The Permanent Revolution and the September 10th Movement

The "permanent revolution" is not a propaganda slogan, a radical slogan, nor a discourse intended to incite workers to fight. It is an essential theoretical and practical tool, useful both in imperialist countries and in those oppressed by imperialism, to understand under what conditions the exploited can overthrow the power of their exploiters and by what means. For authentic revolutionaries, it provides an irreplaceable political compass to orient themselves in social and political movements challenging the foundations of society, such as those of the Arab Spring, the Yellow Vests in France, or the upcoming September 10th protests in this country.

Several so-called far-left parties (Workers’ Struggle, the New Anticapitalist Party, Permanent Revolution (LO, the NPA-s, RP)) in France usurp the label of "Trotskyism" or pretend to be its successors (some even going so far as to call their group by this name !), while one of their missions is precisely to obscure the meaning of this theory, attached since the 1905 revolution to the name of Trotsky, who had borrowed it from Marx and developed it. Preventing the oppressed from having access to true communist ideas is the underlying reason that pushes the French bourgeoisie and its State to treat these political groups with benevolence, to which it gives disproportionate access to its media, especially during elections and also gives full access to its public aid funds on an equal footing with bourgeois political parties. And it is not making a mistake in acting in this way...

We thus learn that French democracy, which could not tolerate peaceful demonstrations by Yellow Vests in the streets, without its police gouging out their eyes, without threatening their legs, their arms, their heads, their lives, without shooting them, without beating them up, without arresting them, well this false democracy which ruined itself to enrich billionaires, to save them from the general collapse of the capitalist economy, well this democracy in which the president is worse than a king, does not hesitate to allow these so-called "revolutionary parties" to also be helped and financed as long as these parties have no intention of supporting the Yellow Vests and even contribute to slandering them in businesses, in unions, in their political leaflets... And indeed, these parties accuse the Yellow Vests of being bourgeois and petty bourgeois, of risking being manipulated by the extreme right, by anti-Semites, by populists, by conspiracy theorists and so on. pass..

But is a revolutionary movement purely proletarian or purely socialist from the outset ? Precisely, it is the theory of permanent revolution that explains that within a revolutionary movement attacking the imperialist world, the socialist revolution exists and develops within the petty bourgeois revolt and cannot triumph by isolating itself from it, but by giving it other perspectives.

The first (and often last) contact that workers have with these extreme left groups is often an election speech or a speech during days of union (in)action, the activists of these organizations concluding their speeches without any concrete perspective with the word : "revolution !" but without any truly revolutionary program (seizure of the funds of big capital, abolition of the capitalist state, disarmament of the bourgeoisie and arming of the proletariat, construction of soviets and their seizure of power).

The articles in their press endlessly decline this word : "the revolution". Contrary to appearances, these militants turn their backs on Marxism by endlessly repeating this expression, because one of the first theoretical achievements of Marxism, through the revolutions of 1848 in France and Germany, was to definitively distinguish two types of revolution : bourgeois revolutions and proletarian revolutions.

