What is permanent revolution? Leon Trotsky permanent revolution. See what “permanent revolution” is in other dictionaries

What is the Permanent Revolution? The meaning of the word “Permanent Revolution” in popular dictionaries and encyclopedias, examples of the use of the term in Everyday life.

Meaning of "Permanent Revolution" in dictionaries

Permanent Revolution

(permanent revolution) (Marxism) - Trotsky's concept of a continuous process of advancing the revolution from "democratic" to "socialist", developed by him in response to the 1905 revolution in Russia. Contrary to the orthodox Marxist interpretation, Trotsky argued that the coming revolution in Russia would not be a bourgeois revolution, introducing democracy and unfettering capitalism, because the Russian bourgeoisie was too weak to successfully resist the landed aristocracy and the Tsar. Therefore, only the proletariat, followed by the peasantry and petty bourgeoisie, can defend the democratic revolution, and also turn it into a socialist revolution. In the 30s Trotsky expanded the theory to apply to colonial or neo-colonial societies, where the local bourgeoisie involved in political movements for national independence and democratization, was seen as compromised by its ties to the imperialist powers. He linked it to his concept of mixed and uneven development, which holds that not all societies go through the same stages to reach either capitalism or socialism.

Permanent revolution

b>The idea of ​​a permanent, that is, continuous, revolution was put forward by K. Marx and F. Engels in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1848) and “Address of the Central Committee to the Union of Communists” (1850). The founders of Marxism believed that the proletariat, having sufficient strength, organization, influence and occupying an independent political position, could make the transition from a bourgeois-democratic revolution to a socialist revolution, to the establishment of its own power. “While the democratic petty bourgeoisie wants to end the revolution as quickly as possible, ... our interests and our tasks are to make the revolution continuous until all more or less propertied classes are eliminated from domination, until the proletariat will conquer state power..." (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 7, p. 26

Continuity was understood by K. Marx and F. Engels as a consistent change of stages of the revolutionary process. They warned that “... the workers cannot propose purely communist measures at the beginning of the movement” and “... will not be able to achieve dominance and the realization of their class interests without completely going through the longer path of revolutionary development...” (ibid., pp. 266, 267).

In new historical conditions era of imperialism, the idea of ​​continuous revolution was developed by V.I. Lenin into the theory of the development of a democratic revolution into a socialist one. “... From the democratic revolution,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “we will immediately begin to move on and, precisely to the extent of our strength, the strength of the conscious and organized proletariat, we will begin to move on to socialist revolution. We stand for continuous revolution. We will not stop halfway" (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 11, p. 22

V.I. Lenin rejected the scheme of the opportunist leaders of the 2nd International and the Russian Mensheviks, according to which the victory of the bourgeois revolution would necessarily be followed by more or less a long period development of capitalism. In the era of imperialism, when the world capitalist system is ripe for a socialist revolution, revolutionary democratic transformations objectively create a threat to capitalism. Monopoly capital is uniting with the most reactionary forces on a common platform of hostility to any revolution. That is why, V.I. Lenin emphasized, “in the 20th century in a capitalist country you cannot be a revolutionary democrat if you are afraid to go towards socialism” (ibid., vol. 34, p. 190).

The cornerstone of Lenin's theory of the development of a democratic revolution into a socialist one is the idea of ​​the hegemony of the proletariat, which acts as the engine of the non-stop development of the democratic revolution, a gradual transition to solving increasingly radical problems, and creating conditions for the socialist revolution. As a result of the victory of the democratic revolution, a revolutionary-democratic type of power is established, which acts as an instrument for the continuous deepening and development of the democratic revolution into a socialist one. In relation to the conditions of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. V.I. Lenin defined the class content of such power as the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.

After World War II (1939–45), the development of democratic revolutions into socialist ones occurred in a number of European and Asian countries. In some countries, democratic and socialist transformations were closely intertwined, essentially constituting two stages of a single revolutionary process (see People's Democratic Revolution).

