{"id":1199,"date":"2020-03-30T16:46:38","date_gmt":"2020-03-30T14:46:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/marxistworkersparty.org.za\/?page_id=1199"},"modified":"2020-04-23T11:38:19","modified_gmt":"2020-04-23T09:38:19","slug":"chapter-two","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/marxistworkersparty.net\/?page_id=1199","title":{"rendered":"Chapter Two"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Character and Tasks of the Revolution<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The character of a revolution is\ndetermined by two things. On the one hand, by the problems which have brought\nsociety to a revolutionary impasse; by the real obstacles standing in the way\nof social progress; by the nature of the changes that must be carried out in\norder to clear those obstacles away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, the character\nof a revolution is determined by the class forces which inevitably enter into\nconflict with each other, and must fight the fundamental issues out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The coming revolution in South\nAfrica is, by these criteria, clearly and inescapably a proletarian socialist\nrevolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is this not contradicted by the\nfact that democratic demands, and above all the demand for national liberation,\nare to the forefront in the revolutionary struggle? Not in the least. The key\nto understanding this lies in the theory of the \u2018permanent revolution\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This theory, originated by Marx\nand elaborated in particular by Trotsky, is completely borne out in relation to\nSouth Africa \u2013 but with a difference from the way in which it applied to\nRussia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The objective tasks of the\nRussian Revolution, in 1905 and again in 1917, were bourgeois-democratic tasks.\nThese were: to expropriate the land from the feudal landlords, and distribute\nit among a free peasantry; to free the national minorities, oppressed within\nthe \u2018prison house\u2019 of the Russian Tsarist empire; and to break Russia from its\ndependence upon the Western European imperialist powers, particularly Britain and\nFrance, which, in 1917, meant above all ending Russian involvement in the First\nWorld War.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Capitalism had developed late in\nRussia; but then it had developed rapidly, transplanted in a concentrated form\nby foreign capital, interlinked with the Tsarist-bureaucratic state, and\ninterwoven with the feudal classes and institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Russia participated in the world\nwar both as a semi-colonial dependant of the other \u2018Entente\u2019 powers and as an\nold imperialist power in its own right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To carry-out the bourgeois-democratic\ntasks necessitated the revolutionary overthrow of Tsarism and the clearing away\nof all the feudal rubbish. In and of itself this did not necessitate the\noverthrow of capitalism \u2013 but on the contrary would have been necessary\nprecisely to allow the all-round development of Russian capitalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On a world scale capitalism,\nhaving entered the stage of monopoly, was more than ripe for overthrow. On a\nworld scale it was choking the development of the productive forces, and this\nwas manifested in the inter-imperialist world war of 1914-18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But its bankruptcy was relative\nand not absolute; uneven and not uniformly felt. There was undoubtedly still\neconomic \u2018room\u2019 for the further growth of Russian capitalism, in a backward\ncountry the size of a continent, covering one-fifth of the globe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless, the circumstances\nof Russia\u2019s belated capitalist development had left the bourgeoisie weak and\nincapable of playing any revolutionary role against Tsarism. The proletariat,\nthough a small minority of the total population, was concentrated in large\nindustries, fresh and revolutionary. For protection, the bourgeoisie sheltered\nunder the Tsarist state. Of necessity, leadership of the revolutionary struggle\nagainst Tsarism passed to the proletariat, which placed itself at the head of\nthe mass of poor and oppressed peasants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Inevitably, as a result, the\nbourgeoisie played a counter-revolutionary role against its \u2018own\u2019 bourgeois-democratic\nrevolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Understanding this, Lenin and the\nBolsheviks fought implacably to rid the workers\u2019 movement of any illusions in a\nprogressive role of the liberal bourgeoisie, and to assert the proletariat\u2019s\nleading role and political independence. Any revolutionary government capable\nof carrying out the bourgeois-democratic tasks would have to break the power\nboth of Tsarism and of the bourgeoisie itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Trotsky\u2019s Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trotsky, as early as 1904-05,\ncarried this analysis to its full logical conclusion. He explained that the\nworking class would have to take state power into its own hands with the\nsupport of the poor peasants, and that, having done so, it would be compelled\nto pass over without interruption from the bourgeois-democratic tasks to\nsocialist tasks also.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This would be necessitated by the\ninevitable clash between the material demands of the working class and the\nmaterial interests of the capitalists. The workers\u2019 regime would find itself\ncompelled to begin the expropriation of bourgeois property and thus the\noverthrow of capitalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lenin adopted this position fully\nin 1917. The first revolutionary victory, in February, had not placed the\nworking class in power. The workers led the overthrow of the Tsar, but power\npassed into the hands of reformist leaders, who in turn handed it to the\nbourgeoisie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bourgeoisie used this advantage\nto attack the working class, and try to turn the revolution back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The October Revolution, led by\nthe Bolsheviks, was necessary to bring the working class to power in order that the bourgeois-democratic tasks\nthemselves could be carried-out<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Land to the peasants; the\nliberation of the nationalities; an end to the war \u2013 these tasks were carried\nout not<\/strong> by the February regime but only<\/strong> after the October victory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the October Revolution,\ncarrying out first and foremost bourgeois-democratic\ntasks<\/strong>, was in character a proletarian\nsocialist revolution<\/strong> \u2013 and was compelled to proceed on to socialist tasks.