Permanent Revolution

Permanent Revolution fo make the proletarian revolution one needs the revolutionary party, but equally, the purpose of such a party is to make the revolution. To oppose the two tasks as is done by on the one hand, the sectarians, and on the other, the hard-line Castroites, is, in itself, wrong. The party is strenathened by envclvement in revolution and, more importantly, the revolution itself is likely to be carried td success only by the party.

These truisms probably accepted by all sections of the Irish left that have pretensions to being followers of Lenin- from the BICO to tendencies in Sinn Fein(Gardiner Place). But it is the question of how to interpret this idea in practice that divides these groupings. All are agreed that the revoluticnary party must base itself on something called "Dialectical Materialism" but what this mans an revolutionary practice, is a ause for dissensicn.

The Revolutionary Marxist Group is a Trotskyist group. As such it holds that Dialectical Materialism finds its expression in the strategy cf Permanent Revolution and that accordingly, the organization to carry it out is a party of international revolution. Against it, on the one hand are those whe insist, dogmatically, that the revolution will be in "two, cistinct stages"(cr, cften, more than two stages). On the other hand are the ultra-left economists who insist, equally dogmatically, on a "One Stage" theory of struggle on purely proletarian issues, leaving the tasks asscciated with the bourgecis revolution to the bourgecisie!

As against these, the Permanent Revolution is less easy to formulate- which is why so many have failed tc carry it cut. Its basic tenet is not so much to ignore the stages as to avoid being hypnotized by them. Its practitioner insists ob utilising the energies of all classes and of activists in all causes that can help the proletariat towards state power, but, at the sane time, he never forgets that the purpose of the exercise is that the proletariat take this state power. In its turn this seizure of power must be no less than a step towards the world-wide classless stateless society. Such a reccgnition means a constant refusal to allow the given situation to consclidate, except where it cannot be avoided cr where few developments towards a revoluticnary situation. As its title implies,, Permanent or, more correctly, uninterrupted Revoluticn means working to establish and maintain a revolutionary situation.

However, this is rather different from the Stalinites'slander that it means seeing revolutionary situations where there are none. The Trotskyist knows well enough Lenin's definition of such a situation: one in which the mass ef the people want a change and in which the government cannot continue in the same way. However, unlike the Stalinite, he turns his energies to help achieve this desirable pusiticn, wilike the Stalinite, he uses every opportunity towards this(as Lenin pointed cut the very bourgecis case cf the wrongfully condemned Captain Dreyfus was one such), and, unlike the Stalinite, he struggles to force through the revolution "in permanence"tc the end. But all this is still, very schematic. To understand! the Permanent Revoluticn, it is mecessary to relate its operation-or the failure t. operate it- to the concrete historical situaticnS in which its practiticners (cr betrayers) found themselves.

a —————————e es

HISTORICAL ORIGINS

As a concept it dates back to the Communist Manifesto. However it was inherent in the situations of bourgeois revolution going back to the Reformation. In 1536, the Reformers tock power in the German diocese of Munster. However, it scon became clear that the situation resulting was not to be stabilised as it had been elsewhere in Germany. The Anabaptist artisans rose up after the Luthe an bourgeoisie, seized control and proclaimed the Kingdon of Christ on Earth. This wes quite different from previous peasant-based risings. These were limited in taeir aims either to bourgeois eee Ane ending, or reduction, of Feudal tues, etc.) or to a return to a previous Golden Age. The workers of Munster spoke for the future and were i pot ee more ferociously than the revolting peasants, when their rising failed. Of course, it is not necessary to explain why it had to fail, or why such succeeding precursors cof Permanent Fevolution as the Levellers struggle in the British bourgeois revolution or Jacques Roux cr Gracchus Baboeuf's struggles in that of France had to fail.

it is encugh to say that each of these represents a development in the | consciousness of the revolutionaries concerned from Protestant mysticism co. petty pacha Socialist nationalism. Again, it is worth noticing ancther strand of the theory in embryo; all these outbursts were part of international proletarian struggles.

A‘cor Baboeuf the decisive revoluticnary role, aided by the growth cf the proletariat mcved tc that class, and, with it, along with the formmlaticn cf Malectical Materialism, went the formulation of the stratezy of Permanent fevelution. In each case, the criginal exponents were Karl Marx & Friedrich ingels. tn section IV of their Manifesto of the Commmist Party,the first Conmmmist thectiticians present briefly the basics of the strategy. There are, firstly, the working of the proletariat for the bourgeois -revoluticn as an entity independant and critical of the revolutionary bourgeoisie and purely as a neans of building up their own strength vis-a-vis that bourgeoisie for their own, proletarian, revolution. Secondly, there is the international aim of world revolution that is to be achieved through the victory of the revoluticn, in this case, in Germany.

