Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution' published in Urdu for the first time

We are very proud to announce the publication of the first ever Urdu translations of Leon Trotsky’s The Permanent Revolution and Results and Prospects! These invaluable texts for revolutionaries everywhere have been painstakingly translated by the comrades of the Inqalabi Communist Party – the Pakistani section of the Revolutionary Communist International – for publication as a single book.

We publish below Rob Sewell’s new introduction to the Urdu translation, in which he discusses the importance of Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution, both for communists internationally as well as for those on the Indian subcontinent.

[Read the Urdu translation of this introduction here]

The publication of Leon Trotsky’s book The Permanent Revolution and Results and Prospects for the first time in Urdu is a remarkable achievement, a real milestone for the revolutionary movement. Without doubt, it is a classic work of Marxism that has colossal relevance for today, especially for Pakistan as well as the whole of the Indian subcontinent.

The essential framework of Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution, which rejected the mechanical view of history embodied in the ‘theory of stages’, was already contained within the writings of Marx and Engels. In the Address of the Central Authority to the League, written in March 1850, Marx and Engels wrote about the “treacherous role” of the German liberal bourgeoisie during the 1848 revolution, which they thought would be the prelude to the proletarian revolution. While this perspective did not take place, the authors nevertheless stressed the independent role of the working class and the need to make the revolution permanent.

“While the democratic petty bourgeois wish to bring the revolution to a conclusion 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, the proletariat has conquered state power, and the association of proletarians, not only in one country but in all the dominant countries of the world, has advanced so far that the competition amongst the proletarians in these countries has ceased and that at least the decisive productive forces are concentrated in the hands of the proletarians. For us the issue cannot be the alteration of private property but only its annihilation, not the smoothing over of class antagonisms but the abolition of classes, not the improvement of the existing society but the foundation of a new one.”

They conclude:

“But they themselves [the proletariat] must do the utmost for their final victory by making it clear to themselves what their class interests are, by taking up their position as an independent party as soon as possible and by not allowing themselves to be misled for a single moment by the hypocritical phrases of the democratic bourgeois into refraining from the independent organisation of the party of the proletariat. Their battle cry must be: the revolution in permanence.” (Marx & Engels Collected Works, vol.10, pp.281, 287)

Trotsky took these ideas and developed them during 1904 and 1905 into his theory of the permanent revolution, when the debate over the perspectives for the Russian Revolution was in full swing. In fact, it was following the defeat of the 1905 revolution, when Trotsky was arrested and imprisoned by the Tsarist authorities, that he wrote his Results and Prospects.

In the debates at this time, there were three positions that were put forward. All three agreed that the revolution in Russia was a bourgeois revolution on the lines of the bourgeois revolutions in England and France. The fundamental tasks of the revolution were to overthrow absolutism, establish a bourgeois republic, resolve the agrarian question and give self-determination to the oppressed nationalities. This in turn would lay the basis for the development of capitalism and the creation of a modern economy. The problem arose over which class would lead the revolution.

The Mensheviks took the mechanical view that, as this was a bourgeois revolution, it should be led by the bourgeoisie, as in the past. According to them, the young working class should subordinate itself to the leadership of the bourgeoisie. Only then, in the next stage, following the consolidation of capitalism, could the working class put forward its socialist ideas. Certainly, whilst supporting the bourgeoisie, the workers should abandon such socialist ideas for fear of alienating their bourgeois allies.

For the Mensheviks, each society must slavishly follow this prescribed pattern. But far from being a ‘classical’ interpretation of Marxism, this whole strategy was in opposition to the advice and warnings given by Marx and Engels about the treacherous role of the liberal bourgeoisie.

Lenin opposed this Menshevik position. His line of thought was most fully expressed in his Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, written in the summer of 1905. As with Marx and Engels, Lenin ferociously attacks the bourgeoisie, which can never play a revolutionary role at this time.

“But we as Marxists all know from theory and from daily and hourly observation of our liberals, Zemstvo people, and Osvobozhdeniye supporters that the bourgeoisie is inconsistent, self-seeking, and cowardly in its support of the revolution. The bourgeoisie, in the mass, will inevitably turn towards counter-revolution, towards the autocracy, against the revolution, and against the people, as soon as its narrow, selfish interests are met, as soon as it ‘recoils’ from consistent democracy (and it is already recoiling from it!)” (Lenin Collected Works, vol.9, pp.97-98)

He draws on the advice of Marx and Engels as regards the experience of the 1848 revolution in stressing the independent role of the working class in the revolution:

“This should not be forgotten in appraising Marx’s repeated declarations during this period and somewhat later about the need for organising an independent proletarian party. Marx arrived at this practical conclusion only as a result of the experience of the democratic revolution, almost a year later – so philistine, so petty-bourgeois was the whole atmosphere in Germany at the time.” (LCW, vol. 9, p.138)

Lenin explained that only the working class in alliance with the peasant masses could carry out the tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution. He put forward the slogan of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.

Trotsky, who held his own position, agreed fully with Lenin about the counter-revolutionary role of the Russian bourgeoisie and the need for working-class leadership, supported by the peasantry. However, he criticised Lenin’s formula, as in his opinion it did not make clear which class would exercise the dictatorship.

But Lenin’s vagueness was intentional. He was not prepared to say in advance what form the dictatorship would take and did not preclude the possibility that the peasants would predominate in the coalition. His formulation had an algebraic character, where the unknown quantities would be filled in by history.

Trotsky, however, was more categorical about the role of the peasantry, which has never played an independent role in history. In other words, the Russian Revolution would be decided by the outcome of the struggle of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat for the leadership of the peasant masses. For Trotsky, the alternative was either a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, linked to Tsarist reaction, or a dictatorship of the proletariat in alliance with the poor peasants.

He went on to explain that such a revolutionary government would carry out the tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution, but would not stop there. They would continue with socialist tasks. However, socialism could not be established in backward Russia, so the revolution would have to be spread to the West. This, then, in essence, is the permanent revolution.

In contrast to the Mensheviks, and similar to Trotsky, Lenin also linked the Russian Revolution to the revolution in the West. He said that the victory of the bourgeois democratic revolution in Russia would have a colossal effect on the working class in Europe, pushing them towards revolution. They would, to use Lenin’s words, “carry the revolutionary conflagration into Europe”. This would, of course, provoke a socialist revolution, given the material conditions that existed. This in turn, explained Lenin, would transform the Russian Revolution into a new socialist revolution.

“Revolutions are the locomotives of history, said Marx. Revolutions are festivals of the oppressed and the exploited. At no other time are the mass of the people in a position to come forward so actively as creators of a new social order, as a time of revolution. At such times, the people are capable of performing miracles…” (LCW, vol.9, p.113)

So we can see, despite differences, the positions of Lenin and Trotsky are quite similar, in complete contrast to that of the Mensheviks.

The material basis for socialism did not exist in Russia. However it existed on a world scale, which gave the revolution its international character. The Russian Revolution, explained Trotsky, was only the first link in the chain of international socialist revolution. As early as 1905, Trotsky wrote that the Russian workers could come to power sooner than those of the West. Not even Lenin was prepared to commit himself to this idea at that time. Of all the Marxists, Trotsky alone foresaw the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia before the socialist revolution in the West. Trotsky’s prognosis was verified in the October Revolution of 1917.

Did this mean that Trotsky denied the bourgeois nature of the Russian Revolution, as he is accused by the Stalinists? Absolutely not. However, he understood that only the working class could solve these tasks in alliance with the peasantry. And they would not relinquish power, but consolidate their position by proceeding to the socialist tasks.

In 1905, Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution was a prognosis. It would be tested, as with all perspectives, by events.

Lenin put forward the perspective of tribal societies “leaping” forward to communism. In essence, it represented the basic ideas of the permanent revolution / Image: public domain

In February 1917, Lenin abandoned his old slogan of democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry and called for all power to the Soviets. This new perspective was put forward in his April Theses. Both Lenin and Trotsky denounced the bourgeois Provisional Government, which should be overthrown by the working class. Lenin’s and Trotsky’s views now coincided.

However, the other Bolshevik leaders, like Kamenev and Stalin, clung to the old formula and supported the Provisional Government. The algebraic formula had been filled with a negative content. Lenin said those who still put forward the old slogan should be placed in the “archive of Bolshevik pre-revolutionary antiquities”.

The bourgeois Provisional Government proved incapable of carrying out a single task of the bourgeois democratic revolution. This laid the basis for the new revolution in October. This was not a purely “Russian Revolution”, to establish socialism in Russia, but the first blow in the world socialist revolution. That is why Lenin and Trotsky established the Communist International as the world party of the socialist revolution.

The October Revolution gave a mighty impulse to the world revolution, including the colonial revolution.

In 1920, at the Second Congress of the Communist International, Lenin proposed his ‘Draft theses on the national and colonial questions’, in which he stated that, even in the most backward countries, the Communists should argue for the creation of peasant Soviets and the independence of the workers’ organisations.

The success of the colonial revolution was linked to the success of the revolution in the advanced capitalist countries. In this context, Lenin put forward the perspective of tribal societies “leaping” forward to communism. In essence, it represented the basic ideas of the permanent revolution.

However, with the death of Lenin and the coming to power of the triumvirate of Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev, the line changed. In 1922, the Chinese Communist Party was ordered to enter and subordinate itself to the bourgeois nationalist Kuomintang (KMT). The only member of the Politburo to oppose this was Trotsky. This was the line of Menshevism. It was soon followed by the “bloc of four classes” and the theory of stages. This was a policy of class collaboration. The KMT became a sympathising section of the Communist International and its leader, Chiang Kai-shek, was made an honorary member of the executive committee of the Comintern.

The Chinese Revolution of 1925-27 saw the working class play the leading role. It displayed such heroism as can only be compared to the revolutionary Spanish proletariat between 1936-37.

But in 1927, Chiang staged a military coup, closing down the unions, abolishing the peasant associations and murdering the workers’ leaders. He then smashed the Communist Party, arresting its leaders, and put down the revolution in blood.

Stalin and Bukharin had sacrificed the communists. They had no confidence in the Chinese working class. Theirs was the position of the Mensheviks, only worse. At least the Mensheviks did not call for the dissolution of the RSDLP into the Cadet Party!

With the campaign against Trotsky after Lenin’s death, there was an all-out assault on the theory of the permanent revolution. This has now become anathema to the Stalinist bureaucracy, which had embraced the anti-Marxist theory of ‘Socialism in One Country’. This meant the abandonment of world revolution.

With the consolidation of the bureaucracy in Russia, with Stalin as its figurehead, Menshevism became the policy adopted everywhere. The Communists were supposed to enter into an alliance with the ‘progressive’ bourgeoisie, which evolved into Popular Frontism, an alliance of workers’ parties with the liberal bourgeoisie. Of course, such a policy led to disaster in Spain, France, and other countries.

This policy has a particularly disastrous effect in the ex-colonial countries. This was especially the case in the Indian subcontinent, where the ‘Communist’ Parties trailed after the bourgeoisie. In India, they trailed after the Congress Party and extolled Nehru, then the other leaders, as the leaders of the third world. There was even a strong faction within the Communist Party of India (CPI) which even advocated the merger of the party with the Congress.

The CPI split in 1964, producing the CPI(M), which also split over the years to form the CPI(M-L) or Naxalite movement, as well as others. But there are no basic differences between them. They all have illusions in the Gandhi dynasty and in the ‘patriotic national bourgeoisie’, which is apparently anti-monopolistic, anti-imperialist and anti-feudal.

With the campaign against Trotsky after Lenin’s death, there was an all-out assault on the theory of the permanent revolution / Image: public domain

The CPI based itself on the perspective of a “national democratic united front” in India, based upon an alliance of the working class with three other classes: the peasantry, the urban middle class and the “national” bourgeoisie. It is the theory of stages, where the socialist revolution is relegated to the distant future. While the CPI(M) seeks a “People’s Democratic United front”, with a state based on a “four class alliance” including the “national bourgeoisie”. Meanwhile, the Naxalites called for an “anti-feudal United front” and took to the road of guerilla warfare.

