{"id":873,"date":"2014-02-01T17:37:02","date_gmt":"2014-02-01T17:37:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/litci.org\/en\/2014\/02\/01\/deflected-permanent-revolution-or-crisis-of-leadership-part-1\/"},"modified":"2014-02-01T17:37:02","modified_gmt":"2014-02-01T17:37:02","slug":"deflected-permanent-revolution-or-crisis-of-leadership-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/litci.org\/en\/deflected-permanent-revolution-or-crisis-of-leadership-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Deflected Permanent Revolution or Crisis of Leadership? – Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/em><\/p>\n

A Marxist critique of the theory of Deflected Permanent Revolution<\/em><\/p>\n

Re-opening a dialogue<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1963, Tony Cliff and the IST published a very short essay \u201cDeflected Permanent Revolution<\/em>\u201d which was an attempt to revise Trotsky\u2019s theory of Permanent Revolution in light of the two major postwar revolutions: Cuba and China.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This revision of Trotsky\u2019s theory needs to be understood in a broader theoretical context: that of the advancement by the Socialist Review Group first of the thesis of \u201cState Capitalism\u201d to describe Stalinist Russia (initially formulated in 1947), and later, towards the end of the 1950\u2019s, of that of the \u201cpermanent arms economy\u201d to analyze the economic development of the postwar period. Both theoretical formulations, added to the \u201cDeflected Permanent Revolution one\u201d differed from the positions taken by the Fourth International., and these theoretical differences clearly led to opposed political positions around the US invasion of Korea and to a split in 1950 of the SRG from the 4th International.<\/p>\n

With the publication of the revision of the theory of the permanent revolution in 1963, the British International Socialism Group<\/em> (IS, the former SRG) was trying to explain the political grounds of its definitive separation from the Fourth International and those tendencies which claimed to be following directly in the footsteps of Trotsky and trying to rebuild a revolutionary Marxist understanding of the world and a new international. The IST became an international tendency in the early 1970s, theoretically and organizationally separate from most of the rest of the revolutionary left who still claimed in a sort of ways the contradictory legacy of the Russian Revolution.<\/p>\n

This split in the Trotskyist movement was compounded by regional and linguistic divisions (the SWP and IST remaining mostly in English speaking countries). Even though a theoretical exchange always existed in the UK between the SWP and the different groups claiming the heritage of the 4th International in the 1950s and 1960s – in the publications of the Fourth International, the Labor Review Magazine<\/em> and the ISL journal New International<\/em>-; these debates were not carried as far as they should have been, and did not reach the international arena, quickly becoming forgotten or disregarded by both sides, who each took separate paths.\u00a0 Neither tendency saw the necessity or the value in articulating more clearly their differences or reopening a political dialogue; and the whole left has suffered from that.<\/p>\n

We also think that the \u201clinguistic\u201d seclusion that has contained this debate in the imperialist English speaking centers cannot be solely justified by Trotskyism\u2019s weaknesses as a political current in the cold war period (and therefore its tendency to sectarianism). It was also reinforced by the IST\u2019s analysis and adoption of Deflected Permanent Revolution<\/em>, which led them, as we will see, to become primarily focused on the most advanced industrial countries, and less interested in building sections elsewhere.<\/p>\n

The absence of a more open theoretical debate on these issues, coming from our tradition that still claims the heritage of the Fourth International, was a mistake, and one we cannot afford to make any longer if we are serious about rebuilding the Fourth International with the best and most dedicated revolutionaries around the world. We need to be able to go back to our theory, assess it, and revise it in light of the contours of class struggle and the debates with other revolutionaries, some of who might be advancing different understandings from our own.<\/p>\n

Furthermore the context today is also different; both in the UK and the US, the sections that were affiliated with the Fourth International have collapsed, whilst the respective sections of the IST, which became prominent in recent decades, are in crisis. Meanwhile, there has been a failure, thus far at least, to articulate clearly how and why the deep theoretical differences between us still have importance today. It is essential for old and new militants alike to develop a coherent assessment of our revolutionary heritage that is founded on both the principles of Marxism and an honest appraisal of historical realities in the post-WWII era, regardless of how they may have differed from Trotsky\u2019s own predictions.<\/p>\n

The two great post-WWII revolutions, the Chinese Revolution (1949-1952)[1]<\/a> and the Cuban Revolution (1959-1962)[2]<\/a>, which despite being great revolutions did not follow the historical course of the Russian Revolution (given that an \u201cOctober revolution” did not occur), forced Marxists to re-examine the theory of Permanent Revolution. In this first essay we will try to clarify the debate and our position in the IWL-FI in relation to the theory of Permanent Revolution and our understanding of it, as various interpretations within Trotskyism have been given and our current has been, historically, a minority for decades until recently. Then we will formulate our differences with Cliff’s theory, which is the same that the IST[3]<\/a> and the ISO still claim, and we\u2019ll explain why and how we consider that the foundations of Trotsky\u2019s theory of the Permanent Revolution are still valid today.<\/p>\n

1) The theoretical contributions of the theory of Permanent Revolution<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Capitalism\u2019s uneven and combined development and the change in class dynamics<\/em><\/p>\n

It will be useful to begin by reviewing the basics of the theory of Permanent Revolution, as in our view Cliff\u2019s summary is overly schematic and simplistic, and this is a fundamental problem[4]<\/a>. While he very correctly outlines the concrete conclusions of the theory, condensed in the Basic Postulates,he fails to recognize its core elements. Let\u2019s start with Cliff\u2019s \u201csummary\u201d of Trotsky:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe basic elements of Trotsky\u2019s theory can be summed up in six points:<\/em><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. 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.<\/em><\/li>\n
  2. The decisive revolutionary role falls to the proletariat, even though it may be very young and small in number.<\/em><\/li>\n
  3. 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.<\/em><\/li>\n
  4. 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. \u201cThe democratic revolution grows over immediately into the socialist, and thereby becomes a permanent revolution.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n
  5. The completion of the socialist revolution \u201cwithin 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.\u201d It is a reactionary, narrow dream, to try and achieve \u201csocialism in one country.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n
  6. As a result, revolution in backward countries would lead to convulsions in the advanced countries.<\/em>\u201d (Tony Cliff, Deflected Permanent Revolution\u00a0[5]<\/a>)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Although none of these theses outlined here in Cliff\u2019s initial summary distort or contradict per se the analysis of Trotsky, what Cliff fails to discuss is perhaps the most important aspect of the theory, namely a recognition of a fundamental change in the class dynamics, or \u201cpolitical mechanics\u201d as Trotsky called them, in the colonial and semi-colonial world with the emergence of the imperialist epoch<\/strong>. And precisely because Cliff omitted this essential part, failing to recount the theoretical aspect of the theory<\/strong>, we need to develop it in order to answer to the IST comrades who still advocate for the formulation of “Deflected Permanent Revolution.”<\/p>\n

    Drawing on Lenin\u2019s theory of imperialism, Trotsky deepened the understanding of economic and social changes in the Third World and concluded that that once the world had reached the imperialist epoch (that of the total division of the world amongst the big powers along with the concentration of capital in giant industrial and financial monopolies), while capitalism continues to develop in all countries, the course and modality of development was to occur in not a \u201clinear\u201d but in an “uneven and combined” fashion. A development that is uneven because capitalism does not advance at the same time everywhere. During the imperialist epoch, the development of industry and that of capitalist relations is at different stages in different countries, each one develops at a different pace, but all countries, even the most “backward”[6]<\/a>, i.e. where the productive forces are less developed, are part of the global capitalist economy dominated by the imperialist centers and financial capital.<\/p>\n

    But this uneven capitalist development within a hierarchical world order is also a combined<\/em> one. In each country, the penetration and domination of capitalism takes a different form as capitalist relations coexist with other pre-existing economic and social formation. Different social and political formations will arise in each case, bringing together different stages of historical development. This is the \u201ccombined\u201d character of capitalist development in the imperialist epoch.<\/p>\n

    Why is that so important? It is because change of capitalist development in each country of the colonial and semi-colonial world will also have political consequences, not only economic ones. The first one is the paradox that Trotsky noted that countries supposedly “backward” from an economic point of view, will not be so from a political point of view, i.e. they will have laid out in front of them the same tasks and needs than the most advanced: the struggle for socialism to solve their immediate problems, and therefore the struggle for power. Trotsky explained and criticized the alleged “backwardness” of Russia as follows: “Russia is a backward country, but only a part of world economy, only an element of the capitalist world system” and then clarified this point formulating the \u201claw of uneven and combined development\u201d:<\/p>\n

    \u201cIn the development of nations and states, particularly capitalist ones, there is neither similarity nor regularity. Different stages of civilization, even polar opposites, approach and intermingle with one another in the life of one and the same country.<\/em><\/p>\n

    \u201cLet us not forget that historical backwardness is a relative concept. There being both backward and progressive countries, there is also a reciprocal influencing of one by the other; there is the pressure of the progressive countries on the backward ones; there is the necessity for the backward countries to catch up with the progressive ones, to borrow their technology and science, etc. In this way arises the combined type of development: features of backwardness are combined with the last word in world technique and in world thought. Finally the countries historically backward, in order to escape their backwardness, are often compelled to rush ahead of the others.<\/em><\/p>\n

    \u201cThe flexibility of the collective consciousness makes it possible under certain conditions to achieve the result, in the social arena, which in individual psychology is called \u201covercoming the consciousness of inferiority\u201d. In this sense we can say that the October Revolution was an heroic means whereby the people of Russia were able to overcome their own economic and cultural inferiority.<\/em>\u201d (Trotsky, \u201cIn Defense of October\u201d, 1932)[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

    Which were then the tasks posed for Russia? Trotsky sums it clearly:<\/p>\n

    \u201cIn accordance with its immediate tasks, the Russian Revolution is a bourgeois revolution. But the Russian bourgeoisie is anti-revolutionary. The victory of the Revolution is therefore possible only as a victory of the proletariat. But the victorious proletariat will not stop at the programme of bourgeois democracy: it will go on to the programme of socialism. The Russian Revolution will become the first stage of the Socialist world revolution.\u201d (Trotsky, \u201cIn Defense of October<\/em>\u201d, 1932)<\/p>\n

    From this combined and uneven course of capitalist development Trotsky concluded that the tasks of the democratic revolution and socialist revolution rather than following a sequential course will also emerge as combined due to the reactionary character of the bourgeoisie. Then he draws two key conclusions, which are generalized to the colonial and neo-colonial world, one has to do with the dynamics of class, the other with political tasks:the bourgeoisie as a class (regardless of its nationality) has lost any progressive character it may have had in the past so it can no longer fulfil the tasks of the democratic revolution[8]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    The bourgeoisie and the democratic tasks<\/strong><\/p>\n

    But what do Marxists mean by the \u2018tasks of the democratic revolution\u2019? Let’s summarize them briefly. Lowy provides us a good summary of Trotsky\u2019s view on the tasks of the “democratic revolution”, also called \u201cbourgeois\u201d or \u201cbourgeois-democratic\u201d because initially and in very rare cases, they were led by the bourgeoisie, but their main feature is that \u201cthese demands do not transcend the limits of bourgeois society<\/em>\u201d:<\/p>\n