The theory of permanent revolution does not say that a bourgeois-democratic, national revolution cannot occur, other than via a proletarian revolution, only that, in conditions where the workers lead such a revolution, Marxists will have to adopt the ideas of permanent revolution, or else the counter-revolution will assert itself, as happened in 1848, 1905, 1927 in China, 1936 in Spain etc. Moreover, given that the object of Marxists is Socialism, and not bourgeois-democracy, in conditions where a revolutionary proletariat exists, even a small one, it behoves the Marxists to adopt the principles of permanent revolution, if only to develop it, as happened in 1905, and, where possible, to go beyond bourgeois-democracy, to the goal of a workers' state.
As The Theses On The National and Colonial Questions says, absent these revolutionary, proletarian forces, capable of being mobilised, on the basis of permanent revolution, we have no reason, or interest in supporting the actual bourgeois-democratic forces involved, who represent the workers immediate class enemy, and in many cases, represent truly reactionary, and anti-working class forces. As Lenin wrote, when a new bourgeois-liberal party was created in Russia, in the 1890's, he welcomed its formation, but shunned its appeals to the Marxists to join it.
That development of the liberal bourgeoisie, in Russia, went along with the development of capitalism, in Russia, and Lenin viewed both as historically progressive. But, being historically progressive is not the same thing as Socialist or Socialism, which is our actual objective. Like the development of monopoly out of competition, or imperialism out of the competition of nation states, it is inevitable and progressive, but its not our goal. Our goal is to move beyond it, as quickly as possible. Indeed, where conditions allow it, we would seek to skip over those steps entirely!
Marx, writing to Zasulich, and Engels' to Danielson, set out that Russia could, skip capitalist development, if socialist revolution occurred, first, elsewhere. It didn't, so it couldn't. However, if an international revolution occurred, there are still some parts of the world where pre-capitalist conditions predominate, and it would become possible to enable them to skip the stage of capitalist development and bourgeois democracy.
Similarly, anywhere that bourgeois-democracy does not exist, but where the workers, in their majority, already had a revolutionary proletarian consciousness, why on Earth would Marxists want to channel them into a struggle only for bourgeois-democracy, rather than skipping that stage entirely? The concept of permanent revolution simply bridges this gap. It takes the fact that, mostly, the majority of workers do not possess this revolutionary class consciousness, but retain illusions in bourgeois-democracy and the nation state, and, by engaging with them in a struggle for those things, by revolutionary means, creation of soviets, workers' militia, and self-government, breaks them from it, and enables them to develop that revolutionary, internationalist class consciousness. Depending on conditions, that may arise even before any bourgeois-democratic regime was established.
“It is very likely that it will not be possible to convoke the Constituent Assembly except through the soviets and that in this way the Assembly might become superfluous even before its birth. This may happen, just as it may not happen. If the soviets, through whose medium a “real” Constituent Assembly might be called together, were already here, we would see if it was still necessary to proceed with its convocation.” (p 204-5)
But, soviets cannot be simply sucked out of your thumb. So, the idea that they could be posited as an alternative to supporting workers and peasants' demands for bourgeois-democracy were absurd, because no soviets existed in China. Where they had started to be created, the Comintern opposed them, and the counter-revolution destroyed them.
“Can the Chinese revolution, in the course of its new stage, leap over formal democracy? It follows from what has been said above that, from the historical point of view, such a possibility is not excluded. But it is entirely inadmissible to approach the question guided by this possibility, which is the most distant and the least likely. It is to manifest light-mindedness in the political domain. The Congress adopts its decisions for more than one month, and even, as we know, for more than a year. How then can the Chinese Communists be left bound hand and foot, by designating as opportunism the form of political struggle which, from the next stage onwards, may acquire the greatest importance?” (p 205)
Again, this transitional method becomes apparent, not as some set of clever demands, adopted timelessly, but in the use of specific demands at specific times. Its this which distinguishes opportunism from revolutionary politics.
“It is incontestable that by entering the path of struggle for the Constituent Assembly, the Menshevik tendencies in the Chinese Communist Party may be revived and strengthened. It is no less important to fight against opportunism when the policy is directed towards parliamentarism or towards the struggle for it, than when one is confronted with a direct revolutionary offensive. But, as has already been said, it does not follow from this that the democratic slogans should be called opportunistic, but that guarantees and Bolshevik methods of struggle for these slogans must be worked out.” (p 205-6)
This is the same approach as taken by Lenin in Left-Wing Communism. It is not the participation in bourgeois parliaments or elections that is opportunist, but the reasons for doing so. The revolutionary always uses such participation to expose the sham nature of the formal democracy, and its elections, and to engage in revolutionary propaganda and activity to raise the consciousness of the masses. The revolutionary does not engage in bourgeois-democratic, national struggles, in order to bring about a sham bourgeois-democracy or utopian and reactionary national independence, but only to engage with the revolutionary masses already embarking on such a struggle, and in doing so, to break them away from those bourgeois-democratic, and reactionary nationalist illusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment