KARL CARLILE:
IRELAND AND THE STRUGGLE FOR NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION
The driving force that determined the character of economic development in
Ireland from the latter part of the 18th into the early 20th century has
been British capitalism. British capitalism has grown at the expense of
Irish economic development. The economic development of Ireland has been
subordinated to and determined by Britain's mighty economic development.
Economic development is an interconnected process. The specific quality of
the production of wealth in the form of commodity production has been its
expansion of production through the increase in the social division of
labour which produces greater dependence among the producers as well as, of
course, increasing anarchy in production. And commodity production in its
more developed capitalist form while producing increased indirect socialized
production brings about socialized production itself. The latter form widens
and deepens such that it proves itself a primary contributor in the creation
of the world capitalist system of production.
To argue, as some do, that the locality of North-East Ulster grew separately
from the rest of Ireland is to disregard the social character of the
commodity form. It constitutes a denial of the mighty revolutionary role
played by the capitalist system in turning world production into a world
economic system. It mistakenly suggests that British capital exercised no
central determining role over north-east industrialization and that the
latter developed on a separate independent basis. Besides overlooking the
peculiar character of imperialism this is to suggest that capitalist
relations today are still progressive capable of promoting independent
economic growth in oppressed countries. In this way the very fundamental
conditions for the replacement of world capitalism with world socialism is
entirely disregarded: that capitalist relations are not adequate if the
productive forces are to be satisfactorily increased in the interests of
humanity and that contained within bourgeois society are the material
conditions for the establishment of socialism.
As already indicated the character of Irish economic growth was determined
essentially by British capital accumulation. During the 18th century Irish
economic production was subordinated to Britain's expansionary interests
which was then a world commercial capitalist power. This oppressive bond
explains why provisioning flourished on this island during the 18th century.
It provided much of the basic requirements for feeding the crews of both the
military and merchant and naval services as well as the commercial centres
of the Colonies. "The provision trade killed, salted and packed the beef in
barrel for export." (R.D. Crotty: Irish Agricultural Production; page 15).
This trade produced "a whole complex of subsidiary trades, cooperage,
tanning and tallow manufacturing among others." (ibid: page 15). But all
these trades created a demand for labour power and for the means of
subsistence of that demand for labour power. As a result of domestic demand
for dairy produce, and even for corn, was increased , which in turn helped
to make dairying and tillage in Ireland somewhat more profitable (ibid; p.
15). Besides this British commerce also determined both the growth and
character of merchant capital. This ensured the increased centralisation of
merchant capital at specific centres in Ireland, especially in the South. In
turn this led to the even further social division of labour involving
greater manufacturing expansion in or near these centres providing for many
of the needs of their growing populations; glass-making and brewing are
examples. This was a further stimulus to both population growth and
agricultural expansion which, of course, expressed itself in increased
social division of labour.
The growth of commodity circulation and consequently commerce, is determined
through the increase in the social division of labour both at the national
and international levels. Even Ireland was not to escape such economic
developments. But instead of this increased division of labour creating a
corresponding increased home market, enlargement was restricted; the British
home market expanded at the expense of its Irish counterpart.
Whether in the money or any other commodity form, considerable wealth was
being extracted from Ireland to Britain's benefit. This appropriation of
Irish wealth was a product of the unequal exchange of labour through the
trade that took place between the two islands. The retention of Irish wealth
in Britain by both owners of Irish land and sections of the commercial
bourgeoisie constituted an added drain on Irish material reproduction.
Needless to say the banks had a hand in this process.
As a pre-capitalist form of appropriation of the labour of Irish producers,
the rent-form hindered the expansion of national commodity circulation. By
siphoning off a large portion of surplus product in the form of rent, the
landed nobility left considerably less surplus product available for
exchange in the commodity form: this restricted internal commodity circulation.
Through merchant capital, its chief economic mediator in Ireland, Britain
exploited Ireland. It served as the transmission belt through which Irish
wealth was delivered to the British bourgeoisie. Trading relations in
Ireland were promoted in a restricted form by the trader; in his absence,
both the export of provisions and other commodities would have been
constrained. In the interests of its own expansionary needs Britain's
commercial bourgeoisie determined the growth of both the provision trade and
other forms of production. As a result of increased trade the merchants grew
more powerful and thereby generated further manufacturing growth. But it had
to be a growth constrained within the framework of Britain's economic
interests. By hindering the development of an Irish national commodity
market, Britain was depriving Ireland of one of the primary indispensable
conditions for the development of an independent Irish capitalist class.
The Irish landed aristocracy played a secondary, although important, role as
agent for British capital. By virtue of his private ownership of the land,
the landowner appropriated the labour of the peasant producers in the form
of ground rent. By means of such appropriation, they were enabled to have
surplus product exchanged via the merchant with Britain for its "equivalent"
in the general form of money or in the particular commodity form. Within
certain limits, this meant that the landed nobility helped determine the
character of trade between the two islands and consequently, in some degree,
the character of Irish production. He influenced the character of production
because of his impact on the material composition of trade. Furthermore, the
landlord's retention in Britain of a substantial part of the surplus
product, in whatever form, as already indicated, was a deduction from wealth
in Ireland with all the negative effects that followed this. Instead of the
peasant producers determining how the surplus product created by them was
to be employed, the parasitic landlord class appropriated the large bulk of
it, in both its own interests and those of the exploiting classes in
Britain. By fostering the export of primary wealth from the country, they
were promoting the unequal exchange of labour against Ireland's interests
besides, of course, indirectly strengthening the economic power of the
merchants handling the commodities. The harsh reality is that the landed
nobility actively contributed to Britain's growth at Ireland's expense. The
landlord's were a reactionary class who obstructed independent capitalist
development on this island; they were a barrier to production. Without the
merchant and the landlord, Britain could not have so successfully
subordinated Ireland to its own economic interests
It was British exploitation of Irish producers that brought about restricted
capitalist growth in Ireland. And this, only in the interests of British
capital expansion together with the corresponding expansion of the British
home market. Through British capital's mode of appropriation of the labour
of the Irish producers, it contributed towards its own economic growth as
well as the very restricted expansion of Irish production. British capital
expanded through the oppressive exploitation of the industrial working class
and through the oppressive exploitation of other peoples. British history is
testimony to this brutal reality. Irish production helped build the British
market. It was the British market that produced Irish capitalism. The secret
behind the character of Irish growth is British oppression. Many bourgeois
historians prefer to remain at the superficial level of the market where
justice and equality appear to reign. To cover up Britain's oppressive role
and its obstruction of Irish independent capitalist growth together with its
blockage of the evolution of a national commodity home market, they must
ignore the secret of Britain's transformation into a bourgeois imperialist
power.
We must also make it clear too, that the role of the Irish banks increased
in importance in transferring wealth from the country to Britain. Much of
the deposits lodged with them in Ireland were transferred to Britain. In
relation to deposits made in Irish banks in he 19th century Raymond Crotty
has this to say: "The banks in turn transferred these savings to the London
money market where they earned 2.5% or more. Thus Irish savings were
financing British industry..." (Banking on Ireland's Decline; Irish Times,
March 16, 1981).
The transformed economic character of Britain formed the underlying force
that led to the industrialisation of North-East Ulster. From the latter part
of the 18th century Britain had been in transition from a world commercial
power to a world industrial capitalist power which led to a corresponding
change in its needs. No longer was the provision trade to continue to play
the same relatively important role between the two islands; instead
agricultural and cloth exports were to replace it in importance.. The repeal
of the Cattle Acts is evidence of Britain's changing needs. Such dramatic
change induced a new social division of labour in Ireland, increasingly
subordinated, of course, to the expansionary interests of British industrial
capital. This chiefly took the form of the South producing agricultural
produce for the growing British market while in the North-East was
concentrated linen production for that same market. And instead of these
developments forming the basis for a correspondingly increased growth of the
Irish commodity home market, they helped enhance forces of production on the
British mainland while contributing to the expansion; and all at Ireland's
expense. Instead of Irish agriculture and industry primarily contributing
to the independent development of the productive forces of this island, they
were, in effect harnessed towards fueling the expansionary requirements of
British capitalist production. So the changed internal social division of
labour of the Irish economy merely contributed indirectly towards Irish
economic development. Consequently, town and country were separating in a
very narrow and unbalanced manner, so much so that the town was most
developed industrially, after the 18th century, only in the North-East of
the country. And one of the results of this was that the surplus land
population, unlike in Britain, was not significantly absorbed by the towns.
In a sense the separation between town and country developed in such a way
that the country was Ireland and the town, Britain. To sum up: The social
division of labour in Ireland changed chiefly in the interests of British
capitalist growth and, as a result of the successful exploitation by British
capital of the Irish producers. Indeed the character and significance of
this division was eventually destined to generate tremendous historical and
political change in Ireland.
While it may, of course, be true that the modification of the land tenure
system in the form of Ulster Custom served as an aid in the creation of the
conditions for the industrialisation of North-East Ireland, it must be
stressed that the expansionary requirements of the British bourgeoisie
proved the decisive element. It must not be forgotten that Ulster Custom was
but a mere modification of a land tenure system that, in general, embraced
all of 18th century Ireland. In Ireland the land tenure system was a motley
medieval system of landownership hindering the development of agriculture
and even more importantly, independent capitalist development. Essentially,
Irish landed relations served Britain's interests and obstructed Irish
economic growth.
As has been suggested it is not true that Ulster Custom by contrast, with
the equivalent situation in the South, necessarily led to a greater surplus
product accruing to the agricultural producer which consequently contributed
to the creation of the conditions for industrialisation. Agrarian relations
then were not simple. Merely because Ulster Custom prevailed in a given
region it does not automatically follow that the producers would have
secured a bigger portion of surplus product than elsewhere.
As well as the surplus product connected with it many conditions influence
agricultural production. And Ulster Custom is not by far the sole
determinant of the quantity of surplus wealth produced in the agricultural
sphere for investment. Among the factors that may make up for the absence
of Ulster Custom are the following: The duration of existing leases; the
rate of return of investments on the land; the degree to which investments
are undetectable by the landlord so that he correspondingly fails to
increase rents; depreciation; investment in labour power; the composition of
production and price fluctuations; how crops are related to investment
whether land tenure in the form of Ulster Custom is completely absent or
present in some degree even though not called such. There are other
considerations to be taken into account as well. However it is not the task
of this piece to present an explanation and analysis of these factors to the
reader
Without the material conditions that produced the circumstances for the
industrialisation of the North-East, no amount of modification of the land
tenure in the form of Ulster Custom would have had the same results. In so
far as industrialisation did take place, it was accompanied by a restricted
increase in the Irish home market. But we must again stress that both these
developments were determined by British economic developments and were
consequently a function of them. 19th century North-East industrialization
was not an expression of national independent capitalist development. It was
Irish industrial growth of an extremely limited and dependent nature.
By the latter part of 18th century feudal relations were but a medieval
obstruction to the forces of production. Indeed, as already indicated the
Irish feudal landed aristocracy were a agent in the oppression of the Irish
producers; and this was true of the landlords in both parts of the country.
To create the best conditions for wider and more rapid independent
capitalist growth the abolition of private landownership would have been one
of the chief and indispensable requirements. Such would involve the
"transformation of the patriarchal peasant into a bourgeois farmer." But, on
the other hand, bourgeois "development may proceed by having big landlord
economies at the head, which will gradually become more and more bourgeois
and gradually substitute bourgeois for feudal methods of exploitation."
(Agrarian programme of Social Democracy: page 239 of Lenin Collected Works,
vol. 13) And at the time there was no question of either course being underway.
The role played by the Irish landed nobility both North and South, was
radically different to that played by the English landed aristocracy. The
latter, however impurely, facilitated agricultural capitalist growth, while
the former obstructed it. In correspondence with this role, the English
landed aristocracy implemented a policy of land clearance resulting in
larger farm sizes, while the Ulster landlords permitted increased
sub-letting of their lands resulting in smaller landholdings; this
obstructed the development of agriculture. Agriculture flourished in England
and remained backward in Ulster.
And furthermore, through the instrument of the Irish Parliament and in close
collaboration with the London controlled Irish Executive, that same Ulster
landed class obstructed the creation of the conditions necessary for
independent Irish capitalist growth. Through the medium of the political
state they also obstructed the Catholic and Presbyterian producers in
advancing their interests through political means; the Penal Laws were but
one manifestation of this. Their reactionary character was clearly revealed
in their counter-revolutionary opposition to the bourgeois rising of 1798 in
which North-East Ireland Presbyterians actively participated.
Quite clearly by the latter part of the 18th century, the feudal relations
of production were but a medieval obstruction to the expansion of the forces
of production in Ireland. Marxism must identify the central and dominant
social relations that determine both the character and growth of the
productive forces. And in the period under inspection, this social relation
was capital in the concrete form of both British and Irish capital with the
latter playing the subordinate and dependent role; this character of the
relationship existing between them explains the latter's oppressed nature.
The character of the development of the world social division of labour
basically determined Ireland's peculiar economic growth. The former took
place through a revolution in the relations of production; the replacement
of feudal relations with capitalist relations and their subsequent rapid
development and expansion. It was expressed in Ireland through the
determining force of British capital. And this was further mediated through
the merchant and the landlord. Put peasant differentiation was among the
chief results, a basic prerequisite for the spread of commodity circulation:
In "capitalist production the basis for the formation of the home market is
the process of the disintegration of the small cultivators into agricultural
entrepreneurs and workers."(Lenin: The Development of Capitalism in Russia;
page 71.)
