Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Perspective of permanent revolution may be summarized in the following way: the complete victory of the democratic revolution in Russia is conceivable only in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, leaning on the peasantry. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which would inevitably place on the order of the day not only democratic but socialistic tasks as well, would at the same time give a powerful impetus to the international socialist revolution. Only the victory of the proletariat in the West could protect Russia from bourgeois restoration and assure it the possibility of rounding out the establishment of socialism.

A national bourgeois revolution is impossible in russia because there is no genuinely revolutionary bourgeois democracy. The time for national revolutionas has passed--at least in Europe.... We are living in an epoch of imperialism which is not merely a system of colonial conquests but implies also a definite regime at home. It does not set the bourgeois nation in opposition to the old regime, but sets the proletariat in opposition to the bourgeois nation.

Lenin even said that the proletariat in Russia came to power in October 1917 primarily as an agent of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. The victorious proletariat began with the solution of the democratic tasks and only gradually by the logic of its rule, did it take up the socialist tasks: it took up seriously the collectivization of agriculture only in the twelfth year of its power. This is precisely why Lenin called the growing-over of the democratic revolution into the socialist. It is not the bourgeois power that grows over into a workers’ and peasants’ and then into a proletarian power: no, the power of one class does not into the power of another class, but is torn from it with rifle in hand. But after the working class has seized power, the democratic tasks of the proletarian régime inevitably grow over into socialist tasks. An evolutionary, organic transition from democracy to socialism is conceivable only under the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is Lenin’s central idea. The epigones have disfigured all this, have confused and distorted it, and now they poison the consciousness of the international proletariat with their falsifications.

The are incapable of waging a decisive struggle against feudalism; they are too heavily fettered by private property, by capital and land to enter into a decisive struggle. They stand in too great need of tsarism, with its bureaucratic, police, and military forces for use against the proletariat and the peasantry, to want it to be destroyed.... 'The revolution's decisive victory over tsarism' means the establishment of the revolitionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.

While the democratic petty bourgeois wish to bring the revolution to a conclusion as quickly as possible, and with the achievement, at mos, of the above demands, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent, untill all more or less possessing classes have been forced out of their possition of dominance, the proletariat has conquered state power, and the association of proletarians, not only in one country but in all the dominant countries of the world, has advanced so far that competition among the proletarians in these countries has ceased and that at least the decisive productive forces are concentrated in the hands of the proletarians.

Or, to simplify Marx's original position... the revolutionary class (in this case, proletariat) will continue to fight regardless of the dominance of another class. No complete victory can be achieved within one nation, but rather, it must be an international movement. Even in a case of a nation becoming socialist (ie, the Soviet Union), the revolution continues, because victory had not been reached for the world proletariat.

So basically, just don't pull a "Mission Accomplished" like Bush did in Iraq. *shrugs*

massive wrongness
If you look at the quote I provided from M himself, you will see that what he says has nothing to do with that: During the revolution, all the possessing classes mus hold power for a period, and be swept away by those under them. The Aristocracy loses power to the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie proper loses power to the petty-bourgeoisie and finally the petty bourgeoisie loses power to the proletariat (compare the French and Russian revolutions).
In short, the revolution doesn't end with the rise of a new class of exploiters to the helm, but must destroy the hold of all exploiters.

By setting itself at the head of the nation, leading the oppressed layers of society (urban and rural petty-bourgeoisie), the proletariat could take power and then carry through the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution (mainly the land reform and the unification and liberation of the country from foreign domination). However, once having come to power, the proletariat would not stop there but would start to implement socialist measures of expropriation of the capitalists. And as these tasks cannot be solved in one country alone, especially not in a backward country, this would be the beginning of the world revolution. Thus the revolution is "permanent" in two senses: because it starts with the bourgeois tasks and continues with the socialist ones, and because it starts in one country and continues at an international level.

...to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far - not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world - that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers