Scott Millar Interview and More Reviews November 16, 2009
Posted by Garibaldy in Irish History, Workers' Party.trackback
Thanks to commentator Wilcox for the links to a very interesting, and revealing, interview about the writing of The Lost Revolution, which sheds further light on its origins, and on the authors’ own backgrounds. It covers a lot of interesting ground, including the supposed role of the Svengalis Johnston and Harris, The WP and women’s liberation, and the fall of the Wall amongst other things, and is well worth listening to. The interviewer, Michael Fitzgerald, is able to draw on his own experiences to add some interesting colour to the interview as well. Of course, I should add that The WP would disagree with a lot of the analysis offered.
Millar interview part one and part two.
I’m also putting a link to the Socialist Worker review, again provided by Wilcox, and a review talked about already in comments, from the Sindo. The Socialist Worker review concentrates on developments up to the early 1970s, and then characterises The WP’s position on the north as almost indistinguishable from the unionists. Which perhaps says more about the SWP’s stance of “critical support” for the Provisional campaign than it does about the book, or in fact the position of The WP.
I remember Matt Merrigan complaining that both the WP and
Irish branch of Militant were going “close to Unionism” in their
opposition to the Provos. I’m not sure his critique of Militant
was fair, but it would apply to some elements of the WP.
The SW review is a bit schematic there to be sure, especially with the Stalinism bit. Reviewed by Liam Cummins? I wondered for a second if that was Liam O Comain of Limavady, but surely not.
Schematic is the right word I think.
I remember Kadar Asmal saying that he had though that Militant supporters in Enniskellen must be WP people so poisinous was their hatred of the Provos.At root the SP/Militant put an equals sign between the Natuionalist and the Unionists. They want a perfect class struggle where everyone lines up where they should. They should read “What is to be donne”.
Ah, Jim, still banging that failed left nationalist drum after all these years.
The issue is not that the Socialist Party wants “a perfect class struggle” it’s that at a time when people like you were cheerleaders for the Provisionals they said that the armed campaign:
1) Couldn’t succeed.
2) Would further divide the working class.
3) Would lead to the death or imprisonment of a generation or more of young activists.
4) Would allow the British state to massively strenghten its repressive apparatus.
And on every point they have been proven to be correct. It’s genuinely disappointing to see you churning out drivel like the above.
Didn’t Militant want to set up an armed citizen’s army to defend working class areas against sectarian attacks? As it was elements within the working class who were committing sectarian attacks, how would that strategy have played out with regard to class consciousness and class struggle? The introduction of another armed grouping into Northern Ireland in the 1970s?
They wanted the trade unions to set up a non-sectarian defence force. The union movement being the only mass, cross-community, organisations and the only mass working class organisations in the North.
As for how that would have played out in practice, well that would have depended on a huge range of factors. It should be pointed out however that Militant’s opposition to the Provisionals and the other “armed struggle” groups was not that they were armed but that they used those arms to carry out a campaign of bombings and assassinations – that is, they followed a strategy of individual terrorism.
I listened to the John Throne interview where he said something along the lines that the trade unions could have prevented the Troubles had they provided more leadership. I just don’t see how that was the case.
Trade unions, as all of us who’ve read What is to be Done? know, can only be expected to go so far. There was never a chance of them instituting a defence force; and even if they had done, there seems to me to be little reason to suppose that their members would have listened to them.They weren’t really political entities, and certainly weren’t looked on as such by their members, who looked elsewhere for political activity. Many trade union stalwarts were deeply sectarian for a start. I do think that the trade union movement did function more as a mass cross-community working class organisation later in the troubles, especially regarding efforts for peace, but that was a very different world from 1969/70/71. In many senses it’s remarkable that it didn’t split along political lines.
Garibaldy:
If John said that the union movement could have “prevented” the Troubles, then I agree with you that he’s incorrect.
On the other hand, the trade union movement could have done much more to cut across the troubles and to create working class unity. Something that the useless bureaucrats who run the unions were absolutely terrified of doing – just as they are absolutely terrified of leading a struggle against the cuts in the South today.
