Thoughts on Anarchism & the Irish 'National Question'

Tonight The Pensive Quill features guest writer Sean Matthews sharing his thoughts on the relationship between Anarchism and the Irish National Question.

Anyone who has been active on the left and broader labour movement will have faced the 'million dollar question’ from republicans on the 'national question'. The question of opposition or indifference to the partition of the island is often thrown by republicans like a dagger in the direction of the existing left. In response many become either wedded to the romantic idea of the flag removing all our sins or face the jibe of being a ‘gas and water socialist’ or at worst a sop to unionism. It’s the type of choice you get at Stormont every four years where you get to choose between Coca Cola and Pepsi. Equally it’s the type of approach of the PSNI press statement that presents every ’dissenter’ from the status-quo as being wedded to physical force republicanism. But of course it’s much more complicated than this….

The term ‘gas and water socialism’ it was first coined by James Connolly during his heated feud with his arch rival and labourite William Walker in the early 20th century.  Connolly used it in reference to those on the left who simply focused on economic issues at the expense of the national question. In not wanting to simplify that debate which took place over many years I'll just say that it took into account the realm of strategy. The outcome is still fiercely contested and continues to haunt the left to this day.

This was evident during opposition to the Royal Irish Regiment military parade in Belfast city centre in 2009. Opposition to it was left to republicans while the wider left with the exception of the WSM (which mounted a small token protest) opposed any protest as sectarian, in fear perhaps of alienating significant levels of the protestant working class which supported ‘their troops’. The WSM felt it was important to oppose the parade on the basis of our opposition to militarism and sectarianism.

Gas and water socialists became a trademark description later developed by Seamus Costello, one of the co-founders of the Irish Republican Socialist Party, during their divorce from the Official IRA. The ’stickies’ emphasised a classic reformist staged approach emphasising the need to unite catholic, protestant and dissenter along bread and butter issues before the national question could be solved. Whatever about their reformism and Stalinist politics, their analysis that the armed struggle would entrench sectarianism and drive protestants further away from the republican project was correct. But  the term gas and water socialists has become a badge of dishonour for those republicans who want to close down debate and trade insults at anyone who does not believe in the holy scriptures laid down by Connolly and Pearse all those years ago.

There is a small left republican tradition which basically argues that the struggle for national liberation and social liberation are two sides of the same coin. But whatever about that theoretical position in terms of sectarian dynamic and composition how this type of politics manifests on the streets of the North is quite different than it appears on paper. With the possible exception of the Spanish Civil War and the War of Independence from 1918-21 where class conflict and the wider labour movement played an instrumental role, labour has played second fiddle to capitalism and references to socialism has often merely been lip service to a populist social radicalism. The transition of the Provisional republican movement to an electoral machine of constitutional nationalism and eventually a pillar of the establishment, plus its support for a range of anti-working class measures such as water charges and privatisation is the logical outcome in the problematic nature of ‘everything for everybody’ Irish republicanism. It is within these historical limitations that anarchism grew from.

Irish anarchism is a relatively new movement, internationalist in scope and therefore not wedded to the religious dogmas that underpin the land of ‘saints and scholars’ but this does not mean we have nothing to say. Refusing to dance to the national question is quite different to ignoring state repression and imperialism.

There are currently two anarchist organisations in Ireland, Organise! and the Workers Solidarity Movement.  Anarchists believe that nationalism is no answer to capitalism and imperialism as it ignores class divisions and seeks to unite workers and bosses which have no common interests. However, the WSM recognises ‘the relationship of the British state with Ireland is imperialist because the decisions it has imposed have always been autonomous of the wishes of the people of the island and any section of the people. That is British state policy follows the perceived needs of the British state and not the wishes of the 'Irish people', those who are 'loyal to the crown' or even the local ruling class.’(Position paper on the Partition of Ireland)

The last 30 years of conflict in the North points to the fact that nationalism of a unionist and green flavour offers nothing to the working class except more of the same, sectarian division and conflict in the interests of self-serving politicians and paramilitary godfathers. As anarchist syndicalist Rudolf Rocker summed up when discussing nationalism:

we must not forget that we are always dealing with the organised selfishness of privileged minorities which hide behind the skirts of the nation, hide behind the credulity of the masses. We speak of national interests, national capital, national spheres of interest, national honour, and national spirit; but we forget that behind all this there are hidden merely the selfish interests of power-loving politicians and money-loving business men for whom the nation is a convenient cover to hide their personal greed and their schemes for political power from the eyes of the world. [Rocker, pp. 252-3]

