|
Class Struggles and
the Revolutionary
Party
1964
Third Chapter
THE
REVOLUTIONARY PARTY
AND REVOLUTIONARY
STRATEGY
Trotsky's Definition
Trotsky's Strategy
Trotsky's Definition
"The conception of
revolutionary
strategy," Trotsky
says, "took root
only in the post-war
years, and in the
beginning
undoubtedly under
the influence of
military terminology.
But it did not by
any means take root
accidentally. Prior
to the war we spoke
only of the tactics
of the proletarian
party; this
conception conformed
adequately enough to
the then prevailing
trade union,
parliamentary
methods which did
not transcend the
limits of the day-to-day
demands and tasks.
By the conception of
tactics is
understood the
system of measures
that serves a single
current task or a
single branch of the
class struggle.
Revolutionary
strategy on the
contrary embraces a
combined system of
actions which by
their association,
consistency, and
growth must lead the
proletariat to the
conquest of power.
The basic principles
of revolutionary
strategy were
naturally formulated
since the time when
Marxism first put
before the
revolutionary
parties of the
proletariat the task
of the conquest of
power on the basis
of the class
struggle.
Only the Third
International re-established
the rights of the
revolutionary
strategy of
communism and
completely
subordinated the
tactical methods to
it."
Trotsky's definition
of strategy is worth
special attention.
Although we may
consider it
theoretically
correct, we must ask
ourselves if it can
embrace the entire
concept of strategy
or if, on the other
hand, it has some
serious shortcomings.
Our answer is that
Trotsky's definition
of the scientific
concept of strategy
is too narrow.
Consequently, it
leaves several
aspects unclear,
which, however, we
may find developed
in Lenin's thought.
We chose to use the
comparison between
Trotsky and Lenin as
the field in which
to study the issue
of strategy because
this comparison
takes place within
revolutionary
Marxism between its
two highest
exponents and
authors.
It is comparison
between two of our
masters, and even if
we find shortcomings
in Trotsky, this
does not diminish
his theoretical and
political stature in
any way. We only see
the enormous
importance that
developing a
revolutionary
strategy took on in
the Marxist movement.
We only see how this
scientific issue -
that the imperialist
age made urgently
important -
inevitably had to
generate differences
and various stages
of development among
the revolutionary
movement's great
representatives.
For example, can we
say that Lenin's
view, even if be
uses the political
term "tactics" which
was conventional at
the time, is limited
to "tactics" as
Trotsky defines it?
Can we say that the
"tactic" that Lenin
developed is simply
a "tactic" and not,
instead, genuine
strategy? Of course
not.
Lenin uses the term
"tactics", but in
essence, he refers
to problems
concerning strategy.
Theoretically and
politically, Lenin
develops the
strategy while
continuing and
developing the "main
principles in the
strategy" set forth
by Marxism. First of
all, this is obvious
in his
methodological
framework, and,
second of all, in
all his theoretical
and political work.
The Second
International
abandoned the
strategy, reducing
it to a "system of
measures that serves
a single current
task or a single
branch of the class
struggle". This
abandonment took
place not with the
strategy's formal
rejection, but with
its reduction to an
"ultimate goal" or "maximum
program" (the
seizing of power,
socialist society,
etc.). Between this
"maximum goal" and
daily reality,
between theory and
practice, between
scientific
abstraction and
concrete social
relations, more than
developing something,
the Second
International
expressed a
mediation tool
called tactics. This
was limited to
particular problems
and specific aspects
of the class
struggle.
Undoubtedly, this
tactical view "conformed
adequately enough to
the then prevailing
trade union,
parliamentary
methods". But this,
in other words,
meant that the
tactic's theoretical
expression was the
expression of
reformist and
opportunist practice.
The prevalence of
this practice and of
the methods that
corresponded to it
led to the
prevalence of the
reformist view of
tactics. And, if the
parliamentary and
trade-union
reformist practice
had favorable
conditions during
the relatively
peaceful historical
stage of
capitalism's
development, this
only further
worsened the divide
between Marxism's
revolutionary
strategy and
opportunist practice;
between the science
of the classes'
struggle, and
reformist empiricism.
