Marxist Review: no. 2, January 1973

MARXIST

MARXIST REVIEW is the theoretical journal cf the Revolutionary Marxist Group, the Irish supporters of the Fourth International, Al11 comments and contributions ,which will be welcomed, should be sent to the Editors 5° Parnell Road, Harclds Cross, Dublin. Signed articles do not necessarly represent the views of the Group.

MARKIST REVIEW

ss ? 7 byt raf AAT ay, ofA P THEORETICAL JOURNAL OFo THE REVOLUTION AR MARX | : J | Utter Pendragon Eire ilua - a critique. DL Robert Dorn Fennelis! Third Reich. p.4 James Conway The Two Ilations Dogma. p.5 Socialist Party of Ireland Ducument, D. 29 Leon Trotsky The Nation and the Economy. a. 35 "The Labour movement delights in analysing and is nerpetually defining and re-defining its principles and objects. ‘The man or woman who has caught the spirit of the Labour movement brings that snirit of analysis and definition into all of his or hers public acts and expects at all times to answer the call to define his or hers zosition. ‘They cannct live on illusions or thrive by them; even should their heads be in the clouds they will make no fcrward step until they are assured that their feet rest wien the solid earth.i JAMES CONNOLLY. "WHAT IS OUR POLICY?" WwoRMERSt REPUBLIC. JAN. 22, ISi6.

WDITORIAL NOT.

The purpose of MARCIST REVIZW ‘is to pouvlarise the basic tenets of revolutionary Marxism; to help encourage the use of scientific theught and contribute to the soluticn of fundamental =rcblems confronting revoluticnaries of every tendency in Ireland today. Issue No. 2 of WARLIST REVIGJ carries two articles on the Proves with the hope of opening un further discussion.

These articles are by no tieans intended as definitive statements. ije apologise to cur readers for the brevity of these articles. It was intended that these comments should be mich broader and desver, but owing t6 sressure of space we had to limit their lenght.

A CRITIQUE TO OPEN DISCUSSION

(Submitted by a Breton comrade) _ : When Sinn Fein (Kevin Street) claim that their "Social and Economic Programme!

-Eire Nua - is a socialist programme, one response could be to point out the petty bourgeois nature of the Republican Movement; but it is a more positive step to accept that the militants of Sinn Fein are sincerely willing to carry out a fight for socialism in Ireland, and on that basis to offer a critique of Eire Nua and its relation to socialism.

In other words we prefer to conduct a debate(I) in the context of the construction of Socialism rather than to exclude systematically, discussion with Sinn Fein, as unfortunatelly do many Socialist groups.

It is not possible in this short article (again we remind our readers that because of pressure of space we have had to keep many of the articles in this issue very short. - Editor.) to deal with all the points of Eire Nua: anyway we feel that it is necessary first to deal with two key problems before getting involved in a deeper discussion: a) Do the nationalisations of major industries ,suggested in the Pragramme » represent the economic measures necessary to institute Socialism?

b) And following directly from the above, by what means will the people of Ireland come to power and keep that power?

The main question must therefore be: Is Eire Nua, in its actual formulation a programme capable of guiding the Socialist transformation of Ireland? In spite of the fact that theprogramme would try to “strike a balance between Western individualistic capitalism, with its poor 3nd hung .ry admist plenty, en the Right ,and Eastern Soviet State Capitaldan’ (or any 452 its variations) with its denial of freedom and human rights, on the Left"‘~’,it seems nontheless that the ‘bourgeois statet of tWestern individualistic capitalism!

will be retained in the service of the new Democratic Socialist Republic. * The significance of this will become more app arant when. we comé to discuss the problem of nationalising industry.

History has thought us that to accomplish the transition to socialism I). “Constructive criticism and comment will be welcomed." - Eire Nua, p.5 2). As Revolutionary Marxists we do not consider the the Eastern People's Democracies to be State Capitalist regimes, but we are entitled to point out, if for no other reason than the persecution of our own comrades there, that the actual regimes in these countries. can no longer serve as a model which can enhance the cause.of socialism in the eyes of the world working class. ‘ Per 3). Eire Nua. - p. 4 .For a Marxist critique of the degeneration of the Soviet Union, see Trotskys, The Revolution Betrayed. : -

certain conditicns are required: | I) First condition: HO CONCESSION SHOULD BE MADE TO THE BOURGZOISIE.

Eire Nua states that the nationalisations would include "finance, insurazce, and all ker industries", explaining that "the the major agent of develenment" will be the state; . . whereas this nationalisation should be under the contr>1 cf a state conmrised cf Workers Councils, we find that not only will it be under the old fsrm of state , but that not all key industry will even be nationalised - we are told fcr instance that "firms which make a ~~ 2 réa? cable effort tc orient thacgelves towards the naticnal ecincmy and its development will be left in PRIVATE HANDS."

These concessions show that the programme has no ccnception of the nature of either capitalist or socialist production. There is a naive assumpticn that industrial capitalists could serve the interests cf the ordinary neople if only they decided to do so. Presumably they have not already decided to do this because they are "bad and evil" pecple. Zven on the face of it this view is rather simplistic. Some of the greatest tycocns, who have caused tremendicus hardship and suffering tc the worling class, are well known as charitable people in their own right. They did not go out of their way to cause pain and distress. This happened simply because they were part of a production system , the motive force of which is nrofit making. H ‘ver socialism is a comnletly different tyne cf production system. It is a system , based not on oroduction for profit ,but on preducticn for the needs « of the people. Therefore , even if these people could recrientate themselves .

there would still be no need for them, But this is mot merely a mistaie in the thesry of socialist construction. It leaves socialists disarmed in face cf the inevitable reaction from the capitalist class, by suggesting that their mde of production is not incompatable with the socialist mode of »reducticn. If sccialists are not ~ clearly warned against this they will not kncw who their real enemies are when the crunch comes , as in Greece, Aigeria.etc.

2) Second condition.: TILE INSTITUIOMALISATIGN OF eS. COUuTROL.

Sucting Padraic Pearsé can be interesting but in Winton ty this questicn it is confusing. The wave of Soviets and factcry cecunations which swe .pt the ccuntry in the twenties is a more reliable guide in this matter. Non= theless: Hire Nua does state clearly that “the n istributicn ' y the necnle and administered demscratica!ly.' Ly.

We of course entirly agree with this, But the method of Comhar na Comharsan is not the way to bring this about.

The attactivness of the Comhar n gComharsan philosophy “for many of the Prov militants is that it is a particularly Irish or Gaelic philosophy. But unfortunately this is not true. The same ideas about the swnership of the means ef production, have been advanced by many socialists in many countries notably France and Russia. What the Frovo militants should censider is the class iwterests cf the neople who put forward these views and the nericd in which theu put then forward. In France for instance it was nut forward in the middle of the last century before the advent of large scale nroducticn.

a re EE

pa, a when the skilled craftsman still reigned supreme. With the advent of large scale cafitalism, it made sense for these artisans to propagate the view that everybedy shoul cwn a unit of preduction in order to defend what they had already got. But of course this situation does not exist in Ireland tcday.

Large scale capitalism already predominates. The vast majority of the pecple are net prepertied artisans, but ordinary workers. It would be impossibl¢,; to divide up the means of preduction into so many small units. Apart from an.

else, each unit of production is designed to function in harmony with the rest of the units, Therefore if the means of production are to be transformed inte the prepertyof the working class, it will have to be owned as a collective property.

Thus when we speak of workers control over production, we mean the establishment in every factory of workers ccuncils, which unite all workers under an elected leadership which is responsible for the runing of the factory. 3) Third condition: INTERNATIONALISM.

Just as the basic units of production have become interdependent c. : ami can only function in harmony with each other, so to the national units of production have become interdependent on a world scale. Enivetably this means that no country can build a completed socialism within its own bounderies. This is especially true in backward countries.

Given the level of the productive forecs in Ireland this point will be of great importance. The magnitude of the preblem can be seen by the fact that 42% of the Gross National Product of ireland is Comorised of imports. If Ireland werebbckadedi in the same way as Cuba is. then the problems of constructing a socialist economy would be very great indeed.

Apart from this there is the possibility of foreign intervention. Ireland is a neo-clony and the metropolitan countries have vast fortunes invested in Ireland. Britain, for instance, either owns or controls 75% cf the capital invested in Irelands top I0U companies. Uver 65% of profiis made in Ireland is pocketed by British cupon clippers alune. Any attempt by- a socialist government in Ireland to etop the profiteeri ng activifies cf imperialism will undoubtedly call forth imperialist intervention of bith an economic and military nature.

The cals teat & docislist’ Ineland could: bave. deninat: cosesble-dkoletion and intervention would be to aid the revolutionary movements in cther countries, The taking of power by the working class in other countries 4 is the only real way of defeating inmerialism and ensuring the uni’ P*%* oregress towards socialism.

Bot gL UNfoertunately the Economic and Social Progranme of the Prevos any/tatere nationalist perspective for doing this.The only snark of internationalisa is the declaraticn that trade will be maintained . ith cther countries. Fine.

But what if these other countries refuse to trade with a socialist Ireland?

This tyne of internationalism is a long way from the internationalism of the United irishmen and the Fenians. It is also a lcng way from the internationalism of James Connoliy, who saw the socialist revoluticn in Irelan?

as the first step in the liberation cf the people of Eurcpe.

a new ireland or ...

FENNELL’'S THIRD REICH ?

(The following article is an analysis by Robert Dorn of some dangerous political trends in the Provisionals based on Desmond Fennell's pamphlet - Build the Third Republic) Mr. Desmond Fennell expresses a tendency in Provisional Republican thinking. It is one that will have little direct effect unless other, more progressive, tendencies fail to achieve their aims. However, that it can still be accepted in Irish Republicanism (Kevin Street variety) is symptomatic of the continuing theoretical weakness of Republicanism (itself based on the inadequacy of its material base). Im turn, this is given material political expression in the current set backs that the groups in the movement are suffering. They may unless there are major changes, lead to the defeat of Republicanism and the turning of its cadres to the author of this pamphlet.

Frou cheir point of view this would be a mistake, It would mean a breach wth everything that they now support, as certainly as acceptance of the Articles of Agreement did for an earlier generation. Although he has since weakened, it was Mr. Fennell, rather than the B.I.C.0., who began the current propaganda about the "Two Nations in Ireland."

In this pamphlet, his attitude to Republicanism is exposed in the first article where he quotes approvingly, with an apparent sense of incongruity, Liam Mellows (who opposed the Articles of Agreement) and Michael Collins (who signed them). The quotation from Collins is from Collins! post - Treaty book!

But what is Mr. Fennell's political faith and what is wrong with it?

It is worth asking this question because his writings make explicit and codify many of the assumptions held by would-be Irish political theorists. Basically, "Fennellism" is a form of Fascism. This may seen a strong thing to say especially at a time when the concept is ssed far too often as a sort of a bludgeon for one's opponents. Nonetheless it can be easily shown, In essence, Fascism represents the organisation of the demoralised petty-bourgeoisie against the working class in theinterests of imperialism, Mr, Fennell's aim is to mobilise the West against the East of Ireland. It is purely coincidental, of course, that most of the workers, and the strength of the trade unions happen to be in the East and that the West is a stronghold of petty-bourgeois (small farmers and gombeenmen) economics and, even more, ideology. Nonetheless, the trend of such a view is inevitable. So we find in various places throughout the pamphlet, it is expressed:-

=5+ I "Class inequality arises between the metropolitan region and other regions in regard to money incomes, availability of employment, access to cultural facilities and to mass media platforms. The basic human right to live and work within one's own society and region is secured for the inhabitants of the metropolitan region and denied to many citizens born elsewhere" (P,12 present reviewer's emphasis).

In the light of Mao's broader and correct analysis, the identity of interest between urban workers and capitalists becomes evident. So does the clash of interest between the provincial towns and cities and the metropolitan region. As for the fight going on in t he workers!’ name for "Worker control" and all that, we can now gee what this is, when its all boiled down: Th rochial st le of one metropolitan i ainst another for the metropolit ils. Just how remote this sontest is from the real interests of rural society is exemplified by the “ate of the peasants in Russia after the Revolution, Small wonder that dao, a peasant himself, (111) rejected Stalin's advice on how to make the Chinese Revolution." (PP,14-15) "Measured in terms of average money incomes, social power and access to cultural facilities, the upper class in Ireland today are the inhabitants or the five-county Dublin region. Measured in the same terms, most of Munster and South Leinster are middle-class and the inhabitants of Connacht, South and West Ulster and several other counties are lowclass people. In other words, the inhabitants of the greater part of the Republic belong to this lowest class" P.29.

we. Fennell's essential hestility to the need of organised labour were made even more specific in an article ('Concern of Another Kind? sunday Press 25th October 1970) which is not republished in the gpllection reviewed but which is quoted here, nonetheless as being relevant <o its author's views. (The subject is Mr. George Colley's plans to freeze wages) :itwhen trade unions are rich or when alternative employment is readily available, the strike is an expremely coercive influence on pay rates.

It forges pay above the level which is justified by production and sales." WWhen nay is forced up in this manner, supply and demand no longer determine prices. Even if demand falls, prices have to rise. Even if supply increases, prices cannot fall. Commodities are no 1 onger riced by a free market, but by the coercion of production costs."

[tied dere lee the man who wrote this had the nerve to denounce the Catholic magazine SLANT as not being Marxist enough, a fair comment but coming from hin?!) "Since the maintenance men's strike, both these coercion forces have been cperating to an extreme degree. But probed (sic) deeper, behind the inflationary pay increases, to the motivations which forced them

ie through, Consider the scramble for more money over the past two years as a whole. Was freedom at work then?

"Qvite well-off people were setting the pace, Remember this Republic is the sixteenth richest country in the world. Most of the groups claiming large increases and striking or threatening to strike were already earning,on. one count or another, at least twenty pounds a week, and many of the claimants were earning much more......"

",...eeThe Government has not introduced coercion. It has merely inseeted some coercion to reason and survival into a situation which was giaracterised by © 101 1 and suicide " .eeeeeL00k the next time when top trade union officials who (sic) appear on television, Listen to their predictable parrot-talk. Note the permanent grievance carefully nurtured in their professionally underdog voices. And recall that these men are very powerful, widely experienced and well-to-do."

Qf course, that article is uncharacteristic: not because there are other articles than can be quoted to set against it, but because Mr.

Fennell is careful not to write very mucb on industrial issues. What zppears in this collection gives the reader an idea of the ideclogy saat he uses both as a smokescreen and as a possible incentive for the mvement that (he hopes) will achieve his aims, Like all fascist .jgzologies, it is a gerry-built piece of work. Thus in his articles ‘wo Ways to Develope Industry" (P.P. 34-35) he can compare favourably se Spanish rule of the Basques to Dublin rule of Cavan and Monaghan hereas in "Who Wants a Pluralist Ireland?" he is more correct in denouncing Franco's government. In order to justify his threme he is vady to misrepresent completely the thoughts of Marx, Mao, Guevara snd even, poor old Noel Browne (hf Paisleyite Liberal" - P.29), It is wust as well perhaps, that he doesn't seem to have heard of Trotsky.

Insofar as it has any intellectual form "Fennellism" is essentially -dealistic and ultra-clerical. His reference and reliance on, Mao is justified by a masterly piece of shuffling:- James Connolly learnt from Marx while remaining an Irish Republican, a Catholic, a Gaelic revivalist and a free-thinking man. Connacht has enabled me to learn from Mao in the same manner” P, -15, Sut there is a gifference between James Connolly's acceptance of Marx and Mr. Fennell's of Mac. Comrade Connolly accepted Marx’ political method and analysis totally, even if he did accept catholicism for his private use (and it is doubtful if he even did this.)n Mr. Fennell merely uses Mao (and Guevara) to give a left veneer to his interpretations of the Papal encyclicals. His:political analysis is wholly idealist and overwhelmingly Catholic:-

a ne ee —————————— t,,....The Primary motivation of the Easter Rising was not political or economic but humanist (sic) and moral. It hoped to set in motion a redemptive process, in the image of Calvary, which would lead to the resurrection cf man in Lreland to his full human stature." (6 -6) ".....eNo human republic - no Irish Republic of man = can be built without the light of Jesug Christ." (P. - 27) " It goes without saying that virtually every institution characterising Irish life today is derived from Britain, and especially from England, though there is some American influence too, The only major exception I can think of is our Catholicism and all that goes with it. Sunday Mass, Saturday ecofessions, rcsary beads, priests and nuns in the streets, parish missions, recruitment lectures for the foreign missions, first communion dresses, vecple blessing themselves and so on™ - P, 40, Basing his analysis uncn such assumptions, it is easy for Mr, Fennell te declare (in an interesting expression cf the'Two Stage'Theory) :james Connolly, the socialist, put the political aim before the eccnomic aim, Every true radical must of necessity do the same because the distributjon cf eccnemic power and cultural facilities, and the effective ness of so-called ‘social Welfare’, ultimately decided by the distribution of governmental power.

Radical politics worthy of the name are concerned primarily with political power and its distribution throughout the State. Only secondarily are they concerned with economic and ‘social welfare!

issues." - BP. 13. In other words, the eccnomic system doesn't matter: what is important is the form cf Government. That this form is merely the ultinate expression of the existing economic system is dismissed by Mr. Fennell (or, perhaps, more accurately, never considered by him.) For him, the trouble with Ireland is over centrallised goverment. In article .after article, he puts forward pleas for greater powers for the local Irish regicns. All this would be fair enough, but the forms of idealism are insufficient to justify his arguments when they are placed in the reality of Ireland tday, In Particular, two questions must be asked. Firstly, if Ireland is too over-centrallised for effective or benevolent Government, what interests are keeping it that way? Secondly, how is the Government tc be reformed, seeing as how those nations quoted by Mr.

Fennell that have not maintained their local gcvernments intact from the middle ages have only been decentrallised as a result of revolution cr military annihilation? The way in which Mr. Fennell choses tc answer these questions ig the give away for his politics as exposed at the beginning of this review. For him, Ireland is kept over—centrallised by the machinations cf the metropolitan region (all the classes therein) and de-centrallisation will be achieved only by 4 revolution of the

petty-bourgeoisie of the west against the east. Since such a revolution can, in historical practice, only be based on either the capitalists or the workers and since it is clear that Mr. Fennell is opposed to the majority of the workers, it is obvious that he locks to Fascism as his motivating force. Of course, in practice, Fascism cannot achieve what he says he wants.

Indeed, the very idea of Fascism leading to greater de-centralisation is ludicrous. Nonethesess, both the Italian and the Less-successful - Franch Fascists pat in their programmes (not, of course, their practice) calls for greater devolution of government powers. For the Fascist, any theories however irrelevant are serviceable. More than most ideclogies, Fascism needs to be examined for what it is rather than for what it claims to be. But it will be cbjected that Mr. Fennell and his views are cf little consequence in Ireland today. He is associated with the Republican Movenent (Kevin Street) at a time when either that movement drops such as he or goes under, Most neople can see through his pretence.

Such assumptions are dangerous. That Mr. Fennell has any influence in Kevin Street at all says something about the intellectual barrenness cf the Irish left since Connolly. His views often express, albeit distertedly, -the illusions that have beset that left and, indeed, the petty-bourgeois thecries that have taken root in it and in political left wings elsewhere. His views, can ultimately, only handicap the Irish National liberation stuuggle. And, cf course, this is as it should be as it is only through the defeat of that struggle that he is likely to get any real political power as cpposed to backdoor influence through Kevin Street or its "Dail Connachta’, Each of these pcints can be elaborated, though the first one dcesn't have tc be, That Mr. Fennell can be allcwed to take any role (let alone a leading role) in an assembly aimed formally at creating a dual power situation cver a province cf Ireland exposes the failure of the Kevin Street leadership as much as its failure to develop a political strategy in Northern Ireland that as as effective as its military strategy. For Fennell makes no appeal to the workers and only the workers can carry out the successful national revolution in Ireland by bringing it over into a socialist struggle. (It must be said, tood that his influence in some Connacht Cummainn of Gardiner Place is stronger than one would like to believe).

Secondly, not only are Mr. Fennell's confusions as to the nature of "class" and of "imperialism" traditional errors of the petty-bourgecis left, but he has incorporated more trendy illusions into his thinking.

In his introduction ts the pamphlet he calls for a People's Republic quite in the tradition of the Stalinites (but, also, it is wrth remembering of Hitler: his Third Reich was also termed a "People's Republic"). In his belief in the acceptability of religion as a cultural aspect cf nationality, he is merely expressing an important (contd.p34)

ST RE RT a or i —

THE TWO NATIONS BOGMA

THE STRUGGLE FOR THE LAND

According to the British and Irish vonmunist Urganisation’s "Iwo Nations Dogma", the Unionist bourgeoisie is the only section of the bourgeoisie capable of understanding developments in Ireland. (1) It ie of course, necessary for them to assert this since so much of their position is derived from Unionist propaganda. But here there is a strange anamology. The argument for the Two Nations Drgma was initially based on the fact of uneven capitalist development in Ireland, engendered by, the different forms of land tenure which existed North and South. (2). However, it was not the Unionists but the Nationalists who discovered and stressed the importance of this fact.

It was none other tha? the Catholic Nationalist bogeyman, George O'Brien, who popularised this explanation, and it was form him that the Unionists, including the B.I.C,0. plaguerised it. (3).

This constituted a fundamental flav in what appeared to be a neatly wrapped dogma, To attempt to construct the Two Nations Thesis on a premise of Nationalist histography was like trying to build a house on shifting sands.

So a new twist in the thesia was called for, Certainly, it was admitted, the umeven economic develcpment of Ireland, explains the evolution of the Protestant people as a distinct nation. But then again, this uneven economic development has itself to be explained, Acoordingly, we are told that "the uneven cconomic development itself followed from the fact that there have been two distinct. communities in Ireland since the 17th century, in one of which production relations were more advanced than in the other".

(4), This tautological statement, which asserts that two different forms of production relations developed in Ireland because two different forms of relations existed to begin with, makes sense only if we take it to mean that the Protestant commmity in the North, due to some ig ate chrisma (Protestantism) was able to develop advanced property relations which the Catholics, as a result of their non chrisma (Catholicism), were unable to do. Of course, this is no new explanation. It has been advanced for many years by the ideologies of the Protestant commmity itself. In 1852, for instance, the Missionary Agent of the Irish Presbyterians Church, the Rev. Edward Mareus Dill, set out to find what reasons "make Ireland a desert and Ulster its only oasis". (5), And the solution he commended was to "venture the supposition that Romanism is false and Protestantism true, and like some dissected map the most shapeless part of Ireland's puzzle falls into its place in a moment, Observe how it unfolds every mystery in our physical and moral state; and explains thy the "Black North" is a garden, and the "Sunny South" a wilderness". (6) Dill proeeeded at length to explain how "Romanism" and "Popery" had been the bane of the Southern Irish, Not alone was it responsible for their political and economic thralldom and wretchedness, but it was even the source of their physical deformitics!

=a — On the other hand the level of development attained by the Catholic peasantry during the sixteenth and seventeenth century is grossly underestimated, The gap which existed between the two commmities is not sufficient to explain the divergent lines of evolution and the ultimate uneven economic development of the country. Other factors : which we have not space to deal with here have to be introduced to explain this,

THE SCOTTISH PEASANTRY

The ancient Scottish society fused with the Norman system during the twelfth century, and the slow and painful emergence of feudalism in the Lowlands began. The peculatiries of this development hindered the establishment of a stable and secure system of land tenure over a long period. This was true not only with regard to the peasantry but also with regard to the highest grades of the nobility. Lands were continually reverting to the crown and being regranted. This was due mainly one supposes, to the mstability of the crown and the strict laws of inheritance which were then recognised, (11), The War of Independence initiated a major reallocation, and “during the next three hundred years" says Grant, “land was constantly changing hands as the Crown waxed and waned in strength", (12) In subsequent years, many acts of reallocation were passed by: James II in 1437, James IV in 1488 and 1503, James Vin 1535 and James VI in 1587, While the forfeitures had less affect the further one went down the social scale, it is also obvious that the absence of security amongst the aristocracy must have also militated against secuirty for the peasantry, At any rate Grant is of the opinion that "the matter is of importance, not only because of the lairds them pa but because the same conditions have affected the smaller folk", 135}. It is true that at the beginning of the seventeenth century, security of tenure became more common amongst the nobility, as a result of the farm movement. Feying consisted in the nobles more or less buying out their holdings and was in no sense a democratic movement of the peasantry towards perpetuity of their holdings, (14). In fact, security of tenure was not common in the peasantry until after the middle of the eighteenth century. "About the middle of the century (1750)" says G ahem, "there arose & new era in the economic and social conditions of the country..."

