vArmy, 1920 ps Out NOW! In summing up the experiences of the Irish struggle over the last seven years, two basic conclusions can be drawn.
tion' to Irish liberation, since it is the British ruling class which directly gains from Ireland's oppression and perpetuates it today through military aggression and political camouflage for the Loyalists.
Secondly, meaningful support for Irish freedom means not only demanding the immediate withdrawal of the troops but also organising an independent movement powerful enough actually to Parties there are groups who claim to be cocialist wno aso reruse to commit themselves to such a principled course ofaction. The International Socialists (S) is one such tendency which has a shameful record on the Irish struggle.
The Is nave in practice consistenti opposed building a mass movement for the immediate withdrawal of the troops They view this, like any other political questions which touch on sensitive or unexplored areas, as an interference which only upsets their routine agitation and recruitment of workers around economic issues. At best they treat such a move ment as simply another pond for them to usn in ror new recruits BIRMINGHAM The absence of a mass troops out movement in Britain, due in part to the negligence of groups such as the IS, is one of the main features allowing the imperialists to escalate tel anıve agamsi the Irish people. After more than six years of struggle against the military occupation, the beleaguered Catholics of the North have suffered greatly from the effects of a prolonged battle in which they have fought hard but have very TTEe TO SHOW TOrI ILIS HO surorIse therefore, that sections of the nationalist movement in Ireland react bitterly to the passive support by British labour for the imperialist aggression.
responsibility for the Birmingham bombings, it would be no surprise for a section of the Irish nationalist movement to Firstly, there can be no British "solument.
Irisn nationausts Outside the Labour and Communist building the IS.
While the Provisionals never claimed resort to such tactics in a desperate attempt to draw attention to Ireland's oppression and heighten British opinion for withdrawal. And while the IMG disagrees with such methods. we do so not as securen ovsneer commens on the struggle from ine sidennes, but a: active participants in it through our efforts to build a mass troops out moveSOCIALIST WORKER The IS. on the other hand. are all toc ready to 'deplore' and condemn' the Furthermore, such condemnations are not made with the aim of furthering the cause of Irish freedom, but solely in order to avoid embarrassment on the factory floor. Thus on the rare occasions when the IS paper Socialist Worker has featured a front page calling for Troops Out Now' even this has appeared under headlines like "Stop the Bombings' (30/11/74) and 'How to Stop the LONGBRIDGE Their resentment against the intrusion of the Irish struggle into their routinist econome astanon was rurtacE unuch ined in a report o on cunane n the 30 November 1974 issuc, complaining: 'Public reaction to the bombings has meant that months of work by class conscious workers has gone by the DOTIC. LONEDICEC WOIKCIS WHO WCEC beginning to look to the International socialists nave said to me tnat tney would rather have a police state........
The response of the IS to the Birmingham bombings is typical of their general refusal to build a mass movement in defence of Ireland's right to self determination. Against this they coun erpose work on the factory floor and OPPORTUNISM But the whole experience of the Irish struggle testities to the need for a separate movement specifically on Ireland, which has sufficient power and strength in its own right to mount a meaningful challenge to imperialist rule. It cannot wait for 'working class unity, or until the IS decides it is large enough to do something. One of the reasons why the workers at Longb ridge "would rather have a police state is exactly the absence of an independent movement which could aid the Irish struggle and remove the deep-rooted prejudice of the British worker.
If the IS had done this as part of their "months of work by class conscious workers' then the response at Longbridge could have been qualitatively different. The sectarianism displayed by the IS towards the Troops Out Movement and me pontical DoDortunIsI are not separate phenomena. They complement each other in their common sacrifice of political principles on the altar of IS's own narrow interests INTERNATIONALIST This group, which claims to be internationalist, has been and is today hostile to the building of a truly internationa socaust trovement on d worldwide basis. Originating many years ago in a split from the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky, it has since lapsed into a brand of national chauvinism characterised by an adaptation to the worst prejudices of the Kans about movemen nees H clearer example of this than its disgraceful record of abstention on the Irish SUTUSLIC It is true that on certain occasions the IS will throw its weight behind actions on international issues such as rortugal - arnouge even nore, as wo have shown in Red Weekly, its approach is basically opportunist. But when it -comes to tenna - wen anecu involves British imperialism, where the weignt or brusn involvement is more decisive, and the chauvinism of British labour is more deep rooted - the IS's record is little better than that of the Labour bureaucrats. Their general abstention makes them essen dar complicit in the imperialist oppression of the Irish people and, by the same token, in the oppression of British labour itself.
Rrian vons