A reply to the Socialist Party on opposing sectarianism

national | miscellaneous | news report

Monday July 15, 2002 15:09

by John McAnulty - Socialist Democracy

socialistdemocracyie at lycos dot co dot uk

A furher contribution to the debate over how socialists should oppose sectarianism.

A reply to the Socialist Party on opposing sectarianism

I welcome the attempt by members and supporters of the Socialist party to defend their formula of opposing ALL sectarianism. One of the extremely serious problems on the Irish left is the unwillingness of most of the organisations to discuss any political ideas.

Unfortunately the formula itself was devised as a barrier to rational discussion. The immediate response to criticism by Socialist Party members, as in this thread, is to flood the air with insults and put their opponent beyond the pale. If someone disagrees, why - they must be the sectarians!

It is very important to the Socialist party that this debate not be followed through because the opposing view that we put forward is not simply an idiosyncratic opinion held by some strange cross-breed of socialist bigots. The idea that sectarianism is caused by capitalism and imperialism and that the mechanism for maintaining sectarianism is frequently far right organisations linked to the state forces is in fact the classical historic position of the Marxist movement. It is quite clear from the postings that in fact our initial critique was correct and that the ALL sectarianism formula is designed to negate the Marxist position without ever having to justify or explain the break. Any sectarian or racial attack on a section of the working class will inevitably produce some sectarian or racial attitudes within the target population. Marxists have to fight against this, but they do that by explaining the cause of the sectarian divisions, not by shrugging their shoulders and equating aggressor and victim.

Again the posts make it clear that the real function of the formula is to appease Loyalist sectarianism. ALL, it turns out, does not mean ALL, because some of the most vicious of the sectarian gangs, source of endless crimes against both Catholic and Protestant workers – the PUP/UVF are actually socialists! (It is worth noting that the SP are totally dishonest on this question and always officially deny that they hold this position).

I have no idea how successful the SP will be in building its organisation with its current policies. I can say, with absolute certainty, that individuals and organisations that believe that the UVF is socialist have no part to play in the overthrow of capitalism in Ireland.

for earlier debate see - http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=7384&start=160

save preference

Comments (5 of 5)

For Brian

by henry silke

Wed Jul 17, 2002 02:15

Hi brian, I heard you were at the RC youth conference, if you are writing anything up on it will you send it my way. henrysilke@dublin.com
sorry 'bout the unorthodox method of communication! But while I'm here! bye

On Closing off a debate

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party

Tue Jul 16, 2002 15:56

A couple of posters above accuse the Socialist Party of trying to close off debate on the North by describing those we disagree with as sectarians. They then spend most of the rest of their posts trying to smear us as apologists for the UVF. Those with an appreciation of irony might find that a little amusing.

There is a further irony:

Most people reading Indymedia will have little idea who "Socialist Democracy" are. They should count themselves lucky. Socialist Democracy are a group of six or so republican activists who spent most of the troubles providing left wing sounding excuses for whatever murderous idiocy the IRA were behind that week. Their British sister organisation was infamously fond of the slogan "Victory to the IRA".

To be accused of having illusions in sectarian murderers by these people is a very strange experience.

For the record, the Socialist Party has never viewed the PUP as socialist. It is not a socialist organisation, it never has been and it has never to my knowledge claimed to be one.

Still in Denial

by Joe Craig - Socialist Democracy

Tue Jul 16, 2002 11:23

The comrade fom the Socialist Party is unfortunately still unwilling to accept responsibility for the policy which the SP had and for which it has at no time accounted for or rejected. It appears it has no intention of doing either because we are now being told it didn't have this policy. So what was/is this policy? It was not that the SP sought a dialogue with the left of the PUP/UVF (what on earth is the left of sectarian muder squads?). The SP, and this is the difference between them and Sinn Fein, endorsed the PUP as socialist and welcolmed their introducing socialism into the protestant working class. At public meeetings in Belfast and Dublin they openly stated that they knew exactly who these people were and accused those who opposed their policy as sectarian, rather as the SP does now.

This is what happens when you fail to identify the cause and nature of sectarianism. You end up endorsing the most vile sectarian murderers as socialists and those who oppose sectrainism as sectarian themselves!

It is not Socialist Democracy that views things in communal terms but the SP. For us the determining power in the north is imperialism which is responsible for the sectarian nature of the state, for the paramilitary loyalist gangs that defend it and the division of the working class. Because the SP views imperialism as entirely secondary (if it factors it in at all) sectarianism can only be explained as coming from 'the two sides.' Even the terminology of the 'two sides' gives the game away since it already excludes the British state from responsibility.

Unless the SP accounts for its shameful endorsement of the PUP/UVF (or its non-existent left wing)as socialist it has no part to play in overcoming sectarianism. Anyone serious about combating sectarianism among the protestant working class knows that the PUP/UVF is an enemy, the most virulent sectarian organisation that has to be struggled against. If the PUP/UVF, with their catalogue of sectarian murder - shankill butchers, murder of the three Quin children etc etc - are not the sectarians I can't think who on earth would qualify.

Time for the SP to own up.

DENY WHAT?

by red

Tue Jul 16, 2002 03:18

"PUP/UVF are actually socialists! (It is worth noting that the SP are totally dishonest on this question and always officially deny that they hold this position)."

You make this much more cryptic than reality.
We never said (or or didn't say) the PUP or UVF were socialist, we simply engaged what was an opening in the left within the pup, as we did with sinn fein (which doesn't bother anyone). Since than what opportunity was there at the time, isn't anymore, the sectarians won the civil war (as within republicanism) so shouldn't we have tried? I think we should, if we hadn't nothing would be much different. We will always be open to people on all sides of the divide. That is the difference between us and left republicans. We are not republicans full stop.
And none of this is a secret or hidden in anyway and we are not ashmed of it. You put this forward like it was a dark secret, it wasn't. We are socialists not nationalists and we take socialist positions. SD unfortunately is tailing republicanism, and whatever about us, if I wanted to be in a republican party I would simply join SF.
And I don't mean any of this in an insulting way.

USFI and nationalism

Tue Jul 16, 2002 03:06

I took part in the earlier debate, and I at no point insulted anyone. Or attacked anyone. I simply made the point that only opposing one side of sectarianism can be thought to be sectarian by the other side, whicheverside. We are not supporters or aplologists of loyalist sectaianism, or for that matter nationalist sectarianism. We opened up a dialoge with the left within the PUP along with the left in Sinn Fein, we organised debates between them. Okay it didn't work out, but was it such a crime to try? Leftists talk forever about unity across religious lines but very seldem do anything about it. One thing we can safely say is that small as we are our members come from both sides of the religious divide and again we make no apologies for putting a socialist rather than republican point across. Unfortunately I believe the USFI is tailing republicanism. The USFI has traditionally supported uncritically national liberation movements and usually dropped any socialist policies in the process. This to me seems more of the same even in a case where we are dealing with a communal civil conflict as much as a natioanl struggle, more so in reality.
I think you need to look at the USFI policies globally to see why it holds such an unsocialistic and communal position. I think comrades in the irish section should be much more critical of the leadership.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

A reply to the Socialist Party on opposing sectarianism

Comments (5 of 5)