Lenin and the theory of Permanent Revolution

[Sweetpotos]

One of the things you hear a lot from Trotskyist groups is how Lenin adopted Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution in the April Theses, moving away from his prior position of a democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.

I honestly have to admit that I don't see what precise evidence there is for this. Can someone help me out with some relevant literature? Did Lenin ever comment on Trotksy's theory directly? And where did he outline the "democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" theory? I can't say that I really understand the difference between the two positions. The permanent revolution still implies a role for the peasantry does it not?

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/errors-trotsky-and-t78770/index2.html

Notwithstanding my debate with a Trot:



New Era of Revolutions by Lars Lih



The most fundamental feature of Lenin’s outlook after 1914 is his sense of the new revolutionary era that opened with the outbreak of the European war. This was a radically new era that imposed new tasks on what was heretofore “revolutionary Social Democracy.” Both the underlying concept of a revolutionary era and the basic features of the current revolutionary are Kautsky-Lenin-Shared-Ideas (KLSIs). We don’t have to guess at this—Lenin tells us so.

As Lenin also says, not only Kautsky but many prewar Marxists were saying similar things. Lenin particularly stresses the complete orthodoxy of the Basel Manifesto. But let us restrict ourselves for the moment to Kautsky’s Road to Power (1909). The key theme of this book is the coming “new era of revolutions.” Kautsky gives a four-part definition of a revolutionary situation from which Lenin’s own later definition is clearly derived. He also insists that the long era of peace in which the Second International grew up is coming to an end—another fundamental point for Lenin.

Among the key features of this new era of revolutions as set out by Kautsky are:
- A European war is likely, despite the efforts of the proletariat to stop it, and such a war will lead to socialist revolution.
- Finance capitalism is preparing the ground for socialism, with the result that Western Europe is now ripe for socialist revolution and proletarian class rule.
- It is not unlikely that the vacillating petty-bourgeois masses will suddenly swing around and accept proletarian leadership.
- Nationalist revolution is a central feature of the world-wide crisis of the bourgeois order.

Also among the ideas current among prewar Marxists about the coming revolutionary crisis was the special role of Russia in setting off international revolution (see the Basel Manifesto, 1912). More generally, any war-induced revolution would not stay confined to a single country but “must be transferred to other states” (Kautsky’s words from 1911 as cited in Lenin’s Imperialism Notebooks.

Contemplating the shared Kautsky-Lenin characterization of “the revolution of our time” leads to the following thought. It is true that in a certain bottom-line sense, Lenin came to accept a central implication of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution: the Russian workers could and should take over state power with a socialist agenda. But Lenin came to this conclusion through Kautsky territory, not Trotsky territory—that is, not through any engagement with Trotsky’s specific argument of 1905-6 (of which there is no trace in Lenin’s post-1914 writings), but through extending just a little further the logic of the new era of revolutions, as set out above.




And where did he outline the "democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" theory? I can't say that I really understand the difference between the two positions. The permanent revolution still implies a role for the peasantry does it not?

Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

The basic premise of the RDOTPP, which I subscribe to, is that Russia was not materially ready to proceed to so-called "socialist tasks," let alone actual social-abolitionist tasks. The latter is critical, given the emerging definition of "socialism" that is tied to post-monetary labour credit. However, the Russian working class could choose between a less democratic (bourgeois-democratic) and a more democratic ("social-democratic") capitalism with a peasant majority (hence the call for a post-czarist Constituent Assembly in the early 1900s). The rate of capitalist development, in turn, would have depended on the outcome of monetary "socialist" revolutions in Europe.

[Yehuda Stern]

In fact, while it's true that there's no evidence that Lenin came to his April Theses through Trotsky's theories, by April 1917 Lenin had long since broken with most of Kautsky's theories. So Richter is just a bit lying, here.

[Tower of Bebel]

There was no fundamental difference between Lenin and Trotsky in 1917. There were in 1905 however. I think Trotsky was the first to see the important consequences of the new era (of imperialism). Lenin changed his mind a bit later.

