WeeklyWorker

04.06.1998

Back to normal

Around the left

True to form the left has for the most part collapsed in the face of the imperialist-led peace process in Northern Ireland. In order to avoid adopting a principled position cowardly fudge and evasion become the characteristic features. Once again, we see that some left groups are so afraid of being ‘unpopular’ that the very idea of swimming upstream is viewed with abhorrence.

For the Socialist Party of England and Wales this means that political method boils down to something barely more sophisticated than sticking a finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing - and then allowing itself to be wafted along.

When faced with an awkwardly concrete situation like the May 7 and May 22 referendums - where the only possible options are to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or boycott - the SP tries to invent a fourth, virtual position. That is to say ‘yes’, but at the same time disassociate itself from the politics of ‘yes-ism’. But in the real world to say ‘yes’ is to say ‘yes’ to Blair and his project to stabilise or ‘normalise’ Six Counties politics. New Britain, New Northern Ireland.

The Socialist editorial a week before the May 22 referendum was a perfect illustration of the SP’s Janus-faced approach. It tells us that the SP’s “view of the referendum and the deal is in line with the approach of most working class people. We do not endorse this deal which is neither a solution, nor the basis of a solution, but we think it is preferable to vote ‘yes’ in order to continue with a peace process and to defeat the reactionary and backward-looking forces who make up the ‘no’ camp. The peace agreement at least gives the working class a chance to organise a class-based political alternative.” But then it adds: “An agreement which has the potential to further widen divisions in Northern Ireland and which sees no way of overcoming them is no solution” (May 15).

As you can see, clear as mud. Yet in its own way the SP’s position is perfectly clear and logical … given its starting point.  It is predicated exclusively on a miserable ‘lesser of two evils’ methodology. As the editorial says, “Given a choice of two roads to ruin, an immediate route or a longer one, only the most foolhardy would pick the former. The longer route always offers at least a hope of escape.” But why go down the road to ruin in the first place, SP comrades?

The SP’s post-referendum analysis is an extension of this schizophrenia: “As the SP predicted, a large majority voted ‘yes’, because they feared the prospect of returning to sectarian violence and even civil war if they had voted ‘no’. It was a vote to keep up the ‘peace process’ and to reject the reactionary, backward-looking forces in the ‘no’ camp … The main advantage of the big ‘yes’ vote is to give time to build a genuine working class alternative on the ground” (May 29). But later we are told: “In reality this referendum has not ended sectarian politics. It has in fact set the sectarian divide in stone. Any new assembly will be dominated by the same politicians, the protestant-based unionists who set up the sectarian state in Northern Ireland and the catholic-based nationalist/republican parties” (my emphasis). The SP thinks “it is preferable” to vote for an agreement that has “set the sectarian divide in stone”.

The SWP, of course, has the same essential approach as the SP - both organisations being committed to economistic schemas. Socialist Worker tells us: “The vote in Northern Ireland shows the desire for peace of the overwhelming majority of people here, both Catholics and Protestants. The vote was a rejection of the hatred and bigotry spouted by Ian Paisley and other unionists.” But, naturally, “the settlement does not challenge many of the fundamental causes of the years of violence and division in Northern Ireland” (May 30). It adds that the June 25 elections could “drive people back into sectarian camps behind unionist or nationalist politicians”. Note how republicans, including Sinn Féin/IRA, are equated with sectarian bigots whose whole raison d’être is to defend loyalist dominance over Catholics.

The solutions offered by Socialist Worker are sickly. It explains:

“Trade union rights, the minimum wage and attacks on welfare are all issues through which we can begin to forge unity from below. We had Richard Branson visit Northern Ireland with Mo Mowlam as part of the ‘yes’ campaign in the referendum. He said a ‘yes’ vote would mean he’d be more willing to invest in the railways. So that is the future? A privatised railway run by Richard Branson!

“On the same day train drivers, both protestant and catholic, took unofficial action in a dispute over a driver who had been suspended by the bosses. Socialists say loud and clear that we are on the side of the workers, not Richard Branson.”

Forget your nationality and the revolutionary challenge to the state, says the SWP. Why don’t you take up ‘normal’, British, trade union struggles?

Don Preston