b) the Bolshevik one,According to Menshevik pro-capitalist ideology, the task of the "revolution" was restricted to toppling the tsarist regime and establishing a bourgeois-democratic republic, in the framework of which Russian capitalism would then expand freely, while Russian social democracy would by means of its opposition and powerful organization protect the Russian workers from the worst forms of exploitation.
c) that of the inspirer of the first Petersburg council of workers' deputies, Lev Trotsky.
Well, here in Venezuela about this kind of Menshevik counter-revolutionary, pro-capitalist reformism we have seen a lot over the last decade.
In the opinion of the then Russian lackeys of European imperialism, applying Marxism willy-nilly, a socialist revolution would not have been feasible in Russia, given its uneven development, since a highly developed capitalism would be the necessary pre-condition for any socialist revolution.
Originally Lenin's interest was mainly directed to the classes known to be incubating the revolution, hence its most likely protagonists. 100 million landless peasants would break out of their semi-serfdom and fight for the distribution of land; less than 10 million urban workers would support the peasant war by using the strike weapon in the cities, with the socialist objectives in mind.
The result would be a revolutionary coalition between workers' and peasants' parties since the Russian bourgeoisie, in consequence of the special characteristics of Russian development, would be unable to play an independent political role. The bourgeois revolution, being consummated by peasants and workers would henceforth take on a proletarian character, at least in the cities, by virtue of the forms of struggle adopted. Besides, the Russian revolution would be the signal for the "purely" proletarian revolution in Western Europe to erupt.
However, Leon Trotsky, seeing the social pot-holes of class alliances, went a step further, he predicting already in 1905/1906 that the coalition assumed by Lenin would of necessity quickly be followed by the hegemony of the urban proletariat since in view of the inherent weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeoisie class, many peasants, scattered and traditionally incapable of organization as it was, would be bound to come under the leadership of the urban proletariat.
- He argued further, that, on the other hand, once they had seized control, the urban workers, mindful of where their class interests lay, would have no option but to crack open the horizon of bourgeois-capitalist institutions, economic as well as political, and "to put collectivism on the agenda".This would bring them into conflict with the interests of the petty-bourgeois oriented class of peasants. However, then already Trotsky warned that without the social support from the proletarian revolution in the "most highly developed" countries, the proletarian revolution would not be able to hold its own in backward Russia. The fate of the Russian workers' revolution would be decided by social struggles on an international scale.
Precisely this is relevant for the Bolivarian Revolution. We are not living in the epoch of religious crusades or Christian "socialist" revolution, we live in imperialist globalization, in the era of final permanent world revolution.
Finally, during the time of World War I Lenin drew closer to Trotsky's position and upon his return from exile propagated the second, proletarian-socialist revolution ("April theses"). The events of 1917 in Russia fully confirmed Trotsky's prognosis made in 1905. The Bolshevik seizure of power in October/November was doubtlessly informed by the expectation that the socialist revolution would not fail to spread internationally within a short time, as evidenced by the manifestos and debates of both the first Comintern congresses and the party congresses of the Russian Communist Party (RCP) as well as the writings of revolutionary leaders.
Already before the political victory of the October Revolution, both Lenin and Trotsky knew that the socialist revolution, the negation of world capitalism, has to be a permanent global revolution. Hence, comrades, stop the political factional vendettas, instead of eternal critique of the Bolivarian Revolution, as Fidel said long ago, please make it your duty everywhere to make the world socialist revolution.
Precisely, the factional struggles within the Russian Communist Party (RCP) and the Third International from 1923 to 1929 basically centered upon the question as to how the first isolated workers' state should "correctly" conduct its internal and external policies in the interest of both the Russian and the international proletariat.
- This is another urgent task for the PSUV. In what was a clear breach of the Bolshevik tradition of 1917-1923 Stalin in 1924 inaugurated a new version of a nationally restricted communism.
Thus, the Third International had been created as an instrument for spreading the socialist revolution. The question open for debate among the factions was that of the policy of alliances in highly as well as underdeveloped countries. It would seem that Stalin comparatively early considered the chance of spreading the international revolution quite minimal (cf. his letter of August 1923 to Zinoviev on the chances of the Communist revolution in Germany, in which he counsels "soft-pedalling").
Later Stalin elevated the old formula of the "democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants", to which he had subscribed as editor of Pravda as late as in spring 1917, to the status of a program for the Communist International. This resulted in defeats for the revolutionary classes and the parties representing them. Lenin's reproach of "Menshevism" here applies, at least with regard to the concept that a revolution in backward countries has to be conducted "in stages".(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
