Trotskyist opinions on the "Irish situation"

[*Red*Alert]

What is the opinion of most Trotskyist's on the Irish situation, namely the struggle between Republicans and Unionists for 32 County Socialist Republic?

I know there is quite a lot of opposition to the violence of the Troubles on here, but in my opinion, violence was necessary to defend Republican and Catholic communities, from the pogroms such as took place in August 1969. As well as to remove the British Army, which failed to be an impartial force, from occupying part of Ireland.

I would have thought that a national liberation struggle would be the first step for the creation of a socialist Ireland?

[Ned Flanders]

I wholeheartedly support a united, independent ireland, and my guess is most fellow trots do as well. I generally support the aims of Sinn Fein and IRA, even though some means of IRA are somewhat disagreable. I agree with you that the violence used by republicans in Ireland was a necessary evil against oppression and military aggression of the UK army. I´m not a pacifist in any sense of the term, I think it´s very naive to assume you can defend yourself against armed violence without resorting to arms yourself. In general I agree with your assumption that in the case of Northern Ireland a national liberation struggle is the first step in the struggle for socialism.

[Yehuda Stern]

My group has no 'official' position on Ireland, although we have discussed the question several times, so just a few points:

1. Ireland is an oppressed nation; naturally Marxists support its struggle against British imperialism. The support of some left groups, like the SWP, for the deployment of British troops shows these groups' pro-imperialism and their illusions in the ability of imperialism to protect the oppressed of the world.

2. I think it is wrong to see national liberation as a 'step' towards socialism. This is the Menshevik-Stalinist two stage theory, which claims that a bourgeois democratic revolution is necessary as a phase before a socialist revolution. In reality, the only way to free a country from imperialism is to free it from capitalism, i.e. through a socialist revolution which will overthrow not just the imperialists but their bourgeois agents.

[Ned Flanders]

Let me revise my positsion a little. National liberation is not a "step" towards socialism in itself, but in the case of N- Ireland the struggle for national liberation and socialism go hand in hand and should be intertwined with each other, since N- Ireland being a part of the UK is one of the last remaining relics of oldschool colonialism.

[Random Precision]

The support of some left groups, like the SWP, for the deployment of British troops

Elaborate?

[Yehuda Stern]

What more is there to say? The SWP supported the deployment of British troops into Ireland in 1969 (and possibly at other times - but that's it as far as I know).

[redasheville]

What more is there to say? The SWP supported the deployment of British troops into Ireland in 1969 (and possibly at other times - but that's it as far as I know).

The SWP didn't exist in 1969.

[Manzil]

There's nothing inherently progressive about a united Ireland. If I was a Northern Irish worker, of whatever religious denomination or none, I would see no benefit in leaving the Union.

None of the major problems affecting working class people - segregated education, the lack of any non-sectarian workers' party, dependence on public sector jobs, poor housing and trade union rights, unemployment and under-funded social services - would be improved by joining the Republic of Ireland. Nor would oversight of police or security become more transparent - the Irish state is an oppressive tool for top-down class struggle as much as the British. Ireland now has a mature, domestic capitalist class, and is integrated into the global market. And any realistic situation wherein Ireland was reunited would entail significant autonomy for the bigots currently in control of the Six Counties, and the reaffirmation of institutionalised discrimination. Indeed in some instances (access to abortion, the economic impact of the recession re: both the vulneranility of working class communities and the attitude of the government) I think people's lives would deteriorate.

Socialists across the British Isles should be supporting allied British-Irish (and indeed pan-European) organisation insofar as trade unions, parties and social movements are concerned. Our interests are the same. We are a single class with a single objective.

[Manzil]

The SWP didn't exist in 1969.

It's obvious s/he means the IS.

[Random Precision]

I meant, if you could provide some evidence that the International Socialists supported British troops being sent in. As far as I can tell, for a brief period in 1969 the majority of the leadership voted to not adopt "Withdraw the Troops Now" as a primary slogan, while unconditionally supporting the IRA and Catholic self-defense:

http://www.marxists.de/intsoctend/birchall/revparty.htm

[Manzil]

This article (http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/03/03/swp-and-british-troops-ireland-1969) from Workers' Liberty illuminates some of the IS' differences of opinion over NI.

