What do you think?
Rate this book
Die Permanente Revolution: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven
„Der Abschluss einer sozialistischen Revolution ist im nationalen Rahmen undenkbar. Sie beginnt auf nationalem Boden, entwickelt sich international und wird vollendet in der Weltarena. Folglich wird die sozialistische Revolution in einem neuen, breiteren Sinne des Wortes zu einer permanenten Revolution: Sie findet ihren Abschluss nicht vor dem endgültigen Siege der neuen Gesellschaft auf unserem ganzen Planeten.“
Die Theorie der permanenten Revolution bildete 1917 die strategische Grundlage der russischen Oktoberrevolution. Sechs Jahre später stand sie im Mittelpunkt der Angriffe auf die Linke Opposition, die sich der bürokratischen Entartung der Sowjetunion und dem Stalinismus widersetzte.
Die Theorie der permanenten Revolution geht auf Marx und Engels zurück. Auf ihrer Grundlage entwickelte der junge Leo Trotzki 1906 in „Ergebnisse und Perspektiven“ die zukünftige Strategie der Oktoberrevolution. Unter dem Titel „Die permanente Revolution“ verteidigte er sie 1928 gegen die stalinistischen Angriffe und Verfälschungen. Dieses Buch ist bis heute eine der aktuellsten Schriften der sozialistischen Bewegung.
Die vorliegende Ausgabe fasst beide Werke in einem Band zusammen.
Die Theorie der permanenten Revolution bildete 1917 die strategische Grundlage der russischen Oktoberrevolution. Sechs Jahre später stand sie im Mittelpunkt der Angriffe auf die Linke Opposition, die sich der bürokratischen Entartung der Sowjetunion und dem Stalinismus widersetzte.
Die Theorie der permanenten Revolution geht auf Marx und Engels zurück. Auf ihrer Grundlage entwickelte der junge Leo Trotzki 1906 in „Ergebnisse und Perspektiven“ die zukünftige Strategie der Oktoberrevolution. Unter dem Titel „Die permanente Revolution“ verteidigte er sie 1928 gegen die stalinistischen Angriffe und Verfälschungen. Dieses Buch ist bis heute eine der aktuellsten Schriften der sozialistischen Bewegung.
Die vorliegende Ausgabe fasst beide Werke in einem Band zusammen.
344 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1930
71 people are currently reading
1782 people want to read
About the author
Leon Trotsky
1,093 books804 followersSee also Лев Троцкий
Russian theoretician Leon Trotsky or Leon Trotski, originally Lev Davidovitch Bronstein, led the Bolshevik of 1917, wrote Literature and Revolution in 1924, opposed the authoritarianism of Joseph Stalin, and emphasized world; therefore later, the Communist party in 1927 expelled him and in 1929 banished him, but he included the autobiographical My Life in 1930, and the behest murdered him in exile in Mexico.
The exile of Leon Trotsky in 1929 marked rule of Joseph Stalin.
People better know this Marxist. In October 1917, he ranked second only to Vladimir Lenin. During the early days of the Soviet Union, he served first as commissar of people for foreign affairs and as the founder and commander of the Red Army and of war. He also ranked among the first members of the Politburo.
After a failed struggle of the left against the policies and rise in the 1920s, the increasing role of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union deported Trotsky. An early advocate of intervention of Army of Red against European fascism, Trotsky also agreed on peace with Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. As the head of the fourth International, Trotsky continued to the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, and Ramón Mercader, a Soviet agent, eventually assassinated him. From Marxism, his separate ideas form the basis of Trotskyism, a term, coined as early as 1905. Ideas of Trotsky constitute a major school of Marxist. The Soviet administration never rehabilitated him and few other political figures.
Russian theoretician Leon Trotsky or Leon Trotski, originally Lev Davidovitch Bronstein, led the Bolshevik of 1917, wrote Literature and Revolution in 1924, opposed the authoritarianism of Joseph Stalin, and emphasized world; therefore later, the Communist party in 1927 expelled him and in 1929 banished him, but he included the autobiographical My Life in 1930, and the behest murdered him in exile in Mexico.
The exile of Leon Trotsky in 1929 marked rule of Joseph Stalin.
People better know this Marxist. In October 1917, he ranked second only to Vladimir Lenin. During the early days of the Soviet Union, he served first as commissar of people for foreign affairs and as the founder and commander of the Red Army and of war. He also ranked among the first members of the Politburo.
After a failed struggle of the left against the policies and rise in the 1920s, the increasing role of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union deported Trotsky. An early advocate of intervention of Army of Red against European fascism, Trotsky also agreed on peace with Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. As the head of the fourth International, Trotsky continued to the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, and Ramón Mercader, a Soviet agent, eventually assassinated him. From Marxism, his separate ideas form the basis of Trotskyism, a term, coined as early as 1905. Ideas of Trotsky constitute a major school of Marxist. The Soviet administration never rehabilitated him and few other political figures.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
July 11, 2022
As with everything of Trotsky’s I’ve read, he makes a decent criticism or point against certain policies of the “epigones” of the CPSU and the Communist International. But as elsewhere, his conclusions based off his criticisms lead him into blind alleys (a turn of phrase he likes to frequently use against the “epigones”).
A few things that struck me during this read— 1) Trotsky likes to come off as the true heir to Lenin’s theorizing. It’s an obvious obsession of his analysis, at least in all of his post-Lenin works. It seems to me by this very consistent stance he himself suffers from treating past works of Lenin as dogma that must be adhered to. Trotsky argues the theorizations of Stalin and his “puppets” are too rigidly formulaic and not a response to actual material conditions, but then cites their changing policies throughout the book (based off material realities, notch) as proof that they are centrists, opportunists.
This leads me to 2) which is that Democratic centralism is a KEY component of revolutionary strategy — EXCEPT, it seems, for Trotsky, who just can’t seem to shut the fuck up if things don’t go the way of the Opposition.
3) Trotsky insists that the debate over the theory of permanent revolution is central to the future of the international workers’ revolution. Specifically the conclusion he makes towards workers’ parties in other countries to reject the Comintern line and to purge their parties of [Stalinists] is… bold. In this Trotsky once again inflates his own importance by insisting that this really mostly pedantic and inconsequential theorizing is so integral. It seems to be more of a bug in his bonnet than the party’s.
Running off that, there’s perhaps a fair argument that the CPSU and Comintern’s fight against Trotsky’s theories was a little overdone, but I think we can put that to bed by saying that they were just trying to get the man to shut up and get in line and stop dividing the party. Even at the point of his writing this he hadn’t been banished, though I can certainly see why this might have exacerbated things further.
4) Trotskyists were so frequently far off the mark in their own analyses of the international and national situations that reading more of Trotsky’s works to see where their foundations lie, tells me all the more that Trotsky’s analyses themselves were far off the mark. I can see quite clearly the devolved Marxism of Trotskyists taking shape in Trotsky.
I keep coming back to Trotsky because his followers are still so prevalent in America, but I’ve yet to be impressed by his theoretical grasp. At least his style of writing is easy to burn through.
A few things that struck me during this read— 1) Trotsky likes to come off as the true heir to Lenin’s theorizing. It’s an obvious obsession of his analysis, at least in all of his post-Lenin works. It seems to me by this very consistent stance he himself suffers from treating past works of Lenin as dogma that must be adhered to. Trotsky argues the theorizations of Stalin and his “puppets” are too rigidly formulaic and not a response to actual material conditions, but then cites their changing policies throughout the book (based off material realities, notch) as proof that they are centrists, opportunists.
This leads me to 2) which is that Democratic centralism is a KEY component of revolutionary strategy — EXCEPT, it seems, for Trotsky, who just can’t seem to shut the fuck up if things don’t go the way of the Opposition.
3) Trotsky insists that the debate over the theory of permanent revolution is central to the future of the international workers’ revolution. Specifically the conclusion he makes towards workers’ parties in other countries to reject the Comintern line and to purge their parties of [Stalinists] is… bold. In this Trotsky once again inflates his own importance by insisting that this really mostly pedantic and inconsequential theorizing is so integral. It seems to be more of a bug in his bonnet than the party’s.
Running off that, there’s perhaps a fair argument that the CPSU and Comintern’s fight against Trotsky’s theories was a little overdone, but I think we can put that to bed by saying that they were just trying to get the man to shut up and get in line and stop dividing the party. Even at the point of his writing this he hadn’t been banished, though I can certainly see why this might have exacerbated things further.
4) Trotskyists were so frequently far off the mark in their own analyses of the international and national situations that reading more of Trotsky’s works to see where their foundations lie, tells me all the more that Trotsky’s analyses themselves were far off the mark. I can see quite clearly the devolved Marxism of Trotskyists taking shape in Trotsky.
I keep coming back to Trotsky because his followers are still so prevalent in America, but I’ve yet to be impressed by his theoretical grasp. At least his style of writing is easy to burn through.
October 16, 2015
The formulation of the theory is mostly at the beginning of the book and the 14 theses. The core of the book is about responding to poor Radek, who was forced to attack the principles of Leninism by the miserable traitor Stalin, this scumbag needed someone to ideologise and justify his betrayal of the Chinese revolution by capitulating to the Kuomintang. Great enlightening read on the impossibility of Socialism in national scale.
Read
October 21, 2014Due to its (1905) political backwardness, (as Kautsky points out), Russia is dominated by foreign capital from more developed Western Nation. For this reason Russia has developed a proletariat that is surprisingly advanced given its lack of bourgeois liberalism. The power of the absolutist state has grown at the same time, making socialist revolution and not a liberal bourgeois revolution the only possible outcome. For Trotsky here, Marxism "is above all else a method of analysis," Socialists obsessed with the original meaning behind Marx's writing are trapped by their "hopeless formalism;" unable to analyze new phenomena.
When the revolution does come to Russia, there will be a proletarian government, but not an exclusively proletarian government, there is no harm in the participation of liberal bourgeois provided they are a minority. In order to ensure that the dictatorship of the proletariat is able to maintain its power, it must widen its base of power, any "dictatorship" by the workers must necessarily tend toward democracy, principally by organizing the countryside, who will rally to the agents of their emancipation.
Trotsky reminds the reader that (as Marx recognized), a Proletarian revolution is not a panacea, and a Proletarian government will not be able to "perform miracles." It is a political revolution, and will create the opportunity to apply political pressure: 8 hour day, expropriation (with compensation of possible without if not, planned production, etc.)
The revolution in Russia means revolution spreading west through all of the capitalist states of Europe.
When the revolution does come to Russia, there will be a proletarian government, but not an exclusively proletarian government, there is no harm in the participation of liberal bourgeois provided they are a minority. In order to ensure that the dictatorship of the proletariat is able to maintain its power, it must widen its base of power, any "dictatorship" by the workers must necessarily tend toward democracy, principally by organizing the countryside, who will rally to the agents of their emancipation.
Trotsky reminds the reader that (as Marx recognized), a Proletarian revolution is not a panacea, and a Proletarian government will not be able to "perform miracles." It is a political revolution, and will create the opportunity to apply political pressure: 8 hour day, expropriation (with compensation of possible without if not, planned production, etc.)
The revolution in Russia means revolution spreading west through all of the capitalist states of Europe.
October 2, 2018
First off when picking this up you should realize that this isn´t so much of a book explaining Trotsky´s ideas of the Permanent Revolution, but rather a rebuttal about the criticisms lobbed at him by various critics such as Radek, and of course Stalin. With that said if you´ve no previous knowledge of Trotskyism, and what that entails you should not start off with reading this book. This book is primarily for those looking for answers to some issues people had with his ideals.
That being said this is a hard read for obvious reasons as it gets very theoretical at times. There were times however where I found Trotsky´s writing to be petty. His hatred of Stalin is very obvious from reading that at one point I wished I could stop reading about Stalin this, Stalin that every other line. We get it Trotsky we get it! Also at times the arguments presented against Trotsky were so minor, yet Trotsky would spend pages arguing why these points were wrong. Such minor things like the word order of a sentence could get Trotsky very riled up! While I am sure people can enjoy that Trotsky left no stone unturned it does get very tedious.
The book is fine as supplemental material for any budding supporters of Trotskyism out there, but if you want to get more refined details you will have to look elsewhere. Only towards the end does Trotsky express his points a bit more clearly, but that´s a moot point by the time you get to that section in the book.
That being said this is a hard read for obvious reasons as it gets very theoretical at times. There were times however where I found Trotsky´s writing to be petty. His hatred of Stalin is very obvious from reading that at one point I wished I could stop reading about Stalin this, Stalin that every other line. We get it Trotsky we get it! Also at times the arguments presented against Trotsky were so minor, yet Trotsky would spend pages arguing why these points were wrong. Such minor things like the word order of a sentence could get Trotsky very riled up! While I am sure people can enjoy that Trotsky left no stone unturned it does get very tedious.
The book is fine as supplemental material for any budding supporters of Trotskyism out there, but if you want to get more refined details you will have to look elsewhere. Only towards the end does Trotsky express his points a bit more clearly, but that´s a moot point by the time you get to that section in the book.
September 10, 2025
Trotsky was a valiant opponent of Stalinism. But he was not someone without political limitations. The Stalinist 'critique' of Trotsky's theory was utter garbage, it totally mangled the understanding of the issues. Trotsky does well to refute the idea that he was anything like Lenin's mortal enemy. But that doesn't mean there are no legitimate criticisms to be made. For the purpose of combatting Stalinist slander Trotsky understandably dilutes the revolutionary position to reduce his differences with Lenin to being merely about conciliationism towards Menshevism. But this dilution doesn't satisfy an understanding of what determined him to not be on Lenin's side. Trotsky's theory was a core part of his political views for which he would not join the Bolsheviks until July 1917. Neither is the history of 'orthodox' Trotskyism a one-sidedly positive one. Organisational questions cannot be separated from political questions.
Much of what is often attributed to Trotsky’s innovation was actually Second-International orthodoxy: ideas of ‘skipping stages’, that the working class must lead, that the Russian revolution could spark a European socialist revolution, and then that this European revolution could allow for socialist development in Russia, were all positions common to Russian Social Democrats leading up to 1905. Kautsky during the 1905 revolution had argued all of these points. Kautsky also argued that the revolution must be led by workers in an alliance with the peasantry, a point to Lenin against the Mensheviks. It was not until the aftermath of 1905 that the Mensheviks explicitly went to the right, though the seeds for such a turn must be seen in their earlier disputes with Lenin.
What made Trotsky distinct was an identification of the democratic and socialist revolutions in Russia: that a provisional revolutionary government dominated by workers would strive to enact socialist transformation *prior to* successful European socialist revolution, *and* that such a situation was a supportable one as the only road by which Social Democracy would not discredit itself. Such an inevitability could only be consummated in successful socialist transformation by the European socialist revolution coming to Russia’s aid. Ultimately, the Russian revolution was doomed to failure unless the European proletariat did their part in the scheme. Trotsky was arguing that the only way Social Democracy could not discredit itself was by instigating a civil war with the peasant majority after taking power, and hope that Europe came to its aid. It’s clear why this was not popular, compared to the idea of winning the peasantry to Social-Democratic leadership, and thereby accomplishing the democratic dictatorship as something immensely significant while still short of socialism. When Social Democrats were trying to convince the peasants that they had nothing to fear from Social Democracy, Trotsky was telling them they had a lot to be afraid of.
Trotsky had it that the Russian Revolution would be spontaneously socialist because the workers' movement in revolution was spontaneously socialist, and the working class would spontaneously achieve a hegemonic position in the revolution. To doubly identify the workers' movement, socialism, and the hegemonic character of the revolution in such a way was ultimately a form of economism. Whereas the SRs thought the revolution would be spontaneously socialist by the character of the peasantry, Trotsky thought the revolution spontaneously socialist by the character of the proletariat. Out of everyone it was Martynov the economist-turned-Menshevik who would agree with Trotsky that a revolution led by the proletariat with the RSDLP in government could not help but be socialist. He just flipped the value judgement to say that such a situation would be terrible and therefore the RSDLP should not participate in a revolutionary government.
The exact character of a worker-peasant alliance was a point of much political difference, nuance, and disagreement. Lenin, while recognising the significance of peasant political formations, did not (unlike Trotsky) think a worker-peasant coalition had to consist of an alliance of parties: it could take a variety of forms of practical alliance and unity in action, a crucial form being the soviet. The point was that the peasants had to constitute a social and political force in their own right, and be recognised as such. Strategic reflexivity to such a force was a key condition for workers achieving revolutionary consciousness as leaders of the ‘people’. What changed leading up to the April Theses was that imperialism made possible a *socialist* revolution of the ‘people’, ‘the whole nation’, the proletariat its vanguard (though the concrete, non-ideal, not purely proletarian situation made for contradictions and roadblocks to be resolved through the international struggle). This is also the logic by which Lenin becomes most enthusiastic about the role of national self-determination in the struggle for socialism. This is the proletariat as the universal class, the leader of all the masses. Economism never understood the significance of having one's sights beyond the workers.
It was on this point that Trotsky ‘underestimated the peasantry’. Trotsky thought that workers would spontaneously come to a leading position in the revolution by fighting for their own interests as a group. This was the premise for workers inevitably bringing on socialist transformation even if the peasants didn’t want it. The peasants were denied the agency of constituting themselves as a coherent political force. Instead the peasants would lump themselves as a disparate mass behind the workers in the democratic revolution, but then turn on the workers when the latter ‘necessarily’ began enacting socialist transformation.
To paraphrase Lenin, organisational questions cannot be separated from political questions. On this, Trotsky's theory corresponded to his political practice, which was to situate himself on the left wing of centrism within the RSDLP. Trotsky’s theory was, despite the differences of policy, more Kautskyan than Lenin and his endorsement of Kautsky’s formal positions. That there was only one inevitable path ‘forward’ for the Russian revolution expressed a unilinear logic of history. It was a kind of narrow focus on the working-class, a Kautsyan theology of the proletariat. It did not sense the potential problem of the Russian revolution being diverted into genuinely ‘forward’ but much less favourable directions by non-Marxist leadership. Lenin was very attuned to the possibility of the revolution being led by the SRs or another political force, the workers being reduced to a non-hegemonic pressure group. This motivated factional struggle. For Trotsky in contrast, the logic of the revolutionary struggle, a teleology towards socialist revolution, would render the Bolshevik-Menshevik division obsolete. Thus Lenin’s supposed dogmatism seemed to be a barrier to getting on with guiding the proletariat along the railroad of fate, rather than a righteous struggle over the character of leadership which Social Democracy would bring to the workers’ movement. It would be not Bolsheviks but some Mensheviks who would briefly play with Trotsky’s theory, and the idea of an exclusively workers’ revolutionary government. Trotsky after 1905 would try to broker a reconciliation of the two factions, earning him the label ‘centrist’ as Lenin described him.
This does not mean that Trotsky's theory was total garbage, or that Lenin was always fully correct at every moment without any development of thought. The idea that Russia would begin the international socialist revolution by itself having a socialist revolution was important. But it was not anything like Trotsky's logic by which Lenin came to his 1917 position. Gramsci criticised Trotsky’s theory in the Prison Notebooks as an anti-strategic proclamation which in the general course of things turned out correct but did not appropriately guide concrete analysis and action. What happened with Lenin was that developments in theories of imperialism and of the state fused with his logic of hegemony. We should reframe our understanding of what happened theoretically in 1917: it was not so much Lenin coming around to Trotsky's theory as it was Trotsky coming around (though arguably not fully) to Lenin's Marxism.
Much of what is often attributed to Trotsky’s innovation was actually Second-International orthodoxy: ideas of ‘skipping stages’, that the working class must lead, that the Russian revolution could spark a European socialist revolution, and then that this European revolution could allow for socialist development in Russia, were all positions common to Russian Social Democrats leading up to 1905. Kautsky during the 1905 revolution had argued all of these points. Kautsky also argued that the revolution must be led by workers in an alliance with the peasantry, a point to Lenin against the Mensheviks. It was not until the aftermath of 1905 that the Mensheviks explicitly went to the right, though the seeds for such a turn must be seen in their earlier disputes with Lenin.
