The debate: Guerrilla warfare or mass action in Ireland?

When An Phoblacht/Republican News debated the Fourth International

Jun 08, 2025

A compelling debate unfolded within the pages of Socialist Republic, dissecting the concept of "revolutionary guerrilla warfare" and its role in Ireland's fight for freedom. This exchange, primarily between Ciaran Dowd (writing in An Phoblacht/Republican News) and J. North of Socialist Republic, aimed to deepen the strategic understanding of the anti-imperialist left.

The Core of the Debate: Guerrilla Warfare vs. Mass Action

The discussion was marked by a constructive and direct tone, with Socialist Republic embracing the exchange as a sign of progress and the potential for "comradely debate over our real policies." Despite fundamental strategic differences, both sides recognized each other as legitimate comrades in the Irish freedom struggle.

The Republican Viewpoint (Ciaran Dowd)

Ciaran Dowd, in his An Phoblacht/Republican News articles, analyzed international revolutionary struggles in China, Vietnam, Cuba, and Nicaragua through the lens of "revolutionary guerrilla warfare." His goal was to enrich the content of republican left publications and expand the awareness of the movement's members and supporters.

Dowd maintained the validity and necessity of discussing guerrilla warfare as a revolutionary method. He pointed to historical revolutions, arguing that while reactionaries have employed it, "so has every successful revolution except perhaps the Russian one." He even suggested that figures like Lenin and Trotsky studied the "specifically military tasks of the revolutionary process."

While emphasizing the "need for popular involvement in the struggle" and affirming that "war is the continuation of politics by other means," Dowd's analysis focused on the military lessons of these struggles. He highlighted tactics like "trading space for time" for regroupment, provided this time was used to raise the consciousness and will of the masses. However, he also stressed the crucial role of armed force, particularly in Nicaragua, questioning whether the masses would have taken to the streets "without the powerful backing of the Sandinista army?"

Dowd defended himself against accusations of a "militarist bias," stating his articles were far from being solely military-focused. He criticized the opposing viewpoint for lacking a practical alternative, suggesting it amounted to mere "propaganda" that would "change nothing" and "sickly legalism" like "filing for marches with the RUC etc. to 'not frighten people off.'" He contended that winning the Irish revolution required building a "powerful political/military machine which takes on the capitalist state in all its manifestations." Dowd also explicitly rejected the accusation that the Republican Movement was "willingness to make accommodations with the capitalist class."

The Socialist Viewpoint (J. North)

The critique from Socialist Republic, penned by J. North, welcomed An Phoblacht/Republican News's initiative to broaden its coverage and deepen political analysis. However, it fundamentally challenged the central concept of "Revolutionary Guerrilla Warfare," arguing it had "no real existence" as a distinct category.

J. North contended that guerrilla warfare is simply a "method available to any social class and any political current," not exclusive to revolutionaries. He argued that revolutionary organizations are defined not by the military methods they might use, but by "how they relate these methods to the political aims of the working class." While acknowledging that "force is the midwife of history," he stressed that undertaking offensive military operations is a tactical decision based on the balance of class forces, not a matter of principle for revolutionaries at all times.

A major point of critique was that Dowd's analysis, by focusing primarily on military techniques, failed to provide a truly unified understanding of the international struggles. J. North argued that victories depended not merely on military technique but on the "balance of class forces and the correctness of their own political programmes." He felt Dowd's approach neglected political factors and the crucial role of international solidarity.

Specifically regarding Nicaragua, J. North challenged the idea that the Sandinista army was necessary for the mass uprising, stating that the "battle for Managua was fought and won by the masses before any significant section of the Sandinista army arrived." He credited the Sandinista movement's success to its flexibility and decision to "abandon the militarist conception" and embrace a "Marxist conception of the role of the masses in the process of revolution."

In contrast to a focus on armed actions by specific groups, J. North emphasized the need for mass self-defense, arguing that revolutionaries must be able to organize resistance at the grassroots level against state forces and sectarian attacks. This included defending the right to demonstrate, challenging repression, and exposing collaboration. He saw value in propaganda and agitation as essential tools for raising consciousness and building the movement, rejecting the notion that they were unproductive on their own. Finally, J. North stated that Socialist Republic regretted that the Republican movement (as he saw it) did not yet base itself on a program of working-class social revolution.

The Nature of the Exchange and Hindsight's Lessons

Socialist Republic explicitly welcomed Ciaran Dowd's reply, expressing a desire to "discuss the issue in a clear and constructive manner." They noted that their organizations could now agree on certain points, such as the value of single-issue campaigns built without excluding those of different political views. This mutual recognition, even amidst significant strategic disagreement, underscores the debate's tone as an internal discussion among different currents within the broader anti-imperialist movement seeking theoretical and practical clarity. The differences were fundamental, touching upon the interpretation of revolutionary history and the primary motor of revolution (mass action vs. politico-military initiative), but the debate itself was seen as a positive step in political development.

With Hindsight: Strategic Lessons from Later Struggles

Later issues of Socialist Republic frequently revisited the themes central to this debate, particularly in the context of analyzing the H-Block/Armagh campaign. The experience of this struggle seemed to strongly reinforce the perspective articulated by J. North, emphasizing the primacy of mass action and political strategy over purely military approaches.

In the H-Block/Armagh campaign, "no military solution to the question of political status existed." Military actions undertaken were seen as either not affecting the overall development of the campaign or, in some instances, actually hindering its building. Elite actions or "stunts" not linked to the mass campaign were viewed as dangerous.

Instead, the emphasis shifted decisively to mass mobilization as the "only guarantee for victory." This involved building a "mass movement on the streets and in the factories." Key elements identified were:

Mass peaceful protests and industrial action: Seen as the most powerful methods to hurt British interests. The impact of workers' solidarity and action, such as work stoppages and blacking British goods, was highlighted.
Electoral intervention: Contesting elections was viewed not as an end in itself, but as a tactic to mobilize support, expose opponents ("collaborators"), and build the campaign. The success of H-Block candidates elected in this period was seen as a clear victory for this approach. This directly contradicted the idea of boycotting elections, which was argued to demobilize supporters and allow opponents to retain power.
Challenging bourgeois nationalist parties: The debate highlighted the need to expose the hypocrisy and collaboration of parties like Fianna Fail and the SDLP, who paid lip service to nationalist aims but failed to act decisively against British policy. Standing candidates against figures like Gerry Fitt and Paddy Devlin was seen as a way to directly challenge and expose these "pro-imperialist" politicians.
Building a united front: Unity of anti-imperialist forces, and increasingly, unity with trade unions, students, women, and youth groups, was considered essential. However, internal debates within the campaign on structure and strategy were noted as weaknesses.
Developing a working-class program: The lack of a clear socialist program within the Republican Movement was identified as a hindrance to mobilizing the working class effectively and challenging bourgeois parties. Socialist Republic consistently argued for integrating the economic and social demands of the working class into the anti-imperialist struggle.

In essence, the later analysis in Socialist Republic, particularly drawing on the lessons of the H-Block/Armagh campaign, strongly advocated for the strategic line that the national and class questions were inseparable and that the path to Irish freedom lay primarily through organized, mass-based political and industrial action led by the working class, rather than a strategy centered on guerrilla warfare. This perspective, championed by J. North in the original debate, became the foundation for the Fourth International’s strategic orientation in Ireland for the following years.

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?