CONTENT
Certainly once socialism has been built, as it was built in the USSR and thus a socialist state-and the famous constitution-was also created, one has to decide as to what to do!
Go on to building communism or be satisfied with what is built-socialism?
Actually, there is no choice here. “Development cannot stop”. “We are going ahead, towards Communism”
It is thus that plans were being drawn regarding the building of communism after the Second World War! The slogan, “We shall achieve plenty”, that is communism, was the slogan of the day!
1.a) The attacks on Lenin Stalin plan of building socialism-communism, besides all other issues, also relate to this issue. Many comrades who claim to defend Stalin that he is the builder of socialism in the USSR and the destroyer of Hitler etc., have basically two differing approach to this issue
First one openly declare that communism cannot be built in one country and that Stalin has made a mistake declaring communism can be built in one country
Second one declares this approach as an attack on Stalin, that actually Stalin is not here talking of the higher stage of communism but talking of the first phase of communism, that is after all socialism. And those who attack Stalin claiming that he is talking of higher phase of communism are distorting him. They put this view forward for they also agree that communism cannot be built in one country!
Both these approaches agree that one cannot built communism in one country!
We on our part call both these approaches as “New Trotskyism”!
Before socialism was built the position of Trotskyism was the denial of the possibility of building socialism in the USSR. They also declared that it is Stalin who came up with this “impossible” policy. You show them Lenin’s co-operative plan, thus his plan of building socialism in USSR, and as is known there are many a writing of Lenin that openly declares that “we have all we need to build socialism” and that we are building it. No matter. A sect is a sect. It will close its eyes to reality, lie about it and go on repeating: You cannot build socialism in one country! This is an absolute unchangeable truth of all Trotskyite sects.
And what are you supposed to do if you cannot built socialism while you are the government? Of course you restore capitalism! We all know of Trotsky’s plan of restoration of capitalism which has now been realised!
But while Stalin was alive socialism has been built! Everyone knows it. Stalin applied and developed Lenin’s plan of building socialism in one country, in the USSR, and socialism was built!
Now that socialism has been built now comes the question. Can communism be built in one country? Especially in such a large and powerful country of many nationalities as USSR that has the support of the world proletariat?
Under these conditions, under the conditions of socialism having been built in one country Trotskyite sects had to adapt. Other than coming up many a varied forms of “proving” that socialism has not been built in one country, they also had to come up with a view that accepts the building of socialism in one country but declare that communism cannot be built in one country!
One sect and one absolute truth of a sect opens up opportunities for many an interpretation of that absolute idea
Socialism has been built in one country, and it can be done, but communism cannot be built in one country!
So you are the government, you have built socialism but you cannot built communism!
What are you supposed to do then? Of course you restore capitalism!
Come back to the holy grail of Trotskyism for after all what does the “socialism cannot be built in one country” really there for: to restore capitalism. If you are forced to accept that socialism has been built, you then have to come up with a new grail: “socialism can be built in one country but communism cannot be built in one country”!
In fact the restorers of capitalism in the USSR has gone through two phases. Khrushchev phase was when high sounding declarations were being made of building communism while every policy proposed and applied was blocking this building of communism and was creating absolute chaos and degeneration and preparing the ground for the restoration of capitalism. He was a follower, under different conditions, of his close friend and comrade Tito the Trotskyite. This phase came to an inevitable end, communism was not built. The second phase (of Brezhnev) was based on giving up on building communism in USSR-they anchored themselves on what they called “higher phase of socialism” until the total destruction was ordered by their imperial masters!
This policy of denying the possibility of building communism in one country is the policy of restoration of capitalism in a country that has built socialism! This is to help cover the crimes of traitors who destroyed socialism that was built by declaring that building of communism in one country is impossible. You see, that is why they could not build it! They could not built communism not because they are traitors to the Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism; but because it cannot be done!
It is thus correct that they are all called “New Trotskyites”!
Titoite-Trotskyite all of them! Traitors to communism, enemies of the people all of them! Furthermore, this discussion about building communism in one country is not just a simple issue of Stalin making a mistake or Stalin not being interpreted correctly- as those who declare that one cannot build communism in one country say. It is directly related to the Lenin-Stalin plan of building socialism-communism and thus to the Lenin-Stalin plan of building world communism! It is thus that these critics and correctors inevitably “criticise” Stalin here and there and everywhere! They come up with Trotsky here and there and everywhere while swearing to Stalin here and there and everywhere!
They have corrections and or correct interpretations in plenty!
It is thus correct that they are called “New Trotskyites”!
New Trotskyism is the worst form of Trotskyism!
ONCE AGAIN BUILDING COMMUNISM IN ONE COUNTRY
We have already touched upon the subject of communism in one country.
There, the ‘new Trotskyists’ thought they had found an opening for their own interpretation of the quote from Stalin.
In the hope that it will be useful for comrades who have not broken with these new Trotskyists to present a quote that is not open to interpretation, we present to them again a quote from the 19th Congress Report that was previously presented to them.
‘The enemies and vulgarizers of Marxism preached the theory, which was extremely harmful to our cause, that the Soviet state would weaken and wither away even under conditions of capitalist encirclement. The party swept aside this theory, which was eroded by rottenness, and concluded and justified that, when the socialist revolution had triumphed in one country, and in most other countries, but under conditions of capitalism, the victorious revolutionary country could not weaken its state, but had to strengthen it in every way, and that, if the capitalist encirclement continued, the state would exist under communism as well.’
BUILDING COMMUNISM IN ONE COUNTRY AND FINAL VICTORY OF SOCIALISM- COMMUNISM 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!