Eire Nua - a critique

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.