The Prospects Before Us
Organisation: Revolutionary Marxist Group
Author:Robert Dorn
View: View Document
Discuss:Comments on this document

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

17th January 2010

The Revolutionary Marxist Group  is an intriguing Trotskyist formation on the Irish left from the 1970s. Never very large it consisted of former members the League for a Workers Republic and Young Socialists, according to Wiki. Some of our regular contributors will, no doubt, add detail to this picture.

This a fascinating document, written by the pseudonymous “Robert Dorn”, that attempts in a number of chapters to provide a rationale (perhaps retrospectively) for the political position of the RMG and potential alternatives. In the course of engaging with that there’s some good analysis in here of Republicanism and Irish politics.

This ideology makes only fitful pretence to the Socialism claimed as the ideal by the movements in Britain and Europe. Here, of course, we refer to militant Republicanism (Gardiner Place and Kevin St.). At a later stage of development, we will have to face up to a further fact: that the form of Republicanism that exercises most hegemony over the workers is, still, neither that of Gardiner Place nor that of Kevin Street, but the pretender of Upper Mount Street; the Fianna Fáil cuckoo. The extreme vagueness of Republicanism [sic] precepts (basically: ‘Break the connections with England and you’ll be all alright’) enabled this situation to come about. The victory of the ‘Yes’ vote in the recent referendum exposed the limitations of militant ‘Separatism’ and the creed could give no reason such a vote was incompatible with their basic views.

And the mention of certain groups places this within a clear historic timeline.

The circumstances that have made for the predominance of Republican ideology in the Irish working class have prevented any sort of serious opposition from being counterposed to it. The Irish Labour Party developed from a rigorous application of a syndicalist economist interpretation of certain aspects of the teachings of James Connolly inevitably becoming an expression of petty bourgeois Social Democracy. Such an ideology only has its staying power in the metropolitan state of imperialism. Basically, Irish Social Democracy accepts that ireland is another such state. This is at loggerheads with the facts. It has cut off the I.L.P. From any permanent claim on Republicans and has left it to depend entirely on imperialism’s ability to industrialise Ireland: and ability, as we are seeing, of only limited range. The development of an apparent ‘Tribunite’ tendency around the Liaison Committee of the left is not based on an internal ‘Tribunite’ base, but on the influx of debased Trotskyists and Stalinists.

There are also harsh words for the Communist Party of Ireland…

But, of course, there is a further complication. Real Communists might have been able to survive and develop better than the vanguard with which (until recently) the Irish working class has been lumbered. The history of Irish Stalinism includes 1 1/2 liquidations of its party. The first (1923) was to accomodate to the Syndicalist, Larking. The second (1941) (in the Twenty-Six Counties only) was aimed to overcome the embarrassment that would be given to the USSR by its allied party supporting the war effort of Russia’s ally and Ireland’s oppressor.

There’s also some background to Trotskyism in Ireland.

A more certain Trotskyist strain was already developed. This was amongst certain of [Michael] Price’s followers but also amongst members of Fianna Éireann who were disillusioned with the lack of politics of the Republican leadership…After the War, these formed a short-lived Revolutionary Socialist Party of Ireland which constituted to the only Irish section fo the Fourth international to date. This never grew beyond twenty. It was liquidated early in 1950…
Later many of them were to be prominent around Noel Browne, during his last period of organisational independence. However, by this time, they had lost most of their original revolutionary fervour. They did not try to create a proper Bolshevik Party out of Noel Browne’s National Progressive Democrats…

A complaint - however sardonic - one doesn’t hear every day.

The document also deals with the RMG itself and clearly delineates its ideological position:

In January 1972, we broke finally with the LWG and its YS. In February we held our founding Conference. Since then, we have been guided by three main lines, as defined by the faction fight, as much as anything. (1) A general agreement with Comrade Ernest Mandel’s analysis of the developing crisis in world capitalism. (Though, in detail, a disagreement with his delineation of the qualitative change from Imperialism to neo-capitalism) and a resultant support for the Fourth International. (2) The general view that the main propaganda field is on the national issue. (3) Affiliation to the SLA. The weakness is, that except for the first and Comrade MacGregor’s bluepring for action in Northern Ireland, nothing much has been done to spell out this (in itself correct) strategy.

There’s a most interesting analysis of the prospects for entryism to either Official or Provisional Sinn Féin where one of the reasons not to try the former is..

…it’s traditional activism harnessed to the policies of its leadership means that real entry work will entail activity, not alone time wasting, but of an actively counter-revolutionary nature. Trotskyist entrists will have to agitate for a ‘Northern Irish Bill of Rights’ and to sell the United Irishman with its libellous attacks on our politics. (This is more than was expected of Troskyists in the Labour Party). In the case of Kevin Street, there is always the pitfall of its undoubtedly Fascist (Fennell) wing and that it will distort the course of the struggle.

There are many names already familiar to those who have studied this topic over the years, and it’s written in a readable and in places highly entertaining style. Well worth considering.

More from Revolutionary Marxist Group

Revolutionary Marxist Group in the archive


No Comments yet.

Add a Comment

Formatting Help

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](
A link

You can join this discussion on The Cedar Lounge Revolution

  • By: FergusD Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:53:00

    Mark P,
    He may have been an agent provacateur actually, apparently he had been in and out of numerous groups. But the over reaction was rather typical for Militant on this issue – honestly – who cared!

    Still there was far worse silliness from other “Trotskyist” groups at the time (and since) no doubt. And I say that with some sadness.

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: Jim Monaghan Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:59:18

    On Vietnam Krivine (the elder) maintained contact with the small group. Regularly in the press of the movement I read about the prisoners in China. In fact I was rereading some stuff while looking for archive material for Cedar Longe yesterday.
    It is difficult leading say the Vietnam Solidatity Campaign and at the same time criticisng the regime leading the fight against Imperialism.
    I have never seen anything saying Mao was a Trotskyist even in Maitan’s over rosy assessment of the Cultural revolution.Warts and alla I find it difficult to put Castro in the same league as Mao.
    Again it is about comparitive analysis. What were your lot doing and saying at the time.(doing I say not just saying and passing resolutions calling for sweetness and light) Give me a Krivine actually leading a real struggle or even a Tariq to those who simply see the struggle as resolution passing at Trade Union meetings and Labour Party conferences.
    The debates in the FI were about real struggles. Only when you emerged from the Labour Party were you seen to do much.
    In fact your idealised concept of a “pure” class struggle led you to absent yourselves from the living struggle of the nationalist workingclass against Imperialism.
    The mistake in South America was seeing as did many that it was possible to replicate the Cuban success in a similar manner. Though it was replicated in Nic. and Grenada. It would have been turning Marxism into a stale mantra if this did not have an effect on the ranks of the FI.
    Any living group is influenced by the world around. This can lead to errors and usually does. Only the sectarian pure and pure (De Leonites and their Trotskyist equivalent) could have abstained and not be influenced by what was happening.
    EG Did your South African entryists denounce the military adventurism of the ANC. I bet they did’nt as it would have been political suicide.
    The RMG steered a difficult path in supporting the Northern revoilt against Imperialism. I felt mistakes were being made but they did not get involved in military adventurism. But this did not menn that they would not have been prepared to activally defend the ghettoes in the event of another generalised Bombay street. And there was a real fear that this might happen. No doubt you would have been asking the ICTU/TUC to do something. Well we can see the fiasco when they tried (and at least there was an effort) to stop the Loyalist Strike).
    This sectarian assault on the Nationalist population was of a ferocious scale. But of course with your equals too sign between the Nationalist and Unionist/Loyalist proulations you would no doubt disagree.
    Whatever about China neither the Cuban, Grenada or Nic. revolutions were deformed at birth. There was an anti-bureaucratic opening in Jugoslavia fro a short period. It was correct to be open to it and try and give a momentum to it.
    Saor Eire.
    Peter Graham had personal frendships with some of them, as do I with one of them. Neither Kelly or Speed were particularly friendly to them as individuals or as a group.It was though that this particular Republican group was more open to Trotskyist ideas than the 2 major ones. Whatever the truth of this they were smashed by the state anyway. Likewise the IRSP contained people who were sympa. and open to Trotskyism, they while not smashed by the state( and the Official IRA) were weakened and driven towards an unfortunate suicidal militarism.
    The mistaken perspectives of the RMG was based on an honest attempt to come to terms with a living struggle. Your tendency (likewise with the Official republican movement) turned your back on it.

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: Neil Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:14:19

    In reply to Jim Monaghan.

    “While hindsight is always useful I find it hard to see how any group that had not led a successful revolution could stand against the Guevarist trend. Look at the ANC, I doubt that your comrades who were in it made many polemics against the Guerrillaist trend.”

    Yes they did actually although the documents are not available online unfortunately.

    In the main the theoretical basis for the CWI’s opposition to individual terrorism comes from the living struggles our organisations in Northern Ireland, South Africa and Sri Lanka engaged in with these tendencies

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: Mark P Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:15:34


    I don’t even know where to start with that there are so many things I think are silly or just wrong in it.

    Plenty of people wage “real struggles”, for good reasons and bad and with good tactics and bad. The chief distinction between Militant and the RMG on the issue of Republican paramilitaries wasn’t that the “RMG engaged with a real struggle”, unless you count the clownish tragedy of their Saor Eire entanglements or unless you count cheering on some paramilitary faction from the sidelines as a “real engagement”. It was that Militant realised, right from that start, that the Provisional’s campaign of bombings and assassinations could never achieve any of its aims and would instead be a bloody, counterproductive failure while the RMG cheered them on every step of the way.

    Militant argued that the IRA campaign would not lead to a United Ireland and still less to a workers republic but would instead lead to the deaths or imprisonment of a generation of the most politicised Catholic youth, would further entrench sectarian division in the working class and would allow the British to endlessly ramp up the repressive apparatus of the state. This was and remains the traditional Marxist position on individual terrorism. It simply cannot work (unless perhaps your goals are as nihilistic as your methods). The RMG, in keeping with the traditions of their international current, just saw some force in motion, some exciting action, and cheered along.

    Of course it didn’t do them much good. As I said above, all it earned them was a continuous loss of members to the Provisionals. As it was they who were after all waging the real struggle in the RMGs eyes, the people who joined the Provos and who rather quickly dropped their socialist radicalism were just following the RMG’s logic through to its conclusion. And the Provisionals were always willing to accept a few new members who could add a thin gloss of theoretical sophistication to their campaign.

    It may be “difficult” to run an anti-war campaign and to simultaneously criticise the Vietnamese Stalinists, but it was necessary to do so. The USFI covered up the slaughter of their own comrades in Vietnam, which happened on a large scale, because they thought that being so rude as to mention it would jeopardise their working relationship with the Stalinists. That’s not a minor incident. It goes beyond their refusal to stand up for the (small and rather peculiar) Trotskyists in Cuba when the Stalinists there were persecuting them. The Vietnamese Trotskyists were a significant political force, particularly in the cities. They were also affiliated to the USFI! And yet their “comrades” helped cover up their murders because doing otherwise was inexpedient. I don’t think that’s a much less shameful incident then the Healyites selling photographs of Iraqi leftists to the Ba’athist regime.

    These incidents are of a piece. There is an underlying connection between the USFI’s infatuations with Irish Republicanism, Stalinism, Student Vanguards, Titoism, Latin American Guerrillaism, Third World Dictators and all the rest. It’s the search for a shortcut, an easier, more exciting route than building support amongst the organised working class.

    And yes, the ISFI as it then was did apply a similar analysis to Mao as it did to Tito and as the USFI did to Castro. I disagree entirely with your claim that the Cuban regime wasn’t bureaucratically deformed. It was and is a bureaucratic dictatorship. Acknowledging that doesn’t mean that you have to ignore or oppose the very real gains the Cuban revolution has brought, but we have to also acknowledge that the Cuban people are not free to elect their leaders, they don’t exercise democratic control over their economy and society and the regime does and did imprison its opponents. The USFI takes as one-sidedly positive a view of Cuba as the SWP does a one-sidedly negative one.

    And yes, by the way, our sister organisation within the ANC argued against a reliance on terroristic methods, saying that they wouldn’t bring victory. And they were right too.

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: NollaigO Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:19:06

    In reply to Jim Monaghan.

    I supported the Trotskyist prisoners in China. I have Bentons excellent book on them.Strongly recommend his books.

    In fact Greg Benton was part of a large grouping who left Militant in 1973 and joined USFI.

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: Jim Monaghan Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:31:50

    I think you are gilding the lily on your groups attitude to the Northern struggle. It was not just opposing the militarist approach of the Provos in favour of something better. You put an equals too sign between Unionism and Nationalism. I read your Northern guru Haddon’s polemic against the SWP and that it what I drew from it. I think that a lot of other leftists would put you in the same camp as the Sticks, BNQ as a friend of mine put it (Bad on the National Question). Intercontinental press, the english language journal published by the American SWP as it work for the Usec carried out many campaigns about the Viet. Trotskyists and others. I would have liked more of it, but it was there.Yes, the Usec as a whole had a positive attitude to not just the Cuban revolution but it’s leadership as well. I see problems with the Cuban leadership but will not go as far as you. There are not real soviets and there are other distortions. But the Cubans led a popular revolution supported and activally aided by the bulk og the Cuban people. This makes it different than the imposed revolutionary changes in eastern Europe, now reversed.The distortions/deformations came in because of their dependency on the USSR. It was not born deformed.I remember someone saying that for Trotskyists critical support is all critical and damn all support. If your current respond to the Chavez invit. for a prospective 5th International I would humbly suggest that you make your criticisms closer to 99% of American Imperialism and 1% ( something of that order)the flaws of the Cuban revolution.In case you say I am ignoring these flaws I would just say remember who the main enemny is. The flaws were caused by Imperialism sustained attempt to isolate the Cubans politically and economically.Castro is not a Stalin. Wrong as the treatment of the Cuban Trotskyist was they were not shot. And for wht it is worth I have piublicised the work of Tennant which deals with them.
    The North, it was a fact that a significant part of the nationalist supported the Provo campaign. We recognised this fact. This is why we popposed the attempt by the Imperialist to criminalise the prisoners.Because this was to criminalise the whole struggle of the Nationalist population.There are many struggles led by leaderships throughout the world which we would both disagree with vis a vis tactics and strategy but which are in essence struggles against Imperialism. Remember Lenin about pure class struggle , I frorget the entire quote something about thos who expect a pure proletarian army lining up against a pure Capitalist one. We deal with the class struggle as it is with flawed leaderships whether reformists, Stalinists or whatever. I would put the then Provo leadership, the Cubans, Scargill with their flaws on a different plain than the say reformists of the ICTU or even worse the awful Northern Ireland committee of the ICTU.
    Whether we like it or not many currents that come into being in the struggle against Imperialism will not emanate directly from our tradition. The Stalinists with their slaughter made sure of that. These have the potential of leading revolutions, a potential made much better if they become Trotskyists, in the sense of absorbing the lessons of marxism. A critical and friendly engagement without arrogance is necessary. When I look at the couurage displayed in especially the Prison struggle I see the bravest and best of anti-imperialist fighters who any movement would/should be glad to engage with and attract to their ranks. Opposing the attempt to criminalise them for me is the starting point.
    Talking of the ANC how did you deal with the internal repression of dissidents in Tanzania. This was assisted by the GDR advisors.

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: Mark P Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:30:35

    In reply to Jim Monaghan.

    “Bad on the National Question”, is a badge I’d wear with pride when it’s awarded at the whim of people who have never understood the national question as it actually exists, who have never had anything of interest to say to or about the majority of workers in the North and who have instead devoted their time to cheerleading for a futile and counterproductive bombing campaign supported by about 10% of the Northern population and a smaller part of the Southern one.

    It is interesting that left republicanism has consistently been such a disaster. Saor Eire, the RMG, PD, the ISP, the Red Republicans and the like disappeared, the IRSP and IPLO, well the less said the better. None of them could survive in the shadow of the Provisionals, whether trying to run their own “socialist” bombing campaigns or simply standing around and cheering for the larger organisation. The SWM, which had its own leanings in that direction, has slowly but surely moved away from it and towards a working class unity position, which is to their credit.

    I’m not gilding any lillies when I describe Militant’s view of the Provisionals. Militant made much those arguments in the first copy of our paper. They argued at all times the Provisionals campaign would be a bloody and counterproductive failure. And they were right. All those murders, all those activists lives wasted, and it hasn’t brought us one centimeter closer to a united Ireland, still less to a workers republic. Militant was very clear that British imperialism created the problem, but it understood that the most important immediate impediment to a united Ireland wasn’t by the 1960s the British state but the Protestant population. It’s taken some of our dimmer cousins on the left quite a lot longer to grasp that.

    On Cuba, yes indeed Castro led a genuine popular revolt. So did Tito, so did Mao. That’s part of the reason why the USFI tradition fell head over heels for all of them. But all of them set up regimes broadly modeled on the bureaucratised Soviet Union and right from that start, all of them established a dictatorship. Call me old fashioned if you must, but I don’t see how any Trotskyist can support “the leadership” of a bureaucratic dictatorship, as opposed to the genuine gains of the revolution.

    As for Chavez, he is a radical leftist leader of a capitalist state. He has led a movement that has brought about significant reforms in Venezuela and he’s to be admired for that. However, we aren’t simple reformists. We think that capitalism has to be abolished in its entirity and replaced with working class power. At this point, it doesn’t seem that Chavez shares that perspective. I think that the socialist left would be well advised to support figures like that in so far as they advance working class interests (and in Chavez case that’s pretty far!) but also to maintain a critical distance. The USFI, of course, is incapable of maintaining a critical distance from whatever or whoever is the subject of its latest infatuation and will accuse anyone who does maintain their critical faculties of being insufficient enthusiastic.

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: Garibaldy Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:40:27

    In reply to Jim Monaghan.

    “I remember someone saying that for Trotskyists critical support is all critical and damn all support.”

    I don’t think that has been the case when it comes to those Trotskyists who have critically supported the Provisionals. Much more the other way round I’d have thought.

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: ejh Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:46:01

    In reply to Mark P.

    It’s taken some of our dimmer cousins on the left quite a lot longer to grasp that.

    How few, how few have been quite as bright as the Milis.

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: Joe Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:06:56

    I’m trying to get my head around all this. It’s starting to make sense I think. The milis were the Normans, right? And the RMG were the “native” Irish. So when the milis arrived with their modern ideas and technology, it transformed the nature of the society. The Irish initially didn’t really like the idea of towns but they eventually caught on.
    So, as ejh said, pre-Elizabethan Ireland, feudal or not?
    I’m going to stick my neck on the line here and go for… crypto-feudal.

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: NollaigO Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:52:49

    LOL , Joe

    The milis were the Normans, right?

    B’fhéidir ach tá b’fhéidir eile ann!

    Na daoine le Dia, b’fhéidir!

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: NollaigO Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:25:11

    B’fhéidir eile:

    Uisce faoi thalamh ?!

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: THATS NOT MY NAMA! Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:25:39

    As sassanach anois!

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: Joe Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:07:00

    TNMN. As sasanach anois = out of an English person now.
    As Béarla anois = In English (language) now. [Béarla comes from béalra = (literally, sort of) mouthing (béal=mouth)].
    Terrible the way the Gaeilge brings out the finger wagging teacher in me.
    Are you still with us ejh? Interesting too that the word milis in Irish means sweet in English. The sweet milis.
    Going way back pre-Norman into the realms of legend, we had the Milesians (precursors of the milis?) who, if memory serves, came from Greece. They ran the show here for a while till they were done by the Formorians who got done by the Tuatha Dé Danann, probably not in that order.
    Pre-Elizabethan Ireland had the gaelic clan culture – them clans could outdo any trot sect for splits and fusions.
    Where this all comes or goes I have no idea but, on pre-Elizabethan Irish society, I’m sticking with crypto-feudal until somebody convinces me otherwise.

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: WorldbyStorm Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:30:14

    Crypto-feudal sounds about right to me…

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: ejh Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:59:31

    In reply to Joe.

    Are you still with us ejh?

