Left Archive: Submission to Commission established to review Workers’ Party Constitution c.1990, Workers’ Party June 24, 2024
Posted by leftarchivist in Uncategorized.trackback
To download the above please click on the following link:
Please click here to go the Left Archive.
NOTE: This was originally posted in 2008 – an outline of the rationale behind this can be read here from Colm Breathnach. However in light of Colm’s podcast noted below and the distance elapsed worth reconsidering it.
Many thanks to the person who sent this to the Left Archive some years back. This represents a submission made to the Commission set up to review the Workers’ Party Constitution in the very early 1990s. The names of those involved have been removed from the document but in other materials such as the podcast some of those involved, including Colm Breathnach, have explained the purpose of the submission.
The introductory letter argues:
In light of the current review off the party constitution, the precaution of a new party programme and the debate generated by this process, we as individual member of the party wish to make our contribution to this on-going development.
We feel that the best manner in which we can put forward our views is through compiling a substantial submission in which we analyse the present condition of the party and advocate a broad direction for the future. We stress that we do not see our submission as a ready made ‘line’ indeed this would be impossible since we do not agree ourselves on all matters of there or indeed policy, but we do agree on our desire to see the WP developing as a mass, campaigning socialist party.
Since our submission will not be completed until late October at the earliest we forward for your consideration a summary of the main ideas contained.
The document is broken into sections including An Introduction: The Party at the Crossroads; The Importance of Theory; Class in Ireland; International Context; Socialism Today; The Mass Campaigning Socialist Party: Political Implications and so on. This last includes Practise and looks at Campaigning; Elections; Clientilism and Relationship with Other Organisations. A further section looks at Structure and Organisation. This engages with Role of Public Representatives; Women and Youth.
Notable is the following:
Class: We still see the key obstacle to socialist transformation as the wealthy class which controls society today. Conversely, we see the working class in its broadest sense as the vehicle of transformation. We do not hold a simplistic view o the nature that class no do we accept the current fashion of dismissing gate traditional working class as irrelevant. Class is still the key dichotomy in capitalist society.
And on Marxism:
…we view Marxism as a tradition which broadly speaking informs our analysis o fsocety. Marxi’s analysis of capitalism and subsequent works which cover such a wide range of spheres are still of immense value. We do not of course dismiss other ‘schools’ of socialist thought from which we can learn much.
On Women:
We cannot see socialism only in terms of the end of class rule. Women suffer a specific oppression from men which transcends class. Patriarchy must be a trade of ours as much as capitlism(of course there are close linkages).
On Environment:
Socialists traditionally views the question of the earths environment as one of control. Once the mechanism was in the hands of the people unlimited exploitation of nature resources was possible. We now know this was simply untrue and the protection and careful development of our planet’s environment is essential. However capitalism is the main culprit of the drama again and a clear linkage must be made by the left.
There is also a Conclusion. This argues that:
We must state however, that the alternatives are grim. To retreat into dogmatic purism, would culminate in the living death of the CPI or the cult-like lunacy of the ultra-left. To go down the road of social democracy would mean the eventual disappearance elf any reason for a separate existence from the Labour Party.
What is at stake therefore is the survival of the party; either we carve out a distinct niche for ourselves in Irish politics and from there, expand so as to fulfil our stated goal of transforming society or else we face terminal decline.
The Cedar Lounge Revolution 
Good times. I wasn’t involved in any submissions.
Iirc the process ended up with a new constitution being brought to the Árd Fheis. Éamonn Gilmore was the lead figure for this new constitution. But at the Árd Fheis some key elements were voted down. Delegates from the north leading the way with amendments. One amendment that was carried was about class: “While recognizing the importance of other forms of struggle, the WP asserts the centrality of the class struggle…”, something along those lines.
I remember Gilmore getting very frustrated. He got up and said he was worried that people didn’t know what they were voting for or against, they were confused with stuff like “Amend 2b to Article 3 (1)c”, that kind of thing. In hindsight I’d say he and DeRossa etc wanted the whole thing voted through unchanged.
Subsequently they never bothered trying to run the party with the new constitution as voted by the Árd Fheis. They decided they needed to get rid of the people who had opposed some elements of their new constitution.
I remember DeRossa at a meeting in Finglas iirc after that, describing the behaviour of Dessie O”Hagan as dishonest. Because he said O’Hagan had been on the Committee that drafted the new constitution, he never spoke or proposed anything or argued against anything, but he went back up north and organised the opposition to elements of it and brought down the delegates to vote against part of it. “They were bussed down” DeRossa said.
They’re my memories from the time. And some understandings about what was going on that I only came to in subsequent years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s an outrage neither you nor I were canvassed about our opinion, let alone to write a submission. I think we’d have had some difference on issues of unity but could easily have held it together on near enough everything else!
LikeLike
Ah now. I dunno. What was to stop us or anyone else putting a submission together and sending it in?
For myself I was a passive enough member, observing what was going on but not really clear about what was going on and what the actual politics of it all were.
Looking back, it couldn’t have been prevented. The factions in the leadership turned out to be world’s apart in their political views.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gilmore must have been off school the day that “the meeting before the meeting” part of the syllabus was covered.
LikeLike
Interesting document. I don’t know that there’s anything in it that I’d disagree with, but presumably there are nuances at play between the lines?
Out of interest, why are the signatories redacted?
LikeLike
Actually, and Im not being smart here, it doesn’t surprise me that you do largely agree with the doc. At that time those of us involved in producing it were at least partly inspired by what I would today recognise as left reformist (maybe left-eurocommunism?) positions. We definitely rejected both Stalinism and social democracy and, to be fair to my young self, we didn’t see that Eurocommunism was inevitably heading for social democracy and very right wing version of it at that.
My own views would have changed since then, I think I moved to the left as I got older! But I still recognise left reformism as an honourable, if mistaken, socialist position.
As to redaction, the signatories were all relatively young at the time, and politically speaking have scattered to the four winds, as it were, so they might not want to be associated with the ideas put forward in the doc. Some are no longer politically active, some still in one of the WPs, some are Labour/SD or even further to the right etc etc. Tragically, the central figure in the group was Fearghal Ross.
As banjo says, it didn’t really matter, the two main factions didn’t give a toss what a few yoofs were inspired by Gramsci and the collision and split was inevitable. But we did help to get rid of Harris and his gang, so I guess we did something useful 😆
LikeLiked by 2 people