Irish election - I tell ya, Sinn Féin is not your only choice

[alexo]

Article from sinn féin keep left
Not enough posts so can't put up the link. google sinn fein keep left and you'll find it.


OK folks what have you been doing with your weekends this year? Well, if you're like me you've been out every one since January delivering leaflets, knocking on doors and going to fundraisers. OK not every weekend, but it feels that way.

However, now we're told is the time to really get out to work and not just be doing it at weekends, but 7 days a week. Just dropping leaflets is no longer enough and this needs to be replaced by actually knocking on people's doors every single night. We need to disturb people in their homes, who mostly don't want to be disturbed. We have to smile at some people who can be pretty obnoxious. We have to attempt to get our message over again and again and again and again. We have to convince the people to vote Sinn Féin, or do we?

I would like you to ask yourself why you will be out on the doorsteps doing all this work? Why are you giving up time with your family and friends? Why are you doing stuff that most people would never do in a million years? And once you've done that then decide what you will be saying to the people at their doors.

The two main reasons I will be out each night over the next five weeks are:

1) I believe in the value of Irish reunification and the creation of a 32 county republic and I support the only major 32 county political party that is trying to achieve that.

2) I'm not prepared to sit back and wait for the 32 county republic before tackling what is wrong in this country. The working class of the 26 counties are being crucified by Fianna Fáil and people should be able to vote for a party that will fight for the rights of working people now. These rights include the right to a job, the right to decent welfare benefits, the right to a decent health care and education and the right to a decent pension.

For me, at this time, the most important of these reasons is the second. Unemployment in the South has reached 380,000 and increased by over 180,000 in the past year alone. This figure is expected to pass half a million within the next twelve months. The government response is not to try and prevent this catastrophe by fighting to save jobs. No, they choose to attack working people. They failed to protect jobs at SR Techics, Waterford Crystal and Dublin Bus. They fail to have any meaningful policies to help struggling companies get over the crisis without making any of their workers redundant. They cut welfare benefits at Christmas. They tax the workers, whilst allowing the rich to avoid tax. I could go on, but the list is too long. They simply have no real job creation policies! No real job protection policies! No real retraining policies!

So, given the above what am I going to do? Well, I'll do what I think is right. I'll do what I have been doing since Christmas. I will ask people to vote Sinn Féin, but also Labour and Socialist and I'll tell any party official that tries to get me to stop to fxck off!

I will put forward our policies (which are good ones), I'll talk about the qualities of our local candidate and our European one (both really good too) and I'll ask them to vote Sinn Féin. What I will add is that they should also vote for any party that will attempt to tackle the crisis in a positive manner. I will ask them to vote for any party that puts the interests of working people first.

Yes, I know labour and the socialists etc are not perfect, but hey nor are we. However, we are all a lot better that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. This is for me the bottom line. The people of this country cannot afford to be governed by the right wing ideas of the big two parties. The left need to win the argument. we need to convince people there is a way out of the mess created by a free market, deregulated, greed is good economy.

Most of what I hear form Joan Burton I agree with. Most of what I hear from Joe Higgins I agree with. So what if at the moment they don't want anything to do with us. To me the overriding factor must be the interests of the working class people of Ireland. Therefore, when your speaking with local people consider asking them not just to vote Sinn Féin, but ask them to vote in the interests of all working people.

Ask them to VOTE LEFT whoever that may be.

[Revy]

What does everyone think of éirígí?

[alexo]

They were formed chiefly by dissafected SF memebrs in Dublin, but have grown and developed since then. I wish they had stayed in SF and pushed the left agenda in an organised way, because I feel SF is at a major crossroads and the left of the party is the only way forward.

If they had organised wihtnin the party I would have been with them now. In fact the blog I posted the original link to is a small attempt to organise our left wing. Google Sinn Féin keep left and you'll see it.

In terms of eirigi's future well who knows. they have some good people but I'm not sure they know where they wish to go. They oppose the British presence in the north, but feel the armd stuggle is not appropriate at this time. They argue to try and unite the working class in the north, but I've not since much of an attempt yet to engae with the loyalsit working class. They have done some very imaginative work on campaigns such as Gaza, anti iraq war,remebering the 1916 uprising and the hungerstrikes.

However, they still have not formulated policies on many areas, which they say is because they are only a few years old. They have also had difficulties around the latest attacks in the north.

Clolin Duffy has been charged with direct involvement with the killing of the two british soldiers and the wounding of the two pizza delevery men. Although I would point out he was held under the new "anti-terrorism laws" and as such who knows how safe the evidenve against him will be. Now as I said eirigi opposes armed struggle at this time, but up to a short time before the attacks Colin Duffy was a major spokesman of the party. It only came out he had left the party after the attack.

This has caused an element of confusion about where eirigi wish to go and who is involved, but as I say they are a young organisation with good people in it. I just don't know what their future s given the already divided nature of the republican movement in Ireland. We have RSF, 32CSM, Eirigi, IRSP.

But i would repeat what I said at the beginning, I wish they were still in Sinn Féin and helping fight the elections and pushing a strong left agenda.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

But i would repeat what I said at the beginning, I wish they were still in Sinn Féin and helping fight the elections and pushing a strong left agenda.

Given what Gerry Adams said about Sinn Fein not being anti-business, their cosying up to USAan Capital not to mention their administrating British rule in Ireland I dont see how Sinn Fein can be regarded as left wing.

If people vote they should vote for the IRSP or Eirigi if they have the chioce...otherwise whats the point?

If Sinn Fein is in coalition with the fascist DUP in the occupied 6 counties they will definitely go into coalition with Fianna Fail given half the chance.

[RedAnarchist]

I've split the p-word discussion so as not to derail the thread.

[Revy]

I've always been under the impression that Sinn Fein was a social democratic type of party....I'm not meaning that to be hostile, I'm just saying that's what I've thought. I'm not in Ireland so I'll admit I am not all that knowledgeable about the parties there.

[Bitter Ashes]

I've always been under the impression that Sinn Fein was a social democratic type of party....I'm not meaning that to be hostile, I'm just saying that's what I've thought. I'm not in Ireland so I'll admit I am not all that knowledgeable about the parties there.
I think it has become that way recently, although historically it was the official front for PIRA.

[la lucha sigue]

PSF's official position is that they are no longer a socialist party. They abandonned that position to enable them to advance a class neutral position in the north and and to take their place in government there. They now claim to be the party of business in the north!!!

They are an unashamedly neo-liberal party, they have been touring the world calling for greater "investment" in the north, and at the same time calling for the low corporation tax rates in the south to be extended to the north. They are the FF of the north!

All of this shows that FF would have been better courting PSF as a partner than the SDLP. PSF recognise that they have a different profile in the south and they try to play the left card with the electorate, just as they did in the north, until it didn't serve them any longer.

If you want to vote left in these elections, Provisional Sinn Fein isn't a choice at all, even for a transfer!

[PeaderO'Donnell]

If you want to vote left in these elections, Provisional Sinn Fein isn't a choice at all, even for a transfer!

If they have a chance should people vote for Republican Sinn Fein or not?

[PeaderO'Donnell]

I think it has become that way recently, although historically it was the official front for PIRA.

Who were fighting for a Democratic Socialist Ireland.

[pastradamus]

If they have a chance should people vote for Republican Sinn Fein or not?

No peadar, RSF members seem to me to be traditionalists with no real left-wing agenda.

[Andropov]

PSF as in any way left wing?
Thats a farce.
Not only have they decided to adminestor British Rule in Ireland.
They have also decided to cossy up with big business too.
Look at their socialist policies when they privatised the ports, they sold the teaching assistents down the river, the introduction of water charges and the bail out of the banks.
Its absurd to suggest they are in any way Socialist.
Many of these actions have come from the fact that they are hamstrung by the reactionary DUP but that is the nature of constitutional politics and that is why they should be condemned in propping up such a sectarian statelet.
The left in PSF leaving to form Eirigi is an indication of how far right PSF have drifted.
As for Eirigi I have many reservations about them but only time will tell how they develop and until then I will reserve judgement.

[Andropov]

If they have a chance should people vote for Republican Sinn Fein or not?
Look at some of their recent AF proposals from Limerick.
Jobs for Irish workers?
Absolutely scandalous stuff altogethor.
The motion was defeated but even to have such a proposal in your AF is a joke.

[Devrim]

Look at some of their recent AF proposals from Limerick.
Jobs for Irish workers?
Absolutely scandalous stuff altogethor.
The motion was defeated but even to have such a proposal in your AF is a joke.

You seem surprised that an openly nationalist party has discussions about openly nationalist politics.

It doesn't surprise me at all.

Devrim

[Andropov]

You seem surprised that an openly nationalist party has discussions about openly nationalist politics.

It doesn't surprise me at all.

I was berated earlier for "derailing" threads when discussing National Liberation in Ireland.
Now I suggest you as a moderator yourself show some tact and maturity and dont derail this thread.
If you want to discuss National Liberation/Nationalism with regards Ireland start a new thread and I will debate with you there Devrim.

[Devrim]

I was berated earlier for "derailing" threads when discussing National Liberation in Ireland.
Now I suggest you as a moderator yourself show some tact and maturity and dont derail this thread.
If you want to discuss National Liberation/Nationalism with regards Ireland start a new thread and I will debate with you there Devrim.

Actually I am not a moderator at all. I am not quite sure where you got that impression from.

I don't feel any need to show tact either when saying that it is unsurprising that nationalist parties have nationalist politics just in order not to offend Irish nationalist sensibilities.

Devrim

[alexo]

Actually I am not a moderator at all. I am not quite sure where you got that impression from.

I don't feel any need to show tact either when saying that it is unsurprising that nationalist parties have nationalist politics just in order not to offend Irish nationalist sensibilities.

Devrim

Could you outline any of the irish nationalist policies you object to in republican parties such as eirigi, Sinn Féin, Irish republican Socialsit Party

[Madvillainy]

Could you outline any of the irish nationalist policies you object to in republican parties such as eirigi, Sinn Féin, Irish republican Socialsit Party

Off the top of my head, their support for national liberation.

[Devrim]

Could you outline any of the irish nationalist policies you object to in republican parties such as eirigi, Sinn Féin, Irish republican Socialsit Party

Here is one:


The gaining of collective economic control of the nation's resources by the nation as a whole and the eradication of any control or influence exercised by foreign capitalists over any aspect of the Irish economy.

The idea of the 'nation as a whole' is an idea which is completely alien to socialist politics. It poses a unified nation, which in reality can only be united under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, against the communist idea of society being made up of antagonistic classes.

The second part of this quotation seems to imply that there is an Irish national economy, and that foreign capitalists should be excluded from it. I would presume that that means that Irish capitalists are OK.

Devrim

[alexo]

Off the top of my head, their support for national liberation.

What do you mean by national liberation? To me it means allowing the people of Ireland to decide their future without that future being forced on them by a stronger economic and military power, namely England.

[Devrim]

What do you mean by national liberation? To me it means allowing the people of Ireland to decide their future without that future being forced on them by a stronger economic and military power, namely England.

It is the same nationalist formulation again, always this talk of 'the people'. Socialists on the other hand are concerned about classes.

Devrim

[Andropov]

Actually I am not a moderator at all. I am not quite sure where you got that impression from.
Sorry I was probably thinking of Leo, sometimes its difficult to tell the difference.

I don't feel any need to show tact either when saying that it is unsurprising that nationalist parties have nationalist politics just in order not to offend Irish nationalist sensibilities.
I know you are on a heroic crusade and all that Dev but seriously stop derailing this thread, its the same rule for all isnt it?
If you do want to discuss National Liberation/Nationalism etc then start another thread to do that.

[alexo]

Yes the people of ireland are made up of differing classes. Part of what republicans seek is the removal of the dominant economic and military power, that is England, from the equation.

[Devrim]

I know you are on a heroic crusade and all that Dev but seriously stop derailing this thread, its the same rule for all isnt it?


I don't know. What is the rule? I don't think that there is one that says you can't mock the absurdity of Irish nationalists pretending to be socialists. Get off your high horse.

Devrim

[BOZG]

Yes the people of ireland are made up of differing classes. Part of what republicans seek is the removal of the dominant economic and military power, that is England, from the equation.

To be replaced by a national bourgeoisie?

[BOZG]

If they have a chance should people vote for Republican Sinn Fein or not?

AFAIK, RSF are still an abstentionist party and don't stand in elections on the grounds that they don't recognise the legitimacy of the Irish state.

[Andropov]

I don't know. What is the rule?
Not to derail threads.

I don't think that there is one that says you can't mock the absurdity of Irish nationalists pretending to be socialists.
Well that was a pathetic low blow Dev.
Like I said if you want to "mock the absurdity of Irish nationalists pretending to be socialists" then start a new thread Dev and do not let this thread descend into another one of your Nationalism/National Liberation debates.

