Liam redux

Love is blind: The IRSP and Socialist Appeal

Some things were made to go together. Tea with chocolate digestives. Guitars with drums. A pint of London Pride with cod and chips. Other pairings are less easy to understand. Socialist Appeal and the IRSP don’t, on the face of things, seem to have much in common and anyone hoping for a subtly dialectical explanation…

Liam
2–3 minutes
,

Some things were made to go together. Tea with chocolate digestives. Guitars with drums. A pint of London Pride with cod and chips. Other pairings are less easy to understand. Socialist Appeal and the IRSP don’t, on the face of things, seem to have much in common and anyone hoping for a subtly dialectical explanation of their lovefest will have to find it somewhere else.

SocialistAppeal’s website is carrying a statement about the arrest of two IRSP members in Waterford and in common with most right minded people I’m against the arrest and imprisonment of socialist activists.

“The true nature of the twenty six county state has reared its ugly head as two members of the Irish Republican Socialist Party…were arrested for allegedly being part of an illegal organisation, the Irish National Liberation Army…

…These arrests amount to nothing less than an attack on the forces of the working class in Ireland. In alarm at the recent growth of the IRSP and the new found success of its attempt to build a mass working class movement…

… Yet these attacks will not prevent the growth of socialism in Ireland.”

We can all accept that the last sentence is right and we could spend the next week taking apart the rest of the statement. I’ll only point out that of all the revelatory things the Irish government has done this year assisting the return of Stormont is probably more significant than these arrests.

What mystifies me is this lash-up between the two groups. I declined an invitation to join Sinn Fein by replying that I was thinking of joining the IRSP. My would-be recruiter Provie Gerry replied “all anyone got from the IRSP was a coffin or 20 years.” He was right. They were incompetent militarists and worse politicians. On the other hand they have not quite abandoned their principles in the way that Sinn Fein has. They combine a rough cut Marxism with a pretty firm anti-imperialism.

Socialist Appeal by contrast are just about as orthodox as Trotskyists come and their Militant heritage does not make them obvious partners for an outfit willing to combine inept guerrillaism and some committment to anti-imperialism. I certainly have no unpleasant memories of anyone from the Militant trying to muscle in on any type of political activity which had British withdrawal from Ireland as an objective. Can anyone out there explain what’s happening?

32 responses to “Love is blind: The IRSP and Socialist Appeal”

  1. Antonia Johnson Avatar
    Antonia Johnson

    why have you moved out of interest

    Like

    Reply
  2. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    It’s certainly an odd development and not one anyone could have seen coming.

    As far as the IRSP are concerned, well they have never had a coherent and developed ideology. Their members are in favour of a united Ireland and in favour of socialism, in some sense at least. Beyond that the politics of their members vary wildly. Now that the unifying factor of support for the INLA isn’t a live issue, I suppose it isn’t that surprising that some elements would go looking for more coherent ideas.

    The IMT’s interest is less easy to explain. I think that the key thing to remember is that while Socialist Appeal may try their best to look like a Militant (circa 1974) commemoration society, they have actually changed their underlying politics quite a bit. Militant was always scathing in its view of those elements on the left which idealised anti-imperialist third world leaders for salvation, yet the IMT takes an entirely uncritical attitude towards Chavez. Ditching Militant’s criticisms of groups like the IRSP isn’t any more of a stretch.

    What makes it confusing is the entirely dishonest way in which the IMT presents its change in approach – essentially it pretends that there has been no change. So you have Woods book on Ireland, which doesn’t mention the group he actually supported, the Irish Militant, out of history and declares that the IRSP represented the Marxist and revolutionary tradition in Ireland. Now anyone is entitled to change their mind, but Woods does so without bothing to mention that he has changed his mind, that he used to argue something very different, let alone providing any explanation for the shift.

    You may notice that there are two big issues which are skirted around. The INLA is treated very circumspectly – Woods for instance makes long and correct arguments against militarism, but doesn’t apply these arguments directly to the INLA. We can only presume that this is because doing so would offend the people he wants to woo.

    Similarly, nothing ever seems to be said by the IMT about the Irish Labour Party. When the Grant/Woods minority split from Militant they were arguing strongly that revolutionaries in the South of Ireland should work within that party. Now this would be completely unacceptable to the IRSP. So the whole issue simply disappears – the IMT neither advocate work within Labour nor explain why they have changed their minds. Instead, there is only silence.

    I suspect that most of the changes in the IMT can be explained by simple opportunism. Being seen as the best cheerleaders for Chavez gives them a toehold in Venezuela and in Latin America more widely. The IRSP gives them the chance to stick a flag in Ireland on some giant map in Alan Woods office. The Struggle in Pakistan is a sizeable and influential organisation, so who cares that it occupies a comfortable position in the bureaucracy of the utterly corrupt, landlord ridden PPP. They are willing to fudge the politics for a chance at a breakthrough.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    anyone is entitled to change their mind, but Woods does so without bothing to mention that he has changed his mind, that he used to argue something very different, let alone providing any explanation for the shift.

    And this man’s on the Left? I’m shocked, shocked.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Is it any weirder than PSF sharing government with Paisley? And then the entire brit-left pretending nothing has happened?

    Socialist Appealmare indeed a strange bunch, and I note that although they are nominally entrists on the british labour party, they seem to put very little emphasis on that work.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    What exactly is the “brit-left”, Andy, and what do they have to do with Liam’s post?

    Socialist Appeal in Britain place little emphasis on their loudly proclaimed Labour Party work for a few good reasons:

    1) They only have a few dozen active members, so its not like they can do a whole lot of anything.

    2) Of those members, most of them have been long expelled from Labour anyway.

    3) Even if they were able to go to their branch meetings, there is nobody there to work with or recruit.

    Being the loudest cheerleaders for Chavez makes much more sense as a focus for their activity in those circumstances.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    I’d had no contact with SA until I started doing a little bit of work around HOV. Fresh from Respect I found them refreshingly democratic , open-minded and able to sustain a political argument. They are very blunt about the limited opportunities for doing anything useful in the Labour Party but are committed to strategic entryism. Apparently it’s a vaccine against being a sectarian on the fringe of the Labour movement. If they are gradually revising their traditional line on Ireland that is welcome but making friends with the IRSP smells of desparation.

    As for the “Brit left’s” silence I’ve got world exclusive rights to broadcast John Mc Anulty’s London meeting on Wednesday night. It was a fierce battle with Sky and the BBC for those! It should be up on the site by Thursday lunchtime.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    You are quite right that they tend to be affable and coherent in public – quite unlike the pompous bombast of their website. The blunt remarks you repeat about there being nothing useful to do inside the Labour Party are quite accurate, but they would never admit that in their publications.

    As for them revising their line on Ireland, they have certainly done that. It is difficult to tell how far they have changed their attitude because they do their best to pretend that there has been no change. And yes, making friends with the IRSP is a sign of desparation if not lunacy.

    I’ve always thought that McAnulty’s grouplet would have been a more obvious starting point if the IRSP were looking for a more coherent, but basically similar, politics. Presumably they have too much actual experience of each other to want that, while the IMT is nice and far away. Also, I would guess that McAnulty’s lot would insist on the IRSP flagellating themselves while the IMT are prepared to just quietly forget about their fairly major disagreements.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Mark P – The “Brit-left” are those on the left who take no particular position, on the national question as it relates to the break up of UK. Or who take a position that the continuance of the current British state is preferable to the socialists campaigning for independence or self determination.

    With regards to Ireland this would be characterised by making a big point of “no to imperialism” (In Iraq!) and “Troops out now” (of Iraq!). Or whittering on about the water charges, as if this could overcome entrenched sectarianism, and ignoring the question of British rule.

    With regard to what it has to Liam’s post.

    The remarkable events in the six counties, and the entering of PSF into coalition with the DUP represent the complete defeat for the strategy of republicanism for a more than a generation.

    It is therefore surprising that hardly anyone on the British left has noticed or remarked up this.

    What is more remarkable is that Socialist Appeal, (who if they present themselves as heirs to the MIlitant) do not exactly have a strong record of supporting republicanism, can find themselves loving up to the IRSP, (Who for all their faults at least have Airiey Neave to the credit, and used to have excellant Phil Evans cartoons in their paper).

    This is itslef eveidenc ethat there has been almost no reflection on what has happened in Ireland, and the triumph of British imperialism, in Socialist Appeal. What is in it for the IRSP is anyone’s guess.

