Re: marxism-digest V1 #4154

[Philip Ferguson <plf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Phil:
>>Donal asks in relation to Palestine, what the alternative is.
>>It is not for me, sitting in a university in NZ, to decide the 'correct'
>>line of march for the Palestinian struggle.
>
>Donal:
>Phil, you still haven't answered my question. If you criticise something it
>must be against a better, realistic alternative. Its very easy to sit on the
>sideline and make judgement calls without knowing exactly what's happening
>there. I'm not criticising you for not putting forward an alternative just
>asking that our criticism of the PLO be constructive.

My point is that Palestinians themselves are rejecting the Arafat deal with
Israel.  My position is to side with the intifada and with any section of
Palestinians who continue to fight for their liberation.

By backing Arafat's compromise, Hartley put himself on the side of the
sections of the PLO who are now policing the Palestinian population for the
Israeli state.


Me earlier:
>>It is rather odd that I should have to explain this to an Irish republican,
>>as this is exactly what the Free Staters did following the 1921 Treaty.

Donal:
>Yes, but as I said before, the Free Staters were in a position of state
>power when they committed their crimes, the PLO are currently under attack
>by Israel. I don't see them doing what Sharon wants right now anyway. In
>fact, the PLO are, themselves, being targetted.

The PLO are only being targeted to the extent that the Israelis have not
fully fully house-trained the PLO.  They are not targeting the PLO because
it is still fighting.  They are targeting *some bits* of the PLO to force
the PLO leadership to do Israel's bidding in a more obsequious and reliable
manner.

I think you will also find that sections of the Israeli bourgeoisie
disagree with Sharon's paryicular brand of enforcement.  This comes out
very strongly in the Israeli daily Haaretz.

Basically, the PLO leadership are doing precisely what the Free Staters did
- policing their own people on behalf of the oppressing power.


>>The new view in Sinn Fein seems to be the Michael Collins view that the
>>Free State was some kind of 'stepping-stone' to freedom rather than a new
>>obstacle.  So let's revisit what republicans have traditionally said about
>>the Free State.

>I think that Republicans are reviewing that whole period of our history with
>a little less rhetoric and bit more understanding. I think that it would be
>oversimplification to draw an analogy with 1921 and 1997; however, we now
>have the freedom to revisit these historical epochs with a vision
>undistorted by party allegiances - like pre-1986 no-one could even attempt
>to even understand Collins, et al.

There was always a need to understand Collins, and pre-1986 republicans had
a good understanding of him.  It was just *different* to the new republican
historical revisionism which needs to rehabilitate Collins for modern-day
political reasons.


>>Liam Mellows & Markievicz on the Free State Snip>
>>This analysis of the Free State prevailed in republican circles for
>>decades.  However, in the early 1990s, the leadership around Adams began to
>>engage in sneaking revisionism.  Bit by bit they started to water down the
>>analysis of the Free State.  Then they junked it altogether.  This was one
>>of the key elements of significance of Hartley's paper advocating a
>>pan-nationalist front for the 1990s, including the main Free State parties!

>These views continued largely untouched until 1986 when we decided to go
>into the Free State parliament. You choose to date this from the early 1990s
>to absolve yourself of any blame from a move from these positions, yet
>anyone from RSF will tell you that by accepting entry into the Free State
>parliament you accepted its legality.


I have no wish to absolve myself from anything.  I voted to dump the
abstentionist position in relation to Leinster House.  I was at the ard
fheis where the policy was changed in 1986, and when Ruairi O Bradaigh let
the walk out, he walked right past me and I wanted to grab his arm and say
'Don't go!' because I regarded the split as completely unwarranted and
tragic, even though Ruairi didn't take many people with him.

But choosing to take seats in Leinster House if elected is not the turning
point.  It was a principle of republicanism after the establishment of the
Free State, but it has never been a principle of revolutionaries in
general.  It is highly unlikely, certainly in formal democracies, that
there will be a revolution without revolutionaries at some point in time
taking seats in bourgeois parliaments.   The Bolsheviks took seats in the
Duma, which was a lot less democcratic than Leinster House.  So no question
of revolutionary principle was involved in dumping abstentionism, therefore
I have no need to date the problem in the early 90s rather than 1986 to
'absolve myself' from any responsibility in it.  This is just silly.

The question of enetering capitalist governments is a whole different
kettle of fish, however.  The Bolsheviks, for instance, never entered the
February 1917 government, but strove to prepare for its overthrow.
Workers' parties entering into coalitions in government with bourgeois
parties is class collaboration and indicates that the workers' parties
involved have ceased to represent primarily the interests of workers.
Class independence is a non-negotiable.


>Whilst I don't concur with their (RSF) argument, you clearly do;


Clearly, I do not.



>it is
>yourself who has the contradictions.


Clearly I do not, because I do not regard abtention from *parliament* as
any sort of principle (other than a rather silly one on the part of people
who hold it).

I do, however, have more respect for RSF and their non-negotiable
principles than for the leaders of SF/IRA who appear to regard any sort of
principles as extravagances.


>In terms of my viewpoint entry into the
>Free State parliament was a necessary move to further the campaign for Irish
>Liberation. However, we wish to create a new Irish government not merely an
>extension of the Dail to 32 counties.

So far, so good.  We agree on the above.


>Any 'watering down' of our analysis of
>the Free State was a logical consequence of our decision to enter the Free
>State parliament in 1986.

See, this is the kind of thing where you go askew.  You and RSF agree that
entering the Free State parliament has as a "logical consequence" a
watering down of an analysis of the Free State.  Not so!  Did the Bolseviks
entering the Czar's Duma lead - "logically" or otherwise - to a watering
down of their analysis of the Russian state?  No, not at all!  Did Hugo
Blanco sitting in the parliament in Peru lead to a watering down of his
analysis of the nature of the Peruvian state?  I think not!  Does the fact
that Arlette Laguiller and two of her comrades from Lutte Ouvriere hold
seats in the Euro parliament lead to a watering down of LO's Marxist
analysis of the EU?  I think not!

Re Hartley's statement in support of the PLO's bantustans, Donal writes:
>I think that the message was sent in a spirit of solidarity with comrades
>who have waged a valiant struggle and who have been forced to accept a small
>step solution (in a much different way to the Free Staters).

It is not at all different from the Free Staters.  In both cases, former
leaders of a national liberation movement were given a quasi-state (or
statelet) to run by the imperialists on condition that they police the
populatipons of these statelets for the imperialists.

Like I said, if I was Liam Mellows or Countess Markievicz and heard that
Yasser Arafat had put out a statement congratulating Griffiths on
establishing the Free State, I would be bloody pissed off.


>Clearly, this
>small step is too much for the Israelis to accept, they also retain the
>argument that refugees must be resettled and this, in itself, if implemented
>would ensure the destruction of Israel.


It clearly isn't too much for the Israelis to accept, because they in fact
accepted it.  Now they expect the Arafat leadership to live up to their
part of the deal and establish stability in the bantustans.  It is the
Palestinian masses who, against incredible odds, have made this
'settlement' untenable.



>I don't like to see anyone forced
>into that situation, but no-one seems to be capable of leading any
>successful revolutions in those Imperialist centres who are supporting the
>Israeli occupation. I can understand why the PLO have accepted that peace -
>out of sheer love for their people.


Not true.  It is not true because "their people" actually continue to
fight, while the PLO have stopped fighting.  Plus the PLO tries to stop the
Palestinian masses from fighting.  Connolly and Markievicz, btw, had quite
a lot to say - none of it flattering - about Irish 'republicans' who tried
to stop Irish people fighting.



> In the same way, I can also understand
>why Collins and his crowd of militants accepted our peace in 1921


I prefer the analysis made by Maire Comerford in her little book on the
First Dail.  Comerford was a secretary in the Dail and later a prominent
left-republican.  She points out that the leadership of the Movement was
"cornered by a triumvirate of reactionaries" after 1917 - Griffith, Collins
and de Valera.  She also argues that the British helped bring about this
situation.

I wrote a monster MA (120,000 words) on the struggle in Ireland c1900-1930
and one of the primary sources I used was internal British cabinet stuff.
They knew early on they could do business with Collins, not to mention
Griffith (who at least had the decency to never petend to be a republican).

The notion of Collins as some kind of "militant" is really a myth.
Moreover, it is one which even many hardcore republicans maintained right
up to today.  Now there seems to be an official and open republican
rehabilitation of Collins.  Comerford, however, was right about 'Mick' - he
was a reactionary manoeuvrer.



>(although
>that's not to say I can understand it from the Bourgeois view of business
>interests and the church who wanted peace for other reasons).  However, I
>can certainly understand the feelings of those Republicans who opposed the
>deal, my family has been involved in the struggle in each of five
>generations since 1867.


What was involved was not just 'feelings'.  Go and read the Dail debates on
the Treaty.  In particular read Liam mellows and Countess Markievicz's
speeches.  You will certainly find they had passionate feelings on the
issue but they also had clinical political analyses of what the Treaty was
about.  Markievicz, in particular, does a good job of articulating working
class interest.  Because she came from the aristocracy and broke totally
with it and became a revolutionary she had absolutely no illusions about
what was going on and what class interests were at stake.  (Sadly, the
series of defeats she went through eventually led to her adopting some
rather pathetic illusions in De Valera; but that came later.)



>>Moreover, as I noted, this meant changing SF
>>policy on the hoof, as the SF position, as adopted by SF conferences, was
>>in support of a democratic, secular Palestine, not a couple of bantustans.

>Well, I think that we have since opened up the argument on Palestine to an
>extent. We still call for the establishment of a democratic, secular
>Palestine (as did the Palestinian envoy at our Ard Fheis). I think Tom
>viewed it as an enforced 'stepping stone' solution, rather than the final
>one, a la Collins et al.

But Collins never said the 'stepping stone' of the Free State was the final
one either.  This is the thing about the ould 'stepping stone' lark.  It's
always supposed to be a stepping stone forward, it always turns out to be a
stepping stone in another direction entirely - a reworked imperialist
domination, complete with a new set of sepoys (to use one of Nestor's
favourite terms for such people).




>>Now to return to the pan-nationalist front from 1918-21.  The problem with
>>this was that the classes driving the struggle were the workers and rural
>>poor but, by its very nature, the pan-nationalist front handed political
>>power to the middle class and incipient Irish bourgeoisie.

>I fully agree with this all apart from the subclause, 'by its very nature'.
>Popular Fronts have existed in the past in which revolutionary Socialists
>have retained their own sway and organisational independence.

You are confusing popular fronts and united fronts.  Popular Fronts involve
class collaboration and are set up precisely for that purpose - which is
why I say "by their very nature".

You should read Leon Trotsky on the difference between the popular front
and the united front.

And when you are considering Gramsci's views on hegemony, counter-hegemonic
institutions, war of positions etc, you should read the original Gramsci -
in which these ideas are genuinely *revolutionary* - not the reformist,
postmodernist bollocks of Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe and co, who took
up Gramsci in a big way in the last couple of decades, while stripping his
concepts of any revolutionary content at all.



>I would argue
>that this is the case our pan-Nationalist Alliance. We make no secret of our
>attacks on Fianna Fail, the SDLP, the USA; it is on the strategic questions
>of establishing a united Ireland that we must coordinate - nothing more.


So the SF leadership is involved in "co-ordinating" with the USA for the
establishment of a united Ireland?  Presumably they are involved in similar
"co-ordinating" with Britain?

Which leaves us with the interesting question of just who the SF leadership
sees as the main enemy?

You know, republicans used to have a fairly clear analysis if imperialism
and understand that this was the enemy and that the Unionists were merely a
cats paw.  One of the things that has happened over the past decade is that
republicans have revised republican politics to such a huge extent that now
the Unionists, or the most recalcitrant ones, are seen as the big enemy,
while imperialism is seen as your friend.



>>There are some
>>very good passages in C. Desmond Greaves' book on Mellows about how, during
>>the war for independence, the Irish bourgeoisie lacked a political party
>>and how they managed to capture Sinn Fein through the pan-nationalist front
>>perspective.

>I think that it would be useful for us all to draw upon the lessons of this
>period to ensure that this doesn't happen again.


The problem is that republicans are very bad at drawing such lessons.

When MacNeill countermanded the orders for Irish Volunteer manoeuvres at
Easter 1916, he sealed the fate of the Rising and its leaders.  As
Markievicz wrote, the "signature of a weakling" wrecked the chances of
success.  She thought MacNeill should be shot and declared that if she ever
clapped eyes on him again she'd shoot him.  (Connolly once described her as
a "walking advertisment for a small arms manufacturer", so she had the
hardware - as well as the disposition - to send MacNeill to hell.)

But what happened when Sinn Fein was reorganised in 1917.  Over the heated
objections of Markievicz, Kathleen Clarke and others, MacNeill was not only
allowed into the reformed SF but placed in a leadership position, protected
by de Valera.  And, of course, what did MacNeill do?  He voted for the
Treaty.  Then he also gave way to the Brits over the Boundary Commission.

I'm afraid Donal that republicans do not have a very good record of
learning much.  The 'hardest' republicans are often incredibly mushy
politically and will adamantly refuse to draw the necessary political
conclusions about individuals, thereby allowing those very individuals who
have proved themselves politically treacherous to get back into positons
from which they can carry out greater treachery.  I never ceased to find it
an extraordinary phenomenon.



>>The debilitating effect of the pan-nationalist front continued after the
>>Treaty, as the people in control of the anti-Treaty forces refused to make
>>a real political break with the Treatyite Free Staters.



