Socialism in a single country

Answering the question whether it is possible to build socialism in a single country, Engels wrote:

"The so-called" socialist society "is not, in my opinion, some kind of thing once and for all, but like any other social system it should be regarded as subject to constant changes and transformations. Its decisive difference from the current system consists, of course, in organizing production on the basis of common ownership, first of all of a single nation for all means of production. ”

- F. Engels. Letter to Otto Benigk, 1890

In the controversy of the 1920s, Bukharin criticized Zinoviev and tried to present his views as Menshevik, comparing the statements of the latter with those of the Menshevik Lieber , who published a brochure in 1919 under the title Social Revolution or Social Disintegration. Bukharin quotes Lieber, who echoes Engels’s words, and declares Lieber’s views “social betrayal,” and Bukharin’s argument itself was similar to those of the Narodniks, the struggle against which remained far in the early history of Russian Marxism ^{[3] [4]} .

N. I. Bukharin . On the nature of our revolution and the possibility of a victorious socialist construction in the USSR (1926) ^[5]

Original text (rus.)

If people speak of an international revolution at every convenient and inconvenient occasion, this does not always express the maximum of revolutionism. Perhaps such a statement of the question of the international revolution, which directly contradicts the revolutionary point of view. Here, for example, the very same Lieber has one very spiteful place, which explains how the proletarian revolution differs from the bourgeois revolution. Enumerating the special features of the proletarian revolution, Mr. Lieber writes: “socialism, first of all, can be realized in those countries that are at the highest stage of economic development — Germany, England and America — these are the countries in which there is, above all, a foundation for very large victorious socialist movements (this is in America “first of all” “there are grounds for very large victorious socialist movements”! —N. B.). Meanwhile, since some time we have developed a theory of the opposite nature. This theory does not represent for us, the old Russian Social Democrats, anything new; this theory was developed by the Russian populists in the struggle against the first Marxists ...

... Finally, another characteristic feature of the socialist revolution is its international character (think only “international character”! - N. B.). The socialist system replaces capitalism. A distinctive feature of the capitalist system is that it creates the world economy ... Therefore, it is inconceivable to imagine the realization of socialism in one part of this economy without the whole world economy being offended. The socialist revolution is conceivable only as an international revolution, and therefore it implies a certain state not only in one, two, three, four, five countries, in most industrialized countries, for otherwise there would be an inevitable clash between those countries that are not prepared for socialism, and those who are already ripe for this. "

It is clear how international is here and how it is justified. Here it is: "Do not make a revolution, not a socialist system, for you will come into conflict with other countries." The international revolution here is presented as a famous one-time act; as if the proletarians of all countries immediately enter the historical arena and shout: “Long live the revolution!”, and socialism is served on the dish in no time. Practically - the political meaning of such a spell of the world revolution is moral: “Do not go forward, do not make a revolution in one country, because you still cannot win”, or, translating into a more modern language: “Where are you alone in the city of Glupov, one street dare to build socialism. Why are you standing on such a nationally-limited point of view? ”“ You’ll start a revolution in one country, stop being a real internationalist, ”Liber told us.

Such "internationalism" is the flip side of social betrayal.

The October Revolution opened a new chapter in Marxism. The transition to socialism has risen on the agenda in practice. Since the writings of Marx and Engels or in the works of the theorists of the Second International did not contain any specific provisions or there were quite a few of them, the Bolshevik theorists were forced to develop transitional provisions ^{[approx. 1]} . New ideas were needed, because the seizure of power occurred on the periphery of world capitalism. In a sense, the Russian revolution was a revolution in the contradiction of the “Capital” of Marx, and even the rare legacy of Marx on the issue of transition was of limited significance. Many of the revolutionaries were fully aware of the problem and justified their actions by the differences of their era ^[7] . It was directly stated by Trotsky in the mid-1920s: “Do you think that capitalism will find a new dynamic balance, do you think that European capitalism can provide itself with a new upswing ... If we assume that this is possible ... then this would mean that capitalism on a European and global scale has not yet exhausted its historical mission, that it is not imperialist decaying capitalism, but developing capitalism leading the economy and culture forward - but that would mean that we came too early. ” ^[8] and how consequence of this of the Russian revolution should be regarded as "premature" and the transition to socialism is doomed to failure ^[7] .

Until 1929, three separate stages could be defined in the USSR, and each had its own theory of the transition period. The first eight months after the revolution is “state capitalism,” given the pre-revolutionary use of the term. Lenin defended this system as the basis for the transition to socialism, at least at its very early stage. After June 1918, the beginning of the civil war caused an immediate wave of nationalizations and the introduction of a siege economy. Theorists of the Bolsheviks perceived " War Communism " as corresponding to the direct transition to socialism. In early 1921, the replacement of the surplus tax on agricultural products marked the third stage, the new economic policy (NEP) . Lenin considered this a transitional and mixed system. "Mixed", as it contained elements of socialism, simple commodity production and capitalism; “Transitional”, therefore, was unstable and could result in the restoration of either capitalism or the achievement of a complete socialized economy ^[9] .

The death of Lenin in January 1924 (and his limited influence in the preceding 18 months of his illness) aggravated the conflict associated with the struggle for succession. This led to his canonization and the elevation of his works to talmudic status, which other Bolshevik theorists, like Preobrazhensky and Trotsky, were perceived with difficulty ^{[app. 2]} . Now every position or idea was necessary to confirm and justify a quote from the works of Lenin. The war of quotations begins. The complexity and inconsistency of the processes was reflected by the same complexity and inconsistency in Lenin's legacy and taken out of the context of the events about which this or that Lenin's work was written could be interpreted differently than in the context of the events of another time period. Each of the participants in the inner-party struggle was more and more inclined to think that it was his interpretation that was truly correct and was a true reflection of "Leninism." Accordingly, any other interpretation was a deviation from true “Leninism” and was viewed with suspicion, up to and including accusations of counterrevolutionism ^{[11] [app. 3]} .

In the article “On the Slogans of the United States of Europe”, published in No. 44 of the Social-Democrat newspaper in 1915, V.I. Lenin wrote:

Uneven economic and political development is the unconditional law of capitalism. From this it follows that the victory of socialism is possible initially in a few or even in one capitalist country taken separately . The victorious proletariat of this country, by expropriating the capitalists and organizing socialist production , would stand against the rest of the capitalist world.

In its 42nd volume

“To defeat capitalism in general, it is necessary, first, to defeat the exploiters and defend the power of the exploited - the task of overthrowing the exploiters by the revolutionary forces ; secondly, the creative task is to build new economic relations , to set an example of how this is done. These two sides of the task of implementing a socialist coup are inextricably linked and distinguish our revolution ... The first task we have already basically solved, but if we do not solve the second problem, then no success, no victory in overthrowing the exploiters, nothing in the military resistance to international imperialists they will, and the return to the old will remain inevitable ... we must prove ourselves, defend ourselves in front of the whole world not only as a force capable of resisting military strangulation, but as a force capable of setting an example

- V.I. Lenin, PSS, T. 42, p. 27 - 29

And in the following quote, Lenin hints that without socialism in one country nowhere

“If the exploiters are broken only in one country - and this, of course, is a typical case, because a simultaneous revolution in a number of countries is a rare exception - then they remain nevertheless stronger than exploited, because the international connections of the exploiters are enormous.” ^[13]

- V.I. Lenin "The proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky"

But the defeat of a number of proletarian revolutions in Europe (including in Germany and Hungary) led Stalin to the idea of ​​declaring the Leninist concept of building socialism, first in one country. After the death of V. I. Lenin, Stalin used the above statements of Lenin to confirm his adherence to the concept of building socialism in a single country.

In his book On the Foundations of Leninism, Stalin expounded Lenin’s position as follows:

“But to overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie and put the power of the proletariat in one country does not mean to ensure the complete victory of socialism. Having consolidated its power and leading the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that he will thereby achieve a complete, final victory of socialism, that is, does this mean that he can finally consolidate socialism by means of only one country and completely guarantee the country from intervention, and therefore from restoration? No, it does not mean. For this, the victory of the revolution is necessary in at least several countries. Therefore, the development and support of the revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution of the victorious country should consider itself not as a self-sufficient quantity, but as an aid, as a means to accelerate the victory of the proletariat in other countries. "