Get off your high horse.
Im sure many here will appreciate the irony of that statement.

[PRC-UTE]

Here is one:


The gaining of collective economic control of the nation's resources by the nation as a whole and the eradication of any control or influence exercised by foreign capitalists over any aspect of the Irish economy.

The idea of the 'nation as a whole' is an idea which is completely alien to socialist politics. It poses a unified nation, which in reality can only be united under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, against the communist idea of society being made up of antagonistic classes.


The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

[bold in original]



The second part of this quotation seems to imply that there is an Irish national economy, and that foreign capitalists should be excluded from it. I would presume that that means that Irish capitalists are OK.

Your presumption is incorrect, and this is a good example of why taking one quotation out of context from a party's literature is generally not advisable.


You seem surprised that an openly nationalist party has discussions about openly nationalist politics.

It doesn't surprise me at all.

of course, but for republicans it is quite unusual, and that fact makes it surprising and disgraceful.

[Hoggy_RS]

I don't know. What is the rule? I don't think that there is one that says you can't mock the absurdity of Irish nationalists pretending to be socialists. Get off your high horse.

Devrim

i think its more absurd for a socialist to support British imperialism

[Devrim]

i think its more absurd for a socialist to support British imperialism

I'm sorry where have I supported British imperialism?

Devrim

[Hoggy_RS]

I'm sorry where have I supported British imperialism?

Devrim

In every thread on here that involves Irish republicanism. The struggle of irish republicanism is against British imperialism.

[Devrim]

In every thread on here that involves Irish republicanism. The struggle of irish republicanism is against British imperialism.

This sort of logic would imply that if you don't support Fine Gael, you support Fianna Fáil, or if you don't support the Democrats, you support the Republicans, or if you didn't support the Russian state in the First World War, you supported the Germans.

It is a view of politics, which sees the struggles between different political factions for their own interests as something to mobilise the working class in support of, even though those interests are utterly opposed to their own.

It's a view of politics that can't see that the working class can act in its own interests as a class.

Devrim

[Batman]

This sort of logic would imply that if you don't support Fine Gael, you support Fianna Fáil, or if you don't support the Democrats, you support the Republicans, or if you didn't support the Russian state in the First World War, you supported the Germans.

It is a view of politics, which sees the struggles between different political factions for their own interests as something to mobilise the working class in support of, even though those interests are utterly opposed to their own.

It's a view of politics that can't see that the working class can act in its own interests as a class.

Devrim

In a war situation, and that is what 1969-1994 was in Ireland, you have to take sides. People like you and others on 'the Left' chose to take sides with the British state over the interests of the working class in the six counties who sought the destruction of an oppressive state.

It is ironic that you talk of political factions when most people in Ireland have never heard of the group you support.

[BOZG]

In a war situation, and that is what 1969-1994 was in Ireland, you have to take sides. People like you and others on 'the Left' chose to take sides with the British state over the interests of the working class in the six counties who sought the destruction of an oppressive state.

It is ironic that you talk of political factions when most people in Ireland have never heard of the group you support.

No, they chose to take a position in support of working class unity against repression, not of narrow nationalism.

[Batman]

No, they chose to take a position in support of working class unity against repression, not of narrow nationalism.

And how was that position exercised? Again, in a choice between the state and an oppressed section of the working class, who were seeking the destruction of the state, most Trot's supported the state. Militants most most senior member in the North, Peter Hadden even went as far as using two nom de guerre's when writing depending on who his audience was. One a catholic sounding name and the other a protestant.

[Devrim]

In a war situation, and that is what 1969-1994 was in Ireland, you have to take sides.

Actually the modern communist movement was born when revolutionaries rejected the idea of taking sides in a war.


People like you and others on 'the Left' chose to take sides with the British state over the interests of the working class in the six counties who sought the destruction of an oppressive state.

But where have I sided with the British state? Not to support nationalist terror gangs does not mean siding with the British state. It means recognising that neither side had anything to offer the working class.


It is ironic that you talk of political factions when most people in Ireland have never heard of the group you support.

Hardly surprising seen as we don't even have a section in Ireland, but the argument is absurd. I would imagine that more people in Ireland have heard of Margaret Thatcher than Seamus Costello. What does it prove? Faction in any case does not have anything to do with size. It means a part of.

At base though, the whole argument is problematic. If you extend its logic it would advocate a support of al-Quada because it is opposed to US imperialism.

Devrim

[Batman]

Actually the modern communist movement was born when revolutionaries rejected the idea of taking sides in a war.


And it was out of that war that James Connolly's Irish Citizen Army became an offensive army as opposed to an army of defense for the working class, for the goal of national liberation and socialism. One without the other is useless.


Not to support nationalist terror gangs does not mean siding with the British state. It means recognising that neither side had anything to offer the working class.

The struggle constituted more than what you call ''nationalist terror gangs''.

Howeve, those same ''gangs'' defended working class nationalists from fascistic-loyalist murder gangs, paramilitary state loyalists and the British army itself. I'd say that is something positive wouldn't you?


Hardly surprising seen as we don't even have a section in Ireland, but the argument is absurd. I would imagine that more people in Ireland have heard of Margaret Thatcher than Seamus Costello. What does it prove?

Well you're basing your ''ideas'' on what exactly if you group does not have a section in Ireland? Surely the position of any group or individual should be made from concrete experience.

The experience of the Irish working class with the ICC is negligible at most.

I am from the area from which Seamus Costello lived and formed his base of support for radical socialism. He still has relevance to the working class people of that area.

[Batman]

At base though, the whole argument is problematic. If you extend its logic it would advocate a support of al-Quada because it is opposed to US imperialism.


Is that an attempt to equate the IRA and INLA with al-Quada? :thumbdown:

[Devrim]

And it was out of that war that James Connolly's Irish Citizen Army became an offensive army as opposed to an army of defense for the working class, for the goal of national liberation and socialism. One without the other is useless.

It was out of that war that the ICA dragged the working class into a massacre on behalf of the nation, a betrayal of everything that revolutionaries stood for.


The struggle constituted more than what you call ''nationalist terror gangs''.

However, those same ''gangs'' defended working class nationalists from fascistic-loyalist murder gangs, paramilitary state loyalists and the British army itself. I'd say that is something positive wouldn't you?

And it was these same gangs which acted in similar ways to the loyalist murder gangs as at Kingsmill for example.


