Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 18:56:43 -0500 (EST) From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu> Subject: M-G: Cleaned up version of Joco's post (Louis: Joco's post contained a number of characters that couldn't be recreated by my Unix mail-reader. I am not sure what Windows users saw either. Since I consider this extremely interesting stuff, I took the liberty to clean it up. My apology for a fourth post today, but I hope you will accept in the holiday spirit of forgiveness.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A critique of Trotsky's 'Transitional Programm' (1938) This document is now only slightly younger than my father and it's not ageing any more gracefully than he is. But then Leon (asides from the fact that he would never have expected us to live in capitalist societies by 1996, or is it 7) would probably blush to see it in the center of marxist debate almost sixty years on. Since there have been a number o references to it in these lists and I was caught in the most innocent ignorance of it's content in the course of a debate with Bob Malecki, I decided to read it carefully and give it a critical review. Trotskyism has no tradition whatsoever in the portuguese marxist debates or workers' movements - it first appeared in the 70's straight from the student agitation of the time. Presently we have only a small group (Partido Socialista Revolucionario - mandelite, Unified Secretariat) of youngsters, with some intelectuals and artists on it too. It's literature (I subscribe their monthly magazine 'Combate') is all about music, life styles, the latest cultural trends, education problems, drug liberalization, comics, women and gay problems, etc., etc.. Not a paragraph of marxist debate and nothing of interess to the workers - strikes, wages negotiations, union life. They couldn't care less for the 'Transitional Program'. Lets see it, from point 1 to 21 (bolshevik's lucky number, remember?). I am reading a portuguese edition. My quotes may not coincide exactly you what you have in front of you. 1. "The objective requisites of socialist revolution" I never could quite understand this story about the objective conditions been ripe (or indeed rotting) but the subjective conditions totally missing. This smells bad dialectics. The "subjective" factors are included in the general historical conditions, or, by other words, the historical process is an entirely materialistic one. If the forces of production are ready, the relations of production are hurting social development and the subjective factors will meet the challenge. Inevitably. Ideology, organization, tactics and revolutionary energy will be there 'just in time'. I mean, we can have (by biological aleatory factors) very good leaders in one generation and not so good in the next. We can meet some hindrances on a superstructure level. But, on a global historical perspective, I'm sure everything will fit in place just fine. What I'm not so sure of is the result of the final assault. I have a quarrel about concepts such as "decadence", "putrefaction" "decomposition" and others current in trotskyite and left-communist circles. We now know that capitalism's best years were yet to come when Trotsky wrote this document. Contrary to what he says, keynesianism would indeed rescue capitalism from its acute crisis of these years, spreading the most astonishing period of sustained growth and technical revolution that the history of humanity as ever witnessed (1947-72). There's a strong sugestion in Trotsky's text, and elsewhere, that all capitalist countries would end up turning to fascism. In short, pratically everything he says here is proved wrong. 2. "The Proletariat and its direction" Leon could be a loathsome guy. I never could understand what he had against Andres Nin and the P.O.U.M.. O.K., everything's ready for revolution, except all these traitors and imbeciles that can't see it yet. 3. "Minimum program and transition program" Interesting. However, in the last paragraph, he seems to be seeing a continuum between minimum demands and proletarian revolution. This is yet to be proven. Socialism step by step never worked. Until now, we were never able to keep a suficient level of sustained and mounting pressure from below. That approach seems to be dependent once again of his "decadent capitalism" suposition that we now know was wrong then. Is it right now? We can never know for sure. We'll have to keep knocking. 4. "Wage mobile scale and mobile scale of work hours" Excellent stuff. It's feasability certainly deserves to be studied in detail. 5. "The unions in the transition epoch" I have no objections on the general idea, but I wouldn't remove entirely the option of creating new unions (or similar organisms), although not in a sectist base of course. There have been some interesting and creative initiatives in France (in a totaly apolitical approach) among nurses, civil servants, etc.. I wonder if his numbers on unionization are still correct generally. For Portugal, they're not. We do a little better than that. 6. "Factory comittee's" I don't think we can speek of "dual power" with the simple constitution of factory comittee's. We had lots of those in Portugal back in 1974-75 and the state bourgeois power was unimpressed. The only problem worrying them was restless far-left military rebelion. We had workers comittee's on the factories (many of them occupied) and popular comissions on a neighborhood basis but not any integration between them. And no political party willing or able to lead this movement. I would start speaking of dual power when a significative part of the production is in the workers' hands, politically organized at local, national and international level. I don't believe we can do this in a national basis anymore. Only after disrupting decisively the core capitalist countries (although maybe through a revolutionary movement that can have its beginnings anywhere in the near periphery) can we move forward to build real, solid workers' power. 