The significance of the Marxist-Leninist theory of continuous revolution lies in the fact that it reveals the natural connection between the socialist revolution and various types people's democratic movements and revolutions, allows us to find ways and forms of transition to a socialist revolution that meet the specific conditions of a particular country.

Marx’s idea of ​​continuous revolution received a perverted interpretation in the Trotskyist theory of political revolution, put forward by A. Parvus and L. Trotsky during the Revolution of 1905–07 in Russia and which became the platform for the Trotskyists’ struggle against Leninism. The continuity of successive stages of the revolutionary process was replaced in Trotskyist theory by a subjectivist concept that arbitrarily confused all stages, ignoring the natural connection between them; it denied the bourgeois-democratic character of the revolution and put forward the adventurist idea of ​​a direct transition to the socialist revolution (see V.I. Lenin, ibid., vol. 17, p. 381). This position of Trotsky, who ignored the idea of ​​a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, was expressed in the slogan “without a tsar, but a workers’ government.” Revealing the eclecticism of Trotskyist theory, V.I. Lenin noted: “Trotsky’s original theory takes from the Bolsheviks a call for a decisive revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and for its conquest of political power, while from the Mensheviks there is a “denial” of the role of the peasantry” (ibid., vol. 27, p. 80). Rejecting the Marxist-Leninist strategy of class alliances of the proletariat with the peasantry and other non-proletarian layers of the working people, Trotskyist theory essentially closed the way to the formation of a mass political army of the socialist revolution and undermined the internal factors of the development and victory of this revolution. Trotsky associated the permanence of the revolutionary process, the fate of the socialist revolution in each country with external factors, with the victory of the world revolution. From these mechanistic positions, the Trotskyists opposed Lenin’s theory about the possibility of the victory of socialism initially in one, separate country. From this flowed a focus on “export”, contrary to Marxism, and artificially pushing the revolution.

Trotskyist theory of P. r. represents one of the ideological sources modern concepts petty-bourgeois revolutionism, including Maoism, characteristic feature which is also a lack of faith in the ability of the working class to unite around itself broad masses workers to solve the problems of socialist construction. This attitude is expressed in the entire adventurist policy of this petty-bourgeois movement. Similar representations contradict Marxism-Leninism and the practice of the world revolutionary movement.

Lit.: Leibzon B. M.. Petty-bourgeois revolutionism, M., 1967; Lenin's theory of socialist revolution and modernity, M., 1972, ch. 6.

, Livio Maitan).

Formulations of the founders of Marxism

The idea itself permanent revolution was expressed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the 1840s in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” and in the “Address of the Central Committee to the League of Communists.” The founders of Marxism believed that when implementing a bourgeois-democratic revolution in advanced capitalist countries in which the preconditions for socialism are ripe, the proletariat will not stop at carrying out exclusively democratic tasks. While the bourgeoisie is trying to complete the revolution as quickly as possible, the proletariat must “... make the revolution continuous until all more or less propertied classes are eliminated from domination, until the proletariat wins state power.” There, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels insist on the coherence of the proletarian revolution and the peasant revolutionary movement.

From the point of view of Theodor Oyserman, by the end of the 50s - 60s, Marx and Engels partially revised their conclusions drawn on the basis of the revolutionary experience of 1848. They, in particular, abandoned the idea of ​​permanent revolution, recognizing that the proletarian revolution from the bourgeois separated by an entire historical era.

The view of the Social Democrats

Trotsky on permanent revolution

Trotsky was greatly influenced in 1904-1905 by the ideas of the German left Social Democrat A. Parvus. Parvus proposed starting with the creation of a “workers’ democracy” social-democratic government during an armed uprising (he put forward the famous slogan: “Without a king, but a workers’ government”), main task which was supposed to be the implementation of the minimum program of the RSDLP, which combined the general democratic demands realized in the West during the bourgeois revolutions with measures aimed at radically improving the situation of the working class.

