What, the 1905 Revolution demonstrated, however, as recognised by a number of Marxist writers, including Trotsky and Kautsky, was that, given the subsequent development of the industrial working-class, in countries like Russia, where the bourgeois-democratic revolution had been delayed, this working-class could, and probably would, take a lead role in any such revolution, and, having done so, then, as Marx had described in his 1850 Address, would not be limited to simply settling for the establishment of a bourgeois-democratic regime, in which its own interests were subordinated. In other words, it would have to make the revolution permanent. It would be forced to go forward to establish its own social dictatorship, in conjunction with the peasantry, with whom it would have to ally given its social weight.
This Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry, however, does not constitute Socialism. Marx's analysis that Socialism is only possible on an international scale, and only on the basis of a high degree of development of the productive-forces, by capitalism, is unchanged. It simply means that, in such societies, the conditions are created in which a move towards Socialism becomes possible, but only on the back of successful proletarian revolutions in more advanced economies, which can then come to their assistance. The concept of Permanent Revolution, then takes on a deeper meaning, because, in every such instance, the duty of the revolutionary regime, becomes not to hunker down within its own borders, but to spread the revolution internationally. This forms the basic demarcation between the Trotskyists (Permanent Revolution) and the Stalinists (Socialism In One Country).
After the experience of the 1905 Revolution in Russia, it becomes obvious that such revolutions can occur, even in less developed economies, where the workers do not form a majority or even a large proportion of society. They can do so for the reasons that Trotsky describes in Permanent Revolution, and that also Kautsky and Lenin recognised. That is that combined and uneven development means that, in such countries, large-scale industrial capital appears more suddenly than it did in older capitalist economies. Large concentrations of workers then appear quickly in the industrial centres. They benefit from the experience of the development of the labour movement elsewhere, quickly forming into their own class organisations, and rapidly adopting the socialist ideas developed in those older economies. These concentrations of industrial workers, organised in disciplined bodies, enable the workers to play the leading role, as against the peasants and petty-bourgeoisie, which, although much larger, is heterogeneous, and undisciplined.
The workers, it is recognised, will also, thereby, inevitably put forward their own interests, which will come into conflict with sections of the peasantry and petty-bourgeoisie. Lenin, therefore, puts forward a modification of the concept of the Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry, noting that it must be, a Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat leading the Peasantry. This makes the former algebraic formula already more concrete, because it emphasises that it must be the proletariat that occupies the dominant position within it. What it does not do is to specify any specific form of political regime that represents this dictatorship. The change of formulation by Lenin is important, because, it also underlies a fundamental difference in the interpretation of the Workers and Peasants Government, which divides the Trotskyists and the Stalinists. In China, consistent with the Stalinist proposals for the adoption of Popular Fronts with the bourgeoisie, the Stalinists put forward the concept of the Peasants' and Workers' Government, giving the lead role to the peasants and petty-bourgeoisie.
No comments:
Post a Comment