Marx and Permanent Revolution
The term Permanent Revolution is first used, by Marx, in an Address to the Central Committee of the Communist League in 1850.
Marx says,
“While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task 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.”
When the first bourgeois-democratic, national revolutions took place – American Revolution 1776, Great French Revolution 1789, Second Reform Act 1832 in Britain – the working-class was an insignificant factor. These revolutions are carried through by the bourgeoisie supported by the petty-bourgeoisie, the peasantry and those sections of the landed aristocracy that had themselves become bourgeois. The only place, where the working-class constituted any sizeable influence was in Britain, but, even there, it was a minority, with the petty-bourgeoisie of small producers still constituting a larger social influence. The bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie had no interest in extending full democratic and political rights to the working-class, and, in 1832, that is manifest in the fact that, it is still only male property owners that get the vote.
In 1848, the industrial proletariat, across Europe, rose up behind the industrial bourgeoisie to demand political democracy, and bourgeois rights and freedoms. In other words, to overthrow the old feudal, aristocratic political regime. In Britain, this movement had begun at the start of the century, manifest, for example, in the events of Peterloo where the bourgeoisie, supported by large numbers of the petty-bourgeoisie, such as the self-employed hand-loom weavers, and assorted artisans, rose up, supported by the small, nascent working-class, to demand bourgeois-democratic reforms. In 1832, eventually, the bourgeoisie won those reforms, but, again, the working-class were not included. The workers continued their demands through the Chartist movement, reflecting the growth of the working-class, as industrial capital expanded. It too is defeated, but the workers again throw their weight behind the industrial bourgeoisie, in a struggle against the landed aristocracy. It results in The Repeal of the Corn Laws, which represents the victory of the industrial bourgeoisie not only over the landed aristocracy, but also over the other sections of capital, such as merchant capital and financial capital that had been in a symbiotic alliance with the aristocracy. Marx in his address discusses the situation in Germany.
“At the moment, while the democratic petty bourgeois are everywhere oppressed, they preach to the proletariat general unity and reconciliation; they extend the hand of friendship, and seek to found a great opposition party which will embrace all shades of democratic opinion; that is, they seek to ensnare the workers in a party organization in which general social-democratic phrases prevail while their particular interests are kept hidden behind, and in which, for the sake of preserving the peace, the specific demands of the proletariat may not be presented. Such a unity would be to their advantage alone and to the complete disadvantage of the proletariat. The proletariat would lose all its hard-won independent position and be reduced once more to a mere appendage of official bourgeois democracy. This unity must therefore be resisted in the most decisive manner. Instead of lowering themselves to the level of an applauding chorus, the workers, and above all the League, must work for the creation of an independent organization of the workers’ party, both secret and open, and alongside the official democrats, and the League must aim to make every one of its communes a centre and nucleus of workers’ associations in which the position and interests of the proletariat can be discussed free from bourgeois influence. How serious the bourgeois democrats are about an alliance in which the proletariat has equal power and equal rights is demonstrated by the Breslau democrats, who are conducting a furious campaign in their organ, the Neue Oder Zeitung, against independently organized workers, whom they call ‘socialists’. In the event of a struggle against a common enemy a special alliance is unnecessary. As soon as such an enemy has to be fought directly, the interests of both parties will coincide for the moment and an association of momentary expedience will arise spontaneously in the future, as it has in the past.”
In fact, as Engels was to describe later, the potential was overstated by him and Marx in 1848, because it was still only in Britain that the working-class constituted a sizeable social class. Noting the class nature of The Communist League, Engels notes,
“However, the social doctrine of the League, indefinite as it was, contained a very great defect, but one that had its roots in the conditions themselves. The members, in so far as they were workers at all, were almost exclusively artisans. Even in the big metropolises, the man who exploited them was usually only a small master. The exploitation of tailoring on a large scale, what is now called the manufacture of ready-made clothes, by the conversion of handicraft tailoring into a domestic industry working for a big capitalist, was at that time even in London only just making its appearance. On the one hand, the exploiters of these artisans was a small master; on the other hand, they all hoped ultimately to become small masters themselves. In addition, a mass of inherited guild notions still clung to the German artisan at that time.”
“At that time Germany was a country of handicraft and of domestic industry based on hand labour; now it is a big industrial country still undergoing continual industrial transformation. At that time one had to seek out one by one the workers who had an understanding of their position as workers and of their historico-economic antagonism to capital, because this antagonism itself was only just beginning to develop. Today the entire German proletariat has to be placed under exceptional laws, merely in order to slow down a little the process of its development to full consciousness of its position as an oppressed class.”
(ibid)
In 1848, Marx and Engels, and the other German socialists, in order to gain the ear of these workers, joined the German Democrats, an openly bourgeois party, but they did so whilst retaining their own political and organisational independence. As Engels put it,
“When we returned to Germany, in spring 1848, we joined the Democratic Party as the only possible means of getting the ear of the working class; we were the most advanced wing of that party, but still a wing of it.”
