Review: Ireland's permanent revolution

Page 19 «

IRELAND'S PERMANENT

REVOLUTION

There are many books written now about Ireland but very few from a socialist viewpoint which deal directly with the ‘problems and strategy of carrying out a successful revolution.

Even rarer is one whose title indicates that the author understands the real nature of the Irish revolution. With the title ‘Irelands Permanent Revolution’ this certainly seemed to.

be one of those books. What makes it more important is that it was written for an organisation, the Socialist Workers ‘Movement, actively seeking to implement its analysis in today’s struggles. It first may be necessary to explain what is meant by the term ‘Permanent Revolution’. In the case of Ireland it means that the democratic tasks of the revolution (national unity, independence and political democracy) can only be achieved under the leadership of the working class. Only under a workers government and state can these objectives be achieved and secured; only a socialist revolution can achieve a united Ireland. This also implies that what appear as purely democratic demands can be revolutionary, acting as transitional demands which bridge the gap between the call for simple reforms and the maximum objective of socialism.

It is easier to understand what this means when it is being compared to the ‘stages’ théory of revolution fo which it is directly counterposed. Chris Banbury does this firstly through explaining how Stalinism, represented in Ireland by the Communist party and Workers party applies it to the Irish situation: “According to this the first stage was to secure ‘bourgeois democracy’ in both Irish states. Stage two would be to achieve a united capitalist Ireland. The final, third stage would be the achievement of socialism. This meant that socialist demands, which fitted ‘stage three’ could not be raised at a time when the struggle was simply concerned with achieving democratic government - the object of ‘stage one’. [Page 61] This hardened out and theoriesed view can be compared with the Republican movements more pragmatic looser stagest ideas. Banbury quotes Gerry Adams to illustrate his point: “We genuinely believe that when the struggle for independence is completed and the democratic process re-established, the best solution is decentralised socialism and government structures.

There is the order of priorities: first the struggle for indpendence has to be won, then they will think about socialism.’’ [Page 75] Both these views are corectly rejected in the book in favour of ‘permanent revolution’, first elaborated by the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky but which is also close to the arguements which Connolly put forward, quite independly, during his life. Thus Bambury quotes Connolly: “The national and economic freedom of the Irish people must ‘be sought in the same direction, viz the establishment of an Irish Socialist Republic.”’ [Page 37] ; It is only when one gets to the last chapter however ‘Legacy — of ‘no other reason. that it becomes clear that Bambury too rejects permanent revolution and that the book’s title is a complete misnomer.

This becomes crystal clear on page 79.

“The idea that the Northern troubles would automatically spill over was based on the belief that the South remained in essence a neo-colony of Britain, dominated not politically but economically. But by the 1970’s this was no longer true.’’ In other words Ireland, or at least the 26 counties is not dominated by British imperialism; the most he talks of is the British imperialist rule’. [page &1] Apparently ‘Partition reflected the different intérests © of the two sections of Ireland’s capitalist class’. [Page 34]. Did it not also reflect the interests of British imperialism?

Apparently not. Britain isn’t mentioned. In fact the author repeats this view at the end of the book: ‘*Partition serves the interests of the ruling class, North and South of the border’ [Page 84}.

So the sole enemy of Irish workers is the unionist ruling class in the North and the ‘Nationalist’ ruling class in the South. Before we actually deal with this argument lets just note the confusion and contradictions this view leads to.

The last sentence on the last page is supposed to drive home a central lesson which the book trys to make ‘,..we argue that only one class has an interest in ending the partition of Ireland: the working class.’ [Page 86].

But there is no reason given the previous analysis why the working class should have any interest in ending partition. Why should they targe the border? | Why shouldn’t Northern workers unite and fight their ruling class and Southern workers do the same and after they’ve both won maybe they can unite than?

If the South really is free from imperialism then a major plank of permanent revolution has been disproved, the capitalist class can achieve national liberation. There is no need for working class leadership.

Bambury complains that “It is no good appealing to Southern workers as fellow Irish men and women to rise up in support of their Northern brothers and sisters” [Page 8&4] but if they don’t suffer from the same enemy - British imperialism(even if in different ways) then he has really left He does say that they both suffer from capitalism but why should Dublin workers show a particular, immediate and direct intrest in uniting with those in Belfast and Derry than with those in London or Paris who also suffer from capitalism.

Let’s now have a look at the analysis which produces these mistakes: “‘The idea that the Northern troubles would automatically spill over was based on the belief that the South remained .

in essence a neo-colony of Britain, dominated not politically bu economically. But by the 1970's this was no longer true.

Irish government figures showed that by 1980 70% of new investment in the South was by American multi-.

nationals, 21% from European capital and a mere 4% from

Page 20 British firms - an accurate reflection of Britains decline as an industrial power. At the beginning of the 1970’s Britain provided 70% of the Souths imports. By the beginning of the 1980’s this had declined to 47%, In real terms the southern state of Ireland has separate economic intrests from those of its British neighbour. That was shown in 1982 when the Irish government publically broke with Britain, refusing to support the Falklands war with Argentina. Workers in the South do not today confront a state where Britain pulls the real strings of power. They do not confront British-owned firms in their” day-to day struggles over wages and jobs’’. [Page 79] First of all it should be explained that neo-colonialism means political domination as well as economic even though the former is less transparent and _ direct. This does not mean that Southern capitalists do not have their own interests which occasionally lead to clashes with the imperialist power. It does mean that the power behind these interests is weaker and that they are subordinated to those of the imperialist powere which in the end is their real guarantee of survival.

The nub of the argument is that even if Britain’s share of economic exploitatiom is declining it is historically the political powerover the country and is recognised as such.

Thus the increasing american interest in Ireland (evidenced by the money promised in the Anglo-Irish deal) is designed to put pressure on or alternatively to support British intervention - not to displace Britain. Britain remains the enemy because it is partition which is the political means which secures capitalist exploitation on both sides of the border. Any Irish revolution seeking to take over the multi-nationals will face the forces of the British state soon after confronting the 26-county one. Whether these multi-nationals are American German or Japaneese will make no difference. None of this means believing that the ‘Northern troubles will automatically spill over’ to the South.

This failure to understand the continuing domination of imperialism can lead to a whole series of errors in analysing Irish society and political forces.

Why is nationalism still so powerful an ideology? Banbury’s explanation is that it is taught in schools etc. Why is Fainna Fail by far and away the most popular party for Irish workers? Bambury explains it is because in the early 1930's it was for a while supported by the IRA, Labour party and Larkin. In fact the most important explanation for both is the continuing somination by imperialism.

However it is around three other areas which are dealt with at more length in the book that I will concentrate: the republican movement, the Protestant workers and the activity of Marxists. Bambury makes some valid and telling points in analysing the Republican movement. He points out that a struggle based only or even principally on the nationalist population of the North is impossible to win and that the Republicans have no real programme for extending it. He also rightly criticises that one Brighton bomb can somehow force the whole British ruling class backed by America to consider pulling out. Even with the addition of the electoral strategy the two combined is not a strategy which can deliver victory.

In general however because he denies the role of imperialism he underestimates the struggle which the republican movement has waged and the potential it unleashes. He quotes Eamon McCann approvingly: ‘“‘The primary reason why the Provisionals exist is that ‘socialism’ as we presented it was shown to be irrelevant.

The Provisionals are the inrush to fill the vacuum left by the absence of a_ socialist option’. [Page 63] Aside from the logical problem that sonething (The Provisionals) cannot be created by nothing (the absence of socialism) it rejects the.real positive reason for the birth and growth of militant republicanism. This is all the more confusing because on the opposite page Bambury does describe the real reason why the ‘Proves rose from the ashes’. They provided armed defence of nationalist workers and targeted the real enemy - the British army and the sectarian state.

Defining the growth of republicanism in a purely negative way; that their success is primarily socialism’s failure logically leads one to regret their existence. Instead socialists should regard positively the growth of a militant and uncompromising opposition to imperialism, whatever its limitations. In this book however there is no positive evaluation of the republican struggle and no perspective for socialists seeking united work with them.

The downgrading of imperialism facilitates a somewhat rosy view of the potential of Protestant and Catholic unity in the North. In the final chapter he goes so far.

as to say: “‘The real tragedy of Ireland is the failure to build a powerful socialist movement out of these struggles’. (Page 82) It is striking that the struggles he referes to are not those political ones marking the high points in the fight against imperialism but instances of Catholic/ Protestant unity or of social agitation. While undoubtedly it is vital for socialists to be involved and lead these struggles they should be in the direction of joining the key political struggle against imperialism. Downgrading this latter fight is a recipe for continuing the marginalisation of revolutionary socialism.

In this book the perspective of permanent revolution the working class leading the struggle against imperialism is once again denied. Bambury does make the point that it is precisely those reformist trade union and political leaders who have most often called for unity who have betrayed the struggles which created unity. Unfortunately he believes such unity can page 21 be cemented by making the final demand one for socialism.

There is no conception that it is precisely democratic demands such as positive discrimination in favour of employing Catholics which really do challenge bigotry ‘and sectarianism. No conception that part of the process of winning any significant number of Protestant workers is the demoralisation and destruction of Loyalism and the political and paramilitary organisations which organise it.

Chris Bambury is right that the crucial battle in the battle of ideas to win a majority of workers to socialism but he is wrong when he says that this will be achieved by centering on: “the daily struggle in the workplace, the daily struggle against the foreman, the boss and ultimately the employing class itself....”’ The battle to win the majority of workers to revolutionary socialism will be waged primarily in the fight against imperialism, against the state. Only in so far as the struggles he mentions do this do they become revolutionary.

It is because ideas are so important that Marxists must get them right. While making some valid points this book doesn’t do that. .

JOE CARTER.

IRELANDS PERMANENT REVOLUTION

by CHRIS BAMBURY

BOOKMARKS 1986 PRICE £2.50

Peoples Democracy

SOCIALIST EDUCATION MEETINGS

Peoples Democracy has opened part of its internal education system to debate key issues not only among ourselves, but with individual ‘militants involved in the anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggle. The meetings take place on the first Saturday of each month in the Horizon Bookshop, Busy Bee, Andersonstown, Belfast from 11.00am untill 1.00pm.

4th October: Trade Unions - Why don’t they defend workers rights?

Trade Unions in the the North of Ireland are infamous for their failure to fight discrimination and Loyalist intimidation.

They claim to organise around ‘bread and butter’ unity, but even here they fail. Should revolutionaries be in this sort of movement can they change it? 1st November: The Armalite - does it really make us equal?

Justification for the armed struggle can be found simply by pointing to the armed might of the British forces deployed on our streets, but where does it fit into a strategy for victory? Does the present Republican strategy of ‘ Armalite and Ballot box’ strike the balance?

Or is another strategy possible?

Creche facilities available. Please give advance notice.

Feoples Democracy HORIZON BOOKSHOP wri Busy Bee Andersonstown, Belfast BT12. Tel: Belfast 617926. Busy Bee * * * Baile Anderson, Beal Feirste, BT12. Guthan: Béal Feirste 617926