    Like

    Reply
  9. splinteredsunrise Avatar
    splinteredsunrise

    To follow on from Andy, I’m more interested in what Ruddy thinks he’s doing. This lash-up isn’t universally popular with the Irps, and indeed it’s very different from their usual approach to internationalism. From Sendero Luminoso and Comrade Prachanda to Alan Woods… does not compute. Woods is a talented guy, but he’s about as un-guerillaist as you could imagine.

    Like

    Reply
  10. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    “The “Brit-left” are those on the left who take no particular position, on the national question as it relates to the break up of UK. Or who take a position that the continuance of the current British state is preferable to the socialists campaigning for independence or self determination.”

    I can think of few organisations, if any, which hold to such a view. No organisation of more than a few dozen opposes the idea of an independent socialist Scotland for instance, although the SWP seems a bit incoherent on the subject.

    “With regards to Ireland this would be characterised by making a big point of “no to imperialism” (In Iraq!) and “Troops out now” (of Iraq!).”

    Some people Andy, may, just may, see some differences between the situations in Basra and in Belfast. Difficult to believe I know.

    Or whittering on about the water charges

    This would be every socialist in Northern Ireland from the Sticks to the Irps and all points in between then. All “Brit-left” apparently, because some confused armchair nationalist in Swindon says so.

    “as if this could overcome entrenched sectarianism”

    Why am I not remotely surprised to see you sneer at the idea that working class people, both Catholic and Protestant, can unite in struggle?

    “and ignoring the question of British rule”

    Again, you would be hardpressed to find a single left wing organisation in Britain or Ireland which doesn’t have a detailed analysis of the role of British imperialism in Ireland. Not agreeing with you on an issue is not the same as ignoring it.

    “The remarkable events in the six counties, and the entering of PSF into coalition with the DUP represent the complete defeat for the strategy of republicanism for a more than a generation.

    It is therefore surprising that hardly anyone on the British left has noticed or remarked up this.”

    Actually Andy, you’ll find quite lengthy analysis of the long march by Sinn Fein into the spot vacated by the old Nationalist Party on the websites and in the publications of the far left in Britian and in Ireland. Entering government with the DUP isn’t seen as much of a watershed given that they’ve already been in coalition government with the UUP and given that this has been their aim for many years now.

    Some of us are less shocked and outraged than you seem to be because we never shared your illusions and delusions in the republicanism to start with.

    Like

    Reply
  11. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Mark: I am it seems an armchair nationalist in Swindon

    Obviously the comic potential of Swindon is one for socialists to revel in, given the fact that it is a working class town with some 180000 inhabitants, and a major industrial centre, with for example two car factories, as well as large numbers of low paid clerical jobs in insurance and finance.

    Not only has Swindon provided one of the most solid bases for working class politics, including the old NUR, but had a thriving CP branch, and was one of the places where leading CP engineering convenors broke towards Trotskyism in 1956. Indeed the Swindon by-eletcion in 1969 was the first electoral foray for the revolutinary left since Jock Haston stood in Neath in 1945, precisley beacsue the SLL felt it had such a strong base in the town.

    So I can see that living in Swindon must seem ridiculous – why on earth would a socialist be active in a working class industrial town?

    And how am I an “armchair” activist? In my humble opinion I am quite active, race officer of my union brnach, being on the Southern regional council of the GMB, secretary of the local stop the war branch, national steering Cttee member of Stop the War, and running a local socialist film club, etc.

    Do you mean I am just an “armchair” activist becasue I am not in a left group? Or becasue I have the temerity to have some opinions even though I am not in a left group?

    Like

    Reply
  12. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    While your defence of Swindon is most impressive, I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to my post, nor even to my remark about armchair nationalists (note: not armchair activists) in Swindon.

    The point was not that you are a lazy do-nothing, nor was it that Swindon is inherently funny. I was commenting on the faint ridiculousness of someone with no connection to the Irish left or to Irish republicanism, sitting at a computer hundreds of miles away, denouncing the entire Irish left for placing an emphasis on the water tax struggle.

    You might think that we would be better off ditching that struggle to concentrate on howling in rage at Sinn Fein doing exactly what they were clearly going to do for many years. I don’t. But then again I was never under the illusion that Sinn Fein were a radical force or that their armed campaign would end in anything other than a comprehensive failure. So you’ll have to pardon me if I don’t share your sense of betrayal.

    Like

    Reply
  13. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    And Mark, the issue is not whether any “organisation …opposes the idea of an independent socialist Scotland for instance,”

    but whether they are in favour of an indepentant Scotland.