While anarchists are internationalists opposed to all forms of exploitation and oppression, we have also been consistent in our opposition to imperialism and colonialism from Cuba, to Algeria and Ireland. Our response to national liberation struggles (NLS) has been mixed from complete opposition to participating in such movements as ’class collaboration and reformist’ to the majorative approach that NLS depending on the context and the dynamics of the struggle offer a useful vehicle to radicalise resistance into a social revolution against all bosses, native or foreign.

The WSM argues in their position paper on Capitalist Globalisation and Imperialism that:

relation to each situation we will seek to discover and promote the anti-authoritarian strands within that struggle, particularly those that seek to organise on a class rather than national, religious or ethnic basis and win these to anarchism. We will argue that the interests of the ordinary workers of the imperialist countries lies with the promotion of such strands and not with their own rulers. We will argue for and where possible build working class resistance to the imperialist strategies of their own ruling class and direct links with those in struggle.

With the exception of the early civil rights movement and the mass mobilisation on the streets during the hunger-strikes this is a concept that has been unable to manifest itself in the North.  This is due to the sectarian climate and militarisation of the struggle by the vanguard dictates of the IRA which minimised popular involvement and mass mobilisation. Nevertheless, despite their limited size and influence anarchists were involved from the early struggles against discrimination and state repression, to presently supporting the Maghaberry republican prisoners on a humanitarian basis.

Anarchists cannot speak for the rest of the left which mostly belong to the version of ‘state socialism’ that are still intent on imposing a repackaged version of the same failed politics of the past - Leninism and its cousin Stalinism. However for the most part we have never shied away from addressing the the national question despite the fact that we see little change under the Tricolour or the Union Jack. For us, our politics of class struggle and workers emancipation is not about changing the colour of the flag but about building a new type of society. One where the wealth produced by our labour is expropriated from the small minority to provide for the many, where each of us can develop our full potential and interests in a free and equal classless and stateless society.

This is not a wish list but is something anarchists fight for everyday, from community struggles around housing and prisoner rights to workplace activity, to spreading anarchist ideas and methods of struggle. While political parties involve themselves in campaigns to build their profile for elections, we have no interest in opportunism or offering a blank cheque in the parliamentary circus. Our job is to radicalise working class struggles, ensure they are run from below upwards to win reforms rather than reformism by fostering a culture of direct action and solidarity. As Organise note in their pamphlet What is Direct Action?:

Direct action teaches us to control our own struggles while building a culture of resistance that links with other workers in struggles. Solidarity and mutual aid find real expression and as our confidence grows so too does our ability to change the world. It is needed now more than ever, and we also need a campaign which opposes all cuts and fees, which is controlled by its members & participants, which is ready & willing to promote direct action and is willing to fight.

The debate should not be about putting a new ruling class in power with all trappings of privilege and injustice, but about building a conscious mass movement that will wipe away wage slavery and capitalism. As the depression continues to unravel unleashing a vicious class war against the working class locally and globally, the national question becomes increasingly abstract from our everyday lives while the need to fight back on bread and butter issues and build a new world within the shell of the old becomes a necessity.

8 comments:

  1. Sean,
    very interesting. Sadly though the nationalist question has also been used by groups to dodge muddying their own particular waters.
    Many feminist groups actually used that argument to justify their lack of any stance in relation to the beatings and strip-searches in Armagh.
    Apparently if you are nationalist you cannot have any other string to you bow, as in socialist, feminist etc.
    Connolly himself appeared to stand such arguements on their head.
    The Orange and Green card was and is divisive by design. Republicans were not the architects of this divided state but unfortunately we are stuck with it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sean,
    An interesting and thought provoking argument which puts the case for the building of a libertarian working class movement.