Marxism's strategic
conception solved
the problem of
translating theory
into action. We have
already seen how.
Thus, for Marxism,
there is no
separation between a
revolutionary
strategy that should
only be valid and
feasible during
revolutions - when
the proletariat has
the possibility to
seize power - and a
tactic that should
be directed towards
transient and
sector-related
problems that social
reality brings up
daily. Problems that
can only be solved
empirically, in a
reformist manner.
If this were the
case, Marxism would
not be a science,
and reformism, in
addition to being
historically
justified, would be
a social necessity.
It would be a
constant law for
every kind of
society divided into
classes; it would be
a need, not only for
the ruling class,
but also for the
ruled one.
In that case,
Marxist
revolutionary
strategy would be
truly reduced to a
combined system of
moral, fanciful,
utopian preaching
and cursing against
practice, against
life.
Instead, Marxism is
science because it
analyzes and
struggles to change
reality in every
particular situation
and in every
historical period.
Marxism is science
because it is the
only scientific
method that faces
reality. In this
sense, Marxism is
the only practical
method
scientifically
possible.
There is no strategy
that is only valid
for the revolutions
and an inevitably
reformist practice.
There is no division
between the science
of the revolution
and transitory
action. There is no
separation between
strategy and tactics,
and seeking one at
all costs means
making a caricature
of Marxism.
On the other hand,
the revolutionary
strategy is a
combined system of
actions, as Trotsky
says, of class
actions coordinated
by the party; of
actions that face
each individual
economic and
political problem
that the class
struggle determines;
of actions that take
root in social
reality, in the
daily and constant
practice of social
life.
The essence of the
strategy is
precisely that of
connecting and
coordinating all the
working class'
actions in a
strategic long-term
framework that
analyzes and
preordains all the
trends and
variations thereon
that occur in
determining the
relations of forces
between classes.
Each action, each
element and factor
that develops at a
local, national, and
international level,
influences the
creation of economic,
social, and
political trends
that shape, change,
and upset the
relations of forces
between the classes.
Therefore, there is
no "minimum practice"
and "maximum program".
Rather, there is an
ongoing process of
class struggles
whose episodes and
stages both affect
the revolutionary
party's strategy,
the proletariat's
scientific
consciousness.
The party develops
strategy throughout
this process, and,
in particular,
during the
historical stages
that we can define
as counter-revolutionary.
That is, it develops
strategy during
those stages in
which a combined
group of factors
determines a
relation of forces
that is unfavorable
to the working class'
seizing of power.
The party
scientifically
analyzes and
describes these
factors; it analyzes
and describes
economic development
and the classes'
social development;
it analyzes and
describes the entire
movement of social
relations; it
analyzes and
describes the forms
in which the
development of the
socio-economic
structure reflects
on the development
of the political
superstructure and
the State
organization.
Based on this
analysis, the party
takes concrete
action. Through this
action on reality,
it confirms the
validity of its
analysis; tests the
practicality of its
science; accumulates
material from its
experiment and
experience.
Since Marx's
Manifesto until now,
through its concrete
action, the
revolutionary party
has been able to
accumulate enough
experience to set
the main principles
for the
revolutionary
strategy.
Furthermore, it has
been able to
recognize and
theorize a group of
objective laws that
regulate, given
their constant
recurrence, the
possibility and the
ability to
coordinate the
actions of the
classes' struggle in
a succession that
leads the
proletariat to seize
power.
Throughout his work
Lenin recognizes and
theorizes these laws.
For Lenin, "tactics"
means what Trotsky
called "strategy".
It certainly does
not mean what the
Social Democrats in
the Second
International meant
with their "tactics",
their "minimalism".
Lenin continues and
develops the
principles in the
revolutionary
strategy established
by Marx and Engels.
Here also, he
testifies to
Marxism's continuity
or, as Trotsky says,
he reestablishes its
rights. Faced with
the Second
International's "tactics",
Lenin's is the only
truly Marxist "tactics".
