Although Marx used the term, permanent revolution, Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution is quite different from that of Marx’s. 1) Marx thought a society would evolve through stages (i.e., the theory of stagism or for instance, feudalism to capitalism to socialism). However, Trotsky observed the followings: 1) different sectors of an economy were developing at different rates (i.e., a specific industry develops into an advanced stage, and the other industries are underdeveloped at the same time) and were combined into a single economy, 2) the pattern of uneven development varied across different economies and countries and 3) the world economy was integrated in the way that developing economies or underdeveloped countries would not get to the stage of advanced capitalism. Therefore, the theory of stagism does not apply universally, and each country has its own unique way to achieve socialism because each economy or country has a unique path of the uneven and combined development. That is, the proletarian revolution is not restricted by the Marxian prerequisites such as advanced capitalism and goes on continuously and “permanently“ until the defined goal of socialism/communism is achieved. That is the core concept of Trotsky’s permanent revolution. It was "a major revision“ of the mainstream Marxism at the time. Simply put, it formed a theoretical foundation that the revolution toward socialism could be successfully realized by proletariat guiding peasantry in an underdeveloped country like Russia with the bourgeois class too weak to start a bourgeois revolution to achieve capitalism and democracy. 2) The natural manifestation of Trotsky’s permanent revolution in the context of the Marxian proletariat internationalism is permanent proletarian international revolution. However, once Trotsky realized that all the socialist revolutions in other countries had failed, he argued for fast industrialization in Russia first and foremost. At the time of Bukharin putting forth socialism in one country, Bukharin, a proponent of the New Economic Policy, argued that industrialization should come at a slow pace while reforming the agricultural sector by allowing capitalism to a degree. Stalin, still in the midst of power struggle, sided with Bukharin against Trotsky and Zinoviev arguing for planned industrialization. After completely winning the power struggle and expelling Trotsky out of the party, Stalin almost immediately adopted and implemented the nearly identical industrialization policies Trotsky argued for. (Just in case, socialism in one country did not exclude the proletariat internationalism. The internationalism just was postponed until successfully building socialism in Russia first since all the socialist revolutions elsewhere had failed.) 3) The democracy of the Bolsheviks meant democratic centralism in the party. And it was not a true democracy. Not even proletariat democracy as opposed to bourgeois democracy. The Bolsheviks ruthlessly suppressed anyone including proletariat and peasantry who opposed them. One of the reasons that the mainstream western European socialists believing in democracy severed ties with the Bolsheviks was that they thought the revolution led by a small group of vanguards would inevitably translate into an authoritarian political system. And it did and eventually turned into the absolute dictatorship of Stalin. 4) It was Trotsky, not Stalin, who made the greatest contribution to the October Revolution along with Lenin. Trotsky was the one who took down the provisional government and got Petrograd under control of the Bolsheviks, which was critical for the success of the revolution. Subsequently building and leading the Red Army to lead the Bolsheviks to victory in the Russian Civil War, Trotsky’s contribution arguably matched or even outclassed that of Lenin. In addition to his capabilities, that was the main reason that Trotsky was considered by many to succeed Lenin even though he joined the Bolsheviks late.
레닌은 외할아버지가 유대인이었으나 정교회로 개종했습니다...레닌은 서른이 될때까지 자신이 유대인 혈통인지 알지 못했고 따라서 유대인의 정체성이 전혀 없었습니다. 트로츠키는 유대인 아버지를 둔 것도 맞지만 그도 유대인 정체성을 가진 것으로 보이지는 않습니다...종교는 몰아내려 했던 마르크스의 충실한 추종자였으니까요...스탈린은 조지아 태생의 그루지아인입니다...
![전쟁사 전문가와 '고려거란전쟁' 뒷얘기 [임용한 역사학자 풀버전/미공개분 포함]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ikwJLjWgZJ8/mqdefault.jpg)
![전쟁사 전문가와 '고려거란전쟁' 뒷얘기 [임용한 역사학자 풀버전/미공개분 포함]](/img/tr.png)
![[계획대로 진행 시켜] 독일, ‘벨기에 통로’ 전격 침공! ◆초기 국경전투 분석 [제1차 세계대전④] 역전다방 173회│국방홍보원](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yiPYb4rXXV8/mqdefault.jpg)
![NISAMANEE - TADA (ท้าดา) [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hcQHEPMmJpU/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#벌거벗은세계사] (80분) 🔥This is 스파르타🔥 300명의 스파르타 군대가 20만 명의 적들을 물리칠 수 있었던 비결은?!](/img/n.gif)
그루지아의 인간백정을 드디어 다루시는군요
비슷한 살상숫자로는 히틀러 모택동 폴포트가 있습니다. 단순 정치숙청으로는 단일살인으로 제일 꼭대기에 있겟죠
트로츠키를 이용해서 유대인들이 소련을 접수할려는걸 스탈린이 모를리가 없지
Although Marx used the term, permanent revolution, Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution is quite different from that of Marx’s.
