Two Stage Vs Permanent Revolution Questions

["D OC" <donaloc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Shane, a chara,

I am glad you are asking this question - it's something that I find quite
interesting. Particularly, given the tendency by many to ascribe 'stagist'
conceptions to our party leadership.

Let me go through your quote so that I can start from where you are at
presently.

> In general there is a set of historical tasks that
is associated with the rise of the bourgeoisie to power
(can someone clarify a precise list or is it more general?).

The things I think people mean are the right to vote, equality under the
law, right to trial by jury, self-determination, i.e. things which will not
undermine capitalism but which are taken for granted in most Western
democracies - well, as far as they actually exist.

> In the periphery though the debate was about which class
would carry them out.  In general it was assumed
that bourgeois tasks had to be carried out by a bourgeoisie
(hence a bourgeois stage).

These tasks associated with the coming to power of the Bourgeoisie probably
shouldn't be called 'Bourgeois tasks' as they are in the interest of both
the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat - in saying this I specifically include
the proletariat's role in achieving them (in cases at least). I think that
this is where the difficulties begin to arise.

The debate then emerges around this confusion. The reformist
Mensheviks advocate a bourgeois "stage", the revolutionaries
(Bolsheviks) advocating the bourgeois tasks needing to be
carried out by the proletariat, so there would be a period
of time when the proletarian revolution would carry out
bourgeois tasks before proceeding to socialist tasks. With
Trotsky arguing that the workers would be pushed into carrying
out socialist measures almost immediately so there would be
no bourgeois stage.

>From what I gather that some (lets assume that they are the Menshevics)
didn't have the commitment to go further than meagre 'reforms' - whether
that was because they didn't believe in undermining capitalism fundamentally
or whether they didn't think that they could achieve it is not really clear,
so they 'hid' behind a conception roughly that of 'stagism'. Lenin made the
call right, as did Trotsky and the Bolshevics.

> All this is then made awkward by the fact that in the pre-1917
debates Trotsky emphasises his differences from Lenin (permanent
rev. vs 2 stages) but after 1917 seeks to emphasise that he and
Lenin were close (and there was no 'Chinese wall' between the
stages). Finally with the counter revolution by Stalin who
promotes his version of "Leninism" arguing that Lenin saw 2
distinct "stages" (which was really Menshevism and which helped
sabotage the movement).  In combatting Stalin Trotsky sought
to emphasis his closeness to Lenin and emphasised that Lenin
was "really" talking about permanent revolution (hence the
importance of April and the shock of the Central Committee
at Lenin's conversion) which then became the central dogma
that distinguished Trotskyists from the rest.

I'm not sure whether Lenin thought in such structured terms - I think the
both 'theories' are too simplistic. Lenin's way of looking was taking a hard
look at reality. In the end, he saw the opening in 1917 - Trotsky's line was
more militant (perhaps ultraleft previously) but was made true by events as
they unfolded. Following his expulsion from the CCCP, Trotsky developed an
even more 'hardcore' theory which was more overtly in disagreement with
Lenin. Nothing was likely to alienate him more from the CP cadres - but
that's all history.

I just don't think that Trotsky's theory holds water as a universal law.
It's actually quite anti-dialectical. Laws tend to have exceptions - in fact
they tend to need to be very fluid to be right all the time. I think any
orthodox Trotskyist would have massive problems explaining the Chinese,
Cuban, Nicaraguan or any other real revolution. You just don't get 'pure'
proletariat vs the rest type battles. That's not to say I don't criticise
what Stalin did in China - he effectively took an opposite viewpoint and
closed his eyes to reality and pushed for a united front with the Bourgeois
Nationalists who, in turn, massacred the nascient workers.

I think we need to dump such over-simplistic forms of analysis and look
instead at the concrete situations - what is realistic in the current moment
and what will get us to where we want to go.
That's not an attempt to justify my movement's current strategy - but it
derives from my experience of struggle to date and from what I've read.

> I would have thought it was orthodox to realise
that the bourgeoisie was not going to carry out the tasks
assigned to it by history (preferring to cut a deal with the
old ruling class rather than risk stirring up the masses) so
it would require a worker's revolution for these tasks to
be carried out.

It really depends which the Bourgeoisie are more scared of - a
despotic/imperialist ruling class or the nascient workers. Moreover, they
will swing against you like the wind. The most important thing is that your
support for them must always be critical (as well as strategic). The best
situation is to gain hegemony in terms of your own agenda - weaken their
natural political parties and then get them to give 'partial' support to
your party. The question is how much do you have to give to get this result
and whether its possible to retain your organisation/core support-base
through this process.

>So that means I support permanent
revolution? or is there more to it?

I just think that permanent revolution is too simplistic. The bit I agree
with is actually almost axiomatic - i.e. that in an imperialist era, the
tasks of bourgeois revolution can only be achieved fully by fundamentally
undermining capitalism. At least, adopting some non-imperialist form of
market socialism - in order to achieve self-determination, one must cut the
throat of dependency and take on the risks of capital flight. That's a tall
order and really isn't that far from full-blown socialism in reality.

> In the core this is not so much an issue
as in the periphery but nowhere to my knowledge did we
even get 2 distinct stages.

I've read in places by two-stagists that Russia and Cuba had two stages (of
about 6 months each). I don't know if this qualifies - besides I think that
stages are a human construction to explain continuous qualitative changes
which can never really be discretised. In the core, you generally just have
go ahead socialism - it makes it easier. However, to an extent you still
have to defend the gains won under the Bourgeois revolution as capitalism
tends to produce anti-democratic tendencies - so even this dichotomy is
inadequate.

Let's not forget that Castro went into coalition with bourgeois factions.
All the Trotskyist groups around the world didn't know how to deal with it
and talked themselves into all sorts of foolishness.

> In fact communists didn't
come to power anywhere where they hadn't won over revolutionry
forces to their side before the bourgeoisie made their move.

This is a tautology. Socialists don't come to power without strength,
strength comes from the masses.

> Even in Russia there was a provisional govt but it only ruled
with the tacit support of the soviets.

I don't know where this comes in?

D OC


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.