• Magicicad
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just stepping back, the idea that Trotsky had any relevance is just so surreal to me. He’s literally some random nobody that’s only popular in the west cause he was against Stalin.

    • NikkiB
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      He was not a random nobody, he had real and important roles within the party. But it is definitely fair to say that Westerners only know about him because he’s the good version of Stalinapoleon from animal barn 1984. They don’t know what he advocated for or anything of his place in Soviet history. People who tout “permanent revolution” never have any clue what permanent revolution actually meant.

        • NikkiB
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Soviet History can be a little impenetrable because of all the dust that’s been kicked up by various three-letter agencies. Unsolicited advice, but I would recommend that you avoid learning about events, figures, and policies in isolation of their counterparts. Concepts like “permanent revolution” don’t make sense without “socialism in one country.”

      • LeGrognardOfLove
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, also, lenninsist/Stalinist also have a weird idea about that statement.

        Permanent revolution from his writings means that he saw that the bourgeoisie were always creeping back in power and building a new powerbase in the new framework.

        What I think he meant (because it’s not very clear from his letters) is that he wanted countries to never solidify power in an elite group and instead act like a new revolutionary countty all the time. That does not mean actual revolution forever. I might be wrong but that’s how I read it.

        Was it feasible or realistic ? I don’t know, but I know that Mao said about the same thing after the cultural revolution.

        • mitzo
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          the original “permanent revolution” as put forward by marx and engels was what you described. a permanent struggle against bourgeois infiltration, which has always held true.

          Trotsky’s “permanent revolution” was the idea that the proletariat couldn’t rely on any other classes. Specifically, trotsky denied the revolutionary potential of the peasantry. he then argued that before socialism can be built, the revolution has to be spread. Preferably in a spontaneous, global revolution.

          this was stupid so he got ice axed