The Red Plough
http://theredplough.blogspot.com/
Vol. 3-No 4
April/May 2012
1/ Campaigning on the left and ruling on the right.
2/ Prisoner Solidarity Committee?
3/ “best place to be a mother”
Editorial
This edition of the Red Plough contains three articles. One reprinted from Liberation shows one of the successes of the Cuban Revolution and affirms the superiority of socialised medicine over the current wave of privitisation of public health services all over Europe.
Given the vindictive way in which the British Governemnt,backed up by the still bigoted, blinkeredand right wing DUP, is treating Marian Price the call for a Prisoner Solidarity Committee is well timed. There is no excuse for differeing republican groups ignoring each other and carrying out solidaity actions on their own. The call for a united front on the whole issue of prisoners is one that should meet with a positive response not only from all republican groups but also those socialist groups who claim to oppose state repression.
The main artice “‘Campaigning on the left and ruling on the right’” should be read in conjunction with “The United Left Alliance and the North-Some thoughts!” in The Red Plough Vol. 2-No 3 September 2011. Sadly the ULA has so far failed to build organisationally on the initial enthusiasism at its formation. The establishment of a mass socialist party in ireland with a clear socialist programme and open to the widest democratic internal debates could inspire the mass of young people currently facing a uncertian future fand facing unemployment and emigration. But in order to build such a Party the two main sects need to break from their selfish sectarian positions.
‘Campaigning on the left and ruling on the right’.
THE CURRENT CRISIS
The current crisis of capitalism is deeper and more prolonged than any other in history. The austerity programme pushed by the so called Troika, the European Union, International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank, is bringing misery to millions. It is not confined to one country nor one continent. It is world wide. And it has provoked reaction from the masses. Extraordinary events have occurred over the past few years. Dictators have been overthrown in Tunisia and Egypt. The Arab Spring has shown the power of the masses and given renewed vigor to the revolutionary forces within the Arab world. The movement of the indignados1 in Spain has brought in new forces of protest from outside the traditional political structures. Even the Financial Times has written
“Either Spain will miss the target, or the Spanish government will have to fire so many nurses and teachers that the result will be a political insurrection.” 2
Britain has seen riots and two years of the Tory/Lib/Dems has seen a swing back to Labour. The occupy movement has brought new forces into struggle. The Prime Ministers of both Greece and Italy were brought down to be replaced by technocrats to carry out the Troika’s austerity policies. Greece has seen a wave of strikes and demonstrations. Its election saw a heavy defeat for those parties espousing austerity. The French people have swung decisively to the left and rejected austerity. But will the democratic decisions of the Greek and French people be respected? The old ways now no longer count.
Mass unemployment is now a fact of life not only in Ireland but in in the Euro zone. In March 2012 the figures overall for unemployment were 10.9% or 17 .37 million men women and young people looking for work.. Spain alone has a figure of 24.1% in March 2012.Greece had a figure of 21.7% in January 2012. These figures of Southern Europe contrast with Northern Europe where places like Austria Germany, the Netherlands have figures below 6% 3
This has to be seen against a background of long planning by the forces who run capitalism to push back the gains of the working classes world wide. It has been argued4 that sudden crises are intentionally manipulated to push through extreme free market policies that were otherwise not politically possible. The past four years have proved a somewhat vindication of Klein's argument. A crisis of the market was cleverly transformed by free market ideologues into a crisis of public spending.
“Across Europe, the biggest slump since the 1930s has been used to push through policies straight out of some right-wing wet dream: the slashing of taxes on the rich and major corporations; the selling off of public services; and a bonfire of workers' rights. It is disaster capitalism on speed.”5
THE UNITED LEFT ALLIANCE
The United Left Alliance was formed in the Irish Republic (26 counties) two years ago with the coming together of three political groupings- The Socialist Party, the People before Profit Alliance and the Workers and Unemployed Action Group. A number of former labour party members including former TD Declan Bree also joined. Its formation was due in part to the fact that there was really no credible left alternative that the working class could vote for.
The Irish Labour Party has never been a mass party of the working class. Rather it has been a marriage of convenience of career politicians and strong personalities who build up profiles in a number of constituencies. While it has some links to the trade union movement these have tended to be with the leaderships of the unions and only then to ensure the passivity of the trade unions when they would go into Government withe the right wing Fine Gael. Its current leadership are former members of the Democratic Left itself a splinter from the Stalinist Workers Party.
The other so called radical alternative is Sinn Fein, itself a highly centralised and controlled nationalist organisation that in the North has little problem implementing austerity policies. While it has taken support from working class areas and from disillusioned Fianna Fail supporters its political trajectory is to occupy the space that Fianna Fail occupied for most of the States‘s life-that of a slightly left leaning populist nationalist party that would implement policies that encourage capitalism.
There had been a growing trend recently for independents to gain seats. So the coming together in the ULA was an attempt to harness the obvious growing disillusionment with the mainstream political parties.
Prior to the election of 2011 there was heightened expectation among some on the left that a left government was within reach for the first time in Irish history6. However such unrealistic expectations were totally upended by the actual results
In the General election of 25th February 2011 the ULA had 5 TD’S elected. However this success needs to measured against the greater success of Sinn Fein(P) and independents. Sinn Fein(P) won 14 seats up 9 from their previous 5. Independents won 14 seats included a range of views from left to right. The then ruling party Fianna Fail lost 57 seats and were down to 20. A new coalition Government was then formed comprising 76 Fine Gael members and 37 Labour members.
That election was the biggest change over in the history of the state. But there was never any possibility of a Left Government. At least 133 out 166 elected members support austerity and the screwing of the Irish working class. The electorate throw out one right wing grouping only to have it replaced it with another right wing grouping. This despite the fact that the combined ‘left’ vote was up from 15% in the previous election to 38.5 % in 2011
Fianna Fail for years considered the natural governing party were decimated. The reason why such a seismic change was of course the economy, the recession the collapse of the housing market and the state guaranteeing the bond holders their money.
But if the electorate thought that they were in for change by dumping out Fianna Fail, they were in for a very rude awakening. The coalition of Fine Gael and Labour has introduced the most right wing budgets in living memory. The leadership of Labour, who learned their political skills in the old stalinist WP have restricted the rank and file of the Labour Party from any real say in the direction of the Party. It is controlled from the top and is taking that same Labour Party into a headlong flight away from any pretence of socialism. In the last analysis the social democrats of the Labour Party provide left cover for the Government even as they betray every principle they once held. Social democracy in Europe is notorious for ‘campaigning on the left and ruling on the right’. That has always been the practice of the Irish Labour Party. Remember before the Irish election one of their slogans was ‘Frankfurt’s Way or Labour’s Way’. Once elected it soon became “Frankfurt’s Way”
IRISH AUSTERITY
Salaries have been cut. Pension money has been taken by the state. Social welfare cut. Taxation increased. Water taxes introduced. Property taxes introduced. The list goes on and on.
The ESRI analysis of Budget 20127 is the most comprehensive independent analysis to date of the impact of the budget on income inequality. It takes into account the impact of social welfare cuts, VAT increases, tax changes and levies on income. It shows that Budget 2012 is the most regressive budget in many years, proportionately targeting low income households more than four times as much as the most affluent households.
A drive around the the once ‘Celtic Tiger’ reveals empty shopping centres, main streets with boarded up shop fronts and few shoppers. Pubs are empty or closed. G.A.A. clubs once the centre of social life, are losing many of their best young footballers to emigration. One Irish university has over 40 % of its graduates headed for Australia.
An aura of despair almost fills the air and the economy sinks even more into depression. Primary schools are daily dealing with undernourished children and already one child has collpsed in a classroom with hunger. When social workers contacted the mother she had no food at all in the house and was waitng for her social welfafe money to feed her children.8 Ghost housing estates all around the country from Cork to Donegal and all in-between stand idle as monuments to the greed and avarice of the banks, the builders and their buddies in Government. This when we are only into the second year of a 4 year plan of austerity.
All this to pay for the debts run up not by the Irish people but by the bankers and developers who created the mess originally.The bankers continue to pay themselves bonuses. There is an unholy alliance between big business, the Government and the official leadership of the trade union movement9 to keep a lid on protest and ensure that the international capital market continues with screwing the Irish people
And now the Coalition Government want the people to actually vote yes for more of this. That is in effect what the forthcoming referendum10 is all about. It would impose, if passed, a maximum public deficit rule of 0.5% and a permanent balanced budget rule on all future Irish Governments
“in order to obtain access to a proposed Eurozone loan fund, when this fund does not yet exist, when the ESM Treaty which would establish it has not yet been ratified and may well never be ratified, and when the ratification of that treaty will almost certainly require a separate referendum to be held on it in Ireland anyway?I ask you would it not be foolish of Irish voters to change their Constitution so as to impose a maximum public deficit rule of 0.5% and a permanent balanced budget rule on Irish Governments for the indefinite future?”11
THE LEFT
This crisis has raised serious questions for those of us on the left. Across the world there are numerous leftist grouping parties and movements some of whom are convinced they and they alone are the revolutionary party. Political sectarianism is a disease that hinder not helps the struggle for a better world and yet there are still those organisations who put the interests of their organisation before that of the end- the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a socialist society.
Ireland also has its fair share of narrow minded groupings, more interested in organisation gain than advancing the struggle. It affects not only socialist groupings but also republican groupings. For example those who at this critical juncture in a capitalist crisis see the so called “national question” as the priority make a major mistake. That is not to say it is not important. It is but the main focus of struggle at this time should be in the defence of the Southern working class against the austerity imposed by international capital. Republicans, North and South of the border, need to join in struggle with other leftists in defence of the Southern working class. Only in so doing can republicans retain credibility and relevance.
But unfortunately if they were to do so they would not be greeted with open arms by some on the left. The Socialist Party one of the constituent elements in the ULA has already made clear its position on working with republicans
“We will not associate ourselves with campaigns which support Marian Price but which do not take a clear position of opposition to the Real IRA campaign.”12
That statement begs the question would they work with republicans who do not support armed struggle? All the evidence from the past years is no. In essence the SP denies that there are any progressive elements in Republicanism. We disagree.
Of course there are many things to criticise within republicanism including its elitism, its fixation with armed struggle its refusal to acknowledge its own sectarianism and its over-fixation with ‘the struggle’ to the exclusion of almost all other issues. Nevertheless in its anti-imperialism, its solidarity with other oppressed peoples and its acceptance of socialism it deserves to be seen as a progressive force. That is of course the broad ideology of Republicanism.-Not the current armed campaign carried out by a number of differing republican groupings.
In the ULA itself there is clear evidence that political sectarian considerations take precedence over building the ULA itself. For example on the Referenduum itself the People before Profit Alliance, itself essentially a front for the Socialist Workers Party, launched its own campaign for a No Vote.13
The Socialist Party itself has its own website14 putting its own name before the ULA.
Each of these two groupings have strong elements of elitism within their approach to political issues and tend to see issues that arise as opportunities to build not the mass movement of the working class but their own particular tendency. Logically how can they defend going into elections under a guise of names that only serves to confuse and demoralise rather than unite and energise?
Furthermore the leadership of the ULA have already made a major error in actually meeting with the representatives of the Troika. The meeting took place in January and the ULA was represented by Richard Boyd-Barrett of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and Clair Daly of the Socialist Party (SP)Such meetings only serve to reinforce the impression that the leadership of the ULA would have no problem,s working with such bodies in the future. Already in Germany Christine Buchholz, a member of the International Socialist Tendency, the sister organisation of the SWP sits on the Defence Committee, which the Bundestag describes as a body that “always meets in closed session” and is charged with defending “the security of the country and of Germany’s allies, as well as the interests of Bundeswehr [armed forces] personnel on active service.”
This is the equivalent of Sinn Fein members serving on the Policing Boards in the North of Ireland and shows a ready willingness to work with and implement the policies of, the ruling class. Like the trade union bureacracy left reformism serves as a block on the development of revolutionary forces in Ireland. The comrades within the ULA should ponder on these words written many years ago,
“the delegates to Trade Union Congresses are, as a rule, not the flower of the working class, but are rather the intriguers who, because they are willing to perform (for a cash consideration) the drudgery and routine work of trade unionism, are allowed by the too indulgent rank and file to work themselves into positions of notoriety and to pose as leaders.”15
Historically left reformism hinders the development of a revolutionary conciousness among the working class. To combat it requires a struggle on a number of fronts.
Within the trade union movement the struggle needs to be for the widest extension of democracy witht the election of full time officials, the right of recall and the limiting of the salary of full time officials to that of the average wage.
But there is also the struggle within the existing political parties of the left including some republican parties. While the long term prospects of the ULA do not look good given the left reformist tendencies of both main factions nevertheless marxists within both it and the Labour Party should be working to break from coalition with the right and campaign to win the mass of workers to a revolutionary position and change society. Of course many of the most advanced sections of the workers may well have illusions in the ability of capitalism to meet their needs. But when the old ways no longer work events can move at breath-taking speed.
At times like these marxists must
“Lend an attentive ear to what the masses are saying, without prejudice without illusions, without deceiving oneself; for upon the basis of a correct appreciation of the relation of forces within the proletariat avoiding as much for opportunism as for adventurism, leading the masses forward but not holding them back.”16
But as well as listening to the masses we must also hear what others on the left are saying and
“lend a patient and attentive ear to their criticisms, to their doubts, to their hesitations; help their evolution towards Marxism; do not fear their caprices, their threats, their ultimatums (the centrists are always capricious and susceptible); do not make any concession of principle to them. Yet once again: Do not fear to state that which is.”(ibid)
Gerry Ruddy
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011–2012_Spanish_protests
2 Financial Times April 15 2012 .)
3 (http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0502/euro-zone-unemployment-jumps-to-a-record-10-9.html?RTEMAILID
4 Naomi Klein “The Shock Doctrine”
5 The Independent OWEN JONES FRIDAY 11 MAY 2012
6 http://www.lookleftonline.org/2011/02/left-unity/
7 (http://www.esri.ie/#/)
8 http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/undernourished-child-collapses-193911.html
9 David Begg, the leader of ICTU, sat on the board of the Central Bank when it failed to regulate the banks and failed to do anything to prevent the disaster.
10 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/28/irish-referendum-eurozone-fiscal-compact
11 http://nationalplatform.org/2012/05/01/open-letter-to-ucd-economist-colm-mccarthy/
12 http://socialistpartyni.net/statement-a-analysis/58-the-national-question/770-return-of-internment-no-to-state-repression
13 http://bridsmith.org/2012/05/04/launch-of-people-before-profit-alliance-no-to-the-eu-austerity-treaty-campaign/
14 http://www.austeritytreaty.ie/
15 The Workers’ Republic, June 1901. James Connolly
16 February 22, 1934http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/02/centrism.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following article first appeared in the Pensive Quill (http://thepensivequill.am/2012/05/broad-prisoner-solidarity-movement.html utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bigmackers+%28The+Pensive+Quill+-+Anthony+McIntyre%27s+blog%29
Johnny McGrath argues for a more proactive approach to the current prison crisis. The author of the piece is an activist with the Prisoners’ Solidarity Group, Cork.
Is the time not ripe for a broad 'Prisoner Solidarity Committee' to be formed? Made up of Representatives of all P.O.W. representative groups, IRPWA, Cogús, F+F Group, Cabhair, IRSP, Éirígi as well as active groups and ex-pows groups, like Duleek independent republicans, PSG, Friends of Marian (Dublin), Teach na Fáilte etc.
Forgive me if I have left anyone out) and including someone from a neutral standpoint like Independent Workers Union (I.W.U.). There are at present pickets, protests, white line pickets, marches, car convoys happening in Various parts of the country like Cork, Dublin, Duleek, Dundalk, Derry, Strabane, Belfast, Newry, Lurgan etc etc.
The lack of coordination and the variety of groups and organisations campaigning separately for the same issue can be off putting for those outside the world of Republicanism and on the left. A united broad campaign could generate a lot more support.
It has been said that the Prisoners dont have much support because the people dont support the campaigns that some of the prisoners have been alleged to have been involved in.
There have been political status struggles going back decades From Mickey Devine back to Thomas Ashe all part of the same old battle against criminalisation. Those imprisoned now are no different from Michael Gaughan or the Fenians transported to Australia, penal transportation is now extradition/rendition. What matters is that they are Political Prisoners.
What is lacking at first glance is a campaign with a Name!.i.e.'SMASH MAGHABERRY', 'SMASH INTERNMENT CAMPAIGN'.
Secondly, coordination of the already existing protests,(so at the very least they could happen on the same day where possible) and thirdly a set strategy, to achieve set objectives. We have a duty, an obligation to our Comrades 'behind the wire' to organise, agitate, and escalate our campaign so they don't have to escalate things inside Maghaberry. We have our Liberty, they dont.
In a recent article the IRSP noted the dangers of Broadening out a campaign for the prisoners
...
there is a humanitarian aspect to Maghaberry and the internment of Marian Price but there is also a much larger political agenda. The torturous conditions and political internment emphasise Britain’s imperialist role in Ireland and their continuing war against the Republican people. This is why any attempt to broaden the base of the campaign for the Maghaberry prisoners must include an acceptance that the prisoners are political prisoners. They are also Prisoners of War because as previously noted Britain continues to wage war against the Irish people...
No broad campaign can allow the Prisoners demands to be watered down. It must act as a support to the struggle within Maghaberry, Hydebank or Lukiskes prisons, democratically. Again the IRSP
Now support for the prisoners’ demands is a positive force but we should be careful that this ‘support’ from non-republican quarters does not culminate in the protest movement being hijacked. The Catholic Church and the SDLP have an appalling record as far as Irish political prisoners are concerned. During the period of 1976-81, both the clergy and the SDLP undermined Republican prisoners and refused to unreservedly recognise them as political prisoners and support their 5 demands.
Much time has been wasted on what divides us, now is the time to find common ground for the benefit of the POWs and to build a united Prisoners movement in order to escalate things on the outside to prevent the situation within Maghaberry from reaching the point of no return.
Below are just some ideas of what the objectives and strategies of a broad campaign could be.
Objectives.
A Broad campaign should have as its core objectives:
The Full Implementation of the 12th August Agreement
The Ending of Internment,and release of anyone Interned,(i.e. Marian Price, Martin Corey, Gerry McGeough)The Repatriation of Michael Campbell.
Strategy
Formation of regional Broad 'Prisoner Solidarity Committees' in regional areas where networks of anti-imperialists exist, similar to the relatives action committees which could agitate at local level, local committees could organize protests in structured, consistent way (monthly?) highlighting situation, pickets of TDs, informing the general public who are largely unaware of situation, lobby trade unions, sports bodies like GAA, students unions, lobby local councils to pass motions supporting campaign objectives. Campaign at local level to be democratic.
Formation of 'National Prisoner Solidarity Committee/Movement'* which would include representatives of each aforementioned groups, to organize and coordinate campaign and turn it from being a regionalised campaign into becoming a National Campaign. Draw up a 'charter' or constitution which deals with mutual respect among representative groups., (focus on what unites us rather than what divides us).
Organise fundraisers Facilitate groups who are constitutionally opposed to taking part in 'broad fronts' by liasing and coordinating events with them where possible.
National campaign to be just that, National, reject partitionist tendencies where they arise and make sure equal measure is given to highlighting situation in areas like Dublin or Belfast( areas of partitionist power) organise pickets at and marches on Stormont and Leinster house ,pickets outside British and Lithuanian embassies and events organised to sell and promote British Normalisation policy, such as the 'dublin seminar on belfast agreement'. (Too late for that I know). And events that seek to Normalise policing.
