******************** 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 > Assad [an-Nar - the author of the first article in the book--JG]] > completely misrepresents the nature and history of permanent revolution > and the groups supporting the theory and using it in their practice. > > The author (and Joseph) somehow have got it into their heads that > supporting class demands in some inexplicable way cuts across the struggle > for democratic demands, when the opposite is true and is in fact the core > of the theory and its implementation. What's more, it is precisely the > partisans of permanent revolution who are at the core of a regionwide > convergence of revolutionary socialists who are the best fighters in their > countries' fight for democracy. Who said that class demands shouldn't be supported? It's an absurd charge, and I defy you to find a single place in my writing or that of Phil West's that does this. What I do say is that there wasn't a chance in the Arab Spring for socialist revolution or for the formation of workers' states. The Arab Spring consisted of extremely important struggles, but they were not going to be socialist revolutions or lead to workers states. Only if there is a realistic assessment of the actual democratic struggle can one both support it and also do the utmost to support any class-conscious working class trend within it. Now, I have only been able to read a bit of Khiyana - the review was written by a good friend of mine, Phil West, while I am currently reading Bond's and Garcia's valuable book, "Brics, An Anti-capitalist Critique". But I don't see where Assad an-Nar denies class demands either. Perhaps you could point out where he does so? An-Nar provides a devastating critique of the fantasies and mistakes caused by the pattern put forward by the theory of "permanent revolution" that "there are only two courses in any historical situation--either proletarian revolution or counterrevolution" (p. 14). He says that "What is crucial ...for the international left is that it not abrogate its responsibility to support these democratic movements." And he adds "Only by doing so can it create a space to criticise existing leaderships and push for socialist, left democratic movement." (14) I would presume that working towards the development of a socialist movement includes putting forward class demands. Trotskyism went completely bankrupt with respect to its assessment of the Arab Spring. At the outset, article after article on the various struggles in the Arab Spring by various Trotskyist groups put forward the perspective of either the struggle goes on to lead to a workers' state (or, if I remember right, even a regional workers' state), or else it will give rise to nothing. This can lead from unrealistic euphoria to condemnation of the reality of the struggle. And sure enough, we now have the condemnation of the Syrian movement by many groups with Trotskyist theorizing. A notable example of the influence of the theory of "permanent revolution" was that it led the Revolutionary Socialists of Egypt to briefly support the military coup against Morsi, which was a devastating mistake. The RS were an important force in the Egyptian left and were doing serious work, but "permanent revolution" led them to an incredible mistake. They ignored what they could see right in front of them about the situation in the working class, and the political split that existed among the masses. Instead their Trotskyist theory lead them to believe that a further step of the revolution had to be imminent. It couldn't be that they faced -- in the best situation -- a situation of protracted determined mass struggle to deal with the split in the working masses with the Islamists and to deal with the situation under the Morsi presidency. No, their Trotskyist theory said that the revolution was going to go to a new stage. They let empty rhetoric and false theory overpower what they could see of the actual situation among the masses, and the actual alignment of the various class forces. An-Nar points to the need to make a realistic assessment of what is actually happening in the various countries and the state of the working class. He has a devastating discussion on such things as the situation in Egypt. I am going to have to find the time to read his account more carefully, but I think it is quite important that such a critique be made. As for myself, I pointed out from the start that the Arab Spring and various other democratic movements in the last period have taken place in a situation where, even if successfully they could not lead to socialist revolution. And at the same time, the old type of profound democratic revolution of the past was no longer possible either. This explains why the outcome, when the democratization takes place, generally appears disappointing. It is disappointing even though the struggle may have been intense with a tremendous amount of sacrifice. But for Marxists, we know that tthe road to the revolutionary organization of the working class passes through these democratic struggles. The idea that this prevents putting forward class demands is absurd. I have written about this from the theoretical side in such articles as "Leninism and the Arab Spring" and "Against left-wing doubts in the democratic movement" (links to which are at http://www.communistvoice.org/00Stages.html). These articles were written at the start of the Arab Spring, but they did not give in to socialist euphoria, and hence they provide a standpoint for not giving in to despair or denigration of the struggle either. -- Joseph Green _________________________________________________________ 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
