revolutions for the narrow interests of the USSR bureaucracy? Stalin described the idea that he was for world revolution as "tragicomic".
@Alex-my6vj let me google that for you "Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, dissolved the Comintern in 1943 to avoid antagonizing his allies in the later years of World War II, the United States and the United Kingdom. It was succeeded by the Cominform in 1947." He did not betray "multiple revolutions". And to claim he should be responsable for revolutions in foreign countries is lame, its up to the people in each of their own country.
@@tenmanX please actually watch the video before you decide that Stalin's position has been misrepresented. There is nothing in this quote that is not addressed in the video, even though it is not a response to it. Do not mistake disagreement for misrepresentation. Stalin's view was that the final victory of socialism was when it had spread to all the advanced countries, which is acknowledge at 5:50. It is not misrepresenting Stalin to argue that despite what he said, the theory of socialism-in-one-country was essentially an excuse to prioritise what they had in the USSR (and chiefly the interests of the bureaucracy of the USSR) over the interests of world revolution. At 46:54 they explain why in their view Stalin's perspective that socialism had already been built in the USSR led to protecting said "socialism" becoming the main priority over world revolution, which had disastrous results. The Stalinists could justify betraying the workers in the Spanish Civil War for example, because to them making an alliance with the liberal democracies against fascism was necessary to preserve the "socialism" that already existed. Of course, when the liberal Britain and France decided not to enter an alliance with the USSR (because they obviously hoped it the Nazis and Soviets would destroy themselves fighting each-other), the Stalinists turned around and made a pact with Hitler. Had they had a Marxist outlook, they would have recognised that the revolutionary workers were their only true ally and fought tooth and nail for the workers' victory in Spain. But their idea that they already had a little patch of socialism that had to be defended at all costs led to one disaster after another.
I have a question, so after the october revolution and the bloody civil war, the country was nearly completely destroyed and I think a collapse would have been possible, if the war would have continued. Of course it's not possible to move towards genuine socialism in such a miserable situation. But what if Stalin wouldn't have betrayed the Bolsheviks and the soviet union would have actively participated in revolutionary movements in other countries. Wouldn't it be possible that the bourgeois of these countries would strike the damaged workers state even more and the country would finally collapse. So wouldn't it be "safer" to wait some time, rebuild the country (like they did in real life to) and fight for the world revolution with a strong workers state?
This is how I see it, beaucracy in USSR was brewing regardless of Stalin, he just happened to spearhead it because of certain conditions. What I believe that would have been ideal is that the revolution in the west, namely Germany and Italy didn't suffer defeat then we have fought against the beaucracy because the working class of west Europe was better technology developed than Russia, and then we could have built a more resourcesful socialist federation, without a bureaucratic elite
Various bourgeois regimes did invade and attack the newly formed workers state before it even had the time to face outwards, but they were repelled by the Red Army and the general war weariness of the workers and poor state these countries were in following WW1 meant that a protracted war wasn't on the cards in the short term. The Soviet Union was actively involved in revolutionary movements throughout its existence, though under the Stalinist bureaucracy it played a negative role. The October revolution meant that it was looked to as the vanguard of world socialism by the workers and capitalists alike; there was no chance it could ever be left to itself by the capitalists even if it didn't try to help overthrow them, and the workers were inclined to look to it for help regardless of whether or not they wanted to give it. By the late 1920s, the bureaucratic caste that had raised itself above the working class in the USSR thanks to its initial backwardness, isolation and the devastation of the war, civil war and invasions, were not all that concerned with trying to overthrow capitalism elsewhere anyway and yet they were still locked into a costly rivalry with the imperialist nations. Regardless of whether they were trying to help overthrow capitalism overseas, or trying to appeal to the capitalists, the USSR was an abomination that had to be undermined and destroyed in the eyes of the capitalist classes the world over. In the absence of successful revolutions overseas, the Soviet Union was inevitably going to have to hold out for some time on it's own - this was a view commonly held by the Bolsheviks, who also agreed it was necessary to get the ball rolling at home (though none would've argued it was possible to actually build socialism there, but they could certainly develop the economy in preparation for it). They were also keenly aware that the world revolution could face numerous defeats and setbacks - they'd lived through just such a period, despite their own success. But the surest bet for the continued existence of the workers states in the USSR was the success of revolutions overseas. The more countries that had socialist revolutions the safer the USSR would be, and revolutions are not so regular that you can miss out on one to focus on your own country for a bit. That is why "socialism-in-one-country" was such a criminal position, because it ultimately meant prioritising what they already had over fighting to ensure the success of revolutions the world over, which was the only real basis for genuine socialism. The secret of defence is attack, after all. That the USSR no longer exists is the surest proof of that. Focusing on socialism in one country ultimately resulted in socialism in no countries.
