I. What the hell is a permanent revolution?
Marx's original theory proposes that the history of humankind is a progression from real scarcity to abundance as the productive capacity of society increases, producing evolving class relations and modes of production from primitive communism to slavery to feudalism to capitalism. It is only under the conditions of capitalism that the social surplus necessary for socialism comes into fruition; as James Cannon was quoted in the recent Socialist Worker article, “when there is plenty and abundance for all... you don't keep books as to who eats how many pancakes for breakfast or how many pieces of bread for dinner. Nobody grabs when the table is laden. If you have a guest, you don't seize the first piece of meat for yourself, you pass the plate and ask him to help himself first.” It is the surplus created by capitalism that make socialism possible. It is also true that the social relations of production necessary for socialism come into being only under capitalism. It is only under capitalism that the production process is socialized, though the ownership is privatized. In other words, one person owns the factory, but the goods produced by that factory itself are produced by the workers collectively. It is this mode of production that creates the social conditions, specifically the class relations, necessary for socialism to become a reality. This is what makes the very abolition of private property and even classes themselves the specific interest of the working class.
So, in short, capitalism is a necessary precursor to socialism. Given this, why the fuck was it a feudal country like Russia that achieved the first successful socialist revolution the world has yet seen, and not one of the advanced capitalist countries? It's this question that Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution is all about.
It had become a dogmatic principle of the “orthodox” Marxists of Russia and Europe around the turn of the century that, by virtue of the fact that they are further progressed through the economic stage of capitalism, the “advanced” countries would be the first to realize a socialist revolution, and in tandem, the “backward”, largely feudal countries must undergo a bourgeois revolution to institute capitalism so that they can develop to the point of socialism as well. This is where the concept of combined and uneven development, which I'll come back to in a minute, becomes a pertinent factor. By this time, capitalism had already developed and expanded across Europe and was rapidly becoming the dominant global economic system. By its very nature, capitalism is a global system that, even at that point, had already transcended national boundaries, making nation-states more and more irrelevant. This is part of the absurdity of Stalin's national socialism.
The fact was that when capitalism was first emerging, the bourgeoisie functioned as a progressive, revolutionary class, set on destroying the system of feudalism in order to establish their own, new economic system along with the abolition of the monarchies that existed to be replaced with democratic republics, and the suppression of feudal vestiges in the countryside. And it was this fact that the “orthodox” Marxists were clinging to. They saw the conflict between the productive forces of capitalism on the one hand, and autocracy, landlordism, and other surviving feudal structures on the other hand leading to a bourgeois revolution in Russia. Therefore, the Mensheviks held to the belief that the proletariat must ally itself with the liberal bourgeoisie in order to overthrow feudalism and allow capitalism to develop, laying the groundwork for the following socialist revolution, while simultaneously championing reforms to capitalism in the interest of the working class. But this a priori assessment of material conditions ignored the fact that the original bourgeoisie were struggling for a position in society against an oppressive dominant economic system; in contrast, the emerging bourgeoisie of Russia, and other largely feudal countries, were developing in the context of a welcoming global economic system that was already foreshadowing the dangers of proletarian power to it. This meant that the nature of the bourgeoisie had become completely and collectively reactionary and counterrevolutionary, globally. So, then, the role of the bourgeoisie being the primary revolutionary class in reality is shifted to the proletariat, even in its infancy.
The counterrevolutionary nature of the bourgeoisie in Russia lead to the Bolshevik stance against allying the proletariat with the bourgeoisie altogether, but instead with the peasantry. Lenin actually held that this alliance would result in a democratic republic representing both the working class (minority at that point) and the peasantry (majority at that point) that would give way to a bourgeois republic, under which conditions, the proletariat would become the revolutionary opposition. Trotsky, however, claimed that the peasantry was completely incapable of playing an independent role with an independent party, due to the fact that they were too sharply divided amongst themselves between rich and poor to be able to form a united and independent party of their own. They must support either the bourgeois or the proletariat, and given the counterrevolutionary role of the former and the strength of the latter, they would be forced to support the proletariat. So, the revolution would not be one of the proletariat and the peasantry in conjunction, but rather it would be one of the proletariat supported by the peasantry.
In light of this, Trotsky held that a proletarian revolution could not stop itself at the institution of a bourgeois democracy, but must carry itself through to the institution of a workers' state. This is what is meant of the term “permanent revolution”; the revolution would grow over from a bourgeois revolution into a socialist revolution before the bourgeoisie ever even establishes itself. I'll quote Trotsky here:
“In an economically backward country, the proletariat can come to power sooner than in the economically advanced countries. In 1871 it had consciously taken into its hands the management of social affairs in petty bourgeois Paris – in truth only for two months – but it did not for one hour take power in the robust capitalist centres of England and the United States. The conception of some sort of automatic dependence of the proletarian dictatorship upon the technical forces and resources of the country is a prejudice derived from an extremely over-simplified “economic” materialism. This view has nothing in common with Marxism.
“The Russian revolution, in our opinion, creates such conditions under which the power can pass over to the proletariat (and with a victorious revolution it must) even before the policy of bourgeois liberalism acquires the possibility to bring its state genius to a full unfolding.”
This is making reference to Trotsky's notion of combined and uneven development. This basically means that once something has developed in one part of the world, it can be transmitted to another part of the world without having to go through all the previous evolutionary stages which led up to those results. Some countries, then, could “skip” or “compress” developmental stages which other countries took hundreds of years to go through. To use Trotsky's example, “Savages throw away their bows and arrows for rifles all at once, without traveling the road which lay between those two weapons in the past. The European colonists in America did not begin history all over again from the beginning.” In like kind, class structure and relations can develop in the same manner. The Russian bourgeoisie which developed under the tutelage of the Tsarist state lacked much power, but the industrial working class was concentrated in large factories and plants and was militant. So even though Russia functioned as a feudal economy, the culture of modern industrial society was combined into it.
Now, when Trotsky wrote the book “Permanent Revolution”, his theory that he had proffered in “Results and Prospects” had already been resoundingly confirmed by the Russian revolution itself. In “The Permanent Revolution”, Trotsky is largely defending his theory against attacks by the Stalinists who were attempting to validate their notion of “socialism in one country.” The two perspectives are set in such vicious opposition because intrinsic to the theory of permanent revolution is the second meaning of the term: that the revolution must be permanent, in the words of Marx, “until all more or less possessing classes have been displaced... not only in one country but in all the world.” The revolution would begin on a national scale, but could only be completed by the victory of the revolution in the more developed countries. According to Trotsky, “How far, however, can the socialist policy of the working class go in the economic conditions of Russia? Only one thing we can say with certainty: it will run into political obstacles long before it will be checked by the technical backwardness of the country. Without direct state support from the European proletariat the working class of Russia cannot remain in power and cannot convert its temporary rule into a prolonged socialist dictatorship.” (in the sense of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”) On the flip side of this, the theory also held that a successful revolution in Russia would provoke proletarian uprisings across the advanced capitalist nations. This last part did take place, but the revolutions were all quashed for varying reasons that are the subject of a whole different talk.
Tony Cliff wrote an article in which he concisely and astutely summarized Trotsky's theory in 6 points, so I'll quote him here to summarize:
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 a conservative force.
2. The decisive revolutionary role falls to the proletariat, even though it may be very young and small in number.
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.
4. A consistent solution of the agrarian 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.”
5. 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.” It is a reactionary, narrow dream, to try and achieve “socialism in one country”.
6. As a result, revolution in backward countries would lead to convulsions in the advanced countries.
I. Deflected Permanent Revolution
So given this theory and the fact that it was validated by the Russian revolution, what the fuck happened in China and Cuba? To answer this, I'll briefly outline Tony Cliff's theory of the deflected permanent revolution, which provides a counter explanation for these instances, and hopefully this point will be drawn out in further detail in discussion.
