Which way forward for LCI?

Scan page 13

MARTIN Collins' letter on the Labour Committee on Ireland (LCI) AGM (SO; last week) is both wildly misleading and blurs over the real issues at stake.

Firstly he claims that such ideas as affiliation to Socialists for a Labour Victory, opposition to the witch-hunt and continued recognition expelled members, work in une model resolution on the Assembly for this year's Labour Party conference, were Socialist Action initiatives.

In fact, all of these points were generally uncontentious within the LCI. They were supported, and in some cases introduced into the LCI, by SO.

As for work in the unions, two sets of proposals, were put to the AGM in April: one in Martin's name, and one in mine and those of two other SO supporters. With the exception of the idea of a trade union delegation to the Six Counties (which I support) the practical conclusions were identical.

No "SO ideas about establishing a front organisation in the unions" were put to this AGM. Last year SO supporters put a proposal for an LCI-type organisation for the unions to get round the problem that (for good political reasons) only Labour Party members are able to join the LCI.

What then was all the fuss about? There was a major argument about the LCI's publications, which was based on a major difference of assessment of the stage of development and potential of the Irish solidarity movement in Britain today.

Martin and other Socialist Action supporters put forward a longer than 400 words, please: longer letters are liable to be cut. tion for this was that the election audience.

Never mind that the LCI's resources are small and stretched to the limit; never mind that active interest in Ireland in the Labour Party is at a far lower level than in 1981; never mind that the solidarity movement (particularly the Troops Out Movement) has been intoxicated for years with the illusion that at As evidence on this mass audMaybe as a result the Catholic Herald has doubled its print run!

Martin's letter passes over all this and implies that here the LCI followed Socialist Action, rather' than the pessimists of Socialist Organiser. In fact SA's proposals were overwhelmingly rejected by the, AGM in favour of more modest and realDear Comrades, Most of those who have written in over the past few months to take issúe with John O'Mahony's views on Ireland are clearly people with no great knowledge of Irish society, Irish history or of the basic positions of communism -Peter Flack (SO Feb 10) being a classic case in point.

One might, however, have expected better from Rayner Lysaght. But when you cut away tmired by Londoners. istic proposals, for a 16 page bulletin appearing at least quarterly, put by myself and two non-SO comrades, and supported by SO.

These proposals were argued for on the basis that, though it has become easier to discuss Ireland in the Labour Party, and unert are mOre sympathetic people, the ICI is still a long way from having the impact needed within the Partv to ger.

TY JUALLA VAIN iously challenge the half-hearted measures adopted as official policy.

If Martin's letter had been a less factional account of what happened, we might at least have heard some of this. Readers may be better able to judge who is zanier by a full account of the facts. BRUCE ROBINSON Islington the U Sec gobbledegook, all comrade Lysaght has to say is: 1. All attempts to conciliate the Protestant community (e.g. through Federalism) are futile until after the creation of a 32 county state. 2. To even attempt to foster unity between the Catholics and those who 'oppose imperialism ... if at all, from the right' (i.e. the protestants) inevitably leads to rightist deviations and capitulation to British imperialsim à la BICO, SFWP, 'Militant' and ... Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien! 3. BICO, SFWP, 'Militant' the Cruiser and John O'Mahony all share one original sin: they 'all deny Permanent Revolution's validity in Ireland' I get the impression that comrade Lysaght objects to talk of workers' unity in the existing Irish context essentially because it sounds like the sort of thing 'Militant' uses as a cover for their scab position on the national struggle. That's certainly the reaction of many comrades in England, anyway. But what a tragedy it would be if we were to discard such a fundamental communist slogan simply because renegades like 'Militant' have misused it!

Paradox

Does comrade Lysaght believe that a united Ireland can be achieved by militarily defeating and physically crushing the protestants? Does he advocate such a strategy for the creation of a united Ireland? I cannot believe that he does, but that seems to be the only logical conclusion once you've ruled out conciliating the protestants -and (paradoxically) it also consigns the goal of a united Ireland to the dim and distant future when the forces of 'Permanent Revolution' have had their way!

The comrade's confusion seems to me to stem from a misconception he shares with many socialists on the mainland, who in their (correct) eagerness to solidarise with the nationalist cause, end up forgetting the ABCs of working class police. and lapsing into petty bourgeo nationalism. In fact, there Deet be" no contradiction bermeer being 'an anti-imperialiss supporting the Irish naciose! democratic struggle' advocating measures to coacitiate the Protestant working class (and, really, whether or not any Protestant worker is bothered about Federalism is a rather cheap way of dismissing the orientation that O'Mabony advocates). The only people who see any contradiction are those who have given up an! independent working class ries of the situation and opted instead for Catholic nationalism plus 'Trotskyist' rhetoric. Finally, although I don't intend to go into the whole business of Permanent Revolution and Ireland, two points must be made. For a stars. 'Militant' do not 'deny Permasent Revolution's validiy so Ireland' ' In fact they prodaim the applicability of this theor! to Ireland very loudly and with monotonous regularity - and I'm surprised comrade Lysagts is not aware of this. So much for the idea that allegiance to this particular view of the Irist struggle guarantees intransigent anti-imperialism.. Although comrade Lysaght clearly sees 'Permanent Revolution' as some kind of ongoing process, complete with vanguards' ask him - along with all those who proclaim the relevance of this theory to Ireland - where are the 'peasant masses', and where is the unresolved 'agrarian question'? As far as I can see, to try to apply Trotsky's theory lof central importance in backward, non-industrial societies) to an advanced, industrialised country with a numerically dominant proletariat and a developed labour movement, is at best misleading, and at worst to use Trotsky's theory as a cover tot seeking an alliance with the national bourgeoisie.

Yours, Jim Denham

----- pull-quotes -----

Send letters to Socialist Organiser 28 Middle Lane, London N8. No