From: Eugene McElroy <emcelroy@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Marxist Revisionism in Ireland
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:11:43 GMT

                 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
                                 *******


Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive