Frank Ryan

[Pogue]

Anyone know much about him? Why did he fight on the anti-fascist side in Spain but then go on to work with the Nazis in Germany? I can't see how even someone incredibly opposed to British Imperialism in Ireland could do that, having just thought asgainst the Nazis. I know that if they ever approached me I'd rather die than help them in the slightest.

[Jorge Miguel]

then go on to work with the Nazis in Germany?
Source?

[Matty_UK]

He didn't work with the Nazis as such and didn't help them in any way, but he wanted to negotiate with them to fund an Irish rebellion against the English. He thought the Germans would help in order to cause trouble for the English, and the English would let a rebellion slide so they could deal with bigger threat in Europe. He didn't support the Nazis at all, but disappointingly for a man with otherwise heroic credentials he was an Irish nationalist above all else, and would strike deals with the devil for that cause.

[PRC-UTE]

he was actually taken to Germany while imprisoned by the Germans. He was known to make comments while in Germany denouncing the German war effort.

there was a good article about him in the AFA journal, I'll see if I can find it online or scan it for youse

[Devrim]

I think that where Frank Ryan ended up shows the general tendency of national liberation wars to become tool sin the wider imperialist conflicts.

Devrim

[Pogue]

Source?

Do you really need me to source that?

[Pogue]

Its odd. I learnt about him in the Pogues song 'Sickbead of Chucullain', and I love that song and I love the line that they mention him in, but it will be somewhat besmirched by the fact he was involved with the Nazis.

[PRC-UTE]

I think that where Frank Ryan ended up shows the general tendency of national liberation wars to become tool sin the wider imperialist conflicts.

Devrim

You got that from the one man? Incredible.

And don't bring up the IRA and Sean Russell talking to the Germans, nothing came of it.

[PRC-UTE]

Its odd. I learnt about him in the Pogues song 'Sickbead of Chucullain', and I love that song and I love the line that they mention him in, but it will be somewhat besmirched by the fact he was involved with the Nazis.

did you not read my comment? the man was a pow in poor health.

[Devrim]

You got that from the one man? Incredible.

And don't bring up the IRA and Sean Russell talking to the Germans, nothing came of it.

Shows as in 'demonstrates' not 'proves'. Yes, I think it demonstrates the point, yes.

Seán Russell by the way was trained by German military intelligence.

Why do you think that the Germans were talking to him though?

Devrim

[thejambo1]

nationslism can make people side with strange bedfellows. its easy to look back and say "how could anyone side with the nazis" but i dont think we should castigate now just because of the power of hindsight.

[Devrim]

nationslism can make people side with strange bedfellows. its easy to look back and say "how could anyone side with the nazis" but i dont think we should castigate now just because of the power of hindsight.

I don't think the fact they sided with the Nazis is the real problem. National Liberation movements have a tendency to become tools of imperialist powers. German assistance to Irish nationalism is not due the the German nation having some sort of deeply held belief in Irish freedom, but completly down to imperialist tensions.

In fact the Germans also supported Irish nationalism in the First World War. The problem isn't that they sided with the Nazis in particular, but that national liberation movements in general have a tendency to become tools of imperialist powers.

Devrim

[Jorge Miguel]

Do you really need me to source that?Yes. Can we have a source for the slanderous allegation that Frank Ryan "worked with the Germans"?

Frank Ryan was kidnapped from a Spanish consentration camp by the Gestapo and heavily tortured before being brought to Germany.

[pastradamus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ryan_(Irish_republican) -wiki entry
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Frank_Ryan_(Irish_republican)

Now, Im not sure if I would ever describe Frank Ryan as a Collaborator with Nazi Germany. I believe he was a great man and not only that but also a patriot for freedom and for Ireland. Historians generally accept that he did in fact work for nazi germany towards the end but that was not his will but rather a means of commuting his sentence.

[Pogue]

I just don't get it, he was left wing and fought against fascism in Spain but then planned some operations and activities with the Nazis in Germany regarding Ireland.

[PRC-UTE]

I just don't get it, he was left wing and fought against fascism in Spain but then planned some operations and activities with the Nazis in Germany regarding Ireland.

Do you consider everyone the Nazis took by force to be a collaborator? :confused:

He didn't want to go to Germany, they approached him about a military alliance and nothing came of it. He detested them. He tried to go home, but was forced to return during the trip there.

[PRC-UTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ryan_(Irish_republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ryan_%28Irish_republican)) -wiki entry
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Frank_Ryan_(Irish_republican (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Frank_Ryan_%28Irish_republican))

Now, Im not sure if I would ever describe Frank Ryan as a Collaborator with Nazi Germany. I believe he was a great man and not only that but also a patriot for freedom and for Ireland. Historians generally accept that he did in fact work for nazi germany towards the end but that was not his will but rather a means of commuting his sentence.

anyone else, they'd admit he was just a POW and just wanted to get home. but the Brits and bourgeoisie will not ever pass up the chance to slander a left republican.

[PRC-UTE]

I don't think the fact they sided with the Nazis is the real problem. National Liberation movements have a tendency to become tools of imperialist powers. German assistance to Irish nationalism is not due the the German nation having some sort of deeply held belief in Irish freedom, but completly down to imperialist tensions.

In fact the Germans also supported Irish nationalism in the First World War.


The Germans probably provided more materiel to the Loyalist Vol's than they did the Irish Vol's. I don't know any historian that would accept the claim that the republicans were ever 'tools' of any imperialist power. Certainly not the Germans in either war. 'Neither King not Kaiser' was even a socialist republican slogan.

Outside of Ireland, we can find the same. The Vietnamese said they feared becoming China's pawns more than anything. The Soviets regularly complained that their patronage and support of African movements never translated into much influence.



The problem isn't that they sided with the Nazis in particular, but that national liberation movements in general have a tendency to become tools of imperialist powers.

sure, it's true separatist and national liberation forces do at times become used by imperialists. see the KLA or American Indians during America's revolution. but not enough for it to be a 'tendency' as you say- that's a selective reading of history and leads to invalid conclusions.

If anything, it was the opposite: "moderate leaders" and reactionary forces in colonised nations that were consistently the tools of imperialism.

[Pogue]

Do you consider everyone the Nazis took by force to be a collaborator? :confused:

He didn't want to go to Germany, they approached him about a military alliance and nothing came of it. He detested them. He tried to go home, but was forced to return during the trip there.

Well I mean, if I was taken by the Nazis, I know I wouldn't collaborate. I would have rather died. Did they torture him?

From what I've read he took part in some of their operations intended to weaken Britain during the war.

[PRC-UTE]

Well I mean, if I was taken by the Nazis, I know I wouldn't collaborate. I would have rather died. Did they torture him?

From what I've read he took part in some of their operations intended to weaken Britain during the war.

How far can you see up there in that ivory tower?

[Pogue]

How far can you see up there in that ivory tower?

I don't understand your point but please wait a bit more and engage in genuine discussion before you resort to purely insulting me. I genuinely would like to understand this guy, especially as he fought for the anti-fascists in Spain. I just don't get why he'd ever side with the Nazis. I can understand people breaking under torture, which is why I'm asking how voluntary his collaboration was. But if he was brave enough to go to war to defend Spain and the world from fascists in the International Brigades, I don't see why he wouldn't rather die than side with the Nazis in Germany.

[Jorge Miguel]

I don't understand your point but please wait a bit more and engage in genuine discussion before you resort to purely insulting me. I genuinely would like to understand this guy, especially as he fought for the anti-fascists in Spain. I just don't get why he'd ever side with the Nazis. I can understand people breaking under torture, which is why I'm asking how voluntary his collaboration was. But if he was brave enough to go to war to defend Spain and the world from fascists in the International Brigades, I don't see why he wouldn't rather die than side with the Nazis in Germany.


Ryan's sojourn in Germany must be examined in the circumstances under which it actually unfolded rather than on the basis of a pre-determined outcome.Manus O'Riordan, Head of Research, SIPTU.
http://www.geocities.com/irelandSCW/docs-Ryan2.htm

[Pogue]

Manus O'Riordan, Head of Research, SIPTU.
http://www.geocities.com/irelandSCW/docs-Ryan2.htm

I'll read that.

[Jorge Miguel]

I'll read that.
No worries bbz.

I'd also recommend Sean Cronin's 'Frank Ryan and the search for the Republic'. Cronin was a former Army Council member of the IRA and author of 'Our Own Red Blood'

[redflag32]

I think that where Frank Ryan ended up shows the general tendency of national liberation wars to become tool sin the wider imperialist conflicts.

Devrim

Does the fact that many many communists ended up working with capitalists and fascists mean that communism as a theory is debunked? Using the actions of singular people to debunk a theory is a warped logic in fairness, dont you think?

[Devrim]

Does the fact that many many communists ended up working with capitalists and fascists mean that communism as a theory is debunked? Using the actions of singular people to debunk a theory is a warped logic in fairness, dont you think?

No, I don't think the fact that individual communists changed their politics proves anything, nor do I think that individual republicans changing their politics would prove anything.

However, this isn't a case of one single man changing his politics. It is a case of Irish nationalists consistently orientating themselves towards Germany in the first half on the last century.

The point isn't that they were individuals who changed their politics, but it was numerous individuals who were acting consistently with their politics.

Does it 'debunk a theory' or prove one? Absolutely not. Despite this it is an example which illustrates a general trend.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The Germans probably provided more materiel to the Loyalist Vol's than they did the Irish Vol's.

Quite possibly, Imperialist powers have never been averse to arming both sides in civil wars raging in their opponents territory. The Germans provided and sold arms to both sides. In more recent times minor powers, such as Libya, have armed both sides in the Irish conflict.


I don't know any historian that would accept the claim that the republicans were ever 'tools' of any imperialist power. Certainly not the Germans in either war. 'Neither King not Kaiser' was even a socialist republican slogan.

What are Earth do you think they were arming them for? Because they didn't want them to use the guns? Of course they were trying to use them as tools.

Maybe Irish historians are too embarrassed to say it. Of course the Irish nationalists never had any sympathy towards Germany. Who was the only Prime Minister in the world to send condolences upon Hitler's death?

Why though would you need a slogan referring to the Kaiser if people didn't think that you were tools of Germany imperialism


Outside of Ireland, we can find the same. The Vietnamese said they feared becoming China's pawns more than anything. The Soviets regularly complained that their patronage and support of African movements never translated into much influence.

I think that your example of China and Vietnam proves my point more than yours. Of course, the Vietnamese eventually ended up siding with Russia as opposed to China. Not for any reason of Marxist theory, but as part of the international imperialist game.

The fact that the Soviets wanted more influence doesn't suggest that they had none.


sure, it's true separatist and national liberation forces do at times become used by imperialists. see the KLA or American Indians during America's revolution. but not enough for it to be a 'tendency' as you say- that's a selective reading of history and leads to invalid conclusions.

I don't think that it is 'at times'. I think that it is a generally tendency. That doesn't mean that it includes every national liberation struggle, but it does include the vast majority of them.


If anything, it was the opposite: "moderate leaders" and reactionary forces in colonised nations that were consistently the tools of imperialism.

I think that you don't really realise what imperialism is. Let's take the example of Vietnam for example. The 'moderate' leaders in the South were tools of US imperialism, but the Viet Cong were the tolls of Russian Chinese imperialism. Imperialism isn't just the US.

Devrim

[redflag32]

No, I don't think the fact that individual communists changed their politics proves anything, nor do I think that individual republicans changing their politics would prove anything.

However, this isn't a case of one single man changing his politics. It is a case of Irish nationalists consistently orientating themselves towards Germany in the first half on the last century.

The point isn't that they were individuals who changed their politics, but it was numerous individuals who were acting consistently with their politics.

Does it 'debunk a theory' or prove one? Absolutely not. Despite this it is an example which illustrates a general trend.

Devrim

Evidence?

[pastradamus]

Quite possibly, Imperialist powers have never been averse to arming both sides in civil wars raging in their opponents territory. The Germans provided and sold arms to both sides. In more recent times minor powers, such as Libya, have armed both sides in the Irish conflict.

No, The Libyan army did not arm loyalists. This was rather the fault of Sinn Fein's Embassy member in tripoli. Some arms were delivered to Loyalist activists who deceived the Sinn Fein representive (cant think of his name)


What are Earth do you think they were arming them for? Because they didn't want them to use the guns? Of course they were trying to use them as tools.

I do believe they were using the IRA as tools. Its just a means of upsetting Britain.



Maybe Irish historians are too embarrassed to say it. Of course the Irish nationalists never had any sympathy towards Germany. Who was the only Prime Minister in the world to send condolences upon Hitler's death?

What has de Valera offering his condolances to the German ambassador got to do with Frank Ryan and Irish Republicanism? I am of the belief that Irish Historians are amongst the Best in the world. Take guys like Cathal O Shannon and Tim Pat Coogan whom I believe to be credible Historians/Journalists.


Why though would you need a slogan referring to the Kaiser if people didn't think that you were tools of Germany imperialism
This slogan was simply to show they supported neither side denouncing the whole "your enemy is my friend" Philosophy so boldly being planted on them by UK tabloid newspapers at the time.



I think that you don't really realise what imperialism is. Let's take the example of Vietnam for example. The 'moderate' leaders in the South were tools of US imperialism, but the Viet Cong were the tolls of Russian Chinese imperialism. Imperialism isn't just the US.

History has shown this to us many times. For example Mongolia which was basically state puppetry overflowing from China & Russia. But where does Ryan come into this?

In the End I believe Ryan to be a genuine leftist. Its obvious to me from the get-go that he detested Nazism & Fascism. He wouldn't have gone to Spain to fight Franco otherwise. He was tortured on numerous occasions and flown to Germany where he eventually had an opportunity to eventually go back home. The guy had been tortured in Burgos prison and saw a way out. You cant blame him for taking it. Its easy for people here to say this from hindsight - without the dis-luxury of being in prison combined with war-weariness .

[pastradamus]

No, I don't think the fact that individual communists changed their politics proves anything, nor do I think that individual republicans changing their politics would prove anything.

However, this isn't a case of one single man changing his politics. It is a case of Irish nationalists consistently orientating themselves towards Germany in the first half on the last century.

The point isn't that they were individuals who changed their politics, but it was numerous individuals who were acting consistently with their politics.

Does it 'debunk a theory' or prove one? Absolutely not. Despite this it is an example which illustrates a general trend.

Devrim

People get this wrong constantly. The Vast Majority of the IRA during that time were not socialists or any form of leftists. They were Catholic Traditionalists. We see this in evidence when The Official IRA split from the Provisional IRA during the 60's because the officials wanted to change the party to follow a leftist direction.

[pastradamus]

As a note I would like to add that other famous Individuals of leftist international brigades such as Peadar O Donnell were not IRA members but members of the leftist SAOR EIRE (free Ireland) at this time.

[Pogue]

I'd also like to add to this thread stuff about de Valera...what were his motivations for sending his condolensces to the German ambassador over Hitler's death? No one else did, and for good reasons. Who would regret the death of Hitler?

I quite enjoyed listening too on youtube his exchanges with Churchill after the war, it was a good debate from both men, but this stains de Valera's reputation with me also (Churchill of course is not entirely innocent of crimes).

[The Deepest Red]

I'd also like to add to this thread stuff about de Valera...what were his motivations for sending his condolensces to the German ambassador over Hitler's death? No one else did, and for good reasons. Who would regret the death of Hitler?

I would think he was simply giving two fingers to the British government.


(Churchill of course is not entirely innocent of crimes).He was a war criminal that could match any of the Third Reich's finest butchers.

[pastradamus]

He claimed his reasons were in the Interests' of showing Irelands Neutrality during the war. However Ireland were clearly not entirely neutral because of the frequent war relief and Aid De Valera sent Churchill. De Valera in my opinion is a Stain on Ireland. I think the only thing he did quite well was proclaiming Ireland a republic and getting Lough Swilly, Berehaven and Queenstown (Cobh) Naval Bases back off the UK government.

[pastradamus]

Churchill was indeed an anti-working class war criminal. To say a mist the London blitz that "finest Hour" speech was nothing but an Insult to a decimated working class area.In 1919, Churchill called for airborne chemical assaults on "uncooperative Arabs" (actually Kurds and Afghans, but the great men need not make such petty distinctions). "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas," he declared. "I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes.." Some years later, a certain A. Hitler would apply this gaseous philosophy to another troublesome "tribe."

