replying to Ivonaldo was Re: Hobsbawm and the Analitic History

mmcdon mmcdon at
Sat Aug 5 07:34:33 MDT 2000

> Comrade Xxxxxx is quite correct. The key point for us Marxists is indeed
> where do we stand on modernity.  This is the 'Living  Marxism'
> pitfall as well.  They (and even some Maoists when writing about Ireland)

> take what they see as the side of modernity.

This last bit threw me a bit. As far as I can recall, the RCP/"Living
Marxism" took one of the hardest pro-IRA positions around, as far as the
Irish Question was concerned.

  They forget the very essence
> of Marxism.  We are not neo-Nietzscheans.  We do not represent the 'wille

> zur macht'.  We are always on the side of Spartacus. We seek a
> non-capitalist modernity.  We do not advocate primitive accumulation as a

> way of dealing with peasants.

Nor though, should we advocated the continued status of "peasant" as a way
of dealing with a doomed class.

> I tell you now Ivonaldo,
> the homes of working class Catholics in Belfast have been smashed.  The
> people have endured torture, imprisonment, and assassinations from death
> squads.  The full panoply of Imperialistic oppression has been let loose
> the people.  A powerful nation state has vented its anger against a
> of working class  housing estates. But Goliath has not prevailed.  The
> people fought him to a standstill.

"The people" did no such thing. A tiny self-selecting military elite fought
the British for 30 years, and then surrendered. Your Provisional Republican
phraseology is deeply misleading. Calling the Loyalist sectarian butchers
"death squads" covers over their autonomy from the British. As for "the
full panopoly of Imerialistic oppression", if such had really been "let
loose" "the People" (by which I take it you mean "the Catholics") would no
longer be in Northern Ireland at all.

Is mise le meas,
Brian Cahill

More information about the Marxism mailing list