Marxist Review: no. 3, 1973

' MARKIST REVIEW

ee ead

THEORETICAL JO OF THE REVOLUTIONARY MARXIST GROUP

»

SPRING'73. ISSUB No.3/ THE LENINIST THEORY OF PARTY ORGANISATION. JAMES CONWAY. pl CONNELLY AND THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTY. D.R.O°C.LYSAGHT pI5 CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE LENINIST PARTY. ERNEST MANDEL . p2i ONCE MORE - TROTSKY ON IRELAND. JAMES CONWAY. p2s.

Marxist Review is the theoritical journal of the Revolutionary Marxist Group (Irish supporters of the Fourth International). It is a discussion Magazine and the views expressed in it by signed authors do not necessarly represent the positions of the Group as a whole.

LENINIST THEARY OF PARTY ORGANISATION

og, fhe questicn of organisation is a very important one for revolutionaries.

Organisation has been correctly described as the link between thecry and yractice. With ut a orceper attitude to organisation it becomes impcssible tc translate theory inte practice, and without a constant checking of theory against real practice, thecry itself degenerates ints irrelevant academic sonhistry. "Organisation is the form of mediation between thesry and practice " wrote George Luckas with some insight - "and, as in every dialectical relat-ionshin, the terms of the relatjpn only acquire ccncretness and reality in and by virtue of the mediation't, “In this much at least, Luckas was right.

A lot is explained about the different tendencies on the so-called "far Left" by understanding this; it explains why they are unable to ct-exist in one organisation despite their apparent similar yolitical pcsitions; why they multiply into innumerable little sects, proclaiming their own organisation as the one and true repcsitcry cf genuine Marxism. This phenomonon is not such a great mystery as the sceptic would have it, when we grasp the exact significance of organisation. Luckas again puts his finger on it. “The ability of organisation to mediate between. theory and practice" he says Wis seen most clearly by the way in which it manifests a much greater, finer — and more confident sensitivity towards divergent trends, than any other sector of political thought and action". (2) Given the numerical lack of strength on the''far left"? and the inevitable operation of centrifugal forces within it, it is easy to understand how much more sensitive organisation is to even minor differences on strategy and tactics. For any small organisaticn, and that includes miniscule grvuns with a handful cf members, to grouns several thousand strong, the vroblem of intervening in the class struggle i.e. cf relating to practice, because of nhysical factors, is enormous. This in turn, means that the pit falls in develoning thesry are more numerous and treacherous than they would otherwise be. And finally it means that the prcblem of organisation, as a mediator between thecry and practice kas a dimension all cf its own. As much as for the mass organisation which because of its size, automatically has certain organisational difficulties, the small group has its problems alsc. The tendencies towards bureaucratism or vcluntarism, towards centralism or federalism, towards hom genity or amorphcusness, although generated by different factors are no less strong. For this reason it has been cbligatcry on all small groups despite the limited size of their infrastructure (or more correctly because of it)

-2to nay particular attention ty organisation. A very fruitful discussion on this subject has been going on in the amorphous new revolutionary vanguard which has emerged to the left of the traditicnal reformist Jarties since the second wrld war. A wealth of new material has been produced in the process and old and half-forgotten names have gained a renewal cf popularity. Many attempts are being made to revive or re-interprete, former stalwarts such as Luxemburg, Gramsci, Trotsky and even Robert Michels.“ “But. | Asnetheless the name of Lenin continues to outshine the rest. Today, pnerhans, nm re than ever, a real attempt is being made by the new revoluticnary van- i guar tc assimilate and anply his theories. From the ex-Castrcist currents i ‘yn Jatin America to the Official Sinn Fein in Ireland, an effort is being ; mode to create sorganisations “on the Bolshevik model,

THE STALINIST ECLIPSE

But, of course, for nolitical currents like these, having no sclid Marxist trait ion, the task of internvreting Lenin is very great. Sc encrmous is it, thit it is hard for some necsle even to Legin to see the prcebleus involved.

ts leads very often to an ywnconsdous mbibing of widely circulating bourgesis ~talinist distortions of Lenin.

tgnin never actually sat down and systematised his organisational views in oye comprehensive and ccherent work. What he has left us with however, is , thecry moulded in a definite historical context; a theory which can only ye fully grasped by sifting that ccntext. Among other things this requires saying particular attention tc Lenins* own voluminous writings. It will wrely be admitted that one of the most striking things to emerge from such ; study, is his own warning on how to interpret the thecry and method of temocratic-centralism. Jor one thing he warned against a simplistic ahistcrical approach which g.A.% yould reduce the “application” of demccratic-centralism to an act “of pray- L jng to an icon in a corner” (4) (Does this not ring a bell for some latter -b-™, y super-Leninists?). At the Fourth Congress of the Commmist International $n 1522, he spoke on this very subject. He refered tc the long thesis on ’ sarty structures which had been passed at the previcus congress and while he agrea with them formally, he cauticned, that formal acceptance was entirely \ jnsufficient. Above all he cauticned the non-Russian delegates about their inexnerience. He expressed the view that they had voted for the thesis without actually studying them. The only way to really understand and sssimulate the Bolshevik organisational experience, acccrding to Lenin, was zo take it in its Russian context (5).

That is the obscure paradox of the statement in the thesis he refers to, which says that in building their crganisaticns “the parties in different countries must adapt to the historically determined peculiarities of the ccuntry concerned’ (6). It is clear that in order to do this one must study the historically determined peculiarities of Russia sc that it is possible to see the specific adaptation of Russian Bolshevik demecratic-centralism. Lenin's fear was that an inability tc distinguish between what was accidental and what was essential in Bolshevism would lead to schematism, dogmatism, or what today has becom known as “orthodoxy.

~3- As it turned cut, his worst fears were fully justified. The first place the Russian exnerience was dumped overboard was Russia itself. Because of the strategical role of the revoluticnary party in the dictatorship of the preletariat, it was the first institution to be attached by the nascent bureaucracy. It proved no easy task, since a real Bolshevik structure contains a built-in resistance to political and org anisational degeneration and disintegration, as the repeated Stalinist purges testify in a negative way. But perhaps one of the most important conditions for the eventual Stalinist victory over the Party, anart from the objective factors underlying the growth of the bureaucracy, was the rapid influx of unexperienced people into its ranks. As early as 1622, only 2% cof the party membershin had actually been in the party before the revolutionary events of 117 (7).

Even while Lenin was still alive this caused many problems which he reccgnised and sought to rectify by shedding the more backward anslitical elements. In a major offensive in 1622 for example, un to 24% of the party membership was either forced to resign or was expelled.(8) But of course after Lenin's death, Stalin quickly restored the balance through the infamous Lenin levy.

And his right-hand man, Molotcv, never snoke a truer word when he said that "the development of the narty in the future will undoubtedly be based on this Lenin enrolment(9)*.

Gn the basis cf an unexnerienced membershiy which knew practically nothing of the history and traditions cf Eolshevism, Stalin was able to “smuggle in (to use a favourite expression of his own) a completely bastardised version of what the Bolshevik party shculd be. He summed up his concocted version of the Leninist narty by describing its "style in work" as a cross between "the Russian revolutionary sweep" and “American efficiency” (10).

How and where Lenin picked up “American efficiency” is not explained). The bureaucratic nature of this formulation shines through on its own.

Once the Leninist ccncenticn of the internal varty structure had been crushed in Russia, it was an easy task to exourgate it from the non-Russian Communist parties. This needless tc say was in large measure due to the fact that Lenin's earlier warning had gone unheeded. The “orthodoxy” which becanie the hallmark of Sycophants like Toglatti, Thalmann and Thorez. >aved the way for the strangulation of any Leninist concentions which might have taken rceot. On top of that the Stalinist-Soviet machine moved in and carried out a thorough "cleansing" operation. It is worth reading Ruth Fischer, who was a leader of the German Cormunist party, for a detailed description of how Stalinism physically uprooted, crushed and cbliterated all the revolutionary and Leninist traditions of the non-Russian secticns of the Third International (11). In places where independence of Stalinism was too strong, as was the case of the Comaunist Party of Poland, which had supported Trotsky, entire layers of the leadershipnwere lured to their deaths before the firing squad, and their narty disbanded (12).

It is cnly when one realises the magnitude of the offensive and “counter revolution” against Lenin, that one can comprehend how deeply the real Leninist theory cf organisation has been buried and the amount of effort that has replaced that of Lenins’.

But it was not a desire for “American efficiency’ which motivated Lenin.

~-4- Of course that is not to say that he did not demand efficiency; he did.

But organisation and efficiency were identical for him and so it would have been tautological to pose one as the means and the other as the end. Instead Lenin, as always, started from the standpoint of the class struggle and it was the vroblem of relating to this struggle, which was his chief consideration when he came tc the question of organisation. Put ancther way: it was the reccgnition of organisation as the link between theory and practice, which led Lenin to attach sc much importance to it.

A look at the objective situation in which he began to develop his organisational theories, testifies to this. The RSDLP was born in the lull befsre the storm. The pericd of 1864 te 1898 during which its foundations were prepared say the consolidaticn of the Russian working class and the yegining of its struggle against capitalism. It was at this point that Yarxism became a social movement. But the structure of the RSDLP was yet sery frail and the sterm of economic discontent that broke out in 1858, 3nd found its iighty climax in the whirlwind of 1905, tcre it asunder again.

the unity of the party dissolved under the pressure gf police renression nd the uneveness of the struggle itself. The party not only stagnated sut lansed back into its pre-1898 days, when it was nothing but a collection sf autonomous committees and groups. A dialectical misfortune cone could say, Since the impulse of the workers struggle might have been expecycd to reinforce, rather than render the only movement which represented the historical interests of the nroletariat.

the upsheot of all this, was a paralysis of Russian Marxism, thus preventing t from seizing the lea adership of the growing struggle. And as we can see rom his early writings/ "crevice which was Widening between the RSDLP and the class struggle, that Lenin approached the problem cf organisation "The ‘nmediate task of cur movement" we find him saying ",...is te call for the establishment of a revolutionary org anisation capable of uniting all the forces and of guiding the movement not only in name but in practice." (14) So it was nct so much his recognition of the need for organisation but the yay in which he saw this need, which was the distinctive feature of Lenin.

this is seen by contrast with the Menshevik Martov, who also agreed with the necessity of org anisation, but who conceived of it, not in the context of the class struggle, but in the context cf pure administration. This introverted conception was sumed up by him when he descrilved organisation ' as a "fly-wheel" which sets the party in motion. (15).