What made Trotsky distinct was an identification of the democratic and socialist revolutions in Russia: that a provisional revolutionary government dominated by workers would strive to enact socialist transformation *prior to* successful European socialist revolution, *and* that such a situation was a supportable one as the only road by which Social Democracy would not discredit itself. Such an inevitability could only be consummated in successful socialist transformation by the European socialist revolution coming to Russia’s aid. Ultimately, the Russian revolution was doomed to failure unless the European proletariat did their part in the scheme. Trotsky was arguing that the only way Social Democracy could not discredit itself was by instigating a civil war with the peasant majority after taking power, and hope that Europe came to its aid. It’s clear why this was not popular, compared to the idea of winning the peasantry to Social-Democratic leadership, and thereby accomplishing the democratic dictatorship as something immensely significant while still short of socialism. When Social Democrats were trying to convince the peasants that they had nothing to fear from Social Democracy, Trotsky was telling them they had a lot to be afraid of.
Trotsky had it that the Russian Revolution would be spontaneously socialist because the workers' movement in revolution was spontaneously socialist, and the working class would spontaneously achieve a hegemonic position in the revolution. To doubly identify the workers' movement, socialism, and the hegemonic character of the revolution in such a way was ultimately a form of economism. Whereas the SRs thought the revolution would be spontaneously socialist by the character of the peasantry, Trotsky thought the revolution spontaneously socialist by the character of the proletariat. Out of everyone it was Martynov the economist-turned-Menshevik who would agree with Trotsky that a revolution led by the proletariat with the RSDLP in government could not help but be socialist. He just flipped the value judgement to say that such a situation would be terrible and therefore the RSDLP should not participate in a revolutionary government.
The exact character of a worker-peasant alliance was a point of much political difference, nuance, and disagreement. Lenin, while recognising the significance of peasant political formations, did not (unlike Trotsky) think a worker-peasant coalition had to consist of an alliance of parties: it could take a variety of forms of practical alliance and unity in action, a crucial form being the soviet. The point was that the peasants had to constitute a social and political force in their own right, and be recognised as such. Strategic reflexivity to such a force was a key condition for workers achieving revolutionary consciousness as leaders of the ‘people’. What changed leading up to the April Theses was that imperialism made possible a *socialist* revolution of the ‘people’, ‘the whole nation’, the proletariat its vanguard (though the concrete, non-ideal, not purely proletarian situation made for contradictions and roadblocks to be resolved through the international struggle). This is also the logic by which Lenin becomes most enthusiastic about the role of national self-determination in the struggle for socialism. This is the proletariat as the universal class, the leader of all the masses. Economism never understood the significance of having one's sights beyond the workers.
It was on this point that Trotsky ‘underestimated the peasantry’. Trotsky thought that workers would spontaneously come to a leading position in the revolution by fighting for their own interests as a group. This was the premise for workers inevitably bringing on socialist transformation even if the peasants didn’t want it. The peasants were denied the agency of constituting themselves as a coherent political force. Instead the peasants would lump themselves as a disparate mass behind the workers in the democratic revolution, but then turn on the workers when the latter ‘necessarily’ began enacting socialist transformation.
To paraphrase Lenin, organisational questions cannot be separated from political questions. On this, Trotsky's theory corresponded to his political practice, which was to situate himself on the left wing of centrism within the RSDLP. Trotsky’s theory was, despite the differences of policy, more Kautskyan than Lenin and his endorsement of Kautsky’s formal positions. That there was only one inevitable path ‘forward’ for the Russian revolution expressed a unilinear logic of history. It was a kind of narrow focus on the working-class, a Kautsyan theology of the proletariat. It did not sense the potential problem of the Russian revolution being diverted into genuinely ‘forward’ but much less favourable directions by non-Marxist leadership. Lenin was very attuned to the possibility of the revolution being led by the SRs or another political force, the workers being reduced to a non-hegemonic pressure group. This motivated factional struggle. For Trotsky in contrast, the logic of the revolutionary struggle, a teleology towards socialist revolution, would render the Bolshevik-Menshevik division obsolete. Thus Lenin’s supposed dogmatism seemed to be a barrier to getting on with guiding the proletariat along the railroad of fate, rather than a righteous struggle over the character of leadership which Social Democracy would bring to the workers’ movement. It would be not Bolsheviks but some Mensheviks who would briefly play with Trotsky’s theory, and the idea of an exclusively workers’ revolutionary government. Trotsky after 1905 would try to broker a reconciliation of the two factions, earning him the label ‘centrist’ as Lenin described him.
This does not mean that Trotsky's theory was total garbage, or that Lenin was always fully correct at every moment without any development of thought. The idea that Russia would begin the international socialist revolution by itself having a socialist revolution was important. But it was not anything like Trotsky's logic by which Lenin came to his 1917 position. Gramsci criticised Trotsky’s theory in the Prison Notebooks as an anti-strategic proclamation which in the general course of things turned out correct but did not appropriately guide concrete analysis and action. What happened with Lenin was that developments in theories of imperialism and of the state fused with his logic of hegemony. We should reframe our understanding of what happened theoretically in 1917: it was not so much Lenin coming around to Trotsky's theory as it was Trotsky coming around (though arguably not fully) to Lenin's Marxism.
July 6, 2016
Great Book! Vivid analysis of Marxism as the prerequisite of revolution and real social change!!! Rock solid defense of Permanent Revolution versus Stalin's Socialism In One Country perverted sham and his epigones wayward, callous attack on Trotsky, the Left Opposition and the gospel of Permanent Revolution. Ironic that this epigones, most of them anyway, were later executed by Stalin.
It is too bad today that Marxism has such a negative connotation and rather ironic as well because that is due to Stalin who wasn't a Marxist or communist at all, but rather a ruthless thug. Now look at the world today. More and More Countries in the world have socialist policies and governments!!!; moreover they take care of their people. Even in the United States, the bastion of capitalism and greed, things are changing! A socialist ran for president and did well. The people are getting more vocal about the incredible discrepancies existing in wealth and services. We have Leon Trotsky to thank for this!! Finally!!!!
It is too bad today that Marxism has such a negative connotation and rather ironic as well because that is due to Stalin who wasn't a Marxist or communist at all, but rather a ruthless thug. Now look at the world today. More and More Countries in the world have socialist policies and governments!!!; moreover they take care of their people. Even in the United States, the bastion of capitalism and greed, things are changing! A socialist ran for president and did well. The people are getting more vocal about the incredible discrepancies existing in wealth and services. We have Leon Trotsky to thank for this!! Finally!!!!
July 31, 2014
This is really two books in one. Results And Prospects was written after the 1905 revolution. The Permanent Revolution was written about 25 years later. R&P is more for reference purposes but it was good to have it under the belt since it is quoted rather extensively, second is "1905," which I have not read.
