Quote:
|
1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
|
WHAT THE FUCK???!!!!?
They believe that, while the revolution in backward nations is bourgeois in its manner, the decisive revolutionary role falls to the proletariat, even though it may be very young and small in number?
And they believe that while incapable of independent action, the peasantry will follow the towns, and must follow the leadership of the industrial proletariat?
And they believe that a consistent solution of the agrarian question, of the national question, a break-up of the social and imperial fetters preventing speedy economic advance, will necessitate moving beyond the bounds of bourgeois private property?
And they also believe the completion of the socialist revolution 'within national limits is unthinkable? 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?
And as a result, revolution in backward countries would lead to convulsions in the advanced countries?
How can they believe Totsky's theory of Permanent revolution along with the other points?
Surely there is a word that describes views contradicting and cancelling each other out?
These people are fucking nuts.
Threaded Mode