Be realistic. What do you consume/use on a daily basis? Was it fully produced in your own country? I doubt that. Capitalism must be overthrown on a world scale.
You should honestly pose the real question in 2024. Where are the mass centres of workers in the West. Where is the industry which creates the struggles and consciousness...I would argue nowhere. In Britain the most significant recent struggle was that of the miners 40 years ago. A relatively brief struggle in the greater scheme of things which was nowhere near becoming revolutionary. If there is more hope in the East or South the same problem exists over 100 years later. In fact I would argue we are in a worse more unlikely position! Unfortunately.
Well that's just the thing, the working class HAS changed since the times of the mass communist movement and revolutionary wave of the early 20th centuries. The working class is now alot more atomized, it has had the peak and collapse of the soviet union imprinted in it's consciousness. It's labour has been spread out more widely across the globe with industrial and production labour moving away from the west to the east. And, most importantly, the working class is now several times bigger and represents a far greater proportion of the population. We're a far less homogenous and more socially complex class than we were in the days of Lenin. We, the marxists among the working class, have to defend the ideas of Marxism and spread them among the working class in these modern conditions with all of it's quirks and differences. It's very true that this isn't an easy task, it's a very fucking hard, frustrating task as any honest Marxist will tell you. But at the same time with the growth of the working class new opportunities have been opened, the workers now outnumber the capitalists and the petit bourgeois far more than we ever did at any other point in history. Day by day the working class, especially the youth, is growing more and more angry with the lives they have to live. They have watched their living standards collapse, the economy fall into ruin, their political leaders become increasingly senile and unaccountable, and now they have to watch helplessly as our ruling class commits genocide unfolds and they're smeared by the rich and powerful as anti-semites if they dare protest against it. There is no future under capitalism and more and more the working class knows this. These problems have a solution, the seizure of power by the working class and the expropriation of the means of production, IE Communism. But the working class hasn't yet found the language or ideas to express this yet. That is why we as marxists have to work so patiently and tirelessly among the working class, we have to be on the frontlines with the working class and show them that a communist is their friend and comrade who will fight with them to the bitter end. We have to show them in practice that these ideas, the ideas of Marxism WORK, and CAN WIN. We don't get a second life, this is our only life to fight for a new world. If you want to fight, if you want to see a new world free of poverty and misery, then you need to get organized with the communists. History is for the first time in a long time moving with us and victory is possible but we have a long way to go still. Marxist .com/join
Budy, Russia's and china's socialism was very successful, that indicates socialism can be successfull in one country. Socialism like everything else in this world , it has to start somewhere, and it's success in one p!Ace (one country) is the basis of its expansion and stating point for final world socialist triumph.
The successful socialism they had in the USSR that definitely still exists (don’t look it up) The points you raise are addressed in the video id recommend you acc watch it. If you twist the definition of Socialism maybe the statement you make can be viewed as correct but we’re scientific socialists and the terms we use should acc have a solid definable basis Best of luck waiting on capitalist China to save the world buddy
This so-called Marxist org. are Trotskyists. Pathetic and probably funded directly by CIA and MI6. Trotsky was anti-Leninist and these dolts don't even grasp something as basic as that and keep calling themselves ML. Great books by Harpal Brar, WB Bland, Olgin, Martens, etc., outline quite clearly the MENSHEVIK and counter-revolutionary position of Trotskyism.
Not much funny than sparrow killer in your dp. You guys are mockery who try to build economy in single country. Even a kid will laugh out of economic ideas you propose. ML movements are circus.
@@sivasankar1484 Says the fella with zero successful revolutions, where have you improved the lives of millions? I'll wait Mr Trot. Now go collaborate with some fascists or whatever trots do
@@sivasankar1484also you serverly misrepresenting Stalin, here's a quote of his on "socialism in one country" Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration? Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country. It follows that this question contains two different problems : 1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and 2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration. We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country. We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries. But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final. But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved. More than that : the second problem cannot be solved in the way that we solved the first problem, i.e., solely by the efforts of our country. The second problem can be solved only by combining the serious efforts of the international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of the whole of our Soviet people. Stalin
The theory of socialism in one country was a necessary development given that the global revolution had been halted by reactionary forces. By itself it didn't have to lead to a nationalist ideology if it remained bound to a clear internationalist policy and ideology, if its proponents would admit 'we can't do it otherwise, we have to!' But in their fight against Trotsky, who represented internationalism resolutely, unequivocally and earnestly, it became apparent that the leaders of the Soviet Union progressively lost sight of the contradiction between the theory of socialism in one country and the demands of the global revolutionary movement. Nevertheless, it would still have been entirely possible to defend the principle of building socialism in one country while simultaneously acknowledging openly the difficulties that this development entailed for the international revolutionary movement. Instead of a single party representing both interests and transparently thematizing the difficulties and complexities resulting from this contradiction, we saw the movement tearing itself across the two opposing tendencies. Stalin stood for an one-sided, one-country representation of socialism and ignored its global interests completely. Trotsky stood clearly for the international movement and neglected too much the expedient necessity of temporarily shifting focus to let us begin here and now on working to install the preconditions of socialism in one country only. Trotsky very presciently saw the direction things were going as early as 1924 but in the first 8 years of his opposition he was mistaken in that he emphasized the role played by Stalin's mistakes too much while de-emphasizing the role the current international situation played in Stalin's policies. Among the communist heads of state, the only one who properly integrated in his thought and policy both the national and the international dimension of the revolution was Enver Hoxha. We should talk more about him. He was in my view the most competent communist leader.
how do you advance world revolution when you have cold war that can turn into normal war any second. Cuban missile crisis for example. After WW2 USSR after loosing over 20m people did not wish to be dragged into another war. It was time of very fragile diplomacy and if you recall USSR did support and promote socialism everywhere it could all over the globe. The amount of aid that went everywhere around the globe was enormous. USSR built water damns, power plants, schools, infrastructure everywhere it could as well as sent military aid. Blaming USSR for not supporting world revolution is silly. It was a union of ~300 million people who also had to be taken care of. USSR managed to go through civil war, kick out military intervention from 20 foreign countries including US. Go from almost completely uneducated population to 100 literacy. First country to give women equal rights. Reach 2nd place in global economy. Win in WW2 where it was fighting with its allies against forces of united Europe the most advance part of the world at the time. Rebuild after WW2(faster than UK that didnt suffer as much from WW2), feed, shelter, cloth its population and send aid everywhere it could. Please tell me how would you do better under those conditions in 70 years of its life span.
They're Trotskyists, so be definition anti-Marxist-Leninist. Probably a front group for bourgeois bureaucratic states, esp. Anglo-American, EU, Canada, etc..
We have North Korea as an example. People got shot if they try to escape worker's paradise. Cuba is another example where people risk drowning or getting eaten by sharks just to escape hunger and poverty. So, answer is yes, socialism in a single country is possible but only under brutal communist dictatorship.
North Korea isn't communist, it's a cápítáli$t country with a dictator on top. It's essentially a hereditary monarchy, where the inheritance doesn't go down a straight line of firstborn boys / men, but is earned by the best suited men in the one, royal Kim family.
No. If you would’ve read Marx you’d know that. Nations are bourgeois, the working man has no nation. “Socialism” (with commodities somehow 🤷) in one nation isn’t anything near socialism. MLoids never beating the liberal allegations
Israel is unique, the only nation where socialism was successful-for a while. The original settlers, according to Israeli professor Avi Kay, “sought to create an economy in which market forces were controlled for the benefit of the whole society.” Driven by a desire to leave behind their history as victims of penury and prejudice, they sought an egalitarian, labor-oriented socialist society. The initial, homogeneous population of less than 1 million drew up centralized plans to convert the desert into green pastures and build efficient state-run companies.
@@AnimalioPahazalli It's insane to think about poverty getting worse rather it is cured although it remain upto some amount And more is middle class,they are mental labour of capitalist state
@@tanujSEOn what basis do you say that? The past 5 years we've had inflation, housing crises, a cost of living crisis, fretility crises in all advanced countries, austerity everywhere, new wars, political polarisation, etc. How is poverty cured? Sure, there are reformists, traitors, liberals, collaborants everywhere, but they're now more unpopular than they were in a long time. Look at Poland, Britain, USA, Germany, Spain, Italy, Geece...
@@AnimalioPahazalli I see myself as example and many others two,I am heir of property,it's not new,its very old thing which still survive and present in all countries,call them middle class
@@AnimalioPahazalli I have limited amount of money but market still gives me good opportunity to purchase things for my need from cola to mild recreations Cigarettes do becomes budget issue but life goes on I wonder if life ever will be sane again -The smiths
An important topic exellently explained.
Socialism in one Country is impossible as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky explained and as history has shown.
Bullshit! Socialism in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was possible as demonstrated by Stalin and the collective Soviet leadership and embraced by the Soviet working class. It was ONLY because of socialism that the Soviet Union was able to achieve so much. Trying to change the world is very complex and so it's inevitable that some mistakes will happen so it's no good being idealistic and complaining that things are not 100% correct.
Trotsky will and was always wrong, that's why no country ever will be or was ever trotskiyst. You have to create socialism based off of principles that are realistic to solving various contradictions within every society and country. Socialism is not a blueprint, it will look different in every country, that's why we are scientific and not utopian socialists.
You will never be able to create a global movement, not only is it not possible but it also extremely naive, otherwise Trotskyists would have done it a LONG time ago seeing how much time, money and energy they spend on their political parties.
It's nothing more than a glorified bookclub being harsh critics from the sidelines.
The idea of an international workers' movement does not come from Trotsky, you can trace it all the way back to Marx and Engels and the time of the International Workingmen's Association, also known as the First International. Lenin, Luxemburg, Liebkecht, Connolly, Trotsky, and a host of other brilliant revolutionaries were part of the Second International, to which every mass socialist party belonged. The Third International, founded after WW1 had led to the collapse of the Second, was created by the Bolsheviks, with Lenin at their head. He oversaw its creation and devoted a lot of time, energy, and resources to its healthy development. Why do this if, as you say, a global movement is impossible?
This was at a critical moment for the young Soviet republic, the years 1919-1922 were a desperate time, during which the Russian workers were holding on to power by the skin of their teeth. That Lenin devoted so much time to this in the middle of a Civil war and economic crisis shows that it was seen as vitally important to the survival of the USSR, and the communist future of humankind.
I have a better idea. How how about you lot stop trying to destroy western civilization from within and go make your own country.
All of these comments and none of you seem to have actually listened to the podcast, in which all of these points are addressed.
Great episode comrades! Keep up the good work!
that'ws like asking if off-the-grid living is possible in a society that will tax your land annually in dollars that require you to be 'on grid' to accumulate.
@@Polit_Burro Nobody would find you if you went into the deepest forest or jungle and lived off grid
@@The80sWolf_ Ok, but you're gonna need to replace those solar panels at some point, and that means work, or selling in the marketplace, and at some point you're going to have to have a SS# and pay taxes, and thus you'll never truly get 'off the grid' in this age of total information awareness.