It is important.tc understand the way in which Lenin saw organisation because it has a direct bearing on the methods of organisation he adopted. As we can see, he had a dynamic view of organisation as something acting on the class struggle. His opponents on the other hand, had a static, introverted view more suited.to the bureaucrat than the revolutionary. Organisation to them was only an interna] matter of the Marxist vanguard and not a relationshin between the vanguard and the class. Such a passive view was ‘bound to lead to adaptation, since if the revolutionary organisation dces not assert itself - the class struggle will. And the class struggle in its most elemental form, is so extremely uneven, diverse, and punctuated, it is only capable of throwing up a federated, disorg anised, movement,

-5spontaneously. _ Herein lies the secret cf the Economists and Mensheviks gravitation tc federalism and Lenints firm. ‘insistance on‘ centralism,

POLITICAL CENTRALISM

A common distortion cf Lenints concent of centralism is to divorce it from its. political ccntent. Thus we get the juxtapcsition of centralism and democracy. This distcrticn is, of course, entirely misleading. The subject matter of the debate in which Lenin participated on this question was not: super-centralism -v- democracy and moderate centralism, but centralism ~v~- federalism and anarchy.

To comphrehend the full meaning of this, we must turn to the context of the debate. » As we have said above, the RSDLP, since its foundation in 1898 had béen & federation of local groups which | functioned autoncmou 'y. The RDSLP was: therefore net a separate entity, but merely an arithmatical sum ofits ~~ various groups. - something less than a united front. Lenints - afm:was: to transcend this situation and create a real party, which united and:.subordinated these grouns within it, The method he envisaged to. accomplish this, was connletely in accord with the dialectical method and was based on’ the princinle : the whcle is greater than its parts; and its coroslleny: the part is subordinate to the whole. "A single narty and consequently a centralised one" was how he put it.(16) In practice therefore: hé called for a structure where local organisations would be subordinate: to a centre, and where lower party crgans would function under the leadership of higher narty crgans. In short he believed that it was necessary ' to begin by "building the party from the top downwards. w (17) Perhaps this formulation and approach seems’ bureaucratic. Indeed Lenin described it as such, in ironical naranthesis, for he knew that his fcrmalistic and empirical opponents would be incapable of grasping that this was the only way. to build an integrated organisation actively rejecting bureaucratism.

The idea of building the party from the bottom upwards, the apparently demowatic proceedure, is actually only an idealogical reflex of bureaucratism.

It is conditioned by:the fact that bureaucratic cliques, by their very nature tend to become ex usive and restricted in size and are consequently faced with the threat of being swept away on the first major impulse of mass action. Accordingly the bureaucracy is forced to widen its base as far as possible, to. draw in behind it. every backward and diletantish element; to create a mass "democratic" crganisatich which in reality is only a shell.

The membership despite all their apparent rights, are not functioning parts of the whole (are only "platonic" members, to us an incisive characterisation of Lenin's) but merely a-rubber staup for. the activities of bureaucracy.

As Robert Michels perceived "the party in which the circle of the elite is unduly restricted, or in which, -in - other words, the oligarchy is composed of too msall a numbe r of individuals, runs tHe risk cf being swent aay by the masses in a moment of democratic. effervestence. Hence the modern party, like the modern state, endeavours to. give its cwn crganisation the widest possible base and to attach to itself in‘ financ#l bond, the largest nossible number of individuals’ (18). In this way crganisation is transformed into

-6the mode of existance of the bureaucracy, which becomes like a worm in | an apple, and ceases to be an organ of the class struggle.

£ "Mechanism becomes an end in itself Despite this, it is always necessary to be on guard against the bureaucratic connotations of Lenins tory precisly in order to combat any atteiipt to use it as a cover for bureaucratism.

The"building of the party from the top downwards" does not help to mechanically do away. with bourgeois individualish, or different forms of politicaYoppertumismior conversely does it mechanically creat a common will leading tc smooth onerations, “American efficiency in style cf work" etc. Such an interpretation stands Lenin's concept on its head.

In actual fact for Lenin, a “common- political will" in the form of a party programme is an absclute prerequisite for centralism. He repeatedly warned that cchesion could not be introduced by administerativ2 meathods. "Such unity cannot be decreed”,he said "It camiot be brought about by a decision,say cf a meeting of representatives (20) And parallel with his emphasis on centralisu, went an equal insistance on the need for ideclogical homogeniety and a party programme. This intertwining . .. . of centrelism and a common party programme is apvarant in Lenin's writings from an early stage . For instance in the series of three articles for Rabochaya Gazata(21) of 1859, which seem bo be his first written thoughts on the subject ,;he begins by stressing the unifying choesive force of a programme in an arti.le entitled “Gur Programme! and then follows up with “Our Inmediate Tasks", where he deals in a general theoretical way with organisations, questions and he concludes with an article entitled'Urgent auestions which deals in a practical way with such questions. The connection between the two things was cbviously already established in Lenin's mind and he took the oppertunity of his essay on A Draft Programme of Our Party , written in the latter half of L859, to develop the theme “ From comrades active in Russia we have heard the opinion expressed that at this particular moment there is no special need to draw up a programme; that the urgent question is one of developing and strengthening local organisation” Naturally Lenin disagreed with this opinion, his view being that it was necessary to transend local organisation and create a centralised party. And this he insisted “is a step for which a programme is n ecessary", (22) Early in 1500 with the publication of Islora his views were made public for the first time and here he spelt out the connection between party and programme. "To establish and consolidate the party means to establish and consolidate unity among all Russian Social-Democrats®. But, he warned "such unity cannot be decreed, it cannot be brcught about by a decision".

Instead “In the first place, it is necessary to work for solid ideclogical unity which would eliminate discordance and confusion..... And “this ideological unity” he continued "must be consolidated by a Party prog ramme" (23) It is clear from that in Lenin's concept of centralism the bureaucratic desire to promote homogenity and discipline is completely absent.

Although centralism and ideological unity condition and reinforce each

-7other, ideological unity is clearly the only foundation upon which centralism can be layed. ,

DISCIPLINE

There is another problem associated with what we have just been discussing and it is often a sore point with populist-type organisations moving towards a Leninist position. That problem is the need for discipline. And it is a problem which is all the more prominent, especially (in all honesty) if their turning towards Lenin is a product of stagnation and decline; if they have the illusion that the Lenninist method of organisation can improve their position on a purely administrative level. But, of course, it is not a problem confined merely to these organisations; it is alsc experienced by many small dogmatic sects where a tendency to organisational neurosis and demoralisation, manifested in a cyclica 1 fall of in committ- bt ment, is constant.’ _ io nq Just as it is wrong 'to think that centralism can be introduced by administrative methods, so it-is wrong to think that discipline can be "tightened up" merely by intréducing new organisational procedures. Discipline, among other things, means the negation of bourgeois individualism. Bourgeois\\__ pylons our = itself is the negation cof individualism in general, isnce the unilateral freedom of one person is founded on the restriction of the freedom of everybody else. (Example: if the employer takes the surplus social product in the form of profit, then his workers cannot take it in the form of increased wages). Discipline, therefore, necessitates a different concept of fréedom;.one which at once allows for the full development of the individuals potential but without restricting the potential of others. This may appear as.an attempt to develop a method whereby one can eat one's cake and keep it. But it only appears so because we have been conditioned by a society where individual freedom is a reflex of individual ownership of the means of production, which because of the mechanism of capitalism.implies competition and struggle against all other individual owners of the means of production.

This new freedom can only be gained in the struggle to change the present (i.e. the capitalist order in which we presently live) which is the negation of freedom. This is the. very object of the Marxist programme, hence’ it is in common struggle with other Marxist militants around this programme that the imividuals potential gains full scope and that he is. consequ ntly free to conmit himself. Gnly from this self-—commnitiment on real. discipline be forged within the revolutionary organisation.

A double-edged obstacle here confronts an organisation like the Ufficial Sinn Fein. Firstly for historical reasons, members are not attracted on any precise programmatic basis, but rather because of the general revolutionary traditions of Republicanism, which are practically the only revolutionary traditions of the country. This means that recruits are in no way prepared for a common disciplined struggle. Secondly, the Officials still cling tc the eclectic aims of traditional Republicanisn, which is the nearest thing they have tc a programme This emludes the

-ané thus both leaders and ranks, punishers and punished are © qually -8possibility of developing a ccrimon will to action within the organisation.

This is born out negatively by the fact, that, when d cisions are taken, it falls to the lot of an exceptional few to carry them out in practice.

Here we have the exact symptcms of the *” ndiscipLinet from which the Offidals are manifestly suffering.

The lessen here is clear: discipline is not an administrative problem but a political one. And there is a warning inherent un this: any attempt to deal with a general problem of discipline in an administrative way will unleash centrifugal forces. and reinforce bureaucratic tendencies. Centrifugal forces are guaranteed to be ashed because they are already inherent in a situation where an organisation is not bound together by a coaerent progranme, and all that is required to set them free is some aciinistrative insensivity. And bureaucratism will be reinforced beCause tae leadershin is permitted to perpetrate "legitimate injustices" - Megitinate injustices" in the sense that the fault of indiscipline lies not with the individual alone but with the movement as a whole, 5 And , quilty of the crime. OT

-DEMOCRACY AND CZNTRALISM

aes, When Lenin warncd against a f° «11 acceptance of democratic centralism without gaining az understand::.; of its dynamic in the Russian context, he was, in-ef fect, saying that genuine democratic-centralism, while being & conscious application, must alsc evolve as a process. Put another way this means that the revolutionary party functioning in accordance with ‘the Leninist concent cf organisaticn, can cnly be forged in struggle.

This incidently throws an interesting side light on the nature of sectarian grouplets, that. have littered the history of our movement, especially ‘in Ireland. Because they prefer to function within the limits of what they define as the class struggle, they never become involved in the real struggle and hence democratic-centralism always remains for them a set of abstract rules and regulaticns which are imposed cn the organisation. This leads inevitably to the “regime of dess sotism’ which is such a familiar characteristic of all these grcuns.

Lenin's idea of building the organisation in struggle, of ccurse, has nothing to do with the economist concent of “organisation-as-orocess", which simply means that the revoluticnary organisation miraculously springs up during the course of the class struggle. This in particular was Rosa Luxenmburg's failing. She was not against a centralist organisation as many of her latterday folowers like to believe. In fact,she frankly admitted that there was strong tendency tc centralisation in the entire labour movement, which she was unopposed to. But she Saw this not as something conscious, but rather as a »oroduct of the centralising tendencies of capitalism itself. "This tendency springs from the economic make-ws of capitalism which is essentially a centralising factor (24) she wrcte.

the corner stone of her annroach consisted in the maxim "The unccnscicus re

-S~ _ ene comes before the conscious” (25) But the relationshin between: the unicon= | scious and the conscious is much more complex than Si¢ imagined. As ~ is clear from the‘ cont xt, Luxemburg used. her formulation not merely as an historical. tryisa but also as: a sShenia for solving immediste problems.”

In: doing so*§he ‘reduced their dialectical réationship to a purely temporal one. Such a e@lolutionary concept vrevented her from seeing how the unconscious and ‘the conscious fuse in the actual ‘struggle.

It was Lenints ability to grasp this complex relationship waich was at the core of his o¥ganisaticnal concept. (26) As he saw it, the party (the conscious), demarcates itself from the class (the unconscious) but only in order to assimilate its essence and. ‘reacting jipon it. become its essence,, ‘Thus ‘the process is: first the unconscicus,’ ‘next the conscious and then the dialectical interaction in which the conscious begins to permeate the unconscious. Thus we see the real meaning of the old definition of the party as the "conscious s nokesman of the unconscious process" (27).

A good example of the intricate relationship between the conscious and the unconscicus, between the party and the class. >» is given by Trotsky from .

those crucial five days cf the February Revolution, when the inexperience and spontaneity of the urban masses seemed to lead inexorably, towards a major clash with the Czarist troons. (28). Such a clash would have resulted in the crushing cf the revoluticn at its birth. While the masses had been failed in leadership, from.above, by both the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, the rank and file Bolsheviks, who were naturally an inherent part of the upsurge gave exemplary leadership from below in their individual canacity and averted the impending clash. Thus when commentators refer to the spontanicus nature cf the February Revolution, they overlook that complex relationshin between the conscious and the unconscious, by wnich what seems to be unconscicus, is actually determined by a maxinun. .

of conscicusness. 7 os 7 Dy ee we i It is essential ‘to understand thi s, in order to uhderstand the relationship between democracy and centralism in Lenints theory | of organisation, It. ag.

only the tempéring of centralism with democracy that ensures tnig link: between the conscious and the unconscicus, which in effect means the ~ leadership of the class by the Party. The Leadershin organ cf the party is the: erbodiment of the party over and against its indivicual sarts —othat is the significance of centralism for Lenin and this is why ‘lower party organs are suborcinate to higher ones and not the other way round. But it is only through its individual parts, “the peoples tribunes", that the panty projects its will, which is the historical will of the_ ‘class, and actually becomes “the conscious spokesman forthe unconscicus. process".

(Thus Lenin stood firmly against any centralism which led to exlusivness of leadership, independent or above the rank and file of the party. The nolicies and decisions of the leadersniz, even in conditions where elective procedures were non-vperative, nad to be firmly and honestly based on the experience of the ordinary party members. Trotsky exnertly captured the svirit of Lenin's concent when he wrote that “leacers are often impatient in seeking to remove the bstacle in the path cf the narty's activily. In such mses, the party can and must correct the precipitatedness cf the icaders, since it is not only the leaders who educate the party but the

i a ; party as well which educates the leaders. Herein lies the salutary dialectic of democratic centralism® (2S).

Lenin was driving at just this when he wrote: "This brings me to a highly important principle of all party organisation and all party activity : while the greatest possible cengralisation is necessary with regard to the ideological and practical leadership of the movement and the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, the greatest possible decentralisation is necessary with regard tc keeping the party centre ( and the party as a whole) informed about the movement and with regards to responsibility to the party."

He makes this plain when he writes a little further on that "This decentralisation is an essential corrective to itt? (30) Thus for Lenin the only centralism permissable is that which enables the rank and file to control and educate the leadership.

This principle cf centralisation and decentralisation is summed up concretely by him in yet another principle. "We define it as unity in action, freedom of discussicn and criticism’? (31) he wrote. It is the action of the party which brings it into contact with the masses, and this contact can be .

retained, strengthened and deepened only on the condition that the experience of this action becomes the guideline for the party leadership in the formulation of its positions. But this experience can only be assimilated by the party as a whole and not merely by its central organs. Consequently there is an absclute need for full and open internal discussion especially amongst the rank and file in which this experience is distilled. Only — after this party metabolisation, so to speak, can the leadership take the final product and get on with the job of presenting. the will of the party as the will cf the masses. Thus we see that for Lenin in his concept of the party as the conscious articulator of spontaneous process, there is an organic connection between centralisation and decentralisation, unity in acticn and freedom of criticism — in a word : there is an organic unity between democracy and centralism in his concept cf democratic centralism.

FACTIONS

But to say that.democracy in the form of freedcm to discuss and criticise is necessary, dces nct exhaust the matter. Even Stalin could boldly proclaim this necessity. Every.difference is a contradiction and contracicticns in acccrdance with the laws cf the dialectic must work themselves out in struggle. Therefcre discussion and criticism must not be seen merely as an “exchange cf ideas" but where necessary, aS a clash of views. From the standpoint of internal party orgenisation, it is precisely the difference on this which separates Stalinism from Leninism. This is manifested in the attitude to factions. Stalin adopted a categcrically hestiie attitude to the formation of “independent ideclogical groupings within the varty, and he elevated this hostility to the level of a vrinzinle. "The existence of factions is comatible neither with the party's unity, nor with its iron discipline” (32) was his formulation.

-—IIhaat As against this, Lenin adcpted a mucn inore flexible positicn.Generaily speaking he was in faveur ¥ facti.os. Pus wisn le was arguing against federalism in the »arty, he was careful t. stress that he was not uox.sed to facticns. Speaking “Oa the place «f the Bund in the ASDLP (33) fur example he said ® As it is, there will always (ur enmhasis) be different gruunings in the party, groupings of comrades wac do not think quite | alike om questivns if pregramic, tactics or organisation; but let all lik C of minded members join in a single group...." Aad later OM, + Ccrienting seers eset = more generally cn the question of discussicn and criticism he wrete: "When we have a Party programe and a Party organisation, we must not only hcsvitably throw spen the cclums of the ty organ for excnanges of oninicn, but must afford those groups which 4 cma inconsistency suppert some of the dcogias of revisisnism, cr for one reason or another insist uncn their senarate and individual existence as grouns, the opp vrtunity of systematically setting forth their differences, however slight these may be. Precisely in urder t; av.id being toc harsh and stiff-necked... towards ‘anarcidistic individualism’ , it is necessary in cur copinin, to du the utmst,- even if it involves a certain denarture from the tidy natterns cof centralisi and from absclute, cbedience to discipline, - to enable these grouns to speak cut and give the wis Le narty the cnoportuiiity to weigh~ ‘the iiipertance-cr unin rtance .

of these differences and determine just where, how and on wise part inconsistency is shwn', (34) Té is clear from this that Lenin did nt see the devarture from “the tidy natterns cf centralism leading t. the disruoticn of centralisa but cn the centrary to its strengthening.

But it was not caly in the ry, but alsvin oractice, that Lenin adopted this flexible attitude. Beginning with the differences in the iskra group at tne second conference of the RSDLP in 1593, the history of Bolshevisia is one ©f ceaseless internal struggle, in which varicus grouss, tendencies and factions fought over every “question of programme, tactics cr organisation".

Mo less than fifteen immartant factions can be counted in fhe twenty years of the part?’ys existence. And it was in the course of the conflicts surrowding the formation of these factions that some of the more unique and distinctive features cf Bolshevism were given sueh an incorruptible and unconpromising form — hostility to social~democratic opportunism, internationalism, the permanency of revolution in backwaré cuuntries, the strategy of constructing a socialist economy and reinforcing the dictatorship of the proletariat in backward countries, to mention but a few. Can anyone doubt that it was the vigorcus, healthy and even bitter struggles within the party that made Bolshevism the most nersistent defender on a world scale of the historic interest of the working class on all these issues? Bolshevism without these internal struggles would not have been Bolshevism, and in this we see the facile nature cf the pseudo-scientific attemmts to depict Bohahevisn as the father of monclithic Stalinism.

But while facticns have their nositive side, it would be wrong tc glorify them as a virtue. There are obvicus dangers. AS Trotsky pointed out:in any (35) sericus factional struggle the interests of different classes assert themselves.

—12- | Just aS in the class struggle the conflict cf these interests tends towards the disruption cf socities equiliberium, so too within the party unity in action can be disrupted by the clash cf factionalinterests. Once that happens the faction ceases to be an integral functioning element of the party and in actual fact becomes a separate party . In that case the revolutionary party is forced to adopt a hostile attitude and just as it demarcates itself from other class parties it is ferced to draw a clear line between itself and its disloyal opponents through expulsions.

Given the negative factcrs involved in factions it would nontheless* be disasterous to try and place a restricticn on them in advance. Even where disruption or a split is the finai outcome we cannct .4dook back with hindsight and say that the struggle shculd not have been permitted in the first glace. If we take for example one of the very few instances in the history of Zolshevism in which the cutcome cf facticnal struggle was a split ~ the Recallist dispute - we can still see many positive achievments not the least of which was the formation cf a real leadership within the party. In additionmost of those who were expelled obviously learned something in the course cf the ‘three years struggle since the majority of them found their way back intu the Bolshevick camp before I917.(36) The strangulation of the Bolshevick party itself during the mid-twentiesis a fearful warning against any attempt to judge the effects uf factions a priori. Both Lenin and Trotsky favoured the move tc clamp down on factions within the narty in I92I because of the general precaricussstate of affairs Of course it must be pointed cut that they did this withreluctance and only as a tempory measure. Moreover while the eganisation of free discussicn and criticism through factions was forbidden thry cnntanued tostress the need fr the .“ organisation of free discuss&on and eriticisin bby the party in the form of special journals for dissenters, more oppertunity for debate etc. It was cnly latter on when Lenin and Trotsky both attempted to form a block against the threat to the narty from the bureaucracy that the magnitude .f their error became apparent.

THE RELEVANCE OF LENIN TODAY

To understand the unity < of Lenints thecry of organisation as we have tried to outline it above, is tc see immediately its universal and continued relevance. An inability tc grasp this unity always leads to the familar raticnalisations: dem cratic-centralism was permissable, even necessary, in a repressive, backward country like Russia, but in advanced capitalist countries with bcurgecis democracy it is not practical. Or; Lenin worked out :.

out his thecry over seventy years ago ~ a lot has changed since then.

Salvaging their conscience with these megre excuses, many revolutionaries w=: inevitably proceed to pick Lenins brain for ingrediens tc make their cwn "yaupers broth’ a little tastier. They take from him what they feel they need - this rule, that regulation. They debase democratic-centralism to the level of a lifeless schema - like a stone from which chips may be knocked without imparing the unity of the chips or the remnant, and not like a «: living body from which limbs cannot be torn without destroying both the limbs and-the bcdt. The idea of taking bits and pieces from Lenin makes as much sense as the

= rr reece ernie mtenanmatetintestatemnseneitlhasansnaspatnnnmnenrensnba ithe nt TT CL idea of grafting on limbs. to a stone in the hope that it will walk. It — fails tc see hovw the. methodology of democratic-centralism is related to the class struggle. Where ever there is class struggle the methodology of lenin is relevant. In conclusion therefore, it si necessary to stress the unity of Lenins theory of organisation. It is the only way that we can comprehend its importance fcr all revolutionaries in the class struggle today.

‘It is only by taking it in its unity that it can have any contemporaecy relevance at all. . oe

NOTES AND __ REFRENCIS

(i) Goerge Luckacs, History and Class Concious, » 299. Luckacs was a young communist philosopher wh tried to Hegelanise Marx and posed a number of important problems in the nrocess, Later he rem unced his ceviations for Stalinism. Ue participated in the short lived Hungarian Soviet of ISIS and _ the 50s.was active inthe workers upsurge against the bureauoccracy.

. (2) ibid. (3) c/F Richard Hyman. Marxism and the Sociology cf Trade Unionisn.

