Between Revolution and Permanent Revolution

[The Cheshire Cat]

Hello, I have a question for everyone who 'believes' in the permanent revolution (and not in socialism in one country).

What is to be done in the time between the revolution in a random country and the permanent revolution? A country can't develop itself to communism since a communist society would fail due to import problems/foreign imperialism etc.

So what is the alternative? A social-democracy? State socialism/capitalism?
And would the alternative be good, since social-democracy is little different from capitalism and state-socialism could easily transform in a dictatorship of bureacrats (?).

Please tell me what you think. Thank you.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Hello, I have a question for everyone who 'believes' in the permanent revolution (and not in socialism in one country).

I disagree with the idea of SIOC so I will reply to your post.


What is to be done in the time between the revolution in a random country and the permanent revolution?

Many things are to happen in this time period. This includes the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the transfer of the means of production to the workers and the abolition of private property, and the propagation of world revolution to name of few things.


So what is the alternative?

The establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat which would wait to transition to a classless and stateless society after the success of a world revolution


And would the alternative be good, since social-democracy is little different from capitalism and state-socialism could easily transform in a dictatorship of bureacrats (?).

Please tell me what you think. Thank you.

I think that the dictatorship of the proletariat would be superior to social-democracy.

What do you mean by "state-socialism"? There is no such thing (unless you mean people who advocate a proletariat state to transition to a classless and stateless society when material conditions allow).

[The Cheshire Cat]

Thanks for your quick answer. With State-socialism I mean state-capitalism. There is little difference, as I understood.

So what would the dictatorship of the proletariat look like? Would it still function in the global economy and maintain the borders of the country and the curreny etc.? Because then it would just be social-democracy with direct democracy, right?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

So what would the dictatorship of the proletariat look like? Would it still function in the global economy and maintain the borders of the country and the curreny etc.? Because then it would just be social-democracy with direct democracy, right?

1. There are a lot of different theories as to what the dotp would "look like" but it's structure would be different for the different material conditions of each country. For the United States and other industrialized countries, I imagine that the party would be the centralizing force of society with the soviets and other organs of proletariat rule actively participating in society (although I am no council fetishist).
2. Yes, it would still have to function in the global economy as would any society. I don't believe that money would still exist but be traded instead for labor-vouchers (which Marx's shows in Capital is not the same as money).

There are many different views on the dotp. Some don't advocate for the party or believe that the party should not take power, others advocate direct democracy and council rule for every aspect of society (again, something I believe is flawed), etc. etc.

[Geiseric]

It's the duty of the 1st country with a revolution to support revolutionary movements worldwide. in terms of markets and trade, these things can still happen however will lead to degeneration if they are prioritized above world revolution as happened with the 3rd period of comintern.

[jookyle]

As far as I'm concerned, the country should support and propagate other revolutions worldwide but, they can only do so much as far as direct support goes(man power, material resources, etc.) until the first country has stabilized itself. As in, making sure everyone's fed, expropriation of the bourgeoisie's capital, property, and what not. Once the original country is able to function under a socialist mode of production more direct support should be given to other revolutions.

These are some things I said on the subject in another thread of the same type of question:

Well, there's really two parts to this answer. The first being that it would be silly strategically so have the revolution happen one day and then just start moving into another country(countries) the very next day. Obviously there needs to be a period of strengthening and securing the orignal country. The other part is that there's no reason why you can't have an international focus while also having a domestic one. The two do not contradict each other.


Well it would have to at some point. Like I said before, I don't think anyone expects multiple countries to have a successful revolution all in the same day. But the point is to always be internationally minded and internationally oriented and be making preparations to internationally continue the revolution. Both for the survival of socialism and to defeat capitalism. To simply say stop the revolutionary cause because you won in what ever you country you're in is to betray the entire cause. A socialist victory in one country should be used as the spring board to keep the revolution going internationally. Remember, it's workers of the world unite!


Here some readings on the matter of Permanent Revolution

In Defense of October-Leon Trotsky
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/11/oct.htm

The Permanent Revolution & Results and Prospects-Leon Trotsky
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm

What is the theory of the Permanent Revolution?
http://trotsky.net/trotsky_year/permanent_revolution.html

[JAM]

Hello, I have a question for everyone who 'believes' in the permanent revolution (and not in socialism in one country).


