Permanent Revolution and Ruling

[Friedrich]

In the case of a country supporting Permanent Revolution, would the countries that were liberated be run from a main country/state, or would each have a different government?
For example, had Russia supported it and pushed for a revolution in Germany, would Germany rule itself, or would it be run by the Russians?

I may have got the wrong end of the stick about Permanent Revolution, but I assume that after one country is liberated, the liberators push for revolution elsewhere and all the countries become associated.

I'd have looked on the web, but I trust Revlefters more than wikipedia.

[graymouser]

Well, Trotsky's call for the permanent revolution in Europe based itself along slogans such as a "United Socialist States of Europe" (although I don't think he used that specific formulation). The idea of international government before the rise of Stalinism - which held that you could simply have independent "socialist" states - had always been one of federalism, where for instance a socialist Germany and a socialist Russia would be part of a larger European state. This federation would have its own institutions and planning which would be run democratically. The traditional state boundaries would lose meaning in the "withering away" of the state, and the federations themselves would eventually become purely nominal.

[Friedrich]

Ah I see, thank you for the help graymouser :)

[Aurora]

I think you've got the wrong idea of what permanent revolution is to be honest. Permanent revolution is the theory that in the underdeveloped countries of the world the national bourgeoisie is embedded to foreign imperialism and as such is incapable of leading a bourgeois revolution so the task must be carried out under the leadership of the working class, the revolution becomes 'permanent' because the working class must move from the tasks of the bourgeois revolution to the tasks of the socialist revolution. The theory also states that the revolution in an underdeveloped country can only survive if the revolution spreads to the more advanced capitalist countries because socialism is only possible with a level of technology and technique more advanced than the most developed capitalism.


"The Perspective of permanent revolution may be summarized in the following way: the complete victory of the democratic revolution in Russia is conceivable only in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, leaning on the peasantry. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which would inevitably place on the order of the day not only democratic but socialistic tasks as well, would at the same time give a powerful impetus to the international socialist revolution. Only the victory of the proletariat in the West could protect Russia from bourgeois restoration and assure it the possibility of rounding out the establishment of socialism.

Leon Trotsky

When you talk about a country being 'liberated' it seems to me as if your talking about military intervention or something?
When Trotsky talks about the revolution spreading to other countries its not on the end of a bayonet but as an act of self-emancipation of the workers of that country.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

In the case of a country supporting Permanent Revolution, would the countries that were liberated be run from a main country/state, or would each have a different government?
For example, had Russia supported it and pushed for a revolution in Germany, would Germany rule itself, or would it be run by the Russians?

I may have got the wrong end of the stick about Permanent Revolution, but I assume that after one country is liberated, the liberators push for revolution elsewhere and all the countries become associated.

I'd have looked on the web, but I trust Revlefters more than wikipedia.

It is definitely not a question of one nation ruling over others. Basically, socialism is the working class administration of society through democratic councils of workers with recallable representatives (soviets). Soviets would necessarily respect the right to national self-determination of all peoples because the national character of a worker does not make them any less of a human being. In a revolution, it is necessary to secure the workers' power in liberated areas and provide support to workers in other areas to liberate themselves by any means necessary. Socialism needs to spread and conquer the world to prevent the imperialist powers from undermining the revolution. The Soviet Union failed because the bureaucratic clique betrayed the revolution by accepting the idea of "socialism in one country" which means giving up on supporting workers elsewhere and it allowed the West to undermine them. Capitalism is a global system, so if it only being defeated in one area, it can isolate that area and build itself up elsewhere. That is why real communists support international revolution.

[Friedrich]

(To Anarion)
I wasn't particularly sure how Trotsky envisioned the revolution occurring, hence the way I worded my post, so thank you for your input.