Did Trotsky get it "wrong"?

[La Comédie Noire]

2 quotes from the end of Permanent Revolution


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.


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.


In light of the historical experience in China is this observation still valid? The CCP was a group of intellectuals who rose to power on a wave of Peasent Support while the workers of the city played a passive role.

What do you think this says about the nature of revolutions in third world countries in general?

[Vargha Poralli]

In light of the historical experience in China is this observation still valid? The CCP was a group of intellectuals who rose to power on a wave of Peasent Support while the workers of the city played a passive role.


It is really a myth that workers played passive role over there.

And the events followed it really shows the prominence of Permanent Revolution.

[La Comédie Noire]

It is really a myth that workers played passive role over there.

And the events followed it really shows the prominence of Permanent Revolution.


Care to explain?

[Devrim]

The working class in China was crushed in 1927.

There was nothing socialist at all about the 1949 'revolution' in China.

Devrim

[La Comédie Noire]

There was nothing socialist at all about the 1949 'revolution' in China.


I didn't say it was socialist. I'm merely saying you had two different revolutions that did the same thing.

Threw off the Imperialist yoke.

I'm asking "what does that say about revolutions in the third world in general?"

[Vargha Poralli]

Care to explain?

Well just look at China today.

And the rise of intellectual power in China was not because of support from peasantry alone. It began by total destruction of workers movement in 1927 by KMT.Independent peasnat organisation cannot succeed in the struggle againt the Capitalist of any stripe.

As for your second question about third world the theory still holds water. Farmer's struggle is inherently a part of worker's struggle and vice versa. )ne cannot ignore or leave out other for their struggle to succeed.

[Devrim]

I didn't say it was socialist. I'm merely saying you had two different revolutions that did the same thing.

Threw off the Imperialist yoke.

I'm asking "what does that say about revolutions in the third world in general?"

I don't think that it threw off the imperialist yoke. I think it was a part of the integration of China into the world imperialist system.

It was a bourgeois revolution in a period when bourgeois revolutions had become reactionary.

Devrim

[Zurdito]

so China today has democracy? and is not subordinate to the west?

I disagree on both counts.

[Tower of Bebel]

Relative national independence on a peasant-based autarcy is only possible for a short period of time. Within the PRC there was a tendency towards capitalism (and imperialism) because it was a society with an important peasant majority. This also counts for the Soviet Union. So the conclusion that the working class must lead and shape the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat is justified. Also Trotsky was right when he concluded that the Russian proletariat could be the "vanguard" (the first spark) of the International Revolution and the proletariat of the imperialist countries.

[Devrim]

so China today has democracy? and is not subordinate to the west?

I disagree on both counts.

Is this addressed to me? If so I don't understand your point.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, to be frank, no Marxist could predict this, but yes, Trotsky's theory needs a small amendment - in times of great crisis, the middle class can make a partial democratic revolution, but only after crushing the working class so it doesn't threaten to make the revolution a proletarian one. That is why Mao had to crush the Chinese workers before coming to power, and why Tito had to butcher the Yugoslav Trotskyists.

[Zurdito]

Is this addressed to me?

no, to the OP.

[chegitz guevara]

Relative national independence on a peasant-based autarcy is only possible for a short period of time. Within the PRC there was a tendency towards capitalism (and imperialism) because it was a society with an important peasant majority. This also counts for the Soviet Union. So the conclusion that the working class must lead and shape the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat is justified. Also Trotsky was right when he concluded that the Russian proletariat could be the "vanguard" (the first spark) of the International Revolution and the proletariat of the imperialist countries.

Where did he say this? I'd like to read that.

[Winter]

In light of the historical experience in China is this observation still valid? The CCP was a group of intellectuals who rose to power on a wave of Peasent Support while the workers of the city played a passive role.

The workers didn't play a passive role at all. The workers and the party led the peasants under the common cause of ridding imperialism and establishing socialism. Most industry was not urbanized in China in those days.



According to the London-educated anthropologist and sociologist Fei Xiaotong, traditional China had a well developed industry, which was not concentrated in urban cities but dispersed in rural areas. It was this rural industry combined with agriculture that structuralize Chinese society in which the landlord class and urban commercialization were supported.


Quote from Battle for China's Past by Mobo Gao.

If you are seriously interested in learning about the Mao era, read this book.

[Tower of Bebel]

Where did he say this? I'd like to read that.
The first part is my contribution (Peasants, autarchy and capitalism), the second part (Trotsky and proletarian leadership) is Trotsky's, or at least what I learned from The Permanent Revolution and (A.) Münster's Trotzkis Theorie der "Permanenten Revolution" (1977).

[chegitz guevara]

That's an awesome quote from Lou, btw.

[DiaMat86]

Isn't this a Trotsky thread?

[La Comédie Noire]

Sorry all for the late post, I've been busy and have only just gotten down to reading the replies. I was hoping to get some good responses out of all of you and I'm happy to say I did. I do not have enough material to respond to some of your posts' so rest assured I have not "ignored your post" I am only responding to what I am able.


The workers didn't play a passive role at all. The workers and the party led the peasants under the common cause of ridding imperialism and establishing socialism. Most industry was not urbanized in China in those days.

Well from what I've read in Mao's China and After by Maurice Meisner Party Cadre's mostly consisted of city intellectuals and peasents. However, it's very possible Meisner may have lumped rural laborers with peasents.

But as to the rural laborers and their "industry" could they be considered part of the proletariat? After all aren't most rural laborers artisans who own their own means of production and sell what they produce? Doesn't seem to be any wage slavery invovled. It seems more petit bourgeoisie.

Unless you mean hired farm labor, but even then most of the farm hands were peasents themselves with their own plots of land.


That is why Mao had to crush the Chinese workers before coming to power

I don't think Mao conciously crushed the working class movement in China, the white terror of 25-27 did that on it's own, much to Mao's dismay.


And the rise of intellectual power in China was not because of support from peasantry alone. It began by total destruction of workers movement in 1927 by KMT.Independent peasnat organisation cannot succeed in the struggle againt the Capitalist of any stripe.

I don't follow? The rise of the intellectuals' power began only after the destruction of the working class movement but was not dependant on peasent organization alone even though that's what Mao did after 1927?




Relative national independence on a peasant-based autarcy is only possible for a short period of time. Within the PRC there was a tendency towards capitalism (and imperialism) because it was a society with an important peasant majority. This also counts for the Soviet Union. So the conclusion that the working class must lead and shape the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat is justified. Also Trotsky was right when he concluded that the Russian proletariat could be the "vanguard" (the first spark) of the International Revolution and the proletariat of the imperialist countries.


I think I should make myself clear. I don't think there was a socialist revolution in China.



so China today has democracy? and is not subordinate to the west?

Well from what I understand China is a capitalist nation with a large bureaucracy that does business with the west on it's own terms. Foreign companies may set up shop in their country under the condition they divulge trade secrets and allow the goverment to own 51% of their facilities.

Doesn't sound like they're taking things lying down.

I look foward to all your responses and keep in mind this is all coming from a novice's perspective so don't be afraid to make it simple. :)

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't think Mao conciously crushed the working class movement in China, the white terror of 25-27 did that on it's own, much to Mao's dismay.

First of all, Mao was always on the right wing of the party, so I don't know how much the move from a working class to a peasant base was to his "dismay." Second, to me it seems that to order your men to butcher workers waving red flags seems quite conscious.

[La Comédie Noire]

First of all, Mao was always on the right wing of the party, so I don't know how much the move from a working class to a peasant base was to his "dismay." Second, to me it seems that to order your men to butcher workers waving red flags seems quite conscious.


From my understanding the Guomindang did that "for him". I've never actually heard of this before, so I'm going to look into it.

[Yehuda Stern]

Since the burden of proof is on me here, it would only be appropriate for me to come back to you with sources, I suppose.

[La Comédie Noire]

That would be great! I've been studying the Chinease Revolution for the past few weeks and any information would be much appreciated.