These trends justify their stance by reference to the so-called “Leninist theory of two stages”, which is nothing of the kind. This theory of stages is a thoroughly Menshevik one, where the emphasis is placed on the first stage of a national democratic revolution. It holds that only far, far in the future would a socialist revolution be possible.

But not a single one of the tasks of the ‘democratic’ (bourgeois) revolution can be solved in these countries under the leadership of the ‘national’ bourgeoisie, who are tied to the interests of imperialism.

The Modi gang, following on from the bankrupt UPA government, has opened up India to the multinationals, privatising utilities and selling off swathes of state property to the highest bidder. The corrupt BJP leaders have whipped up the poison of religious division and chauvinism to stay in power, as the masses suffer from inflation and increased unemployment. But the movement of the farmers and the general strike over the new labour code shows the potential for struggle. However, the so-called Communist Parties are mired in their old illusions and incapable of offering a real way forward.

In the recent elections, the various Stalinist Communist Parties joined the alliance which included reactionary parties and which was led by the discredited Congress, with a programme of defending “democracy and the constitution” in a display of so-called national unity. They cry loudly about BJP ‘fascism’, but this unholy alliance offers no solution to the problems of the masses.

But such policies, which sow illusions in the so-called ‘progressive bourgeoisie’, have led to one disaster and one setback after another. In Indonesia, the CP was a mass force of 3 to 4 million members. It was one of the biggest Communist Parties worldwide. Despite this, instead of preparing for power, it trailed after the ‘progressive’ and nationalist leader, Sukarno. But this only served to sow illusions in Sukarno and disorientate the revolutionary movement. This gave time to the army generals, supported by imperialism, to overthrow Sukarno in a coup led by General Suharto, which led to the massacre of millions of communists and leftists, as well as the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands.

In Chile, the same policy of stages led to defeat and the murder and disappearance of hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants. The policy of the Chilean Communist Party was not socialism, but for a “democratic revolution” based upon a broad class alliance, including “non-monopoly sections of the capitalists”. Together with the Popular Unity party, they curbed the militancy of the workers and peasants, who were attempting to take over their industries and the land, so as not to frighten their liberal allies. This paved the way for defeat and the military regime of Pinochet.

In Britain, the Communist Party adopted the same strategy as in Chile and elsewhere. As they explain in their pamphlet Chile: Solidarity with Popular Unity: “Furthermore, as in Chile, The British Road to Socialism calls for the working class to win to its side and lead other sections of the population who are exploited by the big monopolies, to rally them behind the democratic struggle for a thorough-going anti-monopoly programme, and in the process, to isolate the big monopolies.”

However, the liberal bourgeoisie in the ex-colonial countries cannot play a progressive role, given their ties to imperialism and their fear of the masses. How much more is this the case in the advanced capitalist countries? And yet, the Stalinists' main thrust is to sow illusions in these layers, which has led to disaster and defeat.

Trotsky’s writings on the permanent revolution represent an essential fight for a clear revolutionary class policy / Image: public domain

Their strategy is diametrically opposed to the one advocated by Lenin. It is a return to the Menshevik idea of stages, which means supporting the liberal bourgeoisie. This is the road to ruin.

The crisis of capitalism on a world scale and the turbulent period we are entering will throw up one revolutionary crisis after another. However, if the working class is to take advantage of this situation, it needs a leadership and programme that will take the movement through to a victorious conclusion.

Trotsky’s writings on the permanent revolution represent an essential fight for a clear revolutionary class policy. They are more relevant today than when they were first written. They offer a way out of this impasse.

The publication of Trotsky's work marks a vital contribution to this objective, not least in the Indian subcontinent.

With the growing ferment inside the Stalinist Communist Parties, we hope that those genuine Communists who are seeking the road back to Lenin will read and study this book on the permanent revolution. They were the ideas, after all, that guaranteed the success of the October Revolution. They are the real ideas of Leninism. They are the ideas for today.

Rob Sewell

London,
November 2024