Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 13:27:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Permanent Revolution and Nicaragua


Louis:

MARX AND ENGELS ON PERMANENT REVOLUTION
Before responding to the question of Sandinista failure to carry out 
"permanent revolution", it would be useful to try to put this theory into 
historical context. Although we tend to connect the term to Leon 
Trotsky, it appeared in the writings of Marx himself. There always has 
been a tension in Marx and Engels between a so-called "stagist" idea 
of socialist revolution and something resembling Trotsky's notion of 
permanent revolution.

In the "Communist Manifesto", Marx and Engels provide the 
theoretical framework for a "stagist" approach on almost every page. 
In one typical passage, they state:

 "The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the 
ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death 
to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield 
those weapons--the modern working class--the proletarians."

When Marx and Engels wrote these words, they had in mind the 
French revolution of 1789, the most representative case of a 
bourgeoisie acting mercilessly and decisively against the feudal 
aristocracy. The guillotine was a symbol of this aggressive stance.

However, Marx and Engels eventually began to question whether this 
"classic" model could occur in the mid-nineteenth century, the period 
in which they lived. They noticed that the bourgeoisie had begun to 
lose its nerve and sought ways to tolerate feudal relations. They 
speculated that it might be up to the proletariat to eradicate feudalism. 
Once the workers had finished this task, it might immediately take on 
socialist tasks. This seemed like a real possibility, if not necessity, in 
Germany. In the "Address to the Communist League" in 1850, they 
note that the German bourgeoisie united with the feudal party against the 
proletariat. Even the petty-bourgeoisie, which formed the 
shock troops of the French revolution, were inadequate to the task:

"While the democratic petty-bourgeois wish to bring the revolution to 
a close as quickly as possible, and with the achievement, at most, of 
the above demands, it is our interest and our task to make the 
revolution permanent, until all more or less possessing classes have 
been forced out of their position of dominance, until the proletariat has 
conquered state power, and the association of proletarians, not only 
one in one country but in all the dominant countries of the world, has 
advanced so far that competition among the proletarians of these 
countries has ceased and that at least the decisive productive forces are 
concentrated in the hands of the proletarians."

It is crucially important to recognize that Marx and Engels did not 
separate a socialist revolution in Germany from the worldwide 
socialist revolution. They specifically point to the need to have 
socialist power in "all the dominant countries of the world". Germany 
was but a link in a great chain. Marx and Engels saw the prospects for 
socialism in European terms, if not global terms. We shall return to 
this theme time and time again, since it is central to an understanding of 
the Nicaraguan revolution.

LENIN'S CONCEPT OF REVOLUTION IN RUSSIA
George Plekhanov was the father of Russian Marxism. He served as 
teacher to a whole generation of Russian revolutionaries, including 
Lenin himself. Plekhanov adhered to a strict "stagist" understanding of 
the tasks of the Russian revolution. The first task was to eradicate 
Czarism. After a successful bourgeois-democratic revolution, the 
Russian capitalist class would be free to develop the country along  
modern, industrialized lines. By doing this, it would transform the 
great mass of Russian peasantry into proletarians and create the 
possibility for the next socialist stage.

Plekhanov's influence on Lenin is obvious when we look at "Two 
Tactics of Social Democracy". Commenting on a resolution for a 
provisional government, Lenin says:

"Finally, we will note the resolution, by making implementation of the 
minimum programme the provisional revolutionary government's task, 
eliminates the absurd and semi-anarchist ideas of giving immediate 
effect to the maximum programme, and the conquest of power for a 
socialist revolution. The degree of Russia's economic development (an 
objective condition), and the degree of class-consciousness and 
organization of the broad masses of the proletariat (a subjective 
condition inseparably bound up with the objective condition) make the 
immediate and complete emancipation of the working class 
impossible. Only the most ignorant people can close their eyes to the 
bourgeois nature of the democratic revolution which is now taking 
place; only the most naive optimists can forget how little as yet the 
masses of the workers are informed about the aims of socialism and 
the methods of achieving it."

Lenin of course changed his mind about the character of the 
revolution. The Russian revolution of 1917 was socialist in character 
rather than bourgeois. To Lenin's credit, he never thought that the 
bourgeoisie itself would lead the revolution. This was up to the 
proletariat allied with the peasantry. They would create something 
called a "revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and 
the peasantry." This rather unwieldy formulation meant that the workers 
would wield state power in alliance with the peasantry, while ruling 
over capitalist property relationships for some time. When the workers 
had crushed feudal reaction and gathered sufficient strength, they would 
accomplish the socialist phase of the revolution. Lenin left the timing 
question aside, since the tempo of the class struggle can only decide its 
outcome. It could be a matter of days, months, years or even decades.

A decisive factor in the transition to socialism in Russia would be the 
outcome of socialist revolutions in Europe. The survival of a 
revolution in Russia was impossible without help from victories in the 
West. In a "Speech on the International Situation" delivered to the 
1918 Congress of Soviets, Lenin said, "The complete victory of the 
socialist revolution in one country alone is inconceivable and demands 
the most active cooperation of at least several advanced countries, 
which do not include Russia." Lenin is clearly consistent with the 
analysis put forward by Marx and Engels regarding the German 
revolution in 1850. Revolutions can not survive on their own. They 
have to link up with an overall assault on bourgeois power by a 
working-class unified under a socialist banner across nations, if not 
continents.

TROTSKY'S PERMANENT REVOLUTION THEORY
Trotsky's theory is a product of his study of the Russian class-struggle. 
He did not develop it as a general methodology for accomplishing 
bourgeois-democratic tasks in a semi-colonial or dependent country. 
He was instead seeking to address the needs of the class-struggle in 
Russia. In this respect, he was identical to Lenin. They were both 
revolutionaries who sought to establish socialism in Russia as rapidly 
as possible. Their difference centered on how closely connected 
socialist and bourgeois-democratic tasks would be at the outset. Lenin 
tended to approach things more from Plekhanov's "stagist" 
perspective, while Trotsky had a concept more similar to the one 
outlined by Marx and Engels in their comments on the German 
revolution.

Trotsky sharpened his insights as a participant and leader of the 
uprising of 1905, which in many ways was a dress-rehearsal for the 
1917 revolution. He wrote "Results and Prospects" to draw the lessons 
of 1905. Virtually alone among leading Russian socialists, he rejected 
the idea that workers holding state power would protect private 
property:

"The political domination of the proletariat is incompatible with its 
economic enslavement. No matter under what political flag the 
proletariat has come to power, it is obliged to take the path of socialist 
policy. It would be the greatest utopianism to think that the proletariat, 
having been raised to political domination by the internal mechanism 
of a bourgeois revolution, can, even if it so desires, limit its mission to 
the creation of republican-democratic conditions for the social 
domination of the bourgeoisie."

Does not this accurately describe the events following the Bolshevik 
revolution in October, 1917? The workers took the socialist path 
almost immediately. If this alone defined the shape of revolutions to 
come, then Trotsky would appear as a prophet of the first magnitude.

Before leaping to this conclusion, we should consider Trotsky's entire 
argument. Not only would the workers adopt socialist policies once in 
power, their ability to maintain these policies depended on the class-
struggle outside of Russia, not within it. He is emphatic:

"But how far can the socialist policy of the working class be applied in 
the economic conditions of Russia? We can say one thing with 
certainty--that it will come up against obstacles much sooner than it 
will stumble over the technical backwardness of the country. Without 
the direct State support of the European proletariat the working class 
of Russia cannot remain in power and convert its temporary 
domination into a lasting socialistic dictatorship."

While there is disagreement between Lenin and Trotsky on the exact 
character of the Russian revolution, there is none over the grim 
prospects for socialism in an isolated Russia. We must keep this 
uppermost in our mind when we consider the case of Nicaragua. Well-
meaning Trotskyist comrades who castigate the Sandinistas for not 
carrying out permanent revolution should remind themselves of the 
full dimensions of Trotsky's theory. According to this theory, Russia 
was a beachhead for future socialist advances. If these advances did 
not occur, Russia would perish. Was Nicaragua a beachhead also? If 
socialism could not survive in a vast nation as Russia endowed with 
immense resources, what were Nicaragua's prospects, a nation smaller 
than Brooklyn, New York?

RUSSIA AND CUBA AS MODELS
Our Trotskyist comrades are very picky and choosy. If a revolution is 
not up to their exacting standards, they will give it thumbs down. 
While they are unanimously in support of the Russian revolution, there 
is divided opinion over the Cuban revolution. Cuba tends to get some 
thumbs up and some thumbs down.

Let us consider Russia first within the paradigm of permanent 
revolution. In a very real sense, the collapse of the Soviet Union and 
its allied Eastern European states is a very real negative confirmation 
of the theory of permanent revolution. Let us leave aside the question 
of whether or not an alternative course was possible. Trotsky's best, if 
often misguided, efforts, failed to lead to revolutionary victories in 
China, Spain, France, Germany or elsewhere. The isolation of the 
Soviet Union led to horrible economic and social distortions that 
eventually led to the regime's collapse.

The Cuban revolution has served as a continuing inspiration to an 
entire generation of socialists and has, so far, escaped the fate of the 
USSR. How does this socialist island relate to the question of 
permanent revolution?

The automatic answer pro-Cuba Trotskyists would supply is that 
Castro solved bourgeois-democratic tasks through a socialist 
revolution. Land reform and national liberation came about rapidly 
and decisively through a dictatorship of the proletariat under Castro's 
leadership. Another key bourgeois-democratic task--formal 
democracy--has not come to Cuba, but supporters of Castro blame this 
on the constant US threat to the island's territorial and political 
integrity. In any case, comparison between Cuba and all of the failed 
half-measures in Latin America (Chile under Allende, etc.) seem to 
lend proof to the notion that the Cuban road is the only one that will 
guarantee success in the long run.

The problem with this analysis is that it tends to bracket out the 
second half of the permanent revolution theory, the half that deals with 
the need to make the revolution global. Castro and Guevara did see 
this need. The Cuban leadership, to its credit, was not in the habit of 
sterile quotation-mongering from the Marxist classics. That is why you never 
heard Castro and Guevara quoting Marx on the German revolution. 
They instead devised their own formulations that amounted to the 
same thing. When Che Guevara called for "Two, Three Many 
Vietnams", he was attempting to extend the Cuban revolution 
internationally. When he went to Bolivia and died in an ill-fated 
guerrilla adventure, he was putting his life on the line in order to open 
up a second front against US imperialism. It was his hope to relieve the 
pressure on Cuba and Vietnam.

Che's guerrilla struggle failed, as did countless others in Latin 
America throughout the 1960s and 70s. Meanwhile, the Cuban 
revolution survived and continues to do so in its present tenuous state. 
The question presents itself as to how Cuba has managed to escape 
imperialist counter-revolution for so many years. If Lenin said the 
Soviet Union would perish without outside help from victorious 
socialist states in Western Europe, how has Cuba managed to stay
alive?

The answer, of course, is that it had relied on Soviet aid. Moreover, it 
relied on strong Soviet aid in the crucial first few years of its infancy. 
Without Soviet aid, Cuba would not have been able to withstand the 
US embargo. Soviet aid came during a period in its history when the 
leadership seemed a little less inclined to grovel at Washington's feet. 
Khruschev felt considerable pressure in the late 1950s to make the USSR 
attractive to the so-called non-aligned nations movement and to appear 
as a champion of anti-colonial struggles. It was this factor, and also 
the importance of Cuba as a potential strategic military asset to the 
Kremlin, that explained Khrushchev's willingness to stand up to the 
bullying creep John Kennedy.

Another key to Cuba's survivability is its island status. This simply 
makes military organization of counter-revolution more difficult. After 
the defeat of the contras at the Bay of Pigs, it became more difficult to 
play this card again. Washington instead resorted to the brinkmanship 
of the Cuban blockade. Another key is Cuba's willingness to allow 
disgruntled citizens to leave the island. This mitigates against the 
possibility of a counter-revolutionary movement arising within its 
borders. The most important element, of course, is the Cuban 
leadership's determination to serve the interests of workers and 
campesinos as faithfully as it can. This has led to solid support for the 
government at times when it most mattered.

The notion that Cuba is building socialism on its own or can is simply 
false. The lack of Soviet aid today is throwing the island into a deep 
economic crisis. It is being forced to adopt a neo-NEP policy that is 
alienating the workers and campesinos who derive no direct benefits 
>from these measures. While Cuba has not demonstrated the kind of 
gross distortions that appear in China today, there is every possibility 
that they may eventually appear. Castro may be a dedicated 
revolutionary, but the powers of a victorious imperialism are immense.

Keeping all this in mind, we simply can not offer the Sandinistas glib 
advice that they should have followed the Cuban road. Following the 
Cuban road is a meaningless prescription unless it includes being able 
to supply all of the relatively favorable objective conditions that the 
Cubans faced in 1959. Trotskyists can not supply these objective 
conditions. Only history can.

THE ROOTS OF THE NICARAGUAN REVOLUTION
Understanding the Nicaraguan revolution requires that we cease 
holding it up to the prism of the Russian revolution. The permanent 
revolution theory grows out of the realities of the Russian class 
struggle in 1905. This theory is a product of the intellectual and 
political breakthroughs made by Russian Marxism.

Nicaragua has an entirely different dynamic and Marxists have to 
address this reality rather than invent a history of the Nicaraguan class 
struggle that is more to their liking.

