When Militant/Socialist Party suggested a "Socialist Federation of Ireland" 1994

Submitted by dalcassian on 20 September, 2015 - 5:25 Author: Sean Matgamna

In August 1994, the Provisional IRA ended the military campaign it had started in March 1971. There would be difficulties, some bombs would be set off in England after that point, but as we can now see the war in the North was effectively over. Throughout the 23 years of war the organisation now known as the Socialist Party, and its 1992 splinter, known now as Socialist Appeal, confined themselves to preaching “Socialism is the only answer” to the conflict in the Six Counties. It was heavily a Protestant-Catholic, Unionists-Nationalist civil war, half- smothered by the British Army. Through a quarter of a century they had had nothing to say to the fundamental issue in the war – the conflict of national identity between Unionists and Nationalists. In basic Marxist terms they were sectarian socialists. And they were very strange socialists too. “Socialism” was the nationalisation of the monopolies by the bourgeois state; Socialism was what was being built in the parts of the world then under Stalinistat control. They proudly proclaimed themselves “The Marxists”, but in truth, they had a non- Marxist conception of socialism, and a non-socialist conception of Marxism. In December 1994 they proclaimed their conversion to.the need for a federal solution to the Irish conflic, in which the Protestant majority areas would have autonomy. It was a sectarian socialist version of federalism: it would have to be a "Socialist Federation of Ireland". Even so, it was progress of a sort. The weekly paper “Socialist Organiser” reprinted their statement, with a short commentary by Sean Matgamna.
---------------

Sean Matgamna looks at a shift in thinking on Ireland by Militant, which now advocates "raising the idea that the Protestants would be able to have a high degree of control over their own community" in Ireland as a proposal to help working-class unity.

“SOCIALISM is the answer" — that is a good, general purpose response to most
of the horrors we see around us in capitalist society. It is not, in many situations, a self-sufficient answer. Often we need other answers too.

Our programme is not confined to socialist proposals. When the Bolsheviks took power in 1917 they did not say to the oppressed nationalities in the old Tsarist empire — "There, that's all settled now. The workers have power." The workers in power needed a specific policy for the nations long oppressed by the Tsar — self-determination.

Even under a socialist regime, the smaller nations would have the right to secede and set up their own states.

This was a matter not of socialism — the socialisation of the means of production under the control of the working class — but of democracy, what Lenin called "consistent democracy."

"Socialism is the only answer" was for long the hallmark of Militant. Whatever the issue — Ireland, gay rights, women's oppression, racism, you name it — Militant was not to be
moved from the mindless recitation of a mantra: "Socialism is the answer."

Frequently this led then into reactionary politics. When the Militant controlled the Labour Party Young Socialists, for example, resolutions on gay rights that would have been
passed by the Liberals were regularly voted down, up to the late 1970s.

But Militant has had its sectarian certainties and its labour movement routine shattered in the last few years. The latest change is on Ireland. And it's quite a change!

It may be that Militant is moving not to the Marxist understanding that mantra-chanting is not enough, but to the opportunist, SWP-style "build-the-party-on-any-basis" view that the
socialist fundamentals should not be allowed to get in the way of recruitment. We'll see.

On Ireland, for a quarter of a century, Militant, true to its nature, has responded to everything with: "Socialism now!" The workers in Northern Ireland were enlisted behind
reactionary Catholic and Protestant chauvinist parties butchering each other, but still the immediate answer, said Militant was "socialism." For Marxists who believe the workers
must create socialism, this made no sense. How could workers dominated by the Catholic-Protestant split create socialism as the immediate answer to that split, without any special proposals about the split?

True, Militant never made the mistakes much of the left made by endorsing the "anti-imperialism" of the Provisional IRA (or, as with this paper, mistakenly thinking that our first duty was to support those fighting our own state). But that was onIy because Militant never accepted a responsibility to relate to the real world or the immediate issues — apart from bread and butter trade unionism — in Northern Ireland. The political ideas needed to bridge the gap between trade unionsm and socialism were entirely absent in Militant.

For our own efforts to come to terms with the realities of Northern Ireland and provide working-class political answers to the issues that dominated the lives of all Northern
Ireland workers, they had nothing but sectarian socialist scorn.

Recognising that no working-class progress is possible until the working class, Protestant and Catholic, agree on a joint solution to their conflict of national identities, we proposed
acceptance of the right of the Protestant-Unionists to autonomy in a United Federal Ireland. Militant said: "Treason to socialism!". Now Militant has had belated second thoughts.

The new line is contained in an article by Lynn Walsh, on behalf of "Militant Labour's Executive Committee" [Militant 21 October 1994]. Much of it is still very woolly and confused. Detailed discussion and criticism of that will have to wait for another occasion. These extracts will inform Socialist Organiser readers of how far Militant has travelled
towards a position it used to foolishly denounce as anti-socialist. Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis has been added.
-----------------------------------
“TO SUCCESSFULLY separate the Protestant working class from right-wing Unionists and loyalist paramilitaries the labour movement will have to fight to build working-class unity and put forward a class policy on the national question. To win over Protestant workers, however, it is vital for the movement to recognise the understandable fears and legitimate aspirations of Protestants.

This does not mean accepting partition or making concessions to Loyalist ideology, but forging policies capable of breaking the reactionary influence which Loyalist leaders exert over sections of the working class.

"It may be that Militant is moving not to the Marxist understanding that mantra-chanting is
not enough, but to the opportunist, SWP-style "build-the-pariy-on-any-basis" view that the
socialist fundamentals should not be allowed to get in the way of recruitment. We'll see."

The Protestants of Northern Ireland hardly constitute a nation. Nevertheless, they are a distinct community with their own sense of identity and consciousness although extremely confused and contradictory. In relation to Nationalist Ireland the majority consider themselves British and want to maintain the link with Britain. At the same time, fearing that they can no longer rely on the unwavering backing of the British state, there are growing elements of a distinct "Northern Irish" identity.

Imposed unity — even if it were achievable — would transform the Protestant majority of the North into a disgruntled minority in Ireland as a whole. Sectarian conflict and civil war
would result, raising the spectre of repartition.

The long-drawn-out character of the national struggle, however, has seriously complicated the situation.

While Catholics in the North suffered institutionalised discrimination, the Protestants benefited from their majority status, with a relatively economically privileged position (though sections of Protestant workers in the decaying inner-city areas now face
high unemployment and poverty).

Nevertheless, there is a growing fear among Protestants that they will potentially become a minority and themselves face discrimination in a united Ireland. We have to recognise
that because of their profound suspicions, most Protestants may not be convinced that their interests would be safeguarded inside a Socialist United Ireland.

To reassure Protestants and cut the ground from under the reactionary Loyalist leaders who play on their fears, we have to raise the idea that the Protestants, if they so desire, would be able to have a high degree of control over their own community, which would safeguard their cultural and religious rights.

Under socialism, with workers' democracy, this would not in any way imply the continuation of Protestant privileges at the expense of Catholics.

Even so, despite all these guarantees, in order to demonstrate that the working class has no interest at all in coercing Protestants into a United Ireland, even on the basis of
Socialism, we have to uphold the right of the Protestants, if ultimately they so desire, to opt out of a unitary stale. It is quite possible that the question of a Socialist Federation of Ireland will be raised in the future. We do not advocate a federal solution. But class unity may require a flexible approach..."

A FINAL comment: posing the problem of Irish division as Walsh does, as a problem to be solved in a socialist Ireland, is a hangover from the old Militant sectarian "socialism." It gets everything back to front.

Think about it. A socialist Ireland can only be the creation of the working class — the same working class that is now locked in murderous inter-working class conflict. It will not jump over its own head and magically create sufficient unity to allow itself to make a socialist revolution and then go back to sort out the "constitutional question."

Recognition of the distinct identity of the Protestants and proposals for some form of federalism are necessary now in order to help create working-class unity—the unity without which there will be no socialist Ireland. It is a necessary part of our transitional programme for Ireland.

The purpose of advocating "federalism" — not only under socialism but now — is to allow the class conscious workers of both communities — and both parts of Ireland — to unite now for class struggle on the basis of an agreed democratic solution to the Unionist/nationalist conflict.

Socialists should not advocate federalism? Socialists do not advocate self-determination. We say peoples have an automatic right to it if they want it. When it is plain that they want it, we fight for it. This general socialist formula — the right to, if they want it — translates in Northern Ireland into a recognition that the Protestant-Unionists do want it. So socialists fight for working-dass unity across the divide by proposing a rational, democratic answer to the constitutional question. We fight for working-class unity by championing the right to separation.

History teaches us that without a common working-class answer to the "constitutional question" stable Protestant-Catholic unity In Northern Ireland is impossible above the trade
union level. Therefore, socialists in Lenin's tradition do take responsibility for advocating a positive democratic solution to the communal/national conflict. Now, even under capitalism.
Whether Protestant "self-determination" in this sense is realised under capitalism or socialism is not determined in advance. Everything depends on working-class struggle
and the level of that struggle: the point of putting forward a transitional programme (as above) on the Catholic-Protestant antagonism is to free the channels now blocked by
that antagonism for class struggle.

It is not inconceivable — though I don't think it is likely — that workers mobilised in a powerful working-class struggle involving both Catholics and Protestants — who
had agreed on some sort of federal solution to their "national" conflict — would find that, victorious, they could dispense with Protestant-Unionist "self-determination" — that
the Protestant-Unionists did not want it after all. But from a socialist point of view, if they want it (Protestant autonomy not the present ridiculous partition, with its 45% of Catholics in the "Protestant-Unionist" state) then they are entitled lo it both under capitalism and after we have buried capitalism.

AGAINST THE STREAM COLUMN
SO 620 2 Dec 1994

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.