Mobilisation.* 'National committee' liase with 'regional committees' to mobilise people, i.e organise and fundraise for buses to get people to Big events such as marches in one end of the country or the other.
Progressive support. National committee to engage with and seek support of all progressive/Left bodies and groups such as political parties and trade unions and cultural groups.
Seek practical support internationally. 'National committee' to establish links with other progressive forces with a view to establishing Internationl support committees in various countires, USA, Euskal Herria/Basque country, to agitate for campaign demands.
Propaganda. To effectively spread our message to both local and mainstream media through social media and agitational propaganda.
National committee* could launch an annual 'Prisoners day', and create a symbol (like the green ribbon) that would become synonymous with the campaign and Republican prisoners in general.
This is by no means a complete strategy, all ideas welcomed. Anyone who wants to respond directly to this article can email prisonersolidaritygroup@gmail.com
Níl neart go cur le chéile
Cuba declared 'best place to be a mother'
Afghanistan is last on list; United States is number 28
By Priscilla Lounds
MAY 9, 2010
Being a mother brings joy as well as challenges. The international charity Save the Children has released its Eleventh Annual Mothers Index of the World’s Best and Worst Places to be a Mother, just in time for Mother’s Day. The index is based on various indicators of women’s and children’s health and well-being, including access to education, jobs and health care for women and children.
In this report, Save the Children rated the United States at number 28 on the list of developed nations, behind Croatia, Latvia, Greece, Portugal and many other countries. Cuba ranked number one on the list of less-developed nations, while Afghanistan came in dead last.
One reason why the United States came in at number 28 on the “Developed Nations” list is because of the high maternal mortality rate—one death for every 4,800 births, as well as minimal maternity leave policies. Women in the United States can be expected to complete 16 years of formal education. Sixty-eight percent of U.S. women use modern birth control methods. Infant mortality is eight deaths per 1,000 live births. In reality, the U.S. infant mortality rate is significantly higher in the Black and Latino communities.
Based on the statistics compiled by Save the Children, Afghanistan is the worst place on Earth to be a mother. Women in Afghanistan have on average only five years of education. The life expectancy of an Afghani woman is just 44 years, while only 16 percent of Afghani women use modern contraception. Tragically, one out of four children in Afghanistan will die before his or her fifth birthday. As these data show, women in Afghanistan have not been liberated by the U.S. invasion on their homeland as the establishment media claim.
Cuba, a small island nation, stands at number one among less-developed nations. One hundred percent of Cuban births are attended by a skilled medical professional. Seventy –two percent of Cuban women use modern birth control methods, while the average Cuban woman can expect to complete 19 years of formal education. Infant mortality rates in Cuba are lower than in the United States at only six deaths per 1,000 live births. How can Cuba do this despite more than 50 years of the imperialist blockade and relentless destabilization attempts from the United States? The answer lies with Cuba’s socialized system that provides education and quality health care for all.
From 
http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/10-05-09-cuba-declared-best-place-to-be.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Descriptive History Of The Irish Citizen Army [Kindle Edition]
Kindle Price: $8.29 includes VAT* & free international wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet
You Save: $1.77 (18%)
-------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marxist Education
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp
James Connolly Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly
The Red Plough is an independent Republican Marxist Internet publication
Please feel free to comment on the contents of the Red Plough.
We welcome political comments and criticisms. If you know of anybody who might wish to receive the Red Plough please send his or her e-mail address to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com
To unsubscribe to The Red Plough please send e-mail entitled “unsubscribe” to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com.
It is the policy of The Red Plough to acknowledge information and articles from other sources.
Saturday, 19 May 2012
Sunday, 1 April 2012
The Red Plough Vol. 3-No 3
The Red Plough
http://theredplough.blogspot.com/
Vol. 3-No 3
March 2012
Easter. 1916-2012
At Easter every year in every parish in Ireland and in many places around the world Irish Republicans gather to pay homage to those men and women who died in the struggle for independence. This year, 2012, will be no different. However whereas 50 years ago there was only one Republican Movement today there are at least seven different republican traditions that have emerged out of the northern struggle. All will march separately to graveyards to pay their respects to the dead and articulate their message as to why people should follow their particular form of Irish Republicanism. Some will make class appeals. Others will make nationalist appeals while others will argue that their way is the “only show in town”and that the full implementation of all the outgoings of the Good Friday Agreement will achieve national independence. So called ‘dissidents’ will vehemently disagree with that latter argument and some of them will maintain that the only road ahead is that of armed struggle.
All, however, base themselves on the proclamation of Easter 1916 in particular that which said,
“We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty: six times during the past three hundred years[ they have asserted it in arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State, and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and its exaltation among the nations.”1
The Easter proclamation is a powerful and moving document, 96 years old, yet still capable of inspiring young people to take up arms in pursuit of the goal of an independent Republic. In its time it was, and still is, a progressive document, advocating universal suffrage, equal rights for all and a republican form of Government.
Sadly over the years the goals of the document have been partially forgotten and the means have become dominant. Indeed not only did the means become dominant but then the ‘movement’ to achieve those goals became dominant and in the end the ‘movement’ was all and neither the goals nor the means matter. Loyalty to the movement became the overriding consideration.
In modern politics as expressed by the parties of the ruling class this is known as control freakery and spin doctoring. Dissent is not tolerated and loyalty to the ruling clique/or leader is paramount. Those who question are demonised, accused of stealing, drug-taking, drunkenness or even of being ‘intellectuals’.
They are ‘touts’ or are agents of a foreign power or what ever it takes to isolate, undermine, and reduce the influence of those who question. Ideas are not challenged, but personalities attacked and slandered.
Such tactics naturally provoke a response but within Irish Republicanism that response has been generally negative. Rather than establish a clearly defined goal and outlining the steps to reach such goals dissenting Republicans tend to attack the leaderships of the dominant provisional republican movement.
Some, sadly, have become obsessed with that body and never miss an opportunity to verbally attack PSF. Negativity rare works.
Since 1994 this writer has argued that republicanism has suffered a major defeat. That is ever more so today with the failure of fellow republicans to co-operate even on the most basic of things like support for political prisoners like Marian Price and others. Initiatives in the past to bring Republicans into a common forum have broken down because some feared contamination by mixing with those Republicans who support armed struggle. Rather than begin a process of persuasion by example argument and debate people retreated into their own safe little republican sects. That is part of the reason there are now so many different republican traditions. (If that process keeps up there soon may be as many republican sects as there are trotskyist.stalinist/maoist tendencies!!!!)
In relation to aspects of armed struggle there is an argument to be made. Unfortunately that argument is not been made or articulated. It is as if the deed itself speaks and is the only argument. The Red Plough is opposed at armed struggle at this time in Irish history.
This is not 1916, nor indeed the early 20’s or the 50’s or the 70’s or 80’s. Time, conditions, people and economies have moved on and changed. Technology has in the past twenty years transformed the way we live our lives.
We have argued consistently that the only road is the political road2. Politics by ideas and deed is the way forward.
A respected veteran Republican Jim Lane, has argued that Irish republicanism as articulated by Wolfe Tone in the 18th century, was the most progressive ideology of its day. That the republican socialism as argued by James Connolly3 in the early part of the 20th century was the most progressive though of the day. That the ideas of Karl Marx were the most progressive ideas of this time. We concur.
That is why we argue that for republicanism to win the mass of the irish people to its ideas and thoughts it must embrace the radical and progressive ideas of socialism. It is true that most, if not all, the differing republican traditions pay some form of homage towards socialism. But that is more in word than in deed. At the heart of the ideas of socialism is the working class. Class struggle is the motive force of history. Speaking about the Easter rising , Lenin, who knew a little bit about revolution wrote,
“Whoever calls such an uprising a ‘putsch’ is either a hardened reactionary or a doctrinaire hopelessly incapable of picturing a social revolution as a living thing.”4
“For to imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without the revolutionary outbursts of a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against landlord, church, monarchical, national and other oppression – to imagine that means repudiating social revolution. Very likely one army will line up in one place and say, ‘We are for socialism’, while another will do so in another place and say, ‘We are for imperialism’, and that will be the social revolution! Only from such a ridiculously pedantic angle could one label the Irish rebellion a ‘putsch’.
“Whoever expects a ‘pure’ social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip service to revolution without understanding what revolution really is.” 5
The class struggle is not simply a clear class battle between workers and capitalism lined up in opposition. It is a living thing existing day by day and taking many shapes and forms. The ’16 Rising was part of the class struggle because the struggle for national self determination is so interwoven with the class struggle that in Connolly’s words
“ The cause of labour is the cause of Ireland. The cause of Ireland is the cause of labour. They cannot be dissevered . . .”6
Much has been written about how the people of Dublin booed and heckled the prisoners as they were marched through the streets of Dublin. Yet even here the class struggle breaks through,
“I have read many accounts of public feeling in Dublin in these days.They all agreed that the open and strong sympathy of the mass of the population was with the British troops. That this was so in the better parts of the of the city, I have no doubt but certainly what I myself saw in the poorer districts did not confirm this. It rather indicated that there was a vast amount of sympathy with the rebels particularly after the rebels were defeated. The sentences of the Court Martial deepened this sympathy.”7
Today that class struggle is going all over Ireland. It is in the struggle over the property tax on households, in the worker occupations of building closed by the politics of Austerity, in the struggles to defend the public services from privitisation and in the prison struggles. These and many more struggles are interconnected. Of course there will be some sects on the left who deny this and demonise those who come from a wholly republican background. But that is no excuse for republicans themselves to walk away from these issues. The struggle is all embracing. James Connolly did not take part in the uprising for a ‘free ireland’. He was very clear
"We are out for Ireland for the Irish. But who are the Irish? Not the rack-renting, slum owning landlord; not the sweating, profit-grinding capitalist; not the sleek and oily lawyer; not the prostitute pressman - the hired liars of the enemy . . . but the Irish working class .
That was central to his thinking. Connolly did not take part as some kind of so called “blood sacrifice” -an idea put about by reactionary elements to undermine the class nature of Connolly’s participation in the ’16 Rising. Rather it was to spark the working class into action. No one todays accuses the USA’s Thomas Jefferson of being blood thirsty because he wrote
“The tree of liberty must continually be watered with the blood of martyrs and tyrants”8
War is by its nature ugly. It destroys. It destroys men women and children.It destroys buildings and wrecks economies. War leaves barren devastation not only on the land but in the hearts and minds of people.There is no romance or glory in war.
Today the greatest terrorists are the Imperialists and their lackeys. Since the Second world war USA armed forces have been in continuous action in suppressing uprisings, left wing regimes, and controlling oil and natural resources for the benefit of USA capitalists. The so called ‘terrorist’ actions of a few Irish Republicans pale into insignificance when compared to the continuous crimes of Imperialism. Nevertheless Irish Republicans have always been demonised. It goes with the territory! Some argue that this is because of the threat that armed actions pose to Imperialism. There is however a counter argument to that which says that British Imperialism welcomes armed struggle from Irish republicans.
It helps sharpen their intelligence services and training and also because they know it can never attain its goal without the overwhelming consent of the Irish people. What they do fear is the spread of republican and progressive ideas among the mass of the population, catholic and protestant Irish and British.
And there are great opportunities to do just that. The political cement that has held Western capitalism together since the 2nd world war is crumbling. In the current world crisis of capitalism there are few crumbs our masters can throw to the masses . Rather they need to exploit every last bit of labour they can for the cheapest price. It is the working classes who are paying the price for the collapse of the system.
Austerity faces the working classes for the next generation. However that has a political price and it is the increasing disillusionment of the working classes with the political parties who push austerity. The demise of Fianna Fail and the rise of both independents and provisional Sinn Fein in the south of Ireland is a clear example of that. Both Labour Parties in Britain and Ireland are committed to austerity. Hence the shock to the British Labour Party when George Galloway romped home in the Bradford West By-election. It was here that local Labour controlled council pushed through £67 million in cuts, axing over a thousand jobs. No wonder there is growing dis-enchantment with these so called progressive parties.
In the North of Ireland the power sharing executive presides over the collapse of the national health services and the cutting of the public sector. Unemployment is growing particularly among the youth and more and more businesses are going bankrupt.
There has never been a better time in Ireland to work towards the unification of the left and progressive forces and work towards building a revolutionary alternative. Of course it will not be easy but it would be good if at least republicans articulated a desire to see such a coming together. It would be good to hear from the differing republican traditions this Easter statements to the effect that they were prepared to cooperate with others and work towards building a broad front that could work on both the class and national questions.
After all both the Easter Proclamation and the Easter Rising were the product of a coming together of the forces of socialism and republicanism. Is it to much to hope that this Easter a small beginning could be made by Irish Republicans ?
Footnotes.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_the_Irish_Republic#The_text_of_the_Easter_Proclamation
2 The Political Road http://theredplough.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/red-plough-vol.html
3 See http://www.irishlabourhistorysociety.com/pdf/Saothar%202.pdf for an interesting take on James Connolly by John Hoffman “James Connolly and the theory of Historical Materialism”
4 Lenin’s article on the rising appears in O Dudley Edwards and F Pyle (eds), 1916: the Easter Rising, Dublin 1968, pp192-9
5. The quote is taken from pp192-93. 5 Dudley Edwards and Pyle, p193
6 http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~sinnfein/Deafhocail.html
7 “1916 as History “ C Desmond Greaves -Fulcrum press 1991 p. 42
8 “1916 as History “ C Desmond Greaves -Fulcrum press 1991 p. 42
Gerry Ruddy
Some Sources.
The Easter Rising and the ‘blood sacrifice’ Philip Ferguson
http://theirishrevolution.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/the-easter-rising-and-the-blood-sacrifice/
“1916 as History “ C Desmond Greaves -Fulcrum press 1991
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Descriptive History Of The Irish Citizen Army [Kindle Edition]
Kindle Price: $8.29 includes VAT* & free international wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet
You Save: $1.77 (18%)
-------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marxist Education
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp
James Connolly Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly
The Red Plough is an independent Republican Marxist Internet publication
Please feel free to comment on the contents of the Red Plough.
We welcome political comments and criticisms. If you know of anybody who might wish to receive the Red Plough please send his or her e-mail address to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com
To unsubscribe to The Red Plough please send e-mail entitled “unsubscribe” to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com.
It is the policy of The Red Plough to acknowledge information and articles from other sources.
http://theredplough.blogspot.com/
Vol. 3-No 3
March 2012
Easter. 1916-2012
At Easter every year in every parish in Ireland and in many places around the world Irish Republicans gather to pay homage to those men and women who died in the struggle for independence. This year, 2012, will be no different. However whereas 50 years ago there was only one Republican Movement today there are at least seven different republican traditions that have emerged out of the northern struggle. All will march separately to graveyards to pay their respects to the dead and articulate their message as to why people should follow their particular form of Irish Republicanism. Some will make class appeals. Others will make nationalist appeals while others will argue that their way is the “only show in town”and that the full implementation of all the outgoings of the Good Friday Agreement will achieve national independence. So called ‘dissidents’ will vehemently disagree with that latter argument and some of them will maintain that the only road ahead is that of armed struggle.
All, however, base themselves on the proclamation of Easter 1916 in particular that which said,
“We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty: six times during the past three hundred years[ they have asserted it in arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State, and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and its exaltation among the nations.”1
The Easter proclamation is a powerful and moving document, 96 years old, yet still capable of inspiring young people to take up arms in pursuit of the goal of an independent Republic. In its time it was, and still is, a progressive document, advocating universal suffrage, equal rights for all and a republican form of Government.
Sadly over the years the goals of the document have been partially forgotten and the means have become dominant. Indeed not only did the means become dominant but then the ‘movement’ to achieve those goals became dominant and in the end the ‘movement’ was all and neither the goals nor the means matter. Loyalty to the movement became the overriding consideration.
In modern politics as expressed by the parties of the ruling class this is known as control freakery and spin doctoring. Dissent is not tolerated and loyalty to the ruling clique/or leader is paramount. Those who question are demonised, accused of stealing, drug-taking, drunkenness or even of being ‘intellectuals’.
They are ‘touts’ or are agents of a foreign power or what ever it takes to isolate, undermine, and reduce the influence of those who question. Ideas are not challenged, but personalities attacked and slandered.
Such tactics naturally provoke a response but within Irish Republicanism that response has been generally negative. Rather than establish a clearly defined goal and outlining the steps to reach such goals dissenting Republicans tend to attack the leaderships of the dominant provisional republican movement.
Some, sadly, have become obsessed with that body and never miss an opportunity to verbally attack PSF. Negativity rare works.
Since 1994 this writer has argued that republicanism has suffered a major defeat. That is ever more so today with the failure of fellow republicans to co-operate even on the most basic of things like support for political prisoners like Marian Price and others. Initiatives in the past to bring Republicans into a common forum have broken down because some feared contamination by mixing with those Republicans who support armed struggle. Rather than begin a process of persuasion by example argument and debate people retreated into their own safe little republican sects. That is part of the reason there are now so many different republican traditions. (If that process keeps up there soon may be as many republican sects as there are trotskyist.stalinist/maoist tendencies!!!!)
In relation to aspects of armed struggle there is an argument to be made. Unfortunately that argument is not been made or articulated. It is as if the deed itself speaks and is the only argument. The Red Plough is opposed at armed struggle at this time in Irish history.
This is not 1916, nor indeed the early 20’s or the 50’s or the 70’s or 80’s. Time, conditions, people and economies have moved on and changed. Technology has in the past twenty years transformed the way we live our lives.
We have argued consistently that the only road is the political road2. Politics by ideas and deed is the way forward.
A respected veteran Republican Jim Lane, has argued that Irish republicanism as articulated by Wolfe Tone in the 18th century, was the most progressive ideology of its day. That the republican socialism as argued by James Connolly3 in the early part of the 20th century was the most progressive though of the day. That the ideas of Karl Marx were the most progressive ideas of this time. We concur.
That is why we argue that for republicanism to win the mass of the irish people to its ideas and thoughts it must embrace the radical and progressive ideas of socialism. It is true that most, if not all, the differing republican traditions pay some form of homage towards socialism. But that is more in word than in deed. At the heart of the ideas of socialism is the working class. Class struggle is the motive force of history. Speaking about the Easter rising , Lenin, who knew a little bit about revolution wrote,
“Whoever calls such an uprising a ‘putsch’ is either a hardened reactionary or a doctrinaire hopelessly incapable of picturing a social revolution as a living thing.”4
“For to imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without the revolutionary outbursts of a section of the petty bourgeoisie with all its prejudices, without a movement of politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against landlord, church, monarchical, national and other oppression – to imagine that means repudiating social revolution. Very likely one army will line up in one place and say, ‘We are for socialism’, while another will do so in another place and say, ‘We are for imperialism’, and that will be the social revolution! Only from such a ridiculously pedantic angle could one label the Irish rebellion a ‘putsch’.
“Whoever expects a ‘pure’ social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip service to revolution without understanding what revolution really is.” 5
The class struggle is not simply a clear class battle between workers and capitalism lined up in opposition. It is a living thing existing day by day and taking many shapes and forms. The ’16 Rising was part of the class struggle because the struggle for national self determination is so interwoven with the class struggle that in Connolly’s words
“ The cause of labour is the cause of Ireland. The cause of Ireland is the cause of labour. They cannot be dissevered . . .”6
Much has been written about how the people of Dublin booed and heckled the prisoners as they were marched through the streets of Dublin. Yet even here the class struggle breaks through,
“I have read many accounts of public feeling in Dublin in these days.They all agreed that the open and strong sympathy of the mass of the population was with the British troops. That this was so in the better parts of the of the city, I have no doubt but certainly what I myself saw in the poorer districts did not confirm this. It rather indicated that there was a vast amount of sympathy with the rebels particularly after the rebels were defeated. The sentences of the Court Martial deepened this sympathy.”7
Today that class struggle is going all over Ireland. It is in the struggle over the property tax on households, in the worker occupations of building closed by the politics of Austerity, in the struggles to defend the public services from privitisation and in the prison struggles. These and many more struggles are interconnected. Of course there will be some sects on the left who deny this and demonise those who come from a wholly republican background. But that is no excuse for republicans themselves to walk away from these issues. The struggle is all embracing. James Connolly did not take part in the uprising for a ‘free ireland’. He was very clear
"We are out for Ireland for the Irish. But who are the Irish? Not the rack-renting, slum owning landlord; not the sweating, profit-grinding capitalist; not the sleek and oily lawyer; not the prostitute pressman - the hired liars of the enemy . . . but the Irish working class .
That was central to his thinking. Connolly did not take part as some kind of so called “blood sacrifice” -an idea put about by reactionary elements to undermine the class nature of Connolly’s participation in the ’16 Rising. Rather it was to spark the working class into action. No one todays accuses the USA’s Thomas Jefferson of being blood thirsty because he wrote
“The tree of liberty must continually be watered with the blood of martyrs and tyrants”8
War is by its nature ugly. It destroys. It destroys men women and children.It destroys buildings and wrecks economies. War leaves barren devastation not only on the land but in the hearts and minds of people.There is no romance or glory in war.
Today the greatest terrorists are the Imperialists and their lackeys. Since the Second world war USA armed forces have been in continuous action in suppressing uprisings, left wing regimes, and controlling oil and natural resources for the benefit of USA capitalists. The so called ‘terrorist’ actions of a few Irish Republicans pale into insignificance when compared to the continuous crimes of Imperialism. Nevertheless Irish Republicans have always been demonised. It goes with the territory! Some argue that this is because of the threat that armed actions pose to Imperialism. There is however a counter argument to that which says that British Imperialism welcomes armed struggle from Irish republicans.
It helps sharpen their intelligence services and training and also because they know it can never attain its goal without the overwhelming consent of the Irish people. What they do fear is the spread of republican and progressive ideas among the mass of the population, catholic and protestant Irish and British.
And there are great opportunities to do just that. The political cement that has held Western capitalism together since the 2nd world war is crumbling. In the current world crisis of capitalism there are few crumbs our masters can throw to the masses . Rather they need to exploit every last bit of labour they can for the cheapest price. It is the working classes who are paying the price for the collapse of the system.
Austerity faces the working classes for the next generation. However that has a political price and it is the increasing disillusionment of the working classes with the political parties who push austerity. The demise of Fianna Fail and the rise of both independents and provisional Sinn Fein in the south of Ireland is a clear example of that. Both Labour Parties in Britain and Ireland are committed to austerity. Hence the shock to the British Labour Party when George Galloway romped home in the Bradford West By-election. It was here that local Labour controlled council pushed through £67 million in cuts, axing over a thousand jobs. No wonder there is growing dis-enchantment with these so called progressive parties.
In the North of Ireland the power sharing executive presides over the collapse of the national health services and the cutting of the public sector. Unemployment is growing particularly among the youth and more and more businesses are going bankrupt.
There has never been a better time in Ireland to work towards the unification of the left and progressive forces and work towards building a revolutionary alternative. Of course it will not be easy but it would be good if at least republicans articulated a desire to see such a coming together. It would be good to hear from the differing republican traditions this Easter statements to the effect that they were prepared to cooperate with others and work towards building a broad front that could work on both the class and national questions.
After all both the Easter Proclamation and the Easter Rising were the product of a coming together of the forces of socialism and republicanism. Is it to much to hope that this Easter a small beginning could be made by Irish Republicans ?
Footnotes.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_the_Irish_Republic#The_text_of_the_Easter_Proclamation
2 The Political Road http://theredplough.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/red-plough-vol.html
3 See http://www.irishlabourhistorysociety.com/pdf/Saothar%202.pdf for an interesting take on James Connolly by John Hoffman “James Connolly and the theory of Historical Materialism”
4 Lenin’s article on the rising appears in O Dudley Edwards and F Pyle (eds), 1916: the Easter Rising, Dublin 1968, pp192-9
5. The quote is taken from pp192-93. 5 Dudley Edwards and Pyle, p193
6 http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~sinnfein/Deafhocail.html
7 “1916 as History “ C Desmond Greaves -Fulcrum press 1991 p. 42
8 “1916 as History “ C Desmond Greaves -Fulcrum press 1991 p. 42
Gerry Ruddy
Some Sources.
The Easter Rising and the ‘blood sacrifice’ Philip Ferguson
http://theirishrevolution.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/the-easter-rising-and-the-blood-sacrifice/
“1916 as History “ C Desmond Greaves -Fulcrum press 1991
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Descriptive History Of The Irish Citizen Army [Kindle Edition]
Kindle Price: $8.29 includes VAT* & free international wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet
You Save: $1.77 (18%)
-------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marxist Education
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp
James Connolly Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly
The Red Plough is an independent Republican Marxist Internet publication
Please feel free to comment on the contents of the Red Plough.
We welcome political comments and criticisms. If you know of anybody who might wish to receive the Red Plough please send his or her e-mail address to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com
To unsubscribe to The Red Plough please send e-mail entitled “unsubscribe” to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com.
It is the policy of The Red Plough to acknowledge information and articles from other sources.
Thursday, 1 March 2012
The Red Plough Vol. 3-No 2
The Red Plough
http://theredplough.blogspot.com/
Vol. 3-No 2
February 2012
Libya, why not Syria?
Politics on the internet.
Ireland-AMarxist site
Belfast 1907 Strike
Libya why not Syria?
All through the year 2011 Libyan rebels, probably sponsored initially by the Western powers and certainly backed by their air power were trying to topple then Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. These rebels left to their own resources would have stood no chance in their campaign however with the assistance of the most advanced aerial weaponry available these odds increased to a racing certainty. The Western powers, especially Britain told lie after lie in order to build up public support for their intended genocide in Libya. These powers led by Britain and France managed to gain from the United Nations (UN) a vague resolution (1971) about protecting civilians during the conflict. Equally it was stated that “regime change” was not on the agenda. Well “regime change” may well not have been on the UN agenda but it was most certainly on the menu for Britain and France and, for once to a lesser extent, the United States.
Aerial support using “tactical” weapons was given to the Western backed rebels increasing their chances of success a million fold. Suddenly these aerial incursions into Libya, to “protect civilians” were transferred from the UN to NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) thus bypassing any mandate, or lack of one, from the UN. Gaddafi and his forces never stood a chance agaist such aerial power let us be clear on that. On one NATO raid “protecting civilians” 86 of the intended protected were blown to bits in a hospital by their would be guardians!
Around the same time as events were unfolding in Libya, and is still going on with increased ferocity, disturbances were beginning in Syria. Far more “civilians” were/are being killed in that country by the forces of President al-Assad than were in Libya by Gaddafi. When asked why NATO, led by Britain and France, had not intervened in Syria British Foreign Secretary William Hague indicated that they had no “mandate” from the “Arab League” as they had for action in Libya. The truth is that Libya did not come directly under the “Arab League” (Saudi Arabia in truth) remit but was chiefly the domain of the Organisation for African Unity (OAU) who denounced NATO and their intervention. The OAU were ignored by Britain and France the two leading perpetuators of the genocide committed in Libya.
The fact is that the Western powers hated Gaddafi because he refused to do things their way. He was hostile to Western ideology and particularly imperialism. The Syrian leader on the other hand was not generally unfriendly, certainly by comparison, towards the West so he can kill his people, up to now, at will it would appear! The lies and hypocrisies of the Western powers are laid bare for all to see, that is those who wish to.
Equally sad and hypocritical was/is the lack of support, even verbal protest, for Gaddafi from freedom fighting groups around the world whom he had supported in some way. I can not recall one word of condemnation from these various organisations all of whom at some point had benefited from Colonel Gaddafi. Nobody in their right mind could describe Gaddafi as the perfect socialist/communist by any stretch of the imagination but without his support these revolutionary groups would have been unable to practice at all.
Kevin
Politics on the internet.
The explosion in new technology during the past 20 years has had a profound effect on the way we live our lives. Many of us have i-phones, kindles, mobile phones computers and i-pods or MPG players, ( that is those of us who can afford them.) There are negative aspects to this. For example many of us have become individualised even in social settings. School children up to old age pensioners can sit on buses listening to their devices and having no social contact with other humans. This is of course less obvious in working class districts rather than in middle class districts. There is still a strong sense of social cohesion in the working class districts of major cities.
An other negative is the decline in reading of books and papers and the ready acceptance of the instant headline or opinion. Furthermore the internet has become a tool for consumer capitalism to target the individual tastes of the individual with marketing. (http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2156299/google-rolls-privacy-changes-despite-storm-protests)
However there are also positives such as the explosion of knowledge. Using search engines one can readily access information on any subject under the sun. From a political viewpoint this is all to the good in that political writings are easily accessed and the ideas of great thinkers can be studied. The down side of this is that one can become a “computer activist” ie isolated alone arguing great ideas but not actually doing anything concrete or being part of a movement party or campaign. This in turn can allow the so called “activists” to despise “ideas” and refer to “ideological cul de sacs” and “theoretical abstractions” with contempt.. Of course neither way is the way forward for the republican or left forces in Ireland.
Most political organisations now have their own websites where sometimes the discussions are abusive or apolitical.Sometimes they are narrowly focused on their own politics and their own world view to the exclusion of any other possibilities. And sometimes they are genuinely political combining both theory and action.
Revolutionary organisations have always been open to infiltration by intelligence services of the state. Any organisation with revolutionary pretensions should accept as given that their own organisation is infiltrated and probably at the highest level.
The intelligence services use their agents to gather information, assess the leadership potentiality of the membership and whether they are “flexible” and also to disrupt the organisation either by provocative actions designed to discredit the organisation or spreading false information and slanders to discredit genuine revolutionaries. There should be no place for back biting, rumor mongering, gossip or personality attacks in a serious revolutionary organisations. While it is sometimes difficult to separate the personality from the politics it should always be the case that the primary and overriding concern is politics not personalities.
So those who indulge in personality attacks should have no place in the leadership of a revolutionary organisation. (http://irsm.org/history/tapowerdoc.html)
That is why it is so important to monitor what goes into political debate on the internet. At all times debate should be political no based on innuendo , lies slander or abuse. Too often too many republicans rather than deal with with the actual politics of Sinn Fein resort to personal abuse of the likes of Gerry Adams or Martin McGuiness. That route is not the way to win over to your point of view, many of the young people attracted to the modern Sinn Fein. The internet is full of attacks on the above but rarely do you see critical engagement with the ideas of the leadership of Sinn Fein. To see some republican sites one would think that all republicanism was about was holding commemorations, abusing Sinn Fein, selling books and holding white line pickets for prisoners. All these, except the abuse, are worthy in themselves but there is a great absence of critical engagement with ideas and policies and a great absence of debate. It is in debating ideas and polices and then carrying out those policies that young people in particular learn the art of revolution. Theory and Practice!
Gerry Ruddy
Ireland-AMarxist site
A marxist web site has just passes over 200.000 hits on the internet.The web site has only been in existence for two and a half years. Another marxist site in existence since 2001 has had only 86,000 approx hits. The site is called Fightback and is the online journal of the International Marxist Tendency in Ireland.(http://ireland.marxist.com/) As a site it is navigated with different sections on youth, trade unions history international ,marxism the IMT itself and Ireland.The Ireland section is divided into two parts-politics and the North. (I declare an interest having a number of articles printed in the North and History sections-GR) The articles(by other writers )are well written and examine the impact of capitalism on Ireland. For example
“Irish emigration masks the unemployment crisis”
deals with the curse of irish people for generations -emigration. Using statistics from official sources the short article sums up all the reasons why capitalism does not serve the irish people and argues for an international solution to the capitalist crisis-socialism.There is also a series of articles on the politics of bigotry which exposes the sectarianism at the heart of Imperialism in ireland .
The web site also exposes the role of the Labour party in betraying their election promises and appeals for Labour’s rank and file to pressure that Party to break from the coalition. It opposes the Household Water and Septic Tank taxes. In clear unemotional language it puts forward the case for socialism in Ireland. Its main orientation is towards the trade union movement and youth and it has the aim of developing a strong marxist tendency within the labour movement across the island of ireland.
Its aim is to give the working class the tools to fight back against capitalism-tools that are both theoretical and practical. For a sober analysis of capitalism in ireland this site is well worth a visit.
Below is what Fightback stand for
“We base ourselves on the ideas of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, VI Lenin, James Connolly and Leon Trotsky; the basic principles of the Marxist movement.- We'd urge you to join with us in the fight for Socialism.”
Where we stand
Nationalise the banks and the major industries under the democratic control of the working class
You can’t control what you don’t own we need a democratic socialist plan of production
Nationalise any factory or business threatening redundancy under workers control and management.
Make the bosses pay for the crisis.
"Social Partnership" has proven little more than a trap for the working class. Industrial action to protect jobs, services, wages and conditions.
No sale of state assets; privatisation is piracy
Not a cent off the pay, not a second on the day.
No wage cuts or attacks in conditions on either side of the border
Break the Coalition with Fine Gael. For a Labour and Left Government with a socialist programme.
No collaboration with the bosses. Labour must support the workers in struggle.
A 32 hour working week with no loss of pay
For a €12.50 per hour minimum wage.
For a free and universal health care system
Affordable and adequate housing for all, no reposessions
Place empty housing under state control; slash the housing queues
No to all Household Taxes!
Fight all discrimination whether on the grounds of religion, age, race, gender or sexual orientation.
Fight anti union legislation. For full union recognition in all workplaces - with no loopholes
No to the Lisbon Treaty; No to a Bosses Europe, for a Socialist United States of Europe.
No to Stormont and the sectarian blind alley of the Good Friday Agreement
For a mass non sectarian workers party in the north, based on the trade union movement
For a 32 county Socialist United Ireland linked in a voluntary federation to a socialist Britain as part of a European and World Socialist Federation.
Workers of all countries unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains
Belfast 1907 Strike
(The following article was first printed on feb 13th Feb in Fightback http://ireland.marxist.com/history/8401-the-1907-dock-strike-105-years-on.It is here reproduced by ind permission)
Belfast in 1907 was a hotbed of militancy. It was the fastest growing city in the British isles. Its most successful industries were labour intensive. Although once described by a former Lord Mayor,
“an elysium of the working classes”1
Belfast had a sharp divide, not only between catholics and protestants, but between skilled and non-skilled labour. The skilled workers shared in the general prosperity of the and had wages unsurpassed outside of London. However the unskilled who flocked into Belfast from the countryside did not share this prosperity and the
“ labouring classes ..... were bordering on starvation” (ibid)
It was estimated that to keep a family the minimum income would need to be 22 shillings and five pence, yet unskilled labour only earned10 shillings a week. The wages of women and children made up the difference.
With an upturn in the trade cycle in 1906 the unskilled were no longer prepared to take up the suggested (by the skilled unions) route of petitioning their employers for the right to organise. That route only led to humiliation.
In May of that year 17,000 spinners weavers and others had struck for wage increases and in 1907 there were 34 strikes that included textile operatives engineering, service trades, navvies and other labourers. Moreover the first annual conference of the British Labour Party was held in Belfast in early 1907. Labour organiser and socialist agitator James Larkin attended that conference. He had come to Belfast intent on the organisation of Belfast's 3100 dockers, 2000 of who were casual ‘spellsmen’ hired at low rates on a daily basis.
“Even for regularly employed dockers, wages were low, and the working week could be as long as 75 hours.” 2
Larkin, born of Newry parents and brought up in Liverpool, had arrived in Belfast 20th January 1907 and set up branches of the National Union Of Dock Labour in Belfast and Derry. A previous attempt to organise 400 of the men 15 years previous had failed due to a extended lockout and a sustained press campaign labeling the union leaders as “Fenians”.
“Jim Larkin crashed upon the public with the devastating roar of a volcano exploding without even a preliminary wisp of smoke”3
The Belfast membership of 3000 included protestant cross channel and Catholic deep sea sections. Then there were added carters and coal-men.
On the 6th may 1907 dockers at the York dock in Belfast objected to working with two non union men. Their union organiser, Larkin, advised them to go back to work. When they did, they found they had been replaced by 50 strike breakers imported from Liverpool. The following day the union members drove out the scabs from the Kelly Coal Quays and the sheds of the the Belfast Steamship Company. While Kelly capitulated, granted union recognition and a pay rise, Thomas Gallagher, refused to negotiate with Larkin.
Gallagher was also a shareholder in Belfast Ropeworks company and he realised the implications of allowing unskilled labour to organise. While prepared to negotiate with the Union he set out to personalise the issue by highlighting Larkin’s role. Soon he had hundreds of scabs working on the quays surrounded by the RIC and troops requisItioned by the Lord Mayor of Belfast.
Larkin, who described Gallagher “as an obscene scoundrel,” had three weapons he used in pursuit of the union membership and they were ,
the sympathetic strike,
the doctrine of tainted good and
his wildfire oratory.
So Larkin responded in kind. When Gallagher dismissed seven girls in his tobacco factory for attending a lunchtime meeting of Larkin’s 1000 of their fellow workers walked out.
Stone throwing and attacks on scabs occurred. Larkin himself was arrested for attacking a scab. While the tobacco strike was crushed the dockers strike escalated. In June 350 ironmoulders began a seven week stoppage which affected 2000 engineers indirectly.
On June 26th Larkin called out all dockers for better pay and union recognition.The following day 1000 carters struck in sympathy and for for their own wage claims.
So Larkin called on other carters not to handle goods of companies in dispute.
This produced a response from 18 coal merchants who said that from 15th July they would not employ any union labour. This in turn saw 880 porters and carters joining the struggle. In the meantime it took until 19th of July for the union leadership to sanction strike pay. Up to then it was the Belfast trades council and local unions who sustained the strikers and their families.
Thousand would flock to Larkin’s public open air meetings. Despite all this occurring around the 12th of July sectarianism did not break the strike.
“On the eve of the twelfth of July, the traditional day of the orange order marches and of sectarian violence throughout Ulster, a mass rally was held in Belfast. Reporting on this event, Police Commissioner Hill commented that "the speakers at the meeting last night did not speak of the strike. They spoke of socialism and generalities." (Gray P.77). The following day, Belfast witnessed the strangest 12th of July ever. Instead of riots and pogroms, strike leaders were getting up in public to defend workers interests against sectarianism.”4
Larkin having grown up in Liverpool was aware of the nature of sectarianism and indeed at one stage offered to hand over the leadership of the strike to Councillor Alec Boyd, an orangeman and trade unionist. Significantly riots in support of the strikers broke out on the mainly protestant Ravenhill Road and the mainly catholic Falls Road. A case of East and West Belfast united in a common cause.
On the 16th of July Larkin made a speech in which he outlined discontent within the police ranks with their pay, conditions and been made to protect scabs. Larkin persuaded the members of the police force that they were underpaid. The Police demands in 1907 were identical with the trade unions
“they wanted the machinery by which periodic increases in income could be negotiated in place of the inveterate repulsion they received from the authorities each time they tried to catch up on inflation” 5
Then the state intervened. British troops sealed of the quays. Cavalry escorted the goods traffic. Warships anchored in Belfast Lough.
On the 24th the police protested and over 2500 troops were drafted into Belfast and over 200 police transferred to country areas.6 By August 6th the police protest was over.
During this period the Presbyterian Ulster Echo made a sectarian attack on the union leadership referring to them as
“extreme and rabid nationalists and Roman Catholics”7
Then as now the media threw its considerable forces behind the employers and the state forces.During the period of the strike the ‘yellow press describe Larkin as a “socialist” an “”anarchist” or a “syndicalist” and a “papist.Ironically when he later moved to Dublin he was called an “orangeman” an “atheist” and “the son of” the infamous informer Carey.8
On August 11th security forces flooded the lower Falls area provoking riots. Soldiers shot dead two people and wounded scores of others. The mainstream labour movement was quick to distance itself from the militancy of the workers. Philip Snowden9 condemned
“that portion of the Belfast population which is almost as much accustomed to rioting as a savage tribe is to constant warfare”10
This almost unconscious racism of course fed into the sectarian mindsets in Belfast. Thus the heightened sectarian and political tensions made it extremely difficult for the strikers. Larkin sought arbitration but when only the carters employers agreed the dockers were left isolated as the carters had to accept a deal they had earlier rejected.
The dockers were defeated-“they were never again employed by the shipping company”(ibid)
The support of the union bureaucracy had always been very lukewarm and when the men came out in a desperate attempt to prevent the formation of a bogus union the NUDL leaders James Sexton paid a one day visit to Belfast, meet the employers on his own, denounced the workers action and told the men it “would plain sailing”. The next day the workers found they had been permanently displaced by scab labour.
It was a terrible defeat for the workers but in that strike there were important signals of what was possible. The use of the sympathetic strike brought a solidarity that transcended the sectarian divisions even if it was just for a short time. The explosive nature of the personality of Larkin showed what charismatic figures, if unflinching in the face of adversity, can do. Larkin was not afraid to take on not only the employers but also the forces of the state, in defence of the weakest sections of the working class. It also underlined the essentially conservative nature of the leaderships of the British trade unionism ready to secure a deal at a moments notice and without consulting the workers.
At the beginning of the 20th century the unskilled workers were unorganised without representation. The Belfast strike gave hope to unskilled workers throughout the British isles that they too could become unionised. However the strike also exposed the ways that the ruling class will resist any attempts to curtail their power.
They acted ruthlessly when their own police force mutinied, they unleashed their troops on one section of workers to heighten sectarian tensions and they used their media, their churches, and their liberal establishment to demonise and slander the workers and their leaders.
In the 21st century we have seen the demonisation of the public sector workers by those same forces. Today there are unprecedented attacks on the living standards of the working class. Much of the gains of the 20th century
were build on the backs of generations of workers in struggle, like the 1907 strike. For workers on these islands the National Health Service and the growth in the public sector brought thousands of workers from poverty and ill health.
Now an unprecedented attack has been launched world wide on the gains of the 20th century. Attempts to divide workers on public versus private sector , or catholic versus protestant or Shia versus Sunni lines must be resisted. Let us learn from the past and make permanent the class unity that existed if only for a magnificently short time in Belfast 1907.
Gerry Ruddy
Marxist Education
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp
James Connolly Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly
The Red Plough is an independent Republican Marxist Internet publication
Please feel free to comment on the contents of the Red Plough.
We welcome political comments and criticisms. If you know of anybody who might wish to receive the Red Plough please send his or her e-mail address to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com
To unsubscribe to The Red Plough please send e-mail entitled “unsubscribe” to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com.
It is the policy of The Red Plough to acknowledge information and articles from other sources.
http://theredplough.blogspot.com/
Vol. 3-No 2
February 2012
Libya, why not Syria?
Politics on the internet.
Ireland-AMarxist site
Belfast 1907 Strike
Libya why not Syria?
All through the year 2011 Libyan rebels, probably sponsored initially by the Western powers and certainly backed by their air power were trying to topple then Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. These rebels left to their own resources would have stood no chance in their campaign however with the assistance of the most advanced aerial weaponry available these odds increased to a racing certainty. The Western powers, especially Britain told lie after lie in order to build up public support for their intended genocide in Libya. These powers led by Britain and France managed to gain from the United Nations (UN) a vague resolution (1971) about protecting civilians during the conflict. Equally it was stated that “regime change” was not on the agenda. Well “regime change” may well not have been on the UN agenda but it was most certainly on the menu for Britain and France and, for once to a lesser extent, the United States.
Aerial support using “tactical” weapons was given to the Western backed rebels increasing their chances of success a million fold. Suddenly these aerial incursions into Libya, to “protect civilians” were transferred from the UN to NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) thus bypassing any mandate, or lack of one, from the UN. Gaddafi and his forces never stood a chance agaist such aerial power let us be clear on that. On one NATO raid “protecting civilians” 86 of the intended protected were blown to bits in a hospital by their would be guardians!
Around the same time as events were unfolding in Libya, and is still going on with increased ferocity, disturbances were beginning in Syria. Far more “civilians” were/are being killed in that country by the forces of President al-Assad than were in Libya by Gaddafi. When asked why NATO, led by Britain and France, had not intervened in Syria British Foreign Secretary William Hague indicated that they had no “mandate” from the “Arab League” as they had for action in Libya. The truth is that Libya did not come directly under the “Arab League” (Saudi Arabia in truth) remit but was chiefly the domain of the Organisation for African Unity (OAU) who denounced NATO and their intervention. The OAU were ignored by Britain and France the two leading perpetuators of the genocide committed in Libya.
The fact is that the Western powers hated Gaddafi because he refused to do things their way. He was hostile to Western ideology and particularly imperialism. The Syrian leader on the other hand was not generally unfriendly, certainly by comparison, towards the West so he can kill his people, up to now, at will it would appear! The lies and hypocrisies of the Western powers are laid bare for all to see, that is those who wish to.
Equally sad and hypocritical was/is the lack of support, even verbal protest, for Gaddafi from freedom fighting groups around the world whom he had supported in some way. I can not recall one word of condemnation from these various organisations all of whom at some point had benefited from Colonel Gaddafi. Nobody in their right mind could describe Gaddafi as the perfect socialist/communist by any stretch of the imagination but without his support these revolutionary groups would have been unable to practice at all.
Kevin
Politics on the internet.
The explosion in new technology during the past 20 years has had a profound effect on the way we live our lives. Many of us have i-phones, kindles, mobile phones computers and i-pods or MPG players, ( that is those of us who can afford them.) There are negative aspects to this. For example many of us have become individualised even in social settings. School children up to old age pensioners can sit on buses listening to their devices and having no social contact with other humans. This is of course less obvious in working class districts rather than in middle class districts. There is still a strong sense of social cohesion in the working class districts of major cities.
An other negative is the decline in reading of books and papers and the ready acceptance of the instant headline or opinion. Furthermore the internet has become a tool for consumer capitalism to target the individual tastes of the individual with marketing. (http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2156299/google-rolls-privacy-changes-despite-storm-protests)
However there are also positives such as the explosion of knowledge. Using search engines one can readily access information on any subject under the sun. From a political viewpoint this is all to the good in that political writings are easily accessed and the ideas of great thinkers can be studied. The down side of this is that one can become a “computer activist” ie isolated alone arguing great ideas but not actually doing anything concrete or being part of a movement party or campaign. This in turn can allow the so called “activists” to despise “ideas” and refer to “ideological cul de sacs” and “theoretical abstractions” with contempt.. Of course neither way is the way forward for the republican or left forces in Ireland.
Most political organisations now have their own websites where sometimes the discussions are abusive or apolitical.Sometimes they are narrowly focused on their own politics and their own world view to the exclusion of any other possibilities. And sometimes they are genuinely political combining both theory and action.
Revolutionary organisations have always been open to infiltration by intelligence services of the state. Any organisation with revolutionary pretensions should accept as given that their own organisation is infiltrated and probably at the highest level.
The intelligence services use their agents to gather information, assess the leadership potentiality of the membership and whether they are “flexible” and also to disrupt the organisation either by provocative actions designed to discredit the organisation or spreading false information and slanders to discredit genuine revolutionaries. There should be no place for back biting, rumor mongering, gossip or personality attacks in a serious revolutionary organisations. While it is sometimes difficult to separate the personality from the politics it should always be the case that the primary and overriding concern is politics not personalities.
So those who indulge in personality attacks should have no place in the leadership of a revolutionary organisation. (http://irsm.org/history/tapowerdoc.html)
That is why it is so important to monitor what goes into political debate on the internet. At all times debate should be political no based on innuendo , lies slander or abuse. Too often too many republicans rather than deal with with the actual politics of Sinn Fein resort to personal abuse of the likes of Gerry Adams or Martin McGuiness. That route is not the way to win over to your point of view, many of the young people attracted to the modern Sinn Fein. The internet is full of attacks on the above but rarely do you see critical engagement with the ideas of the leadership of Sinn Fein. To see some republican sites one would think that all republicanism was about was holding commemorations, abusing Sinn Fein, selling books and holding white line pickets for prisoners. All these, except the abuse, are worthy in themselves but there is a great absence of critical engagement with ideas and policies and a great absence of debate. It is in debating ideas and polices and then carrying out those policies that young people in particular learn the art of revolution. Theory and Practice!
Gerry Ruddy
Ireland-AMarxist site
A marxist web site has just passes over 200.000 hits on the internet.The web site has only been in existence for two and a half years. Another marxist site in existence since 2001 has had only 86,000 approx hits. The site is called Fightback and is the online journal of the International Marxist Tendency in Ireland.(http://ireland.marxist.com/) As a site it is navigated with different sections on youth, trade unions history international ,marxism the IMT itself and Ireland.The Ireland section is divided into two parts-politics and the North. (I declare an interest having a number of articles printed in the North and History sections-GR) The articles(by other writers )are well written and examine the impact of capitalism on Ireland. For example
“Irish emigration masks the unemployment crisis”
deals with the curse of irish people for generations -emigration. Using statistics from official sources the short article sums up all the reasons why capitalism does not serve the irish people and argues for an international solution to the capitalist crisis-socialism.There is also a series of articles on the politics of bigotry which exposes the sectarianism at the heart of Imperialism in ireland .
The web site also exposes the role of the Labour party in betraying their election promises and appeals for Labour’s rank and file to pressure that Party to break from the coalition. It opposes the Household Water and Septic Tank taxes. In clear unemotional language it puts forward the case for socialism in Ireland. Its main orientation is towards the trade union movement and youth and it has the aim of developing a strong marxist tendency within the labour movement across the island of ireland.
Its aim is to give the working class the tools to fight back against capitalism-tools that are both theoretical and practical. For a sober analysis of capitalism in ireland this site is well worth a visit.
Below is what Fightback stand for
“We base ourselves on the ideas of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, VI Lenin, James Connolly and Leon Trotsky; the basic principles of the Marxist movement.- We'd urge you to join with us in the fight for Socialism.”
Where we stand
Nationalise the banks and the major industries under the democratic control of the working class
You can’t control what you don’t own we need a democratic socialist plan of production
Nationalise any factory or business threatening redundancy under workers control and management.
Make the bosses pay for the crisis.
"Social Partnership" has proven little more than a trap for the working class. Industrial action to protect jobs, services, wages and conditions.
No sale of state assets; privatisation is piracy
Not a cent off the pay, not a second on the day.
No wage cuts or attacks in conditions on either side of the border
Break the Coalition with Fine Gael. For a Labour and Left Government with a socialist programme.
No collaboration with the bosses. Labour must support the workers in struggle.
A 32 hour working week with no loss of pay
For a €12.50 per hour minimum wage.
For a free and universal health care system
Affordable and adequate housing for all, no reposessions
Place empty housing under state control; slash the housing queues
No to all Household Taxes!
Fight all discrimination whether on the grounds of religion, age, race, gender or sexual orientation.
Fight anti union legislation. For full union recognition in all workplaces - with no loopholes
No to the Lisbon Treaty; No to a Bosses Europe, for a Socialist United States of Europe.
No to Stormont and the sectarian blind alley of the Good Friday Agreement
For a mass non sectarian workers party in the north, based on the trade union movement
For a 32 county Socialist United Ireland linked in a voluntary federation to a socialist Britain as part of a European and World Socialist Federation.
Workers of all countries unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains
Belfast 1907 Strike
(The following article was first printed on feb 13th Feb in Fightback http://ireland.marxist.com/history/8401-the-1907-dock-strike-105-years-on.It is here reproduced by ind permission)
Belfast in 1907 was a hotbed of militancy. It was the fastest growing city in the British isles. Its most successful industries were labour intensive. Although once described by a former Lord Mayor,
“an elysium of the working classes”1
Belfast had a sharp divide, not only between catholics and protestants, but between skilled and non-skilled labour. The skilled workers shared in the general prosperity of the and had wages unsurpassed outside of London. However the unskilled who flocked into Belfast from the countryside did not share this prosperity and the
“ labouring classes ..... were bordering on starvation” (ibid)
It was estimated that to keep a family the minimum income would need to be 22 shillings and five pence, yet unskilled labour only earned10 shillings a week. The wages of women and children made up the difference.
With an upturn in the trade cycle in 1906 the unskilled were no longer prepared to take up the suggested (by the skilled unions) route of petitioning their employers for the right to organise. That route only led to humiliation.
In May of that year 17,000 spinners weavers and others had struck for wage increases and in 1907 there were 34 strikes that included textile operatives engineering, service trades, navvies and other labourers. Moreover the first annual conference of the British Labour Party was held in Belfast in early 1907. Labour organiser and socialist agitator James Larkin attended that conference. He had come to Belfast intent on the organisation of Belfast's 3100 dockers, 2000 of who were casual ‘spellsmen’ hired at low rates on a daily basis.
“Even for regularly employed dockers, wages were low, and the working week could be as long as 75 hours.” 2
Larkin, born of Newry parents and brought up in Liverpool, had arrived in Belfast 20th January 1907 and set up branches of the National Union Of Dock Labour in Belfast and Derry. A previous attempt to organise 400 of the men 15 years previous had failed due to a extended lockout and a sustained press campaign labeling the union leaders as “Fenians”.
“Jim Larkin crashed upon the public with the devastating roar of a volcano exploding without even a preliminary wisp of smoke”3
The Belfast membership of 3000 included protestant cross channel and Catholic deep sea sections. Then there were added carters and coal-men.
On the 6th may 1907 dockers at the York dock in Belfast objected to working with two non union men. Their union organiser, Larkin, advised them to go back to work. When they did, they found they had been replaced by 50 strike breakers imported from Liverpool. The following day the union members drove out the scabs from the Kelly Coal Quays and the sheds of the the Belfast Steamship Company. While Kelly capitulated, granted union recognition and a pay rise, Thomas Gallagher, refused to negotiate with Larkin.
Gallagher was also a shareholder in Belfast Ropeworks company and he realised the implications of allowing unskilled labour to organise. While prepared to negotiate with the Union he set out to personalise the issue by highlighting Larkin’s role. Soon he had hundreds of scabs working on the quays surrounded by the RIC and troops requisItioned by the Lord Mayor of Belfast.
Larkin, who described Gallagher “as an obscene scoundrel,” had three weapons he used in pursuit of the union membership and they were ,
the sympathetic strike,
the doctrine of tainted good and
his wildfire oratory.
So Larkin responded in kind. When Gallagher dismissed seven girls in his tobacco factory for attending a lunchtime meeting of Larkin’s 1000 of their fellow workers walked out.
Stone throwing and attacks on scabs occurred. Larkin himself was arrested for attacking a scab. While the tobacco strike was crushed the dockers strike escalated. In June 350 ironmoulders began a seven week stoppage which affected 2000 engineers indirectly.
On June 26th Larkin called out all dockers for better pay and union recognition.The following day 1000 carters struck in sympathy and for for their own wage claims.
So Larkin called on other carters not to handle goods of companies in dispute.
This produced a response from 18 coal merchants who said that from 15th July they would not employ any union labour. This in turn saw 880 porters and carters joining the struggle. In the meantime it took until 19th of July for the union leadership to sanction strike pay. Up to then it was the Belfast trades council and local unions who sustained the strikers and their families.
Thousand would flock to Larkin’s public open air meetings. Despite all this occurring around the 12th of July sectarianism did not break the strike.
“On the eve of the twelfth of July, the traditional day of the orange order marches and of sectarian violence throughout Ulster, a mass rally was held in Belfast. Reporting on this event, Police Commissioner Hill commented that "the speakers at the meeting last night did not speak of the strike. They spoke of socialism and generalities." (Gray P.77). The following day, Belfast witnessed the strangest 12th of July ever. Instead of riots and pogroms, strike leaders were getting up in public to defend workers interests against sectarianism.”4
Larkin having grown up in Liverpool was aware of the nature of sectarianism and indeed at one stage offered to hand over the leadership of the strike to Councillor Alec Boyd, an orangeman and trade unionist. Significantly riots in support of the strikers broke out on the mainly protestant Ravenhill Road and the mainly catholic Falls Road. A case of East and West Belfast united in a common cause.
On the 16th of July Larkin made a speech in which he outlined discontent within the police ranks with their pay, conditions and been made to protect scabs. Larkin persuaded the members of the police force that they were underpaid. The Police demands in 1907 were identical with the trade unions
“they wanted the machinery by which periodic increases in income could be negotiated in place of the inveterate repulsion they received from the authorities each time they tried to catch up on inflation” 5
Then the state intervened. British troops sealed of the quays. Cavalry escorted the goods traffic. Warships anchored in Belfast Lough.
On the 24th the police protested and over 2500 troops were drafted into Belfast and over 200 police transferred to country areas.6 By August 6th the police protest was over.
During this period the Presbyterian Ulster Echo made a sectarian attack on the union leadership referring to them as
“extreme and rabid nationalists and Roman Catholics”7
Then as now the media threw its considerable forces behind the employers and the state forces.During the period of the strike the ‘yellow press describe Larkin as a “socialist” an “”anarchist” or a “syndicalist” and a “papist.Ironically when he later moved to Dublin he was called an “orangeman” an “atheist” and “the son of” the infamous informer Carey.8
On August 11th security forces flooded the lower Falls area provoking riots. Soldiers shot dead two people and wounded scores of others. The mainstream labour movement was quick to distance itself from the militancy of the workers. Philip Snowden9 condemned
“that portion of the Belfast population which is almost as much accustomed to rioting as a savage tribe is to constant warfare”10
This almost unconscious racism of course fed into the sectarian mindsets in Belfast. Thus the heightened sectarian and political tensions made it extremely difficult for the strikers. Larkin sought arbitration but when only the carters employers agreed the dockers were left isolated as the carters had to accept a deal they had earlier rejected.
The dockers were defeated-“they were never again employed by the shipping company”(ibid)
The support of the union bureaucracy had always been very lukewarm and when the men came out in a desperate attempt to prevent the formation of a bogus union the NUDL leaders James Sexton paid a one day visit to Belfast, meet the employers on his own, denounced the workers action and told the men it “would plain sailing”. The next day the workers found they had been permanently displaced by scab labour.
