The Permanent Revolution & Results and Prospects [Paperback]

Trotsky's writings are now well established in our literary cannon; however, "Results and Prospects" and "The Permanent Revolution" are two short works that usually are left out-- to the detriment of our political understanding of the Bolshevik movement, the course of the Russian Revolution, and the ideology that informed (and still might inform) revolutionary socialism.

Results and Prospects was written shortly after the 1905 Russian Revolution, which succeeded (after brutal Czarist repression) in establishing a conciliatory liberal parliamentary government-- the Duma. Trotsky, along with his interlocutors Lenin and Luxemburg, analyzed the revolution in the spirit of Marx in the revolutions of 1848 and 1871 (the Paris Commune), to learn the lessons of the revolution and the potential for further emancipatory change--hence the title, results and prospects. The small book establishes two main points: first, in Russia a liberal revolution must necessarily be followed by proletarian revoltion or else it soon must be followed by a period of reaction; second, a revolution in Russia will fail if it does not ignite a revolution across the (at the time) 'developed' world--Western Europe. These arguments will be developed and practiced in the revolutionary Marxism of Trotsky, Lenin and Luxemburg through the Russian Revolution. Most importantly, they clear up many misconceptions about Trotsky's theory of revolution.

The Permanent Revolution was written much later, following the Bolshevik Revolution, and was addressed specifically to incipient revolutionary struggles in the backwards countries in Asia that were supported early on by the Third International (before being subverted by Stalinism).

At the end of the day, this edition is timely and well put together. The font is a little awkward, unfortunately. The essays by Lowy are informative and interesting. The overall production is rather tacky, much like Verso's Revolution! series that feature the likes of Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Robespierre, Trotsky and Jesus-- the relation between arbitrary at best. The exhortation by Hugo Chavez on the back, supporting the 'permanent revolution,' is comical considering Chavez clearly has not studied socialist theory or cares to realize even an ounce of their ideals.

That Hugo Chavez misrecognizes himself for a Trotsky is an indication that Trotsky should be more widely read and understood by everyone generally interested in Left politics and its history...in other words, the Left's results and prospects for future emancipatory change!

"The Permanent Revolution" (first published in 1929) is Trotsky's failed attempt to defend his erroneous theory of permanent revolution. "Results and prospects" is an earlier text by Trotsky expounding the same theory. After the death of Lenin, Trotsky's opponents claimed that the theory of permanent revolution was ultraleft, sectarian, underestimated the peasantry and denied the possibility of building socialism in one country. They also pointed out that Lenin had opposed the theory in favour of "the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry".

These criticisms are correct. Trotsky's attempts to cast his theory in a Leninist mould are unconvincing. I don't hear Lenin speak in these pages. The theory reeks of adventurist ultraleftism, especially in its earlier formulation, when Trotsky didn't even believe in a vanguard party.

:-P

OK, seriously. A specific criticism of Trotsky's theory feels moot. Lenin's theory wasn't much better. The Bolshevik revolution established neither "the dictatorship of the proletariat" nor the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" (although the regime at times came close to both). Rather, it established the rule of a new bureaucracy, based on the centralized state and party apparatus, and later on the nationalized and collectivized economy.

This was probably inevitable. Lenin always believed that "the dictatorship of the proletariat" would be led by the vanguard party of professional revolutionaries. Trotsky came around to this position as well, when he joined the Bolsheviks in 1917. Since the Bolshevik regime was neither a "workers' government" nor a "workers' and farmers' government" sensu stricto, the entire debate between Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek and Stalin feels somewhat surreal and esoteric. Objectively, this is a debate on what strategy the budding bureaucracy should follow in order to take power.

And precisely for that reason, Trotsky lost the great debate. He rejected both "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" and the popular front in the belief that neither can lead to state socialism. At the time, Trotsky's position wasn't "out there". Communist attempts to ally with "bourgeois" forces had failed or ended in disaster in Turkey, Iran, Croatia and (above all) China. Later, the popular fronts failed to usher in state socialism in France and Spain. Thus, it was understandable from a state socialist viewpoint that Trotsky proposed a more radical line than Stalin, Bukharin, Zinoviev and (de facto) even Lenin. However, the post-war world proved that state socialism and its attendant rule of a bureaucracy *can* be set up by middle class guerrillas, peasant armies led by professional revolutionaries, military officers or Stalin's bureaucracy. Even popular fronts can be a "salami tactic" stepping stone to state socialism, provided that the Communists control the security apparatus or the army. Of course, many Trotskyist reject these regimes with the argument that they lack "workers' democracy". But this is moot, since "workers' democracy" withered away already during Lenin's tenure in Russia, a regime the Trotskyists support.

Perhaps the fall of "Stalinist" state socialism and the pro-capitalist drift of remaining bureaucratic systems, not to mention popular fronts, will once again make "permanent revolution" the only option for those who crave state socialist solutions? Perhaps.

And then, perhaps not. Personally, I suspect that state property might become a lever for a kind of "state capitalist" system like the one in China, really a mercantilist alliance between a technocratic bureaucracy and a new capitalist class. A rather unexpected Aufheben of state socialism and classical capitalism! I also suspect that regimes which are essentially fascist might use state property as a lever to establish autarky. Russian red-browns and Muslim fundamentalists are two possible candidates. There simply isn't anything particularly proletarian about nationalized property.

Finally, I would recommend readers that aren't interested in the nooks and crannies of Communist factional struggles to skip "The Permanent Revolution" and only read "Results and Prospects". It's shorter, easier to read and show the radical Marxist positions of Leon Trotsky in all their red splendour.

› Go to Amazon.com to see both reviews  3.5 out of 5 stars