Comments on: GREAVES SUMMER SCHOOL, 2009: BRIAN HANLEY AND MICK RYAN

By: Left Archive: An tOglach – Offical Organ of the Irish Republican Army, December 1967 « The Cedar Lounge Revolution

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 07:02:43 +0000

[…] allowing it to be reposted along with the document. He asked that people also note this link here to an excellent post on Dublin Opinion which deals with his thoughts on this very […]

By: Budapestkick

Budapestkick — Thu, 05 May 2011 16:26:57 +0000

Indeed. A flawed work by an otherwise handsome and dashing young historian.

By: Tom Redmond

Tom Redmond — Thu, 05 May 2011 12:50:23 +0000

There is an interesting contribution to this subject under debate in the current issue of Saothar 35, 2010, by Liam Cullinane called ” A Happy Blend” . Irish republicanism, political violence and social agitation , 1962 -69.

By: Roy H W Johnston

Roy H W Johnston — Mon, 02 May 2011 16:55:31 +0000

I think more analysis is needed of the 60s attempted politicisation than is available through Hanley and Swan. We were of course hampered by the crisis in European Marxism, and we did our best to decouple ourselves from it. There is currently the makings of a neo-Marxist environmentalist philosophy, based on the Marx-Liebig interactions in the 1850; Bellamy Foster in New York is promoting this, and it is relevant to the Green-Left transition process. I have tried to put my involvement in the Goulding politicisation attempt via my Century book (cf the Lilliput Press website). I welcome comments from those who have read it, and I will respond when I receive them with the URL of the e-version of the book, which goes a bit deeper.
RoyJ

By: Garibaldy

Garibaldy — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:20:29 +0000

WBS, I doubt there were any plans for changing the name for example in 1967. I’d also agree that there was no absolutely clear masterplan given that this process had only begun a few years before, but I do think if you look at the like of the Goulding speech about the different types of fight there must be it is more than aspirational. The Dáil stuff was aspirational. I think the instructions for people to get involved in different types of activity and politics was a plan with an ultimate goal of a different type of, overwhelmingly political, movement. Which goes I think to Brian Hanley’s point. There is still the question of what type of force and when. The idea of having eventually to apply force at the point of revolution is different than another campaign in the north. I think it’s clear that people had a sense of the former, but I’m not sure if it is being suggested that this means the latter.

By: Brian Hanley

Brian Hanley — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:04:19 +0000

Thanks again Conor for posting all this up. From my reading of what was being said in public and in private prior to 1969 I would argue that the majority of those attached to Goulding had not the slightest intention of getting rid of the IRA or abandoning the use of force. I hope to write more on the August 1967 meeting, some of which I quoted at the Greaves school, and which I think throws some light on internal debate on these matters. As I noted on Saturday the current Workers Party’s view on the role of the IRA in 1969 is vastly different to that put across by the party in 1979 or 1989.

By: WorldbyStorm

WorldbyStorm — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:33:57 +0000

And yet if we look at the personalities is that absolutely clear from 1967 say? It seems much more like an evolution with a diffuse notion of a ‘workers’ party or perhaps something closer to a Left Republican party with the details far from worked out. It sure doesn’t seem hugely strategic more like an aspiration but with many many different overlays of ideology and approach on top.

By: Garibaldy

Garibaldy — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:00:32 +0000

I don’t know that there was no plan for it; I think it probably was the strategic goal, at least for the majority of the leadership attached to Goulding. What might have been less clear was how they were ultimately going to get there given the dynamics of the situation before 1969 (trying to avoid a split) and after (violence, added to trying to avoid a split!).

By: WorldbyStorm

WorldbyStorm — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 06:38:33 +0000

Yes and no…
Absolutely there was no idea of the IRA becoming a military force operating on a mass scale (short of outright revolution), but on the other hand it does seem to me simply from the scale of what was actually happening pre-August 69 that there was an intent for it to do what you suggest, i.e. special action group… and perhaps more as those struggles intensified. I also think there was a sense, and you find this in the UI to an extent, that the situation was moving in but a single direction.
As regards the revolutionary party idea, well that surely was implicit from 66/68/69 so yes, of course, in that respect you’re correct. But the issue is what sort of revolutionary party and my take is that it was seen as something a lot more activist than anything we’ve seen prior to then or indeed seen since.
While I also agree that the outbreak of the troubles diverted energies (as we know DHAC effectively was deserted by the IRA because in fairness they had more immediate concerns) I simply don’t believe that in 1968 there was a plan for a 1974 style OSF let alone the later SFWP or WP. I don’t believe in 1971 or 2 there were plans for those outcomes (not least because, for example Garland for one was going along a route that would have taken them to a somewhat different destination). There’s no question in my mind that you’re right that the Troubles pushed them into a more aggressive and confrontational stance vis the British state again this is hardly surprising. They were after all the IRA. One element of their function was if read in a minimalist fashion - defence. That that phase lasted three years - or more given the activities post-ceasefire it seems hard to credit that Goulding et al - however much they resiled restrospectively - were willing to see how far they could go. I think ultimately, even if the ceasefire was called too early, they made the only possible choice given the circumstances at that point in time, however, it wasn’t for want of trying.

By: Garibaldy

Garibaldy — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:08:30 +0000

I take your point, but I think your collapsing the effects of the outbreak of the Troubles with the planned strategy beforehand. 1969 pushed people into doing things they wouldn’t have otherwise I think.

So was the IRA engaging in direct or military action in support of strikes? Yes. But was that intended as the prelude to some greater military action? I doubt it. It does however fit in with the idea of the IRA acting as a special action group in support of left-wing struggles.

Didn’t Garland announce the revolutionary party in 1972? I doubt he, Goulding and the rest had that idea in the few months beforehand. The evidence points both ways I think.