Previously to this period most of the farms had either been lot without leases, or on very short tenure - two or four years - which starved all enterprise", (15), If anything, the position of the peasantry in relation to security of tenure worsened during the period which we are discussing. So it is that Leyburn, in his important work, describes the Scotland from which the settlers come as the most backward place in Europe, which had not yet escap ed from the middleages. (16). In the context of the situation described by Grant, he draws a general picture of the backward-— ness of the Scottish Lowland peasantry,

- 19 - Faced with this uneven economic development, the venerable missionary, suggested the conversion of the Catholic population, or failing this, the extermimation of Catholics. While he advocated evangeliciem, he did not hide his delight at the Famine (which, of course, was caused by “Popery"") and the consequent outflow of the Catholic peasantry to America, Ha sent his reverent blessings after them and called for a second plantation of Scottish presbyterians to take their place.

Naturelly, the B.I.C.0. thesis is a little more sophisticated, After all the Rev. Dill claimed only to be "a humble man" and not-a-"Marxist". The B.I.0.0., in fact, categorically deny that they in any way attribute economic development in Ireland to religious factors, (7). Of course, they deny this. Not to do so would immediately expose their dogma for the Unionist propaganda which it is. But such denials do’ not alter the reality of their views, The substance of their position is that both the Catholics and Protestants in Irelend laboured under the same yoke of -ppresion, But because the Protestants came from a higher civilisation, which found expression in their religion, they were able to impose capitalist property relations on their landowners, The Catkolics on the other hand were a backward race, still at a primitive stage of tribal development, which found a cultural manifestation in the commmity's adherence to reactionary Catholicism, They had no desire to share individually in the owmership of the land and submitted willirely to their tribal overlords. Thus in its latest stage of refinement, the Two Nations Dogma makes the whole of future development hinge on religious factors: FProtestantiam was the ideological embodiment of new property relations, and being transplanted to Ireland automatically reproduced those property relations. This plainly is the materialist version of historical development turned inside out, "It was the democracy of Scotland which went to Ulster" (8), we are told, and consequently "the fact that the Ulster peasants have been involved in the Presbyterian struggles in Seotland made them particularly well fitted to look after their bourgeois rights, On the other hand, the clan background and traditions of the Catholic peasantry would have hindered them in ee ih an independent movement for securing bougeois rights on the land." (9 The interpretation contrasts sharply with the position adopted in the original Economics of Pertition. Here the new property relations are accepted as given and there is no question of them growing out of the alleged struggles precipitated ty the democratic traditions of the Scottish Presbyterian religion. (10).

But leaving aside the nature of historical interpretation which psce froperty relations coming into existence as a result of religious eauses, the arguments put forward ,here are historically inaccurate.

On the one hand, the progress made by the Protestant settlers on the eve of their exodus to Ireland, and the democratic traditions of their religion, are grossly exaggerated,

— Altsough they were grossly oppressed and exploited by the aristocracy they did not resist, as the peasantry of England had, but continued to cultivate a primitive kinship with their social superiors. "The curious point must be made" says Leyburn "that the humble farmer, who suffered most, did rot attribute his calamities to the noblemen and lairds”. (17). — Leyburn, in fact, is struck by the submissiveness of the Scottish peasantry and tarticularly by "the notable fact that in Scotland, probably alone.

among all the countries of Europe, there was never anything approaching an uprising against the lords," (18) and "whatever grievances and complaints may hare arisen against individual landlords, the meagre Scottish records before 1600 show little that might be called democratic stirrings". (19).

The only explanation for this remarkable fact is that class different-— iation snd awareness amongst the peasantry had not reached a very fine point, With the aristocracy still continuing to hold reasonably power-— ful hegonony over the lower ranks of society. The relationship between the principle classes in the Lowlands was in fact very much the same as what the B.I,C.0, insists existed in Ireland at the time. "In actuality", says Leyburn, "there was a rough and practical sense of belonging that gave humanity to the class systems of the Lowlands and kept it fron becoming onerous." (20) Parallel with the meagre social development and backwardness of the Lowlands, wert a general economic and cultural (in the Marxist sense ) primitativeness, By all accounts agricultural production was not very advanced, Again Leyburn's social survey is very revealing on this point. To him the situation was unbelievable, with the people being unaware of improvements which had been introduced since the Dark Ages. . So primitative were conditions that people were even incapable of implementing the few paltry suggesticns of the government, The custom of “ploughing by the tail" has often teen utilised to demonstrate the backwardness of the Irish peasantry, but in Seotland, according to Leyburn, instruments and techniques were as primitive as those used in ancient Mesopotamia, and lo and behold harrows were drawn by the horses" tails.

It is against this background that we must examine the specific nature of the democratic traditions of Presbyterianism. To interpret the Scottish Reformation simply as a bourgeois democratic movement sei the feudal aristocracy is naive and mechanistic in the extreme. ere was a complex web of Jntereste/BP4 thee peREAReEp ana the nascent bourgeoisie formed only a minor element of this.

It is true that the Reformation began in the urban centres where a small trading class had crystallised, For historical reasons the trade of these merchants was mainly with the continent, particularly France, where the burghs had been granted free access to the market. But after thewars which swept Pramce in the latter half of the 16th century, these markets became extremely fragmented and their importance to the Scottish merchants diminished

yh I ge Simultaneously, the possibility of trade with England increased, One of the main reasons why such trade did not already exist was because of the lack of diversity between the two areas, The importance of this was obvious, vis-a-vis France, to which essential foodstuffs and raw materials were exported and from which luxury goods, especially wine, were imported.

But the industrial and agricultural development of England during the 16th century laid the basis for commercial exchange and a further integration of both English and Scottish middle classes. It was this change in the relationship between Protestant England and Catholic France which explains the ideological fermentation amongst the Scottish middle-classes at the time of the Reformation, But this urban stratum was as yet insufficiently developed to challenge the dominant position of the feudal aristocracy, and Reformation was a movement against feudalism only in a secondary and limited sense, The real meaning of the Scottish Reformation is to be found in the sharpening contradictions amongst the feudal nobles, themselves, Without the broad layers of the aristocrecy which were drawn into the struggle the Reformation could not have succeeded. "Capturing the towns was only the first step" says Smout "the burghs were much too small for it to be | decisive. It had to be followed by winning a significant number of lairds and magnates who could take the initiative against a hostile crown with 4 well armed offensive army", (24) There were two important sources of conflict amongst the aristocracy.

Firstly, &@ massive segment of the lesser nobles, who incidently supplied the leadership and tenantry for the Ulster plan*ation, were deeply impoverished and strongly resented the payments of tithes to a parasite and decadent Catholic church. Moreover they benefitted from the of church lands and wanted to see their gains consolidated by a thorough routing of the Roman Church. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, since the threat of the Angevin monarchy in the 12th century, Scotland and France had maintained a close alliance out of fear on both sides of England's designs, Between 1500-1560 there was great alarm that the whole of Scotland would become a subordinate and integral province of France, thus leaving the Scottish nobility further out on the periphery of power and authority.. When James V died in 1542, Mary Queen of Scots Was only one year old. Almost immediately a struggle over the Regency between one faction lead by the dissenting Earls of Argyle, Morton and Aran, who favoured an alliance with Ingland to offset the dominance of France and another faction lead by Bishop Beaton of St. Andrews, who favoured the French connection broke out, thus drawing on another powerful layer of support for the Reformation.

Unfortunately, the peasantry does not figure as an inlependent or even distinct force in the whole process, Certainly, the growth of individualism, and the struggle for security of land tenure_did not enter into the question and it is difficult to see what useful conelusion the B.1.,C.0.

could possibly arrive at by envoking the participation of the Scottish peasantry in the Reformation, The fact that the Reformation spread rapidly into the Highlands should be sufficient to warn against a vulgar materialist interpretation of the affects of the change in religious outlook on the peasantry or indeed the burghs (25). "Few countries were more completely Calvinist than Scotland" says Smout "vet it is hard to see how any support can be found for Weber's thesis from the situation in this country between 1560 and 1690, /

a an ee eee 1 opine ee ee = Within this period the Reformation cannot be shown in any way to have favoured the rise of economic individualism", (26) And Tawney points out that"In Scotland the views of the reformers as to economic ethics did not differ in substance from those of the church before the Reformation", (27), To sum up and emphasise the essential features of the sketch we have just drawn, we can say that the Scottish settlers who came to Ulster during the period of the Ulster plantation came from a depressed region where economic relations were at a low level; these settlers, while by no means slaves, had not developed the independence attributed to them by the BI.C.0. and were certainly not in a position to pioneer bourgeois property relations in the land, The Gaelic System It is difficult to make a direct comparison between the Scottish and.

Irish peasantry of this period, but it will be clear that they did not live in two entirely different worlds. Naturally, the B.1.C.0. acoepts uncritically the superficial view that the primitative clan system still persisted in Ireland at this time, "The Clan System", they say, "as it existed in Ireland for many genturies before its abolition smothered all power of independent . action by the people" (28), ‘The historical facts when sifted show that this view is completely umtenable. The "Clan System" as popularly conceived probably never existed in Ireland at all, and if it did, it had disappeared subsequent to the Northern Invasion. From that time onwards we find the gradual development of a particularly Gaelic form of feudalism, which while utilising many ancient institutions filled them with a new content, Most authorities deny that this Gaelic system was fuedal in nature.

This is true of Hayes MacCoy, Cyril Falls and Bagwell, not to mention the B.I.C.0, "authorities", (o9) Their judgement however is not based on sound scientific criteria, Most notably there isno rounded conception of historical evolution in their writings. They fail to see any definite stages in the development of sociéty. For instance, they simultaneously deny that Gaelic society was feudal or tribal. but refuse to categorise it in any other way. Instead they merely isolate various aspects of the Gaelic system which distinguish it from English feudalism, and in this way assert the existence of i.

