File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1998/marxism-international.9803, message 138


Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:17:02 +1000
From: Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au>
Subject: Reply to Heartfield was re: M-I: Ireland end game?


>In message <3.0.5.32.19980310141648.009c9a60-AT-pop.qut.edu.au>, Gary
>MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au> writes
>> You say that you used
>>to attend demonstrations around Ireland and that you understood the
>>importance of the struggle.
>>
>>Well nothing has changed since you first demonstrated. 
>
>Nothing has changed - there's a great slogan for revolutionaries
>everywhere!
>
>> The fact that the
>>movement for Irish freedom has suffered severe defeats does not alter the
>>basic point that British Imperialism is at the heart of the problem 
>
>I entirely agree that Britain is the problem. But you are the one who is
>being scholasitc and bookish when you say
>
>>and the
>>correct demand should be for the withdrawal of British Troops as a prelude
>>to Irish self-determination.
>
>Here is the schoolboy response: what is the 'correct' demand - as if
>revolutionary propaganda should be framed in a vacuum, without reference
>to the existing state of affairs. Everybody is in favour of the
>withdrawal of British troops, including the British govt.. That is what
>the so-called 'peace process' is about - the normalisation of the RUC as
>the acceptable police force.
>
>The goal of Irish self-determination, by contrast, is rejected by all
>the key players, from the Unionists right through the Irish government
>and including Gerry Adams, who, as reported yesterday, has said that
>Irish independence is not achievable in the forseeable future. Now, you
>could of course say (and probably will), that just because Adams sells
>out that is no reason to back off from the demand for Irish
>independence. And you would be right, at least formally. That is the
>programme of Republican Sinn Fein, whose newsletter I posted up
>yesterday.
>
>However, even RSF recognise that it is not possible just to repeat the
>slogans of republicanism and pretend the peace process isn't happening.
>The problem faced by republicanism today is that British imperialism
>takes on a differnet guise: it presents itself as a peace process. That
>means that any progressive movement in Ireland will have to start with a
>rejection of the peace process - no easy task, if you think through what
>that means in terms of public expectations.
>
>More than that, a likely solution is one that involves the incorporation
>of the southern Irish state in representing the Northern catholics
>through a inter-governmental body. In such an instance Fianna Fail and
>perhaps even Sinn Fein will be in a position to present these new
>arrangements as the realisation of Irish self-determination, rather than
>its defeat.
>
>You think that you can fend off the new problems created by these
>stebacks by an intransigent stance that sticks to the old 'correct'
>slogans and demands, but rigidity of thinking is no guarantee of
>defending your position. On the contrary, if Blair pulls off the
>settlement he is concocting, and the support of Gerry Adams makes that a
>possibility, he will end up with a British solution that is all dressed
>up as 'troops out' and 'Irish self-determination'. Then where will you
>be?
>
>As to 
>> I am genuinely
>>sorry to say that I no longer recognize in either of you a comrade.
>I never thought you did.
>-- 
>James Heartfield
>


Ah it has turned nasty between the scholar and myself. So be it.

Let us begin by asking what is necessarily 'school boyish' about correct
slogans?  Nothing of course.  The only problem is with what might be termed
sloganism - where one contents oneself with advancing slogans and no more.
It is true that I do not have much of a praxis associated with the Irish
Question at present, but I have had in the past.  But the charge will still
not stick because I have advocated an alternative practice from Sinn Fein.
The alternative to the Peace Process is not nor has it ever been the
military tactic of the single shot from ambush or the bomb.  The
alternative which Sinn Fein refuses to take up has always been that of
mass, democratic popular resistance to the Orange State.  

Sinn Fein inherited such a movement in 1970 and they proceeded to do as
they have always done they exploited it and demobilized it when it looked
like it might get out of their control.  The last time this happened was
July-August 1997 and Adams played a leading role in this.

It seems to me that as a revolutionary you either trust the people or you
don't and I do not think that Adams trusts them.

Now let me be as clear as I can - it is stupid of Heartfield to suggest
that in advancing this analysis I am simply repeating slogans. That is like
really DUH! In fact I am articulating an alternative political analysis.


A key question here is whether my analysis takes account of the 'situation
on the ground' or whether I am merely indulging in abstract or formal
propaganda as Heartfield suggests.  Well the proof of the pudding of all
this will be very much in the eating.     I have predicted that instability
in the North and in Ireland generally will continue and that Blair and
Adams will not be able to pull off their double act.  The existence of the
Orange State is the living symbol of British Imperialism and it also poses
a threat to that very Imperialism.   Protestant hatred of the Catholics is
intractable and recent evidence from non-sectarian Institutions of Higher
Learning suggests that this bigotry is on the increase.   There will be no
cosy Blair solution, of that I am sure.

You also say that my demand for 'Troops Out' is wrong because everyone is
favour of pulling out the British Army including the British Government.
That is absolute pro-imperialist crap. If the British wanted out they
simply could have gone.  The way out has always been through the door.  The
notion that somehow the British Army is in Ireland against its will and
that it would just love to leave is I repeat pro-imperialist crap.

The British will have to be driven out of Ireland.  That is the lesson of
Irish History.


You make fun of my remark that "Nothing has changed"  Again let me be
clear.  People such as yourself are always looking for the factor that is
new.  I on the other had stress the continuity of the struggle against the
old enemy - the capitalist class.  We have had lots of revolutionaries who
have rushed forward with new ideas and criticisms of "rigidity of
thinking". These have all too often been a prelude to the erstwhile rebels
abandoning their commitment to revolution and making their peace with
capitalism.

You should try that hat on.  It would probably be a very good fit.

Gary MacLennan


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005