Permanent Revolution and New Democracy

I've always thought that these theories were not only not exclusive of one another but perhaps even share common ground.

Trotsky's permanent revolution, although almost cryptic in name, deals with the attitude that the proletariat in underdeveloped and developing countries must shoulder the responsibility for carrying out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution when the nationalist bourgeoisie is either unable or unwilling to. The proletariat will carry out democratic revolutionization and carry forward into the socialist revolution, the whole process being called "permanent" revolution.

New Democracy as we know deals with similar avenues; with revolutionary peasants and proletariat carrying out the tasks of the democratic revolution, and the inevitable socialist revolution.

One thing that Trotsky's theory fails to do is figure out how this occurs. He, almost idealistically, presumes that the socialist and democratic revolutionary phase will come hand-in-hand; that the process of development can "jump" straight from post-fuedalism to socialist transition.

This position is contrary to the experience of both Marx and Lenin, both of whom recognized the importance of democratic revolution -- how its process serves as the catalyst for proletarian consciousness.

Permanent Revolution does away with this; it assumes that those responsible for the democratic revolution, ie the abolition of fuedalism, will be able to carry out the tasks of the socialist revolution simeltaneously or immediately after. It assumes class consciousness can be artificially grown from a petrie dish rather than developed as a catalytic process of natural political development.

The process in Nepal has come under criticism because of this erroneous sentiment, and idealist notions that fuedalism can transform into socialism. It can not. Without the important step of democratic renewal, socialism is nothing more than an empty, hollow shell.

Many see this sentiment as some sort of betrayal, or atleast the implication of support for capitalism. It is not. Many people can not differentiate between capitalism and democracy and their revolutions; many confuse political with economic issues. The process we see in Nepal, and the process we saw in Europe during those tirbulant years of democratic revolution, were processes which saw the old nobility, landlords and kings supplanted by the voice of the masses, by democracy, by parliamentarism and republicanism. Economically, of course, for the average joe, very little changed; the bourgeoisie, empowered by private ownership, annexed resources and production from their fuedal overlords and hoarded it away from the masses. But that is an economic matter. Politically, the institutionalization of democracy is an important and progressive step and it must come before economic revolution and collectivization.

In a way, the democratic revolution is like elementary school; it teaches the masses about the power of collectivization and co-operation, it teaches them to recognize their own oppression and exploitation, inequality and totalitarianism. It is a process which teaches the tools the masses need to progress further into socialism.

This is what Trotsky's theory lacks, the understanding of the nature of fuedalistic society and the necessity of a new democratic phase on the journey to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

So what is New Democracy, and how does it deal with this necessary step?

New Democracy, in short, is the amalgamation of the bloc of four classes (peasant, proletariat, petit-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie) into an efficient productive alliance, which is tasked, under the guidance of the vanguard of the proletariat, with carrying out the necessary tasks of democratic renewal and industrialization and economic growth. It is, in essence, leashed capitalism. It is more than simply welfare capitalism; it allows the strongest and most efficient aspects of capitalism, namely markets and limited privatization and industrial competition, while ensuring that such activities are maintained under equitable conditions for the whole of society.

It can, perhaps, be compared to modern Venezuela, or even Cuba; states which have obvious socialistic tendencies but also contain mixed economies, shared ownership and some levels of privatization.

One thing that is usually agreed on, and vehemently protested against by its enemies, is the fact that this is a very risky road. Placing, even partially, the productive forces under the control of "caged" animals surely is a dangerous endeavour; look how it turned out in China -- a short coup allowed those "caged beasts" to take control of their own reigns. Obviously, in the future, steps will be necessary to ensure this does not repeat. But, in the end, it is still a very necessary step.

Marx wrote, "Liberation is a historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture.." This goes contrary to many who claim to follow in Marx's footsteps, those who believe that liberation is a mental act and does not necessitate the prerequisite of economic abundance; it assumes that such economic abundance can come during or after liberation.