Combined Development Theory

Leon Trotsky wrote:

“The political incapacity of the bourgeoisie was directly determined by the nature of its relations with the proletariat and the peasantry. She could not lead workers who opposed her with hostility in everyday life and very early learned to generalize their tasks. But it turned out to be equally incapable of leading the peasantry, because it was connected by a network of common interests with the landowners and was afraid of a shock to property in any form. The belatedness of the Russian revolution thus turned out to be not only a question of chronology, but also a question social structure nation."

The theory of permanent revolution was especially developed by Leon Trotsky after the October Revolution of 1917. Trotsky denied the completed socialist character of the October Revolution, considering it only as the first stage on the path to the socialist revolution in the West and throughout the world. He saw the possibility of the victory of socialism in Soviet Russia, - due to the small number of the proletariat in it and the existence of a huge mass of petty-bourgeois peasantry in nature - only if the socialist revolution becomes permanent, that is, spreads to the most important countries of Europe, when the victorious proletariat of the West will help the proletariat of Russia cope in the struggle with the opposing him by classes, and then it will become possible to build socialism and communism on a global scale.

The role of the peasantry

Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution is often criticized for allegedly underestimating the role of the peasantry. In fact, he writes a lot in his works about how the proletariat will not be able to carry out a socialist revolution without enlisting the support of the peasantry. Trotsky writes that being only a small minority Russian society, the proletariat can lead the revolution to the emancipation of the peasantry and thereby “enlist the support of the peasantry” as part of the revolution, on whose support it will rely.

At the same time, the working class, in the name of own interests and improving its own conditions, will strive to implement such revolutionary changes that will perform not only the functions of a bourgeois revolution, but will also lead to the establishment of a workers' state. At the same time, Trotsky writes:

“The proletariat will be forced to bring the class struggle into the countryside and thus violate the community of interests that undoubtedly exists among the entire peasantry, but within relatively narrow limits. In the immediate moments of its rule, the proletariat will have to seek support in contrasting the rural poor with the rural rich, the agricultural proletariat with the agricultural bourgeoisie.”

Condemnation of the theory of permanent revolution in the USSR

In the Soviet Union, the theory of permanent revolution was condemned at the plenums of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the RCP(b) in the resolution of January 17, 1925 on the speech of Leon Trotsky, as well as in the “Theses on the tasks of the Comintern and the RCP(b)” in connection with the expanded plenum of the ECCI. adopted by the 14th conference of the RCP (b) “On the opposition bloc in the CPSU (b)”. Similar resolutions were adopted by all official communist parties that were members of the Comintern.

The immediate reason for Trotsky’s systematized presentation of the theory of permanent revolution and criticism of the Stalinist concept of “stages of the revolutionary process” was the policy of the Comintern in China, where the Communist Party of China, at the direction of Moscow, pursued an alliance with the national bourgeoisie - first with the leadership of the Kuomintang led by Chiang Kai-shek, and after the anti-communist terror he unleashed (Shanghai Massacre of 1927) - with the “left Kuomintang” (Wang Jingwei).

Prospects for the USSR

Supporters of the permanent revolution considered the construction of socialism in Russia alone to be “national limitation”, a departure from the fundamental principles of proletarian internationalism. The Trotskyists believed that if the proletarian revolution did not win in the West in the near future after the October Revolution, then the USSR would face a “restoration of capitalism” in its development.

In the Transitional Program, Trotsky wrote:

"The Soviet Union withdrew from October revolution like a workers' state. Nationalization of the means of production, necessary condition socialist development, opened up the possibility rapid growth productive forces. Meanwhile, the apparatus of the workers' state underwent a complete degeneration, turning from an instrument of the working class into an instrument of bureaucratic violence against the working class and, increasingly, into an instrument of economic sabotage. The bureaucratization of a backward and isolated workers' state and the transformation of the bureaucracy into an all-powerful privileged caste is the most convincing - not theoretical, but practical - refutation of socialism in a single country.

