The Plough: Vol. 2 no. 3, c. July 1973

TOWARDS AN IRISH WORKERS REPUBLIC

This is the time of the lull before the storm.

Whitelaw’s powersharing Assembly hasn't got off the ground. He has seen the centres Parties fail dismally at the polls. Now he is faced with the oppressed minority back on the streets in large numbers. They are not content to ‘leave it to the S.D.L.P., as the mobilisations around the anniversary of internment showed clearly.

On the other side the loyalists, far from Oteng weskened and fragmented, are confident after See etechon success. and are already

PLOUGH

THE STRUGGLE IS ON

» Oe

MON &

VOL. 2 N9. 3

Se. bh ee gat wx Fh ni Sarteg fresh attacks on cemority areas. in & > fact Gritah strategy a agen beck to square = aay es

THE GRIM REALITY

Given this situation, where can British imperialism go from here? Whitelaw is, of course.

currently trying to draw the S._D.LLP. mearer to Faulkner's moderate unionists, ussng the RLULC. reform as 2 belt. But whether they well come or not, Faulkner himself dare not come closer im case he pushes the rest of his Party into the weiting arms of Craig and Paisley it is fairly obvious this ‘patching up’ will not work. There is really only one course left open to them, they must physically crush the minority’s resistance, and destroy the |.R.A.

The ground for this is already being prepared, both in the 6 and 26 counties.

DEFEND THE GHETTOES,

FIGHT COLLABORATION

Now, in this pause before the offensive, the | minority must make its preparations, The | Political Hostages Release Committee is the first broad united front, for a long time. It showed that the groups concerned could work together in the face of the common enemy in spite of their politicial differences.

There must be struggle to build this at local level, with defence committees to

SOL

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE BAN OF

LIGUE COMMUNISTE

On Thursday June 28th, the French government banned the Ligue Communiste (French Section of the Fourth International). The pretext used by Pompidou was the demonstration led by the Ligue Communiste against a racialist meeting organised by the Fascist movement; this demonstration ended violently when the police not only protected the meeting but charged the demonstration, The reasons for the ban lie not so much in the Ligue’s anti-Fascist action, but in the crisis of French capitalism and in the problems that the Ligue in common with other revolutionary organisations has increasingly posed for the French ruling class, particularly its leadership of mass mobilizations against the Debre laws on military conscription, and its increased .

involve nt in working-class struggle,s have given Pompidou cause for concern. The fact that the largest revolutionary organisation in France has been declared illegal cannot be considered as an isolated fact; it involves the whole working-class in France and internationally.

Since the days of May and June ‘68, two i : 2 = Pray reinvigoration of the street committees, This struggle has to be fought in the 26 counties as well. Silence will be o- "interpreted as agreement with the collaborat r Cosgrave, and his repressive tactics. Each special court trial, each internment should be fought by all forces opposed to imperialist interference and growing repression.

Westminster is fighting on all fronts, the campaign against it has to be fought on a 32 county basis,

DARITY!

factors have beén Sccentuated, the deepening crisis of international capitalism and the sharpening of the class-struggle involving a recomposition of the working-class and of its vanguard; the increasing danger of decisive confrontations have determined the capitalist class to arm themselves legally and militarly. So we see the reinforcement of repression in many countries in Europe (German anti-Palestinian laws, Offences Against the State Amendment Act in Ireland, etc.); we see also European governments assisting Fascist movements (such as the MSI in Italy), arid the militarytechnological development of repression. Ireland is being used as a laboratory for civil war by the European ruling-class,and now techniques developed by the British Army will be used not only in Britain but also in other European countries, against militant working-class activity.

The capitalists have.indeed a very sharp sense of international solidarity. To this type of solidarity we must oppose working-class internationalism; the ban of one organisation is setback for all the Left on an international.

_ Stale, This is why the undersigned organisations, in spit of political differences with the Fourth international, have decided to protest against: the ban of the Ligue Communiste and express their solidarity with this organisation and all those who face repression in the fight for Socialism.

SINN FEIN (KEVIN STREET)

(Sean O’Bradaigh P.R.O.}

- PEOPLE’S DEMOCRACY

(Central Committee)

REVOLUTIONARY MARXIST GROUP

(irish sympathizing section of the Fourth international)

STATEMENT FROM SINN FEIN

(Gardiner Place) “Sinn Fein, despite many political disagreements with the Ligue Communiste in France, condemns the suppression of this organisation, which is on a par with the suppression by the British Government of political organisations in the North of Ireland,” Sean O 'Cionnaith, P.R.O.

The Socialist Workers ‘Movement and the Connolly Youth Movement have also expressed their solidarity with the Ligue Communiste.

1. THE NATIONAL WAGE AGREEMENT

2. PHRC AND ICRA

3. AFTER THE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS

4. MARXISM AND RELIGION

5, THE FALL OF ALLENDE

6. WOMEN IN STRUGGLE

Because of the long delay in Producing this issue of The Plough we have decided to make it a twelve page special.

Unfortunately this will mean a price increase of 1p to cover the extra cost.

Printed in Ireland

‘On the second day of the Irish Transport & General Workers Union’s annual conference last month, six resolutions opposed to the very concept of national wage agreements were thrown out without discussion. Instead a motion submitted by the executive calling for a National Economic Council, of which a national wage agreement would be a natural part, was passed by 205 votes to 12.

Immediately following this the Minister for Labour, Mr. O’ Leary made a dramatic appearance and announced the governments intention of establishing an N.E.C.

Two observations are relevant here, Firstly, a total of 217 delegates attended the conference representing 150,000 members i.e. only about 1 representative per 700 members. How could the rank and file exert any Influence Over such an hierarchical conference? The way in which the anti-national wage agreement resolutions were crossed off the agenda answers that question.

Secondly, Mr. O' Leary’s appearance out of the blue was highly significant. it is obvious that the ITGWU leadership had already made certain arrangements with the government, not only above the heads of the ordinary members, but also above the heads of the conference delegates, The transparent way the deal was carried through marks a new all-time high, in the level of collaboration between the trade union bureaucracy and government and employers.

WORKERS AND THE BUREAUCRACY

These two features of the conference are of course interrelated. The inability of the rank and file trade unionists to exercise control within the union is obviously connected with the bureaucracies ability and willingness to collaborate with the government and the employers. As we approach the inevitable negotiations for the third national wage agreement next September, the link between these two things will be of paramount importance for every worker worried about his declining standard of living. Yet the general mass of workers do not readily associate the two things. They do not view the need to exert direct influence in the unions as complementing the struggle to defend their living standards. Thus on the one hand there is a tremendeous willingness on the part of the trade unionists to push the bureaucracy aside in their day to day struggle against management and the employers. in 1969, the last year before the strike weve began to decline, figures show thet ower . ere U = On hand, on specifically union issues, there exists a bewildering passivity, The Workers Union ot Ireland, the second largest union in the country examplifies this perfect. During the voting on the second national wage agreement it was revealed that a third of the membership was in bad standing, another third didn’t both to vote (on two occasions), and of the remainder just over half voted in favour of acceptance. This accurately reflects the degree of alienation among members throughout the trade union movement.

It also indicates that trade unionist are cynical enough about the possibility of regaining control of their unions that they prefer to “ opt-out’ rather than fight for their democratic rights.

The contradictory response of the workers, whereby they are willing to push the bureaucracy to one side but not willing to launch a decisive offensive against it is not surprising. All spontaneous reactions have this contradictory nature. But while it is contradictory it nonetheless shows in both its aspects the workers’ contempt for the bureaucracy. The task of conscious trade union militants and socialists The example of the recent unofficial strike at Cadburys Dublin plant at Coolock is a striking illustration of how far the poisonous roots of bureaucracy have entrenched themselves in the Trade Union Movement.

The main feature of this particular strike was the inability of the rank and file trade unionists to control their unions and _ their representatives. As outlined in the article on the nature of Trade Union Bureaucracy, this lack of internal democratic control by the members. automatically presents room for bureaucrats to manoeuvre between employer and workers. Refusal to recognise independent actions by the workers, whether they be unofficial strikes or sit-ins, and to take up the day to day demands of the workers, are practical examples of the manoeuvering of the T.U. Officials, which in all practical instances leads to a betrayal. Cadburys strike is a perfect example.

THE STRIKE BEGINS

The pickets were placed on the gate by sixteen young girls from a section of the ‘finishing’ department. They were dissatisfied with their bonus-earnings and were demanding a high earning-level. The production quota, they felt was high enough, but not the earnings. For a period of five weeks they had made continuous approaches to their shop-steward, a female co-worker, who told the girls that they must first we y is to crystallise this contempt, into a consistant programmatic struggle against the bureaucracy.

THE NATURE OF THE BUREAUCRACY

But to do this it is necessary to have a precise understanding of the bureaucracy. However it is here that the trade union militants and socialists are weakest. The majority see the bureaucracy as just a political current, .

albeit a dominant and reformist one, Thus their strategy for defeating the bureaucracy consists merely in appealing to the rank and file against the reformist positions of the bureaucracy. There is no recognition of the need to organise a special struggle against the bureaucracy itself. In this the vanguard elements only reflect the general confu. 2m of the rank and file and consequently have been unable to draw any significant section of the workers behind them with a clear cut lead. it is true of course that the bureaucracy is a political current based on reformist ideas. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Below the surface lies a series of material factors which determine these ideas, Chief among them are, exploitation and cultural privation of the workers under capitalism which reduces its capacity of self-administration. Because of this, the working class uses elements from other classes (notably the petty-bourgeoise) or trained by other classes, in order to help administer its affairs. These elements form a specific social layer with the labour movement. This layer not being deeply rooted in the working class itself becomes very susceptible to pressure exerted by the government and employers and is easily bought off, either directly (through financial grants) or indirectly through the granting of social respectability. The growth of the bureaucracy in the Irish labour movement took a qualitative turn in 1912 with the defeat of Larkin in his fight against William O’Brien, The process of bureaucratisation wes consolidated during the second world war when the trade union movement failed utterly to fight the Wages Standstill Order and when the ITGWU almost openly supported the accompanying Trade Union Bill which aimed effectively to tie the unions to the state.

At this point a new era in the collaboration between the trade union bureaucracy and the government and employers was ushered in. Real wages fell by over 30% during the war and following the repeal of the wages Standstill Order in 1946 the working class made a furious attempt to recotip its lost ground. In order to protect the gains made by the employers 1. The: Trade Union. Bureaucracy 2. Cadburys: A Case History approach the supervisor. The supvervisor in question, would not listen to the girls requests and so they returned to their shop-steward. This person informed the girls that she was not satisfied that they had approached the supervisor and refused to take up their demands until they had done so.

The girls became increasingly frustrated and after a series of rebuffs from both Quarters, decided to take action. On Friday 22nd June at 3.25 p.m. they called the Chief Shop-Stewards in question, who refused.

to approach management “under such a thesat’’ and more or less told the girls to go to hell. The gifts after discussion decided to postpone further action and instructed the Shop-Steward to begin negotiations.

By the following Tuesday, the girls had — heard nothing from either Union or management. So by 10 a.m. they had had enough of “being ignored” and placed pickets.

THE BUREAUCRACY MOVES IN

The strike was supported almost totally by the 1600 workers at the plant, But not so by the Trade Union bureaucracy involved.

The majority of the Shop-Stewards passed » the girls picket ‘on principle’. The Trade Union officials called to the plant, Ambrase- O'Rourke (W.U.!.) and Matt Merrigan (Gen. Secretary A.T.G.W.U.} played a scurrilous role. A. O'Rourke was very abusive and obviously irritated by the initiative of the girls and directed lorries through the picket line. Merrigan was also abusive and physically intimidated the girls pushing them and shouting at them, ‘Get back to work’. However the girls, though young and inexperienced, were not to be intimidated by such tactics. Their reply was that they would remove:: the pickets ONLY WHEN the management had agreed to negotiate. The two officials, instead of taking this demand to the management on the girls behalf, took the girls to meet the personnel manager. They proceeded to present the demand to the personnel manager who naturally refused to concede. The only response of the two officials was — ‘‘There | told you so!” The girls were quite adamant and refused _to withdraw the pickets. A stalemate insued. So the only recourse left open to the bureaucrats was to call a meeting — something they are proficient at. The meeting however was not quite the walkover they_ auring the war the government made a deal with the bureaucracy to restrict wage increases solely to the lower paid for a year, Prices continued to rise in 1947 and another agreement was made to restrict all wage demands to an 11/- (52%p) increase. These agreements have become known. as the first and second wage rounds, Through this mechanism of wage rounds, the trade union bureaucracy, the government and employers keeps the workers pressure on capitalism in check,

FIGHTING THE BUREAUCRACY

It is clear from this that it would be entirely ineffectual to regard the bureaucracy as just a reformist political tendency. It is in reality a corrupt social layer which has been bought off by the capitalist system and functions as its agent in the labour movement. As such it is impossible to defeat the bureaucracy simply in the process of debate or through pr ndistic osure. The influence of the reaucracy can be defeated, only though : CLASS STRUGGLE against the bureaucracy.

This class struggle must be waged at two levels, It must be waged by the trade union militants and socialists leading the workers in contravention of the deals worked out by the bureaucracy. The willingness of the workers to engage in unofficial action provides plenty of room to out-manoeuvre the bureaucracy on this front.

Of course there are dangerous pitfalls.

Such struggles are by their nature localised and fragmented, THE UNITED IRISHMAN in out-lining a strategy for fighting the second national wage agreement was quite correct in saying that all actions against the agreement would have to be unofficial and could easily lead to defeat and demoralisation. In fact today many unofficial actions are being increasingly defeated, But the UNITED IRISHMAN drew absolutely wrong conclusions from this correct observation, |t advised workers not to oppose the agreement frontly but to use the clause on fringe benefits to uphold their living standards. Instead the correct conclusion should obviously have been to use the weaknesses of local fragmented and unofficial action to point out that such action needs a centralised organisation and leadership to be successful, In other words what is required is a specific rank and file organisation to co-ordinate and aid those struggles which Movement is the only Left wing group capable of launching such a movement and are passing up a valuable opportunity to advance the socialist movement by not doing so, The second level at which the class struggle must be waged is at union organisational level i.e. for control of the unions. This struggle must consist of a campaign in the unions for a programme which would dissolve the material basis of the bureaucracies power and influence.

Such a programme would include demands for the payment of trade union officials at the average industrial rate; election of every shop-steward and official each year subject to the right to recall at anytime; complete trade union independence of the state, no grants, no appointments, no joint boards etc.

as key demands, Increasingly the formulation of a correct strategy for industrial struggle in the context of trade union-government-employer collaboration, and the elaboration of a programme of struggle against the trade union bureaucracy are becoming indespensible weapons in the class struggle in Ireland today.

~e Offinia expected. Large sections of the factory were quite angry at the situation and placed the responsibility on the officials shoulders, They threw accusation after accusation at the bureaucrats who were beginning to feel quite uneasy. A section of the male-workers who had supported the girls action, began to demand payment for loss of pay from the Trade Union, because of their refusals and neglect concerning the demands. During the last 18 months, there have been 22 unofficial strikes and the workers have never been satisfied once. The management have been quite successful in applying several different bonus-rates throughout the factory, which in reality has a divisive effect on the workers militancy. The militants want an interim equal bonus rate for all workers (i.e. one for the male workers and one for the female) and an entire new deal to be negotiated immediately. The officials on the other hand stressed the necessity to negotiate a new productivity agreement as this would solve all disagreements etc. They posed it as if there was no other alternative. The militants are” beginning to realise the many disadvantages contained in productivity deals and their. statements at this meeting were an unconscious reflection of their deep dissatisfaction. But the militants,

CONTD. P11

Fighting The Wage Agreement... The impossibility of controlling prices under capitalism, especially in Ireland, has been amply demonstrated.

