Palestine/Ireland: to Lou Paulsen
plf13 at SPAMit.canterbury.ac.nz
Wed Nov 22 19:32:18 MST 2000
Lou Paulsen writes:
> I find it very unsettling and rather incorrect. When someone is
>forced to the wall by overwhelming imperialist force and signs an agreement
>with a gun at his/her head, which was the case with Adams,
Lou, this just doesn't stack up in the Irish case.
The British guns were at Irish republicans' heads since 1969 (and, in fact,
for hundreds of years beforehand). Those guns weren't any stronger in 1994
that in 1984 or 1974. Nor was republicanism any weaker.
The agreement which the Adams cabal accepted came *after* a debate on
policy within the Republican Movement, in which the left lost - or, perhaps
more accurately - was outmanouevred, since the debate was never open and
democratic on the cabal's part.
I know all this, because I was there. And I have posted a reasonably
detailed account of the debate and conclusion on the Digest several times
in the past two years.
There were two quite distinct lines posed, and the
pan-nationalist/cross-class alliance line won out. It was the logical
pursuit of this line which led to the struggle being brought to a
conclusion, not 'overwhelming imperialist force'.
Moreover, *no republican leadership* had ever before accepted partition.
The 'agreement' was not an 'agreement' - it was a surredner of more than
had ever been surrendered before. And it was done so in an objective
situation that was no more unfavourable than any other time.
There were several alternative options open to the leadership. They were
not defeated and cornered.
More information about the Marxism