Russia had fundamental inherent problems in both its agricultural and industrial sectors that made a proletariat revolution in Russia suitable.  This was because due the nature of Serf Emancipation in 1861 and the attempts by the state to foster economic growth the Russian class system had not properly formed.  This was because during the 1890s the government implemented ‘State Capitalism’ this was due to a lack of middle classes and entrepreneurs in Russia because peasants were stuck in a form of land bondage in the countryside and could not stimulate internal demand, thus the state became both the demand and capital investment.  Because of this a strong middle class was not created.  This was also magnified by the states reliance in foreign investment as this again added to the pressure being exerted against the possible formation of a large bourgeois group.  Whilst in England and France liberals provided the main political voice, in Russia this was done by the proletariat.  In addition, as England had created a class system that allowed workers to climb up the social ladder, and Germany had consolidated the workers with high wages Russia had not.  With high taxation, exploitation, and a lack of consumer goods both Russian peasants and workers were revolutionary.  Trotsky also believed that aswell, as being weak in Russia the bourgeois could not be trusted to take a revolution from their food halls to the street.  Instead they would negotiate with the present regime rather than take a risk and try to take power themselves.  Aswell as this due to the nature of Russian Industry large factories meant that workers were concentrated in large numbers, and in small areas, thus they were a source of revolutionary spirit that could be easily in sighted.  Thus Trotsky concluded the proletariat would have to lead a revolution.  The most advanced bourgeois democratic nations in the world had not has a successful revolution but the backward nature of Russia made it possible, thus the theory of ‘Permanent Revolution’ was born.                    
            ‘Permanent Revolution’ taught the people of Russia that due to the weakness of the bourgeois it was up to the proletariat to lead a revolution.  The proletariat in Russia was however still in its infancy and was a minority in Russia so it would have to form an alliance with the peasantry.  However Trotsky strongly expressed that in this alliance it would be the minority leading the majority.  He did not want the peasants and workers to share power but instead a ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’.  What was more controversial though was that the ‘Dictatorship of the proletariat’ would lead a revolution that was initially bourgeois democratic in nature, but would not stop here.  It would continue before the politicians had a chance to hone their skills and implement a proletarian government.  Then they would set about consolidating their power and gradually moving towards socialism.  Such issues that may arise would be the implementing of an eight-hour day, sympathising with strikers and the unemployed, and stopping capitalists sabotaging the movement.  They would also take control of all landed estates and nationalise them, and implement some model farms if necessary.  Again Trotsky did not believe the revolution would stop here, instead Russia would need to promote socialism on a world scale, and aid the transitions of other countries in to socialism.  This can also be attributed to the theory of ‘combined and uneven development’.  This was that the proletariat and peasants would forma an alliance to push Russia through the epoch of capitalism, and then immediately in to socialism, and that countries around the world would be able to join the revolution no matter whether they were economically backward of advanced.  The ‘Permanent Revolution’ would finally come to an end when the complete liquidation of class on a global scale had been achieved.
            Trotsky’s theory came at a time when the other socialist groups were establishing their understanding of Marxism, and how Russia should undergo transition in to Socialism.  This importantly caused a major split in the social democrats in 1903, when the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks formed.  By 1905 the Mensheviks believed in the traditional view of Marxism that they should aid the middle class and help them establish a bourgeois democratic system.  Through an alliance of the proletariat and bourgeois they believed they would be able to overthrow the Tsarist regime. Then as Capitalism developed a strong proletariat would form that would eventually be able to take power democratically.  In contrast to this Lenin who was the leader of the Bolsheviks moved between the extremes of the Mensheviks and Trotskyism.  Lenin believed like Trotsky that the bourgeois were to weak to lead a revolution and so it would have to be done by the proletariat.  However aswell as believing in an alliance with the peasantry he advocated a ‘democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’.  Thus it is not clear who is to have the more power, Lenin then wanted a Constituent assembly to be formed that could run the country until conditions were suitable for socialism.  Importantly at this time Lenin effectively rejected Trotsky’s theory and warned him that any revolutionary movement that moves so quickly through a democracy will have the most preposterous and illogical outcomes.  Whilst Trotsky warned Lenin that such a Constituent Assembly could only end in a Dictatorship.  Thus between 1905 and 1917 Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not believe in Permanent Revolution and did not associate with Trotsky whom they saw as an old Menshevik.

Next Page

Part of the BuytheMap.com Network

Click here for Links & Domains for Sale