From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <nestor-AT-sisurb.filo.uba.ar>
Date: 	Sat, 14 Mar 1998 20:53:46 +0000
Subject: Re: M-I: Ireland (Imperialism and Orangism)


El 14 Mar 98 a las 16:29, James Heartfield nos dice(n):

> In message <350aa319.sisurb-AT-sisurb.filo.uba.ar>, Nestor Miguel
> Gorojovsky <nestor-AT-sisurb.filo.uba.ar> writes
> >  Heartfield doesn't fall into 
> >pro-imperialism either.  You cannot fall down into a pit if you are
> > already there.
> 
> Well, that's just rudeness covering up for stupidity.


Oh, please, James, I may be stupid, and rude too.  But I do also 
have a sense of humor.  It was a very usual British virtue.  Is 
_that_  gone, too?


> >
> >The idea that "the essence of the British state is not necessarily
> >Orange" shows that either Heartfield does not know what imperialism
> > is, or either he is pro-imperialist. 
> 
> More bombast, supplementing ignorance. 

This is no bombast.  I further explain what do I mean. But OK, next 
time I will try to be less emphatic in order to comply with what 
James Heartfield believes to be proper behavior.  

As to ignorance, I assume mine, which may certainly be of galactic 
dimensions.  But there is something I 
know very well, something I have studied deeply and that helps me 
understand such disparate cases as the Argentine, Irish, Israeli or Indian ones: 
it is imperialism and, in particular, British imperialism.  The 
paralelism between events in Ireland and events in my own country are 
sometimes shocking.

> 
> > Because the essence of British 
> >rule in Northern Ireland is support to sectarian feud, the only way
> > to keep the country divided _and_  Ireland split in two.  Orange
> >or Lemon, this is indifferent.  The British state needs to be
> >Orange because the territorial split is based upon sectarianism, a
> >sectarianism that favors imperialist interests.
> >
> >Whatever help may the British get from the blunders of Sinn Fein
> >and IRA (and they got quite a lot, as seen from here), Britain
> >would not change its basic position:  formally declaring to be
> >against sectarianism, practically supporting Orange state.  The
> >goal of Irish reunification, crossing over sectarian feud, is the
> >main goal of the Irish people.  I agree with most what Gary has
> >been saying on this.  The way the IRA is managing the struggle does
> >not seem to be the best one, from this point of view.  But the
> >common target of all of the struggle is the common British-Orange
> >interest.  Orangism is not only a particular political banner.  It
> >is a whole set of power relations that benefit Britain and
> >-secondary- local Protestants vis a vis local Catholics.  In this
> >sense, Britain is necessarily Orangist.
> 
> In other words, nothing ever changes - the refrain of the dogmatist
> everywhere. 

Not at all.  Everything changes everywhere, and we never swim into 
the same river (Heraclitus).  What does not change -and can not 
change while the UK remains a First World, exploiting country- is the 
essential character of imperialism.  In particular, of British 
imperialism in Ireland.  This will change too, but not while there is 
a British bourgeoisie ruling Great Britain.  That easy.  It depends 
on mass politics to put that to an end.  What does JH do in order to 
generate that kind of politics?

> However, Britain never relied on Orangism alone to
> maintain the partition of Ireland. 

Of course, my dear JH.  It would be to stupid a politics for such an 
intelligent ruling class as the British one.  What I mean is that, 
just as it was -and somehow still is- the case in my own country, 
Britain has managed to build up in Ireland a whole spectrum of 
political groups (not by herself alone, of course, but with strong 
intervention where possible) that share a common acceptance of 
partition of the Irish nation.  And this partition is based upon 
religious and sectarian strife.  That is why although Britain never 
relied on Orangism alone, British policy in Eire is, in depth, 
Orangist to the marrow.

> The precedent for Republicans
> turning there guns on their comrades to defend a compromise with
> Britain is hardly a novelty. Not just Orangism but Free Statism has
> worked to defend British rule in Ireland, not just Ian Paisely, but
> also the stickies acted against Irish independence.

Well, this is no surprising.  It is new for me, and thank you JH for 
the information.  But I can not extract from these bits of factuality 
the brazen conclussion JH extracts:  that British policy in Eire may 
give up sectarian feud.

> 
> All these accusations of pro-imperialism are just attempts to cover
> up the truth: it is Sinn Fein that has gone over to the
> pro-imperialist position. It is Gerry Adams, not me who is trying to
> sell the British peace process to the Irish people. That's not a
> tactical blunder, it is support for British rule.

I am no one to judge of Sinn Fein on this issue.  Whether this is a 
tactical side loop or a final defeat, next events will perhaps 
clarify.  But I am no Sinn Fein adherent.  I believe some of their 
mistakes were pointed out by Gary on his first posting on the 
question, and they remind me of the mistakes made by the Montoneros 
in my country twenty or twenty-five years ago.  Both were groups of 
mainly a little bourgeois composition or ideology, and the danger 
with these groups are not to be diminished.  However, both tried to 
strike against the correct enemy, the one JH sometimes seems to be 
defending (I may be not right).

> 
> All of this ranting against Orangism is a way of avoiding the
> unpleasant truth, that Tony Blair's most important ally in Northern
> Ireland today is Gerry Adams.

Oh, God.  This is truly news.  So, gunshoot Gerry Adams and let the 
Orangists quietly munch their ill-owned "independent" Ulster. JH is 
so reminiscent of Tom Nairn...

> 
> I say to Nestor, Jim and Gary: do you support the British peace
> process? 

My answer: I will support nothing British until Great Britain becomes 
a socialist country.  This is a matter of principle.  JH may call 
this dogmatism.

>Do you agree with Gerry Adams that Britain should face up
> to its responsibilities in Ireland by acting as honest broker? 

My answer:  I do not have enough elements to properly judge the 
policies Adams is carrying on.  But, given some conditions, it would 
be funny to force Britain to be "honest".  It would be really funny.

> Do
> you agree with Adams recent speech where he says that a Republic is
> not achievable? -- James Heartfield

I do not know what does he mean by that.  If he means that the hold 
of British imperialism on the North cannot be elliminated, then he 
has been morally defeated (for a while, at least).  But if he means 
that the bourgeois government in Dublin will not fight sternly for 
Irish unification, no matter the measures that need be taken, he is 
probably right.  I do not see the Irish troops entering Ulster to 
regain it into an unified Ireland.  On this matters -and I know I am 
being brutal-  even the criminal Galtieri had more guts and tried to 
recover the Malvinas for Argentina.

Ah, James Heartfield:  if you feel I am being disrespectful to your 
positions, I have to unfortunately admit that you may be right.

Greetings to all,

Nestor



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