It was a terrible defeat for the workers but in that strike there were important signals of what was possible. The use of the sympathetic strike brought a solidarity that transcended the sectarian divisions even if it was just for a short time. The explosive nature of the personality of Larkin showed what charismatic figures, if unflinching in the face of adversity, can do. Larkin was not afraid to take on not only the employers but also the forces of the state, in defence of the weakest sections of the working class. It also underlined the essentially conservative nature of the leaderships of the British trade unionism ready to secure a deal at a moments notice and without consulting the workers.
At the beginning of the 20th century the unskilled workers were unorganised without representation. The Belfast strike gave hope to unskilled workers throughout the British isles that they too could become unionised. However the strike also exposed the ways that the ruling class will resist any attempts to curtail their power.
They acted ruthlessly when their own police force mutinied, they unleashed their troops on one section of workers to heighten sectarian tensions and they used their media, their churches, and their liberal establishment to demonise and slander the workers and their leaders.
In the 21st century we have seen the demonisation of the public sector workers by those same forces. Today there are unprecedented attacks on the living standards of the working class. Much of the gains of the 20th century
were build on the backs of generations of workers in struggle, like the 1907 strike. For workers on these islands the National Health Service and the growth in the public sector brought thousands of workers from poverty and ill health.
Now an unprecedented attack has been launched world wide on the gains of the 20th century. Attempts to divide workers on public versus private sector , or catholic versus protestant or Shia versus Sunni lines must be resisted. Let us learn from the past and make permanent the class unity that existed if only for a magnificently short time in Belfast 1907.
Gerry Ruddy
Marxist Education
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp
James Connolly Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly
The Red Plough is an independent Republican Marxist Internet publication
Please feel free to comment on the contents of the Red Plough.
We welcome political comments and criticisms. If you know of anybody who might wish to receive the Red Plough please send his or her e-mail address to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com
To unsubscribe to The Red Plough please send e-mail entitled “unsubscribe” to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com.
It is the policy of The Red Plough to acknowledge information and articles from other sources.
Friday, 3 February 2012
The Red Plough Vol 3-1
The Red Plough
http://theredplough.blogspot.com/
Vol. 3-No 1
January 2012
The Metamorphosis of Sinn Fein
Sectarianism is not a working class phenomena!
10 facts about Housing in Britain
Small Acts of Revisionism
THE METAMORPHOSIS OF SINN FEIN
The face of Sinn Fein, North and South, has certainly changed over the past twenty years, almost beyond recognition. Once boasting a high level of anti-Imperialist insurrection, particularly in the six counties, Sinn Fein showed much potential to give a revolutionary lead to the rest of Europe. Sadly this did not materialise because the anti-Imperialist struggle was never linked consistently with the struggle against capitalist oppression of the working class. Certainly not from Sinn Fein. The anti-Imperialist struggle against the British occupation of the six counties never gained great momentum in the twenty six. Perhaps socialism was never on the agenda for Sinn Fein despite occasional references to the “32 County Socialist Republic” because the active involvement of organised labour was never on the agenda thus denying workers in the South participation directly in the struggle against British occupation in the six counties.
The struggle waged by the Irish Republican Army (Provisional) against the Orange State and British occupation which did lead to an armed insurrection by the most oppressed sections of society, the Catholics, in the six counties. This soon
'transformed into a war of limited social insurgency against the Orange and British states. The armed insurgency was successful in so far as it made transparent the nature and purpose of the Orange states repressive and oppressive political life'
(The Provisional IRA, From Insurrection To Parliament: Tommy McKearney p.202).
The insurgency was certainly successful in bringing down the Orange state and in this light must be applauded at the very least. The Orange domination, which had been the normal way of life since the Act of Union between Britain and Ireland in 1800 was designed to prevent, at first a minority in the whole of Ireland then, a majority of the six county Protestant working class and rural oppressed from asserting their social and political autonomy.
Instead these people
'gave allegiance to the ruling business and aristocratic elite in return for preferential treatment vis-à-vis their Catholic neighbours' (ibid).
So long as these people could consider themselves better off than their Catholic class brethren they were happy enough thus preventing any class solidarity against the rulers and oppressors of both the Protestant and Catholic working class. Historically when any indication of solidarity between the two sections of the working class was seen the Orange card was shown thus splitting any fledgling movement. An example of this divide and conquer by the employing classes to highlight is the 1932 Outdoor Relief Scheme when Protestant and Catholic workers united, until the Orange card was played, immediately causing deep divisions.
The IRA campaign in bringing an end to the Orange state was to a large extent successful. However bringing British domination down was another matter. With the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 and the (Provisional) IRA declaration of a ceasefire and later decommissioning of weaponry Sinn Fein entered into something they possibly could essentially have had back in 1975!
This was the year when the same IRA, from an advantageous position, called a ceasefire which the British were to exploit to their full advantage when the IRA entered into covert negotiations. This resulted in the British side adopting a carrot and stick strategy involving two options.
Option a) 'The IRA would be invited to end its campaign and acquiesce with London’s plan for a shared administration in a Northern Ireland embedded within the United Kingdom but in return would gain admittance into the political establishment' (McKearney: P 139).
This is broadly speaking what they have got today.
Option b) 'Britain would use its considerable political and media influence to designate the IRA campaign as a criminal terrorist enterprise, transfer as much responsibility for military operations as possible to local Unionist militias (normalisation or Ulsterisation) and settle back to a long war of attrition at the end of which the IRA would either be annihilated, rendered impotent (and thus irrelevant) or exhausted and thus agree to option A' (ibid).
Now in 2011/12 we have a Legislative Assembly at Stormont up and trotting if not running doing implicitly what London tells them to do. After all it is London and not Belfast who control the purse strings. Sinn Fein are the largest nationalist party in this assembly and therefore in joint power with the Democratic Unionist Party who once swore this would never happen. Consequently Sinn Fein are now part and parcel of the so called government in the six counties with about as much governmental power as a large London borough council. Real power still lies with Westminster.
From “Smash Stormont” to “we must preserve the peace process” a somewhat contradiction? Or a very shrewd political strategy?. Sinn Fein have also made significant moves upwards in the twenty six counties with fourteen TD’s in Dail Eireann, which until 1986 they did not recognise. However there is no mention of the "32 County Democratic Socialist Republic" which like the “Democratic Programme” of the first Dail 1919 appears to be surplus to requirements.
Could Sinn Fein’s definition of a united Ireland be a partitioned country with them holding governmental positions in both jurisdictions? This country must be capitalist and not socialist, that was just a bit of fun to court, when needed, the international left!
Organised labour play very little part in the plans of Sinn Fein these days as they too are not perhaps needed. Historically there is nothing new about Sinn Fein’s post modern approach because it is very much a mirror image of what has happened before. In the fabled 1918 General Election Sinn Fein polled 73 out of 105 seats for Ireland, labour did not stand (and have perhaps never recovered) in order that they, Sinn Fein, had a clear run. There was very little mention of James Connolly and his plans for a workers state from then on, a bit like today!
It will be the working class who are the only class, if they could only see it, who can bring about true unity and national liberation. The Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP) and not Sinn Fein should be the dominant republican party with their slogan “national liberation and socialism” which sounds and is the perfect combination. However this is not the case and even if it were would the IRSP go down the same road as the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)? They SWP are now calling themselves for practical reasons, “People Before Profit” and sit in the Dail which, like other parliamentary systems, they, the SWP, aimed to bring down?
“No parliamentary road to socialism” was once their cry and is still true today. They are part of a group of TDs styling themselves the “United Left Alliance” along with the Socialist Party, formerly known as “Militant”. Would the IRSP go the same way given the chance? After all they made and are making very few inroads into the Southern working class. Who knows!
Sinn Fein should have been involved with the working class movement promoting Marxist revolution which would include waging armed struggle against the Crown instead of taking the elitist road which can and is resulting in reformism. In the six counties they should be pushing for nationalisation of industries and opposing any form of private production for profit. This is what James Connolly would have done
but, alas, there are no James Connolly's around today. At a time when the working class are looking for credible leadership away from them quislings in ICTU and the Labour Party. Sinn Fein has the party apparatus and structure to give a lead but they won't because after all the huffing and puffing they are, albeit radical, a constitutional party. Will the failure of Sinn Fein to pursue a revolutionary socialist path come back to haunt them? I doubt it as they were never from that tradition.
Sinn Fein have transformed themselves from a “revolutionary republican anti-Imperialist party” opposed to British rule in any part of Ireland, which was the correct policy, opposition to Stormont and not recognising the twenty six counties or the Dail. The first change in policy occurred in 1986 when at their Ard Fheis the policy of abstaining from the Dail was dropped thus recognising the Southern Irish Parliament.
This led to a split when a small group walked out of the proceedings and formed “Republican Sinn Fein” maintaining the policy of abstention swearing allegiance to the second Dail of 1921. Then in 1998 the signing of the “Good Friday Agreement” and entering Stormont as part of government under the British Crown. Support for the IRA military campaign was dropped and they were instrumental in persuading the IRA to call their ceasefire and later decommissioning of weapons. In brief Sinn Fein have gone through a complete political metamorphosis from revolutionary to constitutional. They now accept things at one time unthinkable such as the RUC/PSNI and even sit on the policing board in the six counties. Thus the metamorphosis of Sinn Fein.
Kevin
Sectarianism is not a working class phenomena!
Having a child with ADHD is “punishment for sleeping with a Catholic”
“no longer hang out her washing at home the smell of Catholics being atrocious”
Catholics who have been born and raised up in the North of Ireland will have had some experiences similar to the above comments. Those comments were said in a workplace. Not in a factory not among blue collar workers as polite society would have us all believe is where sectarianism only lurks-but in a social work setting.
A team of social workers dealing with Early Years was the setting for such hateful comments directed agains the only Catholic in the team. She was once the Social Worker of the Year for her work with child cancer patients. Yet she suffered terrible sectarian abuse from fellow professionals none of whom were formally disciplined and who continue to work for social services. Only after a four year legal struggle did the trust admitted responsibility. The victim was awarded exemplary damages. Middle class sectarianism is as prevalent as any other kind. What kind of society produces such hatred?
It has always been that way in Ireland. Ever since the days of the penal laws those who adhered to the Catholic Church have been the bottom of the pile in society. British propaganda pictured the Irish as almost inhuman,animalistic even. When religious disputes divided the Christian Churches the British played the “protestant card” and kept the Catholic irish at the bottom of the pile, scorned discriminated and banned.
One organisation that has played a role in this sectarianism has been the Orange Order a specifically anti-catholic organisation. Each year in July it parades to honor the victory of William of Orange at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. They the loyal Orange men like to assert that it was from that victory they gained their freedom their religion and their laws. Yet William of Orange had the Pope’s support and allied himself to the Catholic King of Spain, among others to restrict France’s power.
After the Boyne he continued to fight on the Pope’s side until the war against France ended with the Treaty of Ryswick. Yet to this very day the Orange Order promotes the myth that their great Protestant hero, King Billy, fought to “overthrow the Pope and popery at the Boyne”.
(http://www.marxist.com/ireland-and-the-politics-of-bigotry-2.htm)
The penal laws were not designed to simply penalise Catholics alone.
Under William’s rule both Catholics and Presbyterians were banned from practising their religions.
“Anglican Church, to which Catholics and Presbyterians were forced to pay tithes, became the official and only Church permitted to worship legally in Ireland.
In 1704 the Test Act was introduced. Presbyterians were banned from holding office in Law, Army, Navy, Customs, Excise and Municipal Employment. This law was enforced all over Ireland. Presbyterian ministers were jailed for three months if caught preaching a sermon; they were not allowed to perform marriage sermons and were fined £100 (an enormous sum in those days) for celebrating the Lord’s Supper.”(ibid)
Presbyterian Schoolmasters could be imprisoned for teaching. No Presbyterian or Catholics could marry Anglicans or holding prayer meetings.
Of course these restrictions made rebels out of many Presbyterians. During the 18th century many emigrated to the colonies of North America where they became prominent in the struggle of the American colonists against British rule and went on to help found the USA. Back in Ireland northern Presbyterians welcomed the French revolution and became active members of the United Irish men. The defeat of the ’98 and the subsequent Act of Union combined with the mobilisation of Orange Terror drove a wedge between the differing religious traditions. Catholics came increasing under the control of a conservative and anti-revolutionary papacy, helped by British finances for seminaries in Ireland to stop the pollution of revolutionary ideas from Europe.
The British Government through out the 19th century continued to support the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland only reluctantly and under great pressure conceding Catholic Emancipation. (http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/ireland/emancip.htm)
In the second part of the 19th century they fought a campaign against the Land League and later Home Rule. In all of these struggles the British freely unleashed the sectarianism that they nurtured and spawned in Ireland. They used the Orange Order a san anti catholic anti home rule anti land league battering ram to suppress discontent.Only when it got out of control for a time was it banned.
When the 1916 uprising smashed the Home Rule project the British divided the island into two separate states giving the Empire loving Unionists total control of the six counties, as a permanent base to defend British Imperial interests.
50 years of Unionist rule only cemented sectarianism. In small backstreet halls preachers ranted and raved against the Papacy and Rome rule and reinforced sectarian tensions between working class people especially when in moments of great economic crisis they appeared to be moving closer together.
One such preacher was Arthur Trew, a street demagogue, who founded the Belfast Protestant Association in 1894 and preached his hatred from the steps of the Custom House Steps . He also organised protests against Wolfe Tone Commemorations and disrupted Corpus Christi Processions for which he was jailed.
It was this same B.P.A.which on July 21st 1920 instigated workplace expulsions in the shipyards. To protect ‘protestant employment’ destroy left wing influences and get rid of the Trew over 7,400 people were driven from their jobs. Over a quarter were protestants, mainly trade union activists.
When the northern catholics began to assert their rights in the late 1960’s it was another demagogue, Ian Paisley who stirred up the protestant masses in sectarian hatred. At the same time in the drawing rooms and golf clubs of the protestant upper and middle classes there was general approval for the activities of the same Paisley, while distancing themselves from his crudity.
It is now clear that despite the gains made over the years and the introduction of equal rights legislation sectarian attitudes still seep through the pores of bigots. Sectarian attitudes are not confined to any one particular religious sect. But they are an instrument of state control. For example the PSNI will always be 100% unionist regardless of its religious composition.
There are issues such as marches etc which divide the working classes. But with sectarianism ingrained in the whole of northern society the way to deal with it is not by ignoring it or avoiding dealing with it altogether. Sectarian attitudes must be confronted on each and every occasion it arises. There can be no hiding place for bigots.
Gr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 facts about Housing in Britain
20 million people live in rental accommodation and about half of that figure rent privately.
The average private rent is £8,600 per house per year which is 14% more expensive than owning.
73% of private renters get no help from the state with meeting their rental costs .
Private landlords made a whopping £42,000,000,000 in rental income in the last year.
46% of private rental houses are deemed sub-standard accommodation by the government.
55% of new Housing Benefit recipients are actually the 'working poor' living in private rental accommodation.
The majority of landlords have no previous experience in the housing trade & 1/4 of them make enough profit from renting to sustain a lifestyle, evidence of a quick buck culture if it were needed.
Labour lost more voters since 1997 among private renters than any other tenure type.
Private rental homes in over 2/3rds of cases are 2 bedroom homes where only 1 waged income is present.
Nearly 1 million single parents live in privately rented accommodation putting their children at severe risk of living in child poverty
Source http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.com/2012/01/liam-byrne-calls-for-clampdown.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SMALL ACTS OF REVISIONISM
In Irish history there have always been those historians who like to put a different narrative on the relationship between Britain and Ireland. They tend to see that relationship as more benign than malign. (http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9687).
A sometimes bitter debate has been raging for decades now. That is the way with history.In the light of release of documents there is always a new interpretation put on past events. The debate raging over the 1981 hunger strike has become even more bitter with the release of more documents 30 years after the event. Did a sub committee of the IRA let 6 more hunger strikers die for the political advantage of Provisional Sinn Fein? Or were the Brits totally responsible? The Red Plough is clear whose version of events it accepts in this debate and it is not the one that dominated for about 25 years.
That is a major debate but there are other small acts of revisionism taking place regularly and they almost pass unnoticed.
Recently the republican group, éirígí carried an article about Máirín Keegan, Saor Éire
(http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest120112.html).
The almost same article was also carried in The Socialist Voice (http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/sv/SV-85.pdf,) the monthly publication of the Communist Party and on the web site of Socialist Democracy (http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/RecentArticles/RecentDublinMarxistMairanKeegan.html
The only difference was that éirígí referred to the coffin being carried “-by a Saor Éire guard of honour.” while the Socialist Voice referred to “by a guard of honour.” One can draw their own conclusions from the omissionMarian was a revolutionary activists who died far too young from cancer. But the real revisionism in the article is not that but this.
“She also took part in the infamous Civil Rights march from Belfast to Derry in 1969 (that was attacked at Burntollet) “
The piece in brackets is also omitted from the Socialist Voice article. Now let us look at the word “infamous”. My dictionary says infamous is
“well known for some bad quality or deed “
As one who took part in the Burntollet March from the beginning I always knew that the Communist Party, then the CPNI was against the March in line with their then appeals to the better nature of the “reforming O’Neill Unionists”. We, and I include Marian in that we, had no such illusions in the reforming zeal of the Unionists and believed that the boil of sectarianism needed to be lanced. Hence the long March to Derry. We were harassed, hindered and intimidated by the sectarian RUC who led us into an ambush composed of the other arm of the state, the B Specials.
At that time and since I never heard the March referred to as “infamous”. The reverse was the case as many regarded it as the beginning of the end of the sectarian Stormont regime then existing. But as in history revisionism creeps in when you least expect it.
Gerry Ruddy
Marxist Education
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp
James Connolly Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly
The Red Plough is an independent Republican Marxist Internet publication
Please feel free to comment on the contents of the Red Plough.
We welcome political comments and criticisms. If you know of anybody who might wish to receive the Red Plough please send his or her e-mail address to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com
To unsubscribe to The Red Plough please send e-mail entitled “unsubscribe” to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com.
It is the policy of The Red Plough to acknowledge information and articles from other sources.
http://theredplough.blogspot.com/
Vol. 3-No 1
January 2012
The Metamorphosis of Sinn Fein
Sectarianism is not a working class phenomena!
10 facts about Housing in Britain
Small Acts of Revisionism
THE METAMORPHOSIS OF SINN FEIN
The face of Sinn Fein, North and South, has certainly changed over the past twenty years, almost beyond recognition. Once boasting a high level of anti-Imperialist insurrection, particularly in the six counties, Sinn Fein showed much potential to give a revolutionary lead to the rest of Europe. Sadly this did not materialise because the anti-Imperialist struggle was never linked consistently with the struggle against capitalist oppression of the working class. Certainly not from Sinn Fein. The anti-Imperialist struggle against the British occupation of the six counties never gained great momentum in the twenty six. Perhaps socialism was never on the agenda for Sinn Fein despite occasional references to the “32 County Socialist Republic” because the active involvement of organised labour was never on the agenda thus denying workers in the South participation directly in the struggle against British occupation in the six counties.
The struggle waged by the Irish Republican Army (Provisional) against the Orange State and British occupation which did lead to an armed insurrection by the most oppressed sections of society, the Catholics, in the six counties. This soon
'transformed into a war of limited social insurgency against the Orange and British states. The armed insurgency was successful in so far as it made transparent the nature and purpose of the Orange states repressive and oppressive political life'
(The Provisional IRA, From Insurrection To Parliament: Tommy McKearney p.202).
