# Building Up Socialism/Chapter 8

Chapter VIII.
INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTION.
Thus, comrade Zinoviev gives Lenin a completely upside-down interpretation and in vain does he refer to the abc of Communism. In vain does Zinoviev confuse the question. It would be absurd to commence an argument about the question as to whether we have guarantees for the construction of Socialism under any international situation in the event, say, of intervention on the part of the capitalist countries. It is clear that the sole guarantee against dangers from without is international revolution.
On this question, there is no dispute whatever. The argument is not about this at all. It is not here that the line runs which marks off the system of views of our Central Committee from the system of views advocated by the opposition. The argument is: can we construct Socialism and complete the construction apart from the question of international affairs; i.e., the argument is about the character of our revolution. Can we say with Lenin that our centre of gravity would be transferred to cultural development were it not for our international obligations, etc.? Or, will our backwardness inevitably drag us to the ground? That is the question. That this is so is proved by the history of the differences with the present opposition. The first differences on this question were observed at the meeting of the Polit-Bureau where comrade Kamenev and to a certain extent also comrade Zinoviev stated that we cannot cope with the ​task of constructing Socialism, because our technico-economic base is backward.
This was discussed at the XIV Congress. Consequently the question is not as simple as it may seem at first sight: we must make a distinction between its correct presentation and the incorrect. Of course it may be asked: Why is such subtlety necessary? Why must we on the one hand raise the question of combatting the capitalist world, capitalist intervention, wars, etc., and on the other hand separate from this question the question of the internal combination of forces, when in real life the two things march together and are really inseparable? To reply to this, arguments of a weighty and convincing character must be advanced. It we can anticipate a certain period of peaceful development, for the next few years, say, then, according to the presentation of the question in which it is argued that we cannot construct Socialism in our country because of our technical economic backwardness, because the peasantry in our country are too numerous, we must inevitably, throughout the whole of this period, turn towards degeneration. A reply in the negative to the question to which Lenin replied in the affirmative, when he ​analysed the internal forces of our development, throws doubt upon everything else: the Socialist character of our State enterprises, the Socialist character of our dictatorship, the Socialist character of the driving forces of our economic development and the Socialist character of the driving forces of our State. For if we reply in the negative to the question of constructing Socialism on the ground of the internal state of class forces in our country, then the development of the forces of production in our country must inevitably coincide with such a development as will, in a more or less degree, result in the predominance of capitalist elements. This will "guarantee" such a character of development as will inevitably transfer the centre of gravity to the peasantry against the working class. This will inevitably be accompanied by such, a regrouping in the system of our State apparatus as would justify one proclaiming from the tribune that on top we are becoming converted into a bureaucracy, isolating ourselves from the masses of the workers, while the lower floors of our State apparatus are being filled with kulak elements. In other words, the whole "position of the opposition," which is now clearly becoming a position of opposition to the Party on the ground that we are degenerating, emerges from the fact that our comrades have thrown doubt on that passage from Lenin in which he says directly that we possess all that is necessary and sufficient for the construction of Socialist society.
By separating the two sections of the question, we obtain a genuinely revolutionary-Marxian, a genuinely international presentation of the question.
To speak of international revolution on every possible occasion does not necessarily express the maximum of revolutionary spirit. The question of ​the international character of revolution may be presented in such a manner as to contradict the revolutionary point of view. For example, in the work of Lieber, which we have already mentioned, there is a subtle passage in which the author tries to explain the difference between proletarian revolution and bourgeois revolution. Enumerating the special features of proletarian revolution, Lieber writes:
"Finally, there is another characteristic feature of Socialist revolution, that is its international character. [Just fancy, 'international character'!—N.B.].
"The Socialist system takes the place of capitalism. The distinguishing feature of the capitalist system is that it creates world economy. … Therefore it is impossible to conceive the introduction of Socialism in a single section of this economy without the whole world economy becoming affected. Socialist revolution is conceivable only as world revolution and consequently it pre-supposes a certain state not only in one, two, three, four or five countries, but in the majority of the industrially developed countries; otherwise an inevitable conflict would arise between the countries which are not yet prepared for Socialism and those which are fully ripe for it."
The kind of internationalism here expressed and on what it is based are perfectly clear. This position may be expressed as follows: "Don't make revolution, don't build Socialism, because you will come into conflict with other countries." International revolution is here presented as a single act, as if the proletariat of all countries would come simultaneously into the historical arena and shout: ​"Long live revolution!" And, hey presto! Socialism will float in all ready on a plate!
In actual fact, the political sense of this juggling with revolution is contained in the following moral: "Don't go forward, don't make revolution in a single country because you will fail anyhow"; or, translating this into the language of Schedrin:
"What is the use of you alone trying to build Socialism in a single street in Stupidtown?"
This is a narrow, national point of view.
"If you start a revolution in a single country, you will cease to be an internationalist," moralises Lieber.
This sort of "internationalism" is the reverse side of the social-treachery medal.
We repeat, the argument is about internal forces and not about the dangers coming from abroad. Consequently, the argument is about the character of our revolution.
