The Road to Revolution in Ireland
The original date of publication and author of this historical IRSP document is unknown, but the ideas herein are a basis for the revolutionary theories of the IRSP.
THE ROAD TO REVOLUTION IN IRELAND
"Without a Revolutionary Theory there cannot be a Revolutionary Movement" -- Lenin
There are many in Ireland who flippantly disregard the great need for a theoretical knowledge of revolution, by saying that it is ACTION and not THEORY that is required. This sort of error is one which cannot avoid producing dire consequences.
A thorough understanding of revolutionary theory is indispensable to the successful pursuance of revolutionary action. A revolutionary activist can no more cope with the many and diverse problems of revolution without revolutionary theory, than can an electrical engineer master his problems without a knowledge of electricity. The question is as simple and straight forward as that.
REVOLUTION:
In terms of present conditions in Ireland: Revolution stands for the total overthrow of that social, political and economic system which functions in the country as a whole; and its replacement with an entirely new order of things, more compatible to the needs of the people, more beneficial to their progress and general welfare, and designed to ensure the unqualified Independence of our Nation State.
From this it is obvious that the Irish Revolution must be a two-phased effort. The first must be aimed primarily at the overthrow of the Partitionist regime, and the seizure of State power by the revolutionary movement. The second must represent a co-ordinated national effort during which the national community, under the leadership of the revolutionary movement, will undertake the reconstruction of the nation on completely new lines.
The most important thing to understand, and understand fully, is that revolution not alone entails that period of national struggle to free the country, but also encompasses an after period, to implement the social, political and economic changes necessary to give the newly acquired independency a durable substance. Consequently, the revolutionary political organization which mobilizes a popular support for the struggle against the present regimes in Ireland, must, of necessity, retain the directorship of national affairs after that struggle has been won, so as to ensure that what the people fought for shall he realised.
To propose that the matter of national leadership could be arranged in any other fashion is ridiculous. It is stupid, for example, to say that when Ireland is liberated from its colonial yoke, and re-united politically, a parliamentary election should be held to elect a 32 County Parliament. What political interests are going to compete with the party of the Revolution in such an election? Are the old parties to be permitted to continue, even under different names? Obviously, such a set-up, wherein the political opposition to the revolution is allowed to retain its cohesiveness after the revolution has won, cannot be entertained by any reasonable person. Furthermore, it is highly absurd to suggest that new political parties would come into being in the aftermath of victory. Where are they going to come from? What interests are they going to represent? It should be plain enough that all progressive groups in the country are going to identify themselves with the revolution during the colonial struggle, and as a consequence, they are going to become part of the revolutionary political organisation. Anyone, any social or economic interest which does not establish such an identity must be opposed to the revolution. You cannot have neutrals in a revolutionary struggle, and if it should happen that a segment of the population did adopt a neutral position during the struggle, then they have automatically forfeited the right to participate as an independent political force in the State founded by the Revolution.
The facts of the matter are: a modern revolutionary movement must have a popular basis if it is to succeed. During the anti-colonial struggle its organizational structure must facilitate a mass mobilization of the community within the framework of the movement. The desires of the people will therefore be expressed through the revolutionary movement during the struggle. This is quite logical and it is equally logical to say that the will of the national community can be as beneficially expressed through the same medium during the period of reconstruction that follows the anti-colonial struggle.
In effect, a revolutionary government under these conditions would be drawn from one political party. The State would function under a system of Socialist Democracy wherein the various contradictions, or legitimate conflicts of interests of the community, would be represented in the Party, and would be resolved by the democratic machinery of that party. The only interests which would not be represented in, or recognized by the State, would be those antagonistic to the interests of the community. This is the revolutionary way. There is no other.
REVOLUTIONARY PROGRAMME:
When a revolutionary movement calls upon the people to rise in active opposition to the status quo, it must base its case on positive proposals of its own, as well as on the negative aspects of the ruling regime. The people must be given a tangible reason why they should overthrow the existing order in that they must be presented with the prospects of an alternative system emerging from their struggle which will incorporate benefits not forthcoming under the prevailing ruling clique.
Generally, it is the practice of revolutionary movements to issue a social, political and economic programme, so as to enlighten the community on its ultimate aims and ideals. This programme, with its contents exemplifying the ideological motivation of the revolution, represents the CORE of the struggle for freedom. By assessing its contents against corresponding elements of the status quo, it is possible to determine whether or not that CORE is sound or hallow; whether or not the fight, even if successful, is going to be worth the sacrifice and trouble it will inevitably incur. Does the programme propose modifications to the existing system, or does it involve the creation of a completely new and progressive order? That is the main question. And an analysis of any programme will answer this question, and by so doing, will make clear at once if its contents are in fact revolutionary or not.
A truly revolutionary programme for Ireland must, of necessity, be diametrically opposed to the existing order of things, this is only logical, and since Ireland now functions according to the dictates of capitalism, then, it is but common sense to suggest that an Irish revolutionary movement must found its programme on the principles of Revolutionary Socialism. There exists no other known alternative.
However, the realization of a revolutionary programme requires planning, to take into account the resources of the revolution and of the opposition to it, to select the means by which the revolution advances, and to dictate the employment of revolutionary forces and resources. Such diversified planning falls under the general heading of policy.
REVOLUTIONARY POLICY:
A revolutionary policy represents an assessment of any given situation, and the strategic and tactical plans adopted for the employment of revolutionary forces and resources in that situation. From this it can be seen that a fundamental difference exists between the basis of a revolutionary programme, and the various policies conceived to realise it. And it is precisely this difference, by no means obscure or undefinable, that causes much confusion in the appreciations of many Irish Revolutionaries.
A programme expresses the principles on which the revolution is founded. To modify such a programme, or to pursue a course of action antagonistic to its fulfilment, represents a positive violation of PRINCIPLE. On the other hand, policies are dictated by prevailing conditions - of necessity, they must change as conditions alter, or when new opportunities emerge. The only principle governing policy, is the principle of compatability with the ultimate realization of the revolutionary programme it is designed to serve.
This somewhat brief outline should at least serve to illustrate a great weakness among contemporary Irish Revolutionaries - that is, the tendency to confuse policies for a programme, and therefore to confuse principles with strategic and tactical expediencies. An Irish revolutionary programme must be based on the destruction of the neo-colonial system, and the construction of a new socialist order. The employment of force to achieve this end is purely a matter of policy, and for that matter, so is the participation, or nonparticipation, in the arena of parliamentary politics. However, experience, coupled with a pragmatic assessment of current conditions in Ireland, points to the use of force as the only realistic policy. And in this sense only is force complementary to our principles. On the other hand, should the unprecedented occur, wherein our objectives could be gained without the use of force, and where the use of force could indeed complicate, rather than complement, the realization of a programme, then, under those particular circumstances a policy of physical force would in fact be in direct violation of our principles, since it would be antagonistic to the realization of our programme.
Having established the role of policy in the overall framework of revolution, it is necessary to proceed and sub-divide policy itself.
It has already been said that revolution in Ireland involves the two phased process of destruction and reconstruction, with both dovetailed together to complement the ultimate realization of a revolutionary programme. Now, since the revolution must be divided into two distinct, though complementary, phases, the over-riding trend in policy must be likewise influenced for maximum efficiency and results. Consequently, to expedite explanations, the dominating policy during the initial period can be classed as Power Policies and those of the second period, Reconstruction Policies.
POWER POLICY:
It is pointless to talk on what should be done to save the country, unless you are in the position to implement your proposals. Therefore, having formulated its programme, an Irish revolutionary movement must assess the situation, formulate plans for the mobilization of support, and then commit its forces against the status quo in a struggle for state power.
Power is the key to revolutionary success - unless a movement succeeds in its struggle for state power its hopes, its aims, its aspirations for a better and more equatable life for the nation's people amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking. It is for this reason that the quest for power looms so large in revolutionary appreciations during the initial stage of the revolution. However, it is of equal importance that a revolutionary leadership retain this quest for power in its proper perspective. State power is itself but a means in the service of the revolution, and is not an end in itself. For this reason, although all means can in theory be justifiably employed by the revolution in its struggle for power, in practice, limits are imposed by the necessity to strenuously guard at all times against any venture or commitment that would tend to compromise the status or functioning of the body which is to symbolize state power once victory has been achieved.
It is natural then that although Power Policies must be dictated by the need of doing what is necessary and what is possible to realize power, at the same time, they must also be governed by the paramount demand of avoiding any compromising action, even though such action may hold the possibility of a quicker victory on the surface. In other words, when Power Policy is being formulated at any given point, its makers cannot isolate the range of their evaluations to within the scope and demands of the particular revolutionary phase they are engaged in. They must at all times look beyond that juncture where State power is naturally required by the forces of the revolution, and take into consideration the possibility of any long sought participation in a course of action they contemplate initiating, may have, or could possibly have, on the ultimate revolutionary reconstruction of the nation.
A factor which should perhaps be re-emphasized is that bearing on the employment of physical force. Force is an element which can be used in a variety of ways other than in its obvious form of military action. However, we are not concerned here with any particular policy governing its employment; more specifically, we are interested in basic attitudes towards its employment.
Of necessity, a revolutionary movement must from the outset regulate its policies on the premise that force will have to be used in the struggle for power. Both precedent and ordinary common sense points to the realism of this stand. On the other hand, while a revolutionary movement must organize and prepare for the employment of physical force, should it so happen that a unique opportunity presents itself to facilitate the ascendancy of revolutionary forces without its use, naturally the leadership will not turn it down. On such an eventuality policies can easily be realigned to avail of the opportunity.
The important thing to bear in mind is that although it is relatively simple for a revolutionary movement that has from the beginning determined its progress on policies which rely on the employment of force, to re-adjust rapidly to exploit any opportunity to acquire power by peaceful means. It is practically impossible for a movement whose progress means to change its course with equal success and speed, when it has been demonstrated that force offers the only solution. The truth of this statement is substantiated over and over in the pages of history - it is an uncontestable fact.
Consequently, the mood of a revolutionary movement must always be: We are going to prepare for - and use - force to acquire our objectives. However, should the enemy be so kind as to vacate the field and allow the revolution to march forward without hindrance, then we will naturally avail of the situation.
RECONSTRUCTION POLICY:
Basically, these policies are those formulated for the regulation of the revolution's advance once state power is in the hands of the revolutionaries.
Policies governing the country's reconstruction, along lines compatible to the principles of Socialism, are of tremendous importance. Indeed, there are many cases where the revolutionary forces experienced success on the battlefield, only to lose their way when it came to the implementation of the social, political and economic changes that justified their existence in the first place. So when revolutionaries do acquire power, they must be constantly on the alert against the emergence of any attitudes tending to foster the reactionary notion that the job is now completed for all practical purposes, or ideas that the revolution can afford to give a little here and there without undue adverse effects. The job is far from being done, and the revolution can no more afford to compromise during the course of national reconstruction than it could during the period of struggle against enemy forces.
In many respects it could be said that the period of national reconstruction is one during which errors of policy more easily occur than during the period of struggle against the forces of the reactionary regime. In reality it is more correct to say that erroneous policies can remain undetected for a greater time during the reconstruction period than during the period of armed struggle where they develop first, through a relaxation in revolutionary vigilance arising from the mistaken though frequent notion that the revolution is a reality once the struggle for power is won. Secondly, due to the growth of arrogance in leadership circles which can express itself in the shape of pursuing policies that the people in general are not yet ready to accept, on the premise that the leadership knows what is best for the people. This latter contention may well be true. Nevertheless, the role of revolutionaries is not to undertake the construction of a socialist state as their exclusive responsibility, but, to guide the people in their rebuilding of their own country.
The fundamental difference between a Socialist and a bourgeois revolution is that while the latter represents a struggle for state power in the interests of a particular minority class, the former represents one for mass emancipation. As a result, although bourgeois revolutionaries rely mainly on popular support for the winning of their revolution, once they have that power in their hands they invariably proceed to arrange things in the interests of their class; disregarding the interests of the masses when such interests conflict with their own. The great bourgeois cry of "LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY" takes into account only the bourgeoisie - it has never yet been known to include the "Lower Orders", as they style the working classes. To the bourgeois revolutionary, "the people" is a very abstract phrase indeed, but to the Revolutionary Socialist it is an entirely different matter. The Socialist revolutionary is of the people and for the people in the fullest sense of the term, and should he ever forget this, and put himself on the path of a bureaucrat, ordering the people around, you can be sure that there is one revolution on the road to ruin.
State power, in the hands of a revolutionary leadership, must only be used to forward the revolution, by doing what is necessary in a tempo regulated by what is possible at any given time. A revolutionary leadership cannot, through the employment of the revolutionary movement backed by the might of state power, proceed to construct the new society by decree, completely disregarding the attitudes and voice of the mass of the people, and at the same time expect to realise in the end that concept of society envisioned by the philosophy of Revolutionary Socialism. For success in reconstruction, a strict equilibrium must at all times be maintained between the revolutionary leadership, the revolutionary movement and the mass of the people. In a word, socialist reconstruction represents a co-operative endeavor between the leadership, the movement and the mass of the people, and in this undertaking state power is merely a tool to be used just like any other, and not a whip with which to drive the people towards their salvation.
The socialist reconstruction of a country represents the labours of its people to build a society which is to the advantage of all. However, the structure that ultimately emerges in any given country can only reflect the amount of labour which has been devoted to its building. No people can expect such a blessing as a gift, no revolutionary movement and its leadership can say to the people "give us your support in our struggle for state power, and we will give you a socialist state in which all will enjoy benefits hitherto undreamed of." No! If such a state is to be created, then the people themselves must build it, the revolutionary leadership and the movement can only instruct, direct and co-ordinate its creation. It is of the utmost importance that revolutionaries grasp this fact from the beginning, and that they keep it in mind when they are formulating policy at any given time. And it is for this reason also that the danger of isolating considerations for any given policy, to within the limits of immediate demands, has been stressed throughout. It may, for example, appear smart politics to make all sorts of promises when you are appealing for support to wage a struggle for power. But what happens when power is actually yours, and you find yourself in the inevitable position of not being able to pay up? You can, of course, use your newly acquired power to keep the people in line - you can also use state power to coerce the people into the building of that order of things you promised would be realized so readily and so painlessly. But what the end result of this course would be is difficult to say.
It is obvious that at this stage it is impractical to extend our discussion on the basis of proposing specific policies to meet the needs of our own particular situation in Ireland. We must, of necessity, limit the discourse: (l) to illustrating the role of policy in the revolutionary process as a whole, so as to clearly define its proper function; (2) to establishing some basic tenets which govern the formulating of policy, especially some points that may easily be overlooked by students in their study of revolutionary techniques. The great need is to demonstrate, over and over, that this business of revolution cannot be reduced to such relatively simple terms, a learning how to use a gun, and then taking off to take a shot at a target e.g., U.D.R. or the likes - Revolution represents political action under the most demanding of conditions, it is a haven neither for fools, rogues or adventurers.
Again, let it be remembered that the profession of a revolutionary is not merely related to the correct leadership of a people in their struggle for freedom, but also to correct leadership during that period when the people must work, and work hard, to give a durable substance to their new-found status.
So far an attempt has been made to identify the significance of a Revolutionary Programme. This was followed by an examination of Revolutionary Policy, wherein it was demonstrated that policy is essentially an instrument by which a given programme is realised. The next link in the chain is Revolutionary Action, which, in turn, can be viewed as the instrument of policy.
REVOLUTIONARY ACTION:
It is not our desire to examine the various categories of revolutionary action, but rather to place such action as a whole in proper perspective to the other elements of revolution which influence and dictate its direction and content.
In essence, Revolutionary Action constitutes any act or combination of acts designed to complement the realisation of a given revolutionary policy. From this it can be seen clearly that action undertaken by an organisation is not revolutionary by virtue of its own content, but through its relationship to policy.
It is necessary to grasp clearly the underlying significance of this interrelationship between Action, Policy and Programme if one is to appreciate fully what revolution really entails. All too frequently the idea is held in Ireland that military action against the occupational regime is revolutionary policy, on the strength of its manifest aggressiveness towards the enemy. This is a mistaken and highly dangerous notion, because regardless of how warlike an anti-occupational campaign may be, it is not its military content as such which determines it's revolutionary status, but the policies it is designed to complement.
A few illustrations may assist in presenting more clearly what we are trying to establish. Take our own situation. It will be conceded that a revolution in Ireland must entail not alone the political reunification of the nation, but also the social and economic reconstruction of the country as a whole. As a result, to be revolutionary, any organisation which presently professes hostility to the partitionist regimes must, first, present a programme based on these aims; second, formulate policies which correlate the realisation of this programme both to prevailing conditions and the organisations capabilities; and finally, engage in a sequence of activity designed to implement the policies. In such a context, any activity engaged in is revolutionary action, regardless of whether or not it is military in form.
On the other hand, as an example of military action which is not necessarily revolutionary, we can take the I.R.A. campaign started in 1956. In this instance there existed no programme that we know of. And for that matter neither did the Republican Movement of the day regulate its aims according to a series of co-ordinated policies. Consequently, it is difficult to determine what the I.R.A. was actually fighting to establish as an alternative to what it was trying to destroy. It is utterly stupid to claim the I.R.A. was fighting for Irish freedom and let it go at that. Of itself, the term "freedom" is far too vague to mean anything - it must be qualified by social, political and economic commitment in order to have a positive form. Lacking such commitment the campaign in the Six Counties was, in every sense, negative, and the military activity which ensued was therefore nonrevolutionary.
As a matter of historical accuracy it should perhaps be mentioned that the I.R.A. leadership of 1933 issued one of the very few revolutionary programmes that has ever emanated from an Irish revolutionary movement. That the men of that time failed to achieve their goals does not detract from their position - at least they presented a coherent programme, and conceived policies to realise it. Their failure lay, in part at least, in the realm of their policies.
Another example which differs in form but whose end result is similar is to be found among some organisations of the "left''. Here we have organisations, some of which present programmes that are essentially revolutionary. However, the policies conceived to realise them bear no relationship whatever to revolutionary demands, and, as a consequence, all action these organisations undertake is unavoidably reactionary.
The foregoing examples should at least show that revolutionary action is a constituent part of a binary formula, whose elements of programme, policy and action must at all times complement each other. When any conflict develops between these elements, then the entity loses its revolutionary standing to a degree determined by the extent of the contradiction.
Irish republicans have a tendency to ignore the theory of revolution, and instead view revolution solely in terms of action against the enemy. Unfortunately, this has the unavoidable result of endowing their activities with a certain negative quality - that is to say, their actions are determined more by what they oppose than by what they propose to create in its place. The result of this negative position is at least partly obscured by the fact that any armed action against the colonial regime is bound to produce some good, in as much that at least it serves as a counter-force to the oppressive force of the enemy.
However, the fact to be grasped is that we can no longer restrict our interpretation of revolution to mere military action against the British in the North-East, and at the same time expect a wide response from the people. If we are ever to gain a mass basis for our efforts, then we can only hope to do so when we place such military action in proper perspective. That is, when we can demonstrate to the people that such action is necessary and vital to the implementation of policies which, in turn, relate to a social, political and economic programme that offers the people at large positive prospect of a better way of life.
This pertinent fact must surely be apparent to all by now. And the primary lesson to be learned from it is that the old approach to revolution, wherein Republicans could rally a mass support for their efforts without the necessity of committing themselves to a social and economic programme of revolutionary proportions, no longer applies. The call for action to free the country no longer receives the response of old. The question is now asked, either consciously or subconsciously, "What do you propose to free us from?" And the only way that query can be answered is by the presentation of a programme.
The factors touched on are elementary, and yet, unless they are understood, unless the fundamentals of the simple formula that has been demonstrated is thoroughly grasped, it is difficult to appreciate how the more complex problems created by a revolution in motion could ever be mastered.
Irishmen have never shown a reluctance to fight against their enemies. But with all our fighting over the past two centuries, the results to date are meagre by any standards. Surely, therefore, this should tend to demonstrate that revolution entails more than a willingness for combat. This does not mean, of course, that physical force is an unimportant factor in revolution. Far from it. However, to have revolutionary potential, to possess the capability to deliver an adequate return for the demands it makes, physical force must be subordinate to the directives of policies, which, in their turn, must be subservient to social, political and economic objects conceived to better the people's welfare.
Puddies
06-19-2007, 10:05 PM
PART TWO
So far we have seen the roots from which the IRSP arose, i.e. the leftward direction taken by the republican movement in the 1960's.
We have seen the historical conditions and needs that give birth to it, i.e. on the one hand the concentration on the national question and the abandonment of the national question on the other, and the need arising to force both the national struggle and the class struggle together.
We have seen the role it played, i.e. in promoting the broad front policy, confronting imperialism, participating in all stages of the struggle in jail as well as on the streets, and finally we have seen the outstanding role that Seamus Costello played.
We come to the final section, WHAT ROLE HAS IT STILL TO PLAY?
Firstly "WE MUST MAKE NO SECRET OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE A REVOLUTIONARY PARTY, PREPARED TO GIVE LEADERSHIP ON THE STREETS AS WELL AS IN THE ELECTED CHAMBERS, AND THAT WE ARE OUT FOR A REVOLUTIONARY STATE".
What we must do is examine the above statement by Seamus Costello and draw all the necessary implications from it. A revolutionary party must have a revolutionary ideology, an ideology that enables us to analyse the world, the motive force at work in the world, and plan a campaign based on the analysis.
A campaign that is consistent, principled, and bold in its implementation, maxims as a guide to action is an ideology; it represents the historical interests of the working class, which through the medium of a revolutionary party, aims to overthrow the capitalist order and begin the construction of communism.
"We must make no secret of the fact that we are such a party, make no secret of what we stand for and aim for. We cannot try to fool the Irish people and we must recognise that it is fatal to confuse and deceive them.
We must define our socialist republic, explain exactly what it entails; innuendoes, vagueness and good intentions are not enough: The road to hell is paved with good intentions! We must define all this with the utmost clarity so that the Irish people are under no illusion of what we are fighting for.
A revolutionary socialist party means that we must engage in revolutionary politics throughout all of Ireland, both on the streets and in the elected chambers.
It means that we must first identify the major contradictions in Ireland today, which is the continued occupation by the British of the six counties, and the resulting denial of our right to self-determination and sovereignty, the resolution of the national question, partition and all the evils and divisions that spring from it, it entails a struggle against imperialism, it entails the mobilisation of the mass of Irish people in the struggle for national liberation, but it doesn't mean confining ourselves solely to the national question.
As we said before, there are many strands to the anti-imperialist struggle; it means involvement in campaigns against unemployment, emigration, repression, involvement in trade unions, action groups and EVERYTHING!
We must agitate, propagandise and organise around these issues (but not a reformist manner). There is no easy road to a socialist republic, no short cuts; we must strive towards uniting and politicising the working class no matter what obstacles confront us in our task, for we cannot win our struggle without the working class.
We cannot make the revolution without them, without their active participation in a united and political conscious manner. We need to be able to bring to the fore their expression their deeply felt aspirations and social needs. To bring to the fore their underlying anti-imperialist sentiment, showing up the class nature of the Irish state, establishment parties, etc, in acting to repress, jail and crush their people in order to protect British rule in Ireland.
We must be able to inject into the struggle, or rather, call forth from the people the values and ideals of solidarity, self-sacrifice, non-sectarianism, unity and internationalism etc, values that transcend our own individual existence, that lead to greater awareness, greater participation, and greater aliveness in oneself. We must be somehow able to grip the mass of people if we are to change the world.
But, let's get matters exactly right: we cannot get this across to the working class unless we are now living and acting upon those values and ideals. The working class 'know' who are phoneys, who are hypocrites, self-seekers, self-promoters, careerists etc. None of these have a place in any revolutionary party.
We must show by our actions that we are true to these values, it doesn't matter in the least if the people or organisation etc of whatever persuasion don't, or cannot, reciprocate the same behaviour and attitudes - so be it! We must maintain our position regardless.
We must be vigilant that we don't sink into the morass of sectarianism, mixing, pettiness etc. We must not get involved in unprincipled slanging matches etc, into positions that are sectarian, anti-revolutionary, morally damaging, that give succour to the enemy and that confuse and divide the working class.
We must maintain our criticism of any organisation on principled grounds, and likewise must have the courage of our convictions not to bow to public opinion, with all its prejudices, carefully manufactured and promoted by those prisoners of peoples minds -- the press, priests, apologists etc.
We must also present our vision of what a revolutionary socialist state means. When we say in our programme that we want to establish a 32 county socialist state with the working class in control of the means of production distribution and exchange, we must be able to decipher it for the working class to understand what it means.
They must be able to relate directly to it. We must be able to get it across that a new independent Ireland is only possible through a revolutionary change in the ownership of the wealth and resources, that it must be rebuilt on a totally new basis: that it means expropriating the capitalists, allied to imperialism of their control and ownership of the means of production, etc, of organising our economy to produce not for the profit of the capitalist class but for the needs of the Irish people, of promoting values by which we can build a new life on a truly human basis.
We need to explain everything else that springs from this, in simple language and not in academic jargonized phrases, about planning democracy, the all round development of every individual etc.
There also exists at this stage of the struggle, the need to ask the questions. What forces can bring the national question to a successful conclusion? Only the working class. The leading capitalist parties in the 6 and 26 counties have no interest in solving the national question, but rather in crushing those trying to resolve it.
Both maintain their rule through partition and in turn permit imperialism to dominate all aspects of our life. Connolly maintained that only the working class could bring about a victorious conclusion to an age-old struggle for national independence and sovereignty, for besides predicting that the capitalist in Ireland would always compromise with imperialism, he also expanded on the concept that the working class were the "ONLY" class who possessed an "IDEAL" involving the complete overthrow and reversal of the political, economic, and social consequences of the conquest of Ireland thereby meaning the overthrow of the capitalist system the ideal which the working class alone possess being the ideal of a communist way of life.
To quote Seamus again: "British policy must be viewed in the light of their attitude towards Ireland as a whole, not just the 6 counties what Britain wants is to maintain her influence over the whole island. Her military and political intervention in the North is simply a means of maintaining this influence and control.
"Britain knows that if she is compelled to withdraw from the North, she loses all control over the economy, the wealth and resources of this country. She knows that there is a good chance of the creation of a socialist state.
"Britain and the EEC countries also would be conscious of the effect of a socialist state in Ireland on the western European working class. A socialist revolution in Ireland would be an inspiration to people all over Western Europe, the EEC countries have a vested interest as well as Britain, in ensuring that there is no change in the status quo in Ireland".
And again: "It is still Britain's objective to find and impose a political solution which will guarantee the continued protection of Britain's economic and strategic interest in both parts of Ireland.
"Britain also acts as local protector of other imperial interests in Ireland, i.e. the EEC countries, USA and Canada all of which have a vested interest in supporting a British imposed solution in Ireland.
"Finally of course Britain's strategic interests must also be protected through the imposition of a 'solution', which will also ensure that Ireland continues its present policy of pro-imperialist 'Neutrality'".
Both these quotes where written in 1975 and 1976 respectively, when we see the basic unity of the imperialist powers with their capitalist allies in Ireland. When we view in the light of the Anglo Irish agreement (Deal) and the enthusiastic support which these imperialist countries give to it, when we see how just today 15th August 1986 - 1989?
The chief of staff of the Irish Army publicly condemning the whole struggle, it doesn't take much foresight to know that a concerted attack on the whole struggle is on the cards, thus again we must repeat the question "What forces can bring the national question to a successful conclusion?"
At the moment we have a pro-imperialist unity of forces. The basis of the broad front policy is to maximise the support for the anti-imperialist struggle, its aim is to constantly strengthen and enlarge the ranks of the people, of those all opposed to imperialist rule, which constantly weakening, dividing and isolating the ranks of the imperialist and their allies in Ireland.
The working class, being the only class, which will not sell out and compromise with imperialists, must therefore play the leading role in the struggle. The petty bourgeoisie, the small farmers and whatever other groups are potentially hostile to imperialism cannot play the leading role in the struggle. We must try and unite them under the one banner of the broad front.
When outlining earlier in the programme of the front for a constitutional conference etc we don't see this as the so-called "stages" process in which for example, once we have got rid of the British we will go through a period of capitalist rule, democratisation etc, if we see the working class as the only class capable of resolving the national question; if we see the working class as playing the leading role in a broad front, through the medium of a revolutionary party, and if we see the broad front encompassing the mass of the Irish people, then the scenario of the question of power being the order of the day, for the working class to seize power.
The whole question of a constitutional conference will be to debate the question of power. Anyhow, this will depend on the correlation of forces. Within and outside the country it will open up a period of intense struggle between two fundamental camps.
Ireland, continuing as a dependent capitalist country controlled and dominated by imperialism, and of firmly establishing our sovereignty and building a revolutionary socialist state.
There is no middle ground between the two; there cannot be any middle road. The battle may be delayed or postponed but it must be fought eventually! We must be under no illusions about the utmost clarity if we are to confront it and be successful.
In Connolly's words "WE CANNOT CONCEIVE OF A FREE IRELAND WITH A SUBJECT WORKING CLASS, WE CANNOT CONCEIVE OF A SUBJECT IRELAND WITH A FREE WORKING CLASS.
We come once more to the role of the revolutionary party, which is absolutely essential if we are to be successful. Without that clear guide role, without a revolutionary ideology, without an analysis of the forces arranged against us, without the application of the correct tactics and strategy the struggle will then fail.
It will be side tracked into compromise if not defeated by failing to appraise the overall situation correctly and becoming isolated from the mass of the people. We must build a revolutionary party.
