Die Neue Zeit
30th September 2007, 23:54
To start off, was/is "revolutionary democracy" in one underdeveloped country possible?
[Here, "revolutionary democracy" refers to the "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry," or RDDOTPP for short, and not the DOTP proper.]
"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. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm) (Lenin, On the Slogan for a United States of Europe, 1915)
In there, I see two contradictory statements within the same paragraph.
On the other hand:
"Comrade Trotsky speaks of a 'workers' state'. May I say that this is an abstraction. It was natural for us to write about a workers' state in 1917; but it is now a patent error to say: 'Since this is a workers’ state without any bourgeoisie, against whom then is the working class to be protected, and for what purpose?' The whole point is that it is not quite a workers' state. That is where Comrade Trotsky makes one of his main mistakes. We have got down from general principles to practical discussion and decrees, and here we are being dragged back and prevented from tackling the business at hand. This will not do. For one thing, ours is not actually a workers’ state but a workers’ and peasants’ state." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm) (Lenin, The Trade Unions, The Present Situation, And Trotsky's Mistakes, 1920)
[Here, "revolutionary democracy" refers to the "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry," or RDDOTPP for short, and not the DOTP proper.]
"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. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm) (Lenin, On the Slogan for a United States of Europe, 1915)
In there, I see two contradictory statements within the same paragraph.
On the other hand:
"Comrade Trotsky speaks of a 'workers' state'. May I say that this is an abstraction. It was natural for us to write about a workers' state in 1917; but it is now a patent error to say: 'Since this is a workers’ state without any bourgeoisie, against whom then is the working class to be protected, and for what purpose?' The whole point is that it is not quite a workers' state. That is where Comrade Trotsky makes one of his main mistakes. We have got down from general principles to practical discussion and decrees, and here we are being dragged back and prevented from tackling the business at hand. This will not do. For one thing, ours is not actually a workers’ state but a workers’ and peasants’ state." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm) (Lenin, The Trade Unions, The Present Situation, And Trotsky's Mistakes, 1920)