Leon Trotsky's "Permenant Revolution" ?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What is this "Permenant Revolution" theory?

Also another couple questions I have:what is 'State Capitalism' and 'Market Socialism' ?

[Dave B]

[FONT=Arial]Yes! [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]And what is the relationship between state capitalism and the permanent revolution?[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]If Bolshevik Russia under the Lenin was pursuing state capitalism and, according orthodox and heterodox Trot theory, following the path of permanent revolution at the same time, even if the permanent revolution path was some kind of inevitable historical process as opposed to deliberate and accepted policy.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]Then was Lenin’s state capitalism a form or manifestation of the permanent revolution?[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]Even if it was some kind of distorted permanent revolution that was, say, "deflected" off it’s true course by other material conditions.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]Perhaps driving it over a Cliff towards the "degenerate worker’s state" of Stalinist despotism.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial].[/FONT]

[Zanthorus]

What is this "Permenant Revolution" theory?

Permanent revolution is based on Marx's analysis of the situation in Germany after 1848 and the tasks of the proletariat in the revolution which he (falsely) thought was forthcoming, put forward most strikingly in the March 1850 Address of the Central Committee. The main point of Marx's analysis is that the proletariat must organise as a class-for-itself independently of the petit-bourgeois democracy. Where the 'making the revolution permanent' bit comes in is that the proletariat is supposed to use it's own independent class power to push the revolution forward "until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far – not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world – that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers."

This strategy more or less lay in the background of the Marxist movement, although still popping up from place to place. The most historically important manifestation of the concept was in Alexander Helphand Parvus' use of the concept as a general strategy for the proletariat in underdeveloped countries. Trotsky picked up on this when he met Parvus while in Munich in the summer of 1904. It was on the basis of this that he wrote his work Results and Prospects which outlines his conception of the forthcoming Russian revolution. The basic point made is that because of the peculiar historical position of Russia, the increasing power of the working-class, demonstrated most potently in the 1905 revolution, Russia cannot have a simple bourgeois revolution. This part is placed in opposition to the various Menshevik theories. The second part is that the peasantry is essentially elastic, it can support either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie depending on who does the most to alleviate it. On this basis, it would be possible for a working-class government to take power in Russia and complete the tasks of the bourgeois revolution, but, provided the social support of the peasantry, go further than this and begin to implement socialist measures. This uninterrupted process of transition between the tasks of the bourgeois and socialist revolutions is the essential point of permanent revolution. The other point made by Trotsky, however, was that this could only succeed if a revolution occured in the more advanced capitalist countries to ally them with the still-developing Russia. This latter point was what PR became famous for, the opposition to 'socialism in one country', and with good reason. However, what a lot of Trotskyists seem to ignore, and what was still key to Trotsky himself, was the idea that the proletariat should organise as an class-for-itself, autonomously of the forces of bourgeois and petit-bourgeois democracy, key to Marx's original piece. It was on this basis that Trotsky criticised the Comintern's alliance with the Kuomintang in China and the various 'Popular Front' governments, especially in Spain and France.

[Lyev]

Here's Trotsky's "permanent revolution" (from stuff I've posted on other threads with a similar topic).

The fundmentals tenants that underlie Trotskyism.

Determinism, idealism, defeatism and pessimism are what originally drew me towards Trotsky's line of thought, yes. And you're quite right when you say criticism without positing a better alternative is "meaningless", hence why Trotsky spent a while formulating "permanent revolution", as a counter-tendency to SIOC. And to say that Trotsky et al were all "country-revolutionary" anyway is poppycock. The Opposition had wide support; the central committees of the mass-based parties in Poland and France protested against the attacks on Trotsky. Anyway, on the subject, in his own words (emphasis mine):

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... The political domination of the proletariat is incompatible with its economic enslavement. No matter under what political flag the proletariat has come to power, it is obliged to take the path of socialist policy.

[...]

Should the Russian proletariat find itself in power..., it will encounter the organized hostility of world reaction, and on the other hand will find a readiness on the part of the world proletariat to give organized support... It will have no alternative but to link the fate of its political rule, and, hence, the fate of the whole Russian revolution, with the fate of the socialist revolution in Europe.

Following the defeat of the Spartacists in Germany in 1919 the immediate possibility of revolution quickly "spreading" became less and less tangible. So the bureaucratic clique sat down and decided to start building socialism "at a snail's pace", in Bukharin's words. The same quotes seem to be dug up every time a debate concerning SIOC appears, but I'll dig them out anyway. With the threat of imperialist invasion ever-looming, why on earth did the regime start preparing for long-term isolation and entrenchment? A prerequisite for the socialist transition is utilizing to their utmost the most advanced productive forces. As Marx said:

...this development of productive forces... is an absolutely necessary practical premise [of socialism] because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced.

And yet Stalin time and time again claims that "socialism" is achievable within national boundaries.

If we knew in advance that we are not equal to the task [of building socialism in Russia by itself], then why the devil did we have to make the October revolution? If we have managed for eight years, why should we not manage in the ninth, tenth or fortieth year?

The party always took as its starting point the idea that the victory of socialism in one country means the possibility to build socialism in that country, and that this task can be accomplished with the forces of a singly country!

...we are capable of completely building a socialist society by our own efforts and without the victory of the revolution in the West, but that, by itself alone, our country cannot guarantee itself against encroachments by international capital—for that the victory of the revolution in several Western countries is needed. The possibility of completely building socialism in our country is one thing, the possibility of guaranteeing our country against encroachments by international capital is another.

Stalin thought there was "no need to inject the international factor into our [Russia's] socialist development." One of the main qualms I have Stalin and co.'s analysis is that they perceived military intervention as the only threat to the development of socialism. Following this, a monopoly on foreign trade was established, without consideration of the USSR's relationship with other capitalist powers, on the whole, in the world economy. Whilst this was a valuable tool for defence, it clearly highlighted Soviet dependence on the world economy, and its relative weakness in productive forces, next to the western developed capitalist countries. Hence why the Left Opposition tried to fight for a much quicker development of industry, and modernisation at a much greater rate. As Trotsky wrote:

Marxism takes its point of departure from world economy, not as a sum of national parts but as a mighty and independent reality which has been created by the international division of labor and the world market, and which in our epoch imperiously dominates the national markets. The productive forces of capitalist society have long ago outgrown the national boundaries. The imperialist war (of 1914-1918) was one of the expressions of this fact. In respect of the technique of production, socialist society must represent a stage higher than capitalism. To aim at building a nationally isolated socialist society means, in spite of all passing successes, to pull the productive forces backward even as compared with capitalism. To attempt, regardless of the geographical, cultural and historical conditions of the country’s development, which constitutes a part of the world unity, to realize a shut-off proportionality of all branches of economy within a national framework, means to pursue a reactionary utopia.

I'll also add that if we conclude that socialism is, indeed, suitable in one country, and re-orientate production to develop "at a snail's pace", then this can only lead to defencist policies, as regards Soviet foreign policy in relation to the international proletarian movement on the whole. Building for socialism in this defensive way, in Russia alone, with the bureaucrats crossing their fingers against foreign intervention leads to "a collaborationist policy toward the foreign bourgeoisie with the object of averting intervention", as Trotsky said. Just one example of this is the Soviet Union joining the League of Nations, which in Bolshevik party program, drafted at the 1919 Congress by Lenin "will direct its future efforts to the suppression of revolutionary movements." I think that just about covers everything, I'll come back to this later. There's also the matter of the nationalist sentiment stirred up by SIOC, especially when it was adopted as the official policy of the Comintern. It was used to justify the Soviet dominance in the worldwide movement, and their role as "leaders" of the international proletariat.

'Permanent revolution' is an extremely vague concept, and not one that Trotsky can even claim credit for.

