RE: Reply from Brian Cahill

["Donal" <donaloc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Response by Domhnall:

I will snip pieces where we appear to agree, to focus on our fundamentally
different analysis. Also, where appropriate my own quotes, as anyone can
read those if desired. If you disagree with any of my clippings, I know that
you will not let them slide.

>Socialists in the North are faced
>with a very difficult situation, and they can either
>take the rather difficult path of trying to build
>unity amongst the workers of two hostile groups or
>they can side with one group (regardless of the class
>forces involved) against the other. The Socialist
>Party is attempting, with very little influence to
>take the former route. Sinn Fein, by contrast seeks to
>unite all Catholics against the British and the
>Protestants. They have certainly had vastly more
>success with this tactic, by their own lights. The
>rest of us, though, are left to wonder if striving to
>increase the sectarian polarisation of the North is a
>particularly progressive idea.

Once again you mention Catholics, later you identify a religious group with
a political opinion - if you want to do this go on - just don't attribute
such muck to me or what I stand for. This is done to back-up British
Imperialist lies around our war of independence being just a 'Squalid
Sectarian Fight'.

In terms of your argument here, it is a million miles from reality. The
Socialist Party is running into a dead-end. I don't believe that you will
find much common ground in many working class areas, and if you do, you will
have to keep quite on the issue of the British military occupation.

You run away from key issues, then admit that we are having 'vastly more
success' without analysing why. In terms of politics, you assume an openly
opportunist position. Oppose everything and anything, and if anyone does
anything oppose it, do nothing apart from talk. Oppositionalism to the core.
You guys will never change anything because of your fundamental tendency
towards paralytic ultraleftism.

The only reason I will waste any further space on this is to ensure that
everyone else actually gets the full picture.

>> There can be no meaningful unity with
>> Fascists - which is what Loyalists are.

>The PUP/UVF? The UDA/UDP? Their voters? The DUP?
>*Their* voters? Where exactly are you drawing this
>"fascist" line?

For a start, there are internal contradictions within all parties here -
that goes for my own as well as anyone else. The PUP/UVF is probably the
most contradiction-riven and this has spawned the LVF who you choose to omit
(despite their role in recent killings and their wide support where I live).
I will openly admit that the PUP contain positive, progressive elements and,
believe it or not, despite Brian's propaganda, we have organised protests
alongside them in North Belfast to halt the closure of public transport
routes. We had very good relations with elements of them until very
recently. They have internal difficulties - I won't go into detail. Your
analysis is so simplistic, this one is good, that one is bad...we are
talking of highly complex groupings.

The UDA too has a number of half-way progressive people in it (although this
must be creeping towards zero these days), even the DUP too which has a
Social Democrat leaning in terms of its stance on socio-economic issues
(believe it or not). We have to realise that the situation here is very
complicated; however, once we recognise Britain's role as imperialist power
and king-maker, surely everyone can see the direction in which we are
progressing. This goes for the influence of the Fascists within the Orange
Order which answers another of your points below.

>> Ordinary working-class Protestants, of whatever
>> persuasion, yes, we would love to broaden our
>> contacts with them (and we are).

>This is laughable. Quite understandably, ordinary
>working class Protestants, the majority of the
>Northern working class, loathe your party. And
>"Republican Movement" massacres of Protestant workers
>like that carried out at Kingsmill are only part of
>the reason.

You have been away too long, and perhaps you don't understand [sections of]
Unionists from my county. Many are changing their viewpoints. Yes, they are
still for membership of the UK, but if the vote went against them I reckon
most would get used to it fairly quickly. Many in my county and throughout
the border area would accept membership of the South if only their rights
could be guaranteed. I view this as a minimal requirement. More
realistically, in the progression towards a United Ireland, Stormont could
remain albeit with an expanded all-Ireland dimension. The logic of Economic
Development will push the two states together as well as the working classes
and farmers(and is doing so everyday, even now). Unionist councillors are
daily looking for arguments to be made using the 'all-Ireland' dimension -
when it suits them. Bread and Butter issues are pushing them towards
acceptance of the necessity of Reunification - the strategy and economic
development looks to be working (at least for some).

>Your restatement of the eternal verities of left
>republicanism is flawed on two grounds.

>Firstly, the existence of "a preferential position" in
>terms of "lower unemployment rates, better housing
>etc" would not give Protestant workers different
>fundamental class interests, any more than such
>differentials render white workers in America
>inherently reactionary. This should be fairly basic
>stuff.

