PHYSICAL FORCE IN IRISH
POLITICS
Ireland occupies a position among the
nations of
the earth unique in a great variety of its aspects, but in no one
particular is
this singularity more marked than in the possession of what is known as
a
`physical force party'---a party, that is to say, whose members are
united upon
no one point, and agree upon no single principle, except upon the use
of
physical force as the sole means of settling the dispute between the
people of
this country and the governing power of Great Britain.
Other countries and other peoples have,
from time
to time, appealed to what the first French Revolutionists picturesquely
described as the `sacred right of insurrection', but in so appealing
they acted
under the inspiration of, and combated for, some great governing
principle of
political or social life upon which they, to a man, were in absolute
agreement.
The latter-day high falutin' `hillside' man, on the other hand,
exalts
into a principle that which the revolutionists of other
countries have
looked upon as a weapon, and in his gatherings prohibits all discussion
of
those principles which formed the main strength of his prototypes
elsewhere and
made the successful use of that weapon possible. Our people have glided
at
different periods of the past century from moral force agitation,
so-called,
into physical force rebellion, from constitutionalism into
insurrectionism,
meeting in each the same failure and the same disaster and yet seem as
far as
ever from learning the great truth that neither method is ever likely
to be
successful until they first insist that a perfect agreement upon
the end to
be attained should be arrived at as a starting-point of all our
efforts.
To the reader unfamiliar with Irish
political
history such a remark seems to savour almost of foolishness, its truth
is so apparent;
but to the reader acquainted with the inner workings of the political
movements
of this country the remark is pregnant with the deepest meaning. Every
revolutionary effort in Ireland
has drawn the bulk of its adherents from the ranks of the disappointed
followers of defeated constitutional movements. After having exhausted
their
constitutional efforts in striving to secure such a modicum of
political power
as would justify them to their own consciences in taking a place as
loyal
subjects of the British Empire, they, in
despair, turned
to thoughts of physical force as a means of attaining their ends. Their
conception of what constitutes freedom was, in no sense changed or
revolutionised; they still believed in the political form of freedom
which had
been their ideal in their constitutional days; but no longer hoping for
it from
the acts of the British Parliament, they swung over into the ranks of
the
`physical force' men as the only means of attaining it.
The so-called physical force movement of
to-day
in like manner bases its hopes upon the disgust of the people over the
failure
of the Home Rule movement; it seeks to enlist the people under its
banners, not
so much by pointing out the base ideals of the constitutionalists or
the total
inadequacy of their pet measures to remedy the evils under which the
people
suffer, as by emphasising the greater efficacy of physical force as a
national
weapon. Thus, the one test of an advanced Nationalist is, in their
opinion, one
who believes in physical force. It may be the persons so professing to
believe
are Republicans; it may be they are believers in monarchy; it may be
that Home
Rule would satisfy them; it may be that they despise Home Rule. No
matter what
their political faith may be, if only they are prepared to express
belief in
the saving grace of physical force, they are acclaimed as advanced
Nationalists---worthy descendants of `the men of '98'. The '98
Executive,
organised in the commencement by professed believers in the physical
force
doctrine, started by proclaiming its adherence to the principle of
national
independence `as understood by Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen', and
in less
than twelve months from doing so, deliberately rejected a similar
resolution
and elected on its governing body men notorious for their Royalist
proclivities. As the '98 Executive represents the advanced Nationalists
of
Ireland, this repudiation of the Republican faith of the United
Irishmen is an
interesting corroboration of the truth of our statement that the
advanced
Nationalists of our day are utterly regardless of principle and only
attach
importance to methods---an instance of putting the cart before the
horse,
absolutely unique in its imbecility and unparalleled in the history of
the
world.
It may be interesting, then, to place
before our
readers the Socialist Republican conception of the functions and uses
of
physical force in a popular movement. We neither exalt it into a
principle nor
repudiate it as something not to be thought of.
To my mind an agitation to attain a
political or
economic end must rest upon an implied willingness and ability to use
force.
Without that it is mere wind and attitudinising. The only force
available to
the worker is economic force; the capture of political power when it
does come
will come as a result of the previous conquest of economic power,
although that
conquest can be and should be assisted by the continual exercise of
political
action by those who have grasped the full meaning and purpose of the
working
class fight.
·
Forward, March
14, 1914.
We acknowledge no right in
another individual or class to withhold anything which is ours by right
of
labour. We are out for justice and we have assailed or contested no
just
liberty. We know our duties as we know our rights and we shall stand by
one
another through thick and thin prepared, if necessary, to arm and
achieve by
force our place in the world, and also to maintain it by force. These
be the
ends of our fight---and should the heavens fall we shall achieve them.'
· Irish Worker, October 25, 1913.
Our position towards it is that
the use or non-use of force for the realisation of the ideas of
progress always
has been and always will be determined by the attitude, not of the
party of
progress, but of the governing class opposed to that party. If the time
should
arrive when the party of progress finds its way to freedom barred by
the
stubborn greed of a possessing class entrenched behind the barriers of
law and
order; if the party of progress has indoctrinated the people at large
with the
new revolutionary conception of society and is therefore representative
of the
will of a majority of the nation; if it has exhausted all the peaceful
means at
its disposal for the purpose of demonstrating to the people and their
enemies
that the new revolutionary ideas do possess the suffrage of the
majority; then,
but not till then, the party which represents the revolutionary idea is
justified in taking steps to assume the powers of government, and in
using the
weapons of force to dislodge the usurping class or government in
possession,
and treating its members and supporters as usurpers and rebels against
the
constituted authorities always have been treated. In other words,
Socialists
believe that the question of force is of very minor importance; the
really
important question is of the principles upon which is based the
movement that
may or may not need the use of force to realise its object.
Here, then, is the immense difference
between the
Socialist Republicans and our friends the physical force men. The
latter, by
stifling all discussions of principles, earn the passive and fleeting
commendation of the unthinking multitude; the former, by insisting upon
a
thorough understanding of their basic principles, do not so readily
attract the
multitude, but do attract and hold the more thoughtful amongst them. It
is the
difference betwixt a mob in revolt and an army in preparation. The mob
who
cheer a speaker referring to the hopes of a physical force movement
would, in
the very hour of apparent success, be utterly disorganised and divided
by the
passage through the British Legislature of any trumpery Home Rule Bill.
The
army of class-conscious workers organising under the banner of
the
Socialist Republican Party, strong in their knowledge of economic truth
and
firmly grounded in their revolutionary principles, would remain
entirely
unaffected by any such manoeuvre and, knowing it would not change their
position as a subject class, would still press forward, resolute and
undivided,
with their faces set towards their only hope of emancipation---the
complete
control by the working-class democracy of all the powers of
National
Government.
Thus the policy of the Socialist
Republicans is
seen to be the only wise one. Educate that you may be free;
principles
first, methods afterwards. If the advocacy of physical force failed to
achieve
success or even to effect an uprising when the majority were
unenfranchised and
the secret ballot unknown, how can it be expected to succeed now that
the majority
are in possession of voting power and the secret ballot safeguards the
voter?
The ballot-box was given us by our
masters for
their purpose; let us use it for our own. Let us demonstrate at that
ballot-box
the strength and intelligence of the revolutionary idea; let us make
the
hustings a rostrum from which to promulgate our principles; let us
grasp the
public powers in the interest of the disinherited class; let us emulate
our
fathers and, like the `true men of '98', place ourselves in line with
the most
advanced thought of our age and drawing inspiration and hope from the
spectacle
presented by the world-wide revolt of the workers, prepare for the
coming of
the day when the Socialist working-class of Ireland will, through its
elected
representatives, present its demand for freedom from the yoke of a
governing
master class or nation---the day on which the question of moral or
physical
force shall be finally decided.
·
Workers' Republic,
July 22, 1899.