- I. Stalin. "On the basis of Leninism", 1924

Such ideas seemed to be in the air. Bukharin began to see in NEP a suitable basis for Bolshevik economic policy and the conditions of social equilibrium that could lead the country towards socialism. By 1923, he argued that the "evolutionary path" is the reality of Soviet life: "We will slowly grow into socialism for many decades: through the growth of our industry, through cooperation, through the growing influence of our banking system, through a thousand and one intermediate forms." ^[14]

The emergence of this theory in November 1922 gives reason to doubt that the idea of ​​building "socialism in one country" arose in response to the defeat of the revolution in Germany in October 1923. Although it is true that disappointment in the German revolution finally destroyed the hopes of the Bolsheviks for the imminent European revolution and that the idea of ​​building socialism in an isolated Russia was formally first expressed by Stalin in December 1924, Bukharin’s “growing” provisions show that the necessary justification was expressed earlier. Although his theory did not yet deal with the difficult problem of industrialization (which arose in 1924), it raised the question of advancing Russia towards socialism completely independently of the international revolution ^[15] .

After the victory of the revolution and in a fierce civil war, the prospect of military defeat receded (although the Soviet elite reiterated this fear after 1926 ^{[note 4]} ). And at the same time, each faction within the party looked at the others suspiciously. There were reasons for mutual mistrust: according to Bolshevik theorists, non-proletarian class interests under the dictatorship of the victorious Bolshevik party could only find their own ideas through it. As Trotsky puts it, “one can slide into Thermidorian positions even with the banner of communism in his hands. This is the devilish cunning of history ” ^[17] . Thus, from the point of view of the leaders of the Bolsheviks, the theoretical differences assumed the character of class antagonisms ^[18] .

Opposition

The debate turned on the very nature of the revolution. Trotsky believed that the revolution consisted of the merger of two revolutions - proletarian and peasant; and after achieving victory, class contradictions must appear. By 1923, the first signs of such contradictions in the form of "scissors" prices had already appeared. He believed that the political isolation of the USSR does not mean economic isolation. The need for capitalism in the markets can be used to integrate the economy of Soviet Russia into the world market. This should have been done on a planned basis - there was no question of abandoning the monopoly of foreign trade. Imports of consumer goods can be used to overcome the "commodity hunger", and the advantage will be to increase the efficiency of state industry ^[19] .

This idea of ​​integration into the world market was the main argument against the theory of the possibility of building socialism in a single country, since Trotsky understood that this theory implied autarkic development based on the Soviet Union’s own resources. Like the economist Preobrazhensky and their supporters, he emphasized the inability of Soviet industry to compete internationally on the basis of the law of value, and that this lag was necessary to be overcome. If this is not done, and done quickly, it will become increasingly difficult for the Soviet economy to resist both the internal and external pressures of capitalism in order to open the economy on an unregulated basis. The public sector will then be doomed, and with it Russian socialism. “ The fundamental law of history: in the end, the regime that provides a higher level of economy to human society wins. Historical litigation is resolved — not immediately, by a single blow — by a comparative coefficient of labor productivity ” ^[20] . The transition to socialism is possible only on the basis of the highest development of the productive forces and relations, as was meant by "classical" Marxism. По мнению Троцкого и Преображенского теория построения социализма в отдельно взятой стране обрекала СССР с «закрытой» экономикой на вечное отставание ^[21] .

Вопрос индустриализации

Между 1924 и 1928 годами Бухарин и Преображенский бурно обсуждали различия взглядов на переход к социализму. Это происходило как часть более глубокого конфликта между левой оппозиции и правящей Сталинско-Бухаринской фракций большевистской партии. Основная разница заключалась в альтернативных оценках развития промышленности. Для Бухарина промышленное развитие зависело от роста спроса крестьян, особенно на рынке потребительских товаров. Для Преображенского проблема заключалась в «товарном голоде» ^[22] .

По сравнению с ситуацией, сложившейся перед мировой войной, революция коренным образом изменила соотношение между спросом на внутреннем рынке производства промышленных товаров и их предложением. В общей совокупности, спрос увеличился, а предложение упало. При нэпе, следовательно, существовала проблема избыточного спроса на товары государственного сектора, а не потенциальный недостаток в покупательной способности, как утверждал Бухарин ^[23] . В понимании Преображенского рост промышленности в будущем потребует больших фиксированных вложений. До сих пор развитие промышленности было основано на восстановлении и полного использования уже существующего потенциала, который должен был быть увеличен в ближайшее время, если развитие промышленности должно быть устойчивым. В краткосрочной перспективе, в соответствии с Преображенским, проблемы, связанные с товарным голодом должны усилиться, но в долгосрочной перспективе недофинансирование сделает их непреодолимыми, угрожая самому существованию «смычки» ^[24] .