    The likelihood of such a new state being socialist at first blush seems improbable, and is therefore not the point of dispute

    Like

    Reply
  14. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    That, is where we differ. I don’t think that an independent Scotland would be enough of a step forward to actually be worth campaigning for. I certainly don’t buy into the mystical stageist nonsense that it would somehow make socialism easier to achieve if first Scotland becomes an independent capitalist state. I would probably vote for it in a yes/no referendum but that’s about it.

    By the way, if I recall correctly for many years the SSP and SSA before it campaigned for an independent socialist Scotland. Only in later years did that get watered down to campaigning for an independent capitalist Scotland first. Were they part of the “Brit left” too, right up until they rediscovered stageism?

    Like

    Reply
  15. The New Ireland in the New Europe: Provisional foreign policy in the 1970s « Splintered Sunrise

    […] the Shining Path and the Nepalese Naxalites, makes a sort of sense, but Gerry Ruddy’s mysterious courtship of the Grant-Woods tendency in Britain has me scratching my head. And how either relates to […]

    Like

    Reply
  16. nicktarlton Avatar
    nicktarlton

    The SSP still campaigns for an ‘Independent Socialist Scotland’, it just so happens though that rather than being an abstract slogan to be enacted in some far off future SSP activists are actually trying to apply their politics in rapidly changing political circumstances. The National question is a live political issue in Scotland, Scottish independence is on the cards in the short term in a way that socialist revolution is decidely not. No one in the SSP advocates giving up class politics in favour of gaining indpendence in the short term, but should we remove ourselves from the growing movement for national sel-determination, or should we build links between the class campaigns we’re involved in and the essentially democratic demands of those who see indpendence as the way forward?

    Like

    Reply
  17. Patrick Avatar
    Patrick

    As far as I can tell, the IRSP’s association with Socialist Appeal goes beyond just Gerry Ruddy, although he seems to be the main link between the two. As a very small sidenote, the Irps’ friendship with these Trots is what caused part of their oddball left-communist North American support group to break away, a move which was bordering on self-parody.

    The IRSP in general hold a very confused set of beliefs, with most members who’ve actually taken a set of Trotskyist/Maoist/Chavista etc. views just holding their own opinion. (Gerry Ruddy, as far as I can tell, is their political secretary, or something, whereas their youth movement has a strongly Stalinist tinge to it.) The main unifying factor continues to be support for the Army, which makes sense I guess.

    Like

    Reply
  18. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    Comrades we are losing all sense of perspective! Not the slightest flicker of interest in the TU conference on climate change and all these comments on two small groups, only one of which is coherent and sensible.
    Antonia I moved because I was getting a couple or irritating technical glitches with Blogger. However I’m starting to miss it because it allowed me to have an events diary and a a range of of fonts.
    Mark your replies to some of Andy’s points are formally correct but don’t give the true picture.
    1) Much of the British and Irish left does have some sort of analysis of British imperialism in the country. It sits on the shelf gathering dust and does not inform their practice. A good example is the SWP’s recent electioneering in Belfast on the theme of “troops out of Iraq”. Silence on the remaining troop presence in Ireland. there are lots more.
    The water charges campaign was a real low point in the history of the Irish left. The SP and SWP both ran sectarian “party building” campaigns” despite no real political differences.

    Like

    Reply
  19. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    Liam, your information about the water charges campaign in flawed. It is an ongoing campaign rather than something consigned to the past – the bills have been delayed but the underlying moves towards charges and privatisation are still being taken.

    The We Won’t Pay Campaign is not a “sectarian party building” effort, although of course the political groups within it hope to recruit from their activity. It is a campaign modeled directly on the succesful anti-poll tax campaign in Britain and anti-water tax campaign in the South, along with the more recent anti-bin tax campaign.

    The Socialist Party moved to set it up as soon as the new tax was announced, just as we moved to set up campaigns in those other instances. It was set up as a membership campaign based around the tactic of non-payment. At the time a whole range of campaigns were being set up by various forces most of which weren’t remotely serious about waging a real fight.

    This also happened in the early stages of the anti-poll tax struggle and the southern anti-bin tax struggle where more “mainstream” groups set up campaigns which would not back non-payment or where sectarian groups sought to build rival campaigns. In each and every case these diversions fell away as the choice between a united non-payment campaign or no struggle at all became apparent. The same is gradually happening in the North.

