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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005