>
>Alexandre Fenelon wrote:
>
>> I would like to make a question. Where is your source of 90% illiteracy
>> in Russia before 1917?
>
>Its from Trotsky. I will try and find the exact cite.
>
>
>> levels. The fault of this disaster can be put only in the Bolsheviks,
>> but their policies (confiscations, war communism) were partially res-
>> ponsible by economic ruin.
Excuse-me, I wanted to write can't instead of can. It modifies the meaning of this phrase.
>The fault of the civil war lies with the Bolsheviks? 20+ countries
>invaded. The Bolsheviks didn't have many choices.
I agree partially with you, but some hard policies towards the peasants and the failure to achieve cooperation with other left wing socialists (like internationalists mensheviks, left SR's and even center SR's like Chernov) probably made the civil war longer. And the offensive against Poland (they could simply had defended themselves- Stalin and Trotsky were against the offensive to Warsaw)added to the War Communist policy even after the Civil War (one more time against Trotsky's opinion)put an extraordinary strain in the USSR economy, so if the Bolsheviks were not the sole responsibles they also were not innocent.
> The early USSR experience should be used
>> as justification for a gradual approach in the transition to socialism
>> (not to mention the need for democracy). I disagree from writers like
>> Trotsky and E. Hobsbawn who said the Soviet Revolution wouldn't be
>> succeded withouth a International Revolution.
>
>Then you agree with Stalin and Bukharin that socialism is possible in a
>single backward country? An international revolution may not have made
>the USSR utopia, but it would have helped.
They were not completely wrong. A international revolution was not possible in 1921 and the survival of a state dedicated to spread revolution in all other countries would be troublesome, at least. So the only alternative was to build socialism in one country. The fact that this country has great extension, 150,000,000 inhabitants and was rich in mineral resources was a good start. Obviously theories like the NK juche are laughable because they were put in practice in a poor country with few arable land and only 20 million inhabitants. A more cautious approach in the transition to socialism aand less hostility towards peasants would probably spared many lifes, althought it could slow the industrialization. More democracy would be good too. The banning of factions in the PCUS in 1921 was not a very wise idea. Finally, if the officials of Red Army had not been slained by Stalin the war with Germany could be avoided or shortened and the expansion of USSR economy could have went on in those critical period. All those things could have prevented the final collpase of USSR, which was caused by the weapons races in first place. A stronger economy could have sustained the competition with less cost. I would like to state also that the 21 conditions for admission in the 3rd International also did a lot against international revolution The Leninist vanguard party was a reasonable solution for overthrowing the Russian regime but it wasn't adequate for Western countries.
>Sam Pawlett
>