And the home market that formed was narrow and weak and not at all
independent, having as the source of its existence the British capitalist
system. It was not as some misleadingly believe the medieval landed
property relations that formed the central historical force that erected the
conditions for an alleged independent capitalist Ulster. For marxists, on
the other hand, feudal agrarian relations, have been under continuous
subjection to undermining so that today, in the epoch of capitalist decay,
they have no role to play except for the most reactionary way.
18th century southern manufacturing capital was a result of wealth
accumulated through the exploitation of the producers of Ireland by the
merchant and the landlord. None of these manufactories would have been set
up without the extraction of wealth from the Irish producers. In this
context, it is clear that linen manufacturing in the South was no
superficial phenomenon but an integral part of the Irish economy. Because it
formed part of the European linen production, however loosely, which was
plunged into international recession then, manufacturing linen production in
the South was triggered into decline which was to prove irrecoverable. And
since the material conditions were insufficiently mature in the South, its
decline had to be irreversible.
Furthermore, outside of this, industries in the South such as brewing and
glass-making although having suffered in the economic recession were to
experience some sustained recovery following the introduction of more
advanced technology. In general any industrial decline that took place in
the South over the latter part of the 18th century was a product of the
changing character of both Britain and Europe. Britain's transformation into
an industrial power changed the character of Irish economic activity leading
to a new social division of labour in Ireland which generated a process of
decline in the South. It was the British bourgeoisie that was chiefly
responsible for industrialisation on this island. The manufactories were
produced from the surplus labour extracted from the producers of this
country through exploitation; Ireland was a sphere of exploitation for
British capital.
Some commentators misrepresent 18th century southern industry as a
development that is dismisssible, that bears no intrinsic connection with
the economic character of the South and indeed the entire country. Such an
aim is designed to conceal their inability to ascertain the real forces
underlying that industrial growth. But more importantly, if the two nations
theory is to appear to have any credible standing, they must seem to have
verified that the real basis for industrialisation was confined to the
North-East region. And since it is a concrete fact that an industrial
structure existed in the South in the 18th century, they must offer a reason
for its decline that corresponds with their two nations prejudice.
Integrally connected inner relations are a principal feature defining a
nation. These relations take principally the form of the home market,
however restrictedly, based on the social division of labour in conjunction
with all other relations, both cultural and otherwise, that spring from this.
In Ireland its force has been both relentless and brutal. As we have already
indicated, over the 18th century and earlier part of the 19th century, Irish
economic development was determined by the force of world capitalism which
was mediated chiefly through British capital. Through Britain the formerly
combined and uneven economic character was combined so as to eventually
evolve into a nationally combined development that was both politically and
explosively expressed in 1798 through the bourgeois democratic rising that
erupted then. The character of Irish national development was a
manifestation, at the time, of the form of world economic development and
British development in particular. Because of its unique mediating
relationship to Ireland, Britain's oppression of the latter refracted the
character of world economic development there. This happened because, if
Britain was to compete successfully as a capitalist power with other
nations, it must oppress and exploit Ireland as intensively as possible in
order to equip itself as much as possible for that struggle; the more it
exploited Ireland, the greater its strength and consequently the greater its
chances of success. The international struggle for profit itself, and the
degree of Britain's success in this struggle, in turn further reflects
itself in this country since it determined in what way and to what extent
the appropriation of the labour of the Irish producers was to proceed. And
this of course inevitably affected the character of the reproduction of
Irish material wealth. And Britain's success in the 18th century, in its
struggle for world commercial supremacy was clearly a determining factor in
her transformation into the world's leading industrial capitalist power
which, as we have already said, exercised a transforming affect on Irish
economic development in the 19th century. Britain did not exploit Ireland
for reasons of moral corruption. She was compelled to if she was to
strengthen or even survive as an independent economic power. The underlying
forces operating both within British society and at the world level demanded
both within British society and at the world level demanded this from her.
Despite appearances to the contrary, Ireland and the world were unmistakably
growing in unity: through Britain world capitalism oppressed Ireland and
consequently stimulated the creation of the oppressed modern Irish nation.
The eventual concentration of industry in the North-East and agriculture in
the South, during the 19th century, is concrete proof of the depth and
breadth with which the law of uneven and combined development asserts
itself. British capitalism's exploitation of the Irish people was
successfully achieved by means of definite social relations of production.
Although the indigenous producers were directly exploited through diverse
forms (including the rent-form), it could not have taken place so
successfully had capitalist exchange relations been lacking. These relations
created from diversity the appearance of equality and uniformity.
And because British capital appropriated the wealth of Ireland through these
uniform social relations, reproduction of material wealth was welded
together, evolving into one Irish national economy: a nationally oppressed
economy. Since the combined exploitation of Ireland bore the same uniform
character in relation to every part of Ireland (capitalist exchange
relations of production), it eventually evolved into combined national
exploitation which was ultimately, form the end of the 18th century onwards,
expressed in the form of the oppressed Irish nation.
Put very simply and succinctly, the modern Irish nation was a result of the
following historical process. Through commodity exchange relations, the
universal and combined indirect exploitation of the Irish producers by
British capitalism led to the creation of an oppressed Irish bourgeoisie.
Through their increasing penetration and growing regularity, these relations
together with production itself, created new classes. By this means the
growth of an Irish merchant bourgeoisie was stimulated which involved,
although restrictedly on account of British exploitation, increased
concentration and centralisation of wealth. The consequences of this, of
course, was the growth of industrial capital at the centres that had been
produced by trade and hence the creation of an Irish industrial bourgeoisie;
the small Irish industrial producer was increasingly becoming a common sight
along the economic landscape. Growing peasant differentiation was another
result of commodity production as was the increasing number of small
bourgeois traders. And all these developments of course, were rooted in the
social division of labour. Thus an oppressed Irish bourgeoisie together with
a circumscribed home market were formed.
But for
"the complete victory of commodity production, the bourgeoisie must capture
the home market, and there must be politically united territories whose
population speak a single language, with all obstacles to the development of
that language and to its consolidation in literature eliminated. Therein is
the economic foundations of national movements. Unity and unimpeded
development of language are the most important conditions for genuinely free
and extensive commerce on a scale commensurate with modern capitalism, for a
free and broad grouping of the population in all its various classes and,
lastly, for the establishment of a close connection between the market and
each and every proprietor, big or little, and between seller and buyer.
Therefore, the tendency of every national movement is towards the formation
of national states, under which these requirements of modern capitalism are
best satisfied. The most profound economic factors drive towards this goal,
and, therefore, for the whole of Western Europe, nay, for the entire
civilised world, the national state is typical and normal for the capitalist
world." (Lenin: The Right of Nations to Self-Determination).
However history was to prove that the Irish bourgeoisie was too weak and
divided to succeed in achieving "the formation of an independent national
state." (ibidem)
With the development of trade both internally and externally and
consequently the emergence of an Irish bourgeoisie and home commodity
market, the social division of labour progressively unites all commodity
producers into a unified "productive organism" whose parts are mutually
related and conditioned (Rubin; Essays on Marx's Theory of Value). And since
the producers are inseparably inter-connected and mutually dependent through
the commodity production relations the basis is formed for the advancement
of a common language and culture. This historical movement gives rise to a
mass national struggle for the establishment of an independent national
state which is a central political weapon through which to establish the
political conditions best suited to the promotion of capitalist production
and a common language and culture. Clearly then, the creation of an
oppressed Irish bourgeoisie, a circumscribed home market and the tendency
towards a common language and culture are the chief ingredients that
constituted the oppressed Irish nation.
World economic development brought into being a weak Irish capitalist class
that was persistently denied an independent national state consisting of a
centralised administration, the necessary political conditions for its
development into strong independent capitalist class. This meant that the
necessary political conditions best suited to the establishment of both a
common language and culture were not achieved and that consequently the
nation continued to exist in an oppressed condition. This is clearly
manifested today in the extremely weak and divided nature of the Irish
bourgeoisie as well as in the noticeably divided nature of Irish language
and culture the Irish bourgeoisie is an imperialist dependent class, in
decline, while objectively the Irish proletariat is much stronger and, in
contrast, has been growing in material strength. It is now the only class
capable of conquering political power through the establishment of an Irish
workers' republic.
To sum up: Ireland suffered oppression at the hands of the British ruling
class while its nature determined the character of Ireland's economic
development. This oppression manifested itself in many diverse forms, one of
its chief forms was the uneven and combined development of the northern and
southern sectors of the national economy. Furthermore, British exploitation
determined the peculiar character of Ireland's growth into a modern nation
and consequently, the complex problems facing the Irish working class in the
class struggle. British capitalism crested the Irish nation, but, equally,
it created the conditions obstructing its development into an independent
bourgeois nation state. Independent economic development is generally not
possible in a nationally oppressed country in the epoch of the decay of
capitalism.
Yours etc.,
Karl Carlile