|
Recently
there were two left unity meetings, which the IRSP
attended. The first on the second of October was a
public meeting, which the IRSP only found out was
on, by accident. We received no formal or informal
invitations. This despite the fact that last year
we had been part of a group called the Social Forum
which had reached some tentative agreements on possible
policy areas and which involved wide strata of left
opinion including representatives of some Protestant
working class views. Unfortunately those meetings
fizzled out.
Then
the SWP, which had been involved in the Social Forum,
arranged a series of closed meetings with other groups
out of which emerged the suggested programme which
were published in The Plough No. 8. At no time we
understand was the suggested programme put to a vote,
nor was it agreed at the first public meeting. But
at the second meeting involving a small number of
delegates when the programme was questioned by the
IRSP we were told it was not for changing.
At
the meeting it emerged that Communist Party of Ireland
gave a qualified no to Left Unity candidates
but individual members of the party could get involved
in a Left Unity campaign if they wished. The Derry
Trades and Environmental group a front group for the
SWP, fully supported the project and said that it
should be as broad as possible both geographically
and the left political spectrum. The Workers' Party
gave a general welcome but they were concerned that
there is not enough time to do this prior to a November
election. They also brought up the idea of a socialist
forum to discuss matters of mutual interest. WP had
already selected candidates for the forthcoming election
and expressed a view that the European Elections may
offer a better opportunity for Left Unity. The Socialist
Workers' Party were fully behind the initiative while
the Official Republican Movement (ORM) were in broad
support, but unsure as to how it would work and the
timescale involved. No decisions were taken, No votes
were taken, and meeting broke up in an uncertain fashion
with no date set for next meeting.
The
position of the IRSP is very clear. While left unity
is desirable it cannot be rushed through just to satisfy
the electoral ambitions of some people. How can there
be unity when there were pro and anti-Good Friday
Agreement Parties. For example how could the IRSP/Left
Alternative (anti-Agreement) call for a vote for the
WP (Left Alternative (pro-Agreement) without losing
all credibility? The people are not stupid. They would
see the Left Alternative for what it is: an ill thought
out attempt to cobble together an unprincipled alliance
to maximise a 'left' vote. The reality is that on
the ground the left has not done the steady persistent
class work that would establish its credibility with
the working class. When members of the Workers Party
cannot even acknowledge the presence of members of
the ORM at a left unity meeting then the basis for
their co-operation is not the interests of the mass
of the working class but the particular interests
in one sect of the left.
Furthermore
any alliance that tries to cover its position on the
national question and fool the masses is doomed to
failure. Seamus Costello drew on both the experience
and teachings of James Connolly in his approach to
the problem of "loyalism" among the Belfast
Protestant working class. When questioned in March
1975 about co-operation with representatives of the
Protestant workers on immediate issues "which
would appear to unite the people," he defined
his position clearly and succinctly:
Connolly
had to face exactly the same predicament. In Belfast
prior to 1916, you had people who classified themselves
as socialists and who were also interested in ending
British rule in Ireland. Their approach to the Protestant
working class was on the basis of limited and immediate
issues. One of the principal issues, which affected
both sections of the working class, was the question
of whether or not they could get gas and water into
their houses. "Some very militant campaigns
were engaged in on these two demands - gas and water
for the houses in the working class districts. Republicans
and socialists were involved in this campaign on
the basis that this was the way to unite the working
class. At the same time, these republicans and socialists
refused point blank to mention or even discuss the
national question with the Protestant working class,
on the grounds that if they did, the Protestant
working class wouldn't listen to them and that they
would lose their co operation on the issue of gas
and water for the houses. Connolly was totally in
opposition to this approach. He categorised them
as gas and water socialists. Today in Belfast we
have what we call ring-road socialists. They are
exactly the same type of people. They are, in fact,
the leadership of the Official Republican Movement
in Belfast. We maintain that any co-operation with
the Protestant working class must be on the basis
of a principled political position. It must be on
the basis of explaining fully to the Protestant
working class what all our policies are, not just
our policy on the ring road. We must try and politicise
them, simultaneously with conducting a political
campaign to get rid of Britain. It will be primarily
an educational function, or an educational campaign
directed towards Protestants in the hope at least
that some significant section of the Protestant
working class will understand.
We
are for unity-class unity class struggle and the struggle
against Imperialism. That's the basis the IRSP will
enter into electoral alliances and only when we have
established a clear consistent record of mass work.
As Bertie might say: much done - much to be done.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
