It seems to us that despite many weaknesses and inconsistencies, the present position is an important step forward for the Irish revolution. For Gerry to deny that they have declared clearly for a Workers' Republic is to ignore the facts.
Let us quote some statements from leaders of the Movement:
"Out of this conference there came a number of recommendations. The first was that we should openly declare for a Socialist Republic.
That was now the objective of the Republican Movement: to establish a Socialist Republic 'as envisaged by Connolly, and in keeping with the sentiments of the Proclamation of 1916'."
Cathal Goulding, IRA Chief of Staff, speaking about a conference of Republican leaders in August 1967, quoted in an interview in This Week, Dublin, July 30th 1970.
"It is Socialist. It opposes the power of elite aristocracies of either wealth or privilege and advocates democratic ownership and control by the people of both political and economic life of the Nation. " Tomas Mac Giolla, Uachtarain, (President) Sinn Fein, writing about the three fundamental principles of Republicanism in the United Irishman, July 1970.
"To do this we must create a revolution in the whole of Ireland. To finalise in the objective of an Irish Socialist Republie." Malachy McBurney, speaking at the grave of Wolfe Tone, Bodenstown, June 21st 1970, quoted in the United Irishman, July 1970.
"DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU CONSI DER THE REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT A SOCIALIST MOVEMENT?" "Yes, very much so...
In the last four years it has come to a very radical standpoint. We realise that what is needed in Ireland is not just a military campaign in the Six Counties but a revolution in the whole of Ireland." Malachy MeGurran interviewed in The Red Mole, 14th May 1970.
Of course, actions speak louder than words, and the test of the Republican Movement will be the way in which it matches its strategy and tactics to its Socialist declarations. It is here that Gerry can probably make legitimate criticisms, and the proposals for an NLF, or "Freedom Movement" as they have called it, reflect some basic misconceptions, in particular an over-estimation of the progressive potential of Irish small businessmen, which is in line with the teformist illusions of the C.P.s. However, it is not true to state that the proposals advocate the inclusion in the Freedom Movement of "progressive Chambers of Commerce"; the elements were stated to be: *1. The militant disciplined tradition of the Republic movement.
The trade-union experience and the Socialist consciousness of the traditional Labour and Socialist groups.
The energy and enthusiasm of the young students, workers, farmers, gaeilgeoiri who are at present groping towards local and specialised radical organisational forms." United İrishman, February 1970.
The reference to Chambers of Commerce comes in a series of reforms which are put forward to be demanded by various sections of the Irish Nation. The whole programme is imbued with the Stalinist "stages" concept, which very seriously negates the value of the Movement's understanding that the final goal is a Socialist Republic. Nevertheless the fact that they have realised the need for a Socialist outcome for the struggle is a step forward, and should not be ignored or belittled. Instead Irish revolutionaries should try to work with the many fine militants in the Republican Movement and explain to them why their programme does not match their aspirations. You cannot do that if you deny that these aspirations exist.
Democratic Campaigns: Transport and the Fish-Ins But P.D. comrades should be careful about the mote in the Republican Movement's eye; they have a few beams in their own. They have carried out many courageous battles, such as their defence of the Cement Strike, which we salute, but they have not always been free of reformist conceptions themselves; for instance it is only very recently that the P.D. has come out for the withdrawal of British troops. Even where they could have adopted a clear revolu tionary strategy, they have not always done so.
We will examine only one instance, the recent campaign on Belfast Corporation Transport. P.D. produced a pamphlet entitled A Transport Policy Related to the Needs of the People. The comrades carried out a campaign around this, with picketing, petitions, leafleting, ete The policy advocated was fairly unobjectionable. It included the demand for a free bus service, banning of cars from certain areas of the city, a licensing system for essential transport, a levy on firms which benefit most from public transport, and other demands of this nature. There is nothing wrong with such demands, but revolutionaries must realise that as the proposals stand they are solely democratic demands, they propose nothing which cannot be granted under even such a crisis-ridden capitalism as that in Northern Ireland, and teaches no one who sup ports it a single thing about the real nature of capitalism. The pity of it is, that such a cam paign could have been used to foster a basically anti-capitalist concept, workers control. By trying to show how the transport service is used in the interests of big business against the interests of the workers who run and use the service, P.D. could have gained support for the idea that these workers should take control of the transport system out of the hands of the corporation of the monopolies; such a campaign could have tried to get direct action by the workers on the buses in defiance of the corporation, it could have deepened the anticapitalist consciousness of large numbers of Belfast workers. As it was, the proposals did not even demand a wage rise on the buses. This campaign was even less revolutionary than the Republicans' fish-in campaign (also a basically democratic issue) since it did not even include direct action against the State authorities, as do the fish-ins.
Permanent Revolution Comrade Ruddy says that the basic difference between P.D. and the Republicans are those between the advocacy of a Socialist struggle and a national struggle for independent Irish capita lism. We think that it is not true to say that the Republicans are out for a capitalist Ireland, but does P.D.'s strategy amount to Permanent Revolution? We do not think so, we think that there is a basic disagreement on this question which requires theoretical clarification. It seems to us that many Irish comrades, and not P.D. alone, have misunderstood the theory, and have presented it in such a way as to reject any national content in the Irish struggle, and indeed to present national demands as sectarian demands. This is a deep and complex discussion which must be taken up elsewhere, but we would regard the present stage of the Irish struggle as bringing into the foreground the important national demand of genuine independence from British imperialism, and with the most important sector of that struggle being for national unity, the abolition of the border. Of course. Permanent Revolution means that only the working class can achieve this, through the Workers' Republic, but this means that a correct strategy would combine the national with the working class demands. It would not negate the national demands as some comrades seem to suggest.
We would accept one criticism from Gerry: we think that our editorial policy on Ireland is open to misunderstanding. Because we regard the Republican Movement as important, and there is a lack of knowledge about them in Britain, we have perhaps not been balanced enough in our coverage. We should have covered P.D.'s Lough Neagh campaign, and the victimisation of P.D. militants by the RUC during the Cement Strike, This could easily be rectified if P.D comrades sent us reports of their activities, and we would urge our readers to get P.D.'s paper Free Citizen, available from Red Books, 182 Pentonville Road, London N.1.
Bob Purdie The Red Mole 16th-31st Oct. 1970 Page 7
ment (led by the Christian Democrats) did in student decision to boycott examinations as