Kautsky, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky and others had all made theoretical formulations (around and just after 1905) that concluded that an new era of wars and revolutions was coming, that the 2nd International had to prepare for illegal activities (revolution) and that a "socialist" revolution in Russia would definitely not be premature.
The differences between the Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasants and the Permanent Revolution were a matter of nuance. Their conclusions (that the working class had to take power) were exactly the same, just like the conclusions of both the Road to Power (1909) and the Russian Revolution (1918) for example.

[Hit The North]

Whether Lenin arrived at his conclusion independently or not of Trotsky's theory is not really important, compared with the fact that both men were of the opinion that the Soviet Union could only make the leap to socialism within the context of successful international revolution across Europe. It is this internationalism which informs the true revolutionary socialist spirit, against the national chauvinism adopted by Stalin.

[Valeofruin]

Another one led astray, how does this happen?

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch03.htm

[chegitz guevara]

by April 1917 Lenin had long since broken with most of Kautsky's theories. So Richter is just a bit lying, here.

Your statement is, in fact, untrue. What Lenin had broken with was Kautsky, not his theories. Lenin, in fact, attacks the "renegade" Kautsky by using Kautsky's old writings. What he attacks Kaustky for is abandoning Kaustkyism. Richter's not lying. You just don't know what you're talking about.

[chegitz guevara]

Another one led astray, how does this happen?

Let me ask you a question: if a sixth grader came up to you and started telling you that you didn't know shit, how likely would you be to listen? A little less arrogance and a bit more humility with your comrades will go a long way. You might want to consider that most of us have likely heard all the arguments before (in some cases, before you were even born).

[Yehuda Stern]

Lenin, in fact, attacks the "renegade" Kautsky by using Kautsky's old writings. What he attacks Kaustky for is abandoning Kaustkyism.

By 1917, Lenin had broken with:

- Kautsky's conception of socialist consciousness as being 'imported' into the working class by revolutionary intellectuals;
- Kautsky's conception of the party;
- Kautsky's belief that the workers' cannot go behind the capitalist stage in the Russian revolution;
- Kautsky's theory of super-imperialism;

That Lenin uses Kautsky's own writings to challenge him is an age old practice. I frequently use Grant's writings to attack Grantites, and I have certainly broken with his theories.

So, am I the one who doesn't know what he is talking about? Hmm.

[chegitz guevara]

By 1917, Lenin had broken with:

- Kautsky's conception of socialist consciousness as being 'imported' into the working class by revolutionary intellectuals;
- Kautsky's conception of the party;
- Kautsky's belief that the workers' cannot go behind the capitalist stage in the Russian revolution;
- Kautsky's theory of super-imperialism;

That Lenin uses Kautsky's own writings to challenge him is an age old practice. I frequently use Grant's writings to attack Grantites, and I have certainly broken with his theories.

So, am I the one who doesn't know what he is talking about? Hmm.

Yes, because you're largely wrong.

[Yehuda Stern]

Solid arguments indeed. I guess some people can't admit defeat.

[chegitz guevara]

Lenin never broke with either Kautsky's conception of the party, seeing as Lenin continued to the very end of his life to build a mass party. Even laid up in bed, crippled by a stroke, he's arguing for opening the party up and bringing more workers at every level of the party. What differentiated Lenin from Kautsky on this issue wasn't different ideas about the party, but that the centrists acted as conciliators towards the right wing of the party and would continually cave to the right in order to maintain party unity. Lenin would not. Lenin believed in majority rule. If the right won the elections, he would go along with it. If the left won, he expected the right to submit to democracy. If they wouldn't, he was willing to let them split. That is what he meant by "no unity for unity's sake" and his opposintion to unprincipled combinations.

Here's a nice little short piece on Lenin's thoughts on the party by Hal Draper. http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm Although Hal thinks like you, that Lenin gradually broke with Kautsky, it is because Draper is trying to move the "authoriatianism" off Lenin's shoulders and on to Kautsky's.

As for socialist consciousness being imported to the workers, Lenin never broke with that. Marx and Engels weren't workers. Kautsky and Lenin weren't workers. Most of the leadership of the RSDLP weren't workers. That, however, doesn't mean that left to their own, workers wouldn't develop socialist consciousness. It simply means that socialism developed outside the workers movement and had to be merged with it. Once the merger was complete it would be silly to talk about needing to do something which had already been successfully accomplished. Lenin didn't break with this notion, He succeeded at it.

As for the Russian workers going "beyond" the capitalist stage in the revolution, Richter has already pointed out this notion is false. European Social Democracy already expected a Russian spark to light the Europpean flame after 1905.

Finally, on super-imperialism, you are correct. But I only said you were mostly wrong. Not completely wrong.

[Yehuda Stern]

Boy, Richter's really found an acolyte in you, hasn't he? Lenin's book on the breakup of the Second International cites the way in which the parties were built - containing all layers of working class consciousness - as the main reason for its patriotic degeneration. Of course, all Marxists want revolutionary parties to become mass parties eventually, but this can only follow the winning over of the majority of the working class vanguard.

As for Lenin's early conception that the working class receives consciousness from outside, this was true only up to 1905. After 1905, Lenin wrote how the working class is "sponataneously, instinctively social-democratic." That you say at the same time the consciousness comes from the outside and that it develops from inside the working class is simply absurd.

European Social-Democracy may have expected the Russian revolution to ignite a spark in Europe, but as evidenced by the Second's support for Menshevism, it never expected a working class socialist revolution in Russia but a bourgeois democratic one.

On super-imperialism - good, we agree.

Nice try, though.

[chegitz guevara]

Actually, Richter's my acolyte. :p

In all seriousness, both of have read or are reading Lars Lih's book, Lenin Rediscovered: 'What is to Be Done?' In Context. It blows away all of the old misconceptions about Lenin.

[Tower of Bebel]

Lenin's book on the breakup of the Second International cites the way in which the parties were built - containing all layers of working class consciousness - as the main reason for its patriotic degeneration. Of course, all Marxists want revolutionary parties to become mass parties eventually, but this can only follow the winning over of the majority of the working class vanguard.What book and how to win the majority of the vanguard when you cannot have a party with all layers of working class consciousness?


As for Lenin's early conception that the working class receives consciousness from outside, this was true only up to 1905. After 1905, Lenin wrote how the working class is "sponataneously, instinctively social-democratic." That you say at the same time the consciousness comes from the outside and that it develops from inside the working class is simply absurd.You shouldn't make a distinction between leadership and base. The revolutionary vanguard is part of the working class. Therefor Only in the beginning, when there is no vanguard party of the class or no organized vanguard, you'll sometimes have to bring in advanced class consciousness from outside workers' movement.


European Social-Democracy may have expected the Russian revolution to ignite a spark in Europe, but as evidenced by the Second's support for Menshevism, it never expected a working class socialist revolution in Russia but a bourgeois democratic one.I only see the failure of the revolutionary left to organize. The fact that some only predicted a bourgeois revolution isn't the problem. Look for instance at Kamenev, Zinovev and Stalin who thought it was a bourgeois revolution. The fact that the revolutionary left couldn't defeat the right wing of the workers' movement is the problem.

[chegitz guevara]

To be fair, Rakunin, the discussion is about what Lenin thought.

[Yehuda Stern]

What book and how to win the majority of the vanguard when you cannot have a party with all layers of working class consciousness?

The Collapse of the Second International (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/csi/index.htm). As for the question, I don't really understand the problem with winning over just the vanguard as a first step towards building a party.


You shouldn't make a distinction between leadership and base. The revolutionary vanguard is part of the working class. Therefor Only in the beginning, when there is no vanguard party of the class or no organized vanguard, you'll sometimes have to bring in advanced class consciousness from outside workers' movement.

That is exactly the conception I'm fighting against - that the revolutionary party must be started from the outside, that noble intellectuals must give the savage proletarians the gift of Marxism. That was the mentality of Kautsky and his modern heirs, most prominently the Spartacist League. Not so prominently, Jacob Richter.

And like hell I shouldn't distinct class from base. It's a pretty basic premise of Marxism that most parties contain a contradiction between their leadership and their rank and file.


I only see the failure of the revolutionary left to organize. The fact that some only predicted a bourgeois revolution isn't the problem.

One thing led to another. The false perspectives of the Second International led to it adopting wrong tactics and policies, which eventually led to its demise.


It blows away all of the old misconceptions about Lenin.

Or, as is more likely from what I hear from you and Richter, maybe it just reestablishes old, false ones.

[TheRedRevolutionary]

By 1917, Lenin had broken with:

- Kautsky's conception of socialist consciousness as being 'imported' into the working class by revolutionary intellectuals;
- Kautsky's conception of the party;
- Kautsky's belief that the workers' cannot go behind the capitalist stage in the Russian revolution;
- Kautsky's theory of super-imperialism;

That Lenin uses Kautsky's own writings to challenge him is an age old practice. I frequently use Grant's writings to attack Grantites, and I have certainly broken with his theories.

So, am I the one who doesn't know what he is talking about? Hmm.

Thank you for upholding Marxism Leninism here. I'm glad you were able to see past the lies of your Trot organization the IMT, you are getting closer to the true Marxist Leninist position and away from renegades like Kautsky.

[Yehuda Stern]

I am actually getting away from pro-Stalinists like the IMT and closer to authentic Trotskyism. The ISL has moved sharply to the left and has embraced real Trotskyism, not the false, pro-Soviet Trotskyism of the Pabloites. We may agree on what Lenin changed from Kautsky (to an extent), but don't delude yourself into thinking that we are moving away from Trotskyism - if anything, we're moving much, much closer to it. And I am willing to prove it decisively to any blabbering, self-delusional orto-Trot, any day.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Lenin believed in majority rule. If the right won the elections, he would go along with it. If the left won, he expected the right to submit to democracy. If they wouldn't, he was willing to let them split. That is what he meant by "no unity for unity's sake" and his opposition to unprincipled combinations.

On your "personal" note, isn't this what happened with your struggle against the FaRTs (your initial submission and their current crybabying)? :lol:


Here's a nice little short piece on Lenin's thoughts on the party by Hal Draper. http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm Although Hal thinks like you, that Lenin gradually broke with Kautsky, it is because Draper is trying to move the "authoriatianism" off Lenin's shoulders and on to Kautsky's.

Draper should have attempted to move the "authoritarianism" off Lenin's shoulders and on to that poor man's Kautsky known otherwise as Georgi Plekhanov. :(


Finally, on super-imperialism, you are correct. But I only said you were mostly wrong. Not completely wrong.

Well, technically Yehuda IS completely wrong. How can you break with a particular theory if you don't agree with it in the first place? In this instance, the disciple disagreed from the outset with the true-founder-of-"Marxism"-turned-vulgar-centrist's "ultra-imperialism" stuff.



Anyway, the discussion above by the two revolutionary-Marxist[-"Kautskyist"] comrades has been most helpful in terms of me trying to understand my own CSR work more ( :lol: ):


1) Only those who, under initial conditions (the relative absence of class struggle), support revolutionary change due to their education are capable of “spontaneously” developing proletarian class consciousness. All others (“the proletarian masses”), according to Kautsky, “still vegetate, helpless and hopeless” through having little free time or through being unemployed.
2) Since both bourgeois and petit-bourgeois intellectuals are ancient relics, the “spontaneous” development and proliferation of proletarian class consciousness is left to the modern equivalent and even more: professional and some clerical workers, as well as those in the “class of flux.”
3) When the revolutionary process of introducing class consciousness to the proletarian masses begins, it is done most effectively (since there are less effective means) when the organized vanguard acts "not as ordinary workers, but as socialist theoreticians.”

This third point is “profoundly true and important,” because modern “vanguard” circles today act as “ordinary workers” in trying to spread class consciousness. This is the main reason why they have been ineffective!

However, because of the third point, the genuine class separation that existed between the non-proletarian intellectuals and the proletarian masses has been replaced by an artificial “theory gulf” between different groups of proletarians, so to speak. Socialist theoreticians, especially those without direct experience in the class struggle, can overcome this gulf by connecting their dynamic-materialist knowledge with the material conditions of the proletarian masses as a whole, thereby finding real expression of the newfound knowledge.

Yehuda has a Gramscian point, as I stated in my second point above: since many if not most intellectuals today are actually professional workers, the development of "socialist consciousness" generally doesn't come "from outside" the class. BTW, this revolutionary-Marxist[-"Kautskyist"] is an office worker with a "formal knowledge" background in business. ;)

However, where he is wrong is his equation of the development of "socialist consciousness" with the emergence of a workers' movement (addressed in the third point). This equation has led to many a pseudo-vanguard erroneously attempting to "create" a workers' movement by acting as "ordinary workers" (hence the many minimum demands raised today that are vulgar and not dynamic). Only acting in the capacity of "socialist theoreticians" can the initial vanguard put the pieces of the puzzle together in a dynamic manner, connecting the 32-hour workweek called for from obscure elements of the working class to expanded gun rights called for from working-class NRA members to the indexing of the minimum wage called for from elsewhere.

[Yehuda Stern]

Your word salad notwithstanding, intellectuals are not professional workers and are not proletarians. I meant exactly what I said, not any "Gramscian point" or any other made up phrase of yours.

[chegitz guevara]

I am actually getting away from pro-Stalinists like the IMT and closer to authentic Trotskyism.

There is no such thing as "authentic" Trotskyism. There is only Trotskyism in all its varieties. To talk about authentic Trotskyism is to treat Trotsky and his ideas as religious fetishes, not as a comrade limited in scope and to a particular place and time. It fails to see Marxism as a dynamic and dialectical method of obtaining answers, and instead treats Marxism as a series of commandments. In other words, it is dogmatic thinking. This leads to sectarianism, as you attack others for failing to follow your particular religion or interpretation of the sacred texts.


Or, as is more likely from what I hear from you and Richter, maybe it just reestablishes old, false ones.

It is based on, and extensively quotes long passages from Lenin. It makes a very good argument. It also quotes from those whom Lenin was polemicising against, which helps us to understand what it was that Lenin was trying to get at. The Lenin rediscovered by Lars Lih is a very different one than has been sold to us by his followers.

[chegitz guevara]

Your word salad notwithstanding, intellectuals are not professional workers and are not proletarians.

That's not true at all. Anyone can be an intellectual. The proletariat has intellectuals and so do the various middle classes.

[Yehuda Stern]

There is no such thing as "authentic" Trotskyism...

Nonsense. That's like saying that anyone who calls himself a Marxist is indeed a Marxist, and there's no "authentic Marxism." If you believe that then, oh dear.


It is based on, and extensively quotes long passages from Lenin.

Or maybe it is based on extensive quotes from Lenin which are placed out of context by the author? Reading the original is generally a far better practice.


That's not true at all. Anyone can be an intellectual.

Well, no, not in the Marxist use of the word at any rate.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yehuda, you need to read this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html

[chegitz guevara]

Nonsense. That's like saying that anyone who calls himself a Marxist is indeed a Marxist, and there's no "authentic Marxism." If you believe that then, oh dear.

Okay, fine. You're not a Marxist. You proceed from idealist positions, which is not Marxist.


Or maybe it is based on extensive quotes from Lenin which are placed out of context by the author? Reading the original is generally a far better practice.

Reading the original outside the context leads to bad understanding. Also, the book contains the whole text of Chto Dyelet? with a new translation. So the reader can do both.


Well, no, not in the Marxist use of the word at any rate.