\nThis gave clear historical confirmation to the ideas of the \u2018permanent\nrevolution\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proletarian revolution in\nbackward Russia would have been considered absurd by all the Bolsheviks,\nincluding Lenin and Trotsky themselves, had\nthey viewed the matter solely within the confines of that country<\/strong>. But they\nsaw the Russian revolution as the first in a chain of revolutions, which would\nlink Soviet Russia to the power of the working class in the advanced\nindustrialised countries of Europe. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Colonial Liberation Struggles<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In relation to the countries of\nthe colonial world, Lenin took the view that the liberation movements against\ncolonialism \u2013 termed \u2018bourgeois-democratic\u2019 movements until then \u2013 should now\nbe termed \u2018national-revolutionary\u2019 movements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was to give expression to\nthe bankruptcy, vacillation and even downright counter-revolutionary role of\nthe national bourgeoisie in the colonies \u2013 and to emphasise the potential of\nthe proletariat, even in the most backward countries, to lead the nation to\nliberation, linking its own struggle for power to the progress of the workers\u2019\nrevolution in Russia and the West.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the same way, what were\npreviously termed the \u2018bourgeois-democratic\u2019 tasks of the revolution in the colonial\nworld could now be termed \u2018national-democratic\u2019 tasks, to emphasise that the\nbourgeoisie could play no role in their solution \u2013 that their solution, in\nfact, was connected with the victory of the proletarian revolution developing\non a world scale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, as a result of a whole\nseries of terrible defeats of workers\u2019 revolutions in Europe in the 1920s, the\nRussian Revolution remained isolated and eventually succumbed to the\nbureaucratic counter-revolution of Stalinism. This substituted the dictatorship\nof a privileged elite of state officials for the workers\u2019 democracy of\n1917-1923, although remaining on the basis of nationalised (i.e., state-owned)\nand planned economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u2018Communist\u2019 parties abandoned\nthe ideas of Lenin, of the class independence and leading role of the working\nclass. The term \u2018national-democratic\u2019\nwas falsified to imply the \u2018unity\u2019 of the proletariat with the national\nbourgeoisie.<\/strong> The proletariat in the colonial world became subordinated for\na whole historical period to bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where capitalism collapsed or was\noverthrown in the colonial world, this took place in the most backward\ncountries and without the proletariat playing any leading role. Power passed\ninto the hands of petty-bourgeois elites, who have modelled their regimes on\nStalinism, i.e. on bureaucratic dictatorship resting on a basis of planned\neconomy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the main, however, the passage\nof the colonial countries to independence has taken place without the overthrow\nof capitalism \u2013 hence leaving these formally independent countries subject to\nan ever more stifling neo-colonial domination by the imperialist powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Without workers\u2019 power,\nfundamental national-democratic tasks remain uncompleted: on the land, where\npre-capitalist and capitalist exploitation remain intertwined; in the continued\noppression of national minorities; and in the abject dependence of these\ncountries on imperialism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Entirely bearing out the\nprognosis of Trotsky, it remains for the proletariat in the under-developed\ncountries to raise itself to the leadership of the nation and complete the\nnational-democratic tasks by the method of proletarian\nsocialist revolution<\/strong>, linking-up with the new period of advance of the\nproletariat and of revolutionary struggles in the industrialised world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In South Africa, which has had an\nexceptional national capitalist development, equalled or surpassed by few other\nex-colonial countries, there has been a partial<\/strong>\ncarrying through of social tasks of a \u2018bourgeois-democratic\u2019 character. This\nmay appear an extraordinary thing to say in a country ruled by an ex-settler\nracial minority, where the regime has long earned itself polecat-of-the-world\nstatus for its suppression of democracy and the national rights of the\nmajority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is important to remember that\nwhat was essential to even the most classical of the \u2018democratic\u2019 (more precisely,\nbourgeois-democratic) revolutions in history was not<\/strong> the institution of political democracy, but the carrying through\nof fundamental social changes necessary to bourgeois advance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The (qualified) democracy of the\nFrench Revolution, for example, was soon succeeded by the dictatorship of\nNapoleon Bonaparte \u2013 who nevertheless consolidated the \u2018bourgeois-democratic\u2019\nrevolutionary gains against feudalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Germany, the \u2018bourgeois-democratic\u2019\ntasks were partially carried out under the Bismark dictatorship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Writing in October 1945 on the Character of the European Revolution<\/em>,\nTed Grant answered writers who had landed themselves in confusion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026simply because they have not understood, or have forgotten, the social content of the \u2018democratic\u2019 revolution: the creation of the national state; the overthrow of feudalism and the introduction of bourgeois relations; the separation of Church from State; the agrarian revolution.<\/p>