[Yehuda Stern]

Quote:
Originally Posted by redasheville http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1505971#post1505971)
The SWP didn't exist in 1969.
It's obvious s/he means the IS. Yeah, I thought it was. Apparently not. Thanks though. (he, btw. Yehuda is a male name in Hebrew)



Socialists across the British Isles should be supporting allied British-Irish (and indeed pan-European) organisation insofar as trade unions, parties and social movements are concerned. Our interests are the same. We are a single class with a single objective.This sounds very nice and internationalist in theory, but in essence, at a time when mass conscious in Britian with what regards Ireland is quite conservative, it just means subordinating the Irish workers to the British imperialism. The revolutionary party itself should be international because it represents the vanguard, the highest level of consciousness of the class everywhere; but given the above, I disagree that the same should happen regarding the trade unions.


I meant, if you could provide some evidence that the International Socialists supported British troops being sent in.
It seems that this support was never made implicit, but how else could on interpret the fact that the Troops Out slogan was dropped?

[Manzil]

This sounds very nice and internationalist in theory, but in essence, at a time when mass conscious in Britian with what regards Ireland is quite conservative, it just means subordinating the Irish workers to the British imperialism. The revolutionary party itself should be international because it represents the vanguard, the highest level of consciousness of the class everywhere; but given the above, I disagree that the same should happen regarding the trade unions.

Subordination in what sense?

[Yehuda Stern]

Let me ask you this - do you think it would make sense to ask for a united trade union for Israeli and Palestinian workers? It sounds like a good idea, but basically this would mean that we would allow the very backwards consciousness of Israeli workers to interfere with the activities of Palestinian workers. The Irish situation is somewhat different but I have the same reservation. Obviously this problem is irrelevant for the reasons stated above when talking about the revolutionary party, which contains only the vanguard, as opposed to a trade union which encompasses all layers of class consciousness.

[Pogue]

Do you think Israeli workers are conservative just because they live in Israel, Yehuda?

[Yehuda Stern]

To some extent. They are conservative because they live in a colonialist state set in the heart of a third world region, and their privileged position is based on this colonialism. That wouldn't happen if they lived, say, in Morocco or Poland. Obviously many workers are also conservative elsewhere; however, unlike Israeli workers, they had times of militancy and radicalism too.

At any rate, since this is a thread about Ireland and the analogy I was making is pretty clear, I fail to see what use there is in this question other than to serve as a poor attempt at a cheap shot.

[Pogue]

I think your way to uptight and paranoid on this forum. I just wanted to ask you a question, which is what I did. I don't understand why you feel obliged to always respond as if your on the defensive. You explained your opinion to me. Thats cool. I agree this should be debated elsewhere. Just don't assume I'm having a cheap shot just because I have a question about something you've said.

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't always. It was just the tone of the question and the identity of the poster. But I accept your criticism - I'll try to be more polite in the future.

[Pogue]

I don't always. It was just the tone of the question and the identity of the poster. But I accept your criticism - I'll try to be more polite in the future.

Cool.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think there is a difference in Norhtern Irealand which uses the catholic population as an super-exploited workforce and Israel which pushes the majority of the oppressed Arab population out of the land to clear it for new Zionist settlers.

Calling for "unity between Israeli and Palestinian workers is off-base simply because they would have little ability to do so. Whereas the UK does actually play Catholics and Protestants against each other even though Catholics are extra opressed.

I'm sort of skeptical that the IS would call for support of UK troops in Ireland - considering that it was first the SWP who were supposedly supporting the Loyalist, then that was changed to the IS who supposedly called for support of UK troops, and has now been amended to: "well the IS eventually stopped using the slogan 'troops out of Ireland'" - I have the feeling that this is just sectarian conspiracy theories, not reality.

[Yehuda Stern]

Calling for "unity between Israeli and Palestinian workers is off-base simply because they would have little ability to do so. Whereas the UK does actually play Catholics and Protestants against each other even though Catholics are extra opressed.

But the fact remains that uniting Irish and British workers in a single union would hurt that union's ability to adopt positions supportive of Irish national liberation. With a loyalist union, of course, things could be even worse.


onsidering that it was first the SWP who were supposedly supporting the Loyalist, then that was changed to the IS who supposedly called for support of UK troops, and has now been amended to: "well the IS eventually stopped using the slogan 'troops out of Ireland'" - I have the feeling that this is just sectarian conspiracy theories, not reality.

It should have been pretty obvious that I meant the IS and not the SWP from the get go; and it should also be pretty obvious that if on the day that troops are sent somewhere, I drop a slogan that demands they get out of there, then I support the sending of those troops to that country. But unfortunately, things that should be obvious to people are many times not.

[ls]

But the fact remains that uniting Irish and British workers in a single union would hurt that union's ability to adopt positions supportive of Irish national liberation. With a loyalist union, of course, things could be even worse.

Well, he didn't really say they should be united in a single union, the idea of most workers from several different industries drifting towards a single liberal union is not usually a good prospect anyways. But the fact is that there have been some good progressive steps taken by union work, the united Catholic and Protestant postal strike in 2006 is a prime example.

http://libcom.org/news/article.php/belfast-postal-workers-strike-2006

Bear in mind: Communication Workers' Union is a union largely based in Britain, but the workers worked together regardless of their background in that strike. ;) Also, there was a fairly big rally in central Belfast for that. http://libcom.org/news/article.php/support-posties-belfast-rally-120206. Oh yeah, and they could strike again soon as the CWU is doing strikes across the country (we shall wait and see).


I think some recent water rate payment strikes have taken place in NI (not entirely sure) and the visteon occupation there went fairly well too http://www.socialistparty.net/index.php/news/northern-ireland/164-ni-visteon-occupation-action-gets-results.html.

[Yehuda Stern]

But the fact is that there have been some good progressive steps taken by union work, the united Catholic and Protestant postal strike in 2006 is a prime example.

Don't get me wrong - obviously class unity is important and desirable. I think there should be some political criterion, though, to make sure that the influence of British imperialism on British workers doesn't hurt the union's ability to fight for national liberation. We certainly can't ask for the existing British unions to be extended to Irish workers.

[Manzil]

Let me ask you this - do you think it would make sense to ask for a united trade union for Israeli and Palestinian workers? It sounds like a good idea, but basically this would mean that we would allow the very backwards consciousness of Israeli workers to interfere with the activities of Palestinian workers. The Irish situation is somewhat different but I have the same reservation. Obviously this problem is irrelevant for the reasons stated above when talking about the revolutionary party, which contains only the vanguard, as opposed to a trade union which encompasses all layers of class consciousness.

Somewhat different? It's a completely false analogy. The Palestinian territories are held under force by Israel, and it's economy deliberately distorted, controlled and sabotaged to the benefit of both Israel's ruling class, and to a lesser degree its workforce. Ireland is a healthy capitalist society with both a domestic and foreign capitalist class in charge of its economy, fully integrated into the world economy and - on both sides of the border - suffering not from any imperialist subjugation to Britain any longer, but the same entrenched class divisions existing across Britain itself and the entire world.

Can you explain this potential problem of subordination on its own merits? I am genuinely interested.

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't think the analogy is completely false; I think you focused on the dissimilarity between the situations that is irrelevant to the issue. The point is that most British workers are more likely to oppose Irish independence, and a joint union without political criteria might make it harder for Irish workers to advance their cause of national liberation in their organizations.

[ls]

I think there should be some political criterion, though, to make sure that the influence of British imperialism on British workers doesn't hurt the union's ability to fight for national liberation.

How a bureaucratic union will fight for any kind of liberation or ever really has is beyond me.. at best it's going to represent the best interests of the workers, of course even that is a stretch usually, some of them also support supposedly progressive reforms towards a revolution, but yeah generally we can't say that any bureaucratic union has, nor should we expect it to.

You can't apply irrational standards to things where it totally doesn't fit, I know that you're right to an extent that people should be careful about internal workplace fighting, ie protestants work to force out the minority catholic workers at a workplace, I'm sure this has been a problem but generally, the trade unions in NI are some of the things most inspiring unity..


We certainly can't ask for the existing British unions to be extended to Irish workers.

Eh? They already are in Northern Ireland, ROI is a slightly different kettle of fish.


The point is that most British workers are more likely to oppose Irish independence, and a joint union without political criteria might make it harder for Irish workers to advance their cause of national liberation in their organizations.

Most unions even if they are bureaucratic, are much more likely to stand up for the rights of Catholics than anything else in NI as it stands now. It's simply not fair to say that they are all inherently reactionary because they were started in the UK.

I think that's the important point that you've missed. The situation with unions is pretty different in Palestine and Israel as well, I don't think you can really compare them in that respect at all.

[Pogue]

I don't think the analogy is completely false; I think you focused on the dissimilarity between the situations that is irrelevant to the issue. The point is that most British workers are more likely to oppose Irish independence, and a joint union without political criteria might make it harder for Irish workers to advance their cause of national liberation in their organizations.

