|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:28 pm
I'd like to Consider his elaboration on Permenant Revolution as on of Trotskys most upstanding contributions to communism in brief.....
The theory of the permanent revolution was first developed by Trotsky as early as 1904. The permanent revolution, while accepting that the objective tasks facing the Russian workers were those of the bourgeois democratic revolution, nevertheless explained how in a backward country in the epoch of imperialism, the "national bourgeoisie" was inseparably linked to the remains of feudalism on the one hand and to imperialist capital on the other and was therefore completely unable to carry through any of its historical tasks. The rottenness of the bourgeois liberals, and their counterrevolutionary role in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, was already observed by Marx and Engels.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:29 pm
Comrade James, While this is a nice overview of the history of the idea it is not a definition of it. I myself do not have an opinion concerning Trotsky's thought or development because of a simple lack of knowledge. I find myself stuffed in mounds of present literature and fighting my way through Marx, Engles and Leinin (The Big Three). So when I hear the term "Permanent Revolution" I know that the idea or the speaker is involved in Trotsky's thought but, as to what the actual term means I haven't much of a clue. Unlike Focoism which I understand quite well being that I'm reading Guevara's Guerrilla Warfare in addendum to Engles Origin of the Family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:08 am
I'd say that through further evaluation both Socialism in One State and Permanent Revolution can be resolved through the method of applied Dialectical Materialism. When did socialism in one state fail ask the Stalinists? 1949 Chinese Revolutionary Conquest of Power, it was no longer one state in existence that had dedicated itself to the Socialist path in earnest while others may argue the case for India and I won't completely deny the contention out of hand there is much to be implemented in both toward socialism. Permanent Revolution seems to fall apart with class collaborationism and the propaganda of the bourgeoisie of a "middle class" when such has been dying/extinct since the end of the First World War. By the time of the New Deal in the United States the matter was of little credit to either of the major political parties of the bourgeois as when a good deed done under compulsion is of no credit to the enactor of the action. The next phase of theory ultimately must be the negation of the negation that forms the synthesis. Or in less technical terms the two ideas are not entirely wrong or right, what must be done is to take what is good from both and scrap that which didn't stand up to real conditions. With that done a coherent view of the future development of action and progress toward the liberation of the working class can be obtained.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
