💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › solidarity-federation-which-way-ireland.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:00:18. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Which Way Ireland?
Author: Solidarity Federation
Date: 1998
Language: en
Topics: interview, Ireland, Direct Action Magazine
Source: Retrieved on 27th October 2021 from http://struggle.ws/organise/gfa.html
Notes: Article from the British anarchist magazine Direct Action, issue 7 — Summer 1998.

Solidarity Federation

Which Way Ireland?

Organise! — Irish sister organisation to Solidarity Federation — have a

membership which spans the sectarian divide, and which includes people

from both the north and south. DA asked them to comment on Irish

politics, the peace process, and prospects for the future.

about Organise! and Irish history

DA: Could you please briefly outline who Organise! is and give a brief

history of your development?

ORGANISE!: Organise! are an Anarcho-Syndicalist propaganda group and the

Irish section of the International Workers Association. Our history is

closely related to that of our publication ‘Organise! — The Voice of

Anarcho-Syndicalism’, which goes back to August 1986, when the first

issue was produced by the now defunct Ballymena and Antrim Anarchist

Group. In the Spring of 1992, ‘Organise! Irish Anarchist Bulletin’

appeared. This bulletin was produced by a more broadly based ‘class

struggle’ anarchist group with members from across the north, including

one of the members of the original Ballymena group. Over a period of

time, discussion led to the re-adoption of Anarcho-Syndicalism and the

name of the publication, which became a magazine in the autumn of 1995.

The survival of a small Anarcho-Syndicalist group over this period has

been precarious. In the north, especially in periods of heightened

sectarian tension, it often seemed that it was all we could do to hold

onto our identity and small membership. However, we are now starting to

grow as an organisation.

Members of Organise! are ordinary working class people who are spread

across Ireland and who, in the north, come from both ‘sides’ of the

community, who have come together to help create an alternative to the

capitalist exploitation, sectarianism and oppression which is destroying

the lives of working class people in Ireland.

We have been involved in various campaigns in the past few years,

including the Campaign Against Nuclear Testing, the Liverpool Dockers

and Families Support Group, Anti-Job Seekers Allowance work and

opposition to the ‘New Deal’, as well as the important work we did in

support of the Montupet strikers last year. Members of Organise! are

also involved in struggles in their workplaces and communities, areas

where we wish to increase our activity and bring the relevance of

Anarcho-Syndicalism to bear on people’s everyday lives.

In doing this, we continue to support strikers when and wherever we can.

We also see the possibility of an opening for Anarcho-Syndicalist

politics and methods developing in the increasing move towards wildcat

action in workplace struggles. We need to do a lot more groundwork if we

are to be in a position to be able to take advantage of these

developments and are working in the meantime towards establishing

ourselves as an effective alternative to the conservative Trade Union

movement. This will be a long and hard process but, as a step in this

direction, we are working toward the setting up of a solidarity centre

in Belfast. Providing access to resources and information, a space where

militant workers can meet to discuss and begin to set their own agendas,

with solidarity and mutual aid as its cornerstones, are some of the

things we would like to develop with the opening of a Local in Belfast.

In a city which is divided along sectarian lines, it would also provide

a neutral venue in which workers from different parts of the city could

meet and begin to break down barriers. The main obstacle is of course

finance, and we have sent out an international appeal to help raise much

needed funds.

We are also working with other Anarchists throughout Ireland to promote

our ideas and, although differences exist between different Anarchist

groups across the country, we are working together to help build a broad

libertarian movement in our country. Some effective steps were taken

towards this at the recent ‘Ideas and Action’ conference hosted by the

WSM in Dublin. A similar event is to be hosted by Organise! in Belfast

next year.

DA: You recently joined the IWA; what made you join?

