Permanent revolution?

[Q]

On page 100 of Lenin Rediscovered an interesting Kautsky quote is recounted, back from 1900:


In fact, the European bourgeoisie east of the [river] Rhine has become so weak and so cowardly that in all likelihood the regime of the sabre and of the bureaucracy cannot be broken until the proletariat is in a position to conquer political power, so that the fall of absolutist power militarism will lead directly to the seizure of political power by the proletariat.

Lars Lih elaborates further on page 98:


[...] 'Hegemony' was used to describe Social-Democratic hopes for inter-class leadership in the Russian context. The core idea of the hegemony strategy is that the Russian proletariat is the only force capable of leading the bourgeois-democratic revolution that would overthrow the tsar. As Plekhanov put it in 1889, 'The Russian revolution [Plekhanov means the anti-tsarist revolution] will either triumph as a revolution of the worker class or it will not triumph at all'.

This strategy has struck many as a surprising, even paradoxical, one for Marxists to adopt. According to the Marxist schema, it is said, the bourgeois revolution is carried out by the bourgeoisie - otherwise, why label it a 'bourgeois revolution'? - while the proletariat carries out the socialist revolution at a later date. What I want to show here is that the hegemony strategy follows - perhaps even with natural necessity - from the accepted premises of Social-Democratic thinking that I have already described. In fact, the appropriate conclusions from these premises were already drawn by Kautsky in his book on parliamentarism in 1893.

Italic emphasis by Lih, bold emphasis by me.

It is often said, in usual Trotskyist educational narrative, that a main difference between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks was the latters insistence that the bourgeois-revolutionary tasks were supposed to be carried out by the bourgeoisie, while the Bolsheviks disagreed. It was, according to this narrative, Trotsky with his theory on "permanent revolution" that made the point that only the proletariat could carry out this task.

What these few passages from Lenin Rediscovered describe is how this narrative can't be correct. Plekhanov, a notable Menshevik, already wrote about this in 1889.

Even the term 'Permanent revolution' isn't unique to Trotsky as Witnesses to Permanent Revolution (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Witnesses-to-Permanent-Revolution) documents. While Trotskyists may often concede that the term originated from Parvus, it is claimed that Trotsky fully developed it. This quite clearly is incorrect as well. One could, at most, argue that Trotsky made a very specific contribution to the running debate that was happening all over the Second International.

So, my question, why this Trotsky? How did we forget about all the others and the fact that Trotsky was merely repeating a very orthodox Second International position?

[Geiseric]

Plekhanov forgot what he said by 1917 at least. He supported the provisional government which the Bolsheviks were out to destroy. Parvus was actually the first one to conceptualize it. Lenin also held stagist views until 1917, when the april thesis came out and whipped Stalin and Kamenev into shape.

[motion denied]

Things may be going over my head right now, but wasn't permanent revolution first coined by M&E in the Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League of 1850?

As in the 'coming' petite-bourgeois revolution against feudalism should be made permanent by the proletariat and its party until "all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far – not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world..."

[Q]

Plekhanov forgot what he said by 1917 at least.
Even when you claim that Plekhanov must have had a defective memory (that's a nice stretch), how do you explain away all the others in the Second International, not least Kautsky himself, defending identical positions?


Parvus was actually the first one to conceptualize it.
Yes, I know that is the default Trotskyist narrative, as I already debunked in the OP. Why repeat it again? Is that all you're capable off, repeating until no one is listening anymore?


Lenin also held stagist views until 1917, when the april thesis came out and whipped Stalin and Kamenev into shape.
I didn't mention the April Theses as such, Lih made points about that on (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/836/april-theses-myth-and-reality/) several (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/800/supplement-kautsky-lenin-and-the-april-theses/) occasions (http://area51.weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/939/april-theses-before-and-after-april-1917/). Lih makes some excellent points regarding the problems that exist here with the standard Trotskyist narrative.

But aside from that, given the fact that Lenin stood with two legs firmly in the Second International tradition, was arguably Russia's most zealous reader of anything produced from Germany, especially by Kautsky and given the fact that what later became known as 'permanent revolution' was already a very orthodox position for decades, don't you find it odd to claim that Lenin supposedly had 'stagist' views? Where were these views coming from? When did Lenin switch from the orthodox position to 'stagism', only to switch back in 1917? Your answers beg for more questions.


Things may be going over my head right now, but wasn't permanent revolution first coined by M&E in the Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League of 1850?
That is "revolution in permanence" that you're thinking of and had a somewhat different meaning, as you yourself cite.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

This quite clearly is incorrect as well. One could, at most, argue that Trotsky made a very specific contribution to the running debate that was happening all over the Second International.

What exactly do you mean? Could you elaborate a bit? What is Trotsky's specific contribution in your opinion?

[Geiseric]

You have a good point. The democratic dictatorship theory was stagist, how long was lenin defending it?

[Five Year Plan]

A better point is, who cares who originated the term or whether it is unique to Trotsky? The term actually goes back to Marx and Engels, if not before. And Lenin shared Trotsky's internationalist position, and the need for proletarian political independence, which is the essence of permanent revolution, even if Lenin's writings on the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry lacked the concrete formulations of state and governmental forms that Trotsky's writings bestowed.

What matters is it's the correct political line, and stands in staunch opposition to socialism in one country, stagism, and parliamentarism (the latter of which, in practice, is what Kautsky's politics amounted to, whatever florid prose he wrote to the contrary).

[Tower of Bebel]

Permanent Revolution = emancipation of the proletariat by the proletariat - not the bourgeoisie nor the petty bourgeoisie - even in such circumstances where the proletariat is a minority. This was an ABC of Marxist social democracy as we can see from the works of Kautsky, Luxemburg, Mehring, Lenin, Trotsky, Parvus, etc. Trotsky's vision of PR as a theory (not just a slogan or a warning) added this: the political revolution will not only pose the question of proletarian hegemony within a proletarian-peasant alliance - because the bourgeoisie "east of the Elbe" was considered too weak -, but the inevitability of socialism as well. Why and how this would happen is explained in his works. Only after his expulsion from the USSR, and as part of the attempt to reclaim Lenin, did he consistently emphasize "the need for a party" or "the role of the revolutionary party".

Plekhanov did not foget this ABC. Though social democracy would lead the revolution, he thought a dictatorship of the proletariat was impossible in Russia alone. Hence social democracy should support the petty bourgeoisie as well as the workers and remain an opposition. What made Lenin and Trotsky renounce this was Trotsky's idea that the revolution would spread, as part of this theory of the Permanent Revolution, and Lenin's prediction that it would when he saw the mood among the German workers. (What Lenin would have thought if the German workers wouldn't have gone on strike is unknown.) Such internationalisation of the revolution would give a regime based on the proletariat in Russia, whether a workers' state (Trotsky) or a workers' and peasants' state (Lenin), some time to hold out against the bourgeois revolution in the country side. It did not however and the situation in the countryside (civil war) posed the question of bureaucratic rule instead.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I suppose the reference to Plekhanov is to his 1889 speech at the congress of the SI. But in the speech, Plekhanov is clearly talking about an overthrow of tsarism, the autocracy, not capitalism as such. In all likelihood Kautsky was referring to something similar - a struggle for a democratic republic.

It is possible to hold that the bourgeoisie is too weak to struggle for a bourgeois republic and still hold to a stagist view that posits the need for a bourgeois-democratic revolution before the socialist one - that is definitely how Kautsky saw his beloved Georgian government (a proletarian government presiding over a bourgeois state), and Lenin flirts with such formulations throughout 1917 (and his "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" is essentially a step back into semi-stagism).

[Five Year Plan]

and Lenin flirts with such formulations throughout 1917 (and his "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" is essentially a step back into semi-stagism).

I disagree, and think this is being unfair to Lenin's theory of the democratic dictatorship. He understood that the workers to have a leading role in such a dictatorship, and spoke of a socialist revolution in Europe proving a launching pad for those workers to complete the socialist revolution without the need for additional "state smashing." I don't see stages here. I see exactly what Trotsky correctly called an "algebraic formulation."

[Tower of Bebel]

It is possible to hold that the bourgeoisie is too weak to struggle for a bourgeois republic and still hold to a stagist view that posits the need for a bourgeois-democratic revolution before the socialist one - that is definitely how Kautsky saw his beloved Georgian government (a proletarian government presiding over a bourgeois state), and Lenin flirts with such formulations throughout 1917 (and his "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" is essentially a step back into semi-stagism).
Developments require conditions. When the conditions for a socialist revolution are not available, it is impossible to develop in a socialist direction. Hence you cannot 'advance' from one 'stage' to the other 'stage'. Trotsky developed a 'theory', based on his assesment of the situation in Russia, to prove that the conditions were available and that the boundaries of the 'stages' would be transcended almost immediatly. Lenin, however, remained critical of this and waited for the revolutionary developments themselves to formulate a concrete answer to his "formula".

[Tower of Bebel]

The political impotency of the German liberals had a long tradition, but to a socialist with a Marxist tendency it posed a special problem. What would take the place in Germany of the expected stage of liberal bourgeois political rule, the benefits of which would provide the levers by which the working class could gain education, experience, and increased political influence? [SPD party leader August] Bebel reflected on this problem, although he did not attempt to translate the conclusions of his thinking into practical party policy. His speculation led him to the conclusion that for Germany it was impossible to expect a "radical bourgeois transitional stage", something which might hold for "petty-bourgeois France". In Germany, Bebel thought, the economic development had so far outstripped the political development that it seemed possible to jump over the intermediate stage, going directly from the existing [capitalist, monarchical] system into the first phases of socialist development. Consistent with that thinking, Bebel repeatedly told Engels and constantly warned his comrades that the collapse of capitalist society approached rapidly.

This passage refers to a letter from August Bebel to Engels which is dated 1884! The idea of "jumping stages" in Permanent Revolution was at least 20 years old when Trotsky started writing it down!


Mr. Yollos writes the following: “I do not consider Bebel an authority on Russian affairs, but I must observe that in this part of his speech he differs favourably from Kautsky and several other doctrinaires who recommend Revolution in Permanenz (uninterrupted revolution). As a clever man and politician who realises what concrete forms a state of uninterrupted anarchy assumes in the life of a nation, Bebel sees progress primarily in the promotion of cultural aims, and his words make it quite clear that he draws no line of demarcation and certainly erects no barriers between the Russian intelligentsia and the Russian proletariat, at any rate before the elementary rights of man have been secured.”

First of all this is a libel on Bebel, a libel fully in the style of Novoye Vremya. Bebel always and unequivocally draws a “line of demarcation” between bourgeois and proletarian democratism; Mr. Yollos cannot be ignorant of that. Bebel distinguishes in no uncertain fashion between the bourgeois intelligentsia and the Social-Democratic intelligentsia. To assure the Russian reader that Bebel, while fighting for “culture”, ever hushes up the mendacity and treachery of the bourgeois democrats on the one hand, and the socialist aims of the working class on the other, means slandering in the grossest manner the leader of revolutionary Social-Democracy in Germany.

[Five Year Plan]

This passage refers to a letter from August Bebel to Engels which is dated 1884! The idea of "jumping stages" in Permanent Revolution was at least 20 years old when Trotsky started writing it down!

You might not be aware of this, but Marx's later writings discussed a socialist revolution in Russia without Russia first having a bourgeois revolution, so your obscure German social democrat is hardly breaking any more new ground than Trotsky was. There are a couple of decent books on the topic out, one by Kevin Anderson called Marx at the Margins, and another called Late Marx and the Russian Road.

The reason PR is so closely associated with Trotsky was that he used the concept to battle the Stalinist bureaucracy and its ideas about socialism in one country. This battle also required that he expound upon the concept more than any other thinker had really done. It hardly comes as a shock that Trotsky was simply expressing established Marxist principles when he did this.

[Tower of Bebel]

Thanks, Five Year Plan, for the reference to Anderson's book(s). But "my obscure German social democrat" was just an example. I stumbled upon Lidtke's account by accident and only yesterday. Because I'm not aware of the entire body of sources and consequent research of it, I wrote it must have been "at least 20 years old" before Trotsky started writing his 'Results and Prospects'. 'Witnesses to Permanent Revolution' for instance, only republished the works of prominent German and Russian Marxists that were written between 1902 and 1906. I'll give the books you mentioned a try.

[Q]

... so your obscure German social democrat ...
This little remark tells us tons. That not only you don't know Bebel, but the Marxist movement has almost completely forgotten this crucial figure in the history of Marxism, is an indictment against the state of our movement. This is central reason I started this thread: The complete ignorance of our history makes us incapable of understanding the glorified figures of Lenin and Trotsky.

From a Trotskyist perspective, this would be akin to following the politics of Ted Grant without ever having heard of this 'obscure figure from Russia' called Trotsky.

So, thank you for underscoring the raison d'être for this discussion.

[Five Year Plan]

The only thing our exchange really tells us, Q, is that you don't know how to pick up on my mordant sarcasm and pithy wit. Since this is generally a bad medium for it, I will forgive you. This time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is often said, in usual Trotskyist educational narrative, that a main difference between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks was the latters insistence that the bourgeois-revolutionary tasks were supposed to be carried out by the bourgeoisie, while the Bolsheviks disagreed. It was, according to this narrative, Trotsky with his theory on "permanent revolution" that made the point that only the proletariat could carry out this task.

What these few passages from Lenin Rediscovered describe is how this narrative can't be correct. Plekhanov, a notable Menshevik, already wrote about this in 1889.

Even the term 'Permanent revolution' isn't unique to Trotsky as Witnesses to Permanent Revolution (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Witnesses-to-Permanent-Revolution) documents. While Trotskyists may often concede that the term originated from Parvus, it is claimed that Trotsky fully developed it. This quite clearly is incorrect as well. One could, at most, argue that Trotsky made a very specific contribution to the running debate that was happening all over the Second International.

So, my question, why this Trotsky? How did we forget about all the others and the fact that Trotsky was merely repeating a very orthodox Second International position?


Permanent Revolution = emancipation of the proletariat by the proletariat - not the bourgeoisie nor the petty bourgeoisie - even in such circumstances where the proletariat is a minority. This was an ABC of Marxist social democracy as we can see from the works of Kautsky, Luxemburg, Mehring, Lenin, Trotsky, Parvus, etc.

Comrades, I would be more interested in those inside and outside the original Socialist International who argued back then that part or all of the petit-bourgeoisie had the sociopolitical "agency" to carry out both the cross-class "democratic revolution" and some form of state-capitalist development where the working class was merely a demographic minority.

[RedMaterialist]

So what, exactly, is the Permanent Revolution?

[Brutus]

So what, exactly, is the Permanent Revolution?

Very basically, the idea that the working class should take power and form a government regardless of whether or not it is a minority. This entails completing the tasks of the bourgeois revolution (abolishing any traces of feudalism and so on) whilst also exercising its own dictatorship over the other classes.

It was relevant in 19th/ early 20th century Russian and Germany (among other similar states), as they still had the aristocracy playing a leading political role, with a puppet-parliament holding a secondary role.

[Art Vandelay]

Very basically, the idea that the working class should take power and form a government regardless of whether or not it is a minority. This entails completing the tasks of the bourgeois revolution (abolishing any traces of feudalism and so on) whilst also exercising its own dictatorship over the other classes.

It was relevant in 19th/ early 20th century Russian and Germany (among other similar states), as they still had the aristocracy playing a leading political role, with a puppet-parliament holding a secondary role.

It isn't so much that the proletariat should take power in these situations, but rather that they must. Trotsky held that the bourgeoisie in late developing capitalist countries, proved incapable of not only completing the tasks associated with the bourgeois-democratic revolution, but also of further progressing the productive forces to the point where a fully formed industrial proletariat would come into existence. The theory itself is based on the notion of combined and uneven development, as well as Trotsky's understanding that a Marxist analysis is internationalist in scope, as opposed to focusing primarily on national phenomenon, which are an expression of the global contradictions of capital.

I think saying that it was only relevant in the 19th/early 20th century, isn't quite accurate. I believe it remains an important and relevant concept today for a few reasons. (1) It gives us the proper framework within which we can understand the events of 1917; (2) it brings into focus the fact that during a reactionary period of global capital, the bourgeoisie remains incapable of accomplishing tasks traditionally associated with it; (3) it allows Marxists to put forth a line in countries where the proletariat remains a demographic minority, without negating the primary importance of the agency of the proletariat (people's war, etc).

