[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.
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.
More information about the Marxism