Solidarity with Irish Political Prisoners in Ireland (INLA) [Archive]

IrishWorker

6th June 2009, 07:48

Interview with a Political Prisoner on E4 .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extract from the Newsletter produced by the Tony Mc Clelland IRSP Cummann E4 Landing Portlaoise Prison.

This is a quick Q and A with one of the lads of E4.

Q Is this your first sentence? And how did the other POWs in the IRSM make you feel when you first came to jail?

A Yes this is my first sentence. At the time when I first came in their was only one POW from the IRSM and he made me very welcome and helped me settle into my sentence.

Q What are the educational programs like in the jail?

A First of you can do any subject you have an interest in and I found this very helpful. I started off doing art and fitness and then went onto Open University. This will be helpful for my future as I will be able to study full time degree in college when I leave.

Q In the past year more POWs have arrived on E4. Dose this effect daily life on the landing?

A In a way it makes it easier as it makes the landing less stressful as there is more people to interact with.

Q A few months ago you and your comrades were put on eight week punishment. How did that make you feel?

A At first it wasn’t ideal. We had no shop orders, no visits and were under 23 hour lock up. It was hard having no outside contact but we all pulled through as a unit.

Q Do you feel the protest made you and your comrades come together more?

A The protest opened up our minds and showed us we need to stick together and it made us politically stronger on the landing.

Q How do the POWs get on with the jailers?

A We have a general respect for each other. They do there job and we do ours.

Q What has prison taught you?

A Prison has made me tougher both mentally and physically and made me a stronger person over all.

Q What plans do you have for when you get released?

A I plan to go to college full time to finish my degree I have started in prison.

The Deepest Red

8th June 2009, 14:27

The range of charges is very limited they are either membership or possession charges.I see.

I disagree with your analysis of the situation the IRSM are in steady continuous growth over the last few years has put the IRSM in a good position new cummans and a vibrant Youth movement in the RSYM are all great moves in the right direction.I'll have to take your word for it as I've seen no evidence of this.

Frankly that’s the kind of derogatory statement that I would expect from a PSF supporterI am not and never have been a PSF supporter.

you clearly don’t have much of a grasp of the growth of the movementClearly....

and have carried the old PSF myths with you into Eirigi sad really I expected more from Eirigi sympathizers. You've made your sectarian view of éirígí abundantly clear so I don't think you did expect more from an éirígí sympathizer.

The Deepest Red

8th June 2009, 14:31

I never suggested the stageist approach.

Fair enough.

Thats a bit odd.
It wasnt so long ago I heard you saying that the Real IRA would be a major guerilla army within the next year? :confused:No you didn't and try addressing the actual points I've made in this thread.

Since when did the INLA ever decomission?I never claimed it had? :confused:

EDIT: Why is this in Worker Struggles?

Andropov

8th June 2009, 19:52

I frankly couldnt care a tinkers cuss about "the peoples right to self determination". Who are the "people" anyway?
So you are denying the existence of the Irish People?
That is downright fantacism if you are indeed suggesting that.
Of course there is an Irish People, to deny this is really just verging on absurd.
Does that make me a Nationalist because I recognise certain cultural trends and shared historical events?
Maybe to the trendy left but to us in the real world it is just a fact.
And such a flippant view on the ravaging effects of Colonialism and Imperialism and to dismiss the National Liberation struggles and their fight for self determination does show up your inherint chauvanism.

It is irrelevant to me as a socialist. Completely irrelevant. Marx and Engels were writing way back in the 19h century but already by the 1870s they were chainging thier mind on supporting nationalist struggles.
Firstly Marx and Engels who whole heartedly supported the National Liberation of Ireland (Engles indeed even hid a Fenian in his attic), so lets not dwell on idle speculation of where their theories may or may not have been diverging before their death.
Secondly as you say "Its irrelevant to me as a socialist", but yet for me as a Marxist the National Liberation of people is an inherint feature of Socialism and a major component in the war against predatory Capitalism and ravaging Imperialism.

In any event, you might treat what they had to say as holy scripture. I dont
Indeed I dont.
I merely understand the conepts of Marxism and their understanding of Capitalism and Imperialism and the struggles against them.

I think it is disengenious to regard national liberation struggle as anything but a nationalist struggle
Quite frankly what you think is irrelevant.
National Liberation is not Nationalism and such an attitude yet again highlights your inherint Chauvanism.
The fight for Self determination free from the ravages of Imperialism and plunder is anything but the jingoism of Nationalism.

and frankly at the end of the day, a bourgeois project.
This itself boggles the mind.
So smashing the claws of Imperialism and Colonialism which rape a Nation of its Natural resources is actually bourgeios?
Wow as trendy left fantacists go your a gem.

How could it not be?
It mobilizes the working class in the Liberation of their country and the removal of predatory capitalism and the reactionary jackboot occupiers who are used to crush any working class mobilisation.
But I suppose in the make belief land of trendy left fantazia we should win over the jackboot invaders through their class consciousness?

It elevates some mythical nation
Absurd.
There is nothing mythical about the Imperial plunder of your country.
Safe to know you come from a Western power, im guessing Britain?
Anyway thats largely irrelevant, what is relevant is your blatant chauvanism in attempting to discredit and diminish legitimate and revolutionary mobilisations of the working class in defence of their human rights just because it does not conform to some pie in the sky fantasy about making daisy chains with Occupying soldiers and reading Das Kapital togethor at bed times.

above class
Not at all.
As Connollys own definition of the Irish People did not include the Bourgeois or Capitalists.
Connolly stated that, "Only the Irish working class remains as the incorruptible inheritors of the fight for freedom in Ireland".
He saw the fight for National Liberation of Ireland as a tool to unite the working class of Ireland along class lines and no longer let it be split along sectarian lines which profited the Brit establishment.

and therefore presumes a common identity and shared interest between workers and capitalists.
Shows a complete lack of understanding of the National Liberation of Ireland.
Understand Connollys position on "Nationalism" and you will understand mine.

It is one of the ideological props of capitalism.
Wrong again if you took the time to read his writings.

Andropov

8th June 2009, 20:01

No you didn't and try addressing the actual points I've made in this thread.
Yes you did but as you pointed out that is largely irrelevant.
Anyway what you deem as a "threat" is largely subjective.
All we can do is judge states by their actions and given their stance and record North and South with regaurds the RSM we can certainly see alot of state harassment and state attacks against the movement at large.
This would lead us to the conclusion that they are under orders to stunt the organisation as it is deemed if not a threat now, maybe so in the future if let to grow unabated.

I never claimed it had? :confused:
Then what seems to be the problem?

IrishWorker

8th June 2009, 20:20

I see.
I'll have to take your word for it as I've seen no evidence of this.
I am not and never have been a PSF supporter.

Clearly....

You've made your sectarian view of éirígí abundantly clear so I don't think you did expect more from an éirígí sympathizer.

Your agenda to derail this thread with accusations of irrelevancy and slurs on the IRSM are clear for all to see.
For Eirigi I have a degree of respect but for you personally I have none after getting involved in this thread you deleted from your profile the words "Eirigi sympathizer" with supporters like you who needs enemy’s chara.

The Deepest Red

8th June 2009, 20:23

Yes you did

No I didn't.

Anyway what you deem as a "threat" is largely subjective.
All we can do is judge states by their actions and given their stance and record North and South with regaurds the RSM we can certainly see alot of state harassment and state attacks against the movement at large.The Socialist Party is far stronger than the IRSP yet it doesn't experience anywhere near the same amount of state harassment or repression. It is the illegality of the INLA and its activities that incur this attention, not the IRSP's political programme or level of support.

This would lead us to the conclusion that they are under orders to stunt the organisation as it is deemed if not a threat now, maybe so in the future if let to grow unabated.Agreed, but as I said above it's not a political challenge from the IRSP that 'concerns' either the British or Dublin governments.

Then what seems to be the problem?What justification is there for the INLA remaining active?

The Deepest Red

8th June 2009, 20:35

Your agenda to derail this thread with accusations of irrelevancy and slurs on the IRSM are clear for all to see.

What are you on about? What slurs?

For Eirigi I have a degree of respect but for you personally I have none after getting involved in this thread you deleted from your profile the "Eirigi sympathizer" with supporters like you who needs enemy’s chara.The name of the party is éirígí. There is no connection between me removing "éirígí" from my profile and this thread. Are you that conspiratorial that you see plots and hidden, alternate agendas everywhere? Catch yourself on.

Andropov

8th June 2009, 20:40

No I didn't.
Do you really want me to drag up people on this thread that can verify my claim?
I think it was either the second or third time you were with the 32CSM that you came out with that comment.

The Socialist Party is far stronger than the IRSP yet it doesn't experience anywhere near the same amount of state harassment or repression. It is the illegality of the INLA and its activities that incur this attention, not the IRSP's political programme or level of support.
What do you mean by "illegality"?
Illegality on whos terms?
On a bourgeois governments interpretation?

Agreed, but as said above it's not a political challenge from the IRSP that 'concerns' either the British or Dublin governments.
Of course its a political challenge.
The very existance of the INLA is tied fundamentally to politics.

What justification is there for the INLA remaining active?
Because Ireland is neither free from Imperialism or Capitalism.
Pretty cut and dried really.

IrishWorker

8th June 2009, 20:47

What are you on about? What slurs?

The name of the party is éirígí. There is no connection between me removing "éirígí" from my profile and this thread. Are you that conspiratorial that you see plots and hidden, alternate agendas everywhere? Catch yourself on.

