The theory of Permanent Revolution and the Sansculottes

[La Comédie Noire]

I've been reading about French History lately and I was wondering what adherents to the theory of Permanent Revolution thought of the Jacobin dictatorship. Do you think it could have been possible for the government to socialize and guide production towards socialism/communism without having to go through the capitalist mode of production?

If not, then do you think it could have been possible in 1848 or 1871?

[Yehuda Stern]

It doesn't work that way. Capitalism was a necessary stage at the time of the French revolution; the bourgeoisie needed to come to power and bring the productive forces to a stage where a socialist revolution is possible. The point of Permanent Revolution is not that capitalism was never necessary, but that a bourgeois revolution made by the bourgeoisie became impossible in the epoch of imperialism and therefore the working class has to carry it out.

In fact, Trotsky noted that many of the social layers that made up the sans coulettes (the non-proletarian part) was the same which brought fascism to power, underlining these layers' importance for capitalist society (can't find the quote at the moment).

[Dave B]

do you mean this one and the ; In this sense, then, fascism contains a reactionary caricature of Jacobinism ... stuff

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1932/onlyroad1.htm

[Yehuda Stern]

Yes, that's the one, thanks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I've been reading about French History lately and I was wondering what adherents to the theory of Permanent Revolution thought of the Jacobin dictatorship. Do you think it could have been possible for the government to socialize and guide production towards socialism/communism without having to go through the capitalist mode of production?

If not, then do you think it could have been possible in 1848 or 1871?


It doesn't work that way. Capitalism was a necessary stage at the time of the French revolution; the bourgeoisie needed to come to power and bring the productive forces to a stage where a socialist revolution is possible.

I think what the OP meant was something like state capitalism on the part of the Jacobins, which would have eliminated the bourgeoisie. In Cliffite terms, he's asking about a "deflected permanent revolution."

Can one indeed make the case that the petit-bourgeois Jacobins could have initiated state capitalism to develop the productive forces? We've seen this policy numerous times before, with various non-Warsaw Pact and non-China-aligned regimes (i.e., "socialist" Nasser and Egypt) pushing aside the bourgeoisie. Heck, this was the thrust of the Brezhnev-era stuff on "national-democratic revolutions" and "non-capitalist development" as Soviet foreign policy in Africa!

Had Jiang Jieshi (Chiang) in China not taken over the Guomindang, this would have been the progressive direction of the Republic of China, as well, being ironically more revolutionary than Mao's New Democracy inclusion of the "national" bourgeoisie.


The point of Permanent Revolution is not that capitalism was never necessary, but that a bourgeois revolution made by the bourgeoisie became impossible in the epoch of imperialism and therefore the working class has to carry it out.

One can tell from my past posting record that I think Marx overestimated the "revolutionary" potential of the bourgeoisie (until late in his life), when other classes could have stepped in. The new gigantic book Witnesses to Permanent Revolution illustrates a richer tradition than Trotsky's vulgarization, and has confirmed the validity of my past posting record on this subject.

[Kléber]

Actually, Jiang didn't deviate from the state-capitalist model. The GMD instituted a lot of regulation and even nationalized the banks during the economic crisis of the 1930's, upsetting the Party's patron class.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Although I am a hardline anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist, and as such not described as adherent to permanent Revolution (although I doo believe in the fact that protecting the Revolution is always necessary and has to happen every moment of time after the Revolution, that's what Stalin did by the way) I do wish to share my view on the issue at hand.

Personally I believe the Jacobins didn't have an entirely correct Revolutionary spirit. There were many good Comrades amongst them, no doubt, but others were rich bourgeois elements that didn't really care about the People and just wanted to abolish the feudal, absolutist society and replace it with industrial capitalism.

That's why I believe that the Revolutionary group that should have led the Revolution was the Sans-Culottes, and Revolutionary visionaries such a Jean-Paul Marat, who understoo the danger too little protection of the Revolution brings with it.

[La Comédie Noire]

I think what the OP meant was something like state capitalism on the part of the Jacobins, which would have eliminated the bourgeoisie. In Cliffite terms, he's asking about a "deflected permanent revolution."

Yes, this is what i was driving at. In fact, the Jacobins had more in common with the Bolsheviks than the Nazis. Lenin went as far as to call his would be female assassin a modern day "Charlotte Corday". However, they departed on one crucial feature, where as the Jacobins tried to mediate class conflict between the sansculottes and the Bourgeoisie through wage maximums and price controls, the Bolsheviks went further and repressed the bourgeoisie entirely.

Obviously the Bolsheviks felt they were the true representatives of the working class and didn't cater to any of the petit Bourgeois elements the Jacobins did.

