Permanent revolution?

[Issaiah1332]

What does this term really mean?

[More Fire for the People]

“The Perspective of permanent revolution may be summarized in the following way: the complete victory of the democratic revolution in Russia is conceivable only in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, leaning on the peasantry. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which would inevitably place on the order of the day not only democratic but socialistic tasks as well, would at the same time give a powerful impetus to the international socialist revolution. Only the victory of the proletariat in the West could protect Russia from bourgeois restoration and assure it the possibility of rounding out the establishment of socialism.” — Leon Trotsky[bold mine]
I disagree with the bolded part but essentialy the permanent revolution states that revolutions in developing countries must necessarily carry out both socialistic and democratic tasks such as forming a constitution and land reform.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 13 2006, 12:03 PM
“The Perspective of permanent revolution may be summarized in the following way: the complete victory of the democratic revolution in Russia is conceivable only in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, leaning on the peasantry. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which would inevitably place on the order of the day not only democratic but socialistic tasks as well, would at the same time give a powerful impetus to the international socialist revolution. [b]Only the victory of the proletariat in the West could protect Russia from bourgeois restoration and assure it the possibility of rounding out the establishment of socialism.” — Leon TrotskyI disagree with the bolded part but essentialy the permanent revolution states that revolutions in developing countries must necessarily carry out both socialistic and democratic tasks such as forming a constitution and land reform.
Marx's view of permanent revolution (the view I subscribe to) was that the proletariat, even in a situation where a democratic revolution was the chief task, should fight to take power in its own name (or, in a situation where a democratic revolution has just been achieved, should continue to fight to take power), since the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie would only take the revolution as far as they needed and would leave basic democratic tasks that would benefit the proletariat unfulfilled.

As I remember, Trotsky added to this the view that, in the epoch of imperialism, the bourgeoisie could no longer even accomplish a partial democratic revolution. This is correct, but only insofar as it goes.

Miles

[JC1]

As I remember, Trotsky added to this the view that, in the epoch of imperialism, the bourgeoisie could no longer even accomplish a partial democratic revolution. This is correct, but only insofar as it goes.

It's not realy anything profound. It's simply an extension of Lenin's Imperialism thesis.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:08 PM
It's not realy anything profound.
Well, yeah. That's kinda the epitaph of Trotskyism, isn't it? ;)

Miles

[RedSabine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:12 PM

Well, yeah. That's kinda the epitaph of Trotskyism, isn't it? ;)


that's hilarious.

[Cryotank Screams]

I personally do not know very much about the concept of permanent revolution, but in my opinion once the Revolution happens, and a Communistic system is set into place, and there are laws that could be set into place to insure that said system does not become corrupted, why would another Revolution need to occur?

[Poum_1936]

...and a Communistic system is set into place, and there are laws that could be set into place to insure that said system does not become corrupted, why would another Revolution need to occur?

Dialectics.

Everything changes. Everything has internal contradictions. Communism will undoutbedly have them as well. Oh, we may not know what they are right now, seeing as we are still stuck in capitalism, but Im sure the communistic system will have its problems. Nothing is flawless.

Also, the revolution is "pemanet" in two senses: the revolution starts off with the bourgeois tasks and continues forth onto the socialist ones, and because the revolution starts off in one country and continues at an international scale.

------------------------------------------------------


Permanent Revolution & Results and Prospects
-Trotsky

Chapter 10. WHAT IS THE PERMANENT REVOLUTION? BASIC POSTULATE

I hope that the reader will not object if, to end this book, I attempt, without fear of repetition, to formulate succinctly my principal conclusions.

1. The theory of the permanent revolution now demands the greatest attention from every Marxist, for the course of the class and ideological struggle has fully and finally raised this question from the realm of reminiscences over old differences of opinion among Russian Marxists, and converted it into a question of the character, the inner connexions and methods of the international revolution in general.

2. With regard to countries with a belated bourgeois development, especially the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the theory of the permanent revolution signifies that the complete and genuine solution of their tasks of achieving democracy and national emancipation is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat as the leader of the subjugated nation, above all of its peasant masses.

3. Not only the agrarian, but also the national question assigns to the peasantry—the overwhelming majority of the population in backward countries—an exceptional place in the democratic revolution. Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed. But the alliance of these two classes can be realized in no other way than through an irreconcilable struggle against the influence of the national-liberal bourgeoisie.

4. No matter what the first episodic stages of the revolution may be in the individual countries, the realization of the revolutionary alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry is conceivable only under the political leadership of the proletariat vanguard, organized in the Communist Party. This in turn means that the victory of the democratic revolution is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat which bases itself upon the alliance with the peasantry and solves first of all the tasks of the democratic revolution.

