Can someone give me a super dumbed down explanation of permanent revolution?
So far I think it's a socialist nation putting it's main priority in agitating for revolution in other nations, even to go as far as invading those nations and enforcing revolution there.
How wrong/right am I?
Autism
Something first mentioned by Marx which Trotsky picked up on. A term emphasizing the need for revolution to never cease annihilating capitalist productive relations in order to as soon as possible render the State superfluous.
Spectacularly wrong. Trotskyists do not consider workers' states created by invasion to be healthy or valid.
Then what's the point of a doctrine that was more or less shared with Marxist-Leninists in terms of their internationalism
It was not shared. Marxist-Leninists are nationalists.
Forgot my flag.
Not even an ML but why are anti-ML's so fucking stupid?
Are you fucking retarded?
nvm
Ultimately, in a sense? Yeah. Theoretically? Nah. ML is a tragedy, not an evil.
Nah, put it back off.
Not me.
MLs believe in patriotism, aggressive expansionism, and compatability between nations and socialism.
How are they NOT socialists?
*nationalists
Yeah fuck we do. What about a nations right to self-determination? In the USSR, almost every nation, even the Jews, had their own Oblast. I don't think you understand that nation =/= nationalism or even traditional nation state
Name an example when Marxist-Leninists invaded a country and "forced" socialism upon it without being backed by a significant workers movement. You are talking about capitalism my dude. If it weren't for the US, North Korea would have won the Korean War because it had the support of the people. So on one hand you want "permanent revolution" but you defame Marxist-Leninists solidarity with worker movements internationally as "aggressive expansionism"? No contradiction there at all.
Yeah because when you get invaded by Nazis telling your people to fight for their motherland makes you an evil nationalist I guess.
Exactly, the USSR was capitalist. Perhaps you would know this if you took the time to read theory rather than Red Kahina's Twitter feed
Nations and patriotism aren't compatible with socialism. Read Marx you arrogant fuck.
...
It's basically a strategy for agrarian, predominantly pre-capitalist countries to skip through certain aspects of capitalist development before developing socialist institutions.
Take early 20th century and what you could do to it. On one hand, it could enjoy liberal-democratic freedoms and capitalism, develop itself like western countries did, and be modernized gradually through private initiative and bourgeois rights. The proletariat, a virtually inexisting social class, would grow like it did in the West (the capitalists, now free and acting with the help of the state, would create businesses and industries that are based on wage labour, leading to the growth of the wage worker's class) and then traditional conditions for Socialism would be available with time.
That's the standard Marxist line.
But there's another option. Instead of going through a long capitalist stage you can have a proletarian state that imports and manages all the would-be private industry from outside, that claims monopoly on those areas of the economy and that regulates trade between native producers and the outside world, and as a result you have a country being modernized, with a growing working class, and without bourgeois dominance (the native bourgeoisie remains weak and limited by design). Private initiative can still exist, and so can democratic freedoms, but they supplement this general purpose instead of being seen as a historical stage to aspire to.
The obstacle is, of course, that once you're done using the state to develop the country you've reached a ceiling. As an isolated, recently modernized state you can't beat the capitalist world in innovation and technology, you're always following their pace and a few steps behind. And of course, if you're a Worker's Stage, even if isolated, you can only get so powerful before you become a risk. That's why making the revolution international is as important as the political economy you choose. They complement each other.
This is more or less what it means (to Trotsky at least, it's first used by Marx and Engels in one particular context that I haven't studied, but the term is now mostly associated with him). It doesn't necessarily imply invading and forcing revolutions everywhere, because remember the battlefield between International Revolution and Socialism in One Country was the Comintern, not the national military doctrine. Usually that would not be a realistic strategy because foreign invasion is not the best way to persuade people to join you, and Trotsky himself only advocated Soviet aggression when that was done for defense against Fascism (like in Finland).
Here's my knee jerk concerns with such a concept. At once, revolution is already one of the most authoritarian things there is, permanent revolution thus implies dormant despotism by a minority. This is incompatible with the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is a dictatorship of the entire class, even if brought into being by an initial authoritarian minority.
I have not read Trotsky, so perhaps there is something about his concept that I have missed. I agree with his critique of socialism in one country though.
Permanent revolution is one of the few ways you can have dictatorship of the proletariat when the conditions for our ascension are not there tho.
get lost
kek, Marx himself supported the 1848 May Revolution. You are being utterly ignorant about the basic definitions even, you worthless hippie.
Have you literally ever read a single thing Marx OR Lenin said about nation-states, social patriotism, or internationalism?
In that case, it's hardly relevant anymore. There are no longer major pre capitalist countries.
No but there's still a core and a periphery. It can be adapted, like he did with Marx's concept.
Whabism but for commies
Lenin
Also Lenin
Patriotism can be so many different things depending on the context. To say any kind of patriotism is incompatible with socialism is incredibly simplistic imo.
wew
they forced czechoslovakia to roll back its reforms.
they invaded hungary in 1956 cause of council communism.
Dunno but this board is full of them. All they do is meme, no joke.
Agreed. People get all buttmad about spooks on here then defend their degenerate shit like traps, tentacle porn, and whatever else. Total hypocrisy.