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
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.