Crisis in Northern Ireland (1970)

On Rossville St. Barricade, Bogside.

CRISIS IN NORTHERN IRELAND - The Question In Perspective

This article, written by PAUL JONES and PETER TAAFFE, set out a Marxist analysis of the growing conflict via the history of the divide-and-rule strategy of British imperialism in Ireland. 
It was published in the Militant International Review  (No.3), Autumn 1970

 


The stormy events in Northern Ireland involving the mass uprising of the Catholic population of Derry and Belfast a little over a year ago, the deployment of 11,000 British troops, the daily street fighting, armed clashes and bomb incidents, together with the reverberations from these developments South of the border have shaken the position of British imperialism in Ireland. 

All the carefully laid plans, the deliberate fostering of sectarianism over centuries, the entrenchment of a virtual police state and the guarantee of a political monopoly to their Unionist cohorts have all blown up in the face of the British ruling class. Retribution for the sins of the fathers is visited on the heads of the sons. The very methods which ensured their domination in the past now recoil on them in the changed situation North and South of the border.

Ireland is Britain's oldest colony. Its conquest and domination reads as one of the bloodiest chapters in the very bloody history of British imperialism. Even a cursory study of its role in Ireland is enough to explode all those myths as to the benevolence, culture and "democracy" of the ruling class so carefully nurtured by its ideologues. That one incident alone, the mutiny of the officer caste at the Curragh in 1914 against the milk and water scheme for "Home Rule" of the Liberal Government demonstrated the ruthlessness of British capitalism when its interests are threatened. This "treason” was openly and publicly backed by the Tory Party at the time .... "I can imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster can go in which I should not be prepared to support them" (Bonar Law - Tory leader).

The British ruling class were able to cleverly utilise the Irish in Britain to divide and weaken the working class .... “The revolutionary fire of the Celtic workers does not harmonise with the restrained force but slowness of the Anglo-Saxons .... This antagonism between the proletarians in England is artificially cultivated by the bourgeoisie". (Resolution of First International).

It was in Ireland also where all those methods were first tried out and perfected which served the British bourgeoisie in carving out its Empire. It served as the drill ground for the British army and its policies of blood and iron. At the same time the country was reduced to a mere appendage of the British economy. Every independent development of industry and agriculture was crushed by the British ruling class, it being tailored to their needs. Thus, as a consequence of the repeal of the Corn Laws, ending the virtual monopoly of Irish corn in the English market, the Anglo-Irish landlords went over from tillage to pasture farming, evicting at the same time the tenant farmers. As a result one million perished and another million were driven out of Ireland to the four corners of the world. This was at a time when millions of bushels of corn were exported from Ireland in order to fill the pockets of the landlords. The consequences are still evident in the population figures for Ireland today, In 1840 the total population of the whole of Ireland stood at 8¼ million while today it is barely 4¼ million. It was these brutal conditions in the countryside which prompted the growth of spontaneous resistance organisations of the peasants in the eighteenth century, "Oakboys", “Whiteboys”, etc. , like the "woodland produces mushrooms" as Marx pointed out. 

DIVIDE AND RULE

At the same time the British ruling class found in the division between Protestant and Catholic peasants, in turn a product of the earlier plantation of the northern counties, a convenient tool to hand in order to head off any movement which challenged its position. It was thus that the Orange Order was first used by the State. Originally formed as a defence against the attacks of the Catholic Defenders it was combined with the terror of General Lake at the end of the eighteenth century to defeat the United Irishmen. The latter organisation, led by Wolfe Tone, encompassed Protestant and Catholic petit-bourgeois and peasants alike. Its aim was the establishment of a republic on the lines of the French revolution. It instilled terror into the ranks of the landlords and capitalists and the ruling class took measures to inflame sectarian passions to ward off the dangers: "I have arranged to increase the animosity between Orangemen and the United Irish. Upon that animosity depends the safety of the centre counties of the North" (Knox, assistant to General Lake). From that time onwards this policy obtained the force of a law in the dealings of British imperialism with Ireland. Any tendency towards the Catholic and Protestant reaching across the sectarian divide was defeated in like manner.

But neither military might nor the scheming of the British ruling class was able to still the Irish rebellion. Like Antagus, who regathers greater strength every time he is thrown to the ground, so too every generation witnessed a movement against British rule. In the wake of the defeat of the United Irishmen there followed the plebeian movement, based mainly in Dublin, and led by Robert Emmet. This was followed by the Young Irelanders, then the Fenians, characterised by Marx as having a "socialist tendency", the Irish Republican Brotherhood and in the twentieth century by the most famous of all, the Citizens' Army, the first Red Army in Europe, led by James Connolly. But invariably the national revolt of the Irish fell under the influence of the nascent bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie leadership who attempted to moderate the movement and steer it away from social issues.

Never was this more evident than in the period following the 1916 uprising, the guerrilla war, which tied down 100,000 British troops, and the subsequent partitioning of the country. The forces which either stood aside or condemned from the sidelines the 1916 uprising, i.e. the Irish bourgeoisie and their political representatives, were the inheritors of the gains made possible by the sacrifice of Connolly and the 1916 insurgents. Against the execration heaped on them by their "fellow" Irishmen and almost alone in the international Labour Movement , Lenin and the Marxists defended the leaders of the uprising against those to attacked it as a "putsch". Lenin pointed to the massive turnout at the funeral of the Fenian leader O’Donovan Roosa, the suppression of the nationalist press and the clashes with the police to indicate its roots in the Irish people.

Nevertheless, none of the necessary steps were taken which could guarantee the success of the uprising, i.e. the calling of a General Strike, and a class appeal to the British troops. The tragedy, as Lenin pointed out, was that the uprising came before the European proletariat was ready for an outright assault on imperialism. But against the treachery of the Labour leaders of the time, who played first fiddle in the war chorus of the monopolies, and the treachery and cowardice of the German Communist Party and Labour leaders, who allowed Hitler to come to power "without a pane of glass being broke", the action of Connolly, Pearse and company stands out in glorious distinction. A tradition was laid down which directly led to the mass movement which taxed to the hilt the power of British imperialism.

NAVAL IMPORTANCE OF IRELAND FOR BRITAIN

Not the least of the factors which determined the defeat of the rising was the position in the Irish countryside. Even in the latter part of the eighteenth century the strategists of capital had realised the importance of Ireland as a sea base. "Britannia rules the waves” merely summed up its determination to maintain the predominance of its naval power as a prime condition of its world supremacy. Gladstone had initiated a number of Land Acts between 1880-1903 which "bought out" the landlords, at a handsome price to the latter. In giving out their estates to the tenant farmers, he attempted to break the backbone of the revolt of the Irish. In this way half a million tenants were able to purchase the land being forced to repay the British Government in the form of land annuities over a period of time. This played a part in keeping the agricultural districts quiet in 1916.

The naval importance of Ireland to British imperialism was further demonstrated, both in the Treaty of 1922 and later during the Second World War. British Government Cabinet papers released only this year show that Churchill even considered military intervention against the twenty six counties in order to secure the important bases in the South for use against German imperialism in the U-boat war. But the main fear of the British ruling class centred on the social effects of the revolutionary movement between 1916-23. In so far as the nationalist movement took on mass form, it fed on the social conditions of the workers and peasants. Connolly understood that the struggle for national freedom was bound up with the struggle for workers’ power: “If you remove the English Army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists”.

The class aspects which Connolly and Larkin had given to the national struggle had ensured the predominance of the forces of the Labour Movement in this movement before 1916. Compared to the bourgeois nationalist weekly Sinn Fein with its circulation of 5,000, the revolutionary organ of the Labour Movement Workers’ Republic enjoyed enormous influence, with a top circulation of 74,000 in 1911. But following the execution of Connolly and during Larkin's absence in America the epigones who took their place, Thomas Johnson and Cathal O'Shannon, abdicated leadership in the struggle against the British ruling class. This meant ceding control to Arthur Griffiths, the founder of Sinn Fein (Ourselves Alone) who idealised the strivings of the effete Southern bourgeoisie and to petty-bourgeois nationalists such as De Valera. The class standpoint of Griffiths was clearly revealed in the 1913 lock out, when he came together with "Home Rule” capitalists like Murphy, clerical reaction and the British Government to smash the Dublin workers. At the time of the 1916 uprising he stood aside from the movement. His economic policies echoed those of the German economists list, of self-sufficiency and tariffs to protect Irish industry. At the outset Griffiths was prepared to accept Dominion status and even Dual Monarchy. Included in his outlook also were elements of racialism:- "The right of the Irish to political independence never was, is not and never can be dependent upon the admission of equal rights in all other peoples .... He who holds Ireland a nation and all means lawful to restore her the full free exercise of national liberties thereby no more commits himself to the theory that black equals white ... ". 