ORGANISE!: We, along with six other sections (from Portugal, the Czech

Republic, Bulgaria, Russia, Chile, and Nigeria), affiliated to the

International Workers Association at the 20^(th) Congress in December

1996. At the time, we saw this as the natural next step for an

Anarcho-Syndicalist organisation such as ourselves. The IWA, its aims,

statutes and principles represented the ideological ‘home’ for Organise!

on an international basis. As workers, we exist as a class across

national boundaries and we must organise across these boundaries if we

are to be effective in our struggle against capitalism. Although work at

a local level — the building of an effective Anarcho-Syndicalist

movement in Ireland, based in the realities of our situation both at

work and in our communities — is our main concern, the international

bond of solidarity that is the IWA is of great importance to us. We also

believe that it is the work on the ground, the building of strong

Anarcho-Syndicalist sections across the globe, that will lead to the IWA

becoming a more powerful and effective international.

DA: Syndicalism has roots in Ireland which go back a long way. Can you

briefly outline some of the major milestones?

ORGANISE!: While Anarchism has little history or tradition in Ireland

beyond the last couple of decades, Syndicalism has had a sometimes

pivotal influence on the development of the working class movement. Most

significantly are the Syndicalist influences which were at work in the

early ITGWU (Irish Transport and General Workers’ Union), set up at a

period in which revolutionary and Anarcho-Syndicalism were to the fore

of the revolutionary labour movement. Although there was no self

professed ‘Syndicalist’ organisation, the ITGWU borrowed much of its

organisational strategy and ideological vision from the American IWW

(Industrial Workers of the World). The union regarded itself as the

Irish One Big Union, organised by industry and had a, perhaps somewhat

vague, vision of the ‘Industrial Commonwealth’ as an alternative to

capitalism.

Connolly and Larkin’s visions and methods were greatly influenced by

Syndicalism. Connolly had been active in the IWW during his years in the

USA; Larkin spoke at the funeral of IWW organiser Joe Hill.

It is also important to note that many Irish workers became involved in

revolutionary or Anarcho-Syndicalist unions outside Ireland. Capt. Jack

White, who trained the Irish Citizen Army (the militia formed in 1913 to

defend the Irish labour movement and made up of members of the ITGWU),

went to Spain with the International Brigades to fight fascism. In

Spain, he was much impressed with the work of the CNT and the Anarchist

militias, so much so that he became an Anarchist and left the

International Brigades to both train members of the militias in the use

of arms and raise money for arms for the CNT abroad.

the peace process

DA: While the politicians are now lining up to pat themselves on the

back over the peace talks, what about the general mood among the people

of the north — are they optimistic, cynical or confused?

ORGANISE!: People are generally hopeful that there can be a better

future created for themselves, their children and their grandchildren in

the north. This was shown in the exceptionally high turnout for the

referenda. There is also a certain amount of uncertainty, many are

uneasy about various aspects of the Agreement, and there are of course

those who are intent on wrecking any possibility of ‘stability’ (in

relation to sectarian politics) in the north. There is also a cynicism

about the ability of the sectarian politicians to deliver, about the

intentions of gunmen, and those of government on demilitarization.

Different considerations weigh differently for different people.

It must be pointed out that while 71% voted yes for the ‘Agreement’,

there is precious little agreement in our places of work, as the recent

wildcat action in NIR (Northern Ireland Railways) in the north and

throughout the health board in the south has shown. The result, in terms

of the wishes of the majority of people in the north, must be seen as a

desire for change.

DA: How far is it possible for Organise! to have an impact, given that

people must be generally cynical about politics, especially in the

north?

ORGANISE!: People may well be cynical of the politicians’ ability to

deliver some semblance of peace, but it must also be remembered that

politics here goes far deeper than casting a vote every few years for

many people. The ‘constitutional question’ is still a big consideration,

and a lot of the ‘political mindset’ is conservative and communal on

both sides. It is the sectarian nature of our politics which, more than

cynicism, makes our job all the harder.

