The permanent revolution - enlighten me.

[Geddan]

Tell me about the permanent revolution. It involves a number of theories as I've understood, like world revolution and such... Could you teach me about it?

(Btw, this Stalin vs Trotsky debate I started... When I posted my views here a long time ago Chairman Mao said that what I had written was closer to 'Trotskyism' than 'Stalinism' but I have sympathy for them both (at least right now).)

[Just Joe]

It is basically Orthadox Marxism; Socialism can only suceed if it is international, and revolutions follow in all countries.

Stalin said that Socialism could happen in just one country mainly because the revolutions didn't happen the way the Russians would have liked.

[kylie]

i thought it was the view a country cannot advance from socialism to commmunism unless all other countries are socialist.
but then maybe thats what you mean by socialism succeeding.

[Revolution Hero]

1.According to Marx’s theory of permanent revolution, the Communist Revolution should inevitably follow bourgeois revolution.
2. According to Trotskyism, the victorious revolution in one country can’t survive without the victorious revolutions in other countries and therefore the country of victorious revolution must direct all its forces on bringing the revolution outside the country, starting world revolution. Thus, Trotskyism developed the following thesis: socialism can’t be built in one country. This statement contradicts to Lenin’s opinion about possibility of victory of socialism in one or few countries (“About the slogan of the United States of Europe”, “The program of proletarian revolution”).

It should be noted that Trotsky’s theory not only contradicts to Leninism, but also to Marxism, particularly to Marx’s understanding of the PERMANENT REVOLUTION.
Trotsky’s idea was also proved wrong by the history of USSR’s development.

[Cassius Clay]

Right Revolution Hero.

I cannot understand Trotskyites today who still take Trotsky's side of the argument. They have been proved wrong, Socialism was established in the Soviet Union. Why are they still arguing over something which they were proved wrong over 70 years ago?

[Revolution Hero]

Trotskyists think that USSR was not socialist state. This arguement one more time points on their ignorance.
What is SOCIALISM? It is the system based on PUBLIC PROPERTY ON THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. And Soviet Union conformed to this principle.

[bolshevik1917]

The stalinists again are tying themselves in nots with the socialism in one country thing. Here are some quotes from Lenin.

24th January 1918:
"We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score The final victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible. Our contingent of workers and peasants which is upholding Soviet power is one of the contingents of the great world army, which at present has been split by the world war, but which is striving for unity We can now see clearly how far the development of the Revolution will go. The Russian began it - the German, the Frenchman and the Englishman will finish it, and socialism will be victorious." (LCW, Vol. 26, pp. 465-72.)

8th March 1918:
"The Congress considers the only reliable guarantee of the consolidation of the socialist revolution that has been victorious in Russia to be its conversion into a world working-class revolution." (LCW, from Resolution on War and Peace, Vol. 27. p. 119.)

23rd April 1918:
"We shall achieve final victory only when we succeed at last in conclusively smashing international imperialism, which relies on the tremendous strength of its equipment and discipline. But we shall achieve victory only together with all the workers of other countries, of the whole worldÉ" (LCW, Vol. 27, p. 231.)

14th May 1918:
"To wait until the working classes carry out a revolution on an international scale means that everyone will remain suspended in mid-airÉ It may begin with brilliant success in one country and then go through agonising periods, since final victory is only possible on a world scale, and only by the joint efforts of the workers of all countries." (LCW, Vol. 27, pp. 372-3.)
29th July 1918:

"We never harboured the illusion that the forces of the proletariat and the revolutionary people of any one country, however heroic and however organised and disciplined they might be, could overthrow international imperialism. That can be done only by the joint efforts of the workers of the worldÉ We never deceived ourselves into thinking this could be done by the efforts of one country alone. We knew that our efforts were inevitably leading to a worldwide revolution, and that the war begun by the imperialist governments could not be stopped by the efforts of those governments themselves. It can be stopped only by the efforts of all workers; and when we came to power, our task É was to retain that power, that torch of socialism, so that it might scatter as many sparks as possible to add to the growing flames of socialist revolution." (LCW, Vol. 28, pp. 24-5.)

8th November 1918:
"From the very beginning of the October Revolution, foreign policy and international relations have been the main question facing us. Not merely because from now on all the states of the world are being firmly linked by imperialism into one, dirty, bloody mass, but because the complete victory of the socialist revolution in one country alone is inconceivable and demands the most active co-operation of at least several advanced countries, which do not include RussiaÉ We have never been so near to world proletarian revolution as we are now. We have proved we were not mistaken in banking on world proletarian revolutionÉ Even if they crush one country, they can never crush the world proletarian revolution, they will only add fuel to the flames that will consume them all." (LCW, Vol. 28, pp. 151-64.)

20th November 1918:
"The transformation of our Russian Revolution into a socialist revolution was not a dubious venture but a necessity, for there was no other alternative: Anglo-French and American imperialism will inevitably destroy the independence and freedom of Russia if the world socialist revolution, world Bolshevism, does not triumph." (LCW, Vol. 28, p. 188.)