The USSR regime thus contains terrifying contradictions. But it continues to be the regime of a degenerate workers' state. This is a social diagnosis. The political forecast has an alternative character: either the bureaucracy, increasingly becoming an organ of the world bourgeoisie in a workers’ state, will overthrow new forms of ownership and throw the country back to capitalism, or the working class will defeat the bureaucracy and open the way to socialism” and the proletarian revolution in the imperialist countries - form a dialectical unity. Each of these forces influences the others and receives in response a powerful impulse for its future development or inhibition. The delay of the proletarian revolution in the imperialist countries undoubtedly prevented the colonial revolution from taking the socialist path as quickly and as consciously as possible under the influence of a victorious revolutionary uprising or victory of the proletariat in the developed countries. This delay also does not provide an opportunity for the development of a political revolution in the USSR, including because the Soviet workers do not see an example before them alternative path building socialism"

Permanent revolution. The idea of ​​a permanent, that is, continuous, revolution was put forward by K. Marx and F. Engels in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1848) and “Address of the Central Committee to the Union of Communists” (1850). The founders of Marxism believed that the proletariat, having sufficient strength, organization, influence and occupying an independent political position, could make the transition from a bourgeois-democratic revolution to a socialist revolution, to the establishment of its own power. “While the democratic petty bourgeoisie wants to end the revolution as quickly as possible, ... our interests and our tasks are to make the revolution continuous until all more or less propertied classes are eliminated from domination, until the proletariat will conquer state power..." (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 7, p. 261). Continuity was understood by K. Marx and F. Engels as a consistent change of stages of the revolutionary process. They warned that “... the workers cannot propose purely communist measures at the beginning of the movement” and “... will not be able to achieve dominance and the realization of their class interests without completely going through the longer path of revolutionary development...” (ibid., pp. 266, 267).

In the new historical conditions of the era of imperialism, the idea of ​​continuous revolution was developed by V. I. Lenin into the theory of the development of a democratic revolution into a socialist one. “... From the democratic revolution,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “we will immediately begin to move on and, precisely to the extent of our strength, the strength of the conscious and organized proletariat, we will begin to move on to the socialist revolution. We stand for continuous revolution. We will not stop halfway” (Complete collected works (works), 5th ed., vol. 11, p. 222).

V.I. Lenin rejected the scheme of the opportunist leaders of the 2nd International and the Russian Mensheviks, according to which the victory of the bourgeois revolution would necessarily be followed by a more or less long period of development of capitalism. In the era of imperialism, when the world capitalist system is ripe for socialist revolution, revolutionary democratic transformations objectively create a threat to capitalism. Monopoly capital is uniting with the most reactionary forces on a common platform of hostility to any revolution. That is why, V.I. Lenin emphasized, “in the 20th century in a capitalist country you cannot be a revolutionary democrat if you are afraid to go towards socialism” (ibid., vol. 34, p. 190).

The cornerstone of Lenin's theory of the development of a democratic revolution into a socialist one is the idea hegemony of the proletariat , which acts as an engine for the non-stop development of the democratic revolution, a gradual transition to solving increasingly radical problems, and creating conditions for the socialist revolution. As a result of the victory of the democratic revolution, a revolutionary-democratic type of power is established, which acts as an instrument for the continuous deepening and development of the democratic revolution into a socialist one. In relation to the conditions of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. V.I. Lenin defined the class content of such power as the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.

After World War II (1939-45), the development of democratic revolutions into socialist ones occurred in a number of European and Asian countries. In some countries, democratic and socialist transformations were closely intertwined, essentially constituting two stages of a single revolutionary process (see. People's Democratic Revolution ).

The significance of the Marxist-Leninist theory of continuous revolution lies in the fact that it reveals the natural connection of the socialist revolution with various types of popular democratic movements and revolutions, and makes it possible to find ways and forms of transition to the socialist revolution that meet the specific conditions of a particular country.