“While the conservative, cowardly nature of a late-developing bourgeoisie (Trostky's first point) is an absolute law, the revolutionary character of the young working class (point 2) is neither absolute nor inevitable... [I]n many cases the existence of a floating, amorphous majority of new workers with one foot in the countryside creates difficulties for autonomous proletarian organizations; lack of experience and illiteracy add to their weakness, [which leads to a] dependence on non-workers for leadership... Weakness and dependence on outsiders leads to a personality cult... Another weakness of the labour movement in many backward countries is its dependence on the state... [which means] subordination to government policies antagonistic to the political rulers, and a limitation of trade union activity to narrow 'economist' demands, or, to use Lenin's term, 'trade unionist' policies... [which] in turn, leads to alienation of the trade unions from the agricultural toilers' struggle.” Finally, the role of the Communist Parties that influence the working classes in these countries plays a role as well, as the Stalinism in backward countries performs a counterrevolutionary function.
So, in the absence of a revolutionary working class, the peasantry can't follow it's lead and the rest of the theory breaks down. But that doesn't mean that nothing happens, since the contradictions of the global economic situation make it so that feudalism must be broken. Peasant rebellions become greater, and national rebellions against the imperialism that brings the economic ruin in the first place are fomented. When a historical task faces society, and the class that traditionally carries it out is absent, some other group of people, often a state power, implements it. Also, the role of the intelligentsia grows into that of the leader and unifier of the nation, and above all as manipulator of the masses. To quote Leo Zeilig, “the desire of this group is always to rise above society. These tendencies can be checked when the intelligentsia are involved in mass politics, but when they are free of the constraints and discipline of a wider movement, 'they show clearer and much more extreme tendencies towards elitism, arbitrariness, as towards vacillation and splits.'” (Cliff again:) “They are great believers in efficiency... they hope for reform from above and would dearly love to hand the new world over to a grateful people, rather than see the liberating struggle of a self-conscious and freely associated people result in a new world for themselves.” The intelligentsia's exaggerated power derives directly from the “feebleness of other social classes, and their political nullity.”
So, when the permanent revolution in emergent nations is not carried out by the working class, that's when you get bureaucratic state capitalism.
I. How is this relevant to us?
We must be willing to break with “orthodoxy” and revealed truths about our tactics and methodology given the new and developing conditions we find ourselves in, and constantly reassess ourselves.
The centrality of the working class! This cannot be an intelligentsia lead revolution.
In addition to explaining the phenomenon of how a “backward” country could attain a proletarian revolution before any advanced capitalist countries did, Trotsky was also addressing the issue of how a “backward” country can address its position in relation to imperialist imposition or tyrannical rulers. To quote Michael Lowy, “The theory of permanent revolution is not a metaphysical speculation but an attempt to respond to one of the most dramatic questions of our epoch: how to resolve the appalling social problems suffered by the dependent capitalist countries – colonial and semi-colonial in the language of the time – how can they escape pauperisation, dictatorship, oligarchical regimes, foreign domination?” Application to Palestine.
Great Job Kevin!
The film under chosen analysis is This is England, a 2006 British drama, written and directed by Shane Meadows. The film begins with various archived footage of the UK in the turbulent 1980s to create an almost documentary like atmosphere. The film is meant to take place on the last day of “Maggie”, Margaret Thatcher’s term in 1983, and the first character the viewer is introduced to is young Shawn, a 12-year-old fatherless and bullied boy. Shawn hesitantly seeks refuge with a group of “proper” skinheads, lead by Woody, (those of line from the original working class movement, rooted in either apolitical or socialist tendencies) who offer him companionship and protection after he is beaten-up by another boy at school, because of remarks made about his dead father. He is given the full costuming of a skin: Shaved head, boots with white socks, a Ben Sherman, and skinny suspenders; thus inducting him ceremoniously into the group. Unfortunately these events coincide with an older skinhead being released from jail, Combo, who then in turn attempts to assert authority over the multi-ethnic “proper” skinheads and spout nationalist (read as fascist) ideas and violent plans of action. This causes a split in the group, which reflected the split in the actual skinhead subculture at that time. With the apolitical, ska listening group on one side and the aggressive oi listening on the other, Shawn is left confused and allured by the nationalist talk; which soothes his issues with his father who died in the imperialist Falklands War. Shawn begins to emulate the “father-like” figure, Combo’s, behavior and participate in a violent attack on a shopkeeper of another ethnic group who had coincidentally banned Shawn from his shop earlier. Feeling invincible from this event Combo seeks out Lol, Woody’s partner, one of the female “proper” skinheads. After she rejects his advances he does something uncharacteristic and approaches Milky, the Jamaican “proper” skinhead for marijuana. After returning to the fascist home-base Milky, Combo and Shawn along with two other fascists, Smell (Shawn’s older girlfriend), and “tubs” an ex of Woody’s group, they smoke and become intoxicated. The viewer sees a glimpse into what may have once been an egalitarian tendency within Combo as he bonds with Milky over “soulful” music. It is fairly apparent that what triggers Combo’s next move; a brutal and relentless attack on Milky is when the talk of family and father figures arises. Milky, being intoxicated, begins to sound more and more Jamaican and is telling Combo about how much he respects his father, at this Combo beats him senseless while the older fascist holds Shawn down to prevent him from obstructing the attack. The viewer later learns from Shawn’s mother that Milky has not died, and the viewer along with Shawn, are assured that he will recover. After being subject to a confusing, torn and barbaric world around him, young Shawn seems to finally make up his own mind and he takes the St. George’s Flag (a symbol of fascist nationalistic ideals) that Combo gave him and throws it into the sea, thus drowning out those misled violent tendencies in himself.