Actually polls have shown the majority of British people do not support the occupation of Northern Ireland.

[FreeFocus]

Actually polls have shown the majority of British people do not support the occupation of Northern Ireland.

If this is true (I'd be interested in seeing these polls too, if you have links), it's only because of the IRA and other militant groups struggling against British imperialism and sending bodybags back to England. They showed there's a cost to British oppression.

[Yehuda Stern]

How a bureaucratic union will fight for any kind of liberation or ever really has is beyond me.. at best it's going to represent the best interests of the workers, of course even that is a stretch usually, some of them also support supposedly progressive reforms towards a revolution, but yeah generally we can't say that any bureaucratic union has, nor should we expect it to.

We need to create the conditions for that. Revolutionaries want to fight inside the unions to win their leadership, and in many cases the situation is much more favorable in that respect if there is some political criterion to limit membership. In this sense the situation is very similar to Palestine, and you too have missed the point that I was trying to make here; see my last post.


If this is true (I'd be interested in seeing these polls too, if you have links), it's only because of the IRA and other militant groups struggling against British imperialism and sending bodybags back to England. They showed there's a cost to British oppression.

I agree. Here is another way in which the situation is similar to Palestine; no Zionist would support the two state solution if it weren't for the first Intifidah (compare the Labor Party's 1984 program of the four NOs to the Oslo Accords of the early 1990s).

[ls]

We need to create the conditions for that. Revolutionaries want to fight inside the unions to win their leadership, and in many cases the situation is much more favorable in that respect if there is some political criterion to limit membership. In this sense the situation is very similar to Palestine, and you too have missed the point that I was trying to make here; see my last post.

But that rarely ever happens, most unions in NI as it stands now exist as sections of British ones, the closest that a true revolutionary has come to taking leadership of a British union has been Mick Dooley coming 3rd in the UCATT (biggest builder's union) leadership elections.

I'm not saying we should completely denounce the role of unions, just that we need to understand where our split-off point is to them. Ultimately we must always stand up for the workers and not the bureaucracy.

[Invader Zim]

This sounds very nice and internationalist in theory, but in essence, at a time when mass conscious in Britian with what regards Ireland is quite conservative, it just means subordinating the Irish workers to the British imperialism.

In my experience most people simply do not care provided the troubles do not again return to directly affecting Britain itself (i.e. the island of Great Britain). Of course during the height of the troubles British opinion was doubtless firmly against Irish Republicanism, nothing seems to solidify a people more than violence, or the threat of violence. But now I think the general opinion is one of relative apathy.

[Manzil]

I don't think the analogy is completely false; I think you focused on the dissimilarity between the situations that is irrelevant to the issue. The point is that most British workers are more likely to oppose Irish independence, and a joint union without political criteria might make it harder for Irish workers to advance their cause of national liberation in their organizations.

Whether they do or not is itself irrelevant. As I said earlier, I do not believe there is anything inherently liberating about the unification of Ireland. What are the benefits? Support by British workers for a united Ireland should only be part of the left's "political criteria" if it serves a progressive, working-class agenda. I fail to see how it does. The main enemy of workers in Northern Ireland today, whether Protestant or Catholic, is the capitalist system common to both the Republic and the Union, and the entrenched local elites which benefit from the religious segregation within the province (which would in no way be disenfranchised by the transfer of the Six Counties to Dublin).

Ireland is a capitalist state. Throughout the twentieth century, its international position and relationship with Britain has moved from being one of semi-colonial subservience and dependence on a foreign capitalist class, to a healthy domestic capitalism fully assimilated into the world market.

You cannot solve the injustices of life in Ireland, on both sides of the border, by merely ending the division into two distinct territories. Workers have no friendly capitalist states. And an 'Irish' Ulster would retain all of the economic and political problems as it currently does, which the Republic has no means or interest in resolving. Other than for a nostalgic sympathy with the cause of Irish nationalism - and does it need repeating how reactionary this movement has proved historically? - what reason is there for the left to emphasise the need for 'national independence' over and above the international cooperation of working people?

[ls]

Whether they do or not is itself irrelevant. As I said earlier, I do not believe there is anything inherently liberating about the unification of Ireland. What are the benefits? Support by British workers for a united Ireland should only be part of the left's "political criteria" if it serves a progressive, working-class agenda. I fail to see how it does. The main enemy of workers in Northern Ireland today, whether Protestant or Catholic, is the capitalist system common to both the Republic and the Union, and the entrenched local elites which benefit from the religious segregation within the province (which would in no way be disenfranchised by the transfer of the Six Counties to Dublin).

