Skip to main content

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE THEORY OF PERMANENT REVOLUTION

Despite the death of Leon Trotsky and his theories, a very small group lingers throughout the far-left community. These people are known as the "Trotskyists," who have existed since the start of the Russian Revolution. 

These Trotskyists are the loyal followers under the misinterpretation of Marxism. They attempt to discredit Marxist-Leninism with their flawed view on revolution. Even Anti-Communists are spreading the idea that "If Trotsky took power, maybe the Soviet Union would have survived." Which, is completely false narrative. 
So let's discuss why is this theory known as "Permanent Revolution" so flawed? And what does this theory say about Marxism? 
TWO-STAGE THEORY OF REVOLUTION

Permanent Revolution cannot be swiftly explained in a few sentences, it is a complex theory that when poorly explained, can misguide people's views on what Trotsky was truly advocating. 
The first part of the Permanent Revolution is the its idea and rejection of "Two-Stage Theory", better known as stagism. Simply, stagism says that after Feudalism, there would be a long period of Capitalist Development carried out by a liberal bourgeois revolution (historically known as the February Revolution,) which would then allow for a proletariat revolution. 
Trotsky believed that this was unnecessary in the outcome of revolution and that the Bourgeoisis was in no position to carry out a democratic revolution to pave the way forward towards a Socialist Revolution. Lenin rejected this belief.

THE PEASANTS AND PROLETARIATS

The Russian Empire was considered a third-world nation due to the low development of the Russian Empire. The Proletariat was less common compared to their colleagues, the Peasants, due to Russia being an agricultural state. This would lead to the birth of the idea of "Narodnism," a group of populists who believed that the Peasant class could skip over the stage of capitalism, to pave the way for a Proletariat revolution. 
Opposing this theory, a man by the name of Georgi Plekhanov, a Russian philosopher and founder of the Social Democrats. He believed that the peasants were a "Reactionary class" which are inferior to the industrial revolutionaries. He also believed that skipping over the capitalist stage would be undialectical and unhistorical.

Lenin opposed this theory and believed that there should be a Workers/Peasants alliance (hence the symbolism of the hammer and sickle.) 
He also believed that the Peasants were revolutionary in the sense of the bourgeois-democrats. Now where Trotsky comes into play in this issue, is the fact that he does not solely agree with the Bolsheviks or the Mensheviks. Trotsky mainly disagreed with Lenin on the issue of the peasants because Trotsky saw the peasants still as reactionary and conservative. This was the main reason Trotsky first sided with the Mensheviks. 
But, Trotsky didn't want a full Social Democratic approach with a Bourgeoisie-Proletariat alliance. He offered the idea that eventually, a European socialist revolution will arise and help the Proletariat take over during the Russian Revolution. 
He believed that if the proletariat caused a revolution in Europe or Russia, there would be hostile tension between the Peasants and the Proletariats. Since Russia had a majority Peasant population, the European Proletariat would have to overrun the Russian Peasants, allowing for a Proletariat international alliance (The 4th International.) But historically, it has been shown, that the Peasant class is not Reactionary, and is capable of supporting socialist movements. But Lenin and Trotsky did both agree on one major issue. 
That waiting for a "bourgeoisie revolution" was unreasonable, and revolution must NOT be interrupted. While it seems like Lenin is rejecting stagism, this is not the case. 
Lenin in his book "The Development of Capitalism in Russia." argued that Russia has already gone through a stage of Capitalism and the Peasants were being "depeasantized." 
References:

Lenin, V.I. "The Fifth Congress of the RSDLP"
marxists.org/archive/lenin/…

Lenin: Speech on the Attitude Towards Bourgeois Parties.
May 12 (25) marxists.org/archive/lenin/…

@Taimur_Laal's lecture "Why I Am Not a Trotskyist"
https://youtu.be/QQ9O5UPqcOE


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Marx’s Theory of Alienation

Capitalist alienation is a Marxist notion that refers to individuals' estrangement or separation from their work, the output of their labour, and each other within the capitalist mode of production. This phenomena arises from capitalism's fundamental contradictions, which result in a system in which labour is commodified and employees are reduced to mere appendages of the means of production. Capitalist alienation happens when labour is converted into a commodity that can be bought and sold on the market just like any other commodity. As a result, the labour of the worker is separated from the product, and the worker is alienated from the outcome of their labour. Furthermore, workers are cut off from their own creative potential because their job is dictated by the necessities of the capitalist system rather than their own aspirations and interests. "The alienation of man thus appeared as the fundamental evil of capitalist society.”   ―   Karl Marx , Selected Writings in...
Post a Comment
Read more

Karl Marx: On The Great Indian Revolt of 1857

Marx's observations on the Revolt of 1857 are a distinctive component to the study of modern Indian history. Marx was almost the very first to grasp the true nature of the revolt. Karl Marx wrote 31 articles about the 1857 Indian revolt from July to Oct 1857 for the American newspaper 'New York Daily Tribune (NYDT)’. Although the British called it a mutiny/uprising, Marx called 1857 'a national revolt' . When Marx began writing articles about India in the New York Times in 1853, he saw the British as India's saviours. He regarded British colonialism as a necessary evil to break Asia's sluggish economy by investing in the forces required for capitalist expansion. Marx characterized British colonization in India as the "Double Mission of the British". In the puberty, they were contributing positively by breaking down India's Asiatic mode of production, which was hampering its path to capitalism. Second, they were rejuvenating the economy in order t...
Post a Comment
Read more

On The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

Since the end of World War II, the bourgeois historiography has made an effort to embellish a number of events in order to disparage Socialism and the USSR. One of these occurrences, known as the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact," was struck in 1939 and has served as a "banner" for supporters of imperialism and other anti-communists. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is portrayed by bourgeois propaganda as a tool of expansion policy by the USSR and Hitler's Germany in its illogical, unhistorical attempt to connect Communism with Nazism. By distorting historical facts and combining lies and half-truths, Imperialists and their allies hope to discredit the Soviet Union's significant contribution to the anti-fascist campaign during World War 2. The reality, however, is not the same as what the bourgeois historiography portrays. In order to disprove the anti-communist propaganda surrounding the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact, we will now look at the circumstances and e...
Post a Comment
Read more