I should like to take up some of the points raised by Brian Dunlop's letter (May International) and to elaborate some of the points in my original article.
First of all, on the question of support for the demand of a united Ireland, rather than a united socialist Ireland. This point was aimed at socialists in Britain, and was based on our duty to support the right of the Irish people to self-determination, regardless of whether or not this produced a socialist Ireland. It is perfectly appropriate, of course for Irish socialists to demand a socialist Ireland, and to determine their relationship to those (Irish) who simply fight for a united Ireland. As regards self-determination, I think there can be very little doubt that self-determination for the Irish people as a whole would result in a united country. True enough the majority in the North are against this at present - but the present crisis in Ulster ultimately stems from the fact that Northern Ireland is an artificial creation, imposed in 1921 to suit the interests of British Imperialism and the Northern Irish capitalist class. Its very existence is dependent and always has been, on the systematic oppression, politically, economically and socially, of one-third of the population - on keeping them as second class citizens.
On the question of the loss of support by the Nationalist Party at the recent election, (which I welcome), I think this was in spite of its position on the border, and because of its pusillanimity on the Civil Rights issue by comparison with Peoples Democracy or even Hume and Cooper.
I think, however, that having made clear their position on the question of unification of Ireland, socialists should not emphasise this aspect at the moment, but should seek to emphasise those aspects which separate them from the Northern Nationalists (and the two southern bourgeois parties). That is, they should concentrate on widening the programme of the Civil Rights movement to include socialist demands on jobs, housing etc. In spite of their opposition to partition, the Nationalist in the North have never been able to become more than a Catholic party because they are not in any way opposed to capitalism.
Only a socialist programme for the Civil Rights movement will be able to win to it the Protestant workers - which, as comrade Dunlop points out, is very important. It is quite wrong, however, to moderate the very justified demands of the Catholics, or to duck the question of the border, in order to appeal to the Protestant workers. The Protestant working class in Ulster has a record of collaboration in the oppression of Catholics which matches that of white workers in America in relation to the black people. I think the comparison I made between the Ulster Protestants and the "poor whites" of the U.S.A. was very apt. But when I made this comparison I didn't intend to create the impression that the Protestants don't suffer from bad housing, unemployment, etc. They most certainly do (even though, in general, not as badly as the Catholics.) This is why they can be mobilised around socialist demands. The point is that by assisting in the oppression of Catholics, they maintain the split in the working class which only helps the capitalists to exploit both Catholics and Protestants. The task of socialists is to extend the struggle to the Protestant workers without damping down in any way the struggle of the Catholic workers. The only Catholic-Protestant unity possible is a unity based on a common struggle against Orange capitalism, as it oppresses and exploits both. Unity is not possible on the basis of concessions to the present unconsciousness of the Protestant workers - which only reflects their present adherence to the Unionist Party.
Finally, on the question of whether a united capitalist Ireland would be a step forward. I think if a united Ireland could be achieved even under capitalism it would be a step forward. It should have been achieved fifty years ago, and if it had been then the working class of Ireland would have been much better able to build a socialist movement. Instead, for fifty years the main issue in Irish politics has been the border. On the basis of this uncompleted task of the bourgeois revolution, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have retained much support based on nationalist feeling, while in the North the issue of the border has kept the working class divided between Protestant and Catholic, Unionist and Nationalist. However, I think the real point is that today there is no prospect of a united Ireland being achieved under capitalism. The only way that Ireland could be united would be by a bitter struggle against the reactionary Orange capitalist class in the Six Counties and against the Paisleyites. Only the working class of the Six Counties, organised around a socialist programme, could defeat Orange capitalism (and, incidentally destroy Paisley's base of support among Protestant workers). Faced with such a prospect, there is little doubt on which side would be found the British Government, the Northern Nationalists, and the Southern Bourgeoisie. Thus today, the national struggle in Ireland is inextricably linked to the socialist revolution. The unity of Ireland will be achieved on the basis of the common struggle against capitalism of the Irish working class and its allies on both sides of the border. Such a struggle would have to be based not simply (or even principally) on the demand for unity, but on a revolutionary anticapitalist programme around which could be built an all Ireland movement. It is the elaboration of such a programme and the building of such a movement which will enable the Irish working class both to complete the Irish bourgeois revolution and begin to carry out a socialist revolution - that is, to carry through the Permanent Revolution in Ireland.