Q1 Why did socialists considered private property as the root of all social ills? Individuals owned the property that gave employment but the propertied were concerned only for personal gain and not for the welfare of those who made the property productive. Society should be considered as a whole rather than single individuals that controlled the property.
What is the theory of the Permanent Revolution? In the years before the Russian Revolution of there was quite a heated debate between the different tendencies of the Russian Lenins april theses explained movement on what would be the character of the Russian revolution, and the relation between the classes in the revolution.
Undoubtedly, the theory that brilliantly anticipated and explained what actually took place in was worked out by Trotsky. The theory of the permanent revolution was first developed by Trotsky as early as The permanent revolution, while accepting that the objective tasks facing the Russian workers were those of the bourgeois democratic revolution, nevertheless explained how in a backward country in the epoch of imperialism, the "national bourgeoisie" was inseparably linked to the remains of feudalism on the one hand and to imperialist capital on the other and was therefore completely unable to carry through any of its historical tasks.
The rottenness of the bourgeois liberals, and their counterrevolutionary role in the bourgeois-democratic revolution, was already observed by Marx and Engels. In his article The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-revolutionMarx writes: And it saw inimically arrayed not only a class behind it but all Europe before it.
The Prussian bourgeoisie was not, as the French of had been, the class which represented the whole of modern society vis-a-vis the representatives of the old society, the monarchy and the nobility.
It had sunk to the level of a kind of social estate, as distinctly opposed to the crown as to the people, eager to be in the opposition to both, irresolute against each of its opponentstaken severally, because it always saw both of them before or behind it; inclined to betray the people and compromise with the crowned representative of the old society because it itself already belonged to the old society; ".
The bourgeoisie, Marx explains, did not come to power as a result of its own revolutionary exertions, but as a result of the movement of the masses in which it played no role: Even in the epoch of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Europe, Marx and Engels mercilessly unmasked the cowardly, counterrevolutionary role of the bourgeoisie, and emphasised the need for the workers to maintain a policy of complete class independence, not only from the bourgeois liberals, but also from the vacillating petty bourgeois democrats: But in due time the indecision weakness and cowardice of the democratic leaders did the rest, and it may now be said to be one of the principal results of the last years' convulsions, that wherever the working class is concentrated in anything like considerable masses, they are entirely freed from that democratic influence which led them into an endless series of blunders and misfortunes during and The situation is clearer still today.
The national bourgeoisie in the colonial countries entered into the scene of history too late, when the world had already been divided up between a few imperialist powers.
It was not able to play any progressive role and was born completely subordinated to its former colonial masters. The weak and degenerate bourgeoisie in Asia, Latin America and Africa is too dependent on foreign capital and imperialism, to carry society forward. It is tied with a thousand threads, not only to foreign capital, but with the class of landowners, with which it forms a reactionary bloc that represents a bulwark against progress.
Whatever differences may exist between these elements are insignificant in comparison with the fear that unites them against the masses. Only the proletariat, allied with the poor peasants and urban poor, can solve the problems of society by taking power into its own hands, expropriating the imperialists and the bourgeoisie, and beginning the task of transforming society on socialist lines.
By setting itself at the head of the nation, leading the oppressed layers of society urban and rural petty-bourgeoisiethe proletariat could take power and then carry through the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution mainly the land reform and the unification and liberation of the country from foreign domination.
However, once having come to power, the proletariat would not stop there but would start to implement socialist measures of expropriation of the capitalists. And as these tasks cannot be solved in one country alone, especially not in a backward country, this would be the beginning of the world revolution.
Thus the revolution is "permanent" in two senses: The theory of the permanent revolution was the most complete answer to the reformist and class collaborationist position of the right wing of the Russian workers' movement, the Mensheviks.
The two stage theory was developed by the Mensheviks as their perspective for the Russian revolution. It basically states that, since the tasks of the revolution are those of the national democratic bourgeois revolution, the leadership of the revolution must be taken by the national democratic bourgeoisie.
For his part, Lenin agreed with Trotsky that the Russian Liberals could not carry out the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and that this task could only be carried out by the proletariat in alliance with the poor peasantry.
Following in the footsteps of Marx, who had described the bourgeois "democratic party" as "far more dangerous to the workers than the previous liberals", Lenin explained that the Russian bourgeoisie, far from being an ally of the workers, would inevitably side with the counter-revolution.
Lenin, Collected Works, vol. What class, in Lenin's view, could lead the bourgeois-democratic revolution? The proletariat alone can be relied on to march on to the end, for it goes far beyond the democratic revolution.
That is why the proletariat fights in the forefront for a republic and contemptuously rejects stupid and unworthy advice to take into account the possibility of the bourgeoisie recoiling" Ibid. In all of Lenin's speeches and writings, the counter-revolutionary role of the bourgeois-democratic Liberals is stressed time and time again.
The correctness of the permanent revolution was triumphantly demonstrated by the October Revolution itself. They carried out all the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and immediately set about nationalising industry and passing over to the tasks of the socialist revolution.
The bourgeoisie played an openly counterrevolutionary role, but was defeated by the workers in alliance with the poor peasants. The Bolsheviks then made a revolutionary appeal to the workers of the world to follow their example. Lenin knew very well that without the victory of the revolution in the advanced capitalist countries, especially Germany, the revolution could not survive isolated, especially in a backward country like Russia.
What happened subsequently showed that this was absolutely correct.
The setting up of the Third Communist International, the world party of socialist revolution, was the concrete manifestation of this perspective. Had the Communist International remained firm on the positions of Lenin and Trotsky, the victory of the world revolution would have been ensured.THE NATIONAL QUESTION IN THE ERA OF GLOBALISATION.
Submission to Third Conference of International Struggle Marxist-Leninist. October ; Paris. Goal Of This Article We intend to discuss the most important features of imperialism as defined by Lenin; to ask whether the essential features of capital are so changed by recent events that we must revise.
The origins of Lenin’s Marxism.
Lenin’s Marxism derives from different directions, each representing in its time an opportunity for changing society in a revolutionary way.
Without a correct stance on the national question, the October Revolution would not have taken place. A component part of this outlook was, from onwards, the need to maintain the sacred unity of the working class and its organisations, free from distinctions of nationality, religion or language.
Jun 13, · The Russian Provisional Government failed in for a variety of reasons. In his April Theses, Lenin explains, “It must be explained to the masses that the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies is the only possible form of revolutionary government.
The April Theses This article contains Lenin s famous April Theses read by him at two meetings of the All-Russia Conference of Soviets of Workers and Soldiers Deputies, on April 4, V.
V. I. Lenin – – April Thesis (The Tasks of the The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution a.
k. a. Trotsky, Lenin and the communist attitude to war Wed, 30/05/ - Leon Trotsky’s article The Programme for Peace, written during is a landmark in the development of .