[Five Year Plan]

There has been a debate among Trotskyists over the past decade over whether permanent revolution remains a valid strategy to speak about in a world where all state apparatus are under the domination of capital, in some form or another. I am of the opinion that it remains valid to talk of permanent revolution as a way of referring to the transformation of a mass workers' democratic movements with a bourgeois/petty-bourgeois program or leadership, into a workers' revolution, through splitting the working-class base from the political misleadership that won't be capable of pursuing the democratic objectives to completion.

[RedMaterialist]

Very basically, the idea that the working class should take power and form a government regardless of whether or not it is a minority. This entails completing the tasks of the bourgeois revolution (abolishing any traces of feudalism and so on) whilst also exercising its own dictatorship over the other classes.

It was relevant in 19th/ early 20th century Russian and Germany (among other similar states), as they still had the aristocracy playing a leading political role, with a puppet-parliament holding a secondary role.

But why permanent revolution?

[Art Vandelay]

But why permanent revolution?

In contrast to the prevailing stagist theories of the time, Trotsky argued it was possible for the proletariat to accomplish the tasks traditionally associated with the bourgeois-democratic revolution in conjunction with their own proletarian revolution, with no intermideary stage where the bourgeoisie holds state power, ie: in an uninterrupted process. It is in this sense that the revolution is permanent.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It isn't so much that the proletariat should take power in these situations, but rather that they must.

In what "power" capacity? As the leading force, it has triggered brutal backlash! Being a junior class partner has yet to be considered.


I think saying that it was only relevant in the 19th/early 20th century, isn't quite accurate. I believe it remains an important and relevant concept today for a few reasons. (1) It gives us the proper framework within which we can understand the events of 1917; (2) it brings into focus the fact that during a reactionary period of global capital, the bourgeoisie remains incapable of accomplishing tasks traditionally associated with it; (3) it allows Marxists to put forth a line in countries where the proletariat remains a demographic minority, without negating the primary importance of the agency of the proletariat (people's war, etc).

I agree with your first two points only. "Permanent revolution" is what I argue against with regards to your third point. You mentioned People's War, but that is a tactic of the rural petit-bourgeoisie, not of the proletariat. The same goes for Focoism and breakthrough military coups.

I would like to remind all the posters who have made valuable contributions so far to this thread about Lars Lih's citation of Trotsky's very own words about "civil war with the peasantry" as the outcome of his adventurist take on "permanent revolution." No wonder followers of Old Bolshevism organized a backlash against him after Lenin's death!

[Brutus]

What's the source for this "civil war with the peasantry" quote?

[Tower of Bebel]

There has been a debate among Trotskyists over the past decade over whether permanent revolution remains a valid strategy to speak about in a world where all state apparatus are under the domination of capital, in some form or another. I am of the opinion that it remains valid to talk of permanent revolution as a way of referring to the transformation of a mass workers' democratic movements with a bourgeois/petty-bourgeois program or leadership, into a workers' revolution, through splitting the working-class base from the political misleadership that won't be capable of pursuing the democratic objectives to completion.
Late tsarist autocracy was considered by practically all Russian social democrats, though it was a survival of feudalism and antithetical to bourgeois 'democracy', a state apparatus under the domination of capital in some form or another.

[Q]

In contrast to the prevailing stagist theories of the time, Trotsky argued it was possible for the proletariat to accomplish the tasks traditionally associated with the bourgeois-democratic revolution in conjunction with their own proletarian revolution, with no intermideary stage where the bourgeoisie holds state power, ie: in an uninterrupted process. It is in this sense that the revolution is permanent.
I refer you to the OP of this very thread. "Stagism" was not a prevailing idea at the time. Trotsky was in fact simply reciting orthodox positions, be it from a Russian perspective.

As a matter of inquiry, "stagism" seems to be a Trotskyist construct. I'm not aware of actual "stagist" arguments from this period, that is, if you decide to ignore Trotskyist bias. Said differently: If you're not looking at many texts from a Trotskyist lense, then "stagism" doesn't seem to exist at all.

[Art Vandelay]

In what "power" capacity?

When I use the word power in the that sense, I am referring to the seizure of state power by the proletariat, or in other words the working class constituting itself as the ruling class, ie: the establishment of a genuine dotp.


As the leading force, it has triggered brutal backlash!

As is to be entirely expected. This, in and of itself, provides no justification for the argument that the proletariat should not take a ruthless and uncompromising approach while striving to enact its own class interests.


Being a junior class partner has yet to be considered.

So what you are arguing for is essentially class collaboration? And to be entirely clear, a form of class collaboration where within this heterogeneous movement, the proletariat does not take a leading role?


You mentioned People's War, but that is a tactic of the rural petit-bourgeoisie, not of the proletariat. The same goes for Focoism and breakthrough military coups.

Well protracted people's war, as generally touted by Maoists, is usually argued for within the context of the bloc of 4 classes (or something similar depending on the context), the only other theory I've seen which attempts to deal with similar situations (of the proletariat being a demographic minority), outside of the permanent revolution framework, is your own.


I would like to remind all the posters who have made valuable contributions so far to this thread about Lars Lih's citation of Trotsky's very own words about "civil war with the peasantry" as the outcome of his adventurist take on "permanent revolution." No wonder followers of Old Bolshevism organized a backlash against him after Lenin's death!

I would also be interested in seeing a source for this quote. So far from a couple google searches, the only thing that is coming up are comments made by you on a blog, while mentioning it comes from a Lih citation.

Regardless, I think the context in which it was said would prove to be quite telling. As far as I'm aware, the 'civil war with the peasantry' accusation, levied against Trotsky is far from new, having been drummed up by Stalin in co. in the 1920's surrounding the economic debates going on within the Bolshevik party. Regardless if you can point me in the direction of where I could go to read the comment in context, I'd be more than willing to discuss this further; I'll have to go find my copies of the prophet series by Deutscher, which are boxed up with my books in the garage at the moment, as it was (if my memory is accurate) an accusation which he dealt with in detail.


I refer you to the OP of this very thread. "Stagism" was not a prevailing idea at the time. Trotsky was in fact simply reciting orthodox positions, be it from a Russian perspective.

As a matter of inquiry, "stagism" seems to be a Trotskyist construct. I'm not aware of actual "stagist" arguments from this period, that is, if you decide to ignore Trotskyist bias. Said differently: If you're not looking at many texts from a Trotskyist lense, then "stagism" doesn't seem to exist at all.

This simply isn't accurate Q. Whatever was written by various theorists and members of the 2nd international leading up to the Russian Revolution, does not change the fact that the vast majority of Marxists/social-democrats in this time period were adopting a 'stagist' approach in 1917. The historical facts are that the overwhelming majority of those who self styled as Marxists at that time, including many within the Bolshevik party, were advocating support for the provisional government, ie: adhering to the classic argument that capitalist development had to precede the seizure of state power by the proletariat. We can trace the roots of the concept of 'permanent revolution' all the way back to Marx & Engels and it doesn't surprise me to find out that this notion was perhaps more prevalent within the 2nd international than most originally thought; just as it doesn't surprise me that the majority of these individuals proved incapable of consistently applying/advocating their theoretical conclusions, in the face of the greatest political developments of their lives. But really, to claim that stagist theory 'doesn't seem to exist at all'...outside of 'trotskyist bias'....is really head scratching when it was clearly advocated for by the Mensheviks (among others), continues to be advocated (albeit in an updated form) by certain Marxist-Leninist organizations, and is rehashed in the Maoist notion of 'new democracy.' So in all honesty, I'm really not sure how you could make such a claim.

[Tower of Bebel]

Old Bull Lee, the adoption of "stagism" in or around "1917" does not necessarily mean that the "permanent revolution" was not orthodox. It could have meant that the orthodox position was merely abandoned. This is a hypothesis I'd like to delve into more deeply.

The use of the "civil war with the peasantry" quote in a polemical context stems not from "Stalin and co." but was genuinly Bolshevik. And in the context of the late 1920's and 1930's is was rather Bukharin who handled this as a weapon of choice. Once Stalin and Bukharin broke up, for example, it was hurled against Stalin as well.

[Art Vandelay]

Old Bull Lee, the adoption of "stagism" in or around "1917" does not necessarily mean that the "permanent revolution" was not orthodox. It could have meant that the orthodox position was merely abandoned. This is a hypothesis I'd like to delve into more deeply.

It is a potential hypothesis, sure. To prove this though, one would need alot of historical and textual evidence, certainly more than a few quotes. And to be quite honest, I have a hard time buying into the notion that a completely orthodox position was discarded in 1917, without leaving an overwhelming trace of discussion and debate.

To be clear though, this position you just put forth, is quite different from the statement made by Q to which I was responding; namely that stagism did not exist and was entirely a trotskyist construct.


The use of the "civil war with the peasantry" quote in a polemical context stems not from "Stalin and co." but was genuinly Bolshevik. And in the context of the late 1920's and 1930's is was rather Bukharin who handled this as a weapon of choice. Once Stalin and Bukharin broke up, for example, it was hurled against Stalin as well.

Again, I would have to see where Trotsky used this phrase and within what context. Given the fact that under the dotp, the peasantry would be lead by its nose to its own destruction as a socio-economic class by the proletariat, I can easily envision the meaning of such a phrase being taken out of context and twisted. Keep in mind that DNZ's claim was: Lars Lih's citation of Trotsky's very own words about "civil war with the peasantry." So where exactly is this taken from? In what work/speech/party conference/whatever, did Trotsky argue for, or claim the practical implications of PR were, 'civil war with the peasantry'?

[Tower of Bebel]

Under the dotp all classes would have to be lead towards "destruction", no? Considering the debates before and around the 1917-revolution: there were debates and discussions about the permanent revolution and its place in the programme. However, much of the debate has not been made (very) accessible so far. Debates within German social democracy for example are rather accessible (compared to the Russian evidence), through both modern reproduction and the availability of the original texts, yet I've only been able to wade through a very tiny fraction of it. The fact that much of the historic debates were only sparingly reproduced and very selectively as well, has persuaded me not to take popular reproductions, articles and brochures at face value. So indeed, the fact that Lih writes he has cited Trotsky without mentioning his source is a bit suspicious.

[Art Vandelay]

Under the dotp all classes would have to be lead towards "destruction", no?

Correct, however the proletariat is the only class in whose interests it is to destroy themselves as a socio-economic class (in the sense that striving to enact their class interests achieves this end); it is through this process that the proletariat succeeds in abolishing all socio-economic classes in conjunction with their own self destruction. The peasantry were always intended to merely be a temporary ally in this process.


Considering the debates before and around the 1917-revolution: there were debates and discussions about the permanent revolution and its place in the programme. However, much of the debate has not been made (very) accessible so far. Debates within German social democracy for example are rather accessible (compared to the Russian evidence), through both modern reproduction and the availability of the original texts, yet I've only been able to wade through a very tiny fraction of it. The fact that much of the historic debates were only sparingly reproduced and very selectively as well, has persuaded me not to take popular reproductions, articles and brochures at face value. So indeed, the fact that Lih writes he has cited Trotsky without mentioning his source is a bit suspicious.

This I can all agree with. It would certainly be interesting if, as more and more translations become available, it was determined that perhaps the concept of permanent revolution held more traction within the 2nd international than was traditionally understood. Given how the events of that time period transpired, I would be surprised if this was the case, but won't pretend to be able to rule it out as a possibility. Not sure if you are working on translations, or are actively seeking them out as they become available, or working your way through German sources, etc...but if you come across anything interesting you should let me know.

[Five Year Plan]

Late tsarist autocracy was considered by practically all Russian social democrats, though it was a survival of feudalism and antithetical to bourgeois 'democracy', a state apparatus under the domination of capital in some form or another.

I think it's quite important to be careful with our language here. Practically all social democrats at the time believed that capitalism had developed significantly in Russia, and was exerting extensive pressure on the Tsar. (This, in fact, is the traditional Marxist understanding of absolutism: the development of capitalism enables an absolutist monarch to channel power away from the landed aristocracy.) But this is different than saying that the Tsarist state was a bourgeois/capitalist state. I don't recall reading a single instance of a Russian or any other Marxist of that time claiming that a bourgeois revolution wasn't necessary in Russia, which means, in point of fact, that they still understood the state to be a feudal one.

[Five Year Plan]

I refer you to the OP of this very thread. "Stagism" was not a prevailing idea at the time. Trotsky was in fact simply reciting orthodox positions, be it from a Russian perspective.

As a matter of inquiry, "stagism" seems to be a Trotskyist construct. I'm not aware of actual "stagist" arguments from this period, that is, if you decide to ignore Trotskyist bias. Said differently: If you're not looking at many texts from a Trotskyist lense, then "stagism" doesn't seem to exist at all.

Then why did the Mensheviks favor only the establishment of bourgeois government, and not a dictatorship of the proletariat, in the Russian Revolution? That sounds awfully stageist to me, in contrast to your growing fervor for the myth that permanent revolution was an uncontroversial and prevailing opinion all throughout the Marxist world before 1917. In fact, didn't Kautsky embrace, in his political criticisms, this very assumption of the Mensheviks, in his criticism of the Bolsheviks? Hmmm. I guess he wasn't a stageist, though, because you can dust off some text from 1899, where he says something r-r-revolutionary, once again (like your hero Lars Lih) ignoring the pivotal distinction between a thought somebody writes down, and an actual political program that animates, in reality, a person's political behavior.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What's the source for this "civil war with the peasantry" quote?


I would also be interested in seeing a source for this quote. So far from a couple google searches, the only thing that is coming up are comments made by you on a blog, while mentioning it comes from a Lih citation.

Regardless, I think the context in which it was said would prove to be quite telling. As far as I'm aware, the 'civil war with the peasantry' accusation, levied against Trotsky is far from new, having been drummed up by Stalin in co. in the 1920's surrounding the economic debates going on within the Bolshevik party.

Ask Lars Lih for direct sources, but he did say "his own phrase" with respect to Trotsky, so I'm very sure he's not being dishonest here: http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/836/april-theses-myth-and-reality/


My feeling is that Trotsky kept to the letter but violated the spirit of the axiom of the class ally. He thought that in the first part of the democratic revolution the peasants would support you and in the second part, when you go on to socialism, they would not support you. Therefore, unless you have an international revolution, there will be (and this is his own phrase) ‘a civil war with the peasantry’. He agrees that you can’t have socialist government without majority support. But, in a rather peculiar way, he says you can’t have socialism because there will be a civil war with the peasantry. He says we will be discredited if we do not make the provisional government long-lasting. But to me a civil war with the peasantry seems fairly discrediting, and the idea that a socialist government should end in civil war with the peasantry was blasphemy among Russian social democrats.

Here's another paper on the subject: http://www.academia.edu/5895719/Permanent_Revolution_-_But_Without_Socialism ("Permanent Revolution But Without Socialism")


The proletariat should cap its introduction of political freedoms and a thoroughgoing democratic republic by announcing its intention never to forego power voluntarily, then embarking on a policy that it knows cannot succeed, instigating in this way an armed revolt among a majority of the population, and thus deliberately creating a situation so desperate that the proletarian government can only be rescued by a foreign revolution that may or may not happen. Any other policy would discredit socialism.


The use of the "civil war with the peasantry" quote in a polemical context stems not from "Stalin and co." but was genuinly Bolshevik. And in the context of the late 1920's and 1930's is was rather Bukharin who handled this as a weapon of choice. Once Stalin and Bukharin broke up, for example, it was hurled against Stalin as well.

Comrade, did Bukharin really use Trotsky's very own contentious words against Stalin in opposition to the industrialization drive?


So indeed, the fact that Lih writes he has cited Trotsky without mentioning his source is a bit suspicious.

You could ask him directly, no? :confused:

[consuming negativity]

Permanent Revolution is a valuable theory insofar as we can continue to consider it in future scenarios, but Trotsky wasn't correct. Let's be honest, the USSR figured out pretty quickly that they weren't going to be able to just push on through to proletarian dictatorship with a quick industrialization pit-stop. Trotsky's application was a good-intentioned way for him to entertain the idea that the October Revolution was not Bourgeois and that somehow Stalin could be blamed for the circumstances which pointed to reality. That the revolution could be "saved" and turned "back on course". Because it was the only alternative to the idea that they simply hadn't brought about proletarian dictatorship anywhere on earth, after it became clear that Bukharin's Socialism in One State theory was bullshit.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Bukharin's? Did you mean Stalin's instead? Even then, Stalin isn't the one, either. That would be Georg von Vollmar.

[Five Year Plan]

Permanent Revolution is a valuable theory insofar as we can continue to consider it in future scenarios, but Trotsky wasn't correct. Let's be honest, the USSR figured out pretty quickly that they weren't going to be able to just push on through to proletarian dictatorship with a quick industrialization pit-stop. Trotsky's application was a good-intentioned way for him to entertain the idea that the October Revolution was not Bourgeois and that somehow Stalin could be blamed for the circumstances which pointed to reality. That the revolution could be "saved" and turned "back on course". Because it was the only alternative to the idea that they simply hadn't brought about proletarian dictatorship anywhere on earth, after it became clear that Bukharin's Socialism in One State theory was bullshit.

Trotsky's application? You don't really know much about the history of the Russian Revolution, do you?

[consuming negativity]

Trotsky's application? You don't really know much about the history of the Russian Revolution, do you?

You make a habit of providing harsh critiques and condemnations, but never yourself take stands and thereby subject yourself to useful criticism. I speak with the honesty of a person on a journey, and my words say what they mean. Pretending as if you are not also on a journey, but that you are "knowledgeable" instead, is the surest sign that you are not.

[Five Year Plan]

You make a habit of providing harsh critiques and condemnations, but never yourself take stands and thereby subject yourself to useful criticism. I speak with the honesty of a person on a journey, and my words say what they mean. Pretending as if you are not also on a journey, but that you are "knowledgeable" instead, is the surest sign that you are not.

How philosophical. The point is that permanent revolution isn't a tactic that is applied. It is a concept that captures the parity between working-class revolution and demands that the working class might fight for in the context of a struggle where other classes might (temporarily) exercise a leadership role. The reason I brought up your knowledge of the Russian Revolution was that Trotsky's "decision" to "apply" permanent revolution (as if it were ever a "decision"--it was more a decision to continue to exercise working-class political independence) was not determinative in the failure of the revolution. The entire premise of the success of permanent revolution in Russia was the success of workers' revolution in more developed parts of the world, specifically Western Europe.

Yes, I am knowledgeable, and become quite cranky when newbies presume to act sanctimoniously toward me, as you have in another thread, without knowing what the fuck they are talking about. If you have questions, ask questions. That's what the Learning subforum is about.

If you'd like for me to be more civil to you, you can offer me an apology in private message, and I will consider it.

[consuming negativity]

How philosophical. The point is that permanent revolution isn't a tactic that is applied. It is a concept that captures the parity between working-class revolution and demands that the working class might fight for in the context of a struggle where other classes might (temporarily) exercise a leadership role. The reason I brought up your knowledge of the Russian Revolution was that Trotsky's "decision" to "apply" permanent revolution (as if it were ever a "decision"--it was more a decision to continue to exercise working-class political independence) was not determinative in the failure of the revolution. The entire premise of the success of permanent revolution in Russia was the success of workers' revolution in more developed parts of the world, specifically Western Europe.

Yes, I am knowledgeable, and become quite cranky when newbies presume to act sanctimoniously toward me, as you have in another thread, without knowing what the fuck they are talking about. If you have questions, ask questions. That's what the Learning subforum is about.

If you'd like for me to be more civil to you, you can offer me an apology in private message, and I will consider it.

And, "as in another thread", you misinterpret what I said and blame your subsequent being an asshole on me. When I said he "applied" it to the revolution, I mean this in the theoretical or philosophical sense. I mean that he dragged up the idea from Communism's past as part of a primarily emotionally-motivated argument as to how Stalinist Russia might be "salvaged".

While I am responding here, I missed DNZ's post earlier and so let me respond to that now. I knew that Stalin and Bukharin dragged that up from earlier as well, but I couldn't be bothered to go and figure out the exact name of the faceless old white man who happened to think of it first. Because it doesn't change the discussion and so wasn't necessary. Unless you think that the inclusion of that detail would necessarily influence my argument, in which case please elaborate as I'd like to hear it. But Bukharin's use of the idea and Stalin's embracing of it are what's relevant to my post which primarily concerns Trotsky.

[Five Year Plan]

And, "as in another thread", you misinterpret what I said and blame your subsequent being an asshole on me. When I said he "applied" it to the revolution, I mean this in the theoretical or philosophical sense. I mean that he dragged up the idea from Communism's past as part of a primarily emotionally-motivated argument as to how Stalinist Russia might be "salvaged".

Well, yes, permanent revolution is a "theory" derived from observation and testable. In that sense it can be "applied." To say that Trotsky "applied" it in the sense of using the idea to guide the direction of the Russian Revolution, which is how you seemed to be using it in your initial formulation, well, good luck to you on your "journey" as a communist if you think revolutions are about great men "applying" theories. As far as any application of any theory being "emotionally-motivated," you sound more like a bad Oprah re-run than a communist.

[consuming negativity]

Well, yes, permanent revolution is a "theory" derived from observation and testable. In that sense it can be "applied." To say that Trotsky "applied" it in the sense of using the idea to guide the direction of the Russian Revolution, which is how you seemed to be using it in your initial formulation, well, good luck to you on your "journey" as a communist if you think revolutions are about great men "applying" theories. As far as any application of any theory being "emotionally-motivated," you sound more like a bad Oprah re-run than a communist.

You're trying to disagree in order to make it seem like you were earlier justified in your angry outburst. Just jabbing at straw men out of hopes that I'll jump up to defend one. No thanks! :) I'm glad we worked around that misunderstanding.

[Five Year Plan]

You're trying to disagree in order to make it seem like you were earlier justified in your angry outburst. Just jabbing at straw men out of hopes that I'll jump up to defend one. No thanks! :) I'm glad we worked around that misunderstanding.

Clearly, since you think Trotsky was "incorrect" in his "theory" of permanent revolution, we disagree about something. However, I have no absolutely no faith in your ability to articulate what, specifically, prompts you to disagree with it. It seemed, in your original post, that the failure of the Russian Revolution was your rationale, but when ridiculed for how stupid that attempted connection was, you backed off and started (surprisingly!) acting sanctimonious and self-righteous, which is quickly becoming a theme with you.

[consuming negativity]

Clearly, since you think Trotsky was "incorrect" in his "theory" of permanent revolution, we disagree about something. However, I have no absolutely no faith in your ability to articulate what, specifically, prompts you to disagree with it. It seemed, in your original post, that the failure of the Russian Revolution was your rationale, but when ridiculed for how stupid that attempted connection was, you backed off and started (surprisingly!) acting sanctimonious and self-righteous, which is quickly becoming a theme with you.

He was obviously incorrect that the October Revolution would lead to a proletarian dictatorship, which is evidenced by the fact that there are now McDonald's in Moscow and the imperial tri-color is flying above the Kremlin. In fact, all of the Bolsheviks who thought this were wrong, as evidenced by the fact that it simply didn't happen. The "scientific" method at work.

Remember that the very first thing I said was that the theory itself (regarding the concept of a state going from semi-feudalism to socialism and skipping over capitalism) is a good one, insofar as there is no reason why permanent revolution cannot happen in any situation that I've thought of. But I maintain that Trotsky's attempt to apply it to the USSR with his writings in the 30's about "degenerated" and "deformed" workers states is therefore incorrect, at least in the sense and context that he meant it. In the case of the USSR and its satellites, it was not possible to skip over capitalist industrialization. This must be admitted if we are ever to move beyond petty squabbling.

[Five Year Plan]

Duplicate Post.

[Five Year Plan]

He was obviously incorrect that the October Revolution would lead to a proletarian dictatorship, which is evidenced by the fact that there are now McDonald's in Moscow and the imperial tri-color is flying above the Kremlin. In fact, all of the Bolsheviks who thought this were wrong, as evidenced by the fact that it simply didn't happen. The "scientific" method at work.

