Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 08:53:08 +0200 (MET DST)
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: Reply To Jim K on the Irish question!


>CAGJimKane-AT-aol.com wrote:

>> When Bobby Sands stood for parliament while on Hunger Strike in 1981, he won
>> more than 30,000 votes in a victory in an area where the Republicans had
>> never previously won. Because of the Hunger Strike, mass protest began again
>> in Ireland on a level that completely surprised all commentators - be they
>> Republican, bourgeois or leftist. The Hunger Strike revived the political
>> fortunes of the Republican Movement. The heroism of the ten men who died on
>> the protest was a major factor in this revival. In what way did the Hunger
>> Strike fail to raise the consciousness of workers in the occupied Six
>> Counties of Ireland?

Our Maoist hero on Ireland claims that 30,000 votes is a great victory and 
revived the fortunes of the Republican movement. Perhaps true if you think 
that the Repuplican movement stands for Bolshevik Leninist politics of 
Independent class struggle for self determination and socialism. But the 
problem is that they do not stand for that. In fact it is the policies of 
Orange against Green and Catholic against protestant with a touch of 
anti-British imperialism. In fact the Pubs certainly are not fighting for 
the liberation of the working class as a whole, but in many ways to reverse 
the forms of repression. Not to mention their alliance with the Catholic 
church on the women,s question.

>> 
>> Were it not for the IRA, the nationalist community in occupied Ireland would
>> be disarmed and defenceless in the face of a sectarian statelet and an armed
>> imperialist presence. There is nothing adventurist in the tactics of the IRA.
>> The real adventurism is on the part of those who, while preaching violent
>> revolution in the most blood curdling tones, turn their back on the practical
>> work of arming themselves and organising the defence of working class
>> communities against attack. For to talk of revolution without preparing
>> yourself for the battle is adventurism of the worst kind - though it also has
>> other, less flattering, names.

As far as military operations it is a well know fact that Trotskists defend 
the Pubs against British Occupation troops. This does not mean defending 
sectarian acts of terrorism directed at innocent people. And it does not 
mean supporting Green against Orange but class against class. Unfortunately 
our maoist friend does not see classes as a viable instrument for class 
struggle, nor that a socialist revolution in Ireland is the only way to 
solve the National question and linked naturally to a socialist revolution 
in Britain. He has a stagest view of this stuff and treats Ireland as some 
sort of feudal society where the national question can be solved with 
unconditional support for the Pubs and their present political line..Below 
is a clear statement by our Maoist and his stagest views on Ireland.
 
>> In Ireland the national question has not been solved. The revolution cannot
>> proceed immediately to socialist demands. The tasks of national liberation
>> and socialism are intertwined, to be sure. But this is because there can be
>> no working class unity until the border is abolished. Marxists in Irland have
>> long understood this fact: look at James Connolly's analysis, which is
>> confirmed every day in both the Six Counties and the Free State: Connolly
>> warned that partition of Ireland would bring a carnival of reaction on both
>> sides of the border.

So as usual the maoists are looking for a liberal component of the 
bourgeoisie in the North to justify carrying on some sort of war of National 
liberation against the South and British Imperialism. What a Utopia! The 
Irish question will not be solved without a socialist revolution throughout 
the region including the taking of state power in Britain. This is hardly 
some third world country where National liberation wars in the 1920,s and 
thirties could have played a progressive role and deserved support from 
revolutionaries. Nor is it the United States where Lenin called for support 
of the Black population. 

In fact it is just a maoist who is trying to apply their rotten politics of 
stages in revolutions and pick up the gun rhetoric as being the only way 
forward. So just as in Turkey, the questions that need to be discussed are 
some of the ABC,s of marxism. Proletarian Independent class struggle, The 
United Front vs the Popular Front, Work in the Unions, Religion (!), the 
arming of the proletariat with both guns but even more a program which can 
show the way forward.

Now to Richard;
>Sorry to edit out the part about Turkey. You make your point very 
>powerfully Jim. I agree absolutely about Ireland. It is a subject that 
>most of the British Left avoid like the plague. To the extent that 
>Mr.Rose's friends can get away with consorting with the Loyalist Facist 
>friends of the Nazi British National Party, and call them "Protestant 
>Socialists".

As to what the State capitalists are doing on this question i do not know. 
But the State capitalists are not Trotskyists and if you want to raise the 
question of their positions then do it. But it has hardly anything to do 
with the above.

>The record of the British Labour Movement on Ireland has been truly 
>shameful. I think we could all learn a lot from a discussion around this. 

I,ll bet and on the list should be the rotten politics of the maoists who 
want to lead the Proletariat down another deadend..

malecki




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