Talk:Permanent revolution

Permanent means "final"?

I must voice strong disagreement with the very first statement of the article that permanent in Permanent Revolution means "final", not "continuous". Clearly, the disagreement is not purely linguistic (even though a Russian writer would hardly ever use word permanent in the sense of final), as this unusual interpretation takes out a fundamental property of the theory.

To explain, allow me (in the worst tradition of Soviet Marxism ;) ) to quote Introduction to Trotsky's Permanent Revolution at length, adding my own emphasize.

"The theory of the permanent revolution, which originated in 1905, declared war upon these ideas and moods. It pointed out that the democratic tasks of the backward bourgeois nations lead directly, in our epoch, to the dictatorship of the proletariat and that the dictatorship of the proletariat puts socialist tasks on the order of the day. Therein lay the central idea of the theory. While the traditional view was that the road to the dictatorship of the proletariat led through a long period of democracy, the theory of the permanent revolution established the fact that for backward countries the road to democracy passed through the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus democracy is not a regime that remains self-sufficient for decades, but is only a direct prelude to the socialist revolution. Each is bound to the other by an unbroken chain. Thus there is established between the democratic revolution and the socialist reconstruction of society a permanent state of revolutionary development.

The second aspect of the ‘permanent’ theory has to do with the socialist revolution as such. For an indefinitely long time and in constant internal struggle, all social relations undergo transformation. Society keeps on changing its skin. Each stage of transformation stems directly from the preceding. This process necessarily retains a political character, that is, it develops through collisions between various groups in the society which is in transformation. Outbreaks of civil war and foreign wars alternate with periods of ‘peaceful’ reform. Revolutions in economy, technique, science, the family, morals and everyday life develop in complex reciprocal action and do not allow society to achieve equilibrium. Therein lies the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such.

The international character of the socialist revolution, which constitutes the third aspect of the theory of the permanent revolution, flows from the present state of economy and the social structure of humanity. Internationalism is no abstract principle but a theoretical and political reflection of the character of world economy, of the world development of productive forces and the world scale of the class struggle. The socialist revolution begins on national foundations—but it cannot be completed within these foundations. The maintenance of the proletarian revolution within a national framework can only be a provisional state of affairs, even though, as the experience of the Soviet Union shows, one of long duration. In an isolated proletarian dictatorship, the internal and external contradictions grow inevitably along with the successes achieved. If it remains isolated, the proletarian state must finally fall victim to these contradictions. The way out for it lies only in the victory of the proletariat of the advanced countries. Viewed from this standpoint, a national revolution is not a self-contained whole; it is only a link in the international chain. The international revolution constitutes a permanent process, despite temporary declines and ebbs"

Conclusion: Permanent indeed means permanent means continuous means a process, a dialectical, self-contradictory assension. If you feel I am mistaken here, please explain why and how. Otherwise, please consider removing the first statement in parentheses from the paper. 05:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting comment. Permanent revolution was coined in German, not Russian, so perhaps Russian useage need not concern us. The basic notion of PR is that in countries where the national bourgoisie is too frail to compelete the tasks of bourgois revolution, then the workers and peasants should press forward this revolution and lead it forward into a socialist revoltution. This opens the transition to socialism, which is an ongoing process -- but not a ongoing revolution. So, i think that final is closer to the meaning than continuous. --DuncanBCS 11:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The point of the linguistic part of my comment has to do with a simple fact that in 1906 Trotsky (who, we doubt not, knew what he was writing about) had a choice of which Russian term to use in his "Itogi i Perspektivy" to refer to permanent revolution. If it were true that permanent in fact means final, that use of the term would confuse a Russian reader a great deal.

But, by all means, let's examine how the originators of term used it in 1850 in "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League":

"While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far - not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world - that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers."

I interpret this thusly: petty bourgeois want to stop revoltion at this stage. We must continue it, "make it permanent until" etc. Just try to substitute final instead of permanent in this quote. Now try continuous. Which one works? It is clear to me that a long, continuous process, leading from the current state of unfinished bourgeois-democratic revolution in one country to a completed socialist revolution on an international scale is being described here, and called "permanent revolution".