What's interesting about this one is not necessarily just the theory itself, but more showing what Trotsky was up against, in his detractors. He is made to reply to characterizations of things he wrote (which others actually wrote or said) before the 1917 revolution. His defense is primarily, not only was that not me who said it, but I said this thing that was in lockstep with Lenin at the time... and besides why are you attacking my theories before the revolution, rather than noticing my actions during the revolution, and in the years that followed.
It is similar to the book Zizek intro'd, in reply to Kautsky.
What's interesting about this one is not necessarily just the theory itself, but more showing what Trotsky was up against, in his detractors. He is made to reply to characterizations of things he wrote (which others actually wrote or said) before the 1917 revolution. His defense is primarily, not only was that not me who said it, but I said this thing that was in lockstep with Lenin at the time... and besides why are you attacking my theories before the revolution, rather than noticing my actions during the revolution, and in the years that followed.
It is similar to the book Zizek intro'd, in reply to Kautsky.
July 26, 2019
One of the best, most clear set of reasons and reflections I’ve ever read. Everything he writes is brilliant.
July 14, 2024
Stalin got mogged
Read
September 25, 2017eh si, nel secolo scorso l'ho letto.
August 1, 2016
Este libro es un clásico del marxismo-leninismo ortodoxo. También es un libro fundamental en tanto se ocupa directamente del concepto de revolución permanente, que está a la izquierda de la izquierda. Desde luego que son varios los elementos que componen la revolución permanente, pero creo que su clave es el alcance. La revolución permanente consiste en la dictadura del proletariado a escala planetaria, es decir primero se propone revolucionar unas cuantas naciones, luego todas las naciones del planeta. Me pareció muy interesante la potencia discursiva de Trotsky en este libro. Aún en la palabra escrita se percibe el brillo retórico, el mesianismo convincente, la capacidad de persuasión de las arengas del gran agitador ucraniano. Encontré claridad también en las razones de la distancia insalvable entre Trotsky y Stalin, su asesino. Son muchos los insultos de Trotsky al gran dictador de la URSS. Lo llama vulgar demócrata (página 61), insignificante y vulgar (pág. 91), divagador (pág. 103), ideólogo vulgar (pág. 175) y pequeñoburgués rodeado de papagayos (pág. 208). El resultado de dirigir estos insultos a un mesiánico psicópata fue el conocido martillazo en la cabeza de Trotsky en México perpetrado por un sicario bajo las órdenes de Stalin. Me resultó muy interesante la discusión interna sobre el rol de los campesinos en relación con el rol de los obreros en la revolución permanente, que en realidad no es permanente en sentido estricto porque tiene una culminación con la dictadura del proletariado a escala planetaria. En síntesis, este libro me pareció muy bueno. Su riqueza histórica, política, económica, sociológica y psicológica creo que permiten al lector comprender un poco mejor el mundo actual o, al menos, seguir leyendo y pensando. Opino que es una lectura muy recomendable junto con el resto de sus múltiples obras como Mi Vida, La Victoria Era Posible y Escritos Latinoamericanos, entre otros.
August 6, 2021
The two books collected here: Results and Prospects (R&P) and Permanent Revolution are all about the concept, which is in the title of the second book, i.e. the "permanent revolution". It describes the "revolution which makes no compromise with any single form of class rule, which does not stop at the democratic stage, which goes over to socialist measures and to war against reaction from without" (p. 130); this is than further developed to go oppose concepts like socialism as one country, but this is, mostly, related to Trotsky's vision of the interdependence of economic regions.
Results and Prospects is very much worth reading, at least, as the first half gives a worthwhile historical account of the foreign domination of the Russian economy and the consequences it brought in the class structure of the Russian Empire and the second half gives a good overview of the theory -- even if I disagree with it.
The second book, the permanent revolution, i find horrible. It is one large treatise of historical revisionism to try and present Lenin as agreeing with his theory of permanent revolution, trying to present himself verging on being more Leninist than Lenin. It very much tries to present both overlapping, when there was plenty of opposition -- for example, Trostky cites Lenin arguing that after October only a national-democratic revolution (led by the proletariat and peasantry) was achieved. He says this is true. Only a sentence later, he says that actually "it was not realized in the form of a democratic dictatorship, but in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat" (p. 229).
This is just one example. So I would say the first book, R&P, is worth reading, even if disagreeable. But I didn't find much useful in the second book.
Results and Prospects is very much worth reading, at least, as the first half gives a worthwhile historical account of the foreign domination of the Russian economy and the consequences it brought in the class structure of the Russian Empire and the second half gives a good overview of the theory -- even if I disagree with it.
The second book, the permanent revolution, i find horrible. It is one large treatise of historical revisionism to try and present Lenin as agreeing with his theory of permanent revolution, trying to present himself verging on being more Leninist than Lenin. It very much tries to present both overlapping, when there was plenty of opposition -- for example, Trostky cites Lenin arguing that after October only a national-democratic revolution (led by the proletariat and peasantry) was achieved. He says this is true. Only a sentence later, he says that actually "it was not realized in the form of a democratic dictatorship, but in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat" (p. 229).
This is just one example. So I would say the first book, R&P, is worth reading, even if disagreeable. But I didn't find much useful in the second book.
January 13, 2018
The book is not easy to read because cde Trotsky is more or less reacting to criticisms being made by Stalin, Radek, Bukharin among many other critics on his theory of permanent revolution. When I was reading the book it was more like jumping into the middle of a conversation that I did not know where it started, and reading the book in 2018 with hindsight to my advantage, it sometimes seems like some of their arguments are petty. But one has to expect this because this is what happens when theoreticians are debating a theory.
Their main disagreement was whether a revolution can skip some stages and jump into the final stage; the socialist revolution. Trotsky believes that a revolution moves a state from being a bourgeoisie state into a petty bourgeoisie or into the proletarian dictatorship with the workers leading the peasants which then grows over into the socialist revolution. The socialist revolution in one country then grows into the international socialist movement as one socialist country can not exist in isolation in the international community.
When I embarked on reading the book, my desire was to know what the theory of permanent revolution is. It is explained at the beginning of the book and much more explicit and categorical in the end.
Their main disagreement was whether a revolution can skip some stages and jump into the final stage; the socialist revolution. Trotsky believes that a revolution moves a state from being a bourgeoisie state into a petty bourgeoisie or into the proletarian dictatorship with the workers leading the peasants which then grows over into the socialist revolution. The socialist revolution in one country then grows into the international socialist movement as one socialist country can not exist in isolation in the international community.
When I embarked on reading the book, my desire was to know what the theory of permanent revolution is. It is explained at the beginning of the book and much more explicit and categorical in the end.
did-not-finish
April 3, 2012Interesting, but I would have preferred something with a tighter thesis. It mostly read like a collection of ranty letters detailing political infighting between Trotsky and... pretty much everyone else involved in the revolution.