All of the above is what must be done. It is the basis of what we still fight for. For the role we must still have to play. This is what a revolutionary party must be, what it must engage in, what it must do to help make the revolution.
The tasks that confront us will not be easy, it entails a long struggle, set backs, disappointments and at times maybe probable death! We should again be under no illusions what lie ahead.
It is only by strengthening ourselves ideologically, inculcating in ourselves the values and ideals of the struggle and building up the ranks of the revolutionary party that we will make it.
Finally we must constantly review, criticise and self criticise all aspects of our actions, policies, tactics etc keep appraising the whole situation and keep striving to raise the class consciousness spirit and capacity to fight and win, of the working class.
Marxism tells us that before we can properly solve a problem, before we can work out a plan of action, etc., that we must first analyse the given process, i.e., that we must identify the basic contradiction which is inherent in it and which give rise to its development, and from which everything else springs.
It is this basic contradiction which determines the whole process, other, secondary contradictions, arise out of this - these in turn give expression to particular trends, characteristics, interests, etc., but everything is ultimately determined and conditioned by the basic contradictions.
These secondary contradictions can be tackled. Reformed, changed, but again they will effect no fundamental change in the given process. The only way fundamental change can be achieved is by changing the basic contradiction, which immediately sets in motion a change in all the secondary contradictions, which are dependent upon it.
We'll take for one example the premises whereby A and B have entered into a dialectical relationship. A is by its nature: democratic, open structures, working openly, have its own priorities, tasks etc. B is by its nature: undemocratic, closed structures, working secretly, have its own priorities, tasks, etc.
In their unity, the question obviously arises of who directs whom? Of who predominates over whom? Different results flow from whether A or B is the predominate aspect of the relationships. This is the starting point from which we now briefly analyses this process.
E.G., the predominance of B over A. Firstly: a definite strategy arises from this - i.e., the need to confront imperialism - but with the added proviso that everything else is subordinated to this end. Therefore secondly: definite needs arise from this, i.e., to make the fullest use of the human and material resources at their disposal.
When it's asked: what are the imperialists and their Irish allies policy and how do we aim to thwart this? - We get the same old answer, i.e., that it's necessary to confront them, that the struggle goes on, etc. - we get no analysis, we get no strategy outside this basic confrontation - it eventually becomes an end in itself due simply to the fact that they don't know of any other strategy, other trends manifest themselves due to this, e.g., psychological traits: there arises the condition of elitism, superiority, etc., that those in A are ******s, bluffers, etc., who always harp on about meaningless things.
Therefore there arises a definite trend of spurning A-type work as being beneath their style, standing, etc.; there arises contempt for those involved in A-type work, etc.
Another trend arises of prestige building, of wanting to be seen and known as being the lad, etc. - that in turn begins to consolidate his position, to build a power base, etc. - these being manifested in 1979-81 and from 1982-87.
A lowering of standards eventually comes into being - where criminal type elements, unsavoury characters, inept individuals are allowed entrance and rise to prominence - the result is constant crises, factionalism, instability, discredit.
It must be asked: why the fatal failure? What you sow, you reap! What you plant, you harvest! If you predominantly plant seeds of B, your harvest an M crop.
If you sow a few seeds of A amongst this - then due to their inferior position, they'll lose out in the struggle for life, for space to grow, breathe, develop and reproduce. Every single attempt to change this in the past has failed, yet highly intelligent individuals were involved during this period. Why did they fail?
Simply because they failed to confront the basic contradiction - which as we've pointed out above is that between A and B they would tackle only the secondary contradictions, e.g., by changing individuals, by launching a political initiative here and there, making some resources a bit more available, etc.
All these did was to give a brief further lease of life before the basic contradiction reasserted itself. It is like revolution. The basic contradiction in society is between the relations of productions, i.e., and socialised production by the working class and private appropriation by the capitalist class.
Everything springs from this. Poverty, unemployment, alienation, etc. To try and change poverty by more welfare benefits, unemployment by more state investment, etc., will likewise as above give a brief lease of life to ease this crisis - but these are only changes in the secondary contradiction - NO fundamental change is achieved as the basic contradiction has not been tackled.
It is impossible to bring about "fundamental change" unless the basic contradiction is tackled. Unemployment, poverty, etc., will immediately be changed once this is tackled and changed.
Therefore we have to ask now: why, if we're Marxists, do we neglect this? This is fundamental of Marxism! Why do we fail to act accordingly? Marx, Lenin, etc., confronted all fundamentals in a courageous, merciless, ruthless manner. Why do we fail to do so? Is it inherent in us? Are we up to this task? Do we lack the courage and maturity to do this? Are we amateurs and not professionals? We know the lessons of history, we know the mistakes, and we either act accordingly or collapse. Salvation lies in clarity and the courage to implement change!
We come now to our now starting point, which is the predominance of A over B. Again, a definite strategy arises from this plus the need to make the fullest use of the human and material resources at our disposal. The need to confront imperialism is again reasserted, but this time subordinated to the need to build A - to build structures which for once will ensure stability, to inculcate in everyone a revolutionary ideology, etc. Recognising past errors, etc., we must consciously strive to avoid factionalism, power bases, etc.
Out of the predominance of A over B - definite psychological traits will emerge: of discipline, unity, work, theoretical strength, comradeship, solidarity, confidence - these entail the sharing of experience, the raising of political consciousness, the formation of political agitators, organisers, propagandists, until a solid base is created with continuity at all levels.
It is absolutely obvious that this cannot be done on the odds basis, with all the old traits, problems, etc. - it entails completely subordinating B to A - of salvaging the most promising elements in B, etc. This is what changing the basic contradiction means; everything flows from this. It ensures that in the future that all will have gone through the training school of building A; they will all have this background; with revolutionary politics uppermost; with allegiance to A; with being familiar with all the trends in A; with all its problems policies - and never divorced from these.
A common bond must be forged around these - a bond, which will create the qualities of awareness, capability, resilience, consistency, etc., in everyone.
If we recognise that the starting point of anything is the most important thing - for this is what we sow, what we plant - then this point of departure is the ground from which we must launch ourselves.
Those who would cling to the past, to the outworn, put forth the line that we will change, but that it doesn't have to be so drastic, etc. This is sheer pretence! They are usually agreed upon about what must be done - yet not doing it! That it can be done in stages - yet not following the logic of going to the heart of it and acting resolutely! They end up maintaining - supporting that which is the very problem.
Their so-called good intentions is not enough - the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The burning question - the priority for us is to build a revolutionary party - as Lenin said about the Social Revolutionaries:
"Their terrorism is not connected in any way with work among the masses, for the masses, or together with the masses. It distracts our very scanty organisational forces from their difficult and by no means complete task of organising a revolutionary party."
Enough said!
The year 1974 was to be an important period for Republican Socialist in Long Kesh i.e. for the group of prisoners who came under the Official Republican Movement, because it was in December 1974 that a small but significant number left the Officials and gave their support to Seamus Costello's newly formed IRSP.
Since the cease-fire period in 1972 until late 1974 the mode of the Officials in all prisons was far from being tranquil. There was a general feeling of disillusionment among prisoners in the Officials case as to the inactivity and lack of principled leadership from the movement on the outside.
The excuse, put forward by the leadership, for the halt of the armed struggle was that it was counter-productive and a temporary tactic, was being rejected by a substantial number of prisoners - that was at a time when the Brits were brutally hammering the Irish people, torturing, interning, and killing at will.
So one could say that the situation in the cage in Long Kesh was of great discontent and extreme flammable; one spark was all that was required to ignite the revolutionary nucleus, which had been ceaselessly critical since the cease-fire in May 1972.
Reports had been filtering in to Long Kesh for some time about Seamus Costello and his attempts to pull the movement away from the slippery slope leading to the abandonment of the anti-imperialist struggle and acceptance of the reformism path.
The final straw came when at the 1974 Ard Fheis. Costello's proposals, which had been supported by the majority of delegates, were brushed aside by the leadership and Costello himself was formally dismissed. Over the following months, his position was constantly debated in the cage; people were in contact with him when the IRSP was publicly declared as a separate party.
A meeting was held in one of the huts in cage 11, an attempt was made to read out a document in support of Seamus Costello, and when this was denied by the cage staff, all those who were in favour of the newly formed movement got up and left the meeting; they held their meeting which was to form a branch of the IRSP in December 1974.
The numerical strength of this new group was between 20-25, mainly Belfast men. The problem for the newly-formed IRSP was to get away from the Officials and to press for a cage of their own and to acquire camp council recognition. At this period of time in the Kesh a representative from each grouping - Provisionals, Officials, UVF, UDA - meet the prison administration to discuss matters concerning the general running of the jail. This was De Facto POW status.
The separation of the IRSP and the Officials came about a short time after the spilt and especially once the onslaught by the Officials had begun outside. After the Officials had made a number of threats and some minor scuffles broke out, the IRSP members were very high; they still had not received camp council recognition.
Until this had been acquired the future would be unsure and unstable so it was decided that a hunger strike would be embarked upon to gain political status i.e. camp council recognition. A selected number went on hunger strike -- during this supporters outside blocked dozens of main roads with vehicles to draw attention to the prisoner's demands.
The hunger lasted until the prison administration gave in - this was early 1975. Shortly after this five IRSP prisoners escaped from the magistrates court in Belfast, while another successful escape was made by nine IRSP prisoners in cage 5 in May 1976 by way of a tunnel. These were early morale boosters for the IRSP but shortly things began to change! Newly sentenced prisoners were no longer denoted as political prisoners. The Brits were now pursuing a policy and the infamous H-Blocks was built to house all prisoners.
The 1st of March 1976 was the date of the implementation of the Brits criminalisation policy. Any Republican caught on or after this date would no longer receive "special category status" as the Brits called it or "Political status" as the rational world recognised it.
All prisoners were now to be treated as common criminals without any political recognition at all, the effects of this would be felt not only inside the Prisons - because criminalisation was an attempt to criminalise not only the Prisoners but the entire struggle, it was immediately grasped by all Republicans and Republican socialist organisations that the British had once again redrawn the lines of confrontation and opened up another battle front of "their" choice.
