Re: [Marxism] As long as the British remain there will be some kindof IRA

[Duroyan Fertl <dfertl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

BHASKAR:
 
Leon Trotsky:
'If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one's
goal, why the efforts of the class struggle?... If it makes sense to terrify
highly placed personages with the roar of explosions, where is the need for
a party? Why meetings, mass agitation and elections?... Individual terror is
inadmissible precisely because *it* *belittles the role of the masses in
their own consciousness*, reconciles them to their own powerlessness, and
turns their eyes and hopes toward a great avenger and liberator who someday
will come and accomplish his mission.'


JSCOTTLIVE'S REPLY:
 
Lenin on the Easter Rising of 1916:
 
To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small 
nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a 
section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement 
of 
the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against 
oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national 
oppression, etc. â to imagine all this is to repudiate social revolution. 
So 
one army lines up in one place and says, "We are for socialism", and 
another, somewhere else and says, "We are for imperialism", and that will be 
a 
social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view 
could 
vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a "putsch". 
Whoever expects a "pure" social revolution will never live to see it. Such a 
person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution 
is.

MY REPLY (TO BOTH, SEEING AS WE'RE GETTING INTO THE QUOTING GAME):
I've reproduced the text in full below. Otherwise, the link is: 
http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1899/07/physforc.htm

James Connolly - Physical Force in Irish Politics (1899)
         From Workersâ Republic, July 22, 1899.
Transcribed by The James Connolly Society in 1997.   Ireland
occupies a position among the nations of the earth unique in a great
variety of its aspects, but in no one particular is this singularity
more marked than in the possession of what is known as a âphysical
force partyâ â a party, that is to say, whose members are united upon
no one point, and agree upon no single principle, except upon the use
of physical force as the sole means of settling the dispute between the
people of this country and the governing power of Great Britain.  
Other
countries and other peoples have, from time to time, appealed to what
the first French Revolutionists picturesquely described as the âsacred
right of insurrection,â but in so appealing they acted under the
inspiration of, and combated for, some great governing principle of
political or social life upon which they, to a man, were in absolute
agreement. The latter-day high falutin âhillsideâ man, on the other
hand, exalts into a principle that which the revolutionists of other
countries have looked upon as a weapon, and in his gatherings prohibits
all discussion of those principles which formed the main strength of
his prototypes elsewhere and made the successful use of that weapon
possible. Our people have glided at different periods of the past
century from moral force agitation, so-called, into physical force
rebellion, from constitutionalism into insurrectionism, meeting in each
the same failure and the same disaster and yet seem as far as ever from
learning the great truth that neither method is ever likely to be
successful until they first insist that a perfect agreement upon the
end to be attained should be arrived at as a starting-point of all our
efforts.  
To
the reader unfamiliar with Irish political history such a remark seems
to savour almost of foolishness, its truth is so apparent; but to the
reader acquainted with the inner workings of the political movements of
this country the remark is pregnant with the deepest meaning. Every
revolutionary effort in Ireland has drawn the bulk of its adherents
from the ranks of the disappointed followers of defeated constitutional
movements. After having exhausted their constitutional efforts in
striving to secure such a modicum of political power as would justify
them to their own consciences in taking a place as loyal subjects of
the British Empire, they, in despair, turned to thoughts of physical
force as a means of attaining their ends. Their conception of what
constitutes freedom was in no sense changed or revolutionised; they
still believed in the political form of freedom which had been their
ideal in their constitutional days; but no longer hoping for it from
the acts of the British Parliament, they swung over into the ranks of
the âphysical forceâ men as the only means of attaining it.  
The
so-called physical force movement of today in like manner bases its
hopes upon the disgust of the people over the failure of the Home Rule
movement; it seeks to enlist the people under its banners, not so much
by pointing out the base ideals of the constitutionalists or the total
inadequacy of their pet measures to remedy the evils under which the
people suffer, as by emphasising the greater efficacy of physical force
as a national weapon. Thus, the one test of an advanced Nationalist is,
in their opinion, one who believes in physical force. It may be the
persons so professing to believe are Republicans; it may be they are
believers in monarchy; it may be that Home Rule would satisfy them; it
may be that they despise Home Rule. No matter what their political
faith may be, if only they are prepared to express belief in the saving
grace of physical force, they are acclaimed as advanced Nationalists -
worthy descendants of âthe men of â98.â The â98 Executive, organised in
the commencement by professed believers in the physical force doctrine,
started by proclaiming its adherence to the principle of national
independence âas understood by Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen,â and
in less than twelve months from doing so, deliberately rejected a
similar resolution and elected on its governing body men notorious for
their Royalist proclivities. As the â98 Executive represents the
advanced Nationalists of Ireland, this repudiation of the Republican
faith of the United Irishmen is an interesting corroboration of the
truth of our statement that the advanced Nationalists of our day are
utterly regardless of principle and only attach importance to methods â
an instance of putting the cart before the horse, absolutely unique in
its imbecility and unparalleled in the history of the world.  
It
may be interesting, then, to place before our readers the Socialist
Republican conception of the functions and uses of physical force in a
popular movement. We neither exalt it into a principle nor repudiate it
as something not to be thought of. Our position towards it is that the
use or non-use of force for the realisation of the ideas of progress
always has been and always will be determined by the attitude, not of
the party of progress, but of the governing class opposed to that
party. If the time should arrive when the party of progress finds its
way to freedom barred by the stubborn greed of a possessing class
entrenched behind the barriers of law and order; if the party of
progress has indoctrinated the people at large with the new
revolutionary conception of society and is therefore representative of
the will of a majority of the nation, if it has exhausted all the
peaceful means at its disposal for the purpose of demonstrating to the
people and their enemies that the new revolutionary ideas do possess
the suffrage of the majority; then, but not till then, the party which
represents the revolutionary idea is justified in taking steps to
assume the powers of government, and in using the weapons of force to
dislodge the usurping class or government in possession, and treating
its members and supporters as usurpers and rebels against the
constituted authorities always have been created. In other words,
Socialists believe that the question of force is of very minor
importance; the really important question is of the principles upon
which is based the movement that may or may not need the use of force
to realise its object.  
Here,
then, is the immense difference between the Socialist Republicans and
our friends the physical force men. The latter, by stifling all
discussions of principles, earn the passive and fleeting commendation
of the unthinking multitude; the former, by insisting upon a thorough
understanding of their basic principles, do not so readily attract the
multitude, but do attract and hold the more thoughtful amongst them. It
is the difference betwixt a mob in revolt and an army in preparation.
The mob who cheer a speaker referring to the hopes of a physical force
movement would, in the very hour of apparent success, be utterly
disorganised and divided by the passage through the British Legislature
of any trumpery Home Rule Bill. The army of class-conscious workers
organising under the banner of the Socialist Republican Party, strong
in their knowledge of economic truth and firmly grounded in their
revolutionary principles, would remain entirely unaffected by any such
manoeuvre and, knowing it would not change their position as a subject
class, would still press forward, resolute and undivided, with their
faces set towards their only hope of emancipation â the complete
control by the working-class democracy of all the powers of National
Government.  
Thus
the policy of the Socialist Republicans is seen to be the only wise
one. âEducate that you may be freeâ; principles first, methods
afterwards. If the advocacy of physical force failed to achieve success
or even to effect an uprising when the majority were unenfranchised and
the secret ballot unknown, how can it be expected to succeed now that
the majority are in possession of voting power and the secret ballot
safeguards the voter?  
The
ballot-box was given us by our masters for their purpose; let us use it
for our own. Let us demonstrate at that ballot-box the strength and
intelligence of the revolutionary idea; let us make the hustings a
rostrum from which to promulgate our principles; let us grasp the
public powers in the interest of the disinherited class; let us emulate
our fathers and, like the âtrue men of â98,â place ourselves in line
with the most advanced thought of our age and drawing inspiration and
hope from the spectacle presented by the world-wide revolt of the
workers, prepare for the coming of the day when the Socialist
working-class of Ireland will, through its elected representatives,
present its demand for freedom from the yoke of a governing master
class or nation â the day on which the question of moral or physical
force shall be finally decided.



      Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take 
a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu