The Marxist Analysis of the Troubles

[Pogue Mahone]

The Marxist critique of the Troubles is not something to which I've paid a huge amount of attention, although I do find it fascinating, if not simply for the fact that it provides a somewhat alternative view of what is generally perceived to have been the root cause.

The following is from the Wikipedia page of the Official IRA:

The split in the Irish Republican Army, soon followed by a parallel split in Sinn Féin, was the result of the dissatisfaction of more traditional and militant republicans at the political direction taken by the leadership. Particular objects of their discontent were the IRA's unwillingness to engage in armed action against the British state or military defence of Catholic, nationalist areas in Northern Ireland, and Sinn Féin's ending of its policy of abstentionism in Ireland. This issue is a key one in republican ideology, as traditional republicans regarded the Irish state as illegitimate and maintained that their loyalty was due only to the Irish Republic declared in 1916 and in their view, represented by the IRA Army Council.

During the 1960s, the republican movement under the leadership of Cathal Goulding radically re-assessed their ideology and tactics after the dismal failure of the IRA's Border Campaign in the years 1956-62. They were heavily influenced by popular front ideology and drew close to Communist thinking. A key intermediary body was the Communist Party of Great Britain's organisation for Irish exiles, the Connolly Association. The Marxist analysis was that the conflict in Northern Ireland was a "bourgeois nationalist" one between the Protestant and Catholic working classes, fomented and continued by the ruling class. Its effect was to depress wages, since worker could be set against worker. They concluded that the first step on the road to a 32-county Socialist Republic in Ireland was the "democratisation" of Northern Ireland (i.e., the removal of discrimination against Catholics) and radicalisation of the southern working class. This would allow "class politics" to develop -eventually resulting in a challenge to the hegemony of both "British imperialism" and the respective unionist and nationalist establishments North and South of the Irish border.

Goulding and those close him argued that, in the context of sectarian division in Northern Ireland, a military campaign against the British presence would be counter-productive, since it would delay the day when the workers would unite around social and economic issues.

The sense that the IRA seemed to be drifting away from its conventional republican and nationalist roots into Marxism angered the more traditional republicans. Many in the Official IRA later referred to the Provisional IRA as "the rosary brigade" because of what they saw as the Catholic and romantic nationalist ideology of the latter. Some radicals believed that the Irish government, MI5, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had conspired to cultivate the split because they were afraid of another Cuba in Europe's "back yard". The Arms Crisis provided evidence that some members of the Irish (Fianna Fáil) government had attempted to supply arms and funds to a variety of individuals in Northern Ireland. The radicals viewed Northern Protestants with unionist views as "fellow Irishmen deluded by bourgeois loyalties, who needed to be engaged in dialectical debate". As a result, they were reluctant to use force to defend Catholic areas of Belfast when they came under attack from loyalists - a role the IRA had performed since the 1920s. Since the Civil Rights marches began in 1968, there had been many cases of street violence. The Royal Ulster Constabulary had been shown on television in undisciplined baton charges, and had already killed three noncombatant civilians, one a child. The Orange Order's "marching season" during the summer of 1969 had been characterised by violence on both sides, which culminated in the two day, "Battle of the Bogside" in Derry.

I don't know what I make of it all, personally. The notion of various state-groups coming together in order to prevent another Cuba from emerging in Europe's "back yard" sounds like ridiculously wild optimism, if it weren't for their interference, and an exaggeration of the potential and genuine strength of the Official IRA movement. Similarly, the idea that the "Arms Crisis" was proof of the Irish government conspiring to create a split between Catholics and Protestants in the North is at odds with the fact that the fiasco was widely frowned upon within higher circles in southern politics. Furthermore, wasn't it instigated by politicians who were known to be sympathetic to the republican cause and felt they held an affinity with nationalists in the North; not politicians whose beliefs were cloudy and who could easily have had the vested interests the Marxist analysis would purport them to have possessed? I get the impression that the analysis developed in a reverse fashion with Cathal Goulding attempting to reconcile his newly-found leftist politics around the 1960s with his traditional Irish republican beliefs and a course of action he felt was needed to bring an end to the partition of Ireland. Who exactly is this "ruling class" supposed to be? I'm not sure if it's supposed to suggest that the likes of John Hume or Gerry Adams were in cahoots with unionist officials and the British elite in their urging of the nationalist population to strive to seek social and civil justice in Northern Ireland, both peaceful and violent, respectively. I feel analysis is fundamentally flawed when one realises that Northern Ireland was a huge drain on the British state's resources during the Troubles. The division of the nationalist and unionist work-forces was in no way economically beneficial to Britain. Sure, the problems in Ireland began with land being snatched from one group for the benefit of another and the fact that Irish natives were driven from their land, causing them to unite against British forces of oppression and many of those planters who took their land, which, in turn, caused the unification of those elements, but there was no economic benefit in maintaining division. The plantations of Ireland, and especially Ulster, caused tribal and sectarian divisions which have continued to exist over centuries, regardless of the alleged British elite's vested economic interests. The sectarian division was self-orchestrated and hugely detrimental to the functioning of Northern Ireland as a political entity. The Marxist analysis of human interaction espoused by liberal academics condescendingly treats the working class it purports to favour as stupid and open to wild psychological manipulation.

Are there any proponents of the Marxist analysis here and what do they believe are its merits? Or, on the other hand, what do its opponents believe to be its faults? What is your personal theory on the origin of the Troubles?

[Cloigeann]

Britain wanted to keep the divisions going because they had disposable people (loyalists) fighting their wars for them and not get the brunt of any attacks since the loyalists were taking the heat and not Britain itself. Belfast was the economic heart of Ireland and an important industrial and shipping base for them which is a big reason, if not the only reason Northern Ireland was created.

Obviously the British would want loyalists in control of that since they were loyal to Britain and would of done as they were told so they fostered divisions because if republicans got in control then it would become a liability as they were not loyal to Britain so they let the loyalists run a pseudo-fascist state to secure this and they also kept the division going because if catholic and protestants came together as a people then Britain would of lost allot of influence over the northern Irish industry. It was all about money and power in the end for Britain and Northern Ireland did not impose sectarianism on itself just like Ireland as a whole didn't impose partition on itself but it became a reality.

[Garibaldy]

Pogue,

The first thing I should say is that the account given of the analysis in that page from Wikipedia contains some flaws, e.g. regarding the idea of a bourgeois nationalist conflict in the north, and some omissions.

On the strategic importance or otherwise of the north. It was indeed a huge drain on Britain's resources. But it was also a potentially important place should the Cold War ever go hot. Ports on the Atlantic would have been of strategic importance. I wouldn't underestimate the paranoia of cold warriors at this time. After all, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that elements of the UK civil and security services plotted against Harold Wilson because they thought him a secret communist. Specifically on NI, there are documents in the public domain that show that the fear of a European Cuba did exist in official circles both in Dublin and London. Paul Bew's new book quotes a lot of them in one convenient place.

On the attitude of the southern elite to the IRA at the time. Several witnesses have testified to being approached by the southern intelligence officer James Kelly with the offer of arms if they would promise not to remain under the control of the Goulding leadership. One even claimed that he was asked to assassinate several leading left-wing republicans. Something was clearly afoot, in terms of elements of FF colluding with those who would go on to be the Provos, though you are of course right to say that most rejected this approach.

It is not suggested that nationalists were in cahoots with the British when seeking reform in the north. After all, Goulding and other leading republicans who went on to become Officials were absolutely central to the foundation of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association, and remained central to the campaign. The Provos, and this is something they don't like to talk about today, with the People's Democracy attempted to split the civil rights movement by forming the Northern Resistance Movement precisely because NICRA refused to back their camapign, while continuing to mobilise many tens of thousands during the early 1970s in the search for social and civil justice. NICRA's campaign achieved electoral reform, the abolition of the B Specials, the creation of the Housing Executive, and the disarming of the RUC. The tragedy of the north is that peaceful change had got us a lot further by 1971 than anything violence was to achieve but that these reforms were rolled back as violence continued.

Quickly on sectarianism. You are of course right that sectarianism is a dynamic that exists and existed independent of the British state, and that its origins lie in the early modern period. However, sectarianism can be and has been manipulated and whipped up. Whether it was the foundation of the Orange Order and Maynooth in the same year with the support of the Irish aristocracy and British government, Randolph Churchill playing the Orange card in the 1880s, or both sides using the marching dispute to gain electoral support for the extremes in the 1990s. Look at the rhetoric of nationalists and unionists around the late 1960s and early 1970s and you will see them appealing to tribal interests and condemning socialism.