What we see in Nepal is an example of this first step, this first stage of the (r)evolution of Nepali society. It is the extremely important and progressive step of democratic revolution, of the abolition of fuedalism and the adoption of the concepts of freedom and self-determination. As soon-to-be-Prime Minister Bhattarai has said, first must come the political revolution, and then the economic revolution. Society must be economically advanced enough to support socialism. This is a historical necessity which permanent revolution fails to even understand, let alone recognize.

Note: I'm posting this here on request of bobkindles; it was originally posted in the MLM group (by me).

Russia too was much more developed country than most 3rd world countries today, with a well-established industrial base in the western parts of the country; despite the relative lack of industrialization compared to western countries the proletariat in Russia was still strong enough to carry out the aims and goals of the revolution themselves.

The point is that in a third world country which lacks both a highly developed proletariat and highly developed bourgeoisie requires "class collaborationism" (though I hesitate calling it that, since there is a clear relationship of authority in new democracy).

In China, for example, immediately after the revolution, the revolutionary workers and peasants made it clear to the elements of the rich landlords, upper-class peasants, petit-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie that progress was going to take place, and they could either be a part of it, or leave, to put it simply.

There were, of course, many elements which saw benefit in the abolition of fuedalism and which joined forces with the revolutionaries. Others did it as a matter of survival; but their complacency to the revolution was demanded. Some left with the KMT to Taiwan.

I don't disagree at all that the bourgeoisie in the third world is unwilling to carry out the tasks; for the most part, the bourgeoisie in places like Africa, South America and parts of Asia are content in their small numbers, with their relationship with the international bourgeoisie, where they rake in millions hoarded the resources of the country, with the full economic and military backing of the west.

But there are always progressive elements; if there are not, then there is no need to talk about it, they should be removed.

New Democracy, in short, is the amalgamation of the bloc of four classes (peasant, proletariat, petit-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie) into an efficient productive alliance, which is tasked, under the guidance of the vanguard of the proletariat, with carrying out the necessary tasks of democratic renewal and industrialization and economic growth

If the "national" section of the bourgeoisie continues to exist, then that means that the state does not extend nationalization to all sectors of the economy, because if all property were nationalized, the bourgeoisie would cease to exist as a class, and such a measure would signify a direct assault on the interests of the bourgeoisie, provoking a hostile reaction, and breaking the unity of this bloc.

Therefore, for the "bloc of four classes" to make any sense, private property must remain in some form, and in certain economic sectors. This is a problem because development can only occur through the abolition of private property, so that the state is able to assume control of capital, and prevent the leakage of profit from the national economy. In addition, it also gives the bourgeoisie the means to sabotage socialist reforms and so encourage the masses to lose faith in the party. For example, in Venezuela there have been reports of food producers hiding produce just before the referendum to create shortages and the illusion of government incompetence, to encourage a vote against the referendum. This shows the danger of granting concessions to the bourgeoisie, of limiting the scope of the revolution, and demonstrates that the concept of the "bloc" is inherently contradictory, it denies the inevitability of conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, national or comprador - a conflict Marxists know as class struggle.

RNK, why is it necessary to retain the national bourgeoisie (and, by implication, private property) when the masses have taken power? How does this aid development? What costs would arise if the state were to nationalize all property and repress the bourgeoisie? It is true that the proletariat is only small in oppressed nations, but this can be overcome through an alliance with the peasantry, and the "national" bourgeoisie is an even smaller group, given that they are a subset of the bourgeoisie, and so I do not see how they can be considered a necessary or useful component of a post-revolutionary political alliance.

Society must be economically advanced enough to support socialism. This is a historical necessity which permanent revolution fails to even understand, let alone recognize.

Socialism does require a developed productive apparatus, and yet the planned economy is the only way the economy can be developed to the necessary level. The Maoists have indicated that they would open up Nepal to foreign investment as part of their economic reforms - how exactly would this enable development? The government will be forced to reduce regulations so that Nepal is attractive for foreign firms, and the profits will not remain within Nepal, they will return to the home country of the firm.

