feudalism->capitalism->socialism ?

[Black Sheep]

Does this have to be that way?
The material conditions which empower the proletariat as a dominant group in economy develop during capitalism, but what can/must an undeveloped country's working class do, having reached a communist class awareness?

I think that Lenin said that 'building socialism in an advanced capitalist country will be easier,but getting the working class on power will be harder, and vice versa for undeveloped cap. countries.'

Although today there no feudalist countries,but there qare some where capitalist activity is reduced to economic imperialism by international corporations and virtually no proletariat.

[BobKKKindle$]

Let's look at Russia as a case-study.

Russia had already become a capitalist country by 1917, and rapid industrial development had taken place prior to the war, mainly as a result of foreign firms investing in Russia with some of the most modern and advanced technology available at that time, giving rise to large units of production involving thousands of workers in a single factory. However, because Russia had only become a capitalist country fairly late in comparison to other leading powers such as France, social and political change did not follow the same trajectory as other, more advanced countries. Trotsky described this situation on a world scale as "combined and uneven development". The bourgeoisie, instead of being politically independent, was closely tied to the remnants of the feudal regime because many of the industrialists also owned large tracts of land in the countryside and supported the Tsarist monarchy as a key source of political stability, an interest that was shared by foreign investors, who also accounted for a significant section of the bourgeoisie. This weakness on the part of the bourgeoisie had an important implication - it meant that the bourgeoisie was incapable of carrying out its history tasks (for example, land reform, democratization) and so Russia would remain a semi-capitalist country dominated by feudal political institutions and cultural discourse. Moreover, the absence of land reform, which had provided the impetus for industrialization in other countries, combined with Russia's weak position on the world market, would prevent the emergence of a mature capitalist economy in Russia. Trotsky recognized the effects this had on revolutionaries - the proletariat was the only class capable of carrying out the democratic tasks, and yet because the proletariat was only small at that time, this bourgeois revolution (i.e. bourgeois in its goals and objectives) would have to involve the peasantry as well as the proletariat. However, Trotsky built upon this analysis by showing that in order to consistently carry out these tasks and apply them thoroughly, the proletariat would find itself carrying out anti-capitalist measures as well, and this would compel the proletariat to make the revolution permanent (hence the term permanent revolution) by conducting a socialist revolution immediately after the bourgeois tasks have been completed. In other words, although Marx had suggested that socialist revolution would be most likely to break out in an advanced country with a large proletariat, Trotsky argued that it could also occur in a "weak link" in the imperialist world system - a comparatively agrarian country like Russia. However, because Russia was so undeveloped, the material preconditions for socialism did not exist within the borders of Russia alone, as an isolated unit, but only on a world scale, such that, in addition to being permanent in its transition from bourgeois to socialist tasks, the revolution would also have to be permanent in its scope - the proletariat in Russia would inspire uprisings around the world by taking power and would be forced to render absolute support to the proletariats of other countries in order to avoid isolation.

[BobKKKindle$]

Alternatively, you could just read Tony Cliff's summary and critique of Trotsky's theory, Deflected Permanent Revolution. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1963/xx/permrev.htm) This 6-point summary might be especially useful:



A bourgeoisie which arrives late on the scene is fundamentally different from its ancestors of a century or two earlier. It is incapable of providing a consistent, democratic, revolutionary solution to the problem posed by feudalism and imperialist oppression. It is incapable of carrying out the thoroughgoing destruction of feudalism, the achievement of real national independence and political democracy. It has ceased to be revolutionary, whether in the advanced or backward countries. It is an absolutely conservative force.
The decisive revolutionary role falls to the proletariat, even though it may be very young and small in number.
Incapable of independent action, the peasantry will follow the towns, and in view of the first five points, must follow the leadership of the industrial proletariat.
A consistent solution of the agrarian question, of the national question, a break-up of the social and imperial fetters preventing speedy economic advance, will necessitate moving beyond the bounds of bourgeois private property. “The democratic revolution grows over immediately into the socialist, and thereby becomes a permanent revolution.” [/URL]
The completion of the socialist revolution “within national limits is unthinkable ... Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet.” [URL="http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1963/xx/permrev.htm#n9"] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1963/xx/permrev.htm#n8)It is a reactionary, narrow dream, to try and achieve “socialism in one country”.
As a result, revolution in backward countries would lead to convulsions in the advanced countries.