# Building Up Socialism/Chapter 7

Chapter VII.
CAN WE BUILD UP SOCIALISM?
After this historical introduction, we may now take up the question in the special circumstances which arose in connection with the controversy with the opposition. We now take up the question of "the construction of Socialism in a single country." It will be more expedient to start with the formula advanced by comrade Zinoviev, for that formula may be regarded as the official formula of the opposition.
Comrade Zinoviev presents the question in the following manner. He says that a distinction must be made betwen two things, namely: (1) the guaranteed possibility of constructing Socialism—the possibility of constructing Socialism can (!) be conceived (!!) in a single country: (2) the final construction and consolidation of Socialism.
That is how the question is presented. Comrade Zinoviev hastened to refer to comrade Lenin. For example he mentions that at the Tenth Party Congress, Lenin said that we can speak of the ultimate success of the Socialist revolution in Russia "only on two conditions": (1) on the condition that we obtain aid from revolutions in the advanced countries, and (2) on the condition that we come to an agreement with the majority of the peasantry.
Comrade Zinoviev quotes several other extracts from Lenin in which Lenin asserts that "the ultimate victory of Socialism in a single country is impossible."
​There is not the slightest doubt that many passages in the works of Lenin may be found which deal in general terms with the impossibility of the ultimate victory of Socialism in a single country, and in Russia in particular. This formula as we understand it, and which we oppose to the Zinoviev understanding of it (of which we shall speak lower down), is absolutely correct.
Before proceeding to this interpretation, however, it must be stated that the quotations made by Zinoviev can be met by other quotations which Zinoviev himself has included in his book. We quote the three following extracts which, from the strictly logical point of view, would appear to contradict the theses upon which Zinoviev's case mainly rests. In Zinoviev's own book, page 269, there is a quotation from Lenin on the law of unequal capitalist development, containing the following argument:
"The victorious proletariat of this country [the country that has taken the path of revolution—N.B.] having expropriated the capitalists and organised Socialist production in its own country, would rise against the rest of the capitalist world, attract to its side the oppressed classes of other countries, raise revolt against the capitalists of those countries, and, if necessary, take up arms against the exploiting classes in those States."
The most interesting part of this quotation is Lenin's idea that the proletariat will not only be victorious, but that it will organise Socialist production in its own country. Hence, Lenin here speaks of the possibility of organising Socialist production; speaking concretely, of the possibility of constructing Socialism in a single country.
​We will quote another extract from Lenin's article "On Co-operation." Here Lenin says that we possess "all that is necessary for the construction of complete Socialist society?"
Further on he says:
"This is not the construction of Socialism, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this construction."
Hence, there is not the slightest doubt that Lenin considered the construction of complete Socialist society quite possible, i.e., he considered possible not only the attempt to construct Socialism, but the construction itself. We are building Socialism and can complete the construction because we possess "all that is necessary and sufficient" for this purpose.
Now let us compare all that is said in these quotations. On the one hand it is said that the final victory of Socialism in Russia alone is impossible; on the other hand it is stated that we can organise Socialist production and that all the necessary conditions exist for the complete achievement of the new Socialist system of society. How can these two seemingly contradictory assertions be reconciled? But does Lenin contradict himself? Did he hold one point of view at one time and another point of view at another? Or perhaps something is concealed here which our opposition has failed to observe? If one follows the speeches and writings of our comrades of the opposition, it will be observed that they strive to emphasise the first series ​of quotations, which are alleged to support the "theory" of the opposition. But the opposition conceal and do not subject to analysis the other series of quotations, which the adherents of the Central Committee put forward against it. Where can we find the key to the solution of all this? This key must be sought for in the works of Lenin himself, and it can be found easily if his statements, especially those contained in his later works, are carefully examined. We think that the key for the solution of this problem can be found in the following quotation taken from Lenin's article "On Co-operation." In this article Lenin wrote:
"I am prepared to say that our centre of gravity would be transferred to cultural development, were it not for international relations, were it not for our obligation to fight for our position on an international scale."
This quotation teaches us how the various postulates of Lenin concerning the impossibility of the final victory of Socialism in a single country (in our country) should be interpreted. Lenin's idea is as follows: If we start out from the combination of forces within our country, then in spite of the backwardness of our country, in spite of the enormous difficulties created by this backwardness, we have all that is necessary and what is sufficient for the construction of Socialism. We may build and complete the construction of Socialist society.