Tell me, what is the contradiction between Permanent Revolution and Socialism in One Country?

USSR combined both concepts.

Permanent revolution is not equivalent of World Revolution and Socialism in One Country is not a denial of the World Revolution.

Permanent Revolution means that the bourgeoisie is too weak to lead the revolutionary process (as it was the case of the Russian in 1917) and therefore the working class must assume the revolutionary tasks of the bourgeoisie.

Socialism in One Country means that the revolutionary process in one country doesn't need to be dropped if the revolution fails to spread abroad.

I don't see any contradiction here.

[Prometeo liberado]

Many things are to happen in this time period. This includes the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the transfer of the means of production to the workers and the abolition of private property, and the propagation of world revolution to name of few things.

Within this sentence lies one of the many slights of hand that is inherent amongst the trots. The revolution is a proletarian revolution against the bourgeois and its trappings lead by the workers. The OP is asking what happens between the revolution won and the advent of conditions permitting the permanent revolution. Why would the workers need to advocate(fight for) yet once again for the transfer of MOP and the abolition of private property after the revolution. Was the purpose of the initial revolution merely to hand power to even fewer yet "smarter" hands to be kept in "trust" until the workers were ready? Who holds this "trust" after the revolution? Maybe I finally understand all this permanent revolution stuff better now.

[Art Vandelay]

Tell me, what is the contradiction between Permanent Revolution and Socialism in One Country?

USSR combined both concepts.

Permanent revolution is not equivalent of World Revolution and Socialism in One Country is not a denial of the World Revolution.

Permanent Revolution means that the bourgeoisie is too weak to lead the revolutionary process (as it was the case of the Russian in 1917) and therefore the working class must assume the revolutionary tasks of the bourgeoisie.

Socialism in One Country means that the revolutionary process in one country doesn't need to be dropped if the revolution fails to spread abroad.

I don't see any contradiction here.

So you agree with Trotsky then? After all he was the one pushing for permanent revolution at a time when the Bolsheviks and Lenin were still stagiest.

[JAM]

So you agree with Trotsky then? After all he was the one pushing for permanent revolution at a time when the Bolsheviks and Lenin were still stagiest.

Yes. Lenin changed his position in 1917 as you know. Trotsky was right since the beginning, no doubt about it and even Lenin recognized it in 1917.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes. Lenin changed his position in 1917 as you know. Trotsky was right since the beginning, no doubt about it and even Lenin recognized it in 1917.

Never seen a M-L admit that before, kudos.

[JAM]

Never seen a M-L admit that before, kudos.

Perhaps because M-L's need to rethink seriously some things about M-L as I am doing right now.

[Art Vandelay]

Perhaps because M-L's need to rethink seriously some things about M-L as I am doing right now.

Interesting, I think regardless of ideology, the ability to be constantly questioning and critical of your own politics is something extremely lacking on the left today.

[JAM]

Interesting, I think regardless of ideology, the ability to be constantly questioning and critical of your own politics is something extremely lacking on the left today.

I agree with you completely. Otherwise, we ended up acting as a religious sect defending dogmas when we suppose to be the total opposite of it.

Some major mistakes were committed in the past and we refuse to see it, coming up with the most unbelievable theories to justify the mistakes and I did it myself more than once. The truth is that those mistakes committed are unjustifiable and we cannot continue to ignore it. At least I can't, I'm tired of justify the unjustifiable. As I said to you I'm seriously rethinking my ideas specially as far as the Marxism-Leninism goes.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Tell me, what is the contradiction between Permanent Revolution and Socialism in One Country?

USSR combined both concepts.

Permanent revolution is not equivalent of World Revolution and Socialism in One Country is not a denial of the World Revolution.

Permanent Revolution means that the bourgeoisie is too weak to lead the revolutionary process (as it was the case of the Russian in 1917) and therefore the working class must assume the revolutionary tasks of the bourgeoisie.

Socialism in One Country means that the revolutionary process in one country doesn't need to be dropped if the revolution fails to spread abroad.

I don't see any contradiction here.

Then we have different understandings of the same word, I'm afraid. This happens alot around here. Shouldn't there be some kind of dictionairy for leftist jargon, accepted by everyone? This would clarify things.

With permant revolution I meant world revolution. I understood that those are nearly the same things, but maybe I did not understand it well.

With Socialism in one country I meant the same thing as you.

If you believe in sioc there would be no problem in continuing the revolution when your the only socialist country.

If you believe in the PR, there would be. And I am interested in how to solve that problem, hence I have no need for people explaining to me that there is no problem. Not in this thread, at least.

[The Cheshire Cat]

As far as I'm concerned, the country should support and propagate other revolutions worldwide but, they can only do so much as far as direct support goes(man power, material resources, etc.) until the first country has stabilized itself. As in, making sure everyone's fed, expropriation of the bourgeoisie's capital, property, and what not. Once the original country is able to function under a socialist mode of production more direct support should be given to other revolutions.

But is this possible when your the only socialist country? Because then you would have to maintain a currency, you would have to participate in capitalist trading unions with other countries, like the EU, to be able to compete with other countries, etc.







Here some readings on the matter of Permanent Revolution

In Defense of October-Leon Trotsky
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/11/oct.htm

The Permanent Revolution & Results and Prospects-Leon Trotsky
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm

What is the theory of the Permanent Revolution?
http://trotsky.net/trotsky_year/permanent_revolution.html

Thanks!

[The Cheshire Cat]

1. There are a lot of different theories as to what the dotp would "look like" but it's structure would be different for the different material conditions of each country. For the United States and other industrialized countries, I imagine that the party would be the centralizing force of society with the soviets and other organs of proletariat rule actively participating in society (although I am no council fetishist).


Why do you think industrialized countries would have a different DOTP than backward countries (as I assume, at least)?



2. Yes, it would still have to function in the global economy as would any society. I don't believe that money would still exist but be traded instead for labor-vouchers (which Marx's shows in Capital is not the same as money).



We would have to maintain a currenct because other countries would not accept labor-vouches. Or we would have to trade direct goods with other countries, but I think this would give us a disadvantage.


1Some don't advocate for the party or believe that the party should not take power, others advocate direct democracy and council rule for every aspect of society (again, something I believe is flawed), etc. etc.

Why do you think it is flawed?

[jookyle]

But is this possible when your the only socialist country? Because then you would have to maintain a currency, you would have to participate in capitalist trading unions with other countries, like the EU, to be able to compete with other countries, etc.

In a way, yes. I would suggest reading Lenin's The State and Revolution and Trotsky's The Transitional Program. Both go into detail about the process in which capitalist structures are used as they whither away into socialism as the revolution and process continues and grows.

From chapter five of The State and The Revolution in regards to the "lower" or "first" stage(s) of communism:


Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of "bourgeois laws" which continues to prevail so long as products are divided "according to the amount of labor performed". Continuing, Marx says:

"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

From the Transitional Program:


The socialist program of expropriation, i.e., of political overthrow of the bourgeoisie and liquidation of its economic domination, should in no case during the present transitional period hinder us from advancing, when the occasion warrants, the demand for the expropriation of several key branches of industry vital for national existence or of the most parasitic group of the bourgeoisie.

Thus, in answer to the pathetic jeremiads of the gentlemen democrats anent the dictatorship of the “60 Families” of the United States or the “200 Families” of France, we counterpose the demand for the expropriation of those 60 or 200 feudalistic capitalist overlords.

In precisely the same way, we demand the expropriation of the corporations holding monopolies on war industries, railroads, the most important sources of raw materials, etc.

The difference between these demands and the muddleheaded reformist slogan of “nationalization” lies in the following: (1) we reject indemnification; (2) we warn the masses against demagogues of the People’s Front who, giving lip service to nationalization, remain in reality agents of capital; (3) we call upon the masses to rely only upon their own revolutionary strength; (4) we link up the question of expropriation with that of seizure of power by the workers and farmers.