two qualitatively different social orders. | The two most important peculierities pf tje Gaelic system on which they concentrate are: the absence of primogeniture and the lack of absolute title of ownership, But neither of these affect the essence of feudalism Primogeniture was not always and everywhere an inherent feature of feudalism.4e Professor Strayer points out, "In the early middle ages there was no rule of primogeniture and no preference for descenéents through the male line, Thus while there was a tendency to give counties only to men who had some tie of kinship with previous counts, there could easily be a dozen or so candidates who had such ties." (30)

ae Gm SUEUR ne EEREREE Ee If primogeniture is absent, then absolute title of ownership cannot exist since the noble is unable to pass on his holding as he pleases, in this ease title is dependent solely on office, In other words the nobles interest in his title is more or less limited to his own life time, Bo, on this point also we must admit that absrlute ownership is not necessary to the functioning of the feudal order, The confusion which arises on matters such as these can easily be cleared up with the help Sf a scientific definition of feudalism. To aid us here, we have ready to hand the work performed by Maurice Dobb, M.A., under the tutelage of Stalin himself. Notwithstanding the B.1I.C.0.srecent discovery that this particular mentor of theirs has been a life long: revisionist we believe that they will find his definition of feudalism unexceptional , Feudalism, according to Dobb, is defined essentially in terms of "an obligation, laid on the producer ty force and independently of his own volition, to fulfill certain economic demands of an overlord, whether these demands take the form of services to be performed, or dues to be paid in money or kind", (31) If we go y such a definition than there is no doubt that the social order which existed in Ireland was feudal in character, By the 16th century, this system prevailed in most areas, It was spread over most of Ulster, parts of the Northern Midlands, North, West and South Connacht, Thomond, parts of West Cork and Kerry, the central and South midlands, and parts of Wexford and Wicklow. The system was characterised by the typical hierarchial structure of feudselisn, Society was divided between two distinct social entities, the freeman and the peasantry, The freeman themselves were divided into a number of categories, professional people, and lower and higher grades of ef the land owning lords. The lower grade of the nobility was the most numerous stratum of the class of freemen, These nobles were subordinate to their overlords by a system of ‘clientship, which was characterised by the over lord advancing them livestock while guaranteeing protection and the underlords paying interest on this livestock and reciprocating this guarantee of protection. (32), Groups of such subordinate nobles as were under the the same lord formed:s distinct unit called the tuath, and groups of adjacent tuatha formed even greater units kmown as ur-riogha, building up in the form of a pyramid, Traditionally, the tuatha was Supposed to be a democratic institution governed by the members. However, by the 16th century, the overlord had usually usurped authority. "Although historically" says Hayes McCoy “political power in the tuatha belonged to the freemen gathered together in assembly, the lord, captain, chieftain or kin of the tuatha (the titles as reported are various) appears by the 16th century to have assumed effective rule in his own person", (33) : As we remarked above, inheritance through primogeniture had not yet been , established, though we may note that it did exist temporarily in the = relative stability following the Norman invasion, But the absenee of primogeniture does not mean that there was no form of inheritance,

= [6 = oe In fact inheritance in a vider form existed within the legal family, the dertfine, which was composed of a four generation group, including sone, grandsons and great-grandsons, InheritaRce passed through this grouping and a narrowing in towards primogentitur was proceeding through the system which grew up after the Norman invasion. Under this systemthe successor within the derbfine was chosen while the leader of the derbfine, and ultimately of the whole tuath, was still alive, The ultimate/ aieor ae SEES system concerns the system of landownershin It is often asserted that the land was owned in common by the "clan", and wag periodically redistributed among the members. It is true that gavelkind still prevailed, but only in a form which guerenteed a certain security of tenure, When contemporary historical records speak of redistribution they are referring only to alterations in the pattern of be'fings., Very often as a dominant tuath expanded, additional parcels of land had to be carved out for the new freemen which frequently resulted in portions of the lands of lesser freemen being annexes. Again this reallocation was confined to the derbfine and did not occur on the more general plane of the sept or tuath, "Periodic redistribution appears to have taken place within the derbfirie and not within the sept as a whole, and id not mean, as Davis claimed, that no man's holding was fe*ined, In the inhabited parts of the country every acre had its owner and each kmew what he was entitled to, says Hayes McCoy (34).

THE CATHOLIC PEASANTRY

It is difficult to frame a unified picture of the conditions and life style of the peasantry under this system. From the meagre information we possess, however, it is evident that the BICO have an entirely erronous impression of what the Catholic Peasantry's existeice and mode of behaviour was like, They certainly were not the indolent, docile mass, which the BICO have depicted. They neither submitted willingly to their aristocracy, harkened back to their tribal origins or squandered away their time and energy. On the latter point an annonymous Elizabethan testifies that "There are two sorts of people in Ireland to be considered of, the Kern and the Chorle. The kern breed up in Idleness and naturally inclined to mischief and wickedness, the chorle willing to labour and take pains, if be might peacefully enjoy the fruits thereof," (35).

When we piece together the evidence of competent authorities we cannot avoid the conclusion that a new form of ten ure was emerging and parallel with this, that the peasantry was acquiring sturdy and indepedent traits.

Montgomery, who was no Catholic nationalist, says in his prizewinning essay of 1888, that "Ireland was steadily progressing towards a modern system of land tenure (at the beginning of the 16th c. - J.C.), The extensive growth of the power of the chief makes it evident that in reality the practical development of tenure and even primogeniture was not far distance", (36) George Campbell, who again could hardly be mistaken for a C,tholic Nationalist in his 1869 account, dealt more extensively with the mode of tenure as it affected the ordinary peasantry. From his examination of some legal records and with his wide knowledge of the history of land tenure in Furope and India, he was confident that the village system operated in Ireland during the Tudor period,

ey ae "There can be no doubt" he says "that the village system formerly prevailed in Ireland, The whole system of settlement and valuation is based on it to the present day, the town-lands being exactly preserved, though the villages have generally dissolved into separate forms". (37 ‘.

After examining the records of a villeinage in Westmeath in 1682, Campbell draws a sketch of a typical feudal manor. The land was divided into shares a called "plough lands", end the villagers managed their own affairs and paid their rent in lump to the "landlord". ‘The function of the lord was merely to collect the rent and settle disputes amongst the villagers. (38).

Parallel with the development of tenure the peasantry was also steadily developing as 4 separate social entity, conscious of itsinterest in their holdings and challenging the absolute supremacy of the nobles, As early a8 medieval times the peasantry or betaghs, as they were kmowm, began to assert themselves in struggle, Admittedly, these betaghs were bound to the soil and might be recovered if they fled, and were obliged to perform labour services for their lords. But by the 13th century these services had been commonly commuted to money rent and the process whereby the peasantry would inevitably be emancipated was in motion. Professor Jocelyn Otway—Ruthven has pointed. out that, whole theoretically the peasant might have been-a tenant-at-will, in reality his tenancy was secure by established custom, i.e. by class struggle "It is clear from the enumeration of the betaghs obligations given by the rentals" says Otway-Ruthven "that he was in fact protected by fixed custom, And when labour services had been generally commuted for money rent the anticipation of the betaghs or villeins was well in sight", (39) By the 16th century we find many references to the resistance and independen-s< of the peasantry. It was not uncommon for the entire inhabitants of an estate to band together and abandon their lord if conditions were not to their satisfaction. (40). For instance we find the Bishop of Cork writing that the petsantry of Munster “continued not past three years in a place but ran roving about the country like wild men fleeing from one’ place to another", (41) and other examples of this practice, particularly in the North, can be gleaned from the correspondence of Davis and Cecil, i At all events, the peasantry was not a feckless mass which took no interest in individual private ownership of the land. It is true that the evolution of abolutist feudalism in England cut across the path of Ireland's natural development, The Tudor intervention in Ireland led to incessant war and strife which put a break on the consolidation of the peasants drive towards a more advanced form of tenure. ‘While this may have prevented the emergence of «= mass national movement amongst the peasantry, it was not sufficient to negate the consciousness and tradition which had already been established. And when the conquest and expropriations of the 16th century lead to the decom position and final disintegration of the Gaelic system, the Gaelic peasantry was not incapable of taking advantage of the new situation. The Catholic-— Nationalist economic historican, George O'Brien, who held no brief for the new system imposed by "the foreigners" was forced to admit that "the tenants on the confiscated land were in a relatively good position owing to the customs which were growing up and which were becoming generally recognised" (42).

2 {2 a es Ee Another Catholic Nationalist historian, Sigerson, testifies to the same development, Apart from these, however, there are. more "objective" accounts. Montgomery points out that while the Gaelic nobility was removed from the land in the Cromwellian plantation the ordinary tenantry was not interfered with, They were not despised by the new owners as mere barbari: ans who could not be harnessed to produce a steady ground rent. On the contrary, says Montganery, "The earth tillers were kept in their holdings for several. reasons; firstly they had always been a fairly quiet and toilsome class, and when freed from the influence of the disquieting element .., might be expected to develop into a peaceful tenantry", (44). Montgomery goes on to say that the peasaniry was admitted to fixity of tenure even after the plantations. He draws attention to the fact that Petty, in his famous survey of the confiscated estates, calculated that they were worth only two-thirds their total value to their new owners since a third of the value was held in the form of leases by the tenantry. "This appears to prove conclusively that he did not regar! them (the ordinary peasants - JC) as mere tenants at.will".. (45), add Montgomery.

George Campbell also testifies along the same lines. He says that, after the expropriations "The country was gradually recovering from the effecis of war and depopulation and the general tendency during the greater part of the time was rather for landlords to compete for tenants than for tenants to compete hotly for land, The external pressure which kept the village system together being removed, that system gradually ¥ at to pieces ... Without protection of law, the idea of property in their holding again took hold of the Irish mina".

(48). Indeed, in Campbell's views, a situation was rapidly develoying where the new aristocracy would have been quite willing to concede and rcognise fixity of tenure and fair rents as a general principle governing tieir : relationship with the Catholic peasantry. (47) =. | By the beginning of the 18th century the consciousness of the peassntry was at a high enough level, and its traditions of struggle sufficiently mtrenched to steel them against total disintegration and demoralisation under ‘he great —~ pressures of the next two centuries which were to elapse befwre the land‘ ~ “question waa finally solved... The odds mounted against them were tremendous fhe’ twin aims of English rule in Ireland, as manifested in the penal laws was ‘to abort ecoriomic development and prevent ownership of the lmd from falling into the hands of the Catholic masses, Central to this policy was the system of absentee landlordism, which was imposed on most of Ireland, This was & massive stumbling block on the road to the ereation of a aistom in the whole of Ireland, similar to the Ulster Custom, or customs whick prevailed in i: st of Europe, Without direct contact between the peasantry and their landlords 7% was ‘impossible to consolidate customary.rights since the landlords had no intimate knowledge of the proceedings on their estates, nor indeed had many of them even laid eyes on them". The curse of absentee owners" says " Montgomery'is responsible in a great measure for that total wart amongst the lowest tentants of contintity in their holdings which prevclited the growth of customary rights" (48).

cage i rn However, notwithstanding the great difficulties, the Catholic peasantry were able to enforce customary rights, albeit of an elementary nature and at a great price. Taking a look at conditions in the first half of the 19th century, we can searcely find the BICO's "helpless peasantry" (49). Campbell remarked that in theory the landlord was supposed to be absolute owner of his land, In practice, however, this was far from being the case. In the North East where the Ulster tenant right prevailed it was otviously not so, end in the South the issue was less clear cut "by an infinitely more disagreeable process, a sinilar result is arrived at ... viz, that the theoretical landlord cannot do what he likes with what he considers to be his land" (50), Campbell readily concedes that the Ulster custom did not exist in the South. But this is not to say that the Southern tenants were a "helpless peasantry" at the mercy of the landlords, “A tenant" says Campbell "seldom goes without being bought out by someone, and the feeling of the country is that in some way, regular or irregular, he is entitled to something which amount to selling his holding" (51). The fact that such a custom could develop gives the lie to the BICO's punch-like caricature of the Catholic peasantry, We have then, a picture placed against the background of subsequent developments which, while not exaggerating the leve. of progress reached by the Catholic peasantry in the 16th and 17th century differs radically from the popular image and deseriptions given by the BICO, When we place side by side the picture of the peasantry already in Ireland and the picture of the Scottish peasantry, which eventually came to the North East as a settler community we cen imagine the differences which the BICO sees only through the most sweeping and unconvincing generalisations, A difference there may have been, but it was not an epochal difference, a fifference which took as the BICO claims, two centuries to bridge!

THE PEASANT STRUGGLES IN ULSTER

If then, the BICO grossly exaggerates the difference between the Protestant and Catholic peasantry, how are we to explain the subsequent gap which widened between them? How did the Protestant peasantry secure permanent tenure and a right to compensation for improvements made, while the Catholic peasantry remained systematically excluded from these rights?

The BICO deny that this development had anything to do with official favouritism towards the Protestant community, Indeed, they go so far as to say that the Protestant peasantry was oppressed ag much as the Catholic peasantry, With a sweeping statement that the Protestant peasantry came under the operation of the penal laws, the BICO imagine that their point is adequately proven. (52), There is no need to labour a refutation of this. The fact that the BICO are forced to adopt such flimsy arguments is evidence of the bankruptcy of the Two Nations Dogma. Suffice it to say that only one subsection of one of the seven Penal Acts against the Catholic population, affected the Presbyterian peasantry. This was the sacramental test act included in the sixth penal enactment of 1705. While it placed limited political restrictions on those who were not prepared to abide by the Test (and these by no means included the whole Protestant or even Presbyterian community) it did not affect their property rights in the slightest. By contrast almost all the penal enactments contained some element of economic repression against the Catholics.

