I don't understand this sentence.
Lenin:
Imperialism is a specific historical stage of capitalism. Its specific character is threefold: imperialism is monopoly capitalism; parasitic, or decaying capitalism; moribund capitalism. The supplanting of free competition by monopoly is the fundamental economic feature, the quintessence of imperialism.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... ct/x01.htmThis represented a split from other socialists at the time, Kautsky in particulor. It also represents Lenin's great contribution to Marxism and provides the crux as to the reason why the revolution didn't happen exactly as Marx predicted:
Not that I have to cite this, but:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... 6/imp-hsc/---
Depends on who you ask. Certainly it wasn't officially called that.
Not, it wasn't called that. But I never said that it was, I said it was the official line of the USSR after Lenin. Which it was. It depends on whom you ask as to how far after Lenin, though I'd say today most people would agree it came to an end with Stalin.
---
I think you're seeing an evolutionary branch where there isn't one. The policy of peaceful existence was adopted during Lenin already. The exact term was used by Lenin.
Perhaps a fair criticism, I should have drawn things out a little bit more. In action, Lenin set up another International; Stalin disbanding the Communist International in 1943. I would argue that this represented a vast change in policy, but I concede your point that it can be seen as otherwise.
Who doesn't? [Believe in Stage Theory]
The masses must be made to see that the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government, and that therefore our task is, as long as this government yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses.
Lenin, 1917 -
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... apr/04.htmie - an immediate shift from a feudal form of government and agriculture to a socialist one.
Which differs considerably from:
In the first period of the Chinese revolution, at the time of the first march to the North -- when the national army was approaching the Yangtse and scoring victory after victory, but a powerful movement of the workers and peasants had not yet unfolded -- the national bourgeoisie (not the compradors) sided with the revolution. It was the revolution of a united all-national front.
This does not mean that there were no contradictions between the revolution and the national bourgeoisie... The struggle between the Rights and the Lefts in the Kuomintang at that period was a reflection of these contradictions. Chiang Kai-shek's attempt in March 1926 to expel the Communists from the Kuomintang was the first serious attempt of the national bourgeoisie to curb the revolution. As is known, already at that time the C.C., C.P.S.U. considered that "the line must be to keep the Communist Party within the Kuomintang," and that it was necessary "to work for the resignation or expulsion of the Rights from the Kuomintang" (April 1926).
This line was one directed towards further development of the revolution, close co-operation between the Lefts and the Communists within the Kuomintang and within the national government, strengthening the unity of the Kuomintang and, at the same time, exposing and isolating the Kuomintang Rights, compelling them to submit to Kuomintang discipline, utilising the Rights, their connections and their experience, if they submitted to Kuomintang discipline, or expelling them from the Kuomintang if they violated that discipline and betrayed the interests of the revolution.
Stalin -
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/QCR27.html#s2ie - the masses must not recognise "the only possible form of revolutionary government" as the communists and should instead must submit to the bourgeois. Thus, going directly through an extended stage of revolution to another extended stage of revolution.
---
Not true. Usually it's used to mean the line of those who uphold or claim to uphold Trotsky. Most Trotskyites use the term themselves.
A number of times Khrushchev is referred to as a "Trotskyist"
(
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/r ... rotsky.htm is an example); though I cannot think of a single similarity between the two aside from the fact that neither were particulor admirers of Stalin.
There's an example, and there are a few more people during purges and whatnot who are called Trotskyists who clearly have no ideological connection with Trotsky in the least.
And I use the term "Trotskyist" myself, though I consider myself a Leninist. But I loath the dance around of terms, because you consider yourself a Leninist first also - but we disagree as to what that means - so instead of saying, "You're a Leninist who feels that Stalin was a direct ideologic descendent from Lenin;" and "I'm a Leninist who feels that Trotsky was a direct ideologic descendent from Lenin" I just use the two words and am done with it. Basically, since I use the word "Stalinist," I feel it's a courtesy to you if I use the same kind of smear with myself.
---
I don't think this is the case. If it was, it would mean resting on non-proletarian classes, which is categorically condemned by Trotskyites. How can you have a "workers' revolution" without workers?
You can't have one without the workers - but you don't have to follow the bourgeois stage of development:
2. With regard to countries with a belated bourgeois development, especially the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the theory of the permanent revolution signifies that the complete and genuine solution of their tasks of achieving democracy and national emancipation is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat as the leader of the subjugated nation, above all of its peasant masses.
3. Not only the agrarian, but also the national question assigns to the peasantry—the overwhelming majority of the population in backward countries—an exceptional place in the democratic revolution. Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed. But the alliance of these two classes can be realized in no other way than through an irreconcilable struggle against the influence of the national-liberal bourgeoisie.
4. No matter what the first episodic stages of the revolution may be in the individual countries, the realization of the revolutionary alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry is conceivable only under the political leadership of the proletariat vanguard, organized in the Communist Party. This in turn means that the victory of the democratic revolution is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat which bases itself upon the alliance with the peasantry and solves first of all the tasks of the democratic revolution.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... v/pr10.htmWhich is nothing akin to a:
further development of the revolution, close co-operation between the Lefts and the Communists within the Kuomintang and within the national government, strengthening the unity of the Kuomintang
as Stalin proposed for the same condition.
As long as one remembers that when it comes to anything dealing with communism, wikipedia is hopelessly bourgeois (occasionally flirting with Trotskyism).
I agree with this - as I said, it's usually a good place to start but not a good place for hard information. If you knew nothing about anything and had to start somewhere, it would at least get some of the names and everything sorted so you knew what you were looking at.
-TIG
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!