Something that came up

Something that came up in a recent meeting that has me thinking. Permanent Revolution, the theory coined by Leon Trotsky can get slurred a little. The 'permanent revolution' Leon Trotsky referred to is an observation about revolution in a situation where the working class represents a minority of the population but can still find its way to power. It is therefore in a situation where capitalism is relatively underdeveloped, either by the remains of feudalism or the effect of imperialism. It is specifically about the question of state power.

In order for the working class to hold power it has to quickly reduce and eliminate class differences. You cannot work for someone else's profit, 8, 10, 12 hours a day, go home and then become the ruling class. In generally underdeveloped countries this means the revolution has to spread quickly, beyond national borders, in order to find sufficient basis for this process.

Permanent revolution does not mean "political demands growing over into economic demands". The working class achieves power by becoming the universal class, the class that takes on the interests of other subordinate groups in society. If anything permanent revolution means the growing over of economic demands into political demands. It meant, for example, in November 1905, the a general strike in St Petersburg against martial law in Poland; Russian workers striking for Polish freedom.

The recent discussion I felt gave me some insight into Gramsci's stated objections to the theory. In Egypt permanent revolution is an aspiration, not a practical slogan. There is no Cairo soviet. The working class has only recently come into its own. It is forming unions (and good luck with that), not vying for power. Permanent revolution, as a direct tactic, applies to very few situations.