5. Assessed historically, the old slogan of Bolshevism—’the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’—expressed precisely the above-characterized relationship of the proletariat, the peasantry and the liberal bourgeoisie. This has been confirmed by the experience of October. But Lenin’s old formula did not settle in advance the problem of what the reciprocal relations would be between the proletariat and the peasantry within the revolutionary bloc. In other words, the formula deliberately retained a certain algebraic quality, which had to make way for more precise arithmetical quantities in the process of historical experience. However, the latter showed, and under circumstances that exclude any kind of misinterpretation, that no matter how great the revolutionary role of the peasantry may be, it nevertheless cannot be an independent role and even less a leading one. The peasant follows either the worker or the bourgeois. This means that the ‘democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’ is only conceivable as a dictatorship of the proletariat that leads the peasant masses behind it.

6. A democratic dictatorship of the prolelariat and peasantry, as a regime that is distinguished from the dictatorship of the proletariat by its class content, might be realized only in a case where an independent revolutionary party could be constituted, expressing the interests of the peasants and in general of petty bourgeois democracy—a party capable of conquering power with this or that degree of aid from the proletariat, and of determining its revolutionary programme. As all modern history attests—especially the Russian experience of the last twenty-five years—an insurmountable obstacle on the road to the creation of a peasants’ party is the petty-bourgeoisie’s lack of economic and political independence and its deep internal differentiation. By reason of this the upper sections of the petty-bourgeoisie (of the peasantry) go along with the big bourgeoisie in all decisive cases, especially in war and in revolution; the lower sections go along with the proletariat; the intermediate section being thus compelled to choose between the two extreme poles. Between Kerenskyism and the Bolshevik power, between the Kuomintang and the dictatorship of the proletariat, there is not and cannot be any intermediate stage, that is, no democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants.

7. The Comintern’ s endeavour to foist upon the Eastern countries the slogan of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, finally and long ago exhausted by history, can have only a reactionary effect. lnsofar as this slogan is counterposed to the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it contributes politically to the dissolution of the proletariat in the petty-bourgeois masses and thus creates the most favourable conditions for the hegemony of the national bourgeoisie and consequently for the collapse of the democratic revolution. The introduction of the slogan into the programme of the Comintern is a direct betrayal of Marxism and of the October tradition of Bolshevism.

8. The dictatorship of the proletariat which has risen to power as the leader of the democratic revolution is inevitably and, very quickly confronted with tasks, the fulfillment of which is bound up with deep inroads into the rights of bourgeois property. The democratic revolution grows over directly into the socialist revolution and thereby becomes a permanent revolution.

9. The conquest of power by the proletariat does not complete the revolution, but only opens it. Socialist construction is conceivable only on the foundation of the class struggle, on a national and international scale. This struggle, under the conditions of an overwhelming predominance of capitalist relationships on the world arena, must inevitably lead to explosions, that is, internally to civil wars and externally to revolutionary wars. Therein lies the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such, regardless of whether it is a backward country that is involved, which only yesterday accomplished its democratic revolution, or an old capitalist country which already has behind it a long epoch of democracy and parliamentarism.

10. The completion of the socialist revolution within national limits is unthinkable. One of the basic reasons for the crisis in bourgeois society is the fact that the productive forces created by it can no longer be reconciled with the framework of the national state. From this follows on the one hand, imperialist wars, on the other, the utopia of a bourgeois United States of Europe. The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, it unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion, only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet.

11. The above-outlined sketch of the development of the world revolution eliminates the question of countries that are ‘mature’ or ‘immature’ for socialism in the spirit of that pedantic, lifeless classification given by the present programme of the Comintem. Insofar as capitalism has created a world market, a world division of labour and world productive forces, it has also prepared world economy as a whole for socialist transformation.

Different countries will go through this process at different tempos. Backward countries may, under certain conditions, arrive at the dictatorship of the proletariat sooner than advanced countries, but they will come later than the latter to socialism.

A backward colonial or semi-colonial country, the proletariat of which is insufficiently prepared to unite the peasantry and take power, is thereby incapable of bringing the democratic revolution to its conclusion. Contrariwise, in a country where the proletariat has power in its hands as the result of the democratic revolution, the subsequent fate of the dictatorship and socialism depends in the last analysis not only and not so much upon the national productive forces as upon the development of the international socialist revolution.

12. The theory of socialism in one country, which rose on the yeast of the reaction against October, is the only theory that consistently and to the very end opposes the theory of the permanent revolution.

The attempt of the epigones, under the lash of our criticism, to confine the application of the theory of socialism in one country exclusively to Russia, because of its specific characteristics (its vastness and its natural resources), does not improve matters but only makes them worse. The break with the internationalist position always and invariably leads to national messianism, that is, to attributing special superiorities and qualities to one’s own country, which allegedly permit it to play a role to which other countries cannot attain.

The world division of labour, the dependence of Soviet industry upon foreign technology, the dependence of the productive forces of the advanced countries of Europe upon Asiatic raw materials, etc., etc., make the construction of an independent socialist society in any single country in the world impossible.

13. The theory of Stalin and Bukharin, running counter to the entire experience of the Russian revolution, not only sets up the democratic revolution mechanically in contrast to the socialist revolution, but also makes a breach between the national revolution and the international revolution.

This theory imposes upon revolutions in backward countries the task of establishing an unrealizable regime of democratic dictatorship, which it counterposes to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thereby this theory introduces illusions and fictions into politics, paralyses the struggle for power of the proletariat in the East, and hampers the victory of the colonial revolution.

The very seizure of power by the proletariat signifies, from the standpoint of the epigones’ theory, the completion of the revolution (’to the extent of nine-tenths’, according to Stalin’s formula) and the opening of the epoch of national reforms. The theory of the kulak growing into socialism and the theory of the ‘neutralization’ of the world bourgeoisie are consequently inseparable from the theory of socialism in one country. They stand or fall together.

By the theory of national socialism, the Communist International is down-graded to an auxiliary weapon useful only for the struggle against military intervention. The present policy of the Comintern, its regime and the selection of its leading personnel correspond entirely to the demotion of the Communist lnternational to the role of an auxiliary unit which is not destined to solve independent tasks.

14. The programme of the Comintern created by Bukharin is eclectic through and through. It makes the hopeless attempt to reconcile the theory of socialism in one country with Marxist internationalism, which is, however, inseparable from the permanent character of the world revolution. The struggle of the Communist Left Opposition for a correct policy and a healthy regime in the Communist lnternational is inseparably bound up with the struggle for the Marxist programme. The question of the programme is in turn inseparable from the question of the two mutually exclusive theories: the theory of permanent revolution and the theory of socialism in one country. The problem of the permanent revolution has long ago outgrown the episodic differences of opinion between Lenin and Trotsky, which were completely exhausted by history. The struggle is between the basic ideas of Marx and Lenin on the one side and the eclecticism of the centrists on the other.

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1931-tpv/pr10.htm

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:08 PM

As I remember, Trotsky added to this the view that, in the epoch of imperialism, the bourgeoisie could no longer even accomplish a partial democratic revolution. This is correct, but only insofar as it goes.

It's not realy anything profound. It's simply an extension of Lenin's Imperialism thesis.
Trotsky came to such a conclusion before Lenin himself did. The theory of permanent revolution essentially was the solution to Lenin's algebraic democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. It is not merely repeating what Lenin said; Trotsky put it forth first, and Lenin ended up agreeing with it.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Axel1917+Aug 15 2006, 11:38 PM--> (Axel1917 @ Aug 15 2006, 11:38 PM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 06:08 PM

As I remember, Trotsky added to this the view that, in the epoch of imperialism, the bourgeoisie could no longer even accomplish a partial democratic revolution. This is correct, but only insofar as it goes.

It's not realy anything profound. It's simply an extension of Lenin's Imperialism thesis.
Trotsky came to such a conclusion before Lenin himself did. The theory of permanent revolution essentially was the solution to Lenin's algebraic democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. It is not merely repeating what Lenin said; Trotsky put it forth first, and Lenin ended up agreeing with it. [/b]

That's true. Trotsky was the only person in Russia before 1917 who believed in the potential possibility of revolutionary-socialist action by the Russian working class, rather then just the execution of "minimum programme" which Lenin waged for until his April Theses -- the acceptance of Trotsky's "permanent revolution theory".

Trotsky had built it on the analysis of the specific conditions in Russia in turn of the century: the import of developed capitalist production in urban centres of Russia would result the import of modern relations and with it the modern struggle and goals themselves: the self-liberation of proletariat -- socialism -- 1905 happened and proved his theses. Of course, he thought that the revolutionary action of Russian proletariat demanded aid from the West, or it was simply doomed.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I had always thought that the permanent revolution meant that in order for socialism to succeed in the third-world, there had to be first world support and thus the revolution has to happen world wide.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:35 PM
I had always thought that the permanent revolution meant that in order for socialism to succeed in the third-world, there had to be first world support and thus the revolution has to happen world wide.
The original conception of the permenant revolution, Marx’s conception, was that in underdeveloped and developing countries the working class must carry out some bourgeois tasks and working class fighting in bourgeois-democratic should always push for more. Trotsky added the proposition that a succesful revolution in underdeveloped and developing countries requires the aid of socialist industrialized countries. I think this second proposition may or may not be true and needs further analysis.

[Just Dave]

The Article I Wrote On This (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52501)

I still think that the Permanent Revolution is very relevant despite what a lot of comrades say, especially for places like Nepal, as I wrote.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 16 2006, 07:17 PM
That's true. Trotsky was the only person in Russia before 1917 who believed in the potential possibility of revolutionary-socialist action by the Russian working class, rather then just the execution of "minimum programme" which Lenin waged for until his April Theses -- the acceptance of Trotsky's "permanent revolution theory".
Lenin called for revolutionary-socialist action by the Russian working class as early as 1901 and February 1902 in his What Is To Be Done?.

Also if I recall correctly two trends formed inside the social-democratic party precisely because Lenin called for revolutionary-socialist action by the Russian working class, without limiting them to bourgeois-democratic demands. Which happened as early as 1904.

And I think Trotsky still supported Martov and the Mensheviks until a few months before the October revolution, so I really have no clue what you're talking about.

[Poum_1936]

From July 17 (30) - August 10 (23), 1903, the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. took place. Thirteen sessions were held in Brussels but the Congress was forced to move to London as a result of police persecution. The primary items on the agenda were the approval of the programme and the rules of the R.S.D.L.P., and the election of the party's central bodies.

The Congress unanimously (with one abstention) adopted the party "minimum programme" which formulated the immediate tasks of the proletariat in the event of a bourgeois revolution and the "maximum programme" which aimed at achieving the victory of the socialist revolution and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat.

During the discussion of the Party programme, a decisive struggle ensued over the principles of the party organisation. The majority of the party stressed the need to build a militant revolutionary party of the working class and the need for all members of the party to be aligned to this task. A minority in the party took the position that revolution could only be achieved through reforms and negotiation with the tsar.

This difference caused the R.S.D.L.P. to split into two groups: the Bolshinstvo (majority) and Menshinstvo (minority)

http://marxists.org/glossary/events/r/rsdl...uly-august-1903 (http://marxists.org/glossary/events/r/rsdlp.htm#july-august-1903)

The formation of two groups within the RSDLP was not precisly because "Lenin called for revolutionary-socialist action by the Russian working class, without limiting them to bourgeois-democratic demands." As in the qoute, the second congress unanimously adopted the minumum program which is the immediate tasks of the proletariat in a bourgeois revolution. There is no call "without limiting them to bourgeois-democratic demands"

Lenin in 1905 advanced the idea of "the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry." This theory was very limited in scope and never fully worked out, it was left very open ended. It was designed as an alliance between the working class and proletariat. Lenin never ruled out that the alliance could very well have been more proportionaly represented by the peasantry.

While Trotsky's Permanent Revolution calls for an alliance between the working class and peasantry, but the working class to taking the leading role and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat with the support of a peasant alliance.


And I think Trotsky still supported Martov and the Mensheviks until a few months before the October revolution, so I really have no clue what you're talking about.

I... huh? Trotsky was more politicaly alligned with the Bolshevisk than the Mensheviks. His crime before 1917 being that of concilliationism, or unity-mongering. Which he earnestly adimtted as a mistake. He had also broken with the Menesheviks prior to 1917, dont remember exactly.

In fact, it was more of the old Bolsheviks that were closer to the Mensheviks before October 1917.

In Pravda No. 27, Kamenev wrote: “As for Comrade Lenin’s general scheme, it appears to us to be unacceptable, inasmuch as it proceeds from the assumption that the bourgeois-democratic revolution is completed, and builds on the immediate transformation of this revolution into a socialist revolution.”

“This evolution in our views over the years from 1905 to 1917 cannot be denied, any more than the fact that it proceeded with definite inconsistencies which were to produce amongst us very dangerous differences on the eve of October 1917. Some of us (including myself) for too long upheld the idea that in our peasant country we could not pass straight on to the socialist revolution, but merely hope that if our revolution coincided with the start of the international proletarian one it could become its overture.”
-Zinoviev, History of the Bolshevik Party

[food-chain1]

Read This (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1983/marx-dialectic.htm)

Theory and Practice are not to been seen as separated.

From an ending start anew.