File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9706, message 408


Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 23:44:30 GMT
From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org>
Subject: M-I: Irish Republican Strategy


                                 

Karl does succeed in conveying a sense of disgust that
correspondents from the oppressor country might try to hold back rather 
than rush in and prescribe how people in the oppressed country should 
struggle.

I do not think that is patronising but a question of respect and self-
respect. Learning lessons, and getting the etiquette right on this in a 
list when we are all muddled up together, is important. 


The different moderating policies of marxism-international and the 
Leninlist are interesting. But despite some of the remarks made about the 
former when the latter was set up, I do not think it will be helpful if 
there is much discussion on marxism-international of a critical nature 
about the policies of the Leninlist, which intends to achieve  different 
aims. 

I certainly do not see a marxist position as supporting fascist loyalists, 
but that is not the same thing as saying they represent a major strategic
obstacle to the fulfillment of a goal of Irish national liberation , which 
will have to be dealt with in analysis.

Nor would I think the first thing to be said about the Republican position 
is that it is fascist, even though it adopts some arbitrary repressive 
measures, with some degree of popular suppot.


Surely the core question remains what is the strategy of the republican 
movement, and, to the extent that it is progressive, what could the 
strategy of marxists or progressives be in a countries like England and 
the USA.? 

Rather than provocative assertions that people are bourgeois liberals, 
what would be more convincing would be to forward a strong reasoned 
statement that addresses these questions, and is linked to a marxist 
understanding ot the national question.

I doubt if many people are against the idea of armed struggle in principle 
provided it makes sense within a generally politically progressive strategy.

As far as I can see, other correspondents are correct that the Republican 
movement does not think it can win the armed struggle, and cannot see a way
 of shifting the balance of forces to a position where they could. The main
 focus of the current negotiating tactics seems to win the possibility of 
talking while remaining armed. The announcement by John Bruton tonight of 
a possible agreement with Blair on disarmament may confirm this. Martin 
McGuiness was recently emphasising that at the conflict resolution talks 
in South Africa, the South African experience was the value of talking 
while recognising that both sides intend to remain armed.

If so we are talking about democratic conflict resolution rather than the 
end of a national liberation struggle.

If people on other lists have more relevant material about what the Irish 
Republican strategy is, and what progressive people should do, and it is 
compatible with the aims of marxism-international, I do not see what the 
objection would be to forwarding it. 

 Chris Burford




     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005