[Marxism] More Spiteful invective from the ultras on Sinn Fein

["DoC" <donaloc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Phil Ferguson wrote: Below is what I think is a very good analysis of
the significance of the outing of Sinn Fein figure Denis Donaldson as a
British agent for the past 20 years.

Phil, I think that this is a terrible article. I could write a decent
article on what its significance is - and it could be quite negative too
but this is pathetic. It also contradicts many of the arguments made by
opponents of Sinn Fein on this list. I am going to take the time to tear
this article apart as a demonstration of the warped nature of its author
and the degree to which your understanding of the concrete and specific
conditions in Ireland are just unreal.

> John McAnulty has been involved in the struggle in Ireland since the
> late 1960s when he was a member of People's Democracy, the youthful
> left-wing of the civil rights movement and the group that also spawned
> Bernadette Devlin.

Yes he was alongside a broad bunch of Trotskyite up and comers - does it
mean anything? What we have to judge him on is what he is saying (and
what he has said before) not whether he's done x or y forty years ago.
If he was in command of a strong left wing (even ultraleft wing)
movement then yes that at least shows he has some organisational and
theoretical connection to the mass situation in Ireland (any part of it)
today. But he's not: the PD faction are miniscule.

> The unmasking of Denis Donaldson as a British agent is an
> earth-shattering blow to the Republican movement.  A key fixer and
> Gerry Adams right-hand man, his two decades of action as a British
> agent calls into question the security and credibility of Sinn Fein as
> a political movement.

First of all it is a laugh to say that this is an earth-shattering blow
to the Republican movement. And even if it were true is this a thing to
be welcomed by the left when SF is objectively pursuing (at the very
least) a diminuition of British state (imperialist interest) in its
(undeniable) pursuit of a re-united Ireland (by whatever means). It is
not earth-shattering anyhow. 10,000 IRA men went to jail. Most of these
people were arrested as the result of an informants activities. To say
that it comes as a shock that x or y is an informant is neither here nor
there unless x or y was a significant (influential) figure in the
development of Republican strategy.

Now earlier you said that DD was in fact central to the process of
developing Republican strategy. I said that he was not. You didn't
respond. Now John McAnulty even admits that DD's role was that of a
'fixer' or Adams' right man. I can identify with that description - on
the following grounds: that Denis was an administrator sent in to
promote whatever the leadership proposed. As a recent (bourgeois
nationalist) columnist said, Denis Donaldson always greated him at the
doors of SF's Belfast HQs. He was drinking tea in the tearoom. He was a
doorman. He also was an administrator in Stormont. The extent to which
he had access to the developed (and well-closeted) thinking or
strategies of Sinn Fein is non-existent. Republicans haven't been
involved in a 40 year war against the British to not understand basic
security procedures. If you are honest, you will remember that
everything is done on a need to know basis. Okay, there is always a
little gossip but that circle of knowledge withers to zero as you
approach leadership and negotiation levels.

As for this being an earth-shattering blow. What bombast! And wishful
thinking! SF are proceeding as usual. In fact, there are a rake of other
SF figure being identified (by who non-other than British and Irish
state Intelligence) as informers. I could list them. Of course, this is
a political assault upon the party by its objective enemies. Such an
assault confirms the reality of ongoing struggle and contest which
exists in our society today. Surely, if you truly believe that SF are
'bought off' then you must ask why it is that the British seem fit to
attempt to weaken SF's support base through these strategic
identifications of people who may or may not be informers. This is
classic counter-insurgency applied to an increasingly combative national
democratic movement.

For any foreign readers who are still reading. I would state that SF is
currently going through a transition into a mass political movement. In
many areas the once military hegemony enjoyed by the IRA is being
transformed into a political mass party with activists and groups in
every village across much of the north of the island. Across the south,
this growth surge is occuring too but it might take a few more years to
get to the density achieved in the Northern (geographical not political)
half of the country. This is an incredibly exciting time and is worthy
of some study as a case study of how to build a mass political party. Of
course, such study would not be immediately applicable but maybe some
lessons for elsewhere.

