permanent revolution

[redcannon]

can somebody please explain to me what permanent revolution is, as well as who thought of it. I think it was trotsky, but i'm not quite sure.

[DiggerII]

yes sir, it was good ol' Leon. And from what i've read (it's pretty dense stuff) that essentially once the revolution starts in one country, the workers around the world will rise up as well and will begin what che often referred to as la revoluccion mundial. it's great stuff really.

[insurgent]

I think Marx and Engles were the first to use it but everyone thinks it was trotsky.



The permanent revolution, in the sense which Marx attached to this concept, means a revolution which makes no compromise with any single form of class rule, which does not stop at the democratic stage, which goes over to socialist measures and to war against reaction from without; that is, a revolution whose every successive stage is rooted in the preceding one and which can end only in complete liquidation.

He was trying to explain what class should lead the revolution in Russia.



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 resoration and assure it the possibility of rounding out the establishment of socialism.

1. The revolution is international in character.

2. Only the dictatorship of the proletariat will complete the tasks of the bourgeois revolution in colonized countries.

3. The question of land distribution and national independence assign an exceptional role to the peasantry, in alliance with the proletariat.

4. This alliance will be built under the political leadership of the proletarian vanguard, organized in a revolutionary party.

5. The working class will lead this alliance with the peasantry.

6. There is no intermediate stage, of the democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants.

7. to enforce a slogan for the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry playing an equal role can only have a reactionary effect.

8. The democratic revolution grows directly over 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.

10. The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena.

11. This approach eliminates the category of countries that are ‘unripe’ for socialism. Different countries will go through the process of socialist transformation at different tempos.

12. The theory of socialism in one country consistently opposes the theory of permanent revolution. [note – the theory of ‘socialism in one country’ was developed by Stalin to justify focusing on “building” socialism first in the USSR, before spreading it world-wide. –YSA]

13. The theory of socialism in one country reduced the Communist International to an auxiliary weapon against military intervention in the Soviet United, not for extending revolution.


That list is from a really old Socialist Outlook

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by DiggerII+--> (DiggerII) yes sir, it was good ol' Leon. And from what i've read (it's pretty dense stuff) that essentially once the revolution starts in one country, the workers around the world will rise up as well and will begin what che often referred to as la revoluccion mundial. it's great stuff really.[/b]

Sorry that is totally wrong. You have probably misundertood the theory of permanent revolution.

insurgent

I agree with most of your points but I differ in the following ones.


Originally posted by insurgent+--> (insurgent)
I think Marx and Engles were the first to use it but everyone thinks it was trotsky.[/b]

Not exactly Marx and Engels explained the growing inability of bourgeoisie it is highly unlikely they would have come to the conclusion of Permanent revolution in the same way Trotsky came in to.


[email protected]
12. The theory of socialism in one country consistently opposes the theory of permanent revolution. [note – the theory of ‘socialism in one country’ was developed by Stalin to justify focusing on “building” socialism first in the USSR, before spreading it world-wide. –YSA]

Not exactly correct . The Menshevik theory of two stage revolution comes first in opposition to permanent revolution that is a bourgeoisie revolution should take place before a proletarian one and carry out the reforms. This theory is mainly a reflection of reformist attitude of Menshevik leaders at that time.

Stalin on the other hand used this Menshevik idealogy to justify his power in home and to use the other members of Comintern to subodinate themselves to the Imperialists aims in their respective countries(One Exception is Germany).


insurgent
13. The theory of socialism in one country reduced the Communist International to an auxiliary weapon against military intervention in the Soviet United, not for extending revolution.


To say simply The theory of Socialism in one country Made Stalin and Comintern to oppose socialism in other countries.

Better Understand what trotsky says about it
Permanent Revolution : Results and Prospects (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1931-tpv/index.htm)

1905 - Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1907/1905/index.htm) analyses the failure of the 1905 revolution which might give a basic understanding of permanent revolution.

[Coggeh]

I am a trot , it was marx/engels who implied it but it was trotsky who died by it.

Stalin would seem to be anti- permanent revolution with his bourgeois tactics in Spain to try and impress France and Britain by forcing a popular army onto the militias and crushing the revolutionary spirit of socialist and anarchist alike. :angry:

[Democratic Socialist]

It goes down like this: a revolution occurs in one country. Given the rest of the world is still capitalist, other countries must have socialist revolutions within a short period of time also or else ti makes sense that the capitalists would eventually overpower any socialist state.

I look to America when I see the permanent revolution. With all of our ties to foreign countries, if we became socialist a revolution would at least be attempted in most other counties. Viola.

[grove street]

Stalin's theory of socialism in one country is a continuation of Marxist-Leninist theory. It is a part of the Heglian aspect of Marxism most notably within Dialetic Materalism. The world and society develop in stages, some societies develop faster then others, in Stalin's case Russia was begining to develop into a socilaist country faster then others. This meant that some countries will reach socialism before others, because of this socialism is possible in one country.

The idea of Permanent Revolution within the works of Marx and Engels, is not Trotsky's idea that there needs to be a world wide revolution before socialism can be truly acheived, but that once some countries develop socialism, others are bound to follow sooner or later.

Once the ball is rolling it can't be stopped.

[Severian]

No, Permanent Revolution is not world revolution. It's an idea about the relationship between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution.

This is an important subject that few people on this board take seriously enough. Every country has more or less unfinished business from the time of bourgeois-democratic revolutions, which the working class has to take care of. It's a big part of how workers' revolutions get going.

Yes, Marx and Engels wrote about "The Revolution in Permanence", based on the experience of the 1848 revolutions. Trotsky, however, had his own take on the subject, which IMO was a bit oversimplified.

Old post that goes into the different positions on this subject.
here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40806&st=0&#entry1291942537)

[RGacky3]

Many people have linked the neo-conservative movement and its goal of spreading Capitalist Liberal Democracy with the Trotskite movement and the doctrine of Permanent Revolution.

Is that a valid concept?

I don't buy the Marxist line but I do believe that if a Revolution happens in one land it can be very succeptable to outside attack, and the way to stop that is if the workers in powerful imperialist nations put pressure on their own contries to leave others alone. But I don't believe that you need to go through stages to achieve Socialism.