Scottish nationalism and revisionism

[p061] SCOTTISH NATIONALISM AND REVISIONISM FOR MARXISTS the task of building a revolutionary leadership of the working class requires a struggle against all forms of pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie upon the working class, both ideologi- cal and physical. Marxists have the duty to examine, expose and fight against all such phenomena. As the decay of capitalism proceeds, efforts to divert the working class from its historic task increase in number, variety and intensity. Scottish Nationalism is one such tendency, the nature of which has to be understood from this standpoint of revolutionary responsibility. A Marxist approach to the problem of Scottish Nationalism has to differentiate itself completely from all revisionist conceptions. Revisionism ex- presses itself politically in adaptation to given circumstances in order to win support, no matter what the cost in terms of socialist principles. This is exemplified brilliantly in the recent rise of Scottish (and Welsh) Nationalism and the reaction of revisionists to it, for almost every revisionist tendency has now stated its support for these movements. The Communist Party has been a supporter of independent legislatures in Scotland and Wales since the 1920s, but in a perfunctory manner, according to prevailing moods in those countries.! 1 The long-standing support for Scottish Nationalism by the CPGB may be related to the important con- tribution made by Clydeside to the foundation and development of the Party, especially in the person of Gallacher. John Gollan is also a Scotsman and author of a book favouring separatism, Scottish Prospect (1949). For a more recent statement see Bert Pearce, ‘The National Future of Scotland and Wales’ in Marxism Today, November 1967. Scottish Nationalism and Revisionism by lan McCalman But now the Maoists are determined to prove themselves the true supporters of such ‘national- ism’ in the labour movement. Theoretical gloss is given to this in the pages of Monthly Review, the American quasi-Maoist magazine.” Not to be out- done, the supporters of the Unified Secretariat (Pabloite) have jumped on the band-wagon in their journal The International; they have received more sophisticated support from The New Left Review.' A new force has seemingly emerged and so the revisionists scramble over one another in their haste to adapt to the current. Almost all of them of course safely attack the leadership of the SNP and its policies, claiming that beneath this lies a genuinely progressive popular force demanding national independence. This is paraded forth in a plethora of high-sounding phrases, ‘Celtic re- surgence’, ‘cultural autonomy’, ‘national liberation struggles’, ‘right of self-determination’, etc. Marx- ism is prostituted to cover up an adaptation to a petty-bourgeois movement. Their efforts to conceal this reality of the situation reveal that their ignor- ance of Scottish history and social structure is second only to their abandonment of Marxist principles. Some ‘historical’ arguments The Maoist argument that what is involved is the beginning of a national-liberation struggle rests upon the claim that Scotland has been historically in a colonial status in relation to England. We are told by the Monthly Review contributor that: The pattern of oppression and exploitation followed 2K. Buchanan, ‘The Revolt Against Satellization in Scotland and Wales’ in Monthly Review, March 1968. 3 The International, July 1968; New Left Review, May-June 1968. 125

[p062] SCOTTISH NATIONALISM AND REVISIONISM FOR MARXISTS the task of building a revolutionary leadership of the working class requires a struggle against all forms of pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie upon the working class, both ideologi- cal and physical. Marxists have the duty to examine, expose and fight against all such phenomena. As the decay of capitalism proceeds, efforts to divert the working class from its historic task increase in number, variety and intensity. Scottish Nationalism is one such tendency, the nature of which has to be understood from this standpoint of revolutionary responsibility. A Marxist approach to the problem of Scottish Nationalism has to differentiate itself completely from all revisionist conceptions. Revisionism ex- presses itself politically in adaptation to given circumstances in order to win support, no matter what the cost in terms of socialist principles. This is exemplified brilliantly in the recent rise of Scottish (and Welsh) Nationalism and the reaction of revisionists to it, for almost every revisionist tendency has now stated its support for these movements. ; The Communist Party has been a supporter of independent legislatures in Scotland and Wales since the 1920s, but in a perfunctory manner, according to prevailing moods in those countries.! 1 The long-standing support for Scottish Nationalism by the CPGB may be related to the important con- tribution made by Clydeside to the foundation and development of the Party, especially in the person of Gallacher. John Gollan is also a Scotsman and author of a book favouring separatism, Scottish Prospect (1949). For a more recent statement see Bert Pearce, ‘The National Future of Scotland and Wales’ in Marxism Today, November 1967. Scottish Nationalism and Revisionism by lan McCalman But now the Maoists are determined to prove themselves the true supporters of such ‘national- ism’ in the labour movement. Theoretical gloss is given to this in the pages of Monthly Review, the American quasi-Maoist magazine.? Not to be out- done, the supporters of the Unified Secretariat (Pabloite) have jumped on the band-wagon in their journal The International; they have received more sophisticated support from The New Left Review.’ A new force has seemingly emerged and so the revisionists scramble over one another in their haste to adapt to the current. Almost all of them of course ‘safely attack the leadership of the SNP and its policies, claiming that beneath this lies a genuinely progressive popular force demanding national independence. This is paraded forth in a plethora of high-sounding phrases, ‘Celtic re- surgence’, ‘cultural autonomy’, ‘national liberation struggles’, ‘right of self-determination’, etc. Marx- ism is prostituted to cover up an adaptation to a petty-bourgeois movement. Their efforts to conceal this reality of the situation reveal that their ignor- ance of Scottish history and social structure is second only to their abandonment of Marxist principles. Some ‘historical’ arguments The Maoist argument that what is involved is the beginning of a national-liberation struggle rests upon the claim that Scotland has been historically in a colonial status in relation to England. We are told by the Monthly Review contributor that: The pattern of oppression and exploitation followed 2 K. Buchanan, ‘The Revolt Against Satellization in Scotland and Wales’ in Monthly Review, March 1968. 3 The International, July 1968; New Left Review, May-June 1968. 125

[p063] the classic lines of all colonial adventures. But then he goes on to draw all his examples from one area of Scotland only, the Highlands. Certainly the forcible de-population of parts of the Highlands in the early nineteenth century to make way for more profitable sheep farming and later game moors was carried out often with methods similar to those used in colonial countries in Africa and Asia.‘ But the areas of Scotland thus affected did not constitute thé whole of Scotland. In fact Prebble in his work on the question reveals that Highland chiefs as well as Lowland con- tractors and agents were as ruthless in their treat- ment of their ‘countrymen’ as were absentee land- lords residing in England. But how could it be otherwise? Since the seventeenth century the Low- land gentry and merchants had found much more in common with the English in terms of their social ethos than with the ‘barbarians’ they saw in the North. Traditional national antipathies still tended to cut across such lines, but increasingly less so as the eighteenth century advanced. Romantic attachment to the exiled Stuarts may have aroused the fervour of a few Highland chiefs, but it found no echo in the pocket-book mentality of the bourgeoisie of Lowland Scotland. In 1745 Charles Edward Stuart received little enough sup- port once he had crossed the Highland Line.’ The bourgeoisie of the Lowlands and North East Coast had developed a cultural and economic ethos far more akin to their English counterparts than to the clansmen. Moreover, in this they were aided by many chiefs who, under the impact of the more advanced economy to the south, had abandoned their ‘patriarchal’ role for a purely economic relation- ship with their tenants. They callaborated in selling away their people for the profits of sheep farming. Sir Walter Scott’s picture of Highland society, which has influenced modern attitudes, was a ‘romantic reconstruction of a never-never Highland past’. What lies behind all this talk of ‘colonialism’ is a failure, wilful or otherwise, to comprehend that since 1707 and even before that the English and Scottish bourgeoisie had increas- ingly become peacefully integrated. The Scottish ruling class was not reduced to a subservient position to the English. Together the bourgeoisie of both countries swept forward in the nineteenth century on the basis of a common exploitation of the working class of both countries. (This was 4 See J. Prebble, The Highlands. 5 See J. Prebble, Culloden. 6 Prebble, op. cit., p. 153. 126 carried out with great brutality in Scotland.) The Scottish economy was not in any way retarded in order to maintain English superiority. Scottish capitalism developed at a remarkable speed in the nineteenth century, especially in coal and iron,’ bringing large profits to the owners of capital who could sit in the same boardrooms as their English counterparts without any feeling of inferiority. This was the class reality of developments. Com- parisons with colonial areas of the British Empire are therefore totally misleading. In these areas the indigenous bourgeoisie was made subservient to the imperialists from the outset. This was not so in Scotland. Vulgar distortions of Marxism The revisionists, in their theoretical poverty, group a few of the concepts of Marxism, such as that of colonial exploitation, and then impose them upon situations where it suits their opportunist political requirements. They cannot conceive of these categories of Marxism as part of a method for the comprehension of reality from the standpoint of the needs of the working class. Thus the concepts of Marxism are reduced to a sterile scholasticism to be imposed to suit their requirements. This is only the other side of the coin of their so-called respect for ‘the facts’ which the Trotskyists are continually accused of ignoring. It is obvious that in their treatment of Scottish history, their selec- tion of facts is dictated by their own opportunism. This leads to the position where the present Scottish Nationalist movement is falsely equated with the Irish nationalist movement of the nine- teenth and early twentieth centuries. The great historical difference is that the Irish bourgeoisie, frustrated from achieving economic growth by the discriminatory methods of the English imperialist system, was forced into an uneasy alliance with the peasantry against the British government and Anglo-Irish aristocracy.2 This was the social essence of Parnellism. This was very different from the Scottish situation, where the crofters’ revolt in the Highlands in the late nineteenth cen- tury was repressed by the Scottish bourgeois authorities. This Irish nationalist movement was then a genuinely nationalist movement with a progressive content. It was this that led Marx, Engels and Lenin to demand self-determination for Ireland. The 7 R. H. Campbell, Social and Economic History of Scotland Since 1707, pp. 117-152. 8 E. Strauss, Irish Nationalism and British Democ- racy, p. 68. Fourth International, Winter 1968/1969

[p064] fight for the implementation of this demand would directly deal a grave blow to British imperialism and at the same time, they conceived, spur forward the struggle of the British working class for demo- cratic rights, thus facilitating the struggle for socialism. But this perspective was based upon a thorough class analysis of the progressive nature of Irish nationalism, and of the ‘Irish’ base of the English landlords, and not an empirical adaptation to the moods of a frustrated and frightened middle class, such as the revisionists reveal today in re- lation to Scottish Nationalism. On the basis of this spurious equation, the revisionists falsely claim an identification of James Connolly and the Scottish revolutionary socialist, John Maclean. A Maoist group, the Workers’ Party. of Scotland, has recently collaborated with elements in the SNP leadership in establishing a ‘John Maclean Society’, there to link the name of Maclean with that of Connolly. What they avoid are the important differences between these two men. Connolly was part of a popular nationalist movement from which he could draw strength and to which he could give direction. Maclean was not part of such a tradition. His nationalism was only articulated fully after periods in prison, when he emerged broken in health and subject to illusions. It was in this period, in his last years, that he turned to the conception of a Scottish Republican Party.’ It is to these years, the period of mental and physical decline, that the Maoists look, desecrating the man’s earlier thoughts and actions as a Communist. Their claim that this interpre- tation is a slanderous product of Gallacher’s hatred for Maclean is unacceptable, until they produce an alternative explanation which is in accordance with the facts. Real history of Scottish Nationalism Such efforts to detect a revolutionary tradition within Scottish Nationalism are totally misleading. The movement has throughout its history been a petty-bourgeois tendency. It had its origins in the discontent of the nineteenth-century Scottish Liberal middle class, frustrated by their lack of either political or economic power. This petty- bourgeois basis has determined the character of the movement ever since. Like all such movements it is of course chameleon-like, changing its color- ation according to prevailing conditions. In the 1920s, and especially in the 1930s, it had a left- wing bias. The National Party, founded in 1928, 9 See W. Gallacher, Last Memoirs, p. 163: Tom Bell, John Maclean, p. 124. Scottish Nationalism and Revisionism was led by an ex-ILPer, J. M. McCormick, and the SNP founded in 1934 was a fusion of left- and right-wing groups.” Magazines which appeared in the 1930s, such as Outlook and The Northern Re- view, emphasized more than ever before the economic reasons for separatism. It was then that arguments used by the present devotees of nation- alism, that ‘Scotland can stand on her own feet’ economically were first advanced at length. It is clear from a reading of these magazines that what dominated these writers was a fear of working- class unrest, which they hoped they could buy off by concessions extracted from the central govern- ment by threats of secession. Others saw it simply as a means of diverting the working class from socialist revolution. The left-wing phraseology was indispensable in this process. The aims of these nationalists were essentially reactionary. Revisionists jump in Other revisionists do not deny this petty-bour- geois nature of the movement, but see the middle class as continuators of a distinct Scottish culture, which provides an argument for separation. In a recent issue of New Left Review, Tom Nairn, writing in the curiously inflated prose which is a characteristic of that magazine, attempts to define a genuine Scottish culture, as distinct from the vulgar conception of bagpipes, haggis and kilts. He searches for some genuine national ‘character’ which has been overlaid by successive layers of mythology—‘a wholeness expressing its life instead of hiding it, a three-dimensional being freeing the national will and tongue from their secular in- hibitions, a realness to startle itself and the watch- ing world’. What is therefore required is a ‘cultural liberation from Scotland’s pervasive myths as a pre-condition of political action’." R. Purdie, of the ‘International Marxist Group’ (Pabloite) is also of the opinion that ‘the traditional carriers of culture in a nation, the middle class, . . . main- tained a distinct Scottish culture and conscious- ness which it transmitted to the working class’. Although they never express themselves clearly, what these revisionists appear to be saying is that Scottish separatism can be defended on the basis of cultural autonomy. That is to say, that Scottish culture has been suppressed by the English, thus denying the workers certain elementary rights. Separatism would therefore secure these rights. This sort of argument has been advanced now 10 W. Ferguson, Scotland, 1689 to the Present Day, p. 377. ll New Left Review, p. 17. 127

[p065] for several decades by some Scottish intellectuals, especially poets, such as Hugh McDiarmid (C. M. Grieve), prominent Scottish Nationalist and mem- ber of the Communist Party. The argument is in fact artificial. Those social- ists who argued in the early years of the present century for national independence on the grounds of cultural autonomy were dealing with East European states dominated by the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires before the _ First World War. Then whole peoples were not allowed to express themselves in their native tongue, the embodiment of their own culture. Instead they were compelled to use the language of the domin- ant imperialist state. No such situation prevails in Scotland where Gaelic has been the preserve of a small minority for centuries. Insofar as traditional Scottish ‘culture’ has been destroyed, that has been more the result of the commercialization of all aspects of life under capi- talism than anything else. This debasement is an international phenomenon and not specifically Scottish. Lenin on ‘national culture’ Above all for Marxists, ‘national culture’ argu- ments are insufficient grounds for supporting separatism. Lenin states: The slogan of national culture is bourgeois... deception. Our slogan is the international culture of democracy and the world working-class move- ment. Lenin concluded this on the grounds that ‘the general ‘“‘national culture” is the culture of the landed proprietors, the clergy and the bourgeoisie’. He concluded, ‘the place of one who advocates the slogan of national culture is among the nationalist petty bourgeois and not among Marxists’.” This aptly describes McDiarmid and the re- visionist tendencies who have adopted his argu- ments. No doubt he and his followers draw upon Scottish traditions, stemming from the historical Scottish social structure, the impact of Calvinism upon it, etc. No doubt also their poetry is of literary value (that we are not qualified to judge). But to create an ersatz ‘culture’ and claim that this is the ‘national culture’ is simply effrontery. And then to argue that this constitutes an argument for separation is to compound their philistinism with political confusion and deceit. At the same time as Lenin attacked such views, he argued (against Rosa Luxembourg) that Marx- 12 Lenin, Questions of National Policy and Prole- tarian Internationalism, pp. 28-30. (Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow.) 128 ists had to concede those East European states under imperialist domination the right to self- determination. But to transpose these arguments to Scottish conditions is simply ludicrous. For here, as we noted, Lenin was dealing with coun- tries whose own language had been suppressed by the dominant empires. In some cases their separate laws and educational systems had been liquidated. None of these conditions applies to Scotland, the legal system of which still continues separate as do many aspects of its traditional regime. These were some of the main conditions that Lenin considered necessary to justify the slogan of the right to self- determination. When Purdie claims, ‘there is nothing, in principle, wrong with socialists sup- porting the right of separatism’ (of Scotland), he makes a mockery of Lenin’s formulation. No amount of qualification or talk of ‘principle’ can conceal that this is a pandering to nationalist sentiments and a capitulation to the petty bour- geoisie. One of three main types of nationalism Lenin went on to describe the three main types of nationalism in the world. There was firstly that of the colonial and semi-colonial countries and secondly that of the East European and Balkan states which we have referred to. Scottish national- ism does not qualify for either of these two categories. But it does find a place in Lenin’s third category of nationalism, that in advanced capitalist states. In the era of capitalism this is a totally reactionary ideology, as distinct from its role in the period of the rise of the bourgeoisie.” In these circumstances nationalism becomes primarily a means of confusing and dividing the working class. More specifically, Scottish Nationalism is the cry of the desperate petty bourgeois. Since the mid-nineteenth century sections of the Scottish middie class have been frustrated by their ex- clusion from the decision-making process. Unable to gain sufficient representation in a British parlia- ment, they looked to a Scottish Assembly as a means of asserting themselves politically. But this nationalist movement has only begun to grow significantly in recent years as the crisis of capital- ism has placed the middle class under severe pressure. Seeing themselves crushed between an increasingly militant labour movement and the powerful growth of monopoly, they desperately seek some middle way out of their impasse. These are the social roots of Scottish nationalism. They also gain support from sections of the working 13. Ibid. pp. 144-145. Fourth International, Winter 1968/1969

[p066] class, under attack from the ruling class and dis- illusioned by the betrayal of their social-demo- cratic leaders, the Labour government. It is this combination that accounts for the recent success of the SNP in local and national elections. The intensity of this crisis in Scotland has its origins in the catastrophic decline of Scottish capitalism in the twentieth century. From being a leading manufacturing country in the nineteenth century, especially in shipbuilding, it has decayed rapidly. Unable to compete with the giant com- bines of the capitalist nations, it suffered griev- ously in the inter-war period, with the fall in world trade. Concentration on basic industries meant and still does mean a deep depression of the Scottish economy. These staple industries have been vir- tually stagnant since the 1870s and little has been done to correct this ‘imbalance’. This, combined with a constant high rate of emigration and a lack of certain necessary raw materials or semi- processed goods, has meant that there has been little change in this position. The result is that the crisis of British capitalism today, as in the inter- war years, hits Scotland with a special intensity." Rising unemployment, low wages and poor housing are the result. The nationalists claim that this is caused by the discrimination levelled against Scotland by the government in London. Statistics are compiled to ‘prove’ that under home rule the Scottish economy would flourish through fewer taxes and duties and increased exports. This sort of argument, first raised in the 1930s, has now become the most common one for separatism. Undoubtedly, the Scottish economy has declined more deeply than large sections of the English, but that is a product of the way in which Scottish capitalism has developed historically. Moreover, it is true not only of Scotland but also of Wales and of certain regions of England, especially in the North East and North West. ‘Neglect’ of these ‘development’ areas by the central government has been brought about by inability to tackle the basic problems of British capitalism. This crisis is given extreme expression in the depressed regions, but is not peculiar to them alone. Reactionary Utopia However, it is through an exploitation of this position that the nationalists have gained support. They try to construct on this basis what is no more than a petty-bourgeois utopia. How else can one describe their efforts to isolate the Scottish 14 Campbell, op. cit., pp. 236-262. Scottish Nationalism and Revisionism economy from the developments of international capitalism, to discuss its future balance of trade, etc., in a vacuum? Since the late nineteenth century Scotland has been the target of large American investments. The establishment of Singers on Clydeside in the 1880s and Babcock & Wilcox in the 1890s are early examples of this. Since 1945 we have seen the establishment of subsidiaries of large US firms, such as motor car manufacturers. Investments by English capitalists have also tightened the grip of international capital on the Scottish economy, where there has been an almost total lack of indigenous development on a signifi- cant scale. In these circumstances what can ‘Home Rule’ mean but greater reliance upon US invest- ment and management? Some Scottish nationalists have in fact made it clear that they are in favour of such a development. Seen in this light national- ism becomes more clearly a means of splitting the Scottish and English working class in order to facilitate greater exploitation by the monopolies. Within such a petty-bourgeois movement radical tendencies may appear, as seen in the philandering of some of its leading members with Stalinists on ‘peace committees’ and in the John Maclean Society. Mr. Purdie in his article obviously regrets that it is not more ‘radical’, as he could then sup- port it more enthusiastically. For Trotskyists however, ‘radicalism’ is not the criterion by which we judge political tendencies. That can in fact be simply the complement of right-wing ‘radicalism’, or fascism. Both have in common a rejection of independent working-class action. We see this in the SNP where an extreme right-wing tendency has arisen in the shape of the ‘1320 Club’, aiming at the establishment of Scottish ‘independence’ by military means and the imposition of a temporary military dictatorship. Composed of ex-army officers, backwoods gentry and some ‘literary’ figures, it enjoys the support of Hugh McDiarmid, poet, nationalist and Stalinist (he re-joined the Com- munist Party of Great Britain immediately after the Russian intervention in Hungary in 1956 and also approved of the recent intervention in Czecho- slovakia). Although now expelled from the SNP so as to avoid embarrassment, this group is only an extreme expression of strong right-wing tendencies in the movement. In the face of such dangers, it is clear that the first priority is unity of the British working class in struggle against capitalism. This requires a con- sistent offensive against all efforts to split that unity by racialists and nationalists. Mr. Purdie tells us that we must support such separatist 129

[p067] movements because of ‘the independent support they gain from the workers’. It was precisely this argument that led the Pabloite group of Ernest Mandel in Belgium to make concessions to Walloon nationalism and thus help scuttle the Belgian socialist movement in the quicksands of separa- tism.’ The task of Communists is not to adapt thus to temporary shifts in the mood of sections of the working class, but to fight for their principles and organize within the class, making no con- cessions on these basic issues. Once again, Lenin on nationalism In the context of a society where the workers have control, then various problems of devolution of power to regions, etc. can be settled in the 15 See Belgium: A New Party? (New Park Publica- tions.) interests of the masses. Under capitalism, how- ever, the unification and centralization of the con- flict facilitates the tasks of the working class and the revolutionary party. Lenin had this to say: The Marxists are, of course, hostile to federation and decentralization, for the simple reason that capitalism requires the biggest and most centralized possible states for its development. ‘Other con- ditions being equal’, the class-conscious proletariat will always stand for the larger state . . . will always welcome the closest possible economic amalgamation of large territories in which the proletariat’s struggle against the bourgeoisie could develop on a broad scale.'® Firmness on the fundamental issues will equip us to defeat both nationalist and revisionist efforts to split the working class and divert it from its historical mission, the conquest of power. 16 Lenin, op. cit., p. 53. 130 A TROTSKY ANTHOLOGY Edited with an introduction by Isaac Deutscher (with the assistance of George Novak). Published by Dell Publish- - ing Co. Inc. Distributed in Britain by New Park Publica- tions Ltd. Price 9s. 6d. A concise and invaluable collection of Trotsky’s writings. The theoretical genius of one of the world’s great Marxists and co-leader of the first successful socialist revolution is brilliantly revealed in this book. It is an indispensable addition to the library of all communists who are serious about studying, understanding and grasping the method and programme of contemporary Marxism. Orders to: NEW PARK PUBLICATIONS LTD 186A CLAPHAM HIGH ST., LONDON, S.W.4 Fourth International, Winter 1968/1969

[p068] movements because of ‘the independent support they gain from the workers’. It was precisely this argument that led the Pabloite group of Ernest Mandel in Belgium to make concessions to Walloon nationalism and thus help scuttle the Belgian socialist movement in the quicksands of separa- tism.” The task of Communists is not to adapt thus to temporary shifts in the mood of sections of the working class, but to fight for their principles and organize within the class, making no con- cessions on these basic issues. Once again, Lenin on nationalism In the context of a society where the workers have control, then various problems of devolution of power to regions, etc. can be settled in the 15 See Belgium: A New Party? (New Park Publica- tions.) interests of the masses. Under capitalism, how- ever, the unification and centralization of the con- flict facilitates the tasks of the working class and the revolutionary party. Lenin had this to say: The Marxists are, of course, hostile to federation and decentralization, for the simple reason that capitalism requires the biggest and most centralized possible states for its development. ‘Other con- ditions being equal’, the class-conscious proletariat will always stand for the larger state . . . will always welcome the closest possible economic amalgamation of large territories in which the proletariat’s struggle against the bourgeoisie could develop on a broad scale.'® Firmness on the fundamental issues will equip us to defeat both nationalist and revisionist efforts to split the working class and divert it from its historical mission, the conquest of power. 16 Lenin, op. cit., p. 53. THE AGE OF PERMANENT REVOLUTION coliey's Mest eam A TROTSKY ANTHOLOGY Edited with an introduction by Isaac Deutscher (with the assistance of George Novak). Published by Dell Publish- ing Co. Inc. Distributed in Britain by New Park Publica- tions Ltd. Price 9s. 6d. A concise and invaluable collection of Trotsky’s writings. The theoretical genius of one of the world’s great Marxists and co-leader of the first successful socialist revolution is brilliantly revealed in this book. It is an indispensable addition to the library of all communists who are serious about studying, understanding and grasping the method and programme of contemporary Marxism. Orders to: ee NEW PARK PUBLICATIONS LTD with an intredaetiiil by 130 186A CLAPHAM HIGH ST., LONDON, S.W.4 Fourth International, Winter 1968/1969

[p069] fHE PRECISE FORMS of struggle which the working class will adopt in a revolutionary situation cannot be predetermined by Marxists. It is, however, vital that Marxists study the experience of past revolutionary movements, not to imitate them in a routine way, vut to analyze them and learn their lessons. Of all forms of struggle adopted by workers in revolution, the general strike is one of the most significant, as the recent events in France have shown us once again. It is therefore important to study the Russian Revolution of 1905, since it was there for the first time that the general strike emerged not merely as a tactic but as the main form of motion of the Revolution. Lenin described the significance of the 1905 Revolution in a lecture delivered for its twelfth anniversary, a month before the outbreak of the 1917 Revolution, as follows: ‘The peculiar thing about the Russian Revolution is that in its social content it was a bourgeois-democratic revolution, but in its methods of struggle it was a proletarian revolution. It was a bourgeois-democratic revolution since its immediate aim .. . was a demo- cratic republic, an eight-hour day and confiscation of the immense estates of the nobility. ... At the same time the Russian Revolution was a proletarian revo- lution not only in the sense that the proletariat was the leading force, the vanguard of the movement, but also in the sense that the strike, the specifically prole- tarian weapon of struggle, was the principal means employed for bringing the masses into motion and the most characteristic phenomenon in the wave-like rise of decisive events.’ The Russian Revolution has a special significance in that it took place in an economically backward country where the industrial proletariat, although numerically small, had a decisive role: from the time of its emergence as a class it was organized in large, technically-advanced factories and was directly confronted by international finance capital. In these conditions its organizations and consciousness de- veloped rapidly. The first disciplined Russian strike Insurrection or Democratism sana Pm pm By JENNY WOODHOUSE movements date from the 1890s, and yet by 1905 the Russian working class was able to face, and win concessions from, the Tzarist autocracy. But in spite of the peculiarities of Russian social development, the lessons of the 1905 Revolution are universal ones. Rosa Luxemburg recognized this in her pamphlet The Mass Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Unions, but she drew from it only the lessons which were relevant to her fight against the reformist bureauc- racies of German Social Democracy and the German trade unions. For her the important feature of 1905 was the spontaneous, elemental activity of the workers, and the victories which could be won by the general strike: she failed to consider the role of the revolu- tionary parties in Russia, and the way in which failures of political leadership contributed to the defeat of the revolution. From Zubatovism to the Potemkin In Tzarist Russia, as in any capitalist country in crisis, strikes which began on purely trade union issues became political actions as the forces of the state were turned against the strikers. From 1901 onwards in Russia successive waves of strikes, sparked off by some minor question of wages and conditions, spread to involve whole towns and areas in southern Russia and the Caucasus; for the first time revolutionary agitators were able to speak in public, and as the strikes spread and the police and military were called in, more general demands such as the eight-hour day and political democracy were added to the aims of the strikers. The first open discontent in the bourgeois intelligentsia also appeared in the student movement and, with the beginning of the war against Japan and the successive Russian defeats in 1904, the movement of political protest grew wider. Sections of the bour- geois intelligentsia began to turn their attention from piecemeal local government work to the demand for political democracy, and held meetings, disguised from the police in the form of banquets, at which calls were made for a constitution. 131

[p070] Insurrection or Democratism Bolsheviks and THE PRECISE FORMS of struggle which the working class will adopt in a revolutionary situation cannot be predetermined by Marxists. It is, however, vital that Marxists study the experience of past revolutionary movements, not to imitate them in a routine way, vut to analyze them and learn their lessons. Of all forms of struggle adopted by workers in revolution, the general strike is one of the most significant, as the recent events in France have shown us once again. It is therefore important to study the Russian Revolution of 1905, since it was there for the first time that the general strike emerged not merely as a tactic but as the main form of motion of the Revolution. Lenin described the significance of the 1905 Revolution in a lecture delivered for its twelfth anniversary, a month before the outbreak of the 1917 Revolution, as follows: ‘The peculiar thing about the Russian Revolution is that in its social content it was a bourgeois-democratic revolution, but in its methods of struggle it was a proletarian revolution. It was a bourgeois-democratic revolution since its immediate aim .. . was a demo- cratic republic, an eight-hour day and confiscation of the immense estates of the nobility. ... At the same time the Russian Revolution was a proletarian revo- lution not only in the sense that the proletariat was the leading force, the vanguard of the movement, but also in the sense that the strike, the specifically prole- tarian weapon of struggle, was the principal means employed for bringing the masses into motion and the most characteristic phenomenon in the wave-like rise of decisive events.’ The Russian Revolution has a special significance in that it took place in an economically backward country where the industrial proletariat, although numerically small, had a decisive role: from the time of its emergence as a class it was organized in large, technically-advanced factories and was directly confronted by international finance capital. In these conditions its organizations and consciousness de- veloped rapidly. The first disciplined Russian strike