TANIT

Here is an edited version of an on-line discussion about revolution

Questions of Revolution – Part 1

Further to the session we had on Revolution (at our Conference in Berlin – ed), today I came across the following in the Founding Statement of Permanent Revolution, a group that was thrown out of Workers Power that we are in touch with in the UK. It think it is a classic example of the wrong way to pose the question of revolution that creates such a gulf between the leninist movement and the working class:

“We are revolutionaries because we do not believe that capitalism will fade away peacefully. It will need to be overthrown. Capitalism has created, for the purposes of its own self defence, state structures that guard its interests. It uses a mighty and all pervasive propaganda machine, based especially on education and the media, to promote its ideological message. Whether it exists in either its democratic garb (parliament etc.) or its totalitarian garb (military or one party dictatorships) the capitalist state exists for the purpose of defending capitalism – to the death. The working class cannot simply take hold of these structures. We need to smash them – by means of violent revolution. Violent, because the capitalists will resist and use brutality to suppress our struggles. Revolution because capitalism cannot be removed in a piecemeal way, by stages, by reforms via parliament. Only a workers’ revolution, one that forges its own forms of working class rule – workers’ councils, a workers’ defence organisation, workers’control commissions in industry, community organisations that draw in the great mass of unorganised workers – can rid the world of capitalism and its state.” (http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=779)

There are many correct ideas in this statement but the way it is expressed gives absolutely no thought of how it would be received by working people.

Pat

++++++++++

1) It’s true isn’t it ? Or at least it’s a distinct possibility

2) We should tell the truth to the working class

3) How many people are looking at the PR website

4) If they were, that’s half the battle

Matt

++++++++++

I disagree with the way this statement is written. Regarding violence, I agree with myself (!) in what I said at the conference. There is no law that you can set up in advance. Britain today is not Russia of 1917. A revolution may come through peaceful means. All depends on what country we are speaking about and on what country the domino effect will be initiated.

The language of “we need to smash them [the capitalist structures] by means of violent revolution” is a language that would not appeal to ordinary people’s understanding of fundamental changes.

Furthermore, it sounds that PR comrades have no transitional programme. In one go, everything will be “smashed and replaced by workers organisations.”

Nadim

++++++++++

It’s true. The way the question is posed is terrible. We have to style our propaganda in accordance with the real situation. Currently in Britain talking of an armed uprising to destroy the capitalist state will simply make us look like a bunch of lunatics. However, if, say armed conflict had in the end broken out between Colombia and Venezuela, speaking of the need to form armed units (which are there) and use violence to expel the Colombian army and put down reactionary forces at home would make perfect sense.

That does not mean we lie and say we can do things peacefully. The workers understand this through direct experience when they are on the picket line and see a bunch of coppers scowling at them, or suddenly find a ton of EDL thugs trying to march up the street. The question of whether it is violence or not is moot, it’s a question of when it is necessary, and when it will be necessary. We won’t have to stand up and state the obvious. Events will show what is pertinent.

This is an ongoing problem with the Left. It does not know how to communicate. A lot of leftists, I’m sure you will all agree, are just downright strange, and have tended to interpret Marxism as some sort of elitist dogma that only a select few (them and their little group) understand. All other Marxists are nothing of the kind, and now it is just a case of “building the revolutionary leadership” by repeating yourself at people in the street.

We know Marxism is not rocket science. It continues to strike a note in politics because it is an excellent method for understanding society. But the Left does not communicate that, it simply interprets it as an expression of its own isolation and frustration at that isolation. We need to do things differently if we are serious about saying goodbye to what I like to call post-war Trotskyism. And that means basing ourselves in the labour movement not just as activists, but as communicators, and avoiding the kind of lunatic language we see in the PR statement.

Dan

++++++++++

Actually, I don’t think the way that Permanent Revolution’s Founding Statement expresses the situation is true. We don’t want violent revolution. We want the socialist transformation of society to take place democratically and peacefully. And why not? To quote the English radical poet Shelley: “We are many, they are few”. Logically, once working people have become convinced of the need to end capitalism they have the overwhelming numbers to carry this out. The possibility of violence comes from the capitalist elite who are not willing to abide by democratic decisions if they threaten their wealth and power. The possibility of violence does not come from us but from police and soldiers acting under the command of officers and politicians trying to defend their system.

This is not a small distinction. The capitalists fully understand it which is why they always try to portray strikers and demonstrators as violent and to blame them for any casualties. We are engaged in a class war in which the question of propaganda can mean the difference between success or failure. Understanding how our class responds to slogans, demands, actions etc. is of absolutely central importance. If the struggle to defeat capitalism was a simple task of setting up our banner, expressing ourselves as we see fit and marching into battle we would have would have defeated capitalism long ago.

As for Permanent Revolution, I don’t know how many are looking at their website. I doubt very many because they are a small group. They seem to be genuinely striving to break free of the semi-religious tradition of trotskyist sectism. I was looking at their site because Walter on our list referred me to a very interesting article they have written on Lenin and Trotsky’s role in the degeneration of the Soviet communist Party. While I wouldn’t phrase it as baldly as they have, they make a solid case. They argue that it was 1921 that was the decisive turning point not 1924 as Trotsky claimed, something I have believed for some years now. I won’t rehearse the arguments here but suggest that comrades read the piece themselves which is attached.

Pat

++++++++++

Sorry, but I should have also added that the Permanent Revolution article I just circulated severely criticises Lenin and Trotsky’s reaction to events in 1921-23 which they argue was a major factor in helping Stalin to come to power. It’s a fascinating read.

On the question of revolution, I meant also to thank Nadim for his excellent characterisation of the Permanent Revolution’s position on the state as ‘untransitional’, a very good description. That was what I was getting at in my lead-off in Berlin with my clumsy phrase about ‘the need to prepare for counter-revolution now’ (rather than at the last minute). It doesn’t imply that I think that counter-revolution is now on the agenda in most countries. Instead, I meant that in every clash with the police, judges etc. we should be able to come forward with relevant transitional demands for breaking the dictatorial chain of command and democratising the state. This will gain us massive support and undermine their authority, while pointing the way to the radically different democratic way we would organise society.

This brings me onto Jonathan’s description in the Berlin conference of how a revolution could take place in Sweden. I think his formulation was open to misinterpretation. I understood it to be just a way to show how strong the traditional movement is in Sweden with even the army and police unionised etc. However, the Swedish state machine is still run on dictatorial lines and therein lies the danger. Also, given the control of the mass media exercised by the ruling class, it is not likely that an overwhelming majority of Swedish working people would simultaneously conclude that capitalism should be abolished. There would be an uneven distribution of consciousness which the state machine would seek to take advantage of in order to prevent the overturn of their system. Moreover, the US government would not be idle, planning counter-measures, stiffening the opposition inside Sweden and so on.

The debate continues…

Pat

++++++++++

PR don’t say that they ‘want’ violence nor do they ascribe it to ‘our side’.

The piece in the latest PR that you have posted is being countered in the next issue by Stuart King, also of PR. I have the article which I will send out on an individual basis.

Basically just to sum up the current article ‘it’s all Lenin and Trotsky’s fault’.

Matt

++++++++++

Permanent Revolution’s Founding Statement which I quoted earlier says: “The working class cannot simply take hold of these structures. We need to smash them – by means of violent revolution.” I don’t see how I am misinterpreting PR’s position which I see as a very ultraleft way to pose the question. I only quoted PR’s statement not to have a go at them but because I thought it typified a way of thinking and posing the question that exists on much of the socialist left. In this way, it can help us come to a much better formulation for our founding statement.

Pat