Pluto Press IS7I. (4) Lenin.. Five Years cf the Russian Revolution and the Prospects of the World Revcluticn. Collected Works Vol 33 p.431.

(5) ibid (6) Thesis on the Structure ¢ Communist Parties andthe ‘Métdod Of ang Content of their Work, in Documents of the Communist International 1519 to 1934. Uxfurd University Press 1456. Jane D egres. (ed). Vol I». 257. Tilese thesis written by W. Kuenen., a German C.mumumist were ‘Submitted to the Third Congress on July 16 I¢2I. ioenen admitted that they had been draw up hastily and consequently they were referred to a special comission four disscussion. They were subsequently ¢re submitt: 3 ed on July 12 and adopted unanimously without disscussion.

~ (7). Issaac Deutscher .. The Prophet Unarmed. Vintage Bovks IS5. p 213 (8) E.u. CARR The Bolshevicl Revluticn. Vol I Pelican Is71-p2i3 (©) E.H. CARR. The Interregnum. Pelican I969. p 363. .

- (10) Stalin The Foundations cf Leninism . Foreign Language Press I¢65. oe a oO » iI8. (iI) Ruth Fischer. Stalin and Geraan Communism. Cambridge 1648.

See in particular chpt 23 p4eS to 54. Fischer tells us icw the cohesicn of the party was destroyed; local district and regicnal organigaticn being _. disbanded and reformed cn a completely different basis; hiw the Soviet *"ureauccracy bought over whole layers of the Party-~ cf £25000 meinbers in 1627, 4,300were »aid cfficals(!) and Fischer estimates that as many mre. -¢ cu: “ec also in receipt of scme maney from Muscow;-how in 1926 the Lenin School -wasre opened in Moscow where the leadership of the Party were re educated.

{ - (125: Isaac Deutscher. Russia China and the West. 1653 to 1666. Pelican IS7c p44-tco 45 Deutscher himself was a mamber of the Communist cf Poland.

-I4- (13) A.G.Meyer. Leninisi. Prague University Series 1968 pS8.

(14) Lenin. Where tc Begin C.W. VOL 5 p 20.

€£5) Tiesdore Dan. The Grigins OF Bolshevism Seeker and Warburg.

664 » 245. Dan was cne 6f the foremost leaders of Menshevism.

(16) Lenin. Our Immediate Tasks.C.W. VOL 7 p 218.

wae. €17) . Lenin, One step forewards , Two steps back. 7" C.W.VOL 7 p+ 206.

--e- (8) Robert Michels. Political Parties .The Free Press 1657 (original © “> ~~ iSI5). p. ISS Michels was a left wing German socialist economist.

. Is) Ibid . fhis is the organisational counterpart of Bernsteins Famous war cry "the mvement is evertthing the final goal nothing."

(20) Lenin. Declaration to theldditoRal Board of Iskra CW.VOL 4 p 355.

(21) Rabochaya Gazata (Workers Gazetta) was adopted as the central ergan of the RSDLP in I8S¢. The paper was suppressed before Lenins articals could actually be »ublished. The articles mentioned are ib Vol 4 cf Lenins collected works.

(22) Lenin. A Draft Programme cf Cur Party. CW. Vol 4 P230 (23) Lenin . Dfclaration to the Editorial Board of Iskra. CW Vol 4 337 (24) Rosa Luxemburg Speaks. ed. Mary-Alice Waters. »II6 (25) ibid. pI2I (26) Acccrdi ngly the Thesis on the Structure of Communist partys...etc.

says: "Sucessful leadership presupposes moreover the closest contact with . the proletarian masses.. Without such contact the leaders will not lead but at bestoxiy follow them. These organic contactw are to be sought in . : . . . 5 the Communistparty organisation through democratic centralism "Degras op eet (27) Lenin. One Step Forward Two Steps Back.CW Vol 7 p247.Martov first used.

the phrase but its correctness was fhly accepted by Lenmn ++ (28) Trésky,~ History of the Russian Revolution. Voll. pI0off (29) frotsky. Writtingsoof Leon Trotsky (1935-1936) p25.

(30) Lenin. A Letter to A Comrade on Organisational Tasks CW Vol 6 p248-S.

(31) Lenin. Party Tipéipline and the Fight Against Pro-Cadet Social Democracy CW VolII p20. (32) (32) Stalin op cit pIl4. (33{ Lenin Speech on the Place of the Bund in the RSDLP.CW Vol6 p487.

(34) Lenin Letter to Iskra CW Vol7 pII6. (35) Trotsky In Defence of Marxism. n77. (36) R.V. Daniels. The Conscience of the Revolution... P25.

awe

amen |

“CONNOLLY ANG THE REVOLUTIONASY

In the experience of the Irish working class, the role of the Leninist party has not becn gre..t. That this has: been so is no accident any more than was Russia's development of such . form of org:nisation ind it® enjoymert of that organis tion's success. The compiretive ccuses of Russia's achievcinent snd Ireland's fnilure lie in the two countrics' different levels of economic development. Thr highly socislised,(if not, relative to total popul.tion, large) Russian proletariat was morc suited to develop its socialist consciousness than ws the workin? cluss of Ireland. The latter's most socialised elements (in Ulster) had their division of skills reinforced by the rvligious issuc. .s ~ whole its members lost their natural leadcrs on the emigrant ships. The Russian working cl:ss produced the Bolshevik Larty 3; its comrades in Ircland could not (until faced with the example of October 1917 ) advance beyond the I.7.G.W.U. cnd the Irish Citizen Army. Except for brief periods, the Irish worker could not look for revolutionary leadership to any van- Cuard political body, whether for his own island alone or for hoth the British Isles, This last point is relcvant. In Commolly's time, all Irclard wes port of the single State of the United Kingdom. There was the possibility th .t a revolutionary party might develop to lead the workcrs of both Britain and Ircland. Such a development would have bee: Ap Hs with the organisational etrategy of Bolshevism, which Trotsky summed up as follows; “ihercus in nationally homogeneous sbates the bourzcois revolutions devcloped powerful centripetal tindcencics, rallying to the idea of overcomins, purticul-:rism, as ir France, or overcoming natiors1 disunion, as in Italy and Germany - in netionclly hetcrogencous states on the contrary, such as Turkey, Kussic,austri+-Hung ry, the belated bourgcois revolution relcased ccuntrifuenl forces. In spite of the apparent contrariness of these processcs when oxpre= ssed in mechinical terms, their historical function wos the same, In both cases it Was a question of using the national unity «s.2 fundimental industrial reservoir.

Germany hed for this puppose to be united, sustria-Hungery to be divided,Lenir énrly learned the inevitability of this devclopm nt of centrifusal national move ~ meny¥s in Russia, and for many years stubbornly fought most particularly against Rosa Luxemburg - for that famcus paragraph nine of the old party programme which formulated the right of nations to self determination ~- that is, to complete separation as states. In this, the Bolshevik Party did not by any means undetake an evangel of separation, It merely assumed an obligation .to strusgle implacably against every form of national oppression, including the forcible retention of this or that nationality within. the boundaries of the general state. Only in this way could the Russian proletariat gradually win the confidence of the oppressed nationalities.

"But that was only one side of thu matter. The policy of Bolshevism in the national sphere had also another side, apparently contradictcry to the first but in reality supplementing it. Within the framework of the party, and of the work-~crs' organisations in general, Boshevism_insisted unona rigid centralisim. imnlan

-16- : taint of nation. 1330. which night set the workers one acainst the other or disunite them. While flatl ing: o the boureois states the right to impose compulsoty citizenship, or even a State lansuagee \j a national minority - Bolshevism at the same time made it a veril sacred task to unite as closel possible, by means of voluntary class disci the workers of different netionelities, Thus it flatly rejected the national- federation principle in buildin; the partys 4 revolutionsry organisation is not the prototype of the future state, but merely the instrument for its creation. An instrument oucht to be adapted to fashionin,; the product; it ought not to include the product. Thus a certralised oranisation can gusrantee the success of revolutionary strug;‘le - even where the task is to destroy the centralised oppression of nationalities." - History of the Russian Revolution, Vol. III p.p. 40-41, Sphere Books Ltd. London, 1967. (Present writer's emphasis) "In contrast to this, it is a good iden - following: the method of contrasts - to compare it with the policy of the Austrian social demersts. Bolshevism, based itself upon the assumption of an outbresk of national revolutions continuing for decades to come, and instructed the aavanced workers in this spirit. The Austrian social democracy, on the contrary, submissively accomodated itself to the policy of the rulin, class; it defended the compulsory co citizenship of ten nations in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, and at the same time, being: absclutely incapable of achievin; a revolutionary union of the workers OF these different noticnalitics, fencéd them off in the party and in the trade unions with vertical partitions," Ibid P. 59, emphasis as before.

“aistory hes provided on ineormurable checkup of the two policies on the nutionsl question. Wherens 4ustria-Hungary, whose proletariat was cducated in the spirit of 2 cowordly halfway policy, went 911 to pieces under . form] shake-up, and morcover the initintive in this process w.s taken in the min by th. notional sect= ions of the Social Dumoerctic party, in Russia on the ruins of Czarisn a now stoto composed of nationalities has been for ried, ond has been closcly welded together hth cconcmbeally anc politicclily by the Bolshevik Perty.

"uh tever may be the further destiny of the Sovict Union - and it is still for from. quict haven - the m.tional policy of Lenin will find its plece amon; the etcrnel tr:.surce of monkind." Ibid P. 62.

Tan SEILLBIRTH OF J2TTED KTeGDOM BOLSABVISu, though less drum.tic, the nvtion l policy of the revolutionary lft of the Britiso Isles before October 1917, wey vo 2S tach os that of the austre -Hunge ricn Secial Democrats, wi example cf how not te oo about it. The only Inbour peliticeal crpanisition that trie’ to bridge the Irish Sea wos the petit bourcecis and rofcermist Independent Labour Party. For the remindor, sc far were circunstenees from thesc of Czarist Russin, that it wis 2 sipn of progress rether than ethorwisc fer Socinlists to form separate orgunis:tions for Britcin xn? Ireland - not cry in the politiecl, This vos shown by the fact that in formins the 4 — but alsc in the industri-.1 sphere. T ere toe Jorcs Larkin wes not only breakin, fro: British but from burcrucratic eontrol By his net he created the macleus of whet woult de the lendinm: pacc-sotter in indus striol action in the British Isles fur yerrs to cone, oven -fter 1918. In the british Isles, the situation ws an early munifestation of whet wos te peeve 2 free qucet international occurrence throuyh the twenticth century; the undceveleosed wobkin: class of the cclony, advancing and outpscins the ancient metropolitan proletariat.

be nan -Il[7=the world's first industrisl enpitelisn. From this thoy vcre Able cnjoy the buncfits (mn pany din relation bo enpitrlts 3; sr undiése ¢o ui coluadest) of thoir esuntey's menep ly position. Lenin suv.

