22.03.2007

Stages, not stageism

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group defends of his theory of 'permanent democratic revolution'

In a recent letter to the Weekly Worker Dave Walters makes the point that Trotsky and Lenin developed their theories of revolution with Russia in mind. Trotsky's Results and prospects, where his idea of permanent revolution is developed, is almost exclusively about Russia. As Dave says, they were not writing about "China or Africa or the US".¹ 

A Russian road to revolution does not mean they ignored international struggles. Far from it. But as internationalists their main task was to overthrow the ruling class at home. The same logic means that communists in the USA or UK should apply permanent revolution in their own countries as part of an international movement.

'The main enemy is at home' does not contradict democratic permanent revolution or internationalism. Of course, when revolutions erupt, tactics must change. If, for example, a democratic revolution began in France, as it very nearly did in 1968, then this would have a major impact on communist activity in Britain and America. We would support the new French revolutionary republic as a central part of building an international movement.

The aim of this article is to draw out the similarities and differences between the theory of democratic permanent revolution and Trotsky's theory. I will start from the more obvious similarities including "growing over", national roads and world revolution, combined and uneven development and stages. I will indicate differences over national socialism and state capitalism.

Then I will focus on the theory of stageism, from which Trotsky's theory was born, in order to highlight main differences between democratic permanent revolution and Trotsky's theory.

Democratic permanent revolution

Let me begin with the conclusion from my last article²  that we need a democratic programme and international socialist programme. This was the logic of the theory of democratic permanent revolution.

Democratic permanent revolution is a universal theory. It can be applied in all capitalist countries, whether they are 'advanced', 'underdeveloped' or 'backward' parts of the world economy. Of course, the democratic programme must be applied to concrete circumstances in each country, taking account of the specific historical, economic, social and political conditions. A democratic programme for the USA or Iraq would look different from one drawn up for the United Kingdom. On the other hand, there is only one international socialist programme.

Democratic permanent revolution thus connects the struggle for democracy in today's conditions to the international socialist revolution and world communism. The lynchpin or connecting rod is the dictatorship of the proletariat arising within the democratic revolution. Hence the democratic revolution grows over into an international economic or socialist revolution.

Growing over

Despite the differences between this theory and Trotsky's, they do coincide in certain important respects. Trotsky summarises his basic postulates in chapter 10 of Permanent revolution. He says (point eight): "The dictatorship of the proletariat which has risen to power as the leader of the democratic revolution is inevitably and very quickly confronted with tasks, the fulfilment of which are bound up with deep inroads into the rights of bourgeois property. The democratic revolution thus grows over directly into the socialist revolution and thereby become a permanent revolution".³ 

Michael Löwy, a Trotskyist who has written extensively on the subject, summarises Trotsky's theory as "the hegemonic role of the proletariat and the necessity of its seizure of power, but also the possibility of a 'growing over' of the democratic into the socialist revolution".⁴ 

The key concepts common to both theories of permanent revolution are the dictatorship the proletariat, which has risen to power as leader of the democratic revolution, and that the democratic revolution grows over directly into the socialist revolution. Neither the democratic revolution nor the socialist revolution is abolished. The distinction between them is maintained, even though one grows into the other.

Lenin rightly insisted on a clear distinction between the two revolutions. He accuses his opponents of confusing "the democratic revolution with the socialist revolution, the struggle for a republic (including our entire minimum programme) with the struggle for socialism".⁵  Two revolutions and two programmes do not necessarily contradict permanent revolution, provided one can grow over into the other.

World revolution

The national application of permanent revolution is not nationalism. Trotsky's permanent revolution was not a Russian theory. It was a world theory about the process of world revolution. As Dave Walters points out, in the 1920s Trotsky began applying it more widely, to China and Spain. The whole theory can thus be stood on its head. We can start with a world view.

Marx described the revolutionary nature of capitalism. In its global search to exploit labour-power, capitalism uproots and destroys all previous modes of existence and brings forth technological revolutions. This constant revolutionising of social conditions intensifies the class struggle. The world market forges one global economy. It is not a series of separate national economies linked externally through trade.

We need to see capitalism in totality. The socialist revolution is a global revolution which transcends the totality to a higher level. As Trotsky explains, "In so far as capitalism has created the world market, a world division of labour and world productive forces, it has also prepared the world economy for the socialist transformation".⁶ 

The international working class, brought into existence as a world class, is the only force that can bring this permanent revolutionising of production under social control. World capitalism or imperialism is thus transformed into world communism.

Combined and uneven

One of the essential components of Trotsky's theory is therefore the law of combined and uneven development. There are different understandings of this theory,⁷  so I will explain my mine. This law can be applied not only to the development of capitalism and technology, but to politics and democracy.

The law of combined and uneven development breaks down the distinction between 'advanced' and 'backward' countries. The law of value tends to force countries to borrow the most advanced methods and technologies. The world economy develops in a combined way. Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was relatively underdeveloped. But at the same time it contained some the most advanced factories in the world. The technologies and production methods in Russia, Britain or Germany were combined as well as being uneven.

Trotsky emphasised the nature of the world economy as one whole. He says: "Marxism takes its starting point from the world economy - not as a sum of national parts, but as a mighty and independent reality, which has been created by the international division of labour and the world market and which in our epoch imperiously dominates the national markets. The productive forces of capitalist society have long ago outgrown the national boundaries".⁸ 

Löwy points out that Trotsky was influenced by Antonio Labriola, who set out to "restore the dialectical concept of totality and historical process".⁹  Trotsky therefore perceived capitalism and class struggle as a world process. The world was ripe for communism, even if this or that part was underdeveloped when considered in isolation.

Combined and uneven development does not, however, end as a theory of globalisation. It appears within each national cell of the global organism. In each state we find a combination of advanced and backward elements or, as Colin Barker says, "a combination of 'archaic' and 'modern' elements within a single country".¹⁰ 

This is not simply an economic process. It has its parallels in democracy and political processes. Did the English republic not loan itself out to combine with the American and French revolutions? What is the British constitution but a reflection of the combined and uneven development of democracy in the UK? Might advanced forms of electronic voting, or electronic petitioning of the prime minister, coexist with the royal prerogative?

Whether economically or politically, combined and uneven development stores up explosive contradictions within the state. The contradiction between the ancient and modern may be sharpened to such an extent that they are resolved by outbreaks of national revolution. This was at the root of the crisis of tsarism, which was brought to a head in 1917 by the imperialist war.

The theory of combined and uneven development no more abolishes national revolution than globalisation abolishes the nation-state. Imperialism does not end the epoch of national revolution. But it does liquidate national socialism or socialism in one country. This is what the 20th century has taught us. Imperialism continues, but national socialism in Russia, eastern Europe, China and Vietnam has been exposed and extinguished.

Science of stages

 One source of confusion in Marxism is the distinction between transitional stages and the theory known as stageism.

No serious Marxist denies the existence of stages in the process of development. Life itself passes thorough various stages from birth, through childhood, youth and adulthood, to old age and death. Each stage is riven with contradictions, which resolve themselves as we pass from one to another.

The problem is to develop a scientific understanding of stages. We can of course die not long after we are born, despite not passing through the various stages of a 'normal' life cycle. Any theory claiming you cannot die without first becoming an adult would turn the science of human life into a rigid dogma.

One or two references to classic Marxist texts should help convince comrades than transitional stages are part of the normal discourse within our science. Marx in his Critique of the Gotha programme makes a distinction between the lower phase, or stage, of communism and the higher. Lenin explains Marx's view that "The scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually termed socialism was termed by Marx the 'first', or lower, phase of communist society."¹¹ 

In March 1917 Lenin writes his Letters from afar. One is entitled: 'The first stage of the first revolution'.¹²  Here he analyses the nature of the revolution in its initial or preliminary stage. The term "first stage" obviously implies subsequent stages.

