100th anniversary of the ‘Theory of
Permanent Revolution’
Are Trotsky’s ideas of socialist revolution still relevant today?
ONE HUNDRED years ago, while in a St Petersburg jail awaiting trial
for his leading role in the defeated 1905 Russian Revolution, Leon
Trotsky formulated the ‘Theory of Permanent Revolution’.
Niall Mulholland
Trotsky’s profound ideas examined the prospects for socialist
revolution in Russia at the start of the 20th century and the processes
of revolution worldwide. The validity of the permanent revolution was
brilliantly confirmed by the successful October 1917 socialist
revolution.
But is the permanent revolution relevant today, especially since the
collapse of Stalinism? Yes. It remains the key to understanding how to
end the terrible problems of the so-called ‘Third World’ –
pauperisation, under-development, dictatorship and imperialist
domination – in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. Of
course, the permanent revolution is a living theory, which must be
updated in the light of new developments.
Trotsky summed up the permanent revolution in two ways. Firstly, the
revolution starts in a ‘backward’ country with the capitalist
democratic tasks and goes over to socialist measures. Secondly, the
revolution starts in one country and spreads on an international level.
Although the 1917 Russian Revolution, and its world repercussions,
magnificently proved Trotsky correct, when his ideas were first
published in 1906 they caused huge controversy in the Marxist movement.
Most leaders thought a socialist revolution would take place first in
the richer, capitalist West. Semi-colonial Russia had to still go
through a capitalist ‘democratic revolution’. After the democratic
capitalist phase was completed, the Russian working class would struggle
for socialism.
What is the ‘democratic revolution’?
THE FIRST ‘democratic revolutions’ saw the developing capitalist
class (which included merchants, manufactures and middle-class
professionals) rise up against age-old feudalism, which restricted
capitalism.
The aim was to end the power and domination of kings, nobles, the
aristocracy and the big landlords. This meant removing feudal barriers
to trade and the development of the capitalist economy, unification of
the country, introducing democratic rights, and establishing the basis
of the modern nation-state.
The 1789 French Revolution was the most thoroughgoing capitalist
revolution, which swept away the power of the Church, the landlords and
the King.
Capitalism in its early, dynamic phase created the material, social
and subjective conditions for the socialist transformation of society ie
science, technique, and the modern working class. And it is the working
class – which is forced to sell its labour power to survive and
therefore has no material stake in capitalist society – that alone can
lead the struggle for a new, classless society.
In the modern period, in the age of multinationals and imperialism,
capitalism is a reactionary barrier to the development of society. It’s
a system where the social organisation of production is constrained by
the limitations of the nation state, the private ownership of the means
of production, and the destructive nature of capitalist competition with
its associated booms and slumps.
In Results and
Prospects, [on our website – opens in new window] Trotsky wrote
about processes of revolution in Russia and internationally, by looking
at the lessons of the 1905 Petersburg Soviet and other revolutions.
He explained that the national capitalist class (bourgeoisie) in the
‘underdeveloped’ countries came into existence too late, when the
world was already dominated by the major capitalist and imperialist
powers, like Britain, France and Germany.
Trotsky explained that the national bourgeoisie in the colonial or
neo-colonial world does not play a progressive role. It is dominated by
imperialist powers and tied to foreign capital. It is also linked
financially to, and reliant on, the big landlords and other feudal
relations.
A weak, cowardly class, the national bourgeoisie is not prepared to
decisively struggle against feudal relations and the imperialists.
Instead, Trotsky argued, only the proletariat (working class),
bringing behind it the peasants, urban poor and other middle layers in
society, can lead a successful revolution and solve the problems of
society. 1905 showed: "The revolutionary leadership of the
proletariat revealed itself as an incontrovertible fact". When it
takes power, the working class will have to carry out the historic tasks
of the bourgeois democratic revolution.
When in power, the working class will not stop at democratic tasks.
It will take measures that reflect its class interests; socialist
measures, including nationalisations and overthrowing the local
capitalist class.
The working class in power in a poor country will be compelled to
spread the socialist revolution. At the same time, the revolution will
be a hugely inspiring example for the international working class to
follow.
Trotsky argued the socialist revolution could break out in Russia
first, given the weakness of the Tsarist regime, the development of a
young, militant working class, and the acute, unresolved social and
economic problems and land question.
There were also differences amongst Marxists over the relationship
between the different classes in the revolution. Prior to 1917, Tsarist
Russia was a vast empire but also feudal or semi-feudal, where the
majority of people were poor peasants and the urban working class was
ruthlessly exploited and had no democratic rights.
‘Stages’ theory of social change
The Mensheviks (the ‘Minority’ wing of the Russian Social
Democratic Party) argued that the national bourgeoisie must lead the
coming revolution, as the main tasks were the completion of the
bourgeois democratic revolution. Socialism was for the distant future.
This crude, ‘stages’ position, reflected the reformist, class
collaborationist approach of the Mensheviks – the right wing of the
Russian workers’ movement.
In contrast, Lenin, the leader of the Bolsheviks (‘Majority’ of
the Russian Social Democrats), agreed with Trotsky that the
pro-capitalist ‘Liberals’ would not carry out the bourgeois
democratic revolution. Only the proletariat would carry out the
revolution, in alliance with the peasants. Lenin called for a
"democratic dictatorship of the working class and peasantry",
leaving open the exact relationship between the classes.
Trotsky said the working class would play the key, leading role. The
peasantry never played an independent role in history. It would be led
by either the capitalist class or the working class.
The arguments were finally settled by the year 1917, when Trotsky’s
permanent revolution was borne out.
The February Revolution overthrew the Tsarist regime but the
Provisional Government, dominated by capitalist ‘Liberals’, failed
to end Russia’s disastrous participation in the First World War or
carry out bourgeois democratic tasks.
Lenin accepted his old slogan of "a democratic dictatorship of
the working class and peasantry" was overtaken by events. In his
famous April Theses, Lenin called for the working class to fight to take
power.
The October 1917 socialist revolution, led by Lenin, Trotsky and the
Bolsheviks, saw the working class come to power, leading the peasantry
and middle layers. The Bolsheviks carried out bourgeois democratic tasks
(e.g. land reform, democratic rights) and went over to socialist tasks
(e.g. nationalisation of major industries).
The example of October 1917 sparked a revolutionary wave throughout
Europe (e.g. Germany 1918, 1923, Austria 1918, Bavaria 1919, and Italy
1919-1920).
In the face of imperialist armed intervention, the Bolsheviks
appealed to the world working class. The Communist International (Comintern)
was set up. Lenin, Trotsky and all the leading Bolsheviks understood
that without the spread of the socialist revolution, economically
under-developed Russia could not build socialism alone.
But the international revolutions failed, largely due to the betrayal
of social democrat leaders in the West. This compounded the isolation
and economic backwardness of Russia. A conservative bureaucracy –
based around the figure of Stalin – increased its hold in these
conditions and wanted to expand and to protect its power and privileges.
This bureaucratic reaction found ideological expression in Stalin and
Bukharin’s ‘Socialism in one country’ theory, in 1924. Socialism,
they argued, could be built in Russia and it was not necessary to wait
for international revolution.
This marked a complete refutation of the historic position of the
Marxist movement and it had disastrous consequences.
Under Stalin, the Communist International rejected Lenin’s
independent, class policy and the communist parties internationally
sought "alliances" with the "national progressive
bourgeoisie" in various countries.
This approach led to defeats for the working class internationally
(e.g. British General Strike 1926, China 1925-1927, Germany 1933, Spain
1936-39), which, in turn, deepened the bureaucratic counter-revolution
in Russia.
The Stalinists argued that capitalist democratic revolutions would
take place first in the neo-colonial world, and after a period of
capitalist development there would be a struggle for socialism. In other
words, Stalinists argued a return to the discredited Mensheviks’ ‘stages
theory’.
The Stalinists covered their betrayals by a vociferous attack on the
permanent revolution, digging up old pre-1917 arguments between Lenin
and Trotsky on the issue. "The revolution on the international
scale was suffering one defeat after another… strengthening the Stalin
bureaucracy against me and my political friends," Trotsky wrote.
The ‘permanent revolution’ today
AFTER THE Second World War, the permanent revolution developed in a
way that could not have been foreseen even by Trotsky. The victory of
the Red Army over the Nazis strengthened Stalinism. Capitalism was
overthrown in Eastern Europe, albeit in a distorted, bureaucratic way.
At the same time, the reformists and Stalinists saved capitalism in
Western Europe.
In countries like China, Vietnam and Cuba, society was at an impasse
due to capitalism and landlordism. But the working class was weak or
misled, usually by Stalinists.
When the peasant Red Army of Mao Zedong entered China’s cities,
they balanced between different sections of society – peasants,
workers, sections of the capitalists – and gradually ended capitalism
and landlordism. Land and most of industry was nationalised but workers’
democracy was not introduced. Instead, what Marxists called a ‘deformed
workers’ state’ was established.
The main thrust of Trotsky’s permanent revolution was borne out in
these events, but in a caricatured form. Although a key part of Trotsky’s
theory – the conscious role of the working class as the leading class in
the revolution – was absent in China, Cuba and Vietnam, for example, a
social revolution was still carried out. Landlordism and capitalism were
abolished. But the working class did not directly play the leading role
in these revolutionary upheavals.
The Cuban Revolution, lead by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, enjoyed
mass support, but without workers’ democracy – a bureaucratic layer
formed, concentrating power in its hands.
