David, response: Not at all. I think he was speaking of the tide of revolution which was occurring internationally at the time, including the attempts at socialist revolution in France, Germany and Italy.
"Well how well has the theory stood up there? Have the Chinese, Russian, Cuban, Vietnamese, etc. revolutions taken the world closer to communism?"
Not at all, not at all. Like I said, "the theory" of socialism was not intended by either Marx or Lenin, for isolated less-developed countries. Never was, never can be.
"If Lenin was opposed only to leftwing positions in those countries, then why did he excoriate the leftists in Italy, Britain, Holland and Germany and urge them to adopt the Russian revolution as their model. (read Leftwing Communism an Infantile Disorder to see for yourself)."
Lenin was not "opposed to leftwing positions in those countries". He favored world revolution, including revolution in the countries with the largest accumulation of capital, as being necessary to follow through with genuine socialism. Of course he advocated revolution in Italy, Britain, Holland, Germany, etc., etc.! Even Marx had, at one point, prefigured revolution against the autocracy in Russia as being the starting point of revolutions against the bourgeoisie in the west. But you are right in that Lenin may have gone too far in advocating that the most developed countries should follow Russia's precise model.
"I don't believe that socialism is possible in one country, any country, 'developed' or not."
How about in many countries together, or throughout the world?
"I personally don't believe in calling something like state capitalism socialism."
As well you shouldn't.
"But because that has become one of the dominant notions of socialism (in the wake of Leninism) I tend to avoid the term 'socialism' altogether, which to me now usually refers to some or other kind of paternalistic welfare state."
Because *what* has become one of the dominant notions of socialism? Equating socialism with state capitalism? Lenin never said or did any such thing! (did you read the text you just cited?)
By the way, is the "paternalistic welfare state" a progressive step for states, or is it a reactionary one? Or, is it all just the same, a state being a state being a state? Is a state-capitalist economic model the same as a feudalist one?
"Are you advocating state capitalism for the US or any other country right now? Is that your only notion of transition? How would the transition happen then?"
The transition to socialism requires a dictatorship of the proletariat, as advocated by Marx, in many nations, including the most developed countries, including the E.U., the U.S., Japan, etc. A transition towards socialism in these countries would, by economic necessity, be very different than those we have seen in isolated, less-developed countries. State capitalism could probably be avoided altogether. Obviously these places could not become utopian societies at the blink of an eye, but the advanced levels of development-- including sophisticated methods of production and distribution-- would make the work of building genuine socialism much easier. Also, there would be a much greater possibility for truly democratic structures and processes.
Paraphrasing Lenin: in the less developed countries, socialist revolutions occur easily, but are hard to follow through; in the most developed, socialist revolutions occur with more difficult, but are easier to follow through.
Best, David