[Andropov]

I quite enjoyed listening too on youtube his exchanges with Churchill after the war, it was a good debate from both men, but this stains de Valera's reputation with me also (Churchill of course is not entirely innocent of crimes).

De Valera was a scumbag plain and simple, an opportunist reactionary Nationalist.
His government enacted laws against Republicans which the Brits would have been proud of.

[Devrim]

However, this isn't a case of one single man changing his politics. It is a case of Irish nationalists consistently orientating themselves towards Germany in the first half on the last century.
Evidence?

It is what the subject of this thread is about. In both World Wars Irish nationalist orientated themselves towards Germany. It is well know fact.

Devrim

[Devrim]

No, I don't think the fact that individual communists changed their politics proves anything, nor do I think that individual republicans changing their politics would prove anything.

However, this isn't a case of one single man changing his politics. It is a case of Irish nationalists consistently orientating themselves towards Germany in the first half on the last century.

The point isn't that they were individuals who changed their politics, but it was numerous individuals who were acting consistently with their politics.

Does it 'debunk a theory' or prove one? Absolutely not. Despite this it is an example which illustrates a general trend.

People get this wrong constantly. The Vast Majority of the IRA during that time were not socialists or any form of leftists. They were Catholic Traditionalists. We see this in evidence when The Official IRA split from the Provisional IRA during the 60's because the officials wanted to change the party to follow a leftist direction.

I think that you may have misunderstood my point. I don't believe that the IRA was socialist in those days. I see their actions as exactly in line with their reactionary nationalism. Please read it again, and see if you get what I mean.

Devrim

[Devrim]

No, The Libyan army did not arm loyalists. This was rather the fault of Sinn Fein's Embassy member in tripoli. Some arms were delivered to Loyalist activists who deceived the Sinn Fein representive (cant think of his name)

I am pretty sure that you are wrong here. I think that the Libyans did arm both sides (What they told the Republicans is another matter). Also militants from both side sides were trained in Lebanon. As were militants from both sides in the Kurdish conflict in Turkey.


I do believe they were using the IRA as tools. Its just a means of upsetting Britain.

So would you agree with my earlier statement;


National Liberation movements have a tendency to become tools of imperialist powers. German assistance to Irish nationalism is not due the the German nation having some sort of deeply held belief in Irish freedom, but completly down to imperialist tensions.

Devrim

[redflag32]

It is what the subject of this thread is about. In both World Wars Irish nationalist orientated themselves towards Germany. It is well know fact.

Devrim

Its a well known fact that Irish Republicanism has always been based in the working class. Your trying to debunk is as a viable vehicle for working class revolution because some bourgeois elements acted in their class's interest.

[Devrim]

Its a well known fact that Irish Republicanism has always been based in the working class. Your trying to debunk is as a viable vehicle for working class revolution because some bourgeois elements acted in their class's interest.

Unionism is based in the working class. The UK BNP is based in the working class. In fact all bourgeois parties have a base in the working class.

As well as 'bourgeois elements' workers are also capable of acting in the interests of the bourgeoisie.

The question is whether the interests of Irish republicanism is the same or different from those of the working class. I would suggest the latter.

Devrim

[PeaderO'Donnell]

The question is whether the interests of Irish republicanism is the same or different from those of the working class. I would suggest the latter.

Devrim

Things are more complicated than that.

And yes the interests of Sinn Fein leadership are not those of the working class.

[pastradamus]

I am pretty sure that you are wrong here. I think that the Libyans did arm both sides (What they told the Republicans is another matter). Also militants from both side sides were trained in Lebanon. As were militants from both sides in the Kurdish conflict in Turkey.

No.Libya went to a state of cutting off diplomatic relations with Britain for almost a decade. They Sent the Eskund arms ship and other ships to aid the IRA. They even paid for and set up a Sinn Fein embassy in Tripoli just to piss off the British government. In his book "A secret history of the IRA" author Ed Maloney gets first hand accounts from Both IRA and Loyalist Volunteers regarding the Libyan arms that made their way to the loyalists. It was a complete mistake on the part of the IRA and more to the point a massive propaganda victory for the loyalists. It was a mistake by the sinn fein embassy who were actually responsible for the shipment. Besides there is no evidence of the Libyan Government directly shipping arms to aid loyalists in any shape or form. The Loyalists obtained their vast bulk of arms from sympathizer's in South Africa.




So would you agree with my earlier statement;

Devrim

Yes, In a way I believe any large national liberation movement will look for whatever means necessary to procure arms and aid to fund and maintain a military movement. In this case I believe the IRA just took advantage of German arms to replace their aging stock and move the struggle forward on military lines.

[pastradamus]

The question is whether the interests of Irish republicanism is the same or different from those of the working class. I would suggest the latter.

Devrim

Orignally, The vast bulk of the IRA did not have workers interests at heart due to a massively strong element of Catholicism. But when they developed we see more and more of a Marxist agenda building up amongst them. However modern day Sinn Fein leadership is not working class. Though in saying that they have a large contingent of left-wing members within the party and of course you also have the Irish Republican Socialist Party who in my opinion are still true to their leftist agenda who have good working class support especially around the Divis Street and Falls road area of Belfast.

[redflag32]

Unionism is based in the working class. The UK BNP is based in the working class. In fact all bourgeois parties have a base in the working class.

We're not talking about political parties.

Unionism is not a political party it is an ideology which has its base in the bourgeoisie. Just because over the last 30 years paisely gained support in the working class areas does not mean that unionism as an ideology is based in the working class.

