13.06.1996

Defence through open debate

In January of this year Gino Gallagher, the national organiser of the Irish Republican Socialist Party and leader of the Irish National Liberation Army, was murdered. Further armed attacks were later made on four supporters of the movement’s leadership.

The IRSP strongly implied that the killers were directed by British intelligence, and later identified two expelled members around the ‘GHQ faction’ as those responsible. Three members of this faction, including former leaders of the movement, have now been killed, the latest being Francis Shannon, who was shot last weekend.

The Provisional Central Committee of the CPGB issued a statement (Weekly Worker April 4) unconditionally defending the IRSP/Inla “against the attacks of elements seeking to physically liquidate them”. The statement continued: “Consciously or not, this violence is counter-revolutionary and serves the interest of the British imperialist state.” Our Party views as legitimate any measures taken to ensure the organisation’s continued ability to function.

But crucially the PCC called on all revolutionaries in Ireland

“to resolve their differences through the revolutionary method of open polemic. This current period must see the consolidation of a communist pole of attraction which can offer a positive revolutionary alternative to the imperialist-brokered peace process. This is impossible without rigorous theoretical clarification.”

The statement concluded by calling on “all those who wish to honestly engage in this vitally important process” to use the pages of our paper.

A small start has been made with two articles from political prisoners. The first, ‘Historical reality’(May 30), was critical of the present leadership. This article was received on prison notepaper, but the signature was illegible.

It correctly stated that “one centralised body of political and ideological control was needed” for the movement. That body is in fact a Communist Party. But the writer went on to contradict this by adding that armed units needed “self-direction, not reaction to structural oppressions of any kind”. In opposition to this “self-directed armed action”, he poured contempt on leaders who “sit in their armchairs talking about revolutionary struggle, when egoist posing in papers is as far as it gets”.

At best this can be described as revolutionary impatience, but at worst can be interpreted as a justification for the attack on comrade Gallagher and the present leadership for daring to advocate the Leninist principle of political primacy over military actions.

This prisoner claimed that long-standing members of the previous leadership had a “permanent legitimate position” and that “leftwing infantilism reared its ugly head again” with the “re-involvement of ex-members”. The comrade is apparently condemning those who have stated that their aim is a Communist Party for Ireland, and so of course anyone who wishes to engage in “rigorous theoretical clarification”.

The second article, published last week (June 6), was received via the IRSP’s publcity bureau and signed ‘Irish Republican Socialist Prisoners’. It condemned the “cowardly murder” of Gino Gallagher and criticised the notion that there can be a “right to permanent leadership” in revolutionary politics. It contrasted the inaction of the previous leaders with the fact that “our comrades are now prepared to represent us”.

But what is missing is any political analysis. If the underlying battle is one between ‘green nationalists’ and communist internationalists then the comrades ought to put forward the case for communism with all the passion they can muster. In a previous Weekly Worker article (March 28) IRSP leader Kevin McQuillan wrote of the previous leadership, now grouped in the ‘GHQ faction’: “Their workrate, commitment, the terminology, style and content of their leadership all demonstrated that they were not serious about building a genuine Communist Party. Yet on questions of tactics and strategy, there appeared to be no fundamental differences here.” It was this that led him to conclude that they were directed by British intelligence.

If this is true then no political polemic against such agents is required. If, on the other hand, serious political differences, not merely personal rivalries, are the root cause of the divisions, these must now be openly expressed. Comrade McQuillan has said he is in full agreement with this, but he appears to add a rider: “And dialogue must take place through democratic centralism” (Weekly Worker March 28). If he means by this that full and open discussion should take place - but within IRSP meetings and internal documents only, then we must disagree.

Open polemic means open for all to see, argued out before the whole working class. A genuine Communist Party which aims to win the allegiance of thousands of workers will not be able to do so on the basis of rumour or mere assertions.

It is excellent that the IRSP intends to start up its own publication. In the meantime we repeat our invitation to communists throughout Ireland to make full use of the pages of the Weekly Worker.

Jim Blackstock