Despite the strictest assurances by the National Coalition that prices would be halted, the latest report revealed that prices had in fact gone up by a record 17% in the first three months of this year.

In this situation a third national wage agreement would be disasterous for the living standards of the working class. Nonetheless the Trade Union leaders we Oreberec 0 septate BnomM™er cent wae ST OTe a ee power teers che Neste Cogteue, To Gee chee a mow for bureaucracy will projected negotiations.

SPONTAN ITY

There can be no doubt that there o seething discontent among renk and fe trade eteoeests wrth the meagre resuits of pest Nemone! Wage ¥. Agreements and in particular with the collaboration of the T,U, leadership and the employers. This has led to some dangerous illusions on the Left.

There is a general feeling about, that although the T.U, bureaucrats will succeed in forcing a third agreement on the Trade Unions, that a struggle against this agreement will spontaniously break out all over the country.

Ths aptienistic feeling does not take sufficaent account of Te ree “euro of forces betwen Pe wort tg Chest On the one hard and the Foe Te ET DboyeErt anc trace UTOn leaders om De other. The past national wage agreements onty halted wage increases, they also diffused A look at the strike chart over the past few years reveals the full meaning of this, Although the number of trade disputes between 1969 and the end of 1972 remained aimost constant (134 in 1969, 131 mm 1972) the qumber of workers SwORVES of Struke actions, and the number of Can Take The Lead Benn Yor Parc

EVE ADAM

The struggle for National Liberation and for re-unification of the country has been the main topic on the political front for the past 18 months.

* However, once more the economic aspect of the class struggle is due to appear, That is the whole question of the National Wage Agreement.

Each time the debate has begun, we've seen an upsurge of interest and minor outbreaks of opposition to the proposals, This time, the opposition to the Wage Agreements have new “ammunition” to use in their fight. What is this, and how can it be used?

PRESSURE ON I.C.T.U.

We refer to the position of women workers in the Irish economy and their right to equal pay. With the entry of Ireland into the EEC the gross inequality of Irish women was highlighted, much to the embarrassment of the politicians. The government and employers were forced to pay lip-service to the question. One of the results of their ‘’sham’’ concern however was a useful one, i.e, the “REPORT ON THE STATUS OF

WOMEN”.

The interim report published about 18 months ago, around thet. of the ner,otiations for the 2nd Wage Agreement revealed the outrageous discriminatory practices against women, both in terms of jobs available and ‘rates paid, These revelations implicity put pressure on the trish Congress of Trade Unions to consider the question of women workers.

However the final outcome of this consideration did not provide women with any real gains at all. Nor did it provide adequate steps towards procuring equal pay. IN FACT, the Equal Pay clauses in the agreement tied the hands of many female workers in their fight for equal pay.

man-days lost in strikes declined sharply, In 1969 for example 61,760 workers went on strike compared with only 22,274 in 1972 — a decrease of nearly two thirds, The number of lost man-days dropped from 935,900 days in 1969 to 206,955 days in 1972 — a fall of nearly 80% But even these figures do not tell the whole story. In addition to these statistics it is necessary to take into account, the real experience of the class struggle, It must be remembered that leading sections of the working class suffered severe defeats in their struggle against the second national wage agreement. The most important of these defeats was last years ESB strike. Here the trade union bureaucracy was successful in persuading the majority of the workers to pass the engineers pickets and even led some workers to take over their jobs, This episode represented the first major and open break with the militant traditions of solidarity, which are deeply ingrained in the Irish trade union movement, The result has been @ visable weakening of self-confidence among the most militant workers, Since then a whole series of strikes, including one not even directly challanging the N.W.A., have been easily squashed by the trade union bureaucracy.

Even the big unions outside the !.C.T.U.

have been unable to find their feet against the tied, For instance the Marine Port and General Workers Union after splitting from Congress earlier this year decided to show its independence by announcing that it would no longer restrict its wage demands within the framework of the second national wage agreement.

Shortly afterwards the ‘travellers’ in Williams and Woods organised by the M.P.G.W.U, put ina claim contravening the National Wage Agreement.

However the Officials of the Workers Union of Ireland and the Irish Transport and General Workers Union formed a block against them, printing hundreds of leaflets for distribution to the ordinary workers and whipping up a sectarian attitude among them against the travellers, M.P.G,.W.U, fitters immediately stepped down without a murmur in face of this opposition, Given the prolonged lull in the class struggle in which serrous defests have been suffered ®t would be unwise and indeed dangerous of course possible, but, in view of the past two or three years experience, it will in ail likelihood emerge in an uneven and uncordinated way which could be easily suppressed by the highly centralised alliance of government employers and trade union bureaucrats,

THERE MUST BE A FIGHT!

As part of an effort to prevent this, the task of socialists and trade union militants is not to sit

A CLAUSE TO TRAP

The most obvious aspect of the current agreement which needs changing is the increment which workers received at the beginning of the agreement — £2.25 for women as compared to £2.50 for men ! Employers and Trade Union Officials have been saying for the past couple of years that the concept of a Wage Agreement helps the lower-paid workers! This is absolutely proved to be incorrect by taking a glance at the rates paid to female workers and the Percentage increases payable under the agreement; a 9% increase on basic pay up to £30 per week, — a 7%% increase on basic pay between £30 and £40 — a 4% increase on basic pay on £40 and over.

In effect, workers earning £41 per week had the combined increase of 9%%, 7%4% and 4% added to his pay packet, emerging with £3.29 extra per week. If we relate this to the average wage of female industrial workers, which is approx. £16 Per week we see that the increase here totals approx. £1.44 per week! Most women were glad to get the £2.25 basic minimum allowed to workers, whose 9% increase on their basic wouldn't have meant that much anyway !

The equal pay clause included in the agreement was a result of the trade unions attitude towards the whole question. It established an attitude of “co-operation”, with the “Rights Commissioner’, appointed by the government to deal with the matter. This person, who not only has no experience of the methods of job evaluation employed, has no knowledge of the trade union movement, and no experience in the field of industrial relations at all! Besides, these glaring inadequacies which would be quickly condemned in other areas are only one aspect.

In addition he has absolutely no power to initiate Or act on his findings. His sole contribution is in the form of a report! For any person to Present a case before him, the employer must be willing to participate in the procedures, What employer is willing to give away half the Profits to cut off his source of cheap-labour, female labour. Apart from these totally inadequate references in the clause, the biggest blow comes when the final stage is reached. Even if the employer agrees that a case for equal pay is legitimate, the agreement stipulates that unless the claimant is already in possession of 95% of the male-rate he shall receive no more than 17%% of the differential — not even of the male rate. Such an offer is a downright insult! A weeks travelling by bus would not be covered by this trivial sum.

EQUAL PAY — THE KEY

The whole concept of the move towards Equal Pay as contained in the Wage Agreement is an ~~ scale of wages it will be difficult for” back and wait for the struggle to begin, but to Prepare the way for that struggle now. This can best be done by preparing a clear programmatic fight against the renewal of the National Wage Agreement.

At the moment there is considerable confusion over what should be the alternative to the National Wage Agreement. A simple return to collective bargaining will not be enough, Even with collective bargaining the government and employers, aided and abetted by the trade union leaders have been able to keep wages within limits tolerable to capitalist society. This is the real meaning of the fourteen: wage rounds preceeding the first National Wage Agreement. It would be still more futile to demand the government to redistribute the national income through taxation ‘policy and a control of prices as is suggested by Noel Harris of ASTMS in his recent pamphiet entitled “National Wage Agreements”. Even Noel Harris himself points out that the whole role of the government in wage negotiations is to ensure that the national ifcome is distributed unevenly in favour of the emp oyers. It is therefore not only, hopeless but also misleading to make such demands on a government that is so earnestly , dedicated to preserving capitalist society. As to controlling prices, this also is illusory. Again Harris himself refutes the possibility of doing this in © an open economy such as that of Ireland.

nl that the Trade Union movement : Pier fs Sn from inflation is by demanding « that price increases and wage increases be linked together, This is really the only programmatic alternative to national wage agreements which can pave the road for a new wave of class struggle on the economic and industrial front.

The government and employers argue that wage increases are responsible for price increases. Let this theory be put to the test. Have an agreement where wages and prices rise similtaneously. If this theory is correct then there should be no more price increases.

But of course the government and employers don’t really want this. They want prices to go on rising and wages to stagnate, so that they can offset their falling rate of profit. That is why they want a cantinuation of the National Wage Agreement.

This fact gives the demand for a SLIDING : SCALE OF WAGES 2a revolutionary dynamic. It is not an “unreasonable” demand. It corresponds to the present consciousness and experience of the workers. Yet the employers dare not accept it because it would mean their doom. Thus it leads to a fundamental clash between workers and employers, that is,to CLASS STRUGGLE.

Equipped with the slogan for a sliding _ government, employers or bureaucracy to split, deceive or demoralise the new wave of workers struggle which looms ahead, indication of the real nature of the Wage Agreement. The phrases “to abolish poverty” and “to increase the wages of the lower paid’’ means nothing and are exposed as hypocritical when related to the question of Equal Pay.

Oppositionists to the concept of a wage agreement can use the case of women workers as a typical example of the wage agreements complete failure in dealing with the problems of the working class.

The question of equal pay for women must be used as a battering ram in the fight against a Wage Agreement. When our wages are increased by an average of 4% to deal with a cost of living which has increased by 20% in the last two years, something quite radically different is needed.

A sliding scale of wages is the only solution to the problems of the working class. Besides this increased productivity should result in increased wages for the workers over and above their basic wages. Increased productivity for the employers during the last three years is something which has been totally ignored by the Bureaucracy in the Unions.

A WHOLE NEW DEAL

The Trade Union movement must realise the potential for struggle around the question of Equal Pay. Militants must use this betrayal of the bureaucracy in their struggle against wage agreements, Women in the movement must insist on the Trade Union movement laying down the principles of job evaluation, to be strictly adhered to, These principles should be founded on the overall contribution that women workers make to the economy in general and industry in particular.

The unscientific theories of employers must be thrown out as these are contrived in the interests solely of the employers, (b) Within the individual work place, those principles must be the only guideline to job evaluation undertaken, Any violation should be confronted by strike action.

(c) \f the employers refuse to co-operate in the procedures again strike action will be necessary (d) And if in the final result employers refuse to adhere to the right for equal pay — there is and can be no other alternative but to strike!

Trade Unionists must press the leadership to insist on legislation to protect women workers against the discriminatory manoeuvres of the employers, and to ensure that all increments contained in a sliding scale of pay should be paid to men and women equally.

A struggle is on the agenda, its up to militants to make it the strongest yet. The material is there, waiting to be used,

FOR A SLIDING SCALE OF WAGES!

FOR THE RIGHT TO EQUAL PAY!

FOR THE RIGHT TO STRIKE!

OUT WITH WAGE AGREEMENTS!

7 9 ee SG a The formation of Saor Eire was not a freak coming together of latter day Butch Cassidy's as some would have us believe. On the contrary it came into being as a result of the political and military controversies which took place in the Republican Movement in the sixties after the failure of the ‘56-'62 border campaign. Saor Eire’s emergence was a signal event for the Fovement and it foreshadowed the more dramatic Official/Provisional split which occurred at the Army Convention (Dec. 1969) and the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis (Jan. 1970).

CRISIS OF THE REPUBLICAN

MOVEMENT

As a result of the real need for a politica! orientation, to break Sinn Fein’s isolation from the Working class, a left-wing trend developed within the Movement. Unfortunately the chief ‘political commisar’’ was a certain Roy Johnson who had received his political baptism in the British Communist Party and Desmond Greaves Connolly Association. While it cannot be denied that Johnson was instrumental in shifting Sinn Fein ina left direction he could take it only as far as his Stalinist training would allow, The emphasis was placed on an economistic reformist line and the concept of a Stages theory as the Grand Plan for the Irish revolution. Rather than viewing the process of the revolution as being @ complex combination and intertwining of the national struggle and the class struggle, the stages theory was a dogmatic abstraction. It saw the achievemnt of a Workers Republic as being a very protracted affair with distinct and separate stages.

The first stage it envisages would be the dernocratisation of the Orange statelet, then the abolition of the border, and finally when the Catholic and Protestant workers held each others hands like innocent children, then and only then "could the united working class think in terms of a socialist revolution. An inevitable complement to this reformist line was a de-emphasise on and running down of, the armed wing. As a reaction against these anaemic politics elements in the Irish Republic Army resigned from that organisation. Left-wingers did so because they distiked the reformist socialism of the Johnsonites and right wing (more correctly apolitical!) nationalists dropped out because of the running down of the army. These groupings came together about 1967 and “‘formed’™ Saor Eire. The left wing was reinforced by several people who had been in the Irish Workers Group, an organisation influenced by Trotskyism. Besides the left and the right wing, elements there was + third element which latched Rand whote assoc £ wuhS E. was 2 PRON Pelee ore. TG gOupIng Wes Composed of people who were on the permhery of the Republican Movement and it would be charitable to describe these people as gangsters.

Therefore Saor Eire was not a homogeneous Organisation. It had no centralised military command let alone a common political leadership. It was a loose alliancé of diverse groups who on occasion tsett co-operated together in joint actions and used the umbretla name of Saor Eire. Needless to say the criminal eiement used the name as a cover for their Own exploits From 4 military pomt of view the Provisional IRA is a similar alliance but under the impact of the present struggle in the North the left and right

KIRE

ye te a farewellto arms wings have been welded into an effective fighting force and any criminal elements have been quickly disciplined. Saor Eire, because it operated in a totally different political situation in the South, soon became an isolated group of urban guerillas divorced from any political activity. Under these conditions it never achieved the unified structure of the Provisionals and eventually some of the right-wing and apolitical elements degenerated and fell in with the criminal faction.

But it would be wrong to make a blanket condemnation of all those who participated in S.E activities. There has to be a sharp differentiation made between the left-wing and the rest. The socialists in S.E. were the only ones who tried to work Out a political line and strategy, however naive in retrospect we consider that strategy to be

APOLITICAL CONTRIBUTION

The recent Portlaoise statement, in which these revolutionary militants pledged themselves to continue to strive for a Workers Republic, shows how wrong it is to tar with the same brush all those associated with S.E. In spite of all their experiences they remain dedicated revolutionaries their courage and tenacity has to be applauded by republicans and socialists.

Their contribution to the struggle in the North must be stressed. When the situation in the North blew up in August 1969 there were precious few ams available to defend the nationalist minority The SE meltants fulf died e useful purpose, which, & not demed by anybody, in channetling arms to the North. They also provided funds (expropriated in bank robberies) for arms purchases; gave arms training to Northerners both before and after the August pogroms, and participated in the defence of the Bogside. Having said this we would be failing in our duty as revolutionary marxists if we did not take a critical attitude towards their concept of how revolutionary change is to be achievegl, in the south Any criticisms we do make are not done so as to score cheap political debating pormnts, but rather as un attempt to learn from thei mistakes so that revolutionaries in the future will not repeat these same mistakes. The only time that they publically expressed their views clearly and concisely was in the short but explicit ‘Saor Eire Manifesto’ published in May 1971. It was quite obviously drawn up by the left wing of S.E. because it states that the main enemy of the Irish working class is British Imperialism, which controls lreland both militarily and economically, with the 26 counties having a neo-colonialist relationship with Britain. Therefore the struggle "must be in the 32 County context and not solely confined to the North’, and Imperialism “must be smashed and replaced by a socialist system’.

