Red Banner - A Review

national | arts and media | opinion/analysis Friday February 06, 2004 04:20 by Adrian Alienation

This is the third in a series of reviews of publications produced on the Irish left. As always, I will be concentrating for the most part on a single issue. In this case, issue 17 published in November 2003.

Red Banner (from this point on RB) is something of an anomaly on the Irish activist scene. It isn’t produced by a particular organisation. It isn’t trying to build a particular organisation, or win wider influence for the ideas of that organisation. It does however have a definite aim. As it announces on the back cover “we intend to present socialist ideas to as many people as we can to as many people as we can, and to develop and apply those ideas to the needs of the struggle for socialism today”. It is in the context of those goals that the successes and failures of the magazine have to be judged.

RB comes in the format of a small pamphlet and is released every few months. The cover of issue 17 sports a photograph of a small girl, carrying a large placard emblazoned with the legend “Another World Is Possible”. The effect is a little sentimental, the photographic equivalent of a newspaper exhortation to think of the children.

Inside we are presented with 64 pages of often quite dense text. There is not a picture to be seen. It is tempting to be snide and remark that the absence of internal pictures could be considered merciful in light of the amateurish cartoons that often mar the cover. The articles are long by the standards of most left publications. This gives the writers plenty of space to outline their points but taken together with lack of pictures it doesn’t make for much in the way of visual appeal. The overall impression is of a certain sturdy functionality but we are not talking about a magazine that will be winning design awards anytime soon.

The magazine is, it appears, produced by a loose collective of independent socialists. At the core of that informal collective are people who have mostly been members of the SWP at one time or another. Some left voluntarily, others were expelled for reasons I have wisely heard described as “too stupid to go into here”. But the contributors to the magazine stretch well beyond that core.

Members of left organisations from the Irish Socialist Network to Socialist Democracy and from the Socialist Party to the Workers Solidarity Movement produce articles for RB. This commitment to broadness is admirable.

In fact the only organisation of the Irish left which fails to cooperate with the publication in any way is the SWP. This may because of what some regard as the SWP’s unwillingness to have dealings with any broad structure it cannot control. It may simply be a result of a petty view that apostates cannot be tolerated. I don’t know and the SWP aren’t saying.

In this latest issue we find articles by independent socialists alongside contributions from members of Socialist Democracy and the SP. The opening article by Brendan Young makes a vigorous attempt to argue that the process of globalisation is a strategic response to over accumulation of capital. This piece is a little disjointed and such a large topic necessarily seems cramped in the narrow confines of a magazine article. Still, it’s a challenging and interesting proposition and one that deserves a more detailed exposition.

This is followed by a review by Des Derwin of a recent pamphlet produced by the ISN on the issue of Social Partnership. For some reason activist reviewers and editors seem to assume that the only reason to review a book or pamphlet is to plug it. To some extent that is understandable, given resource constraints, but it can be infuriating. A reader learns little if every review is a cheerleading session.

Derwin manages to avoid that common trap. The review is generous and generally positive. He draws attention to the pamphlets innovative if somewhat controversial emphasis on the effects of partnership on the so-called voluntary sector, the charities and NGOs. However, he balances the praise with the fair comment that wage restraint and the neutralisation of the trade union movement remains the central point of the partnership process. The review concludes with a rhetorical question. “One wonders what our partners have to do to stop being considered partners by union leaders?”. Quite.

Next up is the second part of a three part series on the life of Leon Trotsky, written by Joe Conroy. It doesn’t seem fair to make a full analysis of the politics of the series until it is concluded but a few points are worth noting even at this stage.

Trotsky is a controversial figure on the left. Reviled (and murdered) by Stalinists, greatly admired by most but not quite all of the Marxist left, reviled again by anarchists, he is a big subject to take on. Conroy’s article is notable for its sympathetic but highly critical approach to the man. I certainly don’t agree with all of Conroy’s views but his attempt to avoid both hagiography and spite is at least refreshing. Having given that hostage to fortune I now half expect the final instalment to be filled with ranting.

There follows a pair of reviews by Tomas Mac Siomoin of books by Eric Schlosser and Greg Palast. Unfortunately the reviewer can’t seem to make up his mind if he is writing a review or what looks to be an interesting piece on the nature of the media in capitalist society. The result is a promising but sketchy article on the media and remarkably little information about either of the books.

After an Irish language article on the Limerick Soviet, which I’m afraid my Irish wasn’t up to, Emmett Farrell gives us a lengthy and thought provoking look at the world of sport. Standing firmly in the Marxist tradition he argues that capitalism has the ability to turn anything and everything into a commodity to be sold for a profit. He ranges from the danger posed by professionalism to the GAA all the way to the murky world of Don King’s boxing promotions. Perhaps he makes some sweeping assertions in places but this is in general a welcome and valuable look at a facet of society too often ignored by the left.

The centenary of George Orwell’s birth is marked by a critical evaluation from Kevin Higgins. Orwell’s early pomposity is remarked upon with the reproduction of some amusingly over the top plays. Higgins seeks to deal with multiple facets of a complex man. He puts Orwell’s anti-Stalinism and literary achievements alongside the lists he sent to the British state naming people he suspected to be sympathisers of the Communist Party.

The rest of the magazine contains another historical reprint of an article by James Connolly, yet another contribution to an interminable debate about social partnership between Mauve Connaughton and Joe Craig and the letters pages. The Connolly reprints are a useful service to the left but the Connaughton/Craig debate would drive a saint to acts of random violence. Round and round these two opponents of partnership go until whatever it is they were arguing about is long forgotten.

RB then is a good read. Its articles vary in quality, but for every dull piece there is something of interest elsewhere. The real problem the journal faces becomes apparent when we look again at what it says it is trying to achieve. For all the talk about trying to reach as many people as possible, this is a magazine that seems to have carved out a comfortable niche in the activist ghetto and shows few signs of seriously trying to break out.

This is a small print run publication, sold in the usual couple of bookshops that stock left journals and by some of its writers on demonstrations. Almost all articles are long and most assume at least a basic knowledge of socialist ideas. The writing is from the left but also for the existing left. The letters pages are a perfect example of what I mean. Each issue seems to feature a letter from DR O’Connor Lysaght about something or other (I have respect for the man but somebody confiscate his biro, please). When other letters appear they too are from people who contribute articles regularly.

The magazine seems to have a policy of carrying some criticism of the existing left organisations, but it does not mention them by name when making its criticisms. This is presumably an unfortunate side-effect of RB’s commitment to non-sectarianism. In practice it means that the magazine too regularly presents arguments by insinuation. It also means that complaints about one left group can be used as the basis for sweeping statements about any and all such groups.

If a grievance against an organisation is to be raised, better to name the group and specify precisely what aspect of its behaviour presents the problem. That way it can defend itself reasonably and present a counter-argument if it so chooses. The organisation may not have a defence, of course, but arguments by insinuation sit badly with me because they are inherently unfair. Even when I am not overly fond the people on the receiving end. The reason why I bring this up is that such arguments by insinuation are revealing in another way. If they are to be at all comprehensible, they have to be understood by the readers. There is a correct assumption here that most of the readers are already familiar to some extent with the Irish left scene.

I like Red Banner a lot. I feel guilty about remarking on its flaws. After all, it is open to all of us to get involved and help overcome some of these problems. It is a worthwhile project and its very survival without the organisational support that most activist publications have is an achievement. It is my view though that it needs to reconsider its role. Is it to be about popularising socialist ideas? Is it to be a discussion forum for the existing left? If it is to be both, how can it balance the two?