IRELAND AND THE BRITISH LEFT It is very ensy to be revolutionary about struggles taking place thousands of miles away, It is eusier to be for the defeat of a foreign capitalist class than it is to call for the defeat of one's own "bourgeoisie", These truisms, which have until recently been ratber abstract, now acquire concrete meaning. The armed struggle of the Irish people against British imperialism now puts all tendencies in the One is unlikely to get beuten up for carrying the slogan "Victory to the NLF" for the simple reason that British troops are not fighting and dying in Vietnam. However, Ireland presents a different state of affairs as some Scottish contrades selling The Red Mole have recently discovered. Yet it is a hundred times more importunt to take a clear stand against the oppression which is being carried our by one's "own" capitalist class. The watchword of Leninism has always been "the main enemy is at home"-indeed. the "21 Conditions of Affiliation to the Third International" embodied this concept in a most emphatic manner.
It is also much easier to find "left" arguments for not taking such a stand: after all, doesn't the armed struggle of the Irish people alienate the British working class? And can't it be demonstrated in oh-so-Marxist terms that the main task in this struggle is to form a united front between the British working class and the Irish people?
Should we not, therefore, join in the chorus condemning the "ultra-left", "adventuristic" and, according to the Workers Press, "middle class snipers and bomb-throwers in Ireland? As well as clearing our orthodos consclences. this would have the additional advantage of avoiding trouble Of course, all these arguments can be answered in a very simplistic manner: it is the responsibility of all socialists to support all the struggles of all the oppressed. However, a blanket formula like this cun cover a multitude of sins (although it is infinitely preferable to those arguments which coter capitulation to capitalist "public opinion" with Murxist phraseology). What this formula does not do is to explain how we relate to differing tucties by those engaged in struggle-should we, for instance, have the sume attitude towards the present armed struggle of the Catholics as we should towards the military actions of the IRA in the 1950% or late 1930s? Its too general application could lead us into very strange positions-how would it be applied to the case of the Angry Brigade, for instance?
There are no blanket and absolute fornsulas-tbe analysis THE CHARACTER OF THE IRISH STRUGGLE Our starting point must be the character of the struggle itself and the attitude of the mass of the Irish people towards that struggle. Then we huve to clearly distinguish between our tasks and those of militants in Ireland (some organisations have got into endless confusion by not doing It is easy to establish that the character of the struggle in the North of Ireland is a defensive one waged as a response to aftacks by the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), British Army, RUC, ete. on Catholics; and simultaneously an offensive one, desigued to complete the Irish people's endeuvours to achieve self-determination. As such, British socialists are obliged to give it unconditional support. It is, furthermore, easily demonstrable that the violence of the IRA is a response to the violence of the VF, British Arity. RUC, ete. and that the mass of the Catholic population support it actively or passively. This being the case there is no doubt that British socialists are obliged not merely to support the right of the Catholics to use the methods they see fit, but also to actively assist that struggle.
every vestige of confidence they ever had in the British Army (which many thought was u barnier to their physical liquidation at the hands of the UVF in 1969) and British The tactical differences between the Officials and the Provisionais are no excuse for failing to make a stand: and we should note well the well substantiated reports that the IRA (cf. Sunday Times, 15.8.71).
But objections come readily doesn't the theory of permanent revolution teach us that only a combined national Iberation and sociul struggle in the whole of Ineland promises success? Isn't the only hope of immediate success the building of unity berween the Irish people and the British working class? Doesn't the armed struggle of the Irish people undermine the potentiality of that unity? How can we expect English workers to unite with people killing "our lads"? Won't the Provisionals, because of their links with a section of the Southern bourgeoisie, refuse to fight the Green Tories?
Our first answer to these objections is to make it very clear that the maior task of British sociallets is nnt tn tall "THESE OPERATIONS ARE A NECESSARY PRELUDE TO THE RESTORATION OF GREATER HARMONY BETWEEN THE COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN IRELAND " ours), but, on the contrary, it is to end the position where the British working class, and especially the leadership of its organisations, are direct accomplies in the oppression of the rish people. This means coming to grips with the rampant rucialism of the British working claes towards the Irish. EXPLOITATION OF THE IRISH For centuries the British ruling class has "justified" and rationalised" the exploitation of the Irish people in racialist ideological terms. "The Irish are stupid, strange fat best whimsical) and ignorant people*; " they have pigs in their living rooms"; "the Irish like fighting (es. pecially after u few drinks): "the Irish are lazy and good for only labouring jobs" - such filth has been drummed into the heads of the British people for hundreds of years. The prejudices engendered are so deep that they have entered the English language. We would be highly mistaken if we thought that even revolutionary marxists were free ofsuch ideas. To tell the Irish people that militant struggle alienates the British worker is like telling a striker that his militant picketing upsets the scabs. One can only deal with bourgeois ideology by an unremitting struggle. Revolutionaries, in particular, must break down these prejudices by first of all taking a very clear sland themselves. Half-measures only reinforce bourgeois ideology. "Sophisticated " arguments emanating from offices like those on Clapham High Street- so far away from the whistle of the UVE sniper's bullet, where the soldiers never come at to rip the house upurt, and which has never experienced the organised burning out of hundreds of homes by protestunt fanatics — have all the hallmarks of an unconscious feeling of superiority that obliges one To tell the poor Irish, who don't know any better, what to do. Of course, the chance of success for winning British working class support for the struggle in Ireland will be much greater if the struggle is waged in such a way that the identity of class interests between the working classes of both countries is mude clear. But this will not be achieved by telling the Irishpeople to tone down their struggle because the British workers are not yet ready to understand the situation. Any influence that British marxists have on the policies of Irish militants will be in direct proportion to the extent to which they are seen to be making a fight in Britain on a clear basis. Only on that basis can they assist Irish marxists to develop a revolutionary marxist current in But none of this means that we are obliged to keep quiet about our possible criticisms of the tactics of Trish revolutionaries. On the contrary to do so would be means they see fit, we are also obliged to contribute to the debute nbout the best method of defeating British imperinlism. But again there is no simple formuls for doing this, It is perfectly possible, for instance, to publish articles on a national liberation struggle which consist of 99% fierce criticism and 196 pledge of support (the Workers Press is u specialist in this.). Such propaganda will seem to the average British reader as being a "left" version of the capitalist propaganda against that struggle. In the case of ireland, Irish militants can be forgiven if they interpret moch of what appears in the "socialist" press in this manner.
The balance of one's propaganda, the audience to which one directs one's criticisms and the style of that criticisms are all political acts. Let us be very clear on this point: the overwhelming thrust of our propaganda on Ireland today must be to expose the vicious role of British imperialism and its various agencies. Criticisms related to the tactics of the Irish militants must be expressed in a fraternal manner and largely confined to analytical material designed to influence their thinking. To be concrete: should a section of the IRA decide to indulge in an urban guerilla campaigu in selected parts of Britain, the thrust of argumentation should be to expinin why they have been forced along this road. We should not hesitate to express our support for their right to use these methods and we should oppose the hypocrisy of those who are "shocked" by this development (explaining very clearly the implicit racialism inherent in this "shock'") When we express our doubts about such a tactic, it should be on the basis that we do not think it is the best method to defeat British imperialism (in general, urban guerrilla wurfare should only be waged where the mass of the local population at least acqusesce in its use).
Any other course is to weaken and confuse our solidarity with the Irish people in their struggle against the British ruling class. But it is not just a question of duty-our task is to build a revolutionary cadre force in Britain. This means building a body of opinion which is prepared to use revolufionary violence in Britain to overthrow the British ruling class. It goes without saving that it is not conceivable that we can create a force which is prepared for revolutionary struggle in Britain if it is not prepared to support the armed struggle of others against that same ruling class. Weakness and vacillation on this question will in the long rum express atsell (especially in time of crisis) as opportunism in relation to the class struggle in Britain itself. The whole history of the international labour movement testifies to this fact.
—Pat Jordan
----- pull-quotes -----
The Catholics of the North (and the militunts of the Southy huve arrived ut this point by a process of losing their illusions in other forms of struggle and, in particular, losing
timing of the internment orders was determined by a desire to prevent political agreement between the two wings of the