The “Economism” of the British Left

(The article by Desmond Greaves below was  carried in the September 1980 issue of the “Irish Democrat” under the title, “Get that all-Ireland vision”. Greaves regarded what he used call the “economism” of the Left as the fundamental cause of its political weakness. Economism referred to the tendency of the Left to concentrate on economic issues such as income distribution, the nationalisation of enterprises and issues of inequality, to the neglect of the political issue of  who controlled the State and  what were the powers and capacities of the State, particularly in the EEC context; for the progressive use of these powers and capacities was the prerequisite for solving the economic problems. The Left  tended to leave such issues to  the conservative and right-wing parties. Another factor contributing to this leftwing “economism” was the fact that in the traditional imperial countries of Europe, with their huge colonies, nationalism and its concern for national independence tended historically to be confused with imperialism in the eyes of many on the Left.]  

Get That All-Ireland Vision

The British “left” are presently discussing Irish policy. This article deals with one particular aspect, namely the meaning of solidarity.

The hardest thing for the present generation is to get that all-Ireland vision. You have to be getting fairly old now to remember the partition of Ireland. And it is particularly tempting  to Trade Unionists, who have to be practical men, to take the world as it is for granted and work in acceptance of the system. However, politics takes precedence of economics, as the experience of the Thatcher Government shows.

British policy is to continue to occupy six Irish counties in pursuit of the war aims of the “western” alliance. This is a continuous aggression against the people of Ireland. It is accompanied by a further aggression, the attempt to enlarge the military base by bullying or cajoling the 26-County State to abandon neutrality and come into the war bloc.

Under such circumstances the “left” has the duty to show solidarity with the Irish people. But this does not mean merely the people in the occupied area. Solidarity must be shown with the Irish people as a whole. It is a solemn duty for the British “left “not only to oppose the occupation, demand the ending of partition, to attempt to lessen the evils brought about by  the occupation while it last, but also to defend the 26-County Republic in its effort to maintain its independence and neutrality.

It is not far wrong to say that the failure of the “left” in this last respect is illustrative of the continuing strength of imperialist ideology in the British working class. For this is no new idea. It has been urged by Irish writers and speakers for decades.

The lack of an all-Ireland vision leads to dealing with the six counties of Northern Ireland in isolation from the rest of the country, and the acceptance of partition automatically leads to a “labour” version of Tory policy, Toryism justified by “labour” arguments.

This happens when members of the “left” take the view that they can afford to ignore issues raised by the Government of the Republic or progressive tendencies within the 26-Counties. They think it is sufficient  to confine themselves to issues raised by the opposition in the Six Counties. Nothing is more mistaken than the way repeated efforts made by successive governments of the Republic have been played down and explained away over the years.

The argument is put that since the majority of the people who live in the Six Counties are in favour of British rule, it is useless to argue against it. All that can be done is to concentrate on economic and civil libertarian issues and hope that following the growth of unity between the estranged unionist and nationalist communities on these issues, a climate of opinion favourable to the discussion of the border will come about in some mysterious way. In the meantime Republicans should be content if they are allowed free speech and a more liberal regime even if they are to be a permanent minority under it.

This standpoint has been called “imperialist economism”.

It may be that the “left” within the six counties may be reluctantly reduced to this role. After all they are not living in a democracy but in occupied territory (To talk about democracy in the Six Counties is of course absurd. It exists as a distinct territory by virtue of a foreign statute).   Nobody is going to complain if the “left” in the Six Counties acts in a circumspect manner.

But for the British “left” to refuse to go beyond what the Six County “left” is constrained by circumstances to restrict itself to is to acquiesce in imperialism. The occupation of the Six Counties is not only a Six County question; it is an Irish question. It is not only an Irish question; it is a British and an international question.  To use the circumscription of the demands put forward by the Six County  “left” as an excuse for not demanding that the majority of the Irish people should be allowed to rule the whole of their country would be a woeful dereliction of duty.

Let us suppose that all that can be done in the Six Counties is to work for economic and libertarian objectives. We do not say this is so, but others do and we can take it as the basis of the argument. This is all these people in the Six Counties can do. But is it all the British people can do?   Is the burden of the reconciliation of estranged communities to fall exclusively on the inhabitants of the Six Counties?   If the “left” in the Six Counties does not feel able to try to persuade the Unionist workers to accept the inevitability of a united Ireland, should the “left” in Britain say that they also can do nothing about it?

Their duty of solidarity to the whole Irish people, whose country has been carved up by the British Government, should compel them not to restrict themselves. They should press the British Government for a policy which encourages the reunification of Ireland, and let the Unionists, of whatever class, see that as a fact of life.

It is the absence of any substantial political commitment of this kind which confirms the Republicans in their belief that nothing can be achieved without violence. Years ago, in pre-revolutionary Russia, there were people who argued much as the “Provisionals” do today. The socialist leader Lenin criticised them. But he turned to the “economist” trade unionists and said, “this is partly your fault.  If you do not provide for politics, then you will be faced with terrorism”.  An economist working class gives rise to a terrorist petite bourgeoisie. If the Republicans react as a petite-bourgeoisie rather than as part of the working class, this arises  from the non-solution of the national question, from that one fount and origin of all the trouble in Ireland, partition.

The new developments in the British Labour Party, the emergence of the Labour Committee on Ireland and the Committee for Withdrawal, which unites important sections of the “left”, show that a new understanding is beginning to dawn. When partition is seen as the central question, then all other things fall into place. The great objective of the British “left” should be to show solidarity with all the movements tending towards the unity and independence of Ireland, including movements of an economic or libertarian tendency, which are of course necessary.

What this means also is that it is not sufficient to say “Troops Out Now” and the devil take the consequences. From a purely English point of view this might seem an easy way out.  But it misses the all-Ireland aspect.

The British Government are in the position of a burglar who has gone into somebody’s house and set part of it on fire. A burglar might just clear off and leave the owner to put out the fire. A responsible government, let alone a Labour Government, is asked a little more. Britain must get out in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the Irish people for a united independent Republic.