The necessity of advancing the slogan of expropriation in the course of daily agitation in partial form, and not only in our propaganda in its more comprehensive aspects, is dictated by the fact that different branches of industry are on different levels of development, occupy a different place in the life of society, and pass through different stages of the class struggle. Only a general revolutionary upsurge of the proletariat can place the complete expropriation of the bourgeoisie on the order of the day. The task of transitional demands is to prepare the proletariat to solve this problem.

These are just two small excerpts from the readings, if you want a good grasp on the concepts you must read the full texts. Personally, I believe The State and Revolution to be one of the most important contributions to communism.


The State and Revolution
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

The Transitional Program
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/index.htm

[Zulu]

Hello, I have a question for everyone who 'believes' in the permanent revolution (and not in socialism in one country).


First of all, you've mixed up the "permanent revolution" with the "export of revolution", which are two entirely different concepts.

Secondly, SiOC does not really contradict the concept of the "export of revolution". It just says that a revolutionary country needs to act smart.

[JAM]

With permant revolution I meant world revolution.


That misinterpretation occurs very often. It's not your fault. I used to interpret Permanent Revolution as World Revolution myself as well. In wikipedia you have this: To this day, the debate over "Socialism in One Country" vs "Permanent Revolution" rages within the Communist movement.

It would be more correct to put in this way: Stagist Theory vs Permanent Revolution.

[bolshie]

Originally Posted by JAM http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2450870#post2450870)
"Perhaps because M-L's need to rethink seriously some things about M-L as I am doing right now. "


Interesting, I think regardless of ideology, the ability to be constantly questioning and critical of your own politics is something extremely lacking on the left today.

good for the both of you, all I've seen so far on here is different factions determined to prove one view or the other.

Interesting thread generally.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Why do you think industrialized countries would have a different DOTP than backward countries (as I assume, at least)?
Backward countries face underdevelopment, illiteracy, health crisises, etc. and so would have to institute different methods to industrialize, etc. that already industrialized countries would not have to face or not have to face on such a massive scale.


We would have to maintain a currenct because other countries would not accept labor-vouches. Or we would have to trade direct goods with other countries, but I think this would give us a disadvantage.
Different theories on this, bud.


Why do you think it is flawed?

I think that it is flawed to dismiss the party organizational form for many reasons. I believe that the working class doesn't need to just take the factory but take political power through revolutionary means. The party is the mode of political struggle and organization. The proletariat party would also represent the most developed part of the working class and its interests. Arguments against this usually turn to workerism and immediatism, arguing that the entire working-class represent their views best is wrong because individual workers can hold very counter-revolutionary views being a product of capitalist relations and society. Also, communists fight for the interests of the proletariat as a whole, not individual proletariats. Also, those that argue against the party support things such as taking the factories and organizations that only fight on the economic front. This ignores the political struggle.

[ckaihatsu]

I've found that the best way to describe and visualize these revolutionary advancements is by seeing them as incremental gains on a sliding scale.

I'm going to order certain descriptions you've given onto this sliding scale....


AUTARKY




We would have to maintain a currenct because other countries would not accept labor-vouches. Or we would have to trade direct goods with other countries, but I think this would give us a disadvantage.


AUTARKY-TO-STALINISM




[W]hen your the only socialist country [...] you would have to maintain a currency, you would have to participate in capitalist trading unions with other countries, like the EU, to be able to compete with other countries, etc.


STALINISM




If you believe in sioc there would be no problem in continuing the revolution when your the only socialist country.


MARXISM




With permant revolution I meant world revolution. I understood that those are nearly the same things, but maybe I did not understand it well.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

http://postimage.org/image/35tmoycro/

[Geiseric]

Well the currency and trade thing can happen only when the socialist country is facing collapse and needs to have investments coming in, however once it's industrialised and modernised with the help of several other industrialised countries it can advance into socialism like those other ones are on the road to. had German communists carried out and ran the revolution as an organized body, we wouldn't of ever seen SoiC come into existance. But anyways, the bureaucracy totally made trade deals with capitalists, and sold out revolutionary movements because of their new allegiances in the U.S.S.R. to france, the weimar republic, and the United States governments.