Socialist Democracy is the Fourth International group in Ireland. Its main website, which has a wealth of analysis of Irish Republicanism, is down temporarily due to hosting problems. This statement is from their blog site.

 Republicans attack British Army base in Antrim

Following hard on the heels of the controversy over the deployment of the SRR, though probably not related directly to it, came a republican attack on a British Army base in Antrim that killed two soldiers. This was the first British Army fatalities in the north since 1997, and the first time that republicans have inflicted military casualties. Claims of responsibility for this attack came from both the “Real IRA” and Óglaigh na hÉireann.

This is latest in a growing number of attacks carried out by republicans, which have ranged from shootings to car booby trap bombs, landmines to the large 250lb-plus car bomb only last month. There is no doubt that the level of activity of republicans is growing and that they are picking up some degree of support, particularly in the most marginalised nationalist areas. The main reason for the growth of republican groups is the increasingly obvious failure Sinn Fein to make any advances on even the most minimal nationalist demands never mind a republican agenda.

There is also the ongoing decay of Sinn Fein from an activist party with grassroots support to one staffed by full timers who are dependent on patronage that flows from Stormont. In the most marginalised nationalist areas Sinn Fein are increasingly seen as corrupt and out of touch. A particular touchstone for discontent is the issue of anti-social behaviour. It has gotten much worse in recent years – serving to highlight both Sinn Fein’s diminishing authority and failure to improve policing. This has provided the opportunity for republicans to build a degree of support through vigilantism. It is this general social and political decay that has enabled republicans to build up a base to sustain a low level military campaign.

This in no way poses a challenge to the British state, but it does put pressure on Sinn Fein as they face demands from the British and Unionists to support more repressive measures against republicans. It the wake of the Antrim attack Sinn Fein are being urged to give their full support to the Chief Constable and his decision to deploy special forces.

If republican groups have any form of strategy it is to provoke more a repressive response from the British state that they hope will boost their own support and further discredit Sinn Fein. It is a variation of the old guerrilla concept than repression will inevitably provoke revolt. However, in most cases this has proved to be an illusion. More repression has just meant more repression and defeat. The Republicans also have a flawed assessment the Provisional campaign – putting its failure down to the development of a political programme rather than its adherence to armed struggle. The reality was that the armed struggle was defeated because of its own inherent limitations. Once it was defeated the republican political programme went down with. The critical point is that the Provisionals’ political defeat followed their military defeat, not the other way round as the republicans claim. Despite their criticism of Provisional movement they have actually adopted its strategy and are bound to repeat its failure.

18 responses to “Irish socialists' statement on Real IRA attacks”

  1. Hasta siempre comandante Avatar
    Hasta siempre comandante

    Meanwhile, Socialist Democracy will storm to success, creating a new October Revolution in Ireland… Or maybe not.

    The old PIRA comment on People’s Democracy being “weak and pseudo-revolutionary” springs to mind.

    Like

  2. John McAnulty with whom I have some disagreements is known for his personal courage. The above attack is unworthy. Answer the arguement if you have an answer

    Like

  3. i found myself posting this on the tomb in response to the kind of armchair generals suddenly coming out the woodwork:
    I find it depressing that there are still armchair republicans who imagine that shooting a few squaddies and pizza delivery boys is somehow ‘real’ politics, whilst mass demonstrations are not. The ‘armed struggle’ in this context could only survive on the basis of increasing sectarian polarisation. Thats not something anyone on the left has an interest in, and not something those communities who always suffer the most from sectarian polarisation want either. In the 1970s PIRA were sustained by a need to defend areas (or at least retaliate) for sectarian violence and British repression. Its why they had mass support. These conditions do not exist anymore so some wish to re-create them. How anyone on the left, or even any Republican, can think that attempting to do so is ‘real politics’ is beyond me. Most don’t of course.

    Of course the reality of the political situation described by Jon doesn’t help and this is why its not enough to talk up co-operation with the police or the peace process (despite the horror of most at the very idea of its disintergration). Its neccessary to talk about things like ‘mass demonstrations’ about trivial matters like jobs and housing.

