Marx's battle cry of Permanent Revolution
Key lesson from 1848
The first of two articles on Permanent Revolution by John Lister
The term "permanent" (meaning unbroken, uninterrupted) revolution" has for decades caused confusion, even among sections of the Marxist movement. But it remains the key to the completion of struggles for democratic rights throughout the world today.
The period of wars of colonial independence may have passed, but in many countries the fight for democracy is still a driving force of mass struggle.
Only a few weeks ago mass resistance by workers and students toppled the Suharto regime in Indonesia. Central to any progressive outcome was – and is – the question of democracy –the destruction of the power of the dictatorial ruling minority; the question of the land and the peasantry; the establishment of rights for the labour movement and a democratic constituent assembly. The same is true of countless other situations in the less developed countries.
In bygone days, of course, the "democratic revolution" was seen as a task to be carried through by the capitalist class — or sections of it — in alliances with the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and even section of workers. The "classical" example of this was the French Revolution of 1789, waged under the cross-class appeal for "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality".
In this, and the great (1640) bourgeois revolution which overturned the monarchy of England, the bourgeoisie emerged on the stage as a disruptive, revolutionary democratic force.
As we have seen in Indonesia and in South Africa, even now there are sections of capitalists who proclaim themselves in favour of democratic change: so is it possible therefore to carry through the democratic revolution today without the overthrow of capitalism? Can the democratic revolution be achieved arm in arm with the capitalists — even with capitalists in the leadership of the movement?
The reply to that question divides today’s workers’ movement between the reformists (comprising a wide range of nationalist and liberal forces, social democrats and Stalinists) who answer "yes"; and the revolutionary Marxist movement which, learning the lessons of history since the mid 19th century, answers firmly "no".
The reformist position of course is not simply that it is possible to achieve real democracy and to satisfy the demands of the oppressed in alliance with the "democratic" bourgeoisie, but that it is desirable to do so — indeed that it is not possible to do any more.
The reformists do not wish to go any further than a political realignment within the framework of capitalist ("mixed") economy. They are more than ready to drop or to tailor their to fit in with the vested interests of the "democratic" bourgeoisie.
The revolutionaries point to the experiences which show time and again that the bourgeois "democrats" are more frightened of the working class than they are committed to achieving even their own demands. Even where the bourgeoisie or petty bourgeois leaders achieve power (or find it thrust upon them) they are more ready to attack the working class than the old regime, and swiftly assemble a new state machinery which defends capitalism against the workers.
Having taken power as "democrats" these leaderships refuse to carry through the democratic programme. The examples are legion — every one of the African and Arab states liberated from imperialist rule has witnessed such a development — similarly India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and now Indonesia: the "democratic" bourgeoisie wants democracy only to carry out its unhindered exploitation of the working class — and is incapable of delivering a completed democratic revolution.
It took the genius of Marx to draw this conclusion from analysing the wave of democratic revolutions which shook Europe in 1848. The issues were posed most clearly in the German revolution, where the question of national unification, and smashing the power of feudal landowners and the monarchy were raised to centre stage.
Sooner than unite with the peasantry in the overthrow of the old aristocracy, the German bourgeoisie held back — fearful that if it were to become the new ruling class it would only have to face the rising power of what was still a comparatively small and divided working class.
It was this which caused Marx and Engels to conclude that only the victory of the working class could bring the democratic revolution to a conclusion in Germany — and hence to put forward the battle cry of "Permanent Revolution".
Since then the size and economic power of the working class even in many of the least developed countries has grown to be much greater than it was in Germany in 1848. The timidity of the bourgeois "democrats" has grown accordingly.
Nor should we underestimate the potential impact of a full democratic programme: a weak bourgeoisie has every reason to fear the upheavals that might follow.
As part of their commitment to the German revolution of 1848, Marx and Engels developed a comprehensive programme of demands for the completion of the democratic revolution in Germany. A brief glance at the scope of these demands helps explain what so frightened the German bourgeoisie. They included:
*The whole of Germany shall be declared a single and indivisible republic
*Every German over 21 to be able to vote and be elected
*MPs to be paid
*The whole population to be armed
*All feudal dues, tributes, duties, tithes, etc. to be abolished
*Estates of princes and feudal lords, and all mines and pits to become state property, and collectively worked
*One state bank to replace all private banks
*All transport to be taken over by the state
*Complete separation of Church and State
*"Severely progressive" taxation
*Job creation and care for those unable to work
*Universal and free education.
