10.05.2000

RCN debates nation

On Saturday May 6 the Republican Communist Network held the second in a series of day schools taking place over the duration of this year.

The school was well attended, with comrades travelling to Edinburgh from across Scotland and England. Non-RCN members from Socialist Outlook and the Glasgow Marxist Forum also attended and contributed to discussion.

The first of three sessions opened with Allan Armstrong of the Communist Tendency giving his definition of a nation. Comrade Armstrong began by stressing the importance of the national question in Britain, given the rise of the nationalist movements in Scotland and Wales since the 1960s. He said that much of the left had in the past chosen to ignore this question, but in recent years it has had to face up to the fact that the nationalist movement - particularly in Scotland, but also in Wales - is strong and appears to be growing, and therefore the left must take a position.

Comrade Armstrong put forward an alternative definition, which he describes as "the extension of democracy over a territorial area". He looks to France 1789, where for the first time the people became citizens of the nation state. As such they could fight for and win democratic rights, such as the right to vote. He further illustrated this concept of "democracy over a territorial area" with the example of Ireland in 1916, when national sentiment broke out in the struggle for democracy. Where Bismarckian or Nazi Germany fit in here remians something of a mystery.

The second session began with Jack Conrad of the CPGB addressing the British-Irish question. The comrade began by stating that the right to self-determination is not an abstract argument, but a living question due to the real antagonism between the people of Northern Ireland, for which first the English crown and then British imperialism is primarily to blame in terms of history. Comrade Conrad argues for a united Ireland, but recognises that there is a group in the Six Counties who at present feel threatened by such a prospect.

If this group - the British-Irish - were simply identified by religion then the question of self-determination would be an irrelevance. However, comrade Conrad points out their community has existed for around 400 years and they have established a distinct identity. Moreover, the British-Irish have a common culture and share a common territory, and therefore comrade Conrad argues that as an ethnic-national commonality they ought to have the right to self-determination. Within a united Ireland a one-county, four-half-county British-Irish province should have local autonomy and the freedom to democratically secede.

Comrade Conrad acknowledges that at present the British-Irish are not an oppressed ethnic-national group, but argues that if they are forced into a united Ireland then that is what they would become.

Advocating their right to self-determination within a territory where they are in a clear majority would serve to reassure them. It would help cement working class unity. The comrade recognises that there would be a not inconsiderable 'catholic Irish' population within a British-Irish autonomous area and their rights would have to be protected.

Comrade Conrad stressed that the demand for a united Ireland with the right to self-determination for the British-Irish ought to be demanded as part of the communist minimum programme, aimed at empowering the working class through championing the rights of all. As such, it is integral to the struggle for socialism and universal human liberation.

Most comrades argued against this. The British-Irish are a group with distinct national allegiances in that they want to be ruled by Britain: a separate province would not satisfy them. Others thought that self-determination for this group would set up boundaries which could prevent the prospect of unity for the Irish working class in the future. Such comrades said that, while it would be necessary to defend the rights of the British-Irish within a united Ireland, they should not be extended to include the right to self-determination.

The last session of the school began with a report on the RCN England by Steve Freeman, English secretary and convenor, who referred to the differing role of the RCN in Scotland compared to England. In Scotland it has drawn together republican communists in discussion and debate, but its major role has been as the left faction within the Scottish Socialist Party. In England the RCN could play a part in the socialist alliances, and perhaps it could take up the question of a republican parliament in England, but as yet its role is unclear.

The comrade gave an account of the meeting which launched the RCN England (February 5), as it had been alleged by the Communist Tendency and others that it had been conducted undemocratically, which he disputed.

Comrade Freeman raised the question of who was entitled to membership. The answer to which being anyone who accepted the slogans. There was a general consensus from comrades that this should be on a self-selecting basis and that no one should be asked to jump through hoops on the slogans. Comrade Barry Biddulph had expressed concern that he was being driven out of the RCN because he does not share the same interpretation of some slogans as comrade Freeman. Hopefully the expressed opinions of comrades at the school will have allayed his fears.

Some members had complained, mainly in writing, that comrade Freeman was not fulfilling his role to the best of his abilities. Comrades at the school made the point that all posts are recallable and accountable and that the membership can elect new officers if they see fit. The last point made was that comrades living outside London were free to form branches where practical.

As a whole it was a successful day with informative discussions and debate. The last session was dealt with openly and democratically, and hopefully went some way towards solving the problems with the RCN in England.