18.11.1999

Race and nation

British-Irish debate

The British-Irish debate has raised a number of interesting theoretical issues. It would be useful at this stage to try to take stock before defending my own point of view.

Jack Conrad made a start on such an assessment, dividing us into two camps. He says,

“Two distinct shades of opinion have emerged. On one side stand the consistent revolutionary democrats … on the other side are the inconsistent revolutionary democrats (in certain cases we have revolutionary non-democrats)” (Weekly Worker October 21).

Jack sums up these opposed views in terms of those who support “a voluntary union of peoples” versus those in favour of a section of the Irish people being “frog-marched into a unitary state and kept there if needs be by coercion”. Presented in this way, it appears to be an argument between ‘pacifist’ or non-violent revolutionary democrats and physical force revolutionary democrats. Whilst I can see an aspect of truth to this, both camps would equally object. I do not think it gets to the essence of the debate at all.

Physical force does not contradict revolutionary democracy, although the principle of non-violence does. Indeed the idea that this principle is the essence of democracy is thoroughly bourgeois liberal. The liberals always preach non-violent democracy to the working class. Workers may vote, but must never enforce anything on ‘scabs’ or ‘innocent’ democratic bosses. Thus the anti-poll tax riot, rather than being a popular enforcement of the democratic will, was a violation of democracy. This of course never prevents liberals from using the armed forces whenever necessary.

This is not really an argument against Jack, because I know he would agree with these points. But it is argument against trying to present his case in this way. Perhaps he is doing this to coalesce his majority by appealing to liberal pacifist sentiments within his own bloc. Perhaps not. Either way, we need to understand the debate somewhat differently.

There are two distinct types of argument going on. First there is a debate within the camp of revolutionary democracy. This is represented in the articles by Jack, Allan Armstrong and myself. All three comrades accept the revolutionary democratic method and openly endorse this approach to politics. Most recently this has been shown by all three joining the newly formed Republican Communist Network, which also endorses this approach to politics. The debate amongst us is a debate within the ‘family’, no less furious for that. All of us accept that as revolutionary democrats we need to have a consistent, principled approach to any political problem. We just disagree as to what that is. But who is and who is not ‘consistent’ is far from proven objectively.

Take, for example, the demand for a federal republic. All three of us accept that this is a legitimate demand within Marxist politics. Myself and Jack believe it is a correct demand now. But Allan thinks it is wrong. This is also a debate within the family. When it comes to self-determination for the British-Irish, myself and Allan oppose this and Jack supports it.

The most obvious comrade outside our ‘family’ is John Stone. As I understand his public position, he is not a revolutionary democrat. His views on bourgeois democracy are inconsistent. He does not give a damn if his view on democracy is illogical and inconsistent. He is inconsistent and proud of it. He is, for example, unconditionally in favour of abolishing the House of Lords, even while the constitutional monarchy remains. He is in favour of abolishing hereditary peers without a workers’ republic, but not the hereditary monarchy. He appears to be more hostile to their Lordships (on your bike now) than Her Majesty (who can keep her job until we are ready to have a workers’ republic). As a revolutionary democrat, he would be desperately keen to rectify this or other anomalies. But as an economist, he just does not care.

Now if we turn to the Manchester CPGB majority and try to identify their position. I should say that these comrades are not a homogeneous bloc. There are differences amongst them. Whatever generalisation I make will by definition be slightly misleading. These observations about their position are no more than a call for the comrades to make their own positions clear. I have no wish to misrepresent their views.

Manchester comrades appear or have allowed themselves to be presented as semi-Stalinists, not revolutionary democrats. This is because they view the Soviet Union during the period when there was no soviet or working class democracy as some kind of ‘socialism’. This contradicts a basic tenet of revolutionary working class democracy based on the Paris Commune. They may be inconsistent democrats and proud of it. This has led them to adopt a position of quoting Jack Conrad from the days when he was possibly still a Stalinist or had not long departed from such views. This does not seem to rattle Jack at all - why should it?

The Manchester comrades are thus represented as ‘tankies’ whose final solution to the Irish question lies in the aforementioned weaponry. This view of their position may be true, partially true or untrue. If it is untrue then they have made the mistake of allowing themselves to be outmanoeuvred. In addition these comrades seem to have kept quiet on the Scottish question. Silence on this makes it appear that their only concern is Ireland. In other words they are tinted with Irish nationalism.

These comrades need to think whether they want to defend the idea that the USSR was some kind of socialism or whether they want to effectively defend the Irish working class. In my opinion they cannot logically do both. Jack has not been slow to understand this and quite rightly exploit it. If the comrades are revolutionary democrats, they must be serious about resolving their own inconsistency.

Finally I should mention Tom Delargy, whose positions are closer to Trotskyism. I think it is fair to say that Tom is moving towards revolutionary democracy. I do not know whether he has actually arrived yet. But for the time being I will take him as being outside the revolutionary democratic camp.

Finally it might appear that only Jack has a unified bloc. But there are some hidden differences within his camp, including some who think that everybody should have a right to self-determination. There is also the AWL, which has publicly endorsed the methods of revolutionary democracy, is in favour of a united Ireland, but accepts the right of the Protestants to self-determination up to and including the right to call in the British army.

The main debate is within the ‘family’. The real issues are to be found there. This is not because we are better arguers than the outsiders, but because we are subjecting our arguments to a clear test - consistency with the principled politics of revolutionary working class democracy. The ‘outsiders’ cannot subject us to the only test that might persuade us to change our minds. Can John Stone really expose the fact that Jack is not a consistent revolutionary democrat? Of course he cannot, unless he first declares himself to be a total hypocrite.

Let us therefore concentrate on some of the issues that divide the ‘family’. The first of these is the question of the nation. Jack argues that there is a British nation and not a Scottish nation. Allan argues that it is the other way round. My position is a ‘dual nation’ position. There is both a British nation and a Scottish nation. We live in a multinational state with British-English, British-Welsh, British-Scots and British-Irish. Obviously this is a contradiction. But for me, contradiction is at the heart of the national question. At last weekend’s CPGB school in London Allan said that his denial of a British nation was merely polemical. In which case his real position might also be ‘dual nation’. Perhaps he should clarify this.

One of the issues to emerge is how we define a nation. All revolutionary democrats are agreed that nations and citizenship are a modern idea emerging with the spread of capitalism. We are all agreed that ancient-dynastic Scotland was not a nation. Allan explained during the school the role of John Knox and Presbyterianism in the beginnings of national consciousness. But nobody is proclaiming a mythical ‘Braveheart’ nation.

The case for a Scottish nation does not depend on the fact that Engels and Lenin referred to the four nations of Britain in State and revolution. The question is for today. Scotland has a clearly defined territory and definite border. This is a key factor. There are many oppressed nations in the world whose borders are neither defined nor recognised. Scotland’s status as a nation is recognised in UK constitutional law. Its status as a nation is recognised by many international sporting bodies. Scotland participates, for example, in the World Cup. Scotland has many nationally distinct institutions - schools and universities with their own curriculum and exam structures, a legal system with its own codes and rules, a church independent from the state and a distinctive system of local government. Despite the common UK currency, it even has its own banknotes. From the 1880s it has had its own national bureaucracy - the Scottish office with a £14 billion budget. It now has its own national parliament. Nobody can deny that Scotland has a distinct culture, history and a common language.

I have left the most important reason to last. The vast majority of Scotland’s people consider themselves to be a nation distinct from the English. They consider themselves Scottish. They have their own nationalist parties, which give political expression to idea of a Scottish nation. The Scottish people are, in a word, Scottish. They are no more north British than we consider ourselves south British. Among the world’s nations-without-states, Scotland is surely one of the most clear-cut examples.

When CPGB comrades discuss this in my presence I seem to be in a minority of one. This surely gives them a false sense of security. In the real world this calculation turns upside down. With five million votes against, the CPGB is an infinitesimally small minority. More interestingly is why? The answer lies in Stalin’s definition of a nation:

“A nation is an historically grown, stable community of language, territory, economic life and a psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.” Stalin then says: “It has to be stressed that none of the mentioned criteria, taken on its own, is sufficient for a definition of what constitutes a nation. More: if only one of them is lacking, the nation ceases to be a nation” (JV Stalin Marxism and the national question p10).

This definition is very narrow. If we apply it as a check list, Scotland scores five out of six and thus fails the Stalin test. Apparently the CPGB thinks Scotland does not have a ‘common economy’. The Scottish economy is a capitalist economy and part of the British, European and world economies. Jack points out that nobody has so far questioned Stalin’s definition (Weekly Worker October 21). This was true. I had considered it no more than guidelines and was not at all concerned if Scotland only scored five. But the CPGB is applying the strict letter of the law as set out by Stalin. Both myself and Allan have now said that we must question Stalin’s definition.

Jack explained that when he was accusing me of having a “check list” approach he was not criticising me for having a definition. We all have definitions or, if you prefer, a “check list”. Jack’s point was that in the face of a problem in Ireland I was offering them a check-list solution. This is not the case. I am arguing for a consistently democratic programme and attempting to be clear under what conditions this programme should be amended to include the right of the British-Irish to self-determination. My view is that the conditions do not prevail at present for a (fictional) amendment of the Irish or UK minimum programmes.

When asked whether I am in favour of a centralised, federal or separate Scottish and Welsh workers’ republics in Britain, I can make a principled abstract check-list answer. I prefer a centralised workers’ republic with delegates from every corner of Britain. But a correct answer is also that I will not choose because we do not know the concrete circumstances that might prevail when a move to a workers’ republic is on the cards. A Scottish workers’ republic may then be correct. But to say this now is dabbling in or even promoting nationalism. Since I cannot predict the future with accuracy I do not rule out, absolutely, national self-determination for the people of Ulster. This is not because I do not think the Protestants could change, but on the contrary because I think they could change radically. But to advocate it now would be reactionary. Now it means nothing other than the ‘right’ to remain in the UK.

Allan Armstrong has made a number of important points recently. I want to pursue those points in my own way. First is the concept of nation which must be linked to citizenship, not race. We do not need reminding that the Germans defined their nation in racial and cultural terms, which excluded the Jews. Our position must be the opposite of the racial or ethnic nation. Perhaps we should speak of the ‘national democracy’ rather than the nation.

National democracy (or democracies) began to emerge with the rise of capitalism and the British, American and especially the French revolutions. It will continue until it begins to ‘wither away’ as a result of the international socialist revolution. Of course national democracy is not a fixed amount, but constantly in flux as a result of the class struggle. Neither is it limited to bourgeois democracy. Its highest form is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Under conditions of modern global capitalism the working class is increasingly mobile. Immigration is and always has been a major component of capitalist development. The national democracy must be defined as multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious (ie, secular) in a multi-nationality state.

National democracy must have two equally important dimensions. The right of nations to self-determination must govern relations between national democracies. Full freedom and equality must be the guiding principle. This is exactly what Allan says (Weekly Worker October 28). He points out that this distinction was made by Lenin. These two democratic principles are essential for a consistently democratic position. It is completely mistaken to consider that freedom to secede is the be-all and end-all of consistent democracy. We have to be able to distinguish how they apply to the ‘British-Irish’. This is why having a proper scientific definition of a nation is vital if we are not to be moved by our own national prejudices.

It seems to me that territory and national consciousness are vital components. But perhaps the existence of a democratic movement is also necessary. After all a national democracy cannot be formed out of thin air. It must be a product of a democratic movement. As revolutionary democrats our concern is not to unite the Irish nation, but to unite Irish democracy. It is a united Ireland that offers the best opportunity to extend Irish (national) democracy. It is the working class, both catholic and protestant, that has most to gain from the struggle for Irish democracy, provided they actively participate in the forging of that democracy.

In this sense John Stone’s point seems correct. It is not the oppression of nations, rather the oppression of national democracy, that concerns us. If Kurdistan or Scotland do not have the right to self-determination, their national democracies are oppressed, although obviously not in the same way. Democracy, in this sense, is not some set of narrow constitutional rules, but the politically organised people.

Dave Craig