Well you're basing your ''ideas'' on what exactly if you group does not have a section in Ireland? Surely the position of any group or individual should be made from concrete experience.

The experience of the Irish working class with the ICC is negligible at most.

No, it is not large at all. However, one doesn't have to experience something personally to be able to evaluate it.

On a personal level though I lived in Northern Ireland throughout the seventies.


Is that an attempt to equate the IRA and INLA with al-Quada? :thumbdown:

No, it' merely a demonstration of the fallacy of your argument that if you don't support the one side you must support the other.

Devrim

[Andropov]

Congradulations Dev you have got the thread derailed.
Perhaps you would like to regurgetate your drivel on the previous threads you ran away from that dealt with this topic.
Nice to see moderating here only works one way.
I wonder whos ment to be moderating this section, shock and horror look who it is?

[BOZG]

And how was that position exercised? Again, in a choice between the state and an oppressed section of the working class, who were seeking the destruction of the state, most Trot's supported the state. Militants most most senior member in the North, Peter Hadden even went as far as using two nom de guerre's when writing depending on who his audience was. One a catholic sounding name and the other a protestant.

Would you like to provide evidence of where the Militant supported the state? Many of our members used pseudonyms for security purposes and continue to do so internationally. I'd have to see the articles to respond to your claim.

[Batman]

It was out of that war that the ICA dragged the working class into a massacre on behalf of the nation, a betrayal of everything that revolutionaries stood for.

Was it not Connolly and Lenin who didn't support the slaughter of the working class during the FIrst World War when all the other ''socialists'' did?

If you don't recognise the Easter Rising as anything other than a blow for democracy and against imperialism than I'm afraid there's no point discussing with you as it is the same as discussing it with Kevin Myers or Ruth Dudley Edwards. Neither friends of communism or the working class.


And it was these same gangs which acted in similar ways to the loyalist murder gangs as at Kingsmill for example.

I never denied that sectarian murders happened which were wrong.


No, it is not large at all. However, one doesn't have to experience something personally to be able to evaluate it.

Philosopher's have up till now only evaluated the world, the point is to change it. ;)


No, it' merely a demonstration of the fallacy of your argument that if you don't support the one side you must support the other.

You didn't have to support the IRA or INLA as an organisation to support the right of the Irish people to national liberation. I'm talking of your political position, not anything personal or subjective.

[BOZG]

Was it not Connolly and Lenin who didn't support the slaughter of the working class during the FIrst World War when all the other ''socialists'' did?

If you don't recognise the Easter Rising as anything other than a blow for democracy and against imperialism than I'm afraid there's no point discussing with you as it is the same as discussing it with Kevin Myers or Ruth Dudley Edwards. Neither friends of communism or the working class.

You didn't have to support the IRA or INLA as an organisation to support the right of the Irish people to national liberation. I'm talking of your political position, not anything personal or subjective.

I think the point Devrim was trying to make was that Connolly dragged the ICA in the Easter Rising out of isolation and frustration at the huge blow that WW1 represented to the working class internationally, coupled with massive defeats of the working class movement in Ireland after 1913. To say that Easter Rising was a huge blow against imperialism is a complete overstatement, considering it was a desperate attempt, based on an insignificant minority on a nationalist programme. Even Connolly recognised the Rising as a suicide mission and was aware of the dangers that the ICA would have faced had the Rising been in anyway successful.

Your argument on the "right of the Irish people to national liberation" completely ignores the complex fact of unionism and the reality that Protestant workers would have resisted any attempt to force them into a united Ireland. It completely ignores the real and genuine fears that Protestants have of being an oppressed and discriminated minority.

[Batman]

Would you like to provide evidence of where the Militant supported the state? Many of our members used pseudonyms for security purposes and continue to do so internationally. I'd have to see the articles to respond to your claim.

MIlitant were against republican actions against the state because they gave an excuse for the government to bring in anti-terror and repressive legislation. Presumably workers should not strike in case the state bring in anti-trade union legislation then. :thumbdown:

Security reasons? :lol:

[BOZG]

MIlitant were against republican actions against the state because they gave an excuse for the government to bring in anti-terror and repressive legislation. Presumably workers should not strike in case the state bring in anti-trade union legislation then. :thumbdown:

Security reasons? :lol:

Marxists have always opposed individual terrorism because it offers no solution to the conflict and only serves to heighten sectarian conflict. Nor does it offer any method to defeat imperialism. This is not something unique to the Militant. It has been the position of Marxists for over a century. Methods which gave an excuse to the state to introduce repression, while not posing working class unity or offering an actual method of defeating capitalism and imperialism should be opposed.

Yes, security reasons. Republicans were not the only ones who were threatened and attacked by the state and by loyalist groups.

[Batman]

I think the point Devrim was trying to make was that Connolly dragged the ICA in the Easter Rising out of isolation and frustration at the huge blow that WW1 represented to the working class internationally, coupled with massive defeats of the working class movement in Ireland after 1913. To say that Easter Rising was a huge blow against imperialism is a complete overstatement, considering it was a desperate attempt, based on an insignificant minority on a nationalist programme. Even Connolly recognised the Rising as a suicide mission and was aware of the dangers that the ICA would have faced had the Rising been in anyway successful.

I recognise that BOZG, but Connolly and Lenin were the only ones to recognise that WWII represented a defeat for the working class internationally. That's why the Easter Rising was so necessary.

I never said it was a huge blow against imperialism, I said it was a blow against imperialism and for democracy when most of the ''socialist'' world supported the massacre of thousands of workers for national chauvinism. Dev seems to equate the two.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I don't know much about Irish policies, but I've done a EU voting test and got a 81.6% party match with the Socialist party, which is a bit strange since it is a Trotskyite party...

[BOZG]

I recognise that BOZG, but Connolly and Lenin were the only ones to recognise that WWII represented a defeat for the working class internationally. That's why the Easter Rising was so necessary.

I never said it was a huge blow against imperialism, I said it was a blow against imperialism and for democracy when most of the ''socialist'' world supported the massacre of thousands of workers for national chauvinism. Dev seems to equate the two.

I think you're probably misunderstanding the point that Devrim was trying to make but I'll let him speak for himself.

I fail to see why the Easter Rising was so necessary though? It was a product of isolation, frustration and delusional ideas of blood sacrifices from some parts.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

AFAIK, RSF are still an abstentionist party and don't stand in elections on the grounds that they don't recognise the legitimacy of the Irish state.

They stand in elections....However they do so on a platform that if they are elected they will not take their seats in colonial or neo-colonial insituations.

[BOZG]

They stand in elections....However they do so on a platform that if they are elected they will not take their seats in colonial or neo-colonial insituations.

Thanks for the clarification Peader.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

As for Eirigi I have many reservations about them but only time will tell how they develop and until then I will reserve judgement.

I have my reservations about Eirigi aswell and voting in elections at all. I think if you look at how someone geniunely loyal to the working class and who believed in a socialist society like Tony Gregory ended up propping up Haughey's goverment to win much needed reforms for the people of his area you can see the dangers involved. Obviously no comparision can be made between him and people like Adams, et al.

However if Eirigi is standing in your area should you vote for them as a protest?

[Batman]

Marxists have always opposed individual terrorism because it offers no solution to the conflict and only serves to heighten sectarian conflict. Nor does it offer any method to defeat imperialism. This is not something unique to the Militant. It has been the position of Marxists for over a century. Methods which gave an excuse to the state to introduce repression, while not posing working class unity or offering an actual method of defeating capitalism and imperialism should be opposed.

Yes, security reasons. Republicans were not the only ones who were threatened and attacked by the state and by loyalist groups.

Going by Trotsky's definition, their actions were not ''individual terrorism''.

The only method of working class unity that Militant and others offered was unity within the trade unions. After that workers would just go back to their segregated estates and areas. :thumbdown: Then what?

The only way of defeating sectarianism for good was/is to break the connection with Britain as loyalism had/has a material base with that connection.

What members of Militant were threatened and attacked by the state and loyalists? If I remember correctly MIlitant organised meetings with the PUP's Billy Hutchinson. The political wing of the UVF.

[Batman]

I fail to see why the Easter Rising was so necessary though? It was a product of isolation, frustration and delusional ideas of blood sacrifices from some parts.

It was necessary so that the Irish working class would not be used as cannon fodder abroad but could fight in the interest of their class at home.

[Batman]

Marxists have always opposed individual terrorism because it offers no solution to the conflict and only serves to heighten sectarian conflict. Nor does it offer any method to defeat imperialism. This is not something unique to the Militant. It has been the position of Marxists for over a century. Methods which gave an excuse to the state to introduce repression, while not posing working class unity or offering an actual method of defeating capitalism and imperialism should be opposed.

Yes, security reasons. Republicans were not the only ones who were threatened and attacked by the state and by loyalist groups.

''under conditions of civil war, the assassination of individual oppressors ceases to be an act of individual terror''. - Leon Trotsky, Their Morals and Ours.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

This sort of logic would imply that if you don't support Fine Gael, you support Fianna Fáil, or if you don't support the Democrats, you support the Republicans, or if you didn't support the Russian state in the First World War, you supported the Germans.


The problemn is that the Internationalist Communist Current does not support the proletariat in its struggle against Capital and the State not only in the occupied six counties but also in Chiapas while at the same time supporting chauvanist strikes of first world labour aristocrats calling for "British jobs for British workers".

Indeed Communist militants in Mexico has issued what the ICC regards as veiled threats against because of what they see as its racism and undermining of real proletarian struggles.

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/282/solidarity_with_our_militants.htm

[neilhere]

AFAIK, RSF are still an abstentionist party and don't stand in elections on the grounds that they don't recognise the legitimacy of the Irish state.

Yes that is correct although they do stand in local elections in the 26 counties and ran candidates as absentionists in the last stormont elections.

[neilhere]

What does everyone think of éirígí?

Eirigi certainly have been involved in many protests and campaigns and their often innovative methods certainly deserve applause!

[Hoggy_RS]

This sort of logic would imply that if you don't support Fine Gael, you support Fianna Fáil, or if you don't support the Democrats, you support the Republicans, or if you didn't support the Russian state in the First World War, you supported the Germans.

It is a view of politics, which sees the struggles between different political factions for their own interests as something to mobilise the working class in support of, even though those interests are utterly opposed to their own.

It's a view of politics that can't see that the working class can act in its own interests as a class.

Devrim

the situation here is that republicanism stands for the reuniting of the working class into a 32 county socialist republic. If you are against this cause your at least supporting the british occupation in the OC6.

[PRC-UTE]

''under conditions of civil war, the assassination of individual oppressors ceases to be an act of individual terror''. - Leon Trotsky, Their Morals and Ours.

ah thanks. was about to go looking for that quote. Trotsky summed it up well and I agree. Violence has to be placed in context: individual terrorism to Marxists usually referred to propaganda by the deed type actions; not armed struggle that clearly had the support and often the active participation of many working class communities

[alexo]

Clearly one of the biggest failures of republicanism, and indeed all forms of left politics in Ireland, has been its failure to unite the working class, especially in the 6 counties. I accept that there have been occassions of unity, but generally we have failed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is the same nationalist formulation again, always this talk of 'the people'. Socialists on the other hand are concerned about classes.

FYI, Lenin too talked about "the [ordinary] people" (workers and peasants, though these days I'd say workers, coordinators, and employed lumpenproles).

[Devrim]

Was it not Connolly and Lenin who didn't support the slaughter of the working class during the FIrst World War when all the other ''socialists'' did?

Not all other socialists, but yes the vast majority.


If you don't recognise the Easter Rising as anything other than a blow for democracy and against imperialism than I'm afraid there's no point discussing with you

I suppose pin-prick would be a more apt word than blow. I am not sure what you mean by a 'blow for democracy and against imperialism' as I don't see that there is necessarily a contradiction between them. Whether you see a point in discussion is your choice.


I never denied that sectarian murders happened which were wrong.

Yes, all of the left Republicans condemn them. The problem though is that they see this behaviour as some sort of aberration. I believe that it is an integral part of national liberation movements.


You didn't have to support the IRA or INLA as an organisation to support the right of the Irish people to national liberation. I'm talking of your political position, not anything personal or subjective.

I don't believe that national liberation is possible with the imperialist system. I believe national liberation movements are movements that can only divided the working class and mobilise them to fight each other on behalf of the bosses.

I am not too concerned about such bourgeois political concepts as national rights either.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I think the point Devrim was trying to make was that Connolly dragged the ICA in the Easter Rising out of isolation and frustration at the huge blow that WW1 represented to the working class internationally, coupled with massive defeats of the working class movement in Ireland after 1913. To say that Easter Rising was a huge blow against imperialism is a complete overstatement, considering it was a desperate attempt, based on an insignificant minority on a nationalist programme. Even Connolly recognised the Rising as a suicide mission and was aware of the dangers that the ICA would have faced had the Rising been in anyway successful.