> The belief that their inner sanctum was impervious to British
> intelligence was a matter of pride.  The Provos believed that the
> morale and political dedication of key figures to the republican cause
> was unshakeable.

I don't think that anyone believed that for a minute. There have been
rakes of rumours spread by the bourgeois press for years now and they
went right to the top. It is commonplace. I really have to wonder just
who is this character writing this for because there is no way that an
active Republican would buy into this. Republicans have to operate on
the basis of conditional trust - of everyone. That's the reality and how
could it be otherwise with constant activities of British military
intelligence.

> That belief is shattered not because Donaldson appears as an informer,
> but because he, alongside his military counterpart, Freddie
> Scappatici, was something much more - an agent.  This is not someone
> who bowed under pressure or who gave information for a time under the
> compulsion of blackmail, but someone who 'turned' and became a willing
> agent of the British over decades. For both agents morale and
> republican consciousness had collapsed and they had accepted the
> imperialist ideology that they had once been willing to fight to the
> death.

Agents are commonplace. Who thinks that the IRA did not insert agents
here there and everywhere too. So are double-agents - just what planet
does this come from. The running of agents within the IRA has been
standard fare and sold countless books for former British intelligence
operatives. Just why people become agents is a tricky thing but that's
life and a central part of any serious struggle. If anyone thinks that
the Republican movement are impervious to only informants then they
would be fools.

The situation with these two informers is of interest as they were
apparently 'turned' from being dedicated Republicans. But stranger
things have happened.

> Donaldson's motivation is unknown, but Scappatici has spoken of his
> motives.  He ceased to believe that republicanism could deliver on its
> stated programme of a united Ireland.  In addition to personal rivalry
> and spite, he blamed the republican leadership for this failure and
> was willing to turn to the British as the instrument of revenge.

I don't know where Scappatici said this. I understand that he held a
grudge as a result of an alleged beating which was administered by
Republican activists. The reason stated doesn't stand up to analysis. I
would question whether it is true - whether or not the former British
intelligence agent has actually stated it. Just why do you find fault
with your leadership in achieving your objective of a united Ireland and
then act as an agent to combat whatever chance they have of pursuing
that objective. It sounds to me as if Freddie Scappatici is looking to
justify his actions after the event through blaming the Republican
leadership's failures rather than face up to the deep personal shame of
his own counter-revolutionary activities.

Yet, John McAnulty just repeats this tripe in his own ultraleft way.

> The timing is significant.  Both agents claim to have lost faith in
> the period around the hunger strikes, claimed by the republican
> leadership as a victory, the first of an unbroken line of victories
> culminating in their recent disarmament.  The demoralisation of key
> figures supports the Marxist analysis of defeat and the inability of
> republican militarism to defeat imperialism.

Now, John shows his aim. He now seeks to portray the central, immutable
heroic period of Irish struggle against British imperialism - that of
the period around the hunger strikes as a 'defeat'. Not just for the
Hunger Strikes but of the overall 'inability of the republican
militarism to defeat imperialism'. The lesson here is that it was a
waste of time shooting Brits at that time and instead Republicans should
have retreated to the purity of Trotskyite Social Democracy strategy -
along with the other 10 or so headbangers that are in that faction. Is
there no greater condemnation available for the class origins of this
trend. When others were out doing the dying - and Phil Ferguson was
purportedly involved in solidarity activities - this trend were
condemning the IRA as 'nationalist militarists'. In any case, it doesn't
take a marxist 'expert' to discover that the IRA failed to militarily
defeat the British army. What it takes a marxist expert to do is chart
out a route forwards - which is precisely what none of these individuals
ever do.

> Donaldson's unmasking by the British gives us an insight into a murky
> world, proving once again that truth is stranger than fiction.
> Donaldson was arrested as a major figure in the so-called Stomontgate
> affair.  He was accused of spying for Sinn Fein and masses of
> documents relating to political figures and members of the British
> forces were seized.  £30 million was spent on relocating and
> increasing the security of those listed. Yet, following a major
> enquiry, it was announced 'in the public interest' that no charges
> would be brought. The 'in the public interest' formulation often
> indicated that agents are being protected.  Donaldson was then outed
> by the British themselves as in reality their agent, spying on Sinn
> Fein.

This is factually incorrect. Denis Donaldson's position was obviously
under scrutiny in the context of the dropping of the charges. It did not
take a 'marxist' expert to work out that one of the three were an
informer. Even journalists asked whether they were protecting an
informer. Even Ian Paisley Jnr said he knew that there was an informer
as soon as the charges were dropped and the PSNI (cops) said that it
wasn't due to lack of evidence. So the cops went to Denis Donaldson to
warn him that he was under investigation by Republicans. He then told
key leaders of Sinn Fein about this visit whereupon they asked him if
there were any justification for this. He admitted to spying for 20
years and was then interviewed for 36 hours by key people (according to
press reports). He was then dismissed from Sinn Fein before it was
announced by Gerry Adams and himself that he was an agent. The British
did not out Donaldson. The British have yet to confirm he was even their
agent - let alone 'out' him. What they do is give tip offs to
journalists who they prefer and let them run with those tip-offs. Of
course, half the tips they give are complete fabrications with a
political motivation. But that's how the modern bourgeois state
operates.

>  The outing is a bizarre event and is again taken as indicating that
> the sacrifice is justified as a means of protecting more valuable
> sources.

This has been put forward as a justification - mostly by British
intelligence mouthpieces - which is what John McAnulty and his
proponents appear to be best at these days. Besides as demonstrated
above, there is no factual basis for this. The Brits realised that if
the case went ahead then Denis Donaldson's position in regard to the
British intelligence operation which was uncovered by the defense
council. I have just found a great article written (by bourgeois
nationalist journalist of note) Vincent Browne on the whole subject it
provides the most thoroughgoing of the events and the questions that
remain unanswered from all sides (including Sinn Fein).

> Dissident republicans have taken the revelations as evidence that
> republican support for the Good Friday Agreement was actually a
> British plot, citing the role of British agent Freddie Scappatici,
> head of the IRA 'nutting squad' in deciding who survived to take up
> leadership roles, and also citing Donaldson's role in disrupting the
> US NORAID organization.  Unfortunately for them, politics remains
> supreme and Donaldson was working directly for Adams, himself
> reflecting the failure of the republican programme and the new
> accommodation with nationalism.

This much is true but contradicts what has been posted previously.
Donaldson was not a key figure in developing the Republican strategy (as
I stated). The role of Scappatici requires some more analysis but it is
undoubtedly true that he had an overall negative effect in his time
working for British intelligence. The crux of this argument is that a
'republican' i.e. anti-imperialist approach to politics is not a
runner - whether the strategies advocated by the likes of the
'dissidents' or the mainstream republicans. I remain unclear as to
whether the proponents of this line (Social Democracy) also feel the
same about the IRSP or whether they, too, can be airbrushed out of
left-wing politics with the 'petit bourgeois nationalist' label.

> The primacy of politics also applies to outside events.  Sinn Fein
> claim that Stormontgate, highly publicised arrests around the Northern
> Bank raid and the unmasking of Donaldson are all evidence of
> 'political policing'.  This is the rebranding of a Sinn Fein theory of
> 'securocrats' that is dying on the vine because, openly stated, it
> lacks all credibility.  The idea is that a section of the police and
> the intelligence services are sabotaging the Good Friday Agreement
> against the interests of British imperialism and that Blair is unable
> to stop them.

This is where rhetoric overtakes reality without any evidence prooffered
at all! The very best 'marxist' expert could only produce this!

Let's take the time to crack open this argument. First of all, the
vacuous statement - what has that to do but open the paragraph. He then
correctly provides the SF argument - political policing, securocrats.
Then he states that this 'theory' is 'dying on the vine' because he
states 'it lacks all credibility'. So what undeniable justification has
he for concluding that it lacks 'all credibility' not even just some
credibility. His evidence must be immense?? No, instead he justifies it
by a reversal of the SF argument itself - which is the British
intelligence and their proxies within the Special Branch (which
incidentally are retained within the PSNI despite its reform) are
continuing their long-war with republicans even today. His sole argument
with the array of facts and opinions is that they cannot be true because
their logical outcome is something he is not willing to believe!!! What
an argument. And this is what Phil Ferguson thinks is worthwhile. If
anyone denies the continuing existence of British securocrat activity
just read the account by the not-so-friendly to Sinn Fein Vincent
Browne. Just look at the astonishment of the Irish Taoiseach (prime
minister) Bertie Aherne at the turn of events - which made such a fool
out of him and others in the ever pliable Irish state apparatus.

The argument made by British journalists tends to fall between two
stools. The Military intelligence were justified in spying on SF and
that SF are reeling from the revelations and there are more to come!
This is typical approach. They attack from both the right - justifying
the rights of their intelligence agencies and then from the ultraleft,
viewing the discomfort which 'Republicans must be feeling' at the
'revelations'. They love to quote the isolated voices from the ultras
and give them airplay. This is an everyday occurance. The argument that
securocrats don't exist is laughable. Just two weeks ago, a senior
Republicans car was broken into during the night and locked again by
Police. They denied it but it was witnessed by local people (who
typically provide a surveillance in their area). The continuous transfer
of names and addresses of Republicans to loyalists was originally denied
as 'dying on the vine' theory but is now widely acknowledged as truth.
Going by the logic of John's article, the IRA was always doomed to fail
so why would they have to worry about giving intelligence to loyalists.

Moreover, is the like of John really approaching this from a
structuralist perspective - of course not far too difficult to deal with
the complexity of reality! The old Special Branch (Force Research Unit)
which coordinated between the MI5 and Loyalist terrorists was imported
wholesale into the PSNI. Did these guys decide to turn over a new leaf??
What is the materialist basis for such a suggestion??

And now, before we leave this argument. John claims that this was all a
fabrication of Sinn Fein (despite recent revelations that the British
have now admitted that the issue of dropping the case had cabinet
approval) yet he provides no alternative explanation of the event. None.
Why is this? Does he really believe what he is writing? If so, he should
provide an alternative account of what he thinks might have really
occured which takes into account all evidence. I don't think that any
such account is possible without 'perfidious albion' being exposed as at
very least operating agents with the intention of obtaining information
which might be of use to them in engaging with Republicans. Yet such an
outcome both contradicts his belief (that's all it is) in the
impossibility of British 'securocrats' misbehaving or in the reality of
a 'struggle' occuring between SF and the British establishment.

> The reality is that Britain pursues its interest, that that interest
> takes little account of the needs of Sinn Fein and, having signed up
> to an imperialist settlement, there is nothing the republican
> leadership can do as the goalposts shift ever further to the right.

Aside from all the comments above - which is that this is all based on
rhetoric as aside from evidence. Of course Britain pursues its interest.
That interest takes account of all factors (with the exception of the
miniscule People's Democracy). SF have signed up to the GFA as a basis
of further struggle. Who but an idealist believes in the immutable
permanency of any *settlement*. Well apart from a 'marxist' expert and
his ten acolytes and overseas proponents. What sort of rot is this? Does
he not realise that the Good Friday Agreement gives huge potential for
Sinn Fein to both popularise National liberation consciousness and
social consciousness in pursuit of a widespread assault on the
foundations of the status quo either side of the border? Of course not,
if he even recognised this he would be half-way alive to the potential
that exists. Whether SF are going about that struggle the best way is a
useful thing to debate and act upon - but that sort of engagement with
reality is a non-starter with trotskyite 'marxist' experts - is it? Is
it any wonder that Trotsky's rich legacy is so clearly undermined? Is it
not even worse a scandal that with 'marxist' experts like this few
liberation struggle activists feel that they can't buy into 'marxism' as
a philosophy. It is a disgrace that this is propagated on a list
dedicated to marxism.

> This was true of the Stormontgate affair of October 2002.  Whatever
> the ins and outs of the spooks and Special Branch, the truth is that
> the police raid on the parliament buildings and the search of the
> offices of one of the government parties (Sinn Fein), effectively
> closing down the political structures meant to stabilise the North,
> could only have been authorised by Blair.

Whatever the ins and outs... what a cop-out from analysis. I agree that
Blair lied on this (as with Iraq). The guy is clearly complicit with a
coup d'etat who but a 'marxist' expert would fail to see that? And he
says Republicans are shocked at existence of 'agents' in their movement
but he can't believe Blair would do this.

> It was authorised by Blair because that afternoon David Trimble was
> preparing to stand up and pull the plug on the coalition government
> and, in the scheme of things, the Unionist Party was a great deal more
> important to British interest than Sinn Fein was, so it was
> politically expedient that the republicans carry the can for the
> collapse.

This is simply a reversal of history. On 4th October 2002 - hundreds of
PSNI raided SF offices in Stormont. The press were invited to the event
ahead of time. On 5th October 2002 British sources told the Irish Times
that "Not only can (the IRA) breach Special Branch security at
Castlereagh but it can penetrate right to the political heart of the
British government in Northern Ireland (according to police sources)".
"A few days after the Stormont raid, the DUP withdrew from the Executive
and ten days after the raid, on 14 October 2002, in anticipation of a
withdrawal from the Northern Ireland Executive by the Ulster Unionists,
the British government suspended the executive, the North-South
Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. Direct rule from
London was re-imposed." Source Vincent Browne, The Village Magazine.

Trimble wasn't going to 'pull the plug on the coalition' that
'afternoon'. No, it took them 10 days to threaten to withdraw from the
'executive' (not coalition btw). The British unilaterally suspended the
Assembly (for the Second time) with authorisation from the then Minister
for NI.

>  The primacy of politics applies today.  The republicans have struck
> their final bargain and disarmed and can expect British help in
> finalising that bargain - personal weapons, 'On the Runs' legislation
> to allow republican facing charges to return, rules that make it
> easier for the republicans to carry out community policing alongside
> the RUC/PSNI.

Now we get back to where what he offered before. The accusations laid at
the floor of the British cannot be true - irrespective of evidence or
analysis - because they would prove the whole ultraleft analysis wrong.
So the only justification he can offer is to demonstrate just how the
ultraleft analysis has to be correct. The IRA disarmament is for
'personal weapons' and OTR legislation. Nothing more, nothing less...
What crudd!! Nothing on the requirements for specific changes to
policing, return of responsibility for policing powers to the 6C
Executive, nothing about British military disengagement, nothing about
increasing the numbers of all-Ireland institutions and width of Areas of
Cooperation. Nothing on a Bill of Rights for the north, nothing on
anything which might be termed primary politics... Just back to 'cosy
cartels'.

> Outside that they are fair game and can expect a buffeting.  There are
> lots of hidden reasons for the outing of Donaldson, but one cruel fact
> is that a disarmed republicanism is of less concern to the British
> and, the more they are kicked, the more the British can hope that the
> Paisleyites can be persuaded to operate a devolved administration.

A buffeting from whom, British securocrats - or who?? The line that the
Paisleyites can 'be persuaded to operate a devolved administration' is
total rubbish. It is actually the reverse that is true. These recent
events have put off the day until the DUP could ever engage with
Republicans. Even Fianna Fail in the Twenty-six Counties are making
demands that the IRA disarmament is insufficient now Republicans have to
acknowledge the state legitimacy of the two states! Ordinary unionist
hardliners - which are precisely the reason that the DUP are unable to
engage SF are outraged by this revelation. Not only that SF 'are up to
their necks in it' but that the British military establishment is
somehow connected to that in the dirty war. If anyone thinks that the
recent revelations are designed to bring back the institutions promised
under the GFA then they are (like John) living in cloud-cuckoo land.

> They can expect more blows from their new allies as the corrupt deal
> they signed up to continues to unravel.

Nice to have SF 'allied' with the British. And the GFA promising
all-Ireland structures, a democratic Bill of Rights (with potential for
social and economic right guarantees) and an Equality Act to promote
equality is merely a 'corrupt deal'.

> History will look back on the outing of Denis Donaldson as a
> significant event. It's at this point that the fortunes of the
> republicans begin to slide.

Wishful thinking. Ho Hum.

> Internally the whole settlement process has been made possible because
> a militarist organisation such as the Provos involves very little
> political consciousness on the part of the fighters.

Nice to know you respect the volunteers. It takes very little political
consciousness to join up to an armed militia to free your country and
establish a 32 County Democratic Socialist Republic but immense
political consciousness to debate the fineries of the 'Theory of
Permanent Revolution' in the revolutionary heart of People's Democracy
(10 members). What tripe! Sure, I agree to some extent that political
consciousness is too low but the question is 'has it went up or down as
a result of the peace process'. Quite clearly, the vicissitudes of the
process have educated not merely the Republican cadres but the wider
population of the north. It is now widely understood that British
military intelligence recruited, armed, trained, provided information to
and managed Loyalist paramilitary deathsquads. Is this not an advance?
The fact that the British brought down the local elected Executive is
now widely understood by any but the fools who want to be fooled and the
ultralefts. Yet this is just happenstance. The idealist conception of
the GFA as a final 'settlement' allowed (and allows for those few eejits
who retain it as a model) not development of the factors. SF was to be
sidelined, divided. Then the rhetoric was that they were 'bought off'
and 'in the pay'. These descriptions are just no longer applicable - as
if they ever were! The British brought down an Executive to put pressure
on the IRA and to stop the rise of Sinn Fein. They miscalculated. In
pandering to the pro-British bourgeois Unionist party they played up the
more right-wing DUP which despite its manic 'Christianity' were able to
seize the middle ground with the Unionists. What else but destablised
can the north now be looked at when SF are the most ardent proponents of
re-establishing local governance and the majority party in the Six
Counties are talking about decades of British direct rule?

> Strategy is based on the credibility of the leadership and relatively
> unthinking support.  Adams' internal reputation as a master politician
> and strategist sold the deal.  He now looks remarkably foolish, with
> his right-hand man unmasked as a British agent, unlikely allegations
> by dissidents that he himself is an agent and much more credible
> allegations that a key figure is yet to be unmasked.

This is just tripe. People were sold the deal on the basis that it
provided Republicans with a basis for more gains. Personalities and
reputations did play a central part in that - how couldn't it? But there
was a generalised recognition that the armed strategy couldn't deliver
victory alone and that it needed a political route. This could be said
to be a recognition of realities which Republicans avoided looking at
for long periods but that's a criticism which is related to the
development of a mass popular struggle in Irish specific conditions and
that time.

There are specific allegations made against other people. None of whom
are central in my understanding but nothing is proven. Republicans may
be shocked by the revelations but they are not unexpected in that
Republicans operate in a constant state of surveillance and subterfuge.

>  The atmosphere of suspicion and demoralisation can only be made worse
> by the very clear unwillingness of the republicans to look into these
> allegations - they defended Freddie Scappatici for a long time because
> his outing was bound to damage their credibility.

If I had to say, the Scappatici revelations are much more damaging. This
guy was head of the IRA's internal security so it was damaging. To say
that there is an atmosphere of 'suspicion and demoralisation' is a
joke - even in the context of the recent revelations after Christmas.

> The outcome will be to finalise Sinn Fein's transformation into a
> bourgeois party.  The last of the rank and file activists will fade
> away and they will be left with a flaccid electoral base and a
> structure of paid officials.

Unlikely, SF continues to grow rapidly in working class areas. But even
this most anti-Republican commentator recognises that SF is not yet a
bourgeois party. It is unfortunate that Phil stated that it was a
bourgeois party. The last activists will fade away - that is dependent
on whether the party makes the turn to campaign-based activism in my
opinion not on the past history of the IRA or British intelligence.

>Externally Sinn Fein's clientelist relationship to the British has been
>made evident by the corrupt fag-ends of the agreement, designed simply
>to benefit Sinn Fein directly, with no pretence of meeting the concerns
>of their base.

So what is this referring to? See below.

>  Against a great deal of opposition, some from within their own
> organisation, they have signed up to 'Stormont lite' - a new structure
> of local government that gerrymanders the North into seven large
> council areas decisively split into orange and green control, all with
> massive sectarian majorities which make political dialogue or the
> fight to mobilise a working class vote extremely difficult.

What he is referring to here is the Review of Public Administration
conducted in the north. The statement that 'all' have 'massive sectarian
majorities' is untrue. As currently constituted the Belfast council
would be on a knife edge. This gives Nationalist areas 3 councils (along
the border) and the Unionist areas (3 councils) in the far north east.
Belfast is currently probably Unionist although it would go Nationalist
in the next few years. In the three border areas, Nationalists will be
able to comprehensively begin to dismantle partition. This is not a
repartitioning however, as the Six Counties will continue to have a
unitary status (albeit dependent on all-Ireland institutions as stated
in the Good Friday Agreement). So the overall effect will be to promote
cross-border and all-ireland integration and to challenge partitionist
mindsets generally.

The councils do not gerrymander any more than the old council system -
which has 26 Counties - of which Nationalists only control about 8 as
far as I remember. The new legislation will also bring in much stronger
'equality proofing' and force 'power sharing' between the parties on a
council basis - currently there is exclusion in unionist dominated
councils.

Political dialogue is not conditional upon the political composition of
councils. Neither is mobilising a working class vote. The process of
mobilising a vote is not the be-all and end-all of political activism
either - of course. But that is a point missed by our esteemed 'marxist'
correspondent.

> This confirms Sinn Fein as the new Catholic party.  It doesn't help
> that the deal is welded to a programme of rationalisation, cuts and
> privatisation of council services.

The Brits clearly want to rationalise public sector provision. Of course
that's bad if it applied to services. But my understanding is that it is
wedded to the management of those services. The Six Counties have a
plethora of quangos populated by the great and good. These will be
eliminated. Furthermore, the British will also bring in a number of
civil servant slashing policies which will reduce further the economic
viability of the Six Counties. This is part of a more generalised policy
to create a united Ireland economy within a partitionist framework. Of
course, as any marxist knows changes in the mode of production will
eventually shatter fetters e.g. partition, which exists. But our
esteemed 'marxist' has failed to see this even from a bourgeois economic
perspective.

>Even more damage has been done by the deal to resolve the 'On the run'
>issue.  OTRs are republicans facing charges and unable to return to the
>North and a special tribunal was set up that would try them and
>immediately allow their release on licence if found guilty.  Only Sinn
>Fein supported the deal but they came under a great deal of pressure
>from the families of the very large number of civilians murdered by the
>state when it became obvious that the legislation would in effect offer
>amnesty to loyalist agents and state forces.  Eventually Sinn Fein made
>a U-turn and repudiated the legislation.

This lie isn't even peddled by the SDLP who originated it any more.
Their leader finally was forced to recognise that SF agreed as part of
the agreement almost completed in late 2004 not an unconditional amnesty
but one only related to former 'paramilitary' combatants i.e.
Republicans and Loyalists but not State forces. Of course, the British
extended it unilaterally, whereupon the SDLP jumped on SF for agreeing
to it all only to find that this was untrue. Now, John rears this one in
one last vain attempt to pin some blame.

> What future for the Good Friday Agreement?  All of the structures are
> collapsed, the main strategy is to continue the race to the right in
> the hope that arch-bigot Ian Paisley can be persuaded to became prime
> minister, the republican movement at the cornerstone of the agreement
> is discredited internally and externally and the British are now
> processing the final peace of legislation meant to copperfasten the
> Agreement in the teeth of opposition from everyone, including (at
> least publicly) Sinn Fein!

What confusion to end with. The GFA is dead, now let us copperfasten it!
SF have agreed to a Stormont-Lite but the 'main strategy' is to get
Paisley inducted as Prime Minister (should be First Minister but nice
invective style!). Republicans are discredited - at the say so of this
'marxist' expert. So is this what Phil Ferguson thinks is a great
article?

le meas,
DoC.

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism