To the Editorial Committee:

Dear Comrades,

I received from 'Belfast' a letter dated Jan. 29 enclosing a copy of a letter to you dated Jan. 26. 'Belfast' therein accuses me of two crimes: violation of group democracy, and reversal of group policy on the question of the Irish revolution.

Before replying to the charges and the political criticism made by 'Belfast', I will give you the background of the present discussion.

On Tuesday, Jan. 2 I received a letter dated Dec. 31 enclosing the article published in the Appeal under the name of 'Robertus' from 'Belfast'. I quote from that letter. 'Do you disagree with the line put forward in the new article? If so, give me a clear exposition of your own line. Perhaps you consider it inopportune to popularise this line yet. I don't.' The same day another letter arrived from 'Belfast' from which I also quote. 'Writing to you again, for we have just come across a copy of the Irish Workers Weekly (CP paper) of Nov. 25. Find that it advocates a similar line to my new article. My article is a much fuller theoretical exposition, however, and therefore can bear publication, I think.'

On Jan. 5 I replied to 'Belfast' and explained that the article would be published in the next issue of the Appeal and that as I disagreed with the policy expressed, I would reply to it. The article was subsequently read by the Dublin comrades, who were in general disagreement with it, and it was finally decided that it should be answered in the name of the EB of the 'Appeal'. Another letter arrived on Jan. 20, too late for publication. So far as I can see, it makes no difference to the line expressed in the article.

All letters and articles are read by the comrades here as they arrive, and there is a certain amount of discussion on them. We had decided that it would be preferable, if possible, to submit to London a comprehensive statement on the national question before going into print with our line. 'Belfast' had criticised us severely, however, for not taking up a position on this question in the first issue of the Appeal, even if we had to be corrected afterwards. In view of the general disagreement with the policy of 'Belfast' it was decided to carry the discussion into the paper. Here, let me stress that I do not consider that group democracy has been violated in the least; but that is for the EB to decide, of course.

'Belfast' accuses me of reversing the accepted policy of our organisation. I reply by stating that I consider the article in question, together with the fresh material submitted later by 'Belfast' to be a complete misstatement of our policy, and that my reply in the Appeal merely reaffirms the group policy on the question of the Irish revolution, probably in sharper form.

The national movement in colonial and semi-colonial countries received the critical support of our tendency; the amount of support and the measure of criticism, or opposition, being determined by all the objective and subjective factors present at any given stage.

In England, the IRA bombing campaign had resulted in a number of Republicans being arrested, and a pogrom spirit was being carefully fostered by the bourgeoisie. Instead of countering that spirit, the 'socialists' in general and the Stalinists in particular were assisting it by their particular form of propaganda. Under these circumstances, despite our total disagreement with the programme of the IRA, and its tactics, the positive aspect of our policy was pushed to the fore. 'Release the Irish Prisoners!' we called, at the same time stating our hostility to their case and tactic. In WIN we entered into polemic with the IRA.

In Ireland, however, all the political conditions are different. Here, we work directly in the Labour and Nationalist movements. The confusion surrounding the 'Nationalist Question' and the incapacity of the Labour Party and the Stalinists to give a genuine political lead and alternative, the tendency for the young militants to be drawn into the ranks of the IRA as a result of this lack, place the onus on us – the Fourth Internationalists – to dissect the policy of the IRA, chop away the radical verbiage and 'action', and at the same time to put forward a clear alternative policy. This forces the critical aspect of our policy to the foreground. So unprepared is the IRA to participate in genuine forms of struggle stat we find very, very, little that we can support and on which we can carry out joint work.

To analyse Irish economic and historical development, to base ourselves on a clear international and national perspective, to pose to the workers the forms in the coming struggle for power, to utilise very variation in the political arena, to build our organisation – these are the tasks with which we are faced.

Before dealing with the fresh material submitted by our Belfast comrades, I will make a few additional comments on the article in the Appeal which, for reasons of space, I could not make in the paper itself.