Marx’s idea of ​​continuous revolution received a perverted interpretation in the Trotskyist theory of political revolution, put forward by A. Parvus and L. Trotsky during the Revolution of 1905-07 in Russia and which became the platform for the Trotskyists’ struggle against Leninism. The continuity of successive stages of the revolutionary process was replaced in Trotskyist theory by a subjectivist concept that arbitrarily confused all stages, ignoring the natural connection between them; it denied the bourgeois-democratic character of the revolution and put forward the adventurist idea of ​​a direct transition to the socialist revolution (see V.I. Lenin, ibid., vol. 17, p. 381). This position of Trotsky, who ignored the idea of ​​a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, was expressed in the slogan “without a tsar, but a workers’ government.” Revealing the eclecticism of Trotskyist theory, V.I. Lenin noted: “Trotsky’s original theory takes from the Bolsheviks a call for a decisive revolutionary struggle of the proletariat and for its conquest of political power, and from the Mensheviks - the “denial” of the role of the peasantry” (ibid., vol. 27, p. 80). Rejecting the Marxist-Leninist strategy of class alliances of the proletariat with the peasantry and other non-proletarian layers of the working people, Trotskyist theory essentially closed the way to the formation of a mass political army of the socialist revolution and undermined the internal factors of the development and victory of this revolution. Trotsky connected the permanence of the revolutionary process and the fate of the socialist revolution in each country with external factors, with the victory of the world revolution. From these mechanistic positions, the Trotskyists opposed Lenin’s theory about the possibility of the victory of socialism initially in one, separate country. From this flowed a focus on “export”, contrary to Marxism, and artificially pushing the revolution.

Trotskyist theory of P. r. represents one of the ideological sources of modern concepts of petty-bourgeois revolutionism, including Maoism , a characteristic feature of which is also a lack of faith in the ability of the working class to unite the broad masses of working people around itself to solve the problems of socialist construction. This attitude is expressed in the entire adventurist policy of this petty-bourgeois movement. Such ideas contradict Marxism-Leninism and the practice of the world revolutionary movement.

Lit.: Leibzon B. M.. Petty-bourgeois revolutionism, M., 1967; Lenin's theory of socialist revolution and modernity, M., 1972, chapter(s) 6.

