Trotting after Trotsky

Socialist Courier has recently posted a number of articles on Leninism. Its equally evil twin, Trotskyism,  should not be overlooked.

"Permanent Revolution"

Trotsky acquired the phrase from Marx’s writings and very much like Lenin and his use of “dictatorship of the proletariat” from Marx, applied it in such a way that it was not originally intended to be used by Marx.

Marx first used the phrase in the following passage from The Holy Family, 1845 He wrote:

 “Napoleon represented the last battle of revolutionary terror against the bourgeois society which had been proclaimed by this same Revolution, and against its policy. Napoleon, of course, already discerned the essence of the modern state; he understood that it is based on the unhampered development of bourgeois society, on the free movement of private interest, etc. He decided to recognise and protect this basis. He was no terrorist with his head in the clouds. Yet at the same time he still regarded the state as an end in itself and civil life only as a treasurer and his subordinate which must have no will of its own. He perfected the Terror by substituting permanent war for permanent revolution. He fed the egoism of the French nation to complete satiety but demanded also the sacrifice of bourgeois business, enjoyments, wealth, etc., whenever this was required by the political aim of conquest. If he despotically suppressed the liberalism of bourgeois society — the political idealism of its daily practice — he showed no more consideration for its essential material interests, trade and industry, whenever they conflicted with his political interests. …. Paris exchange- brokers forced him by means of an artificially created famine to delay the opening of the Russian campaign by nearly two months and thus to launch it too late in the year.”

In this passage, Marx says that Napoleon prevented the 'bourgeois revolution' in France from becoming fulfilled: that is, he prevented bourgeois political forces from achieving a total expression of their interests. According to Marx, he did this by suppressing the 'liberalism of bourgeois society'; and he did it because he saw 'the state as an end in itself', a value which supported his 'political aim of conquest'. Thus, he substituted 'permanent war for permanent revolution'. The final two sentences, however, show that the bourgeoisie did not give up hope, but continued to pursue their interests. This tells us that, for Marx, 'permanent revolution' involves a revolutionary class (in this case, the bourgeoisie) continuing to push for, and achieve, its interests despite the political dominance of actors with opposing interests.

Same ol' story

First we had the Scottish Socialist Party , then there was Sheridan's Solidarity , and now we have the Socialist Party Scotland. The SPS are part of the Committee for a Workers International - the Socialist Party of England and Wales.

As Trotskyists its not surprising that they have a hotspotch of reforms that they demand:-
Minimum wage to £8 an hour as an immediate step towards £10 an hour.
35-hour week without loss of pay.
An immediate 50% increase in the state retirement pension.
Tax the super rich.
Re-nationalise all privatised utilities and services.
Nationalise the top 150 companies and banks and run them under workers control.
etc etc etc...ad nauseum

Sounds all so very familiar , doesn't it?

We in the Socialist Party - the original and genuine one - oppose organisations like Socialist Party Scotland that promise to deliver a platform of reforms on behalf of the working class, simply in order to gain a position of power. Such groups on the Left have aims quite different to the reform programme they peddle. Socialist Party Scotland put before the working class simplistic demands of what they think will be understood by the workers and then , of course , they are going to try to acquire the leadership of the struggles for the reforms so to achieve political advantage for their party. These Leftist parties also try to muscle in on any struggle by workers started off by themselves. And it is all very cynical because they know that reformism ultimately leads no-where (as they readily admit in their rarely read theoretical journals but never explain in their populist, propaganda papers). Members of the SPGB occasionally come across individual Trotskyists who hold the belief that the reforms they advocate can indeed be successfully achieved under capitalism (as a few actually can be without tumbling down the whole edifice of capitalism.) Thus, many members of political groups such as Socialist Party Scotland are often the victims of their own tactics.

A list of reform demands is the bait for a Trotskyist party to get workers to struggle to try and get them, on the theory that the workers would learn in the course of the struggle that these demands cannot be achieved within capitalism and they would then start to struggle (under the leadership and guidance of the vanguard party, naturally)to abolish capitalism. The purpose in telling workers to demand reforms is is to teach them a lesson the hard way. The expectation is that when, these struggles for reforms fail, the workers will then turn against capitalism.

It is the stale old argument, advanced by Trotsky, that socialist consciousness will develop out of the struggle for reforms within capitalism, when workers realise that they can’t get the reforms they have been campaigning for they will turn to the "cadres" of the Fourth International for leadership. In fact, it never happens so all that's achieved is to encourage reformist illusions amongst workers and disillusionment with the possibility of real radical change.