He will soon
demonstrate this
when, while
addressing the
immediate tasks of
the I905 revolution,
he formulates the
party's tactics
against the
Mensheviks and
Trotsky himself. The
1905 Leninist "tactics"
will mark, even
before the
imperialist world
war and the Third
International, the
reestablishment of
the rights of
communism's
revolutionary
strategy.
Therefore, we can
say that the
strategy becomes
such not only when
it is a combined
system of actions (otherwise,
Marx's 1850 Address,
to which Trotsky
refers in his I905
permanent revolution
theory, would have
limited scientific
value), but when
coordination becomes
possible on a
worldwide scale.
Strategy, the heart
and soul of the
party, develops with
the party's
historical
development.
Strategy itself is
one of the aspects
of the science's, of
Marxism's
circulation. Over
the historical
course of the
proletariat's
struggle, we can't
distinguish - as
Trotsky's definition
could lead us to
strategy from its
infancy, tactics.
When capitalism
becomes the
predominant system
in a group of
countries, the
proletariat is, in
fact, an
international class,
and its strategy can
only be
international.
The strategy that
Marx set out for the
proletariat during
the nineteenth-century
bourgeois
revolutions and the
first proletarian
revolution of 1871
is an international
one, and its
fundamental pillars
are already
complete.
Lenin will be the
genius strategy
maker, not its
creator. He will re-establish
the principles of
Marxist strategy by
applying and
developing them
during capitalism's
imperialist ,stage,
during the stage in
which the pace of
international
factors in the
classes' struggle
makes strategic
coordination
possible as well as
the existence of a
center that
coordinates and ,directs
the action.
Imperialism’s crisis
opens a
revolutionary period
and quickly brings
the importance of
the strategy into
focus. The old "tactics"
of the Second
International -
under pressure of
the pace of the
imperialist crisis
and the problems of
choice that this
crisis brings to the
classes - shows in
practice that there
is no tactics
separated from the
strategy. It reveals
what it really is
and has gradually
become in
capitalism's
relatively peaceful
stage of development;
it shows itself for
the reformist
tactics of the
counter-revolutionary
strategy, i.e., one
of the tactical
variations of the
capitalist class'
strategy.
But, if
imperialism’s First
World War opens a
revolutionary period,
it is the first
Russian revolution
that begins a new
era in the
revolutionary
strategy after the
counter-revolutionary
period that followed
the Paris Commune's
defeat.
Lenin already sees
this clearly in What
Is to Be Done?
According to him,
historical
development
confronts the
Russian proletariat
with "an immediate
task that is more
revolutionary than
all the immediate
tasks that confront
the proletariat of
any other country.
The fulfillment of
this task, the
destruction of the
most powerful
bulwark, not only of
European but also of
Asian reaction,
would place the
Russian proletariat
in the vanguard of
the international
revolutionary
proletariat."
It is true that this
was Kautsky's thesis,
but Lenin developed
it because, among
other things, he
provided it with the
tool to make it a
reality - the party.
It is through the
Bolshevik party that
the Russian
proletariat becomes
the vanguard of the
international
revolutionary
proletariat, and it
is through the
Bolshevik party that
the center of the
revolutionary
strategy shifts
towards the Russian
class struggles.
The solution to
these Russian
struggles became
extremely important
for the close
interdependence that
had been established
between the classes'
relations of force
in Russia and those
in Europe. One of
the merits of
Russian
revolutionary
Marxists is clearly
the fact that they
identified this
interrelation
between the
relations of force
on a national level
and those on an
international level;
that they clearly
recognized this
quantitative and
qualitative
development that had
been historically
determined in the
world. Already in
1905, Lenin and
Trotsky reason
politically with the
scientific criteria
of an international
strategy. Their
divergence will be
on other aspects
that we will see
further on. The
important thing is
to underline the
clear theoretical
and political
awareness of the
interdependence
between national and
international
factors that
comprise the
strategy and that
the analysis must
address to draw the
party and class'
directives for
action. Based on
this awareness, and
from this time
forward, the
revolutionary
strategy not only
has solid
theoretical bases,
but, above all, it
has solid practical,
political, and
organizational ones.
