Permanent Revolution

[nonamenopackdrill]

Sorry, I thought we were talking of a party of the working class. Not of the whole population. Which would you prefer. The Labour Party was the latter.

I'm stunned that you use 'left SRs' and 'mensheviks'. I don't know anything about the (how many) anarchists and when you write non-party masses, does that mean they were 'mass' when the bolsheviks weren't?

 

[mk12]

I'm stunned that you use 'left SRs' and 'mensheviks'

Because they fought the soviet republic and sided with the whites I guess? It's not true.

non-party masses

If I remember correctly, the majority of the Kronstadt soviet in 1917-21 was "non-party" ie. not aligned to any party. They did turn into the SR-Maximalists (the former chairman of the soviet was killed by the Bolsheviks - Lamanov i think his name was).

I thought we were talking of a party of the working class

but im arguing there is no such thing. How can one party represent the whole working class?

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

Because they fought the soviet republic and sided with the whites I guess? It's not true.

What are you on about? No, because they were (effectively in that situation) liberals.

but im arguing there is no such thing. How can one party represent the whole working class?

They can't obviously. But then you're saying you can't change anything substantial (unless you think one working class person can).

 

[urbanrevolt]

Returning to the religious metaphor I'm feeling a weird sense of deja vu like i've been here before debating with MK or someone of very similar name on public webboard about how the Bolsheviks weren't democratic- the masses in Petrograd and other urban centres certainly did come over to the Bolsheviks and support the revolution. The vast majority of peasants also supported the revolution all power to the soviets- even if the majority didn't vote for the Bolsheviks.

In the long term the Russian revolution was crushed by a violent counter-revolution- a counter-revolution against party democracy and against Trotsky and the left opposition. I know you have your detailed criticisms of Trotsky but the fact plain and simple is that as trotskyists we are for the highest form of democracy- workers' councils on a world wide scale.

We can of course learn from history both the brilliance of the bolsheviks and their tacitical errors.

 

[urbanrevolt]

Soviets can represent the working class though and the party compete in soviets.

 

[mk12]

because they were (effectively in that situation) liberals.

in what way? arguing for genuine soviet power (not party power)? Arguing for free elections? Arguing against shooting workers?

But then you're saying you can't change anything substantial (unless you think one working class person can).

As I have said, there's a difference between an organisation and "the party" as urbanrevolt imagines it. In terms of their role and their aim.

the masses in Petrograd and other urban centres certainly did come over to the Bolsheviks and support the revolution. The vast majority of peasants also supported the revolution all power to the soviets- even if the majority didn't vote for the Bolsheviks.

I don't know if it's intentional, but you keep confusing the Bolsheviks with the soviets. Yes, the Bolsheviks were popular in late 1917. I've already admitted that. But they lost lots of elections through early 1918 (pre-civil war!) and there was a (fairly popular) uprising in Petrograd in 1918. Zinoviev admitted the Communists had hardly any support by 1921.

If the Bolsheviks genuinely believed in "all power to the soviets", they would have accepted these electoral results. It's "soviet power" not "party power" after all, isn't it? As you yourself said, "Soviets can represent the working class though and the party compete in soviets." So why did the Bolsheviks shut down soviets (two almost immediately afterOctober), cancel and postpone elections, declare martial law where they lost elections etc etc?

 

[urbanrevolt]

No I said quite explicitly the peasants supported the soviets but not- in their majority- the Bolsheviks. There was a small matter of a civil war- we do support soviet power- not party power.

 

[mk12]

"was a small matter of a civil war- we do support soviet power- not party power"

All the stuff i've spoken about (cancelling elections, reinstating capitalists, uprisings, shutting down soviets, reinstalling discipline in factories, electoral fraud etc etc) happened before the civil war started.

And whose "we". If your new group do, then fine. But Lenin and Trotsky certainly didn't (judging by their actions and their works).

