[Marxism] Permanent Revolution (was RE:In there capitalism ... Is Norther...

Jscotlive at aol.com Jscotlive at aol.com
Mon Oct 3 22:03:44 MDT 2005


 
In a message dated 04/10/2005 04:21:01 GMT Daylight Time,  
jbustelo at bellsouth.net writes:

My  contention, or theses, is that the idea that Trotsky's  "permanent
revolution" suggests "that a programme that addresses  democratic
questions but not class questions is insufficient," is false if  this is
read as an immediate, tactical or programmatic prescription, even  though
it is undoubtedly true if it is read an a description of an  evolution or
process that might span anywhere from a few months to several  years,
perhaps even a decade or more.



Reply:
 
Trotsky's permanent revolution did not take into account the unique  material 
conditions which obtain in the six counties of one section of  the working 
class used successfully by a local bourgeoisie -  i.e. a transplanted loyalist 
ascendancy - as a bulwark against the  threat posed by another section of the 
working class aspiring to end the  class privileges which they've enjoyed and 
continue to enjoy in a partitioned  statelet.
 
The class questions in the six counties can never be addressed whilst  
sectarianism continues to poison vast sections of the protestant/loyalist  working 
class against their catholic/republican counterparts. And sectarianism  will 
inevitably remain the issue until British rule  ends. The British occupation 
lies at the root of the  divisions which exist in that society. The notion that 
class issues can be dealt  with in a meaningful way whilst loyalism - a fascist 
ideology akin to  zionism - exists to ensure a protestant hegemony, is 
fanciful at best.
 
Recent loyalist riots in North Belfast in response to an Orange Parade  being 
diverted away from a nationalist area reflects the depravity of an  atavistic 
ideology based on hatred and murder. It is not enough that the  IRA have 
verifiably decommissioned weapons in order to enter the political,  democratic 
process as equals, thus satisfying the last obstacle to them doing  so. Unionist 
leadership, in the shape of Ian Paisley, merely move the goalposts  by now 
saying they do not believe that all IRA weapons have been decommissioned  and 
until they see it for themselves they will continue to refuse sit in any  
assembly or democratic institution with anyone representing the aspirations of  the 
nationalist working class.
 
What is happening in the North now is the reaction of the loyalist  
ascendancy to the notion that they may have to share privileges - not with a  Catholic 
working class - but with an emerging Catholic middle class on the back  of the 
Good Friday Agreement. This ascendancy, like all ruling classes, has  
successfully used a false divide, in this case religion, to insure the  continuance 
of the status quo.
 
The British position in all this is very simple: the granting of privileges  
and parity of esteem to the republican leadership in order to maintain control 
 of the province. In the same way as devolved powers have recently been  
granted to both Scotland and Wales, the GFA was designed to offset any and  all 
opposition to the British State by granting piecemeal reforms to the  
composition of the State.
 
The British ruling class have no intention of relinquishing control of the  
six counties; they've merely changed how they exercise that control.
 
The first priority in the six counties for the Republican movement  must be 
to end British rule. At this point the armed struggle has run its  course. 
However, by lurching from the extreme of armed resistance to bourgeois  elections, 
Adams & co has led the republican movement down a  political cul de sac. By 
legitimising partition and British rule, he's  disconnected the Irish struggle 
from anti-imperialist struggles taking  place all over the world, placing it 
in a vacuum where it can neither breath nor  develop.
 
J.
 
 
 
 
 
  



More information about the Marxism mailing list