Permanent Revolution

[the last donut of the night]

What is it?

[Manifesto]

Bringing a Socialist Revolution to a country that has not yet achieved Capitalism according to Trotsky.

[Il Medico]

An idea that a communist revolution can happen in a feudal society (pre-capitalism) by having the worker's revolution fulfill the role of both the bourgeois revolution and the Proletariat one. A Trotskyist could probably explain it better though.

[Durruti's Ghost]

An idea that a communist revolution can happen in a feudal society (pre-capitalism) by having the worker's revolution fulfill the role of both the bourgeois revolution and the Proletariat one. A Trotskyist could probably explain it better though.

I believe it also states that in order to be successful (i.e., to be "permanent"), the revolution must spread to other societies from its initial starting point, doesn't it?

[Lyev]

I haven't actually read this properly and I'm not quite sure how relevant it is but; http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

[Random Precision]

A while ago I sort of explained this as follows:


A theory of proletarian revolution developed by Marxist leader and theoretician Leon Trotsky (1879-1941) which represents his main contribution to Marxist theory.

Trotsky's theory began from the peculiarities of capitalist development in Russia. Whereas in Western Europe, the bourgeoisie had emerged as a strong, confident class that in its own revolutions came to supplant the aristocracy and take state power during the 17th and 18th centuries, the Russian bourgeoisie had only begun to emerge toward the end of the 19th century as a result of the autocracy encouraging (but not so much) the development of industry. Thus, from the beginning, it was "weak and oscillating" as Trotsky put it- while it sought increased power like its Western cousins had, it was dependent on the autocracy for its existence and continued development. Furthermore, with the growth of Social Democracy in the West, many ideas of proletarian power found their way to Russia, and had their first major expression during the 1905 Revolution. In this crisis, the Russian bourgeoisie found itself caught in a bind- while they supported the mass demands for democracy and land reform (bourgeois tasks which had ensured the stable development of capitalism in the West), they were afraid of the power of the masses who made the demands. Thus, they took refuge in the power of the autocracy, and fully supported the suppression of the 1905 revolution.

So, the bourgeoisie in Russia was too weak to carry out its own tasks- this was confirmed in 1917 by the failure of the Kerensky government to carry out meaningful land reforms (demand of the peasantry), ensure democracy by convening the Constituent Assembly (democratic demands) or end Russian participation in the disastrous imperialist war. Where did that leave prospects for capitalism (and then socialism) in Russia?

Trotsky realized that this meant another force would have to break the deadlock and ensure the goals of bourgeois revolution were carried out. He identified this force as the proletariat of Russia, which had shown clearly its revolutionary potential in 1905. The Russian proletariat, a strong, vibrant class, would be able to carry out the basic demands of democracy and land reform. The large peasantry would support them in reaching these goals. However, once in power the proletariat could not simply declare that the bourgeois revolution was accomplished and leave the way open for the development of capitalism- the bourgeoisie, as ever, would be weakened to the point of annihilation by a workers' revolution, and would be unable as ever to take command of the country. So, the workers would have to carry the revolution further, into socialism- what Trotsky called "making the revolution permanent".

Here, the force of Russia's peasantry would become a problem. As a middle class, peasants only sought the land reforms of capitalism and did not see their immediate interest in socialist development, which would require the collectivization of land. By the act of taking power, the Russian proletariat would ensure a future conflict with the peasantry. As the peasantry vastly outnumbered the proletariat, the latter would need help in developing the economy so as to strengthen its command of the country. This is where the revolution in more developed countries would come in handy- the proletariat of the West would help its Russian brethren by providing raw materials and the like for the development of native industry, to take Russia toward the industrial economy that is required for socialism.

