Talk:Socialism in one country

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old talk[edit]

Why isn't this article at Socialism in one country with Socialism in One Country a redirect to it? --Robert Merkel 00:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree. I attempted to move it, but the lower case name is already there, directed to the upper case version. I propose deleting the lower case version, then moving the upper case to the lower case. RickK | Talk 05:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. Mikkalai 05:07, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
       I put Stalin's picture simply because it makes the article look better.--RainyDayCrow 02:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from Stalin's О НЕКОТОРЫХ ВОПРОСАХ ИСТОРИИ БОЛЬШЕВИЗМА

Кто дал контрреволюционной буржуазии духовное, идеологическое оружие против большевизма в виде тезиса о невозможности построения социализма в нашей стране, в виде тезиса о неизбежности перерождения большевиков и т. п.? Это оружие дал ей троцкизм. Нельзя считать случайностью тот факт, что все антисоветские группировки в СССР в своих попытках обосновать неизбежность борьбы с Советской властью ссылались на известный тезис троцкизма о невозможности построения социализма в нашей стране, о неизбежности перерождения Советской власти, о вероятности возврата к капитализму.

Lenin (1905): "от революции демократической мы сейчас асе начнём переходить и как раз в меру нашей силы, силы сознательного и организованного пролетариата, начнём переходить к социалистической революции", "мы стоим за непрерывную революцию"

Can someone put in the article WHY stalin believed socialism was possible in one country and why Lenin didn't believe it, or even Trotskys reasoning? The article is essentially useless without it.

This is English Wikipedia - so why are there, not one but two blocks of Russian text without translation stuck in the middle of this Talk page?
Nuttyskin (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bukharin's proirity[edit]

..though it was actually developed by Bukharin

Stalin's publications on the issue dated at least by 1924. What are Bukharin's? Mikkalai 23:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've looked through the Foundations of Leninism and the quote doesn't appear anywhere (a search on google only returns the wiki entry and clones). The bits that do include theory on One Country seem to be added post-1924, so Bukharin would be the one who actually developed theory, though Josef Stalin may not have been in opposition to it.

If you have evidence that a quote supporting "Socialism in One country" existed in Foundations of Leninism, please post a link to the 1924 edition. That said, this only means that stalin was partial to the position - you cant say he developed the theory based on one sentence he uttered. More likely that Stalin picked positions he liked (or could use to political advantage) out of the ones developed by other, more ideologically minded, communists, like Bukharin.

Yarilo2 15:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Original Research or Opinion Requiring Attribution[edit]

The current text reads:

Mensheviks and Trotsky had also come to the conclusion that Socialism in One Country would be impossible at any level, but the latter based their idea on Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution, which was disputed by Lenin as potentially reactionary because it appeared to discourage building socialism in the USSR at all, given that the hoped-for communist revolutions in more advanced countries like Germany and France had not been carried through."

This statement includes a claim regarding the cause of Trotsky's (and others) rejection of the theory of Socialism in One Country. The claim is that the rejection of Socialism in One Country is based upon the theory of Permanent Revolution. That is certainly a reasonable POV. However, another reasonable POV is that Socialism in One Country was rejected by the majority of Bolsheviks (prior to Stalin's assumption of power) based upon more general principles of Marxism. Who deduced the alleged causal relationship? If the editor has made the deduction, then it is original research and should be removed.

I will wait for 48 hours to allow editors time to provide verifiable sources that Trotsky's rejection of Socialism in One Country is based upon the Theory of Permanent Revolution, rather than upon more general theoretical considerations. If an editor needs more time to find such a verifiable source, they should make a request here. If no verifiable sources or requests for more time are made within 48 hours, I will delete the references to Permanent Revolution, both in the text in question, and in the subsequent text related to Lenin's writings against Trotsky. --BostonMA 16:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "socialism in one country" the true national-socialist ideology, and not the Hitlerian hypocrisy? Darth Sidious 04:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darth - be careful not to confuse the nation with the state or geographic boundaries

A single large anonymous edit was made recently which I reverted, partly because it introduced some unclear statements and typos. However, I went through the edits and have re-made some of the changes where it made the article clearer or where it removed controversial and possibly POV material. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this useful?[edit]

The quotes below are too long to be useful on Trotskyism, but might it be useful in this article? --Duncan (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is worth noting that in 1915 Lenin wrote, “Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world.” The ‘United States of Europe Slogan’, Collected Works, Vol. 18, p. 232.
And in 1918, he wrote, “I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.” Speech delivered at a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Moscow Soviet, 14th May 1918, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 9.
This is not about "Socialism in One Country, this is about "revolution in one country", a quite different issue: "We are blowing up the World Fire". - Altenmann >t 16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph.[edit]

I'm just wondering if the word approbation is used correctly here. Approbation means approval and i suspect that the author is aiming for the opposite meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.77.134 (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the word should be "opprobrium", not "approbation". DWorley (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

poorly sourced/fringe term[edit]

marxism.org being half of the 2 sources which ?legally? post a chapter of a book by an unknown, which references EH Carr who first published the term maybe. EH Carr, The crucial point about Hitlerism is that its disciples not only believe in themselves, but believe in Germany. For the first time since the war a party appeared outside the narrow circles of the extreme Right which was not afraid to proclaim its pride in being German. It will perhaps one day be recognized as the greatest service of Hitlerism that, in a way quite unprecedented in German politics, it cut across all social distinctions, embracing in its ranks working men, bourgeoisie, intelligentsia and aristocrats. Germany Awake! became a living national faith Darkstar1st (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • from the same blog[1]:
    Utopian socialists and nationalists have advocated the theory of socialism in a single country before this time. In Germany today, the theory of an “independent” national economy, which progressively diminishes its connection with world economy to the vanishing point “autarchy,” as it is called – is the reactionary ideal of Hitler’s Fascists.
    Marx and Engels specific ally polemicized against the idea of a national socialist utopia in all their writings. Even Stalin was compelled to admit that the two founders of scientific socialism never entertained the idea, when he said that the possibility of building socialism in a single country was first formulated by Lenin in 1915. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is by the "unknown" writer, Duncan Hallas, who referenced the historian E.H. Carr. The other passage from "the same blog" was written by Max Shachtman in 1933. What btw is your point? TFD (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
my point is he used the term national socialist, not socialism in one country. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should rewrite Wikipedia based on the terminology used in Trotskyist pamphlets in 1933? TFD (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that passage was from the lone source in the article, marxist.org. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marxism.org is not the source, it is a website that provide access to numerous sources. You are aware that Shachtman's article was written before the website was set up? TFD (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is a great article that is very beneficial to history and politics learners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.68.158 (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicolae Ceausescu.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Nicolae Ceausescu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseph Stalin.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Joseph Stalin.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Joseph Stalin.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 December 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why the main article is Socialism in One Country rather than Socialism in one country (like Permanent revolution rather than Permanent Revolution)? For instance, here it's only capitalised in the title, but in the text it's socialism in one country. See also on Google Scholar.--Davide King (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Marx and Engels on the Russian Revolution[edit]

The quote by Marx and Engels from their 1882 introduction to the Communist Manifesto requires a secondary source because it is not clear what they were talking about, how it relates to socialism in one country or how subsequent people interpreted it. i can't find it and it should be removed if no sources can be found. TFD (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialism_in_one_country&oldid=1207983106"