Marx called Joseph Dietzgen an intellectual. Dietzgen was a worker. I think, by definition, that would be a Marxist use of the word.

[BobKKKindle$]

The slogan of the "Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry" was never intended to suggest that the peasantry should have the same weight in a revolutionary government as the proletariat, or that the peasantry is even capable of organizing itself as a coherent revolutionary force which can operate without the leading role of the proletariat. Trotsky consistently argued the peasantry would never be capable of coming to power on its own despite its numerical strength, but only in a supporting role to a more powerful social class - the proletariat. The main reason for this is that, whereas all workers ultimately all share the same relationship to the means of production, the peasantry is a heterogeneous group composed of many smaller factions (ranging from agricultural proletarians who work as farm laborers, to middle peasants who own a small area of land and also perform labour for other, more powerful landowners in exchange for the privilege of using their land) which makes organization difficult, especially when combined with the fact that peasants are dispersed over a large area whereas workers are concentrated in large units of production which allows them to meet each day and develop revolutionary organs of power. In 1909, just after the party conference Lenin adopted the slogan of "the Dictatorship of the Proletariat supported by the Peasantry" under the pressure of Rosa Luxemburg, and, when accused by the Mensheviks of adopting a radical change in policy and discarding his previous theory, he replied:

‘... Isn’t it obvious that the idea of all these formulations is one and the same? Isn’t it obvious that this idea expresses precisely the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry – that the “formula” of the proletariat supported by the peasantry, remains entirely within the bounds of that very same dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry?'

The Aim of the Struggle of the Proletariat in Our Revolution, 4th edition, XV, 333 and 339.

This shows that Lenin and Trotsky were in agreement on the course of the Russian revolution by 1909, even though they used different slogans to express their ideas, and Lenin previously argued that the peasantry would be able to form its own party and could even dominate the revolutionary government.

[Yehuda Stern]

Richter, I don't think anyone needs to read anything you wrote. At best, they might want to, but then I could hardly imagine why.

Chegitz, when we have come to the point where all that's thrown around is "no, you're not a Marxist," I think we're about done. Great arguments you made, though - "I have this book that proves all I say is right and you are wrong." Great.

[chegitz guevara]

Chegitz, when we have come to the point where all that's thrown around is "no, you're not a Marxist," I think we're about done.

You don't get it, do you? Once you accept that some people are "authentic" Marxists and Trotskyists and others aren't (and I don't mean those who are deliberately pretending when they know they aren't), you open the door to people declaring you to be not a real Marxist or nor a real Trotskyist, simply on the basis of arguments. Not only that, but you have no defense against those who claim that what we have today isn't really capitalism, capitalism is what Adam Smith wrote. We also have to accept that there is a true Christianity and true Islam (as well as false versions of both). You open the door to dogmatism, and a scientific method of understanding the world becomes a religion.

And, you really should read the Lars Lih book. He makes a very persuasive argument, backed up by historical fact and lots of sources. Ignore him at your peril.

[Yehuda Stern]

Chegitz, I have no problem that people declare me to not truly be a Marxist or a Trotskyist. I respect many members of this board who consider themselves Marxists, but I would disagree with them on their self-identification, as I am sure they would with mine. The most contemptible thing, I think, is to invent a "Marxist family" of which we are all members, and in which we are all a little wrong and a little right. In my mind, there's authentic Marxism, and then there's people wanting to be Marxists, but who haven't succeeded in becoming Marxists. That's not dogmatic - a dogma would be accepting the writings of Marxists without criticism, something which we certainly are not doing. It is, however, the method of both Lenin and Trotsky.

I have no problem with reading Lih's book should I happen to get my hands on it, though I'd bet it's pretty hard to come by, especially in Israel. I do doubt, however, that it would be perilous for me to not read it.

[chegitz guevara]

I prefer to use the historical materialist method on Marxism itself, rather than carve out an exception to historical materialism, and use an idealist definition of what is Marxism.