Basically yes.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I never said it was a huge blow against imperialism, I said it was a blow against imperialism and for democracy when most of the ''socialist'' world supported the massacre of thousands of workers for national chauvinism. Dev seems to equate the two.

I think that you misunderstand. I think that the Easter rising was the massacre of workers for national chauvinism, in this case Irish national chauvinism. It was as much a betrayal as that of Kautsky.

Devrim

[Devrim]

It was necessary so that the Irish working class would not be used as cannon fodder abroad but could fight in the interest of their class at home.

So that they could be used as cannon fodder by Irish nationalists at home?

Devrim

[Devrim]

''under conditions of civil war, the assassination of individual oppressors ceases to be an act of individual terror''. - Leon Trotsky, Their Morals and Ours.

But I don't think that Trotsky would have considered what is going on in Ireland to be a civil war.

Devrim

[Devrim]

the situation here is that republicanism stands for the reuniting of the working class into a 32 county socialist republic. If you are against this cause your at least supporting the british occupation in the OC6.

I believe that Republicanism has nothing to offer in the way of uniting the working class and plays its own role in perpetuating the sectarian divide. I don't think that this means I am supporting British imperialism.

Devrim

[Devrim]

FYI, Lenin too talked about "the [ordinary] people" (workers and peasants, though these days I'd say workers, coordinators, and employed lumpenproles).

Yes, I know Lenin did, but also on many of those occasions he was talking about the people and including the peasant mass that existed in Russia alongside the working class.

Devrim

[Batman]

Clearly one of the biggest failures of republicanism, and indeed all forms of left politics in Ireland, has been its failure to unite the working class, especially in the 6 counties. I accept that there have been occassions of unity, but generally we have failed.


I agree completely.

[Batman]

I am not sure what you mean by a 'blow for democracy and against imperialism' as I don't see that there is necessarily a contradiction between them.

Well al-Quada striking a blow against US imperialism is hardly a blow for democracy is it?

Or do you consider any actions against imperialism as being progressive?

[Batman]

I think that you misunderstand. I think that the Easter rising was the massacre of workers for national chauvinism, in this case Irish national chauvinism. It was as much a betrayal as that of Kautsky.

Devrim

How was a strike for democracy with a workers army (which Lenin called Europes first Red Army) taking part, part of the war of national chauvinism? :confused: I would have thought it was the complete opposite!

[BOZG]

How was a strike for democracy with a workers army (which Lenin called Europes first Red Army) taking part, part of the war of national chauvinism? :confused: I would have thought it was the complete opposite!

Because the ICA sub-ordinated itself to the Nationalists and to a bourgeois nationalist programme and it sub-ordinated itself in a Rising that doomed to failure and had no mass support. Had Connolly and the ICA not capitulated to their own frustration and isolation, the role they could have played when the workers' movement internationally and nationally took an upswing after the War would have been of far greater importance and would have been a real "blow for democracy and against imperialism." Instead, they went like lambs to the slaughter for nationalism. There's no doubt that the ICA believed that they were still fighting for socialism but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think one of the most important quotes from Connolly at the time was


The odds are a thousand to one against us, but in the event of victory, hold onto your rifles, as those with whom we are fighting may stop before our goal is reached. We are out for economic as well as political liberty. Hold on to your rifles.

Even he was aware under what banner the Rising was being fought under.



In response, to the Trotsky quote above, I want to re-read Their Morals & Ours before replying. The moratorium on postering for the elections expires at midnight tonight so I'll be busy for a few days so have some patience.

[PRC-UTE]

That quote from Greaves in which Connolly says he doesn't expect to win is highly questionable; Greaves rejected all the professional methods of the historian such as providing sources.

the men who planned Easter Week planned on a winning- remember that they were counting on several times more men than appeared, for uprisings throughout the countryside and for more arms than they ended up with. all of which has been covered before.

additionally, they counted on other political factors:


It is sometimes alleged that the rising was a mystical ‘blood sacrifice’. As the noted historian Eoin Neeson recently pointed, the rebellion was never intended to be any such thing, that this idea has been “one of the most effective and enduring examples of black propaganda this country has been subjected to in modern times.”

At the time of the rebellion, Germany was expected to win the European war; certainly its defeat was not anticipated. The general consensus was that the war would be followed by a peace conference at which, the insurrectionists hoped, Ireland would be represented - but only if the country had sent out a strong message to underline that it was determined to achieve independence.

The 1916 leaders hoped they could hold out for three days during Easter week. If it could, this would satisfy the requirement that had been laid down by Germany and allow it - if victorious - to fulfil its promise to give Ireland a hearing as an independent belligerent nation at the post-war peace conference. Hence the reference in the proclamation to the “gallant allies in Europe” (Eoin Neeson, letter Irish Times February 6).

source (http://www.irsm.org/history/blowfordem.html)

[Batman]

Because the ICA sub-ordinated itself to the Nationalists and to a bourgeois nationalist programme and it sub-ordinated itself in a Rising that doomed to failure and had no mass support. Had Connolly and the ICA not capitulated to their own frustration and isolation, the role they could have played when the workers' movement internationally and nationally took an upswing after the War would have been of far greater importance and would have been a real "blow for democracy and against imperialism." Instead, they went like lambs to the slaughter for nationalism. There's no doubt that the ICA believed that they were still fighting for socialism but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think one of the most important quotes from Connolly at the time was


Firstly the balance of forces were not in favour of Connolly. A country under the yoke of an imperialist nation will always seek it's right to national independence. Lenin recognised this.

The point that Connolly and the ICA rose too quick, is a mute point as far as I am concerned. You dont get revolutionary situations. Revolutionary situations are made. Within three years of the Easter Rising there was a revolutionary national parliament in operation elected by the people, the first time ever in Ireland, Soviets were being run by the workers in Limerick and other places and land was being seized from landlords.

'' To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie WITHOUT ALL ITS PREJUDICES, without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.--to imagine all this is to REPUDIATE SOCIAL REVOLUTION. So one army lines up in one place and says, "We are for socialism", and another, somewhere else and says, "We are for imperialism", and that will be a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view would vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a "putsch". '' - Lenin

[alexo]

Should also remember that the ICA and volunteers were on the point of being supressed. A number of newspapers had already been closed down and an armed stand off had occurred at liberty Hall on March 28th between the ICA and the Dublin Police. Various Volunteer meetings throughout the country had been declared illegal.