    Like

    Reply
  20. Ciarán Avatar
    Ciarán

    Liam: The water charges campaign was a real low point in the history of the Irish left. The SP and SWP both ran sectarian “party building” campaigns” despite no real political differences.

    I’m not sure I would refer to the SP’s “We Won’t Pay” campaign as a party-building exercise, but it certainly was sectarian.

    There were no differences between the two campaigns (they both argued that water charges were unacceptable because they were simply a prelude to privatisation, and that non-payment was the only sure way to defeat the charges) but strangely enough the SWP group went about their meetings on a much cleverer and more mature basis.

    Whenever the SWP held a meeting in an area, they were almost always able to ensure that there would be local community activists present who accepted the two arguments of the campaign, and who could set about organising people in the community. The SP on the other hand were perceived as simply parachuting their own people in, and in their meetings set about attacking anyone who opposed water charges – including Organise! (Organise! is a group of a handful of anarchists in Belfast who are part of the We Won’t Pay Campaign, or were, considering the attack).

    The SP did do good work though in organising a petition that was signed by 70,000 people who oppose water charges. Unfortunately they then argued that those 70,000 weren’t going to pay. Not the same thing.

    Regardless, the question has been put on the back-burner for the foreseeable future (again). The nature of activism is that there’s always some issue that springs up. It’s near impossible to keep working on one issue when there are no developments in it, and I have a bad feeling that we’ll have to start from scratch again the next time the introduction of water charges is threatened.

    Like

    Reply
  21. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    Actually Ciaran, in amongst the things you get badly wrong you do hit on one of the important differences between the We Won’t Pay Campaign and the SWP’s campaign. The SWP campaign has a perspective of orienting towards existing “local community activists”. The We Won’t Pay Campaign has a perspective of making activists out of local people.

    That was how the anti-poll tax and the Southern anti-water tax and anti-bin tax campaigns were built, but it is much more important in Northern Ireland where there is an absolutely enormous layer of “community activists” and “community workers”, funded heavily by state grants and even more heavily entwined with the main political parties. These are the last people on earth who can be expected to lead militant local campaigns against a tax brought in by their own parties (and against the state that keeps them in community sector employment).

    The We Won’t Pay Campaign allows such people to join on the same basis as anyone else but it doesn’t privilege them by setting them up as the local face of the campaign right from the start. Doing that would certainly be easier in the beginning but it would be a total disaster when the shit hits the fan.

    The SWP don’t understand that, or more accurately they don’t care. Their campaign has been an on again, off again affair, disappearing whenever there is something more interesting going on. They haven’t done the necessary, tedious, labour of going door to door, street after street, month after month because they have neither the members nor the inclination to do so. They haven’t held the endless rounds of public meetings or put out the endless rounds of leaflets. Trying to tap into the pre-existing “community sector” is for them an attempt at a shortcut.

    On the other points you mention:

    1) Organise! remain an active part of the We Won’t Pay Campaign. As their website says “As such we are involved in the WWPC which has recently saw many of the groups also opposed to water reform running to catch up with us in the call for mass non-payment.”

    2) The 70,000 people you mention signed a non-payment pledge. Will all of those 70,000 actually refuse to pay up? Who knows, though plenty of others won’t. The SP, believe it or not Ciaran, has a great deal of experience in organising non-payment campaigns – this is our fourth in less than 20 years. We do know what we are doing at this stage.

    3) The bills have been delayed again, but the underlying process is ongoing. It is still taken into account in the budget executive and the British government have gone ahead with their move to turn the Water Service into a state owned company – the vital first step towards the charges being issued and privatisation afterwards.

    Yes it is harder to keep going when things have been delayed, but that’s exactly what has to be done. It’s exactly what the WWPC did during the last delay when the SWP campaign and the various other campaigns disappeared. Organising mass non-payment is a serious, lengthy, boring business. And work has to continue during lulls or else you have to start from scratch every time.

    Like

    Reply
  22. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    But Mark, this question of the community activists in Northern Ireland cannot be simply wished away, as it is a feature of how British rule has become stabilised, and how sectarianism has been institutionalised.

    That is any politics in the six counties in intertwinned with the national question, an aspect that was entrely absent from the poll tax campaign.

    My criticism of “whittering on about water charges” is not to say that you were wrong to take up the issue, but wrong to ignore the national question.

    It is simply utopian to think that because all parts of the community are affected by the water charges that they can overcome sectarian politics, particualry as the sectrarianism is reinforced by the grant funded community institutions, which the British government funds.

    You cannot achieve class unity without either confronting protestent bigotry, or alternatively arguing that catholics should put up with the bigotry in the interests of class unity – a “red” version of croppies lie down.

    This is where the failure of the Brit-left to adequately address what has happened since the GFA and St Andrews Agreement is entireley relevent.

    What is more, my experewince of the poll tax camaign was that the MIlitant tried to set up poll tax groups in England at the same time they did in Scotland, that is a year before the tax was being introduced. But no-one joined them and then when it became a live issue, then poll tax groups srong up everywhere, often with SWP avtivists or anarchists in the leadership of them, which brough in a tension with the Militant comardes who had less “real people” but more control of the structures. The national Fed was of coourse all but one perosn Militnat mebers, but the local city wide Federations were often quite contentious as Militant delegates were often from paper poll tax groups. So don’t mythologise the expereince and especially the largely counterproductive task of keeping structues alive when the campiagn is in abeyance.

    Like

    Reply
  23. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    Andy, I am not of the view that a succesful cross-community struggle will wipe away all vestiges of sectarian bigotry in the North. Such a view would be naive to say the least. On the other hand there have been a number of struggles in Northern Ireland’s past which have crossed the sectarian divide and it is utter defeatism to declare in advance that it is impossible for this struggle to do so.

    Similarly, by the way, it is likely that thousands of classroom assistants will be going on strike in the near future against a proposal (authorised by an SF Minister) to cut their pay. Such a strike won’t end sectarianism in the North, anymore than the water charges struggle will. But it is an important and useful step forward for Catholic and Protestant workers to struggle together. Presumably though you think our intervention into that strike should be about denouncing Protestants for bigotry and intertwinning it with the national question.

    Your view that sectarianism is Northern Ireland in 2007 consists of Protestant bigotry and poor Catholics who have to accept that bigotry is so utterly bizarre that it is difficult to even know where to start. You still get more raw, open sectarian loathing amongst some Protestants but we are now closer to an equality of bigotry than we ever were before. A movement against sectarianism can gain purchase, but trying to tie a struggle involving both Protestant and Catholic workers to some kind of denunciation of the evil of Protestants is not a remotely serious approach to campaigning on the issue.

    You are right that the issue of the state funded, sectarian party-tied, community grantocracy can’t be wished away. We aren’t pretending that we can do so. What we can do is avoid handing the issue over to these people, lock stock and barrel. The SWP are sucking up to the existing community sector, on the odd occasion that their campaign does anything at all, because they either don’t understand the role that they play or because they don’t care. They have neither the numbers nor the inclination to do the necessary work on the ground so they will take what looks to them like a shortcut.

    Your recounting of the history of the poll tax struggle is quite inaccurate in that in most (but not all) areas the real poll tax groups were founded and led by people, including but not limited to Militant, who had done the necessary work in advance. One of the things we have had to battle against in all of these campaigns (poll tax, water tax 1, bin tax and now water tax 2) is the idiocy of parts of the left who simply don’t understand how non-payment is built. It requires patient, long term, unglamorous work rather than the left’s favourite hobby of picking up an issue when it suits them and dropping it as soon as something shinier is happening.

    In the North at the moment charges have been delayed again. This situation has been going on for years now. But the charges have only been delayed. The state is continuing its preparations for charges and privatisation. We have to continue our preparations to fight. So over the last few years, the Socialist Party has set up an organisation with a democratic structure. That organisation has collected 70,000 non-payment pledges and counting, which is part of the reason for the state’s delay. Our activists were central to getting the unions to first oppose the charges and then, crucially and more recently, to come out in favour of non-payment. Now, we continue to try to keep people informed about what is going on, about the move from Water Service to state company, about statements from the local politicians and so on.

    Like

    Reply
  24. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Mark P: “Your recounting of the history of the poll tax struggle is quite inaccurate in that in most (but not all) areas the real poll tax groups were founded and led by people, including but not limited to Militant, who had done the necessary work in advance. “

    As a question Mark. What personal experience did you have in the Poll tax?

    I was very actively involved in the St Werburghs APTU in Bristol, and was a regular delegate to the Fed. You can check with Robin Clapp if you would like to verify my experience.

    Your account is simply not what happened, fro my personal expereince anywher ein the South West , the thames valley or South Wales.

    I don’t now personaly about the rest of the country. But I assume the pattern was the same.

    In Bristol, very few of the active anti-Poll tax unions that involved non politicos were led by the Millies. the most active in St Werburghs and St George were actually set up and led by local people without a political background, but had the involvement of the SWP.

    Like

    Reply
  25. Peter Urban Avatar
    Peter Urban

    I’m not sure what prompted Patrick to categorise the resignation of the founding members of the IRSP’s North American support group as “bordering on self-parody” and I would personally prefer the label “council communist” to “left communist” in describing our political orientation, but I would like to clarify the extent to which Ruddy’s ties to the IMT played in our departure.

    It was one of the factors involved, but should not be viewed as the central reason. Gerry Ruddy himself, however, was at the core of our concerns. After spending 24 years with the Irish Republican Socialist Movement and several years as the IRSP’s International Secretary, I came to believe that Ruddy was pursuing various forms of manipulation to undermine the IRSP’s traditionally revolutionary republican socialist programme in order to move the party towards reformism and, in the process, more closely into the orbit of the IMT.

    Ruddy’s domination of the IRSP’s Executive, we believe, had been used to isolate and undermine veteran activists within the movement that were opposed to the direction he was attempting to move the party, and he and his allies and rendered the December 2003 Ard Fheis the least democratic party congress I had witnessed in all of the years since I first attended the 1984 Ard Fheis.

    Having joined with other republican socialist activists in Scotland, Ireland, North America, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere, myself and other comrades who resigned from the IRSM in April 2004, are now active within the International Republican Socialist Network. The IRSN’s intended purpose is to promote a republican socialist analysis in those arenas where conditions call for the uniting of an unresolved national liberation struggle with the struggle for socialism; support prisoners of wars from various republican socialist campaigns, and help to build closer bonds of solidarity and mutual aid between revolutionary socialist organisations and activists in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Basque lands, Brittany, Catalonia, Quebec, and Puerto Rico.

    Like

    Reply
  26. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    Peter – the comrades in the IMT are not reformists. There is a strand of revolutionary Marxism which maintains that revolutionaries should always be in the mass organisations of the working class, including parties like the British Labour Party or the PRD in Mexico. That’s a judgement that you make according to circumstances. In Britain I think they are wrong but that’s a different discussion.

    The problem I have with your new project is that it’s looking at the world through the lens of West Belfast, a place where the national question is often a substitute for class politics. Don’t take my word for it – look at Adams and Mc Guinness. This has influenced the IRSP profoundly. Its international points of reference are pretty similar to the Provies’ and the idea of armed struggle was as crucial to holding together the IRSP as it was to the Provies.

    In Scotland, the Spanish State and in France there already exist class struggle and / or revolutionary organisations in which it is possible to discuss these issues and do practical work. these might e useful people to start talking to.

    Like

    Reply
  27. Peter Urban Avatar
    Peter Urban

    Liam, you points are well taken, however, the existence of revolutionary organisations with the British, French, and Spanish states is not sufficient, in our view, to negate the potential for the republican socialist tendency to have particular potency within those contexts.

    Specifically in the instances of Britain and Spain, we believe that these entities have been able to retain certain reactionary social and political forms (in Britain, as a mean of illustration, Europe’s richest and most powerful monarchy, the continued existence of the House of Lords, the continued influence of the gentry in rural spheres–and previously, the slow movement away from selling military officer positions, the extension of semi-feudal relations in Ireland), which we feel would be seriously undermined by destruction of the existing multi-national states.

    Moreover, on the basis of purely tactical considerations, we believe that the undermining of the existing state within these regimes to be of benefit to all sections of the working class and, following John MacLean’s perspective, believe that the class-conscious, revolutionary sector of the working class within the submerged nations comprising these multinational states may well be a larger component of the class as a whole than in the politically dominant nations, and might gain a significant advantage in their struggles by the fragmentation of the bourgeoisie.

    Finally, we believe that the tremendous success of the Scottish Socialist Party in its formative period–despite a number of serious weaknesses–can, in part, be credited to the resonance that the call for an independent socialist republic produced within the consciousness of the Scottish working class.

