Can Ireland have a successful communist revolution?

by Damien Thu Nov 12, 2009 21:05

Yes, and the free market xperiment has just been so successful. It works wonders for the kids in the Disney sweatshops in Haiti earning 28c a day while the CEO of Disney ears approx $8,000 an hour. Similar story with Nike, Gap, Adidas etc.
The Socialist Revolution in South America seems to be doing prettttty well at the moment-millions take out of poverty, lower infant mortality, higher literacy rates.

by A Freeman Wed Nov 11, 2009 16:40

It's odd that someone even started this thread on a week when we have seen the people of Berlin and all of Germany celebrating the end of communist tyranny there in 1989 as symbolised by the end of the Berlin wall. The idea that we would want to resurrect a form of state control and totalitarianism here in Ireland strikes me as particularly daft even if there is a crisis of in our economy at present.

To create a state controlled economy at present would be the equivalent of to ditching MP3 players in favour of gramaphones or widescreen plasmas in order to return to the gigantic early tv sets of Logie Baird! It's widely recognised that by the 1970s the USSR had created the best 1890s style economy to be found anywhere in the world!, lots of iron, steel, tractors and pollution, no consumer goods, innovation or proper services sector.

Also in the east German case 90,000 stasi agents, informants and walls were required to keep tabs on the people of that 'socialist paradise', odd that thousands would risk their lives to escape from such a wonderful society, isn't it?

by small girl Tue Nov 10, 2009 22:58

This is not meant as a criticism!

Is it not possible to get on with having a more caring environment while waiting on the revolution since is this not essentially what a highly socialist society aims for?

I would love to see the SP and the SWP channelling some their intellectual passions into new and fresh thinking that mixes care ethics with political theory. I guess issues around women's work as it is seen by the majority of men and women, children's allowance, institutional nursing (which picks up the slack when there is a care deficit), poor neighbourliness etc. etc. are soft issues but they are still political and cultural.

Get your feelings out on your red sleeves please.

by Paddy Hackett Tue Nov 10, 2009 20:45

Just some hasty remarks in response to Permanent Revolutionary's outpourings. The pieces enclosed within quotation marks are his and mine are the other pieces.

"The Soviet Union was never a fully developed socialist society, as Lenin and Trotsky recognised. The seizure of power of the working class and the creation of a workers' state is only the beginning of revolution, the PROCESS of transforming and building a socialist society, a society which could never be built within the confines of one nation, again, as Lenin and Trotsky recognised."

If the above is true well then why is it that Joe Higgins and Kieran Allen take the opportunity to make this clear when they are on tv and radio. Instead they waffle on about the need for the Irish state to take more control of the economy. They repeatedly suggest that a state-capitalist model is the solution to the problem of the debt crisis. They dont seem to understand that where communist society exists there can be no debt crisis because there will be no capital either in the form of machiner, commodities or money.

"Socialism can only truly begin to be spoken about when the level of culture and development of the most advances nations has been surpassed. However, the leaders of the October Revolution recognised that the Russian bourgeoisie was too weak and tied to the greater imperialist powers to carry through the 'bourgeois democratic' revolution and pull it out of its semi-feudal state, and thus the establishment of a workers' state was the only way to meet these tasks, but of course the empowered proletariat would also attempt to carry out the tasks of socialist revolution simultaneously."

As for workers in neighbouring countries not following Irish workers, I think that's ridiculous. The economic and social circumstances that would propel the Irish working class towards a revolutionary consciousness would to a greater or lesser degree also be pushing the proletariat of the UK and Western Europe in a similar direction.

I just wish that was so. But it does not necessarily follow that the above process would occur. It may happen but is very unlikely. Communists cannot build programmes on probability. The working class canot be a pawn in a greate game. There is too much to sacrifice. Why seek to manipulate the working class into following a programme that is nationalist in character. The programme of Kieran Allen as announced on the airwaves is based on a state capitalist model: more state control over the economy together with a programme of public works. This is a nationalist programme essentially no different from that of the Fianna Fail party. It tacitly suggests that this programme is both realisable and sustainable independently of global revolution. He never makes clear that the solution is social revolution. Instead he suggests that the capitalist state need to take more control over the economy and at the same time launch a public works programme.

"We live in a GLOBAL economy, and its trends have an impact on the GLOBAL consciousness of the working class, particularly so in similar, close-by countries. Look at the upsurge in working class struggle we've seen across Europe. Look at the radicalisation that has spread across Latin America in the last decade. Look at the mass movements across Europe in the wake of the October Revolution. A workers' revolution in Ireland would have a huge impact on the outlook of workers in the UK and Western Europe. If you can't accept this, I wouldn't just give up on socialist revolution in Ireland, I'd give up on it across the world."

The above comments fetishes the Irish situation. Why should revolution break out first in Ireland? There is no evidence to support this wishful thinking of yours. It is the reverse that is required: A social revolution breaking out on the continent and spreading to Ireland.

|"It was the mass action of workers across Europe and the US which seriously hampered the imperialist countries' attempts to smash the revolution in Russia, preventing the shipment of huge amounts of arms and supplies to the White armies. Thus, despite a still huge onslaught, the workers' state survived. Unfortunately, it was the destruction caused by WWI and the civil war, along with the already backward nature of Russia, the atomisation of its small but advanced working class and, crucially, the isolation of Russia due to the sell out and crushing of revolutionary movements in Western Europe which led to the degeneration of the state and the establishment of the Stalinist bureaucracy. It was the superiority of the planned economy which allowed the USSR to become a world superpower, albeit a brutal dictatorship, post WWII."

The claim that the workers' state survived is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as a workers' state. Once there is a state there is oppression of the masses. Under communism there can be no state. Even Marx adhered, certainly much of the time, to this principle. This workers' state thing is standard Leninist doctrine. And as Chomsky indicated Lenin was not a socialist. The Russian working class rose up against the state to create soviets of workers and peasants. The Bolsheviks arrested the development of this revolution of the working class by taking over the soviets and tearing the revolutionary guts out of them. It simultaneously created an anti-working class state that developed into the stalinist leviathan which was responsible for the deaths of thousands of workers and peasants. The Bolshevik Party was a left counter-revolutionary party whic explains the absence of democracy within the former Soviet Union and the Gulag that Solzenitzsin wrote about.

"In conclusion, revolutions will by their nature probably occur in one country at a time. A workers' state established in Ireland may well be weak in-and-of itself, but its power would lie in its appeal to the workers of the UK and Western Europe to prevent imperialist intervention, and the inspiration it would provide to them to seize power in their own country. Remember, if the Irish working class had developed a revolutionary consciousness and seized power, the consciousness of workers in other countries would not be a huge distance behind."

The above is just pie in the sky. There is absolutely no evidence for this outcome.

by PinkoAndTheBrain Tue Nov 10, 2009 20:38

"In any case the US also became a superpower but without a planned economy so the latter’s superiority must at least be qualified even in contemporaneous terms."

I agree with your post up to a point Cecil, however you fail to emphasise any way the fact that the US system was unencumbered by any great need to house and take care of it's population. Call me old fashioned but I I consider this rather important too. (It was trying to keep up with the ludricous arms spending of the US which finished off a weakened USSR after a sequence of other body blows such as the grain shortage etc.) This difference in ideology left greater resources for an arms race and helped and continues to help make the rich elites richer through public to private wealth transfer which is, in my book, a rather serious and ongoing "flaw" in their system.

Capitalism:
The absurd notion
That the most evil of men
Doing the most abominable things
Can do the most good
For the most people

I offer in evidence the current wars profiting corporations enormously, the US healthcare fiasco and the problems getting a home for most americans outside the top 5%

Neither system is good for humans. Just in differing ways.
System 1:
You get housed and a job and healthcare and transport but don't get too political or you'll get a nasty visit.Limited freedom of movement outside country.
System 2:
You get nothing, no house, shit healthcare and flaky transport and you must fend for yourself but the people visiting you for being an activist/troublemaker/terrorist eventually need a valid excuse for holding and torturing you after doing so for a few years.

We need to come up with something different to both that is designed as if people mattered.

by Cecil R Tue Nov 10, 2009 20:10

The dictatorship of the proletariat is in fact the dictatorship of the party which not being elected is not representative. With the absence of checks and balances or the rule of law the way is open for the personal dictatorship of a Stalin. Stalin came to power wholly within Lenin’s system – that was its most fatal flaw, among many grave flaws, which created death and suffering on a titanic scale.

As for the “the superiority of the planned economy” it may have had a role when all that was needed was more coal and steel production but it made no breakthroughs in the age of information technology so is no longer valid. In any case the US also became a superpower but without a planned economy so the latter’s superiority must at least be qualified even in contemporaneous terms.

by Permanent Revolutionary Tue Nov 10, 2009 14:14

The Soviet Union was never a fully developed socialist society, as Lenin and Trotsky recognised. The seizure of power of the working class and the creation of a workers' state is only the beginning of revolution, the PROCESS of transforming and building a socialist society, a society which could never be built within the confines of one nation, again, as Lenin and Trotsky recognised. Socialism can only truly begin to be spoken about when the level of culture and development of the most advances nations has been surpassed. However, the leaders of the October Revolution recognised that the Russian bourgeoisie was too weak and tied to the greater imperialist powers to carry through the 'bourgeois democratic' revolution and pull it out of its semi-feudal state, and thus the establishment of a workers' state was the only way to meet these tasks, but of course the empowered proletariat would also attempt to carry out the tasks of socialist revolution simultaneously.

As for workers in neighbouring countries not following Irish workers, I think that's ridiculous. The economic and social circumstances that would propel the Irish working class towards a revolutionary consciousness would to a greater or lesser degree also be pushing the proletariat of the UK and Western Europe in a similar direction. We live in a GLOBAL economy, and its trends have an impact on the GLOBAL consciousness of the working class, particularly so in similar, close-by countries. Look at the upsurge in working class struggle we've seen across Europe. Look at the radicalisation that has spread across Latin America in the last decade. Look at the mass movements across Europe in the wake of the October Revolution. A workers' revolution in Ireland would have a huge impact on the outlook of workers in the UK and Western Europe. If you can't accept this, I wouldn't just give up on socialist revolution in Ireland, I'd give up on it across the world.

It was the mass action of workers across Europe and the US which seriously hampered the imperialist countries' attempts to smash the revolution in Russia, preventing the shipment of huge amounts of arms and supplies to the White armies. Thus, despite a still huge onslaught, the workers' state survived. Unfortunately, it was the destruction caused by WWI and the civil war, along with the already backward nature of Russia, the atomisation of its small but advanced working class and, crucially, the isolation of Russia due to the sell out and crushing of revolutionary movements in Western Europe which led to the degeneration of the state and the establishment of the Stalinist bureaucracy. It was the superiority of the planned economy which allowed the USSR to become a world superpower, albeit a brutal dictatorship, post WWII.

In conclusion, revolutions will by their nature probably occur in one country at a time. A workers' state established in Ireland may well be weak in-and-of itself, but its power would lie in its appeal to the workers of the UK and Western Europe to prevent imperialist intervention, and the inspiration it would provide to them to seize power in their own country. Remember, if the Irish working class had developed a revolutionary consciousness and seized power, the consciousness of workers in other countries would not be a huge distance behind.

by Cael Mon Nov 09, 2009 20:54

Cuba is able to sustain itself, so we could do it too. The other thing to remember is that if we had a Workers Republic we would have the support of tens of millions of people all over Europe, so it would be quite difficult for the Corporatist EU regime to take any kind of military action against us, nor would it be easy for them to enforce a trade embargo.

We see that the Zapatistas have been able to maintain a Communist society based on Community Councils and direct democracy in only one part of Mexico. So the idea that Communist islands cannot survive in Capitalist oceans really does not stand up.

I would claim that the Zapatista model is the only and best way to make Communism a reality in Ireland.

by Paddy Hackett Mon Nov 09, 2009 18:06

Permanent Revolutionary your (you hide behind a pseudonym) entire response to my logical piece on communism is nothing more than an irrationalist onslaught generously decorated with misrepresentations about my politics and philosophy.

Given that you agree that a socialist society could not be built and maintained indefinitly in Ireland then a workers' revolution (socialism) would not, as you claim, "allow massive leaps forward in the lives of ordinary people." Your reference to the workers in the UK, Western Europe makes no sense since there is nothing to suggest that these workers would follow the example of the Irish working class. Among the major reasons Russia was able to maintain itself as a stalinist non-socialist state was because of its relative strength. It had much more resources than puny Ireland has today. Even a minuscule Stalinist Ireland isolated from the rest of Europe would be crushed in no time by the big powers that encircle it. Any attack on the Irish working class under these conditions would lead to a bloodbath of Irish workers. To promote the politics of an isolated workers' republic or communist society is to promote such a bloodbath...perhaps the blood sacrifice that Mr. Pearse so desired. There is no way soi disant marxist parties such as the Socialist Workers' Party and the Socialist Party who essentially advocate doctrines that can but only lead to "a blood sacrifice" represent the interests of the Irish working class.

by Permanent Revolutionary Mon Nov 09, 2009 16:17

The author spends most of his time attacking the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party, both of which base themselves on the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky. These organisations resolutely reject the idea that socialism ( or communism as the author prefers) can be built solely in Ireland, any more than it can be built in any other single country. Trotsky and Lenin both recognised from the outset that the backwardness of Russia, in social and economic terms, meant that the revolution's survival, the maintenance of a healthy workers' state and the ultimate achievement of socialism was possible only on the basis of successful workers' revolutions in Germany, Britain, the US and, ultimately, across the globe. The fact that the revolutionary movements in these countries were betrayed by reformist leaderships was one of the main reasons for the Soviet Union's degeneration into Stalinist bureaucracy.

Neither the Socialist Party nor the Socialist Workers Party would argue that a healthy socialist society could be built and maintained indefinitely in Ireland. However, a workers' revolution would allow massive leaps forward in the lives of ordinary people and act as a beacon to workers in the UK, Western Europe and, indeed, around the world, inspiring revolutionary movements. The crucial task then is to build revolutionary parties capable of directing such movements to successful seizure of power by the working class.

The author of this article doesn't seem to understand what it is that the 2 organisations he attacks stand for, and also seems to have a very Stalinistic, mechanical and stagist conception of revolution. Basically, I don't see the point of it.