[PRC-UTE]

this started off about the election, now it's way off topic after someone started ranting about the evils of national liberation

red anarchists already moved some of the posts, can a mod not remove the rest that don't relate to the election?

[alexo]

Is Sinn Féin blowing the election?

http://sinnfeinkeepleft.blogspot.com/2009/05/is-sinn-fein-blowing-election.html

I would like to know what is going on with our election campaign in the South.


Many Sinn Féin members have been out leafleting and knocking on doors for months now trying to build the Sinn Féin vote in our areas. We have done our best to get the message out locally, but I'm getting the feeling we have no real NATIONAL strategy for victory.



Sinn Féin are clearly not getting the national coverage our policies deserve. Since the beginning of this crisis we have known that the cut and tax policies of this government were a mistake. We knew what the solutions were and we released good documents on how it should be tackled and what the route forward is.



Documents like our Getting Ireland back to work one and our budget submission were excellent.
http://www.ardfheis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/jobcreationdocumentweb.pdf (http://www.ardfheis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/jobcreationdocumentweb.pdf)

http://www.ardfheis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/emergencybudget09docweb.pdf (http://www.ardfheis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/emergencybudget09docweb.pdf)



I also feel we have excellent people standing for election. Mary Lou is working like crazy and the more I see of her the more I respect her hardwork, dedication and analysis. People such as Paul Donnelly, Larry O'Toole and Dessie Eillis are tireless in their work locally and are making progress. The efforts of these people are reflected across the country.



So in my opinion we are saying many of the right things and we have good people saying them.


So why are we not getting masses of people enthusiastically supporting our candidates?


To me the simple answer is;

THAT PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ABOUT OUR POLICIES AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHO OUR CANDIDATES ARE!





Why is that?





Well, to me it is clear the media have decided that they will not give much coverage to Sinn Féin. I don't wish here to get into a debate on the reasons for this, but the southern media have never liked republican politics. This means that we will not get much media coverage between now and election day.





But this should be no surprise to anybody and 44 Parnell Square should have known this was going to happen and planned an election campaign accordingly. We need an election campaign that is better than other parties. It needs to be more adventurous, more dynamic and more relevant to real people's lives. We need a campaign that will get people talking about the issues and include Sinn Féin in those discussions.





Instead what have we done?



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ALo6gThkTU8/SgRl_XZHRQI/AAAAAAAAACw/TZa96M5Yerw/s320/3512150295_33488737c5_m.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ALo6gThkTU8/SgRl_XZHRQI/AAAAAAAAACw/TZa96M5Yerw/s1600-h/3512150295_33488737c5_m.jpg)

We've done what everybody else has done. We've got our candidates to smile at a camera and we've spent days sticking up bloody posters of them over over the place.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ALo6gThkTU8/SgRmgBsg3dI/AAAAAAAAAC4/aYMjK1F0WXQ/s320/498912478_77edd5ff73_m.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ALo6gThkTU8/SgRmgBsg3dI/AAAAAAAAAC4/aYMjK1F0WXQ/s1600-h/498912478_77edd5ff73_m.jpg)
Don't get me wrong., I like Daithi. he's a great guy with a lovely smile, but come on can we not do better than this? This doesn't make us stand out from the others, it simply shows us to be just like the others.

We should not just conform to what the other parties are doing, we should be different. The media won't let us talk to the people, so let's use our posters. We must not be about smiles and shirts and ties, we must be about issues.

Why is Dublin not covered with posters such as


1) The govt must
.
Spend to save jobs
.
Not to keep people
on the dole
.
To save jobs
Vote Sinn Féin

2)
We said no to Lisbon
.
We need an MEP who
RESPECTS that
.
Vote Mary Lou
Vote Sinn Féin

3)
TAX THOSE THAT
CAUSED THIS MESS
.
NOT WORKING PEOPLE
.
VOTE SINN FÉIN

4.
No to cuts in

Welfare benefit

Vote Sinn Féin

ETC

It's not too late for 44 Parnell Square to change the strategy, but it will be soon. If we don't start being more creative in our national campaign we will not make the gains we could have.

In the meantime though there is nothing to stop individual members taking things in their own hands and doing something creative. Go on, do it!

[la lucha sigue]

PSF look like all the other parties, i wonder why that is ?? Because they are just like the other parties. They have abandonned their revolutionary socialism, they have opted to govern within the capitalist state and within a partitioned state. They have joined the ranks of FF, FG, Labour, SDLP in their competition to administer the capitalist states and to administer partition.

As for the posts on Republican Sinn Fein, they are not your stereotypical nationalistic organisation as portrayed. The national liberation debate aside, they have a strong left wing tendency, as much as the IRSP and certainly more so than Eirigi. They openly embrace revolutionary socialism as their policies Eire Nua (http://www.rsf.ie/eirenua) and Saol Nua (http://www.rsf.ie/saolnua) clearly show.

There seems to be some confusion on RSF's position on elections. There are now no elections which RSF don't stand as candidates if they believe they can make some ground. Previously to stand in a local or stormont election in the occupied 6 you had to officially denounce all proscribed organisations, which prevented RSF on principle from standing. That provision was abandonned, and therefore they do stand. They stand in westminster, leinster house and stormont elections on an abstentionist ticket, but if elected to local government they will take their seats (as local administration does not undermine national sovereignty). They are not running any euro candidates, but as i understand their policies, they have no objection to taking part in the election, and if elected, they would use the occasion to address the euro parliament on the issue of irish sovereignty, and then they would take no further part in that body. Their stance against europe comes very much from a left wing perspective, they are opposed to the neo-liberal and undemocratic nature of the EU bodies, and they were central in the opposition to the Lisbon Treaty.

They are running ten candidates in upcoming local elections, two candidates in limerick city, one in limerick county, one each in leitrim, longford, clare, galway counties, and also a candidate each in kells (meath), athy (kildare) and bundoran (donegal) town councils.

I'd say if you are from either the irish republican or socialist tendency, you could do a lot worse than voting for RSF. They certainly advance a more revolutionary version of socialism than any of the established parties of the left in ireland. If you doubt me just read documents i've linked to above.

[Seven Stars]

If they have a chance should people vote for Republican Sinn Fein or not?

Yes, they should. There is nothing wrong with supporting them if there is no one else. They are good Republicans. While they put National Liberation before Socialism, which is an incorrect analysis, they have always been true to the Republic and are not right-wing ultra nationalists that most people on the left try to portray them as. Their main downfall is their refusal to work with other Republican groups.

