About us
Horizon aims to be a space for Irish Marxists to engage in open debate, critically examine our ideas, and collectively advance the struggle for socialism.
In a recent letter to Horizon, Odhrán F responds to my article Islands of struggle, specifically critiquing how the national question is addressed. I welcome this contribution to an important debate and hope it encourages a wider comradely discussion. There are several points made in the letter that I would like to examine and respond to.
Firstly, Odhrán argues that the article underplays the role of the national question in building a mass socialist party in Ireland. However the quote from the article provided to back up this claim, clearly states that “Historically, the greatest obstacle to unity has been the National Question, and here, too, we need a political culture capable of decisive action”.1 There is no scenario in which we can achieve long lasting and productive unity without an unambiguous position on the national question being a key part of the party programme. In a previous section of the article, I cite the ULA’s programme containing zero references to the north, as one, among its many failures.2 Taking this into consideration, the accusation of underplaying the importance of the national question does not seem entirely fair.
It appears that the main contention on the comrades’ part is not with what is written, but rather that the question is not a more central pillar of the article. This is a choice that was taken due to the very nature of what the article advocates. Odhrán argues that they agree with the article on principle but that the “content of the programme is the most important matter”.3 But to prescribe positions as a necessity of a mass socialist party fundamentally goes against the most important principle of a party programme, that it is decided by the democratic will of party membership. It is therefore not up to me to decide what the “correct” position on the national question should be as a pre-condition to a mass socialist party.
Secondly, it is argued that socialist unity in Ireland “must be grounded in a clear, shared recognition that the chains of national oppression must be broken as the primary task of the Irish working class”.4 There is a question to be asked here. What is meant by breaking the chains of national oppression concretely? It is a task that we must of course take seriously, as we would with breaking the chains of any other type of oppression. But the letter’s consistent references to “independence” and “sovereignty” in relation to freedom, betrays a false equivalence. That fighting against national oppression is the same as fighting for national self determination. I would argue that as socialists, we should not value national self determination as a goal in itself, but rather as a means to an end.
That end is the emancipation of the working class from all forms of arbitrary domination, whether by capital, empire, gender or race. Any analysis of the national question should be concretely grounded in a desire to fight the oppression of catholics in the north and to unite the divided working class of north and south. While it appears obvious to me that a united socialist Ireland is the best means to this end, to say that other frameworks are incompatible with a socialist perspective does not seem to be justified. That is unless there is a conflation of fighting national oppression, a socialist goal, with an abstract, romantic conception of a united Ireland by any means, a nationalist goal. My aim here is not to pass judgement, or even necessarily argue against a united Ireland as an end in itself, but rather clarify that distinction and why it matters when we discuss socialist organising.
Lastly, the letter argues that you cannot build unity if there are those within the party that do not agree that the best way to fight national oppression and imperialism is a “sovereign 32-county workers’ republic”, even in a minority capacity. Odhrán cites the Socialist Party’s position as the main example here, accusing that it is a position that comes from social-chauvanism and thus grounds for exclusion from any mass socialist party project. The Socialist Party position on the national question, is a rejection of a united socialist Ireland, instead advocating for a “voluntary socialist federation of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, as part of a socialist Europe”.5 While I vehemently disagree with this position, I would argue it is not one that originates from social-chauvanism. The full position, which is not cited, also states that the SP stands “For the unity of the working class, Protestant and Catholic, North and South, in opposition to all forms of sectarianism, paramilitarism and state repression”.6 There is a false equivalence drawn here between Unionism and Nationalism, which are categorically different. However this equivalence seems to stem from, yes opportunism, but primarily a vulgar and economistic theorisation.
It acknowledges the national oppression of catholics, but tries to avoid the obvious confrontation of Unionist ideology that must take place before it is resolved. Rather it bypasses it, by advocating for a “class first” approach and sprinting to a federation, not engaging with the essentially reactionary nature of unionism. We therefore run into the same problem, as with all ideological disputes. You cannot make the case that the Socialist Party should be excluded from a mass party project that tries to unite desperate ideological sects, on the basis of ideology. Furthermore, an insistence on isolation and non engagement from the rest of the socialist sphere in Ireland, will do nothing to convince any members within the SP to reconsider their position, which should be the goal if you are advocating against it. It is not only deeply unserious to try to exclude the second largest socialist organisation on the island from a mass party project, but also unprincipled.
Beyond the Socialist Party, there is an implicit assumption made within the response, that there are no contradictions or distinctions between those who advocate for a 32 county socialist Ireland. What does a 32 county socialist Ireland entail concretely? How do we achieve this aim? Should we advocate for a border poll? If a border poll is called, what should be our position? How do we view the unionist working class? How do we approach them? Should we advocate for a united socialist Ireland in isolation, similar to other Socialism in one country experiments, or as part of a larger international movement? These are all questions that there is plenty of disagreement on in socialist republican spaces. Considering that the vast majority of Irish socialists advocate for a united socialist Ireland, it is curious that these questions are not addressed in the response. Should these questions also be the basis for complete exclusion or should they, like all positions within a mass party project, be debated and decided upon democratically? And if it is the latter, how are these disagreements on the national question fundamentally different from the disagreements one might have with the Socialist Party position, outside of vague moralism?
If you want to get in contact with a a submission or a response to the above letter reach out at [email protected]