    As well as armed republicans having failed politics which are no different to those of their provisional cousins, they are also engaged in an anti working class campaign which is distinguised by its amateur and reckless nature and which can only lead to an entrenchment of sectarianism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Liam,
    That is a totally flawed analysis, we had our sectarianism pre-packed and imported to us.
    Republicans were not responsible for the what was unleashed here in 69. They were certainly not responsible for the sectarian horrors that were visited upon the Nationalist, Catholic and Republican people at the formation of this state.
    We had an overtly sectarian government and an shamefully sectarian and murderous police force.
    How could we come together under a socialist/ workers banner when only one section of our community could get jobs. Where were all the socialist and anarchist voices being raised against that?
    Apart from people like Larkin and Connolly I don't remember hearing about too many other groups coming to the fore.
    Similar today, mass rallies around their perception of injustice i.e the killing of a member of the security forces. No mass rallies around the on going abuse in Maghaberry, the internment of Marian Price, Martin Corry and the stitch up of Gerry Mc Geough.
    As I said in a reply to Sean the 'Women's Movement' and other quasi feminist/ socialist movements used the anti-nationalist argument in part to detach themselves from the violation of republican women in Armagh gaol.
    It must only be a certain type of working class than can avail of such rights.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fionnuala,

    Sectarianism, nationalism and unionism pre-dates partition. Partition only solidified these divisions.Its always interesting listening to republicans referring to the quote from a former unionist politician that the north is a 'protestant state for a protestant people'. Eammon De Valera actually said the same thing in the early 1930s during the world eucharist congress.
    Yes, republicans were not responsible for the 'Orange state' but the last 30 years of conflict has only strengthened sectarianism. Im not in the camp of simply blaming the 'brits' for everything. Republicanism also a distinctive Irish current has also evolved and adapted since the 1798 rebellion. All good in theory but how it plays out on the streets of Ardoyne(often a catholic defenderism mentality) compared to Derry, South Armagh and Dublin is quite different in reality.

    Well anarchism is a minority revolutionary tradition in this country and I was not there in the early 1970s but we know that anarchists and socialists where active in the early civil rights movements and mass anti-H Block campaign. Personally I have taken part in any maghaberry protests and the WSM released a statement supporting the prisoners demands and opposing prison repression and torture.

    Sean

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also I would even be wary of using the term left which comes in many shapes and sizes. Left co-operation is quite different to left unity. While, I believe in left-co-operation in common campaigns and stuggles. Anarchists have different strategies and aims so just like republican unity' left unity will never take place. I also have little time for re-packaged versions of Leninism/stalinism which have failed us miserable in the last century and has more in common with fascism than anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What were republicans supposed to do Sean, sit back and let the communities they belonged to be murdered and burnt out?
    If it had not been for a few republicans with a few weapons in Clonard in 69, God only knows what would have been unleashed.
    I was raised in a republican family and I lived in a street which was divided along religious lines.
    I never heard one word of sectarianism ever being uttered in my home, that didn't save us though, nor did it stop them smashing our windows and chucking the odd petrol bomb and this was pre-69.
    I'm quite aware that sectarianism pre-dated partition, it was imported into us during the plantation.
    Loyalist and Orange bloodletting has occurred when there was no IRA campaigns.
    Catholics are still being kicked and beaten to death, maybe that's why we need to hold on to our defender mentality.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fionnuala,
    I completely understand where you are coming from. Half of my family are originally from Ardoyne, but I think self-defence is one thing and what took place later one was a different question and took on its dynamic and endless cycle that delivered nothing. Do you believe than that the UDA was right in defending their communities from a perceived threat(real or imagined)?

    Sean

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sean,
    I totally disagree the war took on a very different dynamic. There was never an overt or covert strain of sectarianism than ran through republicanism. In the early days the IRA was essentially a defence force, however, as the war went on a very different momentum came to the fore.
    Yes there were some overtly sectarian strikes, however they came as a result of a demand from within their own community.
    Our people were being slaughtered and slaughtered in the most gruesome fashion.
    The Brits and the RUC were proactive in aiding and abetting a murder campaign against the Catholic/ Nationalist/ Republican community and now all these years later we are being told, you were sectarian for defending yourselves.
    The Shankill bombing was never planned to murder innocent Protestant people. The UDA apparently met in that row of shops. The bomb exploded prematurely, unlike the ones that were tossed into Catholic premises, no warnings and designed to murder as many as possible.
    Were the UDA right in defending their areas? They would not have had to defend them had they not engaged themselves in a murderous campaign against the 'other' community.

    ReplyDelete