Permanent revolution

Thank you for downloading the book for free electronic library http://filosoff.org/ Happy reading! Trotsky L. D. Permanent revolution. INTRODUCTION. This book is devoted to an issue closely related to the history of the three Russian revolutions, but not only to it. This issue has played a huge role in internal struggles in recent years. communist party Soviet Union, was then moved to Communist International, played a decisive role in the development of the Chinese revolution and determined whole line the paramount importance of decisions on issues related to the revolutionary struggle of the countries of the East. We are talking about the so-called theory of “permanent revolution”, which, according to the teachings of the epigones of Leninism (Zinoviev, Stalin, Bukharin, etc.) constitutes original sin"Trotskyism". The question of permanent revolution was, after a long break, and at first glance, completely unexpectedly raised in 1924. There were no political grounds for this: the matter was about differences that had long since become a thing of the past. But there were great psychological reasons. The group of so-called “Old Bolsheviks” that opened a fight against me opposed me first of all with this title. But the biggest obstacle in her path was 1917. No matter how important the previous history of ideological struggle and preparation was, however, not only in relation to the party as a whole, but also in relation to individuals, all previous preparation found its highest and categorical test in the October revolution. None of the epigones passed this test. All of them, without exception, at the moment February revolution 1917 took the vulgar position of the democratic left. Not one of them put forward the slogan of the proletariat fighting for power. They all considered the course towards a socialist revolution absurd or, even worse, “Trotskyism.” In this spirit they led the party until Lenin’s arrival from abroad and until the appearance of his famous theses on April 4th. After this, Kamenev, already in direct struggle with Lenin, tries to openly form a democratic wing in Bolshevism. Later, Zinoviev, who arrived with Lenin, joins him. Stalin, cruelly compromised by his social-patriotic position, steps aside. He allows the party to forget about his pathetic articles and speeches in the decisive weeks of March and gradually moves towards Lenin’s point of view. From here the question naturally arose: what did Leninism give to each of these leading “old Bolsheviks”, if not one of them was able to independently apply the theoretical and practical experience party in the most important and responsible historical moment? It was necessary to avert this question at all costs, replacing it with another. For this purpose, it was decided to place the theory of permanent revolution at the center of the attack. My opponents, of course, did not foresee that, by creating an artificial axis of struggle, they would, imperceptibly for themselves, turn around this axis, creating for themselves, using the reverse method, a new worldview. In its main features, the theory of permanent revolution was formulated by me even before the decisive events of 1905. Russia was moving towards a bourgeois revolution. No one in the ranks of the then Russian Social Democracy (we were all called Social Democrats then) doubted that we were moving towards precisely a bourgeois revolution, that is, one that is generated by the contradiction between the development of the productive forces of capitalist society and the surviving serfdom. medieval class and state relations. In those days, I had to devote quite a few speeches and articles to a Marxist explanation of the bourgeois character of the upcoming revolution, in the fight against the populists and anarchists. But the bourgeois character of the revolution did not prejudge the question of which classes and in what relationships would carry out the tasks of the democratic revolution. Meanwhile, the main strategic problems only began from this point. Plekhanov, Axelrod, Zasulich, Martov and after them all the Russian Mensheviks proceeded from the fact that the leading role in the bourgeois revolution can only belong to the liberal bourgeoisie, as the natural contender for power. According to this scheme, the party of the proletariat had the role of the left flank of the democratic front: social democracy had to support the liberal bourgeoisie against reaction and at the same time defend the interests of the proletariat against the liberal bourgeoisie. In other words, the Mensheviks tended to understand the bourgeois revolution primarily as a liberal constitutional reform. Lenin posed the question completely differently. The liberation of the productive forces of bourgeois society from the shackles of serfdom meant for him, first of all, a radical solution to the agrarian question, in the sense of the complete elimination of the landowner class and a revolutionary reshuffling of land ownership. The destruction of the monarchy was inextricably linked with this. Agrarian problem, which captures the vital interests of the overwhelming majority of the population and at the same time constitutes the basis of the problem of the capitalist market, was posed by Lenin with truly revolutionary courage. Since the liberal bourgeoisie, which is hostile to the workers, is connected with large land ownership by numerous ties, the true democratic emancipation of the peasantry can only be achieved through revolutionary cooperation of workers and peasants. Their joint uprising against the old society should, according to Lenin, lead, in case of victory, to the establishment of a “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.” This last formula is now being repeated in the Comintern as a kind of supra-historical dogma, without an attempt to analyze the living historical experience of the last quarter of a century, as if we were not at all witnesses and participants in the revolution of 1905, the February revolution of 1917 and, finally, the October revolution. Meanwhile, this kind of historical analysis is all the more necessary because there has never been a regime of “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry” in history. In 1905, Lenin was dealing with a strategic hypothesis, which was still subject to verification by the actual course of action. class struggle. The formula for the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry was largely deliberately algebraic in nature. Lenin did not predetermine the question of what the political relations both participants in the supposed democratic dictatorship, i.e. the proletariat and the peasantry. He did not exclude the possibility that the peasantry would be represented in the revolution by an independent party, moreover, independent on two fronts: that is, not only in relation to the bourgeoisie, but also in relation to the proletariat, and at the same time capable of carrying out a democratic revolution in struggle against the liberal bourgeoisie and in alliance with the party of the proletariat. Lenin even admitted, as we will see below, that in the government of a democratic dictatorship the revolutionary peasant party would constitute the majority. On the question of the decisive significance of the agrarian revolution for the fate of our bourgeois revolution, I was, at least since the autumn of 1902, that is, from the moment of my first escape abroad, a student of Lenin. That the agrarian, and therefore the general democratic revolution, can only be accomplished in the struggle against the liberal bourgeoisie by the united forces of workers and peasants, this is for me, despite the absurd tales recent years, there was no doubt. But I opposed the formula of “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry,” seeing its disadvantage in that it left open question, to which class will a real dictatorship belong? I argued that the peasantry, despite its colossal social and revolutionary weight, is not capable of creating a truly independent party, much less concentrating revolutionary power in the hands of such a party. Just as in the old revolutions, starting with the German reformation of the 16th century and even earlier, the peasantry, during its uprisings, supported one of the factions of the urban bourgeoisie, and often ensured its victory, so in our belated bourgeois revolution, the peasantry, at the highest scale of its struggle , will be able to provide similar support to the proletariat and help it come to power. Our bourgeois revolution, I concluded, can only radically solve its problems if the proletariat, with the support of the multi-million-strong peasantry, can concentrate a revolutionary dictatorship in its hands. What will be the social content of this dictatorship? First of all, she will have to complete the agrarian revolution and the democratic restructuring of the state. In other words, the dictatorship of the proletariat will become an instrument for solving the problems of the historically belated bourgeois revolution. But the matter cannot stop there. Having come to power, the proletariat will be forced to make ever deeper incursions into the relations of private property in general, that is, to switch to the path of socialist measures. “But do you really think,” the Stalins, Rykovs and all the other Molotovs of 1905-1917 objected to me dozens of times, “that Russia is ripe for a socialist revolution?” To this I invariably answered: no, I don’t think so. But world economy in general, and above all European, is completely ripe for a socialist revolution. Whether the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia will lead to socialism or not - at what pace and through what stages - this depends on future fate European and world capitalism. These are the main features of the theory of permanent revolution, as it developed already in the first months of 1905. After that, three revolutions managed to take place. The Russian proletariat rose to power on the mighty wave of the peasant uprising. The dictatorship of the proletariat became a fact in Russia before in any of the incomparably more developed countries of the world. In 1924, i.e., seven years after the historical forecast of the theory of permanent revolution was confirmed with absolutely exceptional power, the epigones opened a frenzied attack against this theory, pulling out individual phrases and polemical remarks from my old works, thoroughly by myself. time forgotten. It is appropriate to recall here that the first Russian revolution broke out more than half a century after the period of bourgeois revolutions in Europe, and 35 years after the episodic uprising of the Paris Commune. Europe has managed to wean itself from revolutions. Russia didn’t know them at all. All the problems of the revolution were posed anew. It is not difficult to understand how many unknown and conjectural quantities the future revolution contained for us at that time. The formulas of all groups were a kind of working hypotheses. It takes a complete inability to make a historical forecast and a complete misunderstanding of its methods to now, in hindsight, consider the analyzes and assessments of 1905 as if they were written yesterday. I often told myself and my friends: I have no doubt that there were large gaps in my forecasts of 1905, which are not difficult to reveal now in retrospect. But did my critics see better and further? Without re-reading my old works for a long time, I was ready in advance to consider their gaps much more significant and important than they actually were. I became convinced of this in 1928, during my exile in Alma-Ata, when forced political leisure gave me the opportunity to re-read, pencil in hand, my old works on the issue of permanent revolution. I hope that from what follows the reader will be fully convinced of this. Within the framework of this introduction, it is necessary, however, to give as precise a description as possible of the constituent elements of the theory of permanent revolution and the main objections to it. The dispute expanded and deepened so much that it began to cover essentially everything critical issues world revolutionary movement. Permanent revolution, in the sense that Marx gave to this concept, means a revolution that does not put up with any form of class domination, does not stop at the democratic stage, moving on to socialist measures and to a war against external reaction, a revolution, each subsequent stage of which is laid down in the previous one, and which can only end with the complete elimination of class society. In the interests of dispersing the chaos that has been created around the theory of permanent