Отвергая насилие и конфискацию как недопустимые методы, Преображенский предлагал, чтобы новый капитал для финансирования роста промышленности накапливался в результате «неэквивалентного обмена» в рыночных отношениях между двумя секторами, а это было бы, по его мнению, более эффективным и менее раздражающим крестьянство, чем прямое налогообложение. Государственная промышленность должна была использовать своё уникальное сверхмонополистическое положение, чтобы преследовать политику « цен, сознательно рассчитанную на отчуждение определённой части прибавочного продукта частного хозяйства во всех его видах » ^[25] . Цены на промышленную продукцию должны быть искусственно повышены, тогда как на сельскохозяйственную — соответственно занижены, то есть государство покупало бы по более низким ценам, а продавало бы по более высоким. Это предложение, в сущности, платформа левых после 1923 года, было непосредственно направлено против официальной политики ^[26] .

Таким образом взгляды Преображенского на проблему переходного периода являлись полной противоположностью концепции Бухарина. Ускоренное развитие тяжёлой промышленности вело к расширению лёгкой промышленности с конечной целью удовлетворения спроса крестьянства и решению проблемы «товарного голода». Учитывая отличия своего взгляда, Преображенский подчеркивал необходимость систематического планирования. Планирование необходимо не только к социалистическому будущему, а именно для переходного периода, потому что это позволяло определить и исправить диспропорции развития прежде, чем они могут привести к каким-либо экономическим кризисам ^[27] .

Важнейшей проблемой при нэпе были отношения между городом и деревней. Три четверти населения составляли крестьяне, и промышленное расширение требовало перевод в город значительной части сельскохозяйственных излишков. С окончанием военного коммунизма это должно было быть достигнуто на добровольной основе путем стимулирования крестьян к поставке достаточного количества зерна на рынок в обмен на наличие промышленных товаров по привлекательным ценам. Но промышленный «товарный голод» характеризовал весь период НЭПа и неоднократно относительные цены на сельскохозяйственные и промышленные продукты были источниками острой напряженности, как в «ножницы» цен 1923 года, когда промышленные цены резко выросли и привело к появлению опасений нехватки зерна, так как крестьяне удерживали излишки зерна от продажи на рынке. Ножницы цен вскоре были закрыты, но к концу десятилетия проблема стала все более очевидной. Во время «зернового кризиса» 1928 года сельскохозяйственные продажи массово упали, что явилось последней каплей, и что после 1929 года привело к сталинской «революции сверху» ^[9] .

По утверждению Сталина, концепция построения социализма в отдельно взятой стране является дальнейшим развитием ленинизма . В статье «Ответ товарищу Иванову, Ивану Филипповичу», написанной 12 и опубликованной 14 февраля 1938 года в « Правде », Сталин разделил вопрос о победе социализма в одной стране на две части. В первой рассматривалась проблема внутренних отношений, решение которой возможно лишь посредством организации сотрудничества партии с крестьянством. Вторая часть делала различие между «неполным» построением социализма в СССР и «полной» победы социализма, которая возможна только после осуществления социалистических революций в одной или нескольких передовых капиталистических странах; только тогда можно говорить о «полном» построении социализма ^[28] .

Starting in 1928, grain-harvesting measures resembling war communism were introduced to overcome the inadequate supply of bread by the peasantry; between 1929 and 1933, they were expanded into forced collectivization. This limited the dependence of rapid industrialization on the peasantry, destroying the last vestiges of peasant independence; Any possibility of resistance from the working class (whose standard of living declined significantly after the closure of the policy of the NEP and the beginning of the policy of collectivization ) ^{[app. 5]} ) has long ceased to be a reality. In a short period of time, the dictatorship of the party transformed into Stalin’s personalized “personality cult”. The whole society was thrown to the “front of industrial production”, and the smelting of cast iron was officially considered as an accurate indicator of progress towards socialism ^[30] .

