TheGodlessUtopian
15th January 2013, 14:11
The following study guide is to Tony Cliff (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/index.htm)’s piece Deflected Permanent Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1963/xx/permrev.htm). The guide has been completed by me with the questions and answers being of my own creation. As usual if comrades locate inaccuracies in theory please comment below. This guide is for the common use and may be freely distributed.
~ ~ ~
Q1: During the course of the Russian Revolution the two principal leaders of the movement-Lenin and Trotsky-disagreed fundamentally on the Agrarian question. What were their stances?
A1: The disagreement between Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin occurred as a result of differing views on how the peasantry should participate and organize themselves in regards to the working class. To this extent Lenin believed that the Peasants could form an independent party which was capable of standing on its own feet and battling towards a distinctive goal; this was in sharp contrast to Trotsky, who, theorized that the peasantry were incapable of building their own political party and taking political power into their own hands. Both, however, agreed for the need of an alliance of a proletarian-Peasant Dictatorship.
Q2: Why did Trotsky believe that the peasantry was incapable of carrying an independent role?
A2: Comrade Cliff answers this well with his explanation…
“If in all revolutions since the German Reformation the peasants had supported one faction or another of the bourgeoisie, in Russia the strength of the working class and the conservatism of the bourgeoisie would force the peasantry to support the revolutionary proletariat. The revolution itself would not be confined to the carrying out of bourgeois democratic tasks, but would proceed immediately to carry out proletarian socialist measures…”
This, according to Trotsky, would lead to socialism in Russia’s backward conditions.
Q3: Summarize the basic elements in Trotsky’s theory.
A3: To again quote comrade Cliff we see that the base for Trotsky’s theory lies in his six point summary:
1. “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.
2. The decisive revolutionary role falls to the proletariat, even though it may be very young and small in number.
3. 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.
4. 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.’
5. 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’.
6. As a result, revolution in backward countries would lead to convulsions in the advanced countries. “
Q4: What role did China have in relation to Trotsky’s theory?
A4: China was, in many regards, a confirmation of Trotsky’s theory of Permanent revolution as Tony Cliff elaborates, “Although points 1-4 were confirmed, Stalinist betrayal ensured that the revolution ended not in the victory of the proletariat, but in its defeat.” Which “As a result the peasants were also defeated, and not only was the socialist revolution not consummated, but the democratic neither; nor were the agrarian revolution, the unity of the country and its independence from imperialism achieved.” Ultimately ending with “Points 5 and 6 thus did not have the chance of being tested empirically.” Ending his introduction Tony states, however, that Mao’s rise to power greatly changed the implications of Trotsky’s theory.
Q5: In what manner did Mao’s rise to power affect the character of the Chinese Revolution?
A5: Mao’s rise within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) coincided with “…its transformation from a working class party. Towards the end of 1926 at least 66 per cent of the membership were workers, another 22 per cent intellectuals and only 5 per cent peasants.” Later in the year “By November 1928, the percentage of workers had fallen by more than four-fifths, and an official report admitted that the party ‘did not have a single healthy party nucleus among the industrial workers’. The party admitted that workers comprised only 10 per cent of the membership in 1928, three per cent in 1929, 2.5 per cent in March 1930, 1.6 per cent in September of the same year., and virtually nothing at the end of it. From then and until Mao’s final victory the party had no industrial workers to speak of.” Further adding to the malaise was that during the 1930s’ the only sectors in which the CCP controlled were the most economically backwards areas.
Q6: How did Mao’s seizure of the towns reveal the CCP’s divorcement from the working class?
A6: During his campaign to take the towns and cities the communist leaders consistently appealed to the proletariat for calm and urged them not to take matters into their own hands, to obey the authorities, and so forth. Again and again the party issues proclamations for all the systems of rule to remain in-tact. It was clear the CCP line was for the working class to remain inept while the Peasant army captured the cities.
Q7: What was the class nature of the revolution in Cuba?
A7: As Tony Cliff explains, “A case in which neither the working class nor the peasantry played a serious role, but where middle-class intellectuals filled the whole arena of struggle…” where the workers in Cuban society were pacified in the same manner that North American workers were compelled: to fight for increased wages and better working conditions.
Q8: Did the peasantry play a large role in the Cuban Revolution?