When Lenin discusses the withering away of the state, he explains it requires "a high stage of development of communism".¹³  He says: "In its first phase, or first stage, communism cannot as yet be fully mature economically and entirely free from the traditions or vestiges of capitalism.¹⁴ 

In The permanent revolution Trotsky has a chapter on the "skipping of historical stages". This is not about the absence of stages, but understanding their relationship. He says: "The theoretical distinction of stages, however, is necessary for Russia too; otherwise one can comprehend neither what this leap amounted to nor what its consequences were".¹⁵ 

In Trotsky's discussion on the Chinese revolution he writes: "In capitalist society, every revolution tends to transform itself into a permanent revolution: in other words, not to come to a halt at any of the stages it reaches".¹⁶  Permanent revolution may pass through multi-stages without stopping. This "dialectic of historical stages is relatively easy to understand in periods of revolutionary ascent".¹⁷ 

Trotsky states that "One stage or another of the historical process can prove to be inevitable under certain conditions, although theoretically not inevitable".¹⁸  He explains how "history combined the main content of the bourgeois revolution with the first stage of the proletarian revolution - it did not mix them, but combined them organically".¹⁹ 

Skipping stages is quite possible in the historical process. But he warns: "Every attempt to skip over real - that is, objectively conditioned - stages in the development of the masses is political adventurism".²⁰  Marxism differs from anarchism and adventurism in its view of the dialectic of evolving stages. Anarchists want immediate communism, not a stage of the proletarian dictatorship.

Dictatorship of the proletariat

The combined and uneven development of capitalism produces its opposite in the combined and uneven development of the world revolution. The political struggles of the working class lead into democratic revolution and the possibility of the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country.

The national dictatorship of the proletariat is a stage in the permanent revolution. We do not know how long this stage will last. It could in theory last for days, weeks, months or years. It could be reduced to zero, although the theory of combined and uneven development suggests this is unlikely. We cannot predict with any certainty because it depends on the class struggle. What we learn from Russia is that the democratic revolution cannot hold out indefinitely. In Russia workers' democracy had collapsed by 1921 and was not resurrected.

State capitalism

The national dictatorship of the proletariat is the transfer of political power from one class to another in one country. But democratic revolution cannot coexist with private capital. The rights of 'the democracy' and the rights of shareholders are incompatible. Therefore the inevitable consequence of the transfer of political power is the democratisation of the national economy.

Nationalisation of major parts of the economy does not abolish world capital. It merely expropriates particular capitalists in one tiny corner of world. It is a measure necessary for democratisation and defence of the national revolution. This is a stage of state capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

We make no fetish of state ownership or state capital, which many socialists mistakenly equate with socialism. Neither is there any misunderstanding of the distinction between state capital under the dictatorship of the proletariat, with similar state capitalist measures carried out by the bourgeoisie. There is a qualitative difference between a democratic public sector and the old National Coal Board or British Gas.

Peculiar theory of stageism

'Stageism' is a term given to the classic theory of revolution. It is associated with the Second International and through the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party to Menshevism, Bolshevism and later with Stalinism. Like all theories of revolution it rests on the twin pillars of democratic revolution and socialist revolution.

Stageism is a theory of national revolutions. What is peculiar is its particular view of stages. Each type of revolution is separated by a stage, or epoch, lasting for decades or centuries. I will call it a three-stage model.

Stage one is the democratic revolution. It is completely separate from the socialist revolution. Stage two is an intermediate period, or stage, of capitalist economic development. In this stage the working class expands and becomes a majority, organising itself in trade unions, etc. Then we arrive at stage three, the socialist revolution, in which a mature working class wins political power and implements socialism. Again this is completely separate from the democratic revolution.

The two revolutions are allocated to different types of country, advanced or backward. In backward countries, the task of the working class is to make or complete the transition from a feudal or peasant economy to capitalism and liberal democracy. In advanced capitalist countries the task is the stage-three transition from capitalism to socialism.

This theory seemed to fit the situation of German social democracy in the last quarter of the 19th century. Germany was a stage-two country. Whilst waiting for the socialist revolution, the German working class could build its organisation. This became a reformist perspective. Democratic revolution was a thing of the past. Socialist revolution was in the dim and distant future. Present political practice could therefore be reduced to trade unionism and reformist campaigns.

