Socialism in One Country? How Precious? How Difficult?
Posted by Mike E on September 14, 2009
by Mike Ely
Richard Stark recently wrote to me:
“If we had just ONE socialist state in the world! At this point I’d bloody well settle for Lichtenstein or San Marino!”
And he added in another note:
“India has a whole lot of Maoists. We need to do our share, wherever we are, for the world revolution.”
I think there are three parts to this that demand our attention:
First, I think that it is just not widely understood just how precious it is to have a radical socialist state in the world. (Even, as Richard says, “just one!”)
It has been a long time (too long) since the world saw a socialist state like Mao’s China that was truly a “beacon of revolution” in the world — training and helping revolutionary movements, providing revolutionary theory and literature, creating a pole among states in the world outside the empires and the dominance of commodity markets, and providing the inspiration of ongoing radical social change.
In many ways it almost seems strange to a new generation when they read how captivated previous generations of communists were by the experiences of the Soviet Union and then (after the 1950s) of revolutionary China. It seems unbalanced for revolutionary movements in this country to be so closely entwined with events and movements so far away.
And, yet it was mainly unbalanced in this sense: the balance of world capitalism was deeply upset when a truly revolutionary state punched its way through the world system, and acted as a major pole of attraction for revolutionaries.
Then there were many ways (mainly good but also riddled with some problems) that those revolutionary states deeply influenced the structure, programs and ideologies of all those worldwide movements of co-thinkers who they gathered and inspired.
So I’m saying it is worth revisiting (and understanding) the incredible value (for the world revolution) of having a revolutionary state — if only to help people understand the importance of speaking out to popularize the politics and experiences of those communist movements reaching out to create radical new forms of popular power.
Second, the problem of “just one” stands out– because except for very brief periods, the world really only had one major socialist country at a time. And dealing with that isolation remains a major problem in both theory and practice.
On one level, the line struggles of the 1920s, settled the question of whether one should try to “build socialism in one country.” I believe the subsequent experiences of both the USSR and China confirmed that it is possible to take the socialist road (in initial ways) within one very large country — even a very poor one — while energetically “hastening and awaiting” new breakthroughs of the world revolution.
But those experiences in the USSR and China also confirmed the real problems (politically, economically, militarily) of having just one socialist country — especially in the ways the encirclement of imperialism attrits and weakens the revolutionary process there within that socialist country.
In our time, this old question of “socialism in one country” is posed in a number of still-underexplored ways:
What does it mean to try to take the socialist road in one country if that country is small, or landlocked, and extremely poor? Certainly it is one thing to attempt that in Russia (which had a sixth of the world) or China (the largest population on earth) or potentially India. But what about in Nepal? What about the experience of the small island of Cuba? What can we say and learn about the difficulties of contemplating a socialist road under conditions like that. (Leaving asided Richard’s ironic reference to Lichtenstein etc.)
Further: what does it mean to attempt to create a socialist economy in one country under the modern conditions of the world economic system — which is far more entwined and interdependent than it was when Stalin debated Trotsky in the late 1920s over “socialism in one country.” What happens if your socialist country has not petroleum or natural gas, or if its only major natural resource has to be exported to be realized?
A recent quotation has circulated, ascribed to the Nepali Maoist leader Bhattarai. It reads in part:
“Today, the globalization of imperialist capitalism has increased many fold as compared to the period of October Revolution. The development of information technology has converted the world into a global village. However, due to unequal and extreme development inherent in capitalist imperialism has created inequality between different nations. In this context, there is still (some) possibility of revolution in a single country similar to the October revolution; however, in order to sustain the revolution, we definitely need a global or at least a regional wave of revolution in a couple of countries.”
We have not received confirmation that this is an accurate quote (or an accurate translation) of the passage that appeared in the Nepali Maoist newspaper Rato Jhilko (Red Spark). But who can deny that this posed a real and even pressing question? And this may be used by some to argue against making revolution alone in Nepal, and may be used by others to argue more urgently for regional coordination and internationalist support.
The Nepali Maoist party is famous for proposing that South Asia needs a larger socialist federation of states after liberation (discarding the borders imposed by the British colonial project). And it is well known that revolutionaries in south Asia have explored a pre-revolutionary coordination (in Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organisation of South Asia, CCMPOSA).
But what do we have to say, on the plane of theory and program, on this question of “socialism in one country”? Is it possible in all countries at any time? Are there places (Central America? the Caribbean) where socialism can only come from a regional project — or in countries close to a major existing socialist state (North Vietnam)?
And third, Richard’s second point flows from all of this:
“We need to do our share, wherever we are, for the world revolution.”
Yes, we do. And we need to debate urgently what “our share” is — especially (as Richard points out) in regard to the rapidly developing revolutions of India and Nepal — which are both exceptionally radical (compared to the other movements of this moment) and also exceptional rich with real potential for winning their revolutions and bringing large new liberated, socialist areas into being.
Jay Rothermel said
On the question of Cuba, the below says it better than I can:
http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7045/704520.html
….Cuba shows what a socialist revolution can accomplish. Led by the Rebel Army and July 26 Movement, working people not only overthrew a bloody U.S.-backed dictatorship in 1959, but took political power out of the hands of the ruling capitalist families and established a workers and farmers government.
To Washington’s amazement, the new revolutionary government could neither be intimidated nor bought off. Every act of imperialist aggression was met by millions of determined workers and farmers who pushed the revolution forward. In this process, ordinary working people have transformed themselves. Cuba’s revolutionary leadership has been marked by its efforts to advance the literacy and culture of working people of all ages. It has demonstrated its commitment to combat racial discrimination and promote women’s equality. It has stood by its guarantee to farmers that they can work the land free from debt slavery or threat of eviction.
Acting as citizens of the world, Cubans have joined in anti-imperialist struggles around the globe, from Congo to Bolivia to Syria. Some 300,000 served in Angola alone, helping defeat invasions by the racist regime in South Africa and contributing to its overthrow. Today, tens of thousands of Cuban health-care personnel provide competent, dignified medical care in some of the most remote regions of Africa and Latin America.
Cuba’s course of working-class cooperation and solidarity is in stark contrast to the dog-eat-dog reality of capitalism in the United States and elsewhere. In today’s world of imperialist wars abroad and the employers’ drive against living standards and job conditions at home, the Cuban Revolution points a road forward for working people everywhere….