Since 1848, true Marxists have not preached revolution. If they do preach anything, it will be the proletarian revolution. It is the proletarian revolution they are preparing, not the bourgeois revolution. A bourgeois revolution often breaks out spontaneously, as in February 1848 in Paris, February 1917 in Russia, November 1918 in Germany. Only then do revolutionaries enter the scene. The permanent revolution is the entire process that transforms the bourgeois revolution into the proletarian revolution, with the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The proletariat is the only class capable of carrying the revolution through to the end. It is the revolutionary class par excellence of our time. The second lie of the pseudo-Trotskyist groups is to rely on "common sense" to denigrate any beginning of a bourgeois revolution like the Yellow Vest movement ; according to them, this movement would be "confused" without the predominance of the proletariat, "the only truly revolutionary class." But as Hegel had already explained, historical development does not follow the same order as a development of formal logic. When "the revolution," that is, the bourgeois revolution, breaks out, the proletariat is not necessarily the most radical, the most numerous, the most revolutionary class immediately. Only the representative of its general historical interests, the Communist Party, is permanently a mobilized vanguard, but on a scale that remains small and of little influence at the beginning of the movement. It is only gradually that the bourgeois revolution transforms into a proletarian revolution, that the proletariat becomes the vanguard of the revolution, like its party. The proletarian revolution is therefore almost always born from a bourgeois revolution. However, February 1917 in Russia was driven in part by Anglo-French imperialism, which understood that the tsarist regime was becoming incapable of waging imperialist war. This "revolution" therefore intermingled ultra-reactionary tendencies (continuation of the imperialist slaughter) and revolutionary ones (land to the peasants, ending the war). Lenin therefore opposed the "defense of the revolution." The only way to "defend" the revolution, from the point of view of the proletariat and the small peasants, was to give it the objective of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin and Trotsky did not "condemn" the February Revolution ; they made it give birth to the October Revolution, by putting into practice the permanent revolution, which Trotsky had had in mind since 1905. Lenin and Trotsky did not denigrate February 1917, because without February 1917, October 1917 would not have existed.

But these pseudo-Marxist groups denigrate the embryo of a bourgeois revolution that is the Yellow Vest type movements, including that of September 10. Because these groups "having understood" Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, they "know" that the revolution must be proletarian. They therefore pose an ultimatum to the workers : "we have explained to you what must be done, we know the experience of February to October 1917, why don’t you start with October ? After October 1917, any revolution of the February 1917 type is reactionary."

Of course, these small groups are far from being the perfect party that would endlessly explain the concepts stemming from the October Revolution : LO, the NPAs, RP, never talk about Soviets in France, they never talk about the revolutionary syndicalism of the CGT before 1914, which was one of the currents closest to Lenin and Trotsky. But even a perfect Bolshevik party should not give such an ultimatum to the workers, which in fact consists of ordering them to line up behind "the party." The problem is not that it would be immoral, totalitarian, to propose to the proletariat en bloc to follow the party. The problem is that the real world does not work like that. The working class, to get to October, will probably have to go back to February. The worst thing is that it is of course not February that will be reproduced, but a revolution with surprising, unexpected, unpredictable concrete forms, with deceptive appearances.

These small groups who only think about building their party (not about building their revolutionary program but only about recruiting, developing their influence in the union apparatus), denigrating in the tone of arrogance of semi-cultivated minds the "lack of consciousness" of the workers, only encourage this lack of consciousness by not setting up Soviets, organizations that are the place for raising the level of consciousness of the proletariat, where the propaganda of a communist party can be deployed, necessarily a minority at the beginning of any movement.

The mechanism of permanent revolution consists of defending a transitional program that allows the transformation of the profound and spontaneous demands of the exploited into measures that are part of the proletarian revolution, the only one capable of achieving demands that, at first, appear compatible with the bourgeois regime. But this is a general strategy. The extreme left groups regularly brandish Trotsky’s "Transitional Program," but they are careful not to translate it into a concrete situation. For this, attention must be paid to the demands of the workers.

The September 10 movement put forward three slogans : Boycott, disobedience, solidarity. These three slogans are launched against Bayrou’s program, which, in the name of the need to repay "the debt," wants to lower wages and increase indirect taxes against workers. But we are precisely on the terrain of the proletarian parties’ program ! Just bring out the old programs like that of the POF written by Marx in 1880.

Far-left groups are embarrassed to discuss the fiscal policy that is currently mobilizing the entire country, because their spokespeople have union careers, and union leaderships do not engage in politics, in the sense that they refrain from intervening in budgetary policy, limiting themselves to economic wage demands. However, it was a fiscal issue that caused the Yellow Vest movement to explode ; it is fiscal issues that are at the heart of the "Bayrou Plan." Far-left groups, contrary to appearances, have abandoned politics because it is in the union bureaucracy that they keep their groups alive (N. Arthaud only serves to maintain a collective "ism" that provides cement to local LO union cliques). These groups therefore prohibit their activists from intervening in political issues that concern the working class !

