Revisionist Marxist Theory in Ireland

摘要

This article examines the anti-nationalist Marxist school of thought that is associated with, amongst others, Paul Bew and Henry Patterson. It looks at their attempt to produce a Marxist theoretical justification for an end to the use of political violence by Irish republicans and for a justification of partition and Ulster unionism. It argues that this was an identifiable revisionist school with a political agenda. It further argues that the maintenance of the union with Britain is both explicitly and implicitly at the centre of these scholars' agenda. It is the ideology of unionism expressed in leftist vocabulary. The focus of this article is to evaluate: the two contrasting approaches of 'anti-imperialism' and 'anti-nationalist revisionism'; in particular it explores differences between these two approaches over such fundamental issues as: 1) the nature and importance of imperialism in Ireland past and present; 2) the role of the British state in Northern Ireland; 3) the nature of the conflict in the North; 4) how Marxists should interpret Ulster unionism in their efforts to promote socialism in Ireland. Recent political developments in Northern Ireland—the setting up of a power-sharing executive involving Sinn Fein and the hard-line unionist DUP—puts this article into context. Part One examines the orthodox Marxist tradition, theory and heritage. This 'anti-imperialist' analysis of Ireland can be said to derive from the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and the contribution of James Connolly to Marxist political thought. Part Two looks at 'anti-nationalist revisionism'. The term refers to those Marxists writing on Ireland who have questioned, and rejected many of the basic tenets of the traditional 'anti-imperialist' approach. It identifies this school with Paul Bew, Henry Patterson and Ellen Hazelkorn, and their collective projects. I would acknowledge the contribution of Peter Gibbon, Austen Morgan and indeed, the British and Irish Communist Organisation (BICO) to Revisionist Marxism, however; I focus on the writers above because of their association with a definable political project that I will be exploring in a forthcoming article. Part Three surveys the intellectual debate relating to this form of revisionism—existing critiques or commentaries, and book reviews, and considers interviews with Henry Patterson and two of his antagonists, Sam Porter and Denis O'Hearn.