This is a valid question, one that I've asked myself and have not yet received an answer for. If there is a single country in which revolutionary forces have developed the strength to topple the ruling class and build a system in which the oppressed hold power, what should they do? The logical conclusion of the Trotskyist line of thought is that unless there is a revolutionary situation around the world they shouldn't bother. After all, it is *inevitable* that their revolution will be defeated. Why should they bother? What's the point?

History shows us clearly that even in times of great revolutionary upheaval, revolutions tend to only succeed in one or a few isolated countries at a time. The task in front of us is to figure out how to help the revolution survive in an isolated country while hastening and awaiting the spread of the revolution overseas.

It's not enough to just say unless the revolution spreads it's inevitably doomed and leave it at that. That offers you a seemingly satisfactory explanation for what went wrong in the USSR, but it's not a constructive position. You can't spread a revolution around the world through willpower! We need to study the question of what went wrong in the 20th century revolutions a lot more deeply than the usual Trotskyist analysis goes.

I'm not sure you read my post? The qualm I have isn't directly with the socialism existing in one country, or committed revolutionaries trying to build socialism whilst the revolution hasn't spread, it's with "socialism in one country", as expounded by Stalin, Bukharin et al. Firstly, after the revolution failed to "spread", after things went pear-shaped in Germany, the ruling bureaucracy in Russia entrenched themselves in for the long haul, with the intention of building socialism "at a snail's pace", rather than industrialize and modernize at a faster pace to keep up with the leading capitalist powers. At the time, there didn't seem to be much of a conception of the Soviet relations to the world economy on a whole. Russia isolated itself: Stalin bluntly insisted that there was "no need to inject the international factor into our socialist development." Russia, with it's domination of Comintern as a tool for defence of the interests of Soviet national policy, knowingly or not, began to sever its interests with that of the global proletariat movement.

As Trotsky (rightly so, in my opinion) pointed out, this mindset and policy only had one end to it's nationalist route. He said building socialism in isolation, in this defencist manner could only lead to "a collaborationist policy toward the foreign bourgeoisie with the object of averting intervention." This was demonstrated in the example I gave of the Soviet Union's inauguration into the League of Nations, whereby the bureaucratic clique chose to side with the national bourgeoisie, of foreign capitalist countries, rather than serve the interests of the international proletarian movement on a whole. Of the League of Nations Lenin remarked, in the draft program of the 1919 Congress, that it "will direct its future efforts to the suppression of revolutionary movements." Do you see what I'm getting at? "Socialism in one country" --> isolationism, defencism, autarky, "snail's pace" --> subordination of international proletariat in favour of immediate Soviet national interests.

[emphasis mine]
And this also (as a reply to The Red Next Door):

I am not defending Stalin, I do not even give a fuck about him or trotsky. I am not saying that we should push socialism on the behave of others, I am just saying that, the world is not going to rise up, all at once.

Precisely and wouldn't this assertion conclude that socialism in one country is, in fact, completely erroneous? the part I emphasized sort of implies the clarification of the theory of combined and uneven development. This theory acknowledges that the development of capitalism globally is by no means uniform, and that some countries that entered into a capitalist mode of production later than others will sometimes lag behind technologically and economically, in the way of machinery, agriculture etc., but will also contain the weak vestiges of archaic feudal structures, as well as an emerging weak bourgeoisie. In such a country (like Russia or China), the ruling class is too weak and will not carry through bourgeois-democratic revolution like the bourgeoisie naturally, so to speak, overthrew the aristocracy in France or perhaps similarly to how things panned out here in England - the industrial revolution pretty much started here.

So, the conclusion that Trotsky drew from this is that the proletariat (but not necessarily exclusive) must carry through this revolutionary change, as expounded in the theory of permanent revolution. It should also be noted, due to the backwardness of such a country as Russia or China that the proletariat will be relatively small. Indeed, the working class population in China was just below 2% in 1949 whereas it was roughly 11% in 1917 Russia. Also the high concentration of the proletariat in few areas, whilst they're lacking in numerical strength, is further conducive to the socialist movement being able to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution effectively; most workers in Russia in the time were in and around the big cities and towns like St. Petersburg.