    I hope that we can all agree that the socialist movement throughout the most industrialised nations of the world today finds itself in significant crisis. Our efforts in seeking to facilitate greater cooperation amongst republican socialist movements internationally–while our central focus–is by no means our sole focus. We are active in a number of different emerging coalitions and revolutionary groupings that are struggling to learn from the mistakes of the revolutionary movement in the past and discern a new course forward–one in which our class, rather than any party, will remain the central focus; one that sees its primary purpose in aiding the development of class consciousness among working people; and one that recognises the profound crisis confronting globalised capital today and the need to return the overturning of capitalist productive relations to the immediate agenda of the revolutionary movement.

    In these efforts, we extend our hand to all organisations working for the liberation of our class, but within that context, we believe that it is imperative that we engage in a relentless struggle to combat the tendency towards sinking back into reformism that can accompany periods of significant setbacks, such as we are now engulfed.

    Our sincere best wishes to you and your comrades in your work on behalf of our class. So long as capitalism continues to exploit us all, we feel our differences in perspective need not impede genuine solidarity between us.

    Like

    Reply
  28. Riseard OCaoimh Avatar
    Riseard OCaoimh

    Liam agus Peter, if you don’t mind me saying, I think that Britain is pretty marginal in the world situation, as it has been since about 1956- other than back home in Ireland, where they still play a semi-imperialist role.

    Like

    Reply
  29. felix Avatar
    felix

    gerry ruddy is no longer in any ‘position of authority’ according to irsp – interested in what readers – in particular peter think this has to do with this weeks statement from in-la and statements from irsp members on rsm forum and elsewhere that they are ‘now ‘ going political!

    Like

    Reply
  30. Peter Urban Avatar
    Peter Urban

    Regarding Ruddy’s departure, my understanding is that this had more to do with his over-reaction to not having been selected for a paid position with Teach na Failte than anything else–that reaction having been to threaten to sue Teach na Failte. Needless to say, such an outburst by what was most likely the only applicant for the position who had never himself been a prisoner, was likely to marginalise Ruddy and possibly result in his expulsion, so he appears to have exited on his own to avoid such consequences.

    Now that he is out of the IRSM, his on-line bulletin “The Red Plough” is now openly aligned with the IMT.

    Sadly, Gerry’s departure does not result in an end to his influence within the IRSM and there remain several leading figures in the IRSP who would closely identify themselves with Ruddy’s political orientation.

    Rather than being in anyway related to the announcement of the INLA decommissioning, some have speculated that his departure could have been influenced concerns raised within the INLA regarding a highly-placed informant in the IRSM in Belfast. This is not intended to be an assertion that Ruddy was an informant or police agent, but it has been suggested that he might have felt that he would come under closer scrutiny and that this might create a climate wherein his political opponents within the IRSM leadership could seek to oust him.

    Personally, I don’t see why he wouldn’t have just waited to see how forces aligned should such events come to pass before making any moves, but it has been offered to me by comrades in the IRSM as a possible motivation.

    Interestingly, the INLA decommissioning may have some peripheral relationship to all of this, insofar as Ruddy’s political machinations had helped to contribute to internal divisions, which were part of the considerations involved in making the decision to dump arms; but this connection is neither direct nor central to the INLA’s decision.

    Like

    Reply
  31. Peter Urban Avatar
    Peter Urban

    By the way, this relatively recent announcement by the INLA–though it was not an action supported by the IRSN–has led to myself and other IRSN comrades becoming more actively engaged with the IRSM again.

    Following meetings I had with a number of leading members of the IRSM in February, I contributed two relatively lengthy discussion documents into IRSM circles in an attempt to assist activists within the IRSM–and especially former INLA volunteers–in making a transition from armed struggle to revolutionary political action. The first article was entitled “Lessons from 30 Years of War” and the second is simply titled “Revolutionary Political Action”.

    Comrades of the IRSN intend to increase dialogue with comrades in the IRSM, especially within the RSYM, and have committed ourselves to materially assisting the IRSP in securing documents for use in internal political education efforts.

    Like

    Reply
  32. Peter Urban Avatar
    Peter Urban

    Oh, and Patrick, you can anticipate that the comrades in the IRSN will continue to advocate for a council communist perspective within the IRSM and were gratified to find that there are still comrades in the IRSP who share that perspective with us.

    Whether any of this constitutes parody I will leave to your expertise.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Antonia Johnson Cancel reply

Trending