So basically I guess I'm saying that while there can be exaggerated viewpoints of the extent to which people feared socialism around the origins of the Troubles, and while I agree that sectarianism was and is something people are capable of feeling on their own, there is a lot of evidence to support the analysis that the strategic interests of the UK during the Cold War and the interests of both middle class nationalists and unionists helped to foment divisions within NI that led to and sustained the Troubles.

[Pogue Mahone]

Essentially then, if Britain was not manipulating and hoodwinking nationalists (they were and, due to the nature of British interference in Ireland, would always be the "enemy" anyway) and had no influence over leaders of the nationalist community, it was taking advantage of its supposed friend, loyalism? One could argue that the British elite was whipping up Protestant fervour for the union, but who was whipping up nationalist sentiment within the Catholic population, and for what economic gain? Does this all mean that the British elite was exploiting loyalism and manipulating Northern Protestants into believing they were British as opposed to the view of the Officials who saw them as "fellow Irishmen deluded by bourgeois loyalties, who needed to be engaged in dialectical debate"? Does it suggest that the voluntary twinning of the UUP and the Conservative Party was one of lap-dog and master? Who is this faceless British elite anyway? Sorry for all the questions, and, of course, cheers for the responses, but I just suspect it doesn't all add up.

Britain wanted to keep the divisions going because they had disposable people (loyalists) fighting their wars for them and not get the brunt of any attacks since the loyalists were taking the heat and not Britain itself. Belfast was the economic heart of Ireland and an important industrial and shipping base for them which is a big reason, if not the only reason Northern Ireland was created.

I'm not so sure I can agree with that. Surely if Britain viewed it's "loyal servants" as disposable, loyalism would have eventually realised it was being taken for a ride by the British "elite". Anyway, when the Troubles began to worsen, the British government sent in the army as back-up to the statelet's forces, when they could easily have just decided to pack it all in and leave their "disposable puppets" to fend for themselves in an economic drain. There was nothing profitable in this venture for Britain, but yet, they decided to maintain their presence to protect the status quo, or their loyalist "brethren". Actually, they initially came to the aid of nationalists who welcomed them as protectors, if I'm not mistaken. Why would they even bother trying to prevent inter-communal violence on Catholics when inter-communal hostilities would only further the ultimate aim of making profit from a divided work-force?

It was all about money and power in the end for Britain and Northern Ireland did not impose sectarianism on itself just like Ireland as a whole didn't impose partition on itself but it became a reality.

Sectarianism grew out of the circumstances. I don't think you can say it was somehow manufactured by Britain by way of propaganda or whatever, can you? Obviously, due to its nature, Britain's initial interference in Ireland led to animosity between the two involved groups, but what exactly did British elements do to help maintain the existence of sectarian division?

[Cloigeann]

I'm not so sure I can agree with that. Surely if Britain viewed it's "loyal servants" as disposable, loyalism would have eventually realised it was being taken for a ride by the British "elite". Anyway, when the Troubles began to worsen, the British government sent in the army as back-up to the statelet's forces, when they could easily have just decided to pack it all in and leave their "disposable puppets" to fend for themselves in an economic drain. There was nothing profitable in this venture for Britain, but yet, they decided to maintain their presence to protect the status quo, or their loyalist "brethren". Actually, they initially came to the aid of nationalists who welcomed them as protectors, if I'm not mistaken. Why would they even bother trying to prevent inter-communal violence on Catholics when inter-communal hostilities would only further the ultimate aim of making profit from a divided work-force?

Loyalism has realised is has been taken for a ride, but what other choice does it have? The way they see it is British is better than Irish no matter what the price and how unfair it is to them. They sent in the soldiers to their economic interests because Northern Ireland was not a big drain on them pre-troubles and I doubt they could of foreseen 30 years into the future to know it would become a massive drain.. once the soldiers were in it became a policy of not being seen to be defeated by the IRA.

Sectarianism grew out of the circumstances. I don't think you can say it was somehow manufactured by Britain by way of propaganda or whatever, can you? Obviously, due to its nature, Britain's initial interference in Ireland led to animosity between the two involved groups, but what exactly did British elements do to help maintain the existence of sectarian division?