In 1878, the chairman of the Bavarian branch of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Georg Vollmar formulated the concept of building socialism in a single country ^[31] and in 1879 published in Zurich an article devoted to her “Isolated Socialist State” ( him Der isolierte socialistische Staat ) in the “Sociological and the sociopolitical almanac ”( it. Jahrbuch für Socialwissenschaft und Socialpolitik ) ^[32] . In the article, he wrote that in Germany, the proletariat of which far outstripped advanced England, Vollmar refers in several places to the law of uneven development. From this law, Vollmar concludes that “under the prevailing circumstances that will retain their strength and in the future that is accessible by foresight, the assumption of a one-time victory of socialism in all cultural countries is completely excluded ...” Developing this idea further, Vollmar says: “Thus, we came to an isolated socialist state, in relation to which, I hope, proved that although it is not the only possible, but the most likely ... ” ^[33] .

Vollmar proceeded from the fact that socialist Germany will be in economic relations with the world capitalist economy, while possessing the advantages of highly developed technology and low production costs, unlike Soviet Russia in the 1920s. Such a construction rests on the prospect of peaceful coexistence of the socialist and capitalist systems. And since socialism must, the farther, the more, discover its colossal production advantages, the need for a world revolution disappears by itself: socialism will cope with capitalism through the market, the intervention of cheap prices ^[34] .

During the discussions of the 1920s, Stalin repeatedly asserted that the law on the uneven development of capitalism was unknown to the founders of Marxism, as was the concept of the possibility of building socialism in a single country, discovered by Lenin on the basis of this law, as in T. Yermakovsky, for example.

Letter to Comrade Yermakovsky - I. V. Stalin, Works, Volume 7.

Original text (rus.)

Very sorry for the late reply. I was on vacation for two months, returned yesterday to Moscow, and only today I managed to get acquainted with your note. However, better late than never.

Engels’s negative answer to the question “Can this revolution happen in any one country?” Fully reflects the pre-imperialist era, when there were still no conditions for the uneven, intermittent development of the capitalist countries, when there was no data for the victory of the proletarian revolution. in one country (the possibility of victory in one country arises, as is well known, from the law on the uneven development of capitalist countries under imperialism). The law on the uneven development of capitalist countries and the provision related to it about the possibility of the victory of the proletarian revolution in one country were put forward and could be put forward by Lenin only during the period of imperialism. This explains, by the way, that Leninism is the Marxism of the epoch of imperialism, that it represents the further development of Marxism that has developed in the pre-imperialist era. For all his genius, Engels could not notice what was not yet in the period of pre-monopoly capitalism, in the 40s of the last century, when he wrote his “principle of communism”, and that he was born only later, in the period of monopoly capitalism.

On the other hand, Lenin, as a genius Marxist, could not help noticing what had already arisen after the death of Engels in the period of imperialism. The difference between Lenin and Engels is the difference between the two historical periods that separate them from each other. There can be no talk of the fact that "Trotsky's theory is identical with the teachings of Engels." Engels had reason to give a negative answer to the 19th question in the period of pre-monopoly capitalism, in the 40s of the last century, when the law of uneven development of capitalist countries was out of the question; Trotsky, on the contrary, has no reason to repeat in the 20th century the old answer of Engels, taken from the epoch already passed, and mechanically apply it to the new imperialist epoch, when the law of uneven development became a well-known fact. Engels builds his answer on the analysis of pre-monopoly capitalism contemporary to him, but Trotsky does not analyze, distract from the modern era; He forgets that he does not live in the 40s of the last century, but in the 20th century in the era of imperialism, and cleverly puts the nose of Ivan Ivanovich in the 40s of the 19th century to Ivan Nikiforovich’s chin at the beginning of the 20th century, apparently that one can thus outwit the story. I do not think that these two diametrically opposed methods could give grounds for talking about "the identity of Trotsky's theory with the teachings of Engels."

