Would Karl Marx have supported Stalin's theory of "socialism in one country"? Was it

I am currently writing up on a question similar to this, unfortunately all my prior research was largely on Stalin and Stalinism, thus I'm fairly ignorant on the specifics of marxism.

I initially thought Marx was in favour of a permanent world revolution, however, I read somewhere that the idea of Socialism in one country, can be seen to be a continuation of Marxist thought.

If anyone has any ideas on this, or even better, quotes of Marx to suggest that he would or wouldn't have supported the theory, I would be most appreciative.

Thank you

Reply 1

viddy9

Original post by rmisra

According to my understanding, Marx favoured world revolution. For example, he wrote that 'empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously'. Hence, his call in The Communist Manifesto: "workers of the world, unite!".

Engels, meanwhile, responding to the question of whether the revolution would be able to take place in one country alone, wrote:

'No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany... It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.'

Socialism in one country was a fabrication created by Stalin in the 1920s.

Reply 2

rmisra

Original post by viddy9

Great, thanks a lot, especially for the quotes :smile:

Reply 3

ModYom

You have to remember that Marx was a philosopher and Stalin a politician.

The politician is the one that must attempt to put theory into practice, ie: He must deal with reality.

And the reality of the day, necessitated 'socialism in one county'.

Ideals are important, but reality is even more important! (Mao Tse Tung).

Reply 4

Kallisto

Entertainment Forum Helper

I don't think that Karl Marx would have supported Stalin's theory of socialism. He has criticized the capitalism at his lifetime quite rightly, has initiated the communism manifesto to spread his ideas, solutions, views etc. - without any usage of violence, as far as I know. And that is why I think that Marx would not have accepted Stalin's way and philosophy of communism which was full of violence.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - Karl Marx hisself

Reply 5

scrotgrot

Communism doesn't work unless international because you get undercut by the capitalists. I doubt Marx would have supported it in theory, but he did have a relatively pragmatic, progressivist view of history and the road to pure communism. The Soviet-Chinese axis, plus their client states, is a pretty big wodge of the world especially when weighted for population and economic-military power, so he might have thought it was a decent enough approximation of the theory to be going on with. If the size of the Soviet Union and China allowed them to carry on for like 80 and 50 years with an imperfect form of communism that buys them a decent amount of time to spread the ideology internationally, unlike small scale communist revolutions like the Paris Commune which were summarily crushed.

Reply 6

anastas

I don't think Marx would have supported Stalin's idea about socialism in one country or any other idea and practice from Stalin for that matter. Marx envisioned a worldwide revolution of the working class against capitalism. The way i see it, Marx constructed the basis for socialism but Stalin was extremely far away from Marx's vision, he was by no means a socialist. So i don't think Marx would agree. Marx created a theory and Stalin distorted it by making people believe that his regime was actually communistic when in reality was dictatorial.
I hope that helped a bit :smile:

Reply 7

Kallisto

Entertainment Forum Helper

Original post by anastas

Yeah, that is the point. The word Marxism was misused for Stalin's dictatorship. I think the same as you: he would not have agreed with Stalin's vision of communism.

Reply 8

Kallisto

Entertainment Forum Helper

Original post by Onde

"If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist."

A quote of Karl Marx? Have looked for such an one, but I have nothing found.

Reply 9

Kallisto

Entertainment Forum Helper

Original post by Onde

he said it about the founding of the French Marxism party in 1882. He was basically saying "if that is Marxism, I am no Marxist". I get the impression from that that he would no readily approve of something that was a knock-off or watered down version of his views.

Right. I find that his analysis about capitalism at that time put it in a nutshell, but apart from the misuse of Stalin, it would have never worked. And I really believe that Marx would have realized that one day, after Stalin's sovietization at the latest.

Reply 10

Observatory

Original post by rmisra

It's a somewhat ill-posed question because they were working from very different information. We don't and can't know how Marx would respond to new information about the course of history that he didn't have at the time of his writing.

Marx was prophesying that history had a certain structure and that this structure meant every country would follow the same path of development, which included socialist revolution and eventually a communist society. What Marx's writings suggest (and viddy9 has given you a good taste) is that Stalin shouldn't be having this problem because world revolution was inevitable and the same historical developments taking place in Russia should be taking place everywhere.