Finally, the reason the revolution is "permanent" is twofold: the proletarian-led nature of such a revolution very much compels the process to be carried through into a socialist transition of society, therefore protecting and crystallizing the gains made via the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Secondly, it follows from this that the socialist revolution must not be confined to one single country because, as Trotsky once remarked (emphasis mine), "Marxism takes its point of departure from world economy, not as a sum of national parts but as a mighty and independent reality which has been created by the international division of labor and the world market, and which in our epoch imperiously dominates the national markets." And as he goes onto say,

The productive forces of capitalist society have long ago outgrown the national boundaries. The imperialist war (of 1914-1918) was one of the expressions of this fact. In respect of the technique of production, socialist society must represent a stage higher than capitalism. To aim at building a nationally isolated socialist society means, in spite of all passing successes, to pull the productive forces backward even as compared with capitalism. To attempt, regardless of the geographical, cultural and historical conditions of the country’s development, which constitutes a part of the world unity, to realize a shut-off proportionality of all branches of economy within a national framework, means to pursue a reactionary utopia.

A revolutionary socialist transformation of society quite clearly necessitates acknowledgment of the world economy as one single entity, glued together by imperialism and the domination of finance capital, and therefore renders near-compulsory the spreading of revolution, wouldn't you agree? Now, people seem to think it's amusing to jibe at how Trotskyists merely wait, or expect the revolution to spread in a "magical Trotskyist rainbow" (scarletghoul's words - very poetic, thanks), but I would argue, as I have done in this thread and previous ones, that the policies of the Soviet Union with Stalin at it's head were in no way, shape or form conducive to the widening and enriching of the global prolaterian movement (see my post below). As I have said, the immediate interests of the Soviet Union, at an national level, were frequently put to the top of the list of the Comintern hence gravely compromising the interests of the global proletariat.

Sorry if it's a bit wordy in places. Anyway, I think the real debate here lies not in the definition of permanent revolution - that is quite clear - but it's application today; the theory is never meant to be applied to industrially developed areas of the world, but it's still useful in the context of historical debate.

[Dave B]

[FONT=Arial]The "great and perceptive" Tony Cliff once summarised the ‘basic elements of Trotsky’s theory’, even if there aren’t many Cliffite theorist of any merit around these days apparently.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]And I couldn’t comment as I don’t understand the permanent revolution theory either. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]The basic elements of Trotsky’s theory can be summed up in six points:[/FONT]

1. [FONT=Arial]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. [/FONT]
2. [FONT=Arial]The decisive revolutionary role falls to the proletariat, even though it may be very young and small in number. [/FONT]
3. [FONT=Arial]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.[/FONT]
4. [FONT=Arial]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." [/FONT][FONT=Arial][8][/FONT]
5. [FONT=Arial]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." [/FONT][FONT=Arial][9][/FONT][FONT=Arial] It is a reactionary, narrow dream, to try and achieve "socialism in one country".[/FONT]
6. [FONT=Arial]As a result, revolution in backward countries would lead to convulsions in the advanced countries. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]The 1917 revolution in Russia proved all of Trotsky’s assumptions to be right. The bourgeoisie was counter-revolutionary; the industrial proletariat was the revolutionary class par excellence; the peasantry followed the working class; the anti-feudal, democratic revolution grew over immediately into the socialist; the Russian revolution did lead to revolutionary convulsions elsewhere (in Germany, Austria, Hungary, etc.). And finally, alas, the isolation of the socialist revolution in Russia led to its degeneration and downfall.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[RED DAVE]

Start here:

Trotsky's Permanent Revolution and Results and Prospects

RED DAVE

[Black Sheep]

However, what a lot of Trotskyists seem to ignore, and what was still key to Trotsky himself, was the idea that the proletariat should organise as an class-for-itself, autonomously of the forces of bourgeois and petit-bourgeois democracy, key to Marx's original piece. It was on this basis that Trotsky criticised the Comintern's alliance with the Kuomintang in China and the various 'Popular Front' governments, especially in Spain and France.

How does this stick with the united front tactics and entryism though?

[Zanthorus]

How does this stick with the united front tactics and entryism though?

Trotsky thought that the social-democratic parties were still essentially workers' parties, even if the social-democratic leadership had clearly bourgeois politics. So allying with social-democratic parties was not seen as class collaborationism by Trotsky. There was also a certain amount of economism latent in Trotsky's perspective. In his recent talk on Permanent Revolution at Communist University '10, Mike Macnair pointed out that there is something of a shift between the Trotsky of Results and Prospects and the Trotsky of The Permanent Revolution. In the latter he seems to adopt the perspective that the democratic revolution must inevitably lead to the socialist revolution in backwards countries. Macnair points out that this perspective has lead Trotskyists away from Trotsky's own opposition to class collaborationism and right back into the mire of popular frontism, supporting bourgeois-nationalist movements in backwards countries in the belief that socialist revolution would/will inevitably spring out of them. I have seen one Trotskyist on here cite the Cuban coup d'etat as an example of Permanent revolution! The latent economism can also be seen in Trotsky's 1938 Transitional Program, the basic point of which is that capitalism is so weak that we don't need proper socialist measures, we just need to make demands that cannot be implemented within capitalism, and the struggle for socialism will spring out of these struggles for reformist demands. If reformist demands are all that is needed, of course, then the best thing for revolutionaries to do is not to undertake the task of raising class consciousness, but to simply 'go to the masses', and evolve the struggle for socialism out of immediate economic struggles.

[Lyev]

This is quite good as regards the permanent revolution:

Permanent revolution
Chávez is right to see the importance of Trotsky and his theory of the permanent revolution. Yet it remains to be seen if he applies its lessons in practice. This is the key issue in Venezuela and in Latin America in general.

Throughout Latin America, in the last couple of years, tremendous movements have taken place. From Mexico in the north through countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, and Argentina, thousands of people have been involved in struggles and semi-uprisings against neo-liberalism and imperialism.

These movements face the historic tasks of developing industry, resolving the land question, breaking imperialist exploitation, securing a unified, independent nation state and establishing stable parliamentary democracies. These are the tasks of what is basically the capitalist revolution.

As the Russian revolutionaries Lenin and Trotsky explained, in the modern epoch these problems cannot be resolved by capitalism and still less by the weak national capitalist class in the neo-colonial countries. The indigenous capitalist class is unable to play an independent role, bound as they are to imperialism internationally and to the landlord class nationally. The countries of Latin America, as with the other neo-colonial countries, are used by imperialism as sources for cheap labour; they are plundered for their natural resources and are kept in a subservient role.

Trotsky explained that it falls to the working class to resolve these fundamental problems, indispensable for the further development of society. As was proven in the Russian revolution, it fell to the working class to break the chains with which economically backward Russia was bound to imperialism abroad and landlordism at home.

To succeed in doing this it was not enough to merely confine itself to capitalism. To unleash the productive powers of society and take it forward it was necessary to nationalise the economy and work out a centralised plan of production based upon a system of workers' democracy.

Another way in which the revolution must be permanent is in its objective to break out of the constraints of an underdeveloped country. The completion of the socialist revolution is not possible within the limits of the nation state.

This means that a Venezuelan socialist revolution must be international, breaking its isolation and spreading to other nations in Latin America as a way of building a world socialist federation.

Today's conditions in Latin America are very favourable for the genuine co-operation and joint struggle of the Latin American workers and peasants.
The completion of a genuine democratic socialist revolution in Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba could allow the beginning of planning and the establishment of a socialist federation as a first step towards spreading it throughout the continent.

Even in the initial stages, a democratic socialist federation of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia could make a huge economic and social leap forward and be a point of attraction to workers and youth around the world. It would highlight what is possible on the basis of genuine democratic socialism and the people of Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela would soon be able to enjoy higher living standards than the majority of people on the continent.

However, these tremendous tasks cannot be fulfilled in the name of the working class by well-meaning leaders. They are the tasks of the working class and require its full involvement and leadership. Many features of the process initiated and led by Chávez are characterised by a top down approach, substituting the independent initiative of the masses by dictats from the government.

The proposed nationalisations should go hand-in-hand with the introduction of workers' control, as a first step towards workers' management. To combat corruption, measures need to be taken to limit the wages of managers. Managers and supervisors should be elected and subject to recall. Finally, the nationalised industries must be part of a larger plan of production on a national scale to use their capacity to the full.

The way the Chávez government has been able to invest in public services, infrastructure and education is a pointer to what would be possible on the basis of a democratically planned economy instead of his policy at present, which is to try and direct chaotic market forces with limited state regulation and intervention.

On the basis of workers' control and management of the commanding heights of the economy it would be possible to plan economic and social progress. The oil wealth would go towards rebuilding the lives of ordinary Venezuelans instead of lining the pockets of private contractors.

A democratically planned socialist economy could start to radically alter Venezuelan society and the lives of millions of working class and poor people. Committees would need to be established in every workplace, university and borough.

On these bodies, representatives would be elected, subject to recall and, if paid, would not receive more than the average wage of a skilled worker. Representatives of these bodies would then organise to meet on the basis of district, city and national levels.

The linking up of these committees would be the basis for the establishment of a workers' and peasants' government.

A movement of socialist social progress would have an electrifying effect on the masses in Latin America. This would be the best guarantor to secure the defence of the Venezuelan revolution so far and its linking up with other Latin American states to form a socialist federation of Latin America as a first step towards a world federation of democratic socialist states.

[S.Artesian]

[FONT=Arial]The "great and perceptive" Tony Cliff once summarised the ‘basic elements of Trotsky’s theory’, even if there aren’t many Cliffite theorist of any merit around these days apparently.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]And I couldn’t comment as I don’t understand the permanent revolution theory either. [/FONT]

Come on, comrade. It's been explained in thread in which you have participated.

The core to the theory is the fact that capitalism is an international system of expropriation that develops nationally at an uneven pace and therefore combines, injects, elements of the most advanced industrial forms of accumulation and property within, and alongside, backward forms of agricultural and petty handicraft forms of accumulation and property.

In short on the whole, as well as in the "less developed" countries, the accumulation of the means of production as capital has run head on into the limitations of private property. Capital overproduces itself beyond the ability of market relations.

In these circumstances, the appearance of "crisis" in a less developed capitalist area is a manifestation of the overproduction occurring across the entire breadth of capitalism. In such circumstances, the resolution of the limitations to the expansion of the means of production-- which appear as problems in profitability in the face of backward agricultural relations, lack of infrastructure, education, agricultural productivity, etc.-- requires the abolition of private property in production, the very bedrock of capitalism itself. In such circumstances, the bourgeoisie are powerless to accomplish any reorganization of the relations of land and labor necessary to improve agricultural productivity and produce "normal" development as has occurred in the more advanced countries. In such circumstances, only the proletariat has the organization, discipline, and power to collectivize property and break the "un-development trap."

And, because the "local" crisis of "un-development" is in reality a manifestation of all of capital's inability to overcome overproduction on an international scale, such efforts by the proletariat seizing power in the less-developed country require reciprocity-- seizure of power in the advanced countries to break through private property and create the conditions for expansions of production based on need and use, not value and profitability.

[penguinfoot]

that the democratic revolution must inevitably lead to the socialist revolution in backwards countries

I think that this is true but not in the way that you understand it - Trotsky's argument in my understanding was that the implementation of any of the tasks which comprise the democratic revolution will produce a response from the bourgeoisie, directed against even the most minimal democratic gains, and that in order to defend the accomplishment of these tasks over the long term it is necessary that they be extended and made part of the permanent revolution, with the obvious example here and the one that Trotsky himself cited being the case of the 8-hour day in the 1905 revolution, which, being an elementary democratic demand, resulted in a lock out on the part of the industrial bourgeoisie, and, as a result forced the proletariat to enter onto the terrain of the socialist revolution, by forming Soviets. In other words, it seems to me that Trotsky's position is that the democratic and socialist revolutions intersect with one another and that movements orientated towards democratic tasks carry with them the potential to initiate socialist revolutions, because making the revolution permanent is the only way to defend democratic gains.

[Dave B]

[FONT=Arial]Well thanks for that S.Artesian[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]I am not quite sure I understood all of that, I think you need to simplify it a bit for me. The thing is I am just a simple factory worker and a chemist and we are not used to all this Social "Scientist" Trotskyist jargon.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]The question that is bothering me is was the state capitalism, in inverted comma’s or not, of the Bolshevik bourgeois intelligentsia eg in Trotsky’s own words;[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]The New Economic Policy of Soviet Russia and the Perspectives of the World Revolution Delivered at the November 14, 1922 Session of [/FONT][FONT=Arial]the Fourth World Congress of the Comintern[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]The Forces and Resources of the Two Camps[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]The alleged "capitulation" of the Soviet power to capitalism is deduced by the Social Democrats not from an analysis of facts and figures, but from vague generalities, as often as not from the term "state capitalism" which we employ in referring to our state economy. In my own opinion this term is neither exact nor happy. Comrade Lenin has already underscored in his report the need of enclosing this term in quotation marks, that is, of using it with the greatest caution. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]This is a very important injunction because not everybody is cautious enough. In Europe this term was interpreted quite erroneously even by Communists. There are many who imagine that our state industry represents genuine state capitalism, in the strict sense of this term as universally accepted among Marxists. That is not at all the case, If one does speak of state capitalism, then this is done in very big quotation marks, so big that they overshadow the term itself. Why? For a very obvious reason. In using this term it is impermissible to ignore the class character of the state.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]It is not unhelpful to bear in mind that the term itself is socialist in its origin. Jaurès and the French reformists in general who emulated him used to talk of the "consistent socialization of the democratic republic". [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]To this we Marxists replied that so long as political power remained in the hands of the bourgeoisie this socialization was not socialization at all and that it would not lead to socialism but only to state capitalism. To put it differently, the ownership of various factories, railways and so on by diverse capitalists would be superseded by an ownership of the totality of enterprises, railways and so on by the very same bourgeois firm, called the state. In the same measure as the bourgeoisie retains political power, it will, as a whole, continue to exploit the proletariat through the medium of state capitalism, just as an individual bourgeois exploits, by means of private ownership, "his own" workers. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]The term "state capitalism" was thus put forward, or at all events, employed polemically by revolutionary Marxists against the reformists, for the purpose of explaining and proving that genuine socialization begins only after the conquest of power by the working class. The reformists, as you know, built their entire program around reforms. We Marxists never denied socialist reforms. But we said that the epoch of socialist reforms would be inaugurated only after the conquest of power by the proletariat. There was a controversy over this. Today in Russia the power is in the hands of the working class. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]The most important industries are in the hands of the workers’ state. No class exploitation exists here, and consequently, neither does capitalism exist although its forms still persist. The industry of the workers’ state is a socialist industry in its tendencies of development, but in order to develop, it utilizes methods which were invented by capitalist economy and which we have far from outlived as yet.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Under a genuine state capitalism, that is, under bourgeois rule, the growth of state capitalism signifies the enrichment of the bourgeois state, its growing power over the working class. In our country, the growth of soviet state industry signifies the growth of socialism itself, a direct strengthening of the power of the proletariat.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/20.htm[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial]a form, type or variant of the permanent revolution, deliberate or otherwise.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]And for that matter China,Cuba and ‘Arab socialism’; whatever that means.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial].[/FONT]

[S.Artesian]

The question that is bothering me is was the state capitalism, in inverted comma’s or not, of the Bolshevik bourgeois intelligentsia eg in Trotsky’s own words;

First, that's no question, that's you making a declaration by the very use of the term "Bolshevik bourgeois intelligentsia," so let's not play the fool here. You are assuming what needs to be proven in order to pretend it doesn't need to be proven.

