> >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.
>
> ((((((((((((
>
> Charles: I see it this way too. The idea was NOT "build socialism only in one country, and be against revolutions in France, Germany, England, the U.S." , but rather the idea was " if no "advanced " country has a socialist revolution, we are not going to call ours off. " How could the Soviets make a revolution in another country ? The failure of there being revs. in other countries was not the fault of the Soviets.
If one builds socialism in one country, they must not create a police state as exists in Cuba or North Korea, because this is worse than losing the class war... it makes socialism into it's exact opposite: tyranny.
- Jamal