Theory Of Permanent Revolution

class contradictions and opposing two great combined development. It becomes a backward countries and stimulating capitalism become closely interlinked. Socialists have long debated the relationship between these two struggles. Much can be learned about this problem from the Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese revolutions but it is the Russian Revolution because of its exceptionally high level of class consciousness and class struggle which provides us with a complete experience upon which a generalised theory could be based, ORIGINS OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION Due to Natural historical conditions, geographical inland position and sparse population, Russia was unable to develop at the same pace as Western Europe. Russia had fallen so far behind by the Middle Ages that she was in danger of being overrun and subjugated by the Western countries. To prevent this, the feudal state was forced to encourage economic expansion. For instance, it was the feudal aristocracy which carried throuzh the emancipation of the peasantry from the legal bondage of feudalism, and it was the Czarist feudal state that attracted foreign capital to build an industrial base. By the twentieth century the most advanced forms of capitalist production were well established in feudal Russia. A structured political instablity arose out of this peculiar situation since it created new classes, the capitalist and workers, which wanted to seize the state power from the feudal aristocracy and use it to serve different economic and social ends.

Given the conflict between these various classes, it was clear to all and sundry that a revolution (i,e. a struggle for state power) must inevitably erupt. The Russian Marxists characterised this future revolution as a Bourgeois Revolution, because they saw its basic cause as being the capitalist mode of production trying to break out of the feudal shell that encased it. The tasks of this revolution would therefore be democratic ones (ie the division of the land among the peasants, the abolition of the monarcy the achievement of the right to free speech, assembly and association etc) that would undermine feudalism.

THREE CONCEPTS OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION While the Marxists were United on this immediate perspective, they disagreed on how it would be accomplished and what its ultimate outcome would be. On these questions there were three schools of thought.

Firstly there was the Plekanov school of thought. His school approached the matter in a very dogmatic and formal way: if the revolution is a bourgeois revolution then the capitalist class must play the leading role. The task of the labour movement was to stand to the left of the bourgeoisie and push them on. The outcome would be a Russian “Republic” like France the United States, In this new Capitalist state the new and youthful working class would grow into a majority and after many years perhaps a few generations, the socialist revolution would be put on the agenda.

Secondly there was Lenin’s original position which, when he eventually abandoned it, was still insisted upon by some of his followers. This school of thought objected to Plekhanov’s formalism: while the revolution would be a bourgeois revolution in the tasks it must achieve I here was no grounds for saying that the bourgeois class would lead it. In fact, because of the unique development of Russia the capitalist class was tied hand and foot to the feudal aristocracy. Moreover because of its weak position as a fostering of foreign capital, it was afraid of the Russian working class. For these reasons the Russian capitalist class would prefer to make a deal with the aristocracy than make a genuine bougeois revolution. Their role according to Lenin, would have to be taken over by the working class and peasantry, who alone were really interested in overthrowing feudalism in order to get democratic rights and a division of the land.

However Lenin did agree with Plekhanov that what would be set up, would be a capitalist state called by Lenin the DEMOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP OF THE PEASANTRY AND WORKING CLASS. In a book written at an early date, devoted specifically to the subject, he wrote, “The degree of Russian economic development and the degree of class consciousness and organisation of the broad masses of the proletariat makes the immediate and complete emancipation of the working class impossible”’.

He ridiculed the idea of turning the revolution into a socialist one as an “absurd and semi-anarchist idea”. In fact at this stage he even believed that the Democratic Dictatorship would be able to give effect to the programme of the bourgeois revolution and that it would be a “future series of governments which will carry out the aim of the bourgeois revolution in general”.

It is clear that Lenin, like Plekhanov, saw an epochal difference between the bourgeois and socialist revolution. However, even on this Lenin was not as dogmatic as Plekhanov. Because he was an internationalist to the core, he saw the possibility that the Russian revolution might spark off a European revolution, so that, when the European working class came to power it would help the Russian revolutionaries overcome the back wardness of Russia and transform the country on socialist lines.

Finally we come to Trotsky’s school of thought. Like everybody else, Trotsky distinguished between the tasks of bourgeois revolution and the socialist revolution. He believed that the approaching Russian revolution would makes its appearance in the form of a bourgeois revolution. He also agreed with Lenin’s criticism of Plekhanov’s formalism, vis a vis, the role of the bourgeoise in the revolution.

But Trotsky differed from Lenin on the precise nature of the class forces which would in fact, carry out the democratic tasks, It was too vague to say merely that the working class and peasantry would accomplish them. While the working class was an essential component class of capitalist society capable of playing an independant political role, the peasantry was a left-over from feudalism — a hybrid class owning property, yet not quite capitalist; labouring, yet not quite proletarian. As such it could assert itself politically, only by supporting either the working class or the capitalist class.

Trotsky argued from this that if the working class, supported by the peasantry, captured state power, to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois revolutidn, that they would form an essentially working class government — or in Marxist terms, they would establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore he concluded that the central strategic slogan under which the struggle for the democratic tasks would have to be fought, was for a Soviet Government.

THE EXPERIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION These were the three major interpretations of the dynamics which would determine the outcome of the Russian revolution, For two decades Russian Marxists argued bitterly about them.

This bitterness was particularly evident between Trotsky and Lenin. In 1915 Lenin described Trotsky’s theory as a beautiful drearn which had been bypassed by reality. Yet in 1920 a footnote itself. republic”, and then to socialism. proletariat. in his collected works described the permanent revolution theses as “Trotsky’s now quite noticeable theory”. In 1919 the book where he first comprehensively outlined the theory was printed and distributed in thousands in Russia. In 1920 it was translated and published in English by the Third International. In 1922 it was republished once again in Russia and sold out so quickly that another edition had to be published the same year. The rehabilitation of Trotskys theory in the eyes of Lenin and the Bolsheviks can be explained by only one factor — the actual Russian Revolution The revolution which erupted in February 1917 swept the feudal aristocracy out of power. To fill the power vacuum, two institutions immediately appeared on the scene — the Provisional Government headed by the capitalist class, and the organs of future working class power, the soviets.

Officially the Provisional Government held power, but as Lenin and Trotsky predicted against Plekhanov, the capitalists were too closely bound to the feudal aristocracy and too afraid of the working class to carry out the tasks of bourgeois revolution. Lenin denounced the Provisional Government as “Counter-Revolutionary” but continued to repeat his old formula. The working class, lead by the revolutionaries, he declared, “can and will proceed to achieve a democratic However Lenin was still in exile at this point and by the time he got back to Russia, his views had changed. In his famous April thesis he proclaimed “It must be explained to the masses that the Soviet of Workers (i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat — ed.) is the only possible form of revolutionary government”. His change of mind provoked general consternation. The thesis received only two votes on the Central Committee and appeared in Pravda (the party paper) with a note disassociating the editorial board from it.

The other main leaders of the party, Kamenev and Zionoviev, accused Lenin of “Trotskyism” and reminded him that according to his own theory that it was necessary to establish the Democratic Republic before the dictatorship of the Lenin replied to his critics with a stinging attack, He answered those who still rsisted in his abolition of religion as the illusory happiness — of the people is required for their real happiness.

The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.” (Kar! Marx:Contribution to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right).

When the anti-feudal revolution was at its height, Diderot and his fellow philosophers thought religion had been decisively beaten for ever, and would go the way of serfdom and alchemy. Science was beginning to shatter the misconceptions men had about their world and to demystify the phenomena that had puzzled old formula: “No, that formula is antiquated. It is worthless, It is dead and all attempts to revive it will be in vain”, and he continued “one must ~ know how to adapt schemes to facts rather than repeat words regarding a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’ in general, words which have become meaningless, And how was the old formula to be ad pted to the facts? Simply by recognising that the “democratic stage” of the revolution could only take the form of dual power between the bourgeosie (The Provisional Government) on the one hand, and the working class and peasantry (the Soviets) on the other. As such, the Democratic Dictatorship as a stable form of state power could not be realised in practice, i.e. it could not be achieved as a “pure” dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry” to quote Lenin.

It was at this point that Lenin realised the significance of Trotsky’s criticisms about the nature of the peasantry. In a situation of dual were engaged in a tug-ot-war for state power, the question arose: given the contradictory nature of the peasantry, which class will it support? Lenin replied to this question that the peasantry was already going over to the bourgeoisie and subordinating the Soviets to the Provisional Government. The representatives of the peasantry and the petty-bourgeoisie in general had in fact entered a coalition government with the bourgeoisie. The Democratic Dictatorship under the conditions of dual power was to quote Lenin into an appendage of the bourgeoisie”.

Those who still persisted in the old formula of the Democratic Dictatorship were allowing this tendency to develop. Lenin accused them of “having gone over to the side of the pettywas to win the peasantry by leading the working ~ class in a decisive struggle against the bourgeoisie for the state power. i.e. for The Soviet Socialist Republic,’and so ended the theoretical differences between Lenin and Trotsky.

thought, look to a creator for their answers or for aid against an unfriendly and incomprehensible Nature, With the tools Science would provide, they could tame it for themselves, Anyone, living in a twentieth century capitalist state is well aware however, that the decline of religion, even-with the growth of scientific knowledge has been only partial, or no decline at all. In Ireland, for example, the Church, still to a great extent controls education and the moral code of the State. Why do men persist inclinging to myths and fairy tales, to an unreal, rather than real world? Is it, as the theologians constantly stress, that man has an ‘inborn religious drive’, Or is it, that reality is unpalatable; and the bitter pill of capitalism needs a sugar coating?

MANS ALIENATION |, One of the central concepts of Marx’s thought was the theory of alienation. Put simply, the mass _ of people in a capitalist society are wage labourers. As only a few can have the resources to own a business or factory themselves, the majority, in order to survive, have to exchange a large part of their time for what is merely enough money to ensure that they remain efficient production units. Once the employer has bought their time, or rather ability to work, he can theoretically do what he likes with it. The wage labourer has little or no control over what he ma. kes, or does, or when he does it. This is determined by the needs of the employer. The needs of the employer, moreover, are determined by the changing conditions of the ’ market, over which the individual employer has no real control, In an unplanned economy the bourgeoisie’s god of ‘free competition’ reigns; in other words its every man for himself.

