The Case for Supporting National Liberation

[Geiseric]

Trotsky lays out how the question of independence in Ireland, after the 1916 Easter Uprising, is indistinguishable from the question of working class power. Due to the peasantry's interest in obtaining land, the indifference from English workers towards the ongoing massacre and oppression in Ireland, and the Irish bourgeoisie's alliance with Imperialism, the Irish working class (especially in Ulster) were and are the only ones who really pushed for independence, which could only lead to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat if it's completely pushed through. In any case, here we go:

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1916/07/dublin.htm

[subcp]

Whats the explanation, in that schema, for things like the 'Ulster Workers Council' in the 1970's? Or the turn of the extra-parliamentary/para-military organizations (front parties and armed gangs) a la IRA/provos to join the Irish and English bourgeoisie's and states in the ceasefires and entering government/renouncing armed struggle?

[Prof. Oblivion]

Plus the thread title is rather silly given the fact that such a generalization implies such an analysis to be transferrable to "national liberation" scenarios in which the working class does not lead the struggle for independence.

[Geiseric]

Plus the thread title is rather silly given the fact that such a generalization implies such an analysis to be transferrable to "national liberation" scenarios in which the working class does not lead the struggle for independence.

I think the point I was trying to make is that the working class, in semi industrialized countries, is the only class who will support real independence; as opposed to "National bourgeois," supported political revolutions which maintain capitalism, always with the support of the peasantry, to the detriment of the working class.

There are sections of the poor peasantry, however, which do support working class movements, for example the peasants soviets which rose in Russia and Germany; however these sections of the peasantry are historically incapable of organizing a revolution independent of the working class. The leaders of the CPC in China, who formulated the main "bloc of four classes" theories, were usually working class, Mao and Chen Duxiu included. This is basically because the peasantry as a collective usually defer to increasing their plot instead of revolution.

[vizzek]

I think the point I was trying to make is that the working class, in semi industrialized countries, is the only class who will support real independence; as opposed to "National bourgeois," supported political revolutions which maintain capitalism, always with the support of the peasantry, to the detriment of the working class.

which doesn't further their class interests in any way.

[Geiseric]

which doesn't further their class interests in any way.

So if the engish working class doesn't revolt, you would be telling the Irish working class in 1916 to "calm down" about seizing the means of production?