Dear Comrades,
In recent times with the uprising in the middle east and the inconclusive and half made nature of those revolutions, there has been a new debate within the revolutionary left around both Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution as well as around Tony Cliff's augmentation of the theory with the theory of Defelected permanent revolution, to explain the state capitalist outcome and not the socialist outcome of the post 2nd world war revolutions in places like China, Cuba, Vietnam, Yugoslavia etc.
Both the original theory and its augmentation were based on concrete analysis of existing manifestations of the law of uneven and combined development at the time the theories were being formulated, although the utilisation of the law was more explicit in Trotsky than in Cliff.
So now, in changed historical times, with the law of uneven and combined development still operating [still an absolute], it is important to take a look at that theory and restate it within the context of the manifestation of that law today.
So whereas in Trotsky and all marxist since Trotsky, combination represented the impact of collission of capitalist and pre-capitalist formations and modes of production on a world scale in general, but more importantly on a national scale in particular, where the tensions generated by that collission created the possibility for a revolution led by the working class to literally skip historical stages and go on directly to socialism. The Russian revolution is the most significant demonstration of this. The Chinese revolution of 1925-7 was if you like another demonstration of this, but this time it is a negative demonstration because the revolution was defeated.
In the twenty first century, the principal combination taking place is the collission between more advanced forms of the capitalist mode of production and relations of production and more backward forms of the same.
Is permanent revolution still possible under these terms? Ofcourse now even more than in the twentieth century, it is obvious that the only way that the working class can achieve its self emancipation is by making the socialist revolution.
This does not mean that the era of political revolutions have come to a close, or that even a revolution in which the working class plays the decisive roll can not vegetate at the level of the political revolution and fail to transit to the social revolution. But it does mean that any political revolutions can only lead to the forcing of the bourgeiosie to concede some reforms. And it does mean that there are no longer any outstanding bourgeiois democratic tasks to be carried out by the revolution which is not decisively an integral part of a socialist democratisation, and workers democratic project.
The restatement here is indicative, perhaps even tentative and speculative, it is certainly not exhaustive.
Comradely Regards,
Jaye Gaskia