Could the unions have done more? Probably, but not along the lines that it seems from what Conor is saying below as late as 1990. But just out of curiosity, are you aware of the extent and seriousness of the intimidation suffered by “useless bureaucrats” in the trade union movement from paramilitaries for their actions in the north against sectarianism? The death threats and the like against people like the late Terry Carlin? I know that the SP line is that they had to be forced into doing everything they did to oppose sectarianism unwillingly by an angry and radical membership. I’ve seen the same line from SWP people. But I’m not at all sure that it accords with the reality.
Thanks for putting this up Garibaldy. It was very interesting.
In terms of the WP’s position on the north being “indistinguishable from the unionists”, clearly this is incorrect but I can see why people from a fairly broad spectrum would think that.
De Rossa’s views of Internment, the use of Ken Magginnis picture on the cover of Making Sense and an increased focus on the wrongs done to the “protestant” community to the seeming neglect of the wrongs done to the “catholic” community would be actions more associated with our unionist brethren. The posts on Eamonn Smullen’s document in September runs through the main issues.
I think I may have mentioned that one of the interesting aspects of TLR was that it showed these things were not neccessarily representative of the party as a whole.
No problem Ramzi. Thanks again to Wilcox for pointing to it.
Regarding the things you point to. I think people who thought along the lines that the review draws wanted to think that way regardless of the evidence. I am sorry to repeat myself as well, but here we go. The goal of The WP is, and was in the period under discussion, a secular, socialist, unitary state on the island of Ireland – a Republic. In no way shape or form is this unionist. De Rossa’s views on internment went against WP policy as expressed by the highest authority within The WP – the Ard Fheis. So whatever De Rossa’s personal opinions, they were not WP policy.
I was reading somewhere about two days ago – perhaps in a link from Nuzhound on the SDLP election but I’m not sure – that Hume had to point out consistently that for a substantial period of the 1980s the Provisionals accounted for 70% of deaths. I don’t know if that figure is exactly accurate but I’ve posted here figures from the Sutton Database before that suggest it probably is accurate.
And as I’ve also said more than once, there was not one sectarian killing that was not condemned by The WP, and The WP consistently criticised all those engaged not only in sectarian violence, but also sectarian politics – which meant the big four parties. The WP called for people like George Seawright to be charged with incitement to hatred for example. Throw in the fact that unlike unionism nationalist terrorists claimed to be representative of republicanism and socialism, and you get the reasons why criticism was directed in the proportion that it was. I’d also point out that in my opinion the vision of WP policy on the north given in the TLR would have been different had more use been made of the Northern People, and press coverage of WP statements. That was the message that was being distributed in the north on a regular basis more than an interview in Workers’ Life or Making Sense or whatever. To focus on the like of that is to miss the wood for the occasional tree.
Having said all that, there were elements in Dublin, and a few in Belfast, particularly in the era before the DL split, that were becoming overly sympathetic to unionism. But WP policy was clear.
1) Couldn’t succeed.
Many struggles have hapopened that did not succeed, The question is not on success or not. You cannot abstain on a living struggle.Eg I figured the miners could not succeed and tghought Scargill was not a good leader but I supported them in struggle.
2) Would further divide the working class.
Exaggerated. the class was and is divided. Partition also divides the class North and South
3) Would lead to the death or imprisonment of a generation or more of young activists.
And Militant stood aside and put an equals too sign between Loyalist/fascist and Republican miolitants. there was a difference.
4) Would allow the British state to massively strenghten its repressive apparatus.
Victory for the ruling class tends to have this effect. Battles between the workers and the ruling class happen in all sorts of conditions with strong and weak leaderships. We cannot abstain. The attempt to criminalise the struggle of an oppressed minority symbolised by the prison struggle is something we could not abstain from.There will always be divisions in the workingclass. Uneven consciousness, etc. I know South Africa is an extreme example and not by any means an exact parallel but only a very conscious group of white workers( mainly Communist and a very few Trotskyists) supported the struggle. I think your co-thinkers were in the ANC.