Although we still have not achieved many of them in "democratic" Britain 150 years later, these demands are not a full socialist programme: there is no proposal to nationalise industry.
They are a revolutionary democratic programme (reminiscent of that put forward by the African National Congress, only to be dropped after it won power in South Africa). Such demands would be sufficient to sever the links between the "democratic" bourgeoisie and the old order.
It is precisely this kind of break which the bourgeoisie since 1848 has refused to make. This in turn has prevented the completion of the democratic revolution or stalled it altogether.
Today, we would add a few more demands to the democratic programme, particularly democratic demands relating to the liberation of women.
Small wonder today’s bourgeoisie for the most part prefers to cling on to existing regimes rather than risk the outcome of a thoroughgoing democratic revolution!
The fact is that while some bourgeois may support some or even all of those demands – and thus find themselves in a degree of conflict with the old regime – the democratic bourgeoisie is, like the aristocracy, a propertied class, and one whose wealth and position derives more obviously from the exploitation of workers.
This common bond of property always proves stronger than any emotional attachment or moral commitment they may have to democracy.
The only consistently revolutionary class, the only propertyless class with no interests in preserving the old order, is the working class, the industrial proletariat.
While it must make common cause in the struggle for democracy, and while it must make alliances with the poorest peasants and petty bourgeois, the central factor for the working class must remain its political and organisational independence.
Marx and Engels emphasised this as one of the most basic lessons of the 1848 revolutions.
"The workers’ party must go into battle with the maximum degree of organisational unity and independence. so that it is not exploited and taken in tow by the bourgeoisie as in 1848."
Against those who think revolutionaries should plunge uncritically into alliances and unified organisations with radical-sounding bourgeois and petty bourgeois leaders and parties in the less developed countries (recent examples include Mexico and the Philippines), an analysis of the German situation led Marx and Engels to draw out an apt warning:
"The petty bourgeois democratic party in Germany is very powerful. It not only embraces the great majority of the urban middle class, the small industrial merchants and master craftsmen; it also includes among its followers the peasants and rural proletariat in so far as the latter has not yet found support among the independent proletariat of the towns.
"The relationship of the revolutionary workers’ party to the petty bourgeois democrats is this: it cooperates with them against the party which they wish to overthrow: it opposes them wherever they wish to secure their own position."
The role of petty bourgeois leaders throughout history has been one of exploiting and then seeking to crush the power of the working class.
Examples include Robert Mugabe’s sudden rise to power – and then immediate suppression of strikes – in Zimbabwe: we may look to the consolidation of power by petty bourgeois regimes in Angola, Mozambique or other examples going back to the Algerian Revolution and including Yassir Arafat’s reactionary regime in the West Bank statelet.
The general lesson for the working class was summed up by Marx and Engels:
"Our concern cannot simply be to modify private property. but to abolish it, not to hush up class antagonisms but to abolish classes, not to improve the existing society but to found a real one."
Such was the richness of the revolutionary experience they were examining 150 years ago that Marx and Engels were able to detail the methods of entrapment employed by the "democratic petty bourgeois" — the equivalent of today’s reformist wing of the workers’ movement — and the need to resist.
"They [the petty bourgeois democrats] extend the hand of friendship and seek to found a great opposition party which will embrace all democratic opinion; that is they seek to ensnare workers in a party organisation in which general social-democratic phrases prevail, while their particular interests are kept hidden behind, and in which, for the sake of preserving the peace the specific demands of the proletariat may not be presented.
"Such unity would be to their advantage alone and to the complete disadvantage of the proletariat. The proletariat would lose all its hard-won independent position and be reduced once more to a mere appendage of official bourgeois democracy."
Marx and Engels called instead for an independent organisation of a workers’ party "alongside the official democrats":
"During and after the struggle the workers must at every opportunity put forward their own demands against those of the bourgeois democrats. They must demand guarantees for the workers as soon as the democratic bourgeoisie sets about taking over the government...
"They must check in every way the victory euphoria and enthusiasm for the new situation which follows every successful street battle, with a cool and cold-blooded analysis of the situation and with undisguised mistrust of the new government."
n Quotations are from Marx The Class Struggles in France 1848-50, and from the Penguin edition Marx, The Revolutions of 1848.