7. "Commercial secret and workers control over industry" Trotsky believed (Lenin too, hellas) that the process of concentration and centralization of capital would lead to a giant national trust. The proletarian revolution's task would be simply to expropriate the bourgeoisie and keep on the economic planification by more or less similar means. There will be, of course, some measure of workers' control but the bulk of the planning will be transfered to "specialists sincerely devoted to the people: accountants, statisticians, engineers, savants, etc.". Very slippery business indeed. Trotsky's obsession with "great public works" betrays his capital accumulation approach to building socialism. Given the time he would be starting a "great leap forward" of his own. I always had the impression that that story about "degenerate workers' state" should be read like this: put me in the place of that son-of-a-bitch and I'll un-degenerate it in a few weeks. 8. "The expropriation of certain capitalist groups" Again that progessive "expropriation" approach. He now takes care to contrast it with the reformist's nationalizations and, on point 4), we do have mention to a linkage with workers' and peasents' power. But this is the guy of all those expedient administrative methods back in Russia, including integration of the unions in the state. I always found a facet of cold, "modernist" social engineer on him. I've read some "visionary" texts of his once and it was stuff worth of "1984" or "Brave New World". 9. "Expropriation of privat banks and All this question of "finance capital" being in command (it goes back to Hilferding, by way of Lenin) needs to be reevaluated. There's no strong evidence suporting it. A single state bank then. I won't pronunciate myself on the technical side of the question. But I'm already seeing too much state here and too few internationalism. And this state is the bourgeois state, that later will pass "from the explorers' to the workers' hands" (last paragraph). Just like that? Totally unchanged? 10. "Strike pickets, combat unities, workers' militia and arming the proletariat" This was certainly apropriate in the 20's and 30's. We haven't had this kind of permanent street gang warfare since then, which doesn't mean we won't have it soon if the present crisis keeps deepening. The british S.W.P. no doubt draws from here its appeal for some physical action against the fascist gangs. Well, I'm all for it. But I hardly see any historical analogy. Yet. The National Rifle Association will be delighted. 11. "Alliance of the workers and the peasents" The peasent question in the most developed capitalist countries has been completely shaken since then. The bourgeoisie has learned its bit too. It doesn't like to be fired upon from two fronts. As things are for the moment in Europe, with heavy subsidizing of agricultural production by state and UE institutions, I don't think we stand much of a chance of having the peasentry on our side. Anyway, its number has decreased dramatically. We would expect further advance of the capitalist relations of production into the countryside but that is precisely where the bourgeois-peasent alliance is puting the brakes on. In developed countries, wherever the small peasentry isn't nearly extinct it's heavily engaged in the bourgeoisie's embrace. 12 - "The fight against imperialism and war" This is mostly of pure historical interest. 13. "The worker-peasent government" The same here. The worker-peasent alliance could still make some sense in countries like India, Egypt or Indonesia but it must engage a faction of the local bourgeoisie in some kind of national-popular democratic regeneration movement. Success for a proletarian revolution is unthinkable here unless integrated in a global movement that strikes decisively the core capitalist countries. 14. "The soviets" Fine. 15. "Backward countries and the program of transitory demands" There are no "colonial or semi-colonial countries" left. Permanent revolution is out of business, if it ever made any sense. No significative "feudal heritage" can be found anywhere. No national independence problems. All countries of some relevance in the world today are predominantly capitalist and industrialized, although most of them are peripheric and dependent, which is totally another problem. There are more hunter-gatherers than "feudals" now-a-days but I suppose we're not considering permanent-revolutionizing the inuit, the amazonians or Iryan Jaya. Permanent revolution was an interesting concept in the sense of world revolution. But if we have learned something with the XXth century revolutions it is precisely that we can't voluntaristicaly whip out some isolated backward country into socialism just like that. 16. "Transitory demands program in the fascist countries" Painful to read. Totally frustrated expectations. 17. "The situation in the USSR and the tasks of the transitory epoch" The same here. Wrong, totally wrong analysis. How could he, at this time, still point "real bolcheviks" among the "soviet" burocracy? I wonder what happened to Reiss. He must have had cardiac colapse on reading this. The GPU found him stone dead already. "Cain-Stalin"? Is this premonitory or something? Iosip Djugashvili, where is your brother Leon? 18. "Against oportunism and unprincipled revisionism" A bit of rhetorics won't do no harm. No analysis of the different patterns of reformist and oportunistic degeneration is offered. No ways shown for avoiding them. 19. "Against sectarianism" This must be against the bordiguists and other left-communists. It's a piece of sectarian loathe on its own, wrapped up in dreams of grandeur. Worst was to come. I just wish he could have followed trotskyism. 20. "A place for youth! A place for labouring women!" Sure, why not. If this is the only prescription available against oportunistic degeneration, I'm afraid it won't take us very far. 21. "Under the banner of the IV International" Well, I'm afraid the "sceptics" were right. It didn't work.. It had a complete program, doctrine, tradition and some cadre endowed with an "unmatched temper". How ungrateful of the workers not to have gathered at once under this "stainless banner". I'm glad there are some dedicated people still trying to kick start this thing. Now, my trotskyite friends. This document here is a precious historical relic indeed, but it's quite obvious it can only have a very residual and occasional usefulness in any serious reconstructive effort of marxist politics today. Why do you keep brandishing it like the holy grail of revolution? Joco Paulo Monteiro --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005