The following discussion took place before the introduction of internment in the North of Ireland. At the date of writing (19th August 1971) the outcome of the struggle round internment is unclear. What is not unclear is the attitude which revolutionaries must take to the events in the North. They must unconditionally support the struggle of the IRA against British imperialism and its puppets.
The recent events in the North bring even more sharply into focus the way in which the struggle against Britain can only be carried on simultaneously with a struggle against the Southern bourgeoisie. Lynch has already spoken of the possibilities of internment in the South and of course the 1938 and 1956 Republican military campaigns were both stabbed in the back by precisely such moves. As the only revolutionary organisation with a real base inside both the North and the South, the positions of the Republican movement will be a determining element in the situation. It is for this reason that the following interview with Belfast Republicans is of particular interest.
END INTERNMENT!
WITHDRAW ALL BRITISH TROOPS IMMEDIATELY!
VICTORY TO THE I.R.A.!
Bob Purdie:- I would like first of all to discuss the new policy on abstentionism that the Republican Movement has adopted. What do you think about it? Do you see it making much change in the way you work here in the North?
Malachy McGurran:- Personally, as I spoke against the new policy at the Ard-Fheis, I feel there could be great dangers for the movement. From a purely tactical point of view, I think the organisation itself must have, as I said, a clearly defined policy, know exactly what it wants and how it's going to achieve it, and then look at the organisation it has and say 'is that organisation structured properly to achieve that objective and to carry out the policies and tactics of the organisation?' Despite my reservations, I think that there is a good opportunity of getting a more realistic look at any analysis of the political situation in the whole of Ireland because of the change in our attitude.
Malachy McBurney:- I think it should be also said that it may even be tactical for us at some point in the future to contest an election on an abstentionist ticket. This is still possible even though we have adopted a policy of entry into parliament.
Liam McMillen:- Regarding the abstentionist policy, the only advantage that I see in it is the fact that it opens up the options for us now to either attend or not attend as the case may warrant it. In the past where we had been engaged in activities through Republican Clubs, trying to achieve social justice or to right certain wrongs that had been perpetrated by government bodies, local government bodies, etc. against the people, we were able to take agitation on the streets to a certain degree. But once it became necessary for someone to enter the corridors of power in City Hall, we found the doors closed in our faces, and we had to resort to the local politicians. We had to have these people to introduce our delegations to the City Hall, to have grievances redressed, and the inevitable outcome of this was that any credit for any redress of social injustices that did come about rebounded to the credit of these politicians. And to this extent, we can see that it would be to our advantage to have sincere and dedicated men, elected to local government bodies, who would be able to carry on the fight, not only in the street, but within the corridors of power as well. And in this way we would hope to build up a credible organisation, an organisation that people would see as worth supporting.
Malachy McGurran:- While accepting the basic ideas regarding an attendance policy, I think that eventually what you're trying to create is an alternative structure that the people can see is their structure and be part of. Possibly the use of what is known as 'attendance' could help you to expose the present state power, state bureaucracy, and how it works against the interests of the ordinary working class people, and you could do it from inside with the help of the people outside. I think possibly the best example is the political situation we find ourselves in here in the six counties, where for example the politicians like Hume and Currie and people like that were elected on the strength of the broad support of the civil rights movement, but when they got into power they looked on the civil rights movement, and to some extent the civil rights association, as their servants to, at their behest, take action or not take action, go on the streets or not go on the streets. We want to create a situation with Republicans who may be attending these things, that they are there as the servants of the people and the Republican Movement, to carry out the wishes of the people. And that way it can be exposed. But it must be exposed and destroyed at those two levels.
Des O'Hagan:- It seems to me also that the whole policy of abstentionism was in the more recent past, I would say possibly from the Forties period through until the sixties, in some senses psychologically damaging to the movement. While we were conscious at all times that we were aiming at a Republic of the type outlined by Connolly and Pearse, by engaging in abstentionism one's thinking was directed solely towards the idea of a totally military reconquest of Ireland, and by concentrating upon this certain features of the imperialist nature of control in Ireland both north and south were more or less pushed to the back of our minds. Now by confronting this issue again, it seems to me as if we had become more sensitive to the character of the Republic as envisaged by Connolly and Pearse.
Malachy McBurney:- Abstentionism was a tactic which was practised by republicans immediately after the two statelets were set up in Ireland. But by 1925 the two statelets had become a fact, and from then on abstentionism was no longer relevant. The main idea behind going into these parliaments, north and south, local governments and so forth is that republicans today still realise that abstentionism is correct in relation to these two parliaments. In actual fact, what they're going to do, put in the revolutionary context, is to go in and expose these governments, north and south, for what they are, and to show the people clearly that no redress can be had from these institutions, and in the final analysis that they must come out and abstain from them. It is a question largely of proving to the people that abstentionism is right. Because if the people don't believe in it then it is insufficient for a small group of people within the Republican Movement to believe in it. We must convince the people for the need for abstentionism at the right time.
Liam McMillen:- The point that you are trying to make Malachy is that there is nothing to be gained through attendance at any of these partitionist assemblies, and although we as Republicans know that it is a waste of time going in there and trying to get social justice out of these establishments, the ordinary man in the street believes that there is something to be gained out of having representatives there, and it is up to us principled men who won't be corrupted while we are in there who have the welfare of the working class at heart, to go in there and let the people see that we're not to be corrupted, and at the same time we can prove to the people that we are only wasting our time in there, that there is absolutely nothing to be got by attending, therefore, with the street agitation that will be going on, the extra-parliamentary agitation that will be going on. In the meantime, if we succeed in proving to the people that there is nothing to be had through attendance, then they will see not only the wisdom of abstentionism, but of pushing our demands through extra-parliamentary procedures.
Kevin McCorrey:- I think a number of points should be clarified about the question of abstention and what we mean from the resolutions that were passed at the Ard-Fheis. In the first place, the Ard-Fheis did not give a blanket permission to the Ard-Comhairle or the leadership of the movement to immediately put forward candidates should a general election to Westminster or within the 26 counties come tomorrow or even within a year. The whole thinking of the movement, up to the change of policy, must be clearly understood and emphasised if the whole exercise of the Ard-Fheis isn't to be written off as a move towards reformism on the part of the Republican Movement. In the first place, allied with the question of abstentionism, there was a reaffirmation at the Ard-Fheis of our policy of the creation of a National Liberation Front, although at the Ard-Fheis it was decided to change the name to National Liberation Movement. In other words, at local level, it was reaffirmed that the movement press ahead with moves to build up and develop an organisation of principled groups coming together to develop a movement which would, first of all at local level, but ultimately at national level, lead the struggle for national independence and open up the road to a socialist 32 county republic of Ireland. Now given this commitment, it was decided that any hinderances or obstacles that could possibly be in the way of the development of such a movement, such as certain characteristics of policy which perhaps were legitimate years ago, but were not so legitimate now, must be done away with. In other words, we must leave the way clearly open for the development of a national liberation movement. Now, we don't say that participation either in Stormont or in the 26 county Dail will gain anything really at the level of the struggle for national independence. Our experience has shown that nothing can be gained in qualitative terms from these assemblies. But we do say that definite improvements can be won within the present system through, for example, a well coordinated political agitation which combines parliamentary agitation as well. Limited gains can be won. This is part of our development, part of our struggle to develop the National Liberation Movement. In other words, if we can show that at the level of winning limited gains the revolutionary leadership within the National Liberation Movement can win such gains as effectively as the reformist politicians can. We can also use our position to get across to the majority of the people that we are able to lead the struggle for national independence, and use this as a spring board for the development of such a movement.
Bob Purdie:- Another aspect of the question of abstentionism which is worth considering is the history of the British Labour Movement, the discussions between Lenin and leaders of the early British Communist Party, like Willie Gallagher, and the experience of the I.L.P. group of Clydeside M.P.s. Has the Republican Movement discussed this, and what relevance do you think it has for you?
Kevin McCorrey:- I think first of all, and this is one of the points which Malachy (McGurran) made at the Ard-Fheis about what our priorities should be at the present time. He said quite legitimately that our primary task at the present time is political clarification inside the movement, and clarification, through our work with other organisations and so on, about what the tasks ahead are, about what the immediate gains that can be fought for are, and what the long term struggle is all about. I think this is very relevant in the light of the experience of British comrades inside the Labour movement, and particularly inside the Labour Party. And I think while Malachy's objections were very, very legitimate, the resolution which was passed at the Ard-Fheis was a resolution which took into account the experience in the British Social Democratic movement, and the limitations of that Social Democratic approach to change in society. One of the things about the I.L.P. and the Social Democratic left was their complete ideological weakness when they were faced with the store house of reformist in the Fabian Society. In other words, someone has said that all that the mass left in Britain had was a mixture of Christian socialism and humanitarianism, and in the struggle inside the Labour movement for the correct political approach, the I.L.P. elements were absolutely swamped by the heavy brigade from the Fabian Society, the middle class reformists, and so on. Now, this was borne out in the organisational limitations of the Labour Party; when it came to participation in parliament it was the Fabian society types, the reformists, who controlled the parliamentary party, and the party was structured in such a way that parliamentary party controlled the entire party, and was never bound by decisions at annual conferences. To get back to the resolution at Ard-Fheis, I think the safeguards take this into account. By no stretch of the imagination will the parliamentarians, the people who are carrying out the struggle in Stormont, Westminster, or the 26 county Dail, ever be in a position of leadership. They will be controlled by the outside movement. (This is given a degree of development which is not existent at the present time). And most important, abstention and non-abstention, these things are irrelevancies if the actual struggle in the country hasn't reached a particular point. The essence of the Republican attitude towards society is that we start with the problems of the people, reflected in housing, jobs and so on, and we develop initiative among the people through mass organisations, so that from this the basis of the NLM develops. Now, it will be the mass organisations which will be in control of the parliamentarians, it will not be the other way around; and if we can evolve a correct strategy towards this, then parliamentary participation becomes a valuable part of the struggle. But if by some organisational limitation this doesn't happen, we sink into reformism. But this is essentially what the struggle is about.
Des O'Hagan:- I think also there is an important difference between the tradition of struggle in Ireland and that of the I.L.P. and left-wing organisations in Britain. The point is that the Republican movement has a revolutionary tradition, the left-wing groups in Britain had no revolutionary tradition. They operated from within the parliamentary situation, so it was no surprise, for example, that at the time that the first genuine Labour government arrived, Attlee, instead of going to the chairman of the Labour Party went directly to the king. This emphasises the total parliamentary character of the Labour movement in Britain. We are not faced with that situation because we've always been a movement with revolutionary ideas and revolutionary principles, and I can't see any possibility of parliamentarians getting control of the movement at any time
Malachy McGurran:- This is, I think, complementary to what Des is after saying. The objectives of the British left seemed to be to get into parliament and control the whole situation from parliament. Now we have debated this aspect of the parliamentary activity of the Republican Movement, and as Des has pointed out ours is a long history of, to use the term, 'unlawful' activity. We are not prepared to be bound or accept any law which affects either us as Republicans or affects the ordinary working class people. And we've shown this by force of arms as recently as the fight that was put up in the Falls Road on July 3rd last year against the lawful Crown forces. Our objective is the creation of the strongest weapon possible to destroy British Imperialism and foreign and native capitalism in this country, and to create socialism in Ireland. Parliamentary participation can be part of that weapon, an integral part, but not the main body of the weapon; because once it becomes that, then the movement or the Organisation participating becomes reformist, and from there to part of the establishment. Once this is clearly understood with the membership of the Republican Movement, then I see little chance of the movement going wrong. More important, this takes class analysis, it takes a political analysis, it takes an analysis of the lessons of history, of our own struggles here, and the struggles of the left in Britain; the left in any other country, the Algerian situation, the Cuban struggle and the Chinese situation. We must be able to learn from them and see if there are parallels in these situations that would apply to the situation in Ireland now or in another three years,' That way there is less chance of us making the mistakes that some of the other, what is termed 'left' organisations have. I think the basic thing is that their objective was to attempt to gain control through the parliamentary system, and they were sidetracked from their original objective of creating the revolution within the people. They attempted to create the revolution within parliament, and they failed because the establishment would not permit that.
Bob Purdie:- Can we talk now about the current stage of the Civil Rights Movement. What role do you think it has to play now? Do you see any significance for it in the proposed anti-trade union legislation in Britain, which may be taken up also by the Unionists here? Also do you think there has been any progress in getting through to Protestant workers?
Malachy McGurran:- Well, I think I said to you before Bob in another interview that there is always the danger that you would concentrate all your efforts and activity in getting through to the Protestant working class, and find that the Catholic working class had been led astray behind your back, and they would knife you in the back. But on the civil rights question (which other left groups claim creates sectarianism) for 50 years gerrymandering, discrimination, jobbery, patronage in relation to houses and jobs, was used to divide people, was used to create in the minds of one group of people that they were in a privileged position, and in the minds of others that they were in a second class damn-near sub-human position, and this created a very deep, bitter barrier. And at least a start, and a very big start I think would be made if you destroyed the legislation that was implemented to create this kind of thing. Destroy the Unionist structure at local government level, which continues to create this kind of sectarian barrier. We can't ignore the barriers as other left groups have done, we must accept that they're there. Then we try and find out how they were created, why they were created, and then see how they can be destroyed. Other left groups, to my mind, use futile sloganising, 'we must get through to the protestant working class, and we must create this and we must do that', but, some of them, (most of them in fact), unfortunately, are not in the physical position to actually take any concrete steps to get things done. I believe that if you destroy the barriers or force the establishment to remove the legislation, to remove the structure at local government level, which helps create the sectarian barriers in the minds of people. If people then see themselves in social and class terms, regardless of whether they're protestant or catholic, or atheist, then you have a greater opportunity of creating from within them broad support for revolutionary objectives and for a revolutionary movement. Admittedly, the civil rights programme is one of reform, they simply want to see everyone treated fairly. But I would say that if it succeeded in creating some kind of basic normal society, in which we can get across our message to a larger section of the people whether they are catholic or protestant, we could create in their minds the idea that there is an alternative to the kind of structures that they have been supporting, whether green toryism from the nationalist point of view or fascist unionism and imperialism from the unionist point of view. But I think we've got to accept that the barriers are there, examine the barriers and then take physical steps to remove them. Tomas MacGiolla in speaking at the Sinn Fein Ard-Fheis said that the barriers must be crossed by force. I think what he was in fact saying was that the barriers would have to be crossed physically, and it might mean, as someone has said, that if you stretch out one hand they might cut your hand off, and if you keep it out they'll cut your arm off; well in that case you'll have to put out your other arm and your other hand in the hope that they might grasp your hand or the stump that's left after they've bitten it off.
Liam McMillen:- Well, regarding the progress in getting across to the protestant working class. It's a curious and a beneficial fact that due to the split within the republican movement, people including protestant working class people, have at last started to ask themselves what has caused this split? Why has the Republican Movement broken open? This has given rise to a closer examination of the policies of the official Republican Movement: the social programme, the economic programme, etc. And to a greater extent we have managed to shed the catholic, nationalist image that we have carried for so long. This image has been taken up by the Provisionals who now continue in the traditional methods and manners of the Republican Movement in the past. A good beginning has been made with the establishment of the West Belfast Democratic Alliance, the purpose of this being to unite all people of different political hues, different religions, no religions, providing that they all accept an agreed set of demands. And to this end we issued invitations to various protestant organisations, tenants associations, etc., and we're meeting with a fairly favourable response. Unfortunately, during the troubles of the 27th June last, three protestant men were shot dead in the Ballymaccasrett area (that's the shipyard area), and three other protestant workers shot dead in the Ardoyne area. This set back all the good work that had been done, the ground work, the ordinary routine trying to build up an organisation, that type of work. This was all set back with the death of these people, and it's going to require a hell of a lot of hard work on our part to regain the ground that was lost through the killings.
Malachy McGurran:- I would just like to make one point in connection with what Liam was saying. For example, the James Connolly Republican Club in Derry City, which has been very active in housing questions, were approached by a number of protestant people some time ago to help them squat in a particular area, because they had been on the housing list for four or five years and hadn't got a house. The Club was very agreeable to meet the people and discuss this, but at the very first meeting the first question that was asked by the protestant people was 'well, that's OK, because we're not prepared to work with these other people'. I think they had clearly seen the differences, and the main point made by Liam is that they are beginning to ask the question 'why the split?' and doing maybe a closer analysis, unconsciously even as to why the split has taken place. Even in the context of membership of the Republican Movement there has been particularly over the last twelve months a steady increase of new members from among young protestant people, which, if you like, is amazing because the August riots and the August pogroms here in Belfast in 1969 led to a tremendous amount of sectarian bitterness. Not as much naturally as we would wish, but it has also been taking place in other areas, in Larne, in Lurgan, in Armagh and Newry. A little less in the rural areas than we would hope. This is a good indication that a lot of people, particularly young people beginning to examine what is going on here and what has been going on here for the last fifty years, are beginning to see the light and beginning to see their way forward, come to the movement, and see the movement as representing their feelings and their aspirations for the creation of a better society for the ordinary people in this country. The average protestant some time ago who would have come to these conclusions and who would have looked round to see what he could give his allegiance to, as a rule would have joined the Northern Ireland Communist Party, because of the sectarian image that the Republican Movement had, and I think this is a good indication that that sectarian image is fast receding from our movement. Though unfortunately sometimes those that classify themselves as Provisional Republicans can be biggotted catholics in defence of holy mother Ireland, or Holy Mother Catholic Ireland, and still help to continue the image in people's minds, particularly protestant people, that Republicanism is equated with catholicism. We have a hard job, without necessarily attacking these people physically or even verbally, in showing the people that we stand for anything but what the Provisional Republicans stand for. I think there is a hell of a lot of progress still to be made in this regard, but a lot has been done, there has been a good start made.
Des O'Hagan:- The capitalist press in Ireland fearing unity of the catholic and protestant working class in the north, deliberately over-emphasises the divisions that exist. The Tory press particularly delights in playing up the slightest situation, even at comical levels, where there are protestant and catholic disagreements. I think that the capitalist press have it in mind to divert revolutionary attention from the stepping up of revolutionary propaganda directed at sections of the community which owe allegiance to no religion. I'm thinking here particularly of educational institutions and the trade union movement (at lease sections of the trade union movement). They try to make people who have got progressive policies feel that the situation is hopeless, and in some senses they undoubtedly have succeeded in doing this. The existance of the Provisional Movement has been pointed out as I think adequate evidence of the success of the capitalist press in this direction.
Liam McMillen:- Regarding the present role of the Civil Rights Association. We feel that the civil rights movement still has an important role to play, that the implementation of the promised reforms is still a long way off, and it's necessary to have at least a nucleus around which a mass movement can be restructured, if necessary, in order to bring the people back on to the streets, to guarantee the implementation of these reforms. In saying that, I must also say that I feel personally that the civil rights movement has a short life span in front of it. I do feel that somehow or other its direction should be changed if that's at all possible, while still retaining, or attempting to retain, the present structure. It should be changed in the direction of making more and more social and economic demands as opposed to purely civil rights demands. Whether this is possible or not remains to be seen. However, regarding the other point that you've raised, the anti-working class legislation, this is an issue which I feel could be perfect for uniting the various groups, the various political parties, the individuals who are concerned about the inroads that are being made day and daily into the standard of living of the working class. I would hope that it would be possible at some time in the future to unite everyone in a mass organisation to resist the continuous erosion of working class standards, and a movement similar to the civil rights movement could possible emerge from this.
Kevin McCorrey:- I think we should have a word or two of clarification of where we see the civil rights struggle where it fits in with the other levels of struggle at the present time. I think it must be made clear, and we emphasise this in the Freedom Manifesto of the Republican Movement, that the present time in Ireland there are three levels of struggle going on simultaneously. There's the civil rights struggle, both north and south of the border which by and large is a struggle to achieve as much equality of opportunity in jobs, housing and political organisation as is possible inside the imperialist framework. In other words, it is a reformist demand to achieve as much equality of opportunity inside the existing framework. The second level of struggle is the national struggle, the struggle for national independence. And the third level is the struggle for the emancipation of the working class and the creation of a socialist 32 county republic. It is becoming clear to Republicans operating inside the civil rights movement that these three struggles are interlinked, and that the correct leadership in one particular level of struggle facilitates the other levels.