The insurgency was certainly successful in bringing down the Orange state and in this light must be applauded at the very least. The Orange domination, which had been the normal way of life since the Act of Union between Britain and Ireland in 1800 was designed to prevent, at first a minority in the whole of Ireland then, a majority of the six county Protestant working class and rural oppressed from asserting their social and political autonomy.
Instead these people
'gave allegiance to the ruling business and aristocratic elite in return for preferential treatment vis-à-vis their Catholic neighbours' (ibid).
So long as these people could consider themselves better off than their Catholic class brethren they were happy enough thus preventing any class solidarity against the rulers and oppressors of both the Protestant and Catholic working class. Historically when any indication of solidarity between the two sections of the working class was seen the Orange card was shown thus splitting any fledgling movement. An example of this divide and conquer by the employing classes to highlight is the 1932 Outdoor Relief Scheme when Protestant and Catholic workers united, until the Orange card was played, immediately causing deep divisions.
The IRA campaign in bringing an end to the Orange state was to a large extent successful. However bringing British domination down was another matter. With the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 and the (Provisional) IRA declaration of a ceasefire and later decommissioning of weaponry Sinn Fein entered into something they possibly could essentially have had back in 1975!
This was the year when the same IRA, from an advantageous position, called a ceasefire which the British were to exploit to their full advantage when the IRA entered into covert negotiations. This resulted in the British side adopting a carrot and stick strategy involving two options.
Option a) 'The IRA would be invited to end its campaign and acquiesce with London’s plan for a shared administration in a Northern Ireland embedded within the United Kingdom but in return would gain admittance into the political establishment' (McKearney: P 139).
This is broadly speaking what they have got today.
Option b) 'Britain would use its considerable political and media influence to designate the IRA campaign as a criminal terrorist enterprise, transfer as much responsibility for military operations as possible to local Unionist militias (normalisation or Ulsterisation) and settle back to a long war of attrition at the end of which the IRA would either be annihilated, rendered impotent (and thus irrelevant) or exhausted and thus agree to option A' (ibid).
Now in 2011/12 we have a Legislative Assembly at Stormont up and trotting if not running doing implicitly what London tells them to do. After all it is London and not Belfast who control the purse strings. Sinn Fein are the largest nationalist party in this assembly and therefore in joint power with the Democratic Unionist Party who once swore this would never happen. Consequently Sinn Fein are now part and parcel of the so called government in the six counties with about as much governmental power as a large London borough council. Real power still lies with Westminster.
From “Smash Stormont” to “we must preserve the peace process” a somewhat contradiction? Or a very shrewd political strategy?. Sinn Fein have also made significant moves upwards in the twenty six counties with fourteen TD’s in Dail Eireann, which until 1986 they did not recognise. However there is no mention of the "32 County Democratic Socialist Republic" which like the “Democratic Programme” of the first Dail 1919 appears to be surplus to requirements.
Could Sinn Fein’s definition of a united Ireland be a partitioned country with them holding governmental positions in both jurisdictions? This country must be capitalist and not socialist, that was just a bit of fun to court, when needed, the international left!
Organised labour play very little part in the plans of Sinn Fein these days as they too are not perhaps needed. Historically there is nothing new about Sinn Fein’s post modern approach because it is very much a mirror image of what has happened before. In the fabled 1918 General Election Sinn Fein polled 73 out of 105 seats for Ireland, labour did not stand (and have perhaps never recovered) in order that they, Sinn Fein, had a clear run. There was very little mention of James Connolly and his plans for a workers state from then on, a bit like today!
It will be the working class who are the only class, if they could only see it, who can bring about true unity and national liberation. The Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP) and not Sinn Fein should be the dominant republican party with their slogan “national liberation and socialism” which sounds and is the perfect combination. However this is not the case and even if it were would the IRSP go down the same road as the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)? They SWP are now calling themselves for practical reasons, “People Before Profit” and sit in the Dail which, like other parliamentary systems, they, the SWP, aimed to bring down?
“No parliamentary road to socialism” was once their cry and is still true today. They are part of a group of TDs styling themselves the “United Left Alliance” along with the Socialist Party, formerly known as “Militant”. Would the IRSP go the same way given the chance? After all they made and are making very few inroads into the Southern working class. Who knows!
Sinn Fein should have been involved with the working class movement promoting Marxist revolution which would include waging armed struggle against the Crown instead of taking the elitist road which can and is resulting in reformism. In the six counties they should be pushing for nationalisation of industries and opposing any form of private production for profit. This is what James Connolly would have done
but, alas, there are no James Connolly's around today. At a time when the working class are looking for credible leadership away from them quislings in ICTU and the Labour Party. Sinn Fein has the party apparatus and structure to give a lead but they won't because after all the huffing and puffing they are, albeit radical, a constitutional party. Will the failure of Sinn Fein to pursue a revolutionary socialist path come back to haunt them? I doubt it as they were never from that tradition.
Sinn Fein have transformed themselves from a “revolutionary republican anti-Imperialist party” opposed to British rule in any part of Ireland, which was the correct policy, opposition to Stormont and not recognising the twenty six counties or the Dail. The first change in policy occurred in 1986 when at their Ard Fheis the policy of abstaining from the Dail was dropped thus recognising the Southern Irish Parliament.
This led to a split when a small group walked out of the proceedings and formed “Republican Sinn Fein” maintaining the policy of abstention swearing allegiance to the second Dail of 1921. Then in 1998 the signing of the “Good Friday Agreement” and entering Stormont as part of government under the British Crown. Support for the IRA military campaign was dropped and they were instrumental in persuading the IRA to call their ceasefire and later decommissioning of weapons. In brief Sinn Fein have gone through a complete political metamorphosis from revolutionary to constitutional. They now accept things at one time unthinkable such as the RUC/PSNI and even sit on the policing board in the six counties. Thus the metamorphosis of Sinn Fein.
Kevin
Sectarianism is not a working class phenomena!
Having a child with ADHD is “punishment for sleeping with a Catholic”
“no longer hang out her washing at home the smell of Catholics being atrocious”
Catholics who have been born and raised up in the North of Ireland will have had some experiences similar to the above comments. Those comments were said in a workplace. Not in a factory not among blue collar workers as polite society would have us all believe is where sectarianism only lurks-but in a social work setting.
A team of social workers dealing with Early Years was the setting for such hateful comments directed agains the only Catholic in the team. She was once the Social Worker of the Year for her work with child cancer patients. Yet she suffered terrible sectarian abuse from fellow professionals none of whom were formally disciplined and who continue to work for social services. Only after a four year legal struggle did the trust admitted responsibility. The victim was awarded exemplary damages. Middle class sectarianism is as prevalent as any other kind. What kind of society produces such hatred?
It has always been that way in Ireland. Ever since the days of the penal laws those who adhered to the Catholic Church have been the bottom of the pile in society. British propaganda pictured the Irish as almost inhuman,animalistic even. When religious disputes divided the Christian Churches the British played the “protestant card” and kept the Catholic irish at the bottom of the pile, scorned discriminated and banned.
One organisation that has played a role in this sectarianism has been the Orange Order a specifically anti-catholic organisation. Each year in July it parades to honor the victory of William of Orange at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. They the loyal Orange men like to assert that it was from that victory they gained their freedom their religion and their laws. Yet William of Orange had the Pope’s support and allied himself to the Catholic King of Spain, among others to restrict France’s power.
After the Boyne he continued to fight on the Pope’s side until the war against France ended with the Treaty of Ryswick. Yet to this very day the Orange Order promotes the myth that their great Protestant hero, King Billy, fought to “overthrow the Pope and popery at the Boyne”.
(http://www.marxist.com/ireland-and-the-politics-of-bigotry-2.htm)
The penal laws were not designed to simply penalise Catholics alone.
Under William’s rule both Catholics and Presbyterians were banned from practising their religions.
“Anglican Church, to which Catholics and Presbyterians were forced to pay tithes, became the official and only Church permitted to worship legally in Ireland.
In 1704 the Test Act was introduced. Presbyterians were banned from holding office in Law, Army, Navy, Customs, Excise and Municipal Employment. This law was enforced all over Ireland. Presbyterian ministers were jailed for three months if caught preaching a sermon; they were not allowed to perform marriage sermons and were fined £100 (an enormous sum in those days) for celebrating the Lord’s Supper.”(ibid)
Presbyterian Schoolmasters could be imprisoned for teaching. No Presbyterian or Catholics could marry Anglicans or holding prayer meetings.
Of course these restrictions made rebels out of many Presbyterians. During the 18th century many emigrated to the colonies of North America where they became prominent in the struggle of the American colonists against British rule and went on to help found the USA. Back in Ireland northern Presbyterians welcomed the French revolution and became active members of the United Irish men. The defeat of the ’98 and the subsequent Act of Union combined with the mobilisation of Orange Terror drove a wedge between the differing religious traditions. Catholics came increasing under the control of a conservative and anti-revolutionary papacy, helped by British finances for seminaries in Ireland to stop the pollution of revolutionary ideas from Europe.
The British Government through out the 19th century continued to support the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland only reluctantly and under great pressure conceding Catholic Emancipation. (http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/ireland/emancip.htm)
In the second part of the 19th century they fought a campaign against the Land League and later Home Rule. In all of these struggles the British freely unleashed the sectarianism that they nurtured and spawned in Ireland. They used the Orange Order a san anti catholic anti home rule anti land league battering ram to suppress discontent.Only when it got out of control for a time was it banned.
When the 1916 uprising smashed the Home Rule project the British divided the island into two separate states giving the Empire loving Unionists total control of the six counties, as a permanent base to defend British Imperial interests.
50 years of Unionist rule only cemented sectarianism. In small backstreet halls preachers ranted and raved against the Papacy and Rome rule and reinforced sectarian tensions between working class people especially when in moments of great economic crisis they appeared to be moving closer together.
One such preacher was Arthur Trew, a street demagogue, who founded the Belfast Protestant Association in 1894 and preached his hatred from the steps of the Custom House Steps . He also organised protests against Wolfe Tone Commemorations and disrupted Corpus Christi Processions for which he was jailed.
It was this same B.P.A.which on July 21st 1920 instigated workplace expulsions in the shipyards. To protect ‘protestant employment’ destroy left wing influences and get rid of the Trew over 7,400 people were driven from their jobs. Over a quarter were protestants, mainly trade union activists.
When the northern catholics began to assert their rights in the late 1960’s it was another demagogue, Ian Paisley who stirred up the protestant masses in sectarian hatred. At the same time in the drawing rooms and golf clubs of the protestant upper and middle classes there was general approval for the activities of the same Paisley, while distancing themselves from his crudity.
It is now clear that despite the gains made over the years and the introduction of equal rights legislation sectarian attitudes still seep through the pores of bigots. Sectarian attitudes are not confined to any one particular religious sect. But they are an instrument of state control. For example the PSNI will always be 100% unionist regardless of its religious composition.
There are issues such as marches etc which divide the working classes. But with sectarianism ingrained in the whole of northern society the way to deal with it is not by ignoring it or avoiding dealing with it altogether. Sectarian attitudes must be confronted on each and every occasion it arises. There can be no hiding place for bigots.
Gr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 facts about Housing in Britain
20 million people live in rental accommodation and about half of that figure rent privately.
The average private rent is £8,600 per house per year which is 14% more expensive than owning.
73% of private renters get no help from the state with meeting their rental costs .
Private landlords made a whopping £42,000,000,000 in rental income in the last year.
46% of private rental houses are deemed sub-standard accommodation by the government.
55% of new Housing Benefit recipients are actually the 'working poor' living in private rental accommodation.
The majority of landlords have no previous experience in the housing trade & 1/4 of them make enough profit from renting to sustain a lifestyle, evidence of a quick buck culture if it were needed.
Labour lost more voters since 1997 among private renters than any other tenure type.
Private rental homes in over 2/3rds of cases are 2 bedroom homes where only 1 waged income is present.
Nearly 1 million single parents live in privately rented accommodation putting their children at severe risk of living in child poverty
Source http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.com/2012/01/liam-byrne-calls-for-clampdown.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SMALL ACTS OF REVISIONISM
In Irish history there have always been those historians who like to put a different narrative on the relationship between Britain and Ireland. They tend to see that relationship as more benign than malign. (http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9687).
A sometimes bitter debate has been raging for decades now. That is the way with history.In the light of release of documents there is always a new interpretation put on past events. The debate raging over the 1981 hunger strike has become even more bitter with the release of more documents 30 years after the event. Did a sub committee of the IRA let 6 more hunger strikers die for the political advantage of Provisional Sinn Fein? Or were the Brits totally responsible? The Red Plough is clear whose version of events it accepts in this debate and it is not the one that dominated for about 25 years.
That is a major debate but there are other small acts of revisionism taking place regularly and they almost pass unnoticed.
Recently the republican group, éirígí carried an article about Máirín Keegan, Saor Éire
(http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest120112.html).
The almost same article was also carried in The Socialist Voice (http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/sv/SV-85.pdf,) the monthly publication of the Communist Party and on the web site of Socialist Democracy (http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/RecentArticles/RecentDublinMarxistMairanKeegan.html
The only difference was that éirígí referred to the coffin being carried “-by a Saor Éire guard of honour.” while the Socialist Voice referred to “by a guard of honour.” One can draw their own conclusions from the omissionMarian was a revolutionary activists who died far too young from cancer. But the real revisionism in the article is not that but this.
“She also took part in the infamous Civil Rights march from Belfast to Derry in 1969 (that was attacked at Burntollet) “
The piece in brackets is also omitted from the Socialist Voice article. Now let us look at the word “infamous”. My dictionary says infamous is
“well known for some bad quality or deed “
As one who took part in the Burntollet March from the beginning I always knew that the Communist Party, then the CPNI was against the March in line with their then appeals to the better nature of the “reforming O’Neill Unionists”. We, and I include Marian in that we, had no such illusions in the reforming zeal of the Unionists and believed that the boil of sectarianism needed to be lanced. Hence the long March to Derry. We were harassed, hindered and intimidated by the sectarian RUC who led us into an ambush composed of the other arm of the state, the B Specials.
At that time and since I never heard the March referred to as “infamous”. The reverse was the case as many regarded it as the beginning of the end of the sectarian Stormont regime then existing. But as in history revisionism creeps in when you least expect it.
Gerry Ruddy
Marxist Education
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp
James Connolly Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly
The Red Plough is an independent Republican Marxist Internet publication
Please feel free to comment on the contents of the Red Plough.
We welcome political comments and criticisms. If you know of anybody who might wish to receive the Red Plough please send his or her e-mail address to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com
To unsubscribe to The Red Plough please send e-mail entitled “unsubscribe” to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com.
It is the policy of The Red Plough to acknowledge information and articles from other sources.
Monday, 12 December 2011
The Red Plough Vol 2-5
The Red Plough
http://theredplough.blogspot.com/
Vol. 2-No 5
December 2011
Strike
The Politics of Symbols
The Protestant Working Class
Smashing H-Block
Strike!!
On Wednesday 30th November PublicService Unions went out on strike because of the policy of the Tory/Liberal Democrats coaliaition Governments on pensions.
Contributions are to rise by an average of 3.2 per cent of salary over three years, saving the state £3.2 billion
The retirement age to be pegged to the state pension age, while all will be expected to work longer – the retirement age will rise to 67 from 2026.
A switch in the way pensions are uprated every year from the higher RPI rate of inflation to the lower CPI rate,
Staff moved from final salary schemes to career average schemes.
These policies are from a Government determined to effect a sharp reduction in public service pensions. They are similar to the cuts imposed on workers in the Irish Republic and are part of a European wide offensive on the pension rights of workers. A writer in the USA who has written extensively on USA Imperialism, Michael Parenti, has stated that
“USA reactionary rulers (goal) is the Third Worldization of the entire world including Europe and North America”
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned of a fall of 3 per cent in average incomes this year, with more to come in 2012, and the brunt of cutbacks falling on lower income families. Families with children are likely to be worse off in 2016 than they were 12 years ago. Since 2010 low income families in the North of Ireland have faced rising inflation, growing unemployment and the highest energy and childcare costs in the UK according to the Save the Children organisation. There are now an extra 14,000 children in poverty.
In the Irish Republic 40% of all those in poverty are children and that is before the full effects of the Cuts hits either North or South of the Border.
It is agains this background of raising poverty that the public service unions struck. Trade unions organised demonstrations at lunchtime in Belfast, Derry, Newry, Downpatrick, Omagh, Ballymena, Portadown, Magherafelt and Cookstown. Despite the negative slant put on it by the media the strike was a great success and saw the largest mobilisation of workers, as workers, in generations. The tone of the speeches at the rally in front of Belfast City Hall were angry, militant and class conscious.
One could sense that many attending were more conscious of their role in the class struggle than of their perceived nationality. It was clear that we were not all in it together. On the march itself there was much discussion of the issues surrounding the strike. Many pointed out their solidarity with the low paid workers in the private sector and that many low pay jobs in the public sector had been privatised leading to a differentiation in the average pensions between the two sectors.
There was also much amusement at the sight of Provisional Sinn Fein banners on the March. In October but only known at the end of November the Northern Ireland Executive voted to implement a pensions levy on every civil and public servant in the pension scheme. Only the SDLP voted against it. PSF are on that Executive. They are part of the administration in Stormont. They implement the cuts policy of the British Government. On this issue they face two different ways at once. Eamon McCann once pointed out that having examined the proposals of the parties to the Economic Sub-Group of the Hain Assembly's Preparation for Government Committee in 2006 he concluded that the SDLP were to the left of all the other parties.
“Neither the DUP nor Sinn Féin mentions the existence of trade unions.”(http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/arts2006 sep14_economic_policies__EMcCann_BelfastTelegraph.php)
Indeed McCann says some of the proposals of PSF
“could fit comfortably into a policy statement from the Confederation of British Industry or an election appeal by Michael McDowell on behalf of the Progressive Democrats”(ibid)
Sinn Fein’s membership who retain any vestiges of radicalism, may well be fobbed of by the argument that they are fighting the British Government for changes. But somewhere down the line the penny will drop (as it did for many around the issues of the GFA) that they are being sold a pup.
Since the leadership of Provisional Sinn Fein began the process of turning their organisation into a bourgeois nationalist party they have shed much of their republicanism leading to the formations of Republican Sinn Fein, the 32County Sovereignty Movement, Eirigi and the Republican Network for Unity. It is safe to say that Irish Republicanism has never been more divided nor weaker in the past fifty years.
But rather than learn from the mistakes of the past there are still some who persist with the failed policies that has brought republicanism into a cul de sac. Neither armed struggle nor administrating Capitalist rule will bring radical change to Ireland never mind introduce socialism.
That is why it was gratifying to see republican socialists actively participating in the march and the struggles around workers rights. For years many Republicans stayed away from involvement in trade unions because of their perception of the leadership of the unions as pro-British. They did not see the connections between Imperialist control and day to day capitalist rule. They forgot the examples of James Connelly and Seamus Costello who brought into the cold light of day the connections. No simple green flag atop of buildings would free the workers. It is the class struggle that will solve the national question not the other way around. Thankfully more and more Republicans are coming to see the relevance of the Connolly/Costello approach.