How far we have an impact cannot be blamed on other people’s cynicism,

it is more related to our small size and limited resources. We need to

start the slow process of building a credible alternative. As this

develops, and is seen to be gaining at least some results, then we will

start to make an impact.

DA: Would you like to guess how the public is likely to view

developments in the peace process? How might it affect the communities

in the longer term?

ORGANISE!: We cannot really predict what reactions to developments in

the peace process will be, simply because we are not sure what those

developments will be. Sectarianism has not been eradicated, and the

marching season is going to see an escalation in sectarian tensions and

clashes. An amount of goodwill may help steer it clear of the more major

incidents of the past but this doesn’t really appear to be a realistic

aspiration.

In the longer term, we may indeed see the breaking down of some of the

sectarian barriers in our society. This may initially be seen through

the emergence of a reformist labour party in the north, coupled with

co-operation between working class loyalist and republican parties on

issues such as education, jobs and housing — nothing too radical though.

But really it is too early to say and things are still far too delicate

for any speculation to be more than a shot in the dark.

DA: How do Organise! members in the south feel the process is viewed by

working class people there?

ORGANISE!: In the south 94.4%, in a turn out of 56%, voted in favour of

the ‘Agreement’. This shows a sentiment in the south that there should

be ‘peace’ in the north. It is perhaps a sentiment which was largely

driven by media and politicians with little real consideration of the

politics or parties involved.

The south is not the nationalist place it once was. As long as the RUC

isn’t beating shit out of Catholics on the TV, or the Provo’s blowing up

English children, most people are happy. The peace process is viewed as

an extremely positive development. Only the ‘extremist’ minorities — the

republicans and the pro-unionist ‘West Brits’ — are very concerned with

events north of the border. For the majority, apart from the occasional

emotional outburst of ‘give peace a chance’ or ‘a nation once again’, we

have our own problems to be concerned with. As with the working class

people of England, Scotland and Wales (or elsewhere), ‘its got little to

do with us’ is the prevailing sentiment — and hope for ‘peace’.

DA: Is ‘The Agreement’ likely to work? How far do you support it? What

would you like to see come out of the current process?

ORGANISE!: This Summers ‘Marching Season’ will be the first big test of

the ‘Agreement’, and one which will make or break it. Whether or not it

works depends largely on the political will present to make it work

coupled with the degree to which people are prepared to compromise. The

‘Agreement’ does not go any way towards dealing with sectarianism as

this would undermine the respective power bases of the parties who will

make up the Assembly. It may well work after a fashion, so long as the

‘No’ men are further marginalised by events and are not allowed to

destabilise the entire process.

The degree of support for the ‘Agreement’ as a social democratic, or

rather a sectarian political initiative has not been uncontroversial for

Organise! The ‘Agreement’ does after all institutionalise sectarianism;

it is about choosing the form of government which will have an active

role in the oppression of working class people well into the next

century. Anarchists from the Workers Solidarity Movement adopted an

abstentionist position on the referenda; it is a position which some

members of Organise! support. Other members of Organise!, like many

working class people, voted yes to the ‘Agreement’, not because they in

any way support sectarianism, or want anything to do with choosing the

form of government which oppresses us, but because of a simple desire to

see the guns removed from the sectarian politics in the north.

Sectarian politicians agreeing a format in which to argue is better than

the prospect of continued or worsening sectarian violence being counted

in the lives, maiming and imprisonment of working class people.

Organise! has in the past criticised the British government for not

moving on the issue of prisoners, both Loyalist and Republican; it was

clear that only with the release of political prisoners could there be

any hope of the cease-fires being maintained. That remains our position,

no matter how emotive the issue, there could have been no progress

whatsoever without at least the beginning of a process of release. We

have also pointed to the issue of decommissioning, used as a stick to

beat the ‘representatives’ of, or those with an ‘insight into the

thinking of’, paramilitaries, and have stated that any decommissioning

can only be practicable within the context of a complete

demilitarization of the situation — that means security force’s guns

must be included.