A8: No “the peasantry was hardly involved in Castro’s army. As late as April 1958, the total number of armed men under Castro numbered only about 180 and at the time of Batista’s fall had only grown to 803.” Meaning that “The cadres of Castro’s bands were intellectuals… peasants that did participate were not agricultural wage earners, collectivist in inspiration…” as some would like to argue. Ultimately this gave Fidel Castro’s movement a Middle Class composition.
Q9: What was the result of this class nature?
A9: When Fidel attempted to call for a general strike on April 9th 1958 the working class didn’t respond. With the proletariat “apathetic” and the peasantry largely uninvolved, despite allegations made by Che Guevara, the working class never emancipated themselves. Indeed it was not until April 16th 1961 that Castro announced that the revolution had been “socialist” in character with the intermediary time spent protecting private property.
Q10: Moving on to comrade Cliff’s fourth section, what “went wrong with [Trotsky’s] theory?”
A10: In comrade Cliff’s own words, “While the conservative, cowardly nature of a late-developing bourgeoisie (Trotsky’s first point) is an absolute law, the revolutionary character of the young working class (point 2) is neither absolute nor inevitable. The reasons are not difficult to appreciate. The prevailing ideology in the society of which the working class forms a part is that of the ruling class; in many cases the existence of a floating, amorphous majority of new workers with one foot in the countryside creates difficulties for autonomous proletarian organisations; lack of experience and illiteracy add to their weakness. This leads to yet another weakness: dependence on non-workers for leadership.” This, in turn, leads to dependence on the state and Trade unions being led by individuals who have no industrial experience.
Q11: What do such conditions necessarily lead to?
A11: Dependence on the state means subordination to government policies antagonistic to the class conflict.
“This, in turn, leads to alienation of the trade unions from the agricultural toilers’ struggle. The difference between town and country living standards is generally very big in backward countries, much more so than in the advanced countries. Under such conditions, and with the mass rural unemployment and underemployment, the achievement of standards of wages and working conditions in industry depends largely on maintaining the closed shop, that is, hiring of workers for an industry through the union. This could hardly be done without state support – the close alliance of the trade unions with the government – to the neglect of rural toilers. This was the set-up in Peron’s Argentina, Vargas’s Brazil, Batista’s Cuba. The result was a labour movement that was conservative, narrow, bereft of idealism.”
Though this latter segment does not automatically mean that the oppressed wage earners are not revolutionary it does, in conjunction with the revolutionary parties, play a significant role (especially when the counterrevolutionary influence of Stalinism becomes involved). This means “An automatic correlation between economic backwardness and revolutionary political militancy does not exist.” A point of mind that stands contrary to Trotsky’s original analysis.
Q12: What results from Trotsky’s theory of the constantly revolutionary nature of the working class becoming suspect?
A12: Simply put: “…the whole structure falls to pieces. His third point is not realised, as the peasantry cannot follow a non-revolutionary working class, and all the other elements follow suit. But this does not mean that nothing happens. A concatenation of national and international circumstances makes it imperative for the productive forces to break the fetters of feudalism and imperialism. Peasant rebellions take on a deeper, broader sweep than ever before. In them is rooted also national rebellion against the economic ruin brought by imperialism and for the higher living standards which it as surely demonstrated.” Tony Cliff also states that several other factors helped, namely, the weakening of world imperialism through the existence of the H-bomb, the growing state of importance in backward countries, as well as the manipulative influence of intellectuals.
Q13: What role do intellectuals play during revolutionary times?
A13: In short they champion a specific class while seeking to uphold their own special position as ‘part of the movement’ yet ‘apart from the movement.’ Without an organized class to keep these people in check they often will not be held accountable to their actions. For this reason the intelligentsia have often played a role within the national revolutions of backward countries as reactionary idols; a position they take up over their divorcement from the working classes and their relative class position. Most often such people are reformists who seek capital accumulation as “Their power is in direct relation to the feebleness of other classes, and their political nullity.” This, in turn, makes the revolutionary intellectual a common upholder of communist ideology, an upholder who often forms the Middle-Class backbone of revolutionary parties in the emergent nations.
Q14: What is the ultimate consequence of the Deflected Theory of Permanent Revolution?
A14: The following conclusions can be drawn…
“First, for the workers in the emergent nations: having failed to carry out the permanent revolution, to lead the democratic revolution on to socialist rails, to combine the national and social struggles, they will now have to fight against their ‘own’ ruling... The industrial workers will nevertheless become more and more ready for the socialist revolution. Under the new national regimes they experience an increase in numbers and hence, in the long run, in cohesion and specific social weight.”
For workers in the first world the struggle will take on the need to investigate class conflicts of those nations who are currently engaged in revolution so as to understand the future better. This goes without saying that they must also oppose colonial oppression.
~ ~ ~
Q1: During the course of the Russian Revolution the two principal leaders of the movement-Lenin and Trotsky-disagreed fundamentally on the Agrarian question. What were their stances?
A1: The disagreement between Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin occurred as a result of differing views on how the peasantry should participate and organize themselves in regards to the working class. To this extent Lenin believed that the Peasants could form an independent party which was capable of standing on its own feet and battling towards a distinctive goal; this was in sharp contrast to Trotsky, who, theorized that the peasantry were incapable of building their own political party and taking political power into their own hands. Both, however, agreed for the need of an alliance of a proletarian-Peasant Dictatorship.
Q2: Why did Trotsky believe that the peasantry was incapable of carrying an independent role?
A2: Comrade Cliff answers this well with his explanation…
“If in all revolutions since the German Reformation the peasants had supported one faction or another of the bourgeoisie, in Russia the strength of the working class and the conservatism of the bourgeoisie would force the peasantry to support the revolutionary proletariat. The revolution itself would not be confined to the carrying out of bourgeois democratic tasks, but would proceed immediately to carry out proletarian socialist measures…”
This, according to Trotsky, would lead to socialism in Russia’s backward conditions.
Q3: Summarize the basic elements in Trotsky’s theory.
A3: To again quote comrade Cliff we see that the base for Trotsky’s theory lies in his six point summary:
1. “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.
2. The decisive revolutionary role falls to the proletariat, even though it may be very young and small in number.
3. 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.
4. 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.’
5. 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’.
6. As a result, revolution in backward countries would lead to convulsions in the advanced countries. “
Q4: What role did China have in relation to Trotsky’s theory?
A4: China was, in many regards, a confirmation of Trotsky’s theory of Permanent revolution as Tony Cliff elaborates, “Although points 1-4 were confirmed, Stalinist betrayal ensured that the revolution ended not in the victory of the proletariat, but in its defeat.” Which “As a result the peasants were also defeated, and not only was the socialist revolution not consummated, but the democratic neither; nor were the agrarian revolution, the unity of the country and its independence from imperialism achieved.” Ultimately ending with “Points 5 and 6 thus did not have the chance of being tested empirically.” Ending his introduction Tony states, however, that Mao’s rise to power greatly changed the implications of Trotsky’s theory.
Q5: In what manner did Mao’s rise to power affect the character of the Chinese Revolution?
A5: Mao’s rise within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) coincided with “…its transformation from a working class party. Towards the end of 1926 at least 66 per cent of the membership were workers, another 22 per cent intellectuals and only 5 per cent peasants.” Later in the year “By November 1928, the percentage of workers had fallen by more than four-fifths, and an official report admitted that the party ‘did not have a single healthy party nucleus among the industrial workers’. The party admitted that workers comprised only 10 per cent of the membership in 1928, three per cent in 1929, 2.5 per cent in March 1930, 1.6 per cent in September of the same year., and virtually nothing at the end of it. From then and until Mao’s final victory the party had no industrial workers to speak of.” Further adding to the malaise was that during the 1930s’ the only sectors in which the CCP controlled were the most economically backwards areas.
Q6: How did Mao’s seizure of the towns reveal the CCP’s divorcement from the working class?
A6: During his campaign to take the towns and cities the communist leaders consistently appealed to the proletariat for calm and urged them not to take matters into their own hands, to obey the authorities, and so forth. Again and again the party issues proclamations for all the systems of rule to remain in-tact. It was clear the CCP line was for the working class to remain inept while the Peasant army captured the cities.
Q7: What was the class nature of the revolution in Cuba?
A7: As Tony Cliff explains, “A case in which neither the working class nor the peasantry played a serious role, but where middle-class intellectuals filled the whole arena of struggle…” where the workers in Cuban society were pacified in the same manner that North American workers were compelled: to fight for increased wages and better working conditions.
Q8: Did the peasantry play a large role in the Cuban Revolution?
A8: No “the peasantry was hardly involved in Castro’s army. As late as April 1958, the total number of armed men under Castro numbered only about 180 and at the time of Batista’s fall had only grown to 803.” Meaning that “The cadres of Castro’s bands were intellectuals… peasants that did participate were not agricultural wage earners, collectivist in inspiration…” as some would like to argue. Ultimately this gave Fidel Castro’s movement a Middle Class composition.
Q9: What was the result of this class nature?
A9: When Fidel attempted to call for a general strike on April 9th 1958 the working class didn’t respond. With the proletariat “apathetic” and the peasantry largely uninvolved, despite allegations made by Che Guevara, the working class never emancipated themselves. Indeed it was not until April 16th 1961 that Castro announced that the revolution had been “socialist” in character with the intermediary time spent protecting private property.
Q10: Moving on to comrade Cliff’s fourth section, what “went wrong with [Trotsky’s] theory?”
A10: In comrade Cliff’s own words, “While the conservative, cowardly nature of a late-developing bourgeoisie (Trotsky’s first point) is an absolute law, the revolutionary character of the young working class (point 2) is neither absolute nor inevitable. The reasons are not difficult to appreciate. The prevailing ideology in the society of which the working class forms a part is that of the ruling class; in many cases the existence of a floating, amorphous majority of new workers with one foot in the countryside creates difficulties for autonomous proletarian organisations; lack of experience and illiteracy add to their weakness. This leads to yet another weakness: dependence on non-workers for leadership.” This, in turn, leads to dependence on the state and Trade unions being led by individuals who have no industrial experience.
Q11: What do such conditions necessarily lead to?
A11: Dependence on the state means subordination to government policies antagonistic to the class conflict.
“This, in turn, leads to alienation of the trade unions from the agricultural toilers’ struggle. The difference between town and country living standards is generally very big in backward countries, much more so than in the advanced countries. Under such conditions, and with the mass rural unemployment and underemployment, the achievement of standards of wages and working conditions in industry depends largely on maintaining the closed shop, that is, hiring of workers for an industry through the union. This could hardly be done without state support – the close alliance of the trade unions with the government – to the neglect of rural toilers. This was the set-up in Peron’s Argentina, Vargas’s Brazil, Batista’s Cuba. The result was a labour movement that was conservative, narrow, bereft of idealism.”
Though this latter segment does not automatically mean that the oppressed wage earners are not revolutionary it does, in conjunction with the revolutionary parties, play a significant role (especially when the counterrevolutionary influence of Stalinism becomes involved). This means “An automatic correlation between economic backwardness and revolutionary political militancy does not exist.” A point of mind that stands contrary to Trotsky’s original analysis.
Q12: What results from Trotsky’s theory of the constantly revolutionary nature of the working class becoming suspect?
A12: Simply put: “…the whole structure falls to pieces. His third point is not realised, as the peasantry cannot follow a non-revolutionary working class, and all the other elements follow suit. But this does not mean that nothing happens. A concatenation of national and international circumstances makes it imperative for the productive forces to break the fetters of feudalism and imperialism. Peasant rebellions take on a deeper, broader sweep than ever before. In them is rooted also national rebellion against the economic ruin brought by imperialism and for the higher living standards which it as surely demonstrated.” Tony Cliff also states that several other factors helped, namely, the weakening of world imperialism through the existence of the H-bomb, the growing state of importance in backward countries, as well as the manipulative influence of intellectuals.
Q13: What role do intellectuals play during revolutionary times?
A13: In short they champion a specific class while seeking to uphold their own special position as ‘part of the movement’ yet ‘apart from the movement.’ Without an organized class to keep these people in check they often will not be held accountable to their actions. For this reason the intelligentsia have often played a role within the national revolutions of backward countries as reactionary idols; a position they take up over their divorcement from the working classes and their relative class position. Most often such people are reformists who seek capital accumulation as “Their power is in direct relation to the feebleness of other classes, and their political nullity.” This, in turn, makes the revolutionary intellectual a common upholder of communist ideology, an upholder who often forms the Middle-Class backbone of revolutionary parties in the emergent nations.
Q14: What is the ultimate consequence of the Deflected Theory of Permanent Revolution?
A14: The following conclusions can be drawn…
“First, for the workers in the emergent nations: having failed to carry out the permanent revolution, to lead the democratic revolution on to socialist rails, to combine the national and social struggles, they will now have to fight against their ‘own’ ruling... The industrial workers will nevertheless become more and more ready for the socialist revolution. Under the new national regimes they experience an increase in numbers and hence, in the long run, in cohesion and specific social weight.”
For workers in the first world the struggle will take on the need to investigate class conflicts of those nations who are currently engaged in revolution so as to understand the future better. This goes without saying that they must also oppose colonial oppression.