The Republican Viewpoint

The author of a four-part series on guerrilla warfare in An Phoblacht/ "Republican News has sent a reply to a critique of the series carried in Socialist Republic.

We welcome his desire to discuss the issue in a clear and constructive manner, In order to continue the debate, we also produce here a reply from the author of our critique.

Socialist Republic also welcomes the AP/RN article by Ciaran Dowd on the American anti-war movement. The argument it makes for single— issue campaigns built without excluding people of different political views is one PD agrees with. Itis a measure of progress that our two organisations can now agree on such points, Comradely debate over our real policies can only advance the struggle against our common imperialist enemies, That is why, for example, Intercontinental Press, weekly journal which reflects the views of the Fourth International, has reproduced Ciaran Dowd!s article (see the July 7 issue, pe 715).

In the current issue of your paper (Vol Ill, No 3 — Ed) you dedicate a considerable space to an attack on my series of articles on revolu— tionary guerilla warfare, published ‘in An Phoblacht/Republican News. Il trust you will allow me to respond through your pages to some of the points raised.

First of all, you question whether it is legitimate to even discuss guerrilla warfare because "jt is not possible to show a clear connection!! with 'the process of revolution", Now, reactionaries have certainly «sed the method of guerrilla warfare as you point out, but so has every successful revolution except perhaps the Russian one. So, it is quite ludicrous to deny that there is a theory of revolutionary warfare. Was it not Lenin who said one "must study insurrection as a science!!?

Your own mentor Trotsky's Military Writings (3 volumes!) are being published. Did James Connolly not study meticulously the specifically military tasks of the revolutionary process? Your small grouplet may deny the validity of armed struggle, but please don't make out that successful revolutionaries have ignored these ques-— tions. Remember -- "Force is the midwife of history", ...

Secondly, all your criticisms relating to my articles on China, Vietnam, Cuba and Nicaragua revolve around one single question -- my alleged 'militarist! bias, | cannot go back to the original articles to quote pieces for you, but | think _any fair reading would indicate that they were far from 'militarist!. Over and over again, | stressed the need for popular involvement in the struggle, that war is the continuation of politics by other means, etc, Having said that, the focus was on military lessons, so | can hardly be expected to provide a history of the Cuban Revolution as well, as you demand. Specifically on Nicaragua, | think you are sadly out of touch with the revolutionary process, You say that ''the masses themselves carried out and led the revolution", Certainly the Sandinistas were surprised by the extent of popular mobilisation, but would these people really come out on the streets without the powerful backing of the Sandinista army? And who did the ''slow patient work of agitation among the masses! which you demand? Your fellow thinkers there, who months before the final victory were still chalking up the slogan 'Unionise the National Guard! or the revolutionary Sandinistas?

Third, and last point, is your alternative (or rather lack of one) to the views you so freely criticise. As we all know it comes down at the best, to 'mass self-defence', as you now conveniently forget that Trotsky lution. Now, the nationalist able for self-defence against in all its manifestations —frighten people off", serjous level. which takes up precisely that question. forged the Red Army, which probably saved the fledgling Russian Revoghettoes of the North have always had a limited number of arms avail— 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 necessary). No, comrades we builda powerful political/military machine which takes on the capitalist state 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 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 P.S. You say | 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", 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 satisfactorily 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 with— out the powerful backing of the Sandinista army?" In reply I 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 collaboration with the murder squads.

SOCIALIST REPUBLIC PAGE 5 ‘In any case it seems to me that your own position is far from clear. I dontt see the logic of a position .that 'steps over! the question of day to day defence. A strategy