    In other words real politics. Not this mad sectarian crap.

    Like

  4. Comrades seem to be falling all over themselves to denounce these futile, counter-productive acts (and indeed they are) of the militarists. What is so important, I think, to take from the SD statement is that the Provo strategy is equally bankrupt and futile. Indeed, the Provo strategy has strengthened sectarianism in the north, it has assured continued British presence and it supports the violence of the state. Reading and listening to so many comments these last days, even by socialists, one would think that by “peace” is only meant that resistance cease. There’s all kinds of “peace”. There’s the “peace” of the grave and the “peace” of a prison cell and there’s the “peace” of an imperialist stitch-up. Why is it a break of the “peace” if people resist, yet not a break of the “peace” to have a sectarian, imperialist, neo-liberal statelet? As a Marxist I support mass action and workers self-organization, not these acts of adventurers which will surely invite more repression to nationalist working class communities. As a Marxist I also recognize that the root of the problem is imperialism, not the resistance to it.

    Like

  5. hasta victoria siempre Avatar
    hasta victoria siempre

    What’s “unworthy” about it? I am familiar enough with the Irish Republican Roll of Honour, and I have also known plenty of Turkish Kurds who died/were tortured/jailed, or in some cases, all of the above, fighting a state which until recently wouldn’t even allow their language to be broadcast. I have also known Palestinians who suffered/ are suffering at the hands of the Israeli state. The dogmatic left are good at academic critiques but they aren’t so good at the struggle, in my experience. They know where everyone else is going wrong, but my comments about weak pseudo-revolutionaries remain.

    “Real politics” and mass demonstrations. Is this like the real politics the British left engage in, without notable success? Or the biggest demo of my time, the Feb.15, 2003 demo against forthcoming war in Iraq, which completely failed in its objectives? The problems for imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan have come from armed resistance, and sooner or later it was going to return to Ireland.

    Rustbelt Radical is at least not forgetting about imperialism, which is very much a part of the “real politics” of our time.

    As to “armchair republicans”, I note that Hicham Yezza (I spoke to him after a meeting last year) has just been given a nine month sentence and may face deportation following arrest arising from having an Al Qaeda manual on his computer. Even armchair stuff can get you in trouble in this brave new world. Yet the dogmatic left in Ireland and Britain seems strangely untouched by it all. Why do you think that is? Weak and pseudo-revolutionary, perhaps?

    Like

  6. Well actually, I still think this captures the politics in the present period best.

    Like

  7. sorry hasta but who are you and what have you ever done? it seems a legitimate question to me. ‘the dogmatic left’. what kind of flexible new stylee politics are you advocating exactly?

    Like

  8. […] From the comments at Mac Uaid I find it depressing that there are still armchair republicans who imagine that shooting a few squaddies and pizza delivery boys is somehow “real” politics, whilst mass demonstrations are not. The “armed struggle” in this context could only survive on the basis of increasing sectarian polarisation. That’s not something anyone on the left has an interest in, and not something those communities who always suffer the most from sectarian polarisation want either. […]

    Like

  9. SWP Ireland statement:
    http://www.swp.ie/html-03-09/AntrimStatement.html

    Eamonn McCann:

    “we reject entirely the strategy of ‘armed struggle’ carried out in the name of the people but, of necessity, behind the back of the people and without sanction of the people. We rejected armed struggle when carried out by the Provisional IRA. We reiterate that position now.

    “The attack comes at a time when the need for working-class unity was never clearer. Here, as in the South and across the water, we are faced with a relentless attack on jobs, wages and public services, from employers’ groups and the governments of Gordon Brown and Brian Cowan. The killings on Friday are a disruption and diversion from these urgent issues.

    “We reject the hypocrisy of Brown and others who promote war in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, then profess a belief in peace when this suits their purpose. Brown was preparing to dispatch the soldiers killed at Antrim to kill or be killed in the doomed, imperialist adventure in Afghanistan. “

    Like

  10. A particular touchstone for discontent is the issue of anti-social behaviour. It has gotten much worse in recent years – serving to highlight both Sinn Fein’s diminishing authority and failure to improve policing.

