Ireland's OWN: History

 

Resignation from IRSP —by Urban et. al.* 20 April 2005   Comrades of the Ard Comhairle,   The recent communication on the part of Liam O Ruairc has had the affect of compelling me to submit my resignation from the Irish Republican Socialist Party.  The message from Liam itself is not the reason for this resignation, but it provides a catalyst for action on concerns that have been growing for a number of years now.   This decision is not one made lightly. In October of this year, I would have been a member of the IRSP for the past 24 years and I have already been active as a supporter of the RSM for nearly 25 years. Throughout that time, efforts to build the strength and respect enjoyed by the IRSP has been literally my life's work. I have never been other than proud to be a member of the RSM and was confident in the importance of my efforts on the movement's behalf.   What I must explain, however, is that my attachment to the RSM has always been inseparably linked to my core political analysis. I am not Irish nor am I Irish American. I have never been drawn to the struggle waged by the RSM as a result of ethnic, family, or national imperatives. My commitment to the IRSP was borne out of my grounding in that tendency of Marxism commonly called "Council Communism," a tendency that I view as simply the continuation of revolutionary Marxism after the collapse of the Second International, incorporating innovations simply reflecting the consistent application of Marxist analysis to changing circumstances of political economy.   The aspects of the IRSP that my political orientation was drawn to were many.   ·         In an era when most of the socialist organisations of the nations experiencing highly developed capitalist organisation tend to be leadership driven, with poor representation within their membership ranks of actual members of the working class and even poorer representation of our class within the overly dominant leadership; the IRSP possessed a solidly working class membership and leadership. It possessed a leadership that arose organically from the working class and which relied on its own, original analysis of contemporary contradictions upon which to build its party platform and develop its tactics. It has been my experience over more than two decades, that when the rank-and-file of the IRSP has had the opportunity to be exposed to arguments in favour of a revolutionary course of action and a reformist course, they have consistently sided with the revolutionary path. ·         In an era when most socialist organisations are hopelessly mired in Bolshevik vanguardism, idolisation of the party, and pointless sectarianism, the IRSP maintained a policy that allowed for a multi-tendencied membership. At the 1984 Ard Fheis, when elements within the party leadership attempted to impose the straight-jacket of Bolshevik orthodoxy on the IRSP, I was a key voice in defending a motion of the Limerick cumann, which balanced the integration of Lenin's views with those of James Connolly. In doing so I made plain that this was because Connolly's views differed significantly from Lenin's and by endorsing both, the IRSP would leave the way clear for revolutionary socialists of every stripe to operate within its confines. Ever since the adoption of the Limerick motion, I have been able to work with revolutionaries of many diverse orientations within the IRSP, including others sharing my particular analysis. I have always made a point of promoting this fundamental strength of the IRSP, which has helped to safeguard it from falling into the sectarian morass in which the SWP, SP, or CPI find themselves. Sounding like convinced Council Communists, without any intervention on my part, the IRSP time and again stated clearly and consistently that it did not claim to be the vanguard of the Irish revolution, other than in the sense of being a repository of the most class conscious elements among Irish workers. Likewise, the IRSP consistently stated that it believed that revolutions were not made by parties, but by classes and that the working class of Ireland would be responsible for its self-liberation, not dependent on the leadership of the IRSP at the time when it finally rose in revolution. ·         The fundamental analysis of the IRSP, passed down from James Connolly, who never failed to express a Marxist analysis consistent with my own, that the struggle for national liberation could not be separated from the liberation of the working class and that working people had not interest in anything which fell short of that was another thing that bound me to the IRSP. ·         Throughout most of the time I have been a member of the RSM, the movement had an organic and inseparable bond between the legal and illegal sections of the movement. This ensured that the IRSP was not subject to the intense pressures existent for most socialist parties under capitalism to be co-opted into the existing system, with their trade union and parliamentary