The permanent revolution is wrong because there is obviously no DotP in Russia right now. Right away the question immediately arises: is it not possible that the October Revolution established a dictatorship of the proletariat that was then overthrown? There are other problems with your attempt to point to the current absence of a DotP in Russia as proof of the invalidity of permanent revolution, but we'll just leave the critique there for the present moment.


Remember that the very first thing I said was that the theory itself (regarding the concept of a state going from semi-feudalism to socialism and skipping over capitalism) is a good one, insofar as there is no reason why permanent revolution cannot happen in any situation that I've thought of. But I maintain that Trotsky's attempt to apply it to the USSR with his writings in the 30's about "degenerated" and "deformed" workers states is therefore incorrect, at least in the sense and context that he meant it. In the case of the USSR and its satellites, it was not possible to skip over capitalist industrialization. This must be admitted if we are ever to move beyond petty squabbling.Fact one: Trotsky never wrote about the concept of "deformed workers' states" and certainly never used the term.

Fact two: permanent revolution isn't about societies leaping from feudalism straight into socialism. It's about the state leaping from control over representatives of the feudal aristocracy (or of some other pre-capitalist class) to representatives of the proletariat. There is no question about the need of the proletariat to perform the so-called "bourgeois-democratic" tasks, including that of the accumulation of capital in circumstances where a society lags far behind its advanced capitalist competitors.

But please, keep addressing criticisms against aspects of the theory which simply do not exist, all while acting sanctimonious the second a person calls you out on your almost total lack of knowledge. I would be more than willing to assist you in a comradely way if you hadn't already shown your colors as a self-righteous jack-off in other exchanges we have had.

[consuming negativity]

The permanent revolution is wrong because there is obviously no DotP in Russia right now. Right away the question immediately arises: is it not possible that the October Revolution established a dictatorship of the proletariat that was then overthrown? There are other problems with your attempt to point to the current absence of a DotP in Russia as proof of the invalidity of permanent revolution, but we'll just leave the critique there for the present moment.

Fact one: Trotsky never wrote about the concept of "deformed workers' states" and certainly never used the term.

Fact two: permanent revolution isn't about societies leaping from feudalism straight into socialism. It's about the state leaping from control over representatives of the feudal aristocracy (or of some other pre-capitalist class) to representatives of the proletariat. There is no question about the need of the proletariat to perform the so-called "bourgeois-democratic" tasks, including that of the accumulation of capital in circumstances where a society lags far behind its advanced capitalist competitors.

But please, keep addressing criticisms against aspects of the theory which simply do not exist, all while acting sanctimonious the second a person calls you out on your almost total lack of knowledge. I would be more than willing to assist you in a comradely way if you hadn't already shown your colors as a self-righteous jack-off in other exchanges we have had.

No, it is not possible that somehow between state capitalism under Lenin and a decade later, a dictatorship of the proletariat was formed and subsequently smashed when collectivization began in the Ukraine. It seems like you're trying to mask it but you sound like a Trotskyist. It would explain your inability to not end each of your posts with an emotionally-charged personal attack because you got trolled a week ago.

[Five Year Plan]

No, it is not possible that somehow between state capitalism under Lenin and a decade later, a dictatorship of the proletariat was formed and subsequently smashed when collectivization began in the Ukraine. It seems like you're trying to mask it but you sound like a Trotskyist. It would explain your inability to not end each of your posts with an emotionally-charged personal attack because you got trolled a week ago.

Now, having been shown that your knowledge of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution is highly shaky and quesionable, you are retreating to an argument about state capitalism, which, at best, is loosely connected to permanent revolution. After all, it is possible for the theory of permanent revolution to be valid, but for petty bourgeois forces to seize control over mass movements in a revolutionary situation, and institute a form of state capitalism in place of a DotP.

This doesn't invalidate the "theory" of permanent revolution, since the "theory" was never about guaranteeing the success of the working class. To repeat, permanent revolution explains the fact that in the epoch of imperialism and capitalist decay, there are certain "tasks" that, by virtue of how global political relationships are configured, point logically to the proletarian conquest of political power because other class forces cannot be relied upon to consistently carry through those tasks to completion, at least insofar as those tasks are being pursued by the working class.

Also, you do understand that when a dictatorship of the proletariat takes power, that all the vestiges of capitalism still exist (minus, in the case of nationalized means of production, a ruling capitalist class), right?

I mean, at this point, you seem so utterly lost and confused about basic definitions and class issues, that a meaningful discussion with you would require extensive, detailed engagement about a whole host of matters.

Quite frankly, I have no interest in that. I will just continue to point out the holes in your arguments, and watch as you flap around uneasily from topic to topic, like a fish out of water. For somebody who was a little less of a dick, I would be a lot more helpful in assisting on this so-called journey. As for you, you can take a wrong turn and never be seen again, and I couldn't be happier.

[consuming negativity]

Now, having been shown that your knowledge of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution is highly shaky and quesionable, you are retreating to an argument about state capitalism, which, at best, is loosely connected to permanent revolution. After all, it is possible for the theory of permanent revolution to be valid, but for petty bourgeois forces to seize control over mass movements in a revolutionary situation, and institute a form of state capitalism in place of a DotP.

This doesn't invalidate the "theory" of permanent revolution, since the "theory" was never about guaranteeing the success of the working class. To repeat, permanent revolution explains the fact that in the epoch of imperialism and capitalist decay, there are certain "tasks" that, by virtue of how global political relationships are configured, point logically to the proletarian conquest of political power because other class forces cannot be relied upon to consistently carry through those tasks to completion, at least insofar as those tasks are being pursued by the working class.

Also, you do understand that when a dictatorship of the proletariat takes power, that all the vestiges of capitalism still exist (minus, in the case of nationalized means of production, a ruling capitalist class), right?

I mean, at this point, you seem so utterly lost and confused about basic definitions and class issues, that a meaningful discussion with you would require extensive, detailed engagement about a whole host of matters.

Quite frankly, I have no interest in that. I will just continue to point out the holes in your arguments, and watch as you flap around uneasily from topic to topic, like a fish out of water. For somebody who was a little less of a dick, I would be a lot more helpful in assisting on this so-called journey. As for you, you can take a wrong turn and never be seen again, and I couldn't be happier.

...

How high are you? Is this even a response to my post? Did you quote the right one?

[Five Year Plan]

...

How high are you? Is this even a response to my post? Did you quote the right one?

Is there any part of my post that you think fails to address the shallow drek you spewed in your previous attempt at covering up your ignorance? Also, it's nice to see you admit I was "trolled" a while back. We all know who was doing the trolling, and that person was you. This is your reward. Enjoy.

[Art Vandelay]

Ask Lars Lih for direct sources, but he did say "his own phrase" with respect to Trotsky, so I'm very sure he's not being dishonest here: http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/836/april-theses-myth-and-reality/

Well I'm not going to try and track down Lars Lih for a source, the burden of proof isn't on the audience. I'm also not trying to imply that there is necessarily anything intellectually dishonest about what he did, but at the very least it's just sloppy work on his part. If you quote something, particularly if you are the first person to have come across it (as it appears Lih is in this case), you source it; that's journalism 101. I mean really, Lih includes sources at the end of the article, so it is genuinely curious why he wouldn't have sourced this claim. Quite frankly there isn't much I can add at this point, since entirely devoid of context, this supposed utterance by Trotsky is rendered meaningless. We have no idea what he was discussing, who he was in discussion with, what exactly it was that he meant, etc. Anyways its not an argument/accusation anyone should take seriously or go around repeating, until it is proven.

[Five Year Plan]

I have done extensive searching both online and in my own personal files for this supposed "civil war with the peasantry" quote (along with variations on the quote that convey the same meaning) and, like Old Bull Lee, can find absolutely nothing. Lih doesn't offer a citation, which is odd, considering that other parts of the same work are clearly cited, and the only Internet hits I get are from that Lih paper, along with DNZ's advertising it on various leftist forums, while pretending to have unearthed some scandalous but long-hidden truth.

I am skeptical that such a thing was ever said by Trotsky for a number of reasons. One is that Trotsky, when speaking of the role the peasantry might play in a revolutionary process, invariably suggested that it could play no independent role. In this, he actually shares a premise with DNZ's dystopian parody/vision of a "Third-World Caesarean Revolution," the difference being that Trotsky envisioned this incapacity being parlayed into decisive support for the minority working-class, whereas with DNZ's theory, it gets parlayed into support for some banana-republic tin-pot capitalist dictator.

