Even after Leon Trotsky and his theories passed away, a tiny minority still exists within the far-left society. These folks have been around since the beginning of the Russian Revolution and are referred to as "Trotskyists." Leon Trotsky at his desk, 1919
These Trotskyists are the misinterpretations of Marxism's devoted supporters. They make an effort to undermine Marxist-Leninism by presenting a defective theory of revolution. Even anti-Communists are spreading the notion that "The Soviet Union Would Have Survived If Trotsky Took Power." That is a wholly bogus narrative.
So let's talk about why the "Permanent Revolution" thesis is so incorrect. And what is said about Marxism by this theory?
TWO-STAGE THEORY OF REVOLUTION
A complex theory that cannot be succinctly articulated in a few phrases, Permanent Revolution can mislead people's perceptions of what Trotsky was actually supporting. The theory behind "Two-Stage Theory," or stagism, is the first component of the Permanent Revolution. According to stagism, there would be a lengthy period of capitalist development following feudalism, which would be ushered in by a liberal bourgeois revolution (historically referred to as the February Revolution) that would subsequently pave the way for a proletarian revolution.
Trotsky believed that this was unnecessary in the outcome of revolution and that the bourgeoisie 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 PROLETARIAT
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.
Georgi Plekhanov, a Russian philosopher and the leader of the Social Democrats, was opposed to this view. He thought that the industrial revolutionaries were superior, and the peasants were a "Reactionary class."
Aside from that, he thought it would be undialectic and unhistorical to pass through the capitalist stage.
Lenin disagreed with this idea and said there should be a union of workers and peasants (hence the symbolism of the hammer and sickle.)
A revolutionary in the sense of the bourgeois-democrats, he also thought the Peasants to be. The fact that Trotsky does not exclusively agree with the Bolsheviks or the Mensheviks is where he enters the picture in this debate.
On the subject of the peasants, Trotsky generally clashed with Lenin because he believed that they were still reactionary and conservative. This was the major justification for Trotsky's initial support of the Mensheviks.
Trotsky, however, was not in favour of a Bourgeoisie-Proletariat coalition and a fully social democratic strategy. He advanced the hypothesis that someday a socialist revolution in Europe would occur, aiding the Russian Revolution's proletariat in seizing power.
He thought that there would be hostile antagonism between the Peasants and the Proletariats if the proletariat started a revolution in Europe or Russia. Since the majority of people in Russia were peasants, the European Proletariat would have to conquer them in order to establish an international coalition of the proletariat (The 4th International.) The Peasant class, however, has historically demonstrated that it is not Reactionary and is capable of backing socialist movements.
However, Lenin and Trotsky did concur on a vital point, that it was unrealistic to wait for a "bourgeois revolution," and that the revolution must NOT be stopped. Although it could appear that Lenin is opposing stagism, this is not the case.
Lenin stated that Russia had already passed through a stage of capitalism and that the peasants were being "depeasantized" in his book, "The Development of Capitalism in Russia"
Comments
Post a Comment