In PD I always argued for an opening to workers coming from the “other” side but not at the expense of pandering to their illusions. Remember one major union which controlled jobs maintained seperate lists for those jobs priviledging protestant workers. Even classical organisations of the class can be contaminated by the ideologies of reaction.
Gibberish, Jim.
1) The point is not that this “struggle” happened to fail, but that a campaign of individual terrorism, no matter how hard fought, how bravely implemented or how cleverly planned cannot, ever, under any circumstances, defeat a modern, industrialised, urban capitalist state. Once you understand that, then offering any support to such a campaign is grotesque.
2) I did not exaggerate by saying that the campaigns of individual terrorism further divided the working class. The word “further” was there for a reason. Anyone who thinks that La Mon, the Shankill bombing, Kingsmill, Darkley etc didn’t increase and strengthen division is an idiot.
3) No matter how many times you claim that Militant “put an equal signs” between Republican volunteers and Loyalists, it won’t make it true. Militant – quite correctly – opposed the terrorist campaigns of both while some on the left.had difficulty suppressing their near sexual excitement at the distant whiff of gunpowder. Opposing both doesn’t mean, and never meant, refusing to see differences between the two.
4) I did not simply mean that victory allowed the British state to ramp up their repressive apparatus. The campaigns of individual terrorism allowed them to do so, with wide popular support, while the “armed struggle” was going on. The armed campaigns led directly to the PoTA, a massively increased military presence, listening posts on every hilltop etc etc.
The failure of the “armed campaigns” and their far reaching negative consequences weren’t the result of some fluke or some failure of the Provisionals to listen to their PD cheerleaders. It was inherent to the strategy. Militant understood that right from the start, and that’s something very few on the Irish left can claim.
Finally, your South African comparison is revealing – but not in the way you intend.
Mark, just on the sexual delight at the whiff of gunpowder. In 1990 Militant advocated not only a defence committee, but one that would go on the offensive. I presume that meant taking on the Provos, the UVF, andf the UFF. It had been putting forward the idea of a workers’ defence committee since 1969 – although in February 1972 it used the following language:
“The forces of the British Labour Movement must be used as a lever to bring the workers together in the North, and to organise a Trade Union Defence Force along the lines of Connolly’s 1916 Citizens’ Army.”
This is from the 1990 pamphlet, “What We Stand For”.
Militant stands for:
• Industrial action in response to sectarian threats, attacks and killings. For strike action by the entire trade union movement if necessary.
• Establishment of anti-sectarian defence committees in the work-places and the working class areas, democratically elected, to combat sectarianism.
• The building by the trade unions of an anti-sectarian workers’ defence force by linking these bodies together to protect the working class from attack. This would be used to go on the offensive in order to eliminate the scourge of sectarian attacks and killings for good.”
All I’m saying here is that a lot of people on the left – genuine people, including Jim and including Militant – held views that today we mightn’t agree with or see the logic of. I mean, was Militant really thinking it could form a non-sectarian defence committee in Northern Ireland in 1972 by calling out the name of James Connolly, the Citizen Army, and 1916?
And in 1990 did Militant really think it could form a defence committee which would be able to go “on the offensive” against Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries?
finally, in 1990 again, Militant argued that working class unity in Northern Ireland could be built thus:
“A powerful movement of Protestant and Catholic workers and youth could be built by the trade unions if they fought for the introduction of a 35-hour week and a minimum wage of £150 a week for all workers.”
Sorry, one small point. I’m not getting at Militant/socialist party here, only pointing out that it doesn’t matter which left group you pick, you’re going to find stuff like above.
Absolutely Conor. At this remove, I’m not sure what was meant by “go on the offensive” but it certainly sounds counterproductively bellicose.
But as far as the general idea of arguing for a non-sectarian, cross community, workers defence force is concerned, what else were socialists to look towards other than the independent action of the working class movement? The sectarian paramilitaries, as fools like PD did? The forces of the British state, as the Workers Party ended up doing?
The point was not that Militant could form such a thing, or that small groups of socialists in general could, but that the trade union movement included tens or hundreds of thousands of workers, cutting across the sectarian boundaries. If the NILP, back when it was getting the votes of a huge percentage of urban workers, or the trade union movement had taken a lead, had actually tried to build a movement against sectarian division and for working class unity they could have been significant players. They never attempted to. The NILP panicked and retreated into a labour inflected unionism and then disintegrated. The union leaders panicked and curled up like a small creature inside its shell.
In the world as a whole, the labour movement has huge, unused, dormant power. In Northern Ireland, with for many years unusually high rates of union involvement and with an ongoing ferment, that was the case in a more stark form.
On the SWP. I remember one editor of An Phoblacht blowing his lid on the failure of the SWP to give uncritical support. I think it was the late Mick Timolty (hope this is the spelling). He then published an awful pamphlet on the War of Independence, trying to use some of the incidents then to justify almost anything.
@ Conor
good point yes militant did advocate yet another armed group- as if there wasnt enough of them. Even if this looney idea had been adopted it probably would have split along ethno sectarian lines as the forces of the Yugoslav state did
A general point. A lot of the left want to deal not with the reality of a real struggle warts and all but with a ideal one. Hence the calls for a workers militia led by god help us the ICTU or maybe the TUC to keep everyone happy.Th elast point above this post was apposite. The reality is that an oppressed community rose up against their oppressors led by the Provos. I would actually have preferred if the Officilas had led the struggle. The reality is that they opted out. I will avoid saying where I beleive they went too, the facts speak for themselves.
I would like a militant leadership to lead the current fightback with some concrete demands. I have to live with what we have and try and change it. I cannot abstain until a better obne come along.
Garabaldy I think you have the opinion that the WP never set a foot wrong… I can tell you as a member at the time 1980 to 1990 that the WP didn’t make any representations on behalf of people like;
The Birmingham 6 (one current leadership member of the WP said to me at the time that “one of them was a Provo anyway”) The guilford 4 or the victims of plastic bullets Army/RUC beatings and shootings. They didn’t support these campaigns, they didn’t raise their plight when they had the opportunity through the Dail they didn’t write articles in their publications. This was wrong. The likes of O’Hagan came to the conclusion that they were all ‘provos’. The organisation then took that position further and rationalised that anything the Provos were in they would leave.
Within groupings that they felt they had to be in, the likes of Cuban Solidarity, GDR friendship Society, Palestinian solidarity, they were constant battlegrounds between PSF the WP and CPI.
John,
I am far from being of the opinion that The WP never set a foot wrong. Some of the things you mention are good examples. Other things I might see as errors I suspect you might not. As for the battles within certain organisations, those were not solely the responsiblity – and in many cases not primarily the responsibility – of The WP, but a lot of posters on this site apportion blame to it. I do think it’s important to keep a sense of perspective. Especially when it comes to the North. It was The WP that was in step with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland, as you know yourself.
BTW, I noted you saying on another thread that the role of The WP in opposing violence more than made up for everything else. As it happens, I think that The WP’s main achievement in this period was in raising class politics to new heights, with the position on the North a close second.
Thanks for putting up the Scott Millar interview-it’s fascinating.
Interesting that Millar mentions that the Catholic Church also
had an interest in splitting the Republican movement in the late
’60s. Eamonn Mccann remembers the NI CC of the time fulminating against “Socialism” at the time while saying little about the Republican
Movement’s violence at the time.
On Garibaldy’s point re press statements etc I spent a long while reading files of WP statements in the Linenhall Library and I don’t think we misrepresented the general tone of them in the book. As a WP member Garibaldy will have access to the Ard Comhairle/Coiste Seasta/CEC minutes etc and if he/she reads those you will see leading members express the view openly that the only problem in the North is that the RUC lack the power to crush the Provos, that the SDLP and Hume are ‘political provos’ and that people are too worried what nationalists think. The general tone of party press statements are far more hostile to the SDLP than to Unionists. We tried to show the diversity of opinions in the party about these matters in the book, but Mac Giolla’s talking about ‘genocide’ and Des O’Hagan talking about ‘Roman Catholic Dublin’s designs on the North’s Protestant do point towards a tendency of seeing nationalism as far worse than unionism. That’s my personal view by the way.
Thanks a lot for that response Brian. I have read a lot of those internal documents, though far from as many as yourself, and on a haphazard basis while doing other things. It seems clear to me that WP policy – as opposed to the views of certain prominent members – was not that the only problem in the north was that the RUC lacked the power to crush the Provos. It’s entirely accurate to point out that such sentiments may have been expressed, but I think we must remember the difference between that and what was being said in public, and what was WP policy. One example that springs to mind is a press release from Seamus Lynch from the early 1980s mocking Danny Morrison as a Johnny Come Lately to the republican struggle. The very opposite I would suggest of adopting a unionist approach as the SW reviewer states.
Regarding the RC Dublin point and the Protestant Ulster thing (I think that was also quoted when you brought it up before), IIRC, and you will be able to tell me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t similar language being used in the 1960s? I remember you saying you thought this could be found on the milder shores of loyalism, but if I’m right that it was being used around the time Johnston was writing a lot of stuff, doesn’t that put it in a different light?
It’s not though language that I would particularly be keen to use myself. Nor do I think the genocide remark appropriate (although I think elements of both unionism and nationalism probably would have engaged in mass killings had they had the chance – as the UDA document about the nullification of Catholics in areas like Bawnmore suggests).
Regarding the point about the SDLP. I’m sure that’s true to an extent. As with the Provos, this will be partially because they were portraying themselves as the upholders of a progressive trend that the unionists were not. I do think that efforts to reach out to some sections of unionism – efforts that did after all bear fruit as has been acknowledged by people as diverse as Hugh Smyth and Ken Magennis – should not cloud the fundamental WP analysis that sectarianism was a cancer in the whole of society, and on which both unionism and nationalism were dependent on, and to a large extent the products of. A good example is the election poster where the words nationalism and unionism sandwich the word socialism, which has an X beside it. That seems to me to be a clear demonstration of how the two were both seen as standing in the way of progressive politics.
I think you had a duty to show diversity of opinions, but I just also want to remind people of what the Party position actually was. Commenters here – not yourself – often take the views of certain groups or individuals as representative of Party policy when in fact they were not.
Garabaldy – Maybe not ‘violence’ but the unwinnable and counterproductive armed struggle. I have to agree that the WP came close to pushing the right (FF/FG) into ending civil war politics in the South.
Think the arguement gets back to what is in the book and I’ve mentioned it to people and they have agreed, after the the 75 feud/pogram the party became somewhat defined in the North and on Northern issues by it’s opposition to the Provo’s.
Not to say an awful lot more work was done and attempted but to some extent the identity was shaped by the events which left deep deep scars.
So anything or anyone which was tainted as ‘provie’ or had Provo support envoked a visceral response.
On an other note, people like Jim might dismiss the acceptance of support from SF and others to the Garland campaign and the party, it takes place in a radically different atmosphere to the Troubles and the constant threat WP members were under.
i agree, sticky wicket. The provos did the WP a favour by never declaring the earth was round!
TLR got a mention on the front page of Monday’s Andersonstown News: Official IRA identified ‘corporals’ crowd for Brit spooks.
Though there is no news story to report (the piece begins “A senior Belfast republican said he is not surprised by shock revelations in a new book…”) it still did end up on the front page.
Sticky Wicket, that would be close enough to my view re the functional fall out of the feuds. They poisoned the well for any rapprochement in Republicanism… for… well… for a very long time. And I know I’ve said this before, but splits and feuds have hugely scarring effects and unpredictable effects… look at how MacGiolla said that he’d talk to Ó Bradaigh but not De Rossa.
Actually, I’d talk to ÓB, a fascinating character.
Another take on the TLR
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/robin-wilson/irelands-lost-revolution