Republicanism has its roots in the rural and urban poor. That fact can't be denied. Yes, it has its bourgeois elements but it alos had a ton of proletariate "leaders" like Connolly and this mix of class interests still exists today.


As well as 'bourgeois elements' workers are also capable of acting in the interests of the bourgeoisie.

And so are communists and anarchists and my aunt maggie. Whats the point?


The question is whether the interests of Irish republicanism is the same or different from those of the working class. I would suggest the latter.

Irish Republicanism in its simpliest form is the absence of monarchy. This is in the interests of the working class. More recently its goal is the unification of the two divided parts of the Island of Ireland. This too is in the interest of the working class (remember its the sectarian division of the workforce which has held back labour in the 6 counties for so long).

However, the unification of Ireland is also in the interests of the bourgeoisie(as long as it is done without upsetting capitalism), and here is were you seem to draw your analysis. You seem to think that whatever is good for the bourgeoisie is bad for the working class, thats completely wrong. Even a capitalist united Ireland would be good for the Irish working class.

You take this idea and you decide that because Irish republicanism has had some Bourgeois leaders and because the bourgeoisie would also be in favour of a united Ireland ( without touching capitalism) that republicanism is a bourgeois ideology.

You fail to notice the proletarian roots and the progressiveness of the Republican movement. You use your narrow analysis to debase the movement and in doing so you ruin the chances of the working class actually being able to take a leading role in the struggle for a united socialist Ireland.

You have to make distinctions between Irish republicanism and nationalism. Irish republicanism is way to the left of nationalism and left republicanism is to the left of traditional republicanism. Deciding that Irish republicanism is debunked because the bourgeosie would also be in favour of a united Ireland (on their conditions) is absurd.

[Devrim]

No.Libya went...
I am pretty sure that you are wrong on this. The facts as you relate them may apply to that shipment but I am quite sure there were further shipments following that intended to go to the loyalists. It can't really be proven, and it is not an essential part of the discussion anyway.


Yes, In a way I believe any large national liberation movement will look for whatever means necessary to procure arms and aid to fund and maintain a military movement. In this case I believe the IRA just took advantage of German arms to replace their aging stock and move the struggle forward on military lines.

And in doing so they become tools of rival imperial powers.


Orignally, The vast bulk of the IRA did not have workers interests at heart due to a massively strong element of Catholicism. But when they developed we see more and more of a Marxist agenda building up amongst them.

Just because it refereed to itself as Marxist it didn't mean there was anything socialist about it.


However modern day Sinn Fein leadership is not working class.

But the top leaders, Adams and McGuinness, do actually come from the working class. Class origin alone isn't a guarantee of class politics.


Though in saying that they have a large contingent of left-wing members within the party and of course you also have the Irish Republican Socialist Party who in my opinion are still true to their leftist agenda who have good working class support especially around the Divis Street and Falls road area of Belfast.

Yes, some members can be more left than others, and the IRSP can be more left than SF. The same phenomenon can exist around the Brit Labour Party though. It doesn't make it socialist.

In my opinion the whole orientation of the Republican movement leads it to play its part in dividing the working class. The fact that parts of it talk a little more left doesn't really change anything.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Republicanism has its roots in the rural and urban poor. That fact can't be denied. Yes, it has its bourgeois elements but it alos had a ton of proletariate "leaders" like Connolly and this mix of class interests still exists today.

I think this absolutely illustrates my argument. It is not an organisation, which defends the interests of the working class. When there are organisations with a 'mix of class interests', the interests of the bourgeoisie end up dominating. This happens regardless of whether working class leaders like Connolly get dragged into nationalism in desperation.


And so are communists and anarchists and my aunt maggie. Whats the point?

That the fact that a political organisation has support within the working class doesn't make it in any way socialist.


Irish Republicanism in its simpliest form is the absence of monarchy. This is in the interests of the working class.

Why? Is the French Republic any less anti-working class than the United Kingdom?


More recently its goal is the unification of the two divided parts of the Island of Ireland. This too is in the interest of the working class (remember its the sectarian division of the workforce which has held back labour in the 6 counties for so long).

There is just a basic left Republican mantra though. Remove partition and sectarianism will cease, as if by magic. It is sort of the political equivalent of arguing that if you close the stable door, the horse that has bolted will come back inside. I think all the evidence points in the other direction.


However, the unification of Ireland is also in the interests of the bourgeoisie(as long as it is done without upsetting capitalism), and here is were you seem to draw your analysis.

No, it isn't at all. It is because Irish republicanism today plays its role in dividing the working class along sectarian lines.

Devrim

[Patchd]

anyone else, they'd admit he was just a POW and just wanted to get home. but the Brits and bourgeoisie will not ever pass up the chance to slander a left republican.

Yep, it's to do with race right? We're all one homogeneous race with the same mentality as each other correct? ... :confused: Darn us Brits!

[Andropov]

Yep, it's to do with race right? We're all one homogeneous race with the same mentality as each other correct? ... :confused: Darn us Brits!

I dont think PRC-UTE was insinuating that.
Its just from what is posted here by primarily British Leftists they seem to buy into the Bourgeois propaganda.
I have come to expect the usual drivel about the INLA etc, but those British Leftists on here questioning the character and credentials of a man like Frank Ryan, its insulting.

[Patchd]

I dont think PRC-UTE was insinuating that.
Its just from what is posted here by primarily British Leftists they seem to buy into the Bourgeois propaganda.
I have come to expect the usual drivel about the INLA etc, but those British Leftists on here questioning the character and credentials of a man like Frank Ryan, its insulting.

Fair dos, still, there's nothing good about stifling debate or criticism, even from a person like Frank Ryan, I don't know about the man myself, I've just been reading the thread, and only posted when I saw PRC's post.

At the end of the day, if he was a Nazi collaborator (not saying he is), yet is held in such high regards by leftists, then that has to be challenged. If it doesn't seem to be the case that he was collaborating, then that's the question answered.

[Andropov]

Fair dos, still, there's nothing good about stifling debate or criticism, even from a person like Frank Ryan, I don't know about the man myself, I've just been reading the thread, and only posted when I saw PRC's post.
Debate is one thing, and debate is needed, it is a requirement for all socialists.
Constructive criticism is a good thing.
But when you start reading posts like this from British Leftists, you begin to despair.

Well I mean, if I was taken by the Nazis, I know I wouldn't collaborate. I would have rather died.


At the end of the day, if he was a Nazi collaborator (not saying he is), yet is held in such high regards by leftists, then that has to be challenged. If it doesn't seem to be the case that he was collaborating, then that's the question answered.
To understand Frank Ryans actions you should read PRC-UTE's posts and Jorge Miguel posted a good link.
His actions must be put into context.

[Patchd]

Debate is one thing, and debate is needed, it is a requirement for all socialists.
Constructive criticism is a good thing.
But when you start reading posts like this from British Leftists, you begin to despair.

I still don't see why you bring nationality into this, is there something inherently different between British leftists and leftists from other regions of the world?

HLVS' point was a valid one, perhaps a wrong one after Ryan's actions were put in context, although I don't disagree with it, I'm opposed to creating nation-states, even "Independent" Republics.

... and come on, it's not like you know him, I don't see why you got offended by it. It's like people getting offended if someone says Marx is silly, or Stalin was bad.

[pastradamus]

I am pretty sure that you are wrong on this. The facts as you relate them may apply to that shipment but I am quite sure there were further shipments following that intended to go to the loyalists. It can't really be proven, and it is not an essential part of the discussion anyway.

Im pretty sure Im not. However I dont have Ed Maloneys book (gave it to my stupid friend) but he comprehensively addresses this issue and the book would answer any questions you could have as he interviews the loyalists involved as well as the republicans. If I can get it back I'll type out or scan the concerning chapters. I think this is something interesting we'll have to come back on but i'll drop it for the time being.



And in doing so they become tools of rival imperial powers.
To an extent, yes. However we see elements of the Republican Movement attacking foreign countries as well as NATO security in the Past. This is especially true for the INLA who attacked a NATO beacon on Mount Gabriel in Cork. Which they said was of assistance to NATO bombers destined for the Balkan conflict. We also hear of the IRA being involved in activities in Holland and recently, as far away as Columbia. So in one sense I agree with you but in another way I feel that its unfair to brand the republican movement as such.


Just because it refereed to itself as Marxist it didn't mean there was anything socialist about it.
I agree 100% but this reference came about shortly after the OIRA & PIRA split. Which just goes to show what kind of political skill Adam's has when he announced a more "Marxist agenda". In my own honest opinion I feel that this was just said to bring him closer to other Leftist groups around Europe at the time. These few words did eventually work in the PIRA's favour. Martin Mckevitt (former RIRA leader) used this line to meet with members of the Breton Nationalist Front, who then Introduced Mckevitt to representatives of the Kadafi Government.... and you see where this was going. The Use of the Marxist line also enabled the group to procure arms from Leftist groups in Germany, Eastern Europe and the Balkan region - namely Croatia .




But the top leaders, Adams and McGuinness, do actually come from the working class. Class origin alone isn't a guarantee of class politics.

Ah, My phrasing and choice of words were incorrect here. What I meant was that these two generally dont represent the interests of working people. I'll use the Northern Water Charges as an example.


Yes, some members can be more left than others, and the IRSP can be more left than SF. The same phenomenon can exist around the Brit Labour Party though. It doesn't make it socialist.

The Sinn Fein/PIRA were not socialist in my opinion. They Spouted socialism when it suited them but I dont believe they ever were. The IRSP in my opinion ARE genuine leftists and have always been such. I find it strange to compare the British Labour party to Sinn Fein but I see the point of your comparison.


In my opinion the whole orientation of the Republican movement leads it to play its part in dividing the working class. The fact that parts of it talk a little more left doesn't really change anything.

Devrim

No, I dont find this. I believe the biggest problem to the working class in Northern Ireland is Sectarianism. Bigotry, Mainly in Loyalist form is responsible for this. The promotion of dividing people on religious grounds is pure racism and irrational hatred. Some people have this Idea that the republican movement is only 90 or so years old. However the republican movement existed under various names and some of the greatest Irish republican's in history were protestant, ie. Wolfe Tone. The split emerged directly from racial attacks throughout the last 200 years on Catholic minorities. This Idea of Unionism and the Unionist leaders promoted such hatred.

[Andropov]

I still don't see why you bring nationality into this, is there something inherently different between British leftists and leftists from other regions of the world?
Because from my own experiences I have not found a more hostile group of Leftists to the Irish National Liberation struggle.
This is just from my own experiences.


HLVS' point was a valid one, perhaps a wrong one after Ryan's actions were put in context, although I don't disagree with it, I'm opposed to creating nation-states, even "Independent" Republics.
He didnt mention nation states or independant Republics.
He said.

Well I mean, if I was taken by the Nazis, I know I wouldn't collaborate. I would have rather died.
That has got nothing to do with National Liberation or debate.
That is called a Proletariat champion occupying an Ivory Tower.


it's not like you know him, I don't see why you got offended by it. It's like people getting offended if someone says Marx is silly, or Stalin was bad.
I didnt get offended, just its dissilusioning when British Leftists constantly attempt to villify Left Republicans.
Sometimes it crosses the line from constructive debate into just pure slander.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

I still don't see why you bring nationality into this, is there something inherently different between British leftists and leftists from other regions of the world?



