What is the Permanent Revolution? Basic Postulates
I hope that the reader will not object if, to end this book, I attempt, without fear of repetition, to formulate succinctly my principal conclusions.
1. The theory of the permanent revolution now demands the greatest attention from every Marxist, for the course of the class and ideological struggle has fully and finally raised this question from the realm of reminiscences over old differences of opinion among Russian Marxists, and converted it into a question of the character, the inner connexions and methods of the international revolution in general.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. No matter what the first episodic stages of the revolution may be in the individual countries, the realization of the revolutionary alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry is conceivable only under the political leadership of the proletariat vanguard, organized in the Communist Party. This in turn means that the victory of the democratic revolution is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat which bases itself upon the alliance with the peasantry and solves first of all the tasks of the democratic revolution.
5. Assessed historically, the old slogan of Bolshevism – ’the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’ – expressed precisely the above-characterized relationship of the proletariat, the peasantry and the liberal bourgeoisie. This has been confirmed by the experience of October. But Lenin’s old formula did not settle in advance the problem of what the reciprocal relations would be between the proletariat and the peasantry within the revolutionary bloc. In other words, the formula deliberately retained a certain algebraic quality, which had to make way for more precise arithmetical quantities in the process of historical experience. However, the latter showed, and under circumstances that exclude any kind of misinterpretation, that no matter how great the revolutionary role of the peasantry may be, it nevertheless cannot be an independent role and even less a leading one. The peasant follows either the worker or the bourgeois. This means that the ‘democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’ is only conceivable as a dictatorship of the proletariat that leads the peasant masses behind it.
6. A democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, as a regime that is distinguished from the dictatorship of the proletariat by its class content, might be realized only in a case where an independent revolutionary party could be constituted, expressing the interests of the peasants and in general of petty bourgeois democracy – a party capable of conquering power with this or that degree of aid from the proletariat, and of determining its revolutionary programme. As all modern history attests – especially the Russian experience of the last twenty-five years – an insurmountable obstacle on the road to the creation of a peasants’ party is the petty-bourgeoisie’s lack of economic and political independence and its deep internal differentiation. By reason of this the upper sections of the petty-bourgeoisie (of the peasantry) go along with the big bourgeoisie in all decisive cases, especially in war and in revolution; the lower sections go along with the proletariat; the intermediate section being thus compelled to choose between the two extreme poles. 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.
7. The Comintern’ s endeavour to foist upon the Eastern countries the slogan of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, finally and long ago exhausted by history, can have only a reactionary effect. lnsofar as this slogan is counterposed to the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it contributes politically to the dissolution of the proletariat in the petty-bourgeois masses and thus creates the most favourable conditions for the hegemony of the national bourgeoisie and consequently for the collapse of the democratic revolution. The introduction of the slogan into the programme of the Comintern is a direct betrayal of Marxism and of the October tradition of Bolshevism.
8. The dictatorship of the proletariat which has risen to power as the leader of the democratic revolution is inevitably and, very quickly confronted with tasks, the fulfillment of which is bound up with deep inroads into the rights of bourgeois property. The democratic revolution grows over directly into the socialist revolution and thereby becomes a permanent revolution.
9. The conquest of power by the proletariat does not complete the revolution, but only opens it. Socialist construction is conceivable only on the foundation of the class struggle, on a national and international scale. This struggle, under the conditions of an overwhelming predominance of capitalist relationships on the world arena, must inevitably lead to explosions, that is, internally to civil wars and externally to revolutionary wars. Therein lies the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such, regardless of whether it is a backward country that is involved, which only yesterday accomplished its democratic revolution, or an old capitalist country which already has behind it a long epoch of democracy and parliamentarism.
10. The completion of the socialist revolution within national limits is unthinkable. One of the basic reasons for the crisis in bourgeois society is the fact that the productive forces created by it can no longer be reconciled with the framework of the national state. From this follows on the one hand, imperialist wars, on the other, the utopia of a bourgeois United States of Europe. The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, it unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion, only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet.
11. The above-outlined sketch of the development of the world revolution eliminates the question of countries that are ‘mature’ or ‘immature’ for socialism in the spirit of that pedantic, lifeless classification given by the present programme of the Comintern. Insofar as capitalism has created a world market, a world division of labour and world productive forces, it has also prepared world economy as a whole for socialist transformation.
Different countries will go through this process at different tempos. Backward countries may, under certain conditions, arrive at the dictatorship of the proletariat sooner than advanced countries, but they will come later than the latter to socialism.
A backward colonial or semi-colonial country, the proletariat of which is insufficiently prepared to unite the peasantry and take power, is thereby incapable of bringing the democratic revolution to its conclusion. Contrariwise, in a country where the proletariat has power in its hands as the result of the democratic revolution, the subsequent fate of the dictatorship and socialism depends in the last analysis not only and not so much upon the national productive forces as upon the development of the international socialist revolution.
12. The theory of socialism in one country, which rose on the yeast of the reaction against October, is the only theory that consistently and to the very end opposes the theory of the permanent revolution.
The attempt of the epigones, under the lash of our criticism, to confine the application of the theory of socialism in one country exclusively to Russia, because of its specific characteristics (its vastness and its natural resources), does not improve matters but only makes them worse. The break with the internationalist position always and invariably leads to national messianism, that is, to attributing special superiorities and qualities to one’s own country, which allegedly permit it to play a role to which other countries cannot attain.
The world division of labour, the dependence of Soviet industry upon foreign technology, the dependence of the productive forces of the advanced countries of Europe upon Asiatic raw materials, etc., etc., make the construction of an independent socialist society in any single country in the world impossible.
13. The theory of Stalin and Bukharin, running counter to the entire experience of the Russian revolution, not only sets up the democratic revolution mechanically in contrast to the socialist revolution, but also makes a breach between the national revolution and the international revolution.
This theory imposes upon revolutions in backward countries the task of establishing an unrealizable regime of democratic dictatorship, which it counterposes to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thereby this theory introduces illusions and fictions into politics, paralyses the struggle for power of the proletariat in the East, and hampers the victory of the colonial revolution.
The very seizure of power by the proletariat signifies, from the standpoint of the epigones’ theory, the completion of the revolution (’to the extent of nine-tenths’, according to Stalin’s formula) and the opening of the epoch of national reforms. The theory of the kulak growing into socialism and the theory of the ‘neutralization’ of the world bourgeoisie are consequently inseparable from the theory of socialism in one country. They stand or fall together.
By the theory of national socialism, the Communist International is down-graded to an auxiliary weapon useful only for the struggle against military intervention. The present policy of the Comintern, its regime and the selection of its leading personnel correspond entirely to the demotion of the Communist International to the role of an auxiliary unit which is not destined to solve independent tasks.
14. The programme of the Comintern created by Bukharin is eclectic through and through. It makes the hopeless attempt to reconcile the theory of socialism in one country with Marxist internationalism, which is, however, inseparable from the permanent character of the world revolution. The struggle of the Communist Left Opposition for a correct policy and a healthy regime in the Communist lnternational is inseparably bound up with the struggle for the Marxist programme. The question of the programme is in turn inseparable from the question of the two mutually exclusive theories: the theory of permanent revolution and the theory of socialism in one country. The problem of the permanent revolution has long ago outgrown the episodic differences of opinion between Lenin and Trotsky, which were completely exhausted by history. The struggle is between the basic ideas of Marx and Lenin on the one side and the eclecticism of the centrists on the other.
Sooooo.. I am not terribly familiar with Trostsky’s work so correct me if I am wrong. I spent sometime studying this and I gather the core concept is, the proletariat and the peasants especially in
countries with heavy influence from imperialists with lagging development (which I think isn’t the case anymore and should apply everywhere) shouldn’t wait for the bourgeois liberal’s to take power and institute a democracy? And the proletariat lead peasant revolutionary coalition should take power and move towards socialism instead.
Is my understanding correct? And if so I don’t understand why it is a controversial idea like some comments seem to suggest. Who has trust in bourgeois liberal democracy to do the right thing any more?
Yep your understanding is correct. It’s controversial because there was a long period when Stalinists misrepresented and tried to discredit everything Trotsky did. And the Stalinist policy of the “popular front” or maoist “block of four classes” are explicitly class-collaborationist. You do get so-called marxists defending class collaboration today because of a lack of faith in the working class.
Jamaican vocalist and pioneer of toasting, Ewart Beckford, better known to the world as Daddy U-Roy, has died, his partner Marcia Smikle confirmed to The Gleaner.
He passed away at 11:10 last night at the University Hospital of the West Indies (UHWI) after undergoing surgery there.
Born on September 20, 1941, the trailblazer, who gave every toaster, rapper and MC their career, was 79.
An emotional Smikle, who has been by the legendary toaster’s side for 41 years, said that U-Roy had been ailing for some time and had been in and out of the hospital.
“He has diabetes and hypertension, but those are under control because we make sure that he takes his medication. But he also had a kidney problem and was being treated at Andrews [Hospital], and then they told us to take him to UWI for surgery because the kidney had messed up the bladder, and he was bleeding,” Smikle said.
“They recommended dialysis for the kidney, but he didn’t want to do that,” she added.
U-Roy was admitted to the UHWI, and the surgery performed on Tuesday.
“It was successful, and the bleeding stopped. But afterwards, the doctors realised that somewhere else was blocked up, and they had to take him back to theatre on Wednesday. Him heart stopped three times, and him come back and then last night he died. Him never mek it,” she told The Gleaner, between tears.
Smikle said that despite his illness, U-Roy was still active on a daily basis.
“He was still doing dubplate specials here at home for people who wanted them,” she said…
… An original toaster from the 60s, often hailed as the Godfather of Dancehall, Daddy U-Roy was also known as The Originator and Hugh Roy.
His melodic style of toasting, applied with a highly developed sense of timing, set him in a class by himself.
U-Roy’s first two singles released on Duke Reid’s Treasure Isle label, Wake the Town (1970) and Wear You to the Ball (1970), were Jamaican hits and established his reputation as one of Jamaica’s most popular toasters.
U-Roy then went on to work with other major producers on the island, including Lee ‘Scratch’ Perry, Bunny Lee, Phil Pratt, Sonia Pottinger, Rupie Edwards, Alvin Ranglin, and Lloyd Daley.
The year 1971 saw the release of Beckford’s DJ version of The Paragons’ The Tide Is High. Beckford first toured the UK in 1972 with the artistes Roy Shirley and Max Romeo.
In 1975, the album Dread in a Babylon was released in the United States, Europe and Jamaica by Virgin Records.
The success of Dread in a Babylon led to a series of Tony Robinson-produced albums: Natty Rebel (1976 ), Rasta Ambassador (1977), and Jah Son of Africa (1978).
Beckford’s international popularity led to the album Natty Rebel being released in 1976 on Virgins’ imprint Front Line label in Nigeria, as well as in France on Virgin and Polydor.
In 1980, Blondie had a world-wide hit with the reggae track The Tide Is High, which prompted Virgin to re-release the original Paragons’ track from 1967 and the 1971 U-Roy version as a single that same year.
U-Roy was featured on the album True Love by Toots and the Maytals, which won the Grammy Award in 2004 for Best Reggae Album, and showcased many notable musicians including Willie Nelson, Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck, Trey Anastasio, Gwen Stefani and No Doubt, Ben Harper, Bonnie Raitt, Manu Chao, The Roots, Ryan Adams, Keith Richards, Toots Hibbert, Paul Douglas, Jackie Jackson, Ken Boothe, and The Skatalites.
In 2007, U-Roy was honoured by the Jamaican Government, receiving the Order of Distinction for his contribution to music. …
Reaping the harvest of 4 decades of privatization and corporate welfare
Worth noting that war is the only thing we appear to be preparing for while also being a thing that we’ve spent the past half-century demonstrating we utterly suck shit at
I mean, yeah
If you’re actually good at waging war, you might risk ending the conflict too early!
How the hell are you supposed to support a military industrial complex that way?
^ that part
We’re fantastic at war, we really suck at peace.
Bomb the shit out of someplace, annihilate their military equipment, knock their army over and their fortifications around their ears, no problem.
Make a functioning state out of what remains and get them to stop shooting at us so we can leave, not since 1949.
You ever heard that old saying about how you can win every battle but the last one and you’ve lost the war?
The US kicks ass at Klausewitzian force-on-force conflicts against mirror-image opponents, AKA a form of warfare that has not existed on any meaningful scale for almost 100 years. What you’re describing as “sucking at peace” is in fact sucking at war when you consider what war actually looks like in the real world in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
You roll in and blow up some regime’s fancy Army man gadgets with all of your fancy Army man gadgets–sure. If you then proceed to spend the next many years getting your shit rocked in the inevitable asymmetrical war of attrition, well, I want you to go try and find the nation of South Vietnam on a map for me.
Actually, Clausewitz was the one classical military theorist who insisted there was a political element to any war and that it had to be addressed or you could not even determine the reason for the war let alone whether you had succeeded. And the US routinely plows into combat without performing that analysis.
I disagree. The United States does excel at that political element. Like @habbadax said above, war is a racket; we enter into it willfully in the name of such high-minded causes as “primitive extraction” and “opening up new markets” and “preserving existing markets,” and we do a very very good job at accomplishing those goals.
As Clausewitz famously said that “war is but politics by other means,” I’d add on my own twee little truism: War, like all human endeavors, is a matter of economics. And we’re bad at winning conflicts on the operational level, god-fucking-awful at commanding and controlling territory, but very, very good at generating revenue for private contractors, which is the ultimate aim of American war.
I think we’re sailing past one another. “We have to send the Marines into Central America to protect US Fruit!” is a campaign slogan, not a political analysis, but it’s about as far as we ever get before we commit to combat. Which means the US civilian command, which Constitutionally is in charge, routinely abdicates its duty to set war policy. Which is the opposite of what Clausewitz was saying, which was essentially that the politicians had to determine the reasons for a war, communicate those reasons to the military, and decide either when the goals had been met or had become unattainable. “We can nation-build in Afghanistan” was as big a load of bullshit as “They’ll welcome us with open arms” and “They hate us for our freedoms”, but that is as far as our “analysis” goes until we’re hip deep. And that’s why we lose. Oh sure, a few 1%er-controlled entities make out like the bandits they are; that’s what the game is rigged to do. But the US as a sovereign entity and its sad-sack citizenry lose every time.
I think the point of departure is that, as a big red commie, I don’t see a meaningful difference between civilian government and private economic interest. The politicians nominally getting us into messes and nominally setting policy are just capital’s PR firm.
This blog is mostly so I can vent my feelings and share my interests. Other than that, I am nothing special.
If you don't like Left Wing political thought and philosophy, all things related to horror, the supernatural, the grotesque, guns or the strange, then get the fuck out. I just warned you.
