The Plough: Vol. 2 no. 11, c. summer 1974

TOWARDS AN IRISH WORKERS REPUBLIC

PLOUGH

PAPER OF THE REVOLUTIONARY MARXIST GROUP

—VOL.2—NO. 11

RESIST LOYALIST

TAKE- OVER:

Sit). LOCA Since the victory of the UWC strike the situation in the North has been sliding towards a restoration of the Protestant Ascendency. No amount of “plamas” by Rees or the Labour Government can hide this fact.

While Rees tries to soft-talk the Catholic minority, he is retreating day by day before the advance of the Loyslist. This is most obvious in his decision to expand the local security “grees by another 7,400 men and women and devolve authority to « local level where the para-militarists and fanatics can gain control.

, SECURITY: LOYALISTS STRENGTHEN

THEIR GRIP

Already the security forces and legal system are operating in a blatently sectarian way.

According to a Community Relations Commission report, shortly before the Commission was disbanded, only 10%—15% of the security forces activities are concentrated in Loyalist areas although more arms and ammunition has been found there than in Republican areas. The Association of Legal Justice has also pointed out that figures for May and June of this year indicate that only 25% of those arrested were actually sent to prison, thus showing a wide margin of harassment and intimidation Moreover the average sentence of irmaprisonment was only 3.2 years for Protestants while it was 6.5 years for Catholics. But this is only a garden-party situation towards what will happen next now that security is being put more and more into the hands of the Loyalists. And make no mistake about it, that is what Rees is doing.

Up till now all sections of the local security forces have been under-manned.

The RUC Reserve for example had a ceiling of 3,000 members yet only 2,585 persons enlisted. This was due to Loyalist disenchantment with the role of these forces and were not prepared to join them under these circumstances. If Rees could not find another 415 people not unduly influenced by Loyalism to fill up the RUC reserve quota, where is he going to get 7,500 non loyalists government will be so foolish as to attempt from?! It is obvious that every man and again the experiment v‘hich was called woman who joins the new expanded ‘power-sharing’, thus blithly casting aside security forces will be acommitted Loyalist —_ the pretensions contained in Ree’s White and not merely “a non-political Protestant”. = Paper. At the same time, he also bid The Catholic population has already farewell to the prospects of a Council of experienced the murdering tactics of the treland, “The aspirations to belong to a Loyalists while they were outside the foreign state could not be combined with security forces. In fact even before now, that of the majority” he said.

many cases of murderous sectarian activity by Loyalists within the UDR have been uncovered. But when the loyalists get the official covering, on a large scale, of the RUCR and the UDR nothing less than a pogram situation can be expected.

have also teken the political initiative.

The Loyalists know that the crisis facing the British ruling class is forcing them to hand over the political control once more to the Unionist Old Guard. Even at the elementary level of security, this crisis is evident. Britain’s army of 170,000 is stretched to the limits — nearly 60,000 men are serving with N.A.T.O. in Germany, 15,000 more are stationed in the Far East, another 10,000 in Cyprus and a further 10,000 dotted at random points around the globe, 40,000 are on leave or in training, 15,000 are in the North of Ireland and only 20,000 men are deployed in Britain.

That leaves only 1,000 readily available for deployment in “emergency situations”.

In this regard, the formal adherence of Powell to the Loyalist cause is symbolic.

It signifies an irreversible turn by the British ruling class on the trish Question with Powell representing the wing that is most likely to go the full distance. He was not idly boasting when he said at a Press Conference (August 30th) that “Both British parties, both prospective governments, have now come at last, in all but public admission to recognise that there is no practical or just alternatives to what the electorate of N. lreland (read loyalists — ed.] have demanded all along With this knowledge behind him Powell declared-a week later that “No

POLARISATION

The new found Strength of the Loyalists is not only bringing. the British ruling class to Its senses, it is rapidly Polarising the situation in the North. The loyalist camp, which was a rag-bag of political oddities, has now been welded into a solid compact

LOYALISTS WIN THE DAY

It is not only at the level of security that the Loyalists have gained ground. They

COMMIT TEES

force. The ground is slipping from the “moderate” on either side. Even Faulkner is forced to imitate the Loyalist camp with his rejection of the White Paper and his calling for stronger security.

On the minority side, the SDLP has been forced to make a complete turn-about Hume who originally welcomed the White Paper as a bright light which “laid down paramenters very clearly” for cooling the situation, was forced a few weeks later (August 8th) to declare that “the White Paper is in fact a non-policy”. At the same time, the SDLP has pushed Devlin, their most demagogic “Republican” out as their front runner and have demanded the intervention of the Southern government.

But the SDLP has no policy to protect the Catholic minority from the Orange backlash. They can only rely on their own strength. And this necessitates their self-organisation in each area into local committees. Only by doing this can they hope to withstand the physical and political challenge that is coming. It is the tasks of revolutionaries to make Catholic workers aware of this and give leadership where Possible in setting up these committees

NEW STRIKE

WAVE «

OFFICIALS.

© CHILE o

EQUAL PAY

STRUGGLE

The Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Bill is due to be enforcable from the end of 1975. In theory from that date on it will be illegal to pay different rates to men and women for the same job. In fact the principle of equal pay has been included in both the last 2 National Wage Agreements and an Equal Pay Commission was set up in November 1972.

So far there has been little progress towards this goal, many women especially in industry have not yet received the 17'4% of the difference allowed for in the previous National Wage Agreement, still less the 33 '/3% allowed for in this. The defeat of the women confectioners earlier in the year did nothing to increase the confidence of women workers in either the Equal Pay Commission or in their fellow, male trade unionists.

There have of course been victories, the women at Gallaghers and the implementation of the equal pay principle in parts of the public sector and semi-state concerns. But the majority of women workers in industry, which is Where most women are employed, ate still getting well below the male rate. As we come up to the target date and inflation continues to bit hard at women’s earnings, it is likely that there will be more and more struggles round the question of equal pay. This is already beginning to be apparent in several industries, e.g. the confectionery and bacon-curing industries, women have claims in for equal pay and women in ether fields are considering it.

But, if the moves towards equal pay are going to be anyway successful over the whole span of Irish industry, it is important that the struggle is co-ordinated throughout the Trade Union Movement.

First, it is essential that all workers see the fight for equal pay being in all workers interests. Women have too long been used as cheap labour to undermine the bargaining power and strength of the trade union movement. Workers who say that the struggle is divisive, should look to where the real divisive force is. There is a real need for active support for equal A new strike wave has erupted in the South which poses a threat to the 3rd National Wage Agreement. Below the Trade Union caucus of the R.M.G. examines the implications of this for the period ahead.

THREATENS 3RD

‘nwa’ In the first six months of this year over 400,000 man days were lost in industrial disputes. This nearly equalled the combined 412,000 man days lost in the previous two years combined. The upsurge in the industrial struggle goes even deeper than this. Since the first National Wage Agreement (NWA) was introduced in 1971, strikes on the wages front have declined to 29%, 35% and 28% of total strikes for the subsequent three years. This compares with an average of 40% for the previous five years. Moreover,

STRIKE

for the three years of the NWA’s the — proportion of workers involved in strikes for higher wages was only 14%, 40% and 28% while for the previous five years the average figure was 64%. The new wave of strikes is clearly returning to the old pattern and a major struggle to increase wages is beginning. This is shown by a very important feature of the present strike wave which is at numerous points it has challenged the very existence of the national wage restraints.

Even the limited number of actions for \53

FOR EQUAL PAY

\\ pay struggles from male workers. Claims for equal pay should not be just up to the women themselves, often a weaker force inside the Trade Union movement, but part of wage deals fought for by all workers concerned in the industry.

It is important as well that there is joint fight against the management's attempts to impose extra productivity on women in return for equal rates or to make them work late shifts or forfeit maternity benefits. (All of these tactics have been used against women workers in England).

Trade Unionists should also demand workers representation on any job evaluation committees, and the right of the Trade Union movement to determine work of equal value. Here again the management will attempt to grade jobs done by women as of less value in order to avoid paying equal rates.

The |.C.T.U. should also set up a central co-ordinating committee to instigate an equal pay campaign, and to draw together the struggles of women workers in individual unions, higher pay between 1971-1973 never attempted to go outside the limits of the agreements. However, at least three of the current rush of strikes since March have been against the terms of the 3rd N.W.A.

Workers smash N.W.A. The first of these was undertaken by a small group of workers in Sligo at the local Dental Mirror factory, was betrayed by the union ITGWU bureaucracy and quickly defeated. In the aftermath of the strike many of the militants involved were victimised. But in more recent times the big battalions of the Labour movement have gone into action and they have succeeded in paving the way for a new phase of combativity which workers can use to recoup their loss of real wages.

It was the bitter fight of several hundred Corporation workers which set the ball rolling.

Their claim had been invalidated by the Employer-Labour Conference as far back as January. But the men began a long struggle of several weeks which culminated in them winning an extra £5 above that negotiated under the N.W.As. This was followed by two other new actions by the workers in Clondalkin Paper Mills and Guinnesses both of which were successful.

In the meantime 1,500 engineers banned overtime in pursuit of.a claim which the Employer-Labour Conference judged to be in contravention of the 3rd N.W.A. The men continued their action for a further three weeks when they calla halt on the basis of a favourable promise from the CIE management.

