home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
- Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich
- From: Eugene McElroy <emcelroy@igc.apc.org>
- Subject: Marxist Revisionism in Ireland
- Message-ID: <1992Sep3.021143.8166@mont.cs.missouri.edu>
- Followup-To: alt.activism.d
- Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
- Sender: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu
- Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
- Organization: ?
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:11:43 GMT
- Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
- Lines: 135
-
- THE NEW MARXIST REVISIONISM IN IRELAND
- by Ronnie Munck
- ********
-
- In recent years a new revisionist trend has become dominant in Irish
- historiography. It has led to a wholesale reinterpretation of Irish history,
- politics and economics. Within this broad movement there is new marxist
- historiography which has sought to overthrow the dominant conceptions on the
- left regarding Ireland. The new marxist interpretation of Ireland is strongly,
- although not exclusively, associated with the names of Paul Bew, Henry
- Patterson and Peter Gibbon.
- It is the Bew, Gibbon and Patterson's 1979 book "The State in Northern
- Ireland, 1921-1972" which sets the agenda for the Marxist revisionist project.
- Against the traditional marxist emphasis on the role of imperialism in Ireland
- these authors argue, without really demonstrating it, that "Imperialism's real
- impact upon Irish society has not been a substantial one." The authors also
- reject the traditional marxist approach based on Lenin's "rights of nations to
- self-determination." They argue there would be nothing democratic in achieving
- "territorial completion" which is seen as the main, if not sole, objective of Irish
- nationalism. Having rejected imperialism and nationalism as adequate marxist
- frameworks of interpretation the authors argue that the *state* is the central
- Marxist-Leninist concept which makes it possible to elucidate class relations.
- The main thesis of "The State in Northern Ireland" is that the Unionist
- elite has historically been divided between a populist wing inclined to buy off
- the Protestant working class and a less profligate pre-Keynesian anti-populist
- wing. Certainly nationalist propaganda has tended to portray the Unionist state
- as a homogeneous reactionary block, but this is not a necessary element of
- socialist-republican analysis. There is no problem in embracing the more subtle
- historical analysis put forward in this book. My only reservation would be on
- the vaugness of the terms and the excessive historical weight they are asked to
- bear. Another major emphasis of this study is on the Protestant working class
- as a key actor. It is this social force which is seen as a determinant in the
- various crises of the Northern state. Thus, for example, the authors argue that
- "the political concerns of O'Neilism (in the 1960's) had been determined by the
- loss of dominance over a section of the Protestant working class." Again it is no
- bad thing to bring the Protestant working class more squarely into our analysis
- of the North, but this does not alter the role played by the recalcitrant
- Catholic minority since the state was formed in the 1920's.
- Paul Bew and Henry Patterson's book "The British State and the Ulster
- Crisis" is widely seen as the standard text on the North since Direct Rule by
- Britain was imposed in 1972 after the collapse of the old Unionist government at
- Stormont. The main strategic implication of the analysis is that "the problem of
- the involvement of the British state in Northern Ireland lies not in its existence
- but in its specific forms." They argue against what they see as the republican
- "view of the British state that treats it as the instrument of a single minded
- ruling class." Yet there is nothing inherent in the socialist republican analysis
- of the North which leads to an unrealistic belief in the consistency if British
- policy. What the authors are really saying, against the republicans, is that
- there is a case for reform.
- Bew and Patterson reject the view that the Hillsbourgh agreement
- "copper-fastens" partition and was primarily designed to obtain the more
- enthusiastic participation of the Dublin government in the enterprise of
- repression. Rather, it is seen to have as a medium-term objective "a
- restablization and reinsulation of Northern Ireland through the creation of a set
- of devolved governmental institutions based in some form of partnership with
- the Catholic parties." In the longer term it was hoped that such an experience
- of shared government would prepare Unionists for their final exit from the U.K.
- Clearly some form of devolution based on power-sharing with constitutional
- nationalists, would be desireable for Britain, though now unlikely insofar as the
- Republican campaign has ensured that the "Irish dimension" is here to stay.
- Whether the long term interests of the British ruling class include a final
- withdrawal from Ireland is more questionable. What is remarkable about their
- analysis is their sympathy with a Unionism now forced to accept at least
- symbolic recognition of Irish nationalism in the North. For Bew and Patterson
- "This is a recipe for sectarian confrontation. It seems foolish at least, not to
- allow for a greater expression of the relatively secular and modernizing aspects
- of the Unionist tradition." Equal rights is deem sectarian and bigotry is labelled
- as secular.
- An unstated alternative to the Bew and Patterson analysis is the idea that
- the northern Ireland state is simply irreformable. In one way this position is
- nonsense: every bourgeois state, even an imperialist one, can logically carry
- out reforms, "clean up its act" as it were. In practice the British state has not
- improved matters as regarding religious discrimination and employment as even
- the government's own studies admit. By rejecting any relevance to the national
- question in Ireland--except as a dangerous anachronism--the marxist
- revisionists are left without a basic tool of analysis. Similarly they confuse the
- idea of an incomplete national revolution in the 1920's with the question of
- "territorial completion". The six counties of Northern Ireland are the product of
- a partial victory against imperialism and the debilitating civil war within the
- nationalist camp which followed. In "The British State and the Ulster Crisis",
- Bew and Patterson refer disparagingly to "that longstanding disposition on the
- part of the {British} governing class to treat Northern Ireland as an irritating
- and irresolvable remnant of the Irish Question." On the contrary, this would
- seems to be a case of ruling class lucidity and is certainly more realistic than
- treating the Northern Ireland state in isolation.
- What do marxist revisionists offer as a way forward for Northern Ireland?
- As we saw above, they suggest an expansion of the public sector and a
- concerted attack on structural religious inequity. As to the first, it is hardly a
- major proposal and as to the second, the inherited structures of discrimination
- seem too rooted to be dealt with by yet another state initiative (which of course
- are being undertaken anyway.) In an article on the Anglo-Irish Agreement,
- Bew and Patterson propose a far more radical solution. As a "benign way out"
- of the crisis they suggest that "one measure the British government might
- consider is the reintroduction of periodic border polls" as were proposed
- following partition in the 1920's. This extrodinary proposal "would reassure the
- Unionist and perhaps those foreign businessmen who...are now doubly
- reluctant to invest in Northern Ireland because they see the Hillsbourgh
- Agreement as the first step to British withdrawal. It would also deepen the
- logic of consent...{and} may even help to preserve to beleaguered centre." So,
- the marxist revisionists wish to reinforce artificially created national
- boundaries, reassure the architects of a sectarian state and foreign investors
- that imperialism is not under threat, and, finally help preserve the "centre".
- Further critique of this logic should not be necessary.
- Why should a theoretical/political perspective which is so flawed achieve
- such prominence? It is not the purpose of this article to explore the various
- silences of the British left on Ireland. However, it is the dearth of sound
- socialist studies of this nasty little war on their doorstep which has probably
- prompted the growing adoption of the new marxist revisionism by the British
- left. The Irish left, of course, bears a responsibility in this, because the
- caricature of its weakness by the revisionists is nevertheless founded in fact.
- Simplistic analysis and dangerous sloganizing has been substituted for
- empirically sound and theoretically grounded analysis of the situation. Precisely
- when the potential audience for marxist ideas and interpretations has increased
- with the radicalization of Sinn Fein in the last decade, the left is embracing a
- rabidly anti-nationalist marxism which has little chance of influencing events.
- At best the left will fell justified in keeping its head down on Irish matters until
- the dust settles and a "democratic compromise" can be imposed by the British
- state.
- **********
-
- Ronnie Munck is a Reader in sociology at the University of Ulster at Coleraine.
- Munck is the author of "The Difficult Dialogue: Marxism and Nationalism."
- **********
-
- This article appeared in the Northern Ireland Report. A subscription for 10
- issues costs 20 U.S. dollars. The NIR may be reached at:
- tel: 413-746-4876.
-
- -or-
-
- P.O. Box 9086
- Lowell, Mass 01853
- *******
-
-
-