These positions have been based on the desire to see guns taken out of

sectarian politics — this is the most that can be expected from the

‘Agreement’. Social issues, the position of workers and the unemployed

at the bottom of society, etc., will not and cannot be tackled through

this agreement — but surely at least a vast reduction in sectarian

violence must be welcomed. Beyond this, we may also see the development

of an atmosphere in which anti-sectarian working class politics may be

given some room to develop.

It must be remembered that those opposed to the ‘Agreement’ had precious

little to offer. The likely outcome of a successful No campaign would

have seen a continuation of direct Westminster rule with Dublin

involvement. This is a set up which neither people nor the political

and/or paramilitary players in the north would have been happy with.

‘No’ campaigners on the Republican/Nationalist side see the Agreement as

a sell-out. They are called on people to vote no and, as one poster puts

it, ‘Smash British rule’. This is a sentiment with which Anarchists (if

we couple it with the smashing of Irish rule) should have very little

problem, except when we look at it in the harsh reality of the north.

This is a call to continue the war, one which quite conveniently fails

to address the fact that nearly one million people who live in the north

consider themselves British.

As for the Unionist No campaigners, they also talk the language of

continued confrontation and aggression. They claim to see the agreement

as undermining the union, but what these people really want is a

military solution all of their own. Paisley and McCartney will only be

happy when the British state moves to ‘eradicate’ republican terrorism.

Of course, any such move would only lead to an escalation of the

conflict, not an end. Their views on loyalist terrorism are of course

more ambivalent. The DUP claim to be ‘embarrassed’ by the LVF claiming

to be ‘Paisleyites’ — strange when they supported Billy Wright in his

early days, and have shared platforms on various occasions.

There are also those on the left who called for a No vote. These people

preach about how the Assembly will not end sectarianism — anyone who

ever thought an agreement reached by sectarian politicians could achieve

this has precious little grip on reality. We are told that sectarian

violence will not disappear, and the CIRA, INLA, LVF and ‘Real’ IRA are

pointed to, often almost with relish, as proof of this. Recently, the

LVF declared a cease-fire to allow people the opportunity to vote no. As

to whether they return to violence after the referendum, they claim they

will respect the decision of the majority of people in northern Ireland

but want history to know that they were never a part of the ‘sell-out’.

How long the other ‘dissident’ paramilitaries can continue their

campaigns after a ‘Yes’ vote is far from clear. The longer the

cease-fires remain, the less support there is for sectarian warfare, and

pressure may also be brought to bear from former ‘comrades in arms’.

Of course, if the Assembly was to fall apart at any point, if it proved

unworkable, paramilitary violence could well return with a vengeance to

fill the political vacuum. This is not something to be looked forward

to.

It must also be pointed out that socialism at present is not an

alternative to the Agreement, nor is Anarcho-Syndicalism. We are not in

the position to carry out a social revolution, we must deal with the

situation honestly, while trying to build the type of organisation which

can one day offer a REAL alternative to working class people throughout

Ireland and Britain.

DA: The Protestant communities appear pretty split — or is it just the

political parties? What is the root of the split and how may it develop?

ORGANISE!: The ‘Protestant community’ has always been much more diverse

than many people have given it credit for. This is becoming more

apparent as the working class loyalist parties give expression to ideas

and aspirations outside the traditional concerns of the Unionist

establishment, and distinct from the pseudo-religious rantings of the

Free Presbyterian ‘Paisleyites’.

There have been many ‘splits’ in the ‘Protestant community’. The

‘conservative force’ loyalism of the LVF opposed the ‘leftward’ trends

of the PUP and ‘Belfast based’ UVF leadership to continue a sectarian

murder campaign. The split in the Unionist Party prior to the referendum

over the form of the ‘Agreement’ was, to a large extent, indicative of a

‘split’ in the ‘Protestant community’ or, to use a more accurate term,

‘grass roots Unionism’.

‘No’ campaigners on the unionist side ludicrously claimed that the

28.88% no vote represented the ‘majority of pro-union people’, as the

hours after the referendum went by, their assertions increasingly looked

like blind desperation. It is estimated that a narrow majority of the

unionists who voted, voted yes -around 55% according to one poll.

That is not to say that all the unionist no voters were rabid

Paisleyites, there was a great deal of concern about the issue of

prisoner release, ‘terrorists’ entering government, law and order and

‘democracy’, the undermining of the RUC, etc. As to the idea of an

Assembly restoring ‘democracy’ to the north, there is precious little

opposition to this. The majority of unionist no voters felt they could

not vote Yes to the package in its entirety. The danger that the ‘No’

parties, the DUP and the UKUP, could present in the future is to

successfully discredit the entire ‘Agreement’ in the hope of chipping

away at the confidence of those who had expressed a will for change. Of

course they are past masters at this sort of thing — and the rabble

rousing which goes hand in hand with it.

The difference now lies in the commitment of a great many unionists to

making things work and the emergence of the working class loyalist

parties. They do not appear in a hurry to allow some dissident Unionist

Party members, the DUP, or McCartney’s UKUP to plunge them back into a

conflict in which they have the experience of going to jail, of killing

and being killed, while middle class unionists shit-stir, remaining

cosily out of harms way. The loyalists do not look likely to act as

stooges for what it is to be hoped are the representatives of ‘has been’

unionism.

DA: The IRA and various strands of republicanism have apparently moved a

long way in the talks process — why? What do they expect to gain?

ORGANISE!: There are of course those on the republican side, and many on

the left, who see Sinn Fein’s position as one of ‘sell out’. To those

who cannot contemplate compromise there may be something in this, but

not much. Sinn Fein’s recent political career started during the Hunger

Strikes, which saw them adopting an electoral strategy. In the north,

they failed to make any real inroads into the SDLP vote, while in the

south they were effectively marginalised as a ‘single issue’ Brits out

party. At the same time, we saw the defeat of various ‘third world’

national liberation movements and the collapse of the Berlin wall

heralding the end of ‘communism’ in the east. This created a different

international scene to that of ’68 — ’72, when the Provo’s arose.

The subsequent development of Sinn Fein, and its pan-nationalist

strategy, went hand in hand with a growing recognition that the ‘long

war’ was not working. The armed campaign was not going to get any

better. It must also be remembered that the strategy of the ‘long war of

attrition’, which was designed to sap the British government’s will to

stay was to have negotiations as its natural outcome. There could be no

military ‘solution’. It is also true that they could not be defeated

militarily by the British state, at least not without hugely escalating

the conflict. The only option presented in the face of this was

negotiations and ultimately a place in the ‘talks process’, which has

led us to where we are today.

They have not moved that far, they have simply dropped all the

pseudo-radicalism and socialist pretensions. No more talk of

neo-colonialism, economic imperialism or American imperialism, no more

vilification of the Dublin establishment. Sinn Fein are on the verge of

‘respectability’ and international statesmanship, in bed with the

multinationals and southern politicians. Sinn Fein are still an Irish

Nationalist party, only its means have changed, and it has thrown out

some of the old socialist baggage in order to better pursue its

political intrigues.

It is very important to remember that Sinn Fein’s role in the peace

process is completely leadership driven — they run the show lock, stock

and barrel, and are almost worshipped by the rank and file. A huge cult

of personality has arisen around the travelling salesmen of the

‘Agreement’, such as Adams. Ironically, or perhaps inevitably, this is

in stark contrast to one of the arguments for the development of Sinn

Fein in the early ‘80s, i.e., the need to overcome ‘spectator politics’,

whereby the average republican’s involvement was to hear of IRA activity

through the media and cheer.