Take two concrete examples. First of all we see the struggle for the Bill of Rights, as of primary importance at the present time. We say we want a constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity in jobs, housing and political organisation. Now we recognise that this is meaningless if the mass organisations are not there in the country to take advantage of this demand should we win it. First of all, we must have mass action to win this demand, to win the guarantee, and we must have constant Mass Organisational vigilance to take full advantage of that. And we can see how this is related for example to the national struggle. For example, we at the present time have very few facilities to put forward our particular point of view. Now if we had a Bill of Rights, if we had the mass organisations to ensure that the Bill of Rights was meaningful, this would facilitate the national struggle, and our opportunity to operate in the interests of the national struggle. And also, the social struggle is related to civil rights. For example, the Industrial Relations legislation and the possibility of this being introduced in Northern Ireland. It is obvious that the Industrial Relations Bill, while it hinders the struggle for the emancipation of the working class, is also a civil rights issue. So that, at the present time how do we see the struggle developing in the civil rights movement? Well, first of all last year has been a period when the civil rights movement was quiet, and was not making the impact that it should have been. We see this period ending. We see first of all a greater clarification inside the civil rights movement about its importance not as a counting catholic operation, but about equality of Opportunity. We see a development of this struggle and a remobilisation of the masses around the correct demands of the civil rights movement.
Bob Purdie:- A number of people outside the Republican movement in Ireland have stated that the official Republican Movement is engaged in running down the military section, is becoming reformist, and that this is all part and parcel of a shift away from a revolutionary perspective by the official Republican Movement. I wonder if you could comment on this?
Liam McMillen:- Well, it's just a question of emphasis, of getting your priorities right. The Republican Movement comprises of course the political wing and the military wing, and at the present stage of development equal emphasis is being placed on both political and military development. Naturally enough more publicity is given to the political activities of the movement; this is understandable, we can't go about publicising just what we're doing in the military field. But we can say that training camps are going on continuously, men are being trained, and the leadership is very conscious that no matter what progress may be made in the political field there will come a stage of development where the establishment will say, 'this far and no further.' And that is the time when physical force will have be resorted to, in order to press home the demands of the people, in order to bring about the emancipation of the people and to bring about the setting up of an independent democratic socialist republic.
These false allegations have been made in the main by organisations which have a certain amount of antipathy to the Republican Movement because perhaps I'm throwing bouquets at the Movement here) they see the Movement as the one progressive movement, the one movement that is going to bring about the establishment of the democratic socialist republic. This I think causes a certain amount of resentment. It is quite easy to slander a movement when you don't have to back up allegations that you make. The Republican Movement has engaged in physical force campaigns in the past which failed, and failed due to the fact that it never had the support of the Irish people. It did not have their support because we had failed to convince the people that freedom would mean a better standard of life, and although people gave a certain amount of emotional support there was no hard practical support. Since then the movement has shifted the emphasis temporarily from the military wing to concentration on the political involvement in the problems of the people.
We believe that the movement and the people must be developed to a stage where physical force will be guaranteed to succeed, rather than have the glorious defeats that we have had in the past. We maintain that any physical force action must be related directly to the political demands of the people, so that the people can see the necessity for physical force. We do not go along with the idea of going out and blowing up Ulster post offices or transformers, such actions are absolutely pointless and are just physical for physical force sake. Now if we could take one example that would give the lie to these allegations that we are no longer a physical force movement. I'm referring to the 3rd of July when 3,000 British troops surrounded and entered the lower Falls area, in which there are no physical force organisations existing except the official Republicans. This battle will go down in history as one of the major confrontations between the Republicans and the British forces since the 1919/1920 period. This is an example of physical force for a particular purpose. In this case the British army were coming into an area in order to denude the area of any arms that were in the area, necessary for the protection of the people. The Republicans had absolutely no hesitation in resorting to physical force on this occasion. Just as we will have no hesitation in resorting to physical force in the future either in the defence of the people or in the pursuit of demands that we feel are justified.