In order to mobilise the workers and peasants who constituted the fighting personnel and the mass basis of the struggle against the British ruling class, the social programme of the first independent Dail (Parliament) was forced to reflect their demands: "the full resources of Ireland for the people of Ireland, etc." Johnson, the Labour Party Leader, was allowed to do the drafting of the main part of the programme. The more specific demands of the Labour Movement were omitted. That there was a basis for a clear class lead was revealed in the Civil War which followed the signing of the Treaty in 1922 by the bourgeois representatives in the liberation movement. The anti-Treaty forces, although still led by petty-bourgeois nationalists such as De Valera, at bottom represented the opposition of the small farmers and working class to the acceptance of a deal with British imperialism. The best elements within the Republican movement such as Liam Mellowes belatedly understood the class role of Griffiths, Collins and Co. From his death cell he declared: "We are back to Tone - and it is just as well - relying on that great body of men, the men of no property. The stake in the country people were never with the Republic."

The pro-Treaty forces underlined Mellowes’ characterisation of them by beginning the short-lived but bloody Civil War with guns borrowed from the British Army and murdering Mellowes as a "reprisal”. Before his execution he urged that the social programme of the Republican movement should be made more specific and the workers and farmers mobilised in action: "Under the Republic all industry will be controlled by the State for the workers’ and farmers’ benefit.”

PARTITION SPLITS WORKERS

The partitioning of the country only served to reinforce the division within the wring class and were ratified by the bloody pogroms unleashed against the Catholic workers from the outset of the Northern Ireland state. In the first two years over 435 were murdered. Belfast lived under a reign of terror and a curfew for four years. The terror spread its tentacles into every aspect of the lives of the Catholic population. The blood-letting was urged on by the Unionist regime as a means of cowering into submission the Catholic population. The head of the Northern regime, Craig, congratulated the Protestant workers in the Belfast shipyards after a particularly murderous attack on the Catholic workers: "Do I approve of the action you boys have taken? .... I say yes". (Quoted in D. McCardle’s The Republic ). That ruthless apparatus which has made up the "stability” of Unionism for fifty years was then introduced, armed police, Special Powers Act, abolition of proportional representation, the paramilitary B- Specials and the discrimination against the Catholic population. The state itself was completely unviable right from the outset and could only be supported by the inclusion of two overwhelming Catholic counties, Fermanagh and Tyrone, and massive subventions by British imperialism amounting now to over £200 million a year. Despite this, massive unemployment was endemic from the beginning. Even in the relatively “prosperous" post-war period, unemployment has fluctuated at two or three times the average for Britain as a whole, affecting the Catholic population the worst. Strabane possesses the highest unemployment per head of population of any town in Western Europe: in the region of 30% for the male population. (See Militant Nos. 46, 51, 53, 64 and 66 for further details).
 
From these social conditions came the seething discontent of the Catholic population. Yet, if anything, the economic position of the Catholics has been easier (by Northern Ireland standards) than was the case in the inter-war period. The state was conceived amidst a massive 18% unemployment level and reached 25% a few years later. Even this only occasionally shook the Unionist monolith and it remained in power longer than any other regime in Europe.

Why then the mass upheavals in the past period which have irretrievably shattered the Unionist Party in its old form? The explanation is to be found in the changed conditions within Northern Irish society which have affected all the advanced countries as a consequence of the post-war economic upswing. Better though it undoubtedly was than in the past, nevertheless, the new generation of Catholic workers were not prepared to accept the old conditions; the "cropies would not lie down". The downturn in the British market in 1966 exacerbated the situation, bringing in its wake the closure of a number of factories. The crisis-ridden shipbuilding and linen industries offered no way out. Neither did foreign capital, induced there by massive bribes, eat up the "surplus" labour. The new jobs created only barely accounted for those lost in the dying industries.

In revolt against the system which condemned them to a living death it was the impatience of the youth which fuelled the Civil Rights campaign. The mailed fist of Paisley and Craig only served to inflame the situation. Even sections of the Protestant working and middle classes were initially sympathetic to the demands of the Civil Rights Movement. This was demonstrated by the overwhelming support for the movement in Queens University (75% Protestant). As part of the middle strata, the students reflected the changes unfolding in the ranks of the middle class and the working class.

An investigation by Strathclyde University also revealed that at that time a majority of the Catholic workers no longer viewed the Border as an important issue. So when the 1968 October 5th Civil Rights demonstration was broken up by the clubs and boots of the RUC, to be followed by the vicious attack on the students at Burntollet bridge, this only served to propel into action more and more sections of the Catholic population. The British bourgeoisie and the O’Neill wing of the Unionist Party early on drew the conclusion that the old methods would endanger their position in Northern Ireland and have “dangerous" repercussions South of the Border and in Britain itself.

CHANGED CONDITIONS

The more far sighted sections understood that to screw down the lid on the social protest behind the Civil Rights campaign would lead to, on the one side, a veiled "religious civil war”. This in turn would lead to massive damage to property and a seizing up of foreign investments.

Already over £40 million of their investments have been destroyed. On the other side, one consequence of a movement on the streets, even if it began as a religious clash could easily be a turn in the direction of mass class action. In the changed situation in the six counties, the Labour Movement, far more powerful than in the past, would be forced to step in. The tendency was already evident in the "peace committees" in East Belfast last year and the action of the shipyard shop-stewards in opposition sectarian divisions. The political connotations of such a movement filled them with dread. That is why they attempted to get rid of the more open sectarian abuses against the Catholic population, by exerting pressure on the O'Neill and Chichester-Clarke Governments.

Another factor in the situation is the changed attitude of the British bourgeoisie and their Southern Irish counterparts towards the Border. The organs of Big Business in Britain have openly come out for some kind of unification of the country on a capitalist basis. No longer do they fear the effects of a social revolution emanating from the South.And as if to confirm the British bourgeoisie in their belief, the Fianna Fail regime in the South has held out the olive branch to them: “The task confronting us today has to do with evolution - not revolution" (Irish Press, semi-official organ of Fianna Fail, 21/1/69).

Having tried and failed to build up an independent base, in the abortive pre-war tariff war with British Imperialism, the Southern bourgeoisie have hitched their star to that of their British Big Brother. At the same time a reassessment of the strategic interests of the Southern ruling class is presently taking place in the Irish bourgeois press. Reflecting its premature arterio-sclerosis, one section represented by Dr. Geary has even come out against unification with the North on the basis that the cost of British social services "would cripple their economy". The other favours a "Federation" and transitional measures to unity.

As a conciliatory gesture to their Unionist "brothers" in the North they have even obtained the support of Cardinal Conway and the Catholic Church to delete from the Constitution Article 44(2) which recognises the "special position" of the Church. There is also talk of rewriting the Constitution so that divorce and contraception can be allowed.

One thing is certain, the economy of the 26 counties has never been more dependent on the British market. 69% of its exports go to Britain while 51% of its imports come from Britain. More than at any other time in history the Irish economy is a labour reserve, market and field for investment.

And even sections of the Unionist tops realise that the worst aspects of discrimination against Catholic workers need to be eliminated in order to preserve the position of the ruling class: “They (meaning British capitalism) do not really believe that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom anyway, they feel that it would be nice to get rid of it soon". (Ulster Times).

CLASS BATTLES BEHIND UPRISING

Thus, from a policy of division and playing on sectarian strife, the organs of the capitalists are now hypocritically declaring in favour of "unity" and against the “economic tragedy of a divided Ireland" (Sunday Times). But history has a way of playing tricks on the shrewdest ruling classes. Nourished on a diet of sectarianism and religious hatred the monster refuses to lie down. Ensnared by its own past propaganda the Unionist regime found itself on the horns of a dilemma in August,1969. To have banned the Apprentice Boys demonstration would have undermined their own position in the eyes of the Protestant population, as the latest prohibition of Protestant parades has demonstrated. To allow it to go ahead only served to enrage the Catholic population of Bogside and ignite a mass explosion of practically the whole of the Catholic population of the area.

Having learnt the lesson in the preceding two months, the Bogside were determined to prevent another police and Paisleyite pogrom of the area. The result was an uprising of the Catholic workers in Derry and the Falls Road area of Belfast. 150,000 workers for two months set up their own “law and order", refusing to allow the writ of the Unionists to run in their area. It represented a social movement for jobs, housing, education and democratic rights, although in the eyes of the Protestant population it took on the form of a "Catholic rebellion". Only the Derry Young Socialists and Labour Party attempted to stress the need for a class appeal to the Protestant population, adopting as their emblem the flag of the Citizens Army, the starry plough.

The "Green Tory" wing of the Citizens’ Defence Committee, made up of millionaires and an assortment of businessmen, were the same forces which had opposed any class orientation in the period of the Civil Rights. Their position was echoed by the ultra-left sects both in Northern Ireland and in Britain who characterised the Protestant workers as "colons". To support their position they appealed to Irish history.

PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC WORKERS COME TOGETHER

But in fact this very history speaks against them. It demonstrates that the Protestant population has never been impervious to a class appeal by the Labour Movement . Not only did the 1913 lock-out demonstrate this, when the Protestant workers of Belfast refused to black on their Dublin brothers, but even earlier in 1906-7 in Belfast, James Larkin clearly illustrated how to counter the sectarianism of the Unionist capitalists. Larkin was able to forge a powerful alliance between Catholic and Protestant workers. His main allies were the leadership of the Independent Orange Order. This began as a vicious sectarian splinter within the main Orange Order. In defence of "Protestantism" it denounced the Orange Order as “an instrument of landlordism and class rule .... the majority of the Grand Lodge were well-to-do merchants, justices of the peace, etc." Under the guidance of R. Lindsay Crawford this movement began to develop a non-sectarian programme and linked up with Larkin to fight the sweatshop conditions in Belfast the time. So successful was the alliance that "in 1906 Orange domination in Belfast was broken" (James Larkin by Emmett Larkin).

The Unionist capitalists learnt their lesson well in the school of Larkin in a negative sense and prepared to recapture their hold over the Protestant workers by inflaming sectarian passions. They were assisted in this by the sectarianism of the Catholic Ancient Order of Hibernians, much as the Catholic bigots today are grist to the mill of the Paisleyite Right.

But perhaps the best indication of the possibilities of bridging the sectarian divide was given in an account of an incident in Belfast in 1931 by an IRA veteran Bob Bradshaw: "Discontent in the city (Belfast) rose to revolutionary dimensions and in the great Belfast fitting shops, and the densely populated Labour exchanges, Socialist and Communist opinions were easy to hear".

He further points out that as a result of street fighting between the unemployed and the police in the Catholic Falls Road area, he went to obtain support from the Protestant unemployed in the Shankhill Road: "I picked a tall athletic young man .... 'Any fighting?’ I said. 'That gutless lot won’t fight'. This was my chance. 'Why don't you go to the Falls?' I said, watching him. 'Why, is there trouble there?' 'They have been fighting all day and many people have been shot.' I said. ‘While we spoke, his eye fell on my lapel button. For at least a half a minute we stared at each other without speaking, and his face clearly showed his changing emotions - ancestral dislike for tricolours, and Fenians, slowing changing to friendliness as he realised that this particular Fenian spoke his language, and that we were both in something a bit more important than the religious squabbles of our native city, and attempting to deal with forces not likely to respond to placatory speeches. Our long eyelock broke. 'If that's where the fighting is, that's the place for me' he said." (Irish Times, 13/3/69).

This particular incident illustrates more than anything else the potential for working class unity. In the heat of battle, particularly if a clear class lead is given, all the prejudices and religious mythology can be burned from the consciousness of the Protestant working class with the majority.

This has been further underlined by the developments in Northern Ireland in the last year. The actions of the Belfast shipyard shop stewards stood out as a beacon against the background of sectarian clashes which swept Belfast last August. It is now fashionable in ultra-left circles to question the role of the shop stewards, as indicating “a low level of consciousness”. They point to the appeal to Unionist ministers and the award of the MBE to the leading shop steward. While these undoubtedly indicate the confusion and even opportunism of some of the leading trade union leaders, nevertheless, the shop stewards’ committee demonstrated a greater class sense and understanding than did the so-called 'advanced guard’.

The stewards at least understood the need to maintain basic class unity in the factories and the shipyards and to fight any manifestation of sectarianism, to prevent a repetition of events similar to the inter-war period . The mass meeting was called in the face of management opposition and threats by the small Paisleyite section within the yard. The actions of the Belfast shipyard workers re-emphasises the potential for uniting the working class. The possibilities are there within the ranks of the unions. All it needs is to be given a clear direction and a class programme.

The action of the Belfast shipyard shop stewards and the "peace committees" in East Belfast could have become the starting point of real united working class action against sectarianism and hooligan attacks from both sides. The British Army was originally welcomed by the overwhelming majority of Catholic workers as a protection against the attacks of the B-specials and Paisleyites, only because no alternative was given by the Labour Movement. While one by-product of military intervention was to prevent a full scale pogrom against the Catholics its main purpose was to safeguard the position of British Imperialism which was endangered by the possibility of a civil war as was explained earlier. The role of the British Army has always been to safeguard the position of British capitalism. In British Guyana, they "went in" to ostensibly prevent racial clashes and retreated only after a minority, undemocratic constitution had been implemented. In Aden, Malaya and in the former "Empire" they played a similar role. But the only way to have cut across the arguments in favour of military intervention was by the implementation of a Trade Union Defence Force. This could have become the starting point for united class action and as such would be opposed as bitterly by the Southern capitalists, as it would be by British Imperialism.

ATTEMPT TO HEAD-OFF LEFT SWING

It was precisely the possibility of these developments which caused consternation within the ranks of the Fianna Fail regime in the South. Its right wing, Blaney, Haughey and Bolan, deliberately prepared to head off the movement towards the Left, North and South, by re-establishing the Nationalist and Unionist polarisation. Long before the gun-running affair had come into the open they conspired behind the scenes to create the political weapons to put this into practice. Money was poured into the financing of Voice of the North, the mouthpiece of this particular faction. The intention of the Blaney wing of Fianna Fail was blurted out by their creatures within the editorial staff of the Voice at the time that the gun-running charges were made.

 They boasted that all the talk of “the future being with doctrinaire Socialism and Cuban style commune politics has been blown sky high by the events in Dublin". It then attacks "all the talking ‘revolutionaries', extreme Socialists, Trotskyists, Maoists, petticoat revolutionaries like Bernadette Devlin and Maureen de Burca, Farrell, McCann, etc. The ‘Green Tories’ have belied the smear name attached to them." (Voice of the North, 17/5/70).

At the same time, they have been successful in splitting the Republican movement Sinn Fein. Assistance was given on condition that the old guard Republicans split away from the "political” and "Socialist" Sinn Fein which had now been taken over by the Irish Communist Party. The position of this "provisional" section was outlined in the first issue of its journal "An Phoblacht" (The Republic). In the reasons given for the split were "extreme socialism leading to totalitarian dictatorship". While some may have reacted to the Stalinist programme of the leadership of the official movement, the overwhelming majority did so because of the "need" to uphold the traditional anti-parliamentarian, "unity first" position maintained by Sinn Fein from the 1920's. That they were able to take with them big sections, in the North in particular, was a consequence of the failure of the official movement to protect the Catholics in Belfast from the August 1969 pogrom. Some of the youth have been drawn into the work of the “provisionals" with disastrous results for class unity.

The scheming of Blaney & Co. has been demonstrated in the sectarian attacks which have been made on Protestants in the past few months. Thus, Paisley was delivered of a gift just before the Bannside bye-election in the attacks on Protestants made in the Ballymurphy and Springfield Road area. In linking up with the "provisional” wing, Blaney & Co. care little, in reality, for their own "kith and kin'. Blaney represents Donegal, the county with the highest unemployment in the 26 counties. He also has acted as the Defence Counsel for the TACA (the millionaires club within the Fianna Fail) at Fianna Fail Congresses. Boland’s father (who resigned from the party with his son) was the Minister of Justice in 1941 and interned and shot out of hand countless republicans.

Not one gun would have been forthcoming if all the arms in the North were under the control of the Trade Unions. It has been precisely this fear which has been one of the factors in the attitude of Lynch and the bourgeoisie as a whole to gun running: "Mr. Lynch ... (is) taking the view that guns used for the defence may be turn to attack". (Times, 29/5/70). The "attack” he fears most is one that would come from a joint Catholic and Protestant movement.

BANKRUPT 'THEORIES' OF 'PROVISIONALS'

Behind the actions of the right wing "provisionals", which has been responsible for the reinforcement of sectarian divisions, as was shown by the driving out of the Catholic workers from the shipyards in June, are some weird and wonderful "theories". The main aim, it seems, is to force a confrontation between the Catholic population and the British Army which will provoke an upheaval in the South. In this way, it is hoped that a section of the Irish Army might march over the Border or be prepared to give assistance to the Catholics in the North: a mutiny along the lines of the one in 1924. However, while some sections of the army, might come to the assistance of the Catholic population, British Imperialism is not prepared to be militarily forced out of the North. The "other" solution is to create such chaos that the United Nations would come in and carry out a miraculous unification of Ireland! The lessons of the intervention of the United Nations (in reality the dis-United Nations) in Cyprus, the Congo, the Middle East , where not one of the problems has been solved, is lost on the leadership of the "provisionals”.

The only way to undermine the power of British Imperialism and their capitalist allies North and South of the Border, as the only way of bringing about real unity, is through class unity. The election of Bernadette Devlin, on the basis of an astounding 92% turnout and the vote of 6,000 Protestant farmers and workers, demonstrates the way forward for the working class. But for it to be guaranteed of long-term success, it must be channelled through the organised Labour Movement. The suggestions of a "broad alliance" outside the ranks of the organised Labour Movement is doomed to sterility. Only by the coming together of the Northern Ireland Labour Party, and the Irish Labour Party, actively participated in by the Marxists on the basis of a socialist programme and linked in action to the British Labour Movement would it be possible to begin to break down the Catholic-Protestant syndrome of the last half-century.

PERSPECTIVES

In the short term, British Imperialism will have no alternative but to press ahead with the process of "reforms" i.e. the ending of the most blatant discrimination against the Catholic population. It has warned the right wing of the Unionist Party of the consequences of any dragging of feet on this issue.

In the event of a right wing take over by Craig or Paisley, the British ruling class has already advocated the suspension of the Constitution and direct rule from Westminster. "Mr. Maudling and the rest of Britain may have to accept that Ulster cannot solve its problems and that the Stormont system must be wound up" (Economist) The vague threats of a Universal Declaration of Independence made by Mitchell and West, the supporters of Craig, as laughable as they are to the British bourgeoisie , nevertheless, indicate the irreversible split within the Unionist Party. It has forced them to look towards the dismantling of the Unionist Party in its old form. Their perspective is for its reconstitution or replacement by a traditional type of "Conservative" Party by involving the Catholic bourgeoisie and middle class within its ranks. Its realisation depends on a development of the British economy and the possibility of resolving some of the worst economic ills of Northern Ireland.

In the meantime, while on the one side making concessions, it is also preparing to come down heavily both on the Republicans and the UVF if necessary. One "reform" urgently pressed by the bourgeois press is the building of a new prison to accommodate "the increase in the prison population”. Over 300 have been arrested in the past two months alone.

On the basis of "physical force" alone, the British Army, with its superior forces and fire power will win hands down. What the capitalists will be powerless against is working class unity organised on the basis of a Marxist programme and appealing to the "workers in uniform" in the British Army. But the Republicans , the "Left" and right, by their ations and propaganda, are, it seems, determined to prevent this coming abut. It has come to be expected that the right wing “provisionals" would refuse to appeal to the British troops but how to explain the vicious chauvinism of the “official" Sinn Fein. In a leaflet circulated in Derry which appeals to Catholic workers "DON’T FRATERNISE”, individual troops are described as “murderers, intimidators, looters, oppressors”. The "United Irishman" carried a similar article. This is calculated to drive the British troops further into the arms of the reactionary officer caste. Most of the troops come from similar backgrounds, sometimes from worse social conditions, as the workers they face on the streets of Derry and Belfast. If a class appeal was made, including the demand for TU rights for servicemen then the rank and file soldier would be won to support the struggle for workers’ power both in Ireland and Britain. It is a measure of the degeneration of the "Communist" Party leadership that it can so miseducate its ranks that this kind of propaganda can be disseminated by them. They forget the history of the Communist Party on the issue; one of the leaders of the British CP, Campbell, was arrested in 1924 for making a class appeal to troops!

The Catholic workers also will turn against those who merely provoke one fruitless violent confrontation after another with the Army.

CLASS CONTRADICTIONS WITHIN PAISLEYISM

But British capitalism and any new-fangled "liberal" type of capitalist party which it brings into being will be incapable of solving the problems of jobs, housing, education and a rising living standard for the working class of Northern Ireland.

Neither can Paisleyism offer any way forward for Protestant and Catholic workers. In the short term, mainly as a result of the actions of the Catholic bigots, it will probably continue to grow in strength. From the crisis within the Unionist Party, Paisley will pick up some support. But under the pressure of events the class divisions within the Paisleyite movement will come to the fore. The clever demagogy of Paisley against the "aristocrats" at the top of the Unionist Party has paid off in the short term but will rebound on him at a later stage.

In conditions of economic crisis, the Protestant workers will be looking for something more tangible than religious ranting. In that situation, and even before then, Paisley’s position amongst the Protestant workers, can be undermined by the Labour Movement fighting on a class programme. From the point of view of the British bourgeoisie, they wish to keep Paisley, like Powell in Britain, as a reserve weapon for the future. But if any attempt is made to openly challenge its position now then they are prepared to deal with Paisley as with Right Wing Republicans.

Neither will any section of the Southern Irish capitalist class be able to liberate them socially or bring about the unity of the country which would benefit them. The crisis in the North has brought to the surface all the festering sores within Southern society. A crisis of confidence within the ranks of the capitalist class has developed as a result of the events in Northern Ireland and the unprecedented upswing in the power and cohesion of the Southern working class. The Southern Irish workers have presently the highest strike record in Western Europe. Here, as well as in the North, the pattern set by the struggle against British imperialism and the Civil War is breaking down. A newly strengthened Labour Party, formally adhering to the idea of a “Workers’ Republic" (but denied in practice by the Labour Leaders) has taken shape. Further upheavals in the North will exercise a dramatic influence on the South and vice-versa.

Developments In both areas will react on Britain and conversely the gathering storm here will be reflected in North and South Ireland. The British dock strike, which provoked the active support of Protestant and Catholic workers, to counter the blacklegging which was carried on between the North of Ireland and Scotland, is an augur of these developments.

BACK TO CONNOLLY, MELLOWES AND MARXISM

In the course of these developments the ideas of Marxism will find a greater and greater response within the Labour Movement. A tried and tested tendency will be developed from the youth, in particular, who have been prompted to rediscover the ideas of Connolly , Mellowes and the Marxists by the Northern Ireland explosion. The ultra-left impatience which manifested itself in the splits from the Labour Party in the past must be avoided if the same mistakes are not to be repeated.

Only by this means, by formulating a clear Marxist perspective and programme along the lines of that proposed by the Derry Young Socialists, can the age-old poverty, misery and division of Ireland be ended. This programme entailing the demand for the nationalisation of the big monopolies under democratic control and management by the producers themselves, the winning of the small farmers to the idea of a planned socialist economy through the guarantee of cheap credits, fertilisers and cancellation of their debts to the banks, would usher in a period of peace and plenty for the workers both sides of the Border.

A Socialist United Ireland would break the pattern of centuries: instead of "exporting" her best sons through unemployment, etc. the idea of change, of the socialist transformation of society, would be the message that would go out to the international Labour Movement. Such is the perspective and programme which Irish Marxists will be fighting for in the tumultuous period ahead.

I have also posted a later MIR article from 1974 reflecting on the situation in the North of Ireland after the Ulster Workers' Council strike of May 1974.