Chris Burford
Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:07:05 -0800
At 10:56 21/02/00 -0000, you wrote:
> Below are some comments to an piece written by the Irish Times
>columnist Fintan O Toole published in the Irish Times on Friday, 18th
>February 2000: Fintan O Toole: As the rump of the Second Dáil and the
>remaining leadership of Sinn Féin after the departure of Eamon de Valera
>to form Fianna Fáil, these people really did believe that they were the
>legitimate government of Ireland. And until very recently, Sinn Féin and
>the IRA went on believing in this fantasy. When, in 1939, the tiny rump
>of the Second Dáil formally passed its powers to the IRA army council, the
>line of apostolic succession passed to an ever more secretive elite. And
>throughout its vicious campaign in Northern Ireland, the IRA, in its own
>mind, continued to draw its legitimacy from this weird delusion.”
I agree with George's reasoned criticism of the idealism that is inherent
in one strand of Irish republicanism. Also that Fintan O'Toole appears
merely to criticise it from another idealist point of view, but one without
any radical or revolutionary significance.
I also agree that the idealist strand of republicanism was literally
reactionary - in that it reacted to the oppression of British imperialism
with idealist ideology.
However not all Irish nationalism was reactionary of course. I would extend
George's emphasis on political reality to stress an emphasis also on
economic reality.
The development of capitalism does not stir all potential nations into
separate national life. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the
most rapid means of transport of the growing trade in commodities was by
water, and several cities grew on either side of the Irish Sea: Bristol,
Dublin, Liverpool, Belfast, Glasgow.
It was only in the 19th century when railways and improved roads gave
greater continuity to land communications.
The bulk of the population joined an effective and democratic nationalist
movement against British domination which won consitutional and to a large
extent economic independence for Eire. But it was not strong enough to take
the whole population with it and to prevent various forces external and
internal (obviously including British imperialism) from causing a split.
The development of capitalism has now moved on and the economic
self-sufficency of
de Valera Eire is antiquated. Ireland is part of the European Union, and so
is Northern Ireland. Irish nationalism is not therefore one single entity
but has a different context at different stages of economic history.
>From a materialist point of view, continuing national and democratic
demands must be pursued starting from this economic context. They can be
pursued in a radical way, in a reformist way, or in a potentially
revolutionary way. But the economic and political reality cannot be
combatted by an ideology of philosophical idealism.
Chris Burford
London
PS could you note that I think your post must have been in html format as
it came out with funny format coding and layout.
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---