Summary
The term Permanent Revolution was first used by Marx in a Speech to the Executive of the Communist League, in 1850, analysing the revolutions of 1848.
In the bourgeois-democratic revolutions of the 18th and early 19th century, the bourgeoisie is supported by the peasantry and petty-bourgeoisie, the proletariat is, at that time, only small, and does not form a class for itself.
In the bourgeois-democratic revolutions of 1848, the bourgeoisie has grown, and the petty-bourgeoisie and peasantry relatively declined, as a result of the process of differentiation, and so the proletariat has also relatively, and absolutely, expanded, and begins to form into a class for itself.
The bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie are concerned only with their own class interest. As soon as they feel those interests are met, they seek to call a halt to the revolutionary movement, and agree terms with the old ruling class. The petty-bourgeoisie and peasantry are amorphous and unable to form their own state. They must follow behind either the bourgeoisie or else the proletariat. The workers are thrown into the lead of the bourgeois revolution, but a newly politicised and empowered proletariat has no reason to leave things at that, which does not address its own democratic and political interests.
The proletariat must continue the revolutionary process, making it permanent, in order to secure its own political rights, such as the right to vote, and so on. But, soon, any workers party must also address the needs of workers by an assault on bourgeois property, even if only in search of better wages and so on. The bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie see any such development as threatening their own interests. They break with their erstwhile allies in the proletariat, and align themselves with the old ruling class. The old ruling class, seizes the day, as the revolution falters, and having then dealt with the workers, it takes back the political concessions made to the bourgeoisie, a period of reaction following.
The lesson for the proletariat, Marx concludes, is that, whilst they can ally, in action, with the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie, against the landlords, the proletariat must maintain both political and organisational independence, in preparation for this inevitable betrayal. The proletariat must organise its own militias, and so on, so as to be able to continue with the revolution, when the bourgeoisie seek to bring it to an end. The proletariat must then continue the revolution, beyond the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and seize power themselves, as the only means of securing it, and preventing the reaction.
Trotsky takes this analysis, and applies it to the conditions in all those places where, in the 20th century, the bourgeois-democratic revolution had not been undertaken. That amounts to all those places, such as in Russia, where nations existed as annexes of an oppressive Empire, or, for example, as existed with all of the colonies.
In all these places, the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie, whilst dependent upon an increasingly numerous and powerful proletariat, were afraid of it for exactly those reasons. In the Russian Empire, the liberal bourgeoisie adopted the garb of nationalism, in order to divide the workers, in their nation, from the Russian workers, to prevent a combined class struggle, by all workers, against the bourgeoisie. Whilst spouting nationalist rhetoric, they negotiated with the bourgeoisie of Russia, or in other cases, the bourgeoisie of other large powers who they appealed to for support. In the colonies, the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie argue for independence, and seek the backing of the proletariat, but any hint of the workers pursuing their own interests results in them aligning with the colonial power to suppress the workers revolt.
Again, therefore, whilst the proletariat agrees to engage in joint action with the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie and peasantry, it must retain its independence from it, both politically and organisationally. Its motto is “March separately, strike together.” The proletariat, throughout such action, seeks to build its own forces, ready to be able to make the revolution permanent, at that point where the bourgeoisie seeks to bring it to a halt.
The practical implementation of this theory occurred in February 1917. The bourgeois-democratic revolution brought the Provisional Government to power, as a bourgeois government, a Popular Front government, combining representatives of the bourgeoisie, petty-bourgeoisie and reformist representatives of the proletariat. Lenin, in The April Theses, sets out why it was necessary to make the revolution permanent, to call for the removal of the capitalist ministers, converting it into a Workers and Peasants Government, and for All Power To The Soviets. The Soviets represented the Dictatorship of the Proletariat leading the Peasantry.
The Theory of Permanent Revolution, advanced by Trotsky, and verified by the 1905 and 1917 Russian Revolutions, says that it is possible for workers to come to power in backward countries, before it does in the more advanced countries. But, it can never establish socialism, in these backward countries, before it does so in the advanced countries. A revolution bringing workers to power in the former, must fail unless supported by an international revolution in the advanced countries, and so the idea of permanence is widened, to the extent that, what starts as a revolution in one country, necessitates a continual expansion of revolution, until the whole world is encompassed by it.
Understanding Permanent Revolution, also involves an understanding of The Popular Front, The United Front, and the Workers Government. Failure to understand these concepts, and the criminal actions of the Stalinists, in pursuing a Popular Front strategy, rather than a strategy based upon Permanent Revolution, led to the catastrophes of the defeat of the Chinese Revolution in 1927, the demobilisation of the French workers in 1934, and the defeat of the Spanish Revolution in 1936. It has led to defeats elsewhere too, such as that of the Popular Unity government in Chile, in 1973.
Permanent Revolution does not mean that, today, bourgeois-democratic revolutions cannot occur without them being undertaken by workers in the lead. Each instance must be analysed on the basis of the material conditions that exist. It only explains how, in some cases, workers can come to power in countries that are less developed, but if they do so, they cannot stop at merely the bourgeois-democratic revolution, or a revolution confined to national bounds.
A large element in relation to colonies was the concept that imperialism would act to divide the world, and so revolutions would be required against the imperialist/colonial power. However, Imperialism destroyed colonialism, and has been a force in supporting the bourgeoisie, in a number of countries, in establishing a bourgeois-democratic regime as the best political shell in which industrial capital can exploit labour.
No comments:
Post a Comment