Of course, the Comaunist Manifesto was written in a revolutionary situation that proved to be abortive. On the one hand the German priletariat(the mst developed on the European sub-continent at the time) was still not developed encugh to take the lead in the struggle for state power. On the cther hand, it was long encugh for its bourgeoisie to avoid fighting tod actively for sole state power and to compromise in its struggle with the landlord class against which it was supposed to fight. On this basis, and helped by an eoxno mic boom, reaction was able to establish itself firmly.

However, before its strength had been made clear, Marx & Engels expanded and developed the strategic theory of Permanent Revolution in their irst Address Centr written in March, 1850, This document was, of course, a call to erms ina struggle that was not te: be imiediately- joined. Nonothchesa, 66 ydars later Beriedrich Engels was to commend it as a guide to action "on the occasion of the next European upheaval now due."

The First Address( the Second was, by the way, merely a more detailed account of the international situation) was not simply written at the end of a period

of bourgeois revolution. It was written after the revolution had achieved its shief aim; the bourgeoisie held state power. On the other hand, it was not able to do anything with it(though, as Bismark was to show, it could still do more thin similar bourgecisies in the era of the "Highest stage of Capitalism"). Accordingly the tasks associated with the bourgecis revolution were taken up by a petty-bourgecis opposition to the successful bourgeoisie. This “Democratic Party" gained some support among the morebackward workers and sought to gain mere support by the offer cf reforms in working class conditions. Thus it hoped to cause the class to desert and avoid the Communist League. This tendency was complemented by a Syndicalist-Economist movement under cne Stephan Born, which concent#zated mainly cn economic issues and trade union crganization. While Born's movement was smashed, after 1850, his activities had and helped weaken the German Workers vis-a-vis the "Demccratic Party". Thus, the tendencies in and of the working-class against which Marxism has always been opposed had akready appeared. Thus, too, the First Address is, in part, the description cf the alternative strategy to thcse of the petty-bourgecis tendencies.

This strategy consists firstly in simply maintaining intact an alternative politival and military leadership cf the working-class during the petty-bcurgevis denceratic stage of the revolution. Secondly it consists in that leader ship preventing the victors of that part of the struggle from consolidating their power against the workers. Tc tlt extent, the workers'leaders cust igncre all petty-bcurgecis appeals for unity and assert their separate indentity and the extreme actions and specific, separate demands of their class.

They must put themselves one jump ahead cf the petty-bourgecisie democrats (no consideration here of the cry that they might isolate themselves from the workers). And, finally, they might antivgipate the aid given their cause by a French proletarian revolution and act, accordingly, as part of an European strugele. The work concludes with ‘the actual words cf a battle cry for the League, "The Permanent Revolutioni"™ The strategy of Permanent Revolution as seen by Marx & Engels is significant, more generally, for wo things: it is, in the literal sense cf the word,.a strategy of two stages(or, indeed, three; before, during and after the petty bourgeois revolution). But the point is that it refers tc these stages acccrding to their objective nature, rather than according tc the tasks set themsel ves by the petty bourgecis revolutionaries. For the Central Cormittee cf the Communist League, the petty bourgeois seizure of state power was simply to be related to the seizure of state power by the workers, Whether the petty bourgeois Democrats ever, actually, carried out any of their proposals was nct sc much unlikely as irrelevant. The workers were, basically, not interested in the petty bourgecis revolatien., except insofar as it weakened the political and social order to help them to power. : It is partucularly important to notice this for one reason, the development pictted for the Permanent Revoluticn in Germany was very like that actually carried cut by the process in Russia, 67 years later.

But, in the meantine, the revolutionary promise that the Communist League had been in March, 1850 was wiped cut by the objective facts befcre the year was out. The League split between the Marxists and the Ultra-Leftists who accepted the Utcpian beliefs of the petty bourgecis revolutionaries in the revoluticna-

ry possibilities of the situation, In two years both factions had been liquidated, 7 For more than 50 years, there was little development of the strategy of Permanent Revolution beyond the framework described by Marx & Engels. This was not because the period was uneventful. On the contrary, it saw the rise and fall of the First Internaticnal and the rise of the Second. It saw the Paris Commune, or the World?

s first working class government. It saw the building of several industrial sta-tes of mass working-class parties paying lip-service to Marxist politics. It saw in ether countries smaller parties paying such lip-service. The two last points deserve more mention.

VWnile Marxism affected the proletariat of many lands, it was misunderstood by the their leaders in many cases. In particular,the strategy cf Permanent Revolution was confused by those who might be expected, on their claims, tc understand it. In Germany,the Sccial Democratic Party was founded in 1875 by a fusion of the actual Marxists with the group founded by Ferdinand Lassalle. Lasselle had understood the strategy so little that he was prepared to offer his services an¢ those of his followers to the right-wing bourgeois Chancellor of Prussia, otto von Bismarck. While this tendency was attacked by the Marxists, there was 3 long period of persecution, followed by one of consolidation and legal gctivity all within the context of the relatively peaceful expansion of the sew German imperialism. This lead many Social Democrats to doubt the need for seyoluticn ,let alone Permanent Revolution.

