James Connolly: The Great Irish Revolutionary

A system of society in which the workshops, factories, docks, railways, shipyards, &c., shall be owned by the nation, but administered by the Industrial Unions of the respective industries, organised as above, seems best calculated to secure the highest form of industrial efficiency, combined with the greatest amount of individual freedom from state despotism. Such a system would, we believe, realise for Ireland the most radiant hopes of all her heroes and martyrs. - James Connolly

James Connolly, the great Irish revolutionary was martyred in 1916, and is a man whose revolutionary legacy is, at any one time, being claimed by many diverse groups, many of them diametrically opposed to each other, from anarchists, to nationalists to communists and socialists.

So let us start at the beginning, where it all began. Connolly was born in 1868 to Irish immigrant parents in the Cowgate area of Edinburgh, Scotland. His father worked as a manure carter, removing dung from the streets at night, and his mother was a domestic servant who suffered from chronic bronchitis and died young from that ailment.

Anti-Irish feeling in Edinburgh at the time was so bad that most Irish were forced to live in the slums of the Cowgate and the Grassmarket areas, which became known as ‘Little Ireland’. Overcrowding, poverty, disease, drunkenness and unemployment were rife, most of the jobs available to Irish were selling second-hand clothes and working as a porter or a carter.

Though he attended St. Patricks School in Cowgate, at the age of ten he left in order to enter the workforce. He got a job with Edinburgh’s Evening News newspaper, where he worked as a ‘Devil’, cleaning inky rollers and fetching beer and food for the adult workers. His brother Thomas also worked with the same newspaper. In 1882, aged 14, he joined the British Army in which he remained for nearly seven years, all of it in Ireland, where he witnessed first hand the terrible treatment of the Irish people at the hands of the British. The mistreatment of the Irish by the British and the landlords led to Connolly forming an intense hatred of the British Army.

In 1889 while living in Dundee James first got involved in socialist politics joining the Socialist League while his older brother John was involved in a free speech campaign alongside the Social Democratic Federation and the local Trades Council.

He became active in Socialist and trade union circles and became secretary of the Scottish Socialist Federation, almost by mistake. At the time his brother John was secretary; however, after John spoke at a rally in favour of the eight-hour day he was fired from his job with the corporation, so while he looked for work, James took over as secretary. During this time, Connolly became involved with the Independent Labour Party which Keir Hardie formed in 1893.

By 1892 he was involved in the Scottish Socialist Federation, acting as its secretary from 1895, but by 1896 he had gone to Dublin to take up the full time job of secretary of the Dublin Socialist Society, which at his instigation quickly evolved into the Irish Socialist Republican Party (ISRP). The ISRP is regarded by many Irish historians as a party of pivotal importance in the early history of Irish socialism and republicanism. While active as a socialist Connolly was among the founders of the Socialist Labour Party which split from the Social Democratic Federation in 1903. While in America he was member of the Socialist Labor Party of America (1906), the Socialist Party of America (1909) and the Industrial Workers of the World, and founded the Irish Socialist Federation in New York, 1907. On his return to Ireland he was right hand man to James Larkin in the Irish Transport and General Workers Union. In 1913, in response to the Lockout, he, along with an ex-British officer, Jack White, founded the Irish Citizen Army (ICA), an armed and well-trained body of labour men whose aim was to defend workers and strikers, particularly from the frequent brutality of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Though they only numbered about 250 at most, their goal soon became the establishment of an independent and socialist Irish nation. He founded the Irish Labour Party in 1912 and was a member of the National Executive of the Irish Labour Party when he was executed in 1916.

Syndicalism:

James Connolly was first and foremost a Marxist and a socialist, but when he himself was asked to elaborate upon the specifics of his position he would often advocate revolutionary or radical syndicalism, though he would mostly refer to his ideas as Industrial Unionism rather than syndicalism.

Broadly, Syndicalism refers to ideas, movements and tendencies which share the aim of transforming capitalist society through direct action by the working class on the industrial front, at the point of production. For syndicalists, labour unions are the potential means both of overcoming capitalism and of running society in the interests of the majority. Industry and government in a syndicalist society would be run by labour union federations.

However, in attempts to smear this part of his life and thought, and to promote their own rigidly dogmatic positions, Stalinists have often claimed that the syndicalism professed by Connolly was a youthful misadventure, an aberration that by the time of his martyrdom at the hands of the British following the 1916 Easter Uprising he had all but abandoned. However even a cursory reading of Connolly’s writings dispels this myth propagated by the Stalinists. In his last major work, The Re-Conquest of Ireland, published on the 14th of December 1915, just over five months before the Easter uprising, he fervently advocates syndicalism, or ‘Industrial Unionism’, writing:

The principle of complete unity upon the Industrial plane must be unceasingly sought after; the Industrial union embracing all workers in each industry must replace the multiplicity of unions which now hamper and restrict our operations, multiply our expenses and divide our forces in face of the mutual enemy. With the Industrial Union as our principle of action, branches can be formed to give expression to the need for effective supervision of the affairs of the workshop, shipyard, dock or railway; each branch to consist of the men and women now associated in Labour upon the same technical basis as our craft unions of to-day.

Add to this the concept of one Big Union embracing all, and you have not only the outline of the most effective form of combination for industrial warfare to-day, but also for Social Administration of the Co-operative Commonwealth of the future.

A system of society in which the workshops, factories, docks, railways, shipyards, &c., shall be owned by the nation, but administered by the Industrial Unions of the respective industries, organised as above, seems best calculated to secure the highest form of industrial efficiency, combined with the greatest amount of individual freedom from state despotism. Such a system would, we believe, realise for Ireland the most radiant hopes of all her heroes and martyrs.

