Trotsky on Ireland

- | JROTSKY ON IRELAND

A Reply to the IRISH COMMUNIST No, 80 en ss A The Stalinists anc their friends have always attemted ti. cevict tue i Trotskyists as (1) cost. sclitans whe make m, distinctivn between advanced and backward countries (2) as ultra-leftists wie are unable t cumprehenc» the rele -f nun-nreoletarian classes, or +f seeing the distincticn between t lie maticnal and s-cial tasks, in a rev.luticn. What has annvyed these yecple, whetser they be in the Commmist farty, the Macists and Stalinist sects, oF Hanging om t.. their nesiticn in the Gificial's leadershiz by the skin cf their testh, is that ia concrete reality the Trotskyists have given the lie t this characature. Se instead «f raticnal wclemic they rescrt tz abuse. A number of ill-term-ered cutbursts have aysearea in that dowdy, suber, journal, . ta2 irish Sccialist, wile in the United Irisitaan, waica 18 uncemccratically cintrilled by trendy, Soin 9 Murehy, whe nas felliw trendy, anne Uarris wh. dbubts the sussibility +f achieving sucialism in Ireland at all, writing feverishly tc expose the cunfusicns aad oystificaticns Lis cf Trotskyisu, woich she adaits the necple are not even aware 1 Svea ‘Advance! locses its usual cums«sure at the mere renticning cf tha wird Mr: tskyisn!, fut the list would not be ccmplete withcut menticning the vanzuard anti-lrctskyists, the Eritisli and Irish Cctumnist Urganisaticn. Their latest flash cf sique has been exsressed by Jack Lane, "At the oresent tiae" he writes. in ilc.8) cf the FICu's thecretical jcurnal,‘irisi “mmunist", "Trotskyisa is a vicifercvus sunperter «f the Cathclic Taticnalists' offensive against the Protestant nation, The different tro tskyist, crganisaticns are c-mmeting with each ctler as to which +f shen can give most effective suwimert to this camaign®, Sut unlike waeir fellew critics the DICu dissense with acclitical name calling and éress-uy their criticisms in pseud--scientific, =bjective, hrasecl: gy.

T3 HATIONAL RSVOLUTIVE

Lane, in his article "The Haticnal qesticn in S uthern Ireland - Trotsky on Ireland" attem,ts tu c.unters.se the views exsressea by froteky 10 a siece he wrvte cn the 1416 uyrising, tc the -yisiticns eid by Tretskyists tucay, In the orccess, lane is freed tw uisreyresent anc. distur¢ waat Trotsky werte.

ue begins by saying "What is west <byivus in this article is Trutsiy{s underestimation «f tus struggle .f the naticnai movement, his view beinz that the wacle thing was fading away, since the land questicn Aad bean svived".

This conclusion is based on a nassaze in Trctsky where he says “Sie >istcrical basis fur naticnal ravyluticn, even in backward Ireiaad, has been swest away by agrarian refcras, All irctsicy is saying ere is that the histcrical basis cf the naticnal revcluti-n and not the naticnal revoluticn as such hac been eroded by the extrene class cifferentiatica brought about even in baclhwarc ccwmitries, by the senetration of iter ialisi, In cther wires, while the tasks cf the naticnal revolutixn ronain, tne histurical agent «f these tasks, the burgs.isie and ett; bourgecisie, are wmable to acecitmlish thea, either hecavse they are tcc

dependent on immerialism or because of the liberating effect this would have cn th® working class. In the enceh of imserialism, paradoxical as it may seem, the working class becomes responsible for carrying cut the tasks of the bourgeoisie and leading the national revcluticn to victory.

Thus Trotsky concluded "The ‘national revolution! even in Ireland, has in »ractice become an unrising of the-workers."

This in fact, is the same conclusion which Connelly arrived at a few years earlier when he srceved in his beck, Labour in Irish History, that” “the working class alone remains as the inccrruptable inheritors of the fight for freedum in Ireland”. Even the strategical slogan formulated by Connelly tc exoress the new dynamic of the national struggle, the Workers Renublic, differed in no way from the slegan cf Scviet Pcuwer advance by Trotsky. Trotskyism has always recognized the imscrtance cf national revoluticn, .

but unlike the Gtalinists at one extreme and the mere naticnalists ) at the other, it has seen it as a class issue; as an issue which can be used t) bring the working class to power LHiITi! ON KARL RADSI AND "RSACTIONARY" REVOLUTIONS Sensing that his criticisms cf Trotsky are strained and misdirected, lane tries to transfer Lenin's criticisms of Marl Radek ts Trotsky to reinforce his arguement. tie claims that frutsiy's view (see bot. of para.)

which lead him (Gadek) to dismiss it (1516) as a sutch"*, Then Trotsky is dewclished with the help of a few hammer blcuws from Lenin which | were criginally directed at Radek. Unfortunately fur Lane, Trotsky!s and Radek's views on the national questicn were not “exactly the same’.

Radek’never accepted the theory of Permanent Revolution, and although he supported Trotskyis struggle against the Soviet bureaucracy, he eventually broke from Trotslyy on srecisely this questicn. Indeed it was Radek's attack (from the Stalinist viewscint) on the Permanent Revelutica which oroveked Trotsky into writing his famus defence cf this thecry. (insert: cn the national revolution “is exactly the same as . Earl Rade: which lead ....ste.) | But there is a snecific reason behind Lanes! efforts to introduce Radek ints the discussion, ile wishes tc use Lenin's attaclk cn Radex to srovs that “Lenin sbvisusly did not regard the (1615) Rising as urcgress, we, as anti-inmerialist in itself’, As far as Lane is concerned the =rcegressive side of the 1516 utrising consisted sclely in the fact that “The rebellicn cccured at a sarticular time in the international situation that mace it of use tc the nroletarian revoluticn" nc be adds later that In any cther context cr in any cther situation, a 1S16 - tyse uorising would have no interest in the working class as it would only oremte nationalism and maticnal conflict". All these muazing relevaticns, are but apart cf the DIC attemst tc rewrite Listcry in otder to make it Fit in with the Two Nations dcgaa, in view of some cf the cther bizarre nositions cf the EICO it cumes as nt sururise that they shuuld try tc establish that even Lenin had taken a stand against “bourgecis catholic Nationalism] Se let us take a brief Iock at what Len the qnesticns : What was his evaluation in actually wrote, leening in mind cf the tbjective content of the

uorising itself, and whether cr act ne cbjected t. it on the grounds that it nreceted “"maticnal cenflict” and “naticnalisc’.

It is true that Lenin saw the international significance +f the 1516 wirising. "A blew delivered against the s.wer cf the English imerialist bourgecisie by a rebellica in Ireland he wecte “is a hundred times mre significant chan a bluw cf equal f:rce delivered in Africa cr Asia" (Questions cf National ect and Preletarian internaticnalism 5151).

Eut it is alse clear that he recognized the intrinsically revoluticnary character cf the rebeliicn. In sarticular he saw its anti-immerialist nature, and viewed it.as the latest climax of the generations cld struggle apainst British immerial dsiiinatien. Fer example, Le writes, "The centuriz¢ :ld Irish naticnal mcvement, having ~assed through varicus stages and combinati-ns <f class interests +s. Manifested a in street fighting conducted by a section «f the urban setty burgecisie and a section cf the workers after a ling ~ericd of mass ag itatic n, denenstraticns swioressicn cf newscaners, etc. Who ever calls such a rebellicn a *-wisch?

is either a hardened reacticnary, wr a doctrinaire hevelessly incapable .f envisaging a social revelutica as a living =henvmn", (ibid =160).

Secondly, the fact that the usrising cccured under an “archaic flag and articulated its feelinz in naticnalist terms, cid not srevent Lenin fren judging it as cbiectivaly oregressive, Indeed, he usec this articular article en Ireland t. ecmbat the n:tica cf sure revolutions. ie exslained That any Tass mo verent inevitably brings the aetty beursecigia anc backward workers within its cumass ,'and just as inevitably will they bring ints the mevenent their eh ia oat & their reacticnary fantasies, their weaknesses and errers’ but nontheless the struzzle is directed arainst canitalisn. It is the duty of revoluticnaries ti take advantage of such tuvenients anc “ex>ress (the) <bj-ctivetruth <f (this) variegated and dise rdant, “«tely and epewancty fraguented, mass struggle", anc in this way advance the Sarch tcuwarcs stat 2 suwer. Ts ascribe to Lénin the view that revolutions anc =ass strugeles Waiich dc mt express themselves in clear larsist terms are reactionary is satent falsificatiin.