    See, when I was a kid I did a seance or two but at least I wasn’t the one they were calling on then

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: Jim Monaghan Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:51:01

    On the feudal thing, which arises in discussing Connolly rather rosy approach. Let me point out that there was a change in land ownership from the Clan to the Chief when the chiefs became Earls etc.
    Also in feudal Europe when a war occurred the peasants were part of the property transferred. In Ireland there were plantations where everyone was driven to the poorer lands.
    Agreed an archaic debate as regards current ploitis but nevertheless of historical interest.
    There is a debate in the FI about Chavez. Yes, along with most of the FI if not all Venezuela is considered a Capitalist state but it is in the midst of a process. Whether like Castro, Chavez will be able (I feel he is willing) to drive it to a socialist conclusion, or it will be driven back we will have to wait and see. I hope the workers of Ven. will succeed.
    I grant the point that there will always be those who are too uncritical but there are always those who are just critical.
    See debate in
    and Socialist Action article by Gerry Foley
    Chavez Calls for a Fifth International
    Here we will have to wait and see and do our solidarity in case the USA intervenes.It is unfortunate that your more Grantite cousins rather than build solidarity in the broadest fashion try and own the campaign. If they were not bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan I am sure they would do so.
    When an oppressed people go in struggle against Imperialism and the same goes for a group of workers, unless we are the leadership we are not likely to decide on startegy and tactics. But we have to take sides. When Imperialism tries to label 1000s of young workers from the nationalist community as mere criminals. After Bloody Sunday the young in the Ghettoes wanted to fight. I might have advocated other mass action forms of struggle but in that context who would have listened. That they wanted to fight and adopted a strategy that could not win is a fact. But and this is decisive a mistaken apporach is not an excuse to line up with Imperialism. The WP became obsessed with the Provos and demonised the masses who followed them. I know where I stand. I disagreed as an Irish revolutionary with the military campaign (I used to use the shorthand discription that I was a 1972 stick) but not putting this disagreement in the context of the effect of Imperialism and the decision to attack the nationalist population is misguided.
    To take a “classic” struggle like the miners. I think that Scargill made strategic mistakes.He was the greatest asset and the greatest liability for the miners at the same time, a titan of Larkinist proportions. But he was their leader and anyone who did not support the miners struggle, well you need to know which side you are on.Not only did the miners lose, the industry disappeared.
    In the Middle East like I would guess all of us I would be queasy about living under Hamas or such like but I will not line up with Imperialism against those who fight. It is not for me to lecture those who see in Hamas fighters who are not corrupt and who are willing to fight.
    When people talk of unity of workers they should look at the country as a whole, North and South. Partition and the acceptance by the 26 county rulers of it has created a partitionist mentality. I assume that the SP regard this as one country otherwise their comrades in belfast would be in their British section. Leading on from that I assume they regard the national struggle as unresolved as least on a theoritical level.
    The line of Haddon and co could be written by any milk and water liberal nevermind socialist.
    Groups, parties etc. come and go, Trotskys favourite party, the American SWP is now a mere sect. There are many reasons for this, sometimes repression,, sometimes a lurch into sectarianism, people get worn out, the times are bad etc. The Northern uposurge ran out of steam dut to mainly the militarist approach by the Provos. This meant that those who prioritised it also were weakened.
    Some groups continue for evr no matter the objective circumstances, eg the SPGB.
    Because of the work the SP and Higgins have done there is a certain momentum and a certain responsibility to the class. There are things you can do or try to, will you put the conservative and narrow interests of the group on top or will you give a lead to the broadest layers to go into struggle. The ICTU/SIPTU have been successful demobilising the workingclass over the last year. I am not saying that with a wave of the hand the SP or any combination can offset this but you have to try.
    Alas, I think you will go for a narrow agenda.

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: Left Archive: Marxist Review, Theoretical Journal of the Revolutionary Marxist Group, No.3, Spring 1973 « The Cedar Lounge Revolution Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:12:07

    […] by Jim Monaghan, is of particular interest. We’ve already considered some material from the Revolutionary Marxist Group, but this expands upon their analysis and during a period of particular change on the further left […]

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: Left Archive: Socialist Republic (incorporating The Plough), Paper of the Revolutionary Marxist Group No. 1 c.1975 « The Cedar Lounge Revolution Mon, 16 Jul 2012 02:36:09

    […] noted previously the Revolutionary Marxist Group was a Trotskyist group in Ireland in the 1970s. With members drawn […]

    Reply on the CLR

  • By: delivering detailed news Wed, 22 Nov 2017 15:45:36

    Interim Management China

    The Left Archive: The Prospects Before Us – Revolutionary Marxist Group, 1970s | The Cedar Lounge Revolution

    Reply on the CLR