It is noteworthy that even in 1926 Bukharin continued to assert that it was Lenin who advanced the "law of uneven capitalist development" as well as the transition to a socialist economy, which can begin even in one country:

"On the contrary, in the person of Lenin, the Bolsheviks put forward a provision on the so-called" law of uneven capitalist development. " This law has as its base the heterogeneity of capitalist structures across countries. This law is also made by the fact that there is a strict distinction between the centers of the capitalist economy and the colonial periphery of the same economy, that the maturity of capitalism as a whole, as world capitalism, does not at all imply the exact same height of capitalist development in different countries, the same development rate, etc. This Leninist law of uneven capitalist development was the theoretical justification of the Bolshevik approach to the question of the maturity of the world capitalist economy, the degree of its preparedness for the transition to a socialist economy, about the world revolution as a complex and lengthy process that can begin even in one country. ” ^[5]

Trotsky sharply objected to these statements of Stalin and Bukharin with reference to the “discoverer” Georg Vollmar, and that, respectively, “Marx and Engels would therefore have to learn about this secret (the law of uneven capitalist development) from Vollmar, if he himself had not learned about him earlier from them ” ^{[35] [approx. 6]} .

• Bukharin N.I. On the nature of our revolution and the possibility of a victorious socialist construction in the USSR // Selected Works . - M .: Politizdat, 1988. - 500 p. - 200 000 copies - ISBN 5-250-00634-5 .
• Evzerov, R. Ya. Lenin's theory of imperialism: myths and realities. (rus.) // New and newest history. - M. , 1995. - № 3 . - p . 61 .
• Cohen Stephen. Bukharin. Political biography. 1888 - 1938. - M .: Progress, 1988. - ISBN 5-01-001900-0 .
• Krayzel F. Roy Medvedev is a priest of half-truth . Part IV. Shadow of Georg von Folmar (rus.) . World Socialist Web Site (January 14, 2000) . The appeal date is June 21, 2015. Archived June 21, 2015.
• Lenin V.I. Complete Works . - 5th ed. - M .: Publishing house of political literature, 1967. Archived December 30, 2010. Archive dated December 30, 2010 on Wayback Machine
• Marx K. and Engels F. Compositions. - M .: State Publishing House of Political Literature, 1955.
• Stalin I.V. Collected Works. - M .: Politizdat, 1946.
• Preobrazhensky E. A. New Economy (Theory and Practice): 1922-1928 . - M .: Glavarhiv Publishing House of Moscow, 2008. - ISBN 5-7228-0136-4 .
• Trotsky, L. D. The History of the Russian Revolution. - M .: Terra, 1997. - T. 2. - ISBN 5-300-01362-5 .
• Trotsky L. D. The Communist International after Lenin (the Great Organizer of the Defeats). - M .: Spartacist; Printima, 1993. - 314 p. - 25 000 copies - ISBN 5-900696-01-4 .
• Allen Naomi. The Challenge of the Left Opposition, 1923-1925. - London: Pathfinder, 1975. - ISBN 978-0-87348-450-3 .
• Allen Naomi. The Challenge of the Left Opposition, 1926-1927. - London: Pathfinder, 1980. - ISBN 978-0-87348-567-8 .
• Allen Naomi. The Challenge of the Left Opposition, 1928-1929. - London: Pathfinder, 1981. - ISBN 978-0-87348-616-3 .
• Encyclopædia Britannica. Micropædia. - Princeton: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 1982. - T. IX. - ISBN 0-85229-387-9 .
• Encyclopædia Britannica. Macropædia. - Princeton: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 1982. - Vol . 16. - ISBN 0-85229-387-9 .
• Howard Michael. A history of marxian economics: Volume I, 1883-1929. - Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. - T. I. - ISBN 0-691-04250-0 .
• Howard Michael. A history of marxian economics: Volume II, 1929-1990. - Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. - T. II. - ISBN 0-691-04303-5 .
• Gooding john Socialism in Russia: Lenin and His Legacy, 1890-1991. - New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. - ISBN 978-0333972359 .
• Schaaf Fritz. Der Kampf der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung um die Landarbeiter und werktätigen Aauern, 1848-1890. - Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1962. - P. 361. - 371 p.
• Ticktin Hillel. Origins of the Crisis in the USSR. - London: ME Sharpe, Inc., 1992. - ISBN 0-87332-861-2 .
• Vollmar Georg von. Der isolirte sozialistische Staat. - Zürich: Volksbuch, 1878.
• Great Soviet Encyclopedia : [30 tons] / ch. ed. A. M. Prokhorov . - 3rd ed. - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1969-1978.