In this theory there is no 'growing over'. It is one type of revolution or the other. In applying this theory Marxists must decide which type of revolution to advocate. It is a debate which can cause endless confusion and division. Was apartheid South Africa a backward or advanced capitalism? On this hangs the question of whether to advocate a stageist democratic revolution or national socialism.

Stageist revolution

This three-stage theory imposes limits on the two revolutions. The democratic revolution belongs to the early phase of capitalism. The great French Revolution is the model. It is identified with the bourgeoisie and is therefore termed 'bourgeois revolution'. The terms 'democratic revolution' and 'bourgeois revolution' are considered complementary and interchangeable.

The aim of democratic revolution is to bring the bourgeoisie to power so that industrialisation can take place. The high point of bourgeois democratic revolution is the democratic republic. But the historic mission of bourgeois revolution is 'satisfied' with liberal parliamentary democracy, which might be a constitutional monarchy. The continued existence of what are called feudal remnants, such as monarchy and aristocracy, are seen as evidence of incomplete bourgeois revolution. The latter is a term used by stageists as complementary to their view of perfect bourgeois revolution.

In stageist theory the socialist revolution is a national revolution. The working class takes power and then nationalises the means of production, distribution and exchange. The bourgeoisie is thus expropriated. The working class implements a planned economy, redistribution of income and a monopoly of foreign trade, etc. The model is socialism in one country.

The USSR is the classic example of stageist national socialism. National socialism spread to eastern Europe, China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba. Its failure can be attributed to peasant economies starting from a low base. Therefore national socialist revolution will succeed in the future in advanced capitalist states, such as Britain or the USA.

Reactionary bourgeois theory

The theory of stageism is a reactionary theory. It is a barrier to a scientific theory of revolution, to understanding the transition to democracy and socialism, and a working class revolutionary strategy. Whenever the working class has been led by parties tied to this theory it has resulted in disaster. Trotsky himself exposed the fatal mistakes made in the Chinese revolution in the 1920s and the Spanish revolution in the 1930s.

This theory serves the ruling class, whether the form of government is fascism, military dictatorship, liberal democracy or Stalinist 'people's republics'. It is a counterrevolutionary theory. When democratic revolutions occur, they are defined in terms of bourgeois hegemony. The scope of revolution is limited to what is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Theory and practice creates barriers against 'growing over'. The socialist revolution is nationalist and equated with state ownership. This again limits the scope of working class action.

However, the problem with this theory is not the existence of democratic revolutions and socialist revolutions or even the recognition that stages exist. The counterrevolution is hidden in the particular theoretical limits placed on the two revolutions, the barrier between them and the underlying economic determinism.

The level of capitalist economic development determines what kind of revolution is appropriate. It 'predicts' whether a country is ripe for democratic or national socialist revolution. This determines what the revolutionary party and the working class should do. Marxists become prisoners of economic materialism.

The theory of bourgeois democratic revolution serves the interests of the capitalist class. It identifies democracy with the bourgeoisie. Yet the bourgeoisie is not a democratic class and bourgeois democracy is not genuinely democratic. The bourgeoisie rules through state bureaucracy and corporate capital. The rule of this minority class conceals its aims and policies beneath a smokescreen of democratic phrases.

The theory can have reformist conclusions. In a liberal capitalist democracy, the possibility of democratic revolution is ruled out. It is objectively impossible. Therefore the extension of democracy can only come about by democratic reform. If the question of democracy arises, stageists ignore it or relate to it strictly in reformist terms.

Britain

Britain is seen as the classic confirmation of stageist theory. A 'bourgeois' democratic revolution took place in the 17th century - the English civil war, the first republic in 1649 and the 'glorious revolution' of 1688. We entered the second stage of prolonged industrial and capitalist development. Now, with a large working class, we are on the brink of stage three, waiting for the socialist revolution.

In Britain, stageism is characterised by its hostility to democratic revolution. It asks itself whether Britain needs a bourgeois democratic revolution or a national socialist revolution. It can only be one or the other. The answer is that we have already passed through the stage of bourgeois democratic revolution.

British stageists either ignore democratic questions or limit their perspective to democratic reforms. They accept the hegemony of the bourgeoisie on democratic issues. Underestimating democracy is the fundamental characteristic of British stageism. This is illustrated by general indifference to the question of the democratic republic and the national question.

British stageists also have an amusing blind spot. They transfer their own counterrevolutionary dogma onto their critics. A republic can only mean a bourgeois democratic revolution. Therefore anybody who advocates democratic revolution and a republic must think we live in stage one. From their own twisted logic they point out that in Britain the bourgeoisie is in power and we already have 'democracy'!

They are blindly unaware that such statements are simply the transference of their own stageist logic onto others. The very idea of the working class as the democratic class leading the struggle for political and economic democracy is not in their theoretical framework. As for a republic, they believe this must wait for the stage of socialism, when the monarchy will be abolished.

In my February 15 article I argued that democratic revolution and socialist revolution are the "plug and socket" of permanent revolution. Consequently democratic revolution, led by the working class, is the starting point for permanent revolution. Britain is therefore a peculiar place. We had the plug before the socket was invented. Now, according to stageism, we have a socket, but nothing to plug into it!

Russia

Applying stageism to late 19th century Russia leads to the following conclusion. Unlike Britain, Russia was a backward country. Unlike Britain, Russia needed a bourgeois democratic revolution and hence the slogan of a democratic republic. However, it would not be possible to proceed to socialism. The bourgeois democratic revolution would lead to more rapid capitalist industrialisation and the development of the working class - until the day arrives when Russia will stand next to Britain, awaiting its socialist revolution.

Russia was considered to be in the first stage, the transition from a peasant economy to capitalism. Stage one was 'democratic-revolution-separated-from-socialist revolution'. The democratic revolution would bring the bourgeoisie to power. Then capitalism would develop over a long stage two. The working class would build up its organisations, as had happened in Germany. There could be no question of the working class taking power. That would be historically premature, since it implied skipping stage two.

The socialist revolution was thus objectively impossible in Russia. The October revolution was an adventurist act. It stood in defiance of economic conditions and was therefore doomed to failure. Russia would need to follow a path more like Britain until it was ripe for socialism.

This was the Menshevik perspective. Löwy summarises it, explaining that "Plekhanov and his friends believed that Russia was a backward, Asiatic and barbarous country requiring a long stage of industrialism and Europeanisation before the proletariat could aspire to power. Only after Russia has developed its productive forces, and passed into the historical stage of advanced capitalism and parliamentary democracy, would the requisite material and political conditions be available for a socialist transformation".²¹ 

Bolsheviks and stageism

The Bolshevism can be considered a partial break with stageism. Lenin's strength was in his total focus on democratic revolution. There was no dabbling in anarchism and leftism by substituting the socialist revolution or skipping the democratic revolution. The aim was to overthrow the tsarist regime.

However, the Bolsheviks' view of bourgeois democratic revolution might seem contradictory. It could not be led by the bourgeoisie, a counterrevolutionary class. Therefore the bourgeois character of the revolution referred to its political tasks (republic) and economic tasks (land). The leadership would be provided by the working class in alliance with the revolutionary peasantry.

Prior to 1917 the Bolsheviks were on the right track, even if the theory was not totally correct. The working class was identified as the vanguard, leading the democratic republican revolution. Lenin's genius was that after February 1917 he could shift gear, recognise a new stage, and equate the republic with soviets and working class power.

The stageist programme

Prior to 1917 the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks differed on class alliances, but not on programme. Lenin argued as an orthodox Second International Marxist in support of a stageist programme. He explained this in terms of the minimum and maximum programme. He wrote: "Social democracy has constantly stressed the bourgeois nature of the impending revolution in Russia and insisted on a clear line of demarcation between the democratic minimum programme and the socialist maximum programme."²² 

The bourgeois democratic revolution was associated with the minimum programme and hence the overall demand for a democratic republic. Lenin explains: "Objectively, the historical course of events has now posed before the Russian proletariat precisely the task of carrying out the democratic bourgeois revolution (the whole content of which, for brevity's sake, we sum up in the word 'republic')."²³ 

Permanent-stageism

We can now examine Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution. It is a theory for backward or underdeveloped countries. In such countries the democratic revolution grows over to the socialist revolution. The dictatorship of the proletariat is associated with the leadership of the democratic revolution.

