The Republican Viewpoint

The author of a four-part series on study insurrection as a science!!? guerrilla warfare in An Phoblacht/ "Republican News has sent a reply Your own mentor Trotsky's to a critique of the series carried Military Writings (3 volumes!) are in Socialist Republic, being published. Did James Connolly not study meticulously the We welcome his desire to discuss specifically military tasks of the the issue in a clear and constructive revolutionary process? Your small manner. In order to continue the grouplet may deny the validity of debate, we also produce here a armed struggle, but please don't reply from the author of our make out that successful revolucritique. tionaries have ignored these questions. Remember -- "Force is the Socialist Republic also welcomes midwife of history", . .. the AP/7RN articte by Ciaran Dowd on the American anti-war movement. Secondly, all your criticisms reThe argument it makes for single- lating to my articles on China, issue campaigns built without exclu— Vietnam, Cuba and Nicaragua revolve ding people of different political around one single question -- my views is one PD agrees with. Itis alleged 'militarist! bias. | cannot a measure of progress that our two go back to the original articles to organisations can now agree on such quote pieces for you, but I think points, Comradely debate over our _ any fair reading would indicate that real policies can only advance the they were far from 'militarist!. struggle against our common Over and over again, | stressed imperialist enemies, the need for popular involvement in the struggle, that war is the conThat is why, for example, Intercon- tinuation of politics by other means, tinental Press, weekly journal etc. Having said that, the focus which reflects the views of the was on military lessons, so! can Fourth International, has reproduced hardly be expected to provide a Ciaran Dowd!s article (see the July history of the Cuban Revolution as 7 issue, p. 715). well, as you demand. Specifically on Nicaragua, | think you are sadly ee out of touch with the revolutionary In the current issue of your paper process, You say that ''the masses (Vol Ill, No 3 - Ed) you dedicate a themselves carried out and led the considerable space to an attack on revolution", Certainly the Sandimy series of articles on revolu- nistas were surprised by the extent tionary guerilla warfare, published of popular mobilisation, but would in An Phoblacht/Republican News. these people really come out on I trust you will allow me to respond the streets without the powerful through your pages to some of the backing of the Sandinista army? points raised, And who did the ''slow patient work of agitation among the masses!

First of all, you question whether which you demand? Your fellow it is legitimate to even discuss thinkers there, who months before guerrilla warfare because "it is not the final victory were still chalking possible to show a clear connection!! up the slogan 'Unionise the National with ''the process of revolution", Guard! or the revolutionary SandiNow, reactionaries have certainly nistas? trsed the method of guerrilla warfare as you point out, but so has every Third, and last point, is your alter— successful revolution except per- native (or rather lack of one) to the haps the Russian one. So, itis views you so freely criticise. As quite ludicrous to deny that there we all know it comes down at the is a theory of revolutionary warfare. best, to 'mass self-defence!, as you Was it not Lenin who said one "must now conveniently forget that Trotsky

SOCIALIST REPUBLIC PAGE 4 class. REPLY TO CIARAN DOWD § 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 dea! 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 We agree that ''force is the midwife of history" but it does not follow that as a matter of principle revolutionaries must at all times undertake 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, In my view the series failed because it explains