Trotsky’s permanent revolution was vital to understanding events in
the post-1945, neo-colonial world. Take China, for example. Does its ‘spectacular’
growth disprove the permanent revolution?
Chinese revolution
The 1949 revolution, despite its bureaucratic character, led to the
development of industry and living standards, under a planned economy.
But in the absence of democratic workers’ rule, the economy stagnated
under the ruling bureaucracy.
In the 1970s, the ruling elite began looking towards the market as a
way to boost growth, although the state run sector was still dominant.
Today, capitalist relations increasingly take hold. Growth rates are
high but at a huge social cost: barbaric exploitation, uprooting
millions from the countryside, enormous poles of wealth and poverty,
dismantling of social gains, growing problems of nationalities, etc.
Many of the worst features of pre-1949, capitalist China have
re-appeared. And whatever the future role of China in the world economy,
capitalist restoration will be incapable of fundamentally raising living
standards and conditions of the mass of its people (as we have clearly
seen in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe).
India is also held up as an ‘emerging power’, based on its huge
supply of cheap labour. But while India has a growing middle class,
pockets of ‘modernisation’ and is a nuclear power, the majority of
its desperately poor people eke a living on the land and caste,
religious and national differences remain.
As a whole, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America have
suffered social and economic regression over decades of neo-liberalism,
imperialist plunder and endemic corruption and waste.
A quarter of the world’s population lives in "severe
poverty", and half the world lives on less than $2 a day. Almost
800 million people are malnourished and the same figure lack basic
healthcare. Every day, 30,500 children die from preventable diseases.
African is littered with "failed states" and the continent
is beset with endless problems, like wars, poverty famine, preventable
diseases, corruption, and dictatorships. In Latin America, once ‘promising’
countries, like Argentina, are still recovering from economic collapse.
Brazil is now trumpeted by pro-capitalist commentators as the new
economic ‘success story’.
Latin America
Like Tsarist Russia, Brazil plays a regional imperialist role but
many of the fundamental problems of the neo-colonial world remain in
that huge country (including, huge city and rural disparities,
underinvestment, slums, land problems, oppression of minorities and
state repression).
In Venezuela and Bolivia, the masses have mobilised for fundamental
change. Hugo Chávez, the President of Venezuela, has been pushed into
taking radical measures. How far he goes depends on various factors,
including the world economic situation, the actions of US imperialism,
and the consciousness of working people.
Unlike the first years of the Cuban Revolution, Stalinist Russia no
longer exists to act as a ‘model’ and practical support to
neo-colonial deformed workers’ states. Ultimately, the only way to
defend and to extend the revolution in Venezuela is by carrying through
and spreading the socialist revolution; fulfilling the tasks of the
permanent revolution.
Today, the ‘classical’ ideas of the permanent revolution – with
the working class playing the main role – can re-develop. This year,
marks the first time in history when over 50% of the world’s
population lives in urban areas.
The collapse of Stalinism, and the social democratic parties openly
going over to capitalism, provides an opportunity for independent, class
politics and revolutionary socialism to win a mass audience. However,
reformist ideas, and versions of the ‘stages theory’, will not just
disappear.
This was seen in recent years in Indonesia, a former ‘Asian Tiger’.
The young membership of the influential, People’s Democratic Party (PRD),
played a heroic role in the mass movement against the former Indonesian
dictator, General Suharto, in the late 1990s. This was triggered by the
collapse of the economy after the Asian financial meltdown.
Unfortunately, PRD leaders echoed the false ideas of the old
Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and advocated support for opposition
‘progressive’, ‘democratic’ capitalist leaders, like Megawati
Sukarnopoutri and Abdurrahman Wahid. When in power, Wahid and Megawati
attacked workers’ conditions and rights, increased repression against
national minorities, opened the economy to further imperialist
exploitation and failed to tackle the powerful armed forces.
Ironically, an ex-Trotskyist party, the Australian Democratic
Socialist Party, which has attacked the adherence of the Committee for a
Workers’ International (to which the Socialist Party is affiliated) to
the permanent revolution, advised and influenced the PRD during these
crucial years for the Indonesian working class.
Under the misleading term, ‘uninterrupted revolution’, the DSP
puts forward a version of the old ‘two stages’ theory, ignoring that
fact that all sections of the ruling class in the ex-colonial world are
completely incapable of carrying out consistent democratic reforms or
transforming the living conditions of the mass of people. How can they,
when the system they are based on (capitalism and landlordism), is
responsible for the barbaric conditions facing working people?
In the next period, the working class in the neo-colonial world will
be poised to lead the social transformation of society. Trotsky’s
permanent revolution may be 100 years old but his brilliant theory
remains the most modern, indispensable guide for the working class in
its struggle to overthrow capitalism, landlordism, and to end all the
barbarities of life in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
