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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Guess I have some more reading to do
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.”
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.