The film does an exceptional job of recreating the tension of a right-wing era in the UK in a very controlled set and space. One of the reasons this film is so compelling, other than the technical aspects and provocative acting, is that the power politics of the time (which continue now with the BNP and fascist thug clubs who still maintain sway in the UK’s political process) are so confrontationally transparent. Race, class, and gender seem to be the trifecta of topics addressed here, and they are handled in a number of interesting ways. For example, the apolitical “proper” skinheads are inclusive of Milky, they are apparently equals. The only time this bond is betrayed is when the domineering Combo enters the picture, and some are intimidated into placating his racist remarks and others even write them off as a joke. This is similar to what actually takes place on a larger scale politically with a rise in right-wing power in the UK even today. Placating, apathetic support and lack of serious criticism tend fuel fascist fires somewhat more so than the actual active support for them. Even Milky becomes allured by Combo’s rhetoric and almost joins him! This demonstrates the sort of desperation that generations of youth were feeling during these turbulent times in England, when a black youth questions joining a fascist nationalist front, tensions are undoubtedly high. Milky is also the only black character that the viewer comes to know, which makes his attack that much more fearsome and brutal. A very strong bond is formed when a character, such as Milky, is alienated or mistreated in film, this bond makes it easier for the viewer to project themselves into that role, no doubt what the director was intending; thus the viewer stands in solidarity with Milky and empathizes with him. The ethnic group that was the main focus of discrimination was from Pakistan. In one scene Combo threatens three Pakistani youth with a knife, while the others, Shawn included, look on a laugh. These xenophobic, anti-immigrant ideas are still as prevalent today in the UK, as they were when portrayed in 1983. There has been a right-wing shift that has taken as its mantle an Islamophobic slant, which is fueling immigration “reform”, and laws banning the hijab or burqa for Muslim women. The Pakistani youth were identifiable by their traditional costumed attire, which made them easy targets for the fascist attack. So here too costume plays a role.
Gender was also handled in a very clever way. In the beginning we’re introduced to a band of female “proper” skinhead and skinhead sympathizers. They are treated as equals, and share in similar activities with the male “proper” skins. We see them walking separately, independent of the males, until in several montage sequences they all mix and walk together. Though there is some grouping together in scenes, it seems to emulate a female solidarity rather than a male exclusionist perspective. This kind of behavior sits in stark contrast to the fascist conduct of Combo and his gang. There are no women portrayed on the fascist side (unless the viewer counts the exploited women in the pornographic pictures taped to Combo’s apartment walls). The only interaction is when Combo tries to cast a drunken underage tryst with Lol from years ago as love, or when they attend Smell’s birthday party and she’s given pornographic magazines by one of the fascist skins. An interesting thing to note here, Smell has just become “legal” and one interpretive take on that “gift” of magazines could be a patriarchal assertion of how she should now conduct herself or been seen as. Also the language used surrounding gender is disturbing. The fascist skins use, “cunt,” whore” and “bitch” as derogative terms for both men and women. There was absolutely no room for equality on Combo’s side, the fascist side. The only girl that sympathizes with Combo gets whisked away from the film after the other female and male “proper” skins address the problems with what Combo was saying about Milky in their first encounter.
