Trots and others: a new theory of "permanent revolution" needed?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem I have with Lenin's April Thesis is that it gives the impression that the proletariat will become a "bad boss" if the managers aren't well-compensated.



Discussion topic: Is a new theory of "permanent revolution" needed for the transition from the capitalist mode of production to the socialist (not yet communist) mode of production?

Not long ago did I have a thread asking, "Has capitalism really simplified class relations?" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/has-capitalism-really-t65831/index.html)

One of the key implications in that thread was the classification of coordinators / mid-level managers into their own class, based exclusively on a Marxist approach to class relations to the means of production. Further implied is James Burnham's notion of the "managerial revolution" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burnham) which, taken to the extreme, expresses the full preeminence of Marx's "functioning capitalist" in Das Kapital.

I also came about this "proletarist" website that mentions these folks (here called "specialists"):

http://proletarism.org/hm_2_2.shtml


The state apparatus must be made up of suitable staff, and here the utilization of capitalist science begins in full measure. The highest posts need trustworthy people whose devotion to the interests of the proletariat is beyond doubt, having been subjected to stringent verification. From them the proletariat demands a profound understanding of its interests at the current stage and the ability to realize these interests in concrete activities, in well chosen executors and in current policy. But all-proletarian control and evaluation must accompany them in every activity.

A particularly important sphere of activity for the socialist state is the economy. In replacing the capitalist striving for maximal profits with the socialist demand for maximum production effectiveness the socialist state must subordinate the entire management system to this demand.

In the first place, this applies to the management apparatus. The apparatus of production organizers must be rewarded in direct dependence on the organizational investment in heightening the productivity of labour and must be very highly rewarded.

Why is this so? Why can not (or must not) the victorious proletariat dictate to the technical intelligentsia its own, different conditions? Why can the leading class not exploit the creative capabilities of the specialists in the same merciless way that the capitalist exploits the workers?

Because this is not advantageous to the proletariat, it contradicts its interests.

The display of talent and creative ability possess an individual character. The struggle for social and self recognition serves as the stimulus for individual manifestations of ability. As long as commodity-money relations continue to exist in society, recognition in the distribution of goods will remain one of the elements of recognition in general.

But it is precisely upon creative activities that the perfection of production depends, the growth of its effectiveness; whether it be the activities of the production organizers or the creative initiative of the masses themselves. Growth in production of goods without an additional expenditure of labour - this is also the economic aim of the proletariat; it is quite ready to devote a portion of this growth to movement in this direction.

And if we glance back at the capitalist and learn from him, it may be seen that he loses nothing through the highly paid specialist but rather increases his profits. Besides which, he encourage a competitive struggle for recognition among them, leading to a full disclosure of their abilities, permitting him to select the best among them. In refusing to adopt such an approach, the proletariat can only harm itself.

The individual evaluation of each specialist must be based on the extent to which his activities are useful to the proletariat and this must be an assessment in the grand scheme, from the heights of class interests. As far as the share of any remaining capitalist is concerned, it must be said that if the proletariat does not offer its specialists the opportunity of obtaining more benefits that in the service of any capitalist, then it is a bad boss. Work for socialist society must attract, for their own benefit, the most prominent specialist of the capitalist world. The proletariat will only become richer through the exploitation of their abilities, since that which is advantageous to the capitalist is many times more advantageous in the socialist economy which is not limited by the competitive monopolies.



I argued against Trotsky's specific theory of permanent revolution here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revisionist-trotskyism-revolutionary-t70170/index.html) mainly because Russia barely begun the "bourgeois-democratic" tasks. However, since what I'm talking about above relates to the dying days of the capitalist mode of production, can the new proletocratic order combine "managerial" tasks (which cannot be completed under bourgeois rule) with the socialist and proletocratic tasks, with the proletariat leaning on the coordinators/managers/specialists?

[gilhyle]

THe question, it seems to me, transforms into a different question: is it practical to conceive of a crisis of imperialism such that the working class of the imperialist countries see it as in their interests to give the leg up to the working class of the imperialised world, or must revolution (the founding crisis of capitalism having passed), now await the homogenisation of the whole working class of the world ?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I think it has to be the former, because homogenization will NEVER arrive. In my Stamocap thread, I specifically mentioned the capitalist law of uneven development (which ComradeRed hasn't yet addressed) in a post-revolution society (different "economies" in the global "multi-economy," because certain economic sectors can be socialized more quickly than others).

[gilhyle]

Just to argue the other way for a moment : the extent of the priviledges of the imperialist working class are now so ingrained, so dependent on the exclusion of imperialised working class that any opening up of free migration of labour and true free trade would undermine their position to such an extent that even in the middle of a crisis they are going to see that those temporary problems are less important to them than the longer term possibility continuing to benefit from priviledges over and above workers in imperialised countries.

By contrast, there are clearly vast swathes of the imperialised world currently going through processes very like the experiences of Western Europe in the early 19th cenntury and the U.S. in the late 19th century. Can we not expect those vast areas within a century or 150 years to reach similar standards of development as the current imperialist countries, thus switching from imperialised to imperialist status and vastly increasing the international homogenisation of the working class.

Now I can think of a lot of counterarguments to both these positions, but there is of course a third alternative - that neither option is feasible.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ But there has been increased migration of labour, "freer trade," etc. On the other hand, I have read reports about "reverse globalization" (companies who once outsourced are now doing stuff in-house again).

Regarding your second paragraph, I don't think the "swathes" are as vast as you think (China, India, and Brazil notwithstanding) in terms of rapid economic development. It would be if there were subsidized trade (genuine "fair trade") instead of massive charity and mere aid.



What scares me is your "third option" - what do you propose, if true? [In any event, you did bring another aspect of uneven development into the picture, since the "emerging markets" are growing faster economically than the sluggish First World.]

[Chapaev]

The idea of prominent revolution was advanced by Marx and Engels in the "Communist Manifesto". They asserted that if the proletariat had sufficient strength, influence, organization, and an independent political position, it could make the transitions from the bourgeois democratic revolution to the socialist revolution and the establishment of proletarian power. By “permanence” Marx and Engels meant a regular succession of stages in the revolutionary process. They warned that at the beginning of the movement, the workers cannot yet propose any directly communistic measures. The workers would not be able to achieve their own class interests without going completely through a lengthy revolutionary development.

Lenin developed the idea of uninterrupted revolution into the theory of the transformation of the democratic revolution into a socialist revolution. Lenin rejected the outline proposed by the opportunists within the Second International and the Mensheviks, according to which the victory of the bourgeois revolution is inevitably followed by a more or less prolonged period of capitalist development. Lenin emphasized revolutionaries cannot be afraid to advance toward socialism when the world capitalist system is rope for a socialist revolution.

Marx’ idea of permanent revolution was given a distorted interpretation by Trotsky. This distortion became the Trotskyist platform for the struggle against Leninism. In the Trotskyist "theory", the idea of the uninterrupted succession of stages in the revolutionary process was replaced with a subjectivist conception that arbitrarily confused all the stages and ignored the logical connection between them. The bourgeois democratic character of the revolution is denied in this theory, and the adventuristic idea of an immediate transition to the socialist revolution is advanced.

By rejecting the Marxist-Leninist strategy of class alliances of the proletariat with the peasantry and other nonproletarian strata of the toiling people, the Trotskyist theory closed the path to the formation of the mass political army of the socialist revolution. It undermined developmental factors, as well as the possibility of victory for the socialist revolution. In Trotsky’s theory the permanence of the revolutionary process and the fate of the socialist revolution in each country were made to depend on external factors, on the victory of the world revolution. On the basis of these mechanistic views, the Trotskyists came out against the Leninist theory that socialism could be victorious in a single country.

[Led Zeppelin]

By rejecting the Marxist-Leninist strategy of class alliances of the proletariat with the peasantry and other nonproletarian strata of the toiling people

This was never rejected, you're wrong.


On the basis of these mechanistic views, the Trotskyists came out against the Leninist theory that socialism could be victorious in a single country.

I love how the state was withering away in the USSR because they had already reached socialism....oh wait.

[BobKKKindle$]

By rejecting the Marxist-Leninist strategy of class alliances of the proletariat with the peasantry and other nonproletarian strata of the toiling people, the Trotskyist theory closed the path to the formation of the mass political army of the socialist revolution.

"In the event of a decisive victory of the revolution, power will pass into the hands of that class which plays a leading role in the struggle – in other words, into the hands of the proletariat. Let us say at once that this by no means precludes revolutionary representatives of non-proletarian social groups entering the government. They can and should be in the government: a sound policy will compel the proletariat to call to power the influential leaders of the urban petty-bourgeoisie, of the intellectuals and of the peasantry."

Results and Prospects, The Proletariat in Power and the Peasantry (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp05.htm)

Trotsky recognized that cooperation between the peasantry and the proletariat is necessary in countries where the proletariat is not strong enough to lead the revolution without the support of other oppressed social groups, but argued against the formation of alliances with the national bourgeoisie, which leave the proletariat vulnerable to betrayal when the danger of social revolution emerges, as occurred in China in March 1927, when the troops of Chiang Kai-Shek (leader of the KMT) entered the city of Shanghai and, after securing the agreement of the CCP to disarm the workers militias which had formed a potential alternative base of power within the city, conducted a series of massacres against the leaders of workers organizations, which forced the remnants of the CCP to flee to rural areas where they would be safe from the threat of further violence. The events of China show the dangers of the Stalinist tactic of forming alliances with the bourgeoisie (closely connected to the "stageist" conception of historical development, which argues that a democratic revolution and a prolonged period of capitalist development must occur before socialism becomes viable) and affirm the Trotskyist position.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Back on topic, I have said this in my work (barely anything to do with the original theory at all):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/economics-and-politics-t83454/index.html


The institution of superstate-proletocratic capitalism will enable a more highly compensated coordinator class (otherwise they will deem the new ruling class to be worse than the old one and resort to “under the table” corruption schemes), leaned upon by the working class, to fulfill its socially necessary historic task (contrary to the hysterically anti-coordinator objections of the French-socialist pareconists) – what James Burnham aptly called “the managerial revolution” – due to the ouster and numerical reduction of the functioning capitalists. What a new, non-revisionist spin on the economic aspect of “permanent revolution,” indeed!