in the ctntext cf the struggle’ in the Six Counties, the lessta .f Lenin's article cculd still be learned by some of tcdays self =r. fessed reveluticnaries., The eee shase of the ficht fer aacasnal liberation Seyler the views sf Lenin. Bekind the baciwardness and ore judices of & Pte | community in the Siz: (unties lies the «bjettive reality of their gemine social, ecencmic and =¢litical disccntent, That is way it is wrong t: ccnterscse the entire revelutivnary varicist - orograciie tc the ¢n=scing struggle or cot cut of that strezle as the sectari ans ds.

It is the duty cf Maricists t. merge with the naintrust cf the wiserge ode and become the ctnscicus articulater cf the unconscivus Prete TRUTGI AUD CASS isNTS ST SURZ Une must acuire Lane?s serwzlessness (a less charitable ersen would cali it tnit-vicking!) in attaching Trotsly's every second word. Tuis meth.c leads Lane ints absurd scsitions wiere be is furced t wake pross ever sijlificaticns. This is warticularly s- _ ne criticizes ‘rotsky for the importance which he attaches t.Caseuentts s-—-called “aval thecries - Ruger Casenentis co aeitin tie Cathclic

llativnists was not his naval thetries which were uot taken sericusly by then Casement, it would seem had only the value «f a sascst, and feumared with any -f the cther leaders he was an eccentric and represanted nc sccial forces within the Cathclic naticn'’, The credence waich Peo Wig in Casenent's writing theref:re testifies tc his simerficiality. 7 On the contrary, all that Lane has written testifies cnly tc his own superficality and particularly to the fact that he is cbviously not acquanted with Casement's views. Accordingly he is hardly in position to judge Trotsky's accessment of them. The very fact that Casement was arrested, tried and executed, despite the dramatic sensation which the whole affair »rovcked is evidence that : the British did not ccnsifer him as a simple eccentric. In their estimation he | was at least as dangerous as the rest of the naticnalist leaders and that is why he met the same fate as they.

To understand why the British treated Casement sc severly, one must realise what his views represented. They were not the pathe tic "Naval theories" which Lane imagines them to be.

Ireland's geogranhical »osition had for long becn a resource of worry to britain.

The nossibility that some hostile nower might use Ireland as a base for action against England was a major consideration in the Tudors! decision to conquer and subdue the country. Speaking of Elizabeth's policy, Beckett, who is by nc means prone to eccentricities, writes that "nothing but the risk of leaving an ovening for Spanish intrigue would induce her to face the cost of campaigns in the more remote parts of the country" (The making of modern Ireland, nage 20) and later he says of the conquest “" The motive behind this expansion was essentially defensive, for it was inspired by fear of Snain'(ibid.p.20) In successive epochs, during the periods of primitive capital accumulation, merchantile capitalism, and even uy to the present imperialist stage (as nrcven by the elaborate »lans of both the British and Germans, fcr the invasicn «sf Ireland during the last war), the strategie military,nosition of Ireland had always tc be bent in mind. The rev: lutionary naticnal m vement was als* well aware sf this fact and endavoured tr turn it to their advantage.

Fr-m this awarness was f-rmilated the maxim "England's foe is cur friend". This maxim became enshined as a basic tenet of the revoluticnary naticnal ide: l«gy.

The United Irishmen attemmted «. forge links with the French; the Fenians with the Americans; the Vlunteers with the Maiser, and the IfA with Hitler.

It was this asvect «f Irish naticnalisg, based on very real and -bjective c’ rcumstances, which Casement made his own and articulated better | than ther natccnalist leader of his generaticn. But Casement did mre than this: we nuanced the theme and gave it extra dimension. In his hands it was transfor med from being a surely military- ge: gravhical matter into a nelitical, 2conomic cconsiderati:n °f the highest «rder.

Casement, like Lenin (see qucte abcve) saw that Ireland was not a threat tc Britain merely because of its location and military inmortance, but more inmortantly because cf the eccnomic interdevendence of buth countriczs.

Hie realised that the indenendence »f Ireland would be a severe blew, struc..

right at the heart cf the daire, carable cf racking it tc its foundations.

“Ne took advantage of every *osortunity ty convince continental Zurc eans, es-ecially the Germans, that the liberaticn of Ireland, was the only hone they had in competing with, and challanging, the mighty suveriority of the Eritish.

"The British Sapire is founded not upon the British Bible, cr the British Dréadnought, but upon Ireland" said Casament "The Empire which began uwnon an island ravaged, sacled and plundered shall end upon an island which whether it proceeded from the very genius of the soil er the influence of the stars, or that Almighty God had not Ret appointed of her reformation, or that He reserveth her in this unquiet state still for some secret scourge which shall by her come untc England it is hard to be known but yet much to be feared" (The Keener of the Seas - Aug. 1911 - wes : ). Casement understood that the oppressicn of Ireland was the secret of Britain's greatness - "To subdue that ocean-closing and western island and to exploit its resources its people and above all, its position, to the sole advantage of the eastern island has been the set aim of every English government from the days of Yeary V111" (ibid) But tha continentals were to their own detriment, unaware of the secret scurce of Britain's nower, "The vital inmortance of Ireland to Europe" he continued “is not and has not been understood by any European stateeman. Tr them it has not been a Eurenean island, a vital and necessary element, but an anpendage of England, an idand beyond an island, a mere georgranhical exmression in the titles of the ccnqueror” (ibid) As we have said Casement snent most of his time and energy trying to convi nce the Zuropeans that a British Empire without Ireland was impossible and tht this would be to their own great advantage. “Detach Ireland from the man of the British Exmire” he exhorted them "and restore it to the man of Europe and that day England resumes her native proporticns and Eurone assumes its rightful stature in the empire of the werld (ibid). Later he warned the Germans that any purely military defeat of Britain would benefit them little unless Ireland was granted self-determination. "Tc leave a defeated England still in the full possession of Ireland" he warned "would be not te settle the question of German equal rights at sea or in world affairs, but merely to nostnone the settlement to a second and possibly far greater encounter". (The Balance of Power, Sept. 1912) These ideas marked a very real advance in nationalist thinking and the British government were painfully aware of this. They were confronted by an eminent spokesman who had discovered their Achilles heel. "The vital importance of Ireland to England is understcod but never proclaimed by Pritish spckesmen".Casement had noticed. Now he had pledged | his life and cast himself in the mle of “traitor” in order to expose Britain's weakness to her enemies, that Ireland might win her freedom.

This was Casement's contribution to the Irish national movement. Both he and the Sritish were aware of it, and it was for this that he payed with his life. It is in the context of this understanding of Casement that we must examine Trotslys assessment of his writings. When Lane informs us that it was not specifically military considerations which brought about the agrarian reforms and the Gladstone {lome Rule bill, he is not saying anything which Casement or Trotsky did not already understand. It is because Lane is not familiar with Casement's nosition that he misinterprets what Trotsky means when he speaks of the "Military-immerialist" premise

premise of Gladstone's agrarian and Home Rule »olicy. Trotsky, taking un Casement's train of thought, was refering not merely to the geographical relationshin between Ireland and Britain, but also to the more important economic and nolitical relationshin. As far as Trotsky was concerned, a military occunation of Ireland by a power hostile to Britain would be devastating not only in military terms, but also in terms of Britain's position on the world market. It was to forestall any alliance between the Irish gombeen and the Petty-bourgeoisie and such a hostile mower, and to prevent a complete and revolutionary separation which would undermine the stability of the Empire, that the British bourgeoisie accelerated the political liquidation of the Anglc Irish aristocracy. On the most immncrtant idea in Trotsky's article, Lane is forced to make a concessicn. Trotsky's description of the Irish working class consciousness swinging between nationalism and syndicalism, he grudgingly admits "is fairly accurate". But then he tries to negate this by chiding Trotsky for not indicating how these two asnects of consciousness, or at least the nationalist aspect, could be transcended.

The way Lane poses the question shows that he misunderstands the basic oroblem involved. Such a misconcention is common to the Irish Left, whether would be Trotskyist, Stalinist or Republican, it is worth dwelling on it for a few moments, We must begin by disnensing with the eclectic approach of seeing Syndicalism and Nationalism as senarate and unrelated ' polar on»esites which exclude each other. In fact they form a Dialectical contradiction and find their unity in the immediacy ef British :mmerialism dominaticn of Ireland. Let us, then, trace -the origins of the two immediate terms Syndicalism and nationalism and show hew they find their unity.

Syndicalism is a general phencmencn exmerienced in many countries narticularly those with a large agricultural sector and a large concentration ~f industry. These twin economic factors work together to the Syndicalist censcinusness. Firstly, the agricultural sector under capitalism ensures the steady flow of workers fresh from the land ints the factories. Here the lives of these worlers are discinlined and regimented in a tormenting and agonizing way.

Secondly, the lack of industrial concentration hinders the development of a unified movement which can challenge the power of the capitalist society as a whole. In this way the factory is made the centre of everything : on the one hand it becomes an scbject of hatred and on the other hand it becomes the major arena of political struggle y because cf the inability of the class to confront the might cf the capitalist state. It is not surprising that Ireland, whith such an ecomny should have produced its own syndicalist movement. But in most countries Syndicalism was only a phase through which workers passed. This in turn was due to the fact that the economies of these countries were only passing through a stage of their evoluticn towards

it Guore vanced tanltalis sys ST. 7 he has been unable to advance past this stage of development. Due to imperialist domination a stagnant extensive agricultural sector side by side with a capital intensive export orientated, consumer goods industrial sector, continues tc characterise the Irish ecanomy., As long as British imperialism continues -to dominate Ipeland, this economic structure is bound to remain more cr less constant, and the Irish working class will spontaneously gravitate towards syndicalism, Working class nationalism stems from the same basic economic factors.

Nationalism was not particular to the generation of 1516, At all times the workers have been the vanguard of the national movement.

As early as 1798 before class differentiation had gone very far, it was the artisans, the future working class who were the strong driving ferce of the insurrection. Scme years later, Emmet built his "consyiracy” through the weavers unions in the Liberties.

The Young Irelanders spread their organisation through the Chartist Clubs, and the Fenians found the large-store assistants and building workers foremst among their ranks.

Clearly itwas no abstract and mystical love of an equally abstract and mystical "Mother Ireland" which was at the root of this.

Rather the workers were instinctively aware that it was the dcmination of Ireland by British imperialism which prevented the growth af a healthy economy which would add te the strenght, secial, political and econcmic of the workers; they were instinctively aware that it was the domination of British imperialism which caused unemployment, emigration, low wages and bad social conditions in general, Thus while British imperialism continues tc abort the growth of the productive forces in Ireland, an important aspect of Irish working class consciousness is bound to be expressed in Nationalist terns. The latest nhase of the national struggle shows how these apnarently mitually exclusive asnects of conscicusness shoot from the same root.

Following the attemnt te developa native Irish capitalism Fianna Fail was forced to abandon Sinn-Feinism and seek the aid of foreign, mainly British canital. The influx cf capital which cecured raised the organic commosition of capital and the rate of exploitation. Almost immediatly a massive strike wave which has not receeded at the present time, was set in motion. This strike wave has been characterised by unofficial action sumathy strikes, sabotage and factcry sit-ins but has found no exoression in the growth cf Marxism. In short, the response of the working class to the sudden rise in exploitation was to a lesser or greater degree within the general syndicalist framework.

At the same time this influx of capital brought Ireland much more within the orbit of British imperialism, laying the basis for a second “act of Union” and a federal scluticn to the border problem, The nossibility of a forthright integraticn of Ireland into the United Kingdom and a settlement of nartition at the expense of the oppressed Catholic minority in the Six Counties, has given a new lease of life to Irish nationalism, which because there is practically no national »s.+-(continued under Article on the Permanent Revoluticn).

>* i

| THE

REVOLUTIONARY

MARXIST GROUP

Revohrtionary socialist orgenmaton in son danty wath Fourth saternananat | am interested in getimg mec infarmaion | aboyttbe ANG

NAMIE

ADDRESS

) -GCOURA TION |

Send to The Secretary; AMG: 58, Worth Great Charles Street, Dublin.

PLOUGH BOOK SERVICE

Books include: Introduction to Logic of Marxism: George Novack Price £0.62 fetroduction to Marxist Economics: Emest Mandel Price E0.37'4 What is Trotsteyitm ?- Ernest Mandel Pree £0,209, 58, North Graat Charins Street, Dublin.