Once More - Trotsky on Ireland

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