When we speak about the construction of Socialism in a single country, by "single country" we have in mind our country (Russia). We cannot say that Socialism can be constructed in any country. If, for example, we were dealing with an absolutely backward country which did not possess the minimum of material pre-requisites for the construction of Socialism that we have, then we could not draw the conclusions that we draw in this case. Hence, the argument is about our country, with all its characteristic features, with its technique, its economy, its social-class relations, its proletariat, its peasantry and with the definite relations existing between the proletariat and the peasantry. This is how the question should be presented; the question of the possibility of constructing ​Socialism in our country so presented is the question of the character of our revolution. Since our revolution pre-supposes a state of affairs in which the construction of Socialism is possible and since we possess "all that is necessary and sufficient" for the construction of Socialism, it follows that there can be no point in the process of this Socialist construction at which this construction can become impossible. If within our country we have such a combination of forces that each year we make progress in the direction of preponderance of the Socialistic sector of our economy and that the socialised sectors of our economy grew more rapidly than the private capitalist sectors, then it follows that each succeeding year we operate with an increasing superiority of strength. Taking the "average," leaving out for the time being possible zigzags and accidents which mutually eliminate each other, our progress would be marked by a rising curve. Whence such forces could emerge inside the country as would make further Socialistic construction impossible, it is impossible to conceive. As, however, real life proceeds not only in the territory of the Soviet Union, as the dictatorship of the proletariat operates not on an isolated island, but on territory comprising one-sixth of the globe and is surrounded by the remaining capitalistic five-sixths of the globe, then a whole series of dangers of an international character arises. If it were asked: have we absolute guarantees against possible intervention, we should have to reply, we have not. And as in real life everything is mutually connected and each thing influences the other, Lenin was right when he said that the final victory of Socialism in a single country, in a capitalist environment, is impossible. But the attempt of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Smilga and others try to reduce this ​idea to the one that it is impossible completely to construct Socialism in Russia because of our technical backwardness is absolutely wrong and must be combatted. Such an interpretation must be combatted because otherwise it will be impossible to advocate the line of policy outlined by Lenin.
All the silly jokes about building Socialism "in a single street in Stupidtown," or in "Gotham," should cause a feeling of revulsion among real revolutionaries. Some people think these jokes are extremely witty. They fail to see that they are merely pitiful, because they simply repeat the doubtful wit of Kautsky about "Socialism in Turkestan" and Hilferding's clumsy jest on the "Socialism of Bokharan mullahs." It is positively nonsensical to pretend that these bits of Social-Democratic humour stand for revolutionary internationalism. They simply conceal desertion from the front at the most difficult moment of the struggle.
At the present time fresh difficulties have hurled themselves against us, difficulties arising from our technico-economic backwardness, from the fact that we must seek means for capital expenditure and from the fact that the rate of development is much slower than it would be in the event of a victorious proletarian revolution in Europe. Of course, a victorious revolution would radically alter the whole state of things; the rate of industrialistion of our country after a certain interval of time would become greatly accelerated. We should have to re-organise our forces of production differently, we would have to "plan" and "group into regions" on different lines; the relations between town and village would be different; we would be able much more rapidly to draw our backward agriculture into the orbit of industry. At the present time we are proceeding far too slowly. But this relatively ​slow progress (compared with the rate of progress of combined European economy) is not the negation of the possibility of constructing Socialism in our country. This slow rate of progress merely expresses the enormous difficulties of our work of construction.
This is how the question of the possibility of constructing Socialism in a single country should be decided. In order to link up this question with certain other more general questions, we take the liberty to recall the following. During the controversy of 1923, we said: If comrade Trotsky is right and our country should be unable to maintain the proletarian dictatorship without the State aid of the Western proletariat, owing to our conflicts with the peasantry, then some very important conclusions follow. If we spread the proletarian revolution over the whole world we shall obtain approximately the same proportion between the proletariat and the peasantry as we have in the Soviet Union. For, when the proletariat takes power in England, it will have to deal with India and the other British colonies; if the proletariat takes power in France it will have to deal with Africa; if the proletariat takes power in all countries it will have to deal with all the other peasant countries. The world proletariat will have to solve the problem of how to live in harmony with the world peasantry. And if the proportion is approximately the same as that in the Soviet Union, then, drawing the corresponding conclusion from the theory of inevitable doom unless aid comes from without, willy-nilly we come to the Cunow presentation, according to which the world is "not yet mature" for the social revolution.
There is an enormous number of peasants in the world who according to Trotsky will "inevitably" ​come into conflict with the proletariat. As in China alone there are 400,000,000 peasants, then the revolution is "inevitably doomed." Where is the "State aid" from without to come from? This is where the theory of the opposition leads us. If such conclusions are not drawn, it is because the question is not argued to its logical conclusion, but is left unfinished: when they speak of England they have in mind only London and Manchester and forget about all the other parts of the world which at the present time are bound to England; they contemptuously ignore the enormous number of colonial and semi-colonial peoples and by that reveal their refined "European" "Marxism."
In the same manner we learn that the question of the character of our revolution, of its driving forces, etc., is of profound practical world significance.
What has been said above may be summarised as follows:
The ideological sources of the opposition undoubtedly are Social-Democratic tendencies. This should not be understood, in a crude and vulgar sense. The leaders of the opposition are not Mensheviks, of course. But they do reveal tendencies in the direction of Menshevism. They "give their finger" to the Menshevik devil; of this there is not the slightest doubt. Their intellectual make-up gives rise to an irrepressible desire to prophesy our doom. As is known, this doom was prophesied in the October days by the Kamenev-Zinoviev-Shliapnikov group, which now represents a section of the opposition bloc. Comrade Lenin described their attitude as "wailing pessimism." This doom was prophesied in the spring of 1921 (particularly by Trotsky). It was prophesied in the spring of 1923 (the famous Declaration of the "46."). This ​doom is being foretold now by the opposition in their combined attack upon the Party. All these "prophecies," which failed one after another, rest upon an incorrect theory, which is essentially a theory denying the objectively Socialist character of our revolution.