BUILDING COMMUNISM IN ONE COUNTRY AND FINAL VICTORY OF SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY

Some comrades are adamant that one cannot build communism in one country. Especially that one cannot build communism in one country and keep the state which is the proletarian dictatorship.

One part of these comrades declare that communism is only possible as a worldwide society and without a state while Stalin says one can build communism in one country and must keep and strengthen the state while and after the building of communism if imperialism has not been destroyed or at least neutralised.

How wrong is Stalin and how anti Lenin is Stalin, not only is he anti Lenin he is even anti Stalin. For he was himself opposed to the final victory of socialism in one country, and yet he is talking of building communism in one country.

The other part of these comrades also declare that communism is only possible as a worldwide society and without a state while those who say that Stalin says one can build communism in one country and must keep and strengthen the state while and after the building of communism if imperialism has not been destroyed or at least neutralised are distorting Stalin-these are Trots who are putting words into the mouth of Stalin.

How wrong are these anti Stalin Trots, how typical distorters of the truth these Trots are for Stalin himself was opposed to the final victory of socialism in one country and these Trots say he wants to build communism in one country.

And these antagonists in politics both refer to the following view from Stalin:
“Does this mean that such a victory can be termed a full victory, a final victory of socialism, one that would guarantee the country that is building socialism against all danger from abroad, against the danger of imperialist intervention and the consequent danger of restoration? No, it does not. While the question of completely building socialism in the U.S.S.R. is one of overcoming our own, "national," bourgeoisie, the question of the final victory of socialism is one of overcoming the world bourgeoisie. The Party says that the proletariat of one country is not in a position to overpower the world bourgeoisie by its own efforts. The Party says that for the final victory of socialism in one country it is necessary to overcome, or at least to neutralise, the world bourgeoisie. The Party says that such a task is within the power only of the proletariat of several countries. Consequently, the final victory of socialism in a particular country signifies the victory of the proletarian revolution in, at least, several countries.”

The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I.
Once More on the Social-Democratic Deviation in our Party
Report Delivered on December 7
Source: Works, Vol. 9, December 1926 - July, 1927

One thing is clear, here, the question at hand is the final victory of socialism in one country. The question of final victory is the question of the “danger from abroad.. the danger of imperialist intervention and the consequent danger of restoration”. “The Party says that for the final victory of socialism in one country it is necessary to overcome, or at least to neutralise, the world bourgeoisie.”

All of this has nothing to do with building communism in one country after the building of socialism in one country has been achieved. After building socialism in one country we move to building communism in one country, and we have all we need to achieve this, the building of communism in one country, especially in a country like USSR, after the building socialism in one country. As regards the question of final victory of communism things remains the same, for it is indeed the same question! “The Party says that for the final victory of socialism (communism. Mn) in one country it is necessary to overcome, or at least to neutralise, the world bourgeoisie.”

Comrades who call each other all sorts of names for they are such antagonists in their approach to this question and to this view of Stalin base their antagonism in the wrong comprehension of our theory, and that is why they end up in one and the same mistaken idea: Both sides of the antagonism declare that communism is only possible as a worldwide society and without a state. One side of the antagonism blame Stalin for putting forward this view (of building communism in one country and keeping the state) the other side blame these comrades for distorting Stalin and declare that Stalin never defended this view (of building communism in one country and keeping the state). To both sides of the antagonism the view of building communism in one country and keeping the state is wrong.

Well we have seen that comrades on both sides of this antagonism is wrong and what we have is a case of wrong opposites meeting at one point!

And since both sides of this antagonism love to declare their love of dialectics and blame all other for not using “dialectics of this and dialectics of that” and even “dialectics of Marxism” we can say that such is the dialectics of these comrades’ ideas!

For after all dialectics has to be materialist and reflect the facts of the life of the proletariat-historically and presently!