18.11.1999
Democracy or dogma
Conflicting views on national question
Since the Weekly Worker published comrade Jack Conrad’s draft theses on ‘Ireland and the British-Irish’ in August, later adopted by the CPGB by an overwhelming majority, comrades from several tendencies have contributed articles. The national question in general has also been the subject of analysis. The November 13-14 CPGB weekend school on the national question in the British Isles brought these and other comrades together to continue the debate.
Mark Fischer of the CPGB introduced the first session, on ‘The invention of the Celtic fringe’. He discussed the widely held belief among Scottish, Irish and Welsh people that they are descendants of Celtic tribes pushed out to the fringes of the British Isles by invading Anglo-Saxons. Comrade Fischer described the origin of this myth, taught as fact in British schools - and corresponding myths about the origins of the English in Angle, Saxon and Jute tribes - and discussed the ways it has been used since then by the bourgeoisie to construct a post-protestant ideology around the notion of ancient peoples brought together in the interests of all within the United Kingdom.
Comrade Phil Sharpe suggested that if bourgeois politicians can reinforce and make use of such myths, then Marxists should be equally skilled at using myths that suit our political ends. Many comrades from the CPGB disagreed with this. Phil Watson described it as idealism and said we must insist on objectivity. Comrade Conrad added that the history of ‘official communism’ demonstrates the pitfalls of creating myths and lying to the working class. The task of Marxists is to explain which elements of a myth have a factual basis and where this derives from, and which elements are the lies and distortions used by the ruling class. Our greatest weapon is the truth.
Dave Craig of the RDG spoke about ‘The federal republic’ to start the second session of the school. First he quoted Lenin’s State and revolution to show that Engels and Lenin “predicted” the establishment of a federal republic in Britain and regarded it as a “step forward”. As the comrade pointed out, the fact that Lenin said this does not mean it is true. But it does indicate that it is a legitimate position for Marxists to hold, unlike, say, support for a constitutional monarchy.
For comrade Craig a federal republic is latent in the conditions existing in Britain. But, he said, we do not need to quote Lenin to know this: we can see it for ourselves. The British state is a union in which three of the four components have no right of self-determination, and the dynamics of this situation has a logic which will lead to a federal republic. The comrade pointed to the strength of the British Empire, the conservatism of the labour aristocracy, the defeat of the Irish revolution in 1922 and the failure of the early CPGB to campaign for a federal republic as contributory factors in the preservation of the constitutional monarchy. But, said comrade Craig, we are closer to a federal republic than at any time since World War II. Wales and Scotland will either separate to form their own states or unite voluntarily in a federal republic with England.
Comrade Craig made it clear from the start that his call for a federal republic does not mean that he wants to keep capitalism. However, Phil Sharpe, Barry Biddulph and others insisted that a federal republic would not be a step forward towards the goal of socialism. Rather it was part of Blair’s agenda - something that looks like progress, but actually preserves bourgeois domination. This was hotly contested. Blair is not a republican: it is clear that his aim is to shore up the monarchy. A federal republic won using revolutionary, working class methods would bear no relation to the models proposed by bourgeois ‘modernisers’ or those existing in other countries.
Most comrades from the CPGB concurred with comrade Craig’s position on the desirability of a federal republic, but warned him against adopting the ‘Whig’ notion, that social progress is inevitable or separate from the class struggle. Comrade Marcus Larsen said that historical development can produce many outcomes. Latent tendencies in the current constitutional make-up of Britain have the potential to unfold in different directions, depending on which class forces take the lead in the democratic struggle.
Comrade John Stone stated that a federal republic would be a “step forward”, but it should not be our demand. Our demand should be for a socialist republic. He accused the CPGB of fighting for bourgeois democratic demands, while ignoring the call for a workers’ republic. As CPGB comrades pointed out, comrade Stone seems incapable of grasping that our call for a federal republic has nothing whatsoever to do with “completing the bourgeois democratic revolution”. In fact a federal republic imposed by the ruling class as part of a package of stabilising reforms would not be a “step forward” at all, as comrade Stone believes. If, however, the constitutional monarchy was swept away from below, that would put working class power on the immediate agenda.
The second day of the school began with Allan Armstrong’s opening on ‘The theory of the nation’, offering his own definition of the term. The much discussed definition of a nation provided by Stalin in 1913 was rejected by him as flawed and inadequate. He pointed out that it makes no mention of class divisions within the nation, and argued that the words “stable community” fail to account for the dynamism inherent in the process of nations coming into being, evolving and disappearing. As to a common language and a unified economy, there are many existing nations which lack these features. But the comrade agreed that having a common territory is crucial.
Comrade Armstrong said the real defining elements of what makes a nation are political, the democratic organisation of a territory. The triumph of the nation state involves every citizen of that nation having the vote. He said that in his theory Scotland is a nation, but there is no British nation. He ended his opening with a warning against the error of confusing nations with nationalities.
In the discussion, comrade Craig agreed that Scotland was a nation, and declared himself shocked that anyone should try to deny this “obvious” fact. He criticised the CPGB for using Stalin’s definition, but then taking a “libertarian approach” of allowing Scotland national rights despite its scoring only five out of six on this “check list”.
Gerry Downing stated that Stalin’s definition is undialectical and dogmatic. For comrade Downing the fundamental thing about a nation is consciousness. Scotland is a nation because its people view themselves as a nation. If this is true, Britain cannot be a nation - because, the comrade claimed, there cannot be one nation inside another.
Comrade Jack Conrad, in contrast, said there is a British nation, and within it there is the possibility of a Scottish nation emerging - an example of the fluid, dynamic nature of nations which, he asserted, Stalin’s definition does in fact take full account of an indeed emphasises. There is a national question in Britain, said the comrade, and what matters is not so much whether Scotland is or is not defined as a fully-fledged nation, but the fact that wherever there is a mass national movement with a legitimate democratic grievance, communists must support the demand for the right to national self-determination.
The final, fourth, session, dealing with the controversial question of the British-Irish, predictably provoked the most intense and passionate exchanges, although the debate was conducted in a constructive and comradely manner by all participants throughout the whole five hours, as it was during the whole of the school.
Sean Matgamna of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty spoke on ‘Who are the Protestants?’ He began with a brief account of the history of Ireland, including the colonial plantations from Scotland and England to what are now the protestant heartlands and the English crown’s colonisation of both parts of Ireland. He said the Protestants of the north are a distinct people: whether they are a nation or not was a technical question which did not bother him unduly. His principal concern was to unite all proletarians, and his formula for the northern Protestants is that they should have as much autonomy as is compatible with the rights of the majority.
He regretted the “demonisation” of the Protestants. While accepting that their “master race ideology” is repellent, he denied that it was reactionary not to want to be subsumed under an oppressive theocratic state. Referring to the view of the CPGB majority expressed in the Conrad theses, comrade Matgamna said that anyone supporting the right of self-determination for the Protestants logically cannot go on backing the armed struggle of the Provisional IRA. He also claimed that the right of self-determination for the British-Irish should logically include the right - which he would oppose as a demand - to invite British troops into their areas. Not to oppress the Catholics, but to defend their autonomy.
Comrade Stone was shocked by what he called comrade Matgamna’s pro-imperialist statements. He was against any national rights for Irish Protestants, because they are an “oppressor” community, and Lenin never advocated self-determination for oppressor nations. To allow the British-Irish the right to secede would be to deny the rights of the Irish nation as a whole. Comrade Stone vigorously declared his unconditional defence of any oppressed nation fighting imperialism, a stance which leads him to defend the Provisional IRA, the Argentina of Galtieri, Milosevic’s Serbia, etc.
Comrade John Pearson spoke on behalf of the CPGB minority. He rejected as bizarre the assumption that after the achievement of Irish unity a section of the victorious working class would want to split from the rest and form a separate state. He reminded comrades that working class leadership of the national liberation struggle is essential. The task of communists is to overcome the historic division of the Irish working class between its nationalist and pro-imperialist sections. This can be achieved by fighting for the entire programme of the CPGB and uniting the working class in the struggle against all capitalists.
It is crucial not to hand over any outposts of the revolution to the forces of reaction simply to satisfy “liberal platitudes” about self-determination. Self-determination must be subordinate to socialist demands, said the comrade. He rejected the accusation that the minority position holds that the protestants can never alter their reactionary nature. Revolution changes people profoundly. The Protestants would not have to join a catholic state, since revolution would destroy the existing Irish state, the British state and the northern Ireland statelet.
Comrade Downing said Sean Matgamna’s opening shows the AWL is moving to the right politically, and the CPGB majority is also moving to the right to occupy “what had been the AWL position”, by advocating democratic revolution rather than declaring for socialism. Incredibly he said the CPGB majority seemed to be “having doubts” about the viability of the project of socialist revolution as a whole. Comrade Downing proudly admitted to being a “Pavlovian anti-imperialist”. It was hardly surprising then that he regarded a dogmatic restatement of ‘permanent revolution’ as the key to the national question. The forces of reaction must be defeated before “concessions”, such as regional autonomy, should be offered to Northern Ireland Protestants. Discussing them now only strengthens the forces of reaction.
Comrade Craig repeated his disagreement with the CPGB majority, calling self-determination for the British-Irish a “step too far”. As for the IRA, we support it when it acts in a revolutionary way, as with any nationalist movement. Both the AWL characterisation of the IRA and comrade Stone’s uncritical support for it are incorrect.
Comrade Mark Fischer of the CPGB disputed comrade Matgamna’s claim that calling for democratic rights for the British-Irish is incompatible with the slogan ‘Troops out now’. He reiterated the view of the CPGB majority that socialism consists of fighting for extreme democracy up to and beyond the limits of the bourgeois state, and that a united Ireland which forcibly imprisons a million of its citizens would not advance a single step towards socialism
Mary Godwin