Of course my Russian History isn't as good as my French History and any critiques or additions would be most welcome. This is just something I've been playing around with for awhile and no doubt, it's probably already been discussed before.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, Jiang didn't deviate from the state-capitalist model. The GMD instituted a lot of regulation and even nationalized the banks during the economic crisis of the 1930's, upsetting the Party's patron class.

To what extent was the Chinese economy nationalized (also land, public utilities)? To what extent was the Chinese tax policy friendly towards workers and hostile towards the bourgeoisie (no consumption sales taxes, but sales taxes on whatever financial speculation existed back then, a progressive income tax, heavy inheritance taxes, etc.)? To what extent were cooperatives encouraged by the Chinese republic?

Also note that the bank nationalizations occurred only during the Depression and not beforehand; it was a reaction to events, not something planned.

[Guest1]

The Jacobins represented the radical petit-bourgeois, the most consistent revolutionary democracy, they did not, and could not, pass beyond the bounds of the bourgeois-democratic tasks history had posed before them.

The permanent revolution does not represent a denial of the need for the development of capitalism, but a recognition that capitalism is a global system. In its drive to develop the means of production and exploit resources and markets across the globe, the imperialist bourgeoisie enters into relations with the ruling classes of the semi-feudal countries.

The developing bourgeoisie of these countries becomes entangled by a thousand threads with their own feudal classes, and they are together tied to the imperialist bourgeoisie.

So before they have even developed fully, they are already rotten and it is too late for them to play the progressive role of carrying out a revolution in their own country against the feudal classes, imperialist subjugation and the establishment of bourgeois democracy.

Because of this, the only class capable of leading this revolution in the semi-feudal countries is the proletariat, with the peasantry united behind it. This revolution would have to be a revolution against the capitalists, who have united with the feudal layers and imperialism. Once they have taken power, to break the resistance of the capitalists, they would be required to pass onto the offensive by taking measures of nationalization under workers' control.

Thus the revolution becomes permanent, with the socialist revolution growing out of the national-democratic revolution, and continuing as an international revolution.

But the situation facing the Jacobins was entirely different. There was no imperialism, and capitalism had developed nowhere. The bourgeois revolution was still a progressive task, that could be carried out by the masses aroused to action against the monarchy and the aristocracy. There is an interesting precursor to the permanent revolution in these events, as the Jacobins arose in opposition to the big bourgeoisie who were already going over to the landlords and betraying the revolution. The bourgeoisie were already incapable of carrying out the most thorough implementation of their tasks, and only the layers closer to the plebian masses were capable of leading this revolution.

But there are significant differences. There was no real proletariat, but a nascent one. The vast majority of society was peasant and petit-bourgeois. Under these conditions, and with the worldwide absence of capitalism, the revolution could only vigorously carry out the bourgeois tasks, clearing the decks and leaving a wide open field for the rapid development of world capitalism.

Note: the comparison with Nazism is actually correct. The Jacobin petit-bourgeoisie were the shock-troops of the bourgeoisie in its progressive and revolutionary ascent, the same way the Nazi petit-bourgeoisie were the shock troops of the bourgeoisie in its reactionary and counterrevolutionary decay.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But the situation facing the Jacobins was entirely different. There was no imperialism, and capitalism had developed nowhere. The bourgeois evolution was still a progressive task, that could be carried out by the masses aroused to action against the monarchy and the aristocracy. There is an interesting precursor to the permanent revolution in these events, as the Jacobins arose in opposition to the big bourgeoisie who were already going over to the landlords and betraying the revolution. The bourgeoisie were already incapable of carrying out the most thorough implementation of their tasks, and only the layers closer to the plebian masses were capable of leading this revolution.

So why support bourgeois revolutions for that time, then, when more radical revolutions could have been enacted? The anti-bourgeois ideologies associated with Sun Yat-sen (at least in his later years) and Gamal Abdel Nasser, no matter how reactionary they are today, would have been much more revolutionary for the world pre-imperialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I thought this particular article to be of interest:

http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2010/02/1802.html


Above all, they were afraid that the masses, the main agency of change in all revolutions, including capitalist ones, inevitably pressed forward with their own demands, thereby challenging the position of the capitalists themselves. Even in the bourgeois French revolution of the eighteenth century, the plebeian sans-culottes (literally ‘without trousers’) were the main agency in clearing French society of all feudal rubbish. But they then went on to demand in 1793-94 measures in their own interests such as ‘maximum wages’ and ‘direct democracy’ which the newly empowered representatives of the bourgeoisie correctly understood as a threat. The sans-culottes were suppressed, first of all by the Directory and then by Bonaparte himself.

[La Comédie Noire]

Thanks for the article Jacob! I now think, after reading some articles by Bolsheviks and Social Democrats that the Jacobins and Bolsheviks were the same historical phenomena under different material conditions. However, where as the Jacobins expressed the needs of a young, mostly petit bourgeois working class, the Bolsheviks were pushed by a more mature proletariat.