M-TH: Stages and permanent revolution

[Chris Burford]

I am 90% desensitized to the word PANIC used
repetitiously in thread titles and I allowed my
eyes to stray on a strange argument from Stephen
Tumino, where he generalises, I do not know on
what evidence, that "many" decline to engage with
Hugh Rodwell because Hugh is a sort of control freak.
Perhaps I have overlooked something, but I like 
engaging with Hugh, because I thought I could
rely on him not to yield ground without a good 
fight. So the question is not about control and
it is not that he is violating my rights. It is 
about an interaction.

(I also envy his ability to combine the equivalent
of chutzpah with a middle class English education.)

Anyway I was deeply disappointed that he overlooked
replying to my further challenges about whether his
support for Lenin's "Letters on Tactics" implies
that he does after all support the *strategic*
relevance of the concept of stages of revolution.

Skirmishing apart this is quite an important
question in evaluating the Bolshevik legacy.

I look forward to his further comments,
and append the post below.

Chris Burford





___________________________________________


I was rather hoping that Hugh would rise to this 
challenge and I was delighted to see that I was not 
disappointed in this. Terms and details must now be
engaged.

Clearly I have to protest at the personalised remark 
that I was "skulking on thaxis". While I am sure
I can survive the narcissistic wound myself, it seems 
rather impolite to other subscribers.

My purpose was to choose a list where there was the best
chance of a serious theoretical reply. My hopes were not 
pinned exclusively on Hugh. Other serious contributors on 
Trotsky's thinking, such as Hillel Ticktin might have been
drawn out, and hopefully might still want to contribute.

The fact that thaxis has been rather overtaken by
a thread that seems to be about native North American cattle, or
a city somewhere on the Canadian - USA border I am afraid I do
not understand as I haven't given that thread my undivided 
attention.

I did not however distribute the post all round marxism-international
and marxism-general. I think that is a bit out of order.
For one thing I may not wish my own mail potentially picked
up and distributed all over the internet by Bob. Had I wished to 
issue the challenge where he could have replied directly I 
would have done so. 

For another I think it illustrates Hugh's
aims in his reply: "Permanent Revolution" is a propagandist
slogan to be championed, maintained, and upheld as widely as 
possible. The purpose of my challenge however was to ask
what it actually means beyond being in favour of red-blooded
revolution permanently. And if serious Trotskyists / Persons
Influenced by Trotsky quote Lenin's Letters on Tactics in 
this context, is this because they think that Lenin abandoned
stages in the Letters on Tactics, as a strategic concept, or
was arguing that this strategic concept should not be used 
dogmatically but  should be applied with tactical flexibility.

To give appreciation to Hugh however where he does join 
battle, he quotes the paragraph in the "Stalinist gloss"
and replies directly. He asserts (but does not 
demonstrate) that -

>>
The equally Stalinist lie about the role of Parvus in Trotsky's theory is
twofold.

1) Parvus's formulation was not the same as Trotsky's, neither in form nor
content.

2) Parvus was in no way a starting-point for Trotsky's theory.
<<

If Hugh is prepared to rebut the confusion he says exists in other
circles about the nature of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution,
it should be easy to illustrate and explain these differences.

I can see Hugh's claim that the "Stalinist paragraph" does not meet the
target when it merely says in general terms that Trotsky ignored the 
peasantry. I also accept his characterisation that Lenin argued that
the working class must lead the peasantry. So what are the 
differences? 

Hugh cannot be held responsible for everything that is said by people
who might call themselves Trotskyists, but I would suggest that there is
a case to be answered that characteristically Trotskyists might say in 
any country, words effectively calling for a "workers' government".
I would also point out that among the many arguments that Trotskyists
often use to dismiss the positive lessons of the Chinese revolution,
is that the country was 80% peasant, forgetting that Russia in which
it is claimed Trotsky and Lenin led the revolution, was also 80%
peasant.

But more focussedly, a reading of Lenin's Letters on Tactics shows his 
argument is that what cannot be ignored about the peasants is their
bourgeois and petty bourgeis consciousness. That is what still limits
the formulation of the stage of the revolution. *That* is ignored by
Trotskyists, as a matter of principle. 

So although I welcome Hugh giving a pretty square answer to the
quote on which I asked for comments, his post overall does not 
answer the central question: does the Trotskyist theory of permanent
revolution have no room for stages at all? That is 
certainly the impression that I get from a number of Trotsky-influenced
posters.

I think Hugh came half way towards a non-dogmatic reply, but by
posting his reply to the four corners of marxism space he showed
he wanted to give a polemical answer, not an analytical answer.
I would be interested in the latter.


Regards,

Chris Burford





     --- from list marxism-thaxis at lists.village.virginia.edu ---