Because we have people here who directly benefit from Imperialism attacking working class militants who defended their communities from planter fascist death squads and mobs aswell as the British state for being "sectarian" and "anti-working class".

[Jay Rothermel]

There is an IRA cadre named Liam Devlin
in Germany during WW2
in the Jack Higgins novel
The Eagle Has Landed (1975)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eagle_Has_Landed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liam_Devlin
"....

During the Spanish Civil War (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War), Devlin volunteers for the Connolly Column (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Connolly_Column) and is later captured by Falangist (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Falangist) forces. While in a detention camp, he is recruited by Germany (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Germany)'s military intelligence service, or Abwehr (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Abwehr). During an intelligence mission inside the neutral Irish Free State (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Irish_Free_State), he is captured after a gunfight with the Garda Siochana (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Garda_Siochana), but later escapes from hospital in Dublin (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Dublin). The incident has left him with bullet scar on the forehea

[pastradamus]

Sounds like a good read!:)

[PRC-UTE]

Yep, it's to do with race right? We're all one homogeneous race with the same mentality as each other correct? ... :confused: Darn us Brits!

it's not racial at all. many of us have intermarried with the same gene pool of Normans, Vikings, English, Welsh, Bretons and Scots. I myself could trace back family roots to Irish Gaels, English, and Scots. Who cares.

I thought it was pretty clear when we said "the brits" we meant the imperialists and their apologists -whether their "race" is British or Irish or wahtever. That's what "brits out" always meant, not people who are culturally British but the imperialists.

I'm pretty surprised you don't realise that's the case. Anyway, the IRSP has always had links with leftists in Britain and a lot of anarchists there are supportive of us.

[PRC-UTE]

Sounds like a good read!:)

yeah, I read it once, not bad. but avoid the film!! lol

[Andy Bowden]

yeah, I read it once, not bad. but avoid the film!! lol

Donald Sutherlands "Irish" accent in it is quite something :lol:

[redflag32]

I think this absolutely illustrates my argument. It is not an organisation, which defends the interests of the working class. When there are organisations with a 'mix of class interests', the interests of the bourgeoisie end up dominating. This happens regardless of whether working class leaders like Connolly get dragged into nationalism in desperation.


That the fact that a political organisation has support within the working class doesn't make it in any way socialist.


You seem un-willing to notice the distinction between "working class support" and a "working class ideology". Yes Unionism has alot of "support" in the working class as well as the middle class and the same can be said for Republicanism. However, the difference is in the ideological philosophy of these movements. One has its base in the bourgeois and the other is a progressive working class ideology. Unionism is reactionary,biggoted,racist and conservative. Republicanism was and is a progressive ideology. It's most basic goal, the unification of Ireland would benfit the working class. This is why i say its base was and is in the working class. I was never talking about the "supporters". Unionism does not show us an example of an ideology with working class roots which is reactionary,what makes it reactionary is the very core of its ideas. The opposite can be said about Irish Republicanism. Even when the middle classes supported the civil rights movement in the 70's it didnt add or subtract from the progressive nature of the Republican objective. You fail to notice this and instead you try to link unionism and republicanism as two sides of the one sectarian coin.





Why? Is the French Republic any less anti-working class than the United Kingdom?

I would say yes, maybe very slightly,but yes. Absolute monarchy represents a time before democracy. Just because Britain managed to keep hold of a figure head while dropping the monarchy doesnt discredit what i said. If Britain was an absolute monarchy then your point wouldnt even make sense.




There is just a basic left Republican mantra though. Remove partition and sectarianism will cease, as if by magic. It is sort of the political equivalent of arguing that if you close the stable door, the horse that has bolted will come back inside. I think all the evidence points in the other direction.

Thats not the Republican Socialist position. Republican Socialists believe that you cannot struggle actively for socialism in Ireland without doing the same for the dismantling of partition,and vice versa. They dont argue that one should come before the other. Nobody is to know how it will work out. Their main point is that whatever comes up first,the partition or the class struggle, you cant do it in a bubble. Partition has to be confronted,it wont go away even if protestant and catholic do unite in the workplace. Thats what the SWP and SP think and its nonsense. And also, a united Ireland that is not led by the working class is going to find it very hard to convince the protestant class to jump on board.

It is an impossibility that both the national and class question will be concluded at exactly the same times. One has to come before the other,even slightly. However,were the RSM differs from the rest of the Irish left is that they dont see it as inevitable that once we have come to a successfull conclusion of one of the issues that the other will just solve itself. There needs to be a constant theoretical and active link between the two issues,pointed out at all times,and especially if one struggle is in prominence. The republican socialist position is that to ignore or not put importance on either of these two issues will result in failure for the working class movement.




No, it isn't at all. It is because Irish republicanism today plays its role in dividing the working class along sectarian lines.


Irish Republicanism is a response to British Imperialism. Remove the problem and the solution will fade away. Yes some republican actions were sectarian but lets not run away with ourselves here. Your trying to link it with Unionism,which is absurd. I do agree that Irish republicanism has been dealt a massive blow since the provos took the reigns,but it is essentially a progressive ideology. It astonishes me that you cant see that.

