Permanently Deleted
FIRST REPLY
If somethings a meme it’s only because it’s true. I could dig through pretty much any Trot publication and show you ways that they have ended up on the wrong side of history of imperialist Wars
In fact someone has already done that on Trots in the 21st Century and Libya
https://diplomaticpost.co.uk/index.php/2020/04/14/part-1-on-libya-trotskyism-in-the-21st-century/
and, wouldn’t you know it, that’s how the October Revolution actually unfolded.
No it’s not. You’ve been reading too much trotsky and not enough Lenin. I mean here’s another quote - ten years after Trotsky formalised Permanent Revolution on Lenin mocking it
“To bring clarity into the alignment of classes in the impending revolution is the main task of a revolutionary party. This task is being shirked by the Organising Committee, which within Russia remains a faithful ally to Nashe Dyelo, and abroad utters meaningless “Left” phrases. This task is being wrongly tackled in Nashe Slovo by Trotsky, who is repeating his “original” 1905 theory and refuses to give some thought to the reason why, in the course of ten years, life has been bypassing this “splendid” theory.”
“From the Bolsheviks Trotsky’s original theory has borrowed their call for a decisive proletarian revolutionary struggle and for the conquest of political power by the proletariat, while from the Mensheviks it has borrowed “repudiation” of the peasantry’s role.”
“Trotsky is in fact helping the liberal-labour politicians in Russia, who by “repudiation” of the role of the peasantry understand a refusal to raise up the peasants for the revolution!”
(On the Two Lines in the Revolution – V.I. – Lenin)
But no, let’s talk about a trot-to-neocon meme based on like 3 neocons that had fleeting to tenuous connections to Trotskyist groups
Because I wasn’t planning on writing an essay when I had already supplied Carl Davidsons Left In Form, Right In Essence which is a brilliant and brief refutation of Permanent Revolution but sure I dont mind
Firstly Kotkin explains how Trotsky lied about Socialism in One Country which is brilliant and again quite brief
Followed by Ian Grey illustrating the significance of Stalins Socialism In One Country
At the Fifteenth Party Conference, Trotsky and Zinoviev finally destroyed themselves politically. Trotsky made a lengthy speech and had to ask repeatedly for more time. He was interrupted con stantly by ridicule and laughter. Zinoviev groveled and begged for giveness for his errors. He, too, was heckled and ridiculed. Both had been arrogant in power and now they were humiliated and defeated. It was left to Bukharin to make the final savage attack on them; the delegates, thirsting for blood, applauded loudly.28 The main discussion at the conference was not on the opposi tion, but on Stalin’s new theory of “socialism in one country.” It bore the stamp of his mind and outlook, and it marked the begin ning of the Stalinist era. The Russian revolutionary drive had been losing momentum since the end of the Civil War and the process had accelerated after Lenin’s death. A new policy was needed that would inspire the Russian people to undertake the superhuman task of carrying their country on from the October Revolution towards socialism and communism. That policy was “socialism in one country.” Its emotional appeal was overwhelm ing. It aroused a new fervor in the party, and pride in the revolu tion spread beyond the party ranks. It was a declaration of inde pendence from the West and of faith in the capacity of their country to forge ahead, creating its own future alone and unsup ported. Backward Russia, for so long treated as lagging on the outskirts of Western civilization, would show herself to be ad vanced and at the center of civilization in the coming millennium. Stalin’s major contribution to Russian communist doctrine had its origins in the polemics with Trotsky after the publication of “Lessons of October.” Of the heresies alleged against Trotsky, the most important was the basic theory that the success of the Rus sian Revolution depended on the support of revolutions in the in dustrial West. As a Russian nationalist Stalin instinctively re belled against this assumption of dependence.
Ian Grey, Stalin, P.215
In fact someone has already done that on Trots in the 21st Century and Libya
I think you mean critiqued a specific article by the SWP on Libya. In no way does that link illuminate a general trot to neocon pipeline, so it looks like you have not flushed out that connection.