Although Trotsky thought of permanent revolution as a theory solely applicable to Russia, after the failure of the Chinese Revolution in 1927 (caused mainly through the errors of Stalin/Bukharin) he came to apply it to all nations in what would become known as the "third world". He reasoned that the advent of imperialism had the effect of retarding the development of those nations, as the imperialists had no interest in fully developing the economies of their new colonies- they would develop certain sectors that would make profitable exports to the mother country, but not others, resulting in a nation dependent on its imperialist power for its livelihood. The native bourgeoisie of developing nations would be in essentially the same bind as the Russian bourgeoisie found itself in: while it desired the full development of the economy under its own capitalism, it was afraid of the forces of the working class that developed under it, and in a conflict would always choose foreign capital over native labor. Democracy and land reform (the historical tasks of the bourgeoisie) were, of course, impossible under imperialist rule- but just like in Russia, the bourgeoisie would be too weak to take power and ensure those reforms. Accordingly, Trotsky's solution to this problem was the same as he prescribed for Russia (and which was carried out in October 1917, completely vindicating his theory): proletarian revolution. This would follow the same path, for the most part, as he saw it taking in Russia, with the revolution relying on successes of socialism in more developed nations.


Further Reading:
The Fading Relevance of Permanent Revolution by David Whitehouse
The Necessity of Permanent Revolution by Paul D'Amato
Results and Prospects (1906) by Leon Trotsky
The Permanent Revolution (1931) by Leon Trotsky

[Radical]

Permanent Revolution is a Counter-Revolutionary thoery that both Lenin and Stalin opposed. People who adhere to this thoery have betrayed National Liberation and Revolutions across the world and left them to surrender to racism, oppression, exploitation and imperialism.

[Искра]

Permanent Revolution is a Counter-Revolutionary thoery that both Lenin and Stalin opposed. People who adhere to this thoery have betrayed National Liberation and Revolutions across the world and left them to surrender to racism, oppression, exploitation and imperialism.

You are an idiot.

This is Learning and people come here to learn about what Permanent Revolution is.

If you have some critic then give us something which was written by some one who knew what's Permanent revolution instead of this childish accusations.

I'm not Trotskyist but I'm interested in this and also I would like to know what are critics of this from various communist tendencies (especially what's Left Communist stance on this one).

[chegitz guevara]

In a nutshell, the Theory of Permanent Revolution states that where the bourgeoisie is too weak to carry out its historic task of carrying out the bougeoisie revolution (and destroying previous modes of production, instituting the rule of law, granting bourgeois democratic rights, etc), those tasks must be carried out by the proletariat. In other words, the workers must make the capitalist revolution themselves. If we look at the great revolutions, the Great French Revolution, the 1848 revolutions, Russia in 1917, this has proven to be the case.

What Trotsky then says is that, having seized power for themselves, the worker class (assuming it was led by a revolutionary workers party) would not then turn power over to the bourgeoisie, but, rather carry the revolution forward to a socialist revolution.

As Radical notes, Lenin opposed this theory . . . before 1917. What Radical conveniently ignores is that the April Thesis, and Lenin's subsequent arguments, are nothing more than Lenin arguing for the worker classes carrying the bourgeois revolution forward to a socialist one, i.e., making the revolution permanent. Lenin may not have said, "I agree with the Theory of Permanent Revolution!" He simply proved it.

The next question is, is the theory of permanent revolution still relevant? I would argue it is not, simply because the tasks of the bourgeois revolution have been carried out globally, except for a few small pockets here and there. Almost every country in the world is capitalist, and where pre-capitalist modes of production still exist, they are under constant threat from the free market.

[Radical]

In a nutshell, the Theory of Permanent Revolution states that where the bourgeoisie is too weak to carry out its historic task of carrying out the bougeoisie revolution (and destroying previous modes of production, instituting the rule of law, granting bourgeois democratic rights, etc), those tasks must be carried out by the proletariat. In other words, the workers must make the capitalist revolution themselves. If we look at the great revolutions, the Great French Revolution, the 1848 revolutions, Russia in 1917, this has proven to be the case.

What Trotsky then says is that, having seized power for themselves, the worker class (assuming it was led by a revolutionary workers party) would not then turn power over to the bourgeoisie, but, rather carry the revolution forward to a socialist revolution.

As Radical notes, Lenin opposed this theory . . . before 1917. What Radical conveniently ignores is that the April Thesis, and Lenin's subsequent arguments, are nothing more than Lenin arguing for the worker classes carrying the bourgeois revolution forward to a socialist one, i.e., making the revolution permanent. Lenin may not have said, "I agree with the Theory of Permanent Revolution!" He simply proved it.

The next question is, is the theory of permanent revolution still relevant? I would argue it is not, simply because the tasks of the bourgeois revolution have been carried out globally, except for a few small pockets here and there. Almost every country in the world is capitalist, and where pre-capitalist modes of production still exist, they are under constant threat from the free market.


Lenin opposed permanent revolution throughout his entire life, believing it was unworkable.

"From this, it follows irrefutably that Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in ONE or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time."

"when we are told that the victory of socialism is possible only on a world scale, we regard this merely as an attempt, a particularly hopeless attempt, on the part of the bourgeoisie and its voluntary and involuntary supporters to distort the irrefutable truth. The 'final' victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible"

"Leninism teaches that "the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale" (c.f. resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union).

This means that the serious assistance of the international proletariat is a force without which the problem of the final victory of Socialism in one country cannot be solved.

This, of course, does not mean that we must sit with folded arms and wait for assistance from outside."


Also, here is Lenin talking about the bureaucracy that already very much existed prior to Stalin coming to power.

"It will take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy. It is a very difficult struggle, and anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent for fine words’." - Lenin.

And who are the ones that attack the Soviet Union for having bureaucratic aspects? The very Anti-Leninists they claim not to be.

[red cat]

In a nutshell, the Theory of Permanent Revolution states that where the bourgeoisie is too weak to carry out its historic task of carrying out the bougeoisie revolution (and destroying previous modes of production, instituting the rule of law, granting bourgeois democratic rights, etc), those tasks must be carried out by the proletariat. In other words, the workers must make the capitalist revolution themselves. If we look at the great revolutions, the Great French Revolution, the 1848 revolutions, Russia in 1917, this has proven to be the case.

What Trotsky then says is that, having seized power for themselves, the worker class (assuming it was led by a revolutionary workers party) would not then turn power over to the bourgeoisie, but, rather carry the revolution forward to a socialist revolution.

As Radical notes, Lenin opposed this theory . . . before 1917. What Radical conveniently ignores is that the April Thesis, and Lenin's subsequent arguments, are nothing more than Lenin arguing for the worker classes carrying the bourgeois revolution forward to a socialist one, i.e., making the revolution permanent. Lenin may not have said, "I agree with the Theory of Permanent Revolution!" He simply proved it.

The next question is, is the theory of permanent revolution still relevant? I would argue it is not, simply because the tasks of the bourgeois revolution have been carried out globally, except for a few small pockets here and there. Almost every country in the world is capitalist, and where pre-capitalist modes of production still exist, they are under constant threat from the free market.

I disagree. The part about the bourgeoisie being unable to complete its revolution is actually a Leninist conclusion and it is perhaps one of the most relevant theories of communism. After the end of the Russian civil war there has been no bourgeois revolutions.

Today, the vast majority of the countries belong to the third world and they claim to have gained independence through "peaceful transfer of power" which negates the basic Marxist concept of class contradictions. All of these countries are semi colonial- semi feudal in nature.

[Random Precision]

Permanent Revolution is a Counter-Revolutionary thoery that both Lenin and Stalin opposed. People who adhere to this thoery have betrayed National Liberation and Revolutions across the world and left them to surrender to racism, oppression, exploitation and imperialism.


cool story bro. Say, how's the guerrilla war in Peru coming?


Lenin opposed permanent revolution throughout his entire life, believing it was unworkable.

"From this, it follows irrefutably that Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in ONE or several countries, while the others will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois for some time."

"when we are told that the victory of socialism is possible only on a world scale, we regard this merely as an attempt, a particularly hopeless attempt, on the part of the bourgeoisie and its voluntary and involuntary supporters to distort the irrefutable truth. The 'final' victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible"

"Leninism teaches that "the final victory of Socialism, in the sense of full guarantee against the restoration of bourgeois relations, is possible only on an international scale" (c.f. resolution of the Fourteenth Conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union).

This means that the serious assistance of the international proletariat is a force without which the problem of the final victory of Socialism in one country cannot be solved.

This, of course, does not mean that we must sit with folded arms and wait for assistance from outside."

All of those quotes are irrelevant. Except the last one, and there he is actually taking a similar approach to that of Trotsky. The third one is a Stalin quote.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Permanent Revolution is an idea from both Marx and Trotsky.

Marx used it to describe the strategy of a revolutionary class to continue to pursue its class interests independently and without compromise, despite overtures for political alliances, and despite the political dominance of opposing sections of society.

Trotsky put forward his conception of 'permanent revolution' as an explanation of how socialist revolutions could occur in societies that had not achieved advanced capitalism.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Permanent Revolution is a Counter-Revolutionary thoery that both Lenin and Stalin opposed. People who adhere to this thoery have betrayed National Liberation and Revolutions across the world and left them to surrender to racism, oppression, exploitation and imperialism.


Tell me how any of that is true.

[Red Dreadnought]

But, in facts, majority of trots tendencies are not coherent with Trotsky arguee. They supported and support fractions of capitalist classes supposed antiimperialist: you can see now that shameful support to Zelaya, Evo or Chavez as anti-imperialist; or support to stalinist "national-liberation" movements supposing that they create "deformed workers states". In fact, there are a Tonny Cliff leaflet "The deformed Permanent revolution" that revises Trotsky theory at the light of Chinese, or Cuban "Revolution".

Curiously Bordiguists refuse Permanent Revolution and speak about "double revolutions". They consider Chinese Revolution as Burgueois one, and progresive in one sense; but anti-proletarian in the other hand.

Salud.

[Black Sheep]

The next question is, is the theory of permanent revolution still relevant? I would argue it is not, simply because the tasks of the bourgeois revolution have been carried out globally, except for a few small pockets here and there. Almost every country in the world is capitalist, and where pre-capitalist modes of production still exist, they are under constant threat from the free market.

But the PR goes beyond just the 'capitalism has not developed fully' scenario.

I may be wrong, but doesnt the permanent revolution go side by side with the united front and against popular fronts supported by stalinist parties?The same approach stalinists had ( / have maybe) on under developed countries, they had on countries under a dictatorship or foreign occupation.With the blessings and guidance of Comintern and its popular front tactics.

What about greece and spain?
There the communist parties turned their backs on the people's struggle, held them back from seizing power, paving the way for the bourgeoisie to come to power and from there, the communists could "democratically empower the CPs and the revolution would happen by the book".A revolution in classical traditional marxism, 'no proletarian revolution can occur in a non capitalist system'.

Someone please clarify the above.

[the last donut of the night]

Hey guys, would it be possible for this thread to not completely degenerate into a tendency war? I would like to learn, thank you very much.:glare:

[blake 3:17]

Trotsky's Results and Prospects isn't that difficult a read.

The link here http://links.org.au/node/140 to Phil Hearse's article is one of the clearer somewhat contemporary accounts of Permanent Revolution. It was writtend in response to a critique of the theory which is also on the Links site.

This article by Michael Lowy, provides some historical context for significance of the theory: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1118

[x359594]

Hey guys, would it be possible for this thread to not completely degenerate into a tendency war? I would like to learn, thank you very much.:glare:

In my view, Random Precision has provided the most succinct an accurate account of Trotsky's notion of permanent revolution with relevent references at the end of his post. Study those references comrade and you'll have a good grasp of permanent revolution.

[Led Zeppelin]

I don't know why people even bother replying to Radical. He's clearly a stooge who isn't interested in productive discussion, which is why he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He doesn't know what he's defending, nor what he's criticizing, he's just repeating something that sounds "good".

Of course I'm not saying all Marxist-Leninists, as they like to be called, are like that. Take for example Wanted Man, who's the exact opposite of that. He's a guy who rationally looks at the data available, comprehends it, and then draws a conclusion based on it.

He's not interested in not knowing what the hell he's talking about because he knows that that's no way to argue your case. I respect people like him; I ignore and don't give a crap about people like Radical.

This phenomenon is of course not limited to Marxist-Leninists. It's a personality trait also found in anarchists, Trotskyists, left-communists etc. Anyone recall those annoying as fuck Trots who merely parroted the line of their organization over and over again, thinking that they're being clever or smart while not knowing what the fuck they're talking about? Yeah, I dislike them just as much.


What is it?

If you want a full answer to this question, that is, the answer given by the person who came up with the theory, you should read these works:

The Permanent Revolution and Results & Prospects (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm)
1905 (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1907/1905/index.htm)

The answers given, however correct they may be, are still not complete, and the people who posted it, I'm sure, acknowledge it themselves as well. I found that when I read those works, a lot of sub-questions I had after the main question was already answered, were also answered. They're not difficult to read books, quite simple actually, and they let you know what you need to know.

[Luisrah]

If it was idealized by Marx an then Trotsky, then I suppose Marxist-Leninists oppose it.

Why is that?

[Dave B]

Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity

Published in May 1914




The only ground the "Tushino turncoats" have for claiming that they stand above groups is that they "borrow" their ideas from one group one day and from another the next day. Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901—03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as "Lenin’s cudgel". At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i. e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists.

He said that "between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf". In 1904—05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left "permanent revolution" theory. In 1906—07, he approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg.

In the period of disintegration, after long "non-factional" vacillation, he again went to the right, and in August 1912, he entered into a bloc with the liquidators. He has now deserted them again, although in substance he reiterates their shoddy ideas.
Such types are characteristic of the flotsam of past historical formations, of the time when the mass, working-class movement in Russia was still dormant, and when every group had "ample room" in which to pose as a trend, group or faction, in short, as a "power", negotiating amalgamation with others.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/may/x01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/may/x01.htm)

Economic Dislocation and the Proletariat’s Struggle Against It

First published in Pravda No. 73, June 1917




The point is that people who have turned Marxism into a kind of stiffly bourgeois doctrine evade the specific issues posed by reality, which in Russia has in practice produced a combination of the syndicates in industry and the small- peasant farms in the countryside. They evade these specific issues by advancing pseudo-intellectual, and in fact utterly meaningless, arguments about a "permanent revolution", about "introducing" socialism, and other nonsense.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jun/17.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jun/17.htm)

And for balance;

Leon Trotsky, The Character of the Russian Revolution As Foreseen by Plekhanov, Lenin and Trotsky



http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/russia.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/russia.htm)

[LOLseph Stalin]

If it was idealized by Marx an then Trotsky, then I suppose Marxist-Leninists oppose it.

Why is that?

MLs generally oppose it as they feel that socialism needs to fully develop in each country before the revolution can be spread. Trotsky rejects this by stating that it's actually possible to skip the bourgeois capitalism stage in each country and have the proletarians develop it from there. This is a worldwide process as opposed to "one country at a time" as MLs support. So basically it's a difference in tactics between the two tendencies.

[Luisrah]

MLs generally oppose it as they feel that socialism needs to fully develop in each country before the revolution can be spread. Trotsky rejects this by stating that it's actually possible to skip the bourgeois capitalism stage in each country and have the proletarians develop it from there. This is a worldwide process as opposed to "one country at a time" as MLs support. So basically it's a difference in tactics between the two tendencies.