What are the immediate results?

The wage labourer, the worker, feels trapped and frustrated. His life style is dictated by the needs of the class that employs him. Even that life style is rooted in insecurity. After years of grinds and the rigours of the production line, he may find himself redundant, because of a sudden crisis in the industry he works in, The whole system fails ‘to make sense’. ;

In this situation mankind has two alternatives. He is either able to ‘make sense of’ and understand the forces he is pitted against, in which case he can change them and end his misery. Or, like the caveman fighting the weather, he can personalise and defy them. Befor ethe development of » Marxism, the proletariat had little meaningful choice. They had no tools, no science to analyse the forces that determined their life, and religion at least made some sense. The prospect of an eternal life gave some purpose, and if existence was unjust and unhappy now, there was at least ' ‘heaven’, where ail wrongs would be redressed. Indeed they were encouraged to feel that they would benefit more, in the long run, because of their sufferings. God, the omnipotent symbol of the market forces, they couldn’t understand, was ‘working his purpose out’, behind the chaos and contradictions. There had to be some plan, n couldn't quite graps, that manipulated him.

The wave of industrial unrest which was spreading tacles throughout all parts of Britain and i , was polarised in the city of Dublin in the summer of 1913. Under the magnetic leadership of “Big Jim Larkin”, the 1TGWU was organising the workers to make such demands as better wages, shorter working hours, but most important of all, the right “TO COMBINE”, This new union was presenting a much greater threat to the Dublin capitalists than they had experienced before, with the result that they formed an Employers’ Federation to protect their interests — they had a lot to defend!

William Martin Murphy, who had interests in the Irish Independent and Dublin Tramways among others, immediately launched an offensive calculated to cut the union at its roots. On August 1913, the called a meeting of his workers in the newspaper's desptach department and issued an ultimatum banning the union and requesting all workers to sign a declaration of loyalty — i.e that they would not strike. He used a similar tactic with the drivers and conductors of the trams, | TGWU promptly declared Murphy's newspapers ‘black’ and this was followed by the workers in Eason’s refusing to handle ‘tainted goods’. Murphy retaliated by locking his men out.

BLOODY SUNDAY Initiating a wave of sympathy and solidarity, the tramwey workers came out on strike a week later, during the Horse-Show week. The next move came from the employers, 3,400 of whom agreed to a general lock-out with a policy of starving the workers into submission, Towards the end of September, some 25,000 Dublin workers were affected and meanwhile, a warrant had been issued for Larkin’s arrest, along with other leading trade unionists, on the charges of “seditious conspiracy’. The next repressive measure taken by the government ( who typically aligned themselves with the . «<% more resolved than ever in their policy of starving the workers, in spiteof ~ widespread attacks from the Liberal Press, BRITISH T.U.C.: FROM SUPPORT TO BETRAYAL Connolly, who had returned from his work in organising the workers in Belfast, was also arrested. William O'Brien and P.T. Daly took the lead, A delegation was sent to Manchester, where the British T.U.C. were holding their Annual Congress, They condemned the Dublin employers and their collaborators in Westminster and Dublin Castle. They expressed their support of the struggle by providing ship-loads of food and raising £93,327 for the locked-out men. They also sent a delegation to Dublin, tried to negotiate with the employers, but to no avail. Meanwhile, Connolly had been released from jail after an 8-day hunger strike, and Larkin who had been sentenced to 7 munths was also allowed to go free, when the Liberal Government in Britain received an electoral knock in a’ by-election.

in November, Larkin, accompanied by Connolly, embarked on another campaign in Britain, but this time, the T.U.C. bureaucrats, who saw that Larkin was inspiring the British workers into action, put on the brakes. Larkin was accused of being an IRRESPONSIBLE AGITATOR. He retaliated by attacking them bitterly. However, this did not prevent the rank and file who were intense in their sympathy with the Dublin workers, from taking some action on their own, but they were biocked by the bureaucrats; the officials, at their best, never thought in anything higher than ‘bread-stuff’.

The workers remained strong in their resistance, but gradually, as the influx of food and money dwindled, it proved impossible to continue. The struggle lasted eight months, but the death knell was sounded when in

----- pull-quotes -----

MARX POINTED OUT IN THE Communist Manifesto that capitalism performs an immensely progressive task by simplifying

classes, the working class and the capitalist class, to each other in the struggle for the mastery of society. But this has not lead to an equally simple strategy for Marxists in the class struggle. Capitalism is not born as a finished system. It emerges only through a complex process of uneven and

generalised system only by the more advanced capitalist countries being first to break with feudalism, penetrating the more

capitalist development in them. Thus the struggle against feudalism and ee

power where the Government of the Capitalists and the embryonic government of the workers

again “voluntarily ceding power to the bourgeoisie and voluntarily transforming itself

bourgeoisie” and having turned “against the proletarian class struggle”. The task now, said Lenin