It can be summed up in the following:
1 ) The working class has a reformist consciousness.
2 ) It is the duty of the Revolutionary Party to be where the masses are.
3 ) Therefore, to be with the mass of the working class, we must advocate reforms.
Further:
4 ) The working class is only reformist minded.
5 ) Winning reformist battles will give the working class confidence.
6 ) So that, therefore, they will go on to have a socialist revolution.
Thus:
7 ) The working class will learn from its struggles, and will eventually come to realise that assuming power is the only way to meet its ends.
8 ) That the working class will realise, through the failure of reforms to meet its needs, the futility of reformism and capitalism, and will overthrow it.
9 ) That the working class will come to trust the Party that leads them to victory, and come a social crisis they will follow it to revolution.

It all relies upon a notion of the inherently revolutionary nature of the working class and that through the class struggle this inherently revolutionary character will show itself - Although, it hasn't.
Its also flawed because it shows no reason why, due to the failure of reform, the workers should turn to socialism. Why, since it was people calling themselves socialists who advocated the reforms, should they too become socialists and not turn against the idea, instead ? Under the model of revolution presented by the Trotskyists the only way the working class could come to socialist consciousness is through a revolution if made by the minority with themselves as its leaders.This, then, explains their dubious point about needing to "be" where the mass of the working class is. It is the reason put forwrd why a supposedly revolutionary party should be with the masses, rather than trying to get the masses to change their minds and be with it. They do not want workers to change their minds, merely to become followers. Their efforts are not geared towards changing minds, or raising revolutionary class consciousness.The fact remains, though, that the “revolutionaries” of the Socialist Party Scotland are incapable of taking these reform campaigns or the trade unions further than the bulk of the membership are willing to tolerate .

Inside the Bolshevik Cul-de-sac

Another article from the Socialist Standard archives which once again ( but in a slightly more theoretical depth ) demonstrates the bankruptcy of the Socialist Workers Party ( then the International Socialists ) and their kindred Trotskyists. Although dated from 1970 and discusses a Russia that has now changed , not too much has actually changed .

Inside the Bolshevik Cul-de-sac

Those who still cling to the basic Bolshevik premise - that the Russian insurrection of October 1917 amounted to a Socialist Revolution - are caught inside a trap of their own making . Whichever way they turn , they are landed with an uneasy antagonism between their theory and reality …

IS Group

However most of the people who have recently come round to the view that Russia is capitalist have not adjusted all of their political views accordingly , but have merely corrected this one point, failing to notice the inconsistencies which then emerge in the remainder of their ideas. For example the group known as International Socialism ( IS) is basically a trotskyist group except that it holds Russia to be state capitalist .

The growth of working -class understanding is a contradictory process. With their emphasis on violence and minority action IS are peddling dangerous deceptions. Yet these are more advanced deceptions than those marketed by the “Communist” Party 20 years ago - more advanced in the sense that they recognise the impracticability these days of equating nationalisation and the Russia with Socialism . True , the incorporation of the correct view that modern Russia is capitalist into the fundamentally mistaken and anti-working-class doctrine of Bolshevism , allows this doctrine to gain greatly in immediate appeal. But only at the expense of yet more glaring inconsistencies within the doctrine itself. For instance , the IS claim that capitalism sprang into being in Russia in 1928 after 10 years of transition towards Socialism is breathtaking in its lack of connection with any kind of reality [ In case the point is missed , this is not only an exercise in labelling the past . So long as IS maintain that the 1917 revolution was Socialist they will be unable to seriously criticise all the garbage that comes in its train, Lenin’s ignorant theory of Imperialism ; the concept of the vanguard party and “transitional demands” etc. So long as they fail to do this , they are an obstacle to the establishment of Socialism .] Even the Bolshevik leaders ( with the exceptions interestingly enough , of Trotsky and Stalin ) conceded that state capitalism existed in Russia following 1917.

Kidron and Mandel

There has recently been a controversy between Michael Kidron (IS) and Ernest Mandel (orthodox trotskyist) [ Kidron in International Socialism 36; Mandel’s pamphlet The Inconsistencies of State Capitalism ; Debate between Kidron and Mandel at Hull University , 4/11/69; Harman in International Socialism 41 ] which is interesting to Socialists since it shows Kidron failing to draw reasonable conclusions from his view that Russia is capitalist 9 in fact failing to fully comprehend what this means 0 , and Mandel taking advantage of Kidron’s confusion to discredit the whole theory of state capitalism .

Mandel points out that if they were consistent , IS would adopt a position of hostility towards the “Communist” movement . If North Vietnam is state capitalist , how can IS support the Vietcong? If the “Communist” parties are capitalist parties , the potential nuclei of future ruling classes , and if these ruling classes would not be historically progressive , why do IS co-operate politically with them ? Mandel might well ask.

Of course , he regard such a position of hostility as unthinkable . But this is precisely the standpoint of the Socialist Party of Great Britain .We have at no time combined with the “Communist” Party or ceased to expose it, and we have always adopted a policy of opposition to both sides in every capitalist war. Unlike IS , we unite theory and practice .
In order to combat Mandel’s argument that Russia is a “transitional society,” Kidron says that there can be no transitional society between capitalism and Socialism . Quite correctly , he states : “The only possible transition is a sudden , revolutionary one.” This promising statement ( astonishing coming from IS ) is somewhat undermined by the fact that Kidron hasn’t the foggiest clue what Socialism is;

“ Socialism is a total system. It cannot grow piecemeal within the interstices of a capitalist society . How does workers’ control of production coexist with the control by the ruling classes when the means of production in dispute are one and the same? How does self-determination and consumer sovereignty ( ‘production for use’ ) coexist with the external compulsion and blind accumulation that results from capitalist dispersal”

This is one of several instances where Mandel ( who has read Marx) has a field day demolishing Kidron ( a mere Keynsian-eclectic mouthing misunderstood Marxist phrases). Socialism , of course , has nothing to do with “workers’ control of production” . Socialism means a classless world society , without commodities , without the state , without frontiers . It is therefore interesting to note that Mandel realises what Socialism is , but relegates it to the distant beyond , whereas Kidron wants “Socialism” as quickly as possible , but his “Socialism” isn’t Socialism at all ! Mandel’s “transitional society ” is basically similar to Kidron’s “Socialism” and both are actually models of capitalism, since both envisage the retention of the wages system.
Marx argued that wage-labour and capital were quite inseparable . And in a reply to Mandel , C. Harman of IS comments:

“Nowhere…is there a single mention of the working class or a single reference to the wage labour/capital relationship. Now this is curious . For it was not Michael Kidron but Karl Marx who wrote ‘The relation between wage labour and capital determines the entire character of the mode of production’ And this is not an accidental aside….”

But later we find Harman flatly contradicting this , as he must because wage-labour is to remain a feature of the “worker’ state” which is the avowed aim of IS . Harman argues that Russian industry from 1917 to 1928 was not capitalist , though presumably he would not deny that it featured wage-labour.

Neither Mandel nor Kidron seem unduly aware of modern Russia’s realities . Both seem to believe the Russian economy is “planned” full stop.
What then is the situation of the Russian worker ? He is free to move from factory to factory , from town to town , or occupation to occupation , in pursuit of higher wages , or under pressure of unemployment. And he is forced to do so , since he owns no means of production (except a substantial but dwindling number who have small plots of land , and indeed , need them to keep starvation at bay ). He is therefore “doubly free” in Marx’s phrase . He sells his labour- power to a state enterprise for a wage which is less than the price of his product . The surplus is mostly reinvested for his further exploitation, with a small proportion going to keep his rulers in the manner to which they are accustomed . In any circumstances ( except general forced labour) it would be quite impracticable for the state to plan wages with any accuracy , but this is impossible in Russia where most workers are on piece rates ( described by Marx as ‘the form of wages most in harmony with the capitalist mode of production’ ) It has been a pretty constant feature of Russian state capitalism that the actual total wages bill has exceeded (sometimes vastly) the amount foreseen in the plan. In Russia , labour power is clearly a commodity .
A popular view of the Russian economy is that a plan is devised at the top , orders are issued , and enterprises promptly fulfil the plan. The goals of the plan are , first , making an overall profit , second , catching up with the West . Yet to possess any effectiveness at all , the plan must be based on reports from the enterprises which as well as being concerned to fulfil plans , also have their own profit or loss account, with plenty of incentive to get their profits up .
In fact , the long-term ( five-year and seven-year) plans are always drastically modified in practice . They are merely guidelines for the annual ( and quarterly and monthly) plans . Even so , several of the long-term plans could not be decreed until long after they were supposed to have started , and one ( the 6th five-year plan ) had to be abandoned altogether .

In the process of adapting the long term plan year by year , all sorts of unforeseen factors have to be take, many of which are even by Mandel’s account , unambiguously the product of market forces . Much of the Russian state’s “planning” is thus a matter of anticipating , or even subsequently conforming to , these market forces . It is , however , true that they can exercise considerably “arbitrary” influences . Any capitalist state can do this to some extent ( development grants , SET , etc ) The Russian state has much more power , mainly because , with the state monopoly of foreign trade functioning as a protective tariff , and with prevailing internal scarcity , the Russian capitalists have a seller’s market . In relation to the peasants they have a buyer’s market . It is exactly in such monopolistic situations that commodities can sell consistently above or below their values [ If Mandel reasoning was correct and Russia lacked some of the essential features of capitalism , this would show not that it was transitional between capitalism and Socialism , but “transitional” between Asiatic feudalism (tsarism) and capitalism . The peculiarities of Russian capitalism are the outcome of an unprecedented combination of backward peasant production and advanced industry ]

But what happens as the disappearing peasant reserve strengthens the workers bargaining power ? As consumer good production is increased to raise the worker’ productivity ? As consumers ( workers and capitalists) get greater choice in their purchases , so that enterprises must become more responsive to the market , hence freer of central direction? What happens as the era of telescope development passes , so that Russian industry must imitate less and innovate more ? The Russian capitalists are compelled to abandon by degrees the system of planning with material targets , which served them well as a method of rapid industrialisation , but has now outlived its usefulness .

There are many defenders of western capitalism who assert that “Socialism” has failed in Russia which is therefore “returning” to capitalism . Mandel plays into the hands of these people by describing the current decentralisation of profit -seeking initiative as “degeneration” when it is clearly necessitated by advancement . He also thereby gives ammunition to those who argue that “Socialism” is suitable only for backward countries.

What has failed in Russia is not “planning” , much less Socialism , but the attempt to plan a capitalist economy . It is not impossible to operate a technologically advanced society according to a common plan , but it is quite impossible to do this if there are competing economic interests , and if all those working for the plan have to be provided with a monetary incentive for everything they do . In a Socialist economy , with all work entirely voluntary and the price system abolished , it will be entirely feasible to plan all production according to democratically decided criteria .

Between capitalism and Socialism there cannot exist a stable , lengthy transitional period . This point seemed to have dimly penetrated the brain of Trotsky , who recognised the silliness of a transitional society which stably maintained itself for generation after generation . He therefore described Stalin’s regime as a pyramid balanced on its head , and predicted it would be toppled in a major war. When the war came , it demonstrated the Russian system to be rather a pyramid stood firmly on its base .[ It is revealing that Mandel doesn’t dare use Trotsky’s long-since shattered argument that a state bureaucracy cannot constitute a ruling class . Trotsky was prepared to concede that state capitalism could in theory exist provided there was individual ownership of shares in the state ]

Far from Russia being on the road to Socialism , workers there still have to win elementary political and trade union rights already gained by western workers . Capitalism continues to exist throughout theory because workers put up with it , and can be abolished as soon as the majority of workers desire Socialism , though this is most strikingly evident in countries , unlike Russia , have effective workers’ suffrage . It is quite wrong to believe , as Mandel does , that we should support Russia or China against America . It is not worth a single workers’ life of limbs to advance the interests of the Russian rulers against their rivals. Neither does it matter whether Russian enterprises remain formally , legally state-owned or not . This has no bearing on workers’ interests and is beside the point anyway - a nationalised industry can be as free from de facto central control as some “privately-owned” firms.

Mandel’s view would have slightly more plausibility if all his “transitional societies” were politically united under one state . But they compete economically and militarily , and if the whole world owned by them alone , the danger of our species being exterminated in a war would be no less than it is today - “transitional” indeed !

Russia must of course be seen in its international context . It is here that the IS arguments against Mandel are strongest . As Harman rightly says , there is no such thing as the “inner logic” of a plan . The goals of Russian national planning have been fixed by international competition .

But the force of the IS attack here only throws into more startling relief their position on the national question ( especially now that they have taken to supporting , not only the Vietcong, but also the Chinese state which they admit to be capitalist) . It is no get-out to proclaim , as Harman does , that they also supported the Kenyan anti-colonial movement , or the “ the Cypriot struggle led by the cleric Makarios and the fascist Grivas” That is nothing to be proud of . Neither is this justified by calling it “ the Marxist position” What conceivable excuse can there be for people supporting the slaughter of workers which is a side-effect of the rival capitalist powers’ perennial jostling for a place in the sun?

By S in the Socialist Standard April 1970

Further reading :
SPGB Education Document (1995) WHERE THE SWP IS COMING FROM