[Hoggy_RS]

Yes, they should. There is nothing wrong with supporting them if there is no one else. They are good Republicans. While they put National Liberation before Socialism, which is an incorrect analysis, they have always been true to the Republic and are not right-wing ultra nationalists that most people on the left try to portray them as. Their main downfall is their refusal to work with other Republican groups.

i would agree that people whould vote for RSF if it was choice between Rsf & ff.fg.labour,the greens and the likes, mainly because they are at least better than all the other capitalist parties. However i believe there is at least some extremely nationalist elements in RSF. Evidence of this would be in their attendance of an anti-imperialism conference organised by the far right in Italy> http://www.ladestra.info/?s=sinn+fein

[redflag32]

While i agree that Provisional SF are basically a capitalist party now i do agree with what the first poster said (that Eirigi should have created a trend from within as apposed to outside the party).

PSF were not always a capitalist party and there once was a time when they resembled something close to a working class movement. The contact they achieved with the workers in Ireland has not altogether been broken,certainly this was the case a few years ago. I think a left trend organised from within PSF would have created alot more damage to the new capitalist character of the party and would have really crippled its ability to go into coalition with the fascist DUP.

The problem is that Eirigi can now be air brushed aside as another split. They are non-provos now so current members who hold a loyalty to the party will find it harder to jump ship. But if they were organised from within they could have retained the provo title and also agitated for a return to the times when the provos resembled a working class party. If a coup was initiated that was successfull the party might loose some members but it would retain its base in the working class of the 6 counties,it might even strenghten that base with its pro-working class agenda.

[Andropov]

Thats all well and good.
But lets not forget that PSF have one of the most authoritarian leaderships of any party in Ireland.
Dissent is crushed and agitators are removed in no uncertain terms.
It is a party that has been fashioned in the political image of Adams and Mc Guineass.

[redflag32]

Thats all well and good.
But lets not forget that PSF have one of the most authoritarian leaderships of any party in Ireland.
Dissent is crushed and agitators are removed in no uncertain terms.
It is a party that has been fashioned in the political image of Adams and Mc Guineass.

It would have been worth a try anyway. Plus Adams and co would not have looked very well kicking out a well organised democratic trend from within the party. They were well able to handle disgruntled members,but ive never seen how they would respond to an organised bloc. I think it would have given Eirigi alot more credibility aswell.

PSF do have a base in the working class, that can't be ignored. They had a great oportunity to become a radical alternative but they decided to sit in power instead. But that working class base still remains. if the party could be moved in a working class direction it would be a great thing. I do think that they have gone too far now though. It would be like trying to swerve the Labour party back to its roots.

[Andropov]

It would have been worth a try anyway. Plus Adams and co would not have looked very well kicking out a well organised democratic trend from within the party. They were well able to handle disgruntled members,but ive never seen how they would respond to an organised bloc. I think it would have given Eirigi alot more credibility aswell.
That is a possibility.
But IMO after hearing the stories of ex provos and the like who dissented from the PSF party line they were either removed with the carrot or the stick.
It was effectively purgeing the party of any member who dared think for themselves.

PSF do have a base in the working class, that can't be ignored.
Absolutley, especially in the south.

They had a great oportunity to become a radical alternative but they decided to sit in power instead.
Adams and Mc Guinneass decided to sit in power.

But that working class base still remains. if the party could be moved in a working class direction it would be a great thing. I do think that they have gone too far now though. It would be like trying to swerve the Labour party back to its roots.
Thats where I disagree.
I think Labour have gone to far aswell.
Both are reformist to the core and beyond salvation.

[redflag32]

That is a possibility.
But IMO after hearing the stories of ex provos and the like who dissented from the PSF party line they were either removed with the carrot or the stick.
It was effectively purgeing the party of any member who dared think for themselves.


Thats the whole point of creating an organised bloc. Its harder to deal with from the leaderships point of view. And even if they did it would be alot harder to defend. They can always discredit single members,alot harder to do with an organised trend.




Adams and Mc Guinneass decided to sit in power.

If there was an organised trend which objected to this they would have found it harder to do. the trend wouldhave agitated around its ideas. Created pamphlets and debates etc,..



Thats where I disagree.
I think Labour have gone to far aswell.
Both are reformist to the core and beyond salvation.


No i agree with you here comrade. I was saying that although i think Eirigi should have created a trend from within the party that i think to do that now would be a waste of time because like Labour, PSF have gone too far away from their working class history.

[Andropov]

Thats the whole point of creating an organised bloc. Its harder to deal with from the leaderships point of view. And even if they did it would be alot harder to defend. They can always discredit single members,alot harder to do with an organised trend.
True.
But in every occasion that an organised bloc has been created within PSF in opposition to the party line that bloc has been removed also.
Look at RSF, the 32s and even Eirigi.
Those factions did not just up and split in the morning but were gradually forced out of the party even with their attempts at internal agitation.

If there was an organised trend which objected to this they would have found it harder to do. the trend wouldhave agitated around its ideas. Created pamphlets and debates etc,..
In theory.
How ever PSF does not have a tradition of sustaining internal debate.
Any whiff of an internal threat to the leadership and any bloc or individual is instantly castigated and eventually removed.

No i agree with you here comrade. I was saying that although i think Eirigi should have created a trend from within the party that i think to do that now would be a waste of time because like Labour, PSF have gone too far away from their working class history.
True.

[redflag32]

True.
But in every occasion that an organised bloc has been created within PSF in opposition to the party line that bloc has been removed also.
Look at RSF, the 32s and even Eirigi.
Those factions did not just up and split in the morning but were gradually forced out of the party even with their attempts at internal agitation.

In theory.
How ever PSF does not have a tradition of sustaining internal debate.
Any whiff of an internal threat to the leadership and any bloc or individual is instantly castigated and eventually removed.

True.

If the 32's and RSF and Eirigi had stayed within the party as a radical trend they would have enough of a mandate to stop PSF dragging its mandate into a coalition with the DUP. Its just a thought. I think republicanism has been plagued by the "split".

[Andropov]

If the 32's and RSF and Eirigi had stayed within the party as a radical trend they would have enough of a mandate to stop PSF dragging its mandate into a coalition with the DUP. Its just a thought. I think republicanism has been plagued by the "split".
Indeed.
But I think the left in general is not immune to the "split mentality".