Chapter 10 – Permanent Revolution

The theory of the Permanent Revolution was formulated in the early 20th century to describe the dynamics and class character of the upcoming Russian Revolution. Then, it was generalized in the 1930s to the capitalist periphery (the non-industrialized or belatedly industrialized countries). It remains crucial to our understanding of the relationship between classes and nations in the global capitalist system and of the transition to socialism on an international level.

Due to the weakness and dependence of the bourgeoisie in peripheral countries in relation to imperialist capitals, the presence of pre-capitalist or feudal landlordism, and their fear of mobilizing an already numerous proletariat with access to socialist ideas, democratic-bourgeois revolutions would not be possible in these nations as they had been in countries of early modernization such as France, England and the US. The conclusion of the theory for these peripheral nations of the imperialist order was that they will no longer be able to rely on independent democratic development. Since they are surrounded by and immersed in imperialist pressure, independence in these conditions tends to be semi-fictitious as long as a dependent local bourgeoisie remains in power. “The complete and genuine solution of their tasks of achieving democracy and national emancipation is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat as the leader of the subjugated nation, above all of its peasant masses.” (Trotsky). The proletariat should therefore carry out these tasks at the same time that it begins the tasks of socialist transition.

This theory is out of date only as to the weight of specific democratic and national liberation tasks that the proletariat must carry out once it becomes the ruling class. To eliminate feudal or pre-capitalist property forms; to achieve formal independence by breaking the colonial apparatus; and to establish republican regimes overthrowing pre-capitalist monarchies were tasks for the global periphery in the early 20th century, but which today only subsist in specific cases. Nevertheless, there are still characteristics resulting from these nations’ belated capitalist development which demand a solution. The destruction of the agencies of imperialist pressure and interference in the country; rejection of the payment of debts and loans from the imperialist powers; democratization of the agrarian structure still controlled by the heirs of former feudal or slaveholding lords; building a republican democratic regime that is not often shaken by coups and pressure from the imperialist powers.

As before, the bourgeoisies of peripheral nations are unable to solve these tasks, due to their dependence on imperialist capital since their formation, and only the proletarian revolution can implement them decisively. This makes the class independence of the working class crucial to the realization of consistent anti-imperialist measures.

In a country where the revolution was victorious and the dictatorship of the proletariat was established, the theory of the Permanent Revolution states that in no way does this mean the complete triumph of socialism. Such a society will continue being made up of different classes, even if the bourgeoisie has been expropriated. There are still internal contradictions and external pressures from global capital. The workers’ state will not immediately begin vanishing (and concretely cannot do so). A whole historical period, which may be shorter or longer depending on the course of events, and which will certainly contain advances and setbacks, is still necessary. Class struggle continues in new conditions. The proletariat needs to reinforce its power by bringing ever wider layers of its class into political life and to the exercise of power. The revolutionary party continues to play a crucial role, which is why it must avoid losing its independence from the workers’ state itself.

In international prospects, the theory points to the impossibility of indefinite peaceful coexistence between a workers’ state and the surrounding imperialist world, in part due to the material scarcity of an isolated country, which cannot achieve socialist development alone, but only start this process. In the 1920s and 1930s, Stalinism repeatedly affirmed the possibility that a single country, Russia, could “by its own efforts build a new classless society, a complete socialist society”. But the existence of an isolated proletarian republic, even if at temporary peace with other nations, already presumes the existence of enormous economic pressure. A workers’ state cannot fail to trade with the capitalist world according to rules it does not choose. Isolation also forces it to divert a considerable portion of its resources to maintain a swollen military apparatus in response to imperialist menace. Such conditions hinder the construction of an increasingly participatory proletarian democracy and the process of the disappearance of the state. Thus, the socialist transition does not advance.

In his last writings, Lenin (who was then fighting a battle against the bureaucratization of the Soviet state) commented on the statement of a social-democrat who condemned the Russian Revolution for the fact that “Russia had not reached a level of development of the productive forces that makes socialism possible”. Lenin replied that this was an indisputable fact, but that it did not justify not taking the step of realizing the proletarian revolution, which could initiate the transitional process and assist in triggering the socialist revolution internationally.

The theory of Permanent Revolution resolves this issue by stating that: “The conquest of power by the proletariat does not complete the revolution, but only opens it. Socialist construction is conceivable only on the foundation of the class struggle, on a national and international scale… The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena… Different countries will go through this process at different tempos. Backward countries may, under certain conditions, arrive at the dictatorship of the proletariat sooner than advanced countries, but they will come later than the latter to socialism.” (Trotsky).