It is long past the time for republican socialists to sit down with each other and over a period of time agreed the strategy and tactics needed to advance the interests of the working class in ireland . Such a move would be difficult and slow. It might need to be private or could be a public forum. But it is needed. At a time of major crisis in capitalism world wide it is a shame that the left sects still play petty politics and refuse to seriously work to build mass organisations of the working class. But it still needs to be done. The power of the class was shown in the one day strike.
Of course one successful day of action by the Unions will not stop the British Government from pursuing their attacks on the working class. They will work on the leadership of some of the public sector Unions to persuade them to break ranks and do a deal that will still worsen the pension conditions of the workers. Minor concessions will be hailed as a victory and a deal forced on reluctant workers. That is why it is essential to fight for democracy at all levels within the Unions. The entrenched bureaucracy of the Unions stand as a barrier to workers unity. The development of a grass roots movement across all unions and sectors of industry and public service is the best defence of workers rights and a spearhead with which to lead opposition to Tory policies in both Britain and Ireland.
The Politics of Symbols
A major row grew up around the issue of the Lord Major of Belfast refusing to hand over a prize certificate to a young girl.(http://irishecho.com/?p=68367)This at a time when the vast majority of people are wondering how they can get through Christmas. The emergence of sectarian politics is not Provisional Sinn Fein’s fault.It is built into the system and existed long before they were even formed in 1969. Loyalist protesters came out on the streets. Prior to this there had been the public sector strike by the trade union movement that by and large Unionist politicians disagreed with and passed pickets lines. Was there protests by their constituents? Unfortunately not. Real economic interests seem to come second place to the politics of symbols.
“Smashing H-Block” by F.Stuart Ross
Book Review.
Published in 2011 this book is a necessary corrective to the perceived provo history of the H-blocks. It details the background to the struggle before the dramatic hunger strikes of 1981 and brings to light the role of the mass struggle and the contributions of hundreds of ordinary folk who lead the protests, marched tot he roads visited the jails and have effectively been written out of history. F.Start Ross has down those noble folk a great service in bringing the for the history of the periods before the hunger strikes.
He deals with the prison protests and the mass struggles of the period up to 1975. There were mass protests in support of the hunger strike started by Bill McKee, OC of the provo prisoners in Crumlin jail. These protests were held in the main by the Northern Resistance Movement a broad front led by People’s Democracy and incorporating Provisional Sinn Fein and the Irish Independence Party. The People’s Democracy were not afraid to criticise the PIRA for their braking of the pledge- “no talks till internment ends” their failure to commit to united fronts and their elitism. They argued that the armed struggle should be subordinate to the mass political struggle as opposed to the provo position of the opposite.
Later under the banner of the Political Hostages Release Committee instigaged by PD and bringing together a wide variety of organisations over 10,000 people were mobilized on the streets. One of the campaigns was for the repatriation of the “Winchester Hostages” who included Marian Price, sadly now once again a political hostage.
The Provos once more killed this broad based committee fearing the leftist influence PD was having on working class supporters of the Provos.
Indeed through out this excellent book there is a continuity in the way the Provos use and abuse mass struggles in pursuit of their narrow elitist and nationalist demands. The development of the prison struggle and the associated street protests is extensively covered including the heroic struggles of the RelativesAction Committees who supported the blanket prisoners during the dark years at the end of the 1970’s. The emergence of the H Block campaign is well covered and shows how initially distrustful of the emerging mass struggle the provos decided to jump on the bandwagon and take over the controls while pretending to be shifting to the left.
This is a book for anyone interested in the development of the Irish struggle. It lays bare the mistakes but also draws out the crucial role of the masses. A t the end of the day those thousands who marched and protested were sold out by a leadership of self promoting elite nationalists .
The Protestant Working Class
(The following was an essay for a night class. It may be interest to some. I have left in all the references.)
The past fifty years have seen a major upheaval in the lives of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland. The so called “Troubles” from 1968 until the late 1990’s had a profound effect on the attitudes, dreams and aspirations of the working classes in the North.
The Catholic working class has seen its position changed radically. From being a minority discriminated against by the State and whose Irishness was derided and denied it now has a share of Government and equality before the law.
The Protestant working classes however have gone from having a secured place in the British Empire under a permanent Unionist Parliament with advantage and privileges over others to now being confused,demoralized and unsure of their place in the world.
The coming together of both liberal and conservative unionists at the end of the 19th century in defence of the Union was a key factor in binding large sections of the protestant working classes behind the Unionist Party. Although the main driving force behind the resistance to Home Rule was in the main industrialists and land owning aristocracy who identified completely with the British Empire1 the leadership of Unionism was always aware of the necessity to keep the “lower classes” on board.
The Protestant working classes themselves were well aware that they occupied a relatively privileged position
“-aware they were not at the bottom of the economic heap. They feared any political change which would give the majority population, the Catholics, a greater influence in running the country and open the minority’s privileges to challenge.”2
The Academic GrahamWalker has argued that the use of the term “privileged” to describe the PWC
“is to apportion blame, to condemn and to put the Protestant Working class in the dock. Language of course is a political weapon and this is a classic case”3
He then goes on to argue the word is more appropriated applied to
“country squires and well heeled suburbanites”
Funnily enough a dictionary defining ‘privilege’ uses words such as ‘right’ ‘advantage’ ‘immunity’ ‘special advantage or benefit’4
In arguing that the PWC perceives itself as part of the British working class and suffering from the same deindustrialisation that they shared with the working class across the water Walker himself has used words as a political weapon to denigrate perceived ‘nationalist writers. (For example ‘promiscuous’ ‘unthinking’ ‘polemical grenade’ ‘aportion blame’ ‘condemn’ dustbin of history)
Vis-a-vis the Catholic working class there is no doubt that the PWC had an advantaged or privileged position.
Work in the shipyards and engineering industries was usually the prerogative of the protestant working class. After all with the largest rope-works the largest shipyard the oldest aircraft manufacturing5 there was relative job security and social cohesion in the working class areas. Industries brought a strong sense of “community and common values”6
So they supported in huge numbers the signing of the Ulster Covenant. However the outbreak of industrial militancy in 1919 saw a three week strike in Belfast of shipyard and engineering workers, traditional unionist supporters
Fearing the spread of “Bolshevik” ideas, Carson the leader of Unionism and President of the British Empire Union encouraged the formation of the Ulster Unionist Labour Association.7Later on the establishment of the ‘B Specials’ helped further consolidate the the working class within the broad church of Unionism.
With the establishment of the one party rule in Stormont the protestant working class were, in the main, reasonably content. Elections were fought on the constitutional issue and proved no threat to their position. Occasionally outbursts of discontent found expression in support for independents or labour candidates committed to the Union. However when there were tentative signs of solidarity between catholic and protestant workers the forces of sectarianism would be unleashed and catholics would be expelled fro their work places.
The network of gospel halls, churches of differing denominations and the predominance of the loyal institutions in the social and culture life meant that there was steady stream of anti-catholic rhetoric on tap when necessary.
Those protestant workers who stood up for their fellow catholic workers were deemed as ‘rotten prods”8 and many protestant trade unionists were driven out of heavy industry for siding with fellow workers. There was no room for dissent within protestant ranks -“-the politics of social reform being tantamount to national treachery”(ibid)
At the beginning of the 20th century Unionists saw themselves as having an identity that was
“-Parochial - I am Provincial-- I am National in that I am an Irishman and proud of it --I am Imperial ---‘Civis Britannicus sum’---” 9
While they described themselves as British and honoured the British Crown it is illuminating that, in the 3rd of the TV series, broadcast in the early 1980’s, on the protestant working class, The Billy trilogy10 of plays by Graham Reid, one of the children refers to herself as “Irish” to distinguish herself from the English despite after at least 10 years of serious conflict then.
The older child responds by instead claiming to be ‘protestant’ showing the confusing issue of identity.
Within that play are elements of a nostalgic look back to the pre-troubled days when working class protestants took pride in their streets and community, looked after their families worked hard and were ‘loyal’. Education was not heavily valued, also evidenced in the Billy Trilogy discussion of homework. Apprenticeships would guarantee work in heavy industry. In essence the nostalgic view of protestant way of life before the ‘troubles well summed up in the poetry of Gerald Dawe
“A woman dusts the living room
The Queen on horseback
smiles down upon tongues
of sprouting ivy. Everything
is right with the world
even the kerbstones are painted”11
The main view of the Northern State held by protestants seem to have been that it “was a grand wee place” an expression must used in the aftermath of the onset of the ‘troubles’.
So the emergence of the of the Civil Rights Movement was a great shock to the whole of the Unionist population. First there was denial, then resistance, years of conflict and eventually a coming to terms with the inevitabIlity of sharing space and power with the minority population.
Politically they lost their parliament,the BSpecials were disbanded, Derry Corporation was dissolved local Government was reformed. As a consequence of intra- communal violence there were major shifts in populations, the greatest since the 2nd World War in Europe.This led to a lack of social cohesion and decline in Church attendance. Churches sometimes were the ‘social glue‘12 that bound communities together.
The decline in attendance at the Macrory Memorial Church13was replicated in a number of other areas creating or rather re-creating a sense of a people under siege. Within this context the portrayal of the tensions within loyalism in “As the Beast Sleeps”14 another BBC play, is as vivid as it is realistic.
The tensions between the two main characters towards political movement or back to war, ie ‘killing taigs’ and the confused sense of loyalties outline the dilemma for loyalism.
Those involved in loyalism saw themselves portrayed negatively, even, as in Mitchell’s case, from within their own community.
“That we are narrow minded. That we are fanatical. -that we hate all Catholics. That we are repressive ‘right wing’ Fascists. That we can not be reasoned with”.15
This was in spite of the fact that main stream politicians were only too happy to share public platforms with their leaders and engage in private discussions with them. Of course this was at a time in the UK when chaos seemed to loom with 3-day weeks, major crisis with oil, unions locked in conflict with the Government and rumors of a coup d’etat. So security forces and politicians were only too happy to associate, at a distance, with those whose hands were dirty.
But there was to be no electoral gains for those with the dirty hands. At least not for loyalists. Unlike republicans who gained political power and electoral success despite, or maybe because of, involvement in armed struggle, loyalists gained little politically or indeed economically from their involvement in their war.
The gains instead went to those who grouped themselves around Ian Paisley.
Paisley had founded his own Free presbyterian Church in the early 1950’s and preached a virulent form of anti-catholicism that touched a rare nerve within working class unionism.
Even though in the late 1950’s and in the sixties there was a swing to the NILP especially in protestant working class districts , the socialist culture
“often co existed with sectarianism and with an unshakeable suspiciousness about the intentions of the Nationalists minority and was thus vulnerable to Paisleyite populism”16
At the same time the so called liberal wing of unionism under the modernising Terence O’Neill had re-organised the Ulster Unionist Labour Association and sought to win back the working class unionist voters from the NILP. Squeezed between the modernising and reactionary wings of Unionism the NILP was unable to withstand the pressures when the civil rights movement came on the scene.
The demise of the NILP left progressive working class protestants without a real base.Their political options were now severely restricted. Gradually over the years Ian Paisley was able to use the turmoil of the’ Troubles’ to build politically within both urban and rural areas of protestant Ulster exploiting the fears of the protestant people and gradually winning over to his DUP sections of middle class support that once would have scorned Paisleyism.
The DUP over the years transformed itself into a modern political party eventually displacing the old Unionist Party as the main unionist party. But in order to actually exercise power they had to make a deal with Republicans who they had long demonized. The outsiders had come in from the cold. But in so doing they left a confused and alienated PWC.
‘Progressive loyalism’ also lost out. Attempts to put a political face on loyalism had first begun in the early seventies when Gusty Spence, a founder member of the modern UVF, began to ask loyalist prisoners
“Why are you here” in an attempt to get them to see the bigger political picture.
But efforts in the early 1970’s to graft on a political party, the Volunteer Political Party onto a military machine, the UVF was doomed to fail. Both the security situation, the para military connections and the relative inexperience of its political activists meant there was little support in the electorate.
Furthermore there was a tradition of support for the security forces within the broader unionist tradition and unlike within the nationalist community, ex-political prisoners were regarded with disdain and to kept at a distance unless in times of crisis. There was also the alternative of the DUP for those Unionists disillusioned with the Ulster Unionist Party.The UUP itself had veered from modernising to reactionary position during the conflict and in so dong gradually lost its position of pre-eminence within Unionism
The “peace process” changed the whole dynamics of the situation. Negotiation meant that all sides to the conflict had to have some input. There emerged from within loyalism a number of key personnel, like David Ervine, who managed to give loyalism, for a time, a progressive even radical edge using the Progressive Unionist Party as the vehicle. The PUP even adopted the Clause 4 of the old Labour Party constitution, dropped by the New Labour supporters.
Further more, the coming together of ex-political prisoner groups from both republican and loyalist backgrounds opened up new areas of co-operation and understanding. But it has also exposed the fractures within Unionism especially between loyalism and the DUP as the following quote from a member of the Ulster Political Research Group ( a group close to the thinking of the UDA leadership)
“If the DUP lead a devolved government they will attempt to disempower us by controlling whatever funding will be coming into our communities. Unionist politicians are more interested in gaining political benefits than in empowering communities.”17
In those sentences we can see how some sections of Loyalism identified with their local communities before the broader strands of Unionism.
But the loyalists themselves have had major disagreements leading to bloodshed between the UDA and the UVF but also internally. Feuding usually entails working class communities bearing the brunt of the violence leading to disillusionment and demoralization. Whatever credibility is gained within Unionism by militancy on issues such as marching or interface conflict is lost by the feuding and criminality that was associated with both paramilitary wings of loyalism. Electorally the PUP vote has declined and they no longer have any representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The UDA ‘s own efforts to enter the political field also came to disaster. It is clear indeed that many of the members of the loyalist paramilitaries use their votes to support the DUP.
From a once secure role in the world, politically culturally, socially and economically the protestant working class now finds itself insecure. Their sense of place has been weakened. The social glue that held their communities together has gone. They are alienated and almost leadership. Mark Langhammer, talking about protestant working class areas in Belfast said in every street they
“-would have had a convenor, or shop stewart, or health or safety representative as a result of mass participation in the great unionised manufacturing enterprises of shipyard, aircraft, engineering and textiles”18
That is all gone. The political leaderships of the mainstream unionist parties did not prepare the masses for the compromises they would have have to take. Hence the confusion within their ranks. Like the Catholic working class they too face a dilemma, reaction or progress?
Gerry Ruddy
References
1 Page 45 “Against Home Rule “ the case for the Union By Sir Edward Carson etc Pub Frederick Warne London 1912
2 Page 22 “The Protestants of Ulster “ Geoffrey Bell Pub. Pluto Press 1976
3 Page 366 “Irish Protestant Identities” Ed.Busteed, Neal Tonge 2008 Manchester University Press
4 Page 953 “Concise Oxford Dictionary” University Press Oxford 1961
5 ‘Life before the troubles” interview with Michael Copeland-lecture 26/10/11
6 Page 3 Lecture 26/10/11
7 Page 47 “ The State In Northern Ireland 1921-72”Bew, Gibbon, Patterson Pub.Manchester University Press 1979
8 Page xiv “labour and Partition” Austen Morgan 1991 Pluto Press
9 Page 258 “Irish Protestant Identities” Ed.Busteed, Neal Tonge 2008 Manchester University Press
10 “A Coming To Terms For Billy” BBCNI 1984
11 Page 2” Little Palaces” Gerald Dawe-lecture 26/10/11
12 Page 8 Lecture 26/10/11
13 Page 8 Lecture 26/10/11
14 “As the Beast Sleeps” BBC NI Play written by Gary Mitchell
15 page 280 ‘Political Murder in Northern Ireland “ Dillon, M. and Lehane, D Pub. Middlesex:Penguin 1973
16 page 159 History of the Ulster UnionisT Party “ Walker. G Manchester University Press 2004
17 page 11 “Learning From Others In Conflict” Loyalism in Transition”Island Pamphlets 80 -2007
18 Page 370 “Irish Protestant Identities” Ed.Busteed, Neal Tonge 2008 Manchester University Press
Other Reading
“Belfast Fifty Years Ago” Lecture by Thomas Gaffikin Pub. James Cleeland Belfast 1894
“Northern Ireland -The Orange State” Farrell Pub. Pluto Press 1976
Northern Protestants-An Unsettled People” McKay Pub. Blackstaff Press 2000
“Sectarianism-a Discussion Document” Report of the Working Party On Sectarianism -Irish Inter Church Meeting -1993
“The Edge Of the Union” Steve Bruce Pub. Oxford University Press 1994
“The State in Northern Ireland1921-72” Bew, Gibbon Patterson Pub. Manchester University Press 1979
“Unionism and Orangeism In Northern Ireland since 1945” Patterson and Kaufman Pub. Manchester University Press 2007
Marxist Education
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp
James Connolly Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly
The Red Plough is an independent Republican Marxist Internet publication
Please feel free to comment on the contents of the Red Plough.
We welcome political comments and criticisms. If you know of anybody who might wish to receive the Red Plough please send his or her e-mail address to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com
To unsubscribe to The Red Plough please send e-mail entitled “unsubscribe” to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com.
It is the policy of The Red Plough to acknowledge information and articles from other sources.
http://theredplough.blogspot.com/
Vol. 2-No 5
December 2011
Strike
The Politics of Symbols
The Protestant Working Class
Smashing H-Block
Strike!!
On Wednesday 30th November PublicService Unions went out on strike because of the policy of the Tory/Liberal Democrats coaliaition Governments on pensions.
Contributions are to rise by an average of 3.2 per cent of salary over three years, saving the state £3.2 billion
The retirement age to be pegged to the state pension age, while all will be expected to work longer – the retirement age will rise to 67 from 2026.
A switch in the way pensions are uprated every year from the higher RPI rate of inflation to the lower CPI rate,
Staff moved from final salary schemes to career average schemes.
These policies are from a Government determined to effect a sharp reduction in public service pensions. They are similar to the cuts imposed on workers in the Irish Republic and are part of a European wide offensive on the pension rights of workers. A writer in the USA who has written extensively on USA Imperialism, Michael Parenti, has stated that
“USA reactionary rulers (goal) is the Third Worldization of the entire world including Europe and North America”
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned of a fall of 3 per cent in average incomes this year, with more to come in 2012, and the brunt of cutbacks falling on lower income families. Families with children are likely to be worse off in 2016 than they were 12 years ago. Since 2010 low income families in the North of Ireland have faced rising inflation, growing unemployment and the highest energy and childcare costs in the UK according to the Save the Children organisation. There are now an extra 14,000 children in poverty.
In the Irish Republic 40% of all those in poverty are children and that is before the full effects of the Cuts hits either North or South of the Border.
It is agains this background of raising poverty that the public service unions struck. Trade unions organised demonstrations at lunchtime in Belfast, Derry, Newry, Downpatrick, Omagh, Ballymena, Portadown, Magherafelt and Cookstown. Despite the negative slant put on it by the media the strike was a great success and saw the largest mobilisation of workers, as workers, in generations. The tone of the speeches at the rally in front of Belfast City Hall were angry, militant and class conscious.
One could sense that many attending were more conscious of their role in the class struggle than of their perceived nationality. It was clear that we were not all in it together. On the march itself there was much discussion of the issues surrounding the strike. Many pointed out their solidarity with the low paid workers in the private sector and that many low pay jobs in the public sector had been privatised leading to a differentiation in the average pensions between the two sectors.
There was also much amusement at the sight of Provisional Sinn Fein banners on the March. In October but only known at the end of November the Northern Ireland Executive voted to implement a pensions levy on every civil and public servant in the pension scheme. Only the SDLP voted against it. PSF are on that Executive. They are part of the administration in Stormont. They implement the cuts policy of the British Government. On this issue they face two different ways at once. Eamon McCann once pointed out that having examined the proposals of the parties to the Economic Sub-Group of the Hain Assembly's Preparation for Government Committee in 2006 he concluded that the SDLP were to the left of all the other parties.
“Neither the DUP nor Sinn Féin mentions the existence of trade unions.”(http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/arts2006 sep14_economic_policies__EMcCann_BelfastTelegraph.php)
Indeed McCann says some of the proposals of PSF
“could fit comfortably into a policy statement from the Confederation of British Industry or an election appeal by Michael McDowell on behalf of the Progressive Democrats”(ibid)
Sinn Fein’s membership who retain any vestiges of radicalism, may well be fobbed of by the argument that they are fighting the British Government for changes. But somewhere down the line the penny will drop (as it did for many around the issues of the GFA) that they are being sold a pup.
Since the leadership of Provisional Sinn Fein began the process of turning their organisation into a bourgeois nationalist party they have shed much of their republicanism leading to the formations of Republican Sinn Fein, the 32County Sovereignty Movement, Eirigi and the Republican Network for Unity. It is safe to say that Irish Republicanism has never been more divided nor weaker in the past fifty years.
But rather than learn from the mistakes of the past there are still some who persist with the failed policies that has brought republicanism into a cul de sac. Neither armed struggle nor administrating Capitalist rule will bring radical change to Ireland never mind introduce socialism.
That is why it was gratifying to see republican socialists actively participating in the march and the struggles around workers rights. For years many Republicans stayed away from involvement in trade unions because of their perception of the leadership of the unions as pro-British. They did not see the connections between Imperialist control and day to day capitalist rule. They forgot the examples of James Connelly and Seamus Costello who brought into the cold light of day the connections. No simple green flag atop of buildings would free the workers. It is the class struggle that will solve the national question not the other way around. Thankfully more and more Republicans are coming to see the relevance of the Connolly/Costello approach.
It is long past the time for republican socialists to sit down with each other and over a period of time agreed the strategy and tactics needed to advance the interests of the working class in ireland . Such a move would be difficult and slow. It might need to be private or could be a public forum. But it is needed. At a time of major crisis in capitalism world wide it is a shame that the left sects still play petty politics and refuse to seriously work to build mass organisations of the working class. But it still needs to be done. The power of the class was shown in the one day strike.
Of course one successful day of action by the Unions will not stop the British Government from pursuing their attacks on the working class. They will work on the leadership of some of the public sector Unions to persuade them to break ranks and do a deal that will still worsen the pension conditions of the workers. Minor concessions will be hailed as a victory and a deal forced on reluctant workers. That is why it is essential to fight for democracy at all levels within the Unions. The entrenched bureaucracy of the Unions stand as a barrier to workers unity. The development of a grass roots movement across all unions and sectors of industry and public service is the best defence of workers rights and a spearhead with which to lead opposition to Tory policies in both Britain and Ireland.
The Politics of Symbols
A major row grew up around the issue of the Lord Major of Belfast refusing to hand over a prize certificate to a young girl.(http://irishecho.com/?p=68367)This at a time when the vast majority of people are wondering how they can get through Christmas. The emergence of sectarian politics is not Provisional Sinn Fein’s fault.It is built into the system and existed long before they were even formed in 1969. Loyalist protesters came out on the streets. Prior to this there had been the public sector strike by the trade union movement that by and large Unionist politicians disagreed with and passed pickets lines. Was there protests by their constituents? Unfortunately not. Real economic interests seem to come second place to the politics of symbols.
“Smashing H-Block” by F.Stuart Ross
Book Review.
Published in 2011 this book is a necessary corrective to the perceived provo history of the H-blocks. It details the background to the struggle before the dramatic hunger strikes of 1981 and brings to light the role of the mass struggle and the contributions of hundreds of ordinary folk who lead the protests, marched tot he roads visited the jails and have effectively been written out of history. F.Start Ross has down those noble folk a great service in bringing the for the history of the periods before the hunger strikes.
He deals with the prison protests and the mass struggles of the period up to 1975. There were mass protests in support of the hunger strike started by Bill McKee, OC of the provo prisoners in Crumlin jail. These protests were held in the main by the Northern Resistance Movement a broad front led by People’s Democracy and incorporating Provisional Sinn Fein and the Irish Independence Party. The People’s Democracy were not afraid to criticise the PIRA for their braking of the pledge- “no talks till internment ends” their failure to commit to united fronts and their elitism. They argued that the armed struggle should be subordinate to the mass political struggle as opposed to the provo position of the opposite.
Later under the banner of the Political Hostages Release Committee instigaged by PD and bringing together a wide variety of organisations over 10,000 people were mobilized on the streets. One of the campaigns was for the repatriation of the “Winchester Hostages” who included Marian Price, sadly now once again a political hostage.
The Provos once more killed this broad based committee fearing the leftist influence PD was having on working class supporters of the Provos.
Indeed through out this excellent book there is a continuity in the way the Provos use and abuse mass struggles in pursuit of their narrow elitist and nationalist demands. The development of the prison struggle and the associated street protests is extensively covered including the heroic struggles of the RelativesAction Committees who supported the blanket prisoners during the dark years at the end of the 1970’s. The emergence of the H Block campaign is well covered and shows how initially distrustful of the emerging mass struggle the provos decided to jump on the bandwagon and take over the controls while pretending to be shifting to the left.
This is a book for anyone interested in the development of the Irish struggle. It lays bare the mistakes but also draws out the crucial role of the masses. A t the end of the day those thousands who marched and protested were sold out by a leadership of self promoting elite nationalists .
The Protestant Working Class
(The following was an essay for a night class. It may be interest to some. I have left in all the references.)
The past fifty years have seen a major upheaval in the lives of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland. The so called “Troubles” from 1968 until the late 1990’s had a profound effect on the attitudes, dreams and aspirations of the working classes in the North.
The Catholic working class has seen its position changed radically. From being a minority discriminated against by the State and whose Irishness was derided and denied it now has a share of Government and equality before the law.
The Protestant working classes however have gone from having a secured place in the British Empire under a permanent Unionist Parliament with advantage and privileges over others to now being confused,demoralized and unsure of their place in the world.
The coming together of both liberal and conservative unionists at the end of the 19th century in defence of the Union was a key factor in binding large sections of the protestant working classes behind the Unionist Party. Although the main driving force behind the resistance to Home Rule was in the main industrialists and land owning aristocracy who identified completely with the British Empire1 the leadership of Unionism was always aware of the necessity to keep the “lower classes” on board.
The Protestant working classes themselves were well aware that they occupied a relatively privileged position
“-aware they were not at the bottom of the economic heap. They feared any political change which would give the majority population, the Catholics, a greater influence in running the country and open the minority’s privileges to challenge.”2
The Academic GrahamWalker has argued that the use of the term “privileged” to describe the PWC
“is to apportion blame, to condemn and to put the Protestant Working class in the dock. Language of course is a political weapon and this is a classic case”3
He then goes on to argue the word is more appropriated applied to
“country squires and well heeled suburbanites”
Funnily enough a dictionary defining ‘privilege’ uses words such as ‘right’ ‘advantage’ ‘immunity’ ‘special advantage or benefit’4
In arguing that the PWC perceives itself as part of the British working class and suffering from the same deindustrialisation that they shared with the working class across the water Walker himself has used words as a political weapon to denigrate perceived ‘nationalist writers. (For example ‘promiscuous’ ‘unthinking’ ‘polemical grenade’ ‘aportion blame’ ‘condemn’ dustbin of history)
Vis-a-vis the Catholic working class there is no doubt that the PWC had an advantaged or privileged position.
Work in the shipyards and engineering industries was usually the prerogative of the protestant working class. After all with the largest rope-works the largest shipyard the oldest aircraft manufacturing5 there was relative job security and social cohesion in the working class areas. Industries brought a strong sense of “community and common values”6
So they supported in huge numbers the signing of the Ulster Covenant. However the outbreak of industrial militancy in 1919 saw a three week strike in Belfast of shipyard and engineering workers, traditional unionist supporters
Fearing the spread of “Bolshevik” ideas, Carson the leader of Unionism and President of the British Empire Union encouraged the formation of the Ulster Unionist Labour Association.7Later on the establishment of the ‘B Specials’ helped further consolidate the the working class within the broad church of Unionism.
With the establishment of the one party rule in Stormont the protestant working class were, in the main, reasonably content. Elections were fought on the constitutional issue and proved no threat to their position. Occasionally outbursts of discontent found expression in support for independents or labour candidates committed to the Union. However when there were tentative signs of solidarity between catholic and protestant workers the forces of sectarianism would be unleashed and catholics would be expelled fro their work places.
The network of gospel halls, churches of differing denominations and the predominance of the loyal institutions in the social and culture life meant that there was steady stream of anti-catholic rhetoric on tap when necessary.
Those protestant workers who stood up for their fellow catholic workers were deemed as ‘rotten prods”8 and many protestant trade unionists were driven out of heavy industry for siding with fellow workers. There was no room for dissent within protestant ranks -“-the politics of social reform being tantamount to national treachery”(ibid)
At the beginning of the 20th century Unionists saw themselves as having an identity that was
“-Parochial - I am Provincial-- I am National in that I am an Irishman and proud of it --I am Imperial ---‘Civis Britannicus sum’---” 9
While they described themselves as British and honoured the British Crown it is illuminating that, in the 3rd of the TV series, broadcast in the early 1980’s, on the protestant working class, The Billy trilogy10 of plays by Graham Reid, one of the children refers to herself as “Irish” to distinguish herself from the English despite after at least 10 years of serious conflict then.
The older child responds by instead claiming to be ‘protestant’ showing the confusing issue of identity.
Within that play are elements of a nostalgic look back to the pre-troubled days when working class protestants took pride in their streets and community, looked after their families worked hard and were ‘loyal’. Education was not heavily valued, also evidenced in the Billy Trilogy discussion of homework. Apprenticeships would guarantee work in heavy industry. In essence the nostalgic view of protestant way of life before the ‘troubles well summed up in the poetry of Gerald Dawe
“A woman dusts the living room
The Queen on horseback
smiles down upon tongues
of sprouting ivy. Everything
is right with the world
even the kerbstones are painted”11
The main view of the Northern State held by protestants seem to have been that it “was a grand wee place” an expression must used in the aftermath of the onset of the ‘troubles’.
So the emergence of the of the Civil Rights Movement was a great shock to the whole of the Unionist population. First there was denial, then resistance, years of conflict and eventually a coming to terms with the inevitabIlity of sharing space and power with the minority population.
Politically they lost their parliament,the BSpecials were disbanded, Derry Corporation was dissolved local Government was reformed. As a consequence of intra- communal violence there were major shifts in populations, the greatest since the 2nd World War in Europe.This led to a lack of social cohesion and decline in Church attendance. Churches sometimes were the ‘social glue‘12 that bound communities together.
The decline in attendance at the Macrory Memorial Church13was replicated in a number of other areas creating or rather re-creating a sense of a people under siege. Within this context the portrayal of the tensions within loyalism in “As the Beast Sleeps”14 another BBC play, is as vivid as it is realistic.
The tensions between the two main characters towards political movement or back to war, ie ‘killing taigs’ and the confused sense of loyalties outline the dilemma for loyalism.
Those involved in loyalism saw themselves portrayed negatively, even, as in Mitchell’s case, from within their own community.
“That we are narrow minded. That we are fanatical. -that we hate all Catholics. That we are repressive ‘right wing’ Fascists. That we can not be reasoned with”.15
This was in spite of the fact that main stream politicians were only too happy to share public platforms with their leaders and engage in private discussions with them. Of course this was at a time in the UK when chaos seemed to loom with 3-day weeks, major crisis with oil, unions locked in conflict with the Government and rumors of a coup d’etat. So security forces and politicians were only too happy to associate, at a distance, with those whose hands were dirty.
But there was to be no electoral gains for those with the dirty hands. At least not for loyalists. Unlike republicans who gained political power and electoral success despite, or maybe because of, involvement in armed struggle, loyalists gained little politically or indeed economically from their involvement in their war.
The gains instead went to those who grouped themselves around Ian Paisley.
Paisley had founded his own Free presbyterian Church in the early 1950’s and preached a virulent form of anti-catholicism that touched a rare nerve within working class unionism.
Even though in the late 1950’s and in the sixties there was a swing to the NILP especially in protestant working class districts , the socialist culture
“often co existed with sectarianism and with an unshakeable suspiciousness about the intentions of the Nationalists minority and was thus vulnerable to Paisleyite populism”16
At the same time the so called liberal wing of unionism under the modernising Terence O’Neill had re-organised the Ulster Unionist Labour Association and sought to win back the working class unionist voters from the NILP. Squeezed between the modernising and reactionary wings of Unionism the NILP was unable to withstand the pressures when the civil rights movement came on the scene.
The demise of the NILP left progressive working class protestants without a real base.Their political options were now severely restricted. Gradually over the years Ian Paisley was able to use the turmoil of the’ Troubles’ to build politically within both urban and rural areas of protestant Ulster exploiting the fears of the protestant people and gradually winning over to his DUP sections of middle class support that once would have scorned Paisleyism.
The DUP over the years transformed itself into a modern political party eventually displacing the old Unionist Party as the main unionist party. But in order to actually exercise power they had to make a deal with Republicans who they had long demonized. The outsiders had come in from the cold. But in so doing they left a confused and alienated PWC.
‘Progressive loyalism’ also lost out. Attempts to put a political face on loyalism had first begun in the early seventies when Gusty Spence, a founder member of the modern UVF, began to ask loyalist prisoners
“Why are you here” in an attempt to get them to see the bigger political picture.
But efforts in the early 1970’s to graft on a political party, the Volunteer Political Party onto a military machine, the UVF was doomed to fail. Both the security situation, the para military connections and the relative inexperience of its political activists meant there was little support in the electorate.
Furthermore there was a tradition of support for the security forces within the broader unionist tradition and unlike within the nationalist community, ex-political prisoners were regarded with disdain and to kept at a distance unless in times of crisis. There was also the alternative of the DUP for those Unionists disillusioned with the Ulster Unionist Party.The UUP itself had veered from modernising to reactionary position during the conflict and in so dong gradually lost its position of pre-eminence within Unionism
The “peace process” changed the whole dynamics of the situation. Negotiation meant that all sides to the conflict had to have some input. There emerged from within loyalism a number of key personnel, like David Ervine, who managed to give loyalism, for a time, a progressive even radical edge using the Progressive Unionist Party as the vehicle. The PUP even adopted the Clause 4 of the old Labour Party constitution, dropped by the New Labour supporters.
Further more, the coming together of ex-political prisoner groups from both republican and loyalist backgrounds opened up new areas of co-operation and understanding. But it has also exposed the fractures within Unionism especially between loyalism and the DUP as the following quote from a member of the Ulster Political Research Group ( a group close to the thinking of the UDA leadership)
“If the DUP lead a devolved government they will attempt to disempower us by controlling whatever funding will be coming into our communities. Unionist politicians are more interested in gaining political benefits than in empowering communities.”17
In those sentences we can see how some sections of Loyalism identified with their local communities before the broader strands of Unionism.
But the loyalists themselves have had major disagreements leading to bloodshed between the UDA and the UVF but also internally. Feuding usually entails working class communities bearing the brunt of the violence leading to disillusionment and demoralization. Whatever credibility is gained within Unionism by militancy on issues such as marching or interface conflict is lost by the feuding and criminality that was associated with both paramilitary wings of loyalism. Electorally the PUP vote has declined and they no longer have any representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The UDA ‘s own efforts to enter the political field also came to disaster. It is clear indeed that many of the members of the loyalist paramilitaries use their votes to support the DUP.
From a once secure role in the world, politically culturally, socially and economically the protestant working class now finds itself insecure. Their sense of place has been weakened. The social glue that held their communities together has gone. They are alienated and almost leadership. Mark Langhammer, talking about protestant working class areas in Belfast said in every street they
“-would have had a convenor, or shop stewart, or health or safety representative as a result of mass participation in the great unionised manufacturing enterprises of shipyard, aircraft, engineering and textiles”18
That is all gone. The political leaderships of the mainstream unionist parties did not prepare the masses for the compromises they would have have to take. Hence the confusion within their ranks. Like the Catholic working class they too face a dilemma, reaction or progress?
Gerry Ruddy
References
1 Page 45 “Against Home Rule “ the case for the Union By Sir Edward Carson etc Pub Frederick Warne London 1912
2 Page 22 “The Protestants of Ulster “ Geoffrey Bell Pub. Pluto Press 1976
3 Page 366 “Irish Protestant Identities” Ed.Busteed, Neal Tonge 2008 Manchester University Press
4 Page 953 “Concise Oxford Dictionary” University Press Oxford 1961
5 ‘Life before the troubles” interview with Michael Copeland-lecture 26/10/11
6 Page 3 Lecture 26/10/11
7 Page 47 “ The State In Northern Ireland 1921-72”Bew, Gibbon, Patterson Pub.Manchester University Press 1979
8 Page xiv “labour and Partition” Austen Morgan 1991 Pluto Press
9 Page 258 “Irish Protestant Identities” Ed.Busteed, Neal Tonge 2008 Manchester University Press
10 “A Coming To Terms For Billy” BBCNI 1984
11 Page 2” Little Palaces” Gerald Dawe-lecture 26/10/11
12 Page 8 Lecture 26/10/11
13 Page 8 Lecture 26/10/11
14 “As the Beast Sleeps” BBC NI Play written by Gary Mitchell
15 page 280 ‘Political Murder in Northern Ireland “ Dillon, M. and Lehane, D Pub. Middlesex:Penguin 1973
16 page 159 History of the Ulster UnionisT Party “ Walker. G Manchester University Press 2004
17 page 11 “Learning From Others In Conflict” Loyalism in Transition”Island Pamphlets 80 -2007
18 Page 370 “Irish Protestant Identities” Ed.Busteed, Neal Tonge 2008 Manchester University Press
Other Reading
“Belfast Fifty Years Ago” Lecture by Thomas Gaffikin Pub. James Cleeland Belfast 1894
“Northern Ireland -The Orange State” Farrell Pub. Pluto Press 1976
Northern Protestants-An Unsettled People” McKay Pub. Blackstaff Press 2000
“Sectarianism-a Discussion Document” Report of the Working Party On Sectarianism -Irish Inter Church Meeting -1993
“The Edge Of the Union” Steve Bruce Pub. Oxford University Press 1994
“The State in Northern Ireland1921-72” Bew, Gibbon Patterson Pub. Manchester University Press 1979
“Unionism and Orangeism In Northern Ireland since 1945” Patterson and Kaufman Pub. Manchester University Press 2007
Marxist Education
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp
James Connolly Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly
The Red Plough is an independent Republican Marxist Internet publication
Please feel free to comment on the contents of the Red Plough.
We welcome political comments and criticisms. If you know of anybody who might wish to receive the Red Plough please send his or her e-mail address to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com
To unsubscribe to The Red Plough please send e-mail entitled “unsubscribe” to
gerry.ruddy@gmail.com.
It is the policy of The Red Plough to acknowledge information and articles from other sources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)