Anyways, I had a question or five. Be satisfied you've gotten me curious.

If 'socialism in one country is impossible'
Then does that mean that the whole world has to be socialist for it to suceed?

If so, wouldn't you ned a global government to run it, since each country, while being socialist for its people, is likely to be capitalist for itself (seeking out the besteconomy and advances)?

If so, wouldn't that necessarily lead to the erosion of national sovreignty (something we've agreed - I think - is important) for all the nations?

Could socialism survive expansion into space, if it encountered non-socialist civilizations and traded with them? (thus re-creating a not-entirely-socialist 'world'?)

WOULD a socialist government have the necessary funds to expand into space, thus obtaining new resources, or would it be Earthbound, subject to the eventual ravages of Malthus?

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

But seeing as how everyone has to share that same mindset for it to work, that's where it breaks down.

Even on a global scale it wouldn't be fruitful. Each sect or country, or whatever the divisons would be, would be trying to vie for the better hand, the better milk as it were. So, right there, you've got rudimentary capitilism.

------------------
I bet when Neanderthal kids would make a snowman, someone would
always end up saying "Don't forget the big heavy eyebrows." Then they would all get embarrassed because they remembered they had the big hunky eyebrows too, and then they would get mad and eat the snowman.

According to theory, yes. It's a convenient little excuse, isn't it?

Sheesh!

------------------
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
Come Hither and Yawn...

So, now to the questions.

quote:

---

If 'socialism in one country is impossible' Then does that mean that the whole world has to be socialist for it to suceed?

---

No. Allow me to quote Lenin

quote:

---

The complete victory of the socialist revolution in one country alone is inconceivable and demands the most active co-operation of at least several advanced countries, which do not include Russia

---

Russia was a backwards country, which is why we talk about how it was a failure for socialism. Especially as it was cut off from the rest of the world. Yet, socialism itself is internationalist. It is only a step between capitalism and communism, and as communism can only happen when the entire world has passed on to the state of socialism and the state slowly begins to wither away, socialism in one country is not socialism. The revolution (or more accurately, the revolutionary spirit) must be exported. That is why we say socialism in one country cannot work. So although it can get bogged down in semantics, the thought is accurate.

quote:

---

If so, wouldn't you ned a global government to run it, since each country, while being socialist for its people, is likely to be capitalist for itself (seeking out the besteconomy and advances)?

---

quote:

---

If so, wouldn't that necessarily lead to the erosion of national sovreignty (something we've agreed - I think - is important) for all the nations?

---

National sovereignty is important, now. As the old saying goes, military power is like the Mississippi River, it runs from north to south only. However, in a socialist world, it wouldn't be. For instance, nationalism itself would be dead, more or less. Most of the causes for wars would not exist between socialist states.

quote:

---

WOULD a socialist government have the necessary funds to expand into space, thus obtaining new sources, or would it be Earthbound, subject to the eventual ravages of Malthus?

---

This is a GREAT question. Firstly, if Omega is reading this, I'll simply reply to him by saying "Cosmonaut" at which time he'll run to the library at PS 21 and try to find a book with pictures of Russian spacemen in it.

But for those who accept that the USSR was not socialist, let us continue on.

There is a common misconception that socialism does not encourage economic growth. That is, however, flat wrong. To the contrary, it does to a great degree. The very nature of socialism is one that is to increase production, thus allowing for an abundance which does not raise the level of just one, but raises it of all. I will have to reference the USSR on the matter of growth, as it was the only worker's state, and it did partake in more socialist programs than any other state (keeping in mind that from 1921-23 it was ran by Lenin, and then even Stalin took a couple decades to remove the Left Opposition, and despite his reactionary nature, his economic programs were not entirely, only mostly, backwards).

In the 50 year span of 1913 (the height of pre-war production) to 1963, which included two world wars (including the epic struggle with Nazi Germany), a civil war, foreign intervention, and other calamities (some bad droughts, Stalin's collectivization and scorched earth policy) total industrial output rose more than 52 times. As compared to 6 for the US and a doubling in Britain.

From a Marxist point of view, the function of technique is to economise human labour. In the 50 year period from 1913 to 1963, the growth of productivity of labour in industry, the key index of economic development, advanced by 73 per cent in Britain and by 332 per cent in the USA. In the USSR, labour productivity rose in the same period by 1,310 per cent, although from a very low base.