fractions constantly driving the movement as a whole towards increasingly reformist orientation. The RSM instead maintained a healthy disregard for the capitalist state and the laws by which it maintained the dominance of the bourgeoisie. The prisoners and volunteers of the RSM served to keep the movement as a whole beyond the pale of bourgeois respectability and by doing so helped to ensure the revolutionary orientation of the party and its membership. ·         Over the past decade, through the introduction of plainly worded and understandable motions to various Ard Fheisanna, the IRSP's membership had endorsed a host of fundamental perspectives of Council Communism--that the rank and file membership were the true source of the party's program; that industrial unionism should be favoured over trade unionism, with emphasis on rank and file militantism, tactically supported through pursuit of revolutionary shop steward committees; an exclusive orientation towards the interests of the working class and a recognition that all other classes' interests were ultimately counterpoised; avoidance of being drawn into the sectarian internecine warring that has rendered most of the Left useless and unattractive to working people and a preparedness to support all struggles against imperialism and in support of socialism, without compulsion to become fettered in "internationals" of tiny sectarian groupings; recognition that the so-called communist nations of the world failed to represent anything resembling the goal of our movement; and emphasis on internal democracy within the party and recognition that the dictatorship of the proletariat must be exercised through the direct democratic experience of working people.   Changes began to take place, however, following the death of that great revolutionary Gino Gallagher, whose charismatic leadership had proved so vital to the resurrection of the RSM after the devastation of the Provisionals-inspired attacks by the IPLO and the departure of key elements of the leadership into the dead-end of the Liam Mellows Society. Gino's example inspired veteran RSM revolutionaries like Kevin McQuillen back into the IRSP and once they were restored, the party swiftly regained its footing. The IRSP's consistent critique of the inability of the Provisionals to succeed through negotiations--which represented accommodation--with the imperialists and native capitalist ruling class began to gain support. The struggle in arms was stepped up, but given clarity of purpose it had lacked for many years, and Ta Power's revolutionary reorganisation of the movement was finally brought about under leadership from the volunteers of the INLA.   Gino's murder was part of a renewed attack on the RSM by the forces of the two states presently controlling the island of Ireland, with the collaboration of those representing the reformist tendency within the national liberation movement. Some sections of the party's leadership met this assault with heroism, others did not.   In December 1997, Gerry Ruddy introduced a motion to the IRSP Ard Fheis seeking to recommend to the leadership of the INLA that it announce a cease-fire. Kevin McQuillen led the opposition to this approach and I was proud to have helped him to develop the case in support of that opposition. The sentiments of the membership at the Ard Fheis were unmistakable, and when Gerry Ruddy withdrew his motion, we took it as a victory, not recognising how mindful of the technicalities of parliamentary procedure Comrade Ruddy was. Since the motion had not gone forward to a vote, it was less obvious that the will of the membership was being disregarded, when eight months later Comrade Ruddy succeeded in obtaining the Ard Comhairle's support for the position he had failed to win the membership to the preceding December. (I take the opportunity to remind comrades that at the last Ard Fheis Gerry Ruddy introduced a motion that called for recommending the INLA be stood down in the 26 counties. When it was clear that opposition was too strong for the motion to be passed, rather than allow it to go to a vote, he withdrew the motion. I would advise you to beware a repeat of the events of 1997/1998.)   It was certainly convenient for this course of development that somewhat over two months prior to that recommendation for cease-fire taking place, the leader of the opposition to that position, Kevin McQuillen, was attacked by two Provos in a drinking club, after being clearly lured their and left without support or defense against the attack. So brutal was this unprovoked assault on a member of the Ard Comhairle of the IRSP, Comrade McQuillen was in a coma initially, then was, at least temporarily left without sight in one eye, hearing in one ear, and his sense of smell.   What did the RSM, with its proud history of leaving no attack on its members unanswered, do in response to this attack on its leading spokesperson? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In response to a brutal and unprovoked attack on a veteran of the RSM, who had suffered repeatedly for his devotion to the movement, who was a recognised leader of the movement, the RSM did nothing at all. Worse yet, and still incomprehensible to me, while that comrade was recuperating, the rest of the RSM's leadership did not even visit Comrade McQuillen to express their concern and check on his recovery. Instead comrade McQuillen was left, physically disabled and isolated, as a campaign was pressed forward to win support for the leadership of our movement disregarding the events of the Ard Fheis eight months earlier and declaring a cease-fire. I did not abandon by comrade Kevin McQuillen and I did not remain quite [sic] while the Ard Comhairle ignored the views of the membership just eight months earlier. Instead, I did everything in my power to ensure that Kevin found a means of communicating his views to his comrades in the RSM and that the attack on him was condemned.   That, comrades, was the first time I had my membership in the IRSP suspended. However, it was restored several months later and at the next Ard Fheis of the IRSP I introduced a motion condemning the Ard Comhairle for taking action in opposition to the will of the membership, as expressed at an Ard Fheis, and won unanimous support for a statement that an incoming Ard Comhairle was responsible for implementing the will of the membership at the Ard Fheis which elected it and should not ever take action in opposition to the membership's expressed will.   Sadly, the damage was done, so far as Comrade McQuillen was concerned. Kevin did not return to the RSM and the IRSP section in Manchester and members in London left the IRSP in disgust, never having returned.   What's done is done, and despite misgivings, I joined with other comrades in seeking to exploit the advantages gained by the cease-fire, while avoiding its pitfalls. My chief concern was that the movement would find it harder to fend off the pressure to move towards reformism. Arising from this concern, I and other comrades attempted to press for a consistent process for ensuring the political education of the party's membership and towards this end, four separate resolutions were passed at Ard Fheisanna between 1999 and the present--none of which has ever been implemented by the Ard Comhairle.   Despite rapid growth in party membership in that same period, the leadership took no steps to ensure that new members understood the analysis of Marx and Connolly that the RSM was based on. No attempt was made to ensure that newer members were made aware of the program of the party created over the course of its history by its membership, the positions it had developed in response to specific contradictions. In fact, there were efforts to resist preserving a continuity of program for the party, such as the criticism I received by one Belfast comrade that I should concentrate on supporting the IRSP's current actions and not on reminding the party "of what its positions used to be." As though the membership had ever been consulted on whether it wished to change these aspects of the party's program, this comrade was offended that a more senior member than himself might presume to defend, uphold, and promote the program of the IRSP which had developed organically from its membership.   The political strength of the RSM was in its consistently revolutionary analysis of the contradictions encountered in Irish society. Out of this original analysis by working class revolutionaries the IRSP had developed a well-deserved reputation for groundbreaking analysis and a clear-sighted view of what was necessary to advance the working class struggle. It was this original analysis by working class revolutionaries that enabled the RSM to identify the violation Irish neutrality being carried out by the Mount Gabriel radar station and to use the INLA as a vehicle for exposing this violation, which was tremendously popular. It was this analysis that allowed the IRSP to identify the development of microwave telecommunications networks in Ireland's west as being tied to NATO's MAD policy in the Cold War. It was this analysis that contributed to the IRSP taking positions calling for free abortion on demand for all Irish women who wanted it and for the social liberation of lesbians and gay men in Ireland in the 1970s, eons before other political groups reached such perspectives. It was this analysis that enabled the IRSP to reject not only the six county statelet, but also the 26-country statelet as partitionist regimes implanted upon the island of Ireland to ensure the continuation of capitalist exploitation and imperialist domination.  It was this analysis that enabled the IRSP to counter the futility of the GFA with a proposal to build a distinct working class peace, without recourse to the imperialists occupying Ireland or the capitalist ruling class defending those imperialist's interests. It was this analysis that enabled the development of a policing proposal that rejected empowering of the paramilitaries as agents of the state and sought meaningful restorative justice.   