The Manifestoe also totally rejects the Stages theory and the following quotation shows that they had a very good understanding of the fundamental dynamic of the Irish Revolution: There can be no distinct, separate stages in the Irish Revolution. True there are stages, but these stages overlap each other and the tasks posed are inter-woven, thus giving an uninterrupted revolution which will drive out ‘ the forces of British Imperialism anu their agents once and for all from treland. Unless this lesson is grasped by Republicans we are assigning ourselves to endless defeats’. Another valid point that is made is that previously republicans have viewed the fight for self-determination in purely military terms and that what s needed now 1s an analysis structured around the concept of the unmterrupted, or Permanent Revolution. This is neatly put when they say: “Their reasons for failure dare cliverse but it is basically one of politics. They failed to understand and Were incapable and unwilling to grasp the dynamics of the Irish Revolution and the inter-relationship between its Socialist and Nationalist aspects,”’ They also emphasise that revolutionary armed violence is essential in order to smash the Imperialist connection and that '’at some stage during the Irish Revolution it will be necessary to defend ourselves against the forces of the Free State”. ARMED STRUGGLE Vs MASS STRUGGLE?

So far so good. But the conclusions that they derived from their overall analysis, linked with their ‘Debray ist’ concepts of armed struggle, led them into a political and military cul-de-sac, One of the weaknesses of this analysis was to ignore the uneveness of the development of the Irish Revolution. The political situation in the North was and is far different from the South.

Precisely because the National Democratic Revolution (1916-1921) had been aborted {its prime task was to achieve a 32 country independent bourgeois republic) and the six counties remained under direct imperialist domination, the spark for the socialist revolution would come from the attempt to rectify this subversion of the Democratic Revolution. Thus the North would naturally be the cockpit of the struggle and the first phase (rather than stage) would be centred around the question of smashing the Orange State.

The anti-imperialist attack in the 26 counties wil!

for obvious reasons, develop at a slower pace.

But because the predominant idealogy of the Southern working class is still Republican (although in certain periods it remains in low key) they can be mobilized in support of the National Struggle, Witness the demonstrations in Dublin over Bloody Sunday, the Mac Stiofain arrest and the protests against the “Offences Against the State Amendment Act’, From such mobilisation, in the future inevitable due to British Imperialism, necessary to increase repression North and South owing to the failure of its political ‘solutions’, an anti- imperialist movement will develop in the South. The Free State will increasingly come into a collision course with this movement and from the heat generated the struggle may take a 32 County dimension, Flowing from this a 32 country Workers Republic would possibly materialise.

But what is essential to grasp is that armed struggle in the South, to succeed, can only be based on such a mass movement, which is in confrontation with the Free State. To try to establish an urban guerilla movement in the Free State, as Saor Eire did, before these conditions ripen means to court disaster. Surely these are the lessons of the *56—'62 campaign. Unless the masses sy mpathise with the guerilla forces they will remain indifferent to their fate however courageous their actions.

It is correct to see the Free State as the enemy of the National Struggle, but it is incorrect to launch an armed attack on it before the political situation has matured. In the present context the main task of the revolutionary forces in the South is in buriding a broad based ante imperialist front which of the struggle in the North and thus lay the foundation for the opening up of the Second Front in the South. From such a movement will a serious assault be launched upon the Free State.

Unfortunately we haven't been able to cover all the political and military problems posed by the S.E. Manifestoe. We have only been able to deal, very briefly, with the main mistake of S.E. There are many interesting points raised in the manifesto which need discussing, but we hipe that this article will stimulate an open debate in the Irish Left and these other issues will be more fully discussed. At the Political Committee meeting of the

REVOLUTIONARY MARXIST GROUP

(Irish Svmpathising Section of the Fourth International) the recent letter to the press which purports to have been issued by the Saor Eire G.H.Q.. was one of the items discussed on the agenda. The statement. which we consider to be of dubious origins alleges that one of our comrades, Peter Graham, was a Dublin unit O/C of Saor Eire. and that he participated in Saor Eire actions. We wish to emphasise that Graham (who was murdered by unknown persons in Dublin in October 1971) was not a member of Saor Eire, even less a unit O/C. Comrade Graham. as the Irish representative of the Fourth International was under the political discipline of the International and net Saor Eire’s, Peter did sympathise with SE but then he did with all socialist and republican forces fighting for Irish national liberation: and as a revolutionary socialist he gave full support to the Northern onalist minority, when it came into ‘arp conflict with British Imperialism and - Orange agents in 1969, To stress this point we point to the fact that the Constitution of the Fourth International does not allow a member of the International to have dual membership with another political organisation.

Frequently, the British and International Press have made wild allegations about the Fourth \nternationa). and its members and political associates. The most stupid, was the accusation that when Ernest Mandel ‘General Secretary of the International), came .

RMG

S' } AT

to Dublin last year it was to run guns to Ireland, rather than to have a public debate with Dr. Patrick Lynch on Marxist Economics at U.C.D. Even more farcical, in a very sick sense, was the contention that Maureen Keegan (another member of our group) died with a cancer caused by handling explosives.

The ‘Saor Eire G.H.Q.' letter would at first glance seem to fit into the same pattern, but that would be a superficial impression. The Statement, while seeming to denounce the Fourth International militant in a very crude fashion is otherwise almost entirely devoted to technical details of S.E. arms dumps, their disappearance to the London Underworld,

{MENT

and accusations of the misappropriation of considerable sums of money. The purpose of this could be designed to slander, by association, those political prisoners in Portlaoise who were once members of Saor Eire. It also seems to imply that the Portlaoise prisoners were somehow involved in Graham's death. It is quite within the bounds of possibility that the letter was in response to allegations made by the men in Portlaoise in their recent statement of resignation from Saor Eire. This statement said that S.E.

had increasingly been used as a cover by undesirable elements in the furtherance of a Fy é At the funeral of Peter Graham their own interests. Furthermore, these people had engaged in the harassment of, and used bully-boy tactics against, bone-fide republicans it then notes that mystery still surrounds Comrade Graham’s death. In our opinion the only possible explanation for the ‘S.E. G.H.Q.’ letter is that a person or persons unknown wants to load the blame for the murder onto the men in Portlaoise, and so attempt to divert attention from himself/themselves. If seen in that light then rather than denouncing Graham, the person(s) who wrote the letter were using Graham's reputation (he was a well respected individual among all sections of the Republica and revolutionary left), in order to give their scheme some credibility.

As far as the Revolutionary Marxist Group is concerned, the revolutionary militants, at this time incarcerated in Portlaoise, who have resigned from Saor Eire, had no hand in the gangster style activities described in the letter. Their public statement of resignation from S.E. clearly states in no uncertain terms that they split from that organisation, because it has been used as a cover for criminal activities. The concluding remarks of the Portlaoise statement leaves us in no doubt as to their political credibility and desire to work for purely political ends, ““we again wish to reaffirm our allegiance to the establishment of a democratic Workers Republic in Ireland and pledge our support to the revolutionary forces who are struggling to attain it.” :

POLITICAL COMMITTEE OF

THE R.M.G.

The re-emergence of mass demonstrations and protest on the streets of the North of Ireland has added a further dimension to the crisis facing British Imperialism. The past weeks have seen an upsurge in the mass struggle for liberation and has exposed to a large degree the breakdown of the British Government's strategy for the North.

And, with this, the initiative has pessed from the grasp of the Brish Government and a new phase of the struggle is opening in which the people are again asserting their demands for liberty and can again determine the course of event.

The marches and rallies and the creation of a united front of anti-unionist groups — the Political Hostages Release Committee in Belfast and Armagh — have provided a basis from which a new mass movement can be created and the people’s own structures of power re-established as a step towards the working class taking power into its own hands.

In the period leading up to the second anniversary of internment it was generally recognised by the bulk of the republican and socialist movement that unity was essential.

A break had to be made from the situation brought about by British political manouevering and the resultant apparent passivity of the ant-utmondt peopée The people had taker the cetatee @ he Current struggle wrth the extat rae of the not grant the ward bier was forced into an ever growing crisis as the struggle developed into an anti-imperialist campaign. But after the fall of Stormont the deficiencies of the leadership of the campeign became increasingly evident. There was @ failure to bring the mass of the anti-unionist people to the forefront of the struggle in 2 lasting and positive besis. As 2 result the anti-imperialist movement was Out-menoeuvred, The street committees

1. THE FAILURE OF THE WHITE PAPER:

ITS IMPLICATIONS

The Revolutionary Marxist Group, as soon as the All-ireland British offensive was formulated in the White Paper, showed the impossibility of it being implemented in terms foreseen by Imperialism.

The injection by Westminster of Centrist parties capable of making this project viable has failed, The traditional Unionist parties now back on the political forefront, in order to succeed the British, need to crush the nationalist resistance. This will imply in the coming period an intensification of the action of the British Army; Secondly, the crisis of the Loyalist organisations, sanctioned by the split of the anti-Catholic hard-liners decided to carry out harsher actions against the Catholic ghettoes.

Whatever force will first initiate the Action against the ghettoes it does not qualitatively change the type of response needed ~ Politically. the recreation as far as possible of the no-go-are.., of the organs of dual power such as street con. mittees, ghattoes assemblies, co-ops etc, Militarily, the arming of the people for self-defence against pogroms, or other attacks of the British Army, of the vigilantes, joint defensive actions by the two wings of the and the mass movement subsided before the promises, poses and bullying of the British Government. As was intended,the elections added to the disorientation of the minority and for a period it appeared that war-weariness,combined with the seductive but false formula for justice and peace offered by the British Government, had successfully de-activated the struggle of the minority. But the inability of the Whitelaw regime to reconcile the loyalists to the British strategy forced him to attempt to appease them and further repression was used agains the minority.

Whitelaw hoped to capitalise on the apparent disillusionment of the anti-unionist population by launching an attack on individuals in the vanguard of the struggle. This led to the arrest and imprisonment of Michael Farrell and Tony Canavan.

PHRC FOUNDED

It was against this background that the various Republican and Socialist groups in the North came together to create the PHRC. It had delegates from anti-internment political groups as diverre as the Republican Clubs, Provisional Sinn Fein, NICRA, PO, RING, the CPI and the N.L. Workers’ spt And it had the backing of the people through such non-political bodies as the Reistives of Political Prisoners, the League of Ex-Servicemen (CESA) and the Association of Legal Justice.

All united behind three demand s— for the release of all internees, the release of all political prisoners and the ending of ai! repressive legisiation.

The first activities of the PHRC coincided with the mass protest in support of Michael Farrell and Tony Canavan. Over 5,000 marched in one PD demonstration and the following week some 8,000 marched behind the banners of the PHRC to ¢ rally at Dunville Park, There speakers from Republican movement and other Catholic Defence Corps. In this sense the initiative of joint actions from Provisionals and Officials in Derry is an encouraging sign of what can be achieved.

2 DIALECTICS OF THE TWO FRONTS

As has been seen in 1969, the Southern population must be prepared to defend the Northern resistance this time. (The shift towards a greater collaboration between British Imperialism and the Free State is clear. This has meant for the last year an extension of repression against the Republican movement to help Britain. This type of repression is quite selective for the moment, but THERE lies the basis for an offensive against all other civil rights left in the South, against the Official wing of the Republican Movement and other Socialists, the Working-class movement.

The combined offensive of British ° — imperialism and of the Free State calls for an all-lreland movement (a) in support of the Northern Resistance (b) for the immediate defence of the threatened civil rights in the South, starting with the defence of the Republican militants, jailed.

The current situation has some similarities with the Palestinian struggle, This Struggle has shown that for the Palestinian Resistance either frontal military attacks on the Jordanian or Lebanese states and the refusal to criticise them because they are primarily Arab brothers whatever class interests they have, are two sides of the same coin and inevitably lead to political disasters, to military defeats, when the masses are not | mobilised around a clear revolutionary programme. Likewise in Ireland the only viable solution is the setting up of a broad front of anti-imperialist nature raising directly in political terms the question of the link the Struggle North and South, the question of support for the liberation struggle.

3. THE IRISH CIVIL RIGHTS

ASSOCIATION, EMBRYO OF A

POLITICAL ANTI IMPERIALIST FRONT

The establishment of such an organisation means uniting around democratic demands such as the repeal of the emergency laws, the release of the Political prisoners, and raising the fundamental demand of self-determination of the Irish nation.

But to extend such a front some other layers of society likely to be radicalised by the current struggle must be involved in such a Front. Thé orientation taken at this level must be clear.

Provisional Sinn Fein which has initiated this organisation has carried several misconceptions on the nature, the structure, the aims, the tactics of this organisation, For instance, the way ICRA all the constituent political bodies shared the platform to protest against internment.

Whitelaw, by lifting Farrell and Canavan, had confidently hoped for aconfrontation with the vanguard of the struggle, beliving the mass of the people to be demoralised. He miscalculated. When the confrontation came to the crunch it was he who was forced to back down.

The announcement of the release of Farrell, Canavan and 100 other political prisoners on the eve of the second anniversary of internment appeared as a clumsy effort to sabotage the following days demonstrations. In effect, it made imperialism appear weak and for the people had clearly won a victory on the streets.

DISUNITY

Despite these early successes the unity of the committee was not to remain entirely intact.

Unlike the other organisations in PHRC, NICRA refused to submerge its own demonstrations under the united PHRC banner. NICRA insisted that they had the sole right to organise the major August 9 rally in Belfast. The result of a situation where one group claims to have a monopoly on anti-internment protests was clearly evidenced by the lack of democracy on the platform and the subsequent scuffles between stewards and the crowd as several speakers were refused the right to speak. It came in stark contrast to the PHRC rally only a few days earlier when all speakers were united behind the demands of the platform. It was regrettable that NICRA chose to withdraw from the Committee,for although its departure made little immediate impression on the number supporting the PHRC (some 10,000 turned out for the march several days later), that any group should chose to leave a united movement for the ending of internment is regrettable. Similarly, the later decision by the Republican Clubs to opt out is to be regretted. However, they too had failed to actively support the committee,by not mobilising militants for its rallies and marches, for instance.

EXPANDING THE P.H.R.C.

The creation of this body has been an important factor in bringing the people beck onto the streetsend the PHAC can go on to become 2 key to the opening of a whole new phase of the struggle. For this to take place development of the PHRC must come in two ways — through expansion outside Belfast and Armagh and by the strengthening of its roots among the people. So far the functioning PHRCs have proved highly successful in organising protests.

Cooperation between the two committees has also been occuring. A successful merch and rally was held in Belfast in support of the interned mother of two small children, has been set up raises the following problems: (i) it has been created from the top to the bottom (ii) the nature of the Front limits itself to Provisional Sinn Fein, Aontacht Eireann and the periphery, (iii) the central demands are not linked with what must be the main thrust of such a movement, understood in the perspective of building an anti-imperialist front i.e. the national question. The term “Front” must not have the meaning of ‘‘cover’”’ as too many see it, but a regrouping of all organisations and individuals determined to fight around the democratic demands put forward. In this respect it is imperative that an organisation such as the Official Republican Movement be invited to participate in ICRA, not only because the more organisations are represented the better,or because the common experience of such groups would be greater, but primarily because such a@ movement cannot be efficient against repression North and South if built on sectarian gro@nd.

4. THE FIGHT IS NOT AGAINST

REPRESSION IN ITSELF

The abstract idea of fighting repression in itself is misleading. What people can figtit are

CONCRETE INSTANCES OF REPRESSION.

j ICRA must campaign on aspects of repression selecting concrete example of this repression around which a CENTRAL CAMPAIGN should be organized (the question of political prisoners is of course of the utmost relevance because it relates very crudely the question of police repression in the South to the liberation struggle, to the open collaboration between the Free State and Britain. At the time of Sean Mac Stiophain’s arrest important mobilisations spread all over the country, but the potential energy of the people protesting against the government . was completely disorganised.

5. MARCH SEPARATELY —

STRIKE TOGETHER

The decision to enter and build an organisation such as {CRA on the part of the RMG flows from the fact that a movement built on democratic demands, on civil rights against repression, for the reunification of the country, possesses dynamics which lead ‘the movement far beyond the initial prospects put forward.

