J Daly post

John O'Neill johnfergaloneill at eircom.net
Tue Jan 28 12:24:27 MST 2003

----- Original Message -----
From: James Daly <james.irldaly at ntlworld.com>
To: <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 1:52 PM
Subject: Re.: Parting Company - Ending Social Partnership

The recent exchange about the fate of the Irish "social
> partnership" brings to my mind the magnanimous opinion of the editor of
> Irish Times in the Seventies, Douglas Gageby, a Christian Scientist: he
> they should not be called national wage agreements, since they only
> to the 26 counties.

Interesting that you quote D Gageby. There is an article in the Irish Times
this Monday where he was accused by (a nationalist? republican?) Major
Thomas B. McDowell of being a "renegade" and a "white ni**er" because of his
appearent pro-unionist (protestant) position on the North in 1969.

> The complacent swapping of "favourite quotations" from Connolly draws from
> me this quotation (hardly a "favourite"):

Complacent!!! In what context? An Irishman with a superiority complex, what
ever next? Sorry Sorr, I won't do it again.

What's wrong with stating that a particular quote from someone encapuslates
the essence of something?

> Connolly's anti-imperialist writings have been so much bowdlerised that I
> ask the moderator's permission to reproduce in full this short article,

Bowdlerised indeed, I had to look that one up. I refute any assertion that
use is an attempt to "clean up" or sanitise Connolly's Writings and I think
is extremely arrogant of you to intimate so, especially when you haven't
read the pamphlet in question on the Partnership process. I would argue that
Connolly's writings are not used enough and also that they are not tablets
of stone.

> Of late, sections of the advanced Nationalist [nowadays called
Republican --
> JD] press have lent themselves to a desperate effort to misrepresent the
> position of the Carsonites.............,

So are the SDLP now Republicans?

> Connolly, with experience of labour organisation in Belfast and Dublin (as
> well as the United States), worked out a working-class socialist
> revolutionary anticolonial position in Ireland. Unfortunately bourgeois
> republicans have treated anti-Orangism as anti-Protestantism, just as
> Zionists treat anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism (or miso-Judaism). They have
> always attempted the impossible, to blend the Orange and Green -- for
> instance in the Republic of Ireland's flag -- with consequences that were
> predictable and predicted.

Orange and Green capitalism blends regularly to make profit.

In essence you are arguing that one must not quote Connolly without
including his position on Irish Unity, ignore his writings on Poverty,
Capitalism etc to the extent of arguing "labour must wait".

Our pamphlet about partnership is about a process that has
been established in the Irish Republic (the South or the Free State or
whatever you wish to call it) that is designed to neuter the Trade Union
Movement and to hinder the development of class politics, it has nothing to
do with the "National Question".

As for bourgeois republicans, as I assume you are referring to the pro
agreement (majority) in the Republican movement I will let them argue it out
with you. Ireland seems to have many on the left who turned their backs on
Religon for an alternative gospel.

BTW, Eamon McCann is a member of the SWP and, to my recollection, they are
opposed to the Good Friday Agreement.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list