Actually, it states any alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry cannot be realized without the proletariat acting as a revolutionary vanguard leading the peasant masses, and no socialist struggle can be introduced without it being that way.
If we understood the Permanent revolution as you do, we would conclude it has no connection to worldwide revolution at all, which is obviously wrong. Trotsky refused any kind of alliance. He tried, of course, to explain his opinion, but the conclusion was : We simply think that [the idea of a ‘proletarian and peasant dictatorship’] is unrealisable (Trotsky, 1905). It means that, because he refused class alliances, Trotsky was against any step called "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.
Your own quotation of Trotsky is very clear, he thought such a slogan was opposed to the "dictatorship of the proletariat". And you explain yourself that this slogan was wrong, so at least everybody on this forum will recognize that you disagree with "the old bolshevik idea of a DDOTPP".
If it was necessary to add more evidences, here is one : "Between Kerenskyism and the Bolshevik power, between the Kuomintang and the dictatorship of the proletariat, there is not and cannot be any intermediate stage, that is, no democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants."
This is the drawing I made to explain this democratic stage.
Is it true, then, that Lenin agreed with Trotsky in 1917? No, this is a trotskyist lie. He wrote, long after 1917, in "The Renegade Kautsky":
"The question which Kautsky has so tangled up was fully explained by the Bolsheviks as far back as 1905. Yes, our revolution is a bourgeois revolution as long as we march with the peasants as a whole (DDOTPP). This has been as clear as clear can be to us; we have said it hundreds and thousands of times since 1905
, and we have never attempted to skip this necessary stage of the historical process or abolish it by decrees
. Things have turned out just as we said they would. The course taken by the revolution has confirmed the correctness of our reasoning. First, with the “whole” of the peasants against the monarchy, against the landowners, against medievalism (and to that extent the revolution remains bourgeois, bourgeois-democratic). Then, with the poor peasants, with the semi-proletarians, with all the exploited, against capitalism, including the rural rich, the kulaks, the profiteers, and to that extent the revolution becomes a socialist one"
"On the other hand, if the Bolshevik proletariat had tried at once, in October-November 1917, without waiting for the class differentiation in the rural districts, without being able to prepare it and bring it about, to “decree” a civil war or the “introduction of socialism” in the rural districts, had tried to do without a temporary bloc with the peasants in general, without making a number of concessions to the middle peasants, etc., that would have been a Blanquist distortion of Marxism, an attempt by the minority to impose its will upon the majority; it would have been a theoretical absurdity, revealing a failure to understand that a general peasant revolution is still a bourgeois revolution, and that without a series of transitions, of transitional stages, it cannot be transformed into a socialist revolution in a backward country."
The October revolution couldn't be a "Permanent revolution" according to Lenin, because, according to Trotsky, "Permanent" means that there is no stage : ""The democratic revolution grows over directly into the socialist revolution and thereby becomes a permanent revolution."
I already explained that to TIG, because he said exactly the same calumnies about Lenin agreeing with Trotsky in 1917:http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=108&t=49859&start=40