Did Trotsky Abandon his original Theory of Permanent Revolution?

[Zanthorus]

Ever since Lars T. Lih's article in last week's weekly worker, 'April Theses': Myth and Reality (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004118) and the corresponding video (http://vimeo.com/15023171) I've been thinking more about the whole 'Permanent Revolution' vs 'Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry' issue. Previously I'd held to the Trotskyist view that during the period April-October 1917 Lenin had adopted Trotsky's view on all the essential points, and formed a 'left' opposition to the 'centrist' faction of Kamenev, Zinoviev and Stalin. I don't think Lih's article necessarily completely overthrows that view, but it does show that Lenin had substantially different reasons from Trotsky for thinking that one possible outcome of the Russian revolution would be 'steps towards socialism'. This doesn't necessarily invalidate 'Permanent revolution', since on the crucial question of the peasantry Parvus was closer to Lenin than Trotsky, but it does seem to invalidate Trotsky's particular version of it expressed in Results & Prospects, although that book was essentially refuted with the arrival of the Social-Revolutionaries on the scene, which Trotsky had said was an impossibility.

What I want to question is wether or not Trotsky actually abandoned his own theory later on? At least in connection with the Chinese revolution he writes:


Despite the backwardness of the Chinese economy, and in part precisely due to this backwardness, the Chinese revolution is wholly capable of bringing to political power an alliance of workers and peasants, under the leadership of the proletariat. This regime will be China’s political link with the world revolution.

In the course of the transitional period, the Chinese revolution will have a genuinely democratic, worker-and-peasant character.

Which seems slightly closer to Lenin's original view than Trotsky's original viewpoint that in backwards countries a permanent workers' government should establish itself.

So instead of the old "Lenin comes completely round to Trotsky's view" line, could we say that Lenin and Trotsky both changed their positions until they hit something of a middle ground?

[Dave B]

it might not be the best place to put it but there is an interesting essay by Radek on the permanent revolution etc especially as regards Kauksky etc with some good quotes blah blah.


Karl Radek

The Paths of the Russian Revolution



http://www.marxists.org/archive/radek/1922/paths/ch01.html (http://www.marxists.org/archive/radek/1922/paths/ch01.html)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Whatever route Lenin came to in 1917 was through the "Kautsky route" and not the "Trotsky route."

Whatever route Trotsky came to in 1917 is lost to history, because I do think Trotsky reverted once more to his discredited Results and Prospects position while in exile. Either that, or he wasn't vocal enough to denounce his earlier theory (which could have saved his non-Politburo position in the Communist Party for at least a little while longer).


although that book was essentially refuted with the arrival of the Social-Revolutionaries on the scene, which Trotsky had said was an impossibility

In other words, contempt for the political organization potential of the peasantry and other sympathizing petit-bourgeois elements. Why, if such contempt were true, then we wouldn't have Petit-Bourgeois Democratism in the first place, would we? [Especially of the "managed" kind ;) ]

[S.Artesian]

Whatever route Lenin came to in 1917 was through the "Kautsky route" and not the "Trotsky route."

Whatever route Trotsky came to in 1917 is lost to history, because I do think Trotsky reverted once more to his discredited Results and Prospects position while in exile. Either that, or he wasn't vocal enough to denounce his earlier theory (which could have saved his non-Politburo position in the Communist Party for at least a little while longer).



In other words, contempt for the political organization potential of the peasantry and other sympathizing petit-bourgeois elements. Why, if such contempt were true, then we wouldn't have Petit-Bourgeois Democratism in the first place, would we? [Especially of the "managed" kind ;) ]

Three strikes and I wish you were out, DNZ. But you keep swinging and missing and the wind from you whiffs you think people will mistake for something of real force.

Strike One: Whatever route the Russian workers took to power was not the Kautsky route.

Strike Two: Results and Prospects discredited? How is that? Was a bourgeois revolution possible in Russia? Was it able to maintain itself? Was the peasantry capable of taking power and establishing a new organization of production and addressing the uneven economic development in Russia? Was there any equivalent in early 20th century Russia to the revolutionary petit-bourgeoisie of France in the late 18th century?

Strike three: What contempt for the peasantry? Since when is a Marxist analysis of the inability of subsistence based production, of subsistence plus surplus production, of the limits to individual, small plot production to sustain economic development contempt.

[Zanthorus]

Results and Prospects discredited? How is that?

Because, in his arguments against the Revolutionary Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry, Trotsky argues that "such a coalition presupposes either that one of the existing bourgeois parties commands influence over the peasantry or that the peasantry will have created a powerful independent party of its own, but we have attempted to show that neither the one nor the other is possible." But the idea that independent political representation of the class interests is impossible was contradicted by the existence of the Social-Revolutionaries, the Left-wing of whom formed a coalition government in Sovnarkom with the Bolsheviks after December no less.


Was a bourgeois revolution possible in Russia?

What exactly does it mean to have a 'bourgeois' revolution? If you mean a revolution led by the capitalist class, then of course not (Although such a revolution has never really occured anyway, from what I can make out). If you mean a revolution against feudalism and autocracy to institute a radical-democratic republic, to bring the bourgeois revolution 'to the end' and complete the tasks which the bourgeoisie was incapable of, that's a different matter.

[S.Artesian]

Because, in his arguments against the Revolutionary Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry, Trotsky argues that "such a coalition presupposes either that one of the existing bourgeois parties commands influence over the peasantry or that the peasantry will have created a powerful independent party of its own, but we have attempted to show that neither the one nor the other is possible." But the idea that independent political representation of the class interests is impossible was contradicted by the existence of the Social-Revolutionaries, the Left-wing of whom formed a coalition government in Sovnarkom with the Bolsheviks after December no less.

Powerful independent party of its own? Like the Holy Roman Empire, that's wrong on all 3 counts.

Not powerful-- played almost no role in leading direct actions against landowners and/or the Tsar's government. Not independent. Joined the PRG of Kerensky. A minority split and followed the lead of the workers. Had no independent articulation or strategy of its own separate and apart from either the "bourgeois democracy" of Kerensky government and the liberal democrats, or the soviets of the working class

Its own? The SRs were not an agrarian based populist movement. These guys weren't Zapata en masse.




What exactly does it mean to have a 'bourgeois' revolution? If you mean a revolution led by the capitalist class, then of course not (Although such a revolution has never really occured anyway, from what I can make out). If you mean a revolution against feudalism and autocracy to institute a radical-democratic republic, to bring the bourgeois revolution 'to the end' and complete the tasks which the bourgeoisie was incapable of, that's a different matter.

I mean capitalist revolution-- a revolution that would establish capitalism. Lenin effectively hedged on this issue with "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" until 1917, kind of hoping for a revolution that wouldn't exactly establish capitalism, but rather take care of capitalism's business without being capitalist, but also without confronting head on the necessity of expropriating the means of production.

It's not until after the February revolution that we get Lenin's change to "All Power to the Soviets," the recognition that the revolution in Russia has no alternative but to telescope itself into the proletarian revolution, with the power of the class organized as state power to expropriate private property.

[Zanthorus]

It's not until after the February revolution that we get Lenin's change to "All Power to the Soviets,"

What about his October 1915 theses?


Soviets of Workers’ Deputies and similar institutions must be regarded as organs of insurrection, of revolutionary rule.http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/oct/13.htm

[S.Artesian]

What about his October 1915 theses?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/oct/13.htm

Yep, let's look at them:


Thesis 1: (1)The slogan of a “constituent assembly” is wrong as an independent slogan, because the question now is: who will convene it? The liberals accepted that slogan in 1905 because it could have been interpreted as meaning that a “constituent assembly” would be convened by the tsar and would be in agreement with him. The most correct slogans are the “three pillars” (a democratic republic, confiscation of the landed estates and an eight-hour working day), with the addition (cf. No. 9) of a call for the workers’ international solidarity in the struggle for socialism and the revolutionary overthrow of the belligerent governments, and against the war.

Three pillars, with the first pillar being a democratic republic. Lenin just rejected, and properly, the slogan of a constituent assembly as an independent slogan because the agent, the agency of executing this demand is clearly anti-working class.

And the democratic republic? What is the content of that? What agency is going to execute that? A democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry? How? By expropriating the bourgeoisie; by the proletariat establishing its own rule, its own organization of the economy? That's not too clear in any of Lenin's theses.


(5)Only a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry can form the social content of the impending revolution in Russia. The revolution cannot be victorious in Russia unless it overthrows the monarchy and the feudal-minded landowners, and these cannot be overthrown unless the proletariat is supported by the peasantry. The step forward made in the differentiation of the rural population into wealthy “homestead farmers” and rural proletarians has not done away with the oppression of the rural areas by the Markovs and Co.[2] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/oct/13.htm#fwV21E165) We have urged and still urge the absolute need, in all and any circumstances, for a separate organisation for rural proletarians.


Notice how Vlad does not say the revolution in Russia cannot be victorious in Russia unless it overthrows the monarchy, the feudal-minded landowners, and the bourgeoisie?

But Lenin has great political sense. He knows the key to accomplishing anything is the independence of the proletarian movement from coalition with the bourgeoisie. He know the organization of the agent of change, the rural and urban proletarians separate and distinct from whatever political demands are raised is the key.


(6)The task confronting the proletariat of Russia is the consummation of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia in order to kindle the socialist revolution in Europe. The latter task now stands very close to the former, yet it remains a special and second task, for it is a question of the different classes which are collaborating with the proletariat of Russia. In the former task, it is the petty-bourgeois peasantry of Russia who are collaborating; in the latter, it is the proletariat of other countries.

First sentence, hey Lenin's getting closer. But he's not there. There is no "feedback" from the socialist revolution to the consummation of the bourgeois democratic revolution in Europe. Such bourgeois democratic revolution is impossible, as was proven by all subsequent events.

And then we get to this:
(11)To the question of what the party of the proletariat would do if the revolution placed power in its hands in the present war, our answer is as follows: we would propose peace to all the belligerents on the condition that freedom is given to the colonies and all peoples that are dependent, oppressed and deprived of rights. Under the present governments, neither Germany, nor Britain and France would accept this condition. In that case, we would have to prepare for and wage a revolutionary war, i.e., not only resolutely carry out the whole of our minimum programme,[3] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/oct/13.htm#fwV21E166) but work systematically to bring about an uprising among all peoples now oppressed by the Great Russians, all colonies and dependent countries in Asia (India, China, Persia, etc.), and also, and first and foremost, we would raise up the socialist proletariat of Europe for an insurrection against their governments and despite the social-chauvinists. There is no doubt that a victory of the proletariat in Russia would create extraordinarily favourable conditions for the development of the revolution in both Asia and Europe. Even 1905 proved that. The international solidarity of the revolutionary proletariat is a fact, despite the scum of opportunism and social-chauvinism.[emphasis added]

What a shame that in their maneuvering, Lenin and Trotsky forgot this, actually worked against this; sought to keep Britain "quiet," by not raising up the oppressed in Asia; sought to secure its southern flank by sacrificing the left communists, and the prospects for proletarian revolution in Turkey to the tender mercies of Ataturk.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Three strikes and I wish you were out, DNZ. But you keep swinging and missing and the wind from you whiffs you think people will mistake for something of real force.

Strike One: Whatever route the Russian workers took to power was not the Kautsky route.

Read his Driving Forces and Prospects in 1907, as well as that inspiration behind the April Theses that was Prospects in 1917.

I even have a History thread on the latter, plus my own comments:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/prospects-russian-revolution-t126942/index.html


Strike Two: Results and Prospects discredited? How is that? Was a bourgeois revolution possible in Russia? Was it able to maintain itself? Was the peasantry capable of taking power and establishing a new organization of production and addressing the uneven economic development in Russia? Was there any equivalent in early 20th century Russia to the revolutionary petit-bourgeoisie of France in the late 18th century?

Strike three: What contempt for the peasantry? Since when is a Marxist analysis of the inability of subsistence based production, of subsistence plus surplus production, of the limits to individual, small plot production to sustain economic development contempt.

Your latter two paragraphs are a related mistake. See, I don't see the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie of even Third World countries as socially revolutionary (unless it deals with the Rent Question properly a la Michael Hudson and radical left-Ricardians). What I do see the "national" elements among them being capable of is political revolution.

Focoism / Guevarism made a fetish out of the guerrilla warfare tactic, but on the question of class dynamics should be praised for being a step up above Maoism: there can only be a "national" and "comprador" petit-bourgeoisie, NOT a similar divide amongst the bourgeoisie. The Cuban revolution was an example of how an independent "national" petit-bourgeoisie in the Third World could come to power and maintain power into at least the medium term.

Likewise, "political consciousness" and the associated "political revolution" role in the Third World isn't a monopoly role enjoyed by the proletariat. This isn't "substitutionism," but just a plain fact.

Which then brings me to my thread on People's Histories, Blocs, and "Managed Democracy" Reconsidered:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html

For the Third World, while a DOTP and it spreading is much better, an "immediate" left-populist solution could be a Caesarian (not Bonapartist, which can never be left-leaning despite pretensions here and there) "managed democracy" that is "above" the independently organized proletariat and also the "national" petit-bourgeoisie, as well as the other classes in my proposed Bloc, while expropriating the bourgeoisie and the "comprador" petit-bourgeoisie.

[Blackscare]

Strike One: Whatever route the Russian workers took to power was not the Kautsky route.


Oh come on. That's about as weak an attack (on this board) as calling someone out for a typo. Of course it was the revolutionary mass of the workers blah blah blabbity blah we've all heard it before, this discussion is about Trotsky.


I won't comment on the rest because I was just skimming this thread. But come on now, let's avoid replacing real points and dialogue with cliche's and obvious truisms.

[S.Artesian]

Oh come on. That's about as weak an attack (on this board) as calling someone out for a typo. Of course it was the revolutionary mass of the workers blah blah blabbity blah we've all heard it before, this discussion is about Trotsky.


I won't comment on the rest because I was just skimming this thread. But come on now, let's avoid replacing real points and dialogue with cliche's and obvious truisms.


I have no idea what you are talking about. DNZ, in response to the very popular notion that Lenin "went over" to Trotsky's theory of how the revolution would unfold and be fulfilled, stated that Lenin's analysis was based on that of Kautsky.

My comment was that the Russian workers hardly followed Kautsky's "theory" in their struggle for power. The workers confirmed Trotsky's analysis.


You ought to read the rest of the thread. Drawing conclusions based on skimming can lead to nonsense, as your post indicates.

[S.Artesian]

Your latter two paragraphs are a related mistake. See, I don't see the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie of even Third World countries as socially revolutionary (unless it deals with the Rent Question properly a la Michael Hudson and radical left-Ricardians). What I do see the "national" elements among them being capable of is political revolution.

Focoism / Guevarism made a fetish out of the guerrilla warfare tactic, but on the question of class dynamics should be praised for being a step up above Maoism: there can only be a "national" and "comprador" petit-bourgeoisie, NOT a similar divide amongst the bourgeoisie. The Cuban revolution was an example of how an independent "national" petit-bourgeoisie in the Third World could come to power and maintain power into at least the medium term.

Likewise, "political consciousness" and the associated "political revolution" role in the Third World isn't a monopoly role enjoyed by the proletariat. This isn't "substitutionism," but just a plain fact.

Which then brings me to my thread on People's Histories, Blocs, and "Managed Democracy" Reconsidered:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html

For the Third World, while a DOTP and it spreading is much better, an "immediate" left-populist solution could be a Caesarian (not Bonapartist, which can never be left-leaning despite pretensions here and there) "managed democracy" that is "above" the independently organized proletariat and also the "national" petit-bourgeoisie, as well as the other classes in my proposed Bloc, while expropriating the bourgeoisie and the "comprador" petit-bourgeoisie.


Another post that makes no sense. Must be a virus. I don't know what any of this means. It is certainly not good history. For one thing the Cuban "petit-bourgeois" that came to power in 1959 didn't actually keep itself in power... but purged itself and went over to the Soviet model, expropriating the bourgeoisie. Without the fSU, without the remains of the Russian workers' revolution, no way the Cuban revolution keeps itself in power.

[Zanthorus]

I don't see the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie of even Third World countries as socially revolutionary... What I do see the "national" elements among them being capable of is political revolution.

Ironically, I think this position is somewhat tied up with Trotskyism, specifically the idea in the whole 'degenerated workers' state' theory that we can make an adequate differentiation between political and social revolution, and claim that the former was necessary in Russia but not the latter.

Now I know you accept and take seriously the dictum that "the struggle of class against class is a political struggle." I have a tentative theory which suggests that the reason Marx could state something like that is because for him, social revolution and political revolution were tied into each other. I don't have it to hand, but I remember reading in 1848: Year of Revolution by Mike Rapport a quote by one of the early socialists in about 1832 that stated that the characteristic of socialism was a concern with 'social' rather than 'political' questions. It's also a characteristic of socialists like Proudhon to seperate the 'social' and the 'political' movement, so that they can support the social movement while remaining apolitical. We can find it reappearing in figures like Bakunin who states that "revolutionary (who are otherwise, known as libertarian) socialists, enemies of every double-edged allies and alliance believe, on the very contrary that the aim can be realised and materialized only through the development and organization not of the political but of the social and economic, and therefore anti-political forces of the working masses." (Where I stand (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/writings/ch12.htm)) And now come the obligatory arguments ad Marx to back up my position :)


The political relationships of men are of course also social, societal relationships, like all relations between men and men. All questions that concern the relations of men with each other are therefore also social questions.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/10/31.htm


Nobody will deny that in Poland the political question is tied up with the social one. For a long time they have been inseparable from each other.

Just ask the reactionaries about it! Did they fight during the Restoration purely against political liberalism and the Voltaireanism that was necessarily dragged along with it?

A very famous reactionary author has openly admitted that the loftiest metaphysics of a de Maistre and a de Bonald reduces itself in the last analysis to a money question – and is not every money question directly a social question? The men of the Restoration did not conceal the fact that in order to return to the policies of the good old days one must restore the good old property, the feudal property and the moral property. Everybody knows that fealty to the monarch is unthinkable without tithes and socages.

Let us go back further. In 1789, the political question of human rights absorbed in itself the social rights of free competition.

And what is it all about in England? Did the political parties there, in all questions, from the Reform Bill to the abolition of the Corn Laws, fight for anything other than changes of property, questions of property, social questions?

Here in Belgium itself, is the struggle between liberalism and Catholicism anything else than a struggle between industrial capital and big landownership?

And the political questions that have been debated for 17 years, are they not at bottom social questions?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/02/22a.htm


Do not say that social movement excludes political movement. There is never a political movement which is not at the same time social.

It is only in an order of things in which there are no more classes and class antagonisms that social evolutions will cease to be political revolutions.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02e.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ironically, I think this position is somewhat tied up with Trotskyism, specifically the idea in the whole 'degenerated workers' state' theory that we can make an adequate differentiation between political and social revolution, and claim that the former was necessary in Russia but not the latter.

Now I know you accept and take seriously the dictum that "the struggle of class against class is a political struggle." I have a tentative theory which suggests that the reason Marx could state something like that is because for him, social revolution and political revolution were tied into each other.

It depends on which social revolution and which political revolution are in question. My references to the Julius Caesar of people's history, Guevara, and Chavez are in relation to the anti-feudal social revolution (socializing all rent where it can be spotted, be it on the ground, in monopolies/oligopolies, in the broadcast spectrum, or in finance), which I do believe Caesarian Petit-Bourgeois Democratism (but "managed" a la Putin) can accomplish in the Third World.


I don't have it to hand, but I remember reading in 1848: Year of Revolution by Mike Rapport a quote by one of the early socialists in about 1832 that stated that the characteristic of socialism was a concern with 'social' rather than 'political' questions.

That's right: the "struggle for socialism" is economic not political. I'm sure you've read this part of my work several times now. ;)


It's also a characteristic of socialists like Proudhon to seperate the 'social' and the 'political' movement, so that they can support the social movement while remaining apolitical.

I know you cited Jack Conrad in your definition of economism, but this part I just quoted is a reference to broad economism. Heck, even the idea of "growing the struggle for socialism" into the political struggle for the DOTP (which the TP does, actually, by implanting the "struggle for socialism" first via "workers control" plus expropriations of the banks and of the top such-and-such) is broad economism.


We can find it reappearing in figures like Bakunin who states that "revolutionary (who are otherwise, known as libertarian) socialists, enemies of every double-edged allies and alliance believe, on the very contrary that the aim can be realised and materialized only through the development and organization not of the political but of the social and economic, and therefore anti-political forces of the working masses." (Where I stand (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/writings/ch12.htm)) And now come the obligatory arguments ad Marx to back up my position :)

It's interesting to see the Bakunin of 1862 prioritize political freedom. But I think here he's trying to grow "the struggle for socialism" from radical political struggle, not the other way around as he would eventually do.

[Zanthorus]

It depends on which social revolution and which political revolution are in question. My references to the Julius Caesar of people's history, Guevara, and Chavez are in relation to the anti-feudal social revolution (socializing all rent where it can be spotted, be it on the ground, in monopolies/oligopolies, or in finance), which I do believe Caesarian Petit-Bourgeois Democratism (but "managed" a la Putin) can accomplish in the Third World.

Gotcha.


That's right: the "struggle for socialism" is economic not political. I'm sure you've read this part of my work several times now. ;)

My point was actually more along the lines that the struggle for socialism is inseperable from the political struggle, and one of the characteristics of economism is precisely the seperation of the social from the political question.


It's interesting to see the Bakunin of 1862 prioritize political freedom. But I think here he's trying to grow "the struggle for socialism" from radical political struggle, not the other way around as he would eventually do.

I don't see how he prioritizes political freedom there. His point in the passage is that anarchism focuses on social and economic, not political, issues (Hence, economist).

[blake 3:17]

Ièm not sure how useful some of this hair splitting is on the question of a rapid-two-stage v permanent revolution theory is.

The more important questions seem to be tactical and strategic.

[S.Artesian]

It depends on which social revolution and which political revolution are in question. My references to the Julius Caesar of people's history, Guevara, and Chavez are in relation to the anti-feudal social revolution (socializing all rent where it can be spotted, be it on the ground, in monopolies/oligopolies, or in finance), which I do believe Caesarian Petit-Bourgeois Democratism (but "managed" a la Putin) can accomplish in the Third World.

Somebody just has to challenge this junk about "anti-feudal" social revolution in the struggles in Cuba or Venezuela. Might as well be me.

Might be nice, first, for DNZ to describe for us the relations of land tenure in Cuba in the 1950s and in Venezuela in the 1990s that were/are "feudal." Might be nicer to demonstrate to us how the expropriation, the social relations of expropriation of surplus in the countryside are in fact feudal.

Then it might be nicest of him to quantify exactly how much of this feudal land tenure, and feudal expropriation of surplus, there actually is, and what part it plays in the reproduction of society.

Because.... because this notion of an anti-feudal revolution in the second half of the 20th century is baloney. The tenure relations are not feudal; the expropriation of surplus is not feudal. The units of production, even if they look like haciendas, plantations etc. do not function as feudal manors did. These units, like the haciendas and plantations in Mexico at the time of the 1910 revolution, and beyond, were producing for the world markets, and were reproducing those social relations of production.

As a matter of fact, as the [failed/successful] Mexican Revolution proved, and the [successful/failed] Russian Revolution re-proved, there was no such thing as an anti-feudal revolution in the first-half of the twentieth century.

[Die Neue Zeit]

My point was actually more along the lines that the struggle for socialism is inseperable from the political struggle, and one of the characteristics of economism is precisely the seperation of the social from the political question.

I guess it's how you just phrased it.

"The struggle for socialism is inseparable from the political struggle" means there was an initial focus on the latter. On the other hand, "the political struggle is inseparable from the struggle for socialism" can imply economism: growing smaller economic struggles into the "struggle for socialism" and then from there implant the political struggle ("defend democratic rights" and "the slogan of soviets" following the commanding heights and workers control slogans).


I don't see how he prioritizes political freedom there. His point in the passage is that anarchism focuses on social and economic, not political, issues (Hence, economist).

Crap. I stand corrected (damn him, anyway).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Somebody just has to challenge this junk about "anti-feudal" social revolution in the struggles in Cuba or Venezuela. Might as well be me.

Might be nice, first, for DNZ to describe for us the relations of land tenure in Cuba in the 1950s and in Venezuela in the 1990s that were/are "feudal." Might be nicer to demonstrate to us how the expropriation, the social relations of expropriation of surplus in the countryside are in fact feudal.

When I say "anti-feudal," you should already know that I am referring to the contributions of none other than Michael Hudson. I said, "all rent where it can be spotted, be it on the ground, in monopolies/oligopolies, in the broadcast spectrum, or in finance" for a reason. Hudson explicitly mentioned the latter two. From there, we get the real meaning of "free markets" (as discussed in other threads).

As for land per se:

http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/Berlinpaper.pdf


In a socialist economy all rent income should accrue to the state and be used for the good of the community. Socialist states have usually nationalised land, but have not always charged a rent for using the land. In the case of mineral extraction this made no difference, since this was done by state enterprises and rent would just have been a fictitious transfer between sections of the state. Failure to charge agricultural rents to farms will, however, accentuate differences in income between fertile and less fertile agricultural regions.

It is a moot point whether land nationalisation would be popular today in Europe. An economic alternative, which over the long term would produce a similar effect, would be to introduce a land tax on the rentable value of land. This is an old populist objective, originally proposed by Henry George. The threshold for the tax could be set high enough to ensure that small farmers paid nothing or only a token amount, but for larger more fertile estates it could be set at a level that would confiscate the greater part of rent revenue. The effect on large landowners would be to deprive them of their unearned income and making it available for communal uses. If they refused it would be tax evasion but it is ideologically harder for the likes of the Duke of Atholl to mount a campaign to justify tax evasion than it is to mount one to justify resistance to expropriation.

[S.Artesian]

When I say "anti-feudal," you should already know that I am referring to the contributions of none other than Michael Hudson. I said, "all rent where it can be spotted, be it on the ground, in monopolies/oligopolies, in the broadcast spectrum, or in finance" for a reason. Hudson explicitly mentioned the latter two. From there, we get the real meaning of "free markets" (as discussed in other threads).



First off, I don't read minds. I tried that, and when I couldn't make a living at it, I decided to go to work for a railroad. The responsibility is yours to say what you mean. Using a term like "anti-feudal," completely out of context to describe relations that are not feudal, is your responsibility, not mine.

Secondly, same challenges-- describe the rent relations in Cuba and/or Venezuela and how that exactly changes class relations to the point where the "petit-bourgeoisie" can come to, and maintain political power separate from and in opposition to that rentier capitalism.

This rent theory substitution for the critique of capital, is just that, a substitution that leads basically nowhere-- Hudson himself being the living proof of that, as the guy who has anointed himself chairman of the President's council of economic advisers just as soon as Dennis Kucinich gets elected President. Hold your breath, and let me know when that happens.

And the rent-seeking of broadcast industries etc is not the real meaning of "free markets." Death squads are the real meaning of free-markets. Pinochet proved that in the practice of Friedman's "economics."

This is pretty much of a hoot-- at the very moment when the working class is doing battle with capital, as the working class doing battle with capital over the costs of the reproduction of labor power.... we get the "new" rent theories.

[Die Neue Zeit]

First off, I don't read minds. I tried that, and when I couldn't make a living at it, I decided to go to work for a railroad. The responsibility is yours to say what you mean. Using a term like "anti-feudal," completely out of context to describe relations that are not feudal, is your responsibility, not mine.

I already pointed out several times my old Theory thread on "Classical Economic Rent and Self-Directional Demands." You also have not read my History thread on Kautsky's 1917 work - at all. [You know, the one with an introduction by Lars Lih, followed by the work itself, followed by my commentary.]

That is the context and history of anti-feudal revolutionism.


Secondly, same challenges-- describe the rent relations in Cuba and/or Venezuela and how that exactly changes class relations to the point where the "petit-bourgeoisie" can come to, and maintain political power separate from and in opposition to that rentier capitalism.

The Cuban landlords extracted heavy economic rent from the populace as a whole. Despite your implicit assertion, the Cubans who took power in 1959 weren't "bourgeois."

The Bolivarian anti-feudal revolution began with the nationalization of PDVSA. From there, it's a string of nationalizations. Admittedly, though, the courses of action should be more aggressive.


And the rent-seeking of broadcast industries etc is not the real meaning of "free markets." Death squads are the real meaning of free-markets. Pinochet proved that in the practice of Friedman's "economics."

Again, read Hudson. "Free markets" are markets free of private appropriations of economic rent, not necessarily "free from government intervention." Rent-seeking in the broadcast spectrum, like what we see with Big Media today, is the exact opposite of a free market in broadcasting. Pinochet and his death squads ushered in a new rentier capitalism or, in Hudson's words, a "new road to serfdom."

[Kléber]

Cuba did not have an aristocracy at the time of the 1959 Revolution; the feudal landowners had been wiped out in the failed independence wars of the Nineteenth Century. The Cuban economy was dominated primarily by the US bourgeoisie from the 1898 invasion until Castro's bourgeois nationalist regime threw in its lot with the USSR and expropriated or expelled US capital from the country.

[S.Artesian]

I already pointed out several times my old Theory thread on "Classical Economic Rent and Self-Directional Demands." You also have not read my History thread on Kautsky's 1917 work - at all. [You know, the one with an introduction by Lars Lih, followed by the work itself, followed by my commentary.]

That is the context and history of anti-feudal revolutionism.



The Cuban landlords extracted heavy economic rent from the populace as a whole. Despite your implicit assertion, the Cubans who took power in 1959 weren't "bourgeois."

The Bolivarian anti-feudal revolution began with the nationalization of PDVSA. From there, it's a string of nationalizations. Admittedly, though, the courses of action should be more aggressive.



Again, read Hudson. "Free markets" are markets free of private appropriations of economic rent, not necessarily "free from government intervention." Rent-seeking in the broadcast spectrum, like what we see with Big Media today, is the exact opposite of a free market in broadcasting. Pinochet and his death squads ushered in a new rentier capitalism or, in Hudson's words, a "new road to serfdom."

Short version: complete and total crap.

[Zanthorus]

Alright, I've just been through the two Lenin texts which Lih reccomends for understanding the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry: The Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/apr/12b.htm) and Social-Democracy and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/sdprg/index.htm#iv).

Previously I'd found Lih to be a fairly good source, so it was sort of surprising to find that Lih's interpretation of the RDDotPaP didn't really match up to what I read. First of all, Lih claims that implicit in the idea of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship is a two stage revolutionary process, one with the bourgeoisie against Tsarism, and a second revolution setting up a revolutionary provisional government witht he proletariat and peasantry at the helm. I couldn't find anything about this theory of stages, and in fact Lenin seems to reject this schema in The Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry:


One must have a schoolboy’s conception of history to imagine the thing without “leaps”, to see it as something in the shape of a straight line moving slowly and steadily upwards: first, it will be the turn of the liberal big bourgeoisie—minor concessions from the autocracy; then of the revolutionary petty bourgeoisie—the democratic republic; and finally of the proletariat— the socialist revolution... one must be a virtuoso of philistinism to take this as a pattern for one’s plan of action in a revolutionary epoch.

It seems throughout that Lenin is thinking in terms of the provisional government set up immediately after the revolution being one of the proletariat and peasantry, which will convene a constituent assembly, and then dissolve itself. That was clearly not on the agenda in Russia. The provisional government was first of all nowhere close to the "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry", and secondly becoming increasingly unable to fend off attacks from the likes of Kornilov. The constituent assembly was also not a viable centre of political power, as the Left Social-Revolutionaries had abandoned it in order to support the Bolsheviks, and anyway the peasantry, who voted the SR's into power, didn't particularly care who was in power as long as it got land reform. The only stable and democratic source of authority during the revolution were the soviets of workers' and soldiers' deputies.

In Social-Democracy and the Provisional Revolutionary Government he engages in a polemic with a statement from Parvus to the effect that the provisional revolutionary government will be a government of working-class democracy, and the party whichs supports such a government, the Social-Democracy. Lenin states that it is impossible for the government to have a Social-Democratic majority, because the majority of the country consist of petty-bourgeois and peasant elements, and only a revolutionary dictatorship of the majority can be effective. It seems to me that what Lenin means by the RDDotPaP is more than just a coalition government between Social-Democrats and whatever political organisations represent the peasantry, an integral part of his formula, and his difference with Parvus' conception of permanent revolution, is the idea that the peasantry will be the majority party. The Bolshevik/Left SR coalition did not conform to this scheme: The Left SR delegates in Sovnarkom were a minority. The coalition seems to be closer to Parvus' idea of permanent revolution than Lenin's idea of the RDDotPaP, so now we're right back at 'Trotskyism'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Previously I'd found Lih to be a fairly good source, so it was sort of surprising to find that Lih's interpretation of the RDDotPaP didn't really match up to what I read. First of all, Lih claims that implicit in the idea of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship is a two stage revolutionary process, one with the bourgeoisie against Tsarism, and a second revolution setting up a revolutionary provisional government with the proletariat and peasantry at the helm.

Are you sure you read Lih's claims correctly? There is a two-stage process, the first being the revolutionary provisional government of the proletariat and peasantry smashing czarism. Lih even said that, after this, the proletariat can concentrate on being the opposition in the new (petit-bourgeois) order.


The provisional government was first of all nowhere close to the "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry", and secondly becoming increasingly unable to fend off attacks from the likes of Kornilov. The constituent assembly was also not a viable centre of political power, as the Left Social-Revolutionaries had abandoned it in order to support the Bolsheviks, and anyway the peasantry, who voted the SR's into power, didn't particularly care who was in power as long as it got land reform.

Sovnarkom was the provisional government until the Soviet constitution of 1918. Moreover, the constituent assembly included significant (i.e., overrepresented) bourgeois elements of "national" and even "comprador" stripes, something which I'm pretty sure Lenin already opposed in his original work.

The left-coms were right about not convening the bourgeois Constituent Assembly. Instead, Sovnarkom could have summoned a new Congress of Soviets of soldiers, workers, and peasants deputies as the in-substance constituent assembly. Then, with the new constitution and political support for the Bolsheviks ebbing away, instead of the coups' d'etat, go into constructive opposition against the non-bourgeois-but-cross-class-based Menshevik-Internationalists and peasant-based Left-SRs.

[BTW, the peasantry did care somewhat, just not immediately, hence no tears shed over the Constituent Assembly. They supported the Left-SRs in the soviets in 1918.]


It seems to me that what Lenin means by the RDDotPaP is more than just a coalition government between Social-Democrats and whatever political organisations represent the peasantry, an integral part of his formula, and his difference with Parvus' conception of permanent revolution, is the idea that the peasantry will be the majority party. The Bolshevik/Left SR coalition did not conform to this scheme: The Left SR delegates in Sovnarkom were a minority. The coalition seems to be closer to Parvus' idea of permanent revolution than Lenin's idea of the RDDotPaP, so now we're right back at 'Trotskyism'.

The assertion of "Trotskyism" is valid only if there were more support for the Menshevik-Internationalists than for the Left-SRs at around the time of the Bolshevik coups d'etat. Even then, the Menshevik-Internationalists represented a wide range of non-bourgeois class interests - urban petit-bourgeoisie and spetsy as well as workers.

Lih was right, anyway. After the Civil War, the Communist Party was transformed into representing the coalescing interests of workers and peasants on the basis of a peasant majority ("decimation of the working class" rants plus Macnair's stuff on militarized party organization). Unfortunately, there was no independent organization for the interests of the working class per se.

[Zanthorus]

Are you sure you read Lih's claims correctly? There is a two-stage process, the first being the revolutionary provisional government of the proletariat and peasantry smashing czarism. Lih even said that, after this, the proletariat can concentrate on being the opposition in the new (petit-bourgeois) order.

No, I think he pretty clearly states that the first stage is the bourgeoisie toppling the Tsar and the second is the workers-peasant insurrection against the bourgeoisie:


This implies at least a two stage process within the democratic revolution. The first stage topples the tsar; then there is an attempt by the bourgeoisie to say ‘that’s enough, we got what we need, we can stop now’. The social democrats have to move past that... It will do this by enlisting the peasantry as a whole (both rich and poor peasants), because the peasantry has an interest in the democratic revolution


Sovnarkom was the provisional government until the Soviet constitution of 1918. Moreover, the constituent assembly included bourgeois elements, something which I'm pretty sure Lenin already opposed in his original work.

Ok, now I think there's something malfunctioning in your head, to put it kindly. The Soviet Constitution did not install a new government, it left Sovnarkom in place. Further, it restricted voting to rights the employed proletariat, where as Lenin had previously been agitating for a Constituent Assembly based on universal suffrage. Thirdly, Lenin states absolutely nowhere that the constituent assembly convened by the provisional government will exclude bourgeois parties, and indeed his main controversy with Martynov, which Lih states himself, is that Martynov takes too far the correct slogan of Marx that the Social-Democracy forms an oppositional party of the future. I think it's pretty clear that Lenin had made a break with practically everything essential contained in the "revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" slogan.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And what of my latter points? :confused:


The Soviet Constitution did not install a new government, it left Sovnarkom in place.

IMO only one executive body was needed. The other was superfluous. Either the CEC should have been the new executive body, thus disposing of Sovnarkom, or Sovnarkom remained in place, thus making the CEC superfluous.


The first stage topples the tsar; then there is an attempt by the bourgeoisie to say ‘that’s enough, we got what we need, we can stop now’.

Lih said this in the passive voice, not the active voice. Who topples the czar?

[Zanthorus]

Well you've probably got a point on the coups d'etat thing.

As for what happened to the party after the Civil War, I've got a tentative theory that what happened was a result of the interruption of the uninterrupted revolution ;) (I know Macnair himself says that if revolution had happened in Western Europe prior to 1921 the terror and such would be nothing but a bad memory in the history of a succesful socialist revolution)


Who topples the czar?

My reading of Lenin is that the provisional revolutionary government topples the Tsar.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well you've probably got a point on the coups d'etat thing.

As for what happened to the party after the Civil War, I've got a tentative theory that what happened was a result of the interruption of the uninterrupted revolution ;) (I know Macnair himself says that if revolution had happened in Western Europe prior to 1921 the terror and such would be nothing but a bad memory in the history of a succesful socialist revolution)

Had revolution occurred, there would still be a coalition between a peasant majority and a worker-class minority, but not in one party. The Bolsheviks would have been pressured to step down across the whole socialist spectrum.


My reading of Lenin is that the provisional revolutionary government topples the Tsar.

Again, Lih's voice was passive.