15th March 1919:
"Complete and final victory on a world scale cannot be achieved in Russia alone; it can be achieved only when the proletariat is victorious in at least all the advanced countries, or, at all events, in some of the largest of the advanced countries. Only then shall we be able to say with absolute confidence that the cause of the proletariat has triumphed, that our first objective - the overthrow of capitalism - has been achieved. We have achieved this objective in one country, and this confronts us with a second task. Since Soviet power has been established, since the bourgeoisie has been overthrown in one country, the second task in to wage the struggle on a world scale, on a different plane, the struggle of the proletarian state surrounded by capitalist states." (LCW, Vol. 29, pp. 151-64.)

5th December 1919:
"Both prior to October and during the October Revolution, we always said that we regard ourselves and can only regard ourselves as one of the contingents of the international proletarian armyÉ We always said that the victory of the socialist revolution therefore, can only be regarded as final when it becomes the victory of the proletariat in at least several advanced countries." (LCW, Vol. 30, pp. 207-8.)

20th November 1920:
"The Mensheviks assert that we are pledged to defeating the world bourgeoisie on our own. We have, however, always said that we are only a single link in the chain of the world revolution, and have never set ourselves the aim of achieving victory by our own means." (LCW, Vol. 31, p. 431.)

End of February 1922:
"But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile powers of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusionsÉ And there is absolutely nothing terrible in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism - that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism." (LCW, Vol. 33, p. 206.)

Lenin's uncompromising internationalism was not the product of sentimental utopianism, but on the contrary, of a realistic appraisal of the situation. Lenin was well aware that the material conditions for socialism did not exist in Russia, but they did exist on a world scale. The world socialist revolution would prevent the revival of those barbarous features of class society which Marx referred to as "all the old crap" by guaranteeing at its inception a higher development than capitalist society. This was the reason why Lenin placed such strong emphasis on the perspective of international revolution, and why he devoted so much time and energy to the building of the Communist International.

"Everywhere we issue the call for a world workers' revolution Russia will become mighty and abundant if she abandons all dejection and all phrasemaking, if, with clenched teeth, she musters all her forces and strains every nerve and muscle, if she realises that salvation lies only along the road of world socialist revolution upon which we have set out."
Lenin. (LCW, Vol. 27, pp. 160-1.)

However, take a look at what Stalin and Gorbachov were saying.

"Howard: Does this statement of yours mean that the Soviet Union has to any degree abandoned its plans and intentions to bring about a world revolution?
Stalin: We never had any such plans or intentions.
Howard: You appreciate, no doubt Mr Stalin, that much of the world has long entertained a different impression?
Stalin: This is the product of misunderstanding.
Howard: A tragic misunderstanding?
Stalin: No, comic. Or perhaps tragi-comic"
Roy Howard and Stalin. (Roy Howard-Stalin interview, March/April, Communist International, 1936.)

"US rightwing forces and propaganda portray our interest in Latin America as an intention to engineer a series of socialist revolutions there. Nonsense! The way we have behaved for decades proves that we don't plan anything of the kind."
Mikhail Gorbachov. (Mikhail Gorbachov, Perestroika - New Thinking for Our Country and the World, pp. 187-8.)

[bolshevik1917]

You can see here how amusing the Stalinist arguments are, for example revolution hero asserts that "What is SOCIALISM? It is the system based on PUBLIC PROPERTY ON THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. And Soviet Union conformed to this principle."

As Lenin consistently explained however, you cannot establish socialism in one country - and he was right. The USSR held onto its nationalised planned economy which marxists support, however democracy was removed. The USSR suffocated because the workers were not given democracy.

In all Trotskys writtings on Stalinism have been proven to be absolutley correct!

[Cassius Clay]

Bolshevik1917 I've responded to everyone of those quotes before and
simply put no where does Lenin speak of invading western Europe. He
merely points out thatt you cannot 'completely' build socialism without
revolutions elswhere. So what? Those revolutions didn't happen,
nobody's fault but they didn't happen. Does that mean Lenin was going
to decide to invade western Europe in 1924 only he was prevented
because evil Stalin took over? NO it doesn't, I will ask once again
for some prove that Lenin was going or planning on taking 'Permanent
Revolution' seriesly. You only have to look at Brest-Litovsk in 1918
to see Lenin opposed people like Trotsky's ultra-leftism.

Oh and Trotsky himself admitted that Socialism had been established in
the USSR saying it would costt ten times the number of lives lost in
the civil war to overthrow it.

BTW why do you call RH a 'Stalinist' he isn't.

[bolshevik1917]

I think we can all see quite clearly what Lenin was saying, none of which was about building and establishing socialism in one country.

By the way where did you get the 'invading western Europe' crap?

Again I will refer to the German revolution when Stalin and Baukarin effectivly advised the workers NOT to take power.

Anyway, Trotsky replied to Stalins interview in one of his writtings on the league of nations (1936), he makes a few interesting points..

"From the theory of socialism in a single country, it is a natural transition to that of revolution in a single country. For what purpose, then, does the International exist?-the interviewer might have asked. But he evidently knew the limits of legitimate curiosity. The reassuring explanations of Stalin, which are read not only by capitalists but by workers, are full of holes. Before "our country" desired to make a revolution, we imported the idea of Marxism for other countries, and made use of foreign revolutionary experience. For decades we had our emigres abroad who guided the struggle in Russia. We received moral and material aid from the workers' organizations of Europe and America. After our victory we organized, in 1919, the Communist International. We more than once announced the duty of the proletariat of countries in which the revolution had conquered to come to the aid of oppressed and insurrectionary classes, and that not only with ideas but if possible with arms. Nor did we limit ourselves to announcements. We in our own time aided the workers of Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and Georgia with armed force. We made an attempt to bring aid to the revolting Polish proletariat by the campaign of the Red Army against Warsaw. We sent organizers and commanders to the help of the Chinese in revolution. In 1926, we collected millions of rubles for the aid of the British strikers. At present, this all seems to have been a misunderstanding. A tragic one? No, it is comic. No wonder Stalin has declared that to live, in the Soviet Union, has become "gay". Even the Communist International has changed from a serious to a comic personage.

Stalin would have made a more convincing impression upon his interviewer if, instead of slandering the past, he had openly contrasted the policy of Thermidor to the policy of October.

"In the eyes of Lenin," he might have said, "the League of Nations was a machine for the preparation of a new imperialist war. We see in it an instrument of peace. Lenin spoke of the inevitability of revolutionary wars. We consider the idea of exporting revolution nonsense. Lenin denounced the union of the proletariat with the imperialist bourgeoisie as treason. We with all our power impel the international proletariat along this road. Lenin slashed the slogan of disarmament under capitalism as a deceit of the workers. We build our whole policy upon this slogan. Your tragi-comic misunderstand"-Stalin might have concluded-"lies in your taking us for the continuers of Bolshevism, when we are in fact its gravediggers."

[bolshevik1917]

I would advise everyone to watch this video http://sub.spc.org/speakerscorner/worldhist150k.ram

[trotskylives]

Bravo comrade Bolshevik1917, You destroyed the philistine Stalinists and their Bernstein-like revisionism. What organisation, if any are you in

[bolshevik1917]

Socialist Appeal
www.marxist.com
www.newyouth.com
www.socialist.net
www.trotsky.net

And yourself comrade?

[RedComrade]

I'm not aware if this has been posted, I haven't read through everything on the thread but heres a good site that sums up the permaneant revolution, it also has some good links for more reading:
http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/perman...revolution.html (http://www.trotsky.net/trotsky_year/permanent_revolution.html)

[trotskylives]

CWI - Ireland

[Revolution Hero]

Hey, “bolshevik” 1917! What’s up, hypocrite?
I see that you came back with your rotten posts again. But try to remember our last arguments. Do you remember the time when you had nothing to say in the defense of your “God”- opportunist “Judas” Trotsky? Well, anyway, I would like to remind you about this time once again…




Lenin wrote in “Military program of proletarian revolution”: “Thirdly, victorious socialism in one country doesn’t exclude all wars at once. In contrary, it presupposes them. The development of capitalism happens in high extent unevenly in different countries. It can’t be otherwise in the time of commodity production. Hence unalterable conclusion follows: socialism can’t win in all countries simultaneously. It will win originally in one or few countries, and the rest will remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois during the certain period of time. It must cause not only clashes, but also a direct aspiration of bourgeois class of other countries for the defeat of victorious proletariat of socialistic state. In these cases the war from our side would have been valid and just. It would have been war for socialism, for the liberation of other nations from bourgeois class. Engels was completely right, when he directly admitted the possibility of “defensive wars” of already victorious proletariat in his letter to Kautsky in September 12, 1882. He meant exactly the defense of victorious proletariat against the bourgeois class of other countries.” ( vol. 30, p. 133)

Here are the quotes from Lenin, which shows his confidence in the victory of socialism in Russia:

Lenin wrote in “The next tasks of the Soviet Power”(1918):

“We, party of Bolsheviks, convinced Russia. We won Russia from rich for the poor, from exploiters for the working people. We have to rule over Russia now.” (LCW, vol. 36, p. 172)

Lenin wrote in the same work:

“It must be thought over, that besides the ability to convince, besides the ability to win in the civil war, the ability to practically organize is necessary in order to be successful in state governing. This is the most difficult task, as we have to build new organization of the deepest, economical foundations of lives of ten millions and ten millions of people. And this is the most gratifying task, as only after it’s accomplishment (in the main and fundamental traits) it will be possible to say that Russia became not only soviet, but also socialistic republic (SOCIALISTIC!!! R.H.). (LCW, VOL.36, P. 173)

It is written in the same work:

“Realization of socialism will be determined by our success in combining soviet power and soviet organization with the newest progress of capitalism” (LCW, vol.36, p. 173)

From the interview Lenin gave to Japanese correspondent Fuse in 1920:

“Question: “You said, that feudalism had needed many years for the transition into capitalism, and that is why socialism would need many years for the transition from capitalism. What period of time will it take for such transition?”
Lenin’s answer: ”It is hard to determine the period; not much time is needed to overthrow the old regime, but it is impossible to create a new regime in a short time. We have proceeded to the implementation of the plan of industrial and agricultural electrification.
Communism is unrealizable without electrification and our plan of electrification is made for ten years under the most favorable conditions. This is our minimum period for the creation of a new system.” (LCW, vol. 41, p. 132-133)

From Lenin's interview to the American newspaper "World" (February 21, 1920):
Question: "When do you think building of communism will be completed in Russia?"
Lenin's answer: "We are going to electrify our whole industrial system by the means of creation of electric power station in Ural and other places. Our engineers say that we will need 10 years. The completion of electrification is the first important step towards communistic organization of economical life of the society. Our whole industry will get energy from the common source, which will be able to supply all of its branches in the same extent. This will remove unproductive competition in the search of oil and will create a firm economical basis for the enterprises of manufacturing industry, without which we may not hope to reach such level of exchange of commodities, which would conform to the principles of communism." (vol. 40, p. 156)

From Lenin's speech on the 3rd Congress of trade unions (April 8, 1920): "Our main slogan- more and closer to the individuality, more labor discipline, catch up with the rest, to work with the military resoluteness, firmness, self sacrifice, casting aside group interests, sacrificing private interests! We wouldn't be able to win without this. And if we make this party decision come into life as one man through three million of workers and then through dozens million of peasants, who will feel moral authority, people's strength, sacrificing themselves for the victory of socialism, we will be absolutely and completely undefeatable! (Storm of applause.)" (vol. 40, p. 313).

From Lenin’s speech on the 8th All-Russian Congress of the Soviets (the end of 1920):”Communism is Soviet power plus electrification of the whole country. Otherwise the country stays small-peasant and we have to clearly realize this. We are weaker than capitalism not only in the world scale, but also inside the country. Everybody knows this. We have realized this and we would carry business till the moment when economic basis would transfer into large-industrial from small-peasant condition. Only then, when the country is electrified, when industry, agriculture and transport would be based on modern large-industry, only then we will finally win.” (vol.42, p. 159)

From Lenin’s speech on the plenum of Moscow’s Soviet (20th November, 1922):”Socialism is not already a question of far future, or some kind of abstract picture, or some kind of icon. We remained old and bad opinion about icons. We dragged socialism to the daily life and we have to investigate here. This is the task of our day; this is the task of our epoch. Let me finish my speech with expression of confidence that no matter how difficult this task is, no matter how new this task is, in comparison with our previous task and how many difficulties it causes,- we all together, not tomorrow, but in few years, we all will accomplish this task no matter what it will cost us, so NEP’s Russia will become socialistic (!!!-R.H.) Russia. (vol. 45, p. 309)

And this quote shows Lenin’s opinion about trotsky’s bad knowledge of Marxism:
In 1920-21 Bolsheviks disagreed with Trotsky on the trade union issue.
Lenin characterized Trotsky’s views of that time:
“ 1. oblivion of Marxism, which was expressed in theoretically incorrect, eclectic definition of the relation of politics to economy;
2. the protection and covering of the political mistake, which was expressed in the policy of “shaking up”…And this mistake, if it is not realized and corrected, will lead to the collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat;
3. step back in the sphere of pure industrial and economic questions to the abstract, “empty”, theoretically incorrect, to the intellectually formulated common thesis , with the oblivion of business and practical parts.” (vol. 32, p. 63- 64)

[bolshevik1917]

I got a bit tired of trying to have civilised and productive debates with angry 12 year old Stalinists.

What I find here are some - and correct me if im wrong - very unreliable quotes. For example 'Lenin's interview to the American newspaper "World" (February 21, 1920):' I cant find this anywhere - im not saying it does not exist but I would like to read the whole thing to make sure the quote is not taken out of context.

A few of these quotes also contradict Stalins 'revolution is not for export' rant, the way you quote Lenin (if you are to compare these with the quotes I provided) looks almost as if you are trying to make Lenin sound like a buffoon!

Another flaw may be the fact that you translate things yourself from Russian to English, perhaps things are being 'lost' in the translation.

In all you have said much about nothing. Marxists are internationalists and socialism is international. You are a stalinite petty bourgeoise nationalist, and have no conection with the working class or the ideas of Marxism.

[bolshevik1917]

And BTW RH, why not sign up for the discussion board at http://discussion.newyouth.com - im sure you will be well received :biggrin:

Id also like to have a debate on the Hungarian revolution in 1956, when the working class overthrew the Stalinist beurocracy

[Comrade Otaku]

Well said Comrade,
The Stalinist movement can bring nothing good. The "Socialism in one country" stands against all Marxist thinking, for Socialism and Communism exist in an international plain, and should flow and move, spread and form. Marx called for the "Workers of the World, Unite!" and Stalin sullies that image, by setting up bureaucratic, dictatorial stance that caused more death than the most evil dictators like Hitler. How can the theories from such a warped mind hold true, in our modern civilised world? Mind you, how can civilisation justify the current American aggression...

[Revolution Hero]

Well, “bolshevik”, you simply ignored Lenin.
Yes, I translate the quotes myself, but I don’t change the meaning (you have names of the works, so go and check the correctness of my translation).
I have one question for you to ask, do you support export of the revolution?

[Comrade Otaku]

I believe in the export of revolution, something Stalin did not in his "Socialism in one country" theory. Lenin would have, if the Soviet Union had a more substantial powerbase, which it did not. As evidenced through the Polish Reversal. Trotsky was the only true, die hard supporter of the spread of Revolution after Lenin's death. Under Stalin there was no Socialist state in the USSR, only a corrupt dictatorial bureaucracy. If it were true communism, or even socialism, it would never have allied with Nazi Germany

[bolshevik1917]

How about I ask you RH, what is the purpose of the communist international?

[Revolution Hero]

"bolshevik" I am not going to answer your question until you would not answer on mine.
Do you support export of the revolution? Yes or No.

[bolshevik1917]

The 'export of revolution' is a term invented by Stalin.

Marxists operate in classes, we are the working and sometimes middle classes who fight for revolution.

So if our organisation takes power in one country its tasks will be to set up the nationalised planned economy, and to assist with other revolutionary situations.

After all, no world revolution means no socialism.

Again, as a petty bourgeoise nationalist, why do you think the international exists?

[Cassius Clay]

I will repeat once again why are we having this argument 70 odd years after Trotsky was proved wrong? Socialism was built in the Soviet Union, Trotsky himself admitted as such.

And still at the same time the USSR aided revolutions in China, Albania, Eastern Europe and Korea aswell as Vietnam later.

What did Trots do, colloborate with Imperial Japanese Fascists in slaughtering Chinese Peasants. But I suppose those 'Evil Stalinists' deserved it. Lenin said 'Trotskyites deceive the workers' he was right.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 8:46 am on April 12, 2003
The 'export of revolution' is a term invented by Stalin.

Marxists operate in classes, we are the working and sometimes middle classes who fight for revolution.

So if our organisation takes power in one country its tasks will be to set up the nationalised planned economy, and to assist with other revolutionary situations.

After all, no world revolution means no socialism.

Again, as a petty bourgeoise nationalist, why do you think the international exists?


You didn't give me concrete answer.
Do you consider it correct to bring the revolution to other countries after the victory of socialism in one country? Do you want to force revolution from the outside?

btw export of the revolution is not the term created by Stalin.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 8:46 am on April 12, 2003


So if our organisation takes power in one country its tasks will be to set up the nationalised planned economy, and to assist with other revolutionary situations.




USSR supported revolutions in worldwide scale. So, do you want to do the same?

[Pete]

Not again... :(

[bolshevik1917]

bastard, my post hasnt appeared :(

What I was basicly saying was that socialism was never acheived in the USSR, and that their policy was not internationalist.

[komsomol]

'Exporting Revolution' is a term used to decieve people about what the Permanant Revolution is about, the revolution is a process, we do not wish to export the process, that process exists as a growing pressure under the Bourgeoisie. When the time comes we shall help the Proletariat of other Nations in thier armed Insurrection, or, if they are so oppressed theyare incapable of even rising up then we shall give them the means.

[Cassius Clay]

Quote: from MOLOCH on 10:25 pm on April 12, 2003
'Exporting Revolution' is a term used to decieve people about what the Permanant Revolution is about, the revolution is a process, we do not wish to export the process, that process exists as a growing pressure under the Bourgeoisie. When the time comes we shall help the Proletariat of other Nations in thier armed Insurrection, or, if they are so oppressed theyare incapable of even rising up then we shall give them the means.


And this was done under Stalin. There's the example's I've allready given but if you look at Stalin's letters to Molotov you will see this is what he precisly did in regard to the British General Strike in 1926.

[Revolution Hero]

Well said, comrade Cassius!

USSR supported all kinds of revolutions.
Again I am asking "bolshevik" what the difference is between USSR's help and his export of revolution. (Can you, "bolshevik", just tell me the following:"I do support Export of the revolution"???)

[bolshevik1917]

RH, Stalin is the only person I have heard talking about the 'export of revolution'

Did Stalin not disband the international?

And if socialism was acheived then why did it collapse?

[Cassius Clay]

Bolshevik1917.

Trotsky himself admitted socialism had been established in the USSR.

`Only utter imbeciles would be capable of thinking that capitalist relations, that is to say, the private ownership of the means of production, including the land, can be reestablished in the USSR by peaceful methods and lead to the régime of bourgeois democracy. As a matter of fact, even if it were possible in general, capitalism could not be regenerated in Russia except as the result of a savage counterrevolutionary coup d'etat that would cost ten times as many victims as the October Revolution and the civil war.'

Trotsky 1934.

[bolshevik1917]

Trotsky was critically supportive of the USSR as a degenerated workers state, eg: the workers took power but lost it to a new ruling class, although the nationalised planned economy remained.

Nowhere did Trotsky say socialism had been established, not even in this quote. Trotsky was a Marxist and Marxists understand that socialism is international.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 5:25 am on April 15, 2003
RH, Stalin is the only person I have heard talking about the 'export of revolution'



OK. Let's suppose you are right. Then tell me if you support "export of the revolution" Stalin talked about...and also provide your answer with the quote from Stalin.

[Cassius Clay]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 8:33 pm on April 14, 2003
Trotsky was critically supportive of the USSR as a degenerated workers state, eg: the workers took power but lost it to a new ruling class, although the nationalised planned economy remained.

Nowhere did Trotsky say socialism had been established, not even in this quote. Trotsky was a Marxist and Marxists understand that socialism is international.



Can I ask why this 'New Ruling Class' kept the planned economy (well introduced it really after NEP) if it was so anti-working class? Afterall it could just do what Deng Xia Ping did (consider that evil Stalin and the 'Beuracracy' have much more power than Deng did) and introduce outright Capitalism in USSR.

This 'New Ruling elite' would surely go about taking over the means of production, but workers had the power to sack there own managers. Trotsky himself admits that 'Capitalist relations' are gone.


As for the debate you are having with RH. I'll just post this quote in from Lenin in 1915.

''Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world - the capitalist world - attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states."(5)


Did not the USSR (even after the death of Stalin to some extent) do all of this?

[bolshevik1917]

RH, Stalin first came up with the 'export of revolution' thing during an interview in the 30's where he claimed that the USSR had no intentions of aiding the world revolution.

"The idea of exporting a revolution is nonsense. Every country if it wants one will produce its own revolution, and if it doesn't, there will be no revolution. Thus, for instance, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it..."

And as I have posated before, Trotsky replied with

"From the theory of socialism in a single country, it is a natural transition to that of revolution in a single country. For what purpose, then, does the International exist?-the interviewer might have asked. But he evidently knew the limits of legitimate curiosity. The reassuring explanations of Stalin, which are read not only by capitalists but by workers, are full of holes. Before "our country" desired to make a revolution, we imported the idea of Marxism for other countries, and made use of foreign revolutionary experience. For decades we had our emigres abroad who guided the struggle in Russia. We received moral and material aid from the workers' organizations of Europe and America. After our victory we organized, in 1919, the Communist International. We more than once announced the duty of the proletariat of countries in which the revolution had conquered to come to the aid of oppressed and insurrectionary classes, and that not only with ideas but if possible with arms. Nor did we limit ourselves to announcements. We in our own time aided the workers of Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and Georgia with armed force. We made an attempt to bring aid to the revolting Polish proletariat by the campaign of the Red Army against Warsaw. We sent organizers and commanders to the help of the Chinese in revolution. In 1926, we collected millions of rubles for the aid of the British strikers. At present, this all seems to have been a misunderstanding. A tragic one? No, it is comic. No wonder Stalin has declared that to live, in the Soviet Union, has become "gay". Even the Communist International has changed from a serious to a comic personage."

Cassius, I am always given this Lenin quote but no one ever gives me the source. If you give me that I can read the entire article/work.

[Cassius Clay]

Bolshevik1917 are you saying Lenin did not say that? Either way if everybody is allways quoting it at you then surely it exists. It was the first time I saw it and it was from a article very criticial of the WWP in America. In the notes section it just says this.

5) Lenin, "On the Slogan for a United States of Europe," Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 342.

Anyway I would hardly call the 'Communist International' a 'Comic personage' as Mr Trotsky describes it. Especially in the 30's. Have you not heard of Georgie Dmitrov (for starters he ran the international NOT Stalin) and the policy of 'United Front' against Fascism? Trotsky was very criticical of it, despite the fact that he accussed Stalin of 'Betrayal' when the KPD was not able to unite with SPD (who were only to happy to colloborate with Hitler in arresting Communists and banning them). Clearly this shows Trotsky's opportunism.

[Revolution Hero]

"The idea of exporting a revolution is nonsense. Every country if it wants one will produce its own revolution, and if it doesn't, there will be no revolution. Thus, for instance, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it..."

Well, “bolshevik” (will you ever tell me why you chose this name?) as I see YOU SUPPORT EXPORT OF THE REVOLUTION ONLY BECAUSE STALIN CRITICIZED IT. Of course the poor knowledge of Marxism will never make you understand that Stalin was actually right saying that.

You are in the trap, hypocrite! I waited for this moment too long…
Revolution has to be born in each country. It can’t be brought to whatsoever country from the outside. For example, it would have been wrong for the USSR to bring by force socialistic revolution to Turkey, Germany or Britain; for the very simple reason.
Revolution is the product of social- economical development and thus it can be started only under the condition if revolutionary situation exists in the particular state. But it is not enough. Revolution has to be started by the proletariat of that state. When revolution is started other socialistic states can provide the necessary help (btw that what USSR did).
The said above conforms to Marxism- Leninism.
And one more thing, Stalin was not the first who talked about export of the revolution. Do you want to get to know Lenin’s quote about it? It gives good description of Trotsky.

[bolshevik1917]

Im not saying that quote does not exist cassius, im saying id like to read the whole article or whatever it is. I havent had much time though, we've had alot of public activity here this month. I'll have a look on Marxists.org asap.

RH, your getting a bit over excited arent you? you waited too long for this moment eh, haha, I can see you have a really great life.

Im in no trap here, Germany 'wanted a revolution' and in order to 'make one' it needed leadership. Tell me what Stalin advised them to do, or will I tell you?

Lenin often said that Russia would sacrifice its revolution for Germanys, because Germany was advanced capitalist and had more industrialised working class.

[Revolution Hero]

I don't talk about Germany, but I talk about Lenin's opinion on export of the revolution.
I need some time to find the quote. Please wait.

[bolshevik1917]

Revolution was not 'exported' to Germany, it happened, the workers took power. They naturally leaned towards their traditional organisations (the SDF) who sold them out, and their Russian comrades who had managed to take and hold power, and of course a certain Josef Stalin (through pure stupidy or not we'll never know) recommended that the 'time is not right' for workers control.

LOL, the great teacher indeed

[thursday night]

I love how the Trotskyites come to a forum for a strong Marxist-Leninist and then continue to bash Stalin. It is a hopeless situation. Che Guevara was a Marxist-Leninist, a support of Mao Zedong, of Stalin, of Fidel and other Marxist-Leninists, not worthless Trotskyites who are so ultra-leftist it is no wonder they never had or never will have any success.