What they imagine is the basic content of (bourgeois) \u2018democracy\u2019: freedom of organisation, speech, etc., is in reality a by-product of the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.[1]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Precisely the same applies to the\ndemocratic franchise. Historically, universal franchise has been won for\nsociety not by<\/strong> the bourgeoisie, but against it<\/strong> \u2013 by the struggle of the\nworking class. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Tasks in South Africa<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In South Africa, the \u2018bourgeois-democratic\u2019\ntasks partially carried out under white rule relate to the transformation of\nthe country into a modern capitalist society. This transformation is shown in\nthe development of domestic industry and capitalist agriculture; in the\nelimination of pre-capitalist forms, such as the wiping out of the basis of\ntribal society as well as almost all vestiges of semi-serf relations on the\nland; in the creation of a centralised capitalist state and a unified market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet, what remains to be\nfulfilled, what cries out to be fulfilled, what can only be fulfilled in a struggle\nto the end against the white bourgeois regime \u2013 is a fundamental task of a\nnational-democratic character: the\nnational liberation of the African majority<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The political system inherited\nand elaborated from the basis of colonial domination in the past \u2013 the system\nof white minority rule \u2013 now confronts its revolutionary demise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a certain sense, the relation\nbetween white and black in South Africa, the domination of the privileged\nminority over the voteless, rightless majority, does resemble a kind of \u2018internal\ncolonialism\u2019 (as the Stalinists put it).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a certain (and, we may add,\nmore profound) sense South Africa\u2019s social relations resemble those of the ancient\nslave-based \u2018democracies\u2019 of Greece and Rome \u2013 democratic rights and privileges\nfor a citizen minority, depending on the systematic exploitation of a mass of\nchattel slaves. In our case, however, a system of collective wage-slavery of\nthe oppressed black majority, on which the privileged existence of the whites,\ntheir franchise and \u2018liberties\u2019 depend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless \u2018all analogies are\nlame\u2019. It would take an idiot to conclude that the concrete tasks facing black\nSouth Africans are to be deduced without further ado from such a comparison.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even if South Africa was a\nfully-fledged colony, and not, as the Stalinists argue, a case of \u2018colonialism\nof a special type\u2019, this would in no way justify the conclusion that anything other\nthan a proletarian revolution is required for its liberation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For reasons already explained,\nSouth Africa has already passed through whatever \u2018stage\u2019 of national capitalist\ndevelopment it could achieve. Yet the middle class in the movement still hanker\nafter the illusion that, if it were possible to have black capitalists instead\nof white capitalists ruling South Africa, this could lead to a regeneration of\nthe economy. Their idea is ludicrous on economic grounds \u2013 and also ruled-out\nas a political perspective for reasons explained later in this document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amongst activists, this idea is already\noverwhelmingly rejected. Nevertheless, the South African situation still leaves\nplenty of scope for misleading misconceptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

National-democratic tasks\nconfront us \u2013 that is beyond a shadow of doubt. But it is complete scholastic\nnonsense to say that the South African revolution is therefore<\/strong> \u201cnot\u201d a socialist revolution \u201cbut\u201d a national-democratic\nrevolution. This idea, invented by the Stalinists, is very influential among\nradical intellectuals. Unfortunately, it has also gained a certain confused currency\namong the youth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Russian Revolution fully bore\nout the ideas of Marxism concerning the class character of the state. There is\nno such thing as a \u2018non-class\u2019 or \u2018multi-class\u2019 state. The modern state is, in\nthe last analysis, either proletarian in its class character or else it carries\nout the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If proletarian rule was needed in\nRussia to carry-out the bourgeois-democratic tasks of that revolution, what\nabout the national-democratic tasks facing us in South Africa? The Stalinists\nare completely wrong to argue that these tasks can or will be carried out under\nsome imaginary state of \u2018national democracy\u2019 \u2013 something that is neither fish\nnor flesh, neither a capitalist nor a proletarian regime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The South African revolution is a\nproletarian socialist revolution from the outset. From the outset it inevitably\ndevelops as a struggle of the black proletariat directed against the\nbourgeoisie and the bourgeois state. Nevertheless, it is a proletarian\nsocialist revolution in which the\ncarrying through of a national-democratic task is the first item on the agenda<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This task, let us repeat, is the\nnational liberation of the African majority. It goes hand-in-hand with all the\ndemocratic changes demanded in every sphere of society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because of the impasse of world\ncapitalism in general and SA capitalism in particular; because of the\ndependence of the SA bourgeoisie on repression, on dictatorship, and for\ngenerations on apartheid \u2013 the bourgeoisie is obliged to be the enemy of\ndemocracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The democratic tasks can be fulfilled only by breaking the power of the\nbourgeoisie. <\/strong>This must become the conscious<\/strong>\npurpose of the mass movement if the revolution is to succeed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To recognise this does not weaken\nin the least the thrust of the struggle for national liberation and democracy,\nbut on the contrary will invest it with redoubled revolutionary vision and\npower.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every attempt to separate the\nissues of apartheid and capitalism; every attempt to deflect the struggle\nagainst the state and the bourgeoisie from a conscious struggle for workers\u2019\npower, can only lead to confusion, to the weakening and division of the black\nworking class movement, and can so serve only reactionary ends. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Three Determining Factors<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The course of the coming\nrevolution in South Africa will be determined fundamentally by three facts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n