Log in

View Full Version : Seamus Costello: Fallen Comrade of the IRSM



Danielle Ni Dhighe
4th October 2012, 08:12
Fallen Comrade of the Irish Republican Socialist Movement

Seamus Costello
Chairperson - Irish Republican Socialist Party
Chief of Staff - Irish National Liberation Army
Assassinated on 5 October 1977

Seamus Costello was born in Bray, County Wicklow, Ireland in 1939,
the eldest of nine children.

His interest in politics began in his early teens. At the age of
sixteen he joined Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army. Within a
year he was commanding an Active Service Unit of the IRA in South
Derry, where his leadership skills earned him the nickname of "The
Boy General". His unit carried out many successful operations,
including the destruction of bridges and the burning of a British
courthouse.

He was arrested in Glencree, County Wicklow in 1957 and sentenced to
six months in Mountjoy Prison. On his release he was immediately
interned in the Curragh prison camp for two years.

He spent his time in prison studying, becoming particularly inspired
by his studies of the Vietnamese struggle. He became a member of the
escape committee which engineered the successful escapes of Ruari
O'Bradaigh and Daithi O'Connell among others. Costello would later
refer to this time as his "university days."

After his release from the Curragh, Costello worked to rebuild the
Republican Movement, beginning by building a local base of support in
County Wicklow as Sinn Fein's local organiser. He helped form a strong
Tenants Association in Bray, and also became involved with the Credit
Union movement, farmers' organisations, and trade unions. He stood for
election to the Bray Urban District Council and the Wicklow County
Council in 1967 and successfully won election to both seats.

During this period, he found time to marry a Tipperary woman,
Maeliosa, who also became active in the Republican Movement.

As both a trade unionist (in the Irish Transport and General Workers'
Union) and an elected representative, he never wavered from advocating
the necessity of a socialist revolution carried out by the working
class itself - nor did he waver from his belief that the class
struggle and the national liberation struggle are necessarily
intertwined in colonised and/or occupied nations such as Ireland.

During the split of the Republican Movement into Official and
Provisional factions in 1969, Costello remained with the Officials,
serving as Official Sinn Fein's Vice-President and the Official IRA's
Director of Operations.

As the Officials began their slide into reformist politics,
Costello's principled opposition led to his being dismissed from the
OIRA and suspended from OSF. His dismissal from OSF came in 1974
after the OSF leadership undemocratically blocked his supporters
from attending the party convention.

At a meeting in the Lucan Spa, a hotel near Dublin, on 8 December
1974, the Irish Republican Socialist Party was formed by republicans,
socialists, and trade unionists with Costello as the Chairperson.

At a secret meeting later the same day, the Irish National Liberation
Army was formed with Costello as the Chief of Staff, although its
existence was to be kept hidden for a time.

Within days of its founding, the fledgling Irish Republican Socialist
Movement was to begin a baptism of fire at the hands of the OIRA.
Members of the IRSM would be attacked and even killed. Before a truce
was reached, three members of the young movement were dead.

Despite the truce, Costello was shot and killed by a member of the
OIRA in Dublin on 5 October 1977.

At the time of his death, he was a member of the following bodies:
Wicklow County Council, County Wicklow Committee of Agriculture,
General Council of Committees of Agriculture, Eastern Regional
Development Organisation, National Museum Development Committee, Bray
Urban District Council, Bray Branch of the Irish Transport and
General Workers' Union, Bray and District Trade Unions Council (of
which he was president 1976-77), and the Cualann Historical Society,
as well as still holding the positions of Chairperson of the IRSP
and Chief of Staff of the INLA.

At his funeral, Nora Connolly O'Brien (daughter of James Connolly)
said Costello "was the only one who truly understood what James
Connolly meant when he spoke of his vision of the freedom of the
Irish people."

*******

"I owe my allegiance to the working class." - Seamus Costello

He died as he lived: a Republican Socialist. Remember him with
honour and pride.

*******

First Allegiance - A Socialist Republic
By Bernadette Devlin McAliskey

My personal acquaintance and friendship with Seamus Costello began in
1973. Before then I knew him only, as most people in Ireland, by
reputation.

