10.08.2005
How dare they criticise us!
The Irish Republican Socialist Party devoted the whole of its latest email newsletter, The Plough, to the article on Ireland carried in these pages last week, and the responses to it. We reproduce the editorial, penned by John Martin, IRSP political secretary, and his original response to John Bridge in January 1999
On August 4 2005 the Weekly Worker, paper of the Communist Party of Great Britain, printed an article entitled 'Ireland needs Marxism'. The article reprints a number of incorrect statements attributed to G Ruddy in 1998. This despite the fact that the Irish Republican Socialist Party gave a systematic rebuttal of the false allegations made by the original article by John Bridge. In the late 1980s those who later became the CPGB had a fraternal relationship with the then political leadership of the IRSP. Despite this the CPGB did not have the courtesy to address their critique to the IRSP before they published it in their newspaper. The IRSP response was published in the Starry Plough newspaper (see below). We will give Peter Manson the benefit of the doubt that he was unaware of our response. Now let us again rebut the false allegations made by the CPGB. Manson's comments are in bold. "¦ on December 5 1998 the IRSP overwhelming voted at its conference to abandon the only genuine basis for working class emancipation. It ditched its 1984 commitment to Marxism and the building of a Communist Party (described as "premature"). This is, of course, totally untrue. What actually happened was that the following motion was proposed by the comrades from Dublin as follows: "The Dublin cumman IRSP call on this ard fheis to commit the party to becoming a genuine revolutionary party of the working class. We believe that this can only be achieved by offering the working class an alternative to the capitalist system of production, control and exchange. That alternative society must be based on 'need, not greed' and an end to capitalist exploitation. We therefore propose that this ard fheis commit the party to becoming communist and internationalist with an ideology based on the Communist manifesto written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in 1848. We propose the party aspires toward Marxism with a full commitment to the Manifesto." The motion was withdrawn and a decision taken to hold a conference on the ideological direction of the party the following year. In the course of the debate the CPGB alleged that: Gerry Ruddy, political secretary and de facto main spokesperson, questioned the relevance of Marxism to the 21st century and in a coup de grà¢ce tellingly asked who had actually read Marx recently. Not one of the 100 or so delegates raised a hand. What was actually asked was: "Who has read the Communist manifesto recently?" None of our comrades had. This has to be seen against the following background. The 1998 ard fheis was the first to be held in over 14 years and came shortly after the party had suffered armed attacks from the Torney gang. They had killed Gino Gallagher, who had spearheaded the politicisation of the republican socialist movement. Those attacks had come only seven years after a previous effort was made by what became the IPLO to wipe out the RSM. During that period of time politics had taken a back seat and a previous leadership had tried to stop any political developments in the movement. Indeed the decisions taken by the 1984 ard fheis on Marxism had been used by some former comrades to justify the assaults on the movement. So in 1998 we were in the process of rebuilding the party and reuniting the movement. Rather than pass wonderful-sounding resolutions that signified nothing the party rightly took the decision to postpone the discussion when it could be more thoroughly debated at a special conference to examine the roots of our politics. In a keynote speech comrade Ruddy explained that what he understood by republican socialism was a national socialism. This is, of course, without a semblance of truth. It is also unworthy of the CPGB to try to link a radical republican socialist organisation with Nazism. Twice over a seven-year period the CPGB have repeated this foul lie. A cursory reading of any of the speeches delivered by a wide variety of IRSP speakers, including comrade Ruddy over the past seven years, would show clearly the internationalist perspective of the IRSP. "¦ but at their December 1998 ard fheis they advocated a "community policing and justice service" to be jointly financed by the British and Irish states - a position not dissimilar to that of SF. This refers to a discussion paper tabled by one comrade in the leadership to raise debate on issues such as punishment beatings, etc. It was not formally approved as policy. The truth is, without the compass of Marxism any socialist grouping will be all at sea. The IRSP is no exception. Apart from one brief period in the 1980s, it has always tended to position itself as the left critic of Sinn Féin - and when SF moves to the right, so will the IRSP in all likelihood. It is very clear from this that the CPGB have absolutely no idea of what the IRSP stand for. They have obviously read nothing of what the party has written over the past 10 years. Incidentally does the CPGB think that the only time we were not left critics of the Provos was when they were running educational seminars for the IRSP and our movement then had the 'right line'? Despite what comrade O Ruairc says about the difference between nationalism and republicanism, the IRSP is first and foremost a left nationalist formation. This is just abuse from an organisation that sees itself as the centre of all truth and correctness when it comes to all things to do with Marxism. For the benefit of our readers we outline some of the resolutions passed by the organisation since 1998. In 2002 the following resolution was passed: (a) That the IRSP is a revolutionary Marxist organisation, and that by this we mean that the IRSP believes: (b) class conflict is the motive force in human history; (c) the IRSP stands unreservedly and exclusively for the interests of the working class against all others; (d) only the creation of a 32-county Irish socialist republic can provide the means by which Irish national liberation can be realised; (e) that there can be no socialism without national liberation in Ireland, nor can there be national liberation without socialism; (f) that there is no parliamentary road to socialism, because socialism cannot be forged by seizing the bourgeois state apparatus; nor is there a guerrilla road to socialism, because a social revolution requires the active participation of the masses; and therefore that a socialist republic can only be established through the mass revolutionary action of the working class in the political, economic, and social spheres; (g) that socialism means the ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange collectively by the entire working class, with an end to wage labour, an end to production for profit and its replacement by a system of production based on human need; and (h) that socialism must be administered democratically by the working class itself, recognising the class dictatorship of the workers, because the vast majority of society is formed by that class. This does not suggest the need for a political dictatorship of a single party. Rather it calls out for a class dictatorship, administered through new working class institutions created to permit the greatest degree of political freedom for all working people. Also in his address to that ard fheis G Ruddy said in reference to the party: "It is internationalist, it is socialist, it is republican, it is Marxist." Two years later at the following ard fheis comrade Ruddy said: "The survival of the human species must of necessity make us internationalist. If nothing else ever so clearly defines the differences between ourselves, the IRSP, and other republicans, who have capitulated to a narrow, sectarian-influenced nationalism, it must be our internationalism, following well in the footsteps of Wolfe Tone and James Connolly." In 2004 the first resolution passed by the ard fheis read as follows: "Ard fheis reaffirms that the IRSP is a republican socialist party influenced by the writings of Tone, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Connolly, Mellows, Costello, and Power." It is sobering to think that an organisation like the CPGB, which seems to specialise in analysing the political errors of other leftwing organisations, could not take the time to do their research right. The above quotations can be found on the IRSP website. Indeed anyone who has read the Starry Plough and/or The Plough could never doubt the internationalism of the IRSP. At the least we accuse Manson of sloppy research. The IRSP has held its hands up and admitted errors and mistakes. Indeed it has criticised past actions by the Irish National Liberation Army which itself held its hands up and admitted grievous errors in the past. We do not think we have the keys to the holy writ of Marxism. In historical terms we are a relatively young organisation that has just come out of a war situation over the past 30 years. But we will take no lessons in Marxism from an organisation that not only retrospectively justifies the partition of Ireland, but also would be happy with a repartition of the island. Partition was not just a crime against the nationalist working class: it was a crime against the unionist working class. To retrospectively justify it now, as the CPGB do, is to compound that crime. Thanks, comrades, but no thanks all the same. John Martin Insulting and patronising John Martin's 12-point reply, January 1999 A critique of the ard fheis of the IRSP in the Weekly Worker (January 7 1999) began with a general discourse on submission which was both insulting and patronising to a revolutionary organisation with a record of resistance to imperialism for 24 years. The IRSP have been accused of many things in the past. Some criticisms have been well justified. However, the criticisms from John Bridge most certainly are not. Twelve main criticisms are made. While we have gone forward organisationally we have made an ideological retreat. This criticism following the patronising introduction implies that we are bowing to the prevailing reactionary mood. Because the IRSP looks at the world as it is, not as we would like it to be, do we stand condemned. For the first time in many years the IRSP has become actively involved in political struggle. That is not only an organisational advance: it is a political and ideological advance. Of what use are paper resolutions proclaiming our revolutionary purity if no organisation exists to implement the resolutions? We passed an overwhelming vote against reaffirming the party's 1984 commitment to Marxism and building a Communist Party. This is just untrue and is truly worthy of a Sun award for services to journalism. What did happen was that a motion committing the party to a "full commitment" to the Communist manifesto of 1848 was referred back on the grounds that few of us had recently read the Manifesto (if indeed many of our members had ever read it). It was clearly stated by leading comrades that they did not wish to vote against the motion, but considered it premature. The leadership also committed itself to calling a conference to consider the ideological development of the party. No motion relating to "building a Communist Party" existed. A number of prominent comrades displayed their Irish republicanism and professed ignorance of Marxism. No-one had "actually read Marx recently". This is a gross distortion of a complex and genuine argument. The political secretary, John Martin, in opposing the Dublin motion, pointed out the reality of the situation. Few comrades had read the Communist manifesto and that it was ludicrous to ask comrades to accept something they had not read. Furthermore it was premature to rush into decisions without the fullest democratic discussion. The Dublin comrades refused to withdraw their resolution so it was referred back by an overwhelming majority to the incoming leadership. As for that cheap jibe about "Irish republicans", coming from a organisation that prides itself on being a British party, well, we are Irish republicans and make no apology for that. A leading comrade questioned "the relevance of Marxism to the 21st century". Does John Bridge never question or critically re-examine his core beliefs? Or is everything from the great gods of Marx Engels and Lenin above re-examination? Is Marxism a mantra to be chanted or a method to be tested? No doubt John will let us know. In a keynote speech republican socialism was "national socialism". This is just an appalling lie. It did not happen. Once again we see the makings of a Sun journalist emerging here. The constitution of the IRSP specifically calls for a socialist republic "based on the spirit of workers' unity and internationalism". The keynote speech was part of a process to raise ideological debate amongst the comrades in the movement which, according to John Bridge, is "frighteningly low and left illusions are rampant". The political leadership has not proved "particularly political". This statement says more about the myopic view of the world of John Bridge than it does about the IRSP. Do not lecture Irish socialists on how to run their struggle, comrades. This is another form of patronising great power chauvinism. How can you write that about a leadership that has come under armed attacks from loyalists, from British-backed pseudo-republican gangs, suffered physical and verbal assaults from Provisionals, resisted fierce efforts by British security forces to compromise our security and politics, while reaffirming the movement's commitment in particular to the political direction of the famous Ta Power document? We have lost our leader, Gino Gallagher, who laid down the direction we should take. Our comrades in Portlaoise jail had to undergo a hunger strike to achieve prison equality with the Provisionals. The INLA accepted the political analysis of the IRSP over the past four years and transformed itself into a disciplined, politically motivated, and highly effective revolutionary force. The IRSP has held two ard fheis in two years following the failure of previous leaderships to call any since 1984. The IRSP now has a presence throughout Ireland, is politically active and is a growing revolutionary force. This doesn't amount political leadership? But producing a newspaper is? And will the newspaper follow the line of John Bridge and call for all to join the Communist Party of Great Britain? We think not. There was precious little argument at the ard fheis. Perhaps that was because the membership had a leadership that it trusted and agreed with. The implication that debate was stifled is not true. There was ample opportunity for comrades to speak and the hallmark of the leadership over the last four years has been its encouragement of debate, openness and criticism. The standing orders were absurd for barring "personal criticisms and bad language". The republican socialist movement has suffered in the past from fierce personality clashes that helped contribute to an atmosphere which eventually led to armed clashes. Political criticism are not the same as personal criticisms and if John Bridge thinks it is OK to engage in personal criticisms then he has learned little. As regards bad language, we regard it as immature for people making politic points to bolster their arguments by swearing. "Rather than have a good fight, the IRSP leadership opted for bad peace"; "no lessons were learnt". This point emerges from the debate about the manner in which the INLA ceasefire came about. There were many lessons learnt from that experience and other experiences. Does John Bridge really believe that we would have engaged in public debate about the ceasefire, endangering the security of comrades, compromising our positions and letting the British have full knowledge of who all the key players are? Suffice it to say that the leadership of the movement acted decisively. We were moving to the right, calling for state measures and being totally economistic and producing papers which were "thoroughly reformist". An organisation that stood up to British imperialism for 24 years is not simply giving up its struggle and becoming an economistic organisation. For years we have read critiques from the British left that told us we were this, that and the other. Fraternal criticism is one thing: this name-calling is something else. Furthermore the paper on community policing was a discussion document and is not policy. In relation to the drugs problem, what do you think the IRSP should advocate? If not state action then what? DADD activity? The killing of major drug dealers? It may be an abstract problem to you - it's real for us. Comrade Ruddy abstained on a motion on decommissioning! What does this mean? Comrades are not allowed to disagree? Should there be a 100% vote on all resolutions? Or is this really a way of personalising the problem as John Bridge see it? Create a caricature of an opponent and thereby weaken his arguments. Set up leaders in order to knock them down. The leadership of this party is a collective leadership. The days of the cult of the personality are long gone from this movement. "Scientifically the IRSP can be characterised as centrist." Well, really! How naughty of us! There is really little to say on this. The passing of slightly contradictory motions, the tabling of discussion papers, the efforts to chart the way forward - all show that the IRSP is collectively beginning the process of engaging in politics after years of passivity. It will be for the future to judge us - not on the basis of motions passed, but on the actions of our movement l
Worker