It is clear as day that, despite the revisionist claims of Stalinists and others, Connolly was not just an ardent supporter of socialism and Irish liberation, but also a supporter of revolutionary syndicalism. It is impossible to deny that Connolly was a major organizer of The Industrial Workers of the World during his years in the United States, an avowedly syndicalist organization. He was also heavily influenced by Daniel De Leon, and was even for a few years a member of De Leon’s Socialist Labour Party, considering himself for a number of years to be a De Leonist. However it would be wrong to try and place Connolly entirely within one of the two major schools of revolutionary syndicalism, namely De Leonism and anarcho-syndicalism. De Leon’s major revolutionary theory was that socialist revolution could only be achieved by the working-class electing a socialist party to power backed by a power and organized Industrial Union. Connolly thought this tactic to be incorrect, and he turned the model on its head, advocating rather for the Industrial Unions to seize power with the backing of a strong socialist party. The distinction may seem trivial, but it is an important one as it not only keeps him firmly outside of the De Leonist school of thought, but also the anarcho-syndicalist camp, which eschews political organization entirely in favour of industrial organization.

Nationalism

Connolly was also - as he is primarily remembered - a great Irish nationalist, something that has allowed his legacy, for better or for worse, to be claimed by Irish nationalists of all stripes. Unlike the many anarchists who also claim Connolly, I do not reject this part of his life and thought out of hand. Connolly’s Irish patriotism and his avocation of national liberation is one of the major parts of who he was. To excise national liberation from Connolly is to practically remove the memory of the Easter Rebellion. Despite the disingenuous, even outright wrong claims of many anarcho-syndicalists and anarchist communists, this is a type of nationalism that does not assume a common interest (that of national liberation) between the working-class and the national bourgeoisie. Connolly held true to the idea that the national revolution and the social revolution were linked, and that to separate them would mean failure, famously saying:

After Ireland is free, says the patriot who won’t touch Socialism, we will protect all classes, and if you won’t pay your rent you will be evicted same as now. But the evicting party, under command of the sheriff, will wear green uniforms and the Harp without the Crown, and the warrant turning you out on the roadside will be stamped with the arms of the Irish Republic.

Now, isn’t that worth fighting for?

And when you cannot find employment, and, giving up the struggle of life in despair, enter the Poorhouse, the band of the nearest regiment of the Irish army will escort you to the Poorhouse door to the tune of St. Patrick’s Day.

Oh, it will be nice to live in those days…

Now, my friend, I also am Irish, but I’m a bit more logical. The capitalist, I say, is a parasite on industry…

The working class is the victim of this parasite - this human leech, and it is the duty and interest of the working class to use every means in its power to oust this parasite class from the position which enables it to thus prey upon the vitals of Labour.

Therefore, I say, let us organise as a class to meet our masters and destroy their mastership; organise to drive them from their hold upon public life through their political power; organise to wrench from their robber clutch the land and workshops on and in which they enslave us; organise to cleanse our social life from the stain of social cannibalism, from the preying of man upon his fellow man.

One can see that Connolly could not, and would not separate the national and social revolutions, for him Ireland could only truly liberated if capitalism itself was also overthrown. He set the stage, even before Lenin and the Russian Revolution, for the post-Second World War socialist national liberation groups who viewed their cause as invariably part of the internationalist cause to bring down global capitalism and imperialism and establish global communism.

Generally I tend to view any anarchist attack on Connolly’s nationalism as highly facetious and disingenuous. It is based on the flawed anarchist understanding of national liberation and internationalism. This flawed understanding of the struggle also demonstrates why anarchism and anarchists are generally no friends of the struggles for national liberation. Finally, concerning his views on national liberation and the social revolution Connolly makes it clear that the Irish are the working-class and the working-class are Irish, saying:

We are out for Ireland for the Irish. But who are the Irish? Not the rack-renting, slum-owning landlord; not the sweating, profit-grinding capitalist; not the sleek and oily lawyer; not the prostitute pressman - the hired liars of the enemy. Not these are the Irish upon whom the future depends. Not these, but the Irish working class, the only secure foundation upon which a free nation can be reared.

The cause of labour is the cause of Ireland, the cause of Ireland is the cause of labour. They cannot be dissevered. Ireland seeks freedom. Labour seeks that an Ireland free should be the sole mistress of her own destiny, supreme owner of all material things within and upon her soil. Labour seeks to make the free Irish nation the guardian of the interests of the people of Ireland, and to secure that end would vest in that free Irish nation all property rights as against the claims of the individual, with the end in view that the individual may be enriched by the nation, and not by the spoiling of his fellows.

The United Front:

Connolly was also an early proponent of the idea of a united leftist front. He believed, as do I and many other revolutionary socialists, that a successful social revolution can only be carried out by a united front of various anti-capitalists groupings.

In support of the United Front he said:

the development of the fighting spirit is of more importance than the creation of the theoretically perfect organisation; that, indeed, the most theoretically perfect organisation may, because of its very perfection and vastness, be of the greatest possible danger to the revolutionary movement if it tends, or is used, to repress and curb the fighting spirit of comradeship in the rank and file.

For Connolly, the struggle for socialism, for the co-operative commonwealth, for a workers’ republic, for the re-conquest of Ireland; for the new social system, should be conducted on every front. He recognized revolutionary potential in all autonomous working class organisations and movements. He fully supported to the co-operative movement as well as the Irish language movement. Despite rather cynically observing that “you can’t teach a starving man Gaelic” , Connolly saw the Irish language movement as one “of defiant self-reliance and confident trust in a people’s own power of self-emancipation”.

It is because of, not in spite of his views on working-class and left unity that Connolly railed against the evils of craft unionism. Connolly’s attack on craft, or trade, unionism has the same basis as the modern attack on it, namely that it divides the workers into unions based on crafts, despite being employees of the same industry and struggling against the same bosses. This type of unionism of groups like the AFL-CIO plays right into the hands of the bosses and the managers because it turns the workers against themselves in struggles for shorter work days and higher wages, providing for a sort of divide and conquer strategy for the capitalists. To this end Connolly was a supporter of the One Big Union concept put forward by groups like the Industrial Workers of the World. He believed that all workers of all crafts should be united in one union in the common struggle against the bosses and capitalism. On this he said:

The enrolment of the workers in unions patterned closely after the structure of modern industries, and following the organic lines of industrial development, is par excellence the swiftest, safest, and most peaceful form of constructive work the Socialist can engage in. It prepares within the framework of capitalist society the working forms of the Socialist Republic, and thus, while increasing the resisting power of the worker against present encroachments of the capitalist class, it familiarizes him with the idea that the union he is helping to build up is destined to supplant that class in the control of the industry in which he is employed. The power of this idea to transform the dry detail work of trade union organisation into the constructive work of revolutionary Socialism…It invests the sordid details of the daily incidents of the class struggle with a new and beautiful meaning.