I am not talking of fundamental class issues here, the dynamics of a class
are not always in line with their fundamental class interests. If Unionist
workers recognised their fundamental class interests they would stop being
Unionists and start advocating an overthrow of British Imperialism. They are
acting in their short-term interests as a 'preferential sub-class'. The
comparison with the US is way out, it is not a colonial society; even making
such a statement I would believe that many US white workers (at least
initially) find it hard to accept a Socialist vision because of the
implications of racial equality and it's impact on their jobs. Such is the
petty-prejudices expressed by some workers against refugees 'taking our
jobs'. We may dislike this, but its reality - the world we live in.

>Secondly, the present existence of a significant
>preferential position for Protestant workers in the
>North is highly dubious. The people screaming abuse at
>parents and schoolchildren on the Ardoyne (to use an
>extreme example you may like) are not richer than the
>people they are abusing. In fact, the old industries
>which once did give many Protestant workers an
>employment advantage have been all but wiped out. In
>terms of housing, the idea that Protestant workers now
>have access to better housing than their Catholic
>neighbours would be laughable if it wasn't so
>earnestly repeated by republican propagandists.

Well, I don't know about that. To use British statistics, Catholics remain
twice as likely to be unemployed as their Protestant fellows - I'll get the
stats if you like. In terms of those Loyalists in North Belfast, I don't
deny that they are everybit as poverty-stricken as those they are abusing.
They are certainly not acting in line with their fundamental class
interests! However, they are influenced and incited to hatred by elements of
the Unionist hegemony and of the culture of 'Loyalist resistance' and
'Protestant Suffering' which they have created.

In regard to housing, in my village (and if I say so myself my own house) we
have one fire place to heat a three-bedroom Council House - this is
unparalleled across the North now. My village has been stated to contain the
lowest quality housing stock anywhere in the North. We are 95% 'Catholic'
and almost 100% Nationalist - that's just one example.

The lie behind your false comparisons is to point at poverty-stricken
Unionists and say that this disproves the community differential. We are not
really even making comparisons between working class areas, these lie almost
below that. You go into the lovely middle-class areas where the Unionists
get up to 90% plus and you will see where the Community differential occurs.
If we successfully improve the situation of Nationalists in North Belfast we
will also improve that of Unionists in those areas. Then, perhaps, they will
be less likely to fall into the trap of following the Worshipful Master at
the next Orange march (he, very typically, lives in a nice house and has a
large farm).

>> particularly in regard of the 'rights of the
>> [Fascist] Orangemen' to march
>> down poor 'Nationalist' enclaves

>You seem to be remarkably fond of the word "fascist".
>It leads to some rather serious inconsistencies in
>your position though. If the Orangemen are indeed
>fascist, shouldn't all of their marches be opposed,
>those through Catholic minority areas as well as
>Catholic majority areas? Why does Gerry Adams go to
>such length to say that Sinn Fein is not opposed to
>Orange marches in Catholic minority areas? Why do the
>(Sinn Fein backed) Catholic residents groups seek to
>negotiate with Orangemen?

As far as I am concerned, cases of residents opposing orange marchs need to
be analysed on a case-by-case basis. There may be strategic reasons for any
statements made. More importantly, in my experience, is that you need to
build up an infrastructure to conduct a resistance to such marches. The
difficulty in this is not that people genuinely oppose them, it is usually
that they won't stand up because of reasonable concerns of their safety. In
the case of small, isolated Nationalist ghettoes, I wouldn't like to be the
one to start getting quoted. It's dangerous enough being an activist living
in a Nationalist heartland on the border.

>In fact, if their really is an organised fascist body
>with the tens of thousands of members which the Orange
>Order has, (not to mention all those other "Loyalist
>fascists" you mentioned earlier) shouldn't opposing
>this huge menace at all costs be the immediate task of
>progressive forces in Ireland?

At last I see a Socialist Party member seeing our position clearly. I am
glad. I would also point you towards the continued military occupation by
the British. That too needs to be prioritised.

>The answer is rather simple. The Orange Order is
>unpleasant and deeply reactionary. It is not, however,
>fascist. Further, Sinn Fein's approach of whipping up
>sectarian tensions around Orange marches has the
>direct effect of shoring up the support and membership
>of the Order.

