Guerilla Tactics and the National Question

national | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis

Sunday March 01, 2009 23:02

by J. O'Neill - an lucht oibre

A rebuke of the Socialist Party stance

The SP supports non-revolutionary figures like Chavez, while with-holding support from revolutionaries fighting to overthrow capitalism. This stance is contradictory. Working class unity is a utopian goal until the political and social forces that maintains sectarianism are dismantled.

Guerilla Tactics and the National Question - A rebuke of the Socialist Party stance

While there is no doubt our comrades in the Socialist Party harbor many progressive ideas, some blatant contradictions and just plain falsities within their political strategy must be cleared up.

First on the agenda is the almost snobbish disregard they hold for the use of guerrilla-styled armed action in the pursuit of socialist revolution. The top brass within the party have remained steadfast in their opposition to such tactics, but it is the contradiction in policy, more so than the opinion, that I have to expose. The Socialist Party maintain that they will under no circumstances support a group engaged in similar actions, believing that this tried and tested [and at times successful despite long-odds] method of resistance through time has depreciated in political value and any such group supportive of the tactic, no matter how progressive that group may be, does not deserve our support.

With the same breath the Socialist Party hierarchy speak in glowing terms of the ‘revolution’ happening in Latin America, holding Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez in particularly high esteem. There is a massive contradiction here. It is clear that Chavez is no communist and it is equally clear how the tactic of constitutionalism throughout history has never produced the desired results from a socialist revolutionary perspective. Why are we told to support a complete reformist who adheres faithfully to a proven to be failed tactic, while the same people tell us not to support truly socialist organizations because they are using a perceived to be failed tactic? ‘The day of the guerilla has passed’ they tell us, well how convenient for the trendy left, but when did the day of reformist constitutionalism arrive in a package labeled ‘REVOLUTION‘. I guess Joe Higgins would prefer FARC to surrender to the will of the corrupt government and right-wing paramilitaries. We should never forget our comrades because we don’t agree with a single tactic they use, to be so absurdly doctrinaire is ridiculous, it is the overall socialist programme that matters, within reason. It was Lenin who said that he who believes in a perfect revolution will never see one and if we rest our convictions in the hands of the contradictions displayed by the Socialist Party, I think it’s safe to say we will never see one.

‘The lesson of history shows that in the final analysis the robber baron must be dis-established by the some methods that he used to enrich himself and retain his ill-gotten gains, namely, force of arms. To this end we must organize, train, and maintain a disciplined armed force which will always be available to strike at the opportune moment’ - Seamus Costello

On the national question my issue with the Socialist Party is an obvious one I feel, that of their endorsement of the Good Friday Agreement. They called for a ‘yes’ vote but still to this day claim not to endorse that treaty, forgive me for being so black and white but if you actively call on people to support a treaty then you are endorsing it! It is not this confusion that matters however, it is the ramifications for the socialist struggle that do and they are great indeed.

This document, in simple terms, copper-fastens imperialism in Ireland, something as socialists we must oppose with every sinew in our bodies. How can a supposed revolutionary party call for such an outcome, it makes little sense, but then again most Socialist Party policies on the north are not steeped in logic, as the SP has consistently tail-ended reactionary elements within the Protestant community. The greatest enemy of our class over the years has consistently been sectarianism which by all accounts was a British importation. This document does nothing to ease sectarianism, in fact it ensures a willing breeding ground for it to thrive. It is an unforgivable position to take that the ending of the Provisional IRA’s campaign will lead to the dismantling of sectarianism in the occupied 6 counties. Sectarianism has existed for centuries in Ireland, it did not begin with the recent conflict nor will it end with it. Throughout our sectarian history there has always been one common factor: namely British Imperialism. It is not until this presence has left our shores that sectarianism can finally cease to exist.

Sectarian has been institutionalized, every ‘democratic’ polling day reduced to a mere sectarian headcount and at the behest of a so-called socialist revolutionary group. Something just doesn’t add up here. The reactionaries like the DUP and PSF love this institutionalized sectarianism, it ensures them a political lifeline for years to come and it is a monopoly we must destroy. Our methods for this are simple, mass mobilization and revolutionary leadership. And if there is an opportunity to strike a blow against imperialism or capitalism through the use of arms and it sparks off a positive chain of events for the political struggle then by all means it is an avenue we must walk down. We cannot fear our goals and we cannot be part-time socialists, it will take every ounce of our boundless energy to scrape over the finishing line.

Capitalism is a serious foe and accordingly we must be serious about what we intend to attain. We will not be put out of business by anyone, nor at any point shall we be distracted from our task by the lure of material gain. To the capitalist sympathizers within the trendy left groupings I have a clear message: there is no ceasefire in the class war and now of all times is no time to be pedantic, we can hardly expect class unity when the left can barely stomach sitting in the same room as one another. It is time to grow above egos and petty party issues and to start being loyal to what really matters, our class and our guiding theory.

Capitalism is on the ropes, but won't go down without a revolutionary programme that goes beyond economism; let us join together to deliver the knockout blow! Workers of the world unite!

save preference

Comments (4 of 4)

Unionist revisionist analysis prevails

by RedFlag32 - Republican Socialist

Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:31

The peoples yes vote for the GFA can be viewed in the same light as the peoples support for the treaty in the 20's, it was a vote for the absence of war. The people of Ireland voted in favour of the GFA because they just wanted the killings to end (and rightfully so) not because of any political ideology. To presume they did is to pander to the Unionist revisionist campaign.

In saying that, this does not mean that revolutionary organisations have the right to ignore the democratic wishes of the people and continue on a campaign that will mean more deaths. But while revolutionary organisations do not have the right to do this they have a duty to object to an aggreement which encourages sectarianism to prevail in Ulster. Most of the left in Ireland fail in this regard.

What is wrong with critically supporting the yes vote for the GFA? The Irish Republican Socialist Movement has taken such a stance. They have put an end to the armed struggle because of the peoples yes vote for the GFA (which was rightfully recognised as a vote against armed struggle and not a vote for partition) and the party continues to oppose the GFA on the merits that it entrenches sectarian voting and it strenghtens Britians rule in Ireland.

The above poster who says "As long as the majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland vote for unionists parties and declare that it is their will to remain within the UK, the partition will continue" displays a unionist revisionist attitude to partition in Ireland in that he/she completely ignores how "Nothern Ireland" was created. All the talk of democracy is forgotton when its applied to partition. I wonder would the poster think it democratic if the large section of Polish or Chineese people who live in particular sections of Dublin decided to create their own border and represent it as majoirty vote because everybody within this border agreed with it? I am not equating the Protestant class in Ulster with foriegn nationals but the Unionist Veto is based on a false majority much like the example i gave. The real majority is the majority of Ireland as a whole, and if the majority ever voted negetively for the dismantling of partition then the revolutionary party has no right to forcefully object, but it does have a duty to critically support that decision of the people.

But a decision by the majority of the people in Ireland on partition will possibly never arrive because those who supposedly represent real democracy in Ireland are pandering to the Unionist revsionist analysis of partition.

Prove it

by LcuL

Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:05

J. O'Neill provide some proof of your spurious claims about the Socialist Party. Your opinion piece is a fabrication from start to finish.

should we take up arms then?

by peter - none

Tue Mar 03, 2009 16:18

Are you suggesting that a few people taking up arms now, which in an urban context in reality means planting bombs, is any way progressive? You show a complete lack of historical knowledge to the development of the armed struggle in Northern ireland (and Latin America). it didn't just happen, in many ways the NI armed struggle was defensive to begin with and was fueled by the misgovernment of the six county statelet and the British state. The offensive campaign of the Provisonal IRA came much later. A guerilla campaign plucked out of thin air without any social or political background is more akin to the border skirmishes of the 50's. All progressively minded people should be prepared to defend any popular successes won (which have a mass democratic mandate), such as the successes of Chavez, or if there was a rightwing military coup in the North, However that is different to palnting bombs which more often than not kill civilians while having no impact whatsoever politicaly. And thats not even bringing in the moral issue of killing innocent civilians when political avenues have not been attempted.

My Opinion

by John - N/A

Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:22

Bombings are only a factor of a guerilla war. Assasinations and ambushes are also part-in-parcel. You seem narrow-minded to think a militant campaign cannot be progressive. You need to recognize that Ireland, as a nation, is no different from any other country in the form that if we are oppressed by foreign armed forces, we have a right to pick up arms in defence/demand of our this country. Why should we comprimise our country with foreign settlers? America wouldn't do it, Russia wouldn't do it, and Ireland certainly won't!

Let the fight go on!

RIRA/32CSM

CIRA/RSF

Forward to freedom/forward to victory!

Tiocfaidh ar la!

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Guerilla Tactics and the National Question

Comments (4 of 4)