[im off out now]

 

[ska invita]

A question for Cockneyrebel

Founding Statement 3:

3. The agent of change in capitalist society is the working class. This class is the great majority, bigger in size today than it has ever been.

Thats not true in Britain do you think? In MArx's day everyone was in a factory or up a chimney, nowadays there is a huge middle class, and a significant aspirational working class.

We base our politics and our programme on this fact: the working class is the only revolutionary class in society, regardless of whether its current leaders are reformist and regardless of whether its current levels of struggle have not assumed a revolutionary form.

Surely radicalising any social group will be the result of good argument and convincing ideas - in which case can't all classes become revolutionised?

For me the reason this whole approach is outdated is not because Russian Communism failed, but because we no longer live in the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Our society is far more complex as a result - Industrial Revolution like conditions do prevail for the majority of the world however, but I think attempting to create WC revolution in Britain along an outdated and narrow focus on The Working Class is doomed.

Still, I admire your enthusiasm.

What do you think of the Bolivarian approach currently being grown in Latin America, particularly with a focus on co-operatives and co-management? (as outlined here: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/lebowitz241005.html )
Does this fit in with PR ideology? I think it is an interesting approach becasue although it focusses on empowering the WC it doesnt wage war on other classes, or isolate them in its founding statements.

 

[belboid]

Not being Cockneyrebel, not a PR member, but......

The thesis is talking about the world working-class - which is now bigger than it has ever been, industrialisation the world over, a shrinking peasantry. The UK cannot be viewed in isolation.

Also, even tho there is a large 'middle-class' (we could argue definitions there but I know pretty well what you mean so fuck it) they are, by there nature, pulled between the main two classes, and the w-c is still the largest, and ultimately the most powerful of them. When presented with the actuality of w-c power, they will crumble. or enough will, anyway.

Some will be convinced by mere argument too. But it isn't just about idea's, it's about a day to day reality. Becoming convinced of the possibility of socialism isn't just about thinking it's a damned good idea, it's about seeing it being a practical possibility, getting a sense of workers power as a class. Which means fighting for each and every possible victory in the here and now, and from little acorns....

I think the Bolivarian approach is an interesting beginning of an experiment. I'm not sure how much the Venezuelan ruling-class would agree that it isn't a war on them tho! Still has a fair way to go, but is an inkling at least of what is possible.

PR's view is up at http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=category&cat=61

 

[ska invita]

Thanks for that reply Belboid.Fair points.

I'll be curious to hear what is said at this meeting at Anarchist BF:

Meeting Room 3 5pm – 6.30pm
Is the Class Struggle Dead, or Just Resting?
3rd of 3 discussions from the London Anarchist Forum

The Class Struggle is at the heart of some forms of anarchism, but is its time up? Does the failure of the working class to become an effective opposition to Capitalism, and to more often actively support it, mean that the Class Struggle is dead?

Are the Working Class, as some claim, a major foundation of Capitalism in need of emancipation, rather than an oppositional means to it? Should work and workerism be rejected today? Or is the Class Struggle just more complex than previously thought?

i have a lot of sympathy with the language and theory of class struggle, but wonder if a different approach wouldnt be more suitable in the current climate and particularly in the relative wealth of the western world.

For me "revolution" must be popular, must be empowering and must be as inclusive as possible - I often find much of the presentation of the agenda's set by those groups such as PR to be alienating and unwelcoming. They make sense and appeal to a small clique of educated radicals but hardly conenct to the man or woman on the street or workplace.

The stubborness to replicate campaings of days gone by is admirable in some ways but retrograde in many others. Labour and Conservatives have both learned the lesson that if you want to connect to voters/public you have to cosy up to them - a much more sophisticated approach is required IMO to really connect what are radical ideas to a predominantly mdoerate and conservative public, be they whatever class or creed.

Im not asking for a watering down of strength, ideology or belief, but I am completely sceptical of the power of the language of "class war" and "permenant revolution" to appeal to anyone but an already radicalised minority.

Not saying it's an easy step to make (plenty to think about as to how to do this), but I think a necessary one. Do you agree?

 

[urbanrevolt]

Do I agree? Possibly- certainly I agree that socialists need to connect to the man or woman on the street. And I also agree that Permanent Revolution is of a somewhat limited appeal as a name.

But you seem to imply that there is somehow an absence of class war. But billions live in poverty throughout the world- I've just spoken to a friend tortured because of suspicion he belongs to a secret political group in a country where students and political activists are regularly imprisoned and shot dead. And the countries where this happens are where the majority of the world live.

Do we always need new ways to connect. Undoubtedly; and I guess part of the problem is connecting to the masses here who are somewhat lulled into inactivity by relative wealth while still fundamentally disempowered. It frustrates the hell out of me sometimes (and I am as it happens a member of PR but I'm sure this can be true for other activists) that it is so hard to get campaigns of solidarity going for the life and death issues that affect the majority of the world- but I'd say that is where the concept of permanent revolution is still very relevant. The struggle for democracy is a life and death issue and it is an issue of class power- the old shit of a two stage revolution- still predominant in so many places- means selling out the nascent workers' movement to bourgeois misleaders with either no interest or no ability to effect change.

 

[rhys gethin]

Niksativa - The theory has always been that only the Working Class has both the incentive AND the power to see off capitalism. In passably prosperous times and places that incentive grows extremely weak, as you'd expect, and even in bad times an awful lot of people can be hustled along into militarism, racism or godknowswhat old bullshit. But when all's said, who else can possibly do it? At the moment class consciousness is very weak here in any organized sense, but IF Marx is right, slumps are inevitable and will worsen. Earlier and elsewhere someone was talking about our making a god of old Karl, but it as a predictor, not because of his wonderful head of hair, that people are interested in him. If he is wrong it seems more logical to turn to crime than waffle on about changing the world - to me anyway. But I think he is right, in the sense Darwin is right - not as writing a holy book but as starting a usable science.

 

[urbanrevolt]

But what do you mean will worsen- it's fucking bad already. Of course you are right that the working class in the imperialist heartlands will see bad times because of capitalism's anarchic instability but I don't see why we should wait around.

And even here there are plenty of struggles to get involved in- Ok it's atime of low class struggle but for the size of the Marxist left-more than enough to engage us.

 

[rhys gethin]

urbanrevolt - Get bad enough to wake up big numbers is what I mean, but obviously I don't disagree with you. As I recollect, Marx spent some of his time trying to organize the Soho waiters. There is always work to be done, aye.

 

[urbanrevolt]

Agree with you absolutely here- the other part of my point is that there are quite a few countries where there are mass struggles. Making the connection with workers here though is very difficult- though none the less necessary- outside times of mass struggle in this country (so agreeing with you again i suspect)

 

[ska invita]

More agreement here from me! - i'm not against the idea of class war on principle, merely sceptical about it being at the forefront of agendas of groups operaitng in the relative wealth of the western world.

It is not suprising that for example in South Africa you can have a huge union like COSATU with a strong communist feel to it and get plenty of support from the people (over 1million memebrs I think) - the poverty there makes such an approach conducive (this is leaving aside reports that COSATU have rolled over like puppies in the face of privatisiation).

Of course we need to look to global conditions, but PR is another small groups amongst other small groups operating locally - the focus should be local and on local achievable results.

Lets say PR or similiar group tried to orgnaise the waiters of soho - I think it would have a hard time doing it under the banner of class war and revolution - a more worker friendly approach would work wonders.

There is also the problem that many working class people get involved in such groups and before long get fed up with the middle class people running the groups - usually the first act of class war is against the organisers!... certainly i've heard that from a number of workers and ex-members of the swp!

I say all this becasue I admire the work people put into such groups as PR but feel that it is not an efficient use of energy - its certainly not pointless work, just perhaps it could be so much more sucessful, and I wonder how much the prominence of ideas of revolutionary class war etc, is a stickling point.