The Prisons were the new battle zones, at the centre of which was the H-Blocks of Long Kesh and defeat here for either side engaged was possibly the "beginning of the end". Suddenly, captured Republicans were thrown back to an active role and again to the forefront of the struggle. Their courage, resolve and mettle would be tested to the full. The tremendous responsibility, which was imposed on them, was a heavy burden to carry, but carry it they did.
With the ending of status came the ending of segregation. The effects of this on our movement was more profound than are sometimes realised. Because of our numerical weakness we were always a minority within the broad republican family and this created further problems for us. The IRA always set the tempo and pace but we "always" retained our separate organisational structures, independence and identity, regardless of the general course of protest/resistance being embarked upon against criminalisation.
At various stages during the protest years there were differences of opinion between us and them regarding how things should or should not develop, but irrespective of the point, it is basically true to say that the impetus was in the hands of the British, and Republicans of all shades adapt and react to the conditions they found themselves in.
These conditions were often hard and brutal and under such circumstances men genuinely bound together in the face of a common enemy. The attitude taken by our members was simply that we are Republican Socialists first, and a member of a specific movement second - with this it was incumbent upon us to follow the general development of the protest etc.
The early years of the protest were filled mainly with the refusal to work or to wear prison clothes; this led to confinement in the cell and the beginning of the no wash/cleaning out strike. The stakes were risen and the Brits determined to succeed gave sanction for an escalation of brutal and vicious onslaught waged by the prison administration, which was designed to break the prisoner's spirit and resistance. The onslaught was a signal to the prisoners that the Brits were determined as they were brutal, and with this came concrete realisation that defeat here either side would result in strengthening their opponent's position immensely.
Outside the jails saw the mobilisation of opinion in support of the prisoner's five basic demands. This gradually gathered in strength and momentum and towards the end of 1980 things would begin to take shape for the final phase of this prolonged battle. At this point it is worth noting that our movement was heavily involved and represented at each stage and development of the protest, both inside and outside the prison.
Towards the end of 1980, the first hunger strike was embarked upon by seven prisoners, one of them being the O/C of the IRSP in the H-Blocks. This ended without the loss of life - but with the issue still unresolved.
A second hunger strike had begun on the 1st of March 1981, the same day the no-wash etc strike was to cease. This was a purely tactical plan as lessons from the previous hunger strike had been well-learned, as we were preparing conditions making it difficult for the Brits' duplicity and treachery to function in.
Mass mobilisation was undertaken on the streets, this was co-ordinated by the national H-Blocked/Armagh committee. A conglomeration of many different and various organisations under one banner. The IRSP was an active and committed participant on this committee.
This period in Irish history will undoubtedly be looked back on as the watershed in this the final phase of the struggle of our people. The hunger strike ended on the 3rd of October 1981 after 271 days with the loss of ten brave and courageous revolutionary Republicans.
The sacrifice signalled to the world that the struggle of our people was just, popular and undeniably political. Criminalisation was defeated; the Brits lost a major battle and the events of 1981 presented opportunity and conditions for Sinn Fein to adopt a policy of electoral intervention, which dealt another major and totally unexpected blow to the British occupation of our country.
Our movement played a full and committed role in the history of this period - on the streets, the IRSP mobilised in support of the prisoners, and in the prisons our members stood steadfast and firm. Three of our movement's finest volunteers, Pasty O Hara, Kevin Lynch and Mickey Devine lost their lives on hunger strike.
The British were forced to grant major concessions and the wearing of our own clothes was the foundation from which we set about building and security and environment we have today.
The end of the hunger strike saw a difference of opinions emerging; firstly within the IRA and secondly between them and our movement in regards our next move. Some sections believed nothing more could be achieved by remaining in the isolated protest blocks and they believed we should all go down into the "working" blocks and make our next move from there. There was a general consensus at that time within the IRA for that attitude, and so men started to leave of their own accord.
Our staff believed in moving to the working blocks to facilitate the next moves, but they realised that we were, on our own numerically impotent, but that still didn't take away the principle of what we believed was the correct thing at the correct time.
Other factors were that we could move in unison, as a movement, and not as individuals, and when there we would establish the structures of our movement and carry out whatever was practical and feasible to strengthen our position. Two months after the hunger strike, on the 3rd of December 1981, our movement left the isolated blocks and went into the mixed wings.
It wasn't until a year later that the main body of the IRA ended the "no work" strike and therefore ended the isolation blocks. Over a period of time beforehand, they had infiltrated groups of men into the working blocks to build up their structures. The sheer weight of numbers overwhelmed the Loyalists and a campaign was embarked upon to get segregation. It is true to say that it was the IRA, which was primarily behind the planning of this, but our men in the wings again contributed. The Loyalist finally embarked upon a protest, which meant moving them to isolation blocks - thus segregation was achieved.
So far we have spent our time tracing the very broad history of the IRSP in this jail. With that knowledge behind us, no man should be under any illusions about our historical roots in the struggle, which took place in here to achieve the conditions we presently enjoy.
The struggle was a bitter and hard slog in which we all suffered many personal hardships; Three of our finest men: Pasty O Hara, Kevin Lynch and Michael Devine gave their lives. We must ask ourselves why? These men died to restore political recognition of our prisoners in an effort to thwart ant attempt to criminals our struggle. What we enjoy now is De Facto Political recognition.
The question now becomes: What do we do, how do we make the best of the conditions we now enjoy? We must firstly realise that each and every one of us owes a dept to those men who sacrificed their lives for us! The way to repay this is to make the best possible use of the conditions they created for us. We can do this by politicising ourselves so that we can return to the struggle, to strengthen and bolster it etc.
The more politically-aware people who leave this jail and return to the struggle, the quicker the struggle will develop and succeed. It is therefore necessary to draw up a programme for the IRSP in the jail, and it is incumbent on every one of our members to follow the programme with all their energy and enthusiasm.
At the inception of the movement in late 1974, hopes were high that this was the initiation of what was to be a new revolutionary force in Ireland. The potential to build a revolutionary movement with a small, but sufficient nucleus who had firstly provided the impetus in forming the movement, and secondly, who possessed an unparalleled analysis (at that time 1974) of what was required to shift British imperialism and capitalism from Ireland.
That analysis stemmed from a solid ideological base, which was socialist in its outlook, together with the recognition that the armed struggle was not only justified, but also necessary if Britain were to be forced from this country. It was only by the organisation of a solid ideologically sound socialist party actively engaged in the political struggle of the Irish people, combined with a military wing actively confronting imperialism, which would bring victory, and so it was to these ends that the new movement was to strive and organise for 12 years.
We can look back and see that we have not been successful in building either a solid socialist party, or a military machine capable of sustaining an effective military campaign. Our task here is to ask why the movement has not involved and developed into that which it had the potential to be in late 1974.
The task we have set ourselves is enormous because the short history of this movement, a mere 12 years, has been plagued with inner turmoil and internal problems. So in a sense the question - Why has the movement involved developed and fulfilled its early potential? - could be answered in two short words: "INTERNAL TURMOIL"!
That is the accurate answer but it is not adequate or sufficient, for the objective here is merely an attempt to understand the past, so that we may analyse the present and then we can influence the future! It is simply not desirable, for reasons and considerations, to carry out a detailed, day-to-day history of the movement.
Our central theme, focus and concentration will be that of STRUCTURE and we will not get bogged down with the individuals, personalities or groups who have staffed this structure over the years. Mention may be made of individuals, but only in the context of structure. Structure is the very essence, because everything involves around, depends upon and springs from the very structural make up of the movement.
If there are structural defects or weaknesses, they do not easily manifest themselves as such; rather, they tend to be manifested in different forms, which disguise their original, such as lack of internal democracy, lack of coherency and autocratic individuals. But, all those problems can ultimately, be traced back and found to originate from STRUCTURAL DEFECTS.
So if structure is incorrect, many internal problems will follow, but if the structure is correct, then the path should be smoother. Structure is the framework, or skeleton, around which the movement organises. We can list the concepts, each interrelated and interdependent on the other, which form the basis of a structure. The ten points are as follows:
1: Politics in command
2: Internal democracy
3: Absolute legitimacy
4: Collective Leadership
5: Central authority
6: Coherency
7: Accountability
8: Discipline
9: Efficiency
10: Effectiveness
The essential point to be grasped here is that point 1 is the rock, the basis from which every thing else stems, so if this is wrong, then all the other points will be retarded and that's where things are seen to break down, where the cracks appear and problems occur.
Take point 8 Discipline - why is there little? Because there is little coherency point 6 and so it continues. Begin at the bottom, in the middle or wherever you like on this list of points and the effect is the same. The point above is incorrect, all the way up to point 1. Therefore point 1 is the basic problem/contradiction of this movement's history, every other problem secondary.
Politics were not in command because the party was subordinate to the army. So the present position of the movement reads like this: We are not EFFECTIVE why? Because we are not EFFICIENT why? Because there is not enough DISCIPLINE, why? Because there is a problem with COHERENCY, why? Because there is a problem with CENTRAL AUTHORITY, why? Because there's a problem with COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP. Why? Because there's a problem with LEGITIMACY, why? Because there's a problem with INTERNAL DEMOCRACY, why? Because POLITICS ARE NOT IN COMMAND.
We have found our starting point and will now commence with a three-part draft, beginning with point 1, but remembering that the central theme is that of structure.
Let's begin with a question: why were politics not in command if we had a revolutionary nucleus, clear and correct in its analysis and political ideology? The fault was not to be found in individuals or their behaviour, politics, ideology, or any other "individual/personal/human" factor, the fault was structured and concerned, "THE ORGANIZATIONAL PRINCIPLE WHEREBY THE ARMY COUNCIL (AC) WAS ENSHRINED AS THE SUPREME BODY IN CONTROL OVER THE ENTIRE MOVEMENT RESULTING IN THE SUBORDINATION OF THE PARTY BY THE ARMY". This effectively put the army in control, NOT POLITICS.
This first part of the draft entirely with the above structural defeats and concerns the period 1974-1977 in the movement's history. This structural defect must be considered THE BASIC CONTRADICTION/PROBLEM from which SECONDARY CONTRADICTIONS/PROBLEMS derive.
The logic of the above proposition suggests that to solve the secondary contradictions permanently, one must find and eradicate the basic contradiction. To tackle secondary contradictions without eradicating the basic contradiction is tantamount to catching ones' tail!
The consequences of this one structural defect, the organisational principle of the AC supremacy, were both pervasive and detrimental to the movement's early growth and stability, and have been perpetuated with the same negative results right up to the present.
We shall concentrate now on three of the secondary contradictions, which arose in this period of the movement's history, firstly by analysing each of them separately and finally by identifying their interconnection and drawing together to solve the basic contradiction.
FIRST CONTRADICTION
This concerns the role of the army within the movement as we have known it. Persons who are reared and weaned and very much the product of army circles usually dominate the army council. The army council is the governing body, entrusted as executive caretakers of the movement with supreme and unquestionable power. The result of this fact is that favour, emphasis and resources are ascribed to the army, and its needs and requirements are given priority at every stage over the party. It also means that there exists a leadership dominated by "military thinkers" who attempt to impose a military solution to what is essentially a political problem.
To investigate and answer this point it is necessary to digress once again into the relatively recent past.
Following the split in 1974-1975 the national leadership attempted to consolidate the ground that had been won from the Officials due to the split, and plot out a political course and produce a programme which was in line with a truly revolutionary ideology. It was here the first cracks were to appear.
Then, the leadership (AC) were at odds as to the immediate priorities to pursue in line with any forthcoming revolutionary programme. Remembering that the split occurred because of the refusal by the Official Republican Movement to continue 'ARMED STRUGGLE' as a necessary tactic by which to confront imperialism and to secure a socialist republic, then it is hardly surprising that the same issue should raise its head again with all the intensity and bitterness of before.
The political policies (on social, economic and international issues) of the Officials was never in dispute, it was their courting respectability on the road to reformism, to the exclusion of all else that forced the parting of the ways. What was envisaged was the creation of a movement in which no ambiguity existed in the pursuance of armed struggle and revolutionary republican socialist policies, a movement that would create a unique blend of politics and physical force as to form a truly ideologically sound revolutionary organisation.
In the six counties the strongest area/base the movement has was Belfast and it was from here that most of the trouble was to originate. From the outset the army council was comprised of people with differing levels of political development, ability and perception. Within this body the argument raged as to which line of action must immediately be pursue as priority: (A) The building of a strong army or (B) The creation of a revolutionary party.
Seamus Costello - a domineering cult figure - pushed, cajoled, argued and articulated the immediate creation and building of a revolutionary party, meaning the majority of the movement's finance, resources and energy would be directed away from the army. Costello was a strong-willed, politically astute, highly intelligent and capable person, almost an autocrat, around whom the fledgling Movement revolved and bitter controversy raged. The army council was divided from the word go over the issue of 'WHAT MUST BE DONE FIRST?'
The Belfast lobby favoured the building of the army while Costello argued the case for the party. The general consensus, stemming from the very nature of the supreme body (AC) was such that 'Armed Struggle' was paramount, almost sacrosanct, inscribed in many minds as a 'principle' rather than a 'facet' of political struggle.
Seamus Costello's plans to build a revolutionary party were reversed and it was demanded that the army should receive immediate priority, i.e., finance, resources, etc. From the outset, this whole argument was seriously flawed, the flaw being a structural one. This political debate was conducted within the parameters of what was essentially an 'armed structure' (AC) and from people drawn almost entirely from army ranks.
This structural defect was one which centred on 'INTERNAL DEMOCRACY' - internal democracy did not exist in this framework. How could it exist when movement policy was debated within the party grossly under-represented? Where was the democracy here? Within the context of this framework Costello's plans never really had any chance of success. Costello attempted to convince, through dialogue, military-minded people who possessed a limited political perspective and who singularly failed to realise the importance of the party and the role it must play in the success of social revolution; not when the army has 'won the war' but at every step of the way, at every stage of development. The army council argued a strong military line to the detriment of the party for several reasons.
(1) To establish the movement's credentials, the quickest way to do this was to operate and by so doing, clearly distinguish the movement from the reformism 'sticks'.
(2) To confront British imperialism in a war of national liberation.
(3) To defend the movement from any further attack. (In the wake of the 1974-1975 feud).
This lobby was running contrary to Seamus Costello's wishes and so the inevitable consequences were disunity of thought and action within the ruling body of the movement. In other words there was a serious relation of 'collective leadership' resulting in 'no' consensus in agreement and the failure of defining and agreeing policy direction for 'all' to follow.
This in turn led directly to a lack of 'clarity', no definite strategy, revolutionary or otherwise, which could be implemented, 'camps' or 'power blocks' forming, which degenerated into 'factions' and ultimately 'stagnation'.
Two more concepts of structure are evident here - 'COHERENCY' was non-existent resulting in no consistency in thought or action nor clarity of purpose. This in turn led to a breakdown of 'CENTRAL AUTHORITY' by the forming of individual 'power blocks' and factions. By this stage each camp were pursuing their own course of action, Costello mainly the party, the AC armed struggle.
SECOND CONTRADICTION
Our second point concerns itself with the role of the party and its development (or lack of it). The party is reduced to a secondary role with its functions and importance being 'minimised' rather that 'maximised'. It is forced to succumb to the dictates of the supreme body - The Army Council.
Seamus Costello had been the architect of what he perceived would be the creation and building of a revolutionary ideologically sound movement. He had personally travelled the country meeting highly-respected and capable people of the 'left', around whom the nucleus of a revolutionary working class party would be built.
But, in order to convince this potential nucleus as to the movement's seriousness and revolutionary credentials, Costello has to either (1) have complete control of the ruling body (the AC) or (2) be part of the 'ruling body' which appreciated the 'primary' importance of building a party. Unfortunately neither was the case! Costello knew, as any revolutionary knows, that without the proper class-conscious vehicle of the people no revolution would be forthcoming. More than that, the 'legitimacy' of the movement's existence must be called into question, as no revolutionary movement can exist if fundamentals such as 'collective leadership, internal democracy and a political leadership' are missing.
National independence with social and economic freedom condemns the working class to the drudgery of everlasting slavery, chained to the coat tails of the native exploiters.
With the formation of the party (IRSP) an Ard Cohmraile was elected and entrusted with the task of building a revolutionary class-conscious party with a revolutionary programme for development. However, in order for this to be achieved, finance, resources, time, and above all a revolutionary mature leadership (the AC), which understood the importance of such, a party was required.
Unfortunately not only did the Army Council lack this crucial factor but also they effectively deprived the Ard Chomhairle the right of autonomy by making it subject to the dictates of the army council. In effect, political development was strangled in the womb simply because 'internal democracy' was ignored.
As expected, this move resulted in clashes between the Ard Chomhairle who argued that the role of the party was as important if not more so than the army, and the army council.
It was passionately argued that without the proper political vehicle, no revolution could be won; that working class interests could not be represented, nor would they possess a vehicle for expression, and that the party could not subordinate itself to the dictates of the army as this smacks of the tail wagging the dog!
They tried to convince their opponents that essentially the struggle, which must be fought, is one of 'class' as distinct from 'national liberation' though both were by no means mutually exclusive; they were compatible in many respects - the 'Armed Struggle' was but one strand of a complex web on the road to defeating British imperialism in Ireland and securing a socialist republic. They pointed out that the 'War' also entails fighting alongside your class in the spheres of employment, education, social Welfare etc.
At every stage of this complex struggle, while at the same time heightening the class consciousness of the working class by exposing and laying bare the contradictions in the capitalist society, and by so doing, convince them of the need of a 'new society' in which the working class will have control of the land and the means of production. However, in order to achieve such a development, pursue such policies and publish such a programme a revolutionary programme was essential. In the prevailing climate no such party could possibly exist. The result of this realisation was that 'Bernadette' and people like her felt they were wasting their time and withdrew from the party, all because the army council demanded control over aspects of the struggle that they neither understood nor saw the necessity for!
THIRD CONTRADICTION
The logical detachment of the above two points is that the army is elevated above the party, and is seen by the movement's members as the place to be. As members drifted into the army they become incorporated into a particular way of thinking and viewing things whereby army membership in general and operations in particular is seen as the single most important issue.
This was the prevalent attitude in the years 1974-1975! The 'War' was the overriding issue to the detriment of all else, and that is literally speaking from DISCIPLINE, ACCOUNTABILITY, EFFICIENCY, etc. In the six counties the war was pursued with a sense of vigour in relation to the finances, materials and resources that were available. The army was the place to be. In the army the prospects of power was a tangible force, where the romantic notion of the 'Freedom Fighter' was seen through impressionable eyes and the ranks swelled with new politically ignorant, anti-party recruits.
Brigade areas took a greater degree of autonomy within which 'powerblocks' developed and a "law unto us" mentality was rife. In such a set-up 'DISCIPLINE' broke down, or became non-existent in areas.
ACCOUNTABILITY suffered as no one was amenable for their actions, or lack of them, whichever the case may have been, naturally 'EFFICIENY' and 'EFFECTIVENESS' were further causalities in the overall structure; after all, no 'CENTRAL AUTHORITY' could exist in a sea of powerblocks simply because there was no 'COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP' within the army council capable of giving agreed direction higher up the structural ladder.
Belfast, being centrally important to the war, became the single most important exponent of 'the law unto ourselves mentality' concept and its accompanying structural defects. Belfast strengthened its position and accelerated the 'structural decay' by grafting onto its swollen sphere of influence other areas, people and support.
The gulf between Belfast and Dublin widened further with Belfast refusing to acknowledge the importance of the party, but instead increased their demands and pressure for 'war materials'. Dublin on the other hand consolidated its own position by maintaining a head office, producing a party organ (THE STARRY PLOUGH) and promoting the importance of the party.
To be a 'macho' man you had to be in the army and have a healthy distaste for the political party. Not only that, you had to see victory coming about exclusively from the arms effort; anything else was 'weakness' 'sissy' and 'not committed'!
The party in the six counties was deliberately allowed to wither away, simply because the mixture of 'politically naive apolitical' members in the six counties did not have any idea of essentially what the struggle was about. The membership was young, reckless, impressionable and eager militants, the army council was unable to provide a proper leadership to give revolutionary direction and by virtue of its make-up as outlined in point (1) - it was a 'militaristic body' unable to give any other direction, other than 'Military Victory'!
IN CONCLUSION: Firstly we must recognise and accept that the presence or absence of a revolutionary political party will have a profound affect on the overall development of any revolutionary movement and ultimately the outcome of the national liberation struggle.
Throughout this draft many reasons and causes are evident to explain the direction the movement followed and the internal upheavals which took place in the years 1974-1977. It was seen that the problems were basically a structural one from which many defeats arose and in-turn give rise to other defeats. This put into motion a chain of events, each eroding further the movement's structural stability.
Ten concepts, which are evident in this erosion of structural stability, were exposed, each essential in the working of any organisation, let alone a revolutionary movement. Each concept led onto a higher level or degree of instability, creating a domino effect and culminating in the sad truth that we did not have a leadership that was entirely, thoroughly revolutionary because concept (1) was missing, the leadership was not politically aware! Around the structural failure lies all other failures in a revolutionary movement.
Below, the main themes of this draft are briefly outlined. Within these four themes can be seen the defects stated earlier - a brief examination should confirm this.
(A) INDIVIDUAL LEADERS OR POWER BLOCKS.
(B) LIMITED PERCEPTION OF THE STRUGGLE.
(C) RULING BODY (A/C) WAS DIVIDED.
(D) LACK OF POLITICAL DIRECTION.
In (A) you had Seamus Costello, the strong minded visionary but very much an "Individual" while you had the Belfast and Dublin camps at loggerheads.
In (B) the struggle was viewed by many (in the six counties) as a 'military' one, this had an over-ridding bearing on the rest of the movement because without a solid six county base the movement would be of a negligible importance in the context of a national liberation struggle. The 'militaristic' view stemmed from the fundamental lack of political awareness.
In (C) the army council was divided on the issue 'Army Vs Party' (hawks and doves scenario) and naturally where such divisions exists at such a crucial level in the movement's structure; stagnation is the only outcome, followed gradually or rapidly by retardation.
In (D) no coherent revolutionary programme existed which could be agreed upon by the leadership. Because of this, discipline suffered, and with discipline all the other interrelated concepts broke down. Morale slumped among the most advanced party members resulting in a lack of agreed political direction.
Taken collectively (A) to (D) reads 'disaster' and although this fact was not readily discernible 12 years ago as it is today, at least now we can see more clearly the factors which prevented development and brought about gradual retardation, and by identifying these factors we should now be in a strong position to take the necessary steps to ensure they are never repeated. This is best achieved by resolving the 'basic' contradictions inherent in the movement, i.e., THE PARTY BEING SUBORDINATE TO THE ARMY!
In order to resolve this contradiction, the importance of the party must be recognised and armed struggle placed in the perspective in the context of the overall struggle.
One of the basic fundamentals which must be agreed upon, and which this draft has exposed, in order to resolve the overall basic contradiction, and by doing so, develop a revolutionary consciousness within a revolutionary movement, is 'THE ARMY MUST BE SUBORDINATE TO THE PARTY'!
This does not - nor do I wish to give the impression that this does - spell an end to armed struggle; on the contrary, it is designed to produce a better soldier. It is the recognition that every military operation must have a political motive. It places the armed struggle in perspective and it guarantees that our volunteers will have the opportunity of developing revolutionary potential, by creating soldiers who are politically militarily aware; who in turn will demand that their leadership will be no less aware than the volunteers, and that no ambiguity exists (throughout the movement) in the pursuance of national liberation and the development of a political social and economic programme for a socialist Ireland.
EVERY SOLDIER A POLITICIAN, EVERY POLITICIAN A SOLDIER!
This next stage of our movement's history and analysis concerns itself with the period from late 1977 to the end of 1981. Many of the issues and themes covered and referred to here have already be mentioned and expanded upon in the previous draft; therefore they should now sound familiar.
This repetition of events only serves to emphasise the 'cyclic' nature of our problems, which essentially have been inherent in our movement's history due to the 'basic' contradiction - (see previous draft) - from which all other structural defects i.e., effectiveness, efficiency, internal democracy, politics in control.
It should be remembered that the central theme of this entire historical analysis is one of 'STRUCTURE'; however, we intend on concentrating this second stage of the movement's history, (1977-1981) on one specific structural defect, 'THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP'!
As pointed out above and in the previous draft, this defect, like all the others, sprang from the basic contradiction of the movements history, 'THE ORGANISATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE AC (Army Council) SUPREMACY'; because of the interrelated nature of the structural defects it is extremely difficult to place any specific defect on a level of importance above any other.
However, as this draft unfolds, we believe that it will become obvious to those who have taken the time to read and analyse this draft that the above-mentioned specific defect 'THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP' must be elevated to a plane of equal magnitude and importance to that of the basic contradiction itself - 'ORGANISATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE AC SUPREMACY'.
Only by resolving these two fundamentals can a 'revolutionary' movement function as it was intended, i.e., in a coherent, principled, orientated revolutionary manner. Basically, the principle of collective leadership means that the movement's policy and direction are decided by a 'collective' group of people, and not by a single individual.
It is obvious that initiative and ideas have to originate from some 'individual', that is natural, the point here is that policy, direction, strategy etc, should be in the hands of a collective group, 'representative' of the 'entire' movement where 'consensus' and 'agreement' ultimately decides in effect, the principle of collective leadership ensures that all decisions on policy and strategy will have been carefully analysed and thoroughly discussed before any final decisions are arrived at. No snap decisions; 'Off the cuff' remarks can be made!
Such collective debate and consensus guarantees that the chances of formulating incorrect policy or seriously flawed strategy will be minimised. It means that, 'EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY, COHERENCY, DISCIPLINE, ACCOUNTABILITY, CENTRAL AUTHORITY, LEGITIMACY, INTERNAL DEMOCRACY AND POLITICS IN CONTROL' is guarantied, the frameworks of a revolutionary movement.
It is unfortunate, but nevertheless true, that throughout the history of our movement this basic was not at work. WHY? The reason being that the power, control and influence that the rank 'CHIEF OF STAFF' bestowed on the individual who fills the position, has been such that the chief of staff has had 'EXCESSIVE' power to the detriment of a collective leadership.
The reasons why this has been so differs depending on the era and the particular 'individual' holding down the position. Some of these reasons would suggest that it was 'personalities' at work, from which seemed larger than life characters; forceful and overbearing characters; 'dominating' characters or even intellectual superiority!
Regardless of whatever reason above, that which did not differ was the consequences: Our movement was run like a 'MILITARY DICTATORSHIP'. 'INTERNAL DEMOCRACY' did not exist; one person was in 'complete' control, amenable to none for his actions. Making decisions on matters, which he knew little about and cared even less.
The political party as a result, a crucially important part of our movement, did not develop, the movement's political role was neglected, hence, no revolutionary movement to date has developed which is capable of seriously challenging British imperialism in Ireland and placing the working class in control of the land and the means of production.
All of the above reasons are flawed, i.e., personalities, overbearing, dominating characters etc, sprang from a faulty analysis. The mere fact that this unfortunate 'TRADITION' has been continuous and consistent endorses and substantiates the fact that it is A STRUCTURAL FAULT and not the consequences of PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, such as forceful, overbearing, dominating characters.
There is no doubt that some of the persons who have held down the rank have had personalities and characteristics as described above; but if the 'STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP' was enshrined and adhered to in the movement's constitution, then regardless of the personal characteristics of the Chief of Staff, decisions on policy, strategy, political advancement, would have been 'beyond' the individual 'dictate' hence the responsibility of a collective leadership.
Failure to abide by and exercise that responsibility, as demanded by principle, would mean automatic dismissal for anyone - CHIEF OF STAFF INCLUDED - who attempted (in good faith/intentions, or not) to flout such a principle.
It should perhaps be emphasised here that the power of the chief of staff has never been 'absolute'; however, it became so in our movement! The chief of staff, like all other volunteers in 'theory' was and is answerable to a higher authority - THE ARMY COUNCIL - but this was not the case! The army council appointed the chief of staff, gave him his brief and allowed him to organise the 'army' side of the movement subject to A/C direction, discipline etc while other facets of the struggle were organised and pursued, i.e., the development of a political party.
So again the question - Why did this not happen? - must be posed. The previous draft adequately answers this question as does the theme of this one: The A/C was a militaristic body, who gives priority to the army. In such an environment it is hardly surprising that a person in the 'KEY' position, as perceived by the military leadership (the AC), of chief of staff should automatically control and with such an autocratic structure, no principle of collective leadership, could/would exist.
It is as a direct consequence of this that our ten structural defects were able to arise, nurture and develop. Within this structural wilderness the chief of staff became the 'centre of gravity' where his ideas, opinions and initiatives flourished and were generally accepted by the staff 'without' proper recourse to a decision of collective leadership, which by its nature 'demands' the necessary debates, questions, criticisms at this level.
In the era being covered by this draft 1977-1981 we will mainly concentrate on two tragic developments, one at the beginning of the draft (late 1977) and the other at the end (late 1981).
Both developments and their consequences directly relate to the theme of this draft, the structural defects, which invalidated, 'THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP'.
We will begin with a specific date, 5th of October 1977; this was the day that counter revolutionary forces assassinated Seamus Costello. With the benefit of hindsight we must (albeit reluctantly) accept that the cynical calculation of those who assassinated Costello proved precise and accurate in what effect Costello's removal would have on the movement.
This one, single individual, Seamus Costello, was priceless and irreplaceable. He was by far the movement's most capable person; he possessed an unparalleled revolutionary zeal, along with an unshakeable revolutionary ideology.
He was also unique, in that he was the movement-leading link with the past, a republican movement's pre 1969-70 spilt.
In short, at this early period of the movement's history, Costello was irreplaceable, but more important to the argument here is the fact that Seamus Costello did not adhere to the PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP, he was 'THE' central figure, an autocrat who held tightly to the reigns of power and around whom the movement revolved.
This meant that once he was removed, without his undoubted ability and leadership a massive vacuum was created and a struggle commenced to fill it. Costello was the cohesive force, the cement between the cracks, the single guiding light.
He left in his wake an inherited legacy that power should not be shared. We failed as a movement in the early months following his assassination to learn anything from his going and as result we were condemned to a road of militaristic autocratic leadership, which spawned structural defects without even realising it.
THE CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE OF COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP CAN BE SEEN FROM A RECENT TRAGIC INCIDENT, FOLLOWING THE SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE DEATH OF MOZAMBIQUE PRESIDENT SMAORA MACHEL IN A PLANE CRASH.
MOZAMBIQUE IS A MARXIST COUNTRY, WHICH WON ITS INDEPENDENCE OVER A DECADE AGO FROM PORTUGUESE. SINCE THEN THE RULING PARTY 'FRELIMO' HAS HAD A STRONG COMMITMENT TO BOTH 'UNITY' AND 'COLLECTIVE ACTION', THIS WAS BORN OF THEIR EXPERIENCES IN THE WAR AGAINST PORTUGUESE COLONIALISM.
SINCE INDEPENDENCE THERE HAVE BEEN 'NO' SPLITS WITHIN FRELIMO SINCE 'ALL' DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY CONSENUS.
THE LEADERSHIP OF THE PARTY IN THE POLITICAL BUREAU IS VERY MUCH A COLLECTIVE BODY WITH THE PRESIDENT BEING THE SPOKESPERSON. THESE FACTORS HAVE GIVEN FRELIMO A STABILITY WHICH HAS ENABLED IT TO SURVIVE UNDER SEVERE PRESSURES AND WHICH WILL SEE IT THROUGH THIS LATEST TRAGEDY. This speaks for itself! Let us return to our own problem.
With no disrespect to those around at the time of Seamus Costello's assassination, there wasn't simply any individual person there to match his intellectual and political maturity, nor his ability as chief of staff!
It is true that Costello had a number of 'understudies' who were extremely capable and who shared the same political philosophy as himself, but these were merely 'understudies' and not an integral part of a 'collective leadership', and in this void created by his absence, the two trends 'physical force' verses 'political development of the party' clashed.
Without Costello the buffer zone the balance tilted in favour of the 'physical force' men into whose hands fell the leadership and control of the movement.
All emphasis and priority was now geared towards catering for the army and its needs to the detriment of the political party! The position of chief of staff was, however, unchanged in that his power and influence was still seriously excessive.
In the four years, which followed, as many different persons held that rank, this fact alone point to the folly of such developments. In the form of collective leadership; when he failed to produce the desired results, he was removed from office and replaced. This continued for four years, each chief of staff failing and the net result being four years of stagnation and in some areas of policy, retardation.
The reality is, there is no substitute for 'THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP'; no matter who the individual, or what his capabilities are, no one person can substitute the basic fundamental principle.
So between the years 1977-1981 we can identify the main problem in the movement as lying in the seat of power, at the highest level, and concerning the decision making process - that is what collective leadership essentially is.
The second tragic event concerned a 'coup' by brigade staff officers on Belfast against the brigade staff which culminated in the shooting - though not fatally - of the chief of staff.
As outlined earlier this most serious development (as will be seen) had its origins in the fact that collective leadership did not exist and from which sprang all the other structural defects, such as a break down in DISCIPLINE, ACCOUNTABILITY, COHERENCY, CENTRAL AUTHORITY, LEGITIMACY, INTERNAL DEMOCRACY AND POLITICS IN CONTROL.
Taking stock of the developments and stable collective leadership, the absence of a clearly defined political and military strategy, little coherency or internal democracy, insufficient political development and activity, scarcity of war materials to Northern units, it was inevitable that from somewhere, some quarter some level within the movement that growing disagreement would be transformed into dissent, impatience and ultimately internal rebellion and direct action if things at the top did not change quickly.
The proposition implies that the origin of this rebellion would find its impetus from the bottom level of this movement up.
It could come from either of two sources, the army or the party, for both were deeply disgruntled. Unfortunately the latter never realistically had the power, the will, nor the morale to consider, let alone effect any such enterprise to force change; and therefore the expression of this disgruntlement originated in Belfast, within the army.
It began around 1980 and ended in open rebellion in 1981 against the central power in Dublin. The transition disgruntlement to rebellion was over a period of almost two years and evolved in stages.
It was not a clear, clean, overnight transformation - the first stage was in the confines of Belfast itself. A strong lobby of ground support led by several brigade officers demanded that a number of senior brigade officers, including the OC be removed from power because they were, among other things, incompetent and leading the brigade nowhere.
MISSING HERE WAS (1) THE ACCOUNTABILITY FACTOR, HAD IT EXISTED SUCH A SITUATION WOULD NEVER HAVE ARISEN AND (2) DISCIPLINE, REGARDLESS OF THE REASONS, THERE EXISTS PROPER CHANNELS THROUGH WHICH TO EXPOSE AND SEEK CHANGE.
The central power in Dublin were reluctant to agree to this suggestion, and so a 'coup' took place in Belfast, the said persons were removed, and in so doing, the new Belfast leadership put themselves in confrontation with the central authority in Dublin.
This sparked of a furious argument between Belfast and Dublin, with the former claiming that there was no other method open to them to initiate change as Dublin insisted on its position being accepted, while the latter claimed that Belfast was subordinate to GHQ staff (central authority) and was out of step and unauthorised to initiate the coup.
These claims and counterclaims are really unimportant to the argument here, what is important and is so blatantly obvious is that there was a 'gap' between Belfast and Dublin, with Belfast feeling that it was underrepresented at CENTRAL AUTHORITY level had to succumb to the dictates of Dublin and primarily the chief of staff.
This development effectively broke the chain of command within the movement. Dublin (GHQ i.e. chief of staff) immediately halted all resources and materials to the Belfast brigade and made it clear that unless Belfast accepted their decision, nothing more would be forthcoming.
With this Belfast resigned itself to open rebellion and a number of seniors figures in the movement, including the chief of staff, were shot. This rebellion was an attack on the central authority of the movement and was a sorry day in its history.
Again we can clearly see the structural defeats which where present here, namely NO DISCIPLINE, ACCOUNTABILITY, COHERENCY, CENTRAL LEADERSHIP, LEGITIMACY, INTERNAL DEMOCRACY, POLITICS IN CONTROL AND COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP.
Albeit with the benefit of hindsight, all those instrumental in pursuing this attack on the central authority now fully accept they were wrong. This admission relays the rights and the wrongs of this era and the argument contained within, but that's another story. Here what we need to understand is "WHY?" this development occurred in the first place.
The answer has already been hinted at and is really quite obvious. All power within the movement lay at the central authority, which the chief of staff dominated. Belfast personnel felt underrepresented at this level and unable to initiate real change.
The central authority was run in an autocratic fashion and they could see no other avenue open to them to rectify their grievances other than the rebellion. So while their action was wrong and should always be seen as such, it is also understandable when viewed in this context.
So once again, we see that this specific development sprang from the structural defects of the movement.
If a COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP had been in place representative of the movement as a whole - which includes the party - then minor grievances like those above would be quickly and fairly resolved and would not fester and evolve into such negative and wholly unnecessary developments, which only result in set backs and damage to the movement and ultimately the struggle.
From the two developments mentioned here we can see the absence of a fully empowered and fully functioning COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP, lead only to uncertainty, instability and the rapid emergence of structural defects, NO DISCIPLINE, ACCOUNTABILITY, LEGITIMACY, INTERNAL DEMOCRACY, etc.
If those sorts of problems are prevalent within the structures of any movement or organisation, then it will be completely INEFFECTIVE in whatever its objective is!
For any ruling body to function properly and rule, then there are certain prerequisites, which must be secured, the most fundamental being that it has LEGITIMACY and the consent of that it claims to rule.
The lower echelons of the movement must acquiesce to the leadership's right to control and run the movement, and this should only be achieved via DEMOCRATIC type mechanism.
The leadership should then function in accordance with the PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP, and not in an autocratic or semi-autocratic style, with one person having excessive power and influence over others.
If this is so and one man is as arbiter, the ruler, the decider, then he will also be seen as the undemocratic autocrat, leading ultimately to conflict between him and the lower echelons of the organisation.
If it is the case where two or three persons are seen to be acting in the same way, the only difference is that the autocratic 'clique' replaces the autocratic 'individual'! The consequences are the same - inevitable conflict.
We know of a practical example - one of many exists in socialist countries - where the principle of collective leadership has been tried, tested, and works. Mozambique!
So we are not speaking of the impossible or some unattainable fantasy -- 'collective leadership' is a proven structure, which works, and not only works but also produces successful revolutions.
COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP is not restricted or confined to central leadership level; it is a process which should percolate from the top down at all, levels within the movement. It is a means for analysis; it promotes consensus, coherency, debate, clarity and progress.
It is a principle which must be encouraged at all levels from 'cell' to leadership - in discussing the best, most effective and safest method of operation up to planning and developing of future policy and strategy - political activities at cumman level up to the formulating and publishing of revolutionary programme at leadership level. The process of COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP must be employed!
By creating a broad-based COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP, and the principles of collective leadership throughout the movement, we will bring not only an efficient policy, decision and planning process into being, but it will restore and uphold the movements central authority and legitimacy of such a body and ensure the structural defects which has plagued the movement will not materialised, and ultimately help produce a truly revolutionary movement.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.