Solidarity first on Ire

Scan page 12

AS two Socialist Organiser supporters in Birmingham we would like to express our total disagreement with some of the sentiments and implications in the recent series of articles on Ireland particular, those in SO76.

Revolutionary socialist commentary on Ireland should have. two major facets: 1) Political solidarity with those forces conducting the struggle against imperialist British domination over the six counties.

2) A political evaluation and constructive comradely criticism of the policies, tactics and methods of these anti-imperialist and socialist forces. (We believe Comrade John O'Mahony's recent writings to have been neither constructive nor comradely).

It is clear (according to Lenin and Connolly) that the absolutely overriding I WAS pleased to read the letter from Socialist Challenge supporters working in Leyland Vehicles in Socialist Organiser number 77. At least now we know exactly where the comrades stand and what their criticisms of the Leyland Action Committee are. Up until now l'd had the distinct impression that the comrades had decided to distance themselves from LAC for factional reasons but weren't quite sure what arguments to use to justify this.

Fact

The two most important criticisms the LAC (and SO)

have made of the LV leadership are 1) at the mass meeting of 18 February, LV convenor Mick Coyne set aside a clear majority vote for continuing the strike and announced that a ballot would be held to decide whether or not the strike would continue. 2) The LV strike committee consistently opposed all moves towards spreading the fight into BL as a whole.

The first point is a straightforward matter of fact. I haven't met anyone that of conducting solidarity work with those in This is indeed doubly and triply the case for revolutionaries in the occupying, imperialist country, the oppressor nation and taken in this context we believe that Socialist Organiser's recent coverage of Irish events (and in particular comrade John O'Mahony's articles) have been totally misplaced.

What we have had is a long list of tedious and sectarian articles slamming the republican movement, with many fewer solidarising articles (we can remember the '31,000 say smash H-Block" headline and a couple of adverts for the Bloody Sunday demo).

This is pitifully inadequate and dangerous. Returning specifically to comrade O'Mahony, ten (including Mick Coyne) who was at that meeting, who denies the truth of this.

And yet the comrades bleat "The result was by no means clear to everyone."

Certainly Coyne was wrong to have described the vote as "overwhelming" but it was at least 60-40 for continuing. The comrades are quite right to say that "the news of the split vote and the ballot produced a domino effect with the other mass meetings" - except that the vote wasn't split!

Is it unreasonable to point this out as the LAC did or should we have been tactfully silent and covered up for Coyne as the Socialist Challenge comrades appear to advocate?

The second point is perhaps even more important.

The comrades say "at no time were the strike committee oppased to building political support in the rest of BL and a campaign was initiated to do so with the in intention of calling an all-BL shop stewards meeting at a date to be decided after our own all-North West stewards This is simply not true.

... we can and must offer full solidarity with those in the front line against imperialism" (from "James Connolly and Ireland's Struggle for Freedom" , Phoenix Pamphlet no. 2, 1972). We believe that this central aim has recently got a little lost among "criticism of the republicans" • Comrade O'Mahony tinued: "Any 'socialist' (sic) in Britain who uses criticisms (however 'correct') of the republican struggle, or an appreciation of its limitations as a cop-out from active solidarity with the IRA's military fight, shares the responsibility for these limitations. By setting 'socialism' destructively against the republican struggle, he (sic) helps to perpetuate the sterile separation of socialism and Republicanism. " (op cit).

In a short letter such as It may be that it is what the strike committee told the comrades. But if they believed it, they must be very naive indeed.

From the start the leader ship made it quite clear that their major priority was to attract "public sympathy"

and passive labour movement support from the North West region.

Taking the issue into the rest of BL came a very poor second to this and only then on the basis of calling for "moral and financial support' • Any suggestion of solidarity action from the Cars Division was vigorously opposed by them.

The Combine Committee meeting of February showed this very clearly.

LAC supporters proposed a motion calling for a conference of stewards from 'the whole of BL to discuss what solidarity action was possible.

The motion was passed, but as Combine Chairperson Jack Adams pointed out, that decision could not very well be activated unless the LV leadership requested it -which they very conspicno. 78 March

Scan page 13