And the solar panels are just one of the many appurtenances and conveniences that you're gonna want to have - some others off the top of my head include (but are not limited to): matches (flint and steel kinda sucks), salt (you can make your own if you live near a sea, or have access to an underground salt mine - and it's kinda a requirement to keep alive - your livestock would need it also, assuming you have any).....antibiotics (they're a little thing but quite important when you get an infection), gunpowder (assuming you're planning on hunting your foods with modern firearms you'll actually need to do your own loading but you could conceivably make black powder the old fashioned way with lots of saltpetre and urine. According to one AI, it would take several months for one person to produce and refine enough human urine into the necessary saltpetre required to produce the blackpowder (I mean the entire production) and then you still have the problem of storage and actually doing the refining/processing of the materials - drying and such - all of which takes a lot of space and would become like a settlment. Once you start having a settlement you get noticed and youre not gonna be off the grid for long after they notice the urine sitting out in the sun slowly evaporating so you can collect he nitrates.
@@Polit_Burro solar panels? weapons? Wtf are you talking about? You can literally go in the deepest jungle and nobody would discover you or tax you. Theres tribes even today that are isolated
@@The80sWolf_ "Nobody would find you if you went into the deepest forest or jungle and lived off grid": Try it out and you will very soon come to the conclusion it doesn't work. As soon as you buy groceries, need a bank account, have a cell phone or any other device or really interact with the living in any way, shape or form, you are legal toast.
At least in Russia and later USSR + could do it quite successfully: During so-called World economic crisis around 1929 they had always 16% growth rate, became the first country in space and jet/rocket engines, hypersound planes, best social security, free health insurance peace etc. etc. and finally stopped at least the early colonialism. But without exploitation and against the rest of the (capitalist) world it was too hard to develop a better socialism and of course impossible to reach communism, where not only capital, but also money as mean of exchange and wealth aggregation would be stopped and people rule themselfs without a state apparatus. There can not be a democatic decission of nuclear retalliation when the nuke missile strucks within minutes.
I agree with your basic premise and I think it also agrees with the position of the RCI.
Yes, but cápítálí$t become anrgy and jealous of cómmúníst countries and do everything to take them out.
Nice
"Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?
Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.
It follows that this question contains two different problems :
1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and
2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.
We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.
We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.
But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.
But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved.
More than that : the second problem cannot be solved in the way that we solved the first problem, i.e., solely by the efforts of our country.
The second problem can be solved only by combining the serious efforts of the international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of the whole of our Soviet people."
Stalin
Sigh... Thanks for the quote. So, Stalin's position is being misrepresented yet again?
Shocking! 😒
@tenmanX Yea, yet another lie about him.
Then why did Stalin dissolve the Comintern and betray multiple revolutions for the narrow interests of the USSR bureaucracy? Stalin described the idea that he was for world revolution as "tragicomic".
@Alex-my6vj let me google that for you "Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, dissolved the Comintern in 1943 to avoid antagonizing his allies in the later years of World War II, the United States and the United Kingdom. It was succeeded by the Cominform in 1947."
He did not betray "multiple revolutions". And to claim he should be responsable for revolutions in foreign countries is lame, its up to the people in each of their own country.
@@tenmanX please actually watch the video before you decide that Stalin's position has been misrepresented. There is nothing in this quote that is not addressed in the video, even though it is not a response to it. Do not mistake disagreement for misrepresentation. Stalin's view was that the final victory of socialism was when it had spread to all the advanced countries, which is acknowledge at 5:50. It is not misrepresenting Stalin to argue that despite what he said, the theory of socialism-in-one-country was essentially an excuse to prioritise what they had in the USSR (and chiefly the interests of the bureaucracy of the USSR) over the interests of world revolution. At 46:54 they explain why in their view Stalin's perspective that socialism had already been built in the USSR led to protecting said "socialism" becoming the main priority over world revolution, which had disastrous results. The Stalinists could justify betraying the workers in the Spanish Civil War for example, because to them making an alliance with the liberal democracies against fascism was necessary to preserve the "socialism" that already existed. Of course, when the liberal Britain and France decided not to enter an alliance with the USSR (because they obviously hoped it the Nazis and Soviets would destroy themselves fighting each-other), the Stalinists turned around and made a pact with Hitler. Had they had a Marxist outlook, they would have recognised that the revolutionary workers were their only true ally and fought tooth and nail for the workers' victory in Spain. But their idea that they already had a little patch of socialism that had to be defended at all costs led to one disaster after another.
I can't find a link to the YCL's statement, can you please post this?
It’s a social media post so YT won’t let me share it in comments, unfortunately.