May 14, 2020
A highly relevant read for any revolutionary contemplating what to do about vestigial feudalism in the age of Imperialist decay. Or wondering how Trotsky saved Marxism, if not the revolution, from Stalin and his cronies.
December 8, 2014
ŞEREFSİZ TROÇKİ SEN HAKSIZSIN
Read
January 15, 2026The Permanent Revolution is a serious polemic, although it does dip into comedy at points, against the Stalinist revision of Trotsky’s thought particularly regarding the concept of permanent revolution. The concept of permanent revolution, as Trotsky himself lays it out, is the idea that the socialist revolution flows over from the democratic revolution. This position was informed by Trotsky’s experience in Russia, but he argues it is valid everywhere due to the international nature of Capital (interdependency between the whole world, productive forces are bound up internationally, etc). Because of this, permanent revolution is essentially internationalist – without international revolution no actual socialism can be achieved (and without an actual proletarian movement, not just the state, as well)^1. If this lesson is ignored, in favor of Stalin’s articulation of socialism in one country, social chauvinism and nationalistic messianism^2 are inevitable (as one-state socialism is essentially ahistorical and derives from the transcendent codification of vulgar dialectics).
I particularly like Trotsky’s actual material analysis (which is incredibly clear compared to “dialectical analysis”). Trotsky understood that Marxist theory was not a natural science but an immanent theory of history that is intimately linked with praxis – (it deals with empirical facts and creates predictions that must be validated through action), that locates potentialities for revolution wherever they may be. (This is what allows Trotsky to pithily note that Marx’s Capital follows an analytical development rather than a logical-historical one, an understanding of Marx far superseding many of Trotsky’s acolytes–one wishes that Ernest Mandel would have studied this line deeply^3). For Russia, the peasantry must follow the proletariat because they don't have the capability to be a political force by themselves (the agrarian question).
Whether you agree with all of Trotsky’s conclusions or not, he has a genuinely perspicacious understanding of Marxism and its application to material conditions, far exceeding the Stalinites.
^1: "The conquest of power by the proletariat does not complete the revolution, but only opens it. Socialist construction is conceivable only on the foundation of the class struggle, on a national and international scale."
^2:
"The break with the internationalist position always and invariably leads to national messianism, that is, to attributing special superiorities and qualities to one's own country, which allegedly permit it to play a role to which other countries cannot attain"
^3: "Capitalist development--not in the abstract formulas of the second volume of Capital, which retain all their significance as *a stage in analysis*, but in historical reality-- took place and could only take place by a systematic expansion of its base.
I particularly like Trotsky’s actual material analysis (which is incredibly clear compared to “dialectical analysis”). Trotsky understood that Marxist theory was not a natural science but an immanent theory of history that is intimately linked with praxis – (it deals with empirical facts and creates predictions that must be validated through action), that locates potentialities for revolution wherever they may be. (This is what allows Trotsky to pithily note that Marx’s Capital follows an analytical development rather than a logical-historical one, an understanding of Marx far superseding many of Trotsky’s acolytes–one wishes that Ernest Mandel would have studied this line deeply^3). For Russia, the peasantry must follow the proletariat because they don't have the capability to be a political force by themselves (the agrarian question).
Whether you agree with all of Trotsky’s conclusions or not, he has a genuinely perspicacious understanding of Marxism and its application to material conditions, far exceeding the Stalinites.
^1: "The conquest of power by the proletariat does not complete the revolution, but only opens it. Socialist construction is conceivable only on the foundation of the class struggle, on a national and international scale."
^2:
"The break with the internationalist position always and invariably leads to national messianism, that is, to attributing special superiorities and qualities to one's own country, which allegedly permit it to play a role to which other countries cannot attain"
^3: "Capitalist development--not in the abstract formulas of the second volume of Capital, which retain all their significance as *a stage in analysis*, but in historical reality-- took place and could only take place by a systematic expansion of its base.
February 5, 2024
I picked this up because I was interested in the theory of permanent revolution and generally like Trotsky's criticisms of Stalin and the Soviet Union, and when this book is doing that it's great, but the majority of the book is not that.
The first half is something he wrote in 1905, sort of his "what is to be done" (but not as good) where he roughly builds a counter theory against the strict "stageism" that was Marxist orthodox at the time (the idea that, as nations pass from feudalism to bourgeois capitalism to socialism, they need to stabilize at each level before moving on to the next"). This is kind of interesting.
The second half he wrote while in exile in Kazakhstan in the late 1920's and 90% of it is him complaining about Stalinists misrepresenting him, how much he and Lenin were bros and no one knew him like Trotsky did, and constantly reiterating how the proletariat needs to lead the peasantry. Basically very boring and pedantic. When he gets back to detailing the theory or talking smack about Stalinist policy it gets interesting again, but mostly it's calling people idiots for thinking a slogan he made wasn't addressing the agrarian question.
The theory of Permanent Revolution is interesting as a criticism of strict western-eurocentric Marxism that expects a very specific type of development. In this book he criticisms Stalin's demand that the Chinese communists ally with the Kuomintang in order to fulfill this determinism, and the future chaotic and evolving nature of the Chinese revolution proves it was a good case study. But like, maybe just read the summary of the theory at the back of the book (which half of which is, sadly, about peasant-proletarian class party relations. Snore).
The first half is something he wrote in 1905, sort of his "what is to be done" (but not as good) where he roughly builds a counter theory against the strict "stageism" that was Marxist orthodox at the time (the idea that, as nations pass from feudalism to bourgeois capitalism to socialism, they need to stabilize at each level before moving on to the next"). This is kind of interesting.
The second half he wrote while in exile in Kazakhstan in the late 1920's and 90% of it is him complaining about Stalinists misrepresenting him, how much he and Lenin were bros and no one knew him like Trotsky did, and constantly reiterating how the proletariat needs to lead the peasantry. Basically very boring and pedantic. When he gets back to detailing the theory or talking smack about Stalinist policy it gets interesting again, but mostly it's calling people idiots for thinking a slogan he made wasn't addressing the agrarian question.
The theory of Permanent Revolution is interesting as a criticism of strict western-eurocentric Marxism that expects a very specific type of development. In this book he criticisms Stalin's demand that the Chinese communists ally with the Kuomintang in order to fulfill this determinism, and the future chaotic and evolving nature of the Chinese revolution proves it was a good case study. But like, maybe just read the summary of the theory at the back of the book (which half of which is, sadly, about peasant-proletarian class party relations. Snore).
September 10, 2019
Hubo una época en la que quise ser marxista, pero mis aventuras con la teoría nunca llegaron demasiado lejos. Al final resultó que el marxismo no era para mí, y La revolución permanente fue uno de los textos que me lo hizo saber.
A Trostky quise leerlo porque lo supuse “el bueno”, el que de alguna manera podía salvarnos de los horrores reales que habían sido Stalin y la URSS. Trotsky no había participado de ellos en una medida tan extrema como para ser considerado más que un revolucionario implacable, y sus divagues teóricos venían a explicarnos por qué el sistema implantado en la URSS no era el verdadero comunismo, por qué las ideas de Marx y de Lenin, llevadas a la práctica, tendrían un aspecto muy distinto.