Parallel with this the BICO claim that the Protestant peasantry hac to fight tooth and nail for their rights and they attempt to conetruct a history of that strugele. Significantly enough this struggle is represented as only beginning midway through the 18th century. The crucial century and a half before this, in which the essential internal social relations of the settler community were moulded, is not analysed at all. When we come to examine the opinion of the Protestants themselves on the origin of their rights we will find the good reason for which the BICO skipped over this period. For the moment, however, we will examine the BICO's "new" addition to Irish history. (53) Firstly, it should be noted that only two periods of struggle are mentioned: 1700-1772, and making a jump of nearly a whole century - the land strugzle which resulted in the Gladstone reforms. This episodic form of struggle is hardly the stuff out of which land customs are forged. The strained method of argument is again evidence of the bankruptcy of the BICO's theorising.

It should be noted that these two periods are not Aresentative of the peneral relations which existed between the Protestant peasantry and the aristocracy over the three centuries of their existence. The turmoil.of the mid-18th century had specific and exceptional causes. And it could not have been otherwise, for as the BICO themselves recognise "Onee the system (of the Ulster Custom - JC) had been established it would not have been in the interests of the landowners to revert to the system of rack rent. (54) : Around 1760 the price of provisions rose significantly and this made 2 turn from cultivation to pasture, usually through the medium ef some urban entrepreneur, a profitable proposition. Perhaps nothing would have come of this in the North-East, where established custom governed the calm relations betw__n peasant and landlord except for two important facts : (1) the existence of = small nucleus of absentee landlords, who by the fact of their absenteeism, Lud little respect for the custom. These were the wealthier and more politically important of the landlords, and they set an extremely bad exemple for the rest of their society. And (2) around this time many of the original leases from the begirming of the plantation fell through and placed enormous temptation in front of the landlords. Given these exceptional circumstances there was bound to be friction. The period of turbulence which had been smouldering on since 1760 flarec up in 1770 on the estate of the wealthy absentee Lord Donegal. ‘When the leases of his tenants expired he demanded an impossible fine of £100,000 on renewal. ‘hen the tenantry failed to comply they were evicted, and the estate was let to some prosperous Belfast merchants. This example was immediately followed by another wealthy proprictor, Clothworth-Uption, and they by the lesser aristocracy. “A precedent go tempting and lucrative" says Froude "was naturally followed, Other landlords finding the trade profitable began tc serve their tenants with notices to quit", (55) It is true that the peasantry resisted strongly. The history of their resistance has been covered by the Catholic Nationalist historian, Frances Joseph Bigger, and it is not essential to recapitulate on it here.

It is, however, necessary to say that the resistance of the Protestant peasantry was only one_ clement in the causes which preserves the Ulster Custom at this stage, Another esspntial clement was the pressure exerted from within the Anglo Irish aristocracy, and the British Govermment, Archbishop Boutler recognised that any intensification of the struggle would have had diastrous effects for the ascendency. "But the worst of this is" he wrote "that it tends to unite protestant with papist and whenever that happens, goodbye to the English interests in Ireland for ever". (56) Boutler was astute cnough to see the folly of the aristocracy's behaviour and favourably presentec the case of the tenantry to Walpole. King George III also showed signe of worry about the situation and ordered his Viceroy, Townsend, to make it known to the landlords that he was not pleased with their new "infatuation" (57), And Townsend himself had already been trying to do this by introducing into the Irish Parliament a bill protecting the tenants, With the massive emigration which occured during this period it is not extravagant to say that the Ulster Custom might possibly have been abolished or seriously altered had not the economic motivation of the landlords come into conflict with British policy in Ireland regarding the maintenance of a loyalist garrison. Bigger, who in accordance with the democratic content of his Catholic Nationalist philosophy, is inclined to emphasise the resistance of the Protestant peasantry, is nonetheless forced to admit that "by the middle of 1772 the agitation had become less fierce, not by reason of the hearts of steel growing less determined, but because undertakers and magistrates increasingly became more moderate in their dealings, in face of the storm that their many high handed acts had provoked, and also in view of heir conduct" (58) After this episode calm returned once more to Ulster. Not rntil the second half the the 19th century do we again find substantial conflict. Once again specific causes were at the root of it. After the famine the Irish ‘aristocracy in general had become not only politically obsolete, but econemically bankrupt. The British liberal bourgesisie were anxicus to liquidate them ané thereby eliminate one of the more backward supports for the Tories.

The aristocracy itsclf was willing to be liquidated, provided the price was right, From 1649, with the passing of the Encumbered Estates Act, the process of buying cut the lan@lords was underway. It was such 4 profitable business that even the comparatively sclvent aristocracy of the North-Gast joined in, and in the North as well as the South many estates began to pass into the hands of financial speculators. The sole motivation of these speculators was private profit and they had little time or regard for the customs which had grown up between tenant and landlord. “The new proprietors", says the English liberal, Thomas MacKnight, who spent many years in Belfast acted on commercial considerations, They were generally less indulgent to the tenants “9 than the old owners. They considered that all they had legally bought they | had a right to sell", (59). Thus in tho death throes cf the land system as it existed in most of Ireland, the position of the Pretestant tenantry became momentarily insecure. They were in the paradoxical position that while the rest of Ireland was progressing towards fixity of tenure, they who had always had it, were now in a precarious state. Understandably they fiercely resisted all infringements by their new masters on the rights they had grown accustomed to,

at Another aspect of the agrarian conflict at the time was the collapse of agricultural prices and the fall in the value of land, In this situation the tenants share in the land left him at a loss. When he went to gel] -hia tenant right he found it was lamost worthless, and the pittance he received om sale was more likely than not seized by the landlord in payment for arrears accumulated during times of distress, The weakmess of the Ulster Custom, coupled with the change in the ownership of the land - rather than any major attempt on the part of the landlords to abolish the custom -— were responsible for the agrarian unrest in the North-East during the last decades of the 19th century. In treing to construct & history of agrarian struggle for the Protestant peasantry, which would explain the existence of the Ulster custom in a way compatable with the theory of a sturdy Protestant community developing into a mation, the BICO simultancously igmores the popular feelings of - the Protestant peasantry on the subject, and unwittingly adapts the stand point of & certain section of the landed aristocracy. As the British liberal BPUERSPARRS ry Rad UST Fr eaT Ts #he ground from under the aristrocracy hse: aristrocricy fought vainly to % ‘Sin tHETP"d1a influence and prestige. They realised that the legal recognition of the Ulster custom which the peasantry was demanding, in the context of a capitalist solution to the land question, ‘ould mean the end of the line for them, They were therefore hostile to any = steps in that direction, their favourite argument being that the Ulater custom was the result of aprarian outrages and it would be a gross profanity to enshrine it in legal eode. The argument of the landlords was not taken seriously by anybody (except until now by the BICO) and least of all by the Protestant tenantry. They remained firmly convinced that the Ulster custom was a special concession to them in return for their counter-revolutionary services to Britain and the ascendency. <A popular ballad addressed to the landlords, during the second period of conflict shows the views of the tenantry: ré "Wa have been kinsmen of your blood ané clansmen to your names; find now our rights, but favours none, we're asking at your hands; We gave gur Yeéomen services - we'll keep out Yeoman lands” (60) This verse expresses succintly what the peasantry, anc indeed most historians of the Ulster Plantation and Protestant community, imew to be a fact of history.

dames McKnight, who was the most popular spokesman for the Ulster tenantry, and who hag been described "as one of the greatest authorities on the Ulster land question from the tenants points of view" (61), countered the landlords’ argument in a pamphlet entitled "The Ulster Torrnt Right - an original srant from the Crown, MeKnight states four different reasons why coneessions had to be granted te the Protestant peasantry. Firstly, without such concession: no-one would have been willing to risk their lives and the lives of their families in coming to Ireland (62). Secondly, the aristocracy needed the plebian masses to protect them against the dispossessed Irish snd consequent.

had to woo them (63). Thirdly, the provisions of tks Ulster plantation, as outlined in the "Gelléction of Such Orders and Conditions as are to be obser by the Undertakers upon the Distribution and Plantation of the #scheated Lands of Ulster", specifically excluded the return of the outcast Irish,

a The only meaningful way this could be done was through granting fixity of tenure to the Protestant peasantry. Even common sense would tell us, that ‘such,a ¢c necsrion was essential to the success of the Plantation (64).

Finally, the Plantation was conceived not solely with financial profit in view. If that had been the case, as he himself pointed out, King James would have kept the plantation lands for himself. But in fact an important aspect of the exercise was to plant a loyal garrison in Ireland, and it th. have been counter-productive to have installed a divided community.

65). After examining the historical records concerning the Ulster Plantation, M'Knight comes to the following set of conclusions: "(1, That the lands of Ulster never were granted, in simple, feudal ownership, to the original proprietors, who could therefore convey to their successors only such title as they themselves held from the crown and no other. "(2, That for purpose of state, the money terms required from these were made unintentionelly easy; "(3 One object of this lenientcy was that, they might be enabled to share the benefits of their own bargain with the tenant settlers, for the better encourssement of the Plantation.

"(4 ‘That this was also one special object of making ‘fixity of tenure’ to be a universal law of the Ulster Plantation, in order that the cultivators as well as the owners, of the soil, might have a "CERTAIN estate! or interest in it.

"(5 That the successors of the original Undertakers, and, in fact, all persons drawing titles from them, were held by the Crown, agreeably to its ovm declared INTENTION at the time, to be BOUND by the Articles of the Plantation, EQUALLY with the individuals to whose RIGHT they have succeeded.

"(6 Henee, these successional landlords were bound, in every instance to make fixed ‘estates' to their tenantry, and this too at RENTS proportionate to the easiness of their own, "(7 Hence, also if the landlords were BOUND by the Crown to GRANT fixed tenures their tenantry had, to under the Crown, a RIGHT to fixed temures, and this by the VERY TERMS of the Plantation Articles". (66) We have, above then, M'Knicht's view of how the Ulster custom arose. After such a long quotation we hope that we will not be overtaxing the patience of our readers if we present the testimony of yet another important authority, ‘The most substantial historian of the Ulster Plantation, the Rev. George Hill wrote that special- concessions were made to the aristocracy to attract them to Ireland" ... but the benefits which they thus secured", he adds, "they were obliged to share with their tenants, by letting their lands on the most liberal terms ... This was done to secure what was called 'Civil Plantation’ or an arrangement which would work well in every particular for the peace and welfare of the settlement in Ulster" (67).

=e)

LANDLORDS AND THS ULSTER CUSTOM

The obverse side of the BICO's contention that the Protestant peasantry armed with their democratic traditigns, forced the Ulster custom on the landlords, is the view that the landlords were in constant fear of the peasantry, The picture which they project is one of an aristocracy terrorised into concesding some of its most fundamental property privileges to the plebian masses. In their typically schematic mamner, the BICO glean a few appropriate passages from the four monsterous volumes of the Devon Commission Report and rest content that theyhhave clinchedthe argument, The substance of the matter, however, cannot be clouded by a few isolated quotations, no matter how well chosen. There were many food reasons why the aristocracy, far from being coerced, willingly conceéded these privilges which in the words of the Devon Commission, were "either authorised or connived at by the landlords", The principle reason was the aspect of the eustom which particularly favoured the landlords. It must, of course, be realised, even if we accept the BICO's simplistic position, that the custom was not simply & surrendering by the aristocracy to the peasantry, btt more precisely & compromise which suited the landlords long term interests. The custom suited the landlords in that it ensured regular and continuous payment of rentlf a tenant defaulted it was sgreed by the custom that the landlord was entitled to delete arrears due, from the sale of the tenants right, find in the last resort the customs guaranteed the landlord sovereign right ever his property, since it permitted him first option on the tenant right once a sale price had been arranged on the open market, Considering this it should come as no surprise to learn that the passages and quotations which the BICO use to substantiate their position are of an extremely one-sided nature. This is most notable in the segment presented from the state: ent of James Hancock (Lord Lurean's land agent) to the Devon Commission, Hancock, it is true, says that the peasantry resisted any interference with the custom, But it would be wrong to asmume from such an isolated passage that this was the reason why the custom remained in force.

In fact, earlier on in his statement he touches on a more likely explanation.

"I consider tenant right beneficial to the commmity", he says "because it establishes a security of land and leads to improvement of the estate, withous any expenditure of capital to the landlord, It likewise affords the best security for his rent, as arrears are always allowed to be deduced from the amount the occupier receives for tenant-right" (68).

Only the BICO could find anything strange in a landlord's agent preaching that what was beneficial to the landlords was "beneficial to the community"!

wr {

( NOTES AND REFERICES NEXT PAGE )

NOTES AND REFERENCES

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) "The Ulster Unionist Movement came nearer to comprehending the reality of Ircland as a whole than did the Nationalist Movement -+-" (The Heonomicsof Partition - 1972 ed. - p.46) See the original edition of The Economics of Partition.

George O'Brien, who has written a three volumm economic history of Ireland, and who was the most imminent of the Naticnalist economic historiang says: "We have seen that the failure of Southern manufacturers to intreduce improvements was due to their inability to amass capital owing to the jand system, and it is equally the fact that the reason Ulster was enabled to progress was because capital could be accumulated owing to an essential difference in the land system in the North, The Ulster custom which was observed throughout the Northern countries did away with the worse evils which characterised, the land system in the South by encouraging tenants to improve by ensuring that they would enjoy such capital as they succeeded in accumulating" (from a special ae to E.J. O'Riordan's Modern Irish Trade and Industry - 192u - Conrad Gill, whom the BICO more or less credit with the formulation of the "uneven economic development" theses did not publish his book until 1925, The Home Rule Crisis - pp (iii) Rev. E.M. Dill, The Mystery Solved - 1852 - p.34 ibid. p.92 e/f Aspects of Nationalism - p.37-38 The Eeonomics of Partition - 1972 ».t Abid - p.19 The original Economics of Fartition = p.14 , Here religion is correct y Viewed as an outgrowth of the productive forces, and not vice versa, I.F. Grant The Social and Economic Development of Scotland before 1603, (1930) ~ p.244 ibid. - p.243. ibid. p.247 "Feu was not a democratic movement. The payments which made it worth while to the superior to fen land were fairly heavy..." ibid. p.270 I

Shes (15) Henry Grey Graham - The social life of Seotland in the Highteenth Centuzy.

(1899) - vol. 1 p.201. (16) James E Leyburn "The Scotch Irish + a Social history pp xv. It should be noted that Leyburn is here referring specifically to the Lowlands, (17) ibid. p.11 (18) ibid, p.11 (19) ibid, - p.15 (20) ibid. p.15 (21) S.E. Elyths - The Economy of Seotland (1550-1625) p.169.

(22) ibid. p.215 - 216 (23) Donaldson adds that the Scottish burghs preferred an alliance with England because the incessant wars and. disputes between both countries was disrupting commercial development. Their support for the Reformation he holds was conditioned by this fact - Gordon Donalson - The Scottish Reformation — p.46 (24) T.C. Smert A History of the Scottish People (1560-1830) - p.60 (25) The ridiculously simplistic approach of the BECO is seen in the follow 1g passage: "In the last half of the 16th century Scotland was undergoing a profoun” bourgeois democratic revolution against fuedalism, An important ¢conor .2 feature of this was the struggle for bourgesis rights on the land, Culturally, it involved a break with the Catholic Church, which was the cultural and instititional backbone of fuudalism", (26) Smout Op.Cit. p.95 (27) R.H. Tavmey, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (Peter Smith 1962) - p.127 (28) The Economies of Partition - 1972 - p.14 (29) Speaking of the Gaelic system, the BICO says: "But the ceneral opinion was that the chief did not have feudal ownership. Even the assumption that Gaclic society was feudal makes many things inexplicable".

Was Connolly a Bourgeois Intellectual?" — p.28 (30) Joseph R. Strayer - Feudalism - p.32 (31) Maurice Dobb, M.A. Studies in the Development of Capitalism (Internat, pub. 1963) - p.35 (32) G.A. Hayes McCoy - Gaclic Society in Ireland [x3 in the Iate Sixteenth centur in Historical studies Vol. IV (1963) - 1.47

a Te (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54) ibid. - p.54 Most authorities base their assessment of the Gaclic system on the observation of Davis, whom the BICO praise as a sharp social analist.

But it must be noted that Davis had a vested interest in claiming that security of tenure did not exist in the Gaelic system since he was preparing the case for the mass expropriation of the Gaelic nobility.

T.W. Moody, "The Londonderry Plantation - p.48. See also Ireland 1607-1732_ (ed. ) James Carty, where George Hill is quoted as saying that the native peasantry were as dedicated as the Scottish and English settlers, to agriculture pursuits - p.40 W.E. Montgomery The History of Land Tenure in Ireland (1889) p.69. ‘This essay won the York prize in Cambridge in 1888, George Campbell The Irish Land (1869) -— p.27 ibid. p.32-35 Professor Jocelyn Otway-Ruthven. The Native Irish and English Lew in Medieval Ireland in Irish Historical Studies, Vol, VII no.25 March 1950 p.10 Campbell - Op,.Cit. p.33 Hayes McCoy = Op.Cit. p30, George O'Brien "The Economic History of Ireland in the p.53 18th Century (1918) George Sigerson, History of Irish Land Tenure, p.103 Montgomery Op,Git. p.80 ibid. p.80 Campbell Op.Cit. p.34 ibid. p.35 Montgomery Op.Cit. p.92 The Economics of Partition - 1972 - p.17 Campbell, Op.Cit. p.6-7 ibid. p.54 The Economics of Partition -— 1972 - p.10 Even this is not an original coneoction of the BIG, It is plaguerised, without acknowledgement understandably enough straight from the Orange ideologist Hugh Sherman - c/f Anglo Irish Relations - p.44—45 The Economics of Partition - 1972 - p.6

2G (55) J.A. Proude The English in Ireland in the 18th Century (1874) Vol. 2 p.120 (56) Quoted in P.J, Brigger The Ulster Iand War of 1770 = p.22 (57) ibid. p.29 (58) ibid. - p.105 O,r emphasis, As (59) Thomas MacNight Ulster/It is (1896) Vol. 1. p.107 (60) George Gavan Duffy = The League of North and South pe26. The Yeomen were a counter-revolutionary, militia, closely linked with the Orange Oz ar end the aristocracy, which ruthlessly suppressed the '98 uprising and harried and persecuted the Catholic peasantry.

(61) 2. MacKnigzht Op. Cit. p.97 As far as we imow the gentlemen were not related (62) James MacKnight The Ulster Tenant Riz + (1848) - p.15 (63) ibid. p.39 (64) ibid, p41 (65) ibid, ps24 (66) avid, p.25 Emphasis in original throughout.

(67) Rev. George Hill The Plantation in Ulster 1608-1620. (1877) p.89 (68) Report of tHe -Devon Cosimi ssicn Vol. ’ p.484

THR. PLOUGH BOOK SERVICE.

For basic socialist writtings. Includes;

MARE. «ENGELS LENIN TROTSKY

The Communist Manifests Socialisn. imverialism... Permanent Revolutiss.

Wages Prices and Profit —, Scientific A4pril Thesis. Revolution Betrayed.

Wage Labour and Capital. & Utopian, One Step Forward... Fascist...

Also works by CUNMMOLLY , LUZEMBURG,etc. and a wide range of Trotskyist Literature. Write for catalogue to 5 Parnell Rd. tlarolds Cross, Dub.

READ TOS RED. Mais ( Organ cf the International Marxist Group } ( British section of the 4th Inter, -) Write to the 1.M.G. at: I8Z Pentonville Rd London 1.2. Tel: LON—+637-9967

document.{ REPORT OF TSE SOCIALIST. PARTY OF IRSLAHD TO Tim 3rd TNTERMATICNAL.

SES SPECIAL NOTE OM PAGS 34}

The first attemot at establishing a sccialist varty in Ireland was made by James Connolly on his return from Scotland to Dublin in 1&6. Gathering a few friends arcund him he embarked upon propa ganda which issued in 1&8 in the production of a weekly paner called the "Workers! Republic." By 1903, the Irish Socialist Renublican Party, as it was called, had been almost completely extinguished in Dublin and Corl, the twe centres in which it was established, to an unrelenting secncnaall nersecution of its members by the Nationalist and Cathslic reactionaries. Its members were scattered abroad, Ccnnclly and other members going to -the United States, others to Great Britain and the British Colonies.

The files of the "Werbers' Republic" of -that-nerisd-shew-the vassage of the Irish Secialist Republican Party from the stage of socialdem cratic nolitical vorepaganda with a programe of valliative measures to that of rev-luticnary socialism, basing itself uncn the industrial organisation of the working class, without denying ti its self any field oR gad nm uonm which it could meet and do battle with the forces of cani Bef=re passing from the work of the I.§.RP., it igs well tc observe that t was the first Irish crganisatison of any. lind to exnress in a public manner the hostility «f the Irish peosle in general to the piratical nolicy of the British Emmire in attack ‘ing the South African Republic and the Orange Free State in 18{°=-1903. The lead then given with a courage that none of the bourge>is parties could muster decided the attitude -f the Trish nation. Anti-recruiting work was very effectively done by the vnarty and several members were arrested.

In 1504,the Sccialist Party of Ireland was founded by the survivors of the I.8.R.2>., and maintained the revolutionary traditicn. In the industrial struggle between 1567 and 1:14, its members were the unnaid vronasandists of direct acticn who welcomed the work cf James Larkin in founding the Irish Transnort and General Werkers' Unicon established in 1S0S to be an industrial union of Irish workers. James Connolly's return t> Ireland in 1510, restored ts the varty an asset of immense intellectual and nrracti cal valve. Operating at first as the Partyts organiser, he and they recognised that, in the then industrial and Psychological condition of the country, the propaganda of sccialism, anart from industrial organisation was an alm-st hopeless task. Joining the Irish Transyert Wrokers' Union as Ulster organiser, James Conno lly continued tc work for bath sides of the mcvement.

The capitalists of Ireland realised the extreme danger of the Socialist form of organisation, teaching and practising the solidarity of labour in every inlustrial disnute, and in 1°13° the federated emmloyers

ee of Dublin began a series of lock-cuts against the I.T.G.W.U. The struggle was maintained for tw: years wotil the outbreak of the War in lsi4. The British Government in Ireland, all the p litical parties, (ammnz which the Nationalist (Jlome Rule) Party was predeminant), the noress, and the clergy, both Catholic and Protestant, co-operated with the employers against the workers, a telling lesscn in class solidarity, valuable in @ subject nation whose neovle had always been taught to regard every Irishman as a brother.

Cn the outbrea’ of the War in August 1514, the Socilist Party had no doubts or hesitaticn, It declared war uncon war and disrlayed the legend "We serve neither King nor Kaiser." Co-overating with it were such peonle as Francis Sheehy-Sheffingtcn, who was a nacifist socialist, but the S.?.1I. was not pacifist but anti-militarist.

During the 1513-14 loc!.-out the savage attacks by the »olice uwoon the workers had jed to the f-rmation of the Irish Citizen Army: a military foree commesed solely «f wrkers for the vrotection of the pecnle from capitalist viclence. On the denarture of Larkin t. America, James Connolly took command of the Irish Citizen Army, verfected its equipment and »repared te tale action when the om yrtune moment arrived.

The Citizen Army was nliedged ts fizht for the Rev-luticn but its membersiin was small and practically confined t Dublin.

There was als: in existence the Irish Volunteers, a much more extensive organisation, established t» win the political indenendence of Ireland.