The theory of
revolutionary
strategy has now
become the strategy
of the revolutionary
theory.
The shared "strategic"
consciousness of the
proletariat's tasks
in the first Russian
revolution, does not
prevent Lenin and
Trotsky from having
profound differences
regarding the
strategy itself.
On the contrary, in
our opinion, it is
precisely the
convergence on the
need for strategy
that allows for the
divergence, for two
different strategies.
Lenin observes that
it is no coincidence
that the Mensheviks
do not propose a
strategy but the
fiat reproduction of
the Second
International's
tactics translated
into Russian.
In his book on
Stalin, Trotsky
explains the
Menshevik view as
follows: "Plekhanov's
Marxism focuses its
efforts on
demonstrating that
Russia's and the
West's historical
paths are, in
principle, identical...
The Menshevik
concept of
revolution comes
down to this:
victory of the
Russian bourgeois
revolution is
inconceivable except
under the leadership
of the liberal
bourgeoisie, and
power must be
remitted to it. The
democratic regime
will allow the
proletariat to reach
its Western brothers
quickly, faster than
before, on the path
of the struggle for
socialism."
On the other hand,
Trotsky explains
Lenin's view thus:
"... the Russian
bourgeoisie suffers
a delay and is
unable to conduct
its revolution all
the way. The
revolution's
complete victory,
through the "democratic
dictatorship of the
proletariat and the
peasants", will
purge the country of
medievalism. It will
give American paces
to Russian
capitalism's
development; it will
strengthen the
cities' and
countryside's
proletariat and will
open broad
possibilities for
the struggle for
socialism. On the
other hand, the
Russian revolution's
victory will give
the socialist
revolution in the
West a strong push,
and the latter will
not only preserve
Russia from the
dangers of
restoration, but it
will allow the
Russian proletariat
to handle seizing
power in a
relatively short
historical time."
And here is how
Trotsky expresses
his own idea: "The
perspective of the
permanent revolution
can be summarized as
follows: the
complete victory of
the democratic
revolution in Russia
can only be
conceived in the
form of the
dictatorship of the
proletariat
supported by the
peasantry. The
dictatorship of the
proletariat, that
will infallibly
place not only the
democratic tasks on
the agenda but also
the socialist ones,
will, at the same
time, give the
international
socialist revolution
a strong push."
Top
Trotsky's Strategy
Trotsky maintains
his strategic view
by saying that the
Bolshevik framework
"... was incomplete:
it showed the
general direction of
the struggle
correctly, but it
did not characterize
its stages properly.
If the defeat of the
Bolshevik
perspective does not
appear in 1905, it
is only because the
Russian revolution
does not continue to
develop. On the
contrary, at the
beginning of 1917,
Lenin is forced to
change his
perspective in
direct conflict with
the party's old
cadres." It is also
possible to trace
back to the center
of the strategic
divergence between
Lenin and Trotsky
linearly from this
opinion: the
scientific method of
analyzing social
relations, a
fundamental
condition to
properly frame a
strategy.
The example we cite
is extremely
important because it
shows that it is not
enough to reach the
Marxist idea of the
revolutionary
strategy to outline
precisely the
necessary
development in a
given situation,
society, and
country. An analysis
is needed - founded
on scientific
criteria - of that
particular situation
and society, the
movement of its
classes, its classes'
struggle; and the
relationships
between its classes
in their
interdependency with
the relationships
between the classes
in the world.
It is precisely in
the scientific
criteria of analysis,
in the methodology
itself, that the
divergence between
Trotsky's and
Lenin's formulations
of the strategy
becomes clear. In
our view, it also
becomes just as
clear how and why
Trotsky's strategic
solution is lacking
a specific idea of
the means that must
enact the strategy
and without which
the strategy remains
a purely theoretical
exercise - the
revolutionary party.
After the October
revolution, Trotsky
would say that he
had been wrong on
the party issue and
that Lenin was right.
Without detracting
from the importance
of Trotsky's
Bolshevik maturity
and self-critical
ability of the
revolutionary
militant, we feel
that his affirmation
actually does little
to help soave the
problem we raised.