Your Lenin quote is similarly non-responsive. When did he write it? 1915. When was the Revolution? 1917. When did the proletarian character of the revolution become clear to Lenin? After 1917.
And yes, Ian Grey, socialism in one country was a resounding success. I plan to visit the USSR in the near future.
That’s a rather childish comment but that is fine. In for a penny out for a pound - after I list the USSRs achievements I’ll list the achievements of Trotskyism
So the Soviet Union lasted 70 years and to it’s list of achievements it has
-
Built Socialism
-
Put the first satellite, man and woman into space
-
Industrialised the USSR in 20 years what took the capitalist nations 100-150 years
-
Defeated Nazi Germany almost single handedly given 7/8 Nazi soldiers died on the Eastern Front and the UK and US only opened a Western front when the Nazi army had already broken its back at Stalingrad and Kurst and USSR was outproducing Germany in tanks
-
Helped pretty much every national liberation movement in the 20th Century which is why Mandela would hear no criticism of the Soviet Union
-
Went toe to toe with the United States (the biggest empire the world has ever seen) and pretty much the entire advanced capitalist countries who industrialised first
-
Stalin took over the country when it had comparable assets to Brazil - population/resources/litreracy rate/poverty etc.
Meanwhile the Trotskyites have had over a century of honing their revolutionary theory to produce a revolution of their own and what have they achieved?
- Whining about stalinism and fighting the ghost of Stalin lol
As you’re not really interested in debate I’ll leave you with a quote from arch Trotskyite Issac Deutscher who in his Stalin biography, despite how much he hated Stalin and loved Trotsky, was unable to write Stalin in any other way than a giant of a figure
https://i.ibb.co/nCS9gv2/1bdda5db1e5aad35.png
And also Kotkins view of Stalin in that revolutionary moment
I think the Russian Revolution was probably the singular biggest step forward for the world working class in history, and that the soviet union is to be defended. Of course it no longer exists, because of the leadership of “Marxist”-“Leninists” of your tendency. I see you’ve clearly drawn all the necessary lessons.
SECOND REPLY [@Bedandsofa](/u/Bedandsofa)
MLs do uphold a variation of Permanent Revolution but it differs from Trotskyites (read full Carl Davidson chapter on Permanent Revolution due to character limit here)
Thus the revolution is “permanent” in two ways. First, in looking toward the future, its course is one of uninterrupted class struggle until classes themselves are abolished. Second, looking back historically once classes are abolished, the revolution is permanent in the sense that there is no longer class struggle and the seizure of power and domination of one class by another.
This is a general statement of the theory of the permanent revolution that is upheld by Marxist-Leninists. Where the dividing line between proletarian revolutionaries and Trotskyists emerges, however, is in the particularity of the question, when it is applied in practice in the actual course of revolutionary struggle.
THE THREE POSITIONS DEBATED AT THE TIME - MENSHIVIK, BOLSHEVIK AND TROTSKYITE
Three positions were debated among Russian revolutionaries on how the struggle would develop. All started from the premise that the first task was the bourgeois revolution but then broke down into Menshevik, Trotskyist and Bolshevik camps.
The Menshevik view was rightist. They believed that since it was a bourgeois revolution, it would be led by the liberal bourgeoisie and supported by the working class. Its aim would be the creation of a democratic republic headed by the capitalists as its first stage, which would last for as long as 200 years before being surpassed by its second stage, or proletarian socialist revolution.
This view was reactionary on two counts. First, it proposed a subordinate alliance with a class bound to betray even its own democratic aims. Second, it favored this alliance with the liberals as opposed to an alliance with the peasantry, which the Mensheviks tended to view as a conservative force and the base of reaction.
