LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Great article dealing with a number of topics...
Recently a leading member of the IRSP, formerly on its’ Ard –Comhairle, republished on the IRSP discussion site a document from Maoist-Third Worldist Stand-In Line on Ireland November 7, 2008
(Ireland MSH
Unfortunately the comrade failed to indicate his/her position on the article itself and the ideological position it took. He did however, assert that
“Although Maoism is not a bona fide blue print for a first world Revolution a vast amount can be learnt from it and the pieces which suit our own struggle can be incorporated in our own strategy and vision for the future.”
This followed on from the New Year message of the leadership of Irish Republican Socialist Movement, which included the following sentence,
‘As Mao Zedong once pointed out, "politics is war without bloodshed," and it is within this context that the Republican Socialist Movement carries forward the struggle.’
Perhaps it is time to look at the implications of applying Maoism to the Irish situation particularly as contained within the Maoist third World document.
After a fairly brief resume of previous Irish history the document, comparing the original UVF to the Russian “Black Hundreds” and comparing them to fascists, quite correctly rejects attempts to portray the national struggle as one revolving around “opposing cultural traditions”,
and rejects the concept of the unionist veto.
Unfortunately it then panders to reactionary and sectarian nationalism by advocating the removal of loyalists to Britain.
“Were we in power, our gift to the loyalists of Ireland who refuse to take their place as members of the Irish nation, free and undivided, would be a one-way ticket back to Britain.”
Remember this from a political tendency that has played little or no part in Irish politics for over 30 years. It certainly seems the further away from a situation then the easier it is to pontificate and take the “hard” position. This certainly goes against the traditional approach of republicanism that sought to embrace all the traditions on the island. It is nearly forty years since this writer last heard anyone advocating this solution. It was wrong then. It is wrong now. It is sectarian, it is anti republican, and it does no service to those struggling for socialism. It has no place in republican socialism.
As if that was not bad enough the document then questions whether Ireland is indeed an oppressed nation because, in its view, the majority of its people have endorsed British rule and repression has declined and all but disappeared from the streets. Try telling that to those republicans and nationalists who have rejected the pacification process and who still endure harassment from the British forces! Look at the figures below
Table 1:
Number of persons stopped and searched under Terrorism Act 2000 TACT S44
1 Apr to 30 Jun 2008 1,341
1 Jul to 30 Sept 2008 1,657
1 Oct to 31 Dec 2008 2,524
1 Jan to 31 Mar 2009 4,026
1 Apr to 30 Jun 2009 3,568
1 Jul to 30 Sept 2009 10,265
2009 (1 Jan to 30 Sept) 17,859
Table2:
Power to stop and search: Number of person and vehicle searches under section 44 of the Terrorism Act (1)
Year Number of persons stopped and searched Number of vehicles stopped and searched
2005 204 156
2006 948 791
2007 2,167 1,801
2008
Jan–Mar 1,400 1,127
Apr–Jun 1,341 1,123
Jul–Sept 1,657 1,689
Oct–Dec 2,524 2,077
2008 TOTAL 6,922 6,016
(Source:<Northern Ireland Office // Homepage Ireland)_act_2007.pdf)
These figures combined with newspapers reports that
“MI5: More terrorist plots from Irish Republicans than Islamic extremists” (Editorial THE GUARDIAN 31 December 2009)
indicate clearly that there is still resistance to the pacification process.
While one can clearly disagree with the tactic of armed force at this point in time it is a clear indication that the peace process has not solved the Irish question. Instability still exists and the British institution at Stormont has not yet stabilized the Northern state.
But of course the Maoist Third Worlders don’t believe that the Irish working class has a vested interest in overthrowing capitalism. On the contrary we
“bear the imprint of First World parasitism”
They reject
“ any claims that Ireland is a nation exploited by monopoly capital and any attempts to calculate poverty and exploitation there on the basis of Irish GDP figures taken in isolation from the rest of the world”
Such an analysis owes more to sociology than to socialism. Of course Ireland is a relatively rich country compared to many counties. We don’t have the absolute poverty that exists throughout the world. But it is in our material interests that we try to change our conditions for capitalism is not only exploiting workers in Ireland but it is also in danger of destroying the world we live. Do the Maoists only want us to show solidarity with 3rd world struggles and ignore the continuing exploitation of our class and the natural resources within the island? Are we to wave our banners in support of the struggles in Nepal while ignoring our own problems. Are we to forget the “bourgeoisified” “parasitic” workers on the picket line here in Ireland while lauding the struggling peasants in foreign fields?
That position reminds me of the Irish Socialist Workers Party who opposed the Imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while condemning those who opposed Imperialism in Ireland.
Any revolutionary worth his/her salt knows that the best form of internationalism is the making of revolution with our own countries. Irish republicanism has a proud tradition of internationalism. Wolfe Tone adopted the most revolutionary creed in his day when he became a republican in the tradition of the American and French revolutions. Today the most advanced creed is Marxism but not that form of Marxism pushed by 3rd world Maoists.
They also claim that there is no class in Ireland with a material interest in fighting imperialism in the third world. In deed the
“The Irish working class is a bourgeoisified reactionary parasitic class”
However that position is contradicted by claims that
“Irish Republicans and communists alike have correctly recognised the Irish national bourgeoisie as an ally of the proletariat in the anti-imperialist struggle”
So is there a basis in Ireland for an anti -imperialist struggle or not in Ireland? And if all classes have become integrated into becoming parasitic who is to lead that struggle assuming it exists?
It takes some strange thinking for so called Marxists to call on the Irish working class to dismiss their own material interests in fighting Imperialism
“on the basis of its own class interest, an impossible and reactionary piety,”
Instead we must appeal to the
“proletarian memory” of the Irish people and “join the Maoist third world movement”
Forget materialism- think memory, better still folk memory What leadership!
I’d suggest this is a retreat from Marxism. Maybe next we will be encouraged by the Maoists to be looking deep into our souls to see what is in the best interests of the workers. Yes we can all be like De Valera who looked into his own soul to see what the Irish people needed.
Now it is true that the traditional communist Parties have always adhered to this line and adopted (like the Maoist third worlders) a stagiest approach to the national and class questions. In other words the primary task of the proletariat and communist movement is the removal of the “British occupiers”
However the communist movement in Ireland broke this down even further insisting that civil rights was the first stage and that demands for the solving of the national question be stilled.
It is also true that within republicanism there has always been a section that believed in handing the leadership of the struggle to bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie elements. This approach has led to the infamous stance of De Valera that “Labour must wait” and to the Pan nationalist front of Provisional Sinn Fein and the SDLP that led to the re-establishment of the Stormont regime and the institutionalization of sectarianism within the very fundaments of the regime.
Inevitably, regardless of their intentions, the adherents of the stagiest approach whether it was De Valera, Michael Collins, Sean Mc Bride, Tomas Mc Giolla, Ruari O’ Bradaigh, or Gerry Adams, have all led their movements into blind alleys far removed from their original intentions.
Ireland is still partitioned, Britain still controls directly the six northeasterly counties, republicans are divided, socialists without serious influence and sectarianism a major influence on the working classes in the six counties.
Those who see the national bourgeoisie as allies in the struggle for liberation are wrong. They have no economic interests in ending British rule.
However there has always been a separate strand within Republicanism that has taken a different approach. It has been the approach of the IRSP from its foundation. It was also the stance of James Connolly Ireland’s leading Marxist. It was Seamus Costello’s approach and it was the stance of Ta Power and Gino Gallagher. There is no need to change that stance. The class and national questions are interconnected and cannot be separated.
Those who advocate the stages approach, simply go down the same road that has lead to disaster for the working classes in numerous countries. To make strategic alliances with the class enemy is to betray the revolutionary struggle of the working class.
Gerry Ruddy
(from The Red Plough Vol 1-4 available from johnmartinps@virgin.net)
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by SevenStars