The last of those innovative positions advanced by the IRSP, however, date not later than the year 2000. In the past five years there has been no policy pursued that has offered the originality and revolutionary authenticity of these proposals. A proposal to pursue the creation of revolutionary shop stewards' committees as a means of building a revolutionary structure within the reformist trade union morass was passed by the membership, but has never had any support from the leadership to enable it to be realised. Efforts to organise opposition to the war and occupation in Iraq around the revolutionary slogan of "No War but the Class War" were made by sections of the movement's membership in several locations, but were never given enthusiastic support by the leadership. The struggle against water privatisation has been uninspired and uninspiring. There have been seemingly no efforts to develop campaigns that could integrate the class in both sections of the island of Ireland.   What has been introduced? Statements again made in opposition to the position endorsed at the preceding Ard Fheis, that the IRSP must engage in the bourgeois electoral races taking place for the Assembly in the six counties and perhaps for the Dail in the 26 counties. Perhaps the single most unoriginal, non-revolutionary, and uninspired proposal for action by the party in its entire history. Moreover, a proposal that fails to analyse the situation from a distinctly working class perspective. A proposal that has no revolutionary contents whatsoever. Again, the membership showed originality and a revolutionary orientation, endorsing the perspective that the IRSP run on an honest platform that acknowledges the inability of the IRSP to obtain their interests through a capitalist parliamentary body, even going so far as advocating a platform promising, if elected, to expose the sordid secrets of the backroom deals that take place in their elected assembly and to do everything in our power to thwart its ability to operate, but the current leadership looked suitably annoyed with such childishness as these genuinely working class perspectives and pushed forward an approach better able to gain the party a degree of respectability from the ruling class--as though that had any meaning to us.   I'm not being fair, when I attribute such behavior to our "leadership." What I am really referring to is the approach of Gerry Ruddy, with the support of a circle who seem to have too strong a memory of being students in his secondary school classroom and follow his direction without thinking like revolutionaries. I have always been perplexed by why Gerry joined the IRSP about the same time the INLA killed his cousin Seamus Ruddy, who I knew somewhat in the early 1980s. At times I have considered the possibility that he has followed the course he has within the IRSP out of a desire to destroy the RSM to gain some sort of revenge for Seamie's death. But, I don't really believe that to be the case. I've come to the conclusion that as destructive as Gerry's role has been within the RSM, it has not been active malice, but a simple lack of a revolutionary orientation that has led him to make the mistakes he has. Perhaps it is the identification with the petty bourgeois intelligencia that sometimes affects teachers that is to blame, perhaps it is his long attachment to the tired and bankrupt theories of Trotskyism, but I do not think that he has genuinely sought to undermine the revolutionary potential of the RSM. He has done so, but not by design. Fra should know better than to follow his lead, however, and it might have helped if he'd been more independent. Likewise, Cocker should not have allowed himself to be made a pawn when Gerry used a well-meaning, if frustrated, comment in a personal communication to be fanned into some monstrosity of a tempest in a teapot. Comrades you all should have known that was nonsense, but you let it go on.   That and insane battles like it are what enabled Gerry to undermine such solid republican socialist comrades as Terry Harkin, Paul Little, and Peadar Dubh and leave an excellent comrade like Willie Gallagher too fed up to run for the Ard Comhairle again. Thank god that we didn't lose a comrade of the caliber of Eddie McGarrigle to the same nonsense. And comrades, those of you who allowed Gerry to rant about how he was going to disrupt the last Ard Fheis, who allowed him to go on and on with his baseless charges of conspiracies against him, when it was clearly him who was conspiring, you should be ashamed of having allowed this to go on. Those of you who cut Peadar Dubh short at the last Ard Fheis when he was attempting to present what was actually a stirring defense of himself by Paul Little, you should feel ashamed. Those of you who cut Terry Harkin short at the last Ard Fheis, as he was in the midst of sharing his experience of being tortured by counterrevolutionaries within the RSM in the 1980s for his commitment to a revolutionary path, you should feel ashamed. For that matter, those of you who allowed Gerry to publish that forged second part of the Ta Power document without challenging him, you should be ashamed. That was an affront on the memory of a brave revolutionary comrade, just as it was a cynical effort to mislead the party's rank and file. Comrades, the memory of our martyrs deserves better from you.   And what could be odder and more damaging than the alliance of Gerry and Liam O Ruairc against the revolutionary republican socialists of our movement? Liam, who detests Trotskyists aligned with Gerry, who is trying to bring the IRSP into the orbit of Ted Grant's…   Did no one find it odd that at the same time that Liam was putting forward a motion for the Ard Comhairle to be able to control the efforts of the International Department, Gerry Ruddy, as a member of the Ard Comhairle, was attending an international convention of Ted Grant's followers and showing up on Web sites of their affiliated groups around the globe along with statements on the importance of this historic meeting. Did no one else remember that every time Gerry did make any contribution to efforts to create an educational program for the IRSP, it consisted of offering forward one or another essay by Ted Grant on Ireland? Comrades, the IRSP is a revolutionary socialist Irish party--why would it adopt for the political education of its own membership, and essay written by the leader of a Trotskyist sect in Britain? Does that make any sense to you? If you'd been more attentive you might have also noticed that Gerry's personal publication in the IRSP's name, The Plough, runs snippets from their publications with regularity and supplied the URL for the Venezuelan solidarity group of Ted Grant's followers when discussing the Bolivarian revolution, that he wrote the introduction to Ted Grant's latest book, identified as a member of the IRSP's Ard Comhairle (which will be perceived by the Left around the world as linking the IRSP to Ted Grant’s Socialist Appeal and to their international body the IMT.   Why Liam is engaged in an alliance that has the above scenario as its outcome, I don't know, but he has his own agenda that he is less than honest about with the membership. While Gerry would deliver us into the sectarian lap of Trotskyism, Liam is attempting to deliver us into the equally sectarian and sometimes bizarre lap of Maoism. Did anyone notice that one of his resolutions on international affairs at the last Ard Fheis specifically aligned the IRSP with Maoist guerillas in Nepal, the Philippines, and Peru? Worse, however, was the resolution that he got passed endorsing the People's Republic of China as a shining example of socialism. When I attempted to amend this to replace China with Libya, Liam refused to consider amendment, the chair forced through a vote amidst confusion, and Gerard Foster snarled appropriately to ensure that the conflict couldn't be explained. Comrades, China? Liam’s piece in the Business Post on how Socialism Worked for China is especially inspiring. His denunciation of the struggle for national liberation in Tibet on Dutch Indymedia also moving.   China, with Japan, is the largest holder of the USA's public debt. China recently purchased the PC division of IBM Corporation. China is known the world over for its garment working sweatshops. It is known throughout the capitalist world as the place, along with India, to offshore your customer service department or tech support, because they pay so much less and are so business friendly. Wal-Mart, when confronted with workers in the US seeking to organise a union were told by the reactionary administration of Wal-Mart Corp. that they should join the union of its workers in China, because union-hating Wal-Mart loves its Chinese union, because unions in China don't defend workers, they mobilise them for the needs of production. China is being discussed as a rising giant, along with India, in the capitalist press around the world. It is not an example of the success of socialism; it is an example of the hideous crimes that can be perpetrated against the working class by a party that calls itself "communist." It is absolute proof that "communist" parties are the enemies of working class people and that the struggle for socialism must be waged by the working class itself and not a party claiming to function in its name.   I recruited Liam into the IRSP and I recognise that he is very intelligent. Unfortunately, for all his reading, he has not grasped the essence of Marxism and his consequent use of phrases such as "actually existing socialism" to describe what most IRSP comrades understand were but offensive mockeries of socialism, which simply continued the exploitation of working people while claiming to have accomplished their liberation, illustrate this. As I said, however, Liam is clearly very intelligent and an excellent writer, who seems to publish everywhere these days. But, comrades, why is he so seldom identified as a member of the IRSP in all of these public forums. How does his widespread publication benefit the RSM, if he doesn’t identify himself with our movement while doing so?   I could continue on, but having waited too long to raise these criticisms will not be corrected by belaboring them now. The simple fact is, for some of us who believe the movement has already been damaged through Gerry having been allowed to expand his control within the party's leadership and international affairs being negatively impacted by Liam having been able to inject his particular sectarian orientation into them, the prospect of being dictated to by the present Ard Comhairle in such a undemocratic and uncomradely fashion is simply not acceptable.   I know most of the members of the IRSCNA to be well meaning, sincere, dedicated republican socialists. I hope to be able to continue to work with some of them in the future, but I will not be party to pandering to the uncomradely egotism of Sean Noonan's behavior by opening up membership to him again in a manner that can only reassure him that he has won the day. It is nothing more than an invitation to future conflict and disruption and can have no lasting positive affect on the organisation in North America. Sean would only be an asset to the organisation if the matter was handled in such a way that he grasped to nature of his errors and trivialising the issue by attempting to represent it as a question of email etiquette will not change the real issues, which are the failure of the Ard Comhairle to respect the views of the members of the IRSCNA, Sean's uncomradely behavior towards virtually the entire membership, his attempts to bind the political orientation of the North American organisation to ANSWER, a front-group organisation of the Workers World Party, and his willingness to stoop to misrepresentation of the position of the IRSCNA's Youth Coordinator and badgering to achieve his purpose.   The San Francisco comrades, all of whom have been members of this movement for over 15 years, some more almost a decade more than that, have seen this confrontation coming for some time and have had time to consider what their most appropriate response would be. We are formally disengaging the IRSCNA from the RSM, though we will continue to support and defend the struggle for a 32-county Irish workers' republic. We hope to continue to provide material support to Teach na Failte's office in Strabane, if they will accept it and may expand the scope of our efforts in support of republican socialism to address the struggles also being waged in Scotland and Wales. In order to pursue those efforts, we will retain the assets that we have built up over the past decades. We consider ourselves to be moving forward in the true tradition of Connolly and Larkin, Seamus Costello, Ta Power, and Gino Gallagher.   We hope to see the day again when we can again be a part of a revitalised RSM and an IRSP restored to its revolutionary roots. Accordingly, we wish the IRSP's rank and file well and applaud them for their dedication and commitment to the interests of Irish working people and uncompromising opposition to imperialist domination and capitalist exploitation in Ireland. We know that if the party's membership rely upon their own consciousness and the perspective of revolutionary action, rather than misleading advocacy of reformists within their midst, they will choose the course that is best for the Irish working class, but we hope they will recognise that they have allowed elements to gain dominance within the movement who are pursuing secret agendas that have nothing to do with the noble goals of this movement and that this must be brought to an end. The working class has nothing to be gained from bourgeois respectability, nothing to be gained by pretentious intellectual masturbation parading itself as Marxist analysis, nothing to be gained from the gas and water socialism of the reformists. There is nothing for our class in the assemblies of the capitalist class, nothing for us in the self-interest bureaucracies of the trade unions, nothing for us in meetings with members of the enemies of our class, nothing in the misguided sectarian swamp of the mainstream Left.   My comrades in the RSM will know the sincerity invested in these words, my enemies will no doubt find much to mock and attack. I care very little about the latter, they are only obstacles for our class to overcome, but I hope I have reached some of the former and that they will recognise too much time has been lost already in the battle to save the soul of our movement from petty bourgeois reformists and patronising petty despots who hold our class in contempt.   Adh mor, mo chairde,   *Peter Urban Mary McIlroy Brenda Marroquin Page last updated 26 Jan 2006 Ireland's OWN Logo by Eamann Website Design and Celtic Background  by Míchealín Ní Dhochartaigh Copyright © 2006 Ireland's OWN All Rights Reserved.