Ireland is a capitalist state. Throughout the twentieth century, its international position and relationship with Britain has moved from being one of semi-colonial subservience and dependence on a foreign capitalist class, to a healthy domestic capitalism fully assimilated into the world market.

You cannot solve the injustices of life in Ireland, on both sides of the border, by merely ending the division into two distinct territories. Workers have no friendly capitalist states. And an 'Irish' Ulster would retain all of the economic and political problems as it currently does, which the Republic has no means or interest in resolving. Other than for a nostalgic sympathy with the cause of Irish nationalism - and does it need repeating how reactionary this movement has proved historically? - what reason is there for the left to emphasise the need for 'national independence' over and above the international cooperation of working people?

Indeed.

In fact, one could argue that traditional attitudes of Protestant Irish and British workers was even more reactionary.

Should we look any further than to the 1907 strike in Belfast?...... Arguably the most historically reactionary organisation over there, the RUC even mutinied.

[Yehuda Stern]

I'm not saying we should completely denounce the role of unions, just that we need to understand where our split-off point is to them. Ultimately we must always stand up for the workers and not the bureaucracy.

Sure, but then we must also understand that at times of class peace we cannot make a socialist revolution either. That doesn't mean we shouldn't struggle for that even at those times.


In my experience most people simply do not care provided the troubles do not again return to directly affecting Britain itself (i.e. the island of Great Britain).

Be that as it may - I don't see any situation where Irish liberation, whatever form it takes, doesn't effect Britain itself.


Support by British workers for a united Ireland should only be part of the left's "political criteria" if it serves a progressive, working-class agenda. I fail to see how it does. The main enemy of workers in Northern Ireland today, whether Protestant or Catholic, is the capitalist system common to both the Republic and the Union, and the entrenched local elites which benefit from the religious segregation within the province (which would in no way be disenfranchised by the transfer of the Six Counties to Dublin).I disagree; I think a united workers' state in Ireland would certainly serve the proletariat's interests. I also disagree with your latter statement. We believe that the worst enemy of the workers everywhere is imperialism; of course to overcome it one must overthrow the national bourgeoisie as well, but still the main fetter on progress in the third world is imperialist control.


You cannot solve the injustices of life in Ireland, on both sides of the border, by merely ending the division into two distinct territories. Workers have no friendly capitalist states.I thought it was quite obvious that I am talking about an independent workers state.

[Manzil]

I disagree; I think a united workers' state in Ireland would certainly serve the proletariat's interests. I also disagree with your latter statement. We believe that the worst enemy of the workers everywhere is imperialism; of course to overcome it one must overthrow the national bourgeoisie as well, but still the main fetter on progress in the third world is imperialist control.

I thought it was quite obvious that I am talking about an independent workers state.

As I think I've elucidated, I don't believe that imperialism has anything to do with the modern Republic of Ireland. If anything Ireland is being integrated into a pan-European imperialist entity, but it certainly is no victim. The same political analysis applies as throughout the rest of the 'First World'.

Concerning your second point, no, I honestly didn't know whether you consider national unity - separate from the actual creation of a socialist society - deserving of our support. No offence intended. I have met too many people who essentially act as the left wing of Irish Republicanism to judge. If you think Irish unity should be parallel to the creation of a workers' state, we have little immediate cause for disagreement. I just don't consider the republican demands to be particularly important to the socialist movement at the moment.

[Magdalen]

I'm sort of skeptical that the IS would call for support of UK troops in Ireland - considering that it was first the SWP who were supposedly supporting the Loyalist, then that was changed to the IS who supposedly called for support of UK troops, and has now been amended to: "well the IS eventually stopped using the slogan 'troops out of Ireland'" - I have the feeling that this is just sectarian conspiracy theories, not reality.

In 1969, the IS openly trumpeted its belief in a progressive side to British imperialism with regards to Ireland. To quote from Socialist Worker, "The breathing space provided by the presence of British troops is short but vital. Those who call for the immediate withdrawal of the trooops are inviting a pogrom which which hit first and hardest at socialists. To say that the immediate enemy in Ulster is the British troops is incorrect." At the same time, a call for the withdrawal of British troops from Ireland was discreetly dropped from the 'Where We Stand' column of Socialist Worker. To this day, that call has never been reinstated.