Or, we can examine how today's practitioners of the theory describe its permanent character:

"There are three reasons that explain that the socialist revolution is permanent: First: In underdeveloped countries the road to democracy necessarily goes first through a dictatorship of the proletariat and not the other way around as had been thought. Second: Once in the power of society, it begins to transform for an indefinite period. The many revolutions such as the economic, scientific, educational, develop in such a manner that the socialist revolution NEVER achieves equilibrium. And … third is the international character. That is to say that a socialist revolution does not end with the dictatorship of the proletariat and does not end at national borders." (The magnetism of the Permanent Revolution, by Celia Hart)

But I really feel that all these quotes are somewhat superfluous after you read at least Introduction to Permanent Revolution which I originally quoted. If the words "society keeps changing its skin" as a description of permanent revolution do not convince you, I really don't know what else to say.

As for the strange (to me) idea that permanent revolution, apparently...ends the moment socialist revolution begins (revival of stagism, perhaps?), I can only ask you to read the original quote I posted more carefully, in particular: Therein lies the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such. .

• Fascinating! I wonder, do we agree on this: "This revolution is final in the sense that we aim to make one revolutionary process that does not have a further revolutionary process after it: the bourgois revolution is grown into a socialist one by the working class and its allies. The working class continues the revolutionary struggle until it has established a workers' state with decisive power." If we agree on this form of words, then perhaps we have an easy job ahead of us! However, I think there's a nuance between Marx's comment and Hart's: is the strategy of Permanent Revolution a specific tactic for the establishment of a workers' state, which I think Marx is saying, or is Permanent Revolution also a description for the transition from the workers state to stateless communism, which is a possible reading of Hart? (Thank you for quoting Hart. I only came across her name recently. And thank you for being patient: I have been an active militant for decades, I have read and debated the material repeatedly, but I feel that we are debating complex texts in translations that have been interpreted in different ways by people working in the best of faith. ) --DuncanBCS 21:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry if I voiced my confusion somewhat awkwardly, or, perhaps, arrogantly -- I understand the limited scope of my expertise and in this, rather important question, rely on logic and judgement of the experts (of which, of course, the revolutionaries, the true users of the theory, like yourself, are the best). With this in mind, I'd like to say that I agree with your quoted statement completely. It is true that the beauty of the theory is that, in an underdeveloped country, once bourgois-democratic revolution has begun, there might be a road to a socialist revolution that does not require giving up the power to bourgeosy (or even more reactionary forces, for bourgeosy is weak), and then wrestling it back again by means of (yet another) revolution. Moreover, this opportunity is often a necessity. To me, however, the cornerstone of the theory is how you achieve this goal, and the answer - by making the revolution permanent, "a protracted revolutionary development" (Marx&Engels) a long and arduous continuous process, solving, progresively, continuously, tasks that in a history of a developed country would be solved by two different revolutions.

I also agree with your remark about a nuance. Indeed, in the "March Address" its authors describe a strategy for German proletariat that will allow it not even to establish, but to continuously approach the worker's state, while the international revolutionary process will provide positive feedback. On the other hand, for Hart (who, I think, to the first order approximation, expresses point of view of Trotsky himself, if, perhaps, somewhat vulgarly at times - for example, the Hart's quote that I used closely resembles his "three aspects of permanent revolution") the permanent revolution ends with the establishment of (the first stage of) communism, everywhere in the world. It is not quite the stateless society just yet; but an organic, evolutionary growth of this society leads to it, the state gradually fades away. I beleive Trotsky would agree, for he wrote

" 10. The completion of the socialist revolution within national limits is unthinkable. One of the basic reasons for the crisis in bourgeois society is the fact that the productive forces created by it can no longer be reconciled with the framework of the national state. From this follows on the one hand, imperialist wars, on the other, the utopia of a bourgeois United States of Europe. The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, it unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion, only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet. "

Well, I fail to see a big problem here, but, indeed, a nuance. Marx and Engels were solving a tactical question; titans as they were, they solved it by uncovering a new fascinating plast of theory, but only touched upon its full implications. Trotsky and others recognized the theoretical treasure, further developed the idea, and integrated it into Marxist revolutionary theory, connecting it properly with its final goal - establishment of communism. We may, if we must, distinguish between "permanent revolution in narrow sense" and "permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense", but I think the distinction would be largely artificial and is not a common practice (but you are, of course, better equipped to be a judge of that).

Seeing that we agree on practically anything, I wonder still if we will have to agree to disagree about final and continuous (in which case, of course, your expert opinion takes priority), or you have some kind of compromise wording in mind?

In conclusion, I'd like to return the compliment and thank you for your patience. 24.184.85.127 04:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I think the keys here are Trotsky's three aspects. I do think we should keep to the 'narrow' definition of PR that focusses on it as a strategic alternative to Menshevik stages and notions of the 'democratic dictatorship'. I that that means a focus on the notion of "between the democratic revolution and the socialist reconstruction of society a permanent state of revolutionary development". Broadening out the definition, to say that Permanent Revolution is also a strategy for a workers state, seems difficult. It takes the focus away from the alternative strategies for the accomplishing the tasks of the bourgois revolution. Also, Hart's formula about an 'indefinate period' of transition opens up a totally separate debate, about "centuries of deformed workers states", which can be productively avoided on this page and instead developed in discussions about Michel Pablo.--DuncanBCS 12:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I have amended this text to read ("permanent" in the sense that it must be "continuous" until "final" victory). Is there anything from our discussion which should be reworked and taken into the main page? --DuncanBCS 12:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, I agree entirey, especially emphatically with the point on worker's state; and I find your formula quite satisfactory. At this moment, I see no reason stemming from the discussion to edit the main article further. Thank you very much for resolving this.

References

Please add references. —Theo (Talk) 19:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems like it now has plenty of references, so I've removed the cleanup-verify tag VoluntarySlave 02:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Contributed to the 1953 split?

I propose that all the stuff on the workers' states can be cut. Permanent Revolution is not a strategy for workers' state. --DuncanBCS 19:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've reread the post, and deleted the section shown below in italics. It mistakenly suggested that a difference over the class nature of the stalinist states contributed to the split in the FI. After Hansen won the SWP to the 'deformed workers state', both sides in the international viewed these states as deformed workers states requiring political revolution. -- --DuncanBCS 19:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The greatest challenge to the theory, which postulated that only socialist revolution could solve the problems posed to Bourgeois Revolutions, is that many such problems have been solved in the mean time through gradual social reform rather than revolution. On the other hand, it is equally true that such reforms might have been only a temporary solution, because some of them are starting to be rolled back in certain countries in the present day.

Another problem posed to the theory of permanent revolution was the development of 'deformed workers states' in countries where socialist revolutions have not been carried out by the proletariat. This has been dealt with in various ways by different Trotskyist groups.

Some leaders of the Fourth International during the late 40s and early 50s disagreed over he implications of this development. The side led by Michel Pablo argued that these deformed workers' states were the result of socialist revolutions carried out by various forces that were 'proletarian' in a political sense (being led by Communist parties), but not proletarian per se (hence the deformed nature of those workers' states, often referred to as Stalinist states). A good example of this and one of the most theorised is to be found in Michael Löwy's book 'The Politics of Combined and Uneven Development'.

Those Trotskyists led by James P. Cannon, the American Trotskyist who helped found the Fourth International along with Trotsky, argued differently. They saw these new states as an extension of the Stalinist bureaucracy, and argued for a political revolution against that bureacracy. They considered the position that the bureacracy can lead revolutions as contradictory in principle to Trotskyism, and this posed the question: if the Stalinists can lead the revolution, what do we need the Fourth International for? Indeed, Michel Pablo argued that the Trotskyist parties should be dissolved into the Communist Parties that answered to Moscow. He said that humanity had entered a period where the would be centuries of deformed workers' states.

Not all Trotskyists agree with either of the above views, however, and some argue that the 'workers' states' were in fact state capitalist or bureaucratic collectivist in nature.

Copyvio (not)

" This text has been plagiarised from http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Permanent-Revolution"

Um, its the other way around, actually. Look at the bottom of that nationmaster page and you will see a link back to here. R Lowry 12:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

so, THIS is where Gerry Healy went after he died

There are 4**4 organizations each claiming to be the one and only true inheritor to Leon Trotsky. Wikipedia already has its List of Trotskyist internationals and doesn't need it replicated. But this stuff isn't NPOV, it's clearly party line from the David North-flavor ICFI. Tribune 00:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph is all esoteric Marxist jargon that very few people will understand. That said, the precise information in it could and should probably be relocated in the article.

Jacrosse 15:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Jacrosse, I'm sure that your cut was accidental, but you have removed, for the second time, text that I restored recently to the article on Permanent Revolution. This text was agreed, after a long discussion on the Talk page. The purpose of the talk page is to help contributors to agree on changes by consensus. I asked you to use the Talk page to discuss your changes, but you have simply made a comment that you consider some text to be esoteric, and have deleted it without waiting for a reply. I suggest you re-read the Talk page and see that there was some confusion in the article, which the agreed text aimed to resolve. Please do not cut this text again until your view reflects consensus on the Talk page. I have restored the text you removed. --DuncanBCS 19:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Truth be told, I was entirely confused on the permanent revolution when looking here. In fact, even though it is composed of Marxist jargon, the opening paragraph is dead wrong. Whoever wrote it is duely confused. I added in a more easy-to-understand description about it being an international effort. Perhaps someone could add to it/clean it up, and then delete that terrible, initial description.

What people need to understand is if you're going to use Marxist jargon, use it in later paragraphs. The opener/introduction should be in common English so everyone can understand.--Comrade Dave 20:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

More then 10 years and nothing has been done about this ? The opening section does not even reference the international revolution which is pretty much the defining factor of Permanent revolution versus one state socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.232.81 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Combined and Uneven development

I don't know what the overview looked like before today, but I was very pleased to read it as it stands now (don't remember what it said before. Not gonna look). Job well done: whoever is complaining doesn't have a clue. Can't get much more succinct and clear than that on such a difficult topic.

The only thing I feel to be missing would be a reference to combined and uneven development right up front. I am no expert on this, unfortunately; but it seems to me that Trotsky's advance here on Marx' work is exactly what is different between Marx' version of permanent revolution and Trotsky's: how there was little evidence of combined and uneven development yet in Marx' day, in the colonies, etc. -- whereas in Trotsky's time (as now) we have the full "development" (yech) of the comprador system, etc. What we have here is an unforeseen development which Trotsky discovered and analyzed -- and which we can all thank him for.

And I believe something should now be added about permanent revolution as it relates to the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. Talk about an ideal laboratory situation to understand this dialectical process.

Pazouzou 04:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats for that. Yes, we should add in CAUD. However, I don't see what we can add about the Bolivarian revolution, other than to nod to Chavez's use of the term. Any suggestions? --Duncan 07:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Influence on Neoconservatism??!?

Is this section original research? For example, the linked article on the connections to neoconservatism does not reference permamant revolution. THere is an article here which argues that the neoconservative strategy is not permamant revolution; but where is there anyone who argues that it is? This article seems to be the origin of the idea that Trotskyist ideas have infused noeconservativism, but it makes no rerefence to Permanent Revolution.

Any suggestion on how to proceeed? --Duncan 02:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[1] I believe that that the reference to a connection between permanent revolution and neoconservatism are original research. The referenced material does not support this claim. Unless references given for this claim, I will delete this section in a week's time.

[2] Because the referenced article does not even permanent revolution, I have removed it. (George W. Bush, Trotskyite by Justin Raimondo Argues the influence of the theory of permanent revolution on neoconservatism ). --Duncan 16:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No supporting references, therefore removed. --Duncan 21:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Section was reinserted but, as there are still no references to support this original opinion, I have removed in while awaiting references. --Duncan 10:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what's up with your obsession with "original research", but unlike the French Turn this is a very well established phenomenon as it relates to neoconservatism, indeed is the most widely accepted such connection.--Jacrosse 16:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If this is well established, then you will have no trouble finding references. However, neither you nor I have been able to find references that support your claim. If there are no sources, then it is original research. Click --> original research <-- on that link to see why Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Personally, I do not see the connection between permanent revolution and neo-conservatism other than both of them use the word revolution. However, permanent revolution is a strategy by which the working class acts independently to produce socialism in backward countries: the agents, goals, strategy, tactics and idiom all seem quite different. If you re-insert this section without supportive references, I will report you for vandalism. Please post your references here on the Talk page for us to discuss them. We can invite the previous contibutors to this page to discuss it. Consensus is the only way forward here. --Duncan 16:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"I don't know what's up with your obsession with "original research"

I suggest you read Wikipedia:No original research. Homey 15:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"permanent revolution states that the road to socialism must be an international effort by many nations"

I have just reverted a wholesale rewrite, unreferenced of the article. The general line of this is that the theory of permanent revolution was the idea that socialism cannot exist in one country. Trotsky did argue this, but the theory of permanent revolution predates that idea, and orginated in 1905 -- with a long hertiage. It is an opposition to stagism; socialism in one country came decades later. --Duncan 23:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Balance?

Is it right that so much of this article is on the by, by others than Trotsky, of the term? Surely a section expounding the basic postulates would be more useful than this over-long section on Marx, which is highly speculative? --Duncan 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Duncan. I don't see why the section on Marx should be seen as speculative - it's rather solidly referenced (far more so than most Wikipedia articles), and is made up, in no small part, of quotations from the man himself. On the question of length, I think that if Wikipedia is going to be a serious source, it needs to give fairly clear and comprehensive accounts of its topics, and articles should be as long as that requires. It's necessary for an article like this to demonstrate its statements with direct quotations from the text - if not, readers won't know whether to trust it, and future editors won't have a way to assess the view in the article against their received impression of the theory. As to whether there is too much focus on Marx, the onus is on wikipedians who're well aquainted with Trotsky to give the exegesis of his theory that it no doubt deserves - I think the same probably goes for Cliff's theory.

On the other hand, I'm not saying my edits are perfect - it'd be good to discuss if you think my analysis is wrong, or even speculative in any particlar way? Cheers, Breadandroses 09:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I also think that the basic postulates, as you put it, are summarised in the opening paragraph... or if not, then what sort of level of detail are you thinking of? Breadandroses 09:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite take the same view. My point about balance remains. As a summary of Trotsky's theory, the form of words we are using is weak "first, that the bourgeoisie in late-developing capitalist countries are incapable of developing the productive forces in such a manner as to achieve the sort of advanced capitalism which will fully develop an industrial proletariat. Second, that the proletariat can and must, therefore, seize political power, leading an alliance with the peasantry." This fails to mention why the capitalists cannot complete the bouregois revolution, and fails to mentions that the workers and peasants must take control of society -- state and economy, not just political power. Furthermore, Wikipedia discourages long articles. Generally, long references can be summarised and footnoted. Nor is Wikipedia a place for exegesis, in that word's sense of the the meaning beneath the surface: that would be original research. Cliff, I think, does not have a theory of permanent revolution: Deflected permanent revolution is a scenario: what can happy if the strategy of permanent revolution is no executed effectively. Separately, I don't feel comfortable with what you've written about Marx. He was more open about Russia's path of development. --Duncan 09:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Duncan, a few different things here. On Trotsky, you may well be right. I didn't edit the main body of the article on Trotsky, and only altered the section on him in the introduction to conform to the existing material in the body of the article, and the summary in Cliff's essay - which I think it would be worth checking out, if you haven't already. But I'd absolutely encourage you to improve on the material on Trotsky, including the introductory summary, which I'm not able to at this stage. As to your two specific criticisms of my characterisation of his theory in the introduction: (i) you're right, I don't explain why the Russian bourgeoisie were held not to be able to complete capitalism, but (a) neither does the main body of the article, anywhere which presumably is the priority, and (b) I'm not sure such detail is suitable, anyway, for the two or three sentence summary which is necessary for the introduction. (ii) I think you're right that the control of society in general, not just polical power, is at issue - this is a simple point, and I will alter accordingly now.

On Cliff - though I think he does have a theory, his theory doesn't bare the same relation to 'deflected permanent revolution' (as a scenario) that Marx and Trotsky's theories bare to 'permanent revolution' (as a scenario or strategy) - i.e., that they think it would be a good thing. That's true, and I think it would be worthwhile making that clear, but it doesn't mean that he doesn't have a 'theory of deflected permanent revolution' - not all theories advocate their objects.

On length and exegesis. The article is not long at all in relation to many wikipedia articles (and it depends what you mean by 'long', in any case). It is a complex subject - the question is whether words are wasted, if they are, let's see what they are. Marx is difficult to quote briefly, or not at all - his style makes it very difficult, if the structure of what he's saying is to be grasped. My instinct, for example, is that the quotation from the Holy Family at the top is too long (though none of the others are), but it does seem to me, on reflection, to be necessary. Because I can't see how it could be cut, and the full meaning retained. The sense in which I use exegesis is summary, precis, or what have you - to draw out the meaning from a passage and state it simply. This is not original research in any meaningful sense.

On Marx, I assume that what you're uncomfortable with (as regards Russia's path of development, etc.) is the final two paragraphs of the Marx section. I'm not beyond accepting that my presentation may come across as slightly POV, though I definitely think that the view I present (but do not advocate, as such) needs to be mentioned and explained, since it is crucial for consideration of the relation between the views of Marx and Trotsky. Though I would agree that the counterpoint, if you will, should get more air. There is a letter at some point in which Marx says that "perhaps" it may be possible for Russia to skip the phase of bourgeois rule... but it's only an off-hand remark in a private letter - and do you know of any other evidence? I can't find the link to the letter, but if you can, it would definitely be worth including a quotation and reference for completeness. This seems to me to be the right approach: laying out the debates, with appropriate evidence.

Let's work on this together - I wouldn't take offence if you want to make a few edits of the sections we've discussed, though I hope you'll try, in general, to add, rather than take away - though of course some pruning will be necessary. Cheers, Breadandroses 11:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Implications of Trotsky's theory

I'm missing the implications of the Permanent Revolution as it differs to Socialism in one country. Since this was a struggle-between Stalin and Trotsky-that determined Soviet policy and thus world history it has (IMHO) more importance than the strength of the relation to Marx' theses. Prezen 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You have be right about relative importance. The implications concerned the importance of the USSR buuilding the Communist International as a revolutionary movement. Trotsky's theory, and Marx's, was that the capitalist class could not be trsuted to complete the bourgeois revolution, and therefore that the toiling masses need to organise independently to complete the revolutionary process and make it permanent. Stalin's theory was revolutionary overturns should not be attempted, and that the Communist parties should subordinate themselves to the leadership of the bourgois nationalists, for example the Nationalist Party of China. --Duncan 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is quite eurocentric: What about Latin America and JP Narayan? - nadalex 14 July 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadalex (talk • contribs) 14:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Evolutionary Communism?

I read a book on Trotsky an few years back that mentioned "Evolutionary Communism". Is this the same thing as Permanent Revolution or something different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Septagram (talk • contribs) 04:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that is Cabot's theory of utopian socialism. --Duncan (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

2010-03 tagging

Addressing in absence of any discussion supporting same. Lycurgus (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of Permanent

Does it mean "lasting" or "continuous" ?--85.104.65.134 (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Povjest

Permanentna revolucija 188.252.142.1 (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)