And are there ML's that support it and Trotskyists that don't?

[LOLseph Stalin]

And are there ML's that support it and Trotskyists that don't?

As far as I know, no. Permanent Revolution tends to be exclusively a Trotskyist thing these days.

[BobKKKindle$]

Trotsky rejects this by stating that it's actually possible to skip the bourgeois capitalism stage in each country and have the proletarians develop it from there.

It's not that Trotskyists believe that capitalism can be skipped as such, rather it's that we reject the possibility of a national capitalist economy being independent from the rest of the world, and believe that, during the age of imperialism, the material basis for socialism already exists, but only on an international scale, because no country has all of the natural and technological resources necessary to abolish scarcity, which, for Marx, and all of the classical Marxists, needs to exist in order to prevent any revolution from degenerating into "all the old crap", as Marx himself put it.

[Dave B]

Why are these necro posts being closed down?

Anyway;


It's not that Trotskyists believe that capitalism can be skipped as such, rather it's that we reject the possibility of a national capitalist economy ..........


Bibkindke$ again in post 21 from 16th October 2007, 16:32



Did you read any of the material posted above? Trotsky, in agreement with Lenin, disagreed with Marx's original prediction that it was necessary for society to undergo capitalist development prior to a socialist revolution. I recommend............


http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyism-t64734/index2.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyism-t64734/index2.html)


So what is true then, and when if ever or at what point had;

'Lenin, disagreed with Marx's original prediction that it was necessary for society to undergo capitalist development prior to a socialist revolution.'


For example;

V. I. LENIN, TWO TACTICS OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY IN THE DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION





From the standpoint of theory, this idea disregards the elementary propositions of Marxism concerning the inevitability of capitalist development where commodity production exists. Marxism teaches that a society which is based on commodity production, and which has commercial intercourse with civilized capitalist nations, at a certain stage of its development, itself, inevitably takes the road of capitalism.

Marxism has irrevocably broken with the ravings of the Narodniks and the anarchists to the effect that Russia, for instance, can avoid capitalist development, jump out of capitalism, or skip over it and proceed along some path other than the path of the class struggle on the basis and within the framework of this same capitalism.


page 44
All these principles of Marxism have been proved and explained over and over again in minute detail in general and with regard to Russia in particular. And from these principles it follows that the idea of seeking salvation for the working class in anything save the further development of capitalism is reactionary. In countries like Russia, the working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism.

The working class is therefore decidedly interested in the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism. The removal of all the remnants of the old order which are hampering the broad, free and rapid development of capitalism is of decided advantage to the working class. The bourgeois revolution is precisely a revolution that most resolutely sweeps away the survivals of the past, the remnants of serfdom (which include not only autocracy but monarchy as well) and most fully guarantees the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism
.

http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/TT05.html#c6 (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/TT05.html#c6)


Given the way it is clearly expressed, it is not a particularly easy position to pull back from without some explanation. So where is it?

You can find this kind of stuff in the pre 1917 Stalin archive as well incidentally.



By the way theoretically I think that is basically OK apart from a bit of unnecessary over enthusiasm about the advantages of capitalism, and of course the other stuff about the workers party governing it.

A Menshevik at heart I suppose.


And as we are on the related issue of ‘The Permanent Revolution’ and Lenin's attitude on it, which in I think in another necro post somebody said Lenin agreed with it!


Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity;

Published in May 1914




The only ground the "Tushino turncoats" have for claiming that they stand above groups is that they "borrow" their ideas from one group one day and from another the next day. Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in 1901—03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as "Lenin’s cudgel". At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik, i. e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists.

He said that "between the old Iskra and the new lies a gulf". In 1904—05, he deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly Left "permanent revolution" theory. In 1906—07, he approached the Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement with Rosa Luxemburg.

