Permanent Revolution and the Critique of Classical Marxism

Leon Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution defines itself in opposition to the conventional tenets of classical Marxism, particularly the two-stage theory of revolution. In classical Marxist thought, it was believed that a protracted period of capitalist development was necessary to solve the problem of scarcity before socialism could become feasible. The first stage — a bourgeois democratic revolution — would lay the technical foundations through industrialization, productivity growth, and the development of the working class. Only once capitalism had matured would the contradictions within the class system, sharpened by crises of underconsumption, produce the conditions for a proletarian socialist revolution.

Yet, as Trotsky argued, capitalism had both solved the technical problem of scarcity and simultaneously prevented the realization of proletarian revolution. Capitalism remained perpetually subject to crisis, driven by its internal contradictions, which only the socialization of the means of production could overcome.

Trotsky’s theory draws heavily from the law of combined and uneven development, which observed that backward countries often experienced rapid, uneven leaps in productive capacity. Russia’s industrial growth relative to the older capitalist countries illustrated this process. However, the mere socialization of the means of production — nationalization without sufficient development of productivity — would leave a post-revolutionary society dependent on state decrees on distribution rather than the abundance necessary for socialism. Trotsky emphasized that genuine socialism required not only social ownership but also material abundance.

Feudalism was a localized system of interdependence, but capitalism carried within it the imperative of colonial expansion. As capitalists competed, they continually substituted constant capital (machines, technology) for variable capital (living labour) to raise productivity. Yet, since only labour creates new value, the increasing weight of constant capital reduced the rate of profit over time — a fundamental contradiction identified by Marx.

The reproduction of labour power constitutes the worker’s value, but through labour’s use, surplus value is created. To maintain competitiveness, the capitalist is driven to reduce labour costs — either real or nominal — further squeezing the worker. At the same time, the expansion of applied science and technique makes much of constant capital simply transfer its value to commodities without generating surplus value, necessitating the search for new markets. Thus, capitalism necessarily subordinates undeveloped economies to its circuits of accumulation, fueling colonialism, imperialism, and global crises.

Trotsky’s theory directly confronted Stalin’s concept of "socialism in one country." In Trotsky’s view, a socialist revolution in a backward country would inevitably require the support of revolutions in more advanced countries. Without it, the underdeveloped economy would lack the productive base necessary for socialism and would degenerate into bureaucratic rule.

Trotsky pointed to the defeat of the German Revolution of 1918 — suppressed by the SPD and the Freikorps — and the failure of the Hungarian Soviet of 1919 as critical missed opportunities. In their absence, the Russian Revolution became isolated. The state, deprived of material abundance, became increasingly bureaucratised. Lenin’s mechanisms to guard against this — such as workers' control, soviet democracy, and accountability — were eroded after Lenin’s death in 1924 and extinguished with Stalin's total consolidation of power by 1928.

The bureaucracy became a caste ruling over the working class, usurping political power while nominally preserving socialized property. In Marxist terms, the survival of the state apparatus indicates the persistence of class antagonisms, not their resolution.

Russia’s agrarian revolution involved the expropriation of land from the landlord class, at a time when social estates (sosloviye) still defined Russian society. Yet the Russian bourgeoisie was fettered by its ties to the landed gentry. It could not replicate the promethean dynamism of the western European bourgeois revolutions, which had unleashed productive forces by shattering feudal ties.

The Stolypin reforms of 1907, following the revolution of 1905, sought to create a conservative, landowning peasantry loyal to the Tsar. This severed the bourgeoisie from the radical intelligentsia, whose demands were more for civil reform than class rule. Hence, unlike in 1789 France, Russia lacked a bourgeoisie capable of carrying out a thorough capitalist revolution.

The proletariat, however, asserted its autonomy through massive strike waves — in 1905-06, and again in 1912-14, when three-quarters of Russian factory workers struck. Trotsky thus argued that the working class, not the liberal bourgeoisie, should lead the democratic revolution. Because the proletariat had no interest in preserving capitalist property, it could carry the revolution uninterruptedly from the bourgeois to the socialist stage.

The Mensheviks clung to the classical Marxist expectation: the proletariat must support the liberal bourgeoisie against autocracy and await the slow gestation of capitalism. For them, the revolution would be primarily liberal-constitutional.

Yet Trotsky saw the absurdity of this position in Russia. The bourgeoisie, tied to the gentry, was fearful of peasant revolt and worker radicalism. Meanwhile, the proletariat, finding no real allies among the ruling classes, was uniquely placed to drive forward both democratic and socialist tasks.

Plekhanov, a leading Menshevik theorist, correctly argued against the Narodniks that the peasantry could not skip the capitalist stage — socialism must be rooted in industrial development and the proletariat. However, Plekhanov erroneously believed that the Russian bourgeoisie could fulfill its historical role.

Lenin deviated by proposing a worker-peasant alliance, recognizing that while the peasantry was not inherently socialist, it could be a revolutionary force against aristocracy and landlordism. The Bolsheviks thus spoke of a "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry," a transitional form in which the working class would lead the peasantry.

Yet Lenin and Trotsky ultimately converged: revolution must be continuous and active, not delayed until capitalism matured. Where they diverged was over the possibility of building socialism in one country. Lenin believed it might be possible if the revolution survived long enough; Trotsky maintained that socialism in one country was impossible without international revolution.

Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution captured the deep contradictions of early 20th-century capitalism: the inability of the bourgeoisie to fulfill its historic role, the political maturity of the proletariat before its economic dominance, and the international character of socialist revolution.

As long as capitalism exists, it will continue to produce crises — through overaccumulation, imperialist expansion, and the deepening contradiction between socialized production and private appropriation. Only through the international overthrow of capitalism, led by a conscious, organized proletariat, can these contradictions be overcome.

Trotsky’s warning remains urgent today: socialism cannot be built in isolation, nor can it be postponed to a distant future. It demands the active struggle of the working class across national borders, uninterrupted and permanent.