So what should we do for September 10th ? Starting with the general demands that emerged against the Bayrou plan, or the success of the anti-Duplomb petition, is already a starting point. It is by participating in general assemblies, by first listening 10 times more than by speaking, that revolutionaries can "take the pulse" of reality. Concretely implementing the principles of the Transition Program is no easy task. The far-left groups do not want to tackle this task, the most striking manifestation of which is that they do not make their spokesperson wear a yellow vest.

One example among others : propose as a slogan, to the tune of the Marseillaise :

"Against us of the oligarchy, the bloody standard is raised, the bloody standard is raised... To arms, citizens."

This is a reference to the traditions of revolutionary bourgeois democracy. The oligarchy is the billionaire bourgeoisie. We are told that the Yellow Vests have far-right tendencies ; this type of slogan allows us to separate the sans-culotte-leaning "patriots" from the Pétainist patriots.

A slogan of the same type is :

No Bayrou, the State’s debt is not the nation’s debt !

The workers have a nationality, but no homeland, and this bourgeois state is not theirs, is the principle that is laid down in the background of this slogan.

Another of the tasks of the permanent revolution, relevant today in the September 10 movement, described by Trotsky in 1938, therefore seems to have been described by Trotsky today in relation to our French opportunist extreme left (LO, NPAs, RP) :

"The sectarians are only able to distinguish two colors : white and black. To avoid temptation, they simplify reality. (...)

Unable to gain access to the masses, they readily accuse them of being incapable of rising to revolutionary ideas.

A bridge, in the form of transitional demands, is not at all necessary for these sterile prophets, because they are in no way prepared to cross to the other side. They mark time in place, content to repeat the same empty abstractions. Political events are for them an opportunity to comment, but not to act. Since sectarians, like confusionists and miracle workers of all kinds, receive constant nudges from reality, they live in a state of continual irritation, constantly complain about the "regime" and the "methods," and indulge in petty intrigues. In their own circles, they usually exercise a regime of despotism. The political prostration of sectarianism only complements, like its shadow, the prostration of opportunism, without opening up revolutionary perspectives. In practical politics, sectarians unite at every step with opportunists, especially centrists, to fight against Marxism.

The majority of such sectarian groups and cliques, which feed on crumbs from the table of the Fourth International, lead an "independent" organizational existence, with great pretensions, but without the slightest chance of success. The Bolshevik-Leninists can, without wasting their time, calmly abandon these groups to their fate.

However, sectarian tendencies are also found within our own ranks and exert a disastrous influence on the work of certain sections. This is something that cannot be tolerated for a single day longer. A correct policy on the trade unions is a fundamental condition of membership in the Fourth International. He who neither seeks nor finds the path of the mass movement is not a fighter, but a dead weight for the Party. A program is not created for an editorial office, a reading room, or a discussion club, but for the revolutionary action of millions of men. The cleansing of the ranks of the Fourth International of sectarianism and incorrigible sectarians is the most important condition for revolutionary success.

Movements like the Yellow Vests and September 10th are typical terrain where permanent revolution and a transitional program are to be put to the test. Let us bear in mind Trotsky’s words : He who neither seeks nor finds the path of the mass movement is not a fighter, but a dead weight for the Party. A program is not created for an editorial office, a reading room, or a discussion club, but for the revolutionary action of millions of men.