I believe today that the only way we can achieve an effective socialist revolution is to follow Connolly’s model of the united front. Do we have to include traitors to the working-class such as authoritarian socialists and centrist social democrats? No, I would not think so, because to do so would mean having to make more than compromises than most revolutionaries would be comfortable with. Again, it is disingenuous of anarchists to claim that any sort of united front would have to include these movements, it is simply an attempt to come up with excuses for not working with those you may have slight ideological differences with. We must recognize that no one group, be it syndicalists, revolutionary democratic socialists, anarchists etc are going to have all the best ideas, militants or organizers, so we must work together for the creation of a socialism, the details can be hammered out later. To deny this is handicap the movement to overthrow capitalism and to only further entrench the shameful sectarianism that divides us.

Parliamentarianism:

As was discussed above, the American syndicalist and revolutionary socialist Daniel De Leon was a major influence on the thought of Connolly. Connolly never abandoned the idea of a revolutionary party of the working-class, as hose who would later come to be known as anarcho-syndicalists would. But, as was also discussed before, Connolly turned the De Leonist revolutionary model on its head, advocating for the seizure of power and the overturning of capitalism by the unions who would in turn be backed by a strong, revolutionary socialist party. De Leon agitated for a political revolution that would in turn lead to a social revolution. Connolly was arguing for a social revolution outright.

Like many revolutionary democratic socialists, Connolly believed that a true revolution could not be made simply by seizing state power away from the capitalists. Capitalism maintains its rule through the instrument of the state, which is the collection of armed forces (police, military, etc.) into a centralized power. In order for capitalism to be replaced, these bodies of capitalism’s agents must be dissolved or disbanded, and replaced by bodies of workers’ defence forces, fully accountable to the new society. Concerning the institutions of the state Connolly said:

The political institutions of today are simply the coercive forces of capitalist society they have grown up out of, and are based upon, territorial divisions of power in the hands of the ruling class in past ages, and were carried over into capitalist society to suit the needs of the capitalist class when that class overthrew the dominion of its predecessors.

Also concerning state ownership he said:

State ownership and control is not necessarily Socialism - if it were, then the Army, the Navy, the Police, the Judges, the Gaolers, the Informers, and the Hangmen, all would all be Socialist functionaries, as they are State officials - but the ownership by the State of all the land and materials for labour, combined with the co-operative control by the workers of such land and materials, would be Socialism

Anarchists reject this out of hand, deeming it to be state socialism, but again this demonstrates their flawed understanding of such matters as the state and private property. One has to remember the Marxist approach of the overthrow of capitalism into socialism followed by the transition from socialism to fully-fledged communism. It is my belief that the anarchist requirment of a direct transition from a heavily stated society to an acepholous society is both philosophically and practically unreasonable.

Connolly’s understanding of the state and the workers’ republic was radically different than that of the Stalinist dictatorships that grew up following the Second World War. Rather he advocated for something called the co-operative commonwealth. In such a society the productive property is owned collectively and managed by democratic co-operatives, which are in turn organised along co-operative lines, industry-by-industry, region-by-region. This is very similar to the ideas put forward by Council Communism and true Jeffersonion democracy (something else I am researching), it is true social democracy, not the kind espoused by many ’social democratic’ political parties around the world. Simply put, he wanted a society that was democraticly run and organized for the benefit of society.

Connolly’s support of parliamentarianism and socialist parties puts him firmly at odds with anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists who try to claim him, but keeps himin the realm of Marxism and the revolutionary movements based on it.

Legacy:

His legacy in Ireland is mainly due to his contribution to the republican cause and his Marxism has been largely overlooked by mainstream histories. However, as was said before his legacy as a socialist has been claimed by a number of diverse groups including the Communist Party of Ireland, Connolly Youth Movement, éirígí, the IRSP, the Labour Party, Sinn Féin, the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Workers’ Party, the Scottish Socialist Party and a variety of other left-wing and left-republican groups. Also, despite claims to the contrary, Connolly’s writings show him to be first and foremost a Marxist thinker.

Connolly was among the few European members of the Second International who opposed, outright, World War I. This put him at odds with most of the labour leaders of Europe - but meant he was a co-thinker of those that would come to later call themselves communists, such as Lenin, Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg. He was influenced by and heavily involved with the radical Industrial Workers of the World labour union and the theories of Daniel De Leon.

Also, despite their ideological and theoretical differences, Lenin was apparently a great admirer of Connolly, though it is likely the two never met. Lenin berated other communists, who had criticised the Easter Rebellion in Ireland as bourgeois. He maintained that no revolution was “pure”, and communists would have to unite with other disaffected groups in order to overthrow existing social orders. He was to prove his point the next year, during the Russian Revolution.

In Scotland, Connolly’s thinking was hugely influential to socialists such as John Maclean, who would similarly combine his leftist thinking with nationalist ideas when he formed his Scottish Workers Republican Party.

To return to the beginning, Connolly’s legacy has seen attempts to co-opt it by people of almost every political stripe in Ireland from anarchists, to nationalists to Stalinists. However, while Connolly was a lot of things, there were also a lot of things he was not. Chief among these he was not an anarchist, despite the claims of many anarchist thinkers and writers. If you do a quick Google search on James Connolly and anarchism you will find many sites calling Connolly, among other things an “anarchist union organizer.” However, as I hope I have shown, while he did side against the Marxist De Leon in the I.W.W. split in 1908, he never abandoned parlimentarianism or the idea of a socialist party, something that is the very antithesis of anarchism, especially anarcho-syndicalism. He was a committed Marxist and an revolutionary Irish nationalist, two other strains of thought that place him outside of anarchism. But in the end Connolly will always be remembered as someone who struggled for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and imperialism, and someone who gave his life for it. I finish with probably my two favourite Connolly quotes:

The great only appear great because we are on our knees, let us arise!

If you strike at, imprison, or kill us, out of our prisons or graves we will still evoke a spirit that will thwart you, and perhaps, raise a force that will destroy you! We defy you! Do your worst!