Secondly, oh-- our poor regular factory worker and chemist who can't understand "permanent revolution," "uneven and combined development," "market relations," "overproduction." So sad.. How can we help you comrade? Perhaps, you should read a bit more on your own.

Thirdly-- if you actually read the long passage you quote, you see that the passage is refuting the identification of the Bolshevik rule with state capitalism-- "neither happy nor exact."

The outcome of the permanent revolution is not state capitalism. That capitalism, like all others, requires the existence of a class of capitalists-- the class that was specifically expropriated by the revolution and in the civil war.

I'm sure every simple factory worker can understand that.

[Dave B]

[FONT=Arial]Yes, but the starting point of the Bolshevik "permanent revolution" was state capitalism; Lenin said so and accused people of leftwing childishness and too much ‘book learning’ for thinking otherwise.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]So does the permanent revolution start with state capitalism and end with state capitalism (or a degenerate workers state) depending on what kind of Trotskyist you are?[/FONT]

..

[Zanthorus]

I know I've done the whole citing Lenin thing in the past but, seriously, just citing Lenin texts is a lame substitute for actual analysis of the nature of the Soviet Union's economy. Funnily enough, Lenin did not necessarily always get it right.

[S.Artesian]

The characterization of the permanent revolution or Russian Revolution as being state capitalist, becoming state capitalist is incorrect. I thought that was painfully clear to the most casual observer.

The question that you are attempting to ask is what happen when the "uninterrupted revolution" is in fact interrupted, does not meet its reciprocation in the advanced countries.

That's a question for concrete, economic, social analysis, not for speculation based on texts.

The theory and practice of permanent revolution requires exactly that-- permanence until completion.

[Dave B]

[FONT=Arial]Yes that’s fine. But who before, lets say 1925, was saying that Russia was not state capitalist?[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]I am not saying people didn’t, to tell the truth I am not sure or don’t know. I wouldn’t be surprised if some council communists and anarchists did not put it that way. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]I am not playing the fool here, it’s a real question.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]The pamphlet circulated by the Sylvia Pankhurst lot, and the British ILP we think, in 1918 ‘The Chief Task of Our Times’ which the SPGB quoted from had substituted ‘state socialism’ for ‘state capitalism’ for the more discerning British left.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]If they had had the unchanged original we would have had even more fun. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]The idea of ‘state socialism’ had a history of its own.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]So it wasn’t just Lenin’s analysis.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial].[/FONT]

[S.Artesian]

Gee, who before 1925 was saying Russia wasn't state capitalist? Hmmh... Trotsky for one. Pavel Maksakovsky [wrote The Capitalist Cycle ] for another.... Hmmh... Preobrazhensky for another.

But what's the point? The question you asked is state capitalism the outcome of permanent revolution? The answer is no. Change permanent to proletarian. Is state capitalism the outcome of the proletarian revolution? No.

Does the uneven and combined nature of capitalism mean that the proletariat taking power in less advanced countries faces the difficult task of developing the technical level of production necessary to support the advanced social relations of production at a moment when that technical level is not, within the confines of that single country, sufficient to maintain those relations. Yes. What is the resolution of this antagonism? Twofold: 1. Expansion of the revolution beyond single countries. 2. greater emphasis on the most advanced social relations, on greater proletarian democracy.

[Dave B]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]this is explicable in part by an incomprehension of an expression frequently used by us, that we now have state capitalism.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]The more our ‘state capitalism’ develops the richer the working class will become,[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Our state undertakings operate along commercial lines based on the market[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/youth/youth.htm[/FONT][/FONT]

[S.Artesian]

A proletarian revolution having assumed power does not become capitalism by virtue of engaging in exchange internationally on the world markets, or internally by allow the establishment of domestic markets.

It, the revolutionary government, does subject itself, and the proletariat to the demands of the world market and its bourgeoisie; it does allow the generation and re-emergence of "proto" or nascent capitalists, no doubt about. There are substantial risks.

Again the NEP was based on the interruption of the uninterrupted revolution, that the reciprocating abolition of capitalism in the advanced countries had not taken place.