Socialists and the Protestant Working-Class

The recent increase in coverage of Éirigí by the mainstream media, specifically the Irish Times, has resulted in some significant discussion on the Cedar Lounge Revolution Blog which included some very pertinent insights. Not least of these is the possibility that that organisation was established as some form of ‘honey trap’ by the leadership of Sinn Féin itself – a claim subsequently appearing in coverage in the Sunday Tribune.

What is clear for all to see, however, is that in similitude to Sinn Féin, Éirigí suffer from an absence of clear strategic thinking. One gets the sense, at least, that Sinn Féin is now coming to recognise a mechanism to achieve Irish unity, irrespective of its incompatibility with socialism or even mild social reformism. The smaller organisation does not even offer that. Instead as has been analysed on this website previously, it prefers to retreat to safe posturing within a dogmatic belief – for that is all it can be – that somehow things will change. That a revolutionary wave will emerge which will enable a socialist republican revolutionary project.

The problem with this is that this is simply fantasy. The national question in Ireland has been parked by all main contenders and that has resulted in the principle of consent becoming normalised within wider society. To everyone except those in an acute state of denial this has been the case across wider Irish society for decades but it has increasingly become reality north of the border and, in particular, within the nationalist population.

It is this reality alone that represents the historic rock on which the Éirigí project will founder; it represents a failure by the least politically-astute elements of Sinn Féin to accept this new reality. As a result and in similitude to Sinn Féin, Éirigí members have fetishised the nationalist agenda to the point that it stands in contradistinction to the socialist class-based project.

A Correct Strategic Orientation

The question then falls back to those of us who propose a class-based approach – how do we orient in relation to the national question; specifically, in this period where it no longer represents a polar contradiction. The Marxist approach must be grounded in appreciating the national question through the lens of the class-struggle.

Lenin’s formulation of imperialism built upon that of Marx and Engels’ earlier writings on the wave of democratic (bourgeois) revolutions which broke across the continents of Europe and the Americas in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. After the failures of 1848, it was clear that the earlier progressive era of bourgeois, democratic revolutions had passed and that the bourgeoisie now feared the working-class more than the aristocracy and was willing to bloc with the latter against the former.

As a result of this fundamental change in the tectonics of class interrelationships, nationalist revolutions within imperialist centres after 1848 were deemed reactionary in nature. However, Lenin’s formulation developed this to assess the commonality in purpose shared between the proletariat in imperialist centres and the nationalist struggles of colonial peoples. This resulted in a near unconditional support from the early comintern for all anti-imperialist struggles – a position which concurs with the general orientation of domestic republicanism.

It should be noted at this stage that there were two significant variations away from this position within the Marxist camp. The first was Trotsky’s formulation of Permanent Revolution. In broad terms, this held that bourgeoisie was incapable of completing a democratic revolution anywhere – including the third world – given the global state of development of capitalism and that, as a result, the only way to achieve the traditional goals of the democratic revolution was for the working-class itself to seize state power and drive towards socialism. This formulation was highly relevant to the criticism of the likes of Fianna Fáil and the kleptocracies which gained power across most of Africa but was rather more problematic when dealing with Cuba, China or even the eastern European ‘people’s democracies’ established after 1945.

On the other hand there was the Stalinist line that fetishised the national democratic revolution in the third world in a manner akin to that the Mensheviks had done in Russia itself. This approach led to unstable strategic policies such as the Chinese Communists blocking with the Kuomintang Nationalists in China to their immediate detriment in the slaughter of 1927.

These two tendencies are of relevance to Ireland. The first represents the line of the Socialist Party which viewed the nationalist struggle in the north as a dead-end which disempowered the working class. The latter became the arguments provided by right-wing nationalists in the Republican movement and which has become gradually adopted as the party has moved to the right. The pan-Nationalist front ideology.

So what is right? Socialism or Barbarism does not consider it a priority to step backwards to assess the relative merits of these approaches to the national liberation struggles; that is really a matter for future marxist historians. What is important is viewing the situation as it sits today through the lens of class struggle.

The national struggle has today collapsed down to the narrow identity politics expressed in Stormont. In this argument symbol has replaced substance as there is ever greater agreement over the economic middle-ground and total support for the centrality of the 'market' in determining production and distribution of wealth. Meanwhile, as northern political representatives come together society has grown apart. This suits them as it guarantees them support within their own community.

Even if there was Irish unity, today more than ever before, it is clear that this would represent little more than simply raising the ‘Green Flag’ as Connolly put it. In today’s Ireland, the national struggle has been overdetermined by the impacts of global capitalism and it is this reality that gives nationalism so little traction on the ground. It doesn’t matter hugely either way. A growing number of people have better things to worry about.

In such circumstances and given the pervasive acceptance of the principle of consent, it behoves socialists to orient towards unifying struggles of the working-class bringing together Unionists and Nationalists. Change must be built from below and by opposing the divisive nature of nationalist or unionist politics.

The Protestant Working-Class

Few Republicans have ever oriented themselves effectively towards the Protestant working-class. Historically, this may have been explained by the relative privilege enjoyed by unionists, the innate fear of Irish nationalism or a religious predisposition against godless communism. None of these factors are of such significance today, unless we make them so. Éirigí’s protests have to date acted to further distance itself from the Protestant working-class and plays directly into the hands of the Unionist political elite and Loyalists on the ground in protecting their 'market share'.

Winning Unionists for socialism is possible however but nationalism acts as a barrier to doing that. In the concrete specifics of today, we must defeat the hold that reactionary parties such as the DUP and the old UUP have on working-class Protestants that will not be achieved by focussing on issues that divide. Instead, defeating political unionism is a process that will take time and will occur as and when working-class Protestants see clearly that their ‘own’ political representatives are acting against their own interests.

Mass politics occurs on the level of practice not theory and it is in the dialectic of struggle that working class Protestants will be won for socialism. Any other conception is based on voluntarism and philosophic idealism both of which are alien to the essence of marxism. Working-class Protestants will demand the overthrow of the means of coercion when they experience its cruelty directly. Change must be sought through practice.

The national question will simply distract and detract from that. Sinn Féin cannot effectively reach into working-class unionist communities for historic reasons alone but it is becoming clearer and clearer that they, along with the SDLP, do not represent a historic break from traditional civil servant rule but simply more of the same. Does anyone believe that unionists will ditch their national identity for the weak social reformism of Sinn Féin over the social imperialism of the DUP?

In these circumstances, the politics espoused by the Socialist Party appear to be highly congruent with the strategic interests of those who want a socialist revolution. In the Republic, Joe Higgins has achieved huge levels of popularity through his consistent and non-opportunist struggle on behalf of working people. Beside him is a growing array of councillors who have built reputations on leading trade union disputes. In the north, the party has been central to the campaigns to resist water charging, privatisation and racist attacks.

New recruits to Éirigí need to take a step back and reconsider the strategic import of the line of march of that organisation. It represents nothing but an ideological and strategic dead-end. It's sole attraction is that it offers an activist comfort blanket to those who wish to turn their backs on the changing politics of wider society and the actuality of making change.

Nothing in the north can be achieved without uniting the working class. The politics of national identity will always undermine working class unity and strengthen the hands of those on either side who gain from the maintenance of division. Lenin’s approach was always to begin with the working-class and to view nationalism in terms of its strategic interests.