'Against whom', asks Robertus, 'will the first outbursts of mass indignation be directed, and what friends of Irish freedom will be unmasked?' We partly answered the question in the first issue of the Appeal (the Milk Strike). Here the outburst was directed against the industrial section of the Irish capitalist class through its state organ, the Fianna Fáil Government. The same is true of the mass indignation of the workers at the steeply rising cost of living. In every single case the attack of the workers has been directed against the Irish capitalist class, and in the case of the mass trade union protest at Seán McEntee's statement that the Government would use every means at its disposal to stop the workers from making demands to combat the rising cost of living, the Fianna Fáil Government itself was attacked.

The unemployed demonstration, carried out in the teeth of police brutality (demonstrations had been banned), were directed against Irish capitalism: Work or Full Maintenance. The same is true of the present agitation in the countryside. The instincts of the workers are a sure guide; a much surer guide than the policy of their leaders in this case.

Question No. 2 is being answered every day. The IRA, for instance, refuses to allow its unemployed members to join the unemployed workers' movement or to participate in unemployed demonstrations. While the unemployed carry out an organised fight for bread, taking their struggles into the street, that IRA holds raffles and jumble sales to give its volunteers a miserable 5/- for extra food at Christmas.

The demand for bread is the core of the demand for freedom. By refusing to participate in that demand, the IRA exposes itself in advance.

Also, the Nationalist workers in the Six Counties are prepared to struggle against their 'Nationalist' employers. A classical example is the strike of the printers against the owners of the pro-IRA nationalist newspaper in Belfast. The workers and small farmers are struggling against their armies [enemies?]. The task of our tendency is to expose their 'friends'.

'Belfast' throws in my teeth my earlier statement that for 'Belfast' the problem has been posed on the plane of psychology; but he adduces no fresh evidence to refute my contention. My earlier criticism holds good. At no single point does the struggle appear to 'Belfast' as a class problem, as a problem where certain economic tasks have to be fulfilled. The problem, in fact, is posed on the same plane as it is by one of the authorities whom 'Belfast' quotes: 'Next to religion, nationality exercises one of the most ennobling influences on the human race.' (Introductory sentence to Joseph Hanly's 'The National Idea')

But, says 'Belfast', do you mean to say that the idea of national liberation has no roots in present social relations in Ireland. And he then goes on to remind me that the Catholics are exploited in the North, etc.

A study of history shows many examples where the consciousness of the masses lags far behind the economic and political development, and where the failure of the leadership to face up to the new historical tasks has resulted in the most bloody and vicious defeats.

The programme of the Fourth International is based on this fundamental historical observation.

Nor do the series of quotations from Lenin assist in bolstering up 'Belfast's' case. Lenin, as the appended quotations show, saw the national movements as a class problem, where certain economic driving forces are at work, and despite the sharpness of the SPGB conceptions of Rosa Luxemburg, his material shows the limited character of the support which the Marxist can give to the National movement even at a stage when it has a fundamentally progressive historico-political mission to fulfill. His polemic against Luxemburg leaves no possible basis for the 'National' cretinism of our Belfast comrades.

Starting from the same basis, or lack of basis, the refusal to examine the present stage of historical and economic development – in Luxemburg's case, of Poland and Russia, in 'Belfast's' case, of Ireland and England – our Belfast comrades arrive at the opposite pole of opportunism on the National Question.

Our attitude to the petty bourgeoisie, says 'Belfast' is the same as Lenin's attitude to the bourgeoisie in the national liberation movements. Remarkable thought! The bourgeoisie are a stable class in modern society, they have a programme which caters for their particular class interests. The petty bourgeoisie – and particularly the modern Irish petty bourgeoisie – are an unstable class and can have no such programme. The collapse of modern capitalist society and the conflicts which are engendered as a result of that collapse force the modern petty bourgeoisie to look for a lead. If the workers are incapable of offering them a banner they inevitably become a tool of the fascist reaction. To place the petty bourgeoisie on the same class plane as the workers or the capitalists is to prepare for defeats in advance.