Connolly.effected an alliance and imdled the Iris: Volunteers mward epen war. At the crucial moment, the commanding ufficer of the I.V.

counter-manded the mobilisation crders for Easter Monday 1616, and in consequence the rising of Waster Weel. was confined to Dublin. The leaders of the Volunteers who to-k un arms cn that cecasion, men like ?., rearse, and Sean MacDermtt, were those who had reached identity of outlook with Connolly during the pre-war inductrial struggle. The result of the conflict was the surrender of the Irish Forces after a week's siege cf Dublin by 66,000 British trocos who had at their command all the resources of m.dern armament, During the week, no movement of Critish lab-ur tock nlace to assist the insurgents. Sritish labcur, indeed, was rendered useless and helsless at the crisis by the Social natrintism «f the trade unicnists and the Tolstoyan »acifism of the Socialists. It had been Connolly's hope to signal his fate to fail at the mement because Euronean Socialism, where it is powerful, was faithless, and where it was faithful was at the moment ~cwerless. is orally exnressed belief in his fellow rewoluticnaries? cco-oneration, is the justification cf the attemmt to begin in Ireland the >olicy that triumphed in Russia. Hany members “ff the Socialist Party narticinated in the struggle, some were filled in action: James Conn lly, a wounded orisoner cf war, was tr’ed by court-martial which assembled arcund his bed, and nlaced 1a cha'r, bis arms and legs fastened by bandages t- it and carried thus to the nlace «f execution and shon. At the mement -f the insurrect.on, the Prit sh Labour Party was in csaliticn with the bour-

Pinte se geois parties of Engtand, Mr. Arthur Henderson,.Hér. Ym, Bruce, and Mr. G.H. Roberts being members of the Minis —. am first mentioned having Cabinet rank. Naturally, the Secialist Party of Ireland did mot mdify its : eipoubtion to Inmerialism, recognising in it the mo8t complete expression of canitalism, It was reorganised in 1{17 after the release sf the interned pr soners and began such activities as the conditions permitted.

When the Russian Revolution occurred it was »romot t: reccgnise it and to point out that its progress mist be from political to indvst ‘ial from democracy to socialism. The call to Stockholm was resvonded ts and as no passports could be cbtained arrangements were on foot ts secure the passage sf the Party's delegates by cther means.

The definite triwmsh of the Bolshevii: forces was celebrated in Dublin by a startling demonstation, woich, by its size and enthusiasm astonished even the oremetors. About 16,000 people attended the meeting which overflowed from the Round Room of the Mansign liouse into the streets. The sneasers were with one or tw: exceotions all members of the Socialist Party, including Wm. 6'2rien, Secretary of the ‘ Irish Laboum Yarty and Trade Unicon Congress, Thomas Johnson, Treasurer r of the same, Catthal U*Shannon, editor of the “Voice «f Labour” and U.?. Coates at »resent organiser ff the "liands off Russia” movement in England. ea ‘ he, When Comrade Litvinoff came to Eng zland, a delegation from the Sccialist Party was sent to greet him and t: assure him cf the Party's co-operation with the Russian Proletariat.

When it was nrow sed to comveng.an International S.cialist conference at Berne tc re-constitute the Internatio mal, the Socialist | Party of Ireland decided unanimously to narticinate in it for tw reasons First: to cleanse the worlinzt class movement. from the elements -f social vatr otism and coalition with canitalism which had characterised, :n part cular, the British, French, Delgian, and German constituents during the war.

Second: to bring before the world the subject motte n of Ireland under a military terrorism fully endorsed by the Eritish Labsur Party.

The first aim was defeated by the abstention of the Cummunist elements, but our mandatories established friendly relaticns with the commnisis of Switzerland and France. The second cbject was attained by securing rublicity at Eerne and at the Amsterdam Commission a resclution was unanimously adonted called for unfettered self-determination fcr Ireland; a resoltuion which was »romotly belied by the British Labour Party.

But before the Amsterdam Commission had met, the Socialist Party had received the reportof its mandatories at Berne and had decided to cease all further commection with the 11 International.

OS a a EE

a The Marxian character of the Socialist Party of Ireland has been consistently maintained. Its Literature distribution department has grown steatily and has been confined ts: the works of Marxians.

Its wn publications have been the worss »f James Connolly and "The Vistorical basis of §cialism in Ireland" by T. Brady. The writings of Marx, Engels and Daniel De Leon have been steadily circulated dvring the past twenty years. ‘Jithin the nast three years, thousands of sampllets cn Russia, and by the Eolshevik leaders, have been sold.

‘me that had a sotent influence in affecting worl:ing class action is "Phe Land Revelution in Uussia™ by Lenin. Its circulation has been followed by wide soread demands for land by the landless labourers, and has resulted in the distribution of many large estates under the nressure of ponular feeling. While that is far short of a social revolution it is indicative of the quality of the Irish workers and their responsiveness to revoluticnary teaching.

Tie Irish Transvort and General Woriers' Unicn which now musters 130,900 members in the total of 250,U00 organised in the Irish Labour Party and Trade Unicn Congress, afforda the Socialist farty facilities fur the circulation cf this literature and for the conduct of oral “rcpaganda. The position of the I.T.G.W.U. in the Irish Labour movement and the significance of its strength relative t> tue entire body of Irish Labour, shows that the young industrial Unicn movement in Ireland, beginning under the auspices of the Socialist Party but having its greatest growth since 1516, bids fair to have a decisive influence in the destinies of the Irish Labour movement. Already the cne big Unicn is dominant and the work cf reorganising its internal structure is leening pace with its growth by the absorntion of craft and local unions. The S cialist Party has always maintained its indenendence of other nolitical varties. In the strugzle for national indevandence, while endorsing the claims =f the nation it has ceaselessly or:clained "Ii Sacirse gy Sacirse Lucht Sibre”® - "I> Freedom without the Freedom of the Vorling Class", It has invisaged that freedom as based uncon the econ Mic organisation of the actual workers. It has rejected alyays the idea of »n-litical administration of social industry and regarded particination in electoral struggles as a means of orc paganda only.

fhaus the Soviet organisation with the dictatershiy of the Sruletariat has arcused no controversy along us. B:th are fureshadwed in James Ccmncllyts "S-cialism made Zasy (Chaster 5). “The Jorierst Renublic" is our idiomatic nhrase which anticipated the recent spread of the nhrase "The dictatcrshi» of the froletariat". The content .7 both is identical. Laying the emhasis thus upon industrial organisation, the substance of power, cur members have given to the 1.7.9 G.i/.U. its sresent basis, wionm the direct revresentation of the workshe» in the Shon Stewards Committee, an integral mart of the Union's organigation. Werkshos Committees have been formed in all large slants. lecently in a dismite in the rural Creamery district, fourteen creameries were seized by the workers and overated by them as the "Soviet Creameries‘’, This was caly

mossible owing to the Linlcing of each creamery with the others in the Transnort Union Creamery Committee. Workers’ Councils are formed in all small towns and during the general strikes cf 1516-1515 and 1520 these Z councils have taken fyll ¢ontrol of ford swmlies and lindred matters, = some cases crdering the British police (an armed force) to be confined to barracks. The » licy cof the general strike has been adonted by the 2 Trish Labour Party ¥ Trades Union Congress with sreat success on three necasions. Gn the Zxecutive sf that body are four members of the Soviet (sic)(Sccialist) Carty of Ireland, to whose revolutionary initiative the Movement owes its renresentation for direct and fearless action. ‘Tw: of these members are William 0'Brien and Cathal o'Shannon, (editor of the Matchword of Labour) who have been immrisoned without trial and were released subsequent to the genenal strike, serine wich two members of the $.2.1., J.W. Burns and J.2. White, 5.9.4. Ex Cantain of the British Army) were “arrested for >rovaganda amongst the british soldiers.

Qn the side of education the party took the initiative in establishing the James Connolly Labour College, a federation of the Labour isvement f>r the purnose of Marxian education witiin the mvement, Courses of lectures in econcmics in industrial history and sublic speakiag have been given during the last two winters and work has been carried into the rupal distr’ cts. The Socialist Party has now got branches in Dublin, Belfast, C: irk, Newbri¢ge and Slig, and a larve number qT ce rresponding menibers in other narts cf the country. x The absence of big “ndustry with its corressonding ideclugy, the wide diffusion cf a svarse sonvulatien, the »redominance of agriculture carried on by small farmers, many cf them »easant sronrietcrs, the preeccumation of the pe nle with the Struggle against Eritish inp erialism have been cbstacles of -mm-rtance in oreventing the snoread of revolutionarr soc’alism, The terrvrism exercised, during, and, ina worse degree, since tie war, by the Erit.sh military occu: pation, has prevented oronaganda by means of lectures. “ur Comrade John McLean, of Glasgow, was ations those wh. have been »revented from addressing meetings under our auspices by sheer force -f arms. The terrorism has been approved and confirmed by the inaction .f the Eritish Labour Party, wiich indeed Hag its own reason to fear the Irish Socialist msvement. The friendly co-operation between the revoluticnary sections in Eritain (t'e 0.4.F.

the ‘Jorvers' Committees and the Yorlerst Socialist Federation and the official Labour lovement in Ireland, threatens the social-natrictism of the British Labour Carty with coscsiticn from within its own ranks.

That this opposition scrings from revolt against is own imserialisa, it dees not seem to realise.

On the other hand, the Sucialist Party of Ireland enjoys the results of its own lean work in the economic field, and the rrestige of James Conmully*s martyrdom. In nlace sf the unrelenting hostility with which he and his colleagues met in their rovaganda the revoluticnary messaze of Communism is heard gladly by the Irish neonle. In the last three

tk = years it has been impossible to respond t all the deuands made upon us by peonle to participate in the worl. [ut steadily pursuing the work of agitation and education, cons: lidating it by labour orga.nsation, that .s building uw the new society, c.-gnerating with the niti tant forces of discontent, and rejectins no weacon of offence azainst canitalism, the fegure is faced by vs with the hones insnired by the sumreme vict-ry won by cur Cmrades of the “ussian Revslutica.

(SPECIAL NOTS:- This cocument - the first time as far as we are aware that it has been made public, onsists cf a memrancum from the Sceialist Party of ireland, t: the Third International explaining its cree ‘and ~ litical nusitions. Unfcrtunately, because of »ressure cf space, we are unable tc give an untroducticn or colmentary on the history of the Sccialist Party of Ireland excest to say that it was founded with Connolly's participation and later changed its name to the Communist Party of ireland. We have in crm possessicg, a number er other such documents, as well as reproductions from the Irish Werker and Workers’ Renublic whic: we will be nblishing in future.

issues of the Marxist Neview. This we hove will give us sufficient opportunity tc comment.) BIRS NUA cr FEIMMELL'S TLIND REICH (continued from nage 5.)

irish paft of his original thecry of the Two/ilaticns - one which the B.I.C.9.

has never faced. lis belief in the revolutionary notential of the trish peasantry is shared with the C.P.I. (arxist-Leninist). Above ail his view cf regicnal assemblies is at the oresent stage a verfectly valid stratezy, but mot for the reasons he gives. Such assemblies will only be effective as bases for Socialist sevolutionary opposition tu the present crder, rather than as uncfficial bases for co-oneration with and peaceful develuticn cf the mowers cf that crder. For all its subjective revolutuicary sae cok. Nevin Street has failed tc distingvis: these aims, And this last fact points cut, <f course, the fact that within the limitations «f “Fenellisni nc successful so cial reveluticn will be pessible in ireland. And fcr this reason and others that have show, his views are only likely ts be accentable tc individuals with a vested interest in opposinz suck a revoluticn.

Nc, Fennell's views are reactic: 3 the fact that “evin Stkect can listen tc him is connected to its current failure tc coun political) the British initiative in Ilorthern Ireland, bcth are naked results of nolitical bankruptcy. Es part of their struggle against this, Revolutionaries must analysisi‘r. Fen mell's nolitics the better to expose him tc his discinles.

