Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:30:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Chegitz Guevara <mluziett-AT-shrike.depaul.edu>
Subject: Re: socialism in one country


On Tue, 13 Feb 1996, Scott Marshall wrote:

> I'll bite on the socialism in one country debate. Not ever having been very
> exposed to trotskyites or to ex trotskyites

AHEM! It's Trotskyist, not Trotskyite. We're socialists, not socialites! 
Don't forget it tankie.

 (sheltered life on the shop
> floor and I've never been able to wade thru Trotsky in his own write - too
> convoluted and abstract for me) 

You aren't reading the right stuff. Some of Trotsky's work is difficult, 
but most of it is easier to read than Marx.

I've never really gotten into this
> discussion and frankly haven't even begun to understand what people are
> exercised about. But to ask:
> 
> 1) Doesn't this debate really go back to Lenin's position on the Brest
> treaty where he took on Trotsky and others on making the peace and saving
> the fledgling socialism in Russia. And didn't he roundly reject trotsky's
> position of continuing to press Germany in the name of permanent revolution
> and the 'expected' uprising of the German workers?

No. There were three positions. The one that you ascribe to Trotsky was
actually Bukharin's. Trotsky advocated "neither peace nor war." In effect,
he declared peace on the Germans and left. This was not a strategy, but a
tactic. Trostky felt that it was necessary to prove to the workers of the
world that the massively unjust peace treaty was being forced on them. 
While Lenin had his own position, he saw the necessity of Trotsky's and
supported it. Also, it gave them time to try and win over German soldiers.
Lenin's position was ultimately correct, but not at the time he advanced
it. When circumstances changed, Trotsky supported Lenin's position.

> 2) What should Russia's position have been? Or more to the point what is the
> opposite of 'socialism in one country' when that's all you have so far?
> Should those in the one country simply hand it back over to the capitalists
> and in effect say, 'sorry, the world proletariat isn't ready yet so we'll
> give it up until a better time?' I'm not trying to be funny, I really don't
> see the point. It seems to me that it is highly unlikely that revolution
> will simultaneously happen in every, or even most, countries at one time.
> 
> Scott

The opposite of 'socialism in one country' which is an oxymoron, is
helping to build international revolution, instead of pulling the rug out
from the German and Chinese revolutions, the British General Strike, 
sending the tanks in to crush the Hungarian workers' uprising of '56, and 
so on.

Marc, "the Chegitz," Luzietti
personal homepage: http://shrike.depaul.edu/~mluziett
political homepage: http://shrike.depaul.edu/~mluziett/chegitz.html

o/~ When an eel lunges out and it bites off your snout, 'ats amore o/~



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------