Simultaneously with the CIE men’s action the clerical workers at Aer Lingus began a struggle for parity with airport maintenance men. Their case too was brought before the Employer-Labour Conference which naturally ruled that it was in opposition to the March deal.

On the-very same day the men ignored E-L.C.

and went ahead with their strike action. Within a few hours Aer Lingus management was on its knees and the strikers got most of what they were asking for. The Employer-Labour Conference was once more discarded and the wage agreement broken. In the meantime a whole series of claims were rushed through the breach created by the CIE and Aer Lingus workers. A number of these, like the teachers claim and the demand of the corporation planning staff for parity are also in excess of the N.W.A, Employers and Government get tough The government and employers have quickly signalled panic stations, The threshold clause of the N.W.A. which so far will give workers an additional 10% pay rise (minus tax) at the current rate of inflation is already too much for the employers. The realisation that three years of wage restraint is enough for most workers, has brought a call for decisive action from the government. In its August newsletter the Federated Union of Employers said: “What is r. quired is a determination by the government to face the fact that serious problems exist, that they wilJ not disappear automatically and that attention cannot be divided from them by the introduction of legislation concerning other labour matters of leSser significance.” The government, which in a secret memorandum to prominent businessmen during the National Coalition’s election campaigne (published by ‘Hibernia’) stated its clear intention of defending their interests, responded to the FUE’s call, The-government introduced an inflationary budget to increase the value of stocks being held by employers so that workers would have to pay more than when they went on the market. It is currently seeking the introduction of the Green £ which will increase the value of stock being held by the ranchers with cts

UNEMPLOYMENT

ONE IN EVERY 13 potential Irish workers is at present unemployed. At the end of August no fewer than 68,000 workers were registered as urlemployed — the highest August figure for six The ‘Sunday Independent’ economics correspondent commented “The rising figure even underestimates the actual problem because the overall workforce has been reduced to some extent by the fact that free secondary education has kept at school many who would otherwise be looking for jobs.” (Sept. 8th).

UNEQUAL PAY

LATEST STATISTICS SHOW that in September 1973 the average weekly earnings of a male industrial worker engaged in manufacture was £36.46p or 82.9p per hour. A female in the same category earned £18.69p or 49.4p an hour. The differential was therefore 60%.

TRADE UNION FINANCE

ACCORDING TO THE Registry of Friendly Societies, the income for 53 trade unions from their members in 1972 was £2,245 ,940. Of that sume only £191,212 was expended on disputes pay i.e. 8%. By contrast £1,593,441 was spent on management expenses i.e. 70%.

PAYING FOR IMPERIALIST

EXPANSION

THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY'S latest figures show that 731 new industries were established by foreign concerns between 1960 and 1972. These industries accourtted for 64,600 new jobs. More than a quarter (i.e. over £70m) of the capital employed: (278.m ) was advanced by the 1.D.A.

itself.

COMPANY PROFITS

LAST YEAR COMPANY PROFITS rose by 44.2% before tax and 50.8% after tax. This was a percentage increase of 42% and 46.3% respectively over the previous years. The effects on profits of restraining wages under the national wage agreements can be seen from the annual average trend of profit figures.

1968p 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 +7.2% +32.5% +11.7% -10.0% +25.8% +50.8% EXCESS NOISE apr THE INDUSTRIAL INSPECTORATE in 1972 completed a survey of noise levels in 908 industrial premises in which about 94,000 workers were engaged. It found that 5,200 (i.e. 5.5%) of these workers were exposed to excessive noise levels. If this figure can be taken as an average applicable to all of manufacturing industry then the health of over 11,00u workers is at risk.

No legislation has yet been passed to Protect these workers. the same consequence for workers. The Minister for Finance Mr. Ryan now announces (Sept. 6th) that he will retrieve the money lost by the employers to the workers in their fight against cuts that these measures are making in their wages. He threatens to increase income taxation and back this up with a legal incomes policy to stop further wage increases.

Fight back now! The aims of the FUE and the government to tie workers hand behind their back while inflation strikes one blow after another at their living standards, demand a serious answer from the labour movement. The success that the employers and politicians have had in swindling workers under the wage agreements has made them too confident. They must be shown that they can’t act with impunity. But what are the trade union leaders doing about this? They are trying to hoodwink the rank and file. It is hypocritical of them to back the claims of the CIE and Aer Lingus workers on the one hand and on the other to sit on the Employer-Labour Conference which rules these claims invalid! No genuine leadership can be expected from these fakers.

This means that a heavy burden of responsibility falls on the shoulders of the Shop Steward and Rank and File Committees.

At the present time it alone is capeble of rallying the mass of workers opposed to the NWA’s.

While it is still not strong enough to call or lead direct actions against the bureaucracy and employers, this does not mean that it should confine itself to propaganda. Such a course will only lead to isolation and decline But a militant campaign against prices is possible. This could be initiated in conjunction with local consumer protection groups in working class areas. Such a campaign could use various tactics such as public meetings in shopping centres, mass leafleting, pickets and sit-ins.etc, to highlight the problem of rising prices and the need for workers action to stop it. This type of campaign would be an important spring-board for the political fight that: must be waged next March against the combined forces of the government, emplovers and trade union collaborators.

Bipartisanship? This course adopted by Fianna Fail cannot simply be attributed to opposition-bench tactics designed to embarass the government. FF's manoeuvres have been too serious for this. For instance when a delegation from the SDLP visited Dublin at the end of August, for discussions with the government, no official statement was issued afterwards. The affair was such a hollow gesture that the /rish Times asked editorially: “ts there an official spokesman anywhere around the corridors of gowernment power who can tel!

the peopie of tor the ~ecors and for quotstor enecty ahet the gowernemert a st Bt FF ns uct off the mark enc efter 6 meeting wrth the SOLP the fotiowing day issued 2 joint statement : which said that “the SOLP emphasised the need for firm political action from Dublin”. This could only be interpreted as e rebuke to the government Tee rat Tienes pottical correspondent noted we om™oportence Of he ceteTect. Ty (mons om firm action by Oubien was sigerficant The SOUP for several months has been worried by an increasing sense of isolation .. . Nothing has been done to reassure the pafty following the statements of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, which seem to indicate a growing disillusion with the North and its problems.”

What FF has done is to use the SDLP in an attack on the government and thereby rob the government of any legitimacy its collaboration policy might seem to have in the light of the SOLP’s silence. This stroke was then followed up by another biow a few days later when Michael O’Kennedy, shadow minister for Foreign Affairs, denounced the “silence and temerity” of the government on the North and declared that “there could be not bipartisanship in silence”.

Although the editor of the Irish Times thought that FF was only playing politics, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach John Kelly caught the real significance of O’ Kennedy's outburst. “If bi-partisanship is forthcoming from Fianna Fail only on condition that unpleasant truths are left u@uttered, it is scarcely worth having” he said. He added “before the public know what value to place on the Opposition’s support, they will have to be convinced that the responsible members of the party really carry the rest with them.”

Bipartisonship is clearly under pressure and Fine Gael is obviously anxious about the strength of Haughey and his clique.

the Labour Party trembles But it is not only within Fianna Fail that forces are gathering which could blow the lid off the situation in the South. There is also considerable misgiving within the Labour Party.

Over the last decade the Labour Party has diversified its social base. Although there is no doubt that the party has won a lot of support from general layers of workers this support has been unstable — 60 years after the foundation of Labour there is still no general tradition of voting Labour among ordinary workers. The main stable social base upon which Labour depends is the skilled and serm-skilled workers of the rural towns. But in the 60's the new layer of professionals and technocrats which emerged as part of the economic expansion was largely attracted to Labour. For the first time ever this layer gave Labour s base in the big cities of Cork and Dublin and through this base resched many general workers. On immediate social and economic questions there was little ground for friction between the old and the new layers in the party. But on broader political issues-a clash of interests emerged. The urban workers from the provincial areas who depended largely on traditional small industry are strongly nationalist while the new orofessional-technocratic layer who owed their thanks to Britain's economic miracle in treland were anti-nationalist/republican and very comprador in outlook. Around the national question, therefore, two factions inevitably emerged — one grouped around Stevey Coughlan, Tim Pat Murphy, Sean Treacy and the other around Brendan Halligan, Conor Cruise O’Brien and Barry Desmond.

The old guard has been prepared to suffer the blatently pro-imperialist line of O'Brien only because they are in a minority. But they greatly fear that their association with Labour under its present leadership will cost them their electoral support. Even the middle-of-the-roaders such as Keating and O'Leary etc. are concerned because they fear that a major defeat for Labour outside Dublin could have foreboding effects in Dublin as well. since the credibility of Labour as a national electoral alternative to the two big parties would be seriously damaged. Thus it is easy to understand the alliance between the “‘Marxist”’ Thornley and anti-semitest Coughlan.

As far as both these groups are concerned O’Brien is taking his comprador policy too far and they are pressing for a return to a more orthodox Labour policy of capitulation without prostration. Of course O’Brien will resist, although a retreat on this spineless creatures part, is not excluded. One way or another the outcome will not be a happy one for the National Coalition. A political crisis All this points towards the possible development of a political crisis in the South. Given that an economic crisis already exists and a social crisis is beginning to mature the occurrance of insolluable political division within the ruling class will make likely a revolutionary situation in the real meaning of the term.