_RELAND AND CONNOLLY.

imong the small, non-industerial, where Marxism appeared on a relatively small scale, was Ireland. Marx and Engels had given critical support to the Fenians and had backed the struggle of the Irish for self-determination and independence, tanc reform and tariffs. However, they did not believe that any Revolution could wor« in Ireland until Britain had been forced, either by constitutional means, or br embarrassment during an imperialist war, to surrender to its colony some form eo: self-government. Permanent Revolution certainly could not be carried out, either, until the peasants had been emancipated.

jut, towards the end of Engel‘'s life, the conditions for Socialism in Ireland began so appear more hopeful. The growth of foreign competition in agricultural goods reduced the value of land and justified the state's subsidiaries of the peasant's purvaase of his own land. The Irish bourgeoisie interpreted self-government as iyone Rule" (for the control of government patronage in Ireland). The Revolutioary Netionalist Fenian Movement (always an organisation of the skilled workers) began «9 split, some of its members drifting into Socialism. In 1896 James Connolly set up his Irish Socialist Republican Party and began the struggle against the bourgeois sencencies in the Irish working-class. In practice, he put his tiny group at the nead of nationalist agitations such as that against the Jubilee of "The Famine Queen’ Victoria, and that commemorating the national bourgeois rising of the United Irishmen in 1898. The undeveloped nature of the Irish working-class enabled the bourg- 2ois politicians to outflank him after 1900 and he emigrated in 1903. However, the development of the industrial organisation of unskilled labour gave him a basis ‘rom which he could develop his strategy and he returned in 1910, His strategy is important because he was one of the first to realise that not only would the workers be unwise to allow the capitalists to carry cut the tasks associated with their evolution, but that such tasks could no longer be carried out by the capitalists, in the period of developing imperialism,

For, while the development-of the Working Class Movement had proceeded, sco too had that of the capitalism, The bourgeoisie became increasingly cosmopolitan and, increasingly contracted. Industrial and finance capital began to merge, with finance capital taking the dominant role. In this way, the remaining progressive functions of the industrial capitalists and their parties were eliminated the petty bourgeoisie became less able to carry out progressive tasks by themselves, As against this, there was a general growth of the proletariat both in numbers and in consciousness and, outside Europe the growth of national feeling against the exploitation stimulated by the new, imperialist, trusts. The bourgeoisie could mo longer play a progressive role in practice. Its principal tasks had to be taken over by the workers, This was particulary true of Russia, where the contradictions of capitalism in its imperialist form were more extreme than elsewhere. Industry had been established over a smal] part cf the country, but it had developed to a higher technical degree than elsewhere, a larger proportion of Russian industries employed over 1,000 workers than in other countries, At the same time, the bourgeoisie that presided cver this development was weak, unable to stand up by itself either to the landlords and international cartels on the cne hand or to ifg own workers on the other. Thus absolutism still dominated and the serfs were liberated only on terms satisfactory to the landlords. The bourgeois revolution and its tasks had yet to be achieved, The bourgecisie was unable to carry them out.

Yet the proletariat was stronger and better disciplined than in the more advanced capitalist states. In these circumstances, a Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, affiliated tc the Second International was formed in 1898, It soon divided along the lines previously distinguished: between the Marxists no aimed at creating a vanguard party to seize state powey, and the Economists, cr Mensheviks, with their emphasis on the economic struggle of the workers as the means of raising the latter's consciousness. These facts mst be kept in mind when cansidering the development of thecry on the subject of Permanent Revolution. It has suited the interests of Lenin epigones to portray his writings at the time of the defeated Russian democratic revolution of 1905 as being directed against Trotsky?’s perfection of the strategy. The facts are rather different. In Lenin's Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Demccratic Revolution, Trogsky is mentioned only twice: in foctnotes added after the event.

The brunt of the attack falls on the minority (Menshevik) wing of the RSDCP in general and, in particular on its prominent ideclczist A Martynov (Incidentally, Martyncv became subsequently, and after service in one of the counter-revolutionary governments of the Russian Civil War, a loyal follower of J V Stalin). As a result of their econonmism and their downgrading of the political struggle, Mensheviks had cormitted themselves to accepting the claims of the Liberal bourgeoisie as to its ability to achieve the full democratic programme associated with its revolution.

As a result, they took an abstentionist line towards the state power that would be needed to carry out such reforns,

THE TACTICS OF THE RU REVOLUTIO

In reply to this attitude, Lenin wrote his Two Tactics. This is a pamphlet that requires the Marxist technique in reading it. It is a positive'fools gold nine of quotations to be torn from their context in the use of incorrect ideologists Perhaps more than anything else, Lenin wrote, it has to be read as a whole, its parts related to each other and to the totality. In particular, "The Resolution on a Provisional Revolutionary Government" towards the defence of which Lenin directs most of the pamphlet cannot be understood properly without his analysis of the situation in which it was passed and his explanation of what it means,

to Sore in the =] ition facts cratic nt. tn Yy donary result to ution. Hd Sional government. The Resoluticn is to the effect that, to achieve the aims of the democratic revolution, a revolutionary provisional government will have to be established.