[Devrim]

To an extent, yes. However we see elements of the Republican Movement attacking foreign countries as well as NATO security in the Past. This is especially true for the INLA who attacked a NATO beacon on Mount Gabriel in Cork. Which they said was of assistance to NATO bombers destined for the Balkan conflict. We also hear of the IRA being involved in activities in Holland and recently, as far away as Columbia. So in one sense I agree with you but in another way I feel that its unfair to brand the republican movement as such.

I don't think that attacking a beacon in County Cork really means anything at all. I suppose it depends on your whole view of what the revolutionary force is within society, (if you think it is the working class) how class consciousness develops, and a lot of other issues.

Armed groups can not substitute themselves for the working class. The INLA attacking a beacon is about as revolutionary as the activities of Euro-terrorists such as the RAF, Brigardo Rossi, etc.

What members of the IRA were doing out in the Colombian jungle with a Marxist Leninist drug cartel maybe interesting, but I somehow doubt it had much to do with class politics


I agree 100% but this reference came about shortly after the OIRA & PIRA split. Which just goes to show what kind of political skill Adam's has when he announced a more "Marxist agenda". In my own honest opinion I feel that this was just said to bring him closer to other Leftist groups around Europe at the time. These few words did eventually work in the PIRA's favour. Martin Mckevitt (former RIRA leader) used this line to meet with members of the Breton Nationalist Front, who then Introduced Mckevitt to representatives of the Kadafi Government.... and you see where this was going. The Use of the Marxist line also enabled the group to procure arms from Leftist groups in Germany, Eastern Europe and the Balkan region - namely Croatia .We could talk a lot about the Provos adoption of a 'Marxist' agenda, but basically I think it comes down to the fact that they needed an ideology, as they didn't really have one when they emerged, and it seemed to have certain uses and was as good if not better than other on the market.


Ah, My phrasing and choice of words were incorrect here. What I meant was that these two generally dont represent the interests of working people. I'll use the Northern Water Charges as an example.But then I don't think that the IRSP do either. My point being that class origins are not synonymous with class interests, and the fact that the IRSP has some base of support in the working class does not mean that it has socialist politics.


The Sinn Fein/PIRA were not socialist in my opinion. They Spouted socialism when it suited them but I dont believe they ever were. The IRSP in my opinion ARE genuine leftists and have always been such. I find it strange to compare the British Labour party to Sinn Fein but I see the point of your comparison.The comparison with the labour Party is that they are another bourgoies party that has some members claiming to be socialist, nothing more nothing less. On the question of the IRSP, you have to really outline why you think that they are genuine socialists, which I don't think that you have done.


No, I dont find this. I believe the biggest problem to the working class in Northern Ireland is Sectarianism. Bigotry, Mainly in Loyalist form is responsible for this. The promotion of dividing people on religious grounds is pure racism and irrational hatred. Some people have this Idea that the republican movement is only 90 or so years old. However the republican movement existed under various names and some of the greatest Irish republican's in history were protestant, ie. Wolfe Tone. The split emerged directly from racial attacks throughout the last 200 years on Catholic minorities. This Idea of Unionism and the Unionist leaders promoted such hatred.And here is the difference. You think that sectarianism only/mainly comes from one side. I don't. I think it is something that is perpetuated by both the Unionist and the nationalist movements/parties.

Devrim

[Devrim]

You seem un-willing to notice the distinction between "working class support" and a "working class ideology". Yes Unionism has alot of "support" in the working class as well as the middle class and the same can be said for Republicanism. However, the difference is in the ideological philosophy of these movements. One has its base in the bourgeois and the other is a progressive working class ideology.

Actually, I thought that that was what everybody else thought. My argument was that working class support didn't make a party a working class party. People were arguing that the IRSP's support in some small sections of the working class somehow made it socialist. I don't think it does, and neither from this post do you.

So now we come down to the nature of the party. You think it has a progressive working class ideology. I don't.


Unionism is reactionary,biggoted,racist and conservative.

We are in absolute agreement here.


Republicanism was and is a progressive ideology. It's most basic goal, the unification of Ireland would benfit the working class.

Why would the unification of Ireland benefit the working class. I don't think this has been shown in any way, and a lot of your argument rests upon this assertion.



Why? Is the French Republic any less anti-working class than the United Kingdom? I would say yes, maybe very slightly,but yes. Absolute monarchy represents a time before democracy. Just because Britain managed to keep hold of a figure head while dropping the monarchy doesnt discredit what i said.

Here your argument becomes absurd. I am sure that you wouldn't extend this argument to say that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is less anti-working class than for example Pinochet's Chile, or Evren's Turkey, which were both Republics.


Thats not the Republican Socialist position. Republican Socialists believe that you cannot struggle actively for socialism in Ireland without doing the same for the dismantling of partition,and vice versa.

It is the position that I have heard from every republican socialist I have ever spoken with. The basic claim is that the partition is what creates sectarianism, and it needs to be removed as if this will solve the sectarian problem.

In fact you yourself said it in the same post:



No, it isn't at all. It is because Irish republicanism today plays its role in dividing the working class along sectarian lines.
Irish Republicanism is a response to British Imperialism. Remove the problem and the solution will fade away.



Yes some republican actions were sectarian but lets not run away with ourselves here. Your trying to link it with Unionism,which is absurd. I do agree that Irish republicanism has been dealt a massive blow since the provos took the reigns,but it is essentially a progressive ideology. It astonishes me that you cant see that.

I don't see it as a progressive ideology though even if it does astonish you. I see it as another reactionary sectarian ideology, which plays its part in dividing the working class. Even you yourself have admitted that some of its actions have been sectarian. I prefer to look at an organisations objective role rather than whatever pleasant sounding ideolgical phrases it spouts.

Devrim