- 11 Dec 2015 22:52
#14631607
The prospect of "skipping," a capitalist republic was one that was reconcilable with both Uneven and Combined Development and Lenin's April Theses. The April Theses, related to DUC or not, was opposed initially by a majority of Bolsheviks (most especially Kamenev—who, as you noted, also disputed DUC).
But, again, this has almost nothing at all to do with Socialism in One Country.
Because it had nothing to do with Socialism in One Country.
In which case, Marx, Engels, and Lenin (who, as repeatedly pointed out and always conveniently ignored, all explicitly condemned the idea of socialism in one country) were all proponents of Uneven and Combined Development. Which is simply not true as the latter theory did not exist for most of them.
All of this is to obscure the fact that Socialism in One Country was not a Marxist concept before Bukharin and Stalin, and—most importantly—that there is no dialectical or material foundation for it at all. In fact, one has to throw Marx, Engels, and Lenin away to make it work. Which it didn't in actual history.
You're making a good try for it, but throwing dust in the air isn't answering any argument.
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
No, he did not.
The prospect of "skipping," a capitalist republic was one that was reconcilable with both Uneven and Combined Development and Lenin's April Theses. The April Theses, related to DUC or not, was opposed initially by a majority of Bolsheviks (most especially Kamenev—who, as you noted, also disputed DUC).
But, again, this has almost nothing at all to do with Socialism in One Country.
I fail to see how a speech Kamenev gave at the session held by the Moscow Committee, enlarged by the active Party functionaries, and repeated at the session of the Communist fraction of the Trade Union Council, and at the conference of military functionaries, would lead you to believe I was trying to change the argument into what a creep Trotsky was.
Because it had nothing to do with Socialism in One Country.
As I see it, the whole argument against Lenin and the possibility of socialism in one country as part of the world revolutionary process revolves around uneven and combined development and the theory of permanent revolution.
In which case, Marx, Engels, and Lenin (who, as repeatedly pointed out and always conveniently ignored, all explicitly condemned the idea of socialism in one country) were all proponents of Uneven and Combined Development. Which is simply not true as the latter theory did not exist for most of them.
All of this is to obscure the fact that Socialism in One Country was not a Marxist concept before Bukharin and Stalin, and—most importantly—that there is no dialectical or material foundation for it at all. In fact, one has to throw Marx, Engels, and Lenin away to make it work. Which it didn't in actual history.
You're making a good try for it, but throwing dust in the air isn't answering any argument.
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!