"In the so called mistakes of Stalin lies the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves, you don’t have to look at him as some kind of brute, but in that particular historical context … I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn’t read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I’m not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a Seri of things that are very good."

-Che

[bolshevik1917]

Che had good intentions but he was certainly no Marxist!

And if you say he was then you will contradict everything RH is saying, because Che tryed to 'export' revolution to Africa by starting guerilla wars.

I cant ask too much of you however Thursday, your the guy that thinks bloody Fiedel Castro is a Marxist :biggrin:

Did you know that Castro's biggest hero was Abraham Lincoln?

[Cassius Clay]

Bolshevik1917, what are you talking about 'Stalin not wanting ''Workers Control''? Was it not Zinoviev who was head of the Comintern? Even if it was Stalin what was he suppossed to do at the time (1923)? You should know (well a Trotskyite probably wouldn't) that it is up to the workers of every nation to have their own revolution and not have it forced on them by the sharp end of a bayonet. I know that Stalin's attidude in 1926 to the British General Strike is that he was fully in favor of 'The workers taking control', why would he not have the same attidude in 1923?

Doesn't make sense like most Trotskyite rubbish.

Also how many times do I have to repeat that the SU in the era of Stalin and even afterwards supported revolutions everywhere. This is FACT.

If Che wasn't a Marxist then what precisly was he?

[thursday night]

Che was not a Marxist? Comrades, there is no point with dealing with an ultra-leftist, book worm like this.

[bolshevik1917]

Cassius, the simple fact I am putting across is that the makeshift German proliterian vangaurd had looked to its Russian comrades who had taken and held onto power for guidance. Of course, no one can put all the blame of the shoulders of Stalin and Baukarin, but they sure as hell should take alot of it!

As for Che, his material I have read was theoretically illiterate. He was a great guerilla fighter and figurehead, but definatley no Marxist. Thursday, im dissapointed you declined to defend Castro, I was in need of a laugh.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 8:21 pm on April 27, 2003
Revolution was not 'exported' to Germany, it happened, the workers took power. They naturally leaned towards their traditional organisations (the SDF) who sold them out, and their Russian comrades who had managed to take and hold power, and of course a certain Josef Stalin (through pure stupidy or not we'll never know) recommended that the 'time is not right' for workers control.

LOL, the great teacher indeed


In Germany Stalin recommended that the KPD attack the SPD since they were the ruling party, if they could diminish the support and power of the SPD they would be the only leftist party in the Reichstag and could therefore win a much greater percentage of the leftist vote and secure power. But unfortunately they did not succeed and by the 30's the Nazi's had made massive gains in elections.

[Revolution Hero]

From Lenin’s speech on the 4th Conference of Moscow’s trade unions, July 28, 1918:
“If we know, if we say that only international revolution may be the rescue from international war and from the imperialistic massacre of the people, then we should go to this aim in our revolution, not looking at any difficulties and dangers. And when we have stepped on this way, for the first time in the world mass strike has inflamed and has flashed in the most disciplined country like Germany. OF COURSE, THERE ARE PEOPLE, WHO THINK THAT REVOLUTION MAY BE BORNED IN ALIEN COUNTRY BY THE ORDER OR AGREEMENT. THESE PEOPLE ARE MADMEN OR PROVOKERS. We have experienced two revolutions for the last 12 years. We know they could not be made neither by the order nor by agreement, they grow up when dozens millions of people come to the conclusion that it is impossible to live further in the same way”. (LCW, level 36, p.457)

So, what do we have for this moment? We have numerous Lenin’s quotes, which show his confidence in the possibility of building socialism in separately taken country. We have Stalin’s quote, which shows that Stalin criticized export of the revolution and we have Trotsky’s quote, which shows that Trotsky attacked Stalin for the critics. And now we have new Lenin’s quote, which shows that Lenin also criticized export of the revolution. We see that Stalin was right; we see that Stalin was true Leninist, unlike traitor Trotsky! Don’t you see this “Bolshevik”?
And we also have history, which proved that socialism could be built in one country, we have historical experience of numerous socialistic revolutions, which proved that USSR was truly internationalist state! Do you have to say something against this “Bolshevik”?

Recently I argued with one Russian Trotskyite on kprf’s forum and he admitted that socialism had been built in the USSR (this is clear to everyone!) and he actually admitted that Trotsky had been mistaken.
“Bolshevik” I think it would be interesting for you, that Trotskyite gave me the address of his organization, it is http://www.wsws.org/ru/ , it is in Russian, but there is also English version. Do you know anything about it?

[bolshevik1917]

What we have RH, is the permanent revolution which is not about 'exporting revolution' as Stalin put it, but building an international Marxist tendency to build for world socialism.

The only one I know who tried to 'export' revolution was Che Guevara.

What Lenin is clearly saying here is that revolution is not an 'agreement' or a signature on a peice of paper, but mass action of workers to take power - I agree fully.

You are under the impression that Trotsky wanted to invade countries to 'start revolutions' but you never provide the proof and you are wrong.

Trotsky was correct to critiscise Stalins 'export' rant because no one had put forward the idea to 'export' the revolution. He had also shown that he was un-interested in the international by disbanding it.