On hearing of his death, I could find no words of my own to express
the deep sense of loss I felt, both personally and as a revolutionary
socialist committed to the struggle for Irish freedom. I took
therefore the words of a fellow revolutionary on the death of Malcolm
X, the black revolutionary champion of black liberation and socialism
in the U.S.A.: "Without him, we feel suddenly vulnerable, small and
weak, somewhat frightened, not by the prospect of death, but of life
and struggle without his contribution, his strength and inspiration."

There is no doubt that the struggle continues and its victory or
defeat is not measured solely by the number or quality of our fallen
comrades individually. Yet it is equally true that in every
generation of struggle the combination of circumstances, history and
the nature of the struggle itself, produces from the ranks of its
rebels a few, and a very few individuals who, notwithstanding the
fundamental principles of organisation, political correctness and
practical ability, common to many, rise head and shoulders above the
rest, with a potential for leadership, far beyond the ranks of the
already committed. Such a comrade was Seamus Costello.

Brutally murdered by petty, small-minded men of no vision whose only
place in history is to serve as a warning to others how
revolutionaries gone wrong can degenerate into worse than
nothingness, Seamus Costello, for all that he was and did in his
lifetime, was only at the beginning of his potential contribution to
the achievement of national liberation and socialism in this
generation. That is not to say that Seamus was above making mistakes
or that he was always politically correct. There were many questions
on which I disagreed with him, and which I considered crucial to the
development of the struggle. These remain unresolved.

Nonetheless, in leaving the Official Republican Movement and taking
the initiative of forming the IRSP, Seamus Costello proved his
ability in practice - once convinced that the approach of the
organisation to which he belonged was wrong and could not be altered
from within - to take on the daunting, but necessary task of building
an organisation capable and willing to carry the struggle forward.
The fact that he was capable of it underlined his key position in the
struggle, and his recognition of the need to forge a revolutionary
force in Ireland from the unification of the republican and labour
movements.

If I did not accept his arguments on how it could be done, I remained
confident that he, again, if he found himself mistaken, would move
further in his political analysis to another approach. He did not
live to see the test of theory in practice.

Much is said of his single mindedness, his ruthlessness and
organisational ability. At his hardest, Seamus Costello was never
hateful, nor was there a fibre of his being that was petty or
personally malicious, and despite the slanders of his enemies, he was
neither politically nor religiously sectarian.

He owed his first allegiance to an ideal - a 32 county socialist
republic. His enemies he defined only as those who consciously strove
to suffocate, distort or deny expression to that goal, and prevent
its achievement. As an orator, he was brilliant and inspiring. In
debate, he was uncompromising, skilled and learned. As an organiser,
he was efficient and did not easily tolerate idleness or half-hearted
effort.

Yet in my mind's eye, when I think of him, I see him laughing. A
sense of humour, the ability to laugh at oneself, and the predicament
in which we find ourselves, is sadly too rare a quality among
revolutionaries. Seamus possessed it in good measure.

His single greatest attribute was, however, his ability to relate to
the mass of the people. His potential as a leader of mass struggle is
not easily replaced. He could inspire not only the dream but the
confidence of its achievement, and the commitment to work towards
that end.

From the ranks of mass struggle, others will come. From the
experience of struggle, the political programme, organisation and
method of struggle will come. But another Seamus Costello may never
come again. When our freedom has been won, let us guard it well,
remembering it was paid for in the blood and the lives of those now
dead, but whose memory lives forever in the hearts of us who loved
them for all that they were and all they might have been, had they
been allowed to live.

*******

Related Website:

http://www.irsp.ie/Background/costello.html

Fruit of Ulysses
13th October 2012, 16:36
Thank you very much for this useful and inspiring post, Costello was and is an admirable fighter for national liberation and socialist construction. His dedication to Connolys legacy is to be remembered. A very balanced post and assesment of his work. Even if his specifics dont line up with yours his overall work for the working and oppressed cause is worthy of mention.

Mr. Natural
13th October 2012, 20:23
Danielle Ni Dhighe, Your lovely eulogy to a fallen revolutionary brings him back to life. Brits Out!

I heard Bernadette Devlin speak at UC-Berkeley some forty years ago, and was later appalled and enraged when she was riddled with bullets in her home in front of her family a few years later.

Posters may or may not get into sectarian Irish politics in this thread, but all will agree on "Brits out!"

And an increasing number of the world's people will now agree on "Americans out!" My red-green, in-the-belly-of-the-beast best.

Invader Zim
14th October 2012, 03:19
Posters may or may not get into sectarian Irish politics in this thread, but all will agree on "Brits out!"

Speaking as a socialist also living in another nation under 'British' rule, and also formerly of 'penal' status, I, for one, do not really understand 'Republicanism'. It makes no odds to me whether Wales is ruled from London or Cardiff. It isn't as if the material conditions of the region I live in would significantly improve one way or the other. The problem is the institution under which society is governed, not whether the beneficiaries of that institution are enjoying that status in Cardiff as opposed to London. And I have no time for the doomed concept of 'socialism in one country'.

But, hell. Far be it from me to have an opinion on the question of Irish sovereignty. I don't live there, so even if I did have an opinion it would be far from a legitimate one. It seems to me that it should be up to the people living in a region to determine their own nationality, and not up to anybody else - which it currently is.

Mr. Natural
14th October 2012, 17:44
Invader Zim, I don't see a disagreement, although the Irish getting rid of their domestic ruling class and capitalism would probably necessarily begin with a campaign to get the Brits and their imperialism out. Revolutionaries would just need to connect the various capitalist dots into a picture of the root enemy that is capitalism.

I do want to suggest that the left's current dismissal of "socialism in one country" can be dogmatic and paralytic. Whether we like it or not, capitalism has shaped the world's people into various nationalisms, and people will initially think and feel along nationalistic lines. The revolutionary trick would become, in my situation, linking "American" socialism to international socialism, and I don't see much of a problem in doing this. Anarchism/socialism/communism are about "We, the people ...," the opening of the preamble to the US Constitution, and I'd just love to have the opportunity to engage Americans with this line in both a domestic and international sense.

Of course, "socialism in one country" ultimately becomes a gross contradiction and fiction, but we will all have to begin in "one country."

My red-green best.

Uppity Prole
15th October 2012, 00:53
Speaking as a socialist also living in another nation under 'British' rule, and also formerly of 'penal' status, I, for one, do not really understand 'Republicanism'. It makes no odds to me whether Wales is ruled from London or Cardiff. It isn't as if my the material conditions of the region I live in would significantly improve one way or the other. The problem is the institution under which society is governed, not whether the beneficiaries of that institution are enjoying that status in Cardiff as opposed to London. And I have no time for the doomed concept of 'socialism in one country'.

But, hell. Far be it from me to have an opinion on the question of Irish sovereignty. I don't live there, so even if I did have an opinion it would be far from a legitimate one. It seems to me that it should be up to the people living in a region to determine their own nationality, and not up to anybody else - which it currently is.

Ireland's recent history as a British colony does not make it comparable to the status of Wales within Britain, which is its own set of circumstances.

We should not ignore the national question. British rule in Ireland has been divisive and it has used its influence to split Ireland's proletariat amongst chauvinist lines.

Fruit of Ulysses
15th October 2012, 20:08
Forgive me for perhaps coming off as chauvenistic nationalist hehe, but I truly feel Ireland has a special destiny in that the anti-imperialist struggle in Ulster is one of critical importance for the world progressive movement. Why the hell else would the damned crown work so hard for centuries to keep us enslaved if it didnt benefit them concretely and materially? Total Irish freedom would strike a deep financial and moral blow against one of the planets leading First World imperialist oppressors, and on the other hand it would give us the opportunity of having another nation mobilized in the progressive struggle. A free Ulster would no doubt be a hotbed of revolutionary activity and be of great aid in the liberation of Palestine and the Basque. Imperialism is the dialysis machine of moribund capitalism. The exploitative nature of the British-Irish relationship is not a simple matter of which city issues legal directives, the bourgois in Northern Ireland are the running dogs of the British Imperialists. Take out their masters and their power will crumble afterwards

Invader Zim
17th October 2012, 12:31
Forgive me for perhaps coming off as chauvenistic nationalist hehe, but I truly feel Ireland has a special destiny in that the anti-imperialist struggle in Ulster is one of critical importance for the world progressive movement. Why the hell else would the damned crown work so hard for centuries to keep us enslaved if it didnt benefit them concretely and materially?

Well, doubtless it did benefit the crown for many centuries. For instance, during the 18th and 19th centuries, Irish people made up something in the region of 1/4 to 1/3 of the Crown's imperial henchmen. However, I find it difficult to conclude that from the 1960s onwards there was any material benefit to British rulers in retaining Northern Ireland. Rather, it would appear that the basis for doing so was entirely political: No government was going to be seen to cave into the demands of a political group planting bombs in British cities, regardless of the cost.

ed miliband
17th October 2012, 14:13
what's with the american hard-on for irish republicanism?

Igor
17th October 2012, 14:18
He owed his first allegiance to an ideal - a 32 county socialist
republic.

working peoples of the 32 counties unite

The Douche
17th October 2012, 14:18
what's with the american hard-on for irish republicanism?

Americans love violence, especially when its committed by people we sort of look like or who we can claim some connection to (since my great-great-great-great-great grandpa floated over here from Ireland and I love the dropkick murphys so much).

Why don't americans get as excited about MEND as they do the IRA? Because MEND aren't a bunch of white christians, thats why.

Vanguard1917
17th October 2012, 15:57
Well, doubtless it did benefit the crown for many centuries. For instance, during the 18th and 19th centuries, Irish people made up something in the region of 1/4 to 1/3 of the Crown's imperial henchmen. However, I find it difficult to conclude that from the 1960s onwards there was any material benefit to British rulers in retaining Northern Ireland. Rather, it would appear that the basis for doing so was entirely political: No government was going to be seen to cave into the demands of a political group planting bombs in British cities, regardless of the cost.

You're right that imperialist rule in Ireland wasn't really about direct financial benefit. Rather, losing control over Ireland - Britain's oldest colony, and a country within a few miles of its shores - would have been calamitous to the standing and integrity of the British state as an imperialist power. In the context of the Cold War abroad and the class war at home, Irish republicanism had to be fought as a matter of priority in order to reassert British ruling-class authority.

Igor
17th October 2012, 16:04
Danielle Ni Dhighe, Your lovely eulogy to a fallen revolutionary brings him back to life. Brits Out!

I heard Bernadette Devlin speak at UC-Berkeley some forty years ago, and was later appalled and enraged when she was riddled with bullets in her home in front of her family a few years later.

Posters may or may not get into sectarian Irish politics in this thread, but all will agree on "Brits out!"

And an increasing number of the world's people will now agree on "Americans out!" My red-green, in-the-belly-of-the-beast best.

"brits out" is kinda worrying rhetoric when you consider the fact that large amounts of people in northern ireland consider themselves brits. slogans like "brits out" are terrible because you're not only opposing the british state and its presence in NI, you're alienating and rhetorically attacking working class people in there. irish people have no special right whatsoever to live in that piece of land, as opposed to people who consider themselves british.

so no i don't agree on "brits out" and no commie should

edit: in fact, 37% of the population does identify as british (http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2008/Community_Relations/NINATID.html) which is more than irish or northern irish. but yeah brits out

Mr. Natural
17th October 2012, 17:39
Igor, "Brits out" may not be an appropriate commie slogan, but that 37% of the Irish population identifies with Britain says more about the effects of British imperial history than it does about the sanctity of that identity.

Like it or not, the world has been divided along national lines, and nationalisms have also played their part in Marxist attempts at revolution. Yes, the workers organized in the factories, but they generally did so within nations and had a strong national consciousness. Internationalism, such as that of the tens of thousands of workers who went to Spain to fight incipient fascism, has been the exception.

If I were in a nation that had been invaded by an imperial power, I don't believe I'd have much difficulty in linking anti-imperialist nationalism and the need for an anti-capitalist proletarian revolutionary movement. The sort of radical nationalism imperial invasion engenders should provide fertile ground in which to grow working class consciousness and a revolutionary, internationalist, anti-capitalist movement.