>I see a difference between the anti-treaty crowd before the death of Collins
>and Griffith and afterwards - we must remember that the savagery committed
>by the State forces experienced a step change after the loss of these old
>leaders who were still engaging in the struggle up North. Those who followed
>them into accepting peace included a lot of opportunists and closet
>conservatives, with this leadership gone and with an abundance of anger over
>assassinations these scum took over and started to murder all around them.

Eh?

You couldn't get much more of an opportunist than Griffith.  He opposed the
Easter Rising, remember, and his big political idea was a 'dual monarchy'
between Britain and Ireland; he also opposed trade union sin Irleand and
wanted to see Ireland develop by having low wages that would attract
foreign capital.

The people who followed Griffith and Collins were no more conservative or
bourgeois.  If Collins had not have been assassinated and Griffith hadn't
died from his heart attack (or stroke, can't recall which it was), the Free
State would have been every bit as vicious.


>With the exception of the very leadership, the anti-treaty forces were
>characterised by their pro-business, pro-Catholic church credentials.

Collins and Griffith shared this attitude, although Griffith was perhaps
less keen on the Church.




>I would not characterise Collins as Bourgeois rather petit-bourgeois. The
>trust built up between people like Collins and Brugha was built on the back
>of struggle not some airy concept of the 'pan-Nationalist' Front. They may
>not have gotten on personally but they were comrades.


As it turned out, of course, they were not.  Brugha, fatally for himself,
believed this illusion.  Collins suffered no such romantic illusion.

Peader O'Donnell wrote something interesting about Collins.  That Collins
was like a shady horse-dealer at market.


>Perhaps that means
>that we are a bit slower to start pointing fingers of 'sell out' at one
>another,


This, of course, was the fatal mistake made by the anti-Treaty forces.
They vastly underestimated the significance of what the Treaty signers had
done and the perfidious acts that would be necessitated as a result.  They
thus politically disarmed themselves and handed victory over to the Free
Staters.


>sometimes this can result in our eventual defeat, but that's normal
>behaviour from people who are experienced in fighting a war under difficult
>circumstances.

Not at all.

Connolly had no such illusions.

Like he told the workers' militia in 1916 - hold onto your weapons because
you might need them in the future to fight the people who today are your
allies.

Read Connolly's hard-hitting attacks on the various pseudo-republicans of
his time, and his criticisms of the republicans who he worked very hard to
pull over to his side and disentangle from their alliance with the
MacNeills of the world.


Snip


>As for your criticisms of the 'papering over' of Gerry Adam's book, from
>your description it does seem to be clearly politically motivated. However,
>your statement that 'telling the truth about the SDLP and exposing them for
>what they are is now dumped and history is rewritten to prettify their role'
>is a complete misinterpretation. The SDLP are (nominally) Irish (Bourgeois)
>Nationalists, we certainly take no prisoners with them, we demolished them
>in elections, we call their stance on the RUC pathetic and generally have
>used the peace process to sweep them aside. However, we won't needlessly
>aggravate them when we can get so much use from them. If they support us, we
>won't slag them; if they don't, they get it in the neck. They effectively
>have to move towards our line, meanwhile they appear to have no line of
>their own and get punished for it in the elections. Such moves are normal
>electoral/strategic procedure.


I'll assume, for the sake of argument, that this is the correct position.
It still doesn't explain why the critique of the SDLP was removed from
Adams' book.



>I will ask about the 'Questions of History' - who wrote it, McKearney?


Nope.

It was written by the H-Blocks prisoners collectively.  It was the result
of their study groups in the Blocks.  It was smuggled out in comms.  Then
typed up.  Then typeset (I did most of the typesetting).

It was to be a 3-volume work, and to form the basis of a new educational
programme, along socialist lines, for the whole Movement (ie both wings).
The first volume was semi-suppressed; the leadership attacked it, organised
an insulting review of it in 'An Phoblacht/Republican News' and sent out an
order that it wasn't to be publicly sold, but only members were allowed to
read it.  Vol 2 and vol 3 never saw the light of day.  I don't know what
happened to these - perhaps the prisoners, faced with the suppression of
vol 1, gave up bothering.  But it was an early indication of the winds of
change in SF leadership circles blowing to the right rather than the left.

Anyway, Donal I think this present discussion has pretty much exhausted
itself, so I don't really intend to add much more.

My suggestion to you is to remember these criticisms over the next couple
of years as political retreat after political retreat takes place.  If you
are serious about a revolution in Ireland, which you seem to be, then it is
only a matter of time before you get one big shock along lines I have
indicated in the course of this  whole discussion with you.

Slan anois,
Phil











~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.