Che and stalin

Quote:

Permanent revolution is a revisionism of Marxism-Leninism as it claims the peasantry (its differing strata) is not an ally of the proletariat during the bourgeois or socialist revolutions.

False.

Quote:

Not only the agrarian, but also the national question assigns to the peasantry—the overwhelming majority of the population in backward countries—an exceptional place in the democratic revolution. Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed. But the alliance of these two classes can be realized in no other way than through an irreconcilable struggle against the influence of the national-liberal bourgeoisie.

Source.

-TIG

Quote:

a) Conditions for socialist revolution don't exist, and for as long as they don't, the democratic revolution is lead by the bourgeoisie.

First, I can't think of an example where Trotsky said that a socialist revolution wasn't possible in his day and age. Now, that doesn't mean that it's not there, of course, but while leaving the possibility open he said:

Quote:

It is nonsense to say that stages cannot in general be skipped. The living historical process always makes leaps over isolated “stages” which derive from theoretical breakdown into its component parts of the process of development in its entirety, that is, taken in its fullest scope. The same is demanded of revolutionary policy at critical moments. It may be said that the first distinction between a revolutionist and a vulgar evolutionist lies in the capacity to recognize and exploit such moments.

Marx”s breakdown of the development of industry into handicraft, manufacture and factory is part of the A.B.C. of political economy, or more precisely, of historico-economic theory. In Russia, however, the factory came by skipping over the epoch of manufacture and of urban handicrafts. This is already among the syllables of history. An analogous process took place in our country in class relationships and in politics.

Source

He further hints at this when going over his prerequisites for a socialist revolution (I hope I'll be pardoned for cutting out everything but the conclusions he draws for brevity's sake):

Quote:

1. Socialism is not merely a question of equal distribution but also a question of planned production. Socialism, that is, co-operative production on a large scale, is possible only when the development of productive forces has reached the stage at which large enterprises are more productive than small ones. The more the large enterprises outweigh the smaller, i.e., the more developed technique has become, the more advantageous economically does socialized production become, and, consequently, the higher must the cultural level of the whole population be as a result of equal distribution based upon planned production.

This first objective pre-requisite of socialism has been in existence a long time—ever since the time when social division of labour led to the division of labour in manufacture. It has existed to an even greater extent since the time when manufacture was replaced by factory, machine production.


2. We now pass from the productive-technical pre-requisites of socialism to the social-economic ones.


...the growth of industry, the growth of large enterprises, the growth of the towns, and the growth of the proletariat in general and the industrial proletariat in particular—has already prepared the arena not only for the struggle of the proletariat for political power but for the conquest of this power.

3. Now we come to the third pre-requisite of socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Politics is the plane upon which the objective pre-requisites of socialism are intersected by the subjective ones. Under certain definite social-economic conditions, a class consciously sets itself a certain aim—the conquest of political power; it unites its forces, weighs up the strength of the enemy and estimates the situation.

If socialism aimed at creating a new human nature within the limits of the old society it would be nothing more than a new edition of the moralistic utopias. Socialism does not aim at creating a socialist psychology as a pre-requisite to socialism but at creating socialist conditions of life as a pre-requisite to socialist psychology.

In essence, everything seems to have been met it seems to me.
And secondly on point "a", I have yet to see anywhere that Trotsky advocates the bourgeoisie as a progressive force in the modern epoch. Trotsky again implies the same saying:

Quote:

With regard to countries with a belated bourgeois development, especially the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the theory of the permanent revolution signifies that the complete and genuine solution of their tasks of achieving democracy and national emancipation is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat as the leader of the subjugated nation, above all of its peasant masses

Further, and this is something I'm not going to bother getting too deep in as it's something of a side-track issue, Trotsky actively accused Stalin of the same reliance on the bourgeoisie when criticizing the Popular Front instead of the United Front.

Quote:

b) The conditions for socialist revolution do exist and a dictatorship of the proletariat is formed, which means the launch of the socialist revolution (during which the tasks democratic revolution are completed, if there remain unfinished tasks).

I have no real issues with point "b".

But here we run in to trouble again:

Quote:

So, democratic and socialist revolution for Trotsky are distinct stages only in as much the first is lead by the bourgeoisie and the latter by the proletariat.

This is simplistic and not exactly accurate. Trotsky lays out:

Quote:

One stage or another of the historical process can prove to be inevitable under certain conditions, although theoretically not inevitable. And conversely, theoretically “inevitable” stages can be compressed to zero by the dynamics of development, especially during revolutions, which have not for nothing been called the locomotives of history.

For example, in our country the proletariat “skipped” the stage of democratic parliamentarianism, granting the Constituent Assembly only a few hours, and even that much only in the back yard. But the counter-revolutionary stage in China can in no way be skipped over, just as in Russia the period of the four Dumas could not be skipped over. The present counter-revolutionary stage in China, however, was historically in no sense “unavoidable”.

Every attempt to skip over real, that is, objectively conditioned stages in the development of the masses, is political adventurism.

Source (Edited to remove Trotsky's trolling)

This, clearly, has some rather implications that are missing.

Some conclusions on my own part:

1. If you do have a piece where Trotsky is saying that a socialist revolution is impossible in some area, I'd be curious to see it if you have a chance.

2. In general, for people reading this and not necessarily the user I'm responding to, Trotsky's Permanent Revolution is to Marxists (of all stripes) as Uncle Tom's Cabin is to American university students; everyone has an opinion on what it means and why or why not it's important, but hardly anyone has ever actually bothered to read it.

The problem that develops, then, is that when someone - on either side - wants to support a point, it's an obvious place to do it. There was a poll here a few months back in which people gave their thoughts about the work. It had everything from Permanent Revolution being about weapon distribution to slavish pandering in its defence. Few responses on either side actually had anything to do with the theory.

While I'm not singling J. out in particular, as you may well have read it and I always think you have a good head on your shoulders even if there are times I disagree with it - people in general should at the very least read the last chapter where he bullet points things out and lists his main points.

There's flame-baiting on his part, sure, but I have trouble seeing how one can see the less Stalin-oriented points as not being legitimate.

...And I was going to say something else but I forget what it is and this post is long enough anyway.

-TIG