>>90967>why do you retards just make shit up all the time?
Where's the lie?https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/01/25.htm>Section VI: THE QUESTION OF THE VICTORY OF SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY>But the pamphlet The Foundations of Leninism contains a second formulation, which says:<“But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. The principal task of socialism—the organisation of socialist production—has still to be fulfilled. Can this task be fulfilled, can the final victory of socialism be achieved in one country, without the joint efforts of the proletarians in several advanced countries? No, it cannot. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient; this is proved by the history of our revolution. For the final victory of socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of a peasant country like Russia, are insufficient; for that, the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are required” (see The Foundations of Leninism, first edition18).
This doesn't phase Stalin, but he says the pamphlet is actually talking about Trotsky. But here's my favourite bit:>Subsequently, however, when the criticism of Leninism in this sphere had already been overcome in the Party, when a new question had come to the fore—the question of the possibility of building a complete socialist society by the efforts of our country, without help from abroad—the second formulation became obviously inadequate, and therefore incorrect.
Basically another way of saying "we weren't planning to do socialism in one country because marxist theory doesn't support it, but we had to, so we'll change the theory to justify our actions aposteriori, but we'll make it seem like it's apriori." But look at this shit>it joins the question of the possibility of building socialism by the efforts of one country—which must be answered in the affirmative
Why must it be answered in the affirmative? Cause he wants it to be? Stalin is just a shit philosopher/theoretician/writer. The only reason his shit was published and there was no dissent is because he literally killed everyone who disagreed in the purges. Then Stalin goes on to declare>On this ground I modified and corrected this formulation in my pamphlet The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists (December 1924); I divided the question into two—into the question of a full guarantee against the restoration of the bourgeois order, and the question of the possibility of building a complete socialist society in one country. This was effected, in the first place, by treating the “complete victory of socialism” as a “full guarantee against the restoration of the old order,” which is possible only through “the joint efforts of the proletarians of several countries”; and, secondly, by proclaiming, on the basis of Lenin’s pamphlet On Co-operation,19 the indisputable truth that we have all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society (see The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists).*
Are you following? Can you see the trick he did? He split the concept of "socialism", i.e. a global socialist society, into two connected concepts: "socialist society" and "full guarantee against the restoration of the old order". The old order bit is a little throwback to Marx when he said "communism is what we call the real movement that aims to change the established order of things", but if you reach full, global socialism, it would be impossible to "restore the old order", so in reality the two concepts are different ways of saying the same thing (but that's not so convenient when you're faced with the impossibility of a global revolution). So Stalin says they cannot do one part, the "protection against going back to the old order" because that requires an international, united proletariat (really makes you think), but says they can do the other part, the "socialist society in one country".
He also engages in some casual idealism, no big deal:>Without, such a possibility, building socialism is building without prospects, building without being sure that socialism will be completely built. It is no use engaging in building socialism without being sure that we can build it completely, without being sure that the technical backwardness of our country is not an insuperable obstacle to the building of a complete socialist society.
Then Stalin goes on and repeats himself a bunch of time, like a fucking SOPHOMORE.>On the question of the victory of socialism in our country, the pamphlet states:
“We can build socialism, and we will build it together with the peasantry under the leadership of the working class”. . . for “under the dictatorship of the proletariat we possess . . . all that is needed to build a complete socialist society, overcoming all internal difficulties, for we can and must overcome them by our own efforts” (ibid. 22). >What is meant by the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country?>It means the possibility of solving the contradictions between the proletariat and the peasantry by means of the internal forces of our country, the possibility of the proletariat seizing power and using that power to build a complete socialist society in our country>It signifies that by the final victory of socialism in one country Zinoviev understands, not a guarantee against intervention and restoration, but the possibility of completely building socialist society.>To engage in building socialism without the possibility of completely building it, knowing that it cannot be completely built—such are the absurdities in which Zinoviev has involved himself. >Clear, one would think. >Such are the facts. >Clear, one would think. >In other words, we can and must build a complete socialist society, for we have at our disposal all that is necessary and sufficient for this building.>I think it would be difficult to express oneself more clearly.
Have you ever read Stalin? He's a chore to get through, not to mention WRONG.