I have a question, so after the october revolution and the bloody civil war, the country was nearly completely destroyed and I think a collapse would have been possible, if the war would have continued. Of course it's not possible to move towards genuine socialism in such a miserable situation. But what if Stalin wouldn't have betrayed the Bolsheviks and the soviet union would have actively participated in revolutionary movements in other countries. Wouldn't it be possible that the bourgeois of these countries would strike the damaged workers state even more and the country would finally collapse. So wouldn't it be "safer" to wait some time, rebuild the country (like they did in real life to) and fight for the world revolution with a strong workers state?
This is how I see it, beaucracy in USSR was brewing regardless of Stalin, he just happened to spearhead it because of certain conditions. What I believe that would have been ideal is that the revolution in the west, namely Germany and Italy didn't suffer defeat then we have fought against the beaucracy because the working class of west Europe was better technology developed than Russia, and then we could have built a more resourcesful socialist federation, without a bureaucratic elite
Various bourgeois regimes did invade and attack the newly formed workers state before it even had the time to face outwards, but they were repelled by the Red Army and the general war weariness of the workers and poor state these countries were in following WW1 meant that a protracted war wasn't on the cards in the short term. The Soviet Union was actively involved in revolutionary movements throughout its existence, though under the Stalinist bureaucracy it played a negative role. The October revolution meant that it was looked to as the vanguard of world socialism by the workers and capitalists alike; there was no chance it could ever be left to itself by the capitalists even if it didn't try to help overthrow them, and the workers were inclined to look to it for help regardless of whether or not they wanted to give it. By the late 1920s, the bureaucratic caste that had raised itself above the working class in the USSR thanks to its initial backwardness, isolation and the devastation of the war, civil war and invasions, were not all that concerned with trying to overthrow capitalism elsewhere anyway and yet they were still locked into a costly rivalry with the imperialist nations. Regardless of whether they were trying to help overthrow capitalism overseas, or trying to appeal to the capitalists, the USSR was an abomination that had to be undermined and destroyed in the eyes of the capitalist classes the world over.
In the absence of successful revolutions overseas, the Soviet Union was inevitably going to have to hold out for some time on it's own - this was a view commonly held by the Bolsheviks, who also agreed it was necessary to get the ball rolling at home (though none would've argued it was possible to actually build socialism there, but they could certainly develop the economy in preparation for it). They were also keenly aware that the world revolution could face numerous defeats and setbacks - they'd lived through just such a period, despite their own success. But the surest bet for the continued existence of the workers states in the USSR was the success of revolutions overseas. The more countries that had socialist revolutions the safer the USSR would be, and revolutions are not so regular that you can miss out on one to focus on your own country for a bit. That is why "socialism-in-one-country" was such a criminal position, because it ultimately meant prioritising what they already had over fighting to ensure the success of revolutions the world over, which was the only real basis for genuine socialism. The secret of defence is attack, after all. That the USSR no longer exists is the surest proof of that. Focusing on socialism in one country ultimately resulted in socialism in no countries.
Yes, it is.
Be realistic. What do you consume/use on a daily basis? Was it fully produced in your own country? I doubt that. Capitalism must be overthrown on a world scale.
no
Yes
no
You should honestly pose the real question in 2024. Where are the mass centres of workers in the West. Where is the industry which creates the struggles and consciousness...I would argue nowhere. In Britain the most significant recent struggle was that of the miners 40 years ago. A relatively brief struggle in the greater scheme of things which was nowhere near becoming revolutionary. If there is more hope in the East or South the same problem exists over 100 years later. In fact I would argue we are in a worse more unlikely position! Unfortunately.