Th vt bats es se Woo duc ty the sritish: verkoy r "1... section cf of the proletariat allows it moe bow ch Sta of Capit: tlic ig Pro wecss © He ne C ry © £ eur coisic.” Inperislisy, the H Muscew, 1976, p.103. This result acveloped in Britein an? (if apythinr.:;, more ) oe ie rotestant workers of North Hast Ircelen’. Arcncst the workers vies ; atten developed much more slowly. Partly this wos boenuse the were epont on supsidising the more mumerous peas ot pure! Iwse doveloped ors Wer artly it was beccuse the nodern Irish Tres Union Sritain. without the industry of the other artisans ond unskillec transport c of debour im countries where it cxisted, wis censpicucus North wast. The. or -snisstion cf th. Irisn.unskillee wos, hones of the Sritish unicns with theie ene win? pure eHG interest la Irelend. Fron 1997, it wos run by the Trish 7 Union in oppesitiun te the dts Kinglenm laoeurborou)ertey, The rei. Colt.

events were to show, ot: unsatisfnet Metin Segxeteoc poonent of the Lebour in the lom: run. It corteirly ccult i : power Far the linits of a "One Sips Union". Lonethcoless, its cireunet~ it on inevitole auvel. opment ant the best thet couls be done py the Labo toof the YK.

Tovecs? ON COS y r in the twe wires he worlé's first in Wcdlige clase movuriunt nan it was in Russ mut the example of aa the These + Yeets offcotead lecisively the mre-test «f , olly. Connolly's thecretienl pre cornence cette. vith his deck row? 2 the Trish ui peats ¢ hiv foot in both Inich ond uritieh world.

ercowte ( or lene the neces to erete ) 2p i od clrsses thet cult leat thus te vietury in the closs we Xr ~ oe arma OO, > @ JQ2CS wi a vpon Set to the qucstion -f the p litigal erecisetion 7 hee Cunbren up Rio personel cont cts. as wlil “e seon, ides of os shyt is terme) Descer tic Contralisn EUS wb oF ofairw:, cfficioney, rotacr thon te libethor levels. Lt Ti this cuipiricisma, Conpeolly's attitule te tenticn, fitted mn turally. His first attempt ( 2 po Aletinet von 2 party the Tvish sc Me oN cntircly Trish Wy Te werspoctive, Lt wes thrown erntic beterntion, ond, leter,

1911. ) eet ty wy Longue (— in thee thon fribure Sceiciist Lv without «© lows, hi in thaw U.K. all ta ¥ 2 $2 Imilion von Kec in ecnvirein: cuy of toe ol Cxiste’. c Tg de \ 1 JA oe a. a 4 . but hed he beww able eG Por the better, he Lt woul2 cor ate irly not ll-uritish \ nations] issue. Jut this couls that history woul courrd’, onl hav’ it hove. With on nc con tre he OT OP seritein oo Trelen', the ov'iden ere history oul theiv evevtual seimure of 7 The trouble ( arn? it is verv bio troo lo thet this is conjceturc. In fret, the rol) cecnemie Vetwoon the woekore of lirdtedin . Trcler? (for. eentor then 7 Glvse in the sel

PMA :

wLice Russice notin nv litics) me of the workers oi

CGULVTL NE

such « poerty - practio.l weru wobble ols to be Aspen cee o WA OO VE ew vlres sagf JPR UR DNS opel inte the 1 tterts livecraticn scetion for tus whole, noe Trelan’? hel levelitus TOG ORG. Vhis fact rm ) rovd ivels ( or, rath q veons of Un bbigk Teles. Un ners S relrvene: Supe tii consi ee tie ox. of the I.C.F.2.) it is reccsas wiLly re vionally 1 7 ak

TH. SUTUS

(f the Verth Ishuvisin 78.” “ATL in. Jeve ciple. . ashuvite ‘Taturnati: Tine’ within cit, le stetes. its principle roquirces Lepublic of dveiunt, Bed © C LB eel. CVE Orie

TAF 1 ig s0lshceviks ereey out of 1 wee » the eto te eroups ra iots (Trotsly — haber Lhizt be Co mites Last duterpmetionel till it the murcouczacy of the U.5 BH.

Jolshevisi. per sc. Ruther, thoy the Internsticne1" They are curre Fourth tober tired The 4 pene ties ud aecepte. ag reasens for permnn Tirdy, perty ether ro. ienel li iui te, Par tof the lifficulty with the 5.7T.0.0.'s th Ey tach une snr c “sur “4 manner os Connely ent Vii. se the motu 1 ifen was put th: vt the 3.1.0.0 ws: we rem f: omnes Sri tish ain thas Ircland is «a Sritish ave-colo: Lhe “ritish Mepire, The noone isotic noreplice ( Party Groanisotior pp 10-11 )oy rerarkii.: on the preetiesl fficultics Cistenee , “travel restricti. my, Lar laveur i supa tion) in the woy ef such a unit, The trou'le them coul?t heve beun uses 2s ay, umonts a ninst the ar unernts for the principle cf party wm vty aan Gitner at the Biaolish Cheimoel ov a wits of mop mori Britain's) cowl vo extenle? to a cin le .reun for the or tac stetos . the E.E.C. Despite Marxist cencept of Tape wicdiety loon an interns:ti thea, the U.S.4. lone: wntes of Seite in, of th. other Burepecn States, of the capitalist countrics ( ExCunt Joper - on! this. cmpire tic tl niliterily). Yo fi. At for a scei islist sucicty ir bau -ritish Isles alors ae ster TuSO seve.) oy “gorkers' state nec s the support ef : F at if revelution in the writish Isles ul vy the revoluticnory ac tis . Kars s mst be omv~mnisce! in 7 scetion for KK.

S of sation: olly cee ab ted revolution ( they iseticnliy (se the 3.1.0.0. woul’? have it oat relo, aa citizenship ri of thon. The terms: “or ago thoeo of bac BoP lors of the frien =, Gt NAS © Mone pe sy the’ tecision of how te usc th To* Heath, but with Ar alisn ultivnte 1s -ritain trlism fcll, trish Capit:lism coal’ survive ckors clsewk a peas) ar

NY OQ ~20— a cee ee PE eee SRE ER cE te ON ne nt a en eR ae ce cee te te ee and Dlessel by &merican capitelism. The constitution: 1 ferns thet the B.I.C.0. “ismisses cuntcmptucusly ( Tobit. pp 5- -6) Svbress + political veclity that Livides state power in the Jritish Isles 2s it ious not Detewoon Eneolant ant Wales ant Sectlani. But, then, why 2 32 ccunty secti:n ? Surely the 3.1.0.0. is cerrect when it ssys ( Tbit. p 5 ) "If only the constitutions] fori of the state is token into account, it leats te a Unite? Kir.ctom party, which inchves Northern Irel nia party | of Scuthern Irclant". Superficially perhwos, it is ecrreuct, Tut here to We are de lin: with s political reslity, «ni one ‘that wis not unknown to the 3olshuviks. | The Northern Irish Protestants. fat their own state power yntil L 1eTe.

If the current crisis ents without 2 Proletarian Revolution, they will engey it a it. Their subsorlinition to critain was n ted more in the ceeonoriie than. in: the military. om.thed,political fivlis. As for .s the mecherics of sivte power wis coneurnel, the Unionists hula frec hini te 1969, sn? a considera mle influence te 1972. Logically then, it mi;ht be oonclutc!? thet the correct form ef om-cnisaticn- would be that of the Stalinists up till 19703 one Co:wmnist Party each for the Six anil the Pwurty Six Counties.

7 Here ncoim, there isa sna,' 3 the relntiendhip of forces in the Six Counbics. means that.a Workers! Repuvlic Of Rerthern Irclan’? with ary rel authority over that territory coul. exist only, 2s 2 catalyst for Reveluticn or 2 lar or stage. The smishis. of Oran power will be as necuso ry 2 port of the Irish Revoluticn 2s will be the lstructicn of 211 more lircetly clerienl power of ALL ccnominotions, borthern Lrolen’ (net t just its Parliveent) is or expression of Orun ce power 3 ony successful revelutitn will sweep it rwwy. The Hotetersnia of the proletarint in Irelant will cover 211 32 ccurtivs, wether Ty thomselves, or ss part cf.0 .rcater. proletaricn unit cf the itis hn Isles, Burene, or 1s we intcnld, as‘sccn 2s possible the whole worl.

It is .these facts that tecilte our territerial basis ef or smisctircn.

( Te be eonelvtc’ ) a an a a i a nt ee a a A RN

CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE LENINIST PARTY

(The following is is a speech made by Ernest Mandel »Secretary of the Fourth International, on the occasion of Lenin's centenary. ) The only way we can live, and pay tribute co Lenin's contributaon to the history of mankind, is by being revolutionaries ..od Lenin had that in common wath Marx: - he >, understood the necessity of unity between th’ory and practice on a very high level of theory and a very high level of practice, revolutionary theory and revolutionary practice. So instead of making here this evening an agitational speech, and telling you all about what you already know- Lenin's theory of imperialism and Lenin’, concept of state and revolation ~ I will try to dwell on what is by far his mast important contribution to the development of Marx theory, to the development of a theory which actually descovered some gaps in the waiting of Marx and Engels, some non-developed parts of that theory.

In discussing the theory of revolutionary organisation I shall try to raise . the analysis and the understanding of that theory to a somewhat higher level than is done generally in disputes regarding that theory, which .

still go on sixty years after What is to Be Done has been written, and aS it will still go on probably for many years. I think if I concentrate on what I could call the theoretical roots of Lenin's theory of organisation.

I will also contribute to underlining and stressing his practical activity.

Because that, practical activity is today understood in the light of the Russian revolution, understood in the light of the creation of the Third International, understood in the light of the development of the Russian workers state and the creation of revolutionary Marxist organisation such as ours outside of the control of the ruling bureaucracy there. This continuity is in the first place essentially the continuity of this theory of organisation . Many people see Lenin‘s theory of organisation in the first place as some technical gimmick; they see it as some rule, some solution of having a functioning organisation, Lenin'S theory of organisation, is not by any means an amalgam of a number of organisational rules; = its roots are much deeper. It is concerned with much more important, much more keen questions,central questions to the very concept of a socialist revolution, and of self-emancipation of the working class, and it is about these deeper roots of Lenin's thwory of organisation that I would like to make some comments.

LENIN'S THEORY OF ORGANISATICN AND TWO CONTRADICTORY THEMES IN MARX.

IN reality, what Lenin'S theory of organisation is about is essentially a theory of working class consciousness, of the development of class— OD CN I AE SD ESS ND OATS A as SD EE OS SD ERD NED SD SY SD SD MD ee oe ae a mh ae can nea SO Set Po es, ‘a “. 4 2 .

=22— er consciousness; of the absence of a regular and even development in the | working-class consciousness. We have to understand this theoretically, we have to try to match this theory against contending concepts and thaories which were developed. fifty or sixty years ago, and from which we can draw -a historical balance sheet today; and we have to match them also in the light of historical experience, in light of empirical evidence which has accumulated over the last period. Now we could start with two very | contradictory statements which are to be found in Marx’s writing, which logically lead to very very different types of organisational. concepts.

