Hume/Adams, the ‘peace’ offensive and Republicanism
Articles and leaflets from IWG/LRCI 1993
| Date: | 1993 |
|---|---|
| Organisation: | Irish Workers' Group [1976] |
| View: | View Document |
| Discuss: | Comments on this document |
| Subjects: |
Please note: The Irish Left Archive is provided as a non-commercial historical resource, open to all, and has reproduced this document as an accessible digital reference. Copyright remains with its original authors. If used on other sites, we would appreciate a link back and reference to The Irish Left Archive, in addition to the original creators. For re-publication, commercial, or other uses, please contact the original owners. If documents provided to The Irish Left Archive have been created for or added to other online archives, please inform us so sources can be credited.
Commentary From The Cedar Lounge Revolution
16th March 2020
Many thanks to the person who forwarded this to the Archive.
This leaflet, issued by the IWG in November 1993, compiles articles and leaflets from the IWG and the LRCI during that year. The focus is on the ‘Hume/Adams’ talks and the broader context in the North during that period.
So there are pieces that examine the aftermath of the Shankill and Greysteel attacks, another which is a reprint from Workers Power entitled ‘Behind the Peace Talks’. Matt Docherty assesses the situation in the context of ‘recent historic changes in world politics’ and a piece looks at the SWM and Militant responses to the peace process.
More from Irish Workers' Group [1976]
Irish Workers' Group [1976] in the archive
Comments
No Comments yet.
Add a Comment
Comments can be formatted in Markdown format . Use the toolbar to apply the correct syntax to your comment. The basic formats are:
**Bold text**
Bold text
_Italic text_
Italic text
[A link](http://www.example.com)
A link
You can join this discussion on The Cedar Lounge Revolution
By: WorldbyStorm Wed, 18 Mar 2020 14:38:53
In reply to Alibaba.
On an aside, did the WP really benefit off the back of the SLP’s fall? I guess perhaps a little. But it did have a wider/widish geographic spread that the SLP didn’t seem to have. Now wouldn’t that have been interesting having WP and SLP TDs getting a fair few seats.
Reply on the CLR
By: Alibaba Wed, 18 Mar 2020 14:48:32
In reply to Alibaba.
I am tempted to agree with you. As for the reason for WP growth and whether it’s related to SLP tendency conflicts, I’ll leave that to Jim and his take.
Reply on the CLR
By: Joe Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:55:01
In reply to Alibaba.
“On an aside, did the WP really benefit off the back of the SLP’s fall?”
I was mulling that myself. I doubt many who had been SLP members subsequently joined WP. Both left groups but very different – the Trotskyist/Stalinist divergence obviously but also the North/national question.
But then, with the SLP folded, the WP had much of the space to the left of the Labour Party to themselves for a good spell. So, for example, the likes of me looking for a left party to join in c1985 didn’t have the SLP as an option (I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have joined them and would still have joined WP but innanyways the option wasn’t there). And WP election candidates didn’t have competition from SLP ones – so ordinary voters inclined to vote left … that vote was less split.
Further. Where did ex SLP people end up? Back in their various smaller parties/sects, some maybe back in the Labour Party, some in no party but active in trade unions and civil society groups and campaigns and some I suppose in their armchairs.
Reply on the CLR
By: Colm B Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:09:21
In reply to Alibaba.
A very decent fellow by the named of Martin Logan who had been in SLP did join our branch of of the WP in Dun Laoghaire in the mid 80s but his membership was vetoed by head office ( despite his protestations, he was deemed to be a Trotskyist) when his probationary membership ended. Later in the 80s Dermot Boucher who had been a local candidate for SLP joined our branch and was a very active member for some years. He had no probs with HQ probably because SLP long dead and membership regime had become more relaxed.
BTW, the WP always had factions/tendencies but they were not publicly acknowledged and operated at an elite and/or covert level.
Reply on the CLR
By: Daniel Rayner O'Connor Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:10:44
In reply to Alibaba.
Certainly, some SLP members did enter what was then the SF/WP., most notably the late Mick Enright of Wexford. He did so mainly on the national Q. I don’t think he considered the Trotsky/Stalin issue.
As for Ali’s point about the IWG fighting for its policies, I would remark that trying to add a motion already defeated as an amendment to another motion is unlikely to get the educated support for the proposed policy that is necessary for its support.
Reply on the CLR
By: Jim Monaghan Thu, 19 Mar 2020 12:22:19
“he WP had much of the space to the left of the Labour Party to themselves for a good spell.” Maybe not direct members, but the milieu. And the WPO could state with some justification that Trotskyists were not serious. This had an effect. But the demise of the SLP left a vacuum. I don’t think it would have been particularly ideological but on the level of seriousness.
Reply on the CLR
By: Joe Thu, 19 Mar 2020 12:39:57
In reply to Jim Monaghan.
“And the WP could state with some justification that Trotskyists were not serious.”
Yep, that was my take for a long, long time. In fairness, they’ve gotten a lot more serious in the last decade or two. And I often wonder how serious the Stalinists are now. Not very, for sure.
Unfortunately, for the majority in the WP who ended up in the LP, being ‘serious’ ultimately meant … being in the LP.
We need a new party… the Serious Labour and Workers Party. Seriously.
Reply on the CLR