Well that's just the thing, the working class HAS changed since the times of the mass communist movement and revolutionary wave of the early 20th centuries. The working class is now alot more atomized, it has had the peak and collapse of the soviet union imprinted in it's consciousness. It's labour has been spread out more widely across the globe with industrial and production labour moving away from the west to the east. And, most importantly, the working class is now several times bigger and represents a far greater proportion of the population. We're a far less homogenous and more socially complex class than we were in the days of Lenin. We, the marxists among the working class, have to defend the ideas of Marxism and spread them among the working class in these modern conditions with all of it's quirks and differences. It's very true that this isn't an easy task, it's a very fucking hard, frustrating task as any honest Marxist will tell you. But at the same time with the growth of the working class new opportunities have been opened, the workers now outnumber the capitalists and the petit bourgeois far more than we ever did at any other point in history. Day by day the working class, especially the youth, is growing more and more angry with the lives they have to live. They have watched their living standards collapse, the economy fall into ruin, their political leaders become increasingly senile and unaccountable, and now they have to watch helplessly as our ruling class commits genocide unfolds and they're smeared by the rich and powerful as anti-semites if they dare protest against it. There is no future under capitalism and more and more the working class knows this. These problems have a solution, the seizure of power by the working class and the expropriation of the means of production, IE Communism. But the working class hasn't yet found the language or ideas to express this yet. That is why we as marxists have to work so patiently and tirelessly among the working class, we have to be on the frontlines with the working class and show them that a communist is their friend and comrade who will fight with them to the bitter end. We have to show them in practice that these ideas, the ideas of Marxism WORK, and CAN WIN. We don't get a second life, this is our only life to fight for a new world.
If you want to fight, if you want to see a new world free of poverty and misery, then you need to get organized with the communists. History is for the first time in a long time moving with us and victory is possible but we have a long way to go still.
Marxist .com/join
Budy, Russia's and china's socialism was very successful, that indicates socialism can be successfull in one country.
Socialism like everything else in this world , it has to start somewhere, and it's success in one p!Ace (one country) is the basis of its expansion and stating point for final world socialist triumph.
The successful socialism they had in the USSR that definitely still exists (don’t look it up)
The points you raise are addressed in the video id recommend you acc watch it. If you twist the definition of Socialism maybe the statement you make can be viewed as correct but we’re scientific socialists and the terms we use should acc have a solid definable basis
Best of luck waiting on capitalist China to save the world buddy
This so-called Marxist org. are Trotskyists. Pathetic and probably funded directly by CIA and MI6. Trotsky was anti-Leninist and these dolts don't even grasp something as basic as that and keep calling themselves ML. Great books by Harpal Brar, WB Bland, Olgin, Martens, etc., outline quite clearly the MENSHEVIK and counter-revolutionary position of Trotskyism.
"Russia's socialism"
Omg i love trots so much, ya'll are always a bit of fun to listen too
Not much funny than sparrow killer in your dp. You guys are mockery who try to build economy in single country.
Even a kid will laugh out of economic ideas you propose.
ML movements are circus.
@@sivasankar1484 Says the fella with zero successful revolutions, where have you improved the lives of millions? I'll wait Mr Trot. Now go collaborate with some fascists or whatever trots do
@@sivasankar1484also you serverly misrepresenting Stalin, here's a quote of his on "socialism in one country"
Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?
Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.
It follows that this question contains two different problems :
1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and
2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.
We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.
We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.
But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.
But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved.
More than that : the second problem cannot be solved in the way that we solved the first problem, i.e., solely by the efforts of our country.
The second problem can be solved only by combining the serious efforts of the international proletariat with the still more serious efforts of the whole of our Soviet people.
Stalin
The theory of socialism in one country was a necessary development given that the global revolution had been halted by reactionary forces. By itself it didn't have to lead to a nationalist ideology if it remained bound to a clear internationalist policy and ideology, if its proponents would admit 'we can't do it otherwise, we have to!' But in their fight against Trotsky, who represented internationalism resolutely, unequivocally and earnestly, it became apparent that the leaders of the Soviet Union progressively lost sight of the contradiction between the theory of socialism in one country and the demands of the global revolutionary movement. Nevertheless, it would still have been entirely possible to defend the principle of building socialism in one country while simultaneously acknowledging openly the difficulties that this development entailed for the international revolutionary movement. Instead of a single party representing both interests and transparently thematizing the difficulties and complexities resulting from this contradiction, we saw the movement tearing itself across the two opposing tendencies. Stalin stood for an one-sided, one-country representation of socialism and ignored its global interests completely. Trotsky stood clearly for the international movement and neglected too much the expedient necessity of temporarily shifting focus to let us begin here and now on working to install the preconditions of socialism in one country only. Trotsky very presciently saw the direction things were going as early as 1924 but in the first 8 years of his opposition he was mistaken in that he emphasized the role played by Stalin's mistakes too much while de-emphasizing the role the current international situation played in Stalin's policies. Among the communist heads of state, the only one who properly integrated in his thought and policy both the national and the international dimension of the revolution was Enver Hoxha. We should talk more about him. He was in my view the most competent communist leader.
Of course it is possible.
No.
@AhmedOmar-ul6wc yes it is
how do you advance world revolution when you have cold war that can turn into normal war any second. Cuban missile crisis for example. After WW2 USSR after loosing over 20m people did not wish to be dragged into another war. It was time of very fragile diplomacy and if you recall USSR did support and promote socialism everywhere it could all over the globe. The amount of aid that went everywhere around the globe was enormous. USSR built water damns, power plants, schools, infrastructure everywhere it could as well as sent military aid. Blaming USSR for not supporting world revolution is silly. It was a union of ~300 million people who also had to be taken care of. USSR managed to go through civil war, kick out military intervention from 20 foreign countries including US. Go from almost completely uneducated population to 100 literacy. First country to give women equal rights. Reach 2nd place in global economy. Win in WW2 where it was fighting with its allies against forces of united Europe the most advance part of the world at the time. Rebuild after WW2(faster than UK that didnt suffer as much from WW2), feed, shelter, cloth its population and send aid everywhere it could. Please tell me how would you do better under those conditions in 70 years of its life span.
They're Trotskyists, so be definition anti-Marxist-Leninist. Probably a front group for bourgeois bureaucratic states, esp. Anglo-American, EU, Canada, etc..
We have North Korea as an example. People got shot if they try to escape worker's paradise. Cuba is another example where people risk drowning or getting eaten by sharks just to escape hunger and poverty. So, answer is yes, socialism in a single country is possible but only under brutal communist dictatorship.
North Korea isn't communist, it's a cápítáli$t country with a dictator on top. It's essentially a hereditary monarchy, where the inheritance doesn't go down a straight line of firstborn boys / men, but is earned by the best suited men in the one, royal Kim family.
It actually isn’t possible at all, in any country.
No. If you would’ve read Marx you’d know that. Nations are bourgeois, the working man has no nation. “Socialism” (with commodities somehow 🤷) in one nation isn’t anything near socialism.
MLoids never beating the liberal allegations
You didn't watch the episode, did you?
Israel is unique, the only nation where socialism was successful-for a while. The original settlers, according to Israeli professor Avi Kay, “sought to create an economy in which market forces were controlled for the benefit of the whole society.” Driven by a desire to leave behind their history as victims of penury and prejudice, they sought an egalitarian, labor-oriented socialist society. The initial, homogeneous population of less than 1 million drew up centralized plans to convert the desert into green pastures and build efficient state-run companies.
That’s not what socialism is and Israel was never a socialist country
It's all silly things going on,it hardly makes much sense,nobody can predict future and present is much middle class
What does "middle class" mean? I'd say the world is getting poorer and poorer every day. Theory is more important than ever to guide action.
@@AnimalioPahazalli It's insane to think about poverty getting worse rather it is cured although it remain upto some amount
And more is middle class,they are mental labour of capitalist state
@@tanujSEOn what basis do you say that? The past 5 years we've had inflation, housing crises, a cost of living crisis, fretility crises in all advanced countries, austerity everywhere, new wars, political polarisation, etc. How is poverty cured? Sure, there are reformists, traitors, liberals, collaborants everywhere, but they're now more unpopular than they were in a long time. Look at Poland, Britain, USA, Germany, Spain, Italy, Geece...
@@AnimalioPahazalli I see myself as example and many others two,I am heir of property,it's not new,its very old thing which still survive and present in all countries,call them middle class
@@AnimalioPahazalli I have limited amount of money but market still gives me good opportunity to purchase things for my need from cola to mild recreations
Cigarettes do becomes budget issue but life goes on
I wonder if life ever will be sane again
-The smiths