Incluso en ese momento ya preveía el desengaño.
La revolución permanente es un texto clásicamente marxista, de tintes exegéticos y polémicos, escasamente interesado en los hechos, incapaz de convencer a nadie que no estuviese convencido de antemano. El análisis de Trotsky obedece a la necesidad de destruir doctrinariamente a Stalin y su teoría del socialismo en un solo país. ¿Cómo se logra esto? Básicamente, demostrando que él, Trotsky, es más marxista que Stalin y los suyos, que se sabe mejor los textos de Marx, Engels, y también los de Lenin, que a esta altura ya ha ascendido al Olimpo de los comunistas. También discutirá los sucesos de la Revolución Rusa, pero ajustándolos a su propio constructo ideológico. La teoría siempre tiene preeminencia.
A Trostky quise leerlo porque lo supuse “el bueno”, el que de alguna manera podía salvarnos de los horrores reales que habían sido Stalin y la URSS. Trotsky no había participado de ellos en una medida tan extrema como para ser considerado más que un revolucionario implacable, y sus divagues teóricos venían a explicarnos por qué el sistema implantado en la URSS no era el verdadero comunismo, por qué las ideas de Marx y de Lenin, llevadas a la práctica, tendrían un aspecto muy distinto.
Incluso en ese momento ya preveía el desengaño.
La revolución permanente es un texto clásicamente marxista, de tintes exegéticos y polémicos, escasamente interesado en los hechos, incapaz de convencer a nadie que no estuviese convencido de antemano. El análisis de Trotsky obedece a la necesidad de destruir doctrinariamente a Stalin y su teoría del socialismo en un solo país. ¿Cómo se logra esto? Básicamente, demostrando que él, Trotsky, es más marxista que Stalin y los suyos, que se sabe mejor los textos de Marx, Engels, y también los de Lenin, que a esta altura ya ha ascendido al Olimpo de los comunistas. También discutirá los sucesos de la Revolución Rusa, pero ajustándolos a su propio constructo ideológico. La teoría siempre tiene preeminencia.
April 2, 2023
Mira que estoy acostumbrado a leer tostones, pero este se lleva el premio. Si te interesa el tema, léete el prólogo/introducción y salta directamente a las tesis fundamentales.
Sin entrar en el contenido político (que es muy discutible) el 90% del libro puede resumirse en Trotski diciendo (y repitiendo hasta la saciedad): “Soy muy listo y ya predije el resultado de la revolución de 1917 en 1905”, “Las cosas que dicen que digo que son erróneas, también las dijo Lenin, chínchate Stalin”, “Realmente lo que quería decir era X, pero es que me malinterpretaron los malvados epígonos”, o “Aún cuando era un menchevique, ya tenia razón en mis ideas y de alguna manera tácita, Lenin me daba la razón”.
Incluye muchísimos juicios de valor, falacias de hombre de paja, y en general muy poco contenido teórico (quien haya leído a Marx o a Lenin lo notará al instante). Además, por algún motivo no deja de referirse a si mismo en tercera persona (?!) y caricaturiza las posiciones de la URSS y la III internacional constantemente. Como ejemplo este diálogo de comedia que reproduzco literalmente (p.222):
- Pero es un hecho que Lenin explicó en 1918 que la dictadura democrática sólo halló su realización auténtica en la revolución de octubre, la cual estableció la dictadura del proletariado. ¿No será mejor que orientemos al partido y a la clase obrera precisamente de acuerdo con esta perspectiva?
- De ninguna manera. No os atreváis ni siquiera a pensarlo. ¡Eso es la r-r-r-evolución per-r-r-manente! ¡Eso es el tr-tr-trotskismo!!
Sin entrar en el contenido político (que es muy discutible) el 90% del libro puede resumirse en Trotski diciendo (y repitiendo hasta la saciedad): “Soy muy listo y ya predije el resultado de la revolución de 1917 en 1905”, “Las cosas que dicen que digo que son erróneas, también las dijo Lenin, chínchate Stalin”, “Realmente lo que quería decir era X, pero es que me malinterpretaron los malvados epígonos”, o “Aún cuando era un menchevique, ya tenia razón en mis ideas y de alguna manera tácita, Lenin me daba la razón”.
Incluye muchísimos juicios de valor, falacias de hombre de paja, y en general muy poco contenido teórico (quien haya leído a Marx o a Lenin lo notará al instante). Además, por algún motivo no deja de referirse a si mismo en tercera persona (?!) y caricaturiza las posiciones de la URSS y la III internacional constantemente. Como ejemplo este diálogo de comedia que reproduzco literalmente (p.222):
- Pero es un hecho que Lenin explicó en 1918 que la dictadura democrática sólo halló su realización auténtica en la revolución de octubre, la cual estableció la dictadura del proletariado. ¿No será mejor que orientemos al partido y a la clase obrera precisamente de acuerdo con esta perspectiva?
- De ninguna manera. No os atreváis ni siquiera a pensarlo. ¡Eso es la r-r-r-evolución per-r-r-manente! ¡Eso es el tr-tr-trotskismo!!
June 11, 2021
O livro é composto por uma introdução que abrange 80% do mesmo, onde Trotsky aborda os fatos até então ocorridos na URSS e seus inúmeros tópicos de discordância com Stalin.
O foco do livro se dá na " Revolução permanente", mostrando ali a necessidade de uma revolução socialista internacional, para que não houvessem contradições dentro do sistema. Uma boa exemplificação do tema abordado há no livro " Revolução dos bichos", quando Napoleão precisa entrar em contato com os homens para fazer a construção de seu moinho, sendo assim uma traição aos princípios do " animalismo". Segundo Marx, a revolução permanente significa uma revolução que não transige com nenhuma forma de dominação de classe.
Durante o livro, o autor mostra o como Stalin se desvincula do Marxismo, e assume até mesmo alguns de seus prórpios erros em textos passados ( coisa que eu achei bacana ). Trotsky argumenta que a revolução russa irrompe pouco mais de meio século após a época das grandes revoluções burguesas, tendo ali uma Europa que já teria perdido o hábito das revoluções e que, antes de 1917, eles apenas poderiam conjecturar o resultado de suas teorias, sendo elas, realmente, passivas de erros.
Em linhas gerais, a revolução socialista para Trotsky só acaba quando atinge todo o mundo!
Leitura altamente prazerosa. Adorei
O foco do livro se dá na " Revolução permanente", mostrando ali a necessidade de uma revolução socialista internacional, para que não houvessem contradições dentro do sistema. Uma boa exemplificação do tema abordado há no livro " Revolução dos bichos", quando Napoleão precisa entrar em contato com os homens para fazer a construção de seu moinho, sendo assim uma traição aos princípios do " animalismo". Segundo Marx, a revolução permanente significa uma revolução que não transige com nenhuma forma de dominação de classe.
