Origins of armed struggle

LYNDA Walker's article (M Star May 13) criticising the Irish republican armed struggle and the role of the hunger strikers reflects the Marxist orthodoxy which pervaded large sections of the left in Britain then and saw them turn their back on an anti-imperialist struggle in their own backyard.

Armed struggle arose out of material conditions in the partitioned state - state-sanctioned apartheid, religious sectarianism and oppression, all in service to a gerrymandered loyalist ascendancy.

The civil rights movement was ended brutally on Bloody Sunday in 1972. Nationalist communities then concluded that the only path left was armed struggle.

The avowedly Marxist Official IRA abandoned armed struggle in favour of organising across the sectarian divide.

It failed, because occupation and colonialism distort the political, social and economic landscape of the society in which they exist.

Sectarianism within the working class in the North could not be ended under British rule.

Armed struggle legitimacy is reflected in its ability to continue despite the efforts of the British state and loyalist paramilitaries.

It could not do this without at least the tacit support of nationalist communities.

The material conditions for armed struggle no longer exist. Debate over Sinn Fein's strategy is ongoing and I agree with Lynda that Bobby Sands, who fought and died for a united socialist Ireland, would not support the Adams faction and its role within the current peace process.

However, Sinn Fein would never have been allowed at the negotiating table without the 30-year armed struggle.

The brutality of any liberation struggle reflects the brutality of the occupation that it is struggling against.

Innocent people were killed. It also indisputable that the IRA degenerated into a top-down organisation in line with the change in material conditions.

This in no way invalidates the justice of the republican cause.

JOHN WIGHT
Edinburgh