TROTSKY ON SELF-DETERMINATION CONTINUED. (continued from page 39) The recognition cf the right of every naticn to self-determination is for us o£ necessity fulfilled by the slogan of a democratic fedsraticn of all the leading nations, by the slogan of a UNITED STATES CF EUROPZ

document .2

THOTSKY CN NATIONAL SELF -DETERMIN ATION

( Trotskys position on the national question has been greatly distorted by his opponents. For instance we find people seriously arguing that he was opposed to the right of nations to self-determination. Such people have dared to propagate these distortions simply because Trotskys views have not beep available in English, or any other European language for that matter. As a contribution to the clarification of Trotskys position on this vital matter we publish below two articles,specially translated from the original by Marxist Review, As far as we know this is the first time that they have been published in the English language. )

NASUE SLOVO. (3-7-1615) THE MATION AND THE ECONOMY. -I

The recognition of the right cf every nation to self-—determination is part of the programme of Russian Social Democracy. This demand has its incrigins in the period of the revolutionary struggles of national bourgesis democracy. In the last analysis it means the recognition of the right cf every nation to state independence. Following from this flows the duty of Social Democracy tc oppose actively all regimes, where the fercable cohabitation cf nations and national fragments exists. and to sonport- denending cn conditions of nlace and time - the struggles «f nations and naticnal fragments against an alien naticnal yolk. But what is more: Social Democracy by no means casts aside the programme of national democracy as the unbridled social-itmerialists would have us do.

It cannct and will not be reconcil .ed with forcable retention by a state of national groups within the large state body, ostensitly in the interests of an economic development, which is being paralysed by divisions along national lines. But neither dos#® it make its own aim a miltiplic— ation of these divisions i.e. it does not tur the national principle intosome sort of historic absolute idea.

It is absolutely cleare that Social Democracy stands always and everywhere for the interest of economic development and opposes all political measures ,capable of helding it back. However it understands economic develonment, not as a self-sufficient, extra-social, productive-technical nrecess, but as the basis of the develonment of human society into its class groupings, with its national-political superstructure, ete. This point of view was , in the last analysis, not to ensure fcr local or

national capitalism success over the capitalism of other places and countries, but to ensure the systematic growth of man's power over nature.

Accordingly the class struggle of the proletariat itself is the most important factor.ensuring further development of the productive forcesby leading them out of the imperialist blind ally onto the broad arena of socialism, A state of nationalities and national groups, which exist through force, ( Russia and Austria are examples ) may without doubt for a certain time, develope the productive forces, by creating for them a broader internal market. But by generating the bitter struggles of national groups for influnce on the state power or by evoking ‘separatist’ tendencies - that is the struggle for seperation from that power - such a state paralyses the class struggle of the proletariat as the most important force of economictand historic progress in general, The proletariat is deeply interestedin the elimination of all artificial frontiers and barriers,” in the greatest possible extension of a free arena of economic development. But it cannot buy this aim for the kind of price which, above all disorganises its own historic movement, and thus weakens and lays low the most important productive force in contemporary society..The. ..

present day social-imperialists, mainly of the German tyne, reject the idea of self-determination as a ‘sentimental!’ prejudice of the past, and recommend yeilding to the iron necessity of economic development, so they propound as the supreme criteria, above the historically Limited Claims of nations, not some absolute need of economic progress but its specific historic form, which stands before us in the guise of imperialism. In the present war this is showing itself in ~- contradiction not only with the needs of further economic progress but with even the most elementary conditions of human existance : Democracy is and remains the the condition for the development of the proletsriet and the sole form in which it can weild state power. fPhis latter demands first a growth in the political-cultural independence of masses, their economic and political association on a bread field, their collective intervention in the fate of the country. Thus a national language, the tool of human intercourse, becomes at a certain stage of development, the most important instrument of democracy. The desire for national unity has thus comprised an indefeasible aspect of the movement of the period of bourgeois revolution. We see before us in backward regions - not only of Asia and Africa but of Europe too - the awakening of historically belated nationalities. And this is of necessity assuming the form of a struggle for national unity and national independence, and coming face to fece with the imperialist desire to break through the nationally defined framework of capitalist economy and creat by means of military violence a world empire.

In this process Social Democracy in no way identifies itself with the internally contradictory imperialist me hods of solving its ripening historic tasks. But just as little, if not less does it counterpose to imperialism, and more importantly, tc the progressive historic needs it is persuing, the bare national idea, That would be to think with a pitiful yulgar utopianism a la Herve that the fate of Europe will be decisively ensured if the state map cf Europe is brought intc conformity with its national map, if - ignoring geographic conditicns and economic links - Europe is parcelled up intc neat squares, each a nation state. France and

Ae . SS = en ee a re Germany in the past period approached a type of nation state. This by no means prevented their’ policy cf colonialism, nor their present plans to expand their frontiers - to the Rhine or the Somme: An independent Hungary , Bohemia or Poland will in exactly the same way seek an.oytlet to,the. sea by means of a violation of the rights of other nationalities, as Italy. is seeking to do at the expense of ‘the Serbs or the Serbs themselves at: the., expense cf the Albanians, National democracy, awakened by capitalism, iy which strives’ to wield as many elements of nations as possible into one econ—omic unit. But-it.is this very capitalism which strives everywhere it sets down reots te-expand the limits of the internal market as widely as possible.

tc creat as many favourable cutlets as possible tc,the world market, to impose its domination over regions with an agriarian tyne economy. The naticnal principle is for national capitalism neither an absolute idea ncr the final crowning of the edifice. It is cnly the springboard for a new lean in the direction of world domination. At the present stage of.

development, t @ national idea appears as a banner cf struggle against .

feudal-particularist barbarism or foreign military aggression. In the long term, by creating a seli-sufficient psycolcgy of national egoism, it beecmes itself a tool of imperialist barberism, The task consists in reconciling the claims of nations to autonomy with the centrailised needs.of economic development.

NASHE SLOVO (9-7-I915) THE NATION AND THE ECONOMY. - II.’

Social-nationalism amazed everyone, itself above all.!y its strength.

Almost without opposition, in the first period of the war, it took hold cf the strongest parties and organisations of the proletariat. But together with this suddenly discovered pewer went an extraordinary, thoroughtly disgraceful ideological bankruptcy. Not one serious attempt to think: things through theoretically, beginning to end! Decisions and actions, on which : sccialism depends for its life or death, are explained and justified with ~ .

contradictory and haphazard reasoning, in which political intuition freed © from any theory plays the most important role. The basic argument under= © pinning the social nationalist policy of a workers party is the idea of+ defence of the fatherland’. But none of the social patricts has yet was troubled himself with the sense to explain WHAT actually in the fatherland is threatened by danger and WHAT is subject to defence, The French socialists talk about the republic and revolutionary traditions - he is defending the past. The German pat rict quotes his powerful national industry, as the basis of socialism - he is defending the present. Finally. our ‘home grown .

social-nationalists quotes the interest of future economic developmentoof Russia, repeating all the old arguments and lying enough for two - he is defending the future. Each of them with more or less resclution is making the .attemnt to proclaim his own 'national!-interest as the hicher interr : = . ; gee Ss ioe :

nationalist interest of mankind, But each such attempt only introduces into the affair a more hopeless confusion. It is one of two things: either the international interest demands the defeat of Germany (or Russia) - in which case it is pointless talking about defense of the fatherland, since after all their are people in the world for whom Germany or Russia is the fatherland. Or on the other hand defence of the fatherland is an independent principle of proletarian policy - and then it is useless to attempt to reconcile this aim with a generally obligatory line of conduct for the international proletariat. For the defense of one fatherland demands the utmost destruction of another fatherland.

At the beginning of the war, Kautsky tried to determin that basic good in the name of which the proletariat bears its class independence to the bloody alter of defence of the fatherland. This good is the nation state, In the first article we spoke what a powerful factor of historic development, national-culturel unity is. It would be necessary to add, that a state (that is the fatherland) is the more sub;.ct to defence, the more it approaches a type of nation state. It is exactly thus that Kautsky poses the question. But then the question ar’:e* *= to what éxtent the proletariat of Austro-Hungary, and more importantly of Russia also, can and must defend its fatherland? From the point of view of Kautsky, the nultinational proletariat of a monarchy near the Danube has obviously no obligations in relation to the state of the Hapsburgs. Kautsky himself arrived at this conclusion, But with the available international combinations the defence of Germany demands the defence of Austro-Hungary and Turkey, just as on the other side of the struggle of France for national unity demands the perpetuation of a powerful block of nationalities, called Russia or of a world oolonial power, Great Britain.

Together with the states of nationalities and national fragments stands the states, where a far from complete national unity is fulfilled on one side by union with states of nationalities and on the other by violaticn of the national independence of colonies. The substitution of FATHERLAND or STATE for the meaning of NATION is the most widespread argument in favour of the social-patriotic policy of the. proletarianparty.

The present war through the tendencies.exposed by it,.threatens not nations as such but that state which is the historic home of the nation. Capitalism as little brings about national unity as it does demcecracy, It awakens the : need for national unity but it also called to life tendencies, which do not allowe the fulfilment of this need. However the nation is a powerful and extremely stable factér in human culture. The nation will outlive not only the present war but capitalism itself. And in the social “t structure, free from the path of state-economic dependence, the nation will remain for a long time the most important seat.of intellectual culture = for at the disposal of the nation is the most important organ of this culture - language. The state is another matter. It developed as a result of the intersection of dynastic, imperialist and nationalist interests and of a tempory correlaticn of material forces. The state is an incomparably less stable factor in historic development than the nation.. For the past per’od economic developmemt has found a home for itself in the capitaliat state, which, with a great straining of interpretation, it has been accepted to call ‘national’,

- 39 - In ~ this state-fatherland, cultural development fcund a home almost always as a divided nation explciting or seeking tc exploit by means of the state apperatus, cther nations. As capitalist development got bound up in the framework of the state, this was fulfilled by annexations and colcnial conquests. The struggle for colenies =- that is the violation of the economic and national independence of backward countries, was the most important concern in the forrign policy of the so called nation states.

Compititicn for colonies lead to the struggle of capitalist states amon=:t themselves. thr productive forces became decisively bound up in the framework of the state. If the present day ‘'nation' state finds itself in danger, then this danger flows from the incompatcbility of its limits with the achieved level of the development of the productive forces. The danger comes net from the enemy without but from inside, from the very eccnomic develcpment, which in the language of the world war is telling us that the 'naticn* state has become a break on development and it is time to scrap it. In this sense the idea of the defenxe of the fatherland - that is of the naticn state which has outlived itself is an extremely reactionary ideclogy. The more the social patriots link the fate of the nation which by itself in no senseparalyses economic development ner hampers it from taking an all Ruropean and world dimension, with the fates of restrictive state ~ military organisaticns, the mere it is necessary for us internationalists to take upon curselves the defence of the historic rights of nations to independence and development, against these reactionary ‘patriot! defencists.

Capitalism strives to wield both the nation and the economy into the framewerk of the state. It created a powerful formation which for a whole pericd served as the arena of development for the nation just as for the economy But both the nation and the economy came into contradiction, as with the state so with each other. The state became toc restrictive for the economy By striving to broaden its base, it violates the nation. On the othérside the economy refuses to subjugate the natural movement of its forces and means to division of ethnic groups on the earths surface. The state is essentially an economic unit, it will be forced to adapt itself te the needs of economic development. The place of the closed in naticn-state must inevitably be occupied by a broad, democratic federation of leading states on the basis of the removal of all customs barriers. National unity flowing from the needs cf cultural development net only will not be destroyed by this, but on the contrary, only on the basis of a republican federation of leading countries will it be able to fird its full consummation. An indispensible for thi3 is the freeing of the framework of the nation from the framework of the economy ne and viceversa. The economy is organised on a broad arena of European united states, as the nivot of a world organisation, The political form can only be a republican federstion in the flexible and elastic framework of which every nation will be able to develop its cultural forces with the greatest of freedom. Contrary to the German and other social-annexationists we are not prepared to throw aside the recoc= nition of the right to self-determination.. Just the opposit - we think that the time ic approaching when this right can finally be realised. On the other hand we are very far from counterposing to the centalisedneeds of the econon- 'the soverrign rights of every national group and grouplet'., For in the very process cf historic development, we discover the dialectical reconciliation =f both felements! : the national and the economic. (cintinued*.1 »age 34,7 ® “ . a i