Stalin was actually governing a country that, while powerful, was not powerful enough to make war on the entire rest of the world, which didn't look like it was going to spontaneously tip into communist revolution any time soon. The USSR had already attacked Poland and other countries on the basis of Trotsky's and Lenin's ideas that revolution would inevitably spread, and they had lost. By the mid 20s, the League of Nations had formed and this sort of Soviet aggression would risk involving all the other industrial powers. Stalin's policy was a response to the reality that Marx's theory didn't work and so his prophesies didn't come true. What would Marx have said to that? We have no data. His writings can't tell us. Maybe he would have repudiated Marxism entirely!

Stalin's justifications should be read as quasi-theological rationalisations for decisions he made for entirely practical reasons. He couldn't just repudiate Marxism, because devout Marxists controlled all the security and military institutions of his country. It's also likely that he devoutly believed in it himself. On the other hand, any practical policy he could enact to try to depose the governments of Britain, France, Germany, and the United States could only draw the USSR into war against an overwhelmingly powerful coalition. What he needed to do was find a way for the USSR to participate in world affairs as a more or less normal country without risking internal splits over ideology.

Think Henry VIII's conversion from Catholicism to Protestantism because of the many strategic and political advantages of divorcing his wife and assuming supremacy of the church in England. There was an idea of what he was obligated to do that existed when he took the throne, and he was able to change that idea. He could use coercion to impose a different interpretation of the scriptures within the range of views considered respectable at the time. But he could not just declare England to be a secular country and abolish the established church entirely.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 11

anastas

Original post by Kallisto

Yeah, that is the point. The word Marxism was misused for Stalin's dictatorship. I think the same as you: he would not have agreed with Stalin's vision of communism.

Exactly, i agree with you as well. Communism and socialism the way they were expressed by Marx shouldn't be misconcepted for the atrocities that Stalin, Ceausescu in Romania, Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, etc committed. Which healthy society would ever have gulags and killing fields? People who introduced these awful, violent, appalling practices were sick.

I'm sure you will know more than anyone how East Germany was not a communist/socialist state since there was no freedom and democracy. Marx had said that democracy is the road to socialism and in all the examples mentioned above, and so many others that exist, there was no democracy. There were barbarity, cruelty, mass killings, lack of demoracy and civil liberties and violation of human rights.
It's just that those who were in charge were hiding behind the '' shield '' of communism and socialism and the countries were socialist only in the name, not in reality.
Like North Korea whose official name is DEMOCRATIC People's Republic of Korea!!! What's your opinion about it, what do you think?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 12

Kallisto

Entertainment Forum Helper

Original post by anastas

(...)What's your opinion about it, what do you think?

The named countries have tried to achieved a classless society with equal people. And everyone who was criticizing this social and political ideology was eliminated. And that is a clear sign of dictatorship. Socialism in the sense of Communism was failed from the beginning. There is no wage, which fits to every single different job with different requirements and conditions. Economy needs differences to be flexible, to be innovative. Companies which were forcing by countries to achieve the prescribed productivity will not achieve better economy standards, not to mention better living standards. The reason is simple: lack of development!

Marx stated the imagination and solution of a classless society long before dictatorships like Soviet Union, Republic of Korea, Romania, Cambodia etc. were trying to foundate such a form of society. He could not foresee this magnitude of violence and the bad consequences, as it happened after his death. I appreciate his effort to give the (poor) society an alternative to the reverse side of capitalism, even if it was an illusion. What he wants were fairer living conditions and living standards for the poverty in a capitalistic economy with an inhuman face. That has to be accepted.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 13

The_Mighty_Bush

You have to remember that policies in theory and policies in practice will invevitably differ due to facts about the material world.

Also you have to understand that Stalin was a dictatorial leader of one of the most powerful countries on Earth at the time while Marx was a drunk who couldn't handle his own finances and relied on bullying family and friends to indefinitely finance his lifestyle.

Reply 14

ModYom

good post, and it's incredibly difficult to compare philosophers with politicians - Stalin, Lenin etc.. had to make do in the conditions they found themselves in.

Both of those great leaders had to contend with extreme negative forces from the outside and in, and did a remarkable job of creating and sustaining a from of Socialism.

Credit must be given (especially to Lenin)