However, if I were in a nation that had been captured by an imperial power, I would expect that many or most Marxists would refuse to consider the revolutionary potential outraged nationalist sensibilities would provide and would retreat into worker versus ruling class dogma.

Capitalism generates imperialism, and imperial conquest can be employed to bring its capitalist roots into view for a revolutionary uprooting. "Brits out!" by itself may be simplistic and ultimately conservative, but it can provide the opening for the development of revolutionary sensibilities and movements.

Marxists agree imperialism arises from advanced, monopoly capitalism. Why then dismiss nationalist, anti-imperialist sentiments? Why not develop them into anti-capitalist movements?

ed miliband
17th October 2012, 19:01
Igor, "Brits out" may not be an appropriate commie slogan, but that 37% of the Irish population identifies with Britain says more about the effects of British imperial history than it does about the sanctity of that identity.

why would that 37% of people changing their minds and identifying with the irish state be any better for a communist?

Os Cangaceiros
17th October 2012, 20:23
what's with the american hard-on for irish republicanism?

Balaclavas and AK's

Prometeo liberado
17th October 2012, 23:56
what's with the american hard-on for Irish republicanism?

Maybe it's because in the face of an overwhelming enemy and a history of getting their collective asses kicked, knowing full well that the probable outcome will be a life of torture and a cell, or torture and death. With the weight of history telling them that you can't beat the British Empire while suspecting that your neighbor was secretly working for the Crown. With all that, brave Republicans chose the hard path. Right or wrong, having a hard-on, as you call it, for selfless bravery and those who dare to hope against hope seems appealing to me. But please don't confuse this with romanticizing.

Os Cangaceiros
18th October 2012, 00:48
Americans love violence, especially when its committed by people we sort of look like or who we can claim some connection to (since my great-great-great-great-great grandpa floated over here from Ireland and I love the dropkick murphys so much).

Why don't americans get as excited about MEND as they do the IRA? Because MEND aren't a bunch of white christians, thats why.

A lot of funding for the IRA came from the United States, though. It wasn't just a matter of passive support, a lot of people actively supported the IRA back in it's heyday, my personal favorite being US Congressman Peter King, who now scapegoats Muslims for terrorism.

The Douche
18th October 2012, 02:22
A lot of funding for the IRA came from the United States, though. It wasn't just a matter of passive support, a lot of people actively supported the IRA back in it's heyday, my personal favorite being US Congressman Peter King, who now scapegoats Muslims for terrorism.

Was that intended to refute my point?

Os Cangaceiros
18th October 2012, 02:27
No, it just sounded like you were saying that the IRA's supporters in the USA just did it because of some vague reason and didn't really support them, or something.

Mr. Natural
19th October 2012, 15:17
Other than empathisizing with the OP's eulogy of sorts to a fallen comrade, my posts simply stated that recognition of the capture of one's nation by global capitalism/imperialism provides openings to developing a popular revolutionary awareness of the nature of capitalism. I believe this is obvious.

It is also evident that there are no viable revolutionary organizing processes taking place at present, and that the "left" has become conservative as hell.

In such a situation, Marx and Engels would be asking themselves, "What went wrong? What is wrong with our theory?" Current Marxists, though, just burrow further into a revolutionary theory that has historically failed to produce socialism, but is now treated as sacred dogma. I believe Engels wrote something somewhere along the lines of, "Our theory is not a dogma, but a guide to action."

Who could jettison historical materialism or the Marxist analysis of capitalism and surplus value? Who will argue against the general outlines of anarchism/socialism/communism? On the other hand, who can accurately maintain that Marxism has historically known how to organize? That knowledge would have come from the new sciences of organization that developed after Marx and Engels--the science that modern Marxists have shunned.

I don't expect comrades to enjoy reading statements from me along the lines of, "It is my daily discouragement to engage a left that is not only theoretically sterile and conservative, but refuses to recognize this reality and re-commit to radical, revolutionary theorizing." However, I do expect comrades to ask themselves, "Is this true?"

The old ways have failed. Why? What are the new ways? My red-green best.