Taken from the weblog By Any Means Necessary
Edited by Larry

Declaration of Arbroath

Although the English armies under Edward II were routed at Bannockburn in 1314 and by 1319, with the recapture of Berwick, effectively expelled from Scottish soil, they continued to mount attacks into Robert the Bruce's Scotland over the succeeding years.

The Pope had not accepted Scottish independence, perhaps partially because Robert the Bruce had been excommunicated for killing John Comyn in a church in Dumfries in 1306 (Comyn had formed an alliance with Edward, but perhaps had more of a right to be King than Bruce).

Thus the Declaration of Arbroath was prepared as a formal Declaration of Independence. It was drawn up in Arbroath Abbey on the 6th April 1320, most likely by the Abbot, Bernard de Linton, who was also the Chancellor of Scotland.

The Declaration urged the Pope to see things from a Scottish perspective and not to take the English claim on Scotland seriously. It used strong words, indicating that without acceptance of the Scottish case that the wars would continue and the resultant deaths would be the responsibility of the Pope.

The words of the "Declaration of Arbroath"

The campaign for Scottish Freedom

Join the real Scottish Republican Socialists
To join Scotland's real republican socialists send an email to redlarry1962@googlemail.com and provide your real name, trade union organisation if any and political affiliation or belief.Also we need to know the town or city you live in. Or join our news and debate forum on.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/scotsocialistfreedom/

The Scottish Socialist Freedom Group is the only genuine republican socialist organisation in Scotland. Unlike others we have not sold out to the constitutionalist SNP and remain true to Scottish Republican Socialism by revolutionary means through political activity.

Our current aim is to recruit new members in Scotland committed to independence and socialism. We can meet up and formulate aims and our strategy over the coming months. Target areas remain Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee but will accept members to communicate whatever location or country they reside.

Don't get mad get even and join us today

www.ssfg.weebly.com

Re: Federal Republic of Scotland?

The Republican Socialist analysis in Ireland of Eire Nua's federalist advocacy (that is, the position of the IRSP, when this position was first advanced) was that it was a sop to the loyalist/unionist community of the six counties and was contrary to the realities of contemporary Irish society and potentially harmful to the nationalist communities of the six counties.

By advocating a four province, federal state, Sinn Fein seemed to think, the loyalists might perceive themselves as retaining significant influence within the province of Ulster, even were the province restored to its original nine county status, instead of the abbreviated six counties retained by Britain in order to gerrymander a loyalist majority. Insofar as the loyalists had since the creation of the six county statelet used their dominance to oppress and terrorize the nationalist population, advocacy of anything resembling a continuation of this situation could be called reckless at worst and ill-conceived at best.

While Scotland has experience of the sectarian 'orange and green' divide, it is one that immigated to Scotland along with the Scotish populace formerly resident in Ireland and lacks the geographic concentrations that exist in Ireland. Were there a sectarian community resident in the highlands or islands hostile to the populace of the central belt, for example, one might be able to see why such a proposal was being advanced, but the reality is that to the extent a sectarian divide exists within the Scottish populace, both sides of that sectarian divide are more likely to be found in Glasgow than in any hinterlands of the nation.

An argument could be advanced that the divide between the speakers of Lallans and the speakers of Scot's Gaelig (essentially a lowlands/highlands divide) or the division between the pockets of Scottish Catholicism and the Kirk (essentially a division between small pockets in the islands and the mainland of Scotland) could provide a basis for some form of federalism. However, in the latter instance, there are probably far more Catholics in Glasgow than in the rest of Scotland combined and, in regard to the former, the extent to which the gaelig-speaking communities remaining in Scotland provide a viable base for federal division is clearly open to debate.

When one considers the significant difference that still exist between the highlands and islands and the lowlands, a strong case could be made that the populace of the highlands and islands might benefit from some constitutional protections being erected to secure their interests from being trampled upon by the far larger populace of the central belt and southern lowlands, but this doesn't necessitate the move to federalism to ensure. Scots should bear these legitimate concerns of those living in the highlands and islands when drafting a constitution after winning an independent Scottish workers' republic, however--even within a workers' republic the cultural, geographic, and historic differences between Scotland's highland and lowland populace argue for safeguards that will protect those characteristics most desirable, without preserving the reactionary attributes that have sometimes accompanied them.

More important than consideration of whether or not to adopt a federal approach to Scottish independence is consideration of the class orientation followed towards Scottish independence. Scottish independence must reflect a genuine national liberation for it to have meaning for the masses of the Scottish people and in contemporary times real national liberation is impossible without breaking the fetters of imperialism and globalized capitalism that undermine the national sovereignty of all peoples. For Scottish workers to remain oppressed by foreign imperialists and native capitalists in an independent Scotland is to have won nothing worth having. The imperative of Scottish national liberation is rooted in the reality that it is only through the break up of the archaic British state that the working class of all the nations of the islands or Britain and Ireland will be able to win their liberation as workers and as human beings. That said, the Scottish working class would be fool-hardy to support any two-stage argument that calls upon them to support the creation of an independent capitalist Scotland as an intermediate step towards building socialism.

The central tenet of the republican socialist tendency, that the struggles for national liberation and socialism are inseparablly intertwined remains as true today as it did in the time of James Connolly or John MacLean. The majority of Scotland's people are workers and those Scottish workers must insist that the creation of an independent Scottish republic is also the creation of a workers' republic.

Peter Urban
International Republican Socialist Network

Federal Republic of Scotland?

I have received an email about a Federal Republic of Scotland and the position of Scottish republicans. I am not an expert on federalism so could only give a general reply.

Hi, I wanted to ask a question regarding your movement. Is a "Federal Republic of Scotland" being advocated for or against by the Scottish republican movement, and what is the opinion of the Scottish republicans regarding intra-Scotland federalism?

I wanted to ask this because this was put forth by Irish republicans as part of an "Éire Nua" proposal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ire_Nua ), although the Éire Nua is controversial among Northern Irish republicans like Sinn Fein because of its concessions to Northern Irish protestants (who desire no less than a pronounced degree of autonomy, preferably, in protestant eyes, under a Protestant ruler than a Catholic one) in a United Ireland; outside of the republican movement, a federal republic of Ireland has also been proposed for pragmatic, local reasons, including the geopolitical distance between the services of the government in Dublin and the needs of local governments in other areas.

My supposition is that a federal republic of Scotland would address concerns regarding social self-governance at the local and regional levels better than a unitary, Glasgow-centric republic would post-independence. Furthermore, it would give greater political flexibility to local areas of Scotland in the same way that devolution and further future liberalizations of Westminster's hold over Scotland have for the political and economic viability of the country.

So, what is the opinion of the Scottish republican movement regarding a "Federal Republic of Scotland?"

Rayne
USA

And my reply:

Hi

The concept of federalism has never been debated by Scottish Republicans or Scottish Republican Socialists that I am aware of.

The Eire Nua model as advocated by Republican Sinn Fein and dropped by Gerry and his Provos is probably one of the most workable constitutional arrangements for a United Ireland. This is because the island is made up of 4 provinces one of which Ulster remains in the chains and bondage of British imperialism. I have a lot of respect for RSF's Eire Nua programme.

In Scotland the regions are different so where would we place the devolved parliaments? Or should our regions eg: Highland's & islands, Strathclyde, Tayside etc..become federal states within an independent Scotland?

You raise interesting questions on federalism of which I am not an expert on these matters.

As for a unitary state as an independent Scotland the parliament is likely to be situated in Edinburgh and yes it would be true to say Scotland is no different than any other country that the regions have specific issues and problems where a federal solution within independence could be an interesting programme to implement.

What we do not support is preservation of the union with Britain so would not be happy to settle with a Federal state within the UK.

Saying all this the pressing matters for republicans in Scotland has been the independence arguments and the need for a referendum to settle the matter for time being.

It would be interesting to debate the merits of federalism within an independent Scotland if I knew what forum would debate this I would be glad to hear about it. So far the independence movement have not been known to debate the merits of federalism within an independent Scotland.

Slainte
LM

IRSM video

Interview on US Radio with Marian Price 32 County Sovereignty Movement / IRPWA

The link below is an interview with Marian Price (Irish Republican Prisoners Welfare Association / The 32 County Sovereignty Movement on Radio Free Ireland Portland Oregon the link below is takes you to a podcast of the interview,

Interview with Marian Price 32 County Sovereignty Movement / IRPWA

What the 32 County Sovereignty Movement stand for

There exists an Anglo-Irish conflict. There exists in Ireland a prevailing politics engendered by this conflict incapable of resolving the conflict. Irish Democracy, A Framework for Unity is a political strategy for resolution of the Anglo-Irish conflict. It is a policy of democracy and for democracy. It is a policy to achieve Irish unification. As Irish republicans we pursue a separatist agenda rejecting the right or need to any British dimension in Irish politics other than those of mutual interest between two sovereign nations. The policy is predicated on the construction and practice of a new politics, democratically based, people inclusive and sovereign in expression and integrity. It is an Irish political policy.

The prevailing politics in Ireland is British politics in Ireland. This is the cause of conflict and the cause which perpetuates the conflict. British politics in Ireland, partition, is a violation of Irish sovereignty. It prohibits the Irish people to national self determination and true democratic expression. It is a colonial practice, a lingering remnant of a once world politics comprehensively rejected and reviled. Democracy is the ultimate expression of this rejection and Irish democracy must be this expression made manifest by a politics practiced from it. It is from this realisation that the politics of conflict resolution must be constructed.

Alternative politics for conflict resolution must be measured against their ability to achieve this end and not against political thinking which has already failed to do so. Republican ability must be set against the cause of conflict and not distracted by comparison to already failed strategies. The alternative to not seeking sovereign independence is to seek sovereign independence by constructing political strategies predicated on this objective. Irish Democracy, A Framework for Unity is such a political strategy.

As with any political strategy the 32 County Sovereignty Movement’s must be formatted on the basis of its just political foundation, its clearly outlined objective and its mechanism to pursue its realisation. It must address political reality if it wishes to secure fundamental change to it. As a policy, and as a strategy, the relationship between our political objective and our political strategies to achieve it must be underpinned by a clarity of purpose so as one cannot be undermined by the other. Throughout Irish history there were/are many advocates of the separatist position who ultimately sought popular endorsement to justify their abandonment of it. In more concise terms advocacy of the separatist position must be synonymous with its pursuit. The clarity of purpose in the Irish instance is sovereign democracy wherein any political initiative purporting to act in pursuit of the separatist ideal cannot in any way undermine the integrity of our right to that sovereign democracy. All politics on the island must be held accountable to this criterion.

Irish Democracy, A Framework for Unity is thus drafted under three principle headings;

1.Political Foundation.

2.Definition of Objective.

3.Political Strategies.

From these evolves the broader strategy as it relates to our perception of the conflict and the perceptions of others which confront us. Its principle tool is democratic scrutiny. The policy holds that democracy is the most potent panacea for conflict resolution and no less so for the Anglo-Irish conflict. The relationship between Irish sovereign integrity and Irish democracy is indivisible. A derogation of either imparts a derogation of the other.

We define Irish democracy as an expression of its people’s will, inclusive, accountable and unhindered by any external impediment. We reject the notion of it being a statistical headcount or a numerical mechanism by which the violation of its sovereign basis can in someway be legitimised. The British violation of Irish sovereignty is the cause of the Anglo-Irish conflict.

POLITICAL FOUNDATION

The Irish people are a sovereign people. The island of Ireland is the sovereign territory of the Irish people. These are historical and indisputable facts. They form the bedrock of the republican demand for Irish independence. Ireland, like many other small nations, was subject to colonisation and its history was primarily authored by its people’s resistance to it. Ireland was never a willing colony. The drive behind this resistance was the Irish people’s innate sense of our separate identity. This was conceded by the colonising power as it was this separate identity which marked us out for widespread coercion and discrimination.

The history of British colonialism in Ireland is one of repression, appeasement and coercion. The objective of British politics in Ireland is to remain in Ireland. The imperial concept of divide and conquer continues to be the principle mechanism by which the British maintains its presence. This policy, not unique to Ireland, involved the imposition of colonial settlers coupled with the implementation of draconian laws so that their minority status was given majority status authority. The Penal Laws of the 17th century represented a systematic attempt to eradicate the concept of Irishness as a separate identity and to replace it with an Anglo- Protestant ethos in which the minority garrison settlers were to be assured social, political, economical and religious dominance.

