Around 1948, the 26 counties of Ireland left the Commonwealth and won that small gain of independence, while the six counties - Northern Ireland - remained British property because of the partition of that statelet in 1921. Therefore isn't the system in Northern Ireland today different than the system in the rest of Ireland, namely the 26 counties?
And what exactly is the system that Ireland is currently under in the 26 counties? Semi-colonial, or an underdeveloped capitalist system?
I know many who would characterize the system in Northern Ireland as nothing less than "apartheid" or a "police state" because of the continued forced separation along religious and class lines there. Are these correct characterizations of the system there? It would seem to be the case.
By understanding this, we can correctly identify what exactly is taking place in Ireland today. It is undoubted that the fight there is to gain democracy and is a step forward for the working class, but aren't the 26 counties of Ireland already under a capitalist system, which would mean that the transformation through a "democratic revolution" and that evolutionary step has already occurred?
I have often heard the comparison of Ireland to South Africa. Though the struggles are similar in many ways, what happened in South Africa was in fact a democratic revolution where apartheid was abolished. I believe that there is in fact a process of "democratic revolution" taking place in Northern Ireland because of the system which exists in the six counties. But this, while being a boost to the working class in the whole of Ireland, remains the situation in Northern Ireland alone.
Hopefully, the Militant can help to clarify this political question. Also, please keep up the coverage of the Irish struggle, it is helpful in understanding and thinking out these questions and many others.
Tami Peterson
San Francisco, California
Class politics, `gun rights'
The letter below was written in response to a letter by
Ed Meredith that appeared in this column in the September
25, 1995, Militant, under title "On gun control,
militias" - Editor.
Dear Ed,
In the Militant of September 25 you criticize the Militant and the [Socialist Workers] Party for "not addressing the issues succinctly and clearly and by not stating our position on the issues." O.K. Ed. Let's really talk about politics.
In the Delaware area, the highest price a dairy farmer gets for his milk is $14 per hundred-weight, about $1.20 per gallon. Milk processing costs about eight cents per gallon. At ACME, the working farmer gets to purchase milk at $2.80 per gallon. Get the picture Ed? Those who do the work and produce the food are paid $1.28 per gallon and those who do no work and produce nothing are paid $1.52 per gallon and that's the way it is under capitalism.
The function of the state is to preserve the economic relations that permit the capitalist class to go on looting the rest of us. What happens when the newspaper workers go on strike in Detroit? The cops are sent to make sure the scab truck drivers get through the picket line.
When the family farmers in Iowa protest against the impact of giant hog farming operations and their multimillion-gallon waste lagoons, the cops (the state) intervene to defend the polluters. I think that the State of Iowa ordering farmers to take down protest signs is a more serious threat than any move against "gun rights."
Real politics, for our class, begins with the fact that most of what we produce ends up in someone else's pocket. The problem that we have with government is not that it exists, but that it belongs to someone else.
That can be changed only through a political struggle. The kind of political fight the SWP is waging out in Iowa; a fight for an end to farm foreclosures, a fight to open the books of the agribiz monopolies. Go back four issues and read the Iowa program and read Doug Jenness's two pamphlets, An Action Program to Confront the Coming Economic Crisis and Farmers Face the Crisis of the 1990's; these will give you some political ideas to try on the neighbors.
Anyone who says that M15s or explosives will get you higher milk prices, or save your farm from foreclosure, is either plain nuts, or a cynical liar. The good ole boys in Caneyville need a good dose of truth, not someone to echo their illusions.
In the September 18 Militant Fidel Castro is quoted "... the key to all this is power. Who holds power, the big landowners, the bourgeoisie, the wealthy?... All land is in the hands of the Cuban campesinos (farmers) and agricultural workers... Not one hospital, not one school has been privatized and the country owns the overwhelming majority of its wealth."
Wish we could say as much here. Which side are you on Ed; a socialist future where our class rules, no kid goes hungry and no farmer has to fear foreclosure, or a society of poverty and greed, with World War III around the corner? The choice is a clear one, either the socialist movement or the Rush Limbaugh fan club, with assault rifles and funny uniforms.
I don't think we need to talk about "gun rights" again. The SWP is against the "Omnibus Crime Bill," every bit of it, including "gun control."
If you want to get mad, get mad about something real. Mark Curtis has spent more than seven years in prison, just because he is a socialist and a unionist who stood up for immigrant workers, that's worth getting mad about. How about the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, a reporter on death row for exposing police corruption and brutality; isn't that worth getting mad about?
Roy Inglee
Wilmington, Delaware
Japan, Australia
Doug Cooper is quite right when he points out the error
in my review of two books on the bombing of Hiroshima.
The review reads that "By the spring of 1942...[Japanese] troops were at the threshold of invading Australia." The original statement in the review read: "By 1942... [Japanese] troops were at the threshold of India and also controlled most of eastern China." Somehow it was changed during the course of editing and was not caught before it was printed.
I'm glad that Doug was so alert and wrote to correct the mistake. The truth is that Japanese imperialism was not strong enough to attack, let alone occupy, Australia.
Their primary interest in southern Asia was in obtaining the raw materials, essentially oil but also including rubber, nickel, tin and bauxite that were abundant in the Netherlands East Indies (Indonesia) and Malaysia. Their military strategy flowed from this perspective and consequently at no time did Tokyo contemplate an invasion of Australia.
Patti Ilyama
Houston, Texas
The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of general interest to our readers.
Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.