A second reason is that whenever Trotsky (and Lenin) spoke of the friction between the peasantry's political outlook and the socialist tasks confronting the proletariat, they invariably differentiated the peasantry into poor, middling, and rich peasants (kulaks), and noted how the vast majority of the peasantry had a definite economic interest in the democratically led economic development that was to take place under a dictatorship of the proletariat, which would have improved their standard of living. To the extent that this brought them into a formally "proletarian" position and out of the peasantry, this was all the more reason to place great stock in their organically socialist instincts, rather than to predict any sort of civil war between workers and peasants.

In conclusion, I am calling bullshit on the quote until I see firm evidence that it actually exists.

[Tower of Bebel]

Because the internet is only such a limited 'source', I followed DNZ's suggestion and e-mailed Lih. He was so kind to respond almost immediately. The phrase, a paraphrase actually, stems from Trotsky's Kautsky on the Russian Revolution (1906).


How can this conflict [with the 'strong' peasantry] be resolved? Of course, it will not be resolved through having representatives of the proletariat move from ministerial benches to those of the opposition. The issue will be much more serious than that. The conflict will end in civil war and the defeat of the proletariat. Within the confines of a national revolution, and given our social conditions, there is no other “way out” for the proletariat’s political domination.

I was able to track it down in Witnesses to Permanent Revolution (http://books.google.be/books?id=pV5k-TvbSwQC&lpg=PA576&ots=Ay83BL1PgI&dq=This%20will%20be%20the%20beginning%20of%20the%2 0end.%20How%20can%20this%20conflict%20%5Bwith%20th e%20peasantry%5D%20be%20resolved%3F%20Of%20course% 2C%20it%20will%20not%20be%20resolved%20through%20h aving%20representatives%20of%20the%20proletariat%2 0move%20from%20ministerial%20benches%20to%20those% 20of%20the%20opposition.&hl=nl&pg=PA576#v=onepage&q&f=false) (2009).

[Five Year Plan]

Because the internet is only such a limited 'source', I followed DNZ's suggestion and e-mailed Lih. He was so kind to respond almost immediately. The phrase, a paraphrase actually, stems from Trotsky's Kautsky on the Russian Revolution (1906).



I was able to track it down in Witnesses to Permanent Revolution (http://books.google.be/books?id=pV5k-TvbSwQC&lpg=PA576&ots=Ay83BL1PgI&dq=This%20will%20be%20the%20beginning%20of%20the%2 0end.%20How%20can%20this%20conflict%20%5Bwith%20th e%20peasantry%5D%20be%20resolved%3F%20Of%20course% 2C%20it%20will%20not%20be%20resolved%20through%20h aving%20representatives%20of%20the%20proletariat%2 0move%20from%20ministerial%20benches%20to%20those% 20of%20the%20opposition.&hl=nl&pg=PA576#v=onepage&q&f=false) (2009).

Thanks, Tower of Bebel. As I suspected Trotsky is referring to struggle with the wealthy stratum of peasants, and there's nothing there about war with "the peasantry" as such.

The longer quote is actually more instructive on this:


But since the possession of power will not change its [the proletariat's] class nature--indeed, it will do the opposite and force that nature to become all the more visible--and since the proletariat cannot help but support agricultural workers in their struggle for a human life, the result is that conflict between the proletariat and the 'strong' peasantry is ultimately inevitable.Certainly the strong peasantry would then attempt to enlist some of the middling and poor peasantry, but there's no hint here of a vision of a civil war with the proletariat on one side, versus the peasantry en masse on the other.

He then goes on to make the over-arching point that the revolution needs to be made "permanent" in the sense of being extended internationally.

So, no, "civil war with the peasantry" was not Trotsky's own phrase.

[Art Vandelay]

Well that certainly clears it up and we can now see that there was undoubtedly an element of intellectual dishonesty at play. Not only did Lih form a phrase which was never said and proceed to wrap quotation marks around it, but he also misconstrued what Trotsky was saying in order to do so. Despite the fact that he was clearly attempting to paraphrase Trotsky (in a inaccurate fashion), he went on to describe this paraphrase of his own creation as Trotsky's 'own phrase.' Pretty awful work on his part; sloppy at best, complete intellectual dishonesty at worst.

[Tower of Bebel]

Although Lih has written that it was "his [Trotsky's] own phrase", he has actually paraphrased Trotsky. His paraphrases are distinguished by single quotation marks. Actual quotes, however, are distinguished by double quotation marks throughout Lih's text.

But here's my attempt to understand Lih's contention concerning the "axiom of the class ally".

To paraphrase Lih himself: the peasantry, here, is a class with class interests and the proletariat is - according to Lenin and Kautsky - in dire need of this class ally in order to take and hold power; the proletariat, as a class, will, according to Trotsky however, come into conflict with "the 'strong' peasantry" and thus a civil war will be provoked. This would divide the class and end the class alliance.

And to quote Lih, while adding some explanation between brackets:

I think that sums up a real difference, not with Trotsky in general, but between Trotsky’s 1905-06 theory and Lenin [concerning the interpretation of Kautsky's article on the Russian Revolution]. Trotsky tries to finesse his way around the idea of peasant support [explaining the need for a European revolution] whereas Lenin says that unless we can reliably count on conscious majority peasant support then we cannot proceed [at all].

[Five Year Plan]

Although Lih has written that it was "his [Trotsky's] own phrase", he has actually paraphrased Trotsky. His paraphrases are distinguished by single quotation marks. Actual quotes, however, are distinguished by double quotation marks throughout Lih's text.

But here's my attempt to understand Lih's contention concerning the "axiom of the class ally".

To paraphrase Lih himself: the peasantry, here, is a class with class interests and the proletariat is - according to Lenin and Kautsky - in dire need of this class ally in order to take and hold power; the proletariat, as a class, will, according to Trotsky however, come into conflict with "the 'strong' peasantry" and thus a civil war will be provoked. This would divide the class and end the class alliance.

And to quote Lih, while adding some explanation between brackets:

These difference between Lenin and Trotsky are differences in emphasis and style, not substance. And pointing them out is clearly clearly intended to be yet another skirmish in Lih's never-ending, absurd struggle to reclaim Lenin into the camp of Kautskyism, and away from that horrid camp of Bolshevism (reduced by the Lihites to a caricatured "Trotskyism").

Lenin and Trotsky both agreed that the peasantry was variegated along pronounced lines of wealth and therefore political interests. Both Lenin and Trotsky agreed that the majority-support of the peasant masses was necessary for the proletariat to take power, and to proceed to do anything once in power. Both Lenin and Trotsky perceived fissures within the peasantry developing once the proletariat seized power (See Lenin's quote in "On the Two Lines": "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." The rest of Lenin's document is humorous in its criticisms of Trotsky, culminating in Lenin faulting Trotsky for not understanding that the two of them are essentially in agreement! Sort of looks like the early 20th century equivalent of a debate on Revleft). Both foresaw the need for a world revolution in order to sustain workers' hegemony in Russia.

These are not substantive differences. These are two people with nearly identical visions, who are coming at the problem with different sets of theoretical interests, which are guiding them to talk about these visions in decidedly different ways.

The effort to paint these differences as substantive is about as dishonest as to say that a phrase is "Trotsky's own," then to include any form of quotation marks around them, when in fact the phrase is a paraphrase that actually obscures Trotsky's meaning.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because the internet is only such a limited 'source', I followed DNZ's suggestion and e-mailed Lih. He was so kind to respond almost immediately.

Damn!


As I suspected Trotsky is referring to struggle with the wealthy stratum of peasants, and there's nothing there about war with "the peasantry" as such.

Care to quote? I don't see in the link the definition of "strong peasantry" as being only the kulaks. I interpret this as being a reference to peasant political activism and peasant-based political resistance.


How can this conflict [with the 'strong' peasantry] be resolved? Of course, it will not be resolved through having representatives of the proletariat move from ministerial benches to those of the opposition. The issue will be much more serious than that. The conflict will end in civil war and the defeat of the proletariat. Within the confines of a national revolution, and given our social conditions, there is no other “way out” for the proletariat’s political domination.