Finally the film outlines class very effectively in the scenes where the fascist nationalists have their political party gathering. Men from all walks of (white) life: prison releases, workers, students, etc gathered at a remote Inn to wait for two nationalist party members for the campaign pitch. These two nefarious individuals arrive in an expensive sporty car, wearing expensive looking suits and sunglasses. What seems to play a socio-economic role here are that the misguided and aggressive have-nots become very infatuated with the racist rhetoric of the upper class haves. This also plays a psychological role is that Combo (assumedly so) had a terrible childhood, filled with rejection from his father or possibly total absence so he is constantly seeking out authority guidance. The viewer is also to assume that he picked up all of these terrible fascist ideas whilst in prison (for three and a half years) probably due to seeking out protection from existing, entrenched fascists in prison and then ultimately becoming brainwashed to their ideas.
Of course the film has a bias, the viewer is obviously not suppose to side with the racist, sexist, fascist Combo and his thugs, however it demonstrates this bias in a way that depicts the actual actions of both subcultures and allows the viewer to arrive end with new convictions based on these historic (and contemporary) occurrences. Even this interpretive analysis has a very left-leaning bias, which may be why the film was found to be so exceptional. Past political knowledge as well as current informed opinions on the UK’s (and Europe in general) return to the “right” shaped the direction of this analysis and even the choice of film for the assignment.
Socialism, Not Capitalism
War, poverty, exploitation and oppression are products
of the capitalist system, a system in which a minority rul-
ing class profits from the labor of the majority. The alter-
native is socialism, a society based on workers collectively
owning and controlling the wealth their labor creates.
We stand in the Marxist tradition, founded by Karl
Marx and Frederick Engels, and continued by V.I. Lenin,
Rosa Luxemburg and Leon Trotsky.
Workers’ Power
Workers create society’s wealth, but have no control
over its production and distribution. A socialist society
can only be built when workers collectively take control
of that wealth and democratically plan its production and
distribution according to human needs instead of profit.
The working class is the vast majority of society and is
the key to the fight for socialism. Workers’ central role in
production gives them a social power—by use of the strike
weapon—to paralyze the system like no other social force.
Socialism is working-class self-emancipation. Only
mass struggles of the workers themselves can put an end
to the capitalist system of oppression and exploitation.
We support trade unions as essential to the fight for
workers’ economic and political rights. To make the unions
fight for workers’ interests, rank-and-file workers must or-
ganize themselves independent of the union officials.
Revolution
We actively support the struggle of workers and all op-
pressed people for economic, political and social reforms,
both as a means to improve their conditions and to ad-
vance their confidence and fighting strength. But reforms
within the capitalist system cannot put an end to oppres-
sion and exploitation. Capitalism must be replaced.
The structures of the present government grew up
under capitalism and are designed to protect capitalist
rule. The working class needs an entirely different kind of
independence from the corporate-dominated two-party
system in the U.S.
Internationalism
Capitalism is an international system, so the struggle
for socialism must be international, uniting workers of all
countries. Socialists oppose imperialism--the division of
the globe based on the subjugation of weaker nations by
stronger ones—and support the self-determination of op-
pressed nations. We oppose all immigration controls.
We oppose U.S. intervention in Cuba, the Middle
East, and elsewhere. We are for self-determination for
Puerto Rico.
China and Cuba, like the former Soviet Union and
Eastern Bloc, have nothing to do with socialism. They are
state capitalist regimes. We support the struggles of work-
ers in these countries against the bureaucratic ruling class.
Full Equality and Liberation
Capitalism divides the working class, based on sexual,
gender, racial, national and other distinctions. The spe-
cially oppressed groups within the working class suffer the
most under capitalism.
We oppose racism in all its forms. We support the
struggle for immigrant rights. We fight for real social,
economic and political equality for women, and for an
end to discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender people.
We support the fight for Black liberation and all the
struggles of the oppressed. The liberation of the op-
pressed is essential to socialist revolution and impossible
without it.