You are wrong on both counts. The Orange order is a Fascist Monolith. It was
prioritised by early Unionists as a means to shore up support and organise
the working class to sustain the six-counties in their infancy. The Order
represents the perfect instrument for maintaining Unionist hegemony. It is
only now that with our tactics that membership is falling rapidly (I think
its total membership is now under 70,000) - particularly among those
middle-class Unionists I mentioned above. It is rapidly becoming a skeletal
structure composed of Upper-class (old style) Unionists and more openly
fascist Loyalists. This itself needs to be analysed with reference to
internal contradictions, indeed it is considered very likely by people I
know (and I know people who understand the Orange order very well - believe
me) that the Lodge will split again. The damage done by Drumcree has
weakened the order considerably.

>> Lenin
>> said that contrary to what was being put out by so-
>> called leftists, the task of
>> completing bourgeois democracy [in Russia] was the
>> task of the working class.

>Which is very interesting, but unless you are
>suggesting that the Bolshevik revolution was carried
>out with the goal of establishing bourgeois democracy
>in Russia, hardly very pertinent.

I think that you misunderstood me (perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear). The
goal of the working class is clear but one of the first tasks of the working
class was to conduct the business of completing the Bourgeois revolution.
The tasks faced are now the same in regard to Ireland. That is not to say
that this is the goal of the revolution.

I see you removed where this point led to. And then you got confused...

>What are you talking about?

To reiterate the cause of labour is identical to the creation of an Irish
Republic, because the creation of an Irish Republic is the pre-requisite for
the establishment of a Worker's Republic. You misunderstand the motive role
of the working class. It's fundamental class interests lie in removing
British-occupation that's why its not 'Labour must wait' this is what Labour
must do.

>> For me, the task in hand is help in building up a
>> wide and large enough social movement to remove the
>> Brits and carry us forward (progressively) beyond
>> the era of reunification.

>A "wide and large enough social movement" which will
>exclude the majority of the Northern working class,
>but include the Catholic rich doesn't sound like a
>particularly laudable goal.

You misinterpret me and give me words I did not utter. I won't even gratify
you with a response.

>> In the meantime, we will do as much as we can to
>> push for progressive policies, but let's face
>> it there's not a whole lot we can do. I'm sure that
>> Brian will come in with his stuff on term time
>> workers, PFI - I will answer these as before - but
>> we are not free.

>Your "labour must wait" politics are being made ever
>more explicit.

Well, I did warn you. All readers (should we have any by this stage) this
could become quite detailed (and boring). The general argument is that we do
not go into power-sharing in the North as an exercise in Socialist
government (since for a start - we're not in control), rather we did so as a
political exercise which would lead to the development of deeper all-Ireland
structures. Everywhere possible, we have exercised our influence in the
correct direction (with a few exceptions which I'm sure he'll mention
below). These are variously due to our failures (hands up in cases - we're
not perfect), inexperience (we are largely composed of working class people)
or a lack of political strength (we only get up to 25% of the vote in the
North) to push through the changes which we would like.


>Sinn Fein ministers in the Stormont government have
>had very few serious departmental decisions to make
>which have involved more than simple administration.
>When they have had decisions to make, they have
>consistently and viciously implememted anti-working
>class politics.

Well, let's go.

>Most spectacularly, they are helping to introduce
>(despite purely formal opposition to the policy) the
>British government's Private Finance Initiative (PFI).
>In other words the Sinn Fein minsters for Health and
>Education are helping to privatise Irish schools and
>hospitals.

Very much incorrect. Apart from SF representatives speaking against PFI in
the Assembly. Do you want me to get quotes? The Department of Finance and
Personnel who make decisions in this regard has a committee working behind
the minister. This department has a Sinn Fein chair and we effectively
initiated a review of the PFI scheme through the department which has
effectively put a halt to all future PFI constructions. Admittedly, when
Martin McGuinness first came to the Department of Education he signed an
order passing the PFI in seven schools, but in his defence he was only
through the door. We weren't prepared for it, the Civil Servants were and
they got the edge on us. We eventually identified the issue and fought
against it - with great success.

The greatest difficulty we face is that we are confined to the Budget
allocated by Mark Durkan of the SDLP, therefore, we are in no position to
advance our agenda to any great extent. To be honest most activity is based
on fighting against EU sponsored Privatisation and Liberalisation
legislation. Although, clearly, Brian knows little on this issue.

>Meanwhile, Martin McGuinness, SF minister for
>education, fought bitterly against the term time
>workers in the biggest and most important labour
>dispute in Northern Ireland for years.

Martin McGuinness was hailed as a all-conquering hero at the Teacher Union
Congresses. He got rid of the hated 'League tables'. The term-time workers
dispute was largely inherited, heavily influenced by sections of the DUP,
and then used by opportunists such as the Socialist Party. In the end, they
agreed a settlement. As to descriptions of Martin McGuinness fighting
'bitterly', I'll leave that to the readers to imagine the truth of it, given
your open-mindedness.

In regard to the Raytheon investment into Derry, basically we would be
proclaimed as not wanting jobs for Derry people if we adopted the simplistic
approach of the Socialist Party - who don't have to retain any form of
public support. Suffice it to say that at a time where we are attempting to
take the gun out of Irish politics, we don't want to put it back in through
Military manufacturers locating in the North. However, this must be balanced
with the need for jobs in Derry (which on last estimates has a male
unemployment rate of almost 60%).

>Meanwhile, in the South, Sinn Fein voted for the
>imposition of anti-working class Refuse taxes in
>Sligo. As if to prove that it wasn't an abberation
>they followed that move up by voting to increase them
>the next year. In the Dublin Corporation area, two of
>their councillors (as predicted by anti-refuse tax
>campaigners) managed to not show up to the vital vote.
>The two of their councillors who did show up voted
>against publically recording the votes of councillors.

I will not comment on both situations in detail. However, I will revert to
party policy and state that we have a policy against refuse tax in general.
Things did go wrong in Dublin, in Sligo the state was threatening to annul
the sitting Council. We have to prioritise actions - to those who know what
getting close to real power is, that is a key factor. The Socialist Party
will never understand the dialectics of negotiation and compromise as they
will never be in a situation of real power.

>> In my view, some Unionists will not 'fall neatly
>> into line', they will continue to be used as foot-
>> soldiers for British Imperialism after the
>> re-unification of the country.

>How many do you think *will* fall neatly into line?

Do you want numbers? You are a prat after all.

>> However, it is my experience that sections of the
>> upper-working class and the middle-class Unionist
>> population are becoming fast attuned with their own
>> Irishness

>Interesting that you seem to think that this is the
>case while still under British rule.

It is my experience. As far as British rule is concerned we are now entering
a transitional period. The British have ceded a slight bit of authority. To
what else can we attribute this change, which in my experience has only
occurred over the last few years; in addition, this has fed into the space
allowed for Unionists by Republican moves towards a more peaceful manner of
sorting the imperialist question here.

>>> The Protestants are allowed no agency of their own.
>>> In fact, the majority of the Northern working class
>>> barely exist for the authors of this kind of
>>> schema.

>> I recognise no borders separating the working class
>> and I certainly recognise agency within the classes
>> in the Unionist community, see above for an example.

>You deny that they can have any progressive role or
>outlook until after the unification of Ireland.

I deny nothing to Protestants. I know Protestant republicans. As to
Unionists, in regard to the struggle towards Irish national
self-determination, I see their role as retrogressive, as this is the
fundamental struggle of consequence (and it is here that we disagree) they
are necessarily reactive.

>>> Everything boils down to a dispute between Catholics
>>> (who must fight for "some kind of bourgeois
>>> all-Ireland democracy") and the British.The
>>> Protestants have no role to play. For that matter,
>>> the only role Catholic workers are to play is to
>>> fight for the perceived interests of the Catholic
>>> rich.

>> I never even mentioned Catholicism, you did that.

>No you used the term "nationalist", which is near
>synonymous with "Catholic" in Northern Ireland. You
>can use any terminology you like, your view remains
>the same. Everything boils down to a dispute between
>the Catholics \ nationalists (fighting for some kind
>of all Ireland bourgeois democracy) and the British.
>Protestants (or the "unionist communisty") have no
>role to play.

I think that there are great differences. For one, almost one third of
Catholics vote for Unionist parties. The aim of a Democracy (Bourgeois or
otherwise) would be a good thing to fight for, given the current status of
the North as a Colonial backwater riven by British-instigated sectarian
divisions; moreover, the fight for a democracy will create the bones of a
future Worker's Democracy. Perhaps you will join us then, although I suspect
that you may consider such a struggle a little too dangerous.

>> As to the last line, it is scandalous that such
>> tripe could be written.

>You are arguing that the Catholic \ nationalist
>section of the working class has to fight for an all
>Ireland bourgeois democracy. In other words, they have
>to carry out what is supposed to be the role of the
>Irish nationalist (ie Catholic) bourgeoisie, right?

(Once again) The fight for a Democracy is a fight for fundamental rights for
the working class itself, at present these are denied. The fight for an
all-Ireland Bill of Rights is a fight for the working class throughout
Ireland, it cannot be opposed by progressives. To then say that the working
class is fighting for the Bourgeoisie is ridiculous. It is here that we have
differed throughout.

Is mise,

Domhnall.


=======
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message