That's it! I've snapped and gone ballistic over this! My contemporary political response (so much for further historical banter), comrade ToB, to your timely quote here, to other comrades, and to other posters here, is a post-"Permanent Revolution" paraphrase of my own!

How can this conflict with an urban and rural petit-bourgeois demographic majority be resolved? Of course, it will not be resolved through having representatives of the proletarian demographic minority move from ministerial benches to those of the opposition. The solution will be much earlier than that: staying out of the ministerial benches to be politically independent, but move from supporting People's Wars, Focoism, Breakthrough Military Coups, and other "national"/"pan-national"/"patriotic" petit-bourgeois power struggles to becoming "the most politically visible vigilantes in anti-bourgeois crusades by the national/socioeconomically ‘patriotic’ petit-bourgeoisie." (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1011/letters/)

People’s Histories, Blocs, and "Managed Democracy" Reconsidered (http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html)
Mission Impossible: Explaining Caesarean Socialism (http://revleft.com/vb/mission-impossible-explaining-t153130/index.html)

[Five Year Plan]

DNZ, it's pretty simple to see from the quote that Trotsky is talking about a conflict breaking out as a result of the proletariat backing the poor peasantry ("agricultural laborers"). If you think this means "civil war with the [entire] peasantry, which is strong," then you are suggesting that assisting the poor peasantry means going to war with them. Otherwise, it's pretty obvious that, by "strong peasantry," Trotsky is referring to layers of the peasantry that are, relative to the average peasant, economically strong or powerful.

Lenin, incidentally, makes this same point in discussing the growing over of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry under proletarian leadership, into the socialist revolution: "The liberal bourgeoisie, temporising in the third period, passive in the fourth, becomes downright counter revolutionary, and organises itself in order to take away from the proletariat the gains of the revolution. Among the peasantry, the whole of the well-to-do section, and a fairly large part of the middle peasantry, also grow 'wiser,' quieten down and turn to the side of the counter-revolution in order to wrest power from the proletariat and the rural poor, who sympathise with the proletariat."

Can there seriously be any confusion about what is being said by either Lenin or Trotsky, or that their views on this issue were identical?

[Tower of Bebel]

Five Year Plan, I won't deny that Lenin's views and Trotsky's theory were coming together. Much because of a change in the concrete situation, both nationally as well as internationally. But this change happened 10 years later. Lih, however, is arguing for differences of opinion in Trotsky's, Lenin's and Kautsky's works from somewhere between 1905-1906, and not 1915, 1917 or 1920.

That Lenin reckoned with a changing situation during the war is apparent from the article from which you quoted before.


Today we are again advancing towards a revolution [as in 1905]. ... And again we see the same two lines in the revolution, the same alignment of classes, only modified by a changed international situation. In 1905, the entire European bourgeoisie supported tsarism and helped it either with their thousands of millions (the French), or by training a counter-revolutionary army (the Germans). In 1914 the European war flared up. Everywhere the bourgeoisie vanquished the proletariat for a time, and swept them into the turbid spate of nationalism and chauvinism. In Russia, as hitherto, the petty-bourgeois masses of the people, primarily the peasantry, form the majority of the population. They are oppressed first and foremost by the landowners. Politically, part of the peasantry are dormant, and part vacillate between chauvinism (“the defeat of Germany”, “defence of the fatherland”) and revolutionary spirit. ...

This state of affairs patently indicates the task of the proletariat. That task is the waging of a supremely courageous revolutionary struggle against the monarchy (utilising the slogans of the January Conference of 1912, the “three pillars”), a struggle that will sweep along in its wake all the democratic masses, i.e., mainly the peasantry. At the same time. the proletariat must wage a ruthless struggle against chauvinism, a struggle in alliance with the European proletariat for the socialist revolution in Europe.



The vacillation of the petty bourgeoisie is no accident; it is inevitable, for it logically follows from their class stand. The war crisis has strengthened the economic and political factors that are impelling the petty hourgeoisie, including the peasantry, to the left. Herein lies the objective foundation of the full possibility of victory for the democratic revolution in Russia. There is no need here for us to prove that the objective conditions in Western Europe are ripe for a socialist revolution; this was admitted before the war by all influential socialists in all advanced countries.


To bring clarity into the alignment of classes in the impending revolution is the main task of a revolutionary party. This task is being shirked by the Organising Committee, which within Russia remains a faithful ally to Nashe Dyelo, and abroad utters meaningless “Left” phrases. 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.


After the October Revolution, Lenin mentions the steady progress towards the socialist revolution (the proletarian dictatorship) quite a lot. Right after 1917, the Bolsheviks held it possible for a European revolution to succeed and for the Russian workers to hold out. For example:


Russia is the country assigned by history the role of trail-blazer of the socialist revolution, and that is just why so much struggle and suffering has fallen to our lot. The capitalists and imperialists of other countries realise that Russia is up in arms, and that the future not only of Russian but of international capital is being decided in Russia. That is why in all their press—in all the bourgeois world press which they have bribed with their many millions—they spread the most incredible slanders about the Bolsheviks.

But consider what changed by the early 1920's and how Lenin's strategic implications changed:


We know that so long as there is no revolution in other countries, only agreement with the peasantry can save the socialist revolution in Russia.

...

Difficult as our position is in regard to resources, the needs of the middle peasantry must be satisfied. There are far more middle peasants now than before, the antagonisms have been smoothed out, the land has been distributed for use far more equally, the kulak’s position has been undermined and he has been in considerable measure expropriated—in Russia more than in the Ukraine, and less in Siberia. On the whole, however, statistics show quite definitely that there has been a levelling out, an equalisation, in the village, that is, the old sharp division into kulaks and cropless peasants has disappeared. Everything has become more equable, the peasantry in general has acquired the status of the middle peasant.
As far as I know, talk about the socialist revolution faded away after 1921. The alliance with the peasantry was put again on the agenda and it would dominate many of the confrontations after Lenin's death.

[Five Year Plan]

Five Year Plan, I won't deny that Lenin's views and Trotsky's theory were coming together. Much because of a change in the concrete situation, both nationally as well as internationally. But this change happened 10 years later. Lih, however, is arguing for differences of opinion in Trotsky's, Lenin's and Kautsky's works from somewhere between 1905-1906, and not 1915, 1917 or 1920.

That Lenin reckoned with a changing situation during the war is apparent from the article from which you quoted before.



After the October Revolution, Lenin mentions the steady progress towards the socialist revolution (the proletarian dictatorship) quite a lot. Right after 1917, the Bolsheviks held it possible for a European revolution to succeed and for the Russian workers to hold out. For example:



But consider what changed by the early 1920's and how Lenin's strategic implications changed:


As far as I know, talk about the socialist revolution faded away after 1921. The alliance with the peasantry was put again on the agenda and it would dominate many of the confrontations after Lenin's death.

Forgive me for being dense, but I only see a lot of quotes pasted there, but no discussion of what they are supposed to show. Both the supposed "civil war" passage of Trotsky's and the Lenin quotes I have been including were from the 1905-1906 period. You actually thanked an earlier post of mine (in this thread, I think?) where I took 870 to task for presenting Lenin as a stageist who had major disagreements with Trotsky, but now that you've been flogging this Lih article, it suddenly becomes vital for you to show some difference, any difference. Lih's claim that Trotsky was "finessing" the issue of peasant support is just plain wrong, as is his claim in the article that there's somehow a different understanding of intervals between when peasant support would begin to disintegrate.

Both Trotsky and Lenin understood that capitalist development was already well underway in rural Russia, and that this had resulted in a bifurcation of the peasantry, which would lead to significant issues when the proletariat began to undertake, more and more, the increasingly socialist tasks that it would have to undertake in its leading role in the topping of the feudal aristocracy. Pointing to quotes where Lenin is making after-the-fact empirical observations about what the peasantry is doing in 1920 or 1921 doesn't alter any of the content of their theories in 1905 and 1906 in the least. And to be honest, I am a little surprised that you are trying to dig in your heels here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I should add that, despite what Trotsky said in this early period, at least he was spot on about the specific form of revolutionary government, a cabinet with ministers.