One exposition of the development of class consciousness: of the problems of class consciousness which can find in the writings not only of the young Marx, but also of Marx and Engels of later years (although they became modified later,but which you still find in them) is its development mre or less automatically out of class struggle. You have then a sy- Liogistic type of reasoning: capitalism is torn, unavoidable torn, | py class struggle.The working class and the cap. talist class have fundam .

entally historically different interests, and they clash. These clashes lead to fights and out of these fights ( you will find the o formulae in several writings of Marx and of Engels ) unavoidably working class.

consciousness developes, that is to say that at a certain poimt in shese fights, the workers organise first the trade unions and then the political parties, and then they become conscious of their interests as a class and they fight for self-emancipation. This is one. line of reasoning and this line of reasoning was true of the writingef Marx and Engels. Partially at least this concept ends in a certain’ concaptof wgocial democratic” mass parties ( which I will come back to after a few minutés ) as we knew them at the end of the 19 th and the beginning of the 20th century.

But then you have another line of thought, of analysis which also runs through Marx'S writings, especially the more mature Marx, which leads to rather opposite conclusions: and it is the concept that in every society which is a class society the ruling ideology isthe ideology of the ruling class, and of course if it is a meaningful sentence this cannot be dealt with as meaning that the ideology ‘of the ruling class is the the ideology of the ruling class, because that would not be a sentence at all - that would just be tautology. What Marx means when he says the ruling ideology is the ideology of the ruling class is that, of course, the ruling ideology is the ideology of all classes, and not only of the rulers themselves. And it is not difficult to understand that these two lines of reasoning lead to a very different conclusions, because if it is true that the ideology of the working class under stable capitalist society is bourgeois, or petit bourgeois then it obviously does not follow that it is sufficient to assemble the workers somewhere - anywhere on the conditions of beginning class struggle, to have them develop more or less automatically a socialist class consciousness to combat the capitalist class. You them approach the question as a much more complex, much more complicated problem,and then the whole type of reasoning whi ch is at the basis of Lenin's theory of organisation can be understood perfectly. Let me say immediately that this type of reasoning was not invented by Lenin, that it was worked out much earlier by Kautsky and other

-23- — Austrian social democrats. You can find it in the original uomeland of the Austrian social democraty so calied in the manifesto which was adopted in 1889, and you can find it very clearly, I believe, in scze of the later writings of both Marx and Engeis. I will give just one exaniple » a very striking example, because it has the very words which were later So strongly used to reproach Lenin when he used them many years later.

UNEAVEN AND COMBINED DEVELOPMENT OF WORKING- CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS On January lst 1870,: Marx worte a circular letter for the First International concerning a problem which is still on the order of the day today - the problem of working- class consciousness in Britain - and he says that some people, the later anarchists, the people who were at that time inside the First International reproached us for our contacts with the trade-union movement inside the general council of the First International. They do not understand why we maintain these sort of relations; but, says Marx, the British capitalist press understand very well what we are trying. to do; we try to introduce into this movement of the Britishwworking class revolutionary socialism, revolutionary socialist consciousness. Now these very words you wili find Lenin's What Is to Be Done: that is, the introduction from outside /® oy olutionary socialist consciousness into a class that obviously did not have that consciousness. Anybody who wants to study English history will accept that the English working class of 1870 did not have , a revolutionary socialist consciousness, so this attempt, conscious attempt, made by Marx was taken up and used by the early social democrats, and it is, from that cource that Lenin took some of these rather provocative sentences in "What Is to Be Done for which he has been attacked so many t=" imes. So what this is all about is the develonment of class consciousness ° Now, we can try to avoid seeing the problem, and try to avoid finding ‘a’ road to solving it, by saying either that there is no problem, or that it has been solved, and that is an easy position. Because it is also rooted in Marx's theory, we can say that during a revolution, working-class consciousness jumps forward by leaps and bounds and- can even overtake at most time does overtake -- the consciousness even of revoluticnary | organisations; and then you can give examples that in the Russian revolution of 1917 the revolutionary workers of Petrograd were in advance of the Bolshevik apparatus, that in the Spanish:revoluticn of 1636 the revolutionary workers of Barcelona and other towns were in advance of all political organisations, which is generally true. I wall not dispute this interpretation, but as I said before, this does not solve the problem of how to make the revolution under conditions of late capitalism.

The problem is how you work for that revolution: whether the cnly thing for you to do is to sit and wait till this revolution comes and then .

working class conscicusness will make suddenly tremendous leaps forward.

Once you understand ¢-: especially that revolutionary situations do not occur every day, every tenth or every year, you are faced again with :the problem as it was nosed by Lenin: you have a working class which in general dces not have an automatically socialist political class consciousness, which cannct have an. aatomatically socialist political class consciousness given the conditions of life under capitalisn, and which waill have differant and varied forms of progress towards | class consciousness, developing ¢ : ned oy s Od re . . ne G. . . att on * . + ~

~24one time, discontinuing at another time, moving ' . in different geographically layers, different regions, different factories, certain trades as opposed to Cthers, and so on and so forth. I th;ink that it is undeniable that this concept of the combined and uneven development of class consciousness of the working class corresponds to historical.

reality of the working class. The example of England is probably the best one to analyse the mistakes which the young Marx makes - very big mistakes.

mere is &@ writing of Marx's of 1845 which has a famous paragraph wiich was quoted later by the Mensheviks against Lenin in a very foolish yay, because they did not see that Marx had been wrong, completely wrong. It is a paragraph describing what is uappening in Western furope, around 1840, in England, in France, and in Germany, and he says snere: “Wel2, we see how capitalism creats a class that has only misery snd burd ens on its back; it is such. a class that you. need in order +) overthrow all types of private property, of explcitations", and so on and so forth. All things which are of course evident, and the paragraph ends sy saying: “and we see before our eyes how the British...."( he also says French and German workers; I won't go into tht; but the British ~saat is what strikes one as exceptionally difficu.c in this type of seasoning ) *..wesee how the British worzers axe drawing all the necessary wlitical conclusions out of that sisuaticn ", Thatwas written :in 1845".

‘orty years later when Engels .wrote ; about the English working class sround 1885, he did not write a thing like that, he .quoted - . what \arx was saying a few years before, "that the Br itish working class fas essentially bourgeois political concepts; th: torking ‘slass 2tsebf’ is seurgeois"®, Well, it is a bit of an. exeggeration, I woulc. nt go along vith this extreme statement: but it is obvious that forty years after _ cis cver-cptimistic estimation of Marx, the Pritish workers were not_ ‘rawing revolutionary socialist conclusicus cut of their prolerarian yxistence. and if we look at the story 100 years later or 120 years later this is even more obvious. It is obvious that bhis tyns of reasoning which sraws an immediate straight line from conditions of existence to consciousness :s as. wreng today as dt was then. I also think that if we look in an objective way at historical evidence we must. s:cept that:the uneven developnt and irregular movement..6f class consciousness .proves itself nearly everywhere tT will give a striking example from France 5 ‘you can give many’ other. samples ‘6f the same" type,” “but” ‘this “was extremely” striking Becausd it wag 2: thsuch a short time that you had “a switch in the ‘attitude of the French» working class between the months of May, 68 and’ June ‘when, they: went: to> the elections. And many people tried to: inte rpret one in the light of the other, as we have heard here a few rionths ago when we had a ‘debate with Monty Johnston ( see Marxist REview no. 1. ) they tried to interpret the attitude of the workers during the general strike by their attitude during elections. The whole argument is very old. We have heard the same thing - in the beginning of 1919 in Germany: there were tremendous revolutionary . - movements setting up workers. councils, setting up soviets, goind near to the border of a socialist revolution in the months of November, December, January 1919; in February you had general elections the social democrats got 43% of the votes, bourgeios parties got the rest,

— no en ~25— and the small votes cast in favour of the revoluticnary tendeicy were / SR ESR AE Yhos, SSE Bh ag aE yas Sebo ghs seer iemarie? No, it does not mean that. It means that working class consciousness develops exactly in this way, as Lenin saw it, and as I said befcre, in Uneven and irregular mvements. That it can make ; big leaps from cne extreme to another in rather a short time, that it can make big spurts forward and then come back again after that, and that as long as you look at the disorganised class in general, ycu can have your hat turned by contradictory indications which vary if not from day to another, at least from month or from one year to another. How does this happen? Well, we can have several explanations for this uneven and sirregular development or working class consciousness, The first, of course, which is by far the most important, is that masses of p&ople do not learn from reading, masses of people do not assimilate experience and consciousness through reading or individual study. They assimilate experience and consciousness from action and a permanently deeveloping class consciousness has as its pre-condition a permanently active class, and a permanently active class is in contradiction with the 3very nature of capitalist society.It is by the nature of capitalist sociwty that workers are forced to sell their labour power in order to survive, and therefore they cannot be on a permanent strike, and they cannot be on apermenant"revolution. They cannot make strikes and revolutions every day because if they ° did .. that a wout? starve.

of working class consciousness. It is “only | in big spurts cf actions that you have a big leap forward of ccnscicusness, and it is inevitable that after such a big spurt forward of action you have a retreat once this action has not led to a revolutionary result. Just in passing, that is the reason that the missing likk between the way in _ which. class consciousness developes and the key rule of a revolution to push that class consciousness forward in a very quick way, because what characterised the revolution im opposition to normal every - day circumstances with business as usual, with day-to-day life under capitalism, is that in a revolution people become very active, and permanently .

active. You have demonstrations nearly every day, you have meetings nearly every day, which completely disrupt normal life, that is, normal integrated life in bourgeois society; and because of that reason, consciousness can come forward, leap forward much, much quicker than under day-to-day stable conditions.

The second reason, material reason, or if you want, materialist reason for this uneven, discontinucus and irregular ‘evelopment of class conscicusness is rooted in the composition of the working class. The working class has a history like every class, and the history of the working class reflects itself in its stratification. You have the families of the working class whe are themselves descended from the urban workers, since for several centuries at least, in certain parts of thw world, not in all parts ( and from that point of véew England and yy own ccuhtry, Belgium, are probably amongst the most privileged ones ), where you have

ase a I. 0 Ten en ee tN oo “had actual long traditions of urban working class, of urban wage earners, for many centuries. You have other parts of the working ¢lass whe are descendants of “rural semi-proietarians, for a much. shorter period; and you have other layers of the working class who. are descendahts of the petty commodity producers, that is to say, lands cwning peasants, selfproducing farmers or small craftsmen, small artisans, small tradesmen.

You have workers who are only recently urbanised as against workers who nave been. workers for a long period, and. if you combine this historical result, the result of the history of the origin of the working class, in its relaticn with the ideological and cultural stratification, then, you have leyers of the working class who are still today under the powerful grip of, for instance, churches. I think cf the Catholic church in countries Lixe Italy or Belgium ( the Flemish, art Ff nc eium) . You have parts of the working class who are under/ the Giing-class ideological gurrents and institutions You have the other side of the spectrum, garts cf the working class whose parents and even grandparents were already srganised in the trade union movements , in the socialist movements in she social democratic movements or in cther working class tendencies.

if you combine this ideclogical stratification, and if you inject into chat another element cof which, cf course, generally Marxist do not like ‘¢ speak sc much, but which is unfortunately a fact: that you have also wndividual cifferences, that you have certain pecple who have a natural.

reaction to revolt against injustice and you have other people who ave nore pasSive when they are faced with oppresston and: injustice.

Yhen you combine all these social, édeological and individual differences, vou will understand very clearly that it is not the problem of grzat theory and cormlicated metaphysical thought ta see that parts of the yorking class conscicusness, political class conscicusness, and revolutionary sccialist, class consciousness.There have been some striking sociological © anquirids ‘nade® “during the last years which ‘confirmed this ina very clear way in. the recent history of the international labour movement.

SOCIOLOGICAL ROOTS OF BOLSHEVISM

THERE is an eminent English suciclogist ( left, fake left, if you" weally.

want to go into that definiticn ) called David Lane, whc has written what is “to my knowledge the first sociology of Menshevism and Bolshevism... but of course there are not sc many facts which can be assembled on this subject. But from the facts which he has assembled from all possible sources, a very Striking difference arised; it seems that the great ‘majority of industrial workers in towns with rather long industrial traditicns big towns with big factories, were Bolsheviks. The stronghold of the Mensheviks, who had a geat number of the workers, and talking of the period 1602 and 1910 and 1$18 - the Mensheviks had their strongholds in small type industry, in industries which are by definition not in big towns, like the mining industry or the cil industry. In discussing. the dictatorship of the proletariat you will find in "State and Revoltittion" a single line abcut the leading role of the Party as against the Soviet. It's nonsense, because that.leading role was conceived by Lenin as a result of political authority, as a result of capacity for convincing workers, but not as something xa which has tc be imposed by censorship, by violence or by repression against the mass of the people. I say that this concept which is one of a truly workers rule and workers state, is Lenin's concept.

~27- How can you really reconcile with this, caricature of Lewin concerning the Party as substituting itself fer the work : class or. for the masses?

If you try tc make anc objective synthesis between what Lenin worte about the Party, and what Lenin wrote about workers’? councils, about Suviet power and about workers? state; you will have to admit that fur him the existence cf a revolutionary party, the authority cf a revclutionary yarty, the leadership capacity of that revolutionary party, < | was not only not counternosed, but a precondition for. a development cf workingclass self- activity and working class consciousness, without which the Party could never have developed to suvh a degree. And here we alsc can make a historical compariscn, because history has answered that questicn about substitutism, that accusation made against Lenin . Compare workers?

councils in different parts of the world, because we have already seen them in different parts of the world. Compare them in the Russian tcwns where you have the Bolshevik majority in 1917 —-1920, and ccmmare them with workers? councils whivh we saw in other parts of Russia where 3 you had the Mrnshevik majority. Compare them with the workers’? ccuncils in Hungary or in Snain and tell the truth, where did they last the longest, where did they show the highest degree of working class iniative: where did they show the: possibility of lasting for a long time, and enabling the workers to have the maximum of self-expression and self-activity? where you had a Bolshevik Party as their leadership or where the workers were relatively unzsvlitical, they were under the sway of anarchist tendencies.

Never before in histwry have we seen so mueh seli- activity, so much self-organisation and sc much initaative of workers, as in the Aussian workers?*councils, in the Russian Soviets, under Bolshevik leadership between 1917 and 1920 --1921. That is the historical answer tothis question. Of course we can say afterwards it. fell down, but what caused ' it tc swerve downwards was the activity of the workers themselves. The root cf the degeneration of the Russian revoluticn is not a plot by the Bolsheviks; not even a plet by Stalin. The root is the growing passivity of the Russian working class as a result cf all histrcical circumatances which we Imcuw- hunger, isolation, defeat: of world revolution, decimation .f the workers-that is the real historical | root. The rule of Stalin, the pcwer cf the bureaucracy, is the consequence and not a cause cf this phenomenon, so the only thing you can say is that when you don't have an active working class, you can't have self-activity of the workers or Soviets. This is rather self-evident, but what history has not shown, what . it has notshown -anywhere, is that the existence of a strong revolutionary vanguard party, which is a real working-class warty. , which has real rocts in the working class, and which has gained its authcrity by its political capacity, is in any way whatscever an cbstructicn, or an obstacle, on the -road of self-crganisation and self-activity cf the working class.

In that sense when we say that Leninism today, that the continuity cf Leninism tcday, lies in the Fourth International, we are conscicus of the fact . that by wishing, by wanting, by trying to build a revolutionary organisaticn, revoluticnary parties, a revolutionary international, we in ‘no way conflict or impede the road of growing working-class activity, self-exoression and initiative, but cn the contrary, as we have already shown on a small scale in the case of France, we only creat better conditicns for 3 high level of self-accivity, self- crganisatim and initiative.

Nene eater nw " Trotskyism has become theoritically irrelevant to the Irish working class movement. The political level of its oppertinism has fallen sc low that new ground is nc longer broken in exposing it."

So thought a contributor to Irish Communist no. 39, thecritical joprnal of the British and Irish Communist Organisation. However, furty five issues later the Ieish Communist is still"expcsing™ this irrelevant body’ of thecry. And, as Jack Lane in no 49 proves, the -B.1.C.0.

is still " breaking new ground". in the process: In his attempt to defend his original mistakes in criticising Trotsky ( I.C. no.80) Lane now converts them into absurdities, some of which are unparalled in the neurétic history cf the Irish left.

. The National Revolution in Ireland The first part cf his: — 7 | -ejoiner has two prongs. Firstly he makes a pedantic criticism of our terminology concerning the basis _of the national revolution and its tasks. What we meant was quite clear. Even Lane understood it. We simply a said that Trotsky beleived the Irish bourgeoisie incapable: cf leading the naticnal revolution ‘te’ sucess in Ireland, but that he-by.no means implied that the natiunal revoluticn was obsolite. It had mearly- changed in such a way as brought the working class tu the fure as its chief agent. As we noted Tretsky _. actually said’ that the national revoluticn in Ireland had in practise , Become an uprising‘ of- the workers.

Lane doesftcare to discuss the accuracy of this prognosis. Instead he prefers to give us a.lecture cn semantica, teaching us the difference Of similarity between the words Basis and tasks. ° He. flatters himself!

His second critisism is in ‘the same vein, /&¥fzhtly more political. A distincticn is made between the national ‘tasks and the bourgevis demec- ratic mational tasks of the revolution The The former includes merely the the struggle for : for self-determination. It is reactionary and the working class has no interest in fighting for its fulfillment. The latter includes "the land being owned by the peasants and the * establishment cf bourgeois demccracy”. According to Lane these latter tasks had been accomplished even before 1916. Consequently it was ridiculcus for us or Trotsky to speak about carrying cut the naticnal revolution in Ireland.

-3U- ~ « the mest conservative and reactionary gs us of the irish burgecisis were more radical on this than cur Stal... 4; critic. Eut that should surmrise nubeocy. Finally let »s note in vassing that no such assoubly exists in Ireland even tu the nresent day. Because of the civisicn of tie country, sunnerted 4 I anc reinforced by British inmerialism, The assembiy in the Scuth renresents only one ourticn of the country. The Trish beurgecisic, nut te mention the working class and smail farmers still have no revresentative institution and this is n one cf the mncerlying facturs of instability in the Morthern situation. Once More on Lenin. In cefencing Trotsky we alsc had tu chailangesome distorticns made of Lenin's nositicn. Lane claimed in effect that Lenin cvncemed the 1916 rebellicn as reactionary in cuntent and welcomed it scliely on tue basis that it came at an opperbtun iniuent in the internathonal cunjunctur which weakened imperialism. We showed from Lenin's writings that while recvgnised the internatkunal significance cf the Zaster revolt he alse Saw its nositive sice in being the latest climax in the generaticonsc1d struggie against British imperialisn.

hom re) Lane dves nt attemmt to refutes this. As usual he shys away from the real questicn by introducing a quibble. We mentiwned in cur defence of Trotsky that the B.1.0.9. is forced to cisturt Lenin in urder to disguise their compradur thevries on the national questivn in a shroud of Marxist orthodoxy. We wrote: "All these amazing revelaticns are but a wart of the B.1.C.o.%s attempt to rewrite histury in order to make it fit in with the two naticns cougma.

in view of seme cf the swre bizarr: zs usitions .f the B.I.C.G. it comes &s no surprise that they should try t. estabiis: that even Lenin touk a Stanc against “bourgecis Cathvlic naticnalis:".

Insteac .f criticing the real scint we were macing Lane takes up this incidental remark anc tries tc make great capital cut of it.te inflates about three nages with chunkks of qutatiuns fri: Lenin which are directec against . Irish bourgecis nationalisn.

But ever: witnin the limits cf this dciversicnary »ivy Lane is Cishonest.

He neglects to mention that what Lenin and sresent-day Marxists meant by irish bourgevis naticnalism is nut what the &.1.0.U. have in tind when they sneak about bourgeois Catholic Naticnaiisnm. By the latter the 5.1.0.0. mean the struggle uf the irish seovie for self-ceterninaticn which they consider reacticnary. Lenin cn the c.ntrary supported this right.

Waen he souke agains¢ Irisi. nationalism, or any naticnalism fur that matter, he spoke cnly against its negative aszects suc: as ciericalism anc goribeen sentimentality which of course are highly canger.vs. It was because cf this difference in internretation that we slaced the words bourgecis Cathulic nationalism in inverted commas.

-3It tc get ba ack to our < -riginal suint let us stress that we do mt and dic ceny the dmortance o? the Irish x eebellicn as cc ntributing to the Cisintegraticn of the scwer of imerialism. There is no use in ‘Lane going on about it. Ue is oreaching to the converted. Loe The real questicn which ne shuuld answer is wiether cr not Lenin saw the revoluticn in Ireland as a Naticnal reve tt and whether cr not he ‘considered 1é pregressive in itself. We have answered both these questicns in the affirmative. He , om the other hand contvses the matter by ccunter poSingthe internaticnal Cimensicm of the revolt to its national dinensicn.

Lenin's whole point ,liowever, in refering to the internaticnal sigrificance of the Easter uprising was tu show that struggles fur national self~determinaticn still had a vital anc explosive cuntent in THouselves.

If we icck at the paalilet “Whe ciscussicn on & 1 Sel faye tor: dnaticn Sued 4a Us in which Lenin wrote tis Fazru “Treianc we will sec chat he was »~olemicising srecisely aga i : fur cticnar slete. ne self-deternination was re Gvening ene section on Ireland ne wrute: Whe views of the OX moments of self-Coterminaticn lea ac t the conclusion that the vitality of smail nations osvressec by ize serdlaiisin nas already bee sapped, guat they cannct »lay any role azainst imperiaiisn , that sujycort of their surely national asveraticns wial lead cy noting’ (our enhasis) Lenin a vrcceeded to show how thie world was “loars awat tae cuter wraspings, sweeos away the cbsclete anc revels the uaderiving Sering and eopeos" and exocses the full wcotential 2 the naticnal struggle. le a cnuse Ireland as an excellent oe sazrle oz this; wt Sc Lane is locking av the sicture .. wosice cown in fact. Pt was nut ty smouse the "reactionary nature of the struggle fur seli-ceterminaticn but a in order t sinw its reviutionary avtential, that Lenin lace Ireland in an international ccntext. oo NATIONALISM At AND SYNDICALISM Lane a did admit in his criginal critique of Trotsky that his characterisaticn of Irish working class conscicusness as oscilliating .

between naticnalism and syndicalism was “fairly accurate", But no sconer had he done this than he began to carp about Trursky's failute tv indicate how tu get rid of "at least. cone of these (naticnalism presusably) vs Lane cbvicusly ccnsidered syncicalism tc have:scme positive content.

By trying to shcow hiw nationalism and syndicalism did not appear eciectically in the censcicusness ef the working class but grew cut cf the same scil of imperialist exploitaticn, we endeavoured tc emphasise the positive nature cf both aspects.

Typivally, Lane displays a marked reluctance tc discuss the problem we nosed. Instead he prefers tc deal in abstractivns which allow hiia room fcr mancruvre.And to cover up the weakness of his approach he thrcws in a

-32few bits pf invective which his cwn netit bourgecis mentality imagines must surely tcuch us to the quick.

Tc show how syndicalism and naticnalisa are mutually exclusive Lane.

dees nut bother with cur concrete analysis but vakes the example ofthe American syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World. There is ne difficulty in showing that the I.W.W. combined militant trade unicnism (fur in essence syndicalism is little mre} with a vigercus anti-~ naticnalisn. Thus syndicaiism and nationalism ferm an antagonistic contradicticn based on the aatagonism between labcur and capital .

In other words they can never be complimentary, or "form a dialectical econtradicticn as entitiesin themselves’ (tc use a bit of Lane’s own high-falutiag gibberish) - , This is a classic example of sterile abstraction. it forgets that the world is divided into” onpressor and oppressed nations. The I.W.W.

existed in an oppressor nation. The contradiction between capital and labour tock a “pure? form. Moreover, not only was the American working class not naticnualiy oppressed but its bourgeoisie oppressed the workers of other naticns and other national minorities within the United States. fence it was quite natural that American revolutionaries should cembine syndicalism with anti-natiscnalism, cr more correctiy anti-chauvinism, however in an onpressed country the working class is not only oppressed by its own bourgeoisie but by that of another country as well. Thus the contradiction between labour and capital nrucuces a ‘conflict between a nationally op»ressed working class on the one hand and imperialisin and its clients on the other. The working class in this situation is even more oopressed than its cwm bourgeoisie, and consequex vtly b has a definite interest in national self-determination as the starting noint cf democracy and equality. For tais reason, desvite the ilcudest potastations of Lane tnat “there is not and never can be a dialectical co ntradiction between nationalism and syndigalisia as entities in themseives,jfust such a contradic— tion existed in the conscicusness of the Irish working class. Or _ does Lane forget that ne initially agreed with Trotskyts view op this? .

Syndicalism and nationalism in Ireland, as an cpnressed country, beta have a srogressive and revolutionary content which represent ai histcricai gain for the Irish working class and which must be sutblated by the Marxist povenent in Ireland. Lane is hcrrified at ‘che suggestion ° that naticnalism has anything to offer the working-class.

"Phere is no element whatscever (1.5.) in Nationalism which can be retained", he declares “Nationalism is a thoroughly bourge: ois, antiworking class mevement (2) at is oppertunist to sut it ona par with syndicalism and give the imoression that the y both ‘tpelong to the working class and can: be of equal use to itt This indignation ever the soiling -f'pure? working class consciousness is _ touching coming from a Stalinist!

+ There was a time of course wnen the B.1.C.0. held the exact onnesite nosition; 4

-33= ln te OM AE A bm errr pr ean RR wien they cavitulated om their Imees before tue worst assects of naticnalism, They held that thuse workers t te were influenced by che “fairy tales (as they put it) of Irish cnalisn couldengage in prog 4 ressive »clitics- bourgecis poLlivics?! Thav.is "sayy that, for the working class to embrace reacticnary bur PCAs aaticnaiisn was deened to beat least a sten forward. on the aenéral thecritical nlane their ere vellang befcre be urgecis naticnalisn was no less conssich us. Le sin insisted that i Marxisn Gifferentiaced 3 segel? from mere bourgevis nationalisn by its recognition of the right sf nations t. self-determinaticn bet in its efusal ts support seneration wWeica did not strengtnen the class struggie us StS of the workers. The Marxist -apnrcacn was Gis tinguisnec in tnat it dealt with sel: f-acterination from the seint of view o£ che roletariate ne the struggie for socialist. rather than from tie stand scint -f bowrgecis interests. Thus Lenin wrotd! Combat ali national oppression ? Yes, of course! Tight fur‘any king ef national ceveloonent seven UL course not.”

(And. he continued “The Cevelunment .Z natdonality in gereral is the.

orincivle of bourgeois. naticnalis:.... The proletariat, however, far from “uncertaking th uphold the national develovpent of every nation, on t.3 contrary, warns the masses against such Filusions, stands for the fuliest reedon of cayitalist intercvurse and welcomes overy kind cf assimilation of nations, excent that which ig founded on force or orivikege?

the E.E.C.0. rejected this refreshing a: and frank declaration of working class ~rinciole. They started not from the interest «f the w. rking class and its’ aigut against canitaiism but from the interests of the bourgeoisie and its efferts to expand national. casitalism. T ney refused vo defend the J werking class »siticn by standing ‘for the fullest ‘freedom vf caxitalist intercourse” and by we iooning Neves ry kind of ‘asstruilaticn of nations", .Listead cney gave expression to tue hourgevisiets oe hostility to free intercourse and assirz nilation. they Cencunced the Marscdist view. that the internaticnal division of labour createc by cazitalist develenment undermines the. aticnal foundations of canitalism and calis for the greatest co-cneration in producti.n ang naticns.° {As icng.as this does not lead in natisonal oosr essicn ) AS against this they insisted hat "it is only by defying by cbhstructing, by goings Ade 3. against thetinternational division cf kabour’, by - setting uy strong a _s ua 7 we SES . naticgal barriers within which it will not be allowed to cserate, that these lunderdevelusec ~I.C.) countries can develus™, All aicng ‘the iine, as we can clearly see, it was scley the desires, necds anc asuerations of bourgecisie whieh dictated the "3.7.0.0. positicn Gia the national question. Please note tuat these are the »evnle who today brand us wr bskyist ts, against whom theyworiginaily hurled all this nationalisti © jus, as nat thunalists wic masquerade as Marxists" Ah well, never ming... tts dust Stalinisn.

As Ehgles once remark ed, every doctrinaire mistake when rigerousiy versistec.

in turns ints an opocs sit, and equally coctrinaire inistake. The £.1.C.Cu.

~34~ bo —— QR. _is-a living confirmation of this.

t 7 _.. Eecause the interests of the bourgeoisie Ys the yardstick they, used to judge the right tc self determination. They | now oppose not only the reacticnary asnects of nationalism but even its progressive ones. Today British Imperialisn and its compradore allies in Ireland want Bo to reintergrate Ireland, ints the United Kingdcm the better to exploit > ““". . the working class. The ‘logic cf the B.I.C.G, views leads them té support this. Once the nationale .f their existance was tc struggle against Trotskyism and its internationalism; now their whcle existance is determined by the struggle against Trotskyism.and Cathclic (irish) naticnalisr All nationalism is now reacticnary: (éxcept of course Protestant “naticnalism™ ie, imperialist jingoism) Just as the criginal position of B.1.C.0. had nothing to dv with Marxisii ac their new pesition has ncthing-tc dco with Marxism either. Their present theories are banal abstracticns which mask the imperialist oppressicn _ of countries’ such as Ireland. The denial of. the progressive elements cf the nationalism of an cypressed country is nothing short of espeusing the ~° Ysccial: imperialism’ which Lenin long ago exocsed.

‘& distinction must necessarily be made between the nationalism of an cpsressu.

hation’ and.that cf an oppressed nation" write Lenin in.cne of his-last. gd eunen ' a ..2s . 4. 33 All those who, like Lane deny any prcugressive content in the national isi uf the “oppressed should ponder the reascns behind such a distincticn. Sneaking in general terms Lenin already gave the key tc this distincticn. Ne explained that “the Bloments cf democratic and socialist culture are oresent, if cnly in rudimentary forms, in every national culture, since in every nation there are toiling and exploiting masses, whcse conditicns vf life inevitably give rise tc the ideclogy of democracy ahd socialism (emphasis in criginal).

AS capitalism grows re senile and decadent these nrcgressive elements become mere cbscured by the mre reactionary features of naticnalism. But the decay cf casitalism also intensifies the unpressicn vf small nations as a result of which their nationalisi: retains the vrcgressive elements in relatively crystalline f form. Thus Lenin pcinted cut reneatedly that "the bourgecis naticnalism cf any onnoressed naticn has a general demccratic content that is directed against c»pressicn and it is this cuntent which we unconditicnally support (emphasis in criginal).That is why, when addressing the new conmunist cadres from the Zast, he told them: "You will have tc base yourselves on that burgecis naticnalism which is awakening, and cannot but awaken,/ tht which has its histcrical justification".

rhere is no need to further emphasise the conditioned attitude cf Marxism tcwards naticnalism. What is required now is that we should outline those elements of Irish naticnalis: which Marxists are duly bound to assinilate.

they are: (1) The understanding that the develcprent of the irish zecple towards a new future can take vlace only by throwing off the y ke cf British laperialisn. (2) That this cannct be done while the country remains divided. Undoubtedly the B.I.C.G. will argue that hiis in. fact is the most reactionary froature

ee remap re en —— of Irish naticmlisnm because dt. renresents the desire cf the Southern bu urgecisie tc oppress the Prvteshant- “nation and the Prutestant working class:in particular. But this objection is rather shallcw, since British ‘imperialism itself now agrees that.some form of unity, if only within the United XIngdcm, is essential if Ireland is t develoy even as a neu~ coluy . (111) The understanding that in the last analysis. armed struggle and revolutionary action are the only methcds cf defeating and routing isperialisn,” These are: the aspects of irish natic nalism which even to this ins ‘Treland cannt take. the: road’ ee ‘geeialisn and -the emancipation of the wovking class. This shows us, the reaning of Lane's sig accusation that the aim of the 2.M.G.

-. is’ ta Keen the workers under bhe influence of naticnalism and thereby subserviant to the political power cf the bourgeoisie’ His real ain is ¢ belittle the revolutic nary traditions of tne Irish. meople and prevent the @ emergence of a real movement against British iaperialisn in ireland.

talent: <-¢ ammeter A AL A EE AE LEP CTE CLC ECO ALO ALLEL LLAL DALAL ADA. LE NA AO ever eee” ee en en a EE tt RPTL RCA ER IL wees