Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Extreme capitalism of the Muslim Brothers, by Gilbert Achcar (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, June,
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Thank you, Michael Karadjis, for your comments of March 5 on this thread. Although we don't agree on various questions, I appreciate your long-running work in defense of the Syrian uprising and on a number of other issues. I realize this response has been delayed. But I not only was distracted by other work, but spent some time reviewing the history of RS. > Let's try and have this debate calmly. Andy is right about the RS > comrades fighting for democratic demands and getting brutally repressed > for it. Joseph is right that they made other serious errors. But he > should also mention that they fixed them very fast, and that in itself > raises questions about his interpretation of concrete errors in Egypt. The issue isn't whether RS has serious and dedicated activists. The issue is whether RS's astonishing blunder about the Egyptian coup is partly due to the influence of the theory of permanent revolution. More generally, the point is that the experience of the Arab Spring shows the bankrupcy of PR. When the Arab Spring began, there were groups that wrote fervent articles applying PR to various of the struggles. In the main, we now see silence. This is not a serious approach. An-Nar wrote in his article "The Democratic Wager" about the difficulties the left had dealing with democatic struggles that should be supported even though they wouldn't lead to socialism. He said that these theoretical difficulties "have generally been based on some return to Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution", and he then gave his analysis of PR. But I don't think his points have been dealt with seriously. An-Nar used the term "democratic wager", because he believed that currently the main theories on the left were either PR or Stalinism. The term "democratic wager" has some useful connotations, in that it brings out that we should support democratic struggles even when the masses don't have all the positions that the left would prefer they have. That's an important point, and one I have also raised in articles supporting the struggles of the Arab Spring. But an-Nar was apparently unaware of the Marxist-Leninist theory of the distinction between democratic and socialist movements. Michael, you write that RS fixed its errors very fast. Even if that were so, it's no reason to avoid examining why they blundered at the crucial moment. But I have gone back to reread various of RS's writings of the time, and I think they tell a different story. > Here's what I think. On the broad theoretical questions, I've long been > in agreement with much of what Joseph Green says (on the question of > Assad an-Nar's article in Khiyana, less so: I agree with some points but > it seemed to be greatly over-stated). I agree that permanent revolution > is too narrow a lens through which to understand world politics and > revolution (and in particular the Arab Spring, as Joseph notes), in as > much as we mean the particular aspects of Trotsky's theory that were > different from Lenin's views - though in my opinion they are > fundamentally similar. This is interesting, but it would be helpful if you elaborated it. When you say permanent revolution is too narrow a lens, what are you referring to? And if PR is too narrow a lens, what is needed to supplement it? >The main advantage of Trotsky is that he put it > all together in a couple of highly readable volumes, whereas Lenin's > views are written on the rush in various articles, big and small, > throughout 1905-6 and later (not only Two Tactics). We disagree on this. > For the record I > view Lenin's April Thesis as perfectly consistent with his 1905-6 views. > I agree with many of Joseph's comments about the broader sweep. But we > can discuss all this calmly. > > Where I don't agree with Joseph is in his attempt to somewhat > mechanically explain the actions and errors of small Trotskyist groups > as being caused by the Original Sin of PR. I don't agree with blaming everything on the activists who tried to carry out PR, rather than the theory. To explain away the errors, you refer to small groups, the more caricaturish kinds of Trotskyists, sectarians, and so forth. But sooner or later, one has to deal with the theory itself. > As I see it, the problem with > this is that Joseph in a way is doing what the more caricaturish kinds > of Trotskyists do: they seek to explain everything on the basis of the > need for the "correct program" (and everyone messes up because they > don't have it), and Joseph is kind of saying the same about those who do > have the PR view. I think in both cases it is an idealist
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Extreme capitalism of the Muslim Brothers, by Gilbert Achcar (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, June,