Moreover, most Soviet surges occured during western slumps. For instance, the USSR was the only major industrialized country (as it was by then) not to go through the depression of the 1930s. This is part of the advantage of a planned economy (which, for all his drawbacks, Stalin had) versus an anarchaic capitalist system.
Agriculturally, the amount of cultivated land was increased in just three years, between 1953 and 1956, by a staggering 35.9 million hectares, an area equivalent to the total cultivated land of Canada. This despite the staggering blow of Stalin's forced collectivization (which Trotsky fought again) that almost crippled the USSR. Compare that to the backwardsness still suffered in countries such as India, China (which was all the fun of Stalinism without even the basic understanding of Marxism), and most parts of Africa and you have to wonder about beauracratic planning. The benefits of planning consistently tailed off in the USSR as the policy of "levelling," that of making all wages even, was diminished.

Out of a population that grew by 15 per cent, the number of technicians had grown by 55 times; the numbers in full-time education by over six times; the number of books published by 13 times; hospital beds nearly ten times; children at nurseries 1,385 times. The number of doctors per 100,000 people was 205, as compared to 170 in Italy and Austria, 150 in America, 144 in West Germany, 110 in Britain, France and Netherlands, and 101 in Sweden. Keep in mind, all this was done while the most educated social level was brutally being imprisoned and murdered through Stalin's fascism, and 20 million died at the hands of Hitler. If only Trotsky HAD won, imagine what would've happened then.

Now, are those numbers a complete vindication of socialism? Of course not. For one thing, numbers can be used to lie. But more importantly, the Soviet Union was not a socialist state. It was, however, a worker's state. And as it moved more and more away from that, it sunk more and more into the economic mire that led to the well predicted destruction of the USSR. Quite a few of those gains were gained at the expense ofe the proletariat, the peasantry, the international working class, and through concessions to capitalism (particularly during the Great Patriotic War, in which the USSR recieved a LOT of materials). Yet, Stalinism, despite being a debased form of Marxism, worked economically.

If I may quote Trotsky's brilliant work, The Revolution Betrayed...

quote:

---

"Even if the Soviet Union, as a result of internal difficulties, external blows and the mistakes of its leadership, were to collapse - which we firmly hope will not happen - there would remain as an earnest of the future this indestructible fact, that thanks solely to a proletarian revolution a backward country has achieved in less than ten years successes unexampled in history."

---

Yet, it couldn't hold out forever. Even this lowest form of sociaism would wither away as it was alone and as Stalin gave more and more power to the beuracracy and allowed the very small market economy which Lenin and Trotsky had allowed for temporary measures to grow. Only then did the economy go down the tubes.

Now, some of you may be saying "Why did this idiot stay up to 6:30 AM writing this?" Well, I can't answer that question, but I can answer another question you may be having which is "If Russia could flourish so much under Stalinism, and you claim socialism is better, why did it need the world revolution?" and that's tough for me to answer at this time of morning. But suffice it to say, what grew out of the 1920s was not socialism. And that is just it. Socialism would not have failed in Russia. It never could take hold in Russia. Russia was not yet a mature capitalist economy. And I'll save the discussion of mature capitalism for another time.

Allow me to end with a quote from Vladimir Lenin.

quote:

---

We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We
have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score. The final victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible. Our contingent of workers and peasants which is upholding Soviet power is one of the contingents of the great world army, which at present has been split by the world war, but which is striving for unity� We can now see clearly how far the development of the Revolution will go. The Russian began it - the German, the Frenchman and the Englishman will finish it, and socialism will be victorious.

---

But why do you say that you don't see a socialist revolution occuring? Is it because you believe the masses have turned away from socialism? Or that you believe a revolution itself is not likely? On the former, I can concede that you'd have a good arguement. On the latter, I believe you're dead wrong.

Nevertheless, I do look forward to hearing your reasoning behind it my good man.

Actually, under socialism, you would have the cows taken away by the government, which you probably are or were a part of, and the milk is distributed evenly to all people.

Under communism, the whole community would own the cows and you'd share the milk.

------------------
I bet when Neanderthal kids would make a snowman, someone would
always end up saying "Don't forget the big heavy eyebrows." Then they would all get embarrassed because they remembered they had the big hunky eyebrows too, and then they would get mad and eat the snowman.

-Jack Handey