As to what they expect to gain, they have been promised demilitarization

at some point in the future, release of prisoners, some form of policing

reform, cross border bodies dealing with such things as ‘welfare’ fraud

and fisheries, and that most important of considerations for

politicians; power in the new Assembly, along with a commitment from the

British government to withdraw when the majority want it. All of these

concessions are dependant on stability and unionist acquiescence. One

would imagine they hoped for more, but their lack of real success in the

peace process points out the abject failure of armed struggle and the

simple reality of a well-armed unionist majority in the north.

While many still see the problem solely in terms of British occupation

and jurisdiction, others recognise that they cannot ‘force’ these people

into a united Ireland, that it is unlikely that Sinn Fein will ever

convince them that a united Ireland is in their interests, and they want

to see the British government itself become the persuaders of unionism.

There is a belief that as the nationalist vote and Sinn Fein’s share of

it gradually increases, and as cross border links are strengthened, we

will find ourselves with a nationalist majority and only a few

adjustments will be necessary in order to unite Ireland. Realistically,

if they ever want to achieve a united Ireland within the framework of

the ‘Agreement’, it will be about ‘demographics’, about substituting the

‘long wait’ for the ‘long war’, or the papes outbreeding the prods — not

particularly progressive. Nor realistic

DA: What is in the peace process for the British and Irish governments?

ORGANISE!: Stability is their main concern, that and the possibility of

investment, which will be of benefit to both economies. The Irish

government would also be quite happy for prospective German or American

tourists not to hear the word Ireland linked with the word violence. The

leadership of Fianna Fail also have the nationalistic sentiments of

their grass roots to contend with, so on occasion it suits them to give

the appearance of wrapping themselves in a (light) green flag.

On the British side, it must be noted that it is hardly coincidental

that the opening of secret communications with the republican movement

in 1990 followed the onset of the Provo’s bombing offensive in England.

This undoubtedly pushed ‘Northern Ireland’ much higher up the British

government’s agenda.

The appeal of playing ‘saviour’ (one which seems particularly close to

Tony Blair’s heart) and international statesman should not be

underestimated. This can distract attention from domestic politics and

win votes.

conclusion — the future

DA: Where do you see Organise! being in terms of developing an

Anarcho-Syndicalist movement in Ireland in 2 years, in 5 years, and

beyond?

ORGANISE!: ‘Our’ politicians may well have come to some sort of

‘Agreement’ on Good Friday, one which may even lead to a very welcome

reduction in paramilitary violence, but for the North’s working class,

‘unity’ seems as elusive as ever. The goal of a united Ireland or

maintaining the union with Britain are of course nothing to do with the

sort of unity we are talking about in Organise!

Our communities are still sectarian ghettoes and, with perhaps the most

segregated education system in the world, how can we ever hope to break

down barriers of mistrust, bitterness and suspicion?

The one hope for our future, for the future development of

Anarcho-Syndicalism in Ireland, surely lies in the fostering and

development of ‘workers unity’. We must draw lessons and inspiration

from the united struggles of the Montupet strikers, of DSS workers

opposing LVF and INLA death threats, of the railway workers of NIR and

of southern healthworkers using ‘wildcat’ action to make an effective

stand for our rights. This is not something which can be demanded or

called upon by placard waving lefties, it is something which must be

built. It is built in very concrete ways around the common problems

workers face at their workplaces and in their communities. It is

something which occurs naturally when workers as workers are faced with

a new attack from their bosses, it is built around the response to

‘bread and butter’ issues.

Such a task is never easy — why do you think it is called class

struggle? It is because it is exactly that, a struggle which must be

fought long and hard for and must be won.

We have no rigid 2 or 5 year plans, but we do have short and medium term

goals which we are striving to achieve. These are aimed at making our

ideas and activity relevant to the realities of working class life in

Ireland. More than anything else, it is about putting in the effort and

hard work which, when people are more ready for real change, will stand

us in good stead as a credible, revolutionary alternative to the bosses,

and the nationalist and sectarian crap workers here have had to endure

for too long.