But such a revolutionary situation could easily be avoided or quickly superceded by a period of reactior#f the working class does not play an autonomous and independent role in the period ahead. In the south the workers are unlikely to play such a role spontaneously. What is absent is strong revolutionary leadership that can rally workers in a consistant struggle for socialism.

The primary task before socialists in the South is to build such a leadership and it is that fact which makes a group like the Revolutionary Marxist Group so relevant today.

JAMES CONWAY

POWELL |

FINALLY PLAYS

IRISH CARD

Ever since the defeat of the Tory Government, various supporters of the ruling class in Britain have come forward with a whole series of exotic and nasty schemes for defeating the British working class. These range from the crusade of Lord Longford to group all ‘true patriots’, the private armies of Sir Walter Walker, and the slightly more serious strike-breaking squads of Colonel Stirling.

However, there is one big snag with all these reprehensible schemes — they are unworkable, given the present strength of the British workers.

Rather than being added adjuncts to a determined march of the ruling class, they are responses to the defeat of its chosen strategy, which was embodied in the confrontationist policies of the Tory government. They represent the fragmentation of the base of the Tory government, They represent the fragmentation of the base of the Tory party and indicate the weakness of the ruling class at this stage.

Weakness From that point of view Enoch Powell's project of seeking a seat in the Six Counties fits into this process of fragmentation. But Powell’s plan has one major difference from ail the other hare-brained schemes. |t actually provides an alternative for the ruling class which contains ali the elements which might make it successful. The fall of Heath showed the weakness of the ruling class in relation to the strength of the organised workers’ movement in Britain. The strength of the working class in the unions and in the factories means no direct repressive attack can be successful. A prior defeat of the working class would be needed before any strong state Measures can be put into practice and used against the working class. The defeat of Heath was a defeat for the British ruling class as a whole — because his policies aimed to carry out the overall project of the ruling class. That strategy is now checked.

Dire warning Enoch Powell's proposal sounds a dire warning.

For where British workers are weakest is on the ideological front. The great bulk of workers can see thedanger of the Industrial Relations Act and are prepared to fight against it. But on the question of racism and anti-Irish chauvinism the working class sees no danger. It is around these issues however that labour organisations could be divided. On this basis an actual repressive assault could be successful.

Powell is cultivating a base in order to show the ruling class that there is an alternative. The victory of the Loyalist strike has shown such a reactionary base does exist in the 6 counties.

This base, which is alienated from the most immediate aims of the British ruling class, is the spring board from which Powell has chosen to relaunch himself. _ The policy it offers to the Loyalist is the only coherent one. It projects a new Union with Britain by a linkup of the Loyalists with the most reactionary trends in British politics.

Although this policy has not yet been fully endorsed by the Loyalists — only Paisley proposes Union at this stage — Powell's immediate ‘goal, that of gaining a wider representation in the Westminster Parliament, commands total support from the Loyalists and has a large band of adherents inside the Tory Party. No wender last week's 'Observer’ headlined declared that: “Powell Return will Split Tories’.

As far as Enoch Powell is concerned, the recent actions of the Loyalists serve as a model for the rest of Britain. Powell bases himself on this new found confidence of the Loyalists since their general strike. This base is being continually reinforced by the concessions which the Labour Government keeps granting to the Loyalist forces. The recent attempted re-creation of the B-Specials under the guise of the special reserves is all grist to Powell's mill. But his policy of the permanent integration of the Six Counties with Britain cuts across the other platform of the Labour government — that of the Ulsterisation of the war. Powell provides an answer which together with his already considerable political weight could unify the Loyalist forces and overcome their continuing fragmentation after thg brief unity they had enjoyed in the flush of the general strike victory. Block And such a unified base would take Powell from the fringes of British politics back into the centre block of Ulster MP’s in the presently disorganised state of parliamentary politics which would make Powell an important factor. This would be further increased if representation of the Six Counties is expanded to 20 MP’s instead of the present 12. Powell is also attracting support from the right wing of the Conservative Party, from the 70 or so Tory MP's in the Ulster Group, and even from people inside the shadow cabinet. Mr. Enoch Powell arriving at Aldergrove Airport, Belfast,

TW/O NATIONS THEORY AND

SOUTHERN INTELLECTUALS

It has been said that just as a thunderstorm clears the atmosphere, so too a revolutionary upsurge clears the political arena of all confusion and obscurantism — the major issues of the day become posed in a definite and precise way. After the UWC strike of June it can also be said that a counter-revolutionary eruption leaves in its wake nothing but mystification and hysteria.

Anybody réading through the Left and Republican press in the last two months will have already detected. these symptoms. One minute the Officials brand the UWC as “fascist”, next they are calling for a United Front with it.

Daithi O’Connell expresses his admiration for the Loyalists, while the columns of An Phoblacht blasts away at them. The economist Left in unison condemns the UWC strike as reactionary yet views it as a break by the Protestant working class from Unionism etc. The most interesting sign of the tims however, is that it is precisely at the moment when the Left is so utterly confused and bewildered that sections of the bourgeois intelligentsia turns to it in search of solutions. A recent example of this is the publicity received in the news media by the so-called Workers Association for a Democratic Settlement of the National Conflict in Ireland.

For instance, Liam de Paor, one of Ireland’s leading historians reviewing the Workers Association’s recent pamphlet The U/ster General Strike (which consists of a series of strike bulletins distributed daily during the strike) in the /rish Times says that their Two Nations Theory “has been cogent and effective in criticising the idea of the unitary Irish nation” and that “their incisive and well-written criticism of the received view which was being propagated by most of the British and Irish commentators during the strike makes very interesting reading . . . For anyone interested in the root cause of the Northem trouble...

they are something that should be read” (6/8/°74) Of course De Paor has his own criticism to make of the Workers Association (W.A.). What concerns us here however is his deadly serious treatment of them. If the Southern intelligentsia and the Irish ruling class as a whole was anywhere near understanding the nature of the conflict in the North it is scarcely believable that they would throw a second glance at the W.A.’s literature before junking it contemptiously into the wastebasket. Loyalist hysterics A look at the contents of the W.A.’s pamphlet affords ample proof of this. Far from the “cogent” and “effective” arguments De Paor speaks of, the most striking feature of the publication is a pronounced tinge of Loyalist hysteria. In the first bulletin for instance there is a warning that the Southern government has suppressed its claim to the North “only for the time being”. This kind of nonsensense is designed for the single purpose of whipping up Loyalist emotions — unless anyone believes that after 50 years the Southern government is suddendly going to invade the North!

The second bulletin represents the British Press as acting as a propaganda mouthpiece for the Provos! “You have spent much time talking to the Provisionals and reporting their version of events” the British press is told accusingly.

Bulletin No. 3 interpets the Labour government’s position on the UWC as meaning that it wishes “to smash the Protestant working class into the In the fourth bulletin the Dublin government is pictured as expecting “A British withdrawal from Northern Ireland at the first opportunity” and once again the spectre of southern expansionism is given flesh, blood and fangs by referring to the Council of Ireland which apparently would enable the Southem ruling class to take over the North. The insights of the W.A. become even more perceptive, in their fifth bulletin “What we see today” they declare “is the lunatic ideology >f the Peoples Democracy in control of a Britisn Department of State” And in natural conjunction with that “The entire(!) British Press sounds ‘Free Citizen””’. By bulletin No. 6 Conor Cruise O’Brien has suddenly transformed himself into a Catholic nationalist “warmonger” and his timid little follower in the SDLP “are indulging themselves in an orgy of authoritarian fantasies.”

In the seventh bulletin the British Labour government is characterised as “infinitely closer to fascism than the UWC” and these Labour “fascists” are accused of “offering one provocation after another and trying to bring about a confrontation”. But there is no point in continuing. The pamphlet proceeds in this vein right to the end of the ten bulletins, The convulsed tones seem to have escaped De Paor’s attention. It appears that the Southern intellegentsia is so bereft of ideas about the North that simply to gain a few grains of “truth”, they must close their eyes and ears and stand in admiration before the demented. __.

ravings of a few pseudo-left intellectuals who are high on the hysterical verve generated by the Loyalist strike. “Effective Arguments” What is it then that has attracted so many southern intellectuals to what De Paor describes as “The Communist View” of the W.A.? It is supposedly the much talked about “rigourous ‘logic’ of the Two Nations Theory which contrasts with the ambivlance of traditional Republican ideology. But in this pamphlet on the UWC strike, where the W.A.’s theorising reaches its peek, the logic and method of the two nations theory is shown to be so inflexible and dogmatic as to produce nothing less than simple incoherence.

The key argument of the W.A. is that the Assembly and power-sharing executive fell, not because of “Protestant trumphalism”, but because of the emphasis placed on the Council of Ireland by the combined forces of the British government, P.D. the Free State and the SDLP. The Loyalist reaction is viewed as nothing more than a legitimate attempt to prevent Protestant “national “rights” being userped and in no way as an effort to end power-sharing. Now watch how this argument is developed with such implecable logic.

The Council of Ireland, said to be such a big threat to the ‘national rights’ of the Protestant working class, is admitted in the very first bulletin to be nothing more than “a half-baked Council” and “a fig leaf for the Dublin Government” to hide its naked acceptance of partition. Indeed no reasonable observer could doubt that the Council of Ireland was anything but a hollow gesture. Nontheless, according to the W.A. this hollow gesture constituted a real threat to the “national rights” of the Protestant community!

Is the Protestant working class really so sensitive that it can be galvanised into a general strike at the sight of the Dublin government and the SDLP brandishing a fig leaf? No, the fact is that there was something more substantial behind the actions of the Protestant workers.

The Protestant workers, lead by the large labour aristocracy in its midst, is not prepared to see its economic, social and political privileges whittled away. This means in particular that they are not prepared to permit their own ruling class to share executive power with the representatives of the Catholic middle-class. Craig, West and Paisley are not complaining. They have declared on many occasions that they will not share power with the SDLP. That, incidently, is why they are members of the UWC and have acted as spokesmen for it.

Or perhaps the W.A. hasn’t noticed?!

The role of the SDLP, viewed-by the W.A. as the real villians, is dealt with in equally “logical” terms. Bulletin No. 4 correctly states that “the: SDLP are undoubtedly committed to power sharing within the United Kingdom”. But only a few days later, in bulletin No. 8, the W.A. suddenly discovered that “the SDLP only engaged in Power Sharing in order to further its anti-partitionist aims”. iP emaodoned teen asemaiatl ee: sharing? The W. A. ee the question in only two words — “tyes” and “no”’. Apparently the emphasis on either word Sonat on the level of hysteria in the Loyalist camp. .. and to hell with logic.

Using the same “logic” the W.A. also throws some interesting light on the activities of the Dublin Government during the strike. Firstly, they say that the Council of Ireland is only “‘a fig leaf for the Dublin government which enables them to represent Sunningdale.as an anti-partitionist victory.” Then in Bulletin No. 4 they claim that “It is known that the Dublin cabinet has been reckoning on a British withdrawal from Northern Ireland at the first opportunity. And in the context of that reckoning the importance of an elaborate Parliamentary structure for the Council is greatly increased.” -More precisely what the W.A. is trying to do is whip up Loyalist hysteria with horror stories about the expansionist intentions of the Free State by saying to the Protestant workers: the Dublin government is going to take you over with the aid of . . . an elaborate figleaf!

Untortunately, we can’t deal with the many other gems of wisdom contained in the pamphlet.

Suffice to say that this is the kind of half-lliterate fantasising that De Paor describes as “very interesting reading” and recommends “should be read by anyone interested in the root cause of the Northern trouble”. Perhaps he means as an example of warped Loyalist thinking?

Which side? In conclusion let us note that the W.A. abandons totally the materialist underpinnings of the “Communist View”. For Marxists, the activity of a political party representing a particular social force is limited by certain parameters ie by the economic and social relations of the period.

Thus, for example, the manoeuverability of the SDLP in the recent crisis was conditioned ultimately by the economic and social interests of the Northern Catholic middle-class which it represents. But the W.A. rejects this line of though. In bulletin No. 10 they state that “It was the political ambitions of the SDLP leaders, not pressure from the Catholic community, that was responsible for extermist SDLP behavior in the recent period, The SDLP might have led the Catholic community into a democratic power-sharing arrangement.

It chose to do otherwise,and put anti-Partitionist manoeuvring to the fore.”

So it was out of sheer spite that the SDLP alledgedly destroyed power sharing. Here we have the old theory of the good and the bad men determining history. Needless to say, this theory explains nothing except the prejudices of those with a penchant for it. In the caseofthe W.A. ° these prejudices are not hard to deduce. According to them the SDLP were bad men and for no other reason than that, chose the wrong course in history. But what are the criteria for right and wrong, good and bad? These are assumed in advance to coincide with the interests of Loyalism.

So in the end the _pigosees Ingle” of she W. A, Pps saint . ae | Yes, that is what De Paor and aE follow intellectuals are admiring latety — Loyalist prejudices. How have things come to such a stage?

Our answer is this: only by mobilising the Catholic workers, North and South, to smash everything that Loyalism stands for; by challenging the Loyalist politicians right to the point of civil war, will any solution to the present crisis in Ireland be found. But the intelligentsia recoils before such a sanguine proposition.

It can afford to sit back and ponder the finer points of Loyalist ideology. It is welcome to do so, But the workers of Ballymurphy, the New Lodge and the Ardoyne must fight tooth and nail against Loyalism to surive. Unlike the intellectuals we Marxists are not afraid to stand on their side.

It is this practical committment which is the source of our uncompromising hostility to “two-nationism”™. and all its collaborationist implications.

JAMES CONWAY

ANID FASCISM

To mention Peopies Democracy in the same sentence as the British Labour Party can cause a startling reply from PD (see Unfree Citizen) 5th August 74). The phrase “from PD to the Official Republicans, Billy Blease of ICTU and British Labour Politicians” might indicate to some that the writer is referring to.a fairly wide spectrum of political thought. Not to those who write in Unfree Citizen. They see it as an attempt to equate PD with the British Labour Party — “tan extremely vicious and petty attempt to discredit our organisation and clearly the product of a politically sectarian mind.”

The cause of this outburst was an article in Plough (vol. 2, No. 9) in which there was an article on the UWC strike. It contained the sentence “The Peoples Democracy stamped the strike fascist without explanation” PD reply in Unfree Citizen indicates a continuing confusion as regards fascism.

A new surprise We can ignore the more obvious errors such as that where PD claims that in Europe fascism always took socialists by surprise. We can assume that this was not a reference to Trotsky and the Left Opposition but to the Stalinists and Social Democrats. And even there, the betrayals by Stalinism of the German proletariat was not the result of having been taken by surprise. To claim that it was merely provides a cover for the Stalinists. In order to prove that PD have, in fact, provided a full analysis of the fascism o f the loyalists the writer devotes a full quarter of the article to a list of articles in previous Unfree Citizens, Fhe author of the article is either consciously trying to mislead his readers or he has missed the point. We do not deny that PD has consistently attacked loyalism, has consistently warned of the dangers of seeing common ground with loyalists because of occasional pseudo-radical verbiage, has consistently reported intimidation and assassination of Catholics by loyalists and the part played therein by the forces of the Crown.

But they have not explained why they consider the loyalists to be fascists, Instead the writer of the article shifts his position towards the end of the article. The change of position is not unprepared.

At the beginning of the article are a few sneers at the RMG and “theories on the nine points of classical fascism”) A convenient, but not very convincing, method of avoiding certain questions.

No need to explain that “‘classical’’ fascism has its mass base in the petty bourgeoise and this doesn’t quite tie in with loyalism and its mass base in a labour aristocracy. No need to go into the question of “classical” fascism's links with finance capital and more specifically heavy industry and finding the connection between this and loyalism’s dependance on an entirely different class in Ulster. All this is only “developing theories on the nine points of classical fascism”’. Near the end of the article the PD theoretician springs it on us in capital letters. When we talk about fascism, we are referring the phenomenon which manifested itself in Italy and Germany in the ‘20s and ’30s. The movement which was analysed by Trotsky and Danie! Crerin, The ideology which is raising its head again under the banner of the National Front. Not so the theoreticians of PD. When they talk about fascism they are talking about an “entirely new concept — Ulster fascism”. What, if any, connection this new concept has with “classical fascism” is not made very clear. But from that point on we can assume that there are two different phrases in the vocabulary of the theoreticians of PD. There is “classical fascism” and there is “Ulster fascism”’. Unfortunately, this is still somewhat confusing because, despite what is said in Unfree Citizen we do not deny that fascist elements exist within the ranks of the loyalists (see the article in the same Plough on the National Front). We believe that there isa qualitive difference between these fascists and the loyalists and that to refer to both as fascists simplifies the work of the “classical fascist’, “Ulster Fascism” Furthermore, on the question of this ‘entirely new concept — Ulster Fascism”’ there are some points which PD have failed to clarify. When did “Ulster fascism’” come into existence? The PD claim to be Marxists and, as they have uncovered this entirely new thing, they will not be slow to explain its origins and developments.

Doubtless there are articles waiting to be published in forthcoming copies of the Northern Star which will analyse in detail this new phenomenon and explain how end why it differs from the traditional loyalist ideology.

Presumably there will be explanations of why the loyalist ideology was abandoned and was replaced by this new creature “Ulster Fascism”.

We assume that the paragraph in the article which seems to imply that the creature hasn’t appeared yet is merely a slip of the pen and not an indication of the author’s confusion.

(“We are confident that we will not have to wait until the animal appears to know what it looks like — we will be ready and waiting for it”). To dwell on that would be a petty criticim so correctly disliked by the P.D.

Finally the author of the article in Unfree Citizen sees our article on the UWC strike as damaging to the “Unity which PD and the RMG have been able to provide on the question of the Loyalists.” There are several points which the RMG has in common with P.D. Among them is an uncompromising hostility to the forces of loyalist reaction, We may differ with PD concerning the characterisation of the loyalists but we do not disagree in our condemnation of the belief of both factions of the republican movement, that they can come to an agreement with the loyalists, without betraying the interests of the Irish working class.

There is a basic agreement between the Revolutionary Marxist Group and Peoples Democracy on the immediate dangers facing the anti-unionist population and this polemic will not interfere with our work together in the face of this danger.

B. O'BRIEN

BELFAST

~~ themselves in an acutely

OFPIGIALS

DANGER

The inability of the present Official leadership to develop a coherent, not to mention correct, strategy for the post-Sunningdale period is alarming many rank and filers and supporters. In a situation where membership has fallen to an all time low, where the circulation of the United Irishman has dropped by a third in a very short period and many longstanding leaders have been expelled or resigned, the prevailing course of the Officials can only discredit the organisation further. UWC — Progressive and Fascist!

As early as August 1969 the Officials strategy of trying to win the Protestant working class by restricing the struggle to purely civil rights issues was proven to be totally false. But the leadership had so miseducated its followers and staked so much on this strategy in its controversy with the Provos that it lacked the ability and courage to change course once its mistake had been proven. Instead of recognising the growth of reactionary politics among Protestant workers they continued to pretend that the Loyalists were striving for unity with the Cathobe community When the UWC strike occurred they found embarrassing position. They could not deny the reactionary nature of the strike without appearing out of touch with reality. The Costa Seasta of Officiaf Sinn Fein, in the June United Irishman, deciared that politicies are fascist, the tactics are fascist and the basis now exists for a complete fascist take over in the North’. It is obvious that if the UWC leaders are “fascist and that the way is open for a fascist take-over then the Catholic working class is in great danger and that the elementary duty of socialists is to prepare the strongest possible opposition to the UWC. But those who are currently directing the Officials policy proved incapable of peking this next step in the logical development of their argument. in the editorial of the same issue of the United Irishman it wes stated that “The UWC success in smashing the middle class alliance executive has added a new dimension to Northern politics. It is too early yet to say whether or not the central feature of the Council is the workers dimension. But the cool treatment of West-Craig-Paisley by the 21 man committee augers well for the future.”

The fascist nature of the “21 man committee” was overlooked, the fascist tactics ignored, the immenant threet of a fascist coup was forgotten Instead of opposing these reactionary leaders it was suddenly necessary “that Republican must seek to develop an understanding with the UWC.”

Revolution or Counter-Revolution With such a confused understanding of the Loyalist strike it was impossible for the Gardiner Place leaders to appreciate to what extent the strike changed the political

BRITISH ARMY

HARASSES MARXISTS

The haste of the British Army to step up the pressure of repression against antiimperialist militants in the North of Ireland was clearly exposed on Monday August 20th when the Belfast Magistrates’ Court refused to accept the evidence of British troops who had arrested two RMG militants following the months most successful anti-internment march. This had followed the prosecution’s attempts to turn the cases into political showpieces in earlier opposing bail for the militants.

Four membegs c f the RMG, one sympathiser, and a member of People’s Democracy, who had acted as stewards at the August 1 1th‘march organised by the Political Hostages Release Committee (a joint action committee of which the RMG is a member), had been faced with trumped-up charges of riotous behaviour.

It was an obvious attempt to harrass organisers of mass protest in the North and atmosphere in the North. Instead of seeing the UWC strike opening up a period which would aid the West-Craig-Paisiey trumiverate consolidate its influence over the Protestant working class; nourish the growth of anti-Catholic militarism and lead inevitably towards a major sectarian confrontation, the Officials saw the period being characterised chiefly by the growth of Protestant working class independence and the decline of the traditional Orange movement.

In @ thinly veiled criticism of the disquited members in the ranks of the Officials the July United Irishman explained that one must “recognise that the traditional Unionist politicians were being by-passed by a new organisation of essentially working class leaders” and it stated confidently “on this occasion the splits in the ranks (of Orangism) will be deepened by a growing awareness of how the (Protestant) workers were manipulated by the old Orange guard”’.

Who needs enemies . . . ?!

Having so drastically misjudged the implications of the UWC strike the Officials were led to the most reactionary conclusions. The strategy they projected was one of abandoning the Catholic minority to the tender mercies of Loyalism.

On the 10th of August Tomas McGiolla, president of Official Sinn Fein, called for the formation of a United Front Against internment as they key to unlocking the potentials of the present period. The basis of this united front he suggested should be formed by what he claimed were the only two organisations to carry out mass mobilisations. ‘These two organisations ate the UWC and NICRA” he said.

To see what this perspective implies it is necessary only to examine a statement issued by NICRA a few days after McGiolla’s speech.

NICRA pointed to the growth of Loyalist militarism and correctly stated that Rees ' stalling on the “third force” was giving prestige to the para-military groups who constituted one of the most malignant elements in a deteriorating situation of sectarianism. But the most energetic para-military groups behind the “’third force” idea are the Orange Volunteers, the Ulster Volunteer Service Corps, the Red Hand Commandos and the Ulster Special Constabulary Association — all of which are on the UWC.

In other words, according to NICRA (long dominated by the Officials) it is these very forces which comprise the backbone of the UWC that were leading the fight for an unequivocal return to Protestant ascendancy. And it is with these forces that the current heimsmen of the Officials recommend that the Catholic population should unite to fight for democracy!

Worse still the Officials leadership wilfully ignores the fact that West, Craig Paisley are members of the UWC. And it was Craig who on June 7 warned that any attempt to prevent a return to Protestant ascendency would result in bloody confrontation. “If there is no other way to achieve a constitution or maintain the heritage we believe in” he said “we will be waging civil war in the full sense of the word”. So it is with such cut-throats on the UWC that the Officials seriously suggest that the Catholic workers should form an alliance to defend themseives.!

What direction? The line now being pursued by the Officials is not just another mistake by a group of sincere revolutionaries. A determined clique now has its hands around the throat of the organisation.

Whereas in the past, the mass base and activity of the Officials could be relied upon to prevent such people reigning for too long or bring their policies to logical conclusions, this is now unlikely. The Officials are now little more than a political sect buoyed up by the prestige of yester-year. They are slowly sinking into oblivion. Any major attempt to change course now will only result in further disintegrating the organisation. Those within the Officials who wish to continue the fight for revolutionary politics must be prepared to accept this obvious consequence otherwise they will end up like others — helplessly towed in the wake of reformism.

DUBLIN BRANCH R.M.G.

followed a number of provocations during the course of the march itself.

Over 2,000 — dwarfing the NICRA and Sinn Fein (Provo) demonstrations of the previous week, marched from Andersonstown and forced the British Army to close the main motorway route out of Belfast when they passed through back gardens and onto the M1 in an attempt to march to Long Kesh.

The march carried on for several miles despite regular stoning from Loyalist elements on overlooking hillsides, elements which were largely ignored by the strong British Army presence until stopped by an RUC road block backed by troops in riot gear. After a meeting in which speakers from the RMG stressed the need for unily in fighting repression, the march turned back. But as it reached Andersonstown the British Army launched a series of provocations.

The IRISH CIVIL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION in Britain has announced that it intends to contest a number of seats in the next British general election. The aim is to swing away the lrish vote in marginal Labour Party constituencies and thereby prevent the return of a Labour government. The rationale behind this campaign is the acceleration of repression against the minority in the Six Counties since Labour took office. THE ACCUSATIONS WHICH ICRA

MAKE ARE PERFECTLY CORRECT, BUT THE COURSE THEY ADVOCATE CAN

ONLY LEAD TO DISASTER.

(1) (3) estate was blocked by a line of troops in full riot gear. This confronted the head of the march, attempting to leave the motorway by the only route possible. Rubber bullets were fired and a small riot resulted during which snatch squads arrested two stewards attempting to restore order, one a member of Peoples Democracy.

climb a fence and re-form at a neighbouring street, but at the head of the road it was again confronted by soldiers of the Black Watch Army allowed the march to pass, then stopped it again, then lined the roadside and observed marchers as they were allowed to pass.

fourRMG members were arrested by a mobile patrol of the Black Watch and taken in two armoured cars to the British Army Fort Monagh in Andersonstown, where they were kept and questioned for five hours before being transferred to the RUC and taken into custody, appeared in court and was sentenced on the word of a member of the Black Watch, to six months reluctantly” suspended by the magistrate,

ICRA AND THE ELECTIONS

While the repression has grown under the Labour government it is misleading to simply say that the Labour Party is responsible for it. The real source of the repression is to be found in the growing crisis facing the British ruling class. In the context of this crisis the British Army is playing an increasingly autonomous role to protect the interests of big business. In Britain, with the aid of many prominent businessmen, it is secretly organising fascist- strike-breaking squads while in Ireland itis collaborating with the Loyalists. The British Army itself is the real pace-setter of the repression in lreland. To ignore this and speak only of the Labour Party is to misunderstand the profound nature of Britain’s problems; it is a failure to understand that the Labour government is a helpless, though not reluctant, prisoner of big business and its militarist agents. :

IN THE LIGHT OF THIS, HOW COULD A LABOUR DEFEAT AT THE NEXT

ELECTION POSSIBLY CONTRIBUTE TO DE-ESCALATING THE REPRESSION?

Obviously it could not. The only alternatives to a Labour government would be a Conservative or Liberal-Conservative one. Those who call for an anti-Labour vote in marginal constituencies must therefore accept that they are paving the way for a return of the Tories in one form of another. A TORY GOVERNMENT WOULD

NOT BE A HELPLESS PRISONER OF THE BIG BUSINESS/BRITISH ARMY

COALITION, RATHER IT WOULD BE AN ENTHUSIASTIC PROMOTER OF IT.

Such a government could only create an atmosphere favourable to the flourishing of the Army’s overt and clandestine acts of repression. In a word, while a Labour government cannot be expected to halt the growing repression, a Tory government can be relied upon to accellerate it without hesitation.

The question of Ireland is not the only one arising at the next British general election.

The central question will in fact concern the struggle of British workers to defend their living standards and democratic rights. A rebuff to the governmental pretensions of big business and the Officer caste of the British Army — that would be a double victory for both British and Irish workers. It would make the magnates of British imperialism and their Officer friends more vulnerable to the attacks of the revolutionary movement by depriving them, to a certain extent, of constitutional and legal cover. But the only way to achieve this is by voting for Labour where there is no revolutionary alternative. Labour, of course, is a capitalist party and no more a friend of the Irish revolution than the Tories or Liberals. However, Labour is a capitalist party with a difference. It was built not by businessmen but by workers. While it does not challenge the existence of British capitalism it shows that a contradiction exists between the workers and their capitalist rulers. To highlight this contradiction and make the entire British working class aware of it, at a time when the British bourgeoisie is trying to conceal it, is the elementary duty of every class-conscious worker in Britain, whether he or she be Scottish, Welsh, English, Irish or oppressed immigrant. If those forces supporting the struggle for democratic and national rights in Ireland want to intervene in the British general election they should do so with the clear understanding that a victory for the British working class will be in the best interests of the revolutionary movement in Ireland. This means that they should first of all call for a vote for those revolutionary groups to the left of the Labour Party (in safe constituencies) who defend the right to self-determination for treland and who advocate a consistent fight against British capitalism at home. Where this course will not be possible, as is likely in most cases, they should call for a vote for Labour, without illusions, and carry on their own fight for the withdrawal of troops, the ending of internment and the repeal of repressive laws.

This is the only principled course open to ICRA which would be consistent with striking the greatest possible blow at the next election against those who are unleashing repression in Ireland. THE FACT THAT ICRA FOLLOWS A DIFFERENT, EVEN

OPPOSITE COURSE, SHOWS THE MAJOR WEAKNESS OF THE ICRA AND

PROVO LEADERSHIP: i.e. THEIR INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE DECISIVE IMPORTANCE OF CLASS STRUGGLE. This has led them to a situation where they advocate a course of action which, if successful, could do enormous damage to the struggle in Ireland.

tssued by the REVOLUTIONARY MARXIST GROUP, Political Committee The,slip toad from the motorway into the It was in the bail applications that the political implications weré introduced, The prosecuting barrister explained that the defendents were all linked by their ““Marxist and Leninist views". He said that they were not stewards but were the march organisers.

One RMG member, an Englishman, was singled out as a “foreign agitator”. The remarks were fully reported in the bourgeois press, although the prosecution were not able to introduce these factors in the ensuring trials themselves.

The basis of the arrests was made clear repression against the vanguard.

In the Magistrates’ Court the evidence of several of the British soldiers was so transparently a fabrication that the cases against two militants were dismissed, charges against a third was dropped, while two others were given two-month sentences suspended for 12 months, again because the Magistrate chose to believe a British soldier would not deliberately lie in order to achieve a conviction.

The incident underlined the need for unity among the anti-imperialist groups in defence of militants and of the whole anti-unionist population. The tempo of repression will increase with developing accomodation to Loyalist elements and can be expected to become generalised against the whole anti-Unionist working class as this appeasement goes on, The main body of the march was forced to waving batons. The British An hour after the dispersal of the march, The following day one RMG member The five others were remanded in custody.

THE

DILEMMA OF COLLABORATIO

Over three months after the collapse of the Stormont Executive and the abandonment of Sunningdale the Dublin Government finds itself in @ very embarrassing position. This embarrassment has led to intense political wrangling within and between the three major perties and is preparing the way for e major political crisis. The silence of the past few months is only a calm before the storm.

Roots of collaboration Many people are asking why the Dublin government is dragging its heels with regard to the worsening situation in the North. Since the triumph of the Loyalist strike internment has been strengthened, British Army brutality has increased, the Loyalists have become immensely more confident and more stubborn. Still Cosgrave and his ministers refuse to comment The Dublin governments tardiness has nothing to do with concern for the safety of the Northern minority; the Northern minority is only a remote factor in its considerations. In fact what worries them most is the economic and political crisis facing Britain. This crisis not only limits the manoeuverability of British imperialism in the North, it puts 8 question mark over the future prospects of the South. The Southern economy has been trying to avoid the stagnation and decline inherent in its subordination to British imperialism, by feeding off British capital and British markets. This means that as the British economy grinds to a halt, Ireland will be the first to feel the impact of de-acceleration. Beginning in 1970 there has been Batsh federation Fianna Fail and Fine Gael itself,

SOUTH:

a noticeable drop in Britain’s share of foreign capital coming into Ireland. In 1970 it was as low as 22% and the following year it slumped to 4%. Compare this with an average of 40% for the sixties and the dangers for the South become immediately apperent. Because of this the Southern ruling class is helpless to deal with the situation in the North.

It knows that if it rocks the boat too much the Free State will get the worse dose of sea sickness. The leader: at Leinster House have been left naked by Britain's recent sharp turn but there is nothing they can do to hide their blushes. Any retaliation or show of discontent would make Ireland even less attractive to British business interests who are working above all, for secure outlets. So Cosgrave and company must suffer their humiliation in silence. Working class pressure if Dublin is restricted te the right by Britain then it is under pressure to the left from the Southern working class. Up to, during and after the UWC strike the Dublin government openly displayed its collaboration. Cosgrave declared that the struggle of the Northern minority “was killing the desire for unity” in the South, O’Brien renounced unification as a practical political goal and Fitz-Gerald hinted at moves to drop articles two and three from the constitution. The government knew it was treading on dangerous ground.

It has still not forgotten the upsurge following Bloody Sunday. It knows that while there is wide-spread weariness with the struggle in the pives herald trac flag and strikes ised an ined r fed her discipline, olunteers) and the Urish Citizen Army od ‘ having resolutely waited for the rig she now seizes that moment, and, Supported by her(@xile North and an inability to grasp the complexity of the situation that any major betrayal would instantly arouse the indignation of the working class, Nor is the government unaware that up to many workers are employed in industries set up by foreign capital in the sixties. A huge proportion of these are British owned or controlled. Already many of these industries are beginning to close down. As this process becomes more generalised a large section of the working class will begin to see the exploitative and oppressive role of British imperialism. This practical experience will give 8 positive direction to the resentment and frustration generated through the betrayals and collaboration of the government.

The success of the government's collaboration was dependent on Britain being able to bring about a superficial democratisation of the Northern statelet. But Britain has failed. The government is concerned with the growth of resentment in the South and is trying to tone down its collaboration.

It withdrew from the security conference scheduled last August for London, it has refused the army permission to meet with the British army for discussion on cross border security, it has protested to the British government about British army activity in border areas.

Fianna Fail’s role Such a policy of toning down open collaboration with Britain combined with an offensive against Republican ideology might be sufficient to keep workers in check if the ruling class could tace tne crisis with united torces. But this is an unlikely postibility. Since.the beginning of the Northern upsurge in '68 there has been bi-partisanship between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. This signified a major turn within Fianna Fail. During the 30's and 40's F.F. represented the interests of small scale industry and business which was trying to build itself in opposition tq British competition.

F.F. followed a demagogic anti-imperialist and pseudo-Republican policy during this period, but in the ‘50's this stratum experienced a severe crisis and during the ‘60s its tattered remnants sold out its economic interests and became junior partners with British imperialism. A correspondin change took place in FF’s political image when it became even more collaborationist than F.Gael. This did not mean that FF automatically entered into the same relationship with British imperialism as did F.G. Within FF there remained a hard core of business interests guch as those in the construction industry (The Joneses, Mc! nerney etc.) which depend on the rapidly expanding economy fostered by British capital but is not itself directly dependent on British capital. This wing, lead by Haughey among others, naturally felt strong viz a viz British imperialism and tried to increase its own autonomy by pushing for a better deal from the British government.

Although they suffered a set-back during the arms scandal, they remained strong within the party.

The existence of this force is putting the bi-partisan policy of FF-FG under considerable pressure. Lynch and his cohorts (Colley, Lenihan and Kennedy) do not want any friction with either F.G. or British imperialism. But within Fianna Fail they are threatened by the Haughey faction. Rather thar’ be outflanked by. Hauchew they are prepared to play Haughey’s game. Every time the government has tried to comfort Britain in its hour of need, Messrs. Colley, Leninhan and Kennedy have been quick to create @ minor scandal. and by gallant allies in Europe, but relying in the first on her own strength, es ™ l strikes in full confidence of vi Capla We declare the right of the people oftireland)to th i * 4 the unfettered control of Irish de re totter Ahelhaes a atheupted itinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible.

that right by alforeig® people and government has not exti right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction off every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to nation our en during the past three hundred yea ‘ arms. Standing o fundamental right and again as: os of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish.Republic as gage pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of 0 welfare, and of xaltation among the/nations.

uUrpauon o — Capita list eration makes no idealistic ruling elacs rights and equal opportunities to I its citizens, and declares its resolve the ‘happiness and prosperity of the 1 its parts, chastahtna al the eb | gp equally, and oblivious of the differences care y foste by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

. s Opportune moment for the establishment of a presentative of t elected by the sulfrages of all her men and women, the Provisional ed, will administer the civil and military affairs of the » of ana UAunder the proteetion of the Most High God, irki “aa 2,upon our arms, and we pray that no one who serves that shir a) the wig rowardice, — anity, or rapine. In this supreme hour fit to sacrifiee themsetves fe by the readiness of its chi pro iT ¢ to which it is called. ” —THOMAG-J--CLARKE."Bsnonn de Valera —FHOMAS—MacdONAGE Edward Heath

—EAMONNCEAMNT,.

. Tack Lynch_p_-u_REARSE, Lian Cos rave ——o#¥86—CONNOEE Harold Wilson a. : - VEN Faulkner -

vital point they will take the decisions in their own sectional interests, The C.P. and the resistance The second component of the resistance is the C.P. The strategy outlined by the C.P. is for “an united front’’ of all “democratic forces” against the junta, to work towards a “national majority democratic and pluralist government” (L’Humanite 8 Jan. 1974). What is seen here is the C.P. ignoring the ability of the working class to organise independently and instead proposing a front with the leadership of the petty bourgeoise, the Christian Democrats who previously supported the coup. They juxtaposed to civil war i.e. armed struggle against the junta, the weapon of the General Strike, to take place inuw situation where the ruling regime exercises complete control over the repressive apparatus of the state!. The C.P. makes calls “to rely on the; democratic traditions of the army”’. By this they do not mean the rank and file, but the attempts to form an alliance with certain officers who change their allegiance as often as their socks; All these alliances are conceived into a general strategy of resisting the junta. The crux of this Strategy is a return to “bourgeois-democracy” which in effect means persuading the bourgeoisie ‘that the working class is not seeking to impose its own control. In sharp contrast much of the efforts of the C.P. have been directed against the revolutionary Left which is accused of having provoked the coup. The provocation we can only assume means the defence of Allende against the Generals, by armed cordones which in many cases were led by the “extreme” left.

The implications of this strategy for the future of the resistance are obvious. The strategy of the Revolutionary Left to be completely in opposition to such a strategy. This can be seen from the basic ideas which have been agreed upon by groups such as the MIR, sections of the M.A.P.U. the Chilian Socialist Party and other smaller organisations which compose the ‘TH

BE LEA

alk MU September the 11th 1974 marks a year in the history of the Chilean junta, Twelve months ago, Pinochet and his generals launched a bloody coup which resulted in the overthrow of the Popular Unity government, the annihilation of thousands of trade-unionists and socialists and the establishment of a reattionary military dictatorship. Within that 12 months, however, the junta has not been very successful in co solidating its power nor in silencing opposition. During this time the junta has had many problems to deal with, not least its relationship with imperialism in its efforts to stabilise the Chilean economy.

Junta faces problems A close look at the junta reveals the small margin of economic and political manoeuver it has.

This narrow margin has its origins in the base of support of the junta; which represents the interests of a section of big business whose needs are closely connected with those of American imperialism. The junta also had mass popular support from those layers of small businessmen, petty traders, shopkeepers and small land-owners, who previously had been inevitably squeezed by the attempts of Unidad Popular to implement reformist economic policies.

Having real material interests in doing so, these layers gave their support to the bloody coup of Striking werkers in-Santiago, the Chilean capital measure of its political weakness. The military meaning f ionaries everywhere. : : September 11th. dictatorship is surviving today because of the or revolutio Revolutionary Left. They are as follows: e external aid of imperialism. Until the early spring Struggle and resistance Differences emerging of 1974, this aid was marginal compared to the gg 1. ‘The junta will not fall as a result of its own real needs of the Chilean junta. Then, they Unconditional solidarity with the Chilean Once the coup was accomplished, the differences began to emerge. The conflict of interests between big capital and imperialism and the native bourgeaise began to assert themselves. Obviously the juta, would enhance the interests of big caprtal it rethiessly pursued vanous economic designed to serve imperialism, lifting price polices restrictions, lowering wages and opening the way for increased foreign trade. The results of this, obtained loans from the I.M.F., the World Bank and the Inter-American bank which were worth more in the way of credit references than the loans themselves. There followed a whole series of investment governments from multi-national corporations of Japan, U.S., Canada, Germany, France, Rumania and Brazil. But to soothe the massive economic crisis wrecking Chile, resistance and the building of unified solidarity movements are the first duties of all revolutionary socialists. The work of solidarity should not cloud the urgent necessity to discuss the problems of the solidarity and unity of the Chilean resistance itself. It is a fact that there are deep differences between various wings of the resistance movement and these are crucial to economic and political problems.

. The struggle against the junta will only be successful under the armed leadership of the working class. The overthrow of the military dictatorship is only a phase in the struggle of the Socialist revolution. the future of the movement itself. There are three main components in the opposition current. a. The Christian Democratic Party b. Sections of the Popular Unity, strongly influenced by the CP. c. Revolutionary Left, chiefly the M.I.R.

We have mentioned previously row the C.D.

party has moved into the opposition camp.

the regime must continue to attract an uninterrupted flow of financial and increased investment. To allow such a process to begin, certain conditions must be fulfilled.

1. The junta must be able to present a disciplined labour-force and convince imperialism of its economic and political control.

2. The ruling class in the countries lending ; support, must be able to participate in their It is important to note now, that it is pursuing activities without fear of scandal on the home- their own interests and are not a force capable front. of leading the working-class to freedom. Socialist Given these conditions, the struggles of the militants must not place any faith in their opposition the resistance, takes on an all-important attempts to lead the resistance. Because at every

FOURTH INTERNATIONAL

CANNON OBITUARY In the early Fifties he predicted the eventual James P. Cannon was , i opening of revolutionary opportunities during ddiial aememt teen wabor His oa is 0 \ime of MoCarthyite repression. A consletent the story of the American revolutionary nary Sulton, =~ ete his party to its present movement. He was a member of the 1.W.W. position im the ront of tlimourrent (The Wobblies), end then joined the Socialist radicalisation in the U.S.A.; and he always took 5 t ming a leader of its left wing. On a close interest in the progress of other sections were to the detriment of the native and petty bourgeoise and increased competition among them.

The reflection of the discontent of these layers can be seen in the increasing conflicts between the junta and the Christian Democrats, the traditional representatives of the petty bourgeoise and small capitalists, which has now been banned from participating legally in political activity. Conclusion While there is a broad basis fgr unity in action among large sections of the European left on campaigns against the junta (as in Britain) and for support to refugees and political prisoners, there are clear differences as to the corrupt strategy for the resistance movement. It is therefore itnportant to openly discuss all these questigns. It is only through an honest debaje on the politics and strategies of the resistange movement that our material aid and solidarity will be most effective. : Imperialism lends a hand And what of the interests of large capital. The drastic measures, the junta has undertaken are a

REVOLUTIONARY

MARXIST

GROUP

BOOKS BY JAMES CANNON:

History of American Trotskyism The First Ten Years of American Communism Notebook of an Agitator Letters from Prison 38 Clanawly Rodd.

DUBLIN $

the formation of the American Communist Party of CHS. THORKYES eeeuaenant.

he was one of its first leacers.

On a vist to Moscow on Comintern business he learnt of the real positions of-the Trotskyist opposition. Being a true internationalist and democratic centralist he joined the Trotskyist movement and remained with it till his death.

In these days when the corruption of bourgeois politicians becomes moré and more apparent the life history of Cannon is a style to be emulated. We in Ireland can take. pride that Cannon was always proud of his Irish origins, though he never capitalised on them in the manner of his class enemies.

Speeches to the Party The Struggle for a Proletarian Party Speeches for Socialism Order from: PLOUGH BOOK SERVICE 38 Clanawley Road ! would like more infor: mation about the RMG and its activities. ADDRESS ........cccsescecsenee sas onnies pvabesauaadssteg On Trotsky’s exile to Mexico the A ? i collaboration of the two men wes extragnely lutte ieee working class have lost a leader, — close. Trotsky’s admiration for him was great: ves a mighty herigage. ublin 5. sense eesaseeesenee eocenecsecene snore Jadccosssyckeddrousancaees .

he especially valued his contributions on the building of proletarian parties.

During the second World War Cannon was imprisoned for his opposition to the intraimperialist war. His letters from prison provide a vivid guide to a Marxist education.

TWO MORE VICTIMS OF THE PERONIST REGIME

Recent weeks have seen a wave of killings of Argentinian revolutionaries by the Peronist dictatorship. Four militants of the Socialist Workers Party (PST), — comrades |. Fernandez, Moses, Mesa and Sida — were trutaily murdered.

Three militants of the Young Peronist movement — Liliana Ivanoff, Elsa Arganarez and Eduardo Romero — were also assassinated.

And after the death only ten days earlier of four comrades of the PRT (Revolutionary Workers Party), assassinated by the dictatorship under the pretext that they participated in the attack on the previous Minister of the Interior of the military regime, two comrades of the Red Faction have now been assassinated by the agents of the regime. Both Hugo Ricardo Drangosch and Miguel Angel Villa were beaten to death after being wounded by their attackers, — who were putting into Practice the instructions of their superiors to “Take no Prisoners!’"* In the face of this new and violent wave of repression, militant international solidarity with the Argentinian revolutionaries is more important than ever. The Argentinian regime has unleashed a wave of fierce repression in face of the growing class conflict. Among its latest victims are two members of the former Red Fraction of the PRT/ERP (now the Revolutionary Communist League), Miguel Angel Villa (left) and Hugo Ricardo Drangosch, who were assassinated at the end of July.

1922: James P. Cannon William (‘Big Bill’) Haywoow™ (right).

POVERTY, POPULATION & PILL

Since Maithus the capitalist world has been haunted by the spectre of an ever-increasing population devouring all resources, swallowing up the land like the biblical Leviathan. Lately this discussion has also been confused on both sides by linking it to that round the right of every woman to control her own body and have easy access to contraception. This is especially clear in the Church’s position i.e. — “the way to feed the world’s population lies in better distribution of wealth and use of resources, therefore women have no right to contraception.” It is misleading to confuse the two issues.

Whatever our disagreements with the idea that the solution to present starvation is population control, as Socialists we would strongly uphold the right of every woman to safe free contraception. But is is, however, a long step from agreeing that contraception is a basic human right, to also agreeing that it is through population control forced or voluntary that we would solve the problem of poverty and starvation. This is not to say, of course like the Russians at Bucharest, that the fears of the scientists and conservationists are merely ‘pill imperialism’, a massive plot to depopulate the colonial countries in favour of the capitalist West. These experts face with despair a hungry world, decimated by famine and recessions, they look for a solution, it seems apparent that there are too many mouths to feed. Rather than dismissing their fears as mere imperialist propaganda it is more important to examine the question — why are people starving — is it ‘n fact that there are already

REVIEW: WOMAN’S CONSCIOUSNESS,

MAN’S WORLD by Sheila Rowbotham This is a very valuable book and should be tead by every militant and revolutionary as it provities a lot of insights into the reasons for a Women’s Movement and provides useful criticism of the traditional Marxist parties in Britain before the Women’s Movement came into existence. The book provides a basic and readable introduction not only to a whole host of problems concerned with womens oppression, but it tries to link womens oppression into the whole fabric of capitalism. This is a very important task because many good militants see womens oppression as a minor factor to be dealt with later while on the other hand the book provides a ready criticism of the tendency within the Women’s movement to see men as the enemy. Cultural oppression One important area which the book tackles is the pr@blem of women’s oppression in relation to all the cultural learning processes which every person undergoes; and which lead to actual internalised repression (i.e. women absorb continuously from the moment they are born a belief as to the exact nature of themselves as women, a belief which is reinforced by everything around them.)

An important area of this cultural repression is normal everyday-language. Language is an instrument of domination in that it makes those who are oppressed try and accommodate to it. For instance when, a striker goes on television the whole of the media is designed so that the most sophisticated and educated part of society — the ruling classes and their servants — can confuse and dominate the worker even though he has an excellent case.

Similarly although on a less obvious level women have to accommodate to a language which sees and refers to everything through the eyes of men and takes the male way of looking at things as normal. The book touches on the fact that women learn about their psycholdégy and their physiology from ideas developed by males to support the actual society they are already living in. It is a pity Rowbotham did not too many people for the world to support, is the population conference's decision the answer, or does the problem and hence the solution lie elsewhere. Perhaps at this point, one should take an overall look at the world and its resources.

It is indeed a ‘smal! planet’ with finite natural raw materials, not all of it, at present, is capable of producing crops and much space is covered by water. But the most startling factor to emerge in the picture, is the overwhelming reckless wastage of resources, human, mineral and vegetable.

Anyone who has lived in an industrialised country knows of the stretches of land destroyed by mining and other industrial use, left derelict as the bottom fell out of the market and another process or product became more profitable. The urban landscape is also littered with deserted commodities cars, bedsteads etc. by no means past their use, but no longer in fashion.

This is also true of agriculture, crops are not grown for their nutritional value, but because of the money they will fetch on the market. Also if a crop is in abundant supply it will bring the price down so we see the wholesale destruction of milk, wheat, corn etc. in years of plenty, in some cases the government will even step in buy and stockpile part of the supply or pay grants to the farmers for letting their land lie fallow (the U.S. land bank policy). The principle that prevented the English government from supplying free corn to the starving Irish peasants in the famine still operates, i.e. the profit principle. It is obviously going to come between the need for food and an adequate supply of that need.

The way that this drive has distorted agriculture is even more apparent in colonial and semi-colonial countries. Here natural resources have been plundered for the benefit of imperialism and the land given over to the culture of single crops — whatever explore these ideas further and develop them into a full attack on the mythical ‘scientific objectivity’ which is so often used to defend the most appalling crimes upon humanity, _ However she does state quite clearly that revolution for women must involve exploration into the internal areas of consciousness in order to break the cultural of an oppressed section of society. This is the same idea that came to predominate at the height of the Black struggle in the U.S.A.

“Black is Beautiful” was the expression of a new cultural awareness among Blacks against the ideas that they were inferior people. Although Rowbotham gives a very enlightening criticism on the general cultural domination of women as a subjugated sex, she does not give many good ideas on how to break this down. Firstly the problem of women cannot be seen in isolation to the rest of the political work carried out by revolutionary groups, it is an integral and important aspect of any revolutionary groups perspective. The real understanding

WOMEN’S

STRUGGLE

was in demand at the time, regardless of local need. As the issue was chiefly how much could be’fored out of the land, for how little the land often became exhausted, and what was rich agricultural land becomes uncultivatable. The demand for cane sugar and its plantation in Brazil leads to the situation described in De Castro’s book ‘The Geography of Hunger’.

“The one crop cultivation of cane sugar in the Brazilian northeast is a good example.

This rea once had one of the few really fertile tropical soils. It had a climate favourable to agriculture, and it was originally covered with a forest growth extremely rich in fruit trees. Today, the all-absorbing, self-destructive sugar industry has stripped all the available land and covered it completely with sugar cane; as a result this is one of the starvation areas of the continent.” In pre-revolutionary Cuba, as well, peasants were starving because the rich land was used for tobacco and sugar cultivation, and they no longer had access to grow food crops. Little of the wealth made by imperialist countries would find its way back to the colonial ones.

Much energy and expertise is also wasted in rivalry between nation stdtes, the amount of resources squandered on military hardware is a product of this, and the effects of 2 major wars on the means of production. All of these factors tend to increase rather than diminish poverty and explain why that in spite of technological advances most of the world has a low standard of living. The whole raison D’Etre that dominates the world under capitalism is the fact that production agricultural and industrial is directed by the desire for profit under conditions of competition, not human need. However wealthy the capital owning class is, only mere crumbs will come the way of oppression will only permeate through to the working class at a time of overall political awareness, this means that womens liberation groups must involve themselves in all aspects of the class struggle, and through this realise in themselves the overall repressive nature of capitalism, realise that the immediate oppression of both men and women is a different one to that of radicalised sections of middle-class women, The best way to tackle this is to join a revolutionary group and to educate the men within that group as to the necessity of recognising the repression of women as something far greather than just demands for ‘Civil Rights”. Role of the family The book shows extremely well the position the family plays within the capitalist structure as a whole. it exposes the contradictory sentimentalisation of the ‘sanctity of the family’ by the mass media “|. and then have a buile-in hydraulic slide with a powered downfeed to the wheelhead sprocket, you see”" of the majority of people in theeworld, and the drive will always be to see that these crumbs are proportionally a smaller and smaller share of the cake. Added to this is the need for a labour pool necessary in boom times, which increases the problem in times of recession. It seems obvious then, that the problem of poverty is at the least greatly increased, if not altogether caused by the capitalist mode of production. That the inability to feed the world’s population is a reflection of the fact that capitalism has well outlived its progressive'role. A social and economic system is required that takes need as its guiding principle for production and only ~ a socialist revolution is capable of producing that system. There is no ‘blueprint’ for how it could work, but the advantages of international co-operation, genuine workers democracy, pooling of resources and planning are obvious. Released from the straitjacket of profit and the vagaries of the market industry could develop new legs wasteful methods of production. Research could be used for mans benefit. It is possible that even then, with better use of resources and cooperative effort mankind will reach a stage when there are too many people for everyone to have a fulfilling life style. But there again, it would be much easier to combat that problem in a socialist economy, with freewill cooperation, no danger of genocide or the problem being used as a veiled attack by one class on another, and the greater possibility of widespread discussions and decision making, by the whole of the community. Rather than a solution imposed from above, not understood and hence unworkable except by force.

comparing it with processes of production under capitalism which destroy what small reliefs a family can bring. The prime example that she uses is the increasing use of the 3 shift shystem, which leads to mental exhaustion in the worker and quickly leads to corresponding tensions within the home itself, causing a high rate of mental illness and marriage problems.

The major error in the book is her support of the concept that the women in the home constitutes a ‘mode of production’ within capitalism itself, She supports this by saying that a marriage relationship is basically a feudal one, and that women do not sell their labour power as a commodity as men do, so houseword is therefore a different mode of production. This error comes from an incorrect method of analysis. The correct way is to ask what part does any particular phenomena play within the capitalist framework as a whole? The family is an integral part of capitalism without which it could not survive. The family acts as a unit of socialisation, to teach people their place within society, it reinforces the hierarchial social structure outside.

Economically the family provides the man with more motivation to work hard, that the wife does the housework enables the man to work harder. The family also acts as a huge pool of labour. In times of expansion women can be sent out to work, and in times of recession women can be laid off and sent back to the family without causing undue strain on the social services. For these reasons it can be seen that far from being a separate mode of production, the unpaid labour and the availability of a women labour force show that womens position in the family is as an absolutely crucial FACTOR within the CAPITALIST MODE OF

PRODUCTION AS A WHOLE.

Overall despite these criticisms it is an important book and should be read, by Revolutionaries.

ROBERT BRUCE

BELFAST