History Ireland: Ireland and Latin America issue August 8, 2008
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.trackback
Just briefly, picked up History Ireland yesterday and it’s a good issue. Covering, well, yes, Ireland and Latin America, it has a broad range of articles on that very topic. For those interested in the material on the Cedar Lounge Revolution Paddy Woodworth’s article “Memoir: Pinochet and me” is particularly interesting not least because while it is ostensibly about Latin America it strays into discussion as to the nature of Official Sinn Féin and the political positions many found themselves taking during the 1970s and later.
But to concentrate on that would be to do a disservice to the overall issue.
Meanwhile, I found myself intrigued by Tommy Graham’s thoughtful editorial “Closer than we think” which proposed that distinctions between Latin America and Ireland might be less clear cut than some consider.
He notes that in the 1980s cynics used to remark that Ireland (or rather the RoI) was a third world country. It was never, of course, quite that simple… but some aspects were shared.
Still, he argues that:
“In the meantime Ireland has been transformed and has become a fully paid up member of the first world. This has been driven by a neo-liberal agenda promoting privatisation and deregulation. To those of us old enough to remember the lack of opportunities in the 1980s this has not necessarily been a bad thing, but it is not an unambiguously good thing either”
Quite true. And he points up how low the GDP figure available to central government in Latin America is (20%) compared to – say – Europe, which as he notes ‘in spite of the various left-wing governments currently in power in South America, the options available to politicians in tackling inequalities are limited’. It’s a fundamental aspect of political projects and one which is often overlooked. And as he notes ‘…yet, this seems to be the direction in which we are heading in this part of the world’.
And he ends on an even more gloomy note:
‘Now that the ESRI has officially declared a recession (including the renewed spectre of mass unemployment and emigration), with our property and construction sectors in free fall and our future in the EU open to question, perhapswe are, after all, closer to Latin America than we think’.
I saw that issue of HI and thought it was pretty interesting,
especially the Woodworth article.
Wasn’t it? Nice to see the front page of that issue of the UI, one I don’t have as it happens. Anyone (or you) got it for the Left Archive?
Is that Woodworth the guy who wrote that article in the copy of Makin Sense you put up once? What does he say? Does he try to link positions internationally to attitudes in Ireland?
Yes, and… I don’t have the article to hand… I’m offsite…I’ll get back to you later.
Read the article in Easons.
Another ex-member regrets the foolishness of his past, paints some portraits of the narrow thinking of Stalinist “senior members” (un-named) and argues that he was impelled into the Official Republican Movement by his concern for events in Chile, even as he had his problems with the Officials’ support for the USSR, which was “no paradise” -no shit Sherlock.
In conclusion, he suggests that support for events and positions in foreign lands led to his foolish support of SFWP in Ireland.
Another article in the long tradition of rubbishing the WP by contrite (usually well-heeled) ex-members. Something of a cottage industry.
Cheers Justin. Exactly as I expected. Another mea culpa of the “I used to be a Marxist but I’m alright now” variety. Boring.
I wonder will Tommy Graham ever give us a
“I used to be in the out-where-the-buses-don’t-run
CPI (M-L) but I’m okay now?”
Well indeed Starkadder. A bit cheeky alright.
Justin – that’s a fairly redico attack on Woodworth there. The article was good although I to would disagree with his dissing of the Official IRA – don’t see how anyone could be under the false idea that a progressive working class party like the OSF or SFWP could have existed in the Ireland of that time without back up – we didi have our on proto-Bataista and reight wing death squads and ultra left death squads on the prowl. But to dismiss Woodworth like that is just a tat to bitter for me. Baldy are you dismissing him to without even reading hte artilce – not crtical thinking in my book
Pete,
I read the article WBS linked to before, and so am aware of the thrust of the guy’s thinking. When I heard about the article in History Ireland I had my suspicions that it would be something along those lines. The alternative was that it would be from the Mick o’Riordain perspective. It was certainly unlikely to be sympathetic, or written by anyone who had actually been centrally engaged in the party’s international work at that time. I do plan to read the article at some point, but not for a while probably. But as Justin points out, it’s hardly the first of these type of articles.
Garibaldy, like Pete I think it would be better to read the article than to pass judgement on it second hand. Woodworth is certainly not of the school of indiscriminate attacks on the WP.
And I also think that the quip Justin about well heeled former members is utterly at variance with the reality of how the spilts occurred, who went where etc.
There are perfectly reasonable critiques of the WP throughout its lifespan to date – even by those who left, such as myself – which aren’t aimed at ‘destroying’ or slandering the party.
I’ll leave Justin to defend the well-heeled remark if he wishes (though I can think of several examples that fit his model), and if IIRC from that other article, the individual involved had left before the DL split. I don’t think the strand I am talking about is necessarily aimed at slandering the party, and that wasn’t what I was getting at. It is rather a form of confession, a rite of passage into respectability, an act of contrition designed to form a break with their past. For example, I think there are signs of it on that ie.politics website. It extends far beyond ex-WP people or Ireland, and reflects much more the mentalities of the individuals involved than any political analysis or criticism of whatever organisation they may have been in. Rather than just leave and move on, there is a need to purge, to cleanse, to purify, to – so to speak – recant in public. That is the bit I find baffling and objectionable.
Hmmm… it’s a tricky one and I understand your point. But, I think that people coming from the very tight worlds of parties like the WP, or indeed analogous organisations, often feel that need to break away. Incidentally, I may be wrong, but I thiink it was Woodworth who turned up at a recent lecture Brian Hanley gave on the activities of SF pre-the first split in the late 60s and was far from condemning of OSF at all. I just don’t get that from Woodworth at all.
BTW I think I know who you’re talking about re well heeled, but while there were some individuals I dont think it was a broad tendency within those who left the WP. I think it’s important to distinguish between that sort of thinking and those who felt that the legacy of the WP was a millstone for future left development. Rightly, or in my opinion wrongly.
‘Well heeled’? A fair few of those who stayed with the WP weren’t short of a few bob either. Funny thing the building industry in Northern Ireland.
Read the Woodworth article and have read his books on the Basque country. Generally well written and thoughtful. Looks like critique is only welcome when its about someone else’s party.
I have no objection to critique whatsoever (otherwise I wouldn’t really spend so much time on the blog of and engaged in serious and friendly discussion with someone who left The WP and who criticises aspects of it from time to time). I’ve explained the type of critique that I find irksome, which is the impression I am getting that this is. WBS is right to say that people find that need to put VERY CLEAR BLUE WATER between themselves now and their earlier selves, but I find that it often leads to mischaracterisations and misrepresentations of people within their previous group, or of that group itself. And as I said above, when it’s part of a whole I used to be a Marxist but have thankfully put all that beside me now, then I have serious trouble taking it seriously.
Give his stuff a try Garibaldy. Like D&C I really liked his book on the Basque country. Anyhow, HI is worth it for more than his thoughts!
I’ll try and get round to the Basque Country thing. Eventually. And as I’ve said, I plan to read that article. Though obviously with a jaundiced eye
I read the article and I think it is interesting insofar as it made me wonder how many people were/are attracted to socialism through events outside Ireland? I recall joining the SFWP at an immature18 and my first branch meeting was disappointing as ‘all’ that was discussed was organising for the Ard Fheis, selling papers, subs and local campaigning, I expected to at least discuss the ANC struggle or some other exotic struggle in a far off place. Building a Party can be mundane and not half as ‘exciting’ as I thought it would be. I don’t know if you would call it ‘romantic’ but I certainly had a less grounded idea of political struggle.
For some reason Woodworth’s article reminded me of this ‘innocence’, maybe I am being unfair to him? The situation that existed in the time he writes was dark, the Officials had just crossed swords with the Provo’s. In that ‘atomsphere’ another split was inevitablely going to end in confrontation. In these conditions any wavering is percieved as weakness and even a betrayal.
Yeah, I know what you mean John. I was surprised at how little revolutionary rhetoric there was. But then, in a way I was impressed by how it remained a bedrock to the basic struggle of getting dug into actual concerns actual people had. A lot of it almost tipped into a muted form of social work – or at least a communication or (ugly word) mediation between those who had needs and those who could assist, particularly as the representational political edge of the party developed. But that, as with your experience was a bit later than Woodworths (Okay, a lot later!)…
Pete accuses me of a “redico attack” on Woodworth. Not sure what that is, but apart from my last paragraph -which was all my own work – I beleive I accurately summarised the main thrust of Woodworth’s argument.
And all kinds of people of different degrees of wealth have joined and then left all kinds of parties. However, I suspect that most ex-members of the WP do not go on to rubbish the party in print and for those that do, usually journalists and academics, rubbishing the WP and recanting their foolish past does – as Garibaldy suggests – often represent their passage into polite society and all the good things it offers to a bright middle-aged fellah with a knack at writing. And, indeed there is world of difference between thoughtful criticism -always welcome – and a hatchet job.
I haven’t read anything by Woodworth in many years but his books on Spain etc. seem interesting. His piece in HI – a good magazine- was dull and predictable. If you miss this ex-WPer’s road to Damascus, don’t worry: there’ll be another one along shortly.
PS just noticed my “Sherlock” cooment in paragraph two of original posting. I suppose that remark might be a tad critical of Woodworth.
Justin,
Did the article reference things like the anti-imperialist festival, or solidarity work by the international department not only with the socialist countries but also liberation movements and progressive forces elsewhere? Was there any comparative context (e.g. the presence of people from the provisionals at a Flemish fascist festival at the same time or the participation of left people from other parties in similar contacts with the socialist countires)? any discussion of USI or the World Festival of Youth and Students?
Garibaldy,
I don’t think you’ll be surprised to learn that If the article mentioned any of that, I missed it. So, probably not. And a balanced, historically nuanced account of international dimension to SFWP/ WP politics would have mentioned at least some of this.
Cheers Justin. That’s what I figured. So it discussed the importance of Latin America for SF/WP politics and its relation to the party at home without mentioning most of the central international activities of the party at that time. It sounds like it was one person’s story rather than an actual serious discussion of the issue. Which when I saw that the magazine had that was exactly the kind of article I expected.
I’ve heard about the Provos attending a fascist festival for the last 30 years but have yet to see evidence of it.
Sorry Gorby, your comment got caught (briefly) in the spam filter. Got to say I’m intrigued as to the evidence for same as well. Whatever else about R O’B he seemed to run a fairly tight ship on such things and the identification with leftist liberation struggles was fairly overt. I can only imagine that they turned up at some even where the Vlaams Bloc or its ilk were also present… and one swallow does not make a spring. But, that said, perhaps there is evidence.
So Garibaldy and Justin, you are content to denounce a four page article in History Ireland, which one of you hasn’t read, because it didn’t cover the entire context of the 1970s Official internationally policies? It was called ‘Pinochet and me’ for fucks sake.
But D&C, if the point size on the type was really really really small, say 4pt or less you could get those policies and much more in…
Hi Dunne and Crescendo,
Not critical only because it didn’t cover everything but, yes, there’s nothing wrong in asking a journal that calls itself History Ireland to produce something more comprehensive. Yes, the title reflected the personal nature of the article but so what?
What we got was a partial, personal account by someone who no longer supports those politics and it showed. A brief, public memoir is a useful thing for historians to draw on but it shouldn’t be passed off as the last word on the matter. (I doubt that History Ireland will be covering this area in greater detail in the near future.)
It could have been balanced by a partial, personal account from someone who was there and who still broadly subsribes to those politics. But that was never on the cards. People who still hold to those beliefs tend not to be asked to promulgate them in the mainstream media. Only penitent EX-WPs tend to get asked.
By the way, I like the moniker. You sound like a band or a new wave magic act!
Of course Justin there is a counter argument that the very last person to be entirely objective about a political party is a current member.
Well Justin did say balanced by a partial personal account.
Firstly I simply didn’t find it a ‘boring, predictable’ attack on the WP; I found it an interesting story of one person’s attraction to left-wing politics and how his liberal qualms about revolutionary violence were brought into sharp relief by the terror used by the counter-revolution in Chile. Woodworth mentioned the close relationship between OSF and Chilean refugees and how this further confirmed party members solidarity. Secondly it was an example of how distorted a party structure which claims to be democratic, but which contains another secret structure, open to some but not all, can be for ordinary members, and how even if they agree with that structure in theory can find it ultimately oppressive. Justin seems to find Woodworth’s comment that he knew that the Eastern Bloc states were ‘no paradise’ funny; throughout the period in question (1975) the United Irishman was running a series on the socialist countries in which it was claimed that poverty and inequality had been abolished in Romania and that the repression of the Prague Spring was justified. So Justin, there were a least some OSF members who did think paradise of a sort existed in those states. Finally Woodworth’s most barbed comments were reserved, not for the WP but for former members who have found a home for themselves in the Labour Party and elsewhere and who actually have more reason for disliking the article than current WP members.