Social democratg night hold office under such a Government, although under the strict control of their Pdrty. In any case, such participation would be sclely for the purpose of obtaining all reforms of the democratic revoluticn. This might seem to be a revision of Marx and Engels’ Address, But it is based on Lenin's class analysis: his recognition of the treachery of the bourgesis leaders of the revolution arising out of their class position. Accordingly only the proletariat and the rural petty bourgeoisie (the peasantry) can carry cut the revolution's programme, For Lenin, the revolution under the leadership of the objectively democratic classes cannot go beyond the minimum reforms of the Social Democratic programme.

I¢ cannct be a Socialist Revolution. However, he does point out that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry is only an intermediate stage and he does not estimate how long it will last. However, his expectation (surprising for the author of a work that would be used by advocates cf "Socialism in a Single Country") is that the revolution will be helped to its socialist stage most likely by setting off revolutions of the larger proletariats of Europe.

He does not go into these matters very deeply. He does not answer Trotsky's objections to them, mainly because at the time of his writing, Trotsky had not presented them formally. When Trotsky did finally produce his work Results and Prospects as a prisoner of the counter-revokation, it was as the result of two years consideration. His pamphlet is considerably more finished than the essentially polemical Two Stages He is able to eget points that Lenin prepared to reiterate as being of littleimportance. In these circumstances, he points out the two significant facts that Lenin had ignored. (Again, neither of them, concerned directly, the f alist § which they both agreed Trotsky's analysis brings out, firstly, the role of the peasantry in the revolution as being, necessarily subordinate to that of the proletariat (due to its fragmented individualist nature). Secondly, and partly arising from this, he insists on the counter-revolutionary nature of any attempt to limit the revolution to its democratic stege or tc prevent its development into a Socialist dictatorship.

He points out the very real possibilities of crisis facing a "democratic dictatorship" which has not moved to limit drastically capitalist property relations, For example how can one of the traditional minimum demands of social democracy, the eight hour day be enforced except through nationalising industries?

A government that tried to enforce the eight-hour day ( as the democratic dictatorship must do or lose its proletarian support) without nationalisations would face economic blackmail (lockouts, boycotts, etc.) from the employers, These two findings are backed by considerable historical and political analysis of the nature and developnent of the bourgeoisie both in Russia in particular, and internationally, in general. In particular, in an analysis of the democratic revolutions of 1848, he distinguishes four groups besides the bourgeoisie, that might have taken the leadership of the democratic struggle: the proletariat and the peasantry, plus the two sections of the urban petty bourgeoisie that class proper (the artisan and the intellectual democrats (mainly the students). Like Lenin he writes off the role of both these groups last named in the Russian revolution - correctly as it proved. The significance of these groups will be seen in relation to Ireland, The great weakness of Results and Prospects is its author's avoidance of the role of the Bolshevik Party, Eleven years after the publication of Results and Prospects Russia rose again in the February (March) Revolution of 1917. A provisional government was established, but so, too, as in 1905 though an a broader scale was an alternative network of Workers! Councils, or "Soviets". The Mensheviks, believing in the ability of the bourgeoisie to carry out its progressive role preached the subordination of the soviets to the provi-

The Bolsheviks were less certain. Many cf those who had stayed in Russia nctably G B Kamenev, but including J V Stalin, supported the Menshevik line. They pointed out that the tasks cf the bourgecis revolution (most notably in the sphere of agarian reform) hac not been achieved. Accordingly, was not it the duty of Bolsheviks to enter the Provisicnal Govermaent, to. push it to the left and te carry cut agarian and constituticnal reforms? They considered that the Provisional Government cculc be forced tc drup its bouregois ministers and become "the Dictatcr ship of Proletariat and Peasantry, i.e. the first stage cof the revolution.

On his trip tc Russia from Switzerland, Lenin dencunced this view in his April Theses. lere he explains the concrete situation to his party, warning then against toc rigcrous an acherence to outwarn revolutionary formulae, He pointed cut that a situation of dual aiwer existed in Russia; that, because cf the failure cf the proletariat tc push through the recent February Revolution the bourgecisie had been able to usurp state power through its Provisional Government However, it had been unable ts prevent the establishment cf the Demecratic Dictatorshin cf the Proletariat and the Peasantry. What had happened was that it had limited a potential Socialist Revolution to just stich an crder, Its organs now ¢xisted in the fourm cf the Soviets. The task of revoluticnaries was tc assert this Dictatcrshin against that of the beurgesisie. Only by doing sc, could they carry cut the tasks asseciated traditionally with the revolution cf the bhourgesisie which could not achieve them itself.

To this policy, Lenin won the Bolshevik Party, On the basis of this, Trotsky joined the Party. In Octcber (Ncvember) 1917, the Demcratic Dictatorship sf Proletariat and Peasantry cverthrew that cf the bourgecisic, uncon which Lenin announced the Bolsheviks! intention .f establishing the Sccialist Order, The "DemocraticDictatcrship" could cnly exist under "Dual Power", With the triumph of the Dictatcrship of the Proletariat albeit backed by the Peasantry, Russia was, in fact, a Socialist State; it lcoked tc the developing international revolution ts establish a Sicialist Scocicty, THs STAUGGLE If IRELAND In the meantine, in Ireland, the revolution was being lost. As in Russia, the ourgecisie cculd not carry cut the tasks of its revolution: the industrial bcurgecisie had acclimatizec itself to the status quo of the British market and was nct interested in national independence for Ireland. The very numercus gonbeen (cr "usuricus") bourgecisie had little interast in much beyond "Hone Rule" cor the transfer of control of the Irish State bureaucracy tc its own class. The larger and medium peasantry had been quietened by its "yurchase' ct its own land. In practice, the leadership of the national democratic revcluticn passed to the working class alcng with the artisans and, particularly, the "intellectual Demcrats". In the background was the smaller peasantry, but in 1916, it was nct directly represented.

Of these classes, only the workers could provide consistent leadershin cf the national struggle, such as woulc mean its continuance ints the establishment of a Workers? Republic and Internaticnal Socialism, The leader of the Citizen Army, the specifically working class furce in the Rising in 1516, Janes Connolly, certainly had such a nerspective,

stably winted if 3 carry | il Govatcr = nted I nent Cn But like Trotsky-until1917, anc like Rosa Luxenburg until even later, he did not know how to crganise to achieve this. He did vaguely see the Citizen Arny as a future centre of preletarian struggle even against his comrades in the naticnal ficht. Even so he did not encourage its expansicn vis-a-vis the petty bourgecis Irish Volunteers. Indeed there is evidence that he may even have discouraged A He was in organisation theory, a Syndicalist, a developed type of Economist. For hin, the industrial union, the ITGWU could build up workers! power within the shell of the bourgecis state, perhaps even regard’ess of the political situation. This ottinism was shared by all the advanced elements of the Irish working class. It was the product of that class lack of development: cof its lack of an industrial base. comparable tc that of Russia: cf the late development of its industrial organisation, Ant su, cnce Connclly was murdered, there were no cadres able tc taks his place.

Scientific socialist went into suspended animation. The Syndicalism of the | remaining leaders of Irish Labour was far more pronounced than that of Connolly.

“hey carried it into the full range of political strategy. Again, they adopted 5 "two Stage" strategy summarised in the formula: "First the Republic, then the Yorkers? Republic". They gave formal, if often useful support to the struggle for the former. Their main energies were given to building the industrial organigeticn that, they thoucht, cculd alone secure the latter, Without working-class leadership, and with the enthusiastic suppcrt cf such as Arthur Griffith, the petty bourgeois Republican leaders ac~epted the influence o/ Unicnist and "Home Rule" businessmen. Such people aot their reward when cae struggle against Britain was stopped, rather than escalated (which would - tave meant far reaching Socialist por aeaay in 1921, They accepted readily and ‘consciously, a compromise agreement, tae rank and file Republicans were mainly working class (cr small peasant), they eecognised that the new'Saorstat Eireann” was.not (even in name) the Republic for which they had fought. The ccuntry was partiticned: the hegemony of the ting of England was recognised. They tried to hold up the betrayal. The result wat Civil War. In it, because of leaders who mostly shared the petty bourgeois ovélook of their Treatyite cpponents, the Republicans were smashed, gut this was merely the political shadow of the current economic struggle that was groceeding between Irish employers and their workers. While the leaders of the ‘ormer were united behind the Saorstat, the leaders of the latter were divided.

Yany had already taken a more active Republican lime than their leaders and had, secordingly, entered conscicusly petty bourgeois (or like Joseph McGrath) pure yourgeois, Saorstat politics. Those who remained divided as working class bodies on the Treaty. The majority declared that it was neutral on the issue, but in fact, it accepted that it had sclved the national problem, It soon revealed itself as openly reformist and concentrated increasingly on the results cf Sacrstat elections. This was the Irish Labour Party. The other, minority group, the Communist Party of Ireland, continued to apply what amounted to a tailist line towards the petty bourgeois Anti-Treatyites. Neither group tried to escalate the national struggle into a social struggle. Accordingly, the Irish workingclass was disarmed and then suffered the greatest defeat in its history.

SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY v, THE REVOLUTION In turn, this was just one, rinti orale. event in the overall defeat of the world working class in the early 1920's - outside Russia. Even in Russia, the isclaticn of the world's first workers’ state resulting from its comrades?

defeat elsewhere enccuraged a regime of scarcity. This meant that the governing

— ee ee bureaucrats of the state were able to gain a definite advantage over the workers | and peasants themselves. They thus had a vested interest in keeping Russia isoplated. They found their spokesman in the new General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Unicon: J V Stalin., Stalin's attack on the fully Ls sgoea 9 theory of Permanent Revolution was initially published in his Foy jinism during the Spring of 1925. It was put forward as part of a political faction fight with Trotsky, as his rival for the succession to Lenin, To discredit Trotsky, he had to destroy his (and, of course eventually Lenin's) strategy. Accordingly, Stalin began to praise"Leninism"~ but a selective “Leninism": literally the "Leninismof before 1917 as if not Results and Prospects, but April Theses had never been written. The immediate theoretical result of this was merely greater confusion. The questions of the relationship of proletariat and peasantry and of the bourgecis revolution that Lenin and Trotsky had answered, were raised, again, as if no such answer had been given. But the full development cf Stalinist isteology came several months later, in the Autumn of 1924. In the Foundations, Stalin had recognised the international nature of the struggle for Socialism, Now, he turned the emphasis in a direction to help the interests cf his friends, the bureaucrats, far more, He began to announce the possibility cf building a Socialist scciety in one country. This was not new in itself. The Social Democratic Parties that, in 1914 accepted the leadership cf their national bourgecisies in the First World War were, expressing their beliefs in this, in a very practical way. Stalin did not write much to expand this idea, perhaps because it could not bear development. However, in one important matter Stalinism departed from the Social-Chauvinisms of the Mendersons and the Eberts. Unlike their Chauvinisms,it represented the interests of a Labour bourgeoisie in an established Workers! State. This did not make it altogether superior tc its predecessors, In one matter Stalinism cutdid them, Stalin killed more Communists than either Menderson (one cf Connolly's killers) or Ebert, the murderer of-Kar] Liebnecht and Rosa Luxenburg.

But what was involved in the adherence of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union towards "Socialism in One Country"? In the first place, it meant that, as Socialism could thus be achieved, the forces of the Communist Parties cf the World, the Communist International had tc give this joh pricrity. The Commnist Parties were discouraged from seeking state power for fear of rocking their national boats and causing their national governments to attack the USSR.

This was not done deliberately. Dependence on the unvarnished line of the Two Tactics provided theoretical justification for the strategies that the national Communist Parties followed. Thus the idea "Demccratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry" justified the subservience of the Communist Party of China to Chiang Kai Shek's Kuomintang until Chiang was ready to turn cn it and to exterminate it. Even more significant was the use of the confusion as to the bourgeois revolution. Lenin made clear in April Theses that, once the bourgecisie had taken power, its actual revoluticn was at an end. The proletariat now had to begin to overthrow the new regime, The new, Stalinite line that developed was one cf support for the bourgecisie until "its" revolution was completed, To attempt to achieve power for the proletariat was cut of the question. That class (a wry, and unacknowledged, gesture to Trotsky, here) would try to act irresponsibly, to force the revolution into its Sccialist atage, thus alienating the peasantry.

This view was the justificaticn fcr the refusals tc advance on the part cf the Commmist Parties of Spain (in 1536), Greece (1944) and Vietnam (in 1945), all of whom paid in blood fur their nistakes.

Incidentally, the "Two Stage" theory did not exhaust Stalin's inventiveness.

It is worth noticing (especially when we consider the fuss made about the nctcricus WYorthern Irish Bill of Rights") that for under-developed countries, notably China, he developed a Three Stage Theory. This was not just "First the Republic; then the Workers' Republic, but "First the Democratic Republic; then the non-colonial Republic; and only then, the Workers! Republic".

Against Trotskyism, the Stalinites levelled the charges: (1) That it ignored the clear difference between bourgeois and socialist revolutions. (2) That it excluded the peasantry from its calculations, accordingly.

(3) hat it underestimated the power of the Western-European proletariat not at this time tu take power (Stalin was less than interested in it iging that) but to pressurise its bourgeoisie not to attack Russia.

(4) That it denied the ability of the Russian proletariat tc achieve "§cclalism in One Country", Trctskr replied tc these charges in 1928 in the swamary cf his theory Permanent Revoluti-n, He p@inted out, at first, three main points: that the democratic tasks of the bourgesis revolutions in the underdeveloped countries led directly co the dictatorship cf the proletariat: that permanent revoluticn meant that fcr che imperialist age, a constantly fluctuating social and political situation, end that to achieve the Sccialist society, the naticnal revoluticn had to be con tinued on tc the international sphere. At the end of his pamphlet, he expanded these noints into 14 statements. Shorn of the polemic, these stressed again, the roints menticned, as to the “Permanent Uninterrupted" character of the Sevoluticn.

They stressed alsc.to the sbordinate but in colonial countries, necessary role of the peasantry tc the proletariat in the struggle to achieve the national and agrarian reforms. They stated the necessity for a Cormmmist Party to lead the proletariat to power and pcintec cut that the laws of the combined and uneven development meant that there was nv class cr country that could be written cff cr its objective conditions as ripe for the proletariat to take state power...

This last thesis of Trotsky has been abundantly justified in the history cf the Sceialist Revolution, Since he published his statement, China, Vietnam, Kcrea Yugoslavia, Albania, Cuba: none of these would be considered ripe fcr prcletarian revoluticn by Stalin's Comintern of the 1920's.

But what of the cther points. There is certainly nc reason tc believe that a Socialist Scciety can be achieved in one country, as long as the proletariat has achieved state nower. Stalin declared that it had been done in 1936 and he promptly massacred his old comrades in case they might disagree. Even sv, his achievement is very little compared tec Cuba's curmunal (and free) services.

On the point cf the Ccrmunist Party, Cuba stands as evidence that this is not always necessary. Nonetheless, it is ver) twch the exception that prcves the rule,

| all — cee The real query comes on the criginal point. How far (if at all) is the Democrati Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry a possible (let alone a necessary stage in the Proletarian Revolution? It has often been assumed by the Maoists that the role of Mac Tse Tung during the War of Liberation against Japan arcunte!

to a similar role to that of the Soviets during the period of Dual Power in 1917, Hence, it is argued that Lenin's concept of "the Democratic Dictatorship" is a ormal and necessary stage as part cof a "Dual Power" situation preparatory to full Proletarian Dictatorship.

This is, of course, an improvement cf normal Stalinite theory - just as Nacism has been able to ignore much cf the worst crudities cf Stalinism. Nonetheless, there are objections to it, Four example, it does not altogether account for the ecurse cf the revclutions in Yugcslavia, or in Cuba, It might be arfued, tov, that the Masite view is’ excessively schematic: that there is no guarantee the "Dual Power" situation, as both Mac and Lenin found, dces not provide a sure passage towards towards the Proletarian Dictatorship (though this is a weak argunent, a sophisticated Macite would point out, correctly that there is no suri way to Workers! rower). Finally, there is the sorewhat nit-picking pcint that in China during its War cf Liberation there was not "Dual" but "Treble Power", there being three govermients claiming cuntrol cf China: that cf Mac, that of Chiang anc that cf the Quisling, Wang. This is not really so academic, for cof, course, Mac was (formally) in Coalition with Chiang and the "Dual Power" that existed was, strictly, as between the Chiang regime, of one area of which Mao wes in control and the Japanese and their suppert. And the Chiang-Mao relaticnship was no More the "Democratic Dictaturship" than the previcus Kucmintangcommunist combination cf the 1920's, Above all, even in the Communist held areas the Democratic forms of the 3-Party Goverments concealed the reality: that actua power was in the hand's of Mao's Pecple's Liberation Arny, But the most telling charge yet to be made by history as well as by Macites and Fequistas - against Trotsky!s Strategy of Permanent Revolution. Does not the victory of the essentially peasant - based struggles of China and of Cuba prove that, in his insistence on the subordinate role cf the peasantry, Trctsky was, after all underestimating the peasants? There is something in this, but it is not very much, Certainly, Trotsky did nct imagine that the zroletariat could com to power from such a rural: basis as Maw and Castre used. Nonetheless as has been shown he carefully ruled cut excessive emphais on the objective situation in a = country. And while there was, bo dount, an element of substitutionism on the process, there can be no doubt that, in composition and ideclogy the CPC and in composition alone, the Castro Foco were working class bodies, representing the leadership of the Proletariat over the peasantry. It should however be recognise that the peasants cf China and of Cuba (as of elsewhere in the "Thirc World") wen at a lower stage cf liberaticn than those of Russia. Though nct proletarians, their potential was closer to that of proletarians than was their opposite number in Russia or, certainly the developed capitalist countries.

PERMANENT REVOLUTION IN IRELAND

(And this brings the paper to Ireland and to the perspectives for Permanent Revol~ ution here.) Certainly it can be agreed that what will achieve the Workers’ State will only be described by Diplomatishts as the Distatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry. In Northern Ireland, it is only Gardiner Place and Pearse Strat that

weratil sary ists icunted 1 1917.) is a e | cist | less, or the My the re k mo sure | that er", Por r of, hat a aticn= areas | t actual hopes to limit the struggle to democratic aims. Except in certain areas, the rural population has been liberated far enough to be no longer an inherently revolutionary force. Certainly their support will be needed and may even be of crucial importance in the coming struggle for working class power.

But it is true that the role of the small farmers, even in the national struggle, will be (and is) relatively small. But this is not new. The main force of the said struggle has 1arely been the peasantry, but rather, the ed Irish ing class. At crucial times (as in the years after small farmers have been won to the Repulbican movement by its espousal of specific agrarian reforms, nonetheless until the defeat of the workers in 1923 - 1924 the moVement itself survived in urban rather than rural areas.

The fact is that the bourgeois style agrarian reforms that destroyed feudalism in Ireland are one aspect of the unusual Irish situation that is not tc be changed. Ireland is a neo-colonial country which has developed many features of the west European (or, rather, North Atlantic) democracies. The feudal question no longer exists. Emigration has prevented the appearance of the sort of shanty towns that exist on the suburbs of the cities of the Third World. Emigration and the decipline of the Catholic Church in a rural and industrially only semi-developed state have enabled the bourgeoisie to maintain a parliamentary democracy, As the world capitalist crisis deepens, the last two facts will be weakened. Emigration is already stopping and, despite the efforts of the Irish bourgeoisie, a reviied national mwyement of some potency is threatening (however slightly, as yet) the stability of the 26 County State. Of course, the farmers (especially the smaller ones) are going to be hurt, too but on the one hand their crisis will be overcome, subjectively as well as objectively, only by Socialist means, and on the other hand their bourgeois status, however miserable, makes it difficult for them to accept such means for liberation. And, as a further complication, there is another potentially revolutionary element in the petty bourgeoisie: as the crisis develops, more of Trotsky's strategy of intellectual democrats will find themselves either unemployed or under-employed.

Much talk and writing has been spent arguing as to whether the situation from which the revolution will spring (and is, indeed, preparing to spring) will correspond to the classic formula that Trotsky finalised in 1928. In arguing on the subject, comrades are concentrating on the forms, the dogma, of revolution in an unMarxist fashion. Certainly, the small farmer class will not be the centre of national insurrection. Certainly, its liberation can, now, only come in a Socialist form- the capitalist formula being now exhausted. Neither of these facts mean that the Socialist struggle will not develop from the present bourgeois, national, struggle nor that the proletariat will be able to seize power by itself without aid from the subordinate classes (it is, in reading Permanent Revolution, worth remembering that Trotsky was answering the specific charge that he had neglected the peasantry in under-developed lands) The forms change; the reality goes on.

What can be said is that the present national revolution can only be achieved if it is forced over into the Socialist Revolution: that if it is not so forced the situation at its end will be worse than at its beginning. There can be no successful perspective based on limiting demands inmediately to a "Northern Irish Bill of Rights" which can only stultify consciousness when it should be developed and thus limit even the response to its inevitable

sell-out. It can be said, too, ‘that the small farmers aid will be needed to bring the revolution to success, If can alsc be recognised that elements of the intelligentsia, who feel threatened by the growing retreat of the Government into superstition and anachronistic dictatorship and its reply to the national struggle will have their part tc play.

But such interests can only be led by the proletariat, itself led ty a Vanguard Party. The total result will not be exactly what Leon Trotsky wrote in the Epilogue to Permanent Revolution; it will include the realities of the strategy concerted: the bourgecis/petty bourgeois strukgle growing over into the Socialist one, ae of the powers of intermediate classes between capitalists and workers (he stipulated usually but not always the peasantry alone) to help in the struggle and finally the struggles?

further growing over into the international sphere, In Ireland, as elsewhere, the revolution will be permanent, or uninterrupted, or it will be nothing, : TROTSKY ON IRELAND, (contd.)

bourgeoisie canable of canitalising on it, has veered steadily to the left under pressure from the syndicalist traditions.

If we are able to annreciate the relaticnshin between syndicalism and nationalism in Irish wor'ing class consciousness, then we can easily see how meaningless it is to sn2al: about climinating either one or both clements of that consciousness. Of course they must be negated. But negation must be under-stood in the Marxist sense and net in the formal motanhysical sense cf Lane and his B.1.C.0. colleagues. We " must not only negate but also sublate the negation" says Engels. Syndicalism and nationalism must be negated nct simply by dismissing then frm cur minds bet by giving them a higher unity in the theory and practice of Marzisn. Conclusi> It is not accidental that the axisupon which the B.I.C.0. ravolves consists of, at one end, the comprador Two Nations Theory and at the other end, Anti- Trotsicyism. For five years the B,I.C.0. has stuffed its journ@l19 with " critiques " and " analysis " on both these subjects. To justify their reformism on the j natisnal question they have been forced to slander and distort Trotshyism which alone gives a coherent revolutionary persnective in the struggle for national liberation. We offer this simmle truth to those who genuinely believe that Trots!yism is synonymous with cosmonolitanism and ultra-leftisn.

We also take the opportunity to thank the B.1.C.0. for publishing Trotsky's 1516 article accompanied with a nerfect example of Stalinist " objective " and " stientific " analysis 1 = ee