Similarly, because in a backward country the fight for democratic rights is essential, does not imply that a revolutionary party or ‘organisation does not carry on an independent propaganda in order to influence the building Mrs, Brnda Cassin of Armagn. Clearly a further expansion of the committees across the six counties will allow coordinated activities and increasingly effective protests. Such coordination would only be possible under a central leadership and already. the Belfast body has been recognised as such, The Committees have so far, however, been very much composed of political groups, albeit with support from various non-political bodies. This was unavoidable given the circumstances of the inception of the body. This came at a time when the struggle was in a downturn.

While organisations of the working class such as street committees and the mass movements have been thrown up spontaneously at periods of upsurge such structures have by necessity to be built by political groupings at other times.

This can be done incorrectly.

The PHRC was created in the only way possible at the time — by the conscious decision of political groups to unite behind basic demands. It must Rot be forgotten also that much of the initiative for the Committee came from such groups as the Relatives of Internees and that the active presence in the PHRC of such bodies give it a definite link with the community. This link must, if the rnovement is to prosper and grow, be built up and roots sunk deep into the people,

ROOTS IN THE MASSES

The priority must now be for a strengthening of the organisation within the people. Local committees must be set up in the anti-unionist areas. These are things that the people in the districts thernselves can develop. Not only do they represent the best way in which to organise a protest movement but also they may be seen as preparation for the building and rebuilding of street committees and people's assemblies — organs of the people invaluable in bringing the mass of the people into the anti-imperialist struggle on an active footing, and schools in which the working class can learn of thejr own power and capabilities. They have existed in the past and continue to do so on a small scale in some areas, but largely they have faded away. The opportunities they opened up must not be missed again.

of ICRA, its strategy, to denounce resolutely the representatives of the National Bourgeoisie within this front (Desmond Fennell — Aontacht Eireann etc.) Along this line can be defined the positions of the RMG towards ICRA: — we recognise that such a movement because of its demands challanges the actual state; because its dynamic leads in a more efficient way to linking the struggle North and South by building the embryo of a political front, the only organisation capable of helping the Northern Resistance against the over-all British Strategy. — such a movement built on democratic basis (that is to say by a co-ordination of rank-and-file branches defining their policy at a national convention), must be also non-sectarian (a) by involving both wings of the Republican movement and other Socialists organisations or Trade-Union Branches. (b) although this movement must campaign around a central issue related to the national struggle, all democratic rights denied in this country must be taken into consideration, _ allowing a broadening of ICRA (important rights such as Women’s Rights, Rights of Workers-Strike-Picket — etc. (c) because of the tendency of some leaders of ICRA to project a programme of reforms which can be integrated in the present system, it is imperative for all Republican and Socialist militants involved in ICRA to point out the dangers of substituting a series of demands related to the national struggle which can be fought for by a reformist project which aims at changing the government rather than challenging the state and throwing out the presence of British Imperialism on both sides” : of the border.

i “proposals, the North of Ireland economy has ‘ a Confusion and perplexity marked the initial response of most political commentators to the Assembly election results. No one was quite sure what the final outcome meant in terms of the success or failure of Britain’s strategy in Ireland. The Irish Independent (The semi-official organ of the National Coalition Government) in its June 30th editorial judged that the voting patterns undermined the future of the White Paper proposals and warned that “Mr. Whitelaw has, certainly, enough to cause him considerable worry’’. By July 2nd the tune had changed and an editorial declared the final outcome as a “Solid Gain” and commented that “The result is no basis for throwing up the hands in despair and intoning the obsequies of Mr. Whitelaw’s proposals — Rather the reverse” Apart from this overall judgement there were many contradictory assessments of different aspects of the post-elections situation, For instance on the reported S.D.P. overture to the CraigPaisley coalition the influential Manchester Guardian remarked that “There is 2 temptation for the S.D.LP.

© Sah Mr. Feuktewr ... and t seek an inary to a wretched Assembly”. But Chris Glennon reporting from London for the Irish Independent, wrote in a main front page article that “The prospects of the S.D.L.P. and the hardline Protestant leaders getting together contributed to the reasonably hopeful mood attaching to the Heath-Cosgrave discussions”.

There were also conflicting assessments of Faulkners ability to hold the Official Unionist biock together. The Sunday Press stated that “’Mr. Faulkner can feel quite happy as the leader of the biggest single block within the pro-union vote and can be relied upon to win back some of those who stood as “Unionists” without the Official tag’. But the London Times considered somewhat more realistically, that ‘with a right-wing dagger still posed over him, Mr. Faulkner is certainly going to find it difficult to keep control of his party to begin with at least” On the question of power-sharing and Faulkners willingness to compromise with the S.D.L.P, there was still more confusion. The Irish Independent reported that Faulkner “appears enthusiastically (!)

in favour of a new power-sharing Assembly and even a Council of Ireland (! 1)’. But at the same ‘ moment the Irish Times wes reporting Faulkner as saying that “The S.D.L.P. has produced a manifesto which | think is very close to old-time nationalism. The prospects for co-operation with them look very remote to me”.

It would be useless to further document the many contradictory statements of the political observers, since they abounded on every conceivable aspect of the Assembly Election results. However, the significance of this confusion is that it emphasises that all these commentators either did not understand Precisely what Britain is trying to achieve in Ireland and were therefore incapable of commenting intelligently on the situation: or that they did understand but realised that the situation is so hopeless that they tripped each other up attempting to paper over the cracks.

This conclusion is verified by the final judgement made by all the pundits within a few days of the elections on the most salient feature of the final results, The splintering of the Orange Monolith, and the emergence of the S.D.L.P. as the sole parliamentary representative of the Catholic people are now generally regarded as the two most important “solid gains’. However when considered in relation to Britain's long term strategy and its conjunctural tactics, these solid gains appear in a different light

THE UNIONIST DISINTEGRATION

The break-up of the Unionist camp has been hailed @s a weakening of the forces of reaction. It has been argued that since the Unionists find themselves so atomised they must now finally realise that they will be forced to share power with the minority. But in fact the break-up of Unionism merely represents ’@ more open expression of one of the major contradictions confronting Britain's strategy. As such it is not a decline but an open Consolidation of the forces hostile, from a reactionary Mandpoint, to Britain. As we explained in relation to the White Paper undergone a process of diversification over the past thirty, forty years. This diversification was accomplished with the help of British capital, with the result that British imperialism succeeded in tying a major section of Unionism (i.e. the Official Unionists) more closely to it. This section is prepared to act in accordance with the interests of Britain and carry out the rationalisation it deems necessary. However, there still remains a sizeable section , Of Unionism which continued to be relatively independent of British capital, whose interests are closely related to the Six Co. statelet and economy and which is prepared to fight for its specific interests. In addition the Protestant working class occupies a special position in the production process. As a result of the peculiar evolution of the Northern economy, it dominates the leading areas of employment in industry and enjoys a significant degree of patronage from the six Co.

Statelet. Accordingly considerable layers of the grotestant working class also have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Indeed, if anything, this latest development represents a setback for Britain's policy. Britain's aim was to try to isolate the Loyalists by winning a significant section of the Protestant workers to the Official Unionists and the ‘’Centre’’ Union of Alliance and the NILP. But the Loyalist.

emerged not only as the largest block butals e dominant block within Unionism.

To continue to talk about the possibility of power-sharing in this situation is nothing short of 2 fliaht from reality. The more astute politicians of Official Unionism realise this and are prepared to draw back to prevent their isolation from the Protestant masses.

“Originally the Official Unionists took a deliberately ambigious position on the White Paper and especially on “power-sharing”. They were not Prepared to share executive power with anyone whose primary aim was not unification with the South., The exact meaning of this was not clear, since the S.D.L.P. had declared for a ‘New North” and not unification as its immediate objective. The Official Unionists avoided saying whether they were prepared to share power with the S.D. LP.

However immediately after the election results the Official Unionists were forced to abandon their equivocation and launch a broadside against the S.D.L.P. Faulkner compared them to the “‘old time Nationalists’ and declared that the possibility of collaboration with them was “very remote’.

The Loyalists have obviously shaken the credibility of the Official Unionists and reduced Britains ability to manoeuvre. The only from_ ae will be forced to retreat. The retreat of the Official Unionists was a spontanious reaction to an immediate problem. When the British Strategists sit down to serious consider the situation as it now stands, we can be sure that their retreat will be even more decisive.

THE S.D.L.P.

The emergence of the S,D.L.P. as the sole parliamentary voice of the Catholic minority is hailed as the secor xolid gain’ emmanating from the el The victory must of course be recognised @S uy.) for British Imperialism. in the sense that a massive vote for the S.D.L.P. represents a shift ‘in emphasis from the mass and military struggle to parliamentary and constitutional inactivity, Britain has gained a oreathing spell. But the importance of this breathing spell should not be exagerated. After all, the S.D.L.P. was the only “National’’ party on the minority side contesting the elections. Apart from voting Unionist or Alliance, in most cases the Catholics were offered no major alternative.

But in terms of Britain's long range objectives and even in terms of its immediate goals, the S.D.LP.'s victory means at best a stalemate.

The S.D.L.P. represents the Catholic middle-class (such as it is) in the North, This middle class is comprised largely of a petty-bourgeoisie which provides consumer and professional services for the Catholic population. This social layer would like to see a substantial improvement in the material conditions of the Catholics since that would consolidate its own position too.

But many of the depressed Catholic areas are located along the border and it is the border itself which has to an extent created these depressed areas by arbitratly dividing from their natural hinterlands. in addition the artificial nature of the Six Co. statelet has forced the Protestant capitalist class to pressurise the Catholic masses with adverse social policies which keep dawm their living standards through unemployment, bad housing and the encouragement of emigration, So it is only in the context of the abolition of the border and the establishment of some kind of all-Ireland institution which could grapple with these depressed areas and permit a reasonable degree of consumer prosperity in Catholic areas that the ambitions of this class would be satisfied, Thus the S.D.L.P. responded very cautiously to the White paper proposals. They expressed ‘strong reservations and deep disappointment’ at the watering down of the “Irish Dimension’’ which it considered to be of central importance. Without , the “Irish Dimension” the rest of the proposals were of little significance, The ‘power-sharing Proposals were dismissed as‘‘not clear’ and subsequently ignored, In their own minds they unceremoniously reduced the Assembly to a _ conference table at which real concessions would be negotiated. So for Britains White Paper Strategy, the massive victory of the S.D.L.P. does little to relieve the situation. Without the Irish Dimension Britain will be unable to coax the S.D.L.P. asa whole into Dower- sharing, NOT. to mention the fact that _With the Irish dimension Britain would be unable te crystalise an even moderately progressive wing ' Of Unionism of any significance with which the S.D.L.P. could share power. And without ‘power-sharing’ there can be no immediate political, or should we say constitutional, way forward.

WHAT DIRECTION NOW

Here were at the heart of the matter. The establishment of viable institutions of power-sharing, are important for Britains plans in Ireland. Without them it will be impossible for the South to recognise the North, or openly join hands with Britain.

in other words without power-sharing no Federal solution — at least not by constitutional means.

In order to create institutions of power sharing, it was vital that a large centre movement, flanked on one side by a greatly weakened Nationalist movement losing to the centre and on the other side a strong Official Movement trailed by a shattered loyalist rump, should emerge in the post White Paper Period. No matter what the political Pundits may now Say in retrospect as the attempt to cover up the gravity of the situation it was the major task of the Assembly elections to prepare this line-up.

In this the Assembly elections manifestly failed.

The Irish Independent headline after the election results were announced stated the correct conclusion quite bluntly — “‘NO CHANGE” | After four years of near civil war in which the toughest para-military police measures were alternated with significant political in itiatives, Britain's long term perspective crashed through the fence when it came to take the first hurdle.

The meaning of this should be weighed carefully.

it happened because the class forces representing this policy were politically too weak. Political weakness in any society means an inability to enforce certain relations between people without resorting to force above an historically and socially acceptable level. For nearly five years now Britain has been resorting to a very high level of force, in attempting to implement its policy. So far this has failed, if Britain is to strengthen her political will she can only do this by increasing the amount of force necessary to her ends. Put simply it means that inevitably Britain will have to take a qualative leap from paramilitary police measures to outright military measures to accomplish its objectives.

To see what this will mean in terms of the future developments of struggle in Ireland we must ask: What type of relations between what social groups do the British want to implement? Basically there are five distinct groups: (1) the official unionist bourgeois class (I!) the Loyalist bourgeois class, (111) the Protestant (V) the Catholic masses. Britains immediate aim is to bring the Protestant working class under the hegemony of the Official Unionists, Once that relationship has been established the Loyalists will _ be isolated and the Possibility of implementing the Federal Solution will again be present. Britains “constitutional” efforts were directed towards Creating attractive conditions in the South combined with smashing the self-confidence and self-assurance of the Catholic masses. In this way it hoped to convince the Protestant workers that no threat wes posed in its Privileged position and so ~ win them away from the Loyalists, But as we noted this initiative was too weak and now a more decisive initiative, a military initiative is necessary.

Of course a military initiative will have both a different form and a different method. Two Courses are Open to Britain. It could eliminate the problem of the Protestant working class and the Loyalists by “taking them on” full scale. It could sap their resistance by imposing a decisive military defeat on them. But this would have many negative effects, the most obvious of which would be reactivation of the confidence and combativity of the Catholic masses, A renewal of the Catholic communities willingness to Struggle in a situation where the Protestant working class and Loyalists had been reduced to Passivity, would leave British Imperialism in a very dangerous position.

The second course open to Britain would be to launch an offensive against the Catholic masses, ‘lis would have the effect of reassuring the ‘otestant working class against the threat to its . Privileged position, The Official Unionists would be seen as a more determined opponent of “subversion” and “terrorism” and would naturally be in a better position to compete with the Loyalists for the Support of the Protestant working class. ' Needless to say it will be the fatter course that Britain will opt for and while at the moment the politicians at Westminster may be patting the Catholics on the head and fuming at the Loyalists “his will undoubtedly change. As the various power blocks haggle over the nature of the Assembly mass action from below is likely to develop on both sides and the situation from Britain's standpoint will deteriorate. It is then that Britain will strike with its new phase of aggression.

The Assembly has held its first Session. Its birth was heralded by optimistic prophecies and a fair degree of commotion, although after the elections even the British bourgeois press had to admit that the White Paper strategy had failed, Nevertheless, Power sharing, it was said, was here to Stay, there was now.a consensus.

In reality the three blocks in the Assembly (19 S.D.L.P., 22 ‘official’ Unionists, though how “‘official’’, i.e, pro-Faulkner, is Gebateable, 27 loyalists coalition), could not reach even a sham agreement. The session began with the joint rejection by unpledged unionists and loyalists of the “constitutional arrangements for the North laid down in the White paper’, and ended with the loyalists ‘sitting-in’ after squabbles on Procedure and the appointment versus the election of the standing order committee.

Meanwhile on the streets, and in the ghettoes, the oppressed minority is ; has not taken the sting out of the mass _ mobilizations of the last few weeks,

WHITELAW’S FAILURE

Whitelaw needed two things from the Assembly elections, One, the emergence of a strong centre party, to lead the 6 counties by the nose, through power sharing and the ‘Council of | Ireland’, into eventually the kind of federated State more profitable for British Imperialism.

Two, the weaning of the minority from the Politics of the street and the gun, and their reintegration into ‘normal ' political life, This hasn't happened, The Alliance and the N.1.L.P. have virtually disappeared, The only way now that e centre party could emerge is by forcing the S.D.L.P. and the ‘moderate’ unionists or parts of them, into an uneasy coalition, This is unlikely, Faulkner is faced with a Party which, although loyal to him at the moment,only in fact has 13 of its members pledged to support power-sharing, This is too weak to counter-balance the weight of Paisley and Craig, who also did better as a whole at the polls, Inevitably the Unionist Party will tend to slip towards the Loyalists rather than Faulkner, and if Faulkner is to stay he will have to move that way too. Certainly he is unlikely to be able to come to terms with the S.D.L.P. over the reorganisation of the R.U.C.

The S.D.L.P, themselves are ina dfficult Position, their electorial success has not kept the minority off the streets, The Farrell, Canavan crisis, and the recent anniversary of internment saw big and well-organised Protests, under the ,

Assembly Elections ibly Farce licans After > Elections very noses of the British Army. Fer from being docile and prepared to leave it the $.D.L.P., the minority were on the streets. The idea that the release, when it came, of the 2 P.D. hunger strikers, was the result of the S.D.L.P,’s intervention, was greeted with howls of derision. th this situation, if the S.D.L.P.

makes too close a move towards Faulkner, their credibility which took a tumble over the internment issue, will fall headiong.

The balance sheet of the Assembly seems to be an impasse. The prospects of power-sharing, nil. The Assembly has proved a rather expensive red herring. The hook Was baited, but the fish didn’t bite.

THE NEXT MOVE

The protern posed for Viestmenstar s still therefore, Sow 2 actiese tte | R_A_ from the Tenor ty wothang Mat Cae eRe oF sotegt ‘ y 7 quite likely that Whitelaw ai nd Co. will continue tw pay lip service to powersharing and the Assembly for some time to come. !t is possible that this will continue into the Spring, when, as Heath pointed out in his letest ‘pep-talk’, time runs out for the Assembly. They sill howewer be preparing for the onby mows left to them: heavy repressson agaenst the Reputvlicars and the anti-unionist Community 2s @ whole.

We are siready seeing the build-up of this, The Republicans are suffering increased harassment from the quisiings in Leinster House, Black propaganda is pumped owt faster and more thoroughly. Any emergence of » solidarity movement, or hints at the development of demands for troops out, are the targets for sabotage and conspiracy charges. In the 6 counties the British Army is stepping up its searches and security sweeps through the ghetto areas.

Once again the success or failure of this, as with the past attempts of British Imperialism to crush resistance, lies in the ability of the minority to stand together and organise their own defence.

The emergence of the Political Hostages Release Committee is an important step towards this, both in its ability to mobilise and in the way the organisations concerned, didn’t let their political differences hinder them from working together against the common enemy. pay CF ee ——¥ 4 ev *? * ‘

“SF FR

EeEN Elections never give an accurate reflection of society’s political awareness, Political consciousness is determined by a complex of material conditions and ideological traditions, A simple X on a ballot paper once in every four years is obviously nowhere near adequate to give expression to those feelings which are formulated unconsciously and by indirect pressures. Only an election system based on a yearly franchise and accompanied by the right to recall successful candidates at any time could have any hope of giving a generally correct reflection of political awareness.

Nonetheless, elections under the capitalist system present us with at least a distorted picture, and the genuine outlines of the real situation can be cautiously inferred from this. That is why for revolutionaries propaganda mongering must give way to sober assessment when it comes to discussing election results, In this light one of the most distressing results of the Local Government and Assembly elections outcome is not so much the apparent meag re showing of the Republicans but their failure to make a realistic evaluation of their election strategy. For instance, the Officials commented on the Local Government elections that “Perhaps the only political group which can regard the (Election) results with satisfaction is the Republican Clubs” (Irish People June Sth).

Although they later expressed “disappointment” after the Assembly elections (where they did no worese than in the Local Government elections) they searched for the causes not in the weakness of their own movement, but in “‘the vicious sectarian murders and sterile anti-working class activities of the Provisional Alliance”.

On the other hand, the Provos were no more willing to deal with the reality of the not relieve them of the duty to analyse why they were unable to rally any more than the hard core vanguard in the Catholic ‘ghettos’ to that correct position.

thei attitude towards the military results.

MEANING OF THE RESULTS

Perhaps the main reason why the Republican leaders have been slow to face up to the election results is that the surface picture is none too attractive. In the Assembly elections the Officials managed only 1.8% of the total vote, A revolutionary organisation in a situation Where the general population has gone through a four year period of mass struggle must surely be worried:about that kind of showing. Worse still in the “storm centre” of Belfast they got only 0.9% of the total valid poll. While if we consider only areas where they had candidates the cange to 1.4% makes little difference. In addition it must be remembered that in the second “‘storm centre of Derry, where the S.D.L.P. won three seats and the Nationalist Party won a vote bigger than that won by the Republican Clubs anywhere else, the Officials did not feel strong enough to field a candidate.

But if we examine the results more deeply the situation improves. All told, in the areas where the offficals had candidates they got 5% of the vote. And considered as a percentage of the Minority’s vote (i.e, the S.D.L.P. vote) this represents nearly 15%, It is more difficult to make even an emperical assessment of how the Provos faired.

The turn-out in both elections was quite high. But the “authorities” were much disappointed that 30% to 40% didn’t bother to vote at a time when the “fate of the North” was being decided. Naturally a great portion of this abstension resulted from general political alienation and was present on both Catholic and Protestant sides, Nonetheless in a few key areas the Provos support made itself felt. In the Catholic Ardoyne during the Local Government elections between 60%—70% of the people boycotted the polls.

For the Assembly elections the Provos changed their tactic from a boycott to a “spoiled vote” campaign..The response from the Provo supporters was obviously confused.

In West Belfast where many of the hardened Catholic “‘ghettoes” are, 5% of the Poli was spoiled while 32% of the electorate didn’t turn ” ‘out to vote at all. It was in this constituenc that the S.D.L.P. hoped to get three, and possibly, four, seats but in the event they only got one and they blamed the effectiveness of the Provos campaign for this.

What the reality behind the meagre statistics shows is that the Republicans still have a solid base in the Catholic community upon which they can build. Although the “respectable” press is gloating over the “unbelievable victory of the S_D.LP.” and gleefully sounding the death kneil of the Republican movement, strength of Republicanism. An article in The Times (London) wamed that “ it would | be a grave error to write them off comple tely, ‘and concluded mournfully that “a continuation of sectarian murders and trouble at the Orange Marches this month seem likely to lead to a Provisional revival”.

Nonetheless it should not be forgotten _ that the present situation is a deterioration on the period following internment when even the British Army was compelled to admit that the vast majority of Catholics supported the Republicans. The subsequentlossof support is due to a series of strategical mistakes committed by both wings of the Movement. In the case of the Provos the mistakes flow from the fact that their ' strategy and tactics are merely a spontanious reaction to the feeling of the Catholic masses with all their limitations and prejudices. Consequently, even after the slightest shift among the Catholics, the Provos can become rapidly isolated and just as quickly thrown back into the limelight.

With the Officials things are different.

Their growing isolation is the product, not of a spontaneous reaction in the Catholic community, but of genuine political and theoretical mistakes on their part. That is why it will be a useful contribution to raising the consciousness of the revolutionary vanguard to analyse these mistakes.

What is important about the election results is that they point the way to overcoming such mistakes. This is most evident in relation to the role of the Protestant working class. The Officials have insisted on restricting the mass agitation to purely democratic issues and issues which affect ' Catholics and Protestants as workers, so as not to alienate the Protestant workers. The election results indicate however that while the Catholic population is basically moving in a revolutionary direction, the Protestant masses are still firmly under the influence of ' Orange Unionism. Put simply what this means is that the revolutionary consciousness of the Catholic and Protestant workers is developing unevenly. The conclusion to be drawn by revolutionaries is not that the revolutionary development of the Catholics should be restrained to the level of the Protestants but that it should be lead forward so that under its pressure the consciousness of the Protestant working class can grow. That is to say, it ismecessary to have a strategy for breaking up the Unionist state by leading the Catholic community to “opt out”. It is only in a situation where the whole apparatus of Unionism has been broken down that it will be possible to break the Protestant workers from reactionary Orangism and win them to revolutionary ideas.

If the election results can bring home to the Officials the real relations between the Catholic and Protestant workers in the Irish revolution this will help them break out of the cul-de-sac they now figd themselves in wihiregard to the mass struggle. It would also help them develop a more realistic attitude to the Provos which would undoubtedly lead ' to a strengthening of the revolutionary vanguard,

PREPARING FOR THE NEXT PHASE

It is important that Republicans assimilate the lessons of the election results because the next period will be such that it will be absolutely vital for revolutionaries to present a united front and face the practical task of leading a Catholic population which will be under strong attack. Ia the next phase revolutionaries must combine a correct programme, which corresponds to the real needs of the situation (and not the subjective backward consciousness of the Protestant working class) with correct methods of struggle.

A revolutionary programme must demand immediate and full democratic rights for the oppressed Catholic community. These demands will include a call for a speedy end to internment and the release of socialist and republican prisoners. They would also include the call for EQUAL (not proportionate) opportunities in employment, xousing, and social benefits. Above all the xentral democratic demand must be the right of the Catholic masses to self-determination md Union with the rest of Ireland. A failure to put forward these demands and to fight vigorously for them will result in an inability to gain the confidence of the Catholic peoples Combined with a struggle for democratic demands must be a struggle for TRANSITION- AL demands which strike at the very basis of capitalist society itself, and which aim . to mobilise the Catholic workers as workers, thereby separating them in practice from the middle class leadership of the S.D.L.P. Among these transitional slogans should be the demand for workers control of their factories, a sharing of power without loss of pay in order to fight unemployment, (which not only — divides the Catholic and Protestant workers but also the Catholic workers thentselves), a setting up of defence squads within the factories to prevent sectarian attacks from Protestant reactionaries etc, Finally, it must not be forgotten that the next phase will develop under the impact of an attack of the Catholic communities by British imperialism backed by Loyalist reaction.

This armed resistance will be one of the most important methods of struggle from the start.

The technical preparation for this is already sufficiently well advanced. But the task of the I.R.A. units must no longer be, to function as the “armed wing” of the Republican Movement or even simply as the “army of the people”. The task of the I.R.A. if it is to advance the armed struggle is to train and prepare broad layers of ordinary people to build their own “peoples militia”. It is only the ARMED PEOPLE and not the PEOPLES ARMY which at this stage can withstand the attack of British imperialism and Loyalist reaction.

ee Theory Of Permanent Revolution MARX POINTED OUT IN THE Communist Manifesto that capitalism performs an immensely progressive task by simplifying class contradictions and opposing two great classes, the working class and the capitalist class, to each other in the struggle for the mastery of society. But this has not lead to an equally simple strategy for Marxists in the class struggle. Capitalism is not born as a finished system. It emerges only through a complex process of uneven and combined development. It becomes a generalised system only by the more advanced capitalist countries being first to break with feudalism, penetrating the more backward countries and stimulating capitalist development in them.

Thus the struggle against feudalism and which, when he eventually abandoned it, was still insisted upon by some of his followers. This school of thought objected to Plekhanov’s formalism: while the revolution would be a bourgeois revolution in the tasks it must achieve I here was no grounds for saying that the bourgeois class would lead it. In fact, because of the unique development of Russia the capitalist class was tied hand and foot to the feudal aristocracy. Moreover because of its weak position as a fostering of foreign capital, it was afraid of the Russian working class. For these reasons the Russian capitalist class would prefer to make a deal with the aristocracy than make a genuine bougeois revolution.

Their role according to Lenin, would have to be taken over by the working class and peasantry, who alone were really interested in overthrowing feudalism in order to get democratic rights and a division of the land. However Lenin did agree with Plekhanov that what would be set up, would be a capitalist state called by Lenin the DEMOCRATIC capitalism become closely interlinked.

Socialists have long debated the relationship between these two struggles.

Much can be learned about this problem from the Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese revolutions but it is the Russian Revolution because of its exceptionally high level of class consciousness and class struggle which provides us with a complete experience upon which a generalised theory could be based,

ORIGINS OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

Due to Natural historical conditions, geographical inland position and sparse population, Russia was unable to develop at the same pace as Western Europe. Russia had fallen so far behind by the Middle Ages that she was in danger of being overrun and subjugated by the Western countries. To prevent this, the feudal state was forced to encourage economic expansion. For instance, it was the feudal aristocracy which carried throuzh the emancipation of the peasantry from the legal bondage of feudalism, and it was the Czarist feudal state that attracted foreign capital to build an industrial base. By the twentieth century the most advanced forms of capitalist production were well established in feudal Russia. A structured political instablity arose out of this peculiar situation since it created new classes, the capitalist and workers, which wanted to seize the state power from the feudal aristocracy and use it to serve different economic and social ends.

Given the conflict between these various classes, it was clear to all and sundry that a revolution (i,e. a struggle for state power) must inevitably erupt.

The Russian Marxists characterised this future revolution as a Bourgeois Revolution, because they saw its basic cause as being the capitalist mode of production trying to break out of the feudal shell that encased it. The tasks of this revolution would therefore be democratic ones (ie the division of the land among the peasants, the abolition of the monarcy the achievement of the right to free speech, assembly and association etc) that would undermine feudalism.

THREE CONCEPTS OF THE RUSSIAN

REVOLUTION

While the Marxists were United on this immediate perspective, they disagreed on how it would be accomplished and what its ultimate outcome would be. On these questions there were three schools of thought. Firstly there was the Plekanov school of thought.

His school approached the matter in a very dogmatic and formal way: if the revolution is a bourgeois revolution then the capitalist class must play the leading role. The task of the labour movement was to stand to the left of the bourgeoisie and push them on. The outcome would be a Russian “Republic” like France the United States, In this new Capitalist state the new and youthful working class would grow into a majority and after many years perhaps a few generations, the socialist revolution would be put on the agenda.

Secondly there was Lenin’s original position

DICTATORSHIP OF THE PEASANTRY

AND WORKING CLASS. In a book written at an early date, devoted specifically to the subject, he wrote, “The degree of Russian economic development and the degree of class consciousness and organisation of the broad masses of the proletariat makes the immediate and complete emancipation of the working class impossible”’.

He ridiculed the idea of turning the revolution into a socialist one as an “absurd and semi-anarchist idea”. In fact at this stage he even believed that the Democratic Dictatorship would be able to give effect to the programme of the bourgeois revolution and that it would be a “future series of governments which will carry out the aim of the bourgeois revolution in general”.

It is clear that Lenin, like Plekhanov, saw an epochal difference between the bourgeois and socialist revolution. However, even on this Lenin was not as dogmatic as Plekhanov. Because he was an internationalist to the core, he saw the possibility that the Russian revolution might spark off a European revolution, so that, when the European working class came to power it would help the Russian revolutionaries overcome the back wardness of Russia and transform the country on socialist lines. Finally we come to Trotsky’s school of thought.

Like everybody else, Trotsky distinguished between the tasks of bourgeois revolution and the socialist revolution. He believed that the approaching Russian revolution would makes its appearance in the form of a bourgeois revolution. He also agreed with Lenin’s criticism of Plekhanov’s formalism, vis a vis, the role of the bourgeoise in the revolution.

But Trotsky differed from Lenin on the precise nature of the class forces which would in fact, carry out the democratic tasks, It was too vague to say merely that the working class and peasantry would accomplish them. While the working class was an essential component class of capitalist society capable of playing an independant political role, the peasantry was a left-over from feudalism — a hybrid class owning property, yet not quite capitalist; labouring, yet not quite proletarian. As such it could assert itself politically, only by supporting either the working class or the capitalist class. Trotsky argued from this that if the working class, supported by the peasantry, captured state power, to carry out the tasks of the bourgeois revolutidn, that they would form an essentially working class government — or in Marxist terms, in his collected works described the permanent revolution theses as “Trotsky’s now quite noticeable theory”. In 1919 the book where he first comprehensively outlined the theory was printed and distributed in thousands in Russia. In 1920 it was translated and published in English by the Third International. In 1922 it was republished once again in Russia and sold out so quickly that another edition had to be published the same year.

The rehabilitation of Trotskys theory in the eyes of Lenin and the Bolsheviks can be explained by only one factor — the actual Russian Revolution itself. The revolution which erupted in February 1917 swept the feudal aristocracy out of power. To fill the power vacuum, two institutions immediately appeared on the scene — the Provisional Government headed by the capitalist class, and the organs of future working class power, the soviets.

Officially the Provisional Government held power, but as Lenin and Trotsky predicted against Plekhanov, the capitalists were too closely bound to the feudal aristocracy and too afraid of the working class to carry out the tasks of bourgeois revolution. Lenin denounced the Provisional Government as “Counter-Revolutionary” but continued to repeat his old formula. The working class, lead by the revolutionaries, he declared, “can and will proceed to achieve a democratic republic”, and then to socialism.

However Lenin was still in exile at this point and by the time he got back to Russia, his views had changed. In his famous April thesis he proclaimed “It must be explained to the masses that the Soviet of Workers (i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat — ed.) is the only possible form of revolutionary government”. His change of mind provoked general consternation. The thesis received only two votes on the Central Committee and appeared in Pravda (the party paper) with a note disassociating the editorial board from it.

The other main leaders of the party, Kamenev and Zionoviev, accused Lenin of “Trotskyism” and reminded him that according to his own theory that it was necessary to establish the Democratic Republic before the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin replied to his critics with a stinging attack, He answered those who still rsisted in his abolition of religion as the illusory happiness — of the people is required for their real happiness.

The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.” (Kar! Marx:Contribution to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right).

When the anti-feudal revolution was at its height, Diderot and his fellow philosophers thought religion had been decisively beaten for ever, and would go the way of serfdom and alchemy. Science was beginning to shatter the misconceptions men had about their world and to demystify the phenomena that had puzzled old formula: “No, that formula is antiquated.

It is worthless, It is dead and all attempts to revive it will be in vain”, and he continued “one must ~ know how to adapt schemes to facts rather than repeat words regarding a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’ in general, words which have become meaningless, And how was the old formula to be ad pted to the facts? Simply by recognising that the “democratic stage” of the revolution could only take the form of dual power between the bourgeosie (The Provisional Government) on the one hand, and the working class and peasantry (the Soviets) on the other.

As such, the Democratic Dictatorship as a stable form of state power could not be realised in practice, i.e. it could not be achieved as a “pure” dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry” to quote Lenin. It was at this point that Lenin realised the significance of Trotsky’s criticisms about the nature of the peasantry. In a situation of dual power where the Government of the Capitalists and the embryonic government of the workers were engaged in a tug-ot-war for state power, the question arose: given the contradictory nature of the peasantry, which class will it support?

Lenin replied to this question that the peasantry was already going over to the bourgeoisie and subordinating the Soviets to the Provisional Government. The representatives of the peasantry and the petty-bourgeoisie in general had in fact entered a coalition government with the bourgeoisie. The Democratic Dictatorship under the conditions of dual power was to quote Lenin again “voluntarily ceding power to the bourgeoisie and voluntarily transforming itself into an appendage of the bourgeoisie”.

Those who still persisted in the old formula of the Democratic Dictatorship were allowing this tendency to develop. Lenin accused them of “having gone over to the side of the pettybourgeoisie” and having turned “against the proletarian class struggle”. The task now, said Lenin was to win the peasantry by leading the working ~ class in a decisive struggle against the bourgeoisie for the state power. i.e. for The Soviet Socialist Republic,’and so ended the theoretical differences between Lenin and Trotsky.

thought, look to a creator for their answers or for aid against an unfriendly and incomprehensible Nature, With the tools Science would provide, they could tame it for themselves, Anyone, living in a twentieth century capitalist state is well aware however, that the decline of religion, even-with the growth of scientific knowledge has been only partial, or no decline at all. In Ireland, for example, the Church, still to a great extent controls education and the moral code of the State. Why do men persist inclinging to myths and fairy tales, to an unreal, rather than real world? Is it, as the theologians constantly stress, that man has an ‘inborn religious drive’, Or is it, that reality is unpalatable; and the bitter pill of capitalism needs a sugar coating?

MANS ALIENATION

|, One of the central concepts of Marx’s thought was the theory of alienation. Put simply, the mass _ of people in a capitalist society are wage labourers.

As only a few can have the resources to own a business or factory themselves, the majority, in order to survive, have to exchange a large part of their time for what is merely enough money to ensure that they remain efficient production units.

Once the employer has bought their time, or rather ability to work, he can theoretically do what he likes with it. The wage labourer has little or no control over what he ma. kes, or does, or when he does it. This is determined by the needs of the employer. The needs of the employer, moreover, are determined by the changing conditions of the ’ market, over which the individual employer has no real control, In an unplanned economy the bourgeoisie’s god of ‘free competition’ reigns; in other words its every man for himself.

What are the immediate results?

The wage labourer, the worker, feels trapped and frustrated. His life style is dictated by the needs of the class that employs him. Even that life style is rooted in insecurity. After years of grinds and the rigours of the production line, he may find himself redundant, because of a sudden crisis in the industry he works in, The whole system fails ‘to make sense’. ; In this situation mankind has two alternatives.

He is either able to ‘make sense of’ and understand the forces he is pitted against, in which case he can change them and end his misery. Or, like the caveman fighting the weather, he can personalise and defy them. Befor ethe development of » Marxism, the proletariat had little meaningful choice. They had no tools, no science to analyse the forces that determined their life, and religion at least made some sense. The prospect of an eternal life gave some purpose, and if existence was unjust and unhappy now, there was at least ' ‘heaven’, where ail wrongs would be redressed.

Indeed they were encouraged to feel that they would benefit more, in the long run, because of their sufferings. God, the omnipotent symbol of the market forces, they couldn’t understand, was ‘working his purpose out’, behind the chaos and contradictions. There had to be some plan, n couldn't quite graps, that manipulated him.

they would establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore he concluded that the central strategic slogan under which the struggle for the democratic tasks would have to be fought, was for a Soviet Government.

THE EXPERIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN

REVOLUTION

These were the three major interpretations of the dynamics which would determine the outcome of the Russian revolution, For two decades Russian Marxists argued bitterly about them.

This bitterness was particularly evident between Trotsky and Lenin. In 1915 Lenin described Trotsky’s theory as a beautiful drearn which had been bypassed by reality. Yet in 1920 a footnote

The wave of industrial unrest which was spreading tacles throughout all parts of Britain and i , was polarised in the city of Dublin in the summer of 1913. Under the magnetic leadership of “Big Jim Larkin”, the 1TGWU was organising the workers to make such demands as better wages, shorter working hours, but most important of all, the right “TO COMBINE”, This new union was presenting a much greater threat to the Dublin capitalists than they had experienced before, with the result that they formed an Employers’ Federation to protect their interests — they had a lot to defend!

William Martin Murphy, who had interests in the Irish Independent and Dublin Tramways among others, immediately launched an offensive calculated to cut the union at its roots.

On August 1913, the called a meeting of his workers in the newspaper's desptach department and issued an ultimatum banning the union and requesting all workers to sign a declaration of loyalty — i.e that they would not strike. He used a similar tactic with the drivers and conductors of the trams, | TGWU promptly declared Murphy's newspapers ‘black’ and this was followed by the workers in Eason’s refusing to handle ‘tainted goods’.

Murphy retaliated by locking his men out.

BLOODY SUNDAY

Initiating a wave of sympathy and solidarity, the tramwey workers came out on strike a week later, during the Horse-Show week.

The next move came from the employers, 3,400 of whom agreed to a general lock-out with a policy of starving the workers into submission, Towards the end of September, some 25,000 Dublin workers were affected and meanwhile, a warrant had been issued for Larkin’s arrest, along with other leading trade unionists, on the charges of “seditious conspiracy’. The next repressive measure taken by the government ( who typically aligned themselves with the employers) was to ban an important meeting to be held the next Sunday in Sackville Street (O'Connell Street). However, the militancy of the workers had gone beyond - ‘law and order’, and thousands of men, women and children gathered outside the Imperial Hotel, on what was to be the first “Bloody Sunday” in trish history. After a brief and surpraang appeerarce Larkin was arrested. The police, who had foreaed lews

MAI

Naturally, this philosophy of ‘pie-in-the-Sky’, and an ultimate foreordained purpose, was fostered and built up by the bourgeoisie. Any idea that encouraged the concept that the bourgeois state is preordained and unchangeable would of course appeal to thern. Many humns of all sects, written after the industrial revolution reflect this, e.g: “The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, He made them proud and lowly, He ordered their estate’.

ROLE OF THE CHURCH AND

MARXISM

The church as an institution, of course has never been neutral in the class struggle. A look at the role of the church in our history and its ambigious attitude towards the National Independence struggle, makes this clear, Its present role in maintaining “‘law and order’’ supporting them as god-ordained rather than man-made merely confirms this. By cushioning these institutions they safe-guard the bourgeois state itself. It is precisely this counter-revolutionary role played by the institution of the Church, that | +; encouraged currents in the Socialist Movement to advocate the forcible destruction of religion.

Stalin's attempt at state-enforced atheism is a gocd example, because it shows very clearly the dange:

XISM

AND

RELIGON

60th Anniversary (Part1) . «<% all along the thoroughfare, fell on the crowd in a ferocious attack, batoning indiscriminately: approximately 400 persons were wryured, having been unmercifully eater, Anc Cyese events topetter arth the 4 Geaths of ONO een and 2 mOman Guring the However, it’s worth considering that serious revolutionaries and Marxist theoreticians from Marx and Engels onwards have fought against this tendency. Both in Anti-Durhing (Engels) and in a critique of the Gotha Programme (Marx) they showed that revolutionaries present an answer to the root cause of religion. Once the basic need for religion has been eliminated, with the destruction of the bourgeois state, religion itself will wither and die, as did magic once its need was past, Any attempt to speed up this withering process, by trying to wipe out religion by force, they stressed will merely proiong the agony. Persecution has never defeated any cause; it merely gives it more importance. For Marxism has nothing to fear from religion, rather the reverse. By giving man the tools he needs to understand the capitalist system and its contradictions, Marxism supercedes religion and religion in its turn becomes meaningless.

This, of course does not absolve revolutionaries from fighting a constant propaganda war now; by exposing the role the Church pla, s and showing what religion means. We should call for a separation of church and state and for the freeing of educatio and the social services from church influence.

But, as with male chauvinism, and racism, our attack is principally aimed at their reason for existence, the capitalist system itself. Once the revolution has been fought and won we can then discuss philosophy, Then, indeed, religion and 1913 Fos previous week, presented an image “that burned into the minds of those who saw, or heard details of, the atrocity. And the details went far and wide”. If the “Bloody Sunday” massacre strengthened the workers’ resistance, it atso had the effect of making the employers e

PLOUGH

Published by the Revolutionary Marxist Group, Irish supporters of the Fourth International.

PLOUGH BOOK SERVICE

Books include: Introduction to Logic of Marxism: George Novack Price £0.62% Introduction to Marxist Economics: Ernest Mandel Price £0.37% What is Trotskyism?: Ernest Mandel Price £0.10 58, North Great Charles Street, Dublin.

Genesis of = Trotskyism . the first ten years ws the Left Opposition more resolved than ever in their policy of starving the workers, in spiteof ~ widespread attacks from the Liberal Press,

BRITISH T.U.C.: FROM SUPPORT

TO BETRAYAL

Connolly, who had returned from his work in organising the workers in Belfast, was also arrested. William O'Brien and P.T. Daly took the lead, A delegation was sent to Manchester, where the British T.U.C. were holding their Annual Congress, They condemned the Dublin employers and their collaborators in Westminster and Dublin Castle. They expressed their support of the struggle by providing ship-loads of food and raising £93,327 for the locked-out men. They also sent a delegation to Dublin, tried to negotiate with the employers, but to no avail. Meanwhile, Connolly had been released from jail after an 8-day hunger strike, and Larkin who had been sentenced to 7 munths was also allowed to go free, when the Liberal Government in Britain received an electoral knock in a’ by-election. in November, Larkin, accompanied by Connolly, embarked on another campaign in Britain, but this time, the T.U.C. bureaucrats, who saw that Larkin was inspiring the British workers into action, put on the brakes. Larkin was accused of being an IRRESPONSIBLE AGITATOR. He retaliated by attacking them bitterly. However, this did not prevent the rank and file who were intense in their sympathy with the Dublin workers, from taking some action on their own, but they were biocked by the bureaucrats; the officials, at their best, never thought in anything higher than ‘bread-stuff’.

The workers remained strong in their resistance, but gradually, as the influx of food and money dwindled, it proved impossible to continue. The struggle lasted eight months, but the death knell was sounded when in February, 1914, the Builders’ union agreed to return their men with the stipulation that they have nothing to do with the ITGWU.

Pretty soon, workers who could recover their former jobs went back, apparently having made little gain, other than the knowledge that those autocrats of Dublin could not afford a frontal attack on trade unionism again, for it would only produce = solidarity which they dreaded.

Intercontinental Press ; P.O. Box 116, Village Station New York, NY 10014 Name Address City é ‘State iamay 41° eit te ie ad Ope antidote to the les the ét | ) Enclosed is 37.50 for six monte, { i Enclosed is $15 for one year, ; “MARXIST REVIEW Be Theoretical Journal af the RUG.

No.3 | ‘Towards a Leninist Party!

hy eS ‘coce-camantiney netics DormConnaty and the Rebotutionary | oipigtarmamee sine . Parry. . ‘ coma so0n ‘Guerrilla Warfare’ AVAILABLE FROM: 38 clammy fsa, No. 4

“REVOLUTIONARY

the Fourth International} _ 38 Clanawly Road,

ZDUBLING

_ | would like more intormation about the RMG* =a and its activities, ' NAME. qvaccanccevocepecccnssconstioosarenenbtapsandntetahses by Max Shachtman with an introduction by fF ~ Tariq Ali of analysing any phenomenon at face value. They see the role of the Church, but not the real need religion represents. ADORESS ssonseeteccnerseebscecateeversnsesucsosenntiags 5 is ty Fea » ch materialism can be evaluated at their true worth.

, 2 seososnecscaceesesesses renee seecasconsevesueedensncsenstooniecens % i 4 ee ee Bit Sages ees

re Wie? “, The International Of Repression After May and June ‘68 in France, instead of seeing a general setback of revolutionary movements on a European scale, the class struggle sharpened, the militancy of the youth, of the workers’ struggles has been increased, throwing into the battle new layers of society: women, soldiers, white collar workers, secondary school students, small farmers, etc.

This struggle has not been limited within the French borders: Italy in 1969, Spain in 1970, Britain, Denmark, Belgium, lreland have experienced the generalization of such struggles. In this context the bourgeoisie was’ unable to impose its solutions. Moreover, because of the sharpening economic crisis of capitalism, the conditions required to buy off the working class, as was done after the Second World War thanks to the economic boom, are not present to-day. Therefore, against the increasing militancy of the working class and of its vanguard, the European bourgeoisie must intensify repression; as it cannot attack the working-class movement as a whole, frontally, it operates a selective repression aiming at emasculating this class.

LEGAL REPRESSION

Firstly, the bourgeoisie uses all weapons that it can find in the context of the bourgeois ‘Parliamentary Democracy”. Under different pretexts, new laws are forged, obsolete laws are used, in order to crush the revolutionary movement and the advanced sectors of the proletariat. So we see the introduction of the ‘’Anti-Wrecker Law” in France in 1970, under which the General-Secretary of the LIGUE COMMUNISTE, Alain KRIVINE, has now been charged. The aftermath of the BAADER- MEINHOF affair and the MUNICH ‘coup’ brought further repressive laws in Germany, aliowing the ban of the KPD (Maoist party) and of Edited and translated from “*ROUGE’ (Weekly of Communist Action) August !Uth, 1973 The electién in March *73, the youth mobilizations, the development of workers’ struggles, have shown a qualitative change in the political situation in France.

Facing the electoral gains of the Union of the Left (1), the government must find a long-term solugion to the crisis of ‘Gaullism without De Gaulle’, a new form of political domination, Several projects tend towards an open presidential regime based on a strong conservative party. But in the meantime, the bourgeoisie must face an increasing polarization of the class struggle and of the working class political forces. In this context, the intervention of the lar-Left and of the revolutionary Marxists in particular, can have a political outcome which goes far beyond their Demonstrators break down doors at New Order headquarters, ter The Banning Of The Ligue Palestinian Students’ Unions; in Sweden, an anti- Subversive Bill has been passed recently in the Parliament. In Ireland, apart from the Special Powers Act in the North, in December last year, after the planting of bombs in Dublin by the British ‘SAS, the Dail passed the Offences Against the State Amendment Act, primarily against the IRA, but which can be used against all Republicans, Socialists, Trade-Union militants, More recently, in Britain, in the SHREWSBURY case, workers were charged under ‘Conspiracy Laws’ from the last Century for striking. The ban of organizations such as the French ‘PROLETARIAN LEFT’ (Maoist), the ETA (Basque Liberation Front) in France, preceding the ban of the LIGUE COMMUNISTE, of the KPD in Germany, of the IRA have become common rule.

To-day, the EEC is extending, circulation of capital in any part of Europe is free for the international Bourgeoisie; however the circulation of ideas is restricted, Rudi DUTSCHKE was deported from Britain, leading members of the Fourth International Tariq ALI, Livio MAITAN, Joe HANSEN cannot go to France, the Marxist economist Ernest MANDEL is banned from the USA, France, Switzerland, Austria, Germany . . . Malachy MAC GURRAN from the Official Republican Movement was recently deported from one part of the United Kingdom to another: i.e. from England to Northern Ireland which technically according to British law belongs to the United Kingdom...

When the International ruling-class operates a type of selective repression, if possible it aims at striking the whole working-class. One of the favourite tactics chosen after the late Sixties, was to infiltrate Ultra- Left groups, to push them into frontal attacks on the state, through bombings, kidnappings, ete.

in order to give a justification to extend the repression The WEATHERMEN in the States, the FREE WELSH ARMY, the BAADER-MEINHOF Band in Germany, the RED ARMY FACTION in Japan, the ANGRY BRIGADE in Britain, the PEOPLE'S RESISTANCE in France, SAOR EIRE in Ireland were stuffed with police provocateurs stimulating these groups to carry out terrorist actions. That is not to say that Terrorism must be condemned in principle, but for Marxists these are merely tactics, which can be used by revolutionary organisations only when linked with the mass struggle, when even minority actions acquire an educative role for the class of the oppressed minority. In this sense we support in political terms the revolutionary tactics carried out by the IRA in Ireland, our comrades of the ERP in Argentine, the ETA in Spain, for in these cases, linked with mass mobilizations, armed Struggle allows national or class struggles to reach a heghes tewet. What must be pointed out is the fact that the international and European bourgeoisie have been capable of learning the lessons of May and June 1968 extremely rapidly. In Spain, in spite of a tong tradition of brutal repression, the repressive apparatus lately has been unable to face the workers’ struggles whose militancy is a successful challenge to the dictatorship; therefore, new methods have been adopted, “political special brigades’’ have been set up, CS gas and rubber bullets are used. In Britain the ordinary ‘Bobbies’ are not as efficient as their European counterparts, because they are unarmed.

As HEATH cannot yet sent the army against the working-class, he reinforced the ‘Special Patrol Groups’ created, o irony! by WILSON in 1965...

these Brigades became famous when assassinating actual forces and possibilities, as was shown during the youth mobilizations or certain workers’ 3 struggles locally or nationally, The rise of the Union of the Left and the reduction of the strength of the UDR (2) among the bourgeois majority, push the military-police ‘Right’ of Gaullism to count upon the Fascist lot of private bands to oppose the accentuation of the class-radicalization. This ‘Right’ pretends to offer a solution for the bourgeoisie which is hopeless actually because of the very strength of the working-class movement this has been illustrated by the reactions against the ban of the Ligue Communiste on the one hand, and on the other the fact that the Interior Minister, Marcellin, has been disavowed by one important fraction of the bourgeoisie. Whatever the political solution the bourgeoisie finds to solve its crisis, the rise, ot workers’ struggles, the outflanking of the reformist bureaucrats, oblige the bourgeoisie to extend a selective type of refression: not only smashing the revolutionary vanguard in process of construction, but also integrating the majority of the working-class in the framework of class collaboration, It is of the utmost importance to stress the failure of direct repression against the working-class since the strikes such as in EGF, ; Le Joint Francais, Fos, Peugeot, and actually Lip (3) In each case, the immediate effect was for the workers to ‘stick together’ and to increase their militancy. The failures recorded n several occasions came rather from the capitulationist policy of the reformist leaderships facing the management (e.g. the strike of the Skilled Workers (OS) in the Renault Plant, the EGE strike in 1969, the strike of the tube conductors). Very often, on the basis of the defeat of the movement the demands of which were not met, the management proposed in the following months ‘class collaboration contracts’, trying to prove that only negotiations, but not struggles, were successful.

Likewise, the first draconian measures taken by the re-elected government have been two Pakistani workers in London.

Moreover, as proved by the pamphlet ’’IN DEFENCE OF PEACE”, it is clear that the Conservative government, is preparing for Civil War, supporting the theories of Brigadier KITSON . _ For that purpose, Northern Ireland, as is well-known, has become an experimental field, a laboratory for Civil War not only in Britain, but in Europe as a whole. The setting-up of the. SAS, the improvement of material, CR gas, new rifles, ' infra-red night sights - , are the most obvious examples, ‘ To ice the cake, six months aga, a congress of all European GHQs took place in London with Frank KITSON lecturing on URBAN GUERRILLA and COUNTER INSURGENCY.

EXTRA — LEGAL REPRESSION

But apart from the reinfdrcement of ‘the legal, military, police repressive apparatus, the European bourgeoisie violating its own legality; uses more and more frequently, para-military bands, Fascist Groups, encouraging them provided they are not independent enough to come into conflict with their government. The example of the growth of the MS!

of Giorgio ALMIRANTE with his 25 deputies in the ttalian parliament becomes dangerous even for one wing of the bourgeoisie, Such is not the case in | France, fof example, where the Fascist groups are disciplined enough to attack strikers, revolutionary militants, in open colusion with the government The example of the June 21st meeting organised by ORDRE NOUVEAU (New Order) protected by the police against anti-fascist demonstrators is a blatant example. The fact that Pompidou banned ORDRE NOUVEAU bears no significance, except throwing @ smoke-screen to confuse public opinion; @S a matter of face, the Fascists have not been harassed by the police. In France too, unofficial police bands co-exist as armed shock troops with the Police against strikers, revolutionaries etc.

(CDR, SAC). A more striking fact, is the generalisation of armed private militias within the factories. It is worth remembering the murder of the Maoist militant Rene-Pierre OVERNEY, when he was selling papers at the Renault factory gate last year,

OPPOSE THE INTERNATIONAL OF

CAPITAL

From all these facts it is clear that the International capitalist class, especially in Europe, has a very sharp sense of international solidarity; for the time being seeabaenaniinaaaenatntin the agenda in the next sacle, It is with this perspective that the ruling class is arming itself, preparing for Civil War; in this framework it cannot tolerage revolutionary organisations which, like’ the Fourth International, prepare the working-class for this clash by propagandizing around demands such as WORKERS ‘SELF-DEFENCE! and the SETTING UP OF PEOPLE'S MILITIAS, and in the meantime take the responsibility to initiate propagandist and educative actions like the demonstration in Paris against the Fascists, fully understanding that only mass struggle can get rid of Fascist bands, that only the working-class can effectively oppose the military, repressive measures of the European Bourgeoisie.

immediately challenged by hundreds of thousands of youth in the streets, and exemplary strikes in some cases bringing about workers’ control situations. All this shows that the government cannot make an evolution towards a military/state regime without a central confrontation with the workingclass movement. Nonetheless, the policial crisis favours the aut. onomy of private para-military bands which will fight wjth much intensity as the crisis sharpens and, moreover, in the hypothesis of arelectoral victory of the left.

WHAT WAS TO BE DONE?

It is in this context that the meeting of ‘New Order’ (4) took place on June 21st. This meeting was different from the previous ones, some of which had been banned in the past bv the government itself. First it concretised the fact that ““New Order” was becoming tougher, leaving in the background the democratic movement it tried to acquire! » Secondly, because its campaign was timed just after the first important struggles of immigrant workers and therefore was a test against the working-class as a whole; this campaign had a great importance considering the place taken by racialism in any neo-fascist ideology. Finally, the protection offered by the government to New Order as well as other fascist bands was.extended, The idea was to develop a controlled Far-Right capable 'to oppose revolutionary implantation among secondary-school students or to hold a sufficient role to justity an arbitrary intervention from the regime.

Nationally and internationally several analyses have been made about the anti-fascist mobilization on June 21st. We can exclude first the essentially reformist objection, that the event was a pure police provocation, That the government has tried to use the demonstration for its own purposes is certain; the system of protection given to the Fascists prove that; it is likely that the regime at least wanted to strike the Ligue Communiste, if not to ban it, because of its increasing role in the recent struggles.

But the fact that Mercellin took this opportunity proves by no means that it was necessary to renounce demonstrating. This raises only the question as to how best to counteract the effects of provocation, In the framework of selective repression, being unable to attack directly. all the working-class, and as aiming at beheading the The advice given by TROTSKY in the Thirties remains vatid: ‘Fascism finds unconscious helpers in all those who say that the ‘‘physical struggle” is impermissible or hopeless, and demand of DOUMERGUE the disarmament of his Fascist guard. Nothing is so dangerous for the proletariat, especially in the present situation; than the sugared poison of false hopes. Nothing increases he workers’ organisations, Nothing Sarers the confidence of the middle classes in the working class as temporizing, passivity and the absence of the will to struggle.”’ This is the reason why the Ligue Communiste has been banned in France. Already, by their support, numerous organizations have shown that they have understood the danger of the trend towards strong states in Europe. This campaign of solidarity has been extended throughout the world, Ireland has a tragic experience of oppression and it makes more sense for its working-class and its organisations _ to stand firmly behind the French revolutionaries.

This is not only a matter of proletarian . internationalism but more simply of legitimate defence. vanguard, the government had the Ligue under close watch. The reasons are numerous: Its leadership in the youth mobilization, the anti-army campaign, its Indo-China solidarity campaign, support to-the West Indian revolutionaries, to the Basque militants of the ETA, certain decisive strikes, and of course the fact that it belonged to the Fourth International. That is why the ban o: the Ligue Communistenad not of all the Far-Left, meant for the bourgeoisie a decisive blow against the revolutionary vanguard, and a test for all the working-class movement. A aise ti opening the doors for further attacks, Certain Revolutionary organisations have considered the initiative of the 21st June as an ultra-left mistake, considering the relationship of forces, the absence of traditional organisations of the working-class, the minority character of the confrontation with the state apparatus, forces, These explanations seek an alibi for their own passivity hiding themselves behind the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, the CGT the CF DT, etc, To judge an anti-Fascist initiative what must be considered is not only its ‘violent’ or ‘minority’ character, but its understanding by the advanced elements of the working-class and its liaison with a methodical anti-fascist propaganda, Was the 21st June counter-demonstration understandalbe for the advanced workers? Did it lead to an isolation of the vanguard? Thesé are the real issues, In fact if a critical balance-sheet of the counter-demonstration is necessary, this does not concern the principle of the initiative but rather the weakness of its political preparation, The event has shown, crudely, a political backwardness of the I'ar-Left to understand the perspectives opened after the March election, the immediate tasks it implies and the means which must be used. Only this way of handling the question helps towards understanding the absence of.a centralized and vigorous reply to the problems of WORKERS’ SELF-DEFENCE’ posed concretely by the development of social conflicts, and the importance of the political and social movement of protest against the ban of the Ligue Communiste.

NOTES:

_ (1) Union of the Left: electoral alliance of the French Communist Party, the Socialist Party and the Left-Radicals.

The Fall S) Fay The Armed Childean masses Just before the Plough went to press we received the mews that Chile's left social democratic Unidad Popular (Popular Unity) coalition government had been overthrown by a right-wing military coup, and that President Allende had committed suicide rather than let himself be captured. Chile was said to be 2 testing ground for the reformist concept thet certain ‘favoured’ countries could be changed from @ capitalist society to a socialist one by purely @ectoral and parliamentary methods without the mecessity of a civil wer. T hat this test has failed is undenisdie. We in Ireland can do littie 10 affect es course of events in Chile, but ot least we can Sea Some eae eens oO Oe age ler Se Se see Sokarmeres seem a8 or In 1944 at Bretton Woods a new international monetary system was established to facilitate world trade, the whole edifice being structured” around the dollar, whose task was to act as the international reserve currency. This meant that the dollar would be used to settle debts between governments, and debts incurred during normal business transactions. The old system, the gold standard, under which debts had to be paid with gold was found by traumatic experiences (the inter-war depressions) to hinder world trade.

Under the new order of things, the dollar was to be backed by gold and could be exchanged for gold at an official rate of $35 per ounce. But because the dollar ‘was as good as gold’ debts were to be paid with this paper money. The dollar was chosen for this role for the following reasons: 1, America was the only country to emerge from the Second World War in a stronger economic position than when it went in, all the other warring countries had been weakened. . America had accumulated vast gold reserves.

. The productive capacity of American Industry was head and shoulders above the rest.

THE SYSTEM IS JAMMED

This system worked tairly smoothly for a decade but it soon started to trip over its own laces. The basic pitfall of the dollar was that it acted as an international currency and at the same time was the national currency of a strong imperialist bourgeoisie. These two functions of the dollar came into contradiction with each other.

For international trade a ‘stable’ dollar is required i.e. if it does depreciate in value then it should do so at a slower rate relative to other currencies. A dollar which is rapidly losing its value obviously can put a brake on world trade. Businesses and banks will be reluctant to extend credit, which is necessary for a flourishing international trade, if the creditors are losing their profits through inflation. Only. the debtors would gain. On the other hand the interests of the American economy dictate. a ‘flexible’ dollar. Since the war recessions have been prevented from degenerating into a 1929 Ww rN would have defended Allende had he let them Of IT Pe ee a "> é Pee P Parties. The U.P.’s victory was seen to vindicate “the peaceful road to socialism” theory that is central to the political programme of the Moscow orientated C,P.'s. The fact that the Chilean C.P, __ was one of the main participants in the coalition and the C.P, adheres to Moscow/’s line on peaceful co-existence with capitalist countries explains why the U.P. received an enthusiastic seal of approval from Moscow. But whet has happened in Chile since then 4a: merely confirmed the opinion of those revolutionary socisiists who from the very start stated thet such 2 ODO aes Mee anc ~oOractca wher faced eth wart Carly taty Wer Demswe oe face Of liné Of The Dolla style depression by Keynesian economic policies, Government have had to inject into the economy vast amounts of money in order to maintain a high level of purchasing capacity and thus keeping the economy buoyant. State expenditure ¢.g. On armanents, induces inflation, which is unavoidable if the wolves of depression are to be kept from the door.

This ‘deficit spending’ as it is called, requires a flexible dollar, i.e. one that is constantly losing its value through inflation. Therefore the inflationary policies of the Washington administration undermines the dollar’s role as an international currency.

Another contributory factor to the crisis of the dollar has been the massive deficit in America’s balance of payments which has caused a drain on her gold reserves. Her position as the dominant imperialist power and world’s policeman has resulted in a considerable outflow of dollar’s from the U.S. This outflow is caused by (a) military bases overseas (b) military engagement in Indochina (c) the propping up of reactionary regimes through aid programmes (Greece, Indonesia etc.) (d) overseas investment. While on one hand this indicates the strength of American Imperialism, the overall effect has been to weaken further the dollar.

Because of this dollar outflow foreign ‘ governments had accumulated large amounts ' of paper dollars whose value was constantly being undercut by inflation. So naturally * ‘beneficial to the working masses, Chile remained essentially a Bourgeois State. Most of the tactories owned by the Chilean capitalist were left ur-nationalised. The apparatus of the bourgeoisie, — the military, the police force, the civil service etc.

were not restructured or replaced by institutions whose loyalties would be towards the working class.

For instance no peoples militia were set-up by the U.P. to guard against counter-revolution, the Army: being thought to be ingrained with a sense of duty to whatever government that was in power.

Of course such an attitude is nonsense for it takes more than a change of personnel in the Ministry of Defence to change an army originally set-up to defend capitalist property into a Model Red Army!

The bourgeois state machinery has to be completely smashed and replaced by a proletarian state structure based on democratically elected workers councils. If the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not firmly established then the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie will reassert itself by the most brutal methods. Less than two weeks before the coup Allende made a speech in which he said that the military was loyal to his government and he told the working class that they could place their thrust in the Armed Forces. Their latest display of “loyalty” drove him to commit suicide. By not expropriating the capitalist class Allende sowed the seeds of his own destruction. They still retained their economic power, and they used their power to conduct a definite campaign of sabotage against the U.P.’s policies. The methods used have included cutting back industrial investment, transferring capital out of the country, hoarding commodities; with the result that the economy was in a bad shape with inflation spiralling ever upwards and food queues being the order of the day. Such a strategy was designed to create economic havoc and thus discredit “socialism” in the eys of the petty-bourgeois layers and the least conscious sectors of the workers. Also it enabled the Christian Democrats (the main bourgeois parliamentary opposition party) to have pressurised Allende into making concession to the right-wing and watering Gown what socialist policies the U.P. did have.

This campaign by the reactionary forces to wear Gown the morale of the U.P. and the working ciass was highly successful. The middie classes had been modding im street Gemonstrations against Allende im the pest year and the workers were becoming mcresmngly Gisorsentated.

The lorry owners strike, which for the last two months had literally paralysed Chile, wes the final sone B779431" Waster - these governments started to exchange their, dollars for the more reliable gold, thereby reducing America’s gold reserves which resulted in a still further decline in the dollars credibility. This vicious circle was in no way helped by the fact that America’s balance of trade was in the red to the tune of 2 billion dollars in 1971, the first American trade deficit for this century (the trade balance is the differehce ‘between the export and import of goods and is to be distinguished from ‘balance of payments’ which is the difference between the export and import of not only commodities but also includes overseas -military expenditure, foreign aid, banking services. maritime insurance-etc.)

" This trade deficit reflects the growing economic strength of the Common Market countries and Japan vis-a-vis the United — States. To combat the trade deficit Nixon has devalued the dollar twice in the last two years, an 11% devaluation in 1971 and 10% one earlier this year. (Devaluation . cheapens a country’s exports and at the same time increases the cost of foreign — imports). These two broadsides in the.trade war, while being of assistance to the American capitalists, have logically given the dollar’s credibility as an international | currency & hard knock.

AGONIZING DOLLAR

Nixou could stabilize the dollar by slashing to the bone publit expenditure, ‘ and cutting off military and civil aid to U.P, couidn’t deal with the crisis the weakness of the government became clear, inflation was raging and the black market was flourishing. This inability to govern from a position of strength and his numerous concessions to the right encouraged the petty-bourgeoisie in its hostility to the U.P. while at the same time demoralising the workers. The time was considered ripe for the counter-revolution and the blow was struck.

Until recently the working masses had been combatative enough and resilliant enough to leave the outcome of a civil war very much in doubt for the ruling class. Now however they are confident that if a civil war does break out they will be able to crush the people’s resistance, The only way that the workers could have reversed the right-wing trend that was developing over the last year was to have taken the initiative.and organised workers defence militias on a nation-wide basis. Also popular workers assemblies based on the factories and work-places should hve been set-up to co-ordinate the struggles of the proletariat and peasantry. Such a course of action would have checked the counter-revolutionary forces and given the workers a fighting chance in defeating militarily the bourgeoisie when the battle lines were drawn.

Unfortunately the Chilean C.P., by virtue of its reformist policies, had been totally opposed to such a perspective. With the result that the armed forces were able to stage their coup virtually unopposed. Whatever happens in Chile . during the next period the future looks very dismal for the Chilean masses. corrupt neo-colonial regimes in Asia and Latin America. But the only outcome of this course would be a severe depression at home, which the American working class wouldn’t take lying down, and at the ‘Same time making the Third World more vulnerable to revolutionary upsurges.

Such a thorough going anti-inflationary policy would entail great risks for American and.world capitalism and it is therefore a course of action very unlikely to be adopted. Recessions nowadays can only be stopped by increasing amounts of inflation but this means a very unstable dollar and an unreliable international currency, thus threatening world trade. The basic contradiction of the dollar (stable verses flexible dollar) is becoming evermore glaring and it is this contradiction which has world capitalism by the throat.

CONTD. FROM P2

was agreed on by a two-thirds majority — pending ‘further negotiations’ to be launched by the Trade Unions.

It must be stressed tnat it was the lack of democracy within the Trade Union that led to the temporary defeat of the Cadbury Strikers. The Shop-Stewards who openly refused to represent the girls, do not represent any section of the factory adequately.

Only 10% of the factory out of 1600participated in the elections of the stewards at the A.G.M. and only-an average of 16 workers attended at the monthly meetings in the factory. The fight for democracy must begin now on the shop-floor. Refusal to represent the workers demands is a serious rejection and denial of workers democracy. The stewards who react in this way must be relieved of their position by the workers, who must go ahead and elect their alternative steward. They must refuse to acknowledge the authority of the undemocratic steward and fight for the’ Right of Recall and systematic annual , election of the stewards.

Few liberation groups in the Western world have been given the opportunity that faces | the Women’s movement in Ireland. This opportunity exists in the form of the Report on the Status of Women. Objectively a lever with which to bring life to the Movement, the report will soon be discarded and shelved by the Trade Union bureaucrats and politicians. Containing 49 proposals on the position of Women in Irish society, the report actually compiled mainly by representatives of the status quo, presents a very great challenge to the movements of radical women. But we must first ask the question — How can these women meet this challenge? We must answer the question — Why is it such a challenge?

THE REPORT: ITS WEAKNESS

ANDITS STRENGTH

A growing radicalisation of women throughout Europe, especially in Ireland has caused the capitalist class concern. Faced with a growing crisis of the Irish economy, the successive governments have had to take seriously, the question of women’s status within the framework of the Common Market, the contraction and expansion of industry in certain areas has already become quite apparent. Light consumer manufacture is increasingly the area where industry is expanding. Women mainly provide the labour-power in these industries and will be required to do so for the next period. But the status of these women will have to be rationalised. That is to say, certain concessions will have to be made, in order to make greater profit. If women are the mainstay of the family, which is in effect, an area of omens Struggle reproduction of human labour-power, to implement all the proposals would negate the .

advantages for the capitalist class. So to actually carry out the proposals would be =gainst the interests of the status quo, ie. the capitalist class. Therefore, the womens movement must recognise that while the Report exists on paper, it is an absolute certainty, that nothing or very little will be, or indeed can be done with it — by the capitalist class, However, the Report can do much for the womens movement. That is, if the movement recognises for itself, the contradiction between the Report and the possibility of its implementation; if it recognises the opportunity, this contradiction can present to our efforts to build the movement. Radical women in the movement, recognise and understand the oppression of women and why it is necessary to struggle. This Report is a practical example and presents real concrete opportunities.

UNITY CAN BE STRENGTH

For all the diverse elements in the womens movement, the report presents a solid base on ‘which to unite. From the experience of other womens liberation movements, we can learn many lessons. Such movements have built their organisations around campaigns for basic human and civil rights, some of which automaticdlly call into question the role of all state institutions concerning the position of the female sex. But without unity (on a principled basis) the womens movement in Ireland is and will remain tremendously weak and will fail to expand, The Fownes Street organisation, consisting of several founder members of the original group has yet to realise this.

Continuing to centre themselves on consciousness-raising meetings and around their journal (which is very lacking in an actual perspective) will not do anything to raise the consciousness of women outside the movement or draw women into the movement to any great extent. Women will be attracted to a movement that involves itself in the struggle for liberation, The Irish Womens Liberation Movement The Women’s Lib Movement in Ireland emerge around the time the struggle in Northern Ireland came to the surface and was gaining impetus. No doubt it was influenced in part by similar movements in great Britain and in the U.S.A., which in turn (particularly the U.S.

movement) grew out of the increasing radicalisation of youth around the issue of the war in Vietnam. However, another reason may have been that with a “United Ireland” once more becoming the real issue rather than an empty campaign slogan, the position of the State and the Church regarding the question of contraception and divorce was brought to the fore. It was obvious that should Northern Ireland become part of the Republic, changes in the alw on these matters would have to be considered.

THE BEGINNINGS

The movement in Ireland originated in what was called the “‘Founders Group”, a small group of radical feminists who campaigned on issues such as equal pay, legalised contraception, etc. Their first meeting which was held in the Mansion House attracted approximately 1,000 women, both middle and working-class and small cells were formed in housing estates in Ballymun, Ballyfermot and other areas. However, enthusiasm waned due to the lack of clear analysis of their position, the absence of which led to confusion regarding the strategy which should be adopted.

The nature of the group had changed so radically that the original members broke away as did most workingclass women, but no other group was formed. Many women equate bureaucracy with male dominance and felt the leadership to be too dictatorial. They wanted to avoid the pitfalls of existing groups and subsequently tried to find other forms of organisation which would give _their sisters encouragement to develop self- ‘confidence and self-determinaton. This feeling also prevails in the Women’s Li groups in other countries and as Sheila Rowbo: -1m pointed out in “Women’s Lib and the New t-elitics”, it is “the struggle against the assumption that men make and define the world, whether it be capitalist or socialist’. Consciousness-raising groups seemed to provide the answer not having leaders, executives, agendas etc, but consisting of a small group of women exchanging personal experiences and advices on how to handle their oppression.

Unfortunately, this resulted in aimless discussions and the women became disillusioned very quickly» d which can be seen in the high turnover of the group. In fact, their position tended to be highly individualist, One example of the reformist trend, that is to say, attempting to find solutions within the framework of the capitalist society, can be seen in their issue Vol. 1 No. 5 of the magazine ‘“‘FOWNES STREET”, in an article on prostitution entitled “Our Sisters of the Streets”.

Having discussed the background of prostitution in general historical terms, they came up with two solutions — “That they (prostitutes) should be cherished equally with the other children of the nation and not harrassed and ostracised from the community”. Or they recommend a retraining programme to rehabilitate them into society.

Both these statements, however, avoid the realities that lie behind prostitution. For with the prospect sof having to earn a living in the most, menial and underpaid jobs, as an alternative, it is understandable that prostitutes would choose that which is relatively more remunerative. Just as a man must sell his labour-fource to the modern industrialist, and so becomes a commodity, so a prostitute sells her body, the end result being the “ultimate Sex Object”.

Another part of their programme is to campaign around specific demands relating to women. One of these campaigns concerning the demand for legal contraception for all, in which they marched to Belfast, had some success in drawing women to the movement, However, the march met with wide publicity, a lot of which was hostile and the group was fiercely attacked and ridiculed, which all but completely demoralised them.

DELCINE IN ACTIVITY

Recently there has been little activity in the group other than education workshops and publishing the “Fownes Street Journal” every one or two months, The stagnation of the movement, despite continuing radicalisation of women, is due to the fact that revolutionary feminists don’t provide a clear and correct method of struggle. However, that is only part of the reason, for it is also due to the refusal on the part of left-wing and Republican revolutionary groups to recognise the SEXUAL oppression of women, instead they continue to see the problem in purely economist terms. The oppression of the majority of women is a fusion of both class and sex oppression, but it is experienced by them directly through their sexually based role in the Family.

Therefore, when we seek to understand the nature of women’s oppression, we must turn our attention to the role of the Family in our society. The family has a specific function in the capitalist society. It is the means of rearing children, who will become the future labour force or inheritors of the means of production, Women enable men to work for their employers by carrying out the domestic tasks in their lives, taking care of their homes, preparing their food and raising their children. In Ireland particularly, the inability of women to control their fertility is used by the state, aided by the Church, to keep women under its contgol. Women, therefore, play a crucial role in relation to production (ie. reproduction), but unless they are directly producing the goods, they get no financial reward. However, the structure of this type of Family has not always existed and in the earliest human history, people were simply born into society. The society took responsibility for rearing the young, ENGELS, (Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State) explained how with the development of surplus commodity production, a few men took control, which. led to» monogamous marriage (for women only) containing all the contradictions of capitalist society.

THE CLASS STRUGGLE

The Womens’ Lib movement see correctly thé importance of their role in the family, but are unable to connect this with the class struggle.

As I already pointed out, the effect of this can be seen in their approach, which is that all women should reject their role in the Family and society individually. Apart from the fact that most women are not fully conscious of their oppression, this presents the problem of an alternative way of life, which cannot be provided under the present system. However, we not be not to a movement which stays outside that struggle. The remaining founder ' members of the first womens movement, must also realise, without a central axis, any . movement will collapse in time. Their experience of two years ago, has proved this, Then, the movement was involved in every activity and demonstration taking place. But, without having defined for itself the central task, (Was it to fight for the right to family planning, contraception, divorce, all of which are equally important issues) but without a truely democratic structure and effective leadership from the founder members initially, the movement floundered. But to-day a central axis presents itself in the from of the Report.

‘To other radical women, particularly in political organisations, in the Republican movement, in revolutionary socialist organisations, we would say; it is vital that the organisation take the question of womens liberation seriously and understand its important role in the struggle for revolutionary socialism.

But it is also essential that women organise themselves into an autonamous movement, capable of launching a country-wide campaign through which centuries of submission, and their tremendous lack of confidence will be ' eroded and replaced by confidence and , self-determination. It is by experiencing first-hand the struggle involved, that women will gain a broader understanding of the very deep-rooted nature of their oppression. The womens movement must unite in order to grow, to gain strength.

‘entirely pessimistic about this outlook, for when we accept that female sexual oppression is rooted in class society, the fight to realise their demands of equality with men brings women into conflict with the government of the ruling class, who will be both unable and unwilling to -oncede to many of these demands, It is th: ough the struggle to win these demands that women will be politicised and brought into the revolutionary movement. Which is why Socialist women should understand the necessity to fight for the recommendations, which have been put forward in the “REPORT ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN”.

In the history of Ireland, much of our revolutionary energy has been directed towards freeing ourselves from the British imperialist ey in which struggles both men and women have been and are participating. It is the struggle of the Irish people for self-determination, It is not enough, however, to exchange one bourgeoisie for another, and revolutionary groups recognise this by propagandising for an alternative structure whereby control of the means of production is in the hands of the workers, guaranteeing religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities for all its citizens, in the context of a socialist society. Similarly, if the position of women in socialist society is not changed qualitatively; if women are still confined to the role of child-bearing domestic slaves; if basic, democratic rights are denied to half the population, then a genuine socialist revolution cannot be fully realised, Due to the fact that the political consciousness of women, and men, on the question of women’s oppression cannot be changed overnight, it is netessary for revolutionary groups to integrate women’s demands in their programmes.

“Working-class consciousness cannot be genuine Political consciousness unless workers are trained to respond to ALL cases, WITHOUT EXCEPTION of tyranny, oppression, violence and abuse, NO MATTER WHAT CLASS !S AFFECTED. (Lenin: What Is to Be Done?)