"We can't think of developing this country in the absence of domestic and foreign investments. Technological inputs are of equal importance. So, we will follow the policy of attracting domestic and foreign investments" - Dr Babu Ram Bhattarai

In a way, the democratic revolution is like elementary school; it teaches the masses about the power of collectivization and co-operation, it teaches them to recognize their own oppression and exploitation, inequality and totalitarianism. It is a process which teaches the tools the masses need to progress further into socialism.

Workers learn the meaning of cooperation when they go on strike to try and force economic concessions from the bourgeoisie, they experience inequality when they see that they are forced to live in a hovel when the factory owner has a large house and arrives at the factory in an expensive car. In sum, consciousness is a product of material conditions. The workers "learn" through struggle, it is not necessary to have a separate historic stage for the purpose of "teaching" the workers about issues they encounter in their daily lives - this is a disparaging view, it denies the ability of the worker to recognize the world as it is through their own experiences.

This is verified by the experiences of the masses in Russia - they did not need a separate stage for ideological development, the peasants took control of the land and forced the landlords to flee, even though the Bolsheviks had not encouraged them to take action, workers established soviets in their workplaces, and carted their managed outside in wheelbarrows. They did not grant concessions to the "national" bourgeoisie, they combined democratic and socialist tasks.

Therefore, for the "bloc of four classes" to make any sense, private property must remain in some form, and in certain economic sectors.

Yes, and that is what I said; it is, in essence, a mixed economy.

RNK, why is it necessary to retain the national bourgeoisie (and, by implication, private property) when the masses have taken power?

Because socialism, and by necessity, communism, can only come in the epoch of commodity abundance; again, to quote Marx, "Liberation ... is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture" -- without this abundance, political and economic freedom is impossible.

Socialism does require a developed productive apparatus, and yet the planned economy is the only way the economy can be developed to the necessary level.

First of all, keep in mind that we are talking about a stage of development which precedes socialism. My arguement thus far has been, essentially, that socialism is not possible without a certain level of economic and political development -- the democratic (or bourgeois) revolution -- and that a society can not "jump" from fuedalism straight into the breadbasket of material abundance and socialism.

That said, I do not disagree with your statement; what I am arguing for is, essentially, what you called stagism; that, in underdeveloped countries, contrary to industrialized ones, following a revolution there is a necessite for stages in transitional socialism -- infact, one could call this aspect of which I am speaking the transition to the transition to communism or the transition to socialism.

Workers learn the meaning of cooperation when they go on strike to try and force economic concessions from the bourgeoisie, they experience inequality when they see that they are forced to live in a hovel when the factory owner has a large house and arrives at the factory in an expensive car.

Yes, that is exactly my point, and a point stipulated by Marx and Lenin; this bourgeois democratic revolution and its phase of capitalistic development is necessary for the development of class consciousness -- to make an analogy, the workers need to be chained in order to learn the value of breaking those chains; or, in a more intellectual approach, workers need to learn the importance of class struggle in order for society to be capable of producing a classless society.

This is verified by the experiences of the masses in Russia - they did not need a separate stage for ideological development, the peasants took control of the land and forced the landlords to flee, even though the Bolsheviks had not encouraged them to take action, workers established soviets in their workplaces, and carted their managed outside in wheelbarrows.

And for the most part, their efforts were rewarded by an increasingly controlling beauraucracy which in many ways replaced their free market capitalist managers and fuedal landowners with dictatorial government beauraucrats, political commissars and nationalists.

They did not grant concessions to the "national" bourgeoisie, they combined democratic and socialist tasks.

Nobody is arguing to grant concessions to national bourgeoisie, but rather include them in the industrial and economic development process.

If anything, the experience of Lenin's NEP validates my point; in it, Lenin allowed for the development of some private business which, in short, provided a large boost to the Russian economy, which was critically important after the effects of the first world war, particularly in agriculture.

why is RNK here?
i thought he was a maoist...

A couple of points:

Prachanda and the CPN(M) are not claiming their regime (formed with the cooperation of the CPN(UML) and bourgeois Congress party) is "New Democratic", but rather that it constitutes some stage before New Democracy. This stage apparently does not require a mixed economy, the nationalization of key industries, etc. In other words: capitalism. I think from here, sadly, the road is open for them to become straight-up reformists.

I also think your conception of the political revolution before the economic revolution is awfully un-Marxist. Marxism itself is based on the fundamental unity of politics and economy, with the former as a function of the latter. A revolution that does away with the old political system but not the old economic system will inevitably revert to the old political system.

This is a philosophical quibble, maybe, but one that I think has significant bearing on the validity of your argument.

I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, but I identify with some aspects of Trotskyism.

This is true, RP -- the rhetoric of the CPN(M) since they entered the government and began co-operating with other forces in Nepal has watered down quite a bit.

What remains to be seen is whether this is an actual indication of reformism or veiled attempts at disarming the defensiveness of the enemy. I am remembering back on an interview Prachanda held during a visit to Europe shortly after the announcement of the peace agreement, where he said, in essence, "while we're talking peace now, it is entirely possible that we are only doing so to buy time and strength and mobilize our forces".

The political being prior to the economic is just common sense; you can not transform or develop the economy of a society if you do not hold political power; you can not, for instance, transform capitalism without dethroning the capitalists.

Yes, and that is what I said; it is, in essence, a mixed economy.

What advantages does this have, relative to a full command economy? In particular, how does opening Nepal to FDI aid development?

How do you respond to the issue of the bourgeoisie using property to sabotage socialist reforms, as exemplified by the food producers in Venezuela? If the Maoists give a share of power to the Nepalese bourgeoisie, would that not give them the ability to sabotage development, so as to drive the Maoists out of government and force the election of a more conservative party? What measures should be used to prevent this from occurring?

Because socialism, and by necessity, communism, can only come in the epoch of commodity abundance; again, to quote Marx, "Liberation ... is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture" -- without this abundance, political and economic freedom is impossible.

How does allowing private property allow for material abundance? Why not nationalize all the property of the bourgeoisie, and so destroy the bourgeoisie as a class?

Yes, that is exactly my point, and a point stipulated by Marx and Lenin; this bourgeois democratic revolution and its phase of capitalistic development is necessary for the development of class consciousness -- to make an analogy, the workers need to be chained in order to learn the value of breaking those chains; or, in a more intellectual approach, workers need to learn the importance of class struggle in order for society to be capable of producing a classless society.

Why are workers unable to learn these "values" through the struggles which precede the democratic revolution? What is so lacking, that an additional phase of class society is needed before the working class takes power and expropriates the property of the bourgeoisie?

The events that have occurred in Nepal prior to the Maoist electoral victory show that workers are already aware of class struggle, because they encounter the antagonistic relationship with their employers as part of their daily experience, it is something that cannot be avoided in any class society. Nepalese workers have already led strikes (for example, the general strike in April 1992) to force the government to make political concessions, and to gain improvements in pay by putting pressure on the employers.

Does this not demonstrate that an awareness of class struggle, if not a fully developed class consciousness, already exists in Nepal? If so, how can you argue that workers need to "learn" about the meaning of class struggle? How could these strikes have occurred in the absence of a basic awareness of class struggle?

Nobody is arguing to grant concessions to national bourgeoisie, but rather include them in the industrial and economic development process.

The Maoists have sufficient power to expropriate all the property of the Nepalese bourgeoisie, and so by allowing private property to exist, and by giving the bourgeoisie guarantees that the government will create a sound business environment, the Maoists are making concessions. The unavoidable class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the masses means that a government based on the "bloc" will always be limited in its ability to push through radical reforms, and will break down unless concessions are made, as shown by the dangers arising from the "popular front" tactic which is very similar in its class composition to the "new democracy".

If anything, the experience of Lenin's NEP validates my point; in it, Lenin allowed for the development of some private business which, in short, provided a large boost to the Russian economy, which was critically important after the effects of the first world war, particularly in agriculture.

Trotsky argued against the NEP as it allowed for the re-emergence of class divisions, and it is generally recognized that the NEP was established as a temporary measure to ensure a return to economic stability due to the chaos of the civil war - a situation much worse than the situation in Nepal today.

So, there are capitalist relations, prior to the 'democratic revolution'. And as such class consciousness develops. That's why they can take the revolution a stage further.

Exactly - as demonstrated by the strikes in Nepal, as well as the creation of Soviets in Russia during the 1905 Uprising.

Not all underdeveloped or developing countries fit that criteria, though; sure, states like Korea, China, India and the Philippines, Pakistan, etc, have served as hubs for outsourcing jobs and organs for raising armies of cheap labour, but many more countries, and many more people, are exploited on the simple basis of their natural resources, and not their markets; much of Africa, for example, is being strip-mined for diamonds, precious metals and oil, and in an almost ironic twist, companies are shipping in cheap labour from places like India and Pakistan and the Middle East, rather than tapping into the millions of starving, desperate populations where this is taking place.

Nepal, to use the most current example, and China before it, were also examples where the introduction of foreign markets brought with it very little development for class consciousness and industrialization. Nepal currently, over the past decade, has seen a slight rise in foreign investment, but mainly in the information technologies and services sectors, not the industrial and production sectors; it is still dominated largely by peasants and impoverished urbanites who would, in the west, be classified as lumpens.

China too saw very little industrialization before the 1949 revolution; of a country with a population of 600,000,000, about 2,000,000 were industrial workers in 1949 -- although that is partially do to the Japanese invasion and occupation.

In contrast, India is fast becoming an industrialized nation; huge portions of its population are being "assimilated" into the culture and economy of the developed world, which has brought stark contrasts, as the other half of the population remain in sub-fuedal limbo. There is a raging Maoist guerilla war through much of India as well.

But anyway, I would argue that the development of the conditions that lead to class consciousness in semi-fuedal, undeveloped countries is an exception rather than the rule. By far, most countries which fit this criteria are not only being exploited, but are being at times forcibly repressed, developmentally; this has led to many instances where a very tiny fraction of society, usually royalty or those who have somehow managed to squeak by in relative priviledge for generations, are reaping insane benefits in comparison to the rest of the population, to a degree that would put billionaires to shame.

Another great example is Bhutan, the "Dragon Kingdom", a tiny little country nestled between India and China. Back in the late 1800s Bhutan was ruled by warlords; as the British Empire stretched and solidified itself across India, what was initially conflict turned into co-operation; with the British Empire's backing, the most prominant warlord declared himself King, ceded all matters pertaining to Bhutan's foreign influence -- mainly its economy -- to the British (who in 1949 ceded it to India), and since then, his family has dominated life in Bhutan, commiting mass population expulsions, genocide, and racially-motivated "cultural unifications".

As a result, there has been very little foreign investment in Bhutan, but lots of foreign extraction, as the King levies with foreign corporate interests, mainly Indian, for this or that commodity or resource. There is almost no industrialization and no urban proletariat to speak; Bhutan's economy essentially relies on the King's embillical cord to India and even then, most citizens live in a perpetual state of poverty; commodities are scarce, and privy to ridiculous laws, for instance, television was banned until 1999.

Bhutan is a prime example of how the machinations of the global market can impede and altogether stop the development of class consciousness, and how the minute bourgeoisie of these countries, in league with whatever fuedalistic or semi-fuedalistic modes of power, altogether prevent the process of the democratic revolution. With the bourgeoisie unwilling, and the proletariat non-existent, how else can the spark of democracy erupt into a praerie fire?