    Are you sure you want to go there?

    Like

  11. johng: “Its neccessary to talk about things like ‘mass demonstrations’ about trivial matters like jobs and housing.” and the still unresolved national question or imperialism? Or do we just wish it away so we can get to “real” politics. I wish we didn’t have racism here in the States, it would have made the class struggle these last centuries so much easier. Strangely, my wishes have been unanswered…..

    Like

  12. In my view the peace process represents a kind of passive revolution: its an unsatisfactory resolution of the contradictions of imperialism but it has created a new situation. I would again commend the article written at the beginning of this process by McCann posted above. Republican politics do not supply an answer to the contradictions of the new situation, and are a recipe now not for a national liberation struggle but the kind of sectarianism which copperfastens and freezes these contradictions. Far from my argument being the equivilant of those who prefer to ignore oppression in the struggle for workers unity, in the context of today, recognising these changes is an important part of pointing a way beyond a situation where dominant political forces see the future entirely in terms of negotiations between ‘two tribes’ for the crumbs of a rapidly collapsing neo-liberalism. Forces like CIRA and RIRA have no more to offer the situation then those dominant forces. Essentially as McCann argues, today, there is no contradiction between British Imperialism and Irish nationalism. And sectarianism is in no sense a continuation of a national liberation struggle.

    Like

  13. Johng – the “peace process” was not a passive revolution – an interesting concept in itself. It was a strategic victory for British imperialism. Yesterday’s photos ops with McGuinness and Robinson were proof of this. A man who began his political life with the express desire of destroying the sectarian northern state is now administering it. To make it a more vile spectacle he labelled the weekend’s attackers as traitors. In Irish Republicanism’s vernacular that means that they deserve to die.

    The events that started in Ireland in 1968 were part of the pre-revolutionary wave in Europe at the time. The fact that the country is utterly subordinate to British imperialism, the sectarian character of the northern state and the strength of the revolutionary nationalist tradition helped give us what happened in the 70s and 80s.

    Mislabelling an imperialist victory as a passive revolution does nothing to clarify our understanding either of what’s happening at the minute or a response to it.

    Like

  14. My understanding of the term Passive Revolution differs. Changing everything so things remain the same was the line of the Italian conservative who Gramsci nicked the term from, and he later deployed it to look at the way Italian unity had been achieved without the kind of resolution of the contradictions of the past seen in what he saw as the classical bourgoise revolutions. In the case of Ireland I think the kind of analyses put foward by McCann in the final part of War and an Irish Town makes a lot of historical sense. Eire and Britain wished to dismantle the old structures and increase the integration of both capitalisms, and move away from the old official ideologies of nationalism in the south and orangism in the north. It was this idea of ‘new times’ which was in part responsible for the space created for the rise of the civil rights movement. What was ignored was that whilst in the South only lip service had been paid to the old ideology in the north the unionist ideology and sectarianism was the very basis of the state itself. If Unionism no longer fitted the needs of British Capitalism it was also true that Unionism provided the only physical means of ruling the place and also of ensuring that radical challenges to capitalism itself did not emerge. So the British state chose to back Unionism and turned its back on reform, and the tide of Orange bigotry ran over. This was also the context of the re-emergence of armed struggle from the beleaguered catholic minority. From the 1990s onwards both the British and the Irish State have saught some new compromise to finish the process which they began and then turned their backs on in the 1960s. Its a process which involves demilitarising sectarianism without abolishing it. Martin MacGuinnes’s statements have been compared to the kind of evolution one has historically seen from Collins onwards. But there is an underlying difference. In terms of the needs of capitalism there really is little basis for a contradiction between Republicanism and the British State. The contradictions being generated are new ones, and this is the only point I was trying to make. But my understanding of the term passive revolution is precisely a process in which contradictions are resolved in the interests of the dominant power. bourgoise revolutions in the present epoch tend to end like that.

    Like

Leave a reply to johng Cancel reply

Trending