Trotsky’s view, which Lenin designated “absurdly left,” was summed up by its formulator in his essay, The Three Conceptions of the Russian Revolution, in the following way:
The complete victory of the democratic revolution in Russia is inconceivable otherwise than in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat basing itself on the peasantry. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which will inescapably place on the order of the day not only democratic but also socialist tasks, will at the same time provide a mighty impulse to the international socialist revolution. Only the victory of the proletariat in the West will shield Russia from bourgeois restoration and secure for her the possibility of bringing the socialist construction to its conclusion.
Lenin’s view was opposed to both of these. Against the Mensheviks he stated the following:
The proletariat must carry through, to the very end, the democratic revolution by attaching to itself the mass of the peasantry in order to crush by force the resistance of the autocracy and to paralyze the instability of the bourgeoisie.
In order to thus “paralyze” and keep the bourgeoisie from fully consolidating its power, Lenin said, the revolutionary masses would have to establish a “revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.”
“But of course,” he added, “this will be, not a socialist but a democratic dictatorship. It will not be able to touch upon the foundations of capitalism (without a whole series of stages of revolutionary development).”
In opposition to Trotsky, then, Lenin insisted that the revolution would develop in stages, of which this was the first. At the same time this was only to be a transitional state of affairs, which would immediately and uninterruptedly grow over to the second stage, the dictatorship of the proletariat, wherein:
>The proletariat must accomplish the socialist revolution by attaching to itself the mass of the semiproletarian elements of the population (the poor peasants) in order to crush by force the resistance of the bourgeoisie and to paralyze the instability of the petty bourgeoisie.
The relationship between the two stages, Lenin said, was that “the first grows into the second. The second, in passing, solves the problems of the first. The second consolidates the work of the first. Struggle, and nothing but struggle, decides how far the second succeeds in outgrowing the first.” In another work he added, “to attempt to raise an artificial Chinese wall between the first and second revolutions, to separate them by anything else than the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the degree of unity with the poor peasants, is to seriously distort Marxism. to vulgarize it, to substitute liberalism in its stead.”
Trotsky opposed the concept of the “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry” and considered it “unrealizable” in practice. “In this polemic,” Trotsky writes in his work The Permanent Revolution, “I accused Lenin of overestimating the independent role of the peasantry. Lenin accused me of underestimating the revolutionary role of the peasantry.”
Trotsky claims to uphold the alliance between the workers and peasants, at least insofar as democratic tasks are being carried out. When socialist tasks are on the agenda, however, his position shifts drastically:
… Precisely in order to secure its victory, the proletarian vanguard would be forced in the very early stages of its rule to make deep inroads not only into feudal property but into capitalist property as well. In this the proletariat will come into hostile collision, not only with the bourgeois groupings which supported the proletariat in the first stages of revolutionary struggle, but also with the broad masses of peasants who were instrumental in bringing it to power.’
Elsewhere, Trotsky is even more blunt: “Left to its own forces, the working class of Russia will inevitably be crushed by the counter-revolution the moment the peasantry will turn away from it.”
Lenin’s view is directly opposite: “The dictatorship of the proletariat is a special form of class alliance between the proletariat, the vanguard of the toilers, and the numerous nonproletarian strata of the toilers (the petty bourgeoisie, the small craftsman, the peasantry, the intelligentsia, etc.) or the majority of these.”
Thus Trotsky’s talk about the “independent role” of the peasantry is a smokescreen and Lenin was absolutely correct in arguing that Trotsky underestimated its revolutionary role. At the same time, the other side of the coin of this “underestimation” is the denial of the ability of the workers to lead the masses of the peasants in socialist construction, since they are bound to come into “hostile collision” with them.
Trotsky’s views on the course of the Rqssian revolution, like those of the Mensheviks, were refuted by history. The revolution was both uninterrupted and developed in stages. The revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants came into being during the first stage, during the period of the dual power and in the special form of the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. These Soviets, of course, as their “degree of preparedness” of the workers and “degree of unity” with the poor peasants increased, grew over into the proletarian dictatorship through the October Revolution. What this meant for Trotsky’s “permanent revolution” becomes clear when it is considered with the concept of “socialism in one country.”