The Sandinista revolution's roots actually precede the Russian 
revolution. Augusto Cesar Sandino was born in 1895, near Managua 
the capital. In 1923, he became a bookkeeper in a US owned oil 
company near Tampico, Mexico, where the flames of the Mexican 
revolution were still alive. It was there where he developed the 
political ideas that would guide him for the rest of his life.

The Tampico oil fields were hotbeds of a Mexican brand of anarchism 
promoted by Ricardo Flores Magon. Magon's ideas left a deep 
impression on Sandino, but he absorbed socialist and communist ideas 
that were beginning to appear in Tampico as well.

When Sandino returned to Nicaragua, he embraced the cause of the 
Liberal Party. Sandino believed that this party would make a 
revolution in the Mexican model that was antioligarchical and anti-
imperialist. The founder of the Somoza dynasty, Anastasio Somoza 
Garcia, was a prominent member of the Liberal Party. This gives us a 
real indication of the two-faced character of this party. After Sandino 
discovered the truth about the Liberal Party, he would keep his 
political distance while collaborating with it militarily.

In 1927 the Liberal Party had given up its struggle against the ruling 
dictatorship, but Sandino's guerrillas fought on, taking on the US 
marines who provided military backing to Washington's clients in 
Managua. Sandino died in a 1934 ambush and his followers dispersed.

A 19 year old member of the Moscow-leaning Nicaraguan Socialist 
Party discovered the writings of Sandino in 1955. His name was 
Carlos Fonseca Amador. He soon broke with this party and started the 
FSLN, the Sandinista Front for the Liberation of Nicaragua.

He combined the home-grown nationalist and populist thrust of 
Sandino's movement with a Cuban revolution-influenced brand of 
Marxism. To help publicize Sandino's ideas, Fonseca started a review 
called "Nueva Nicaragua". The journal, according to Tomas Borge, a 
comrade of Fonseca, demonstrated that the Cuban revolution was a major 
inspiration to them. He said, "Fidel was for us the resurrection of Sandino."

Fonseca insisted on linking the contemporary struggle of the Cuban-
influenced Latin American guerrilla movements with Sandino's earlier 
struggle against imperialism and dictatorship. Fonseca steeped himself 
in Nicaraguan history and Sandino's struggle in particular, which he 
described as a model for a new generation of Nicaraguans.

The Marxism of Fonseca and the other Sandinistas may not be to the 
liking of Trotskyists, but it is a Marxism nonetheless. Besides the 
customary texts of Marx, Engels and Lenin that inform most socialist
thought, Fonseca drew heavily upon the example of Cuban Marxism. 
Guevara came as close to providing a general guideline for this form 
of Marxist thought. He proclaimed, "the revolution can be made if the 
historical realities are interpreted correctly and if the forces involved 
are utilized correctly, even if the theory is not known." In addition, 
Castro and Guevara believed that practice and theory are intimately 
connected. One does not develop a theory first and then base a practice 
on it. The established socialist movement, including Trotskyism, 
dedicated itself to creating Marxists as a precondition for revolutionary 
struggle. The Cubans reversed this by stating that making revolution 
helps to create Marxists.

Castro said in a speech on July 26, 1966:

"We would have been in a real pickle if, to make a socialist revolution, 
we had been obliged to spend all of our time catechizing everybody in 
Marxism everybody in socialism and Marxism, and only then 
undertaking the revolution...If a revolutionary happens to be one who 
arms himself with a revolutionary theory but does not feel it, he has a 
mental relation to revolutionary theory but not an affective one--not an 
emotional relation. He doesn't have a really attitude and sees the 
problem of revolutionary theory as something cold."

The Sandinistas embraced this approach and made decisive 
breakthroughs on the military and political front through the decade of 
the 1970s. They learned about the class dynamics of Nicaraguan 
society while *in struggle*. They learned that a section of the 
bourgeoisie could be at least neutralized, if not won over, to the 
struggle against Somoza. They learned that the workers and 
campesinos would fight the hardest against dictatorship and for social 
justice. These lessons enabled them to topple the dictatorship and 
create the possibilities for fundamental social change in Nicaragua.

In my next and final post, I want to take up the question of why the 
FSLN's type of Marxism succeeded in making a powerful revolution 
but did not bear lasting fruit. Most blame must be put at imperialism's 
doorstep, but the Sandinistas themselves made important mistakes.

(The final section of this post is based heavily on a reading of 
"Intellectual Foundations of the Nicaraguan Revolution" by Donald C. 
Hodges, University of Texas Press.)


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---