One thing is for sure here, socialism was not built in the USSR - if it was then why did it collapse??

Wasnt it you RH who says that China was socialist, and Cuba too, that really does say it all!

I cant help you with the Russian site, never heard of them. I have Russian comrades, their website is www.1917.com

[Cassius Clay]

Bolshevik1917 you've answered none of the points I've made rather your stuck in this Trotskyite view that Stalin is responsible for everything, while both failing to come up with a alternative and ignoring the fact that Stalin had very little to do with it. Zinoviev was head of Comintern at this time anyway.

Excellent post RH.

[Cassius Clay]

Bolshevik1917, once again Trotsky himself admitted that socialism had been established in the USSR. If Trotsky's plan was not invade whoever then what was it? If it was as one poster in this thread said earlier (a few pages back) then it is clear that the USSR stuck to this policy and aided Revolutions throughout from Albania to Korea.

[Revolution Hero]

“Bolshevik” don’t even try to escape from the direct answer!

You said:
“Stalin first came up with the 'export of revolution' thing during an interview in the 30's where he claimed that the USSR had no intentions of aiding the world revolution.
"The idea of exporting a revolution is nonsense. Every country if it wants one will produce its own revolution, and if it doesn't, there will be no revolution. Thus, for instance, our country wanted to make a revolution and made it..."”

So, you connected export of the revolution with aid to the world revolution. You actually supported export of the revolution and put it as the only mean of aiding revolution worldwide. And now, when Lenin’s quote, which contains criticism of export of the revolution, has been introduced to you, you have decided to change your opinion. What a hypocrite you are! All Trotskyites are like this!

Bolshevik: “Trotsky was correct to critiscise Stalins 'export' rant because no one had put forward the idea to 'export' the revolution.”

I don’t see any point here. Stalin didn’t accuse anybody in promoting idea of export of the revolution.
Trotsky was not right to criticize Stalin; all he said was that Stalin’s criticism of export of the revolution had been “comic misunderstanding”. Thus, Trotsky attacked Marxism – Leninism.

“One thing is for sure here, socialism was not built in the USSR - if it was then why did it collapse”

It was destroyed artificially by Khruschev’s capitalization reforms and Gorbachev’s “perestroika”. If Stalin’s last economic plans had been realized then Soviet Union would have achieved full socialism, which is characterized by commodity cashless production and the absence of any classes.

“Bolshevik” you have lost another debate. Congratulations! Didn’t you understand that Lenin had been confident in possibility of socialist victory in ONE COUNTRY AND PARTICULARLY IN THE USSR? Why do you attack Lenin? Why do you go against history? Why do you close your eyes on USSR’s great aid to the world revolutionary process?
The answer is simple; you do all these because you are the enemy of all working people!

[bolshevik1917]

What a lot of rubbish RH. I finally got my hands on Lenin's "On the Slogan for a United States of Europe" peice, where (surprise surprise) he has been grotesquely misquoted in supposedly deffending the idea of socialism in one country.

Lenin dedicates much of this work to talking about the victory of a workers state, the setting up of factory comitees, nationalisation of the banks, formation of the peoples army, soviets etc. This is not the victory of socialism. Please read this peice in full and you will see what I mean.

You should be carefull when misquoting someone, it makes you look very stupid when you are found out.

And I dont mean to slag your english RH, but your other Lenin quote (a 'translation') is pure gobeldygook.

Again if you give me a full source I will inspect the work in its entirity and no doubt uncover another typical stalinist falsification.

As for the Trotsky quote, he very clearly does not state that socialism has been built. And I think he was right about the consiquences of a restoration of capitalism at that time, but events were much different in the 90s, when the 'communist' party had long since broken all ties with the working class and Marxism.

[Severian]

Actually, the idea that you can't build socialism in just one country is not the "permanent revolution". It's not an idea that was new with Trotsky.

It's a basic idea of Marxism. You can find it in the Communist Manifesto. "United action, of the leading civilized countries at least, if one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat."

As others have pointed out, Lenin had this idea too. Nobody who called themselves Marxist thought you could have socialism - that is, a classless society - in one country, except some German social democrat named Vollmar, and then Stalin came along and said it was possible.

Seems to me that the Cuban revolution and Che Guevara especially have always acted on the Marxist conception. That in order for their revolution to survive and move forward, they have to do everything they can to aid revolutions in other countries. And Bolshevik1917, if you think Che was a theoretical illiterate, I'd recommend you read "Planning and Consciousness in the Transition to Socialism."

In the year 2003, citing the USSR as some great success story for socialism in one country is just insane. Hello! Not there anymore! So weak it fell apart on its own! If that was socialism, who would want any?

Permanent revolution is something else entirely. It's a theory about the relation between the bourgeois-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution. And Trotsky did have a unique view on that subject, different from Lenin's for example. (OK, Parvus originally thought it up, but Trotsky's it's best-known supporter.)

[feorictest]

correct, theres a quote from the communist manifesto which suggests at the idea of permanent revolution. ill try and find it later.
the actual person who first came up with it in any detailed form though was Parvus, but he lost interest in leftist ideas, and abandoned the theory. Trotsky, who had met with him and discussed the theory, then picked it up and developed it further.

(Edited by feorictest at 10:34 am on May 9, 2003)