[Marxism] Lenin, Trotsky and Permanent Revolution (was Bolivia Discussion)
cbrown at michiganlegal.org
Tue Jan 10 12:23:31 MST 2006
What about the notion that what Lenin writes for 1905 is more correct for
1905 than what Trotsky writes for 1905. In other words, Trotsky is premature
with what is not on time until 1917 ? It's not that Lenin became a
Trotskyist in April of 1917 , it is that Trotsky's general thesis of 1905
was not correct ( or not correct to say it publically) until the Czar had
been overthrown in 1917.
Lenin is famous for the concrete analysis of the concrete situation.The
timing of proletarian seizure of state power is a concrete question , and
there are no universal generalizations of the type that the proletariat
"should" always seize power immediately upon the bourgeois rev or any kind
of revolution , such as a colonial independence revolution. Or that these
must never be in "stages", seemingly meaning separated by any great length
The Russian working class needed the bourgeoisie, or sections of it, to
help overthrow the Czar. It was not wise to clue the bourgeoisie in to your
intention to overthrow them too, until after they had helped to overthrow
the Czar. In other words, Lenin's position is superior in cunning, cunning
that was a necessary condition for the success of the Russian Revolution.
Trotsky is in error to let the cat out of the bag too early, before the Czar
has been overthrown with help of sections of the bourgeoisie.
There is an issue of divide and conquer of the ruling class in all this. Any
attempt to divide the ruling class must take into account the concrete
possibilities of the day and place. In South America today, the main aim
might be to divide the locals bourgeoises from the imperialists.
More information about the Marxism