In the period of disintegration, after long "non-factional" vacillation, he again went to the right, and in August 1912, he entered into a bloc with the liquidators. He has now deserted them again, although in substance he reiterates their shoddy ideas.

Such types are characteristic of the flotsam of past historical formations, of the time when the mass, working-class movement in Russia was still dormant, and when every group had "ample room" in which to pose as a trend, group or faction, in short, as a "power", negotiating amalgamation with others.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/may/x01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/may/x01.htm)

On the Two Lines in the Revolution

Sotsial-Demokrat No. 48, November 20, 1915.



This task is being wrongly tackled in Nashe Slovo by Trotsky, who is repeating his "original" 1905 theory and refuses to give some thought to the reason why, in the course of ten years, life has been bypassing this splendid theory.

From the Bolsheviks Trotsky’s original theory has borrowed their call for a decisive proletarian revolutionary struggle and for the conquest of political power by the proletariat, while from the Mensheviks it has borrowed "repudiation" of the peasantry’s role.

The peasantry, he asserts, are divided into strata, have become differentiated; their potential revolutionary role has dwindled more and more; in Russia a "national" revolution is impossible; "we are living in the era of imperialisnu," says Trotsky, and "imperialism does not contrapose the bourgeois nation to the old regime, but the proletariat to the bourgeois nation."

Here we have an amusing example of playing with the word "imperialism". If, in Russia, the proletariat already stands contraposed to the "bourgeois nation", then Russia is facing a socialist revolution (!), and the slogan "Confiscate the landed estates" (repeated by Trotsky in 1915, following the January Conference of 1912), is incorrect; in that case we must speak, not of a "revolutionary workers’" government, but of a "workers’ socialist" government!

The length Trotsky’s muddled thinking goes to is evident from his phrase that by their resoluteness the proletariat will attract the "non-proletarian [!] popular masses" as well (No. 217)! Trotsky has not realised that if the proletariat induce the non-proletarian masses to confiscate the landed estates and overthrow the monarchy, then that will be the consummation of the "national bourgeois revolution" in Russia; it will be a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry!

A whole decade—the great decade of 1905-15—has shown the existence of two and only two class lines in the Russian revolution. The differentiation of the peasantry has enhanced the class struggle within them; it has aroused very many hitherto politically dormant elements. It has drawn the rural proletariat closer to the urban proletariat (the Bolsheviks have insisted ever since 1906 that the former should be separately organised, and they included this demand in the resolution of the Menshevik congress in Stockholm).

However, the antagonism between the peasantry, on the one hand, and the Markovs, Romanovs and Khvostovs, on the other, has become stronger and more acute. This is such an obvious truth that not even the thousands of phrases in scores of Trotsky’s Paris articles will "refute" it. Trotsky is in fact helping the liberal-labour politicians in Russia, who by "repudiation" of the role of the peasantry understand a refusal to raise up the peasants for the revolution!


That is the crux of the matter today. The proletariat are fighting, and will fight valiantly, to win power, for a republic, for the confiscation of the land, i.e. to win over the peasantry, make full use of their revolutionary powers, and get the "non-proletarian masses of the people" to take part in liberating bourgeois Russia from military-feudal "imperialism" (tsarism). The proletariat will at once utilise this ridding of bourgeois Russia of tsarism and the rule of the landowners, not to aid the rich peasants in their struggle against the rural workers, but to bring about the socialist revolution in alliance with the proletarians of Europe.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/nov/20.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/nov/20.htm)


Economic Dislocation and the Proletariat’s Struggle Against It,

First published in Pravda No. 73, June 1917


The point is that people who have turned Marxism into a kind of stiffly bourgeois doctrine evade the specific issues posed by reality, which in Russia has in practice produced a combination of the syndicates in industry and the small- peasant farms in the countryside. They evade these specific issues by advancing pseudo-intellectual, and in fact utterly meaningless, arguments about a "permanent revolution", about "introducing" socialism, and other nonsense.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jun/17.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jun/17.htm)


.