This Leninist position is the very opposite of the position of the Social-Democrats; it is completely distinct from the position of Trotsky; it is radically different from the position of those "shades," ​"tendencies" and "groups" who consider that (as the peasantry represents the overwhelming majority of the population) with such a combination of social forces we are inevitably doomed to destruction or to degeneration. The Leninist position is a denial of that position along the whole front. Lenin's thesis concerning the possibility of constructing complete Socialism is at the same time a reply to the question of the character of the Russian Revolution. It is a reply to the question of whether it is possible or impossible, for internal reasons, to build and complete the construction of Socialism, and that reply is a reply in the affirmative. But that is not the whole reply. Simultaneously, Lenin reminds us that we do not live alone in the wide world. In addition to the internal combination of forces in our country, there is also an international situation; this situation is fraught with various dangers: war, intervention, blockades, etc. It is bound up with our international unity to further the international revolution. Therefore, we have no guarantee in our pockets that we shall succeed in completing the construction of Socialism, that we shall conduct the revolution to the end, i.e., achieve complete Socialist society, without the aid of the Western European proletariat.
Hence, when Lenin says that the final victory of Socialism is impossible in a single country, he wishes to say: Do not forget that we are in an international environment; there is no need to worry about our being unable to construct Socialism owing to our technico-economic backwardness, for we possess all that is necessary for the construction of Socialism; but do not forget that we do not live alone in the world, do not forget that we live in an international environment and that from that side the enormous forces of international ​capitalism are arrayed against us. Precisely this idea is expressed in the extract we have quoted, an idea which Zinoviev has quoted an infinite number of times with different variations. If one examines all the extracts from Lenin's works (including those quoted by Zinoviev in his book on "Leninism") against "the final victory of Socialism in a single country," it will be seen without difficulty that reference is made precisely to dangers from without. Comrade Zinoviev confuses the question by piling into one heap internal and external dangers. In this connection the following is extremely curious. On page 278 of his book, Zinoviev writes:
"No one, we hope, would charge a book like the 'ABC of Communism' with being pessimistic. That book was written at a time when our revolution was marching triumphantly from victory to victory. In that bok we read: 'The Communist Revolution can be victorious only as world revolution… In a situation where the workers have been victorious in a single country, economic construction, the organisation of economy is extremely difficult… If for the victory of Communism, the victory of world revolution and the mutual support of the workers are necessary, it follows that a necessary condition of victory is the international solidarity of the working class.'"
This is not "pessimism," this is simply the abc of Communism (without quotation marks).
Comrade Zinoviev, in the simplicity of his soul, thinks that he can cover his nakedness with the "ABC of Communism." Alas! The abc of Communism (as well as the "ABC of Communism") is totally against him.
​First of all let us see where comrade Zinoviev placed his omission marks. He employed them twice. Let us see what the "ABC of Communism" says in those passages which Zinoviev left out. Following the postulate that the Communist revolution can be victorious only as a world revolution, we get the following passage which Zinoviev did not quote:
"If in a certain country the working class took power while the working class in other countries was conscientiously loyal to the capitalist class, then in the last resort the former country would be crushed by the great predatory Powers. In 1917, 1918 and 1919, all the Powers were engaged in the effort to crush Soviet Russia. In 1919 they crushed Soviet Hungary. They failed to crush Soviet Russia because the internal situation in the great States was such as to make the rulers fear the possibility of themselves falling under the pressure of their own workers, who demanded the withdrawal of their troops from Russia."
Thus, in the first place, the very existence of the proletarian dictatorship in a single country is threatened unless it receives aid from the workers of other countries. Secondly—then follows the passage quoted by Zinoviev about the difficulties—but not impossibility, comrade Zinoviev!—of economic construction.
Now let us restore the second passage left out bv Zinoviev. This passage explains the cause of the difficulties: "Such a country"—we read in the "ABC of Communism"—"obtains nothing or almost nothing from abroad. It is blockaded on all sides."
Comrade Zinoviev does not quote badly, does he? ​He has the knack of placing his omission marks precisely where he requires them and where they would be useful for the opposition! We will add another quotation to the rest. In §45 of the "ABC of Communism” reference is made to the petty bourgeois character of the country, of the private property instincts of the peasantry and of relics of these instincts still be found amongst certain sections of the workers. What conclusions are drawn from this in the book? First, that the task of constructing Socialism in Russia "is an extremely difficult one"; secondly, that various defects of an internal character "hamper the fulfilment of our tasks, but by no means make this fulfilment impossible." This is far from being according to Zinoviev; it is according to Lenin.
* ↑ G. Zinoviev: "Leninism," State Publishing Dept., Leningrad, 1926, p. 265.
* ↑ Lenin: “Collected Works," Vol. XVIII., Part II., p. 140.
* ↑ Ibid.
* ↑ Lenin: "Collected Works," Vol. XVIII., Part II., pp. 144–45.