I am not talking about recent times, sectarianism has been bred here for centuries by them to stop any catholic/protestant joint rebellion against their interests. Divide and conquer was always their favourite tactic and not just in Ireland.

[st333ve]

The root causes are explained in this documentary (from the 4th clip onwards)
This is a british documentary not a republican one, it does give a good insight into how the state was run up until the troubles and what factors lead to the upsurge in violence.



<object width='780' height='445'><param name='movie' value='http://ie.youtube.com/cp/vjVQa1PpcFOaJrX6W-EIdetZ0wXMCWzW48xlnciLthQ='></param><param name='wmode' value='transparent'><embed src='http://ie.youtube.com/cp/vjVQa1PpcFOaJrX6W-EIdetZ0wXMCWzW48xlnciLthQ=' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='transparent' width='780' height='445'></embed></object>


This is a BBC documentary about the Battle of the Bogside at the beginning of the troubles.


<object width='780' height='445'><param name='movie' value='http://ie.youtube.com/cp/vjVQa1PpcFOaJrX6W-EIdQs97xuKbssxMEvzzq9SZ7s='></param><param name='wmode' value='transparent'><embed src='http://ie.youtube.com/cp/vjVQa1PpcFOaJrX6W-EIdQs97xuKbssxMEvzzq9SZ7s=' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='transparent' width='780' height='445'></embed></object>

[Squire]

I think this theory is an attempt by the Stickies to try and justify their lack of action over the loyalist attacks in 1969. It was inevitable that some in the Republican movement were not going to stand by and watch defenceless members of their community have their livelihoods and lives threatened by rampaging mobs that included the local Constabulary.
The Troubles kicked off as a result of many factors, like anti-Catholic discrimination, the Civil Rights Movement, unionist firebrands (especially the current First Minister*) whipping up loyalist paranoia about a huge republican backlash to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising (which did not materialise - the new UVF however, did, resulting in 3 sectarian killings in '66), and forces of law and order who were there to enforce the will of the Stormont govt, thus alienating the entire nationalist community.

*My Father once told me of an old man in town in the early 60s making an observation on a young preacher named Paisley who he thought was 'going to start a whole lot of trouble'. Quite unnerving when one thinks about just what that 'whole lot of trouble' became.

[Garibaldy]

Squire,

This theory had evolved before 1969, so it wasn't thought up as a response to it. The factors you mention as the causes of the Troubles seem accurate to me. A sectarian state and society, added to the hostile and violent response to demands for civil rights. Why the Troubles continued for as long as they did is a different question, and the unreasonable actions of sectarian terrorists on both sides - as well as disasters like internment, Bloody Sunday, the UWC strike, and the Hunger Strikes - loom large.

Pogue,

In terms of nationalism and sectarianism. The argument would go that the nationalist business classes north and south benefit from a divided workforce as much as the unionist business classes. There is also the issue that sectarianism flows inevitably from having what is effectively a form of religious apartheid in place. Different housing estates, different schools at the behest of the churches, different lesiure facilities, different sports, and political groups that define themselves as the representatives of one group or the other are going to produce a divided and hostile society.
As for why the British didn't just let a civil war break out on their doorstep. Again, the strategic issue but also the importance of self-image. As a self-perceived liberal democracy it couldn't tolerate this type of thing, anymore than it could the outright discrimination that had been exposed by NCIRA.
I think in fairness that The WP analysis always allowed more space for agency than the account of it given above. That is to say, sectarianism and hatred were not just magicked out of think air by manipulative industrial and political elites, but rather grew among and within ordinary people, often without much help, due to circumstances. Certainly as the Troubles developed this became a more important focus.

[Starkadder]

There were, AFAIK, several Marxist theories on Northern Ireland. There were various
varieties of "Green" Marxism (People's Democracy, RSF,IRSP, and maybe others?) put forward
by people like Eamonn Mccann, Mike Farrell and DR O'Connor Lysaght. There was the
OSF theory of Goulding outlined above. There was also the "two-nations" theory
put forward by Brendan Clifford and his Stalinist British and Irish Communist Organisation
(B&ICO), which effectively supported Ulster Unionism.

Some of these theories are discussed in the books "Explaining Northern Ireland" by
O'Leary and McGarry and "Ireland and Empire" by Stephen Howe.

[Garibaldy]

Starkadder,

You're right. However RSF as Marxists might be stretching things quite a bit.