The political and economic systems which these laws created where systems in which political and social violence prevailed. Ireland was governed by imperial appointees, unrepresentative sectarian assemblies and flawed constitutions. It had disastrous consequences for the Irish people. Endemic poverty, famine, mass emigration and violence were the hallmarks of British colonialism in Ireland. In 1798 Theobald Wolfe Tone, the founder of Irish republican separatism, initiated an armed rebellion declaring the right of Ireland to complete independence and that such independence was the only course which could resolve the artificial differences fostered amongst the Irish people. The British responded with savage repression and introduced the Act of Union in 1801 declaring Ireland to be an integral part of the United Kingdom.

In the century which followed Ireland witnessed a cycle of rebellion, constitutional agitation, famine amounting to genocide and land wars. The British pursued repression, appeasement and coercion in attempting to pacify its occupation. Ireland could not be pacified.
Although a clear political cohesion did not always exist in the politics which fought British colonialism this was to change in 1916 when the separatist position was defined in terms of the sovereignty of the Irish people. At the outset of rebellion the President of the Provisional Government of the Irish people, P.H Pearse, read out a Proclamation which declared that;

…the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible.’

In so doing Pearse defined what the British had no right to trespass on or which no Irish representative had any right to deviate from. In response the British Government executed the Provisional Government of the Irish people.

In revulsion at this act the Irish people overwhelmingly endorsed, by popular ballot in the general election of 1918, separatist candidates who had pledged in manifesto to uphold that which was declared in the 1916 Proclamation and to convene an Irish parliament, Dail Eireann, to legislate for the Irish people. In 1919 Dail Eireann issued A Declaration Of Independence declaring,

‘Whereas the Irish people are by right a free people;’

Upon this premise, and by their status as the elected representatives of all the Irish people, enacted it the same declaration,

‘We ordain that the elected Representatives of the Irish People alone have power to make laws binding on the people of Ireland, and that the Irish Parliament is the only Parliament to which that people will give their allegiance’

The British declared Dail Eireann illegal and war ensued. The War of Independence, between the Irish Republican Army and the British occupation forces concluded with the signing of a treaty in 1922 by which the island of Ireland was partitioned. Twenty six counties were given limited Home Rule and the remaining six, in which a national minority held numerical majority, were allowed secede. Dail Eireann, by entertaining a treaty which subverted the sovereignty of the people, usurped its own authority and voted, under threat of ‘immediate and terrible war’, in favour of the treaty. A Civil war ensued wherein pro-treaty forces received British military and political assistance.

Partition and most notably its abject failure has dominated Irish political life ever since. Ireland remains as a failed colonial remnant with the violent consequences which that automatically entails. It is the political position of the 32CSM that the resolution of the Anglo-Irish conflict must commence from the explicit recognition of the sovereignty of the Irish people and our inalienable right to exercise self determination with the integrity of our sovereignty unimpeded.

We practice a politics which is unequivocal on this fundamental right and reject as flawed, subverting and inadequate any political premise purporting to act in national interests which derogates from this right. The Declaration of Independence did not mark the achievement of Irish freedom but represented its lawful expression, mandating the Irish people with the right to defend it. Irish independence, Irish sovereignty and our right to defend them can never be viewed as anachronistic.

Irish independence is a democratic right and is also the democratic solution to the Anglo-Irish conflict. In consequence Irish democratic politics, in its advocacy and practice, must place our independence both as its central objective and its central political strategy. All politics must be accountable to democracy and democracy must be accountable to sovereign integrity. The 32CSM holds that the Irish people are a sovereign people fully entitled to national self determination. It is the British contention that we are not a sovereign people and it is the British demand that the Irish people should practice a politics which recognises this. Politics based on the pre acceptance of any form of legitimacy afforded to partition is British politics in Ireland. We reject such politics.

DEFINITION of OBJECTIVE

The objective of the 32CSM, the republican separatist objective, is the restoration of Irish sovereignty by the immediate end to the British violation of it. We seek a sovereign Irish democracy for the Irish people.

Our objective is also our strategy. The politics of Irish freedom must be free from any politics which would subvert it. We seek of others, as we do ourselves, the practicing of the politics of Irish freedom.

Our objective is the realisation of our Declaration of Independence. Our objective is the objective of Wolfe Tone, of Robert Emmet, of Fintan Lalor, of Charles Kickham, of Padraig Pearse, of Liam Lynch, of Sean McCaughey, of Sean South and of Francis Hughes. Our objective is the historical objective of Irish republicanism.

POLITICAL STRATEGY

Our strategy is conflict resolution through democracy. It is an engagement with our political opponents at national and international level. It is the development of an Irish Democracy Process to secure a sovereign foundation for national self determination.

A ‘peace process’ is primarily driven by the emotiveness of its language and the electoral constraints of its participants desperate to avoid the perception of being viewed as anti peace. The political decision making process is reduced to party political considerations and electioneering. It cannot form the basis of conflict resolution because the issue of national sovereignty transcends party politics. National matters require national thinking.

Peace is not the absence of war and the politics of peace is not a process to avoid the breakdown of a ceasefire. A democracy process contains the necessary criteria to address the causes of conflict and to secure a political framework that can allow peace and justice to prevail.

There are different parties to the Anglo-Irish conflict each reflecting their own interpretations of it and answerable to their own constituencies as to how they interact with it. The flaw in current thinking holds that the resolution to the conflict is to be found in harmonising these diverse political stances rather than holding them to account as they relate to the cause of that conflict. All parties have a role in the conflict resolution process and each party must address any democratic deficiency which their position entails and it is the strategy of the 32CSM to ensure that they do.

Identifying these deficiencies requires a critical analysis set against a definition of democracy based on sovereign integrity, inclusiveness and accountability. The 32CSM submit that an Irish Democratic Framework meets this definition. An Irish Democratic Framework represents a just mechanism to resolve the conflict and the ensuing conflicts engendered thereof. In outline this framework offers;

1.A sovereign democratic expression for the Irish people.

2.Maximum inclusiveness in the democratic process.

3.Real accountability to and from government.

4.Real influence in forming government.

5.Constitutional and sovereign stability.

It is against this backdrop that peace can be secured by challenging the standing of existing positions as they relate to these fundamental democratic necessities.

A.The British Government.

The British government is the occupying power. The British government is not democratically accountable to any section of the Irish people. It is for the British government to defend this position and explain how it is tenable in an international context. The 32CSM has already issued that challenge through the auspices of the United Nations by legally challenging the British claim to sovereignty in Ireland. Clearly a duty exists on all democratic parties to challenge blatant undemocratic practices. It is the strategy of the 32CSM to ensure these parties take up this challenge.

In as much as there is this singular onus on the British government to address the issue of Irish sovereignty to secure a final settlement there exists other responsibilities for them also. As the claimed sovereign authority a neutral stance on its political intentions in Ireland is unacceptable. The nature, strategies and longevity of the Anglo-Irish conflict has created deep suspicion and fear amongst sections of the Irish people. The British government must comprehensively and definitively address these real concerns. In consequence the 32CSM calls on the British government, and for the other parties to do likewise, to clearly spell out their long term political intentions towards Ireland. The political intentions of the British government impact on all parties concerned thus creating an imperative for these parties to seek out what these intentions may be.

B.The Irish Government

A government calling itself the Irish government has a duty to defend Irish rights and interests. On national matters it has a duty to bring an Irish political perspective to bear. It alone, without external influence, must define Irish sovereignty and act accordingly. It must accept or reject the validity of the Declaration of Independence. The Irish government represents the foremost Irish political power on the island which affords it access to political corridors prohibitive to other parties. This places options at its disposal to address the conflict at national and international level. These include political, diplomatic, legal and economic forums in which Irish claims can be pursued and pressure can be brought to bear on other parties to engage on the issue of Irish sovereignty. The 32CSM calls on the Irish Government to take the lead in supporting the United Nations challenge to British claims of sovereignty in Ireland and to fully utilise all options open to it for this end. It must equally be held accountable as to why, and if, such options are not availed of and fully explored

As with the British government the Irish government has an equal responsibility in addressing suspicion and uncertainty amongst the Irish people on future political direction. As with the British government a neutral stance on behalf of the Irish government is also unacceptable. The Irish government has stated that it favours Irish unity by ‘consent’ but what is its political programme to achieve this ‘consent’. How does it envisage that Irish unity will be brought to pass? The 32CSM will hold the Irish government to task on its stated position and will pressure other parties to do likewise. Irish government intentions also have a bearing on all involved which adds an imperative on parties to engage with government to discern what these political intentions may be.

The Irish government has no option but to engage on the concept of an Irish Democratic Framework as the principle political mechanism for resolving differences between sections of the Irish people. In its pursuit of unionist ‘consent’ the Irish government must outline its vision of an inclusive Irish democracy for them and detail the sovereign basis upon which it is justifiably founded.

C.Unionists

The unionist people are Irish people. Unionism is an Irish political tradition. Since their arrival in Ireland in the 17th century those who formed the unionist persuasion have calibrated their political identity against an Irish measure and not a British one. Unionists have sought domination both as a minority on the island and as a majority within part of it. In its professed loyalty to Britain unionists have never sought equality within the democratic structure of Britain but sought veto over its decision making process as it effected the unionist tradition. Equally this veto was employed to ensure unionist insulation from the democratic wishes of the people on the island of Ireland. The veto is in effect a mechanism for unionists to secede from democratic structures which could render them a numerical minority. In tandem with this scenario is the enforced minority status afforded Irish nationalists in the artificial six county region whose sole purpose was to give economic credibility to the gerrymandered entity. Peace cannot be secured or consolidated by giving credence or constitutional protection to blatant anti democratic arrangements. It is the role of the 32CSM to challenge any political participant in such an arrangement to justify themselves and to explain on what democratic basis such arrangements are undertaken.

The hallmark of the relationship between unionists and the British government is one of profound and perennial mistrust. It is a grotesque scenario which serves only to reinforce a deep scepticism in the political and democratic process in Ireland. This mistrust is the hallmark of the historical relationship between the colonising power and the settler garrison. The proven antidote for this mistrust has been for those settlers to forge a democratic relationship with the indigenous population to help build a new and free nation. This is the strategic approach of the 32CSM to our fellow Irish people. Unionists face an imperative to address the deceit inherent in the British colonial mindset and to make preparation for their place in a democratic sovereign Irish nation. In consequence the 32CSM extends the hand of dialogue to unionists in full recognition that the fabric of a new democratic society cannot be tailored without their significant input. The future we both face into is a dependence on each other. The future of the unionist people is in Ireland.

D.Constitutional Nationalism

Irish constitutional nationalism, (ICN) in its historical and contemporary outlook, views a British dimension to Irish politics as intrinsic to its practice. One of the great fallacies in Irish political history is to interpret the difference between constitutional nationalism and republican separatism as one of methodology in pursuit of objectives. Nothing is so further removed from the truth. Indeed it has long been an established strategy for ICN to promote this fallacy only to be exposed when it came to dealing with the issue of national sovereignty. At its heart ICN views the political landscape from a British/establishme nt perspective and explicitly recognises a legitimacy in British claims of sovereignty in Ireland. The Good Friday Accord is a product of this perspective. The GFA is a mechanism to prolong a ceasefire, nothing more. That prolongation is necessary for Irish constitutional nationalism to harmonise the British presence in Ireland. The question that must be addressed by ICN, and which is posed by the 32CSM, is whether or not it accepts that the Irish people are a sovereign people thus entitled to national self determination?

Irish constitutional nationalism, no more than republican separatism, is not defined by the methods it employs but by the products and provenance of its political practices. The GFA addressed only political methods as witnessed in the pre-conditional acceptance of the Mitchell Principles for entry to negotiations. Once Irish politics defers to a British insistence on how our national rights can be pursued and defended Irish rights are automatically demeaned. This stance is one which the British would not countenance concerning its own peoples rights. As a negotiations position it is an unmitigated disaster from the Irish perspective. The 32CSM seeks to realign ICN to a position of defending Irish national rights as resolutely as the British defend theirs.


