Return to Correspondence menu

Correspondence: Two Historians review

19 September 2010

Dear Editor

I was somewhat taken aback by  D.R.O’Connor Lysaght’s review; Two Historians: Hart & Kostick on your site on 7th Sept.  It seems to me very unwise to link a right-wing revisionist and falsifier of history with someone who is from the socialist movement and is only being accused of being imprecise and mistaken on some issues.

Having accused Conor Kostick of imprecision O’Connor Lysaght is then guilty of same very sweeping and imprecise statements himself.

He claims that: “so an organiser of mass agitation has to recognise that at a certain point such a movement may have to take its place as a support for armed struggle if it is to get anywhere”. I don’t think that this statement is correct and it seems to jibe with much else that is on the website. I understand that Marxists support the use of defensive force, but under no circumstances the subordination of the mass movement to a guerrilla elite.

He claims that; “the inadequacies of the peace process settlement would have been far less without the preceding armed struggle”.  This seems to support Gerry Adams claim that the peace process is a stepping stone towards an Irish settlement and to be completely at odds with the SD line that the peace process is not inadequate but a complete capitulation to imperialism and a total defeat for the workers.

Can someone clarify these issues? I don’t believe that an article with such sweeping statements made without any supporting evidence should attack another left historian..




Return to top of page