it's because they haven't read it
:matt-jokerfied:
no seriously, on the recent chapo episode with brace they went on this 10 minute rant about the book and then every admitted they had never read it
good stuff
it's because they haven't read it
:matt-jokerfied:
no seriously, on the recent chapo episode with brace they went on this 10 minute rant about the book and then every admitted they had never read it
good stuff
The idea of permanent revolution isn’t about exporting revolution, though that’s the common misconception. The basic idea he came up with in 1905, during the first revolution. It basically states that the strength of the western bourgeoisie makes revolution in Western Europe unlikely initially.
Because the western bourgeoisie is so powerful, they also end up controlling capitalist development outside the imperial core. This led to a situation in Russia where you had the development of capitalism, and a corresponding Russian proletariat, but with no development of a Russian national bourgeoisie. Therefore, it’s easier for socialist and communist movements to gain traction in the periphery, as they have no national bourgeoisie to confront.
But this also means that national liberation movements cannot be led by the bourgeoisie in these peripheral countries, as they are kept impoverished by western capital. Only the working class has this ability, and because the working class will have to lead the movement, it behooves them to go beyond overthrowing the Tsar, Qing Emperor, etc. Instead they have to continue the revolution, which is where the term “permanent revolution” comes from and create socialism.
And that I think is basically what the author of the above quote is saying as well, though with different vocabulary to what Trotsky would use.
But what is "continuing the revolution"?
It means going beyond a political revolution, and beginning to construct a socialist society. So, in Russia you had the overthrow of the Tsarist regime in the February revolution. But the liberals in Russia were extremely weak, so they couldn’t hold political power. So in order to sustain the revolution, the Bolsheviks had to take power in the October Revolution. From there, you see the beginning of an attempt to build a communist society.
So the basic concept is that in peripheral states, the national bourgeoisie are either weak or compradors. Therefore it has to be the masses who overthrow the colonial or semi-colonial regime. And then there interests are still ultimately still proletarian so they have to continue the revolution and seek the establishment of socialism. They can’t (or maybe rather shouldn’t) construct a new capitalist state.
So Lenin already did the Permanent Revolution?
Trotsky says in essence yes, Stalin says no. I don’t think Lenin was trying to copy Trotskys specific program or anything, but I think Trotsky’s analysis on how revolutions develop is sound.
The problem is that it’s not just analysis, but also a prospective political program. Stalin’s grievance is somewhat technical and has to do with the relationship of the peasantry to the new state. They both wrote a bunch of polemics. Stalin wrote ‘Trotskyism or Leninism’, and then Trotsky wrote ‘Results and Prospects’ in 1905 which is where he lays out the basic theory, and then ‘The Permanent Revolution’ which is a defense of the theory from Stalin’s criticism.