CONCLUSION

The political analysis of the 32CSM is a correct one but will remain impotent unless dialogue is pursued with the other political parties to the conflict. Because we are correct they will not voluntarily come to us but will seek to marginalise and demonise our republican stance. This is part of their failed agenda. The issue of national sovereignty, national self determination and Irish democracy cannot be avoided indefinitely. Irish Democracy, A Framework for Unity is a strategy which allows those parties to engage on these fundamental issues with republicans by first and foremost asking them to address the veracity of their own positions.

An Irish Democratic Framework offers an original and unprecedented political opportunity to resolve the deep divisions amongst the Irish people engendered by the Anglo-Irish conflict. It is not an imposed structure but one which needs the active input of all our people to construct and in so doing the process of dialogue, understanding and peace building can commence.

The 32 County Sovereignty Movement remains deeply committed to our objective of restoring our national sovereignty and the creation of an inclusive Irish democracy for all the people of Ireland. We thus initiate The Irish Democracy Process.

Building a Republican Socialist Voice

What is necessary to create Democracy for Scotland in the coming months and years is for the Scottish Left to embrace the beliefs and aspirations of true republican socialism. That we are clear that the economic and social problems that weigh heavily down on Scotland have to be tackled with independence and socialism and a programme that is created by and for republican socialists in line with wishes of the Scottish Left.

While the Left Unity initiative should be welcomed for socialists and trade unionists to provide a united front to the electorate what is also required is a programnme of intent for republican socialists to present as a new model for activism as a basis to rally around our beliefs and campaign for the objectives of the Scottish Socialist Republic.

What is needed is alternatives to the moribund and inept tenets of nationalism.

That the SNP alone cannot liberate Scotland from issues of social decline or poverty it has suffered through the years.

That activism goes beyond misplaced faith in parliamentary solutions and represents core principles that we can unite and fight around to secure a new society based on need instead of greed.

That to secure democracy is not just about independence but removing the exisiting institutions and representatives of the British state and building and creating new ones. That Scotland no longer lives under the shadow of the crown or it's powers.

That Scottish independence is a necessary first step to a socialist republic so republican socialists actively campaign for a referendum on independence.

And activism means street activity to go out to the people and sell the beliefs and message of republican socialism. That a programme of action be drawn up that goes beyond one party input or sectarianism and persuades sections of the Scottish Left of the importance and lack of contradiction in utilising republican socialists principles and beliefs when fighting for a Socialist Republic against a monarchist system.

The above is set out by the Scottish Socialist Freedom Group more will follow.

Solidarity with Gail and Tommy Sheridan

Solidarity Co-Convenor Tommy Sheridan has served with legal papers confirming that the prosecution against him will go ahead - more than a year after he was charged by police.

His wife Gail, also 44, was also served with an indictment over perjury charges.

Sheridan, who recently appeared on Channel 4's Celebrity Big Brother, was awarded £200,000 in damages after he took the News of the World to court in 2006.

However the rich scab newspaper refused to pay the damages

The Crown Office said the indictment contained a charge of perjury against the politician and another charge of attempting to persuade someone else to commit perjury.

His wife faces one charge of perjury.

A hearing is now scheduled to take place at the High Court in Edinburgh on February 26.

The perjury investigation was launched after a judge claimed conflicting evidence in the trial might have meant some people were perjuring themselves.

Sheridan and his wife have always denied the allegations and criticised the way Lothian and Borders Police handled the investigation.

The couple appeared at Edinburgh Sheriff Court to answer the charges in March last year and were released on bail.

Sheridan's solicitor, Aamer Anwar said: "Both Mr and Mrs Sheridan maintain their innocence and are determined to fight this."

The lawyer also says that the media should respect the family's privacy.

Solidarity Scotland's Socialist Movement have posted a defiant message on their website

Police harrassment of FRFI activists in Dundee

PUBLIC REPORT OF POLICE HARRASSMENT AND CHARGING OF FIGHT RACISM! FIGHT IMPERIALISM! STREET PROTEST.. DUNDEE SATURDAY 17.01.09

The day had started very well with a militant, angry and noisy protest march against Israel’s attack on Gaza going into Dundee’s city centre. After the rally, activists from Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism, one of whom had spoken at the event, set up a protest stall in the Murraygate to continue building support for the people of Gaza and Palestine.

Once again the city centre ambassadors demanded we remove our stall as we did not have permission or insurance. Once again we told them no! The police were called this time and proceeded to threaten the comrades with Breach of the Peace or causing alarm. It was suggested they go and consult their law books and superior officers as we were not backing down to such contrived charges. They appeared to accept this but returned an hour later with a van and told those present that this time they had come up with obstruction as a charge. Third time lucky for them maybe but the comrades then began speaking to the gathering crowds explaining what the police were doing and asking them to stay around as witnesses, sign the petitions and support political rights. People were told to check out the You Tube videos about the cops in Liverpool trying to close down protest there and to check out Dundee Arrest on You Tube where a comrade was violently assaulted and arrested by Tayside police for handing out leaflets about Cuba. Speakers explained that when people start to protest here about unemployment, low wages and rent rises that the same cops would be out attacking their rights too. We were speaking out for the people of Gaza who were dying at that moment and we would not allow the police to silence us.

Talk about obstruction! - by now there was 1 police van and 100 people prepared to listen to speeches and chants about free speech. Comrades from the Socialist Workers Party joined the protest having been harassed for doing political work for Gaza that week.

By now the police action was a very public affair and they were not looking so comfortable. They charged Michael with obstruction under Section 53 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. As Michael explained to the youth present this was one of the hated Margaret Thatcher’s laws and it was no surprise that her favourite bobbies were digging it up now!

Michael was threatened with arrest if the stall was not immediately removed and after consulting with the comrades and the crowds it was decided to call a rally in the Murraygate at 12 the following Saturday to protest the harassment and charges.

We call on everyone to openly and publicly challenge this attack on democratic and political rights. Get up! Stand Up! Stand Up For Your Rights!

DEFEND DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS!

NO TO POLICE INTERFERENCE!

RALLY AT MURRAYGATE 12 NOON DUNDEE SATURDAY 24.01.09

Contact the campaign on frfiscotland@yahoo.co.uk.

VENCEREMOS!

WE SHALL WIN!