This paper was printed in Issue 9 of 'Ripening of Time' in March 1978; it had been read at a meeting of the Dublin Wolfe Tone Society on January 24 1978. The publishers of R of T, who were a somewhat obscure and anonymous group of anarcho-trotskyists with European connections, printed it as a discussion paper, and were critical of it in the subsequent Issue 13. My motivation in submitting the paper to this journal was to put out feelers to the Irish-rooted young people concerned, and to stimulate home-ground analysis, as an alternative to hot-house cultish ideology. The series continued at least up to no 11 which appeared in January 1980. I give the full text of my paper, followed by an abstract of their critical notes, and then an abstract of a paper by Derry Kelleher which appeared in Issue 11. The editors had occasionally sought to open up their discussion in wider circles; issue 5 in December 1976 had carried signed articles by Ursula Barry, Jack Bennett and Tony Coughlan, and a reprint of George Gilmore's 1966 paper 'Why Commemorate 1916?'.

In this statement for which I alone am responsible, I attempt to re-formulate the central problem facing the Irish people (namely the achievement of a successful nation-state, in the form of an independent democratic republic) in a manner calculated to provoke some self-analysis on the part of the various political groupings which claim to have this, or its stronger form 'socialist republic', as their objective.

If as a result of this self-analysis there emerges some recognition of the nature and scope of the problem often labelled 'unification of the democratic forces', then a success will have been scored. I do not go so far as to be optimistic that the practical steps proposed will become a reality, as the countervailing forces are considerable.

It has been argued many times ( by George Gilmore and others) that the root of the trouble lies in the failure of the Labour Movement to keep up the momentum of its leading role in the 1916 Rising, as represented by the participation of Connolly backed by the Citizen Army and the ITGWU. The detailed steps whereby the 1913-23 period are connected to the present period beginning in, say, 1968 and still continuing, are a matter for the historians.

I propose to begin with a contemporary 'snapshot' of the situation, attempting to specify the system we are dealing with and its environment. Within this system are certain contradictory forces and some specific problems of theoretical analysis, some of which I feel might repay examination on common ground by various disparate groups which currently appear to be in some disagreement.

WHERE WE ARE NOW

*1 A parasitic bourgeoisie which makes its money by speculation in land, mergers, asset-stripping, fronting for multinationals and other devices which contribute nothing to the production of real wealth. This group pervades the financial bourgeoisie and is primarily responsible for the stifling of any State initiatives independent of the multinationals; it is influential in top State circles and dominates the formulation of economic and financial policies; its prime aspiration is to strengthen its links with its colleagues in Britain, in the EEC, in the US and elsewhere.

*2 An entrepreneurial bourgeoisie which fulfils a productive function ; it usually owns its means of production and gives employment individually; its members have often evolved to this position by fulfilling a management function in a State enterprise, which they use as a starting-point for their own business, or form a self-employed situation. There is therefore a continuous recruitment into this class from the upper strata of salaried workers and from the self-employed; individual success is often registered by doing a deal with a multinational; this can sometimes, depending on the nature of the deal, bring a person out of the entrepreneurial and into the parasitic class.

(I distinguish between, for example, selling to a multinational products and services, which is often necessary for survival, and entering into a formal relationship via the joint-venture process, which usually involves handing over control and abandoning the option of independent survival) .

Some elements of the entrepreneurial bourgeoisie, seeking to remain as far as possible independent of the multinationals, tend to shelter behind State enterprise or co-operative organisational forms; they know that they can rarely remain independent within the framework of the joint-stock company with shares quoted on the market, as if successful they become targets for takeover or merger, joining the parasitic class.

Thus the 'national bourgeoisie' is not a stable group, but a highly unstable phase in the evolution of the entrepreneurial strata from a salaried or self-employed position towards a deal with the multinationals. This group may become stabilised partially, and given class and national cohesion, by direct State support, supplemented possibly by an organised co-operative approach to marketing, purchase of raw materials etc

There is an argument going on among the progressive forces as to whether the emergence of national stability and cohesion for the entrepreneurial bourgeoisie as a class is to be regarded as a positive step or not. Those who think not, in my opinion, overestimate the potential for cohesion in the working class which they see replacing the national bourgeoisie, at the present level of development of the former. On the other hand, those who accept the development of a degree of cohesion in the national bourgeoisie sometimes underestimate how much the cohesion process depends on the existence of working class pressure.

The question is: how much organised working class pressure is necessary to make the national bourgeoisie cohere and face the main outside threat, without cohering to the extent of turning against the working class and joining with the multinationals in a repressive system in parasitic mode?

There is a parallel with Wolfe Tone's computation as to how many French he needed to get rid of the English successfully without becoming a French colony!

*3 A substantial group of working owner-managers and self-employed, including the vast majority of farmers, from which the national bourgeoisie is being continuously replenished, and which replenishes itself continuously from the working class by various part-timing, lumping, moonlighting and other processes. This class, as well as recruiting from the working class, is also being decimated by shedding its failures into the working class, typical being the part-time farmer. This latter phenomenon however is complex, in that in many cases the wage is used as capital to develop the farm, and in such cases the role of part-time farming is to stabilise the role of small property in the economy.

*4 A working-class which is stratified in a rather complex manner; for example, salaried workers owning their own houses (a numerous elite), wage earners depending on local-authority housing, public service employees ('permanent and pensionable'), etc. There is also a substantial difference between the mix of strata in Dublin and elsewhere; the numerical scale of the Dublin working-class gives it a special character, with greater opportunities for divisive sub-stratification, establishment of ghettos etc by the local authorities under the control of the bourgeoisie. The working-class outside Dublin, being embedded in a sea of petty-bourgeoisie, has greater opportunity for itself evolving into a self-employed or small business situation.

In the North, the same pattern reproduces itself, but in duplicate, in Protestant and Catholic versions. The difference being that in all cases the Protestants tend to be more numerous in the more favoured strata within each class, this being a consequence of the politics of Partition and the primary means of maintaining British rule.

POLITICAL STRUCTURES

The Labour Party, theoretically the political voice of the organised working-class through the Trade Union affiliations, in fact attracts a mixed clientele from the three main classes, and has compromised itself by close political association with Fine Gael, thereby accepting the lead of the most parasitic sections of the bourgeoisie.

It is noteworthy that this political system, even in the period when Fianna Fail was in control, failed to tackle effectively the question of the political division of the nation. This is another question requiring historical analysis. It may be conjectured that the key cause of failure was fear of the consequences of awakening the political consciousness of the working-class, for which the 32-County Trade Union movement constituted a ready-made vehicle.

The political structure in the North is similar in that it consists of two main bourgeois Parties and a weak, divided Labour movement. Insofar as the Civil Rights agitations which commenced in 1968 have borne fruit, it is in the weakening of monolithic Unionism of the Brookborough type and the exposure of the historical anachronism of a Protestant ascendancy based on British rule being used as a road-block to stop the march of a nation and its developing Labour movement This process is far from complete. The central problem for the democratic forces in Ireland is how to gather together the forces necessary to remove this road-block, by putting united political pressure on Britain.

Within the interstices of the above political structure, like small mammals in the undergrowth of the primeval jungles where all eyes were on the battles of the giant reptiles, lurk the political groupings of the Left. In the evolutionary process, the future lay with the mammals, because in their early stages they stuck to the undergrowth (avoiding the mistake of thinking that they had to do like the giant reptiles), and developed improved means of looking after their young. With this analogy I pass on to the statement of the problem, to which the foregoing is the background.

THE POLITICAL LEFT

The three groups concerned, the Communist Party of Ireland, the Liaison Committee of the Labour Left and Sinn Fein the Workers Party, came together for private talks in the previous period, initially at the suggestion of the Dublin Wolfe Tone Society. This coming together was possible because a tradition of mutual non-denunciation had established itself over a period of years, all three groupings being to some extent agreed on the common ground of British responsibility for the Northern crisis and on the responsibility of the policy of permitting domination of the multinationals for the employment crisis.

It was round the latter issue that they tried to build their fragile agreement. This fragility was rendered more pronounced by the existence of a school of thought in the SFWP that appeared positively to welcome the multinationals as a 'proletarianising' force. The former area proved more disputatious, particularly from the Labour quarter and no attempt was made to develop it.

(This is not the place to go into the details of the expulsion of the Labour Left and their emergence as the Socialist Labour Party, except to remark that their open participation in the 'Left Alternative' gave grounds for their expulsion. It is arguable that this might have been avoided had an appropriate 'guerrilla-political' approach been adopted (see below), and the influence of the Left allowed to permeate the Labour Party as a whole over a longer period.

Another grouping subsequently emerged (known as the 'National Alternative') which attempted to develop a common standpoint on the Northern question. This included the CPI, the Irish Republican Socialist Party, the Irish Sovereignty Movement, Provisional Sinn Fein, Peoples Democracy and others.

It was convened by a group of concerned individuals, the writer among them, who had long-standing Republican connections. SFWP were invited to participate, but declined because it would have meant sitting down with the Provisionals, to whose bombing campaign they attribute (with some justice) the decline in political development in the North (which showed some promise in the period 1968-70).

This group produced a 'nearly agreed' document, which however foundered on the Provisionals' insistence of a particular wording describing the attitude to the use of force. Many of the participants had hoped that the politics of a ceasefire might have been explored positively, but these hopes proved illusory. On the negative side, the participation of the CPI in these talks gave rise to some strain in their relationship with the other parties in the original 'Left Alternative' group.

The political left draws its forces from the working-class, self-employed and entrepreneurial bourgeoisie. The various groupings which make up the elements of the political left are composed Of this mixture in varying degrees. They share a common attitude to their own development as organisations which can be described as bourgeois-competitive - in other words they see themselves as organisations or 'firms' competing for the same market (votes) and raw material supply (recruits). They each have a product (a political programme) which they develop in such a way as to be distinctive from competitors, while attempting to appeal to the same market.

The market, however, is suspicious of this kind of political competition; it prefers on the whole to support the firm which has the largest 'market share' and a record of delivery of the goods.

In the EEC Referendum, the anti-EEC forces presented them-selves competitively, with the result that a credible alternative was in general not presented; in a few places where the political left submerged its competitive identities under the common banner of the Common Market Defence Campaign a reputable 'no' score was obtained (notably 50% in Nenagh town).

The distinctive political wares of the competitive groups are worked out behind closed doors by leadership groups with varying degrees of informed expert input, and are steered through congresses by a more or less democratic process, rank-and-file members following the voting patterns of leading members who are influential and are good at rhetoric.

Once the 'line' is adopted, it becomes incumbent on members to accept this as the entrenched position, and to support it against members of other groupings, irrespective of arguments. The strength of the discipline varies between the groupings.

The fundamental weakness of this situation is that there is no effective means of allowing a freely interactive period of policy development covering common areas of agreement, such as to permit strengthening of inter-group co-operation, ultimately leading to the much sought after 'unity of the democratic forces'.

TOWARDS A FEDERAL CO-OPERATIVE APPROACH

The key political objectives are:

(a) the achievement of a negotiated settlement with the British on a secular democratic federal basis, with Britain transferring all financial support towards the promotion of all-Ireland institutions, and with all the Irish people involved in developing the new constitution without interference from the British.

(b) the isolation of the landed-speculative parasitic element of the bourgeoisie, and the achievement of a democratic independent economic development policy with a leading role played by the State sector rather than the multinationals, based on alliance of the organised working-class, the self-employed and the productive entrepreneurial bourgeoisie.

The organisation of a movement for achieving this democratic-revolutionary objective on the basis of a multi-class alliance is fraught with many problems, not the least of which is the fear on the part of the small property owners that those who shout for Socialist objectives will take their property from them. Similarly, those who have no property fear that in a democratic-revolutionary class alliance the lead would be taken by propertied elements, this, on the whole, being the historical experience.

In Ireland at this time we are faced with a historic challenge: can we develop a movement in which there is enough mutual trust between the democratic anti-imperialist forces to permit a credible political alternative to develop? Can the Socialists be persuaded to lower the red flag and to promote a transition to socialism that is acceptable to self-employed and small entrepreneurs? Can the latter be got to believe in a process whereby a small private enterprise expands with the aid of public money to become a socialist enterprise, rather than a capitalist enterprise with the aid of the Stock Exchange, or a subsidiary of a multinational?

These are the practical issues that must be teased out theoretically, if the 'Co-operative Democratic Federation' is to develop.

AN ANALOGICAL MODEL

The mass movement is the engine and the transmission, in the sense that the explosive force of the fuel is channelled effectively by constraints to do effective work in driving the revolution forward, rather than burning ineffectively as it would do if left unorganised.

The politically conscious rank-and-file of the movement are the sparking plugs, in the sense that when the fuel is compressed into an explosive mixture, it can be ignited by the injection of a 'spark': the right idea at the right place and time.

The leadership of the movement is at the controls: gearing, speed, direction, avoidance of obstacles are its responsibility. If it has a good map, and if the rank-and-file are sparking away without being told, and if the mass movement is adequately structured to channel effectively the revolutionary energy, then the victory of the revolution is assured.

In a non-revolutionary situation, such as we have now, the role of the conscious movement is primarily to build the appropriate mass-movement structures and set up situations such that the politically conscious activists will be listened to when the explosive situation develops. We have some, but not much, time to do this.

GUERRILLA POLITICS

This is the period of 'guerrilla politics'; development of influential specialist lobbies with a low political profile on key issues such as civil liberty, neutrality, local democratic reform, land tenure reform, reform of the educational system, industrial democracy, the right to a job, taxation reform etc.

The development of specialist lobbies on a broad basis constitutes the primary activity of the politically conscious rank-and-file during this period, during which time they learn how to keep a low political profile, without a sacrifice of principle, and without deception, all the time building up the respect of the people they work with. This is second nature to socialists working as trade unionists; there is no reason why the trade union practice should not be generalised.

The role of the leadership of the movement, and of various specialist groups of rank and file, is to co-ordinate and plan the development of policies appropriate to the various specialist lobbies in the light of the real needs (not some ideological imagined needs originating possibly in the Scriptures), with the knowledge that the grass-roots activists will assimilate them, adopt them and promote them in the appropriate broad organisations where their interests lead them to specialise.

There is need for 'strategic thinking' behind the 'guerrilla politics', specifically with a view to influencing the movements of the 'political dinosaurs', which do ultimately react to electoral pressures and the smell of votes.

The principal strategic problem is how to isolate the parasitic sector of the bourgeoisie; how to drive a wedge between the parasitic sector of Fianna Fail support and the rest, and how to drive it along with Fine Gael into political isolation on the Right; parallel with this is the problem of how to develop a workable understanding between the Labour Party and the entrepreneurial wing of Fianna Fail.

It is, perhaps, possible to achieve this by encouraging the development of demands from various democratic lobbies such as to render electorally attractive certain areas of common policy which already exist between Labour and Fianna Fail, such as:

(a) In the area of management and control of the educational system, where both parties appear to favour a lay-managed system in contrast to the clerical denominational system inherited from the British and favoured by Fine Gael.

(b) In the area of State enterprise, where all the principal State sponsored bodies owe their existence to Fianna Fail, and where Labour is ideologically committed to support of the principle.

(c) In the area of foreign affairs, where Fine Gael is pro-NATO and Labour and (most of) Fianna Fail are neutralist.

The development of mass political appeal by the proposed Co-operative Democratic Federation is a longer-term goal, to be expected after a period of 'guerrilla-political' struggle, during which leading local and specialist activists will prove themselves in the mass movement to the point of electoral credibility.

NEXT PRACTICAL STEP

There are also 'objective' obstacles. The existence of vestigial or shadowy 'armed wings', links with organisations abroad of which the precise nature is not clear (association with an international movement or affiliation to a foreign State power?) the possession of embryonic parliamentary representation (on the part of the Labour Left, now become the Socialist Labour Party).

The reality and extent of these obstacles is open to question, but there is no doubt that they exist as obstacles for as long as there are doubts in the minds of each group as to the nature of the credentials of the people they deal with in others: who is boss? whose writ runs? Army Council or Ard Comhairle? Administrative Council or Parliamentary Group? Political Committee or Moscow?

(In making the above statements I am not committing myself to any 'condemnation' of any of the groupings concerned: I am merely stating the objective fact that the existence of subjective attitudes in the minds of some regarding the procedure of others constitutes an obstacle to the development of common ground. This is the historical millstone around the neck of the embryonic movement; the purpose of this article is to stimulate people to face the problem of getting rid of it, of laying the ghosts of the past.)

These obstacles can only be overcome by a process whereby the leaderships of the groupings agree to encourage their members to engage in common theoretical policy development work, along the lines suggested in this paper. There is a precedent for this, in that the Wolfe Tone Society has already hosted inter-group seminars on typical 'guerrilla-political' topics such as unemployment, civil liberties etc, and these seminars have lead to joint actions.

There is no reason why this principle of common theoretical development should not be extended to all areas of 'guerrilla-political' activity within the scope of the projected Co-operative Democratic Federation, thereby helping to bring the latter into being, with a unified leadership and co-operating federal rank-and-file.

To cement up this theoretical development, there is needed a reputable theoretical publication which would circulate in all associated groupings, containing printed versions of discussion papers and agreed common educational material.

Is it too much to hope that some periodical such as 'The Ripening of Time' might make a bid for this market, by associating itself with a consultative editorial committee having standing such as to ensure its general acceptability, but without any dead-hand or veto rights such as to stifle free discussion during common policy development?

Irish Republicanism, Socialism and Imperialism

In his introduction Kelleher declares the intent of following the Mellows - Gilmore - O'Donnell stream of post-Connolly socialist thinking, namely get the Republic first and then begin to think about how to develop socialism within it. He contrast this with the trend, which he designates as 'ultra-left', associated with Michael Price and Roddy Connolly in the 1934 Republican Congress, and currently by Eamonn McCann and Noel Browne, which tended to denounce the Republic as being basically 'capitalist' and to call for the 'Worker's Republic' in contrast to it. He refers back to Lenin's 1905 'Two Tactics for Social Democracy'. In what follows I give Kelleher's headers in bold before abstracting each section.

The Republican - Labour Dilemma: on the one hand the failure of Republicans to distinguish between 'England' and 'British Imperialism', and on the other hand the concentration of Labour on social reform, seeing the main protagonist as the local bourgeoisie; in general the failure of both movements to understand their mutually complementary roles. Kelleher is also critical of Michael Farrell and the 'Peoples Democracy' for the way they managed to confuse the Civil Rights movement in the North with slogans like 'creed war out - class war in'.

Pragmatism of the Extreme Right: Fianna Fail and Civil Rights: concerned at the emerging threat posed by the Civil Rights movement in the North, Fianna Fail was in effect offering carte blanche to the IRA to continue in armed struggle mode, thereby safeguarding the hegemony of gombeen-capitalism. The NICRA had banned all flags and emblems, concentrating on civil rights issues, in which the Protestant working-class were also interested. The Partition issue was first explicitly raised by Jack Lynch and Niel Blaney, quite hypocritically, as earlier at a Taca dinner, at Killarney in 1968, they had admonished the Scottish and Welsh to give up on all idea of independent statehood.

Historical Ideological Error of the Labour Movement: assuming that the emancipation of the working-class could be achieved without the completion of the national revolution and the achievement of the all-Ireland Republic; advocating the 'socialist 70s' while vacillating on the question of the EEC.

Republicanism, Socialism and the EEC: accession to the EEC had made Ireland even more vulnerable to domination by international monopoly capital; the 1916 Proclamation had in effect become a subversive document; (official) Sinn Fein, the party of the democratic Irish Republic, had added the label 'the Workers Party', and Fianna Fail had taken the opportunity to add 'the Republican Party' to its title.

Consequences of the 1969-70 Republican Split: this split, engineered by Fianna Fail, ensured the emergence of a 'terrorist' wing and an 'economist' wing; Lenin had it that 'the economists and terrorists merely bow to different poles of spontaneity...'

Perspective of Republicans in the 30s: in this somewhat chaotic section Kelleher again leans on Lenin: '...it is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie to rely on certain remnants of the past.. not to sweep away all the remnants of the past too resolutely... the more complete, determined and consistent the bourgeois revolution, the more assured will be the.. struggle... for socialism..'. The failure of an effective unified lead to emerge in the 1930s for the Democratic Republic, as an alternative to the gombeen capitalist Fianna Fail, ensured that British fears about de Valera in 1932 were unfounded.

Document no 2 vs the Irish Republic: 'in 1932 Document no 2 was to emerge again as a cynical substitution for the living republic by the Fianna Fail party..'. Kelleher quotes Gilmore: '..it held no threat to capitalist interests in Ireland or to the imperial interests with which they were interwoven..'.

The Blueshirts - Impotency of IRA Leadership: the Fianna Fail leadership pushed the Republicans into a ghetto, while at the same time using the IRA to help defeat O'Duffy and his thugs, identified as equivalent to fascism.

Common Roots of Fianna Fail and IRA Support: again quoting Gilmore on Fintan Lalor: '...the IRA leadership, by its failure to appreciate the truth of Lalor's vision, left the field open to Fianna Fail..'. After the failure of the IRA leadership to endorse the Republican Congress concept, Gilmore and O'Donnell left the fold to lead it, followed by Frank Ryan.

Formation of the Republican Congress: the Athlone conference of April 7-8 1934 was called by a group of IRA officers and others in the Labour movement. It issued a call for '..a Congress of Republican opinion... to make the Republic a main issue dominating the whole political field... the national issue must be brought sharply forward.. with reference to the workers in the north-east so that they might... see that their freedom is inseparable from the national struggle for freedom...'.

This was at a time when the withdrawal of outdoor relief had brought about a unified working-class protest transcending sectarian barriers. RJ 2001.

Kelleher again quotes Gilmore: '...an unusual feature of the Bodenstown pilgrimage that year was a contingent of three bus-loads of Trade Unionists from the Shankill Road area of Belfast bearing a banner which said 'Break the Connection with Capitalism'... Later on that year there was a similarly unusual feature in the Armistice Day celebrations in Dublin when 2000 ex-British servicemen wearing their war medals marched under a Republican Congress banner demanding 'Freedom for This Small Nation'...'. The Congress convened in Rathmines Town Hall on September 29-30 representing among its 186 delegates a cross-section of political parties of the left, north and south. The issue was, new political party, or united front of all radical forces. The all or nothing lobby (for the 'Workers Republic'), led by Mick Price, triumphed, with O'Donnell and Gilmore (onwards to the Republic) marginalised. This ultra-leftist victory was Pyhrric, as the Congress then went into terminal decline.

The Case for the Democratic Republic: O'Donnell argued that the Price formulation left the field open to Fianna Fail and the gombeen-capitalists to claim credibly to be for the Republic, this claim however being in reality a sham. He was supported by Sean Murray of the Irish Communist Party: '..(Price) said you cannot get rid of British imperialism until you smash capitalism. I say you cannot smash capitalism until you get rid of British imperialism. Therefore let Congress address itself to the task of fighting for the great masses of the Irish people who are fighting for national independence..'.

The Sinn Fein Ard Fheis 1974: Kelleher attempted to introduce a motion from Wicklow which distinguished the achievement of the Republic and the establishment of socialism as separate stages. Tomas Mac Giolla understood and sympathised but advised that it be withdrawn for fear of its being interpreted as support for Seamus Costello. Eoin O Murchu also opposed it as being 'mechanistic'. Kelleher thus identified the 1970s 'official Sinn Fein' as repeating the history of the 1934 Congress. He goes on to defend his position, quoting Marx ('the task of the proletariat is to win the battle for democracy') and Lenin (..it would be a fundamental mistake to suppose that the struggle for democracy can divert the proletariat from the socialist revolution..'). There were, in fact, two revolutions in 1917 in Russia.

The Inadequacy of Trade Union politics: Kelleher castigates the view that workerist struggles in the trade unions for economic objectives can itself generate class consciousness, invoking Lenin quoting Kautsky: '...the vehicle of science is not the proletariat but the bourgeois intelligentsia; it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism originated... the socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without..'.

Revolutionary Leadership: again falling back on Lenin ('we must also find ways and means of calling meetings of all social classes that desire to listen to a democrat..') Kelleher castigates those promoting the concept, then emerging, that the multinational capitalists have a postive role in generating an Irish proletariat, as the alternative to the gombeen-capitalist sweatshops and the emigrant ship, asserting that Ireland has had a revolutionary basis for heading towards Socialism since as far back as 1913, and that the problem has been the confused divergence between working class and national liberation leaderships, resulting in dissipation of effort into militarism and opportunism.

Undermining the ethical basis of imperialism: Kelleher calls on the Churches to atone for their extreme right-wing attitudes in the 30s and 40s in support of the stifling of left-wing expression of opinion, instancing as a positive sign the current concern with liberation movements in Africa, and the emergence of a 'Christians for Socialism' group.

A Final Appraisal: After reminding us how Fianna Fail in 1969 showed the shrewdest political penetration in resurrecting the 'cult of the armed men' which simultaneously pre-empted the force of the Civil Rights movement and the complementary political developments in the South, Kelleher concludes by falling back on Cathal Goulding's 1967 Bodenstown oration: '..it is not enough to claim the de jure powers of government...to shout slogans and quote dead leaders... we must be prepared to work in harness with all those other Irishmen who believe in the Republic even though they may differ from us in emphasis...' but goes on to say that '..this enlightened departure from go-it-alone Republicanism has, now, however, been aborted by those in Sinn Fein the Workers Party leadership..'. He goes on to quote C Desmond Greaves: 'non-republican socialism, of the right or ultra-left, is inspired by one common ideological source: British imperialism', and Lenin: '..whoever expects a 'pure' socialist revolution will never live to see it..' and concludes by calling for '...consistent and dedicated leadership across the whole of the left-wing movement, united in the primacy of the national liberation struggle..' without which '...there can be no question of the establishment of socialism in Ireland.'

The Ripening of Time analysts of my paper and that of Kelleher associate the two, as if we were a coherent trend or camp. In a sense we were, in that we had both served our time with Desmond Greaves in the Connolly Association, though in different epochs; we had independently adopted the Gilmore-O'Donnell view of the Republican Congress; we had independently attempted to re-assert this within the structure of the Republican Movement, encouraged by Goulding.

The R of T people accused us of being unable '..to situate (our) analysis of the republican movement and the broad left in Ireland inside the general dynamic of class struggle' and of being '...almost exclusively divorced from the generalised movement of the class.' (What does this mean?) We were accused of having a '..sociological ie bourgeois description of classes (avoiding) mention of any fundamental contradiction between labour and capital..'. I was accused of having an 'outright bourgeois plan for national development', and of being 'allied to the interest of the Soviet Union State / Party' which 'in 1980 is to be tied to the most powerful State capital in the world..'.

The foregoing was just downright dishonest criticism which exposed the basic disruptionist role of ultra-leftist ideology. While being thankful to them for publishing our papers, both Kelleher and I would have preferred our offerings to have been in a journal having a broader basis of circulation and editorial standing. The lack of such a journal was the measure of the political vacuum in which we were attempting to work. This theoretical vacuum is alas still with us. RJ April 2001.