However, in advanced countries the stageist perspective still applies. These states have already had their bourgeois democratic revolutions. They have already passed through stage one and two. They have arrived at the stage of socialist revolution.

Trotsky's theory can thus be called 'permanent-stageism' - permanent revolution for underdeveloped countries and stageism for the advanced. Trotsky's theory is not a universal theory, but rather a special case for backward states. When a Trotskyist asks what stage the revolution in Britain has reached, the answer comes back: we are at the socialist stage, not the democratic stage.

In Trotsky's summary of his theory, point two, the first point of substance, begins: "With regards to countries with a belated bourgeois development, especially colonial and semi-colonial countries ..." ²⁴  He never really gets very far beyond discussing the role of peasants or backwards countries.

Michael Löwy traces the development of Trotsky's theory. In Permanent revolution, written in 1928, he concentrates on the Russian experience. Only in the last section does Trotsky deal with the problems in the colonial and semi-colonial world. Löwy says Trotsky generalised his theory of permanent revolution to the entire colonial and semi-colonial (or ex-colonial) world as a result of the catalyst of the Chinese revolution of 1925-27.²⁵  In The Third International and After Lenin Trotsky argued that the lessons from China were significant for all countries in Asia and Löwy adds the comment that Africa and Latin America were still outside his range of interest.

However Trotsky's breach with stageism is not simply confined to bourgeois revolution in backward countries. He raises the international socialist revolution against national socialism. He does not abandon national socialism, but rather sees it as the first stage in the development of international socialism.

Gerry Downing's contribution to this debate illustrates my point. Although he is a Trotskyist his perspective for Britain as an advanced capitalist country is classic stageism - in stage three we are for socialist revolution against democratic revolution.

Mike Macnair

In November last year Mike Macnair made some critical comments on democratic permanent revolution. He agreed it is one step forward because it focuses on the importance of democracy for the working class - which is seriously underestimated in both the stageist and permanent-stageist theories and is directly connected to economism.

But he claims it is two steps back. First, because this theory "fails to grasp that the specific dynamics of the Russian Revolution were given by the dominance of the peasant question, resulting from the fact that the Russian economy was still predominantly pre-capitalist and the Russian state unequivocally pre-capitalist".²⁶  The theory of democratic permanent revolution (DPR) can easily be applied to concrete conditions in states with mixed class compositions, including the peasantry.

Secondly, Mike says: "It fails to grasp that Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution was grounded primarily not in Russian dynamics, but in international capitalist dynamics ('combined and uneven development'), as, he argued, they affected the specific Russian case, and as, after 1917, he argued that they affected other 'backward' countries more generally". I think I have answered this point.

Thirdly, Mike claims the RDG comrades make no analysis of global political-economic dynamics. This is not entirely true. But even if it was it would not contradict or disprove the theory. It would merely suggest more research work needed to be done. Theories have to be applied to concrete conditions. There is no reason why Mike cannot contribute to this (as he is already doing).

Fourthly, Mikes claims: "The 'new theory of permanent revolution' proposes Lenin's line of two necessary stages, in Two tactics of the social democracy in the democratic revolution, as a schema applicable in every country." In fact DPR is 'Trotskyist' in the growing over of one revolution into other. It is a rejection of bourgeois democratic revolution in recognising the modern relevance of democratic revolution but 'reintegrates' Lenin's republican Two tactics back into our current theoretical armoury.

Finally there is the question of stages. The theory argues that national democratic revolutions continue to occur in the modern global economy. The international working class can and must lead such revolutions, with the aim of growing over into an international socialist revolution. This is the only road to world communism.

Although Mike seems to reject any stages, he interprets our theory in a rigid stageist way - we can only engage in national activities now and building an international must come at a later stage. He seems to assume we cannot apply our theory in a European context. There is nothing in it that leads to that conclusion.

If anything, the opposite is true. If the socialist revolution is international, then it follows that we need to build an international and develop an international programme right now. This is where the Campaign for Marxist Party should come in - which takes me back to the perspective I proposed when this debate began.