This "permanence" of the revolution does not mean that the violent clash between classes must last forever. It means that the social revolution is constantly deepening, that it is a process that does not last only for the duration of the overthrow of a government, the three days (or a few days) necessary to bring down a dictatorship, to overthrow or dissolve the army and the forces of repression. The revolution is a brutal change but not instantaneous. And first of all because the revolutionary class is not entirely ready in advance to carry out the changes of which it is capable. The bourgeoisie itself was not automatically predisposed to take power. During bourgeois revolutions, such as the bourgeois revolution of the late 1780s and early 1790s, one of the most significant episodes of which dates back to 1789 in France, the course of the latter had a permanent character. This means that it was unable to achieve its potential in one fell swoop, in one insurrection, in one country, through the action of one class, achieving its goals all at once. The revolutionary class itself was unable to achieve awareness of its role and capabilities at the first attempt. The revolutionary thrust was measured by reactions from the old ruling classes that led it to deepen, to become more radical, to rely on more miserable, more violent layers capable of helping it triumph. As a result, the social revolution was unable to stick to its program. If, at the beginning, it would have been ready to compromise with the old ruling classes, to renounce part of its objectives, the harshness of the reaction forced it, or at least its most revolutionary fraction, to push even beyond the objectives of its class.

This is the dynamic nature of revolution. The historical course is not predetermined. Classes do not know in advance how far they are capable of going, or even how far they would have wanted to go. It is events that decide the course of history. Revolution arises from the need for confrontation to measure the balance of power in a new social and political situation. The struggle builds new relationships and sets a different course each time in the wake of history.

The notion of permanent revolution therefore combats, first of all, the fixed image of revolutions, an anti-Marxist image according to which there are only two classes, one revolutionary, the other reactionary, only two programs : that of the revolutionary class and that of the ruling class. These are not only outrageous simplifications very far from the Marxist point of view. They are also conceptions which in no way allow us to understand a revolution and, as a result, which diametrically oppose phases of the same revolution, phases which oppose each other dialectically, that is to say by interweaving one into the other.

The formal, non-dialectical conception of history diametrically opposes bourgeois revolution and proletarian revolution, whereas history combines the two. Of course, the proletariat has objectives that are in contradiction with the interests of the bourgeoisie. However, when the bourgeoisie has not been able to carry out its own tasks, it is the proletariat that will take charge, upon coming to power, of carrying them out. However, even if none of the truly socialist tasks is yet mature, even if the proletarian revolution can, for the time being, only carry out bourgeois tasks or tasks compatible with the bourgeoisie (agrarian reform, bourgeois democracy, statism, national development, monopoly of foreign trade, control over the private economy, etc.), the nature of power is not bourgeois but socialist. As long as society is backward and has feudal survivals, it would still be, according to the "stage-based" theses, the so-called democratic bourgeoisie that would be the logical leader of the struggle. They oppose on the one hand the proletarian revolution aiming at socialist and communist tasks, and on the other the bourgeois revolution that can only pose bourgeois-democratic tasks : the establishment of a legal regime more or less based on a kind of democracy, agrarian reform, a certain national economic control making itself independent of the control of the old ruling classes or of neighboring countries. There is a real opposition : that between the perspectives of the two fundamental classes : bourgeoisie and proletariat. This does not mean that there is a hermetic barrier between the proletarian revolution and the bourgeois revolution. The proletarian revolution often first poses democratic questions, which were traditionally attributed to the bourgeois revolution, and which it proves incapable, or fearful, of realizing. This does not mean that bourgeois tasks have changed their social character in themselves. It is the proletarians who change the character of the tasks they perform, when it comes to bourgeois tasks, because of the role they play in society and the prospects their intervention represents.

It is the revolutionary program that is first implied by the question of permanent revolution. It is a matter of making conscious the connection between democratic demands and the social question as posed by the revolutionary proletariat. This connection must be highlighted by the program whether it is an imperialist country, a developed country, or a poor country with more or less marked feudal remains. In all these cases, the program will take a different turn, and yet it will be essential to emphasize, in all these cases, the permanent character of the revolution.

Yes, the Yellow Vest movement of September 10th could be the beginning of a social revolution that will deepen constantly and lead to the fall of capitalist power because the possessing classes are on the brink of collapse, the State is ruined, it can no longer camouflage the inexorable fall of the system, all the exploited and oppressed social classes can no longer take it, the political system itself is at the end of its rope.