14.10.1999

Not a country, but a battle cry

Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group argues that the British-Irish must accede to the wishes of the majority

Every democrat must support the right of the Irish people to self-determination. This has been and must remain at the core of the communist policy on Ireland. But this right stands in stark contradiction to the ‘right’ of the British-Irish to self-determination. At the heart of the Irish national question is the threat and use of force by the British-Irish minority against the democratic rights of the majority. It is reflected in the struggle between the forces of Irish republicanism and British-Irish loyalism.

Irish nationalists and democrats in England, Scotland and Wales support the right of the whole of the Irish people to self-determination. Opposed to this are successive British governments, the Labour Party, the Tory Party and various parties of Irish unionists. When the Labour Party called for a united Ireland, they did so on the basis of the ‘consent’ of the British-Irish. This ‘consent’ means recognition of the so-called right of the British-Irish to self-determination, otherwise known as the ‘protestant veto’. All those backing British imperialism solemnly declare that the British-Irish should not be ‘forced’ into a united Ireland against their will. A united Ireland must be voluntary.

Consistent democrats defend and support the right of the Irish people to self-determination. We must totally oppose the bogus pseudo-democratic arguments of the protestant veto. This means concretely that we are for an all-Ireland referendum to settle the question of the British presence. This democratic demand must be central to communist agitation, whether the IRA is engaged in armed struggle or not. But British Marxists have tended to ignore this democratic demand either by simply supporting the armed struggle or supporting the consent of the British-Irish.

We have the example of the 1918 general election as a substitute referendum. It showed very clearly the will of the Irish people. British imperialism overturned that decision and divided the country by the violent use of military force. The orange state has been nothing less than an institutionalised rebellion against Irish democracy by the British-Irish with their 100,000 legally held firearms and the support of the British army. Even without a formal vote, democrats are entitled to claim, over 80 years after the 1918 general election, that the majority of the Irish people are in favour of British withdrawal from Ireland. But we are always ready to repeat the call for an immediate all-Ireland referendum to put the matter to a democratic test.

I am in favour of a united Ireland with a transitional federal structure, which gives a wide degree of local autonomy within the framework of a democratic secular constitution, based on full equality for all citizens. I won’t repeat here the arguments previously advanced (Weekly Worker September 16). This position does, however, agree with Jack Conrad’s thesis 13. But that is subordinate to an all-Ireland referendum and British withdrawal.

Unfortunately the 20 theses from Jack Conrad, now supported by the Provisional Central Committee, fails to mention the right of the Irish people to self-determination, even once (Weekly Worker August 26). This is not simply an oversight. It renders the theses seriously flawed.

Thesis 10 says that the CPGB is “not for expelling Northern Ireland from the union”. But the CPGB is “for the immediate - ie, unconditional - withdrawal of the British state and British troops from Northern Ireland”. If the British state withdrew from Northern Ireland, then the Six Counties would no longer be under the political, military and legal jurisdiction of the state. Then Northern Ireland would be expelled, unless it has a choice in the matter. But thesis 7 says: “There can be no right of present-day Northern Ireland to self-determination.”

Thesis 14 says that “a united Ireland established through a ‘voluntary union’ of its peoples should ‘fully reassure’ the British-Irish”. This means that a united Ireland cannot be established as an expression of the will of the majority. If a united Ireland is to be established only with the voluntary agreement of the British-Irish, then they have a veto over the process. Will they be permitted to vote for unity with Britain? Is this included in their ‘right’ to self-determination? I suggested that there was a contradiction between forcing the British-Irish into a united Ireland and then allowing them to leave. But we seem to have moved on since then, so that they cannot be ‘forced’ into anything. This is surely unionism.

Let us now turn to the arguments Jack deploys against mine (Weekly Worker September 23). Some of my many alleged failings are analysed. I am “impervious to reason” as a result of “fixed categories”, which leads me “to get completely lost in the mists of nationalism”. He claims that I have “tied [myself] in mental knots over the British-Irish question”. He asserts that my views are nationalist - “his whole approach reeks of petty nationalism”. My observations on the British nation were “claptrap”. He says: “I will not waste time refuting his nonsense on the British nation.” The comrade’s patience often seems to be sorely tried. I am sure that Jack is not an arrogant intellectual, so it is a shame that he ruins it by appearing in that disguise.

Jack calls me a nationalist. It is simply not true. But as a Marxist I would rather have a proper explanation, so that I could see it was something to consider self-critically. At the moment I see no more than a crude attempt to rubbish what I am saying by slinging some mud. A spade should be called by its name. But for me these must be political labels, justified as such, and not just casually slung around.

Let us consider the charge of “nationalism”. Since Jack does not bother to explain this serious allegation, we can only guess at what he means. We have to presume I am charged with Irish nationalism. Naturally I refute this. The only substance to this, as far as I can see, is the fact that I support the right of the Irish people to self-determination. Irish nationalists also support this. But to claim that because of this I am an Irish nationalist is silly. I support this right as a consistent democrat.

Of course if I am ‘marching’ side by side with Irish nationalism, it is worth pointing out that Jack is marching side by side with British nationalism. In fact many fear that Jack is not merely marching side by side with British nationalism, but is merging with it. It is Jack that has been at pains to prove the existence of a British nation and the non-existence of the Scottish and Welsh nations. He seems offended by the fact that I have insulted the British nation by calling it reactionary. He is more than a little upset that I am proposing that a section of the British people in Ireland “would have no more rights than one of the 51 states in the USA or a German Land” such as Saxony. As far as Jack accusing me of “reeking of nationalism”, the words ‘pot’, ‘kettle’ and ‘black’ spring to mind.

Let us now consider the political category of ‘nation’. I am prepared to accept that there is a British nation formed from above. This is a peculiar nation, because it was formed as, or developed into, a multinational state. In 1917 in State and revolution Lenin quotes Engels’ views on the federal republic. He refers both to ‘Britain’ and the four nations that comprise it. He says that a federal republic “would be a step forward in Britain, where the two islands are peopled by four nations and in spite of a single parliament three different systems of legislation already exist side by side” (VI Lenin SW Vol 2, p289). It should be obvious that the “four nations” referred to are England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The only factor that has changed has been the partition of the Irish nation in 1922. Engels and Lenin were not mistaken in observing the national composition of these islands. Neither have these four nations disappeared since.

We do not need Stalin’s theory of nations to tell us what is staring us in the face. But equally these nations do not contradict his theory. Jack then tries to argue that I have “fixed categories” and a “check list approach”. Of course I have a category of ‘nation’ and consider that Stalin’s theory is the best on offer. This does not distinguish me from other Marxists. But my view of nations is ruled out because, according to Jack, it is a “check list approach”.

In my article I rejected the idea of a check list. I referred to Stalin’s work as “guidelines”. We have to apply these guidelines to real and complex situations with real people, where it is not always clear-cut. Is it not Jack who has come up with a “check list approach”, which he very generously decides to label me with? It reminds me of José Villa, who continuously claims that I have a category of bourgeois democratic revolution, because he has that category and can see nothing else. Could it be that Jack Conrad has a check list mentality, which is all he can see when he looks at others?

Let us take the case of Scotland. Engels and Lenin recognised Scotland as one of the four nations in the islands. We can delve a little deeper by applying Stalin’s theory. When it comes to the Scottish people themselves, they are in no doubt that they are a nation with a long cultural history. On a number of different levels there is no doubt about it.

But Jack is armed with his own secret check list - we are not entirely sure what is in this, because he keeps it hidden in his back pocket. He has proven at least to his own satisfaction that Scotland is not a nation. He says to the Scottish people, ‘You may think you are a nation, but my secret check list proves that you are mistaken, all five million of you.’ Mary Godwin, a close ally of Jack, echoes this. She accuses me of being a “formalist” for daring to think that Scotland is a nation. She declares rather grandly that my “mechanical logic” (thinking that Scotland is a nation) puts categories first and the complexities of real life second (Weekly Worker August 19).

I think declaring Scotland is not a nation is putting a fixed category first, and is out to lunch as far as the real life of Scottish people is concerned - or is it the North British? I am reminded of the anarchists who oppose all leadership whilst busily introducing their own secret leadership. Now we have those declaring their opposition to everybody else’s fixed categories and mechanical logic, while introducing their own fixed categories and steam-powered illogic via the back door.

Jack and myself are agreed in one respect: the British-Irish are not a nation. Neither for that matter is Texas or Saxony. I do not know whether the “check list” that led him to that conclusion is the same or different to mine! They are not a nation. Indeed the very label that Jack has given them tells its own story. They are part of the Irish nation and part of the British nation. There is no Ulster nation and no significant forces claiming that there is. However, I think that we would get more clarity in this debate if we spoke of an Ulster nation. Perhaps Jack is speaking of self-determination not for the British-Irish but for a future Ulster nation?

On the question of the Scottish nation, Jack attributes views to me that I do not hold. He says that nations are a modern invention. He then states that I am claiming the existence of an “ancient Scottish nation”. He says: “If the British nation was ‘forged’ in the 17th century, as comrade Craig contends, what then of his pre-modern or ancient English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish nations?” (Weekly Worker September 23). What indeed? Since my article makes no reference to these “ancient” nations, Jack is exposing a contradiction of his own making.

Scotland has a history as a feudal dynasty. It was not a nation any more than England, Wales or Ireland. As Jack himself has pointed out, nationalists view their nation as extending backwards into the mists of time and incorporating dynastic Scotland. Nation is a relatively modern concept and is tied to the question of citizenship and democracy. To a certain extent nations were created by the political processes unleashed by the English, American and French revolutions.

According to Jack, the Scottish nation was invented in the 19th century - “crude Victorian inventions”. Was the invention of the British nation not crude? Is Jack claiming some sort of superiority for his favoured nation? In any case I tend to think that it was earlier than that: in the 17th and 18th centuries, although it might be later in the case of Wales. But it does not greatly matter. I am quite happy to be corrected by those who have studied this more. The point is that the Scottish nation was invented, like every other invented nation. It was therefore a real nation, or as real as any other. This is why Engels identified it as one of “the four nations” of these islands.

Jack does not acknowledge the significance of defining a nation as a political or democratic category. If we are going to speak of democracy, then we must have an idea of the voting constituency and division of that constituency into a majority and minority. Democracy implies force, though not necessarily violence. It requires the minority to go along with the decision of the majority. We cannot speak of democracy as the absence of force. That is an anarchist way of looking at democracy - every individual does their own thing.

The highest form of democratic advance is the democratic revolution. This is not some pacifist rally, but the mass use of force for democratic ends.

When the southern confederate states of America decided to secede and form an independent state, Marx opposed this and was in favour of the use of force against the Confederates. As he said,

“If the north and the south formed two autonomous countries like England and Hanover, for instance, their separation would be no more difficult than was the separation of England and Hanover. ‘The south’ is neither geographically clearly separate from the north nor is it a moral entity. It is not a country at all, but a battle cry” (K Marx Surveys from exile London 1981, p344).

Jack seems to have come up with the universal principle that force can never be used and everybody should have the freedom to secede.