Ilyich
27th August 2011, 04:41
I have recently become interested in the neo-Trotskyist theoretician Tony Cliff and the parties which basically subscribe to his theories. I would support his characterization of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc as state capitalist rather than as degenerated or deformed workers' states as per the orthodox Trotskyist position. I also admire the fact that he does not cling to the predictions of Trotsky that clearly contradict reality as demonstrated in his 1999 book Trotskyism after Trotsky, part one "Recognizing the Problem."
I found myself confused, however, when reading his 1963 essay "Deflected Permanent Revolution. First, Cliff breaks down the theory of the permanent revolution into the following six points:
A bourgeoisie which arrives late on the scene is fundamentally different from its ancestors of a century or two earlier. It is incapable of providing a consistent, democratic, revolutionary solution to the problem posed by feudalism and imperialist oppression. It is incapable of carrying out the thoroughgoing destruction of feudalism, the achievement of real national independence and political democracy. It has ceased to be revolutionary, whether in the advanced or backward countries. It is an absolutely conservative force.
The decisive revolutionary role falls to the proletariat, even though it may be very young and small in number.
Incapable of independent action, the peasantry will follow the towns, and in view of the first five points, must follow the leadership of the industrial proletariat.
A consistent solution of the agrarian question, of the national question, a break-up of the social and imperial fetters preventing speedy economic advance, will necessitate moving beyond the bounds of bourgeois private property. “The democratic revolution grows over immediately into the socialist, and thereby becomes a permanent revolution.”
The completion of the socialist revolution “within national limits is unthinkable ... Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet.” It is a reactionary, narrow dream, to try and achieve “socialism in one country”.
As a result, revolution in backward countries would lead to convulsions in the advanced countries.
He then goes on to state how, though true in the course of the Russian Revolution, these points do not apply to the Chinese and Cuban Revolutions. To explain why they do not, he develops the theory of the deflected permanent revolution. I have trouble understanding this theory. Can anyone here explain to me what it is?
I found myself confused, however, when reading his 1963 essay "Deflected Permanent Revolution. First, Cliff breaks down the theory of the permanent revolution into the following six points:
A bourgeoisie which arrives late on the scene is fundamentally different from its ancestors of a century or two earlier. It is incapable of providing a consistent, democratic, revolutionary solution to the problem posed by feudalism and imperialist oppression. It is incapable of carrying out the thoroughgoing destruction of feudalism, the achievement of real national independence and political democracy. It has ceased to be revolutionary, whether in the advanced or backward countries. It is an absolutely conservative force.
The decisive revolutionary role falls to the proletariat, even though it may be very young and small in number.
Incapable of independent action, the peasantry will follow the towns, and in view of the first five points, must follow the leadership of the industrial proletariat.
A consistent solution of the agrarian question, of the national question, a break-up of the social and imperial fetters preventing speedy economic advance, will necessitate moving beyond the bounds of bourgeois private property. “The democratic revolution grows over immediately into the socialist, and thereby becomes a permanent revolution.”
The completion of the socialist revolution “within national limits is unthinkable ... Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet.” It is a reactionary, narrow dream, to try and achieve “socialism in one country”.
As a result, revolution in backward countries would lead to convulsions in the advanced countries.
He then goes on to state how, though true in the course of the Russian Revolution, these points do not apply to the Chinese and Cuban Revolutions. To explain why they do not, he develops the theory of the deflected permanent revolution. I have trouble understanding this theory. Can anyone here explain to me what it is?