On the Loyalist Problem was Re: Prods

[Paul Moloney <pmoloney1969@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> O'Neill accused me of religious bigotry and
> advocating a holocaust type solution for the
> Loyalist Problem.  Anything I said pales by
> comparison with that. Wouldn't you think as a
> Marxist that to call someone a
> genocidal bigot is worse than saying f--k off?

>From reading your mails I got the impression that you
didn't foresee a solution which included the prods.
That's what I think John was responding to in his own
'sardonic way'.  I don't think you should be too
upset as I feel his caustic remark regarding a 'final
solution' to the problem in the North was a ploy to
expose the lack of analysis and, more importantly
study, in Marxist circles on the subject. I am
interested in discussing the future of the people of
Ireland (and that includes our reluctant Irishmen and
women who declare themselves British).
The introduction of Class Politics to NI is the only
real way to break the connection (physically &
emotionally) with Loyalism. There is some way
to go, but there are small signs of working class
Protestants who are no longer willing to be 'canon
fodder' for Unionism.

I think E McCann is correct when he said:

"THE EMERGENCE of the Progressive Unionist Party as a
voice of left wing Loyalism has been very significant.
It reflects a feeling of class hatred among a section
of working class Protestants.
People may have seen Billy Hutchinson, a PUP member in
the Northern Ireland Assembly, giving a TV interview
recently. Behind him was an "Alliance for Choice"
poster in support of the 1967 Abortion Act. The PUP
supported the Gay Pride march in Belfast.
It has in its constitution the old Clause Four of the
Labour Party in favour of nationalisation and public
ownership. But, although the PUP takes up class and
social issues, it has not broken from Loyalism. It
sets out not to represent the working class but the
Loyalist working class. This kind of left wing
Loyalism is not a modern phenomenon.
In the years of Unionist rule at Stormont the Shankill
MP was Tommy Henderson. He was a ferocious Loyalist,
but he was also contemptuous of the leaders of
Unionism. There has always been that tension between
class and community on the Shankill Road.
The recent feuding has shown the weaknesses of the
PUP. In its defence of its paramilitary associates,
the PUP has not made any political statements, and to
some extent has junked its left wing rhetoric. So
there hasn't been a clear class message coming from
those who at one level have developed an understanding
of the class nature of society."

This would reflect my own views on the 'new currents'
within Loyalism. I think, to use a well worn phrase,
we can either look at the bottle as half
full or half empty. Marxists should critically welcome
socialistic developments in the Loyalist Community as
we welcome , to use your own comparison, the peace
movement in Israel.

> Our dispute does have a real and important basis.
> It began with my celebrating the presence of
> Palestinian flags in Catholic areas.  Paul,
> no doubt as a Marxist you would celebrate that too -
> would you not? I contrasted this with the presence
> of the Zionist flag in Loyalist areas.  I drew the
> conclusion that this showed that unconsciously,
> implicitly or instinctively (pick your adverb)
> the Loyalist community was pro-imperialist.  that is
> where O'Neill stepped in.  He in effect said
> the Zionist flag gesture was apolitical and just
> done to annoy the catholics.  It did according to
> him not signify that the loyalists were
> pro-imperialist.

I understand the point you are making. Of course I
would celebrate the fact that a section of the
community was supporting the Palestinian
struggle but here again I am sure there are many
Marxists who have differing views on the tactics that
should be used for that struggle.

You still didn't answer whether Republicans who wore
swastika pins in the 30's/40's where unconsciously,
implicitly or instinctively pro-fascist at that time.

> It is actually clarity on this issue which Marxists
> have to strive for. It is no coincidence that the
> school of Marxism spawned by Hobsbawm et alia
> chooses carefully to ignore the whole question
> of British Imperialism  in Ireland. They are so
> anxious to denounce Nationalism that they support
> the British Army.  They also have to turn a very
> blind eye to the nature of Loyalist politics and the
> role of politicians like Ian Paisley and the support
> he has within loyalist areas.

I hope you don't think I belong in with that lot. I
have equal disdain for both British Imperialism and
Nationalist chauvinism.

> You have been honest enough to put the Official Sinn
> Fein card on the table, Paul and we can debate that,
> if you wish.  But history has consigned Official
> Sinn Fein and the Official IRA to the dustbin and in
> many ways I think discussion here could lead to the
> most sterile of Trotsky versus Stalin type impasse.

Having debated this subject recently with Philip,
Domhnall and Danielle I don't think anything can be
gained from going into it again so soon.

With regard to your fears of having a sterile Trotsky
versus Stalin type impasse I don't think it's that
simple I know of many 'Trotskyists' who would have
similar views on the North to me and many 'Stalinists'
who would have opposing views.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

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