Exaggerating the weakness of the Irish working-class, 'Belfast' minimises the growth of the organised workers in Ireland by pointing to the general growth of the trade union movement during the years that I mention. But what is conveniently forgotten is that the Irish industrial proletariat is almost half the population. Taking the agricultural wage labourers into account, they constitute a big majority of the Irish nation. Also, whereas there was a tendency to fall away from the trade unions in the other countries after the industrial peak, in Ireland there has been a fairly regular increase in trade union organisation. A remarkable feature of Irish trade union organisation is the way in which the unemployed retain their trade union membership. This is particularly true in the South. One other feature, probably the most important; out of 160,000 industrial workers employed in Éire, over 70 per cent are organised in trade unions. In Dublin alone there are 60,000 trade unionists. Probably the highest percentage of organised workers in any European city.

Far from being weak, as 'Belfast' would have us believe, the Irish working-class is one of the strongest in the world. Its history, militancy and experience are unexcelled in any English-speaking country. The weapon that it lacks, and this is true of the majority of countries, is a revolutionary programme and organisation.

'He has got his facts wrong' says 'Belfast', 'it was a minority, nor a majority led by Peadar O'Donnell...' Assuming that this statement is correct, it in no way contradicts the point I make that when the working-class act in a militant, class way they draw the best elements from the Republican movement behind their banner. The question as to whether it was a majority or a minority is unimportant. Completely losing sight of the argument, 'Belfast' contributes the conjecture that my facts are wrong without drawing any political conclusions from this. However, let me refer him to George Gilmore's pamphlet, 'Republican Congress'. On page 25, Gilmore states: 'A majority of the elected delegates at the General Convention of March, 1934 voted in favour of the Congress. The executive vote secured a majority against it.' The majority was one. George Gilmore was on GHQ.

My information comes from M Price and a number of other members of GHQ at that time, as well as from a number of rank and file members who voted against the Congress at the time, but who subsequently broke away and joined it, readily confirm that it was a majority which split. This was particularly the case in the towns. Also, the effect was such on those who remained inside the army that the leadership was forced to allow them to participate in united activity with other workers, such as strike defence, tenant's defence, etc., something which they had always fought in the past.

For further information let me add: Peadar O'Donnell played a third-rate role in the split which took place. There were two oppositions in the Army, one led by Frank Ryan and George Gilmore and to a lesser extent Peadar O'Donnell (semi-Stalinist 'Irish Republicans') and the other led my M Price, which stood for the 'workers' republic'. O'Donnell had the least support among the leading figures who split away, and at that his support lay in the Gaeltacht (Gaelic districts) and among the petty bourgeoisie.

'Belfast' then goes on to tell us that Connolly accepted the help of the Republicans in the 1913 strike. Countess Markievicz was a Major in the Irish Citizen Army – pledged to the Workers' Republic. The Labour movement would accept the assistance of the Republicans in a like activity today. The IRA, however, expressly forbids its members to participate in such movements. The possible basis for a united front has been narrowed down to an extremely fine point.

But, says 'Belfast', are you not getting somewhat tinged with Labour Party pacifism, etc? Basing myself on the class-struggle, I consider that the Catholic minority in Ulster have a right to use all the means at their disposal to gain their democratic ends, but I certainly am hostile to the conception that a minority in the Six Counties should receive our support in attempting to subdue the majority, particularly when the minority are mainly farmers and farm workers, while the majority are largely members of the working-class.

Unable to develop and economic basis as a background to the policy put forward, 'Belfast' attempts to discount the economic trend and perspective I advance. 'Finding an inconsistency' in my deductions, he thrusts a reproach at me in the tone of a 'Red Professor": It is the duty of a Marxist to look at facts as they are and not to accommodate himself to the wishful thinking of the peasantry.' Precisely! And had 'Belfast' made an elementary study on the subject under discussion instead of rushing into print, badly informed, it would have been noted that the apparent contradiction springs directly from things as they are. The appended statistical data gives some indication why this is so.

Economy in Ulster is in a fiscal union with Britain: the boundary between Éire and Ulster is marked by an exceptionally high tariff wall; industrial production in Ulster depends on essentially world reactions, the base of industrial activity is linked with foreign trade; the farming community are a minority of the population, thus a rise in agricultural prices will have no appreciable effect on the Northern industries.

In Éire, however, the conditions are just the reverse. The bulk of the population are directly engaged in agriculture; Irish industry in the Six Counties – particularly modern petty industry – has been developed to correspond with the home market. Although to a certain extent affected by international trading, an increase in agricultural export to Britain at very much higher prices, will be rapidly reflected in industry. When the farmer in the Twenty Six Counties rubs his palms together, his capitalist compatriot begins to feel his own palms grow warm.

There is a tendency, not only in 'Belfast', but in Irish Socialists in general, to exaggerate the extent to which Éire is under the heel of British imperialism, without giving any indications why and to what extent this is so, thereby confusing the nature of the struggle that is taking place between them and the tasks that remain to be solved. Éire is the largest holder of Sterling of any country in the world. In Britain's banks there is no less than £250,000,000 sterling in keeping. This constitutes a very much greater amount of capital than the British capitalists have invested in Éire. The thing that binds them together is the very relationship of production, Ireland will always be dominated by Britain.

So 'Belfast' discovers another 'contradiction'; ' If the biggest farmers are cattle ranchers and the small-holdings are untilled mainly where do Ireland's five million acres of land under crops come from?'

In the first place, there are three categories of Irish farmer: the large farmer (cattle ranching), the middle farmer (mixed farming) and the small farmer (mainly subsistence farming). Secondly, when I was that the big farmers will still base their economy on cattle, that does not exclude them from tilling a certain amount of land. A good proportion of the land under hay is big-farm land, but the majority of the tilled land lies in the middle farms, and these on the territory communicating with the main roads and railways.

Instead of upsetting my argument, the quotations from Hanly bear me out. However, let me adduce another couple of quotations from that source. 'The majority of Irish farmers assert that farming does not pay . . . Tillage , or mixed, farming does not pay in Ireland, not because it is impossible to make it pay, but because prevailing conditions make it impossible . . . Practically every other country in Europe tills from 50 to 70 per cent of its arable land . . . The Irish Free State tills from 12 to 14 per cent.' (Joseph Hanly, 'The National Idea') When the author sticks to facts he is not so bad, but when he tries his economics . . . well, the front plate bears the hammer, sickle and cross!

An outstanding feature of Irish agriculture is the contraction of the area devoted to tillage despite the break-up of the land; (Ireland has seen almost complete agrarian revolution). Only the present exceptional conditions of war can give an impetus to Irish tillage; only the Socialist Revolution, however, can bring the village population prosperity.

Accepting Hanly's remark that 5,000,000 acres of land are under crops, 'Belfast' triumphantly asks where this land comes from and how does its existence square with my argument. The appended statistics answer with the voice of authority: the bulk of the five million acres was under hay.

At the risk of offending Stanton, I still think that the question of whether partition can be ended under capitalism is not worth a moment's thought.

History, it would appear, has taught 'Belfast' little. Cynical bargains, much more cynical than the bargain I visualised in the exchange of the Six Counties, stand out in history as the mountains of Mourne stand out in the mist. The possibility of such a bargain being struck is probably remote, mainly because the British imperialists are in no mood for concessions. But were such a bargain to be struck, I am convinced that it would be accompanied in Ireland by conscription.

The Pope is now tuning the bagpipes of anti-Christ. When the 'call' goes out, it will be received with tremendous sympathy among the more backward of the Republicans, and when the 'Yanks Are Coming' it will cut the ground away from the more 'enlightened' Republicans. When this is accompanied by a full-blast Press campaign, as it undoubtedly will if it suits the interests of Irish capitalism to enter the arena, then Irish troops will be sent abroad. Only a proletarian upsurge could prevent this.

When 'Belfast' makes the statement, 'Incidentally, it is not a Republican Government,' this appears to me as a vulgar debating point. The article was written for Irish Socialists and Republicans, who were aware of the 'connection'. The method of presentation was purely for simplification, and the 'correction' in no way undermines the point that is made.

When 'Belfast' states that my reference to the classical bourgeois revolutions is 'irrelevant to the subject under discussion' and later claims, 'Our line is the line of the permanent revolution' we can well understand the source of confusion. This naive interpretation of the key to our programme can only convince the comrades in London who are acquainted with this theory of the urgent necessity of its early publication.

