Armed olruggle and Socialism

forged the Red Army, which probably saved the fledgling Russian Revolution. Now, the nationalist ghettoes of the North have always had a limited number of arms avail— able for self-defence against possible sectarian attacks, Itis common knowledge that the Brits do not object to this; all they worry about are the offensive actions of the IRA. So, are we to win the Irish revolution by sitting back and waiting for the magic day of the storming of the Winter Palace? Are we to concentrate on building up ‘self-defence! forces which the state does not feel threatened by? (though of course these are neces-— sary). No, comrades we builda powerful political/military machine which takes on the capitalist state in all its manifestations —exploitation of labour, women, its repressive forces, etc. We attempt to forge an alternative here and now to the outdated system we live under -- the 'no-go! areas, the popular assemblies, etc, Your practical contribution amounts to propagandism -- spreading ideas, which in themselves change nothing, anda sickly legalism -- filing for marches with the RUC etc, to ''not frighten people off!', So, whereas your article makes a number of points worth debating at the end of the day it offers very little to revolutionaries who live in the real world. Also, | suggest you retract the ludicrous accusation that the Republic Movement shows "a willingness to make accomoda— tions with the capitalist class!" if you wish to keep the debate at a serjous level.

P.S. You say I neglect the impact of the anti-war movement in the USA on the Vietnamese revolution. May ! refer you to my recent article in AP/RN_ on "the lessons of the anti-war movement in America", which takes up precisely that question. f would suggest to Ciaran Dowd that he re-read my article more carefully. I do not deny that itis "legitimate to even discuss guerrilla warfare!', 1 do deny the validity of a concept of "Revolutionary guerrilla warfare!!! on which the series in An Phoblacht/Republican News was based; Guerrilla warfare, like any other means of warfare, is a method available to any social class and any political current. It isin this sense of method that Lenin, Trotsky and Connolly deal with the question.

Revolutionary organisations are however defined not by their methods but how they relate these methods to the political aims of the working class.

We agree that "force is the midwife of history" but it does not follow that as a matter of principle revo— lutionaries must at all times under— take offensive military operations -- that remains a tactical decision based on the balance of class forces, This fundamental misinterpretation leads you to misinterpret my criticisms of the series asa whole. A study of guerrilla warfare asa technique or of the relationship between war and revolution might have been valuable, !n my view the series failed because it explains the eventual victory of the communist forces in terms of their use of this technique. Obviously a movement incompetent in these techniques would not succeed, but their victory depended not on this but on the balance of class forces and the correctness of their own political programmes. This absence is the reason for your failure to satisfac— torily explain both Che's victory in Cuba and his defeat in Bolivia.

You query my understanding of the revolutionary process in Nicaragua and ask: "but would these people really come out on the streets without the powerful backing of the Sandinista army?" In reply | can only shrug my shoulders and say that ''these people! actually did so -- that the battle for Managua was fought and won by the masses before any significant section of the Sandinista army arrived. Thisis not to deny that the Sandinista movement provided the framework for the organisation of the masses and that it has remained the leading force in the Nicaraguan revolution. However it has done so precisely because it was open and flexible enough to abandon the militarist conception you put forward and turn towards a’Marxist conception of the role of the masses in the process of revolution.

The comment about our "fellow thinker s!! | can only treat asa slander. Who are they and what is their association with PD? The Fourth International, with which PD is associated, has been to the forefront in the defence of the Nicaraguan revolution and in support of the Sandinista movement.

I must say that your assertion about the Brit's lack of objection to the holding of arms for defence fills me with amazement. How does this process work? Do the Brits ignore 'defensive! dumps? Return defensive arms? Give lighter sentences to those engaged'in purely defensive activity? This ignores the major problem of how any defence against sectarian forces would not also be a defence against the British army itself -- given its history of colla— boration with the murder squads. + FE ‘In any case it seems to me that your own position is far from clear. | don't see the logic of a position .that 'steps over! the question of day to day defence. A strategy