The "Workers Press" and the IRA The last issue of The Red Mole declared that Ireland was the acid test for British socialists. This is true. It is the most important test which the British revolutionary left has faced since the Second World War. In general that test has been miserably failed. It is in the context of this failure that we will now examine the role of the Workers Press, daily organ of the Socialist Labour League.
We have mentioned previously the role of the bourgeois press; their distortions of the facts and crass propaganda have known no bounds. The two left-wing daily papers. The Moring Star and the Workers Press, could have played an important role in exposing the facts. Neither of them have done this. There have been a few scattered reports, it is true, but no determined effort to counter the propaganda. It is not even necessary for them to send correspondents to Ireland (although this would be an obvious responsibility for a serious paper): a great deal of material can be obtained simply by monitoring the Irish bourgeois newspapers. The article from the Irishe Times reproduced in the last Mole is a good example of this. What's the matter, comrades of the Workers Press, is your membership of the Press Association And then, when the Workers Press attacks the IMG and the Reil Mole, we cannot pass over their role in silence.
Accoeding to the Workers Press of 8th September 1971, - the so-called International Marsist Group and the "state capitalists of the Intersational Socialists welcomed the arrival of British troops as a way of defending the Catholic workers." This is a direct lie, the editor of the Workers Press knows that it is a lie, and we challenge him to furnish one shred of proof that it is not a lie. By linking the IMG with IS, he hopes to cover his tracks a bit, but anyone who examines the facts will know that the position of IMG on this issue was totally at varinnce with that of On the mass demonstration which took place in London the day after the troops went in, we issued a leaflet headed:
"Withdraw British Troops Immediately"; in internationa of May 1969 we had called for the left to oppose by all means possible the sending of British troops to Northem Ireland, and the withdrawal of those already there" (this proves that our withdrawal demand antedates that of the SLL which claims to have been the "finst "I; in internationa/ of September 1969. Pat Jordan, discussing the role of this slogan, and the difficulties raised by the opposition to it of the Civil Rights Movement, and the mass of its supporters amongst the Irish community in Britain, stressed that *.. it is extremely shorf sighted to think in terms of the British troops "protecting that minority. Inevitably as the national struggle develops, these troops will be used agrinst the Irish people. " While conceding the difficulties of using this as a mobilising slogan while the people involved in the struggle were opposed to it, he stressed, "But for revolutionaries it is essential to inclode the demand in all their LABOUR COMMITTEE AGAINST INTERNMENT and the ANTIINTERNMENT LEAGUE wit be aware of tre eustance of a body colling bell the Lobour Committee Against Intern ment; and they will be aware that its aims are compirtely teform and do nest eum include STEICATION thn unconcitions: release of all internets Ithey for all not misaser which shoot a couching faith in Orange police state jestien). Soclalit Monker reader can also hardly tail t tre aware sacondly, that the Labour Committen wat that the driving force behing this campaign is has issued instructions to all its branches through the paper to pollect signetures in support of the campaign from local M Pic, trade union officials, ete and which provides the London address for the Labour Committee.
What Socialist Worker maders may not be aware of is the axistence of another London based arganisation called the Anti-Internment Legin, which in campaigning on the principled throw of capitalism.
demands of "Immediate releass of all internes and Immediate withdrawal of Ell British troops statements on the situation. This is the only way that they can struggle for a correct line on the question; they have, moreover, the job of helping to clarity the problems in Ireland Itself. For the Civil Rights movement to confine itself to demands for the disarming of the B Specials (by whom?), etc., is to doom it to a reformist trap. " How can these statements be presented as "welcoming' tion of British troops? Mr. Michael Banda, you are a lior in S. L.L. REFORMISM The purpose of this baseless slander is to lend cover to the reformist role of the SLL in relation to the Irish struggle. The attack is a lead into the allegation that our support for the IRA is "impressionist"; in fact it is the Wonders Press which is impressionist. In the same oditorial they state that to drive the Protestants behind the Craig Paisley amalgam, and the Carholics reluctantly behind the IRA, __ it serves to drive a wedge between the Irish workers both Catholic and Protestant." In their editorial on 4th September 1971 they state that ... no socinlist con tolerate or defend the The talk about Provisionals' "terror" is totally impressionist. A balanced analysis of the actions of the Provos will show clearly that the main core of their attacks have been directed against the forces of British imperialism, and that their targets have heen far from "indiscriminate". It is true that some actions, like the hombing of the Mountainvies Tavern and the attack on the Electricity Board were very toolish (although the press refused to print the fact that they gave sufficient warning to clear the building, but the authorities chose to senrch it first). At the same time we should be very much aware of the role of the British press which has been deliberately overing up the significance of the various bombing attacks, a good example of this is the way in which a series of explosions in the last few months have been described as being directed aginst "schools" or "ware. houses" or, in one instance, a "butcher's shop in Unity Flats". People familiar with Belfast recognised many of these as being British Army billets. In other words, a large number of targets were military, but were presented us civilian. Not bothering to make an analysis of these facts, the Workers Press goes along with the bourgeois press propaganda about "indiscriminate bombings". Of course they make the ritual genuflections before the altar of "defending the IRA ugainst British imperialism", but join the rabble screaming abuse at them.
Worse than their slander of the IRA is their complete inability to put forward any viable alterntive policy for the "INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM", the These or demands which 1.5, claims to support IS LIBERALISM DEAD an indeed one IS. member is on the ummitten. But instrod of raising the cleas issues, IS. of this organisstion. Is it not, then, string: that this orgon sation never racolves a mention in Spraist Worior while colitins and columns at an mystity the working class abour the maul Anyone sha han read Socialer Worker recently each sue of the paper are dracted to the ultra reformist demands of the Labour Committee cull Tar "Releaso of all internees or ratir of trial S. mainters produce two "lustifications" for this policy firstly. that "socialists in the Narth" asked for such a body to be set up, and established as a "crudible" organisation muci the Interneticrial Socialism group itself, which enorerapidly that the Anti-internmant Leagu But revolutionaries do not base their activities on such appeas, but on class colitics. We do not act era Red Cross organisation-that can be left to the liberale Revolutionaries are distin guished from liberals precisely by the teet that instead of throwing up their hands in horror, thay sas: to give-a pospical exclanation of events and show what is necessery far the straggin to develop towards the Evant al over. of the Provisionals is being used as a "weapon, concentrate on the Labour Committes, providing the Lebour Committes by IS. marks a furthor a Lett cover for Labour M.P.s and only helping drastic step in the rigntward polusion of this British imperialism. it is revealing to compare their approach with that of Mars, who wrote, *I have done my best to tring shout this demonstration of the English workers in Tavour alectest ipprach which bains melt on ar to Self government and independence trom England", Jahr Paimer and at the 1st Labour Class, rather chan on a Marxist analysis of tra Committee meeting that the reaction to internmeet had shown that British I beralism mas dead. Unfortunately it len't It still Lies on inside iS and tha Labout Commities.
TE mamberu will, of course, argue that tesson thy the Labour Committse it a more "credible" organication than the Anti-Internchetons, IS. hase devated almost all meir resources to the former instead of ghing serious Trish workers. Their policy was admirably summed up in their Sept. 4ch editorial: "Neither temor nor civil disobedience, but the mobilisation of the British and Irish workers in a common struggle to expropriate capitalism and set up the socialist dietatorship of Irish and British workers. That is the only road forward." The counterposing of these meaningless banalities to the complex problems confronting frish revolutionaries is the essence of the SLL's method, and is the root of their reformism on the Trish question. From time to time the bonalities receive the hint of a concrete demand, as in the editorial of Sept. 7th. "The task of British and Irish Marxists is not to separate the social and national question -as the revisionists do but to integrite them in a common struggk of British and Irish workers to drive imperialism out of Ireland. The first major step is to make the Tory government resign." How precisely do the Britist workers help to drive imperialism out of Ireland? No suggestions from the SL.L; bot they do suggest that until they have thought that one out, the Irish worker should fall in behind the SLE's pet scheme, and make the British government resigi. For the Irish revolutionaries to adopt this would be the height of follyr a) they should make it clear that a Labour govem. ment would maintain the same imperialist oppression of Ireland as thie Toeles, and even if they tried would not he able to ler up on the repression; and b) they should be against any British government having anything to do with When the SLL. talk about a common struggle with the British workers, and unity of Catbolic and Protestant workers, they 1. The British workers as yet are not prepared to force the withdrawal of imperialism from Ireland: and 2. The Protestant workers as yet, far from being prepared to unite with their Catholic brother, are heing polarised aginst them and are being more and more hegemonised by Paisley & Co. For the Catholic workers to submit to the level of these workers is to ask them to surrender and go back to their old situation. If, on the contrary, they press ahead with their struggle, topple the Stormont regime, and make it impossible for imperialism to keep a grip on the Six Counties, the mass of the Twenty-Six County working class will come with them, despite the attempts of Lynch to smash opposition. This struggle will only be enminnted by the Irish workers taking power into their own hands; for them to do this, lenders with greater revolutionary understanding than the present IRA leadersbip will have to emerge. But the rond to that possibility ries through the present struggle of the IRA. Only Irish revolutionaries who are part of that struggle will be capnble of taking it further, and only British resolutionaries who support that struggk fulfil their responsibility to the Irish workers and to the British working support to the antempt to build a united front in Britain in support of the leish struggle.
The esteblishment of and backing gleen to group. It indicates, as i anin said when writing mature uf the strugule of the Irish people against on the irish strupgle in 1816, "the worst sort of opportunism, a neglect of their duties as deme crats and surintists, and a conceision to English reaction and the English bourgecise" It s of Fonianism" and strassed the right of the Irish prineled situation to une most ogcoward and chauvinist tendencies of the British working relat onship of classet and the necessity of show Ing that every. blow struck by the trish people age nst British imperialism is a biew which weakuns the British bourgeoisit and st advances the interests of the working cles in this country although they appor: thn Labour Committes, 1.5, members woule de well to consider Lenin' s characten nation of every revolutionary Who fails to raise thate issums at "a scoundeet and an today is a simple one, and by their setting un of the Labour Committee, 1.5, hase shour that mart Lague is prosely berzele, whetever their they put their own perty organisational interests before the interests. of the struggle in leeland. -John Marsion