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * -Original Message- From: Joseph Green via Marxism Andrew Pollack wrote: re Green's latest on Egypt: I'm sure all the RS comrades who've been jailed because they fought for DEMOCRATIC demands will be glad to hear that their protests and jailings never happened. The issue re Egypt isn't whether Trotskyists ever fight for democratic demands. Of course they have. The issue is why did the RS briefly back the military coup? What was the source of this horrendous error? And in fact, the theory of permanent revolution was one of the sources of this error. .. Let's try and have this debate calmly. Andy is right about the RS comrades fighting for democratic demands and getting brutally repressed for it. Joseph is right that they made other serious errors. But he should also mention that they fixed them very fast, and that in itself raises questions about his interpretation of concrete errors in Egypt. Here's what I think. On the broad theoretical questions, I've long been in agreement with much of what Joseph Green says (on the question of Assad an-Nar's article in Khiyana, less so: I agree with some points but it seemed to be greatly over-stated). I agree that permanent revolution is too narrow a lens through which to understand world politics and revolution (and in particular the Arab Spring, as Joseph notes), in as much as we mean the particular aspects of Trotsky's theory that were different from Lenin's views - though in my opinion they are fundamentally similar. The main advantage of Trotsky is that he put it all together in a couple of highly readable volumes, whereas Lenin's views are written on the rush in various articles, big and small, throughout 1905-6 and later (not only Two Tactics). For the record I view Lenin's April Thesis as perfectly consistent with his 1905-6 views. I agree with many of Joseph's comments about the broader sweep. But we can discuss all this calmly. Where I don't agree with Joseph is in his attempt to somewhat mechanically explain the actions and errors of small Trotskyist groups as being caused by the Original Sin of PR. As I see it, the problem with this is that Joseph in a way is doing what the more caricaturish kinds of Trotskyists do: they seek to explain everything on the basis of the need for the "correct program" (and everyone messes up because they don't have it), and Joseph is kind of saying the same about those who do have the PR view. I think in both cases it is an idealist error. Why do I think the RS initially messed up in 2013 in the face of Sisi's coup? Human error. That's it. They are a tiny group of people; surrounding them were millions of people demanding the fall of Morsi, mostly for good reason. They were completely swamped by it. Inspired by this movement for *democratic* demands (note!), they missed the deeply anti-democratic elements of the same movement trying to ride it. When the military struck and was given backing by this element of the movement (and probably by a lot of others among the ordinary folk in those demonstrations who were simply politically naive), they were unprepared for it. They came out with some terrible formulations. After that, I distinctly remember reading about one declaration from RS a week for the next month. Each one got progressively better. By the time we get to the one a month later, the error has been fully fixed: not only is there any doubt that Sisi is not just the enemy, he has also emerged, rightly, as the main enemy; the MB demonstrations should be protected from repression, its cadres released from prison; and it is even now permissible to do joint work with the MB against Sisi's repression, as long as a very clear line of political demarcation is maintained. Faultless. Here's my problem with attempting to explain the RS' error by their adherence to PR. Leaving aside the question of whether PR influences Trotskyist groups to downplay the democratic revolution or see it as useless unless it goes fast to socialist revolution: even IF we were to accept this for argument's sake (and I think it only applies to the more sectarian groups and their sectarian interpretations), that cannot explain the RS error at all. Why would they have got themselves too carried away with the mass movement in the streets centred around democratic demands? Sectarian Trotskyism should have denounced the movement from the outset as inevitably leading nowhere, or to reaction, since it did not have revolutionary proletarian leadership. They would
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Extreme capitalism of the Muslim Brothers, by Gilbert Achcar (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, June,
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I've actually been doing Egypt solidarity work for 6 years, Green while you're busy peddling dangerous Menshevik illusions. So piss off. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Extreme capitalism of the Muslim Brothers, by Gilbert Achcar (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, June,
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * re Green's latest on Egypt: I'm sure all the RS comrades who've been jailed because they fought for DEMOCRATIC demands will be glad to hear that their protests and jailings never happened. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Extreme capitalism of the Muslim Brothers, by Gilbert Achcar (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, June,
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * On 3/5/17 3:50 AM, Joseph Green via Marxism wrote: That's progress...of a sort! (Except that now he doesn't know what the meaning of the theory of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry really is.) Of course I know what it means. It means that the workers would take power in Russia, break the chains of feudalism, and rule over capitalist property relations. Do you think it means something else? _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Extreme capitalism of the Muslim Brothers, by Gilbert Achcar (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, June,
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * David Walters writes: > I don't believe that Joseph Green understands very much about the theory > of Permanent Revolution. David, you don't give your definition of permanent revolution, and contrast it to how I have described permanent revolution. You don't even show how your view of PR is different from that of the Trotskyist groups whose views on PR I have quoted in my articles. Indeed, as far as I can see, we have similar views on what permanent revolution means: we differ on whether we agree with PR, and with our assessment of what has happened in different countries around the world. You are entitled to your opinion of course. But unless you provide some evidence that you, as opposed to the rest of the Trotskyist movement, such as all the Trotskyist groups that I have cited in my articles on the Arab Spring, are wrong about PR, I don't see how you can expect your assertions about PR to carry much weight. > It is, as a theory (and a programmatic perspective) > proven by negative example all the time, Although I don't believe that is true, I think the fact that you make this assertion verifies that I have been quite accurate about the meaning of Trotsky's permanent revolution. PR really does assert that every democratic struggle in the present that does not achieve workers' power will have accomplished nothing. That's why, David, you can regard PR as verified by failures of the one democratic struggle after another. (Another important issue is whether these struggles really were all total failures or whether it is rather that democratic struggles and national independence don't live up to the exaggerated standard you set for them. Is it really true, for example, that India really has only "formal" independence? But I leave that point for next time.) What a miserable perspective this verification of PR by negative example would be for the Arab Spring. In order for Trotskyist groups to say anything about what activists should do in these struggles, they would have to imagine that they could lead to workers' power (indeed, workers' power on a regional scale). Otherwise all PR could say about these struggles is that they were fated to be negative examples. All it could say would be -- you will struggle, and sacrifice, and see your friends and relatives die, but you will accomplish nothing. And in fact, a number of Trotskyist organizations explicitly stated that the struggles of the Arab Spring were doomed unless they obtained workers' power (or even regional workers' power). Those who have been defending PR want to forget what was said in 2011. Meanwhile, as this thread on the list has continued, additional defenses of PR have been posted on other threads on this list. But I think they manifest the problems with PR that I have been talking about. Andrew Pollock posted a link to a series of article by Neil Davidson onTrotsky's theory of uneven and combined development. (https://rs21testblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/uneven-and-combined-deve l opment-modernity-modernism-revolution.pd On page 3 of Davidson's work he writes: "The working class...could accomplish the revolution against the pre-capitalist state which the bourgeois itself was no longer prepared to undertake and -- in Trotsky's version of permanent revolution at any rate -- move directly to the construction of socialism, provided of course that it occurred within the context of a successful *international* revoltuionary movement..." (emphasis as in the original) Now the Arab Spring did *not* occur in the context of a socialist revolutionary wave throughout the world. On the contrary, it has occurred in a very difficult period for the world working class. So the conclusion would be that all that is left is to be a negative example. It's the inevitable conclusion whether Davidson himself draws it or not. And I think this conclusion, stated or not, is one of the things that lies behind the fact that there is no discussion anywhere in the 91-page PDF of Davidson's article of the tasks of revolutionary socialists in the situation of a democratic struggle where there is no possibility of "mov(ing) directly to the construction of socialism". Now, Davidson does mention of the Egyptian struggle. He even says that "the Egyptian revolution has been the most important of the contemporary social explosions". But there is no discussion about what the socialists and class-conscious activists should have done in this revolution, or whether we can learn from what they did in this revolution. Even though Davidson's series of articles extends right up to the present, there
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Extreme capitalism of the Muslim Brothers, by Gilbert Achcar (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, June,
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I don't believe that Joseph Green understands very much about the theory of Permanent Revolution. It is, as a theory (and a programmatic perspective) proven by negative example all the time, *especially* in Egypt, to cite one example, Tunisia another and the list tragically goes on. Has PR been used (and still is) dogmatically with sad consequences? Of course it has. One the starkest examples is post-WWII India where the Calcutta Trotskyist organization, based on their incorrect understanding of PR, exclaimed that Indian independence from Britain would be impossible to achieve short of the revolution growing over into a full fledged socialist one. India achieved "independence" in the formal sense exactly as had all of Latin America 120 years previously. But this doesn't mean the totality of democratic tasks can be achieved without a total confrontation with the 'national' capitalists. And, even where independence is acheived, the *subordination* of the recently independent countries to the Imperialist center was always occurring, if not immediately, then as a constant process, which reverses those gains, even if it takes decades to do so. The basis of PR, *especially in this Century* is that Imperialism will always use it's local agents, the local clientele capitalists in the still capitalist states to push, and reverse, every gain ever made by the working class and peasantry in developing countries. That is clearly evident in Egypt where the formal democratic gains were pushed aside by the very pro-capitalist (albeit bonapartist) army on behest of the Imperialists. David Walters _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Extreme capitalism of the Muslim Brothers, by Gilbert Achcar (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, June
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Abuse? I'm not the one telling the working classes of entire nations to shut up and follow bourgeois leadership. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Extreme capitalism of the Muslim Brothers, by Gilbert Achcar (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, June
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Andrew Pollack wrote: > 1. About a month ago tens of thousands of mostly women textile workers went > on strike in Egypt, and as is always the case faced threats of firing or > worse: > > http://www.madamasr.com/en/2017/02/09/news/u/mahalla-textile-workers-temporarily-call-off-strike-5-strike-leaders-face-disciplinary-hearings/ > > Which side of that combined economic/social/political struggle are you on, > Joseph? This is just more abuse, Andrew. That's your answer to every refutation of permanent revolution. You don't deal with the alternative theory set forward, or with the facts concerning the democratizations of the last few decades. No, it's just abuse, abuse, abuse. It reminds me of the way you-know-who deals with people who contradict him. > > 2. Also recently several South African revolutionaries described in > Pambazuka the battles, both in the workplaces and streets and in ideas, > between South Africa's bourgeois rulers and its workers: > > http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article40214 > > Some of the articles mention that NUMSA's "marxist-leninist" leadership is > backtracking from its promised drive for socialist politics and strategy. > Where do you stand on that, Joseph? > If you have important information about what's going on in South Africa, Andrew, please post it. Describe what's going on, how you see the different paths being proposed and the different organizations that exist, and so on. I would be interested, even if I disagree with your analysis, and it might also encourage contributions from other people on South Africa. > And for god's sake don't just copy and paste your old emails. I don't know why you're so upset by this. You don't read it anyway. But in any case I didn't just "copy and paste". I mainly gave a new exposition of my standpoint, in the reply to the current discussion, and it has analysis which you haven't replied to. Except with abuse. However, it's significant that I can include what I wrote about the Arab Spring in 2011, and it holds up pretty well. But the statements of the time which were based on the theory of permanent revolution were haywire. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Extreme capitalism of the Muslim Brothers, by Gilbert Achcar (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, June
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Louis Proyect wrote: > > I don't know what "according to the permanent revolution" means. Trotsky > didn't write a formula, even though his epigones turned it into one. The > obligation of Marxists is to analyze capitalist society and develop > strategy and tactics that will help to overthrow the capitalist class. I > don't read Trotsky's writings from 1905 in order to understand Thabo > Mbeki or Nelson Mandela. I read Patrick Bond. I am afraid your argument > is with Trotskyism, not Trotsky. I have read Trotsky, and he has a definite viewpoint. And I also take account of the applications of Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution made by Trotskyists, such as during the Arab Spring. I think their application of permanent revolution is a legitimate and straight-forward reading of the theory, but the theory's wrong. It goes against what's happened in the world. With so many different Trotskyist groups and theorists, one would have thought at least a few would have been able to get it right. Now if Trotsky was so obscure that no one know what he meant by permanent revolution, that's a devastating indictment of his theorizing. And it would make him irrelevant. But I think that many later Trotskyists did understand the theory and tried very hard to apply it, and it's just that the theory failed. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Extreme capitalism of the Muslim Brothers, by Gilbert Achcar (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, June
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * 1. About a month ago tens of thousands of mostly women textile workers went on strike in Egypt, and as is always the case faced threats of firing or worse: http://www.madamasr.com/en/2017/02/09/news/u/mahalla-textile-workers-temporarily-call-off-strike-5-strike-leaders-face-disciplinary-hearings/ Which side of that combined economic/social/political struggle are you on, Joseph? 2. Also recently several South African revolutionaries described in Pambazuka the battles, both in the workplaces and streets and in ideas, between South Africa's bourgeois rulers and its workers: http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article40214 Some of the articles mention that NUMSA's "marxist-leninist" leadership is backtracking from its promised drive for socialist politics and strategy. Where do you stand on that, Joseph? And for god's sake don't just copy and paste your old emails. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Extreme capitalism of the Muslim Brothers, by Gilbert Achcar (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, June
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * On 3/2/17 12:04 PM, Joseph Green via Marxism wrote: Again and again, the theory of permanent revolution has been proved wrong. According to the permanent revolution, the neoliberal nature of the ANC government should have meant that all the democratic gains were lost, and we should have seen South Africa suffering again from apartheid, indeed perhaps an even more intense apartheid than before. Instead we see that the old apartheid is dead, but the "social tensions" are increasing, and the extension and intensification of the class struggle is on the agenda. I don't know what "according to the permanent revolution" means. Trotsky didn't write a formula, even though his epigones turned it into one. The obligation of Marxists is to analyze capitalist society and develop strategy and tactics that will help to overthrow the capitalist class. I don't read Trotsky's writings from 1905 in order to understand Thabo Mbeki or Nelson Mandela. I read Patrick Bond. I am afraid your argument is with Trotskyism, not Trotsky. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Extreme capitalism of the Muslim Brothers, by Gilbert Achcar (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, June
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Louis Proyect wrote: >>https://mondediplo.com/2013/06/05brothers (The link is to an Achcar article entitled "The neoliberal policy of Egypt´s new president Mohamed Morsi looks very much like a continuation of that of Mubarak. It is increasing social tensions.") Thank you Louis for posting this. It illustrates one of the major points I have been stressing for years. Gilbert Achcar's article of June 2013 pointed to the contradiction between the policies of President Morsi and the expectations of the masses after the downfall of Mubara, and it referred to the increased "social tensions". It should also be noted that the bourgeois leadership of the secular liberal trend in the Egyptian movement also backed such economic policies. This is in accord with what I wrote in November 2011 about the nature of the Arab Spring. I firmly supported the fight against the dictatorships, but didn't glamorize the regimes that would follow the dictatorships. I pointed out that conservative and neoliberal policies had in general followed the victory of democratization movements in this period. But in general, democracy leads to an extension of the class struggle. The class struggle is the path towards socialism, and to recoil from the anti-dictatorship movement because the governments that come to power following the tyrants were likely to be conservative or neoliberal would mean to abandon both democracy and socialism. In South Africa too, we saw that the great victory of liberation from apartheid was followed by an ANC government that followed neo-liberal policies. In some ways, it was and is more free-market than the horrendous, inhuman, ultlra-racist apartheid regime that preceded it. Again and again, the theory of permanent revolution has been proved wrong. According to the permanent revolution, the neoliberal nature of the ANC government should have meant that all the democratic gains were lost, and we should have seen South Africa suffering again from apartheid, indeed perhaps an even more intense apartheid than before. Instead we see that the old apartheid is dead, but the "social tensions" are increasing, and the extension and intensification of the class struggle is on the agenda. We see, for example, the massacre of miners at Marikana, and the struggle of the miitants in, for example, the National Union of Metworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) to resist the ANC's neoliberalism both economically and politically. The issue of the oppression of the black masses is still present, but it presents itself in a different form than before. This is in accord with the Marxist theory, not permanent revolution. While I don't agree with everything in An-Nar's article, I think it's strong point is that it puts stress on the actual political situation facing the Egyptian political masses, while the dreams based on permanent revolution glossed over, obscured, and effectively ignored this reality. A realistic assessment is needed if revolutionary socialists are to know what special role they need to play in the movement in order to both help the democratic struggle and prepare a revolutionary workers movement with the goal of socialism. Permanent revolution led various Trotskyist groups,, when the Arab Spring broke out, to paint glorious pictures of workers' power sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa, if only a revolutionary leadership was in charge of the struggle. It blinded them to a realistic assessment of the Arab Spring, and of what had to be done. It is a realistic assessment that is revolutionary, not idle dreaming and phrasemongering. Lenin stresses the importance of knowing how to pursue revolutionary goals in a backward period. Permanent revolution fails this test. Below I give some excerpts from what I wrote in 2011, in the course of defending the importance of the Arab Spring. >From "Against left-wing doubts about the democratic movement", November 2011 (http://www.communistvoice.org/46cLeftWingDoubts.html): "But this [the Arab Spring] is not a socialist movement, nor even a radical anti-imperialist one. Instead it has a lot in common with the liberalization movements which we have seen elsewhere around the world in the last several decades. These movements brought down various dictatorships, but often left conservative or even market-fundamentalist regimes in their place." "In the case of the Arab Spring, everywhere the insurgent masses are split up in disparate groupings. Everywhere different class factions take part in the struggle, and different class interests are expressed. Nowhere is the struggle led by a clear
