/lit/ - Literature

>>19769171
>wtf does permanent revolution even mean
In many countries outside of the imperial core capitalism developed in a stunted, inorganic way. The first bourgeois revolutions were led by the urban petty bourgeoisie. Many countries outside of the core did not witness the development of an urban bourgeoisie and so were deprived of their natural leaders in the democratic revolution. Moreover, the big bourgeoisie in said countries develop material connections either to the landed elites of their own country or international capital which makes that class reluctant to have any part in a democratic revolution. In such circumstances there is only one class remaining which can bring about the democratic revolution and that is the working class.

In Russia, capitalism developed now as an outgrowth of urban crafts but rather in response to the military threat posed by western europe. Capitalism developed out of a need to compete with industrial warfare. The crafts phase of capitalism was leapfrogged directly into some aspects of industrial capitalism in weapons factories. Urban areas developed not as locations where surplus was accumulating but rather as administrative/military posts. The nascent capitalist class's only client was the monarchy, so they had no incentive to overthrow them. Thus the only way the tsar would be overthrown would be in a revolution led by the working class which is exactly what happened in february 1917.

You will likely receive some replies with some nonsense about permanent revolution meaning skipping the capitalist development stage. If so, the person replying to you should be ignored as this will mean they haven't read Trotskys work on permanent rev because he literally debunks that notion and clarifies his position regarding that in two separate chapters.