Durante o livro, o autor mostra o como Stalin se desvincula do Marxismo, e assume até mesmo alguns de seus prórpios erros em textos passados ( coisa que eu achei bacana ). Trotsky argumenta que a revolução russa irrompe pouco mais de meio século após a época das grandes revoluções burguesas, tendo ali uma Europa que já teria perdido o hábito das revoluções e que, antes de 1917, eles apenas poderiam conjecturar o resultado de suas teorias, sendo elas, realmente, passivas de erros.
Em linhas gerais, a revolução socialista para Trotsky só acaba quando atinge todo o mundo!
Leitura altamente prazerosa. Adorei
January 3, 2026
More than any book, Results and Prospects hit me in an extremely profound way. The firm understanding of the most basic elements of dialectical materialism displayed by Trotsky and his potent ability to apply this knowledge to the current situation (well current for him) which shows an accurate and concrete method to push forward the revolutionary working class into power is nothing short of inspiring. What is even more incredible is that with any basic knowledge of events like the Russian, Chinese, or Cuban Revolution you can see just how vindicated Trotsky's method was. More than any of his other theoretical works Results and Prospects really cements Trotsky's place in Marxist theory.
While I focused mostly on the earliest written section of this book, everything I just said can also be applied to 'The Permanent Revolution'. It is an excellent defence of the strategy from baseless claims flung at him from the adherents of Stalin. He does this all in a witty, easy to read, easier to understand, and backed up with quotations from his critics style which genuinely makes me wonder how I can keep seeing just blatant lies about what Trotsky thought and did.
While I focused mostly on the earliest written section of this book, everything I just said can also be applied to 'The Permanent Revolution'. It is an excellent defence of the strategy from baseless claims flung at him from the adherents of Stalin. He does this all in a witty, easy to read, easier to understand, and backed up with quotations from his critics style which genuinely makes me wonder how I can keep seeing just blatant lies about what Trotsky thought and did.
October 17, 2022
Trotsky’s Permanent revolution, alongside his essays in Results and Prospects, is probably one of the most important additions to Marxist theory, second only to Lenin’s “State and Revolution”. As much of Marx’s analysis was conducted within European conditions (a point which he acknowledged), his methodology was yet to be applied by Marxist scholars in the colonised world.
Trotsky, living in tsarist Russia, understood the peculiarities of development there, and applied to Marxist method to these conditions. A generalisation of these results, to other nations victim to imperialism with a semi-feudal capitalist economy is what makes this book important.
It is the most essential reading to those wanting to understand why the Stalinist position of the “two stage theory” was incorrect, why socialism didn’t achieve its full potential in the 20th century, and why it still can in the future.
Trotsky, living in tsarist Russia, understood the peculiarities of development there, and applied to Marxist method to these conditions. A generalisation of these results, to other nations victim to imperialism with a semi-feudal capitalist economy is what makes this book important.
It is the most essential reading to those wanting to understand why the Stalinist position of the “two stage theory” was incorrect, why socialism didn’t achieve its full potential in the 20th century, and why it still can in the future.
August 20, 2024
Este libro no sólo esboza la teoría de la revolución permanente que Trotsky creó interpretando la obra de Marx. También es una larga defensa contra otros críticos y teóricos de la URSS que lo usaron para perseguirlo, marginarlo y eventualmente expulsarlo de la URSS, todo bajo el apoyo de Stalin.
En este libro queda muy clara sus diferencias políticas con Stalin y sus estrategias políticas, como el apoyo a en la revolución China al Koumitang , costándole la vida miles de comunistas revolucionarios. Lo cual argumenta Trotsky sucedió por una interpretación deficiente y vulgar de la dialéctica marxista
Un libro para los interesados en la Revolución Rusa, el marxismo y el pensamiento de Trotsky.
En este libro queda muy clara sus diferencias políticas con Stalin y sus estrategias políticas, como el apoyo a en la revolución China al Koumitang , costándole la vida miles de comunistas revolucionarios. Lo cual argumenta Trotsky sucedió por una interpretación deficiente y vulgar de la dialéctica marxista
Un libro para los interesados en la Revolución Rusa, el marxismo y el pensamiento de Trotsky.
December 21, 2025
The theory of permanent revolution condemns the working class, the only revolutionary class in modern society, to toil unless they take on the mantle of their liberation into their own hands. Since written, we have seen it play out time and time again, an oppressed people throws out the puppets of their oppressors, the politicians who carry out the demands of the ruling class, and replace them with liberal politicians who are unable to carry out any revolutionary demands, dooming the people to a cycle of oppression. Thus, the only permanent revolution that will improve the masses conditions is a revolution, carried out by the masses, against the ruling class, a political struggle to put the masses in power.
March 3, 2021
Eu estava há um tempo nessa inserção de leitura do marxismo clássico, e tinha o conceito da revolução permanente a partir de debates de formação política. E concordei mais do que iria imaginar, apesar de que tive certas dúvidas quando veio a questão do partido comunista chinês.
É uma leitura que traz muitos conceito-chaves, então acredito que seja uma leitura complicada para iniciantes. Justamente por trazer uma contraposição à revolução em um país só e outros escritores.
É uma leitura que traz muitos conceito-chaves, então acredito que seja uma leitura complicada para iniciantes. Justamente por trazer uma contraposição à revolução em um país só e outros escritores.
January 9, 2024
This reads more like reactions to party infighting than describing a permanent revolution. It was an interesting look at the politics but 100 years later, the context is lacking for a lay reader. I feel like I need to read twenty other books before I could have context for this one. The second half of the epilogue expanded would have made a more interesting read.
July 7, 2025
The number of communists who intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent this book with or without having read it is astounding. Even more so are the legions of so-called "trotskyists" who read this book, sing its praises, and entirely distort its conclusions. A vital read for all communists today.
September 27, 2020
Buku yang penting untuk bisa memahami dinamika revolusi-revolusi sosialis pada abad ke-20, terutama revolusi-revolusi yang berlangsung di negeri-negeri kurang berkembang, dari Revolusi Rusia, Tiongkok, Vietnam, Kuba, dsb.
May 7, 2021
esse livro é uma fofocalhada né. assim que eu gosto
nunca tinha lido absolutamente nada dele e achei interessante até. as teses da revolução permanente pareceram fazer bastante sentido pra mim - mas boto fé que existem muitos outros internacionalismos a serem estudados ainda
mas ele escreve bem
nunca tinha lido absolutamente nada dele e achei interessante até. as teses da revolução permanente pareceram fazer bastante sentido pra mim - mas boto fé que existem muitos outros internacionalismos a serem estudados ainda
mas ele escreve bem
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews