******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
In his message of August 16 Joseph Green says (in part):
Lars Lih's and Proyect's views on this question center in large part on their
evaluation of the Trotskyist version of "permanent revolution". This is not
just a historical argument about the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. It
concerns the tactics for movements in general. In brief, "permanent
revolution" is the claim that the former Marxist distinction between
bourgeois-democratic and socialist movements is outdated and obsolete. This
theory is widespread because it dovetails with the naive view that any
struggle can proceed to full liberation if only the people are militant
enough and there are no betrayals.
This is not my understanding of the theory of Permanent Revolution, so I did a
brief search. Here is what I found.
ken h
http://isreview.org/issues/53/permrev.shtml
Before Trotsky, most Marxists assumed bourgeois revolution was necessary for
capitalism to develop before socialism was possible. This became known as the
“stages theory.” However, by 1905 only a handful of countries had bourgeois
revolutions—even though capitalism had become the dominant force on the planet.
“Great powers” like Russia, which were still feudal societies, had to compete,
so they used the state to develop key industries. In addition, powers such as
Britain and the U.S. were looking for new places to invest, bringing industry
to every corner of Europe and increasingly into the colonies. But in these
countries, industry did not develop exactly as it had before. The most modern
plants existed beside the most “backward” conditions. The fabric of Russia was
woven with such contradictions. Most Russians were peasants—and the tsar got in
the way of the full development of capitalism.
But as the working class grew, the more timid the capitalists became, afraid of
workers mobilizing against the tsar, lest workers mobilize against capitalism
as well. This propelled workers into leadership. And if workers took the lead,
why should they limit their own revolution? Workers could make the revolution
permanent by taking power—which would further become permanent by spreading
beyond Russia. Development in Russia was uneven, but it was also combined with
global capitalism. Trotsky’s theory was vindicated by the 1917 Revolution—and
the general strikes, revolts, and revolutions that spread across Europe.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1982/dec/permrevo.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_revolution
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