1) Marx thought a society would evolve through stages (i.e., the theory of stagism or for instance, feudalism to capitalism to socialism).
However, Trotsky observed the followings: 1) different sectors of an economy were developing at different rates (i.e., a specific industry develops into an advanced stage, and the other industries are underdeveloped at the same time) and were combined into a single economy, 2) the pattern of uneven development varied across different economies and countries and 3) the world economy was integrated in the way that developing economies or underdeveloped countries would not get to the stage of advanced capitalism.
Therefore, the theory of stagism does not apply universally, and each country has its own unique way to achieve socialism because each economy or country has a unique path of the uneven and combined development.
That is, the proletarian revolution is not restricted by the Marxian prerequisites such as advanced capitalism and goes on continuously and “permanently“ until the defined goal of socialism/communism is achieved. That is the core concept of Trotsky’s permanent revolution. It was "a major revision“ of the mainstream Marxism at the time.
Simply put, it formed a theoretical foundation that the revolution toward socialism could be successfully realized by proletariat guiding peasantry in an underdeveloped country like Russia with the bourgeois class too weak to start a bourgeois revolution to achieve capitalism and democracy.
2) The natural manifestation of Trotsky’s permanent revolution in the context of the Marxian proletariat internationalism is permanent proletarian international revolution. However, once Trotsky realized that all the socialist revolutions in other countries had failed, he argued for fast industrialization in Russia first and foremost.
At the time of Bukharin putting forth socialism in one country, Bukharin, a proponent of the New Economic Policy, argued that industrialization should come at a slow pace while reforming the agricultural sector by allowing capitalism to a degree. Stalin, still in the midst of power struggle, sided with Bukharin against Trotsky and Zinoviev arguing for planned industrialization.
After completely winning the power struggle and expelling Trotsky out of the party, Stalin almost immediately adopted and implemented the nearly identical industrialization policies Trotsky argued for.
(Just in case, socialism in one country did not exclude the proletariat internationalism. The internationalism just was postponed until successfully building socialism in Russia first since all the socialist revolutions elsewhere had failed.)
3) The democracy of the Bolsheviks meant democratic centralism in the party. And it was not a true democracy. Not even proletariat democracy as opposed to bourgeois democracy.
The Bolsheviks ruthlessly suppressed anyone including proletariat and peasantry who opposed them. One of the reasons that the mainstream western European socialists believing in democracy severed ties with the Bolsheviks was that they thought the revolution led by a small group of vanguards would inevitably translate into an authoritarian political system. And it did and eventually turned into the absolute dictatorship of Stalin.
4) It was Trotsky, not Stalin, who made the greatest contribution to the October Revolution along with Lenin. Trotsky was the one who took down the provisional government and got Petrograd under control of the Bolsheviks, which was critical for the success of the revolution. Subsequently building and leading the Red Army to lead the Bolsheviks to victory in the Russian Civil War, Trotsky’s contribution arguably matched or even outclassed that of Lenin. In addition to his capabilities, that was the main reason that Trotsky was considered by many to succeed Lenin even though he joined the Bolsheviks late.
2월은 혁명이지만 10월은 쿠데타로 보는게 맞지않나
그렇게 보는 것도 맞겠죠. 아마 마땅한 번역어가 없을 듯...
똥이나 된장이냐의 문제
트로츠키가 권력을 잡았더라면
다양한 정치적, 경제적 실험이 있었을 것이고
그 유산을 통해 다양한 수정주의들이 등장하지 않았을까 생각합니다.
세계관에서는 스탈린이 소련 지도자가 되는게 더 좋았나?
트로츠키는 더 똑똑해서 그가 소련 지도자였으면 나폴레옹같이 공산혁명을 더 더욱 세계에 퍼트렸을것같애요 나폴레옹은 시민혁명을 이용했듯이
스탈린의 무자비한 대숙청이 없었을지도...지나간 역사에 대한 상상은 얼마든지 해도 되죠.
이건 사상교육도 보란듯이~~??
100년전의 역사이야기일 뿐입니다...
레닌, 트로츠키, 스탈린이 유대인이라면 시온주의와 관계가 있다는 생각이 ... 시온의정서엔 맑스를 높이 평가했으니까요. 궁금합니다. 진짜.
레닌은 외할아버지가 유대인이었으나 정교회로 개종했습니다...레닌은 서른이 될때까지 자신이 유대인 혈통인지 알지 못했고 따라서 유대인의 정체성이 전혀 없었습니다. 트로츠키는 유대인 아버지를 둔 것도 맞지만 그도 유대인 정체성을 가진 것으로 보이지는 않습니다...종교는 몰아내려 했던 마르크스의 충실한 추종자였으니까요...스탈린은 조지아 태생의 그루지아인입니다...
스탈린도 최악이지만 트로츠키는 더 최악일걸요.
근거는요?