A similar development could be seen in France. The Great French Revolution of 1789, much like the English Civil War, was a bourgeois-democratic revolution, but undertaken by a bourgeoisie that was still not strong enough to rule in its own name. Just as the English Civil War ended with the dictatorship of Cromwell, so the Great French Revolution ends with the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte. The underlying development of the productive forces, the dominance of capitalism as the mode of production, necessitates a capitalist state to protect and develop that form of property, irrespective of the form of political regime.
When Cromwell is replaced by Charles II, this does not change the class nature of the British state as, now, a capitalist state, and that is emphasised by the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The fact that the political regime, i.e. the composition of parliament, and of the government, remains itself in the hands of the landed aristocracy does not change this fact. As Lenin points out in relation to Russia, its state became a capitalist state by the 1870's, as capitalism became the dominant mode of production, following the 1861 Emancipation, and subsequent rapid development of commodity production and exchange. That state is forced to pursue capitalistic policies, in order to advance the interests of the state itself, a process which Russia's defeat in the Crimean War, made inevitable. Yet, as Lenin says, the political regime in Russia remained that of Tsarist absolutism. This demonstrates the difference between the class nature of the state, and the political regime. The latter is merely a superficial appearance, erected upon the material reality. Similarly, Trotsky noted that fascism and bourgeois-democracy are merely masks that disguise the underlying reality of the imperialist-capitalist state. As Marx says,
“Nevertheless, the different states of the different civilized countries, in spite or their motley diversity of form, all have this in common: that they are based on modern bourgeois society, only one more or less capitalistically developed.”
(Critique of the Gotha Programme)
When Napoleon is replaced by the Monarchy of Louis Philippe, this again does not change the underlying nature of the French state as a capitalist state, it simply represents a change in the political regime. As Marx comments,
“ All revolutions perfected this machine instead of breaking it. The parties, which alternately contended for domination, regarded the possession of this huge state structure as the chief spoils of the victor.
But under the absolute monarchy, during the first Revolution, and under Napoleon the bureaucracy was only the means of preparing the class rule of the bourgeoisie. Under the Restoration, under Louis Philippe, under the parliamentary republic, it was the instrument of the ruling class, however much it strove for power of its own.”
Similarly, in Germany, the defeat of the bourgeois-democratic revolution does not change the class nature of the state, which is determined objectively by the dominant form of property – capitalist property. Just as in Russia, where Tsarism is forced, on pain of extinction, after the defeat in the Crimean War, to rapidly develop capitalist production, so too Germany was forced to rapidly develop capitalist production, as it competes with the capitalist economy in Britain, and in France, and with a rapidly developing industrial capitalism in the US. It does that under the Bonapartism of Bismark, just as France does it under Louis Bonaparte.
The reason that the political regime assumes these forms in France and Germany, is that, unlike the earlier period of bourgeois-democratic revolutions, the working-class, by 1848, has become a more significant force, but not a dominating force. The bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie cannot implement the bourgeois-democratic revolution without the support of the working-class, but now it fears that working-class will want to go beyond the limits of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and demand political power for itself. The bourgeoisie once it has state power, can live without the bourgeois-democratic political regime, which is merely its most favoured form, by which it exercises direct control over society and the state. Increasingly, the old ruling classes are merged into it. It does not need the state against them, but against those below it. But, the petty-bourgeoisie and peasantry, which remains an oppressed class cannot. It requires the bourgeois democratic revolution to address its political and economic demands.
The peasantry and petty-bourgeoisie still represent a sizeable force, but they are not homogeneous, and are unable to rule in their own name. Capitalism causes an intensification of their differentiation, so that the elements sinking towards the proletariat are pulled in its direction, whilst those becoming bourgeois line up with the bourgeoisie. Bonapartism is always based on this amorphous social layer, from which it draws its foot soldiers, but, once in power, such Bonapartism is always forced to defend and extend the interests of capital, and, in particular, large-scale capital. The bourgeois-democratic, national revolution can now only be completed by the working-class itself coming to power. As Lenin points out, such political power does not equate to Socialism, but it does put in place the kind of transitional state, and political regime that can implement the measures that take society in the direction of Socialism.
“I am deeply convinced that the Soviets will make the independent activity of the masses a reality more quickly and effectively than will a parliamentary republic (I shall compare the two types of states in greater detail in another letter). They will more effectively, more practically and more correctly decide what steps can be taken towards socialism and how these steps should be taken. Control over a bank, the merging of all banks into one, is not yet socialism, but it is a step towards socialism. Today such steps are being taken in Germany by the Junkers and the bourgeoisie against the people. Tomorrow the Soviet will be able to take these steps more effectively for the benefit of the people if the whole state power is in its hands.”
What is more The Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat leading the peasantry, would be forced down this road.
“Take the question of the eight-hour day. As is known, this by no means contradicts capitalist relations, and therefore it forms an item in the minimum programme of Social Democracy. But let us imagine the actual introduction of this measure during a period of revolution, in a period of intensified class passions; there is no question but that this measure would then meet the organized and determined resistance of the capitalists in the form, let us say, of lockouts and the closing down of factories.
Hundreds of thousands of workers would find themselves thrown on the streets. What should the government do? A bourgeois government, however radical it might be, would never allow affairs to reach this stage because, confronted with the closing-down of factories, it would be left powerless. It would be compelled to retreat, the eight-hour day would not be introduced and the indignant workers would be suppressed.
Under the political domination of the proletariat, the introduction of an eight-hour day should lead to altogether different consequences. For a government that desires to rely upon the proletariat, and not on capital, as liberalism does, and which does not desire to play the role of an ‘impartial’ intermediary of bourgeois democracy, the closing down of factories would not of course be an excuse for increasing the working day. For a workers’ government there would be only one way out: expropriation of the closed factories and the organization of production in them on a socialized basis.”
After 1848, the bourgeoisie is faced with a dilemma that, in order to carry through a bourgeois-democratic revolution, to establish the parliamentary republic, which is the form of political regime best suited to its interests, and which enables it to exercise direct control over the state, it requires the support of the working-class, but that working-class is now increasingly powerful, and, in mobilising it, the bourgeoisie risks it going beyond the bounds of social-democracy it wishes to constrain it within.
“The bourgeoisie, in truth, is bound to fear the stupidity of the masses so long as they remain conservative, and the insight of the masses as soon as they become revolutionary.”
(The 18th Brumaire, Chapter 7)
The consequence in France was the regime of Louis Bonaparte, which organised its coup utilising the petty-bourgeois and lumpen elements of French society, much as later, Mussolini and Hitler were to do.
“The French bourgeoisie balked at the domination of the working proletariat; it has brought the lumpen proletariat to domination, with the Chief of the Society of December 10 at the head.”
(ibid)
In Germany, the role is taken by the Bonapartist regime of Bismark. In both cases, however, the state remains a capitalist state, and the function of these Bonapartist regimes is to pursue that capitalist development, and, thereby, creates the conditions under which the bourgeoisie's social weight becomes dominant. It absorbs large sections of the old ruling class, whilst also creating a social-democratic, professional, middle-class on which to rest, acting as conduit, through which it draws in the support of the proletariat. It is the development of this large middle-class layer, whose function is to mediate between capital and labour, which enables the imperial-bourgeois-landlord ruling class to eventually cede the vote to the workers, as it is socialised and constrained within the limits of the bourgeois social-democratic state. The land question is resolved as large-scale capital itself takes over agriculture.
Each of these countries, as they go through this process of industrialisation, reach the same point as that which Britain had achieved, described by Engels.
“Chartism was dying out. The revival of commercial prosperity, natural after the revulsion of 1847 had spent itself, was put down altogether to the credit of Free Trade. Both these circumstances had turned the English working class, politically, into the tail of the ‘great Liberal Party’, the party led by the manufacturers. This advantage, once gained, had to be perpetuated. And the manufacturing capitalists, from the Chartist opposition, not to Free Trade, but to the transformation of Free Trade into the one vital national question, had learnt, and were learning more and more, that the middle class can never obtain full social and political power over the nation except by the help of the working class. Thus a gradual change came over the relations between both classes.”
(Preface To The Second German Edition of “The Condition Of The Working Class”)
In other words, once the industrial bourgeoisie has established its rule, and large-scale socialised capital dominates the economy, the old concerns for holding down wages by banning trades unions no longer applied. The normal operation of the economy can be left to achieve that function, with the trades unions and reformist workers parties left to simply bargain within the system, on behalf of workers for merely an amelioration, based upon what the economy is considered able to provide at any time. Workers appear as just another commodity owner, trying to get the best price for their commodity within the market. In essence, social-democracy was established. A social-democratic state arose on the basis of the socialised capital that now dominated, as what Marx defines as a transitional form of property between capitalism and socialism. Within this context, workers can be given the vote, with the bourgeoisie confident that they will only vote to put in government these social-democratic parties that, in fact, represent the medium to long term interests of large scale capital itself, as against the interests of the former ruling class, and antediluvian forms of capital. And, indeed, when the Labour Party replaces the Liberals as the party of the workers, it simply carries over this same social-democratic ideology. In Europe, the workers' parties that start off, nominally, as socialist parties, even Marxist parties, are, in fact, as Draper illustrates, mostly guided by the same statist, Lassallean/Fabian, social-democratic ideology as the Labour Party, and that becomes even more apparent, when those parties split, with the formation of the Third International.
No comments:
Post a Comment