Irish capitalism is already overripe for Socialism. The political repression in the Twenty Six Counties differs only in degree from that in the Six. Incapable of independent political thought and organisation, the Irish socialists have been steeped in 'national' prejudice. Despite the extreme richness of the Irish working-class struggle, they have bowed their heads to the petty bourgeois IRA.

The central task of our group is to take up the banner that fell with James Connolly and to march with it at the head of the workers through what will undoubtedly be difficult times. Where it is possible to carry out joint work with the IRA we will do so, but the core of our task must be to challenge its lead.

Yours fraternally,

Editor, Socialist Appeal.


Appendix 1
Ulster: Population of Ulster 1,247,000 in 1928, and by 1938 it had risen to 1,281,000. Roughly a third of the Irish population.

Belfast has a population of 438,112; more than half of the population of Ulster live in towns of over 5,000 inhabitants.

There were 430,161 Roman Catholics in 1937, i.e. 34.4% of the population. The remainder were registered in the various Protestant denominations. The bulk of the Catholic population are farmers and farm labourers, the mass of the Protestants are proletarians.

Foreign trade amounted to £111,000,000 in 1937 of which £65,377,000 was imports and £31,575,000 was exports.

The total area is 3,352,249 acres, of which 880,688 acres are under crops, including hay. This is 35.6% of the cultivated area.

There are 93,843 holdings of over one acre in area, of which 82% were less than 50 acres in extent. There are roughly 65,000 holdings of over 10 acres, but less than 100 acres. 20,000 permanent agricultural labourers are employed. All these holdings have 'security' of tenure, and the majority are either owners or in process of becoming owners.

The value of field crops fell from £2,519,000 in 1931 to £1,177,000 in 1933. But between 1935 and 1936, owing mainly to increased prices and production of potatoes, rose to £2,938,000.

The principal industries are agriculture, flax spinning and weaving, linen bleaching and finishing, shipbuilding, distilling, the manufacture of machinery, aircraft, ropes and twine, clothing, hosiery, etc.

Exports of wholly or partially manufactured goods amounted to £31,573,000 in 1937.

Ulster has the highest foreign trade per head of population of any of the Dominion countries.


Appendix 2
Éire: Population 1926 – 2,971,992. 1936 – 2,965,854.

The population of the main towns, Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Dún Laoghaire was 583,774 in 1926 and rose to 657.523 in 1936. Of all other towns with a population od less than 1500 inhabitants, in 1926 there were 367,624 and in 1936 there were 385,715. The first group rose by 12.6 per cent, and the second by 4.9 per cent.

Foreign trade in 1937 was £66,965,000, of which £44,108,000 was imports and £22,856,000 was exports and re-exports.

The total area is 17,024,485 acres, of which 1,582,488 acres are under the plough, 7,951,545 are pasture and 2,086,978 are under hay.

In 1851 there were 3,509,229 acres under the plough, the greatest area ever cultivated, which was 29 per cent of the total agricultural land. In 1932 there were 1,423,980 acres under the plough, the lowest ever cultivated, and amounting to 12 per cent of the agricultural land.

The number of cattle have increased. In 1849 there were 1,848,403 head of cattle; in 1921 – 4,919,347; in 1929 – 4,136,847; and in 1938 – 4,056,209.

Sheep have also risen in numbers. In 1849 there were 1,697,997; in 1854 – 3.507,644; in 1868 – 4,580,139; and in 1938 there were 3,196,600.

The number of pigs fluctuates violently from year to year, but poultry have shown a steady increase in numbers.

Almost the whole of the exports from Éire are agricultural and farm produce.

There are approximately 160,000 industrial workers, 110,000 registered unemployed and 126,000 agricultural labourers.

Holdings etc. are similar to those in the North: security of tenure, however, is not quite so advanced.


Appendix 3
The following quotations are from Lenin's On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination [www.workersrepublic.org note: we have replaced them with references currently in print and available on the Marxist Internet Archive]. I consider that the passages quoted by 'Belfast' from this work assist my case – but in view of the forcefulness of the key ideas of Lenin in his article, I have decided to include them in the material I submit.