In 1905, were the "dictatorship
of the proletariat"
and "democratic
dictatorship of the
workers and peasants"
truly two variations
on a shared
revolutionary
strategy and not,
instead, the first a
theoretical "program"
and the second, the
only strategy that
was valid in
practice? This is
the problem. In
principle, one
cannot exclude the
fact that a
strategic framework
may have a series of
variations. The
Marxist scientific
analysis of the
classes' struggle,
at a given time,
can, precisely
because of the
nature of the
phenomena that it
analyzes, envisage
the hypothesis of a
variety of choices
in the party's
action. It makes a
series of attempts,
of tests necessary.
But this can occur,
for example, in the
evaluation of short
periods in given
social processes or
courses of class
struggle, that is
when it is necessary
to evaluate the
intensity or pace of
an economic
development, of an
economic crisis and
their impact on
political
development, on the
political crisis, on
the class struggle
for a temporary
period.
In this kind of
evaluation,
scientific analysis
proceeds based on
approximations, and
this reflects on the
revolutionary party,
i.e., the center
that changes the
analysis into
strategy, with a
series of tactical
differentiations.
Brest-litovsk, the
German crisis, the
degree of
imperialist crisis
after the First
World War are
historical examples
of this kind of
evaluation.
Evaluating all the
factors in German
capitalism's crisis
and their pace of
development as
quickly as possible
and with the urgency
of immediately
establishing the
right strategy for
the revolutionary
party was a task
that objectively
entailed various
hypotheses of
political action.
The revolutionary
party must have the
ability to weigh all
the hypotheses in an
inner dialectic that
is not an abstract "democratic"
discussion or an
intellectual
comparison of
opinions. Rather,
this must be a
process of
scientific
elaboration that
requires incessant
research and
continual selection
of working
hypotheses. From
this point of view,
Leninist "democratic
centralism", is not
a formula that tends
to reconcile two
ideological concepts.
Instead, it is a
principle taken from
a tested practice of
scientific work
within the
revolutionary party.
But, if different
hypotheses may rest
on shared scientific
criteria in the
analysis that we may
call microscopic,
two different
hypotheses derive
from two different
methods of
scientific research
and political
elaboration in the
macroscopic analysis.
Thus, we have two
strategies; we have
two different views
of the classes'
dynamics and their
interrelations. It
is not a shared
strategic
perspective at the
heart of which there
is the analysis of
degree and intensity
of a given stage of
the class struggle.
On the contrary,
there are two
different strategic
perspectives at the
heart of the
divergence.
In this case, there
isn't even any
shared ground that
makes scientific
elaboration possible
in the corresponding
organ, the party.
Therefore, there
can't be any
comparison and
selection of
hypotheses. In fact,
there are two
parties.
The history of the
Marxist
revolutionary
movement in Russia
shows how this can
occur in practice,
but at the same time
it shows that a
correct scientific
analysis corresponds
to a political
action by the party
that tends to take
it.
Also from a strictly
organizational point
of view, history
showed that the
revolutionary party
was Lenin's. However,
Trotsky's
convergence in the
Bolshevik party
could mean little,
since Trotsky could
have brought his
strategic theory to
the Bolshevik
organization and
have seen his view
confirmed. Instead,
this did not happen.
Trotsky says that
Lenin correctly
showed the general
direction of the
struggle (it is true
that at a certain
point, Trotsky's and
Lenin's perspectives
merged), but that he
did not characterize
its stages properly.
Trotsky doesn't say
what elaboration
process Lenin used
to characterize the
stages of the
proletariat's and
other classes'
general struggle.
And yet, this is the
point where we think
the issue must be
raised.
In a dense series of
writings, Lenin
analyzes and studies
the issue of
capitalist
development in
general and of
capitalist
development in
Russia, in
particular. Lenin
addresses this
problem from a
theoretical point of
view, and he solves
it in the specific
analysis of the
Russian social
reality. The results
he reaches are
extremely important
because, on the one
hand, they establish
a detailed and
scientific
methodology of
socio-economic
analysis, and, on
the other, they make
it possible to
evaluate, based on
strict criteria, the
classes in Russia
and their struggle
and relations. How
can one speak of "moving
forces" of the
revolution without a
scientific analysis
of these forces, of
their development,
of their specific
weight, of their
strength and
weakness? And then,
how can one speak of
the same "moving
forces" without a
scientific analysis
of the socio-economic
process that
expresses, develops,
or compresses them?
There is more than
just scientific
analysis of the
moving forces of the
Russian revolution
at the base of
Lenin's strategy;
there is a science
that makes a given
analysis possible;
there is a theory of
capitalist
development that
continues the &Marxist
theory of capitalist
development set
forth in Capital.
The Leninist theory
of capitalist
development is not
an innovation with
respect to Capital.
On the other hand,
it is a strict and
consequent
application, a
perfectly consistent
and fertile
development.
In this context, we
can't illustrate,
not even roughly,
the Leninist theory
of capitalist
development. The
complexity and
quantity of its
aspects prevent us
from doing so, and,
obviously, an
adequate
illustration would
require an organic
and specific study
that we will not
fail to do because,
in our view, this
fundamental aspect
of Lenin's thought
has been overlooked
too long. We will
say more: a
preliminary study
incessant research
and continual
selection of working
hypotheses. From
this point of view,
Leninist "democratic
centralism", is not
a formula that tends
to reconcile two
ideological concepts.
Instead, it is a
principle taken from
a tested practice of
scientific work
within the
revolutionary party.
But, if different
hypotheses may rest
on shared scientific
criteria in the
analysis that we may
call microscopic,
two different
hypotheses derive
from two different
methods of
scientific research
and political
elaboration in the
macroscopic analysis.
Thus, we have two
strategies; we have
two different views
of the classes'
dynamics and their
interrelations. It
is not a shared
strategic
perspective at the
heart of which there
is the analysis of
degree and intensity
of a given stage of
the class struggle.
On the contrary,
there are two
different strategic
perspectives at the
heart of the
divergence.
In this case, there
isn't even any
shared ground that
makes scientific
elaboration possible
in the corresponding
organ, the party.
Therefore, there
can't be any
comparison and
selection of
hypotheses. In fact,
there are two
parties.
The history of the
Marxist
revolutionary
movement in Russia
shows how this can
occur in practice,
but at the same time
it shows that a
correct scientific
analysis corresponds
to a political
action by the party
that tends to take
it.
Also from a strictly
organizational point
of view, history
showed that the
revolutionary party
was Lenin's. However,
Trotsky's
convergence in the
Bolshevik party
could mean little,
since Trotsky could
have brought his
strategic theory to
the Bolshevik
organization and
have seen his view
confirmed. Instead,
this did not happen.
Trotsky says that
Lenin correctly
showed the general
direction of the
struggle (it is true
that, at a certain
point, Trotsky's and
Lenin's perspectives
merged), but that he
did not characterize
its stages properly.
Trotsky doesn't say
what elaboration
process Lenin used
to characterize the
stages of the
proletariat's and
other classes'
general struggle.
And yet, this is the
point where we think
the issue must be
raised.
In a dense series of
writings, Lenin
analyzes and studies
the issue of
capitalist
development in
general and of
capitalist
development in
Russia, in
particular. Lenin
addresses this
problem from a
theoretical point of
view, and he solves
it in the specific
analysis of the
Russian social
reality. The results
he reaches are
extremely important
because, on the one
hand, they establish
a detailed and
scientific
methodology of
socio-economic
analysis, and, on
the other, they make
it possible to
evaluate, based on
strict criteria, the
classes in Russia
and their struggle
and relations. How
can one speak of "moving
forces" of the
revolution without a
scientific analysis
of these forces, of
their development,
of their specific
weight, of their
strength and
weakness? And then,
how can one peak of
the same "moving
forces" without a
scientific analysis
of the socio-economic
process that
expresses, develops,
or compresses them?
There is more than
just scientific
analysis of the
moving forces of the
Russian revolution
at the base of
Lenin's strategy;
there is a science
that makes a given
analysis possible;
there is a theory of
capitalist
development that
continues the
Marxist theory of
capitalist
development set
forth in Capital.
The Leninist theory
of capitalist
development is not
an innovation with
respect to Capital.
On the other hand,
it is a strict and
consequent
application, a
perfectly consistent
and fertile
development.
In this context, we
can't illustrate,
not even roughly,
the Leninist theory
of capitalist
development. The
complexity and
quantity of its
aspects prevent us
from doing so, and,
obviously, an
adequate
illustration would
require an organic
and specific study
that we will not
fail to do because,
in our view, this
fundamental aspect
of Lenin's thought
has been overlooked
too long. We will
say more: a
preliminary study of
what we define as
the Leninist theory
of capitalist
development is
indispensable to
understand many
Leninist theses and
positions - not to
say all of them -
that may seem
political but which,
in reality, rest on
a close economic
analysis. A long
series of political
problems solved and
framed by Lenin was,
in fact, framed and
solved with economic
analysis, with
economic theory.
Without knowing
exactly how Lenin
conceives of
capitalism's
economic development,
not only in Russia,
but on a worldwide
level, we can't
understand his
strategic conception.
Ultimately, the
Leninist strategy
has its solid bases
in the scientific
conception of
capitalism's
development. This
holds for 1905 as it
does for 1917. It
holds in general for
the revolutionary
party, during any
historical stage in
which it is
operating. It is
even more valid for
the present, since
the scientific
conception of
capitalist
development is the
first condition for
the party strategy
and a constant
factor for the
party's own
existence. The party
cannot operate if it
doesn't have a
specific conception
of the development
of the reality in
which it works. In
order to have such a
conception, it must
have specific tools
of analysis, it must
have a scientific
methodology.
Lenin's I905
strategy was not,
therefore, one
proletariat's
strategy. Rather, it
was the
proletariat's
strategy. If we
can't illustrate
here all of Lenin's
theory on capitalist
development which is
at the root of his
strategy, we can,
however, indicate
two of its essential
aspects. These can
contribute to better
understand his
strategy, on the one
hand, and on the
other to see the
non-scientific
nature of Trotsky's.
In his analysis of
capitalist
development in
Russia, Lenin
manages to classify
the proletariat -
even statistically.
This classification
is different from
Trotsky's, but it is
also different, for
example, from
Kautsky's
traditional one.
Lenin's
classification of
the proletariat in
Russia is a
classification that
stands apart from
the conventional one.
Lenin analyzes the
entire labor-power
market, and
consequently, also
the sale of the
labor power that
takes place
partially, not
constantly.
By introducing this
criterion of
analysis, Lenin
follows the entire
proletarization
process through
every stage. This
way, he makes a
different and higher
evaluation of the
proletarian
population than
Trotsky.
We can't explain
here how Lenin
reached these
conclusions. The
strategic
consequences, though,
are obvious once
Lenin's analysis has
been accepted. The "democratic
dictatorship of the
workers and peasants"
will be the most
powerful strategic
lever to accelerate
the proletarization
process and to bring
a powerful, aware,
organized
proletariat out of a
democratic-bourgeois
revolution. This
proletariat will be
guided by a strong
Marxist party as has
never before
occurred in the
history of other
bourgeois
revolutions. But,
someone who supports
Trotsky's strategy
could object that if
the proletarization
process were indeed
this intense, more
intense than Trotsky
himself imagined,
wouldn't this be
another valid reason
to consider the "dictatorship
of the proletariat"
as mature and
possible in the 1905
revolution? Wasn't
this additional
confirmation of the
proletariat's
predominant role
before the other
classes and the
objective
possibility to
provide a socialist
solution to the
problems that a
bourgeois-democratic
revolution no longer
had the ability or
strength to soave?
It is precisely the
intense
proletarization
process, registered
by Lenin's analysis,
that contradicts
Trotsky's framework.
If class
differentiation in
the Russian economy
reached such a high
level, it means that
capitalism develops
impetuously and has
demonstrated its
ability to develop
quickly; and, most
importantly, it
means that it has
the objective
possibility of
developing even
faster. By analyzing
the final decades of
the nineteenth
century, Lenin had
already demonstrated
that the pace of
Russian capitalism’s
development was
faster than that of
European capitalisms.
Moreover, he had set
forth his thesis -
now contrabanded as
new and socialist -
according to which
Russian capitalism
had every
possibility of
having a development
pace that approached,
if it did not exceed,
the American pace.
Russia, with its
immense internal
market development
possibilities, can
become in Europe
what the United
States are in
America, Lenin
thinks. Two paths
arise for the future
of Russian
capitalism: the "German
track", the Bismarck
solution, or the "democratic
assault", the
American solution
with the peasants
who become "farmers"
and the semi-proletarian
and proletarized
peasants who become
workers.
Thus, the workers'
revolutionary
party's strategic
choice becomes clear:
participate in the "democratic
assault", take its
leadership, not to
provide impossible
socialist solutions
to economic
development, but to
push all the
capitalist forces to
the limit. From this
"democratic assault",
once the capitalist
forces have been
installed as the
managing class, the
proletariat and its
party will be
incredibly
reinforced and able
to put the goal of a
socialist revolution
and the dictatorship
of the proletariat
on the agenda.
To understand the
greatness and
suggestiveness of
Lenin's strategic
view, imagine
nineteenth-century
American history
with the determining
presence of a
workers'
revolutionary party
that had based its
activity on a
Marxist strategy
like this!
All this shows how
Trotsky's premise
was radically
different. Already
in his I 905 work,
and, more than
twenty years later,
in his History of
the Russian
Revolution, Trotsky
underlined some "particularities"
of Russian history
that, according to
his thought, made
the October
revolution possible.
In our view, their
theorization is one
of the bases of
Trotsky's strategy.
About this part of
Trotsky's thought we
can express the same
regret as we did
about Lenin's theory
of capitalist
development: it has
been overlooked too
long, and we don't
have the chance to
illustrate it here.
Livio Maitan, who is
praised as the best
Trotsky scholar in
Italy by the
bourgeois literature
and the Italian
Communist Party,
doesn't even mention
this issue in his
introduction to the
recent re-printing
of the History of
the Russian
Revolution!
Nonetheless, it is
worthwhile for us to
pause on one of
these "particularity"
that Trotsky
theorized, i.e., the
extreme slowness in
Russian capitalist
development and the
resulting influence
of European finance
capital on the
Russian economy. For
Trotsky, these two
phenomena are
interdependent, and,
somehow,
complementary.
Consequently, from
this particularity
of the Russian
situation derives
not only the need,
but above all the
possibility for the
socialist revolution
to develop as a near
stage in the
permanent revolution.
During this, the
proletariat, while
forced to soave the
problems that the
bourgeoisie leaves
unsolved, already
raises socialist
issues and, in fact,
establishes its
dictatorship.
Starting from the
premise of slow
capitalist
development in
Russia, Trotsky
would inevitably
reach this strategic
conclusion.
But, the premise has
not been proved
while Lenin's
strategic
conclusions emerge
from an in-depth
analysis and are
demonstrated and
verified
scientifically.
Comparing Lenin's
analysis of
capitalist
development and
Trotsky's
theorization of the
Russian "particularities"
would be worth
detailed examination.
This would also
allow us to consider,
from this specific
point of view, the
relationship between
the revolutionary
party and the
strategy.
For now, it is
enough to have
established, based
on one of the
greatest examples in
the theoretical and
political history of
the revolutionary
Marxist movement,
the indivisible
dependency of the
strategy on
scientific analysis.
Strategy can't be a
group of rules taken
from a body of
theoretical
statements on the
classes' struggle.
Instead, strategy is
the result of a
scientific analysis
of a given stage in
the classes'
struggle. This is
the essence of the
revolutionary party
because without
scientific analysis
and the consequent
strategy, the party
cannot live. Rather,
it vegetates as a
propagandistic sect.
Top |
Dossier Haití