A more modest and positive tone might actually achieve more, constructive language of building and uniting can be more inspiring and less threatening - a lot of people just dont want to get involved in war or revolution, even on a minor scale - the fight will still be there, but it doesnt necessarily need to be couched in the language of warfare (however exciting and inspiring organisers find it).

Not saying Iv'e got all the answers just trying to make a constructive point...

 

[urbanrevolt]

Semi agree on some points... certainly getting involved in local campaigns. e.g. I've been involved in a long running (as most are) anti-deportation campaign.

On this or say a strike or an anti-privatisation campaign or defend council houses whatever agree that we should be worker friendly and not just say we've got all the answers etc. It;s about helping set up genuine united front active campaigns. Think if you put in the hard work and honest commitment then the risk of people getting pissed off is minimal. But if it looks like your trying to build your own group or party primarily (and some in the SWP do this and indeed are encouraged to do this) then it will piss people off.

Also agree that of course we don't have to mention war and revolution in every other sentence or whatever but think it's fine and indeed essential to not disguise our politics, partly because that will be seen through and piss people off and partly more important because revolution- taking power for ourselves- is necessary. but as i say f we put in the hard genuine worlk and are open to ideas and discussion and getting the activity done people work with us even if we are revolutionary communists and all those things. Some might even be won to us- though not so many in the current climate. ireckon it's all about rebuilding networks of action and confidence at the moment and getting out there and actually doing stuff... so if there are specific things you have feedback on all th better and some interesting ideas so far

 

[Taxamo Welf]

Some interesting stuff on there, but as with many other lefty sites I've visited, I can't help thinking that were the energy taken to write all this stuff directed at more practical activities there might be a bit more social justice to go round?

U might be a capitalist pig, but you're right on this one

 

[belboid]

Well, most of the stuff on the site is old articles that have simply been copied over. The new stuff tends towards the theoretical debate (eg the stuff on how capitalism is doing at the moment) or are simply reports of meetigs/actins etc. The latter don't take very long to write - certainly less time then most of us spend writing stuff up on here! The former obviously takes some time, but it is kinda important too.

 

[LLETSA]

it is a shame there is no ignore button over there, but I am quite capable of ignoring the moronic hypocrite anyway

Don't think I'm not listening....

 

[ska invita]

so if there are specific things you have feedback on all the better and some interesting ideas so far

I wonder what you make of the Parecon model - not sure how familiar you are with it. I broadly support it - I've got a fetish about co-ops and certainly think that workers controlling their businesses/industries should be a cornerstone of progressive leftist schemes!

I think Michael Albert also makes some very good criticisms of traditional Marxism - the stuff about a co-ordinator class - are you familiar with that? IT's too much to summarise here if not, but I'll have a go: basically he feels that anytime a state has been formed on Marxist lines it replaces the ruling/capitalist class with a new "co-ordinator class" of well meaning organisers who always fail to hand power to the people.

HIs alternative is pretty much neo-MArxist, but with a strong focus on power from below at all times.

He also makes the point that even terms such as Marxism are tainted by history (they are) and are a turn-off to the uninitiated as a result. Even though he agrees with MArx's analysis of capitalism he thinks it best to leave Marx's name of the flyers, if you know what I mean.

I think that is sensible, to a point. No need for complete denial, but a fresh approach, with new language is long over due.

In practical terms I guess there are a number of possible low-level achievable activities that could be attempted - you mentioned some good ones - for me the one that jumps to mind is achieving workers take-over of businesses within the co-op model. Take-overs of already running businesses work much better than new start-ups or the take-over of failed businesses, and there is much support available for handling the take-over period. A new initiative is focussing on "succession" - taking over businesses as the owners retire - a growing phenomenon.
THis is an intersting project:
http://www.successionlondon.co.uk/

I won't launch into my co-op spiel right now, but there are a few big sucessful co-ops running in Britain right now - Denmark, France and Italy have a far greater movement, and I think the pushing of a co-op (and Parecon) model shows a lot of good faith that organisers are truly hoping to empower workers.

There have been cases where workers have put in tenders to take over state businesses moving into private hands and have been actively blocked by this government - this would have been a great campaign to get behind - and to push for more such takeovers, rather than private buy outs.

At least for now co-operation is another string to the bow of a broader and supportive socialist workers movement. I totally agree - rebuilding networks is key - but importantly these networks need to include autnomous worker controlled bodies (co-ops fit the bill here) as well as more traditional political and Trade Union bodies (which can sometimes be a bit co-ordinator-ish).

Co-ops sell themselves on acting in the workers own best interests, and this slightly more selfish angle is powerful and attractive in ways that global anti-capitalist revolution sometimes isn't.

 

[scawenb]

It's not actually true that Permanent Revolution was a set-up as a new party - the bulk of the long-standing members of Workers Power were expelled by the leadership who used the rapid growth of new young members to carry-out a take-over.

I think PR is not much smaller than WP used to be before the Revolution tactic started. The WP leadership position seems on the face of it to be rather mad - reminiscent of the nonsense used by the WRP, which was convincing only to new members. Fine for a quick turnover Party but of no use to actually intervene in politics with any credibility.

It is good that PR has got to a 2nd issue and kept enough comrades together to carry on. I'm not Trotskyist but WP members were always good to work with and much less sectarian and open than most. I hope they can carry that on.

 

[mk12]

bump: cockneyrebel thinks we should be talking about other issues. What do people think about Permanent Revolution as a group? Surely this is more important and worthwhile talking about than immigration...

Recent poll - biggest issues this country faces:

Immigration 5%
Crime 6%
Setting up of a new Trotskyist party 76%
Foreign Affairs 6%

 

[cockneyrebel]

Very good

As it goes I think Icepick's post on the "blah blah blah" thread is very good, especially the point about women and the workplace.

But you might want to add the option:

Internet web baords. Most people agree that web boards are the most important thing facing the working class at the moment and admire people who post on them 24 hours a day and do little else

 

[urbanrevolt]

Fair point.

However, the point, MK, isn't whether a new trot group is important but whether the action we're involved in is.

As it happens I think immigration is important part of class struggle because controls divide and weaken the working class and a fair amount of my political work as a trade unionist has been on this issue.

I also think we can learn from the struggle abroad as well as here. One of the most recent PR intitiated meeting in Mcr was on the subject of Ethiopia but was not held as a PR meeting, rightly I think (see http://permanentrevolution.net/?view=category&cat=69 for example of recdent events)

We have also been involved in trade union work against cuts, against privatisation, in solidarity with the JJB strikers in Wigan, and other things as well. Not sure why some on these boards think thatsort of work is fine but if the workers are foreign or migrants it all becomes different. Am still genuinely perplexed by this.

 

[urbanrevolt]

In reply to Nikisativa-

some interesting ideas. We defintely believe workers' control and the self organisation of the working class is crucial to socialism and defeating capitalism and that there is a bridge between the struggles of today and the future society possible under international workers' power and socialism.

We think though the bridge is workers' control of struggles andthe attempt for workers' control in the workplace which on any meaningful or long-term basis will be blocked by capitalism.

Now it is true that capitalism sometimes points the way forward- so the relative efficiency of work places which consult their workers etc is an indication that when the people with greatest expertise are consulted things can improve and the logical next step is workers' control (I once heard a slogan "free with every worker- a brain!" think it was some capitalst management science slogan but could/ would be better for socialism). The tradition of workers' self management may have some insights to give us in some cases.

However, overall I think you confuse workers' particiaption schemes with workers' control. Of course workers should be consulted but in capitalist industries we refuse to participate as 'partners' in the management of say cuts or redundancies. The co-op model may be somewhat different- however, it is not an alternative at all in my opinion to revolutionary socialism and may be a diversion.

A very small example. In Manchester about 15-20 years ago the Council sold the bus service to a workers' buy-out. Wasn't run as a radical democracy but even if it was it wouldn't have helped that much. The workers a few years later sold their shares to Stagecoach- as one driver said, 'owning the company' is more like 'gambling through mortgage your house and everything you own' Worker buy-out schemes and the co-op movement in general is at best a desperate measure but it's in a acapitalist market and shpuldn't be confused at all with workers' control.

It is rank and file control of struggles andcampaigns over workplace and community issues that have the potential to become embryonic models of what can grow into the future workers' councils heralding a new society.

 

[ska invita]

Nice to see you back UR ;]

HOw would you define workers' control? Would any workers own their businesses in you vision? Workers councils...agreed - but are you suggesting state ownership of business?

I'm a little confused - on the one hand you advocate "workers' control in the workplace", but you balk at worker ownership of their place of work? Have I got that right?

Workers who currently own companies always do so with limited guarantee, and should never go bankrupt as a result - if in this bus example the drivers had to make huge investments and the bus company was worth a huge amount and about to collapse I could see why they might be nervous, but this is far from the norm.

A bus driver maybe gets paid £300 for working a long week - in an ownership system you simply cut out all excessive profit and split it into reinvestment and better wages/hours.

The transition from being a bus driver to running a million pound enterprise is scary, and in such radical transitions it is essential that there is a lot of support to make the crossover possible - especially business management training. There are many other industries where the crossover needn't be so painful as workers already de facto run the company.

Of course you are right, this is all still within a capitalist system - but as the example of the Catalonians has shown, if you can take over a small area with co-ops you can achieve significant independence from the overall system.

I'll stop boring you with co-op propaganda now, but to say that the most important ingredient in making any co-op revolution if you will, is education (including ideology>commitment) and training (particularly business management).

 

[urbanrevolt]

HOw would you define workers' control? Would any workers own their businesses in you vision? Workers councils...agreed - but are you suggesting state ownership of business?

I'm a little confused - on the one hand you advocate "workers' control in the workplace", but you balk at worker ownership of their place of work? Have I got that right?

At a brief stab, I think...
Workers' control would mean the workers making day to day decisions and running their workplace within norms, targets and overall plan decided on by the workers' councils at the appopriate level, including a good degree of local say but also within national and global frameworks

So would see workers' ownership as part of the overall system- we would all own things- the 'state' would be the workers' councils- and concepts of ownership and indeed the state would wither away.

The point is that workers' control of production for which we fight in day to day battles is only possible very much as a temporary gain of struggle under capitalism and should not I am arguing be confused with worker owned co-ops that have to operate in an overall capitalist market. The bosses often use the excuse that if wedon't work harder, faster and cheaper we'll go bust and everyone will lose their jobs. Sometimes this is bollocks and can be contrasted as a propaganda point to the vast profits made. Sometimes within the system it is a fair point which is why we campaign for the tranistional demand of opening the books and accounts to workers' inspection. This pressure of work harder and cheaper or bust is definitely one that worker co-ops will run up against- especially if aggressive predator capitalist firms run loss leaders to make their rivals go bust, as many do. The answer is to change the sytem not create little isalnds of co-operative ownership- but what we can do is creat islands of struggle and then bridges between them and then combine all our little islets in to one great big fuck off artchiplegao, drown the capitalist system and sharethe wealth!

 

[urbanrevolt]

Sorry about the mixed metaphor in last sentence.

Of course under capitalism there are advances in teachnology and socialised production and I'm not saying that there might not be useful lessons in worker self-management that can be usefully learned and applied in workers' control but I am saying that the route of workers self-management in co-ops is not the main route to a revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoise or even of stregthening the rank and file networks necessary to building a stronger and more miltant trade union movement.

We always fight for workers' control in the here and now, for workers' inspection of the books, for control of the day to day regulations, for health and safety etc in coincert with the fight for nationalisation under workers' control