In relation to the original OP: why were these men imprisoned? Let's be frank about this; the IRSP/INLA does not pose a major or even a minor threat to either of the partionist states in Ireland. Also; the INLA is supposed to be on a ceasefire so why are these men active in that capacity?

The above is a clear attempt at a slur on the relevancy of the IRSM.

pastradamus

9th June 2009, 01:01

Wait, so you think the INLA is all that is preventing working class people from getting murdered by fascists? Is the situation actually that bad in the north?

I can see where your coming from HLVS. But there is a widespread fascist movement in the North. The INLA at times have acted as a vanguard against this. Defending Republican area's etc.

The Deepest Red

9th June 2009, 12:46

I think it was either the second or third time you were with the 32CSM that you came out with that comment.

I doubt very much that I ever said that and I have never been a member of the 32CSM, and I'd like to see you prove otherwise (and what you may think you know doesn't count as evidence).

What do you mean by "illegality"? Illegality on whos terms? On a bourgeois governments interpretation?

Yes, in the bourgeois meaning of the term. That's simply an observation, I'm not saying these claims of illegality are legitimate.

Because Ireland is neither free from Imperialism or Capitalism.
Pretty cut and dried really.

Fair enough.

The Deepest Red

9th June 2009, 12:47

In relation to the original OP: why were these men imprisoned? Let's be frank about this; the IRSP/INLA does not pose a major or even a minor threat to either of the partionist states in Ireland. Also; the INLA is supposed to be on a ceasefire so why are these men active in that capacity?

The above is a clear attempt at a slur on the relevancy of the IRSM.

How is that a slur? Am I not allowed to question the "relevancy" of the IRSM?

Pogue

9th June 2009, 17:22

Sectarian tensions havent been this high for over a decade.

And you think a republican militia is going to do away with that?

Not at all, my question was either the imperial occupation of Ireland is either progressive or not?

No, of course its not progressive. Neither is combatting it with your own nationalism.

Im afraid they are very relevant to Ireland as it is the imposition of foreign soldiers which implement and sustain the status quo.
It is a classic British Imperial method to use foreign troops in their colonies to supress working class mobilisation.
This has been seen throughout their Empire in the likes of India.
Look at even in Red Clydeside, the use of foreign troops to supress a working class mobilisation.
To deny the very fact of the use of National Boundaries to supress and eradicate our cause shows a complete lack of understanding.

Sure, military presence makes organising hard. So yeh, fight against an armed enemy supressing you. I don't see why you have to do that along nationalist lines though.

This is just regurgetated British propaganda.
The sectarian elements in the conflict arose out of the British Imperial agents training, funding and conspiring with reactionary elements to stir up Sectarian tensions.
It is why any Marxist with an understanding of Irish history will tell you that Sectarianism is a British Construct.

Yeh, of course it is. Thats why it has to be combatted with proletarian internationalism, not taking one side of the conflict by calling for 'national liberation'. Your essentially taking one of the nationalistic sides of this conflict and applying socialism to it, which is still participating in sectarianism regardless of whether you say you oppose sectarianism. I'd rather be on the side of the working class regardless of their position in a bourgeoisie sectarian conflict.

Well this is just wrong.
Since when did the struggle ever become a fight between two different "nationalities" or "ethnicities"?
Its an absurd suggestion, they are all Irish and have no clearly defineable "ethnicity".
The whole Anglo/Saxon and Celt idea is pure bunckam.

Note how I said 'etc'. I am saying that the Irish situation is no different to any situation where working class people who are divided into two different bourgeoisie camps along lines of 'race', gender, 'ethnicity', religion etc. The solution is working class solidarity and internationalism.

Something the IRSP has believed in for over 30 years.

Despite alligning itself to the republican side of the conflict, picking a faction in a bourgeoisie conflict.

As pointed out above.

I don't think this was pointed out. If I was in the north I'd work entirely on emphasising the position of the class, because I recognise national bounddaries and sectarian conflict are bourgeoisie constructs that need to be broken down. I don't see how you think, by peddling a republican line, your going to win over workers who may at the moment be supportive of the British or loyalism to the socialist cause.

PRC-UTE

9th June 2009, 18:36

But the INLA didn't prevent that attack and likely havn't stopped the majority of attacks, so clearly they are not functioning very well in being an 'Armed deterrent'.

re Coleraine, the Irps don't have a presence there AFAIK.

However, I know lads who did time just for carrying out defencive actions. IIRC, there were even articles in the papers at the time a few years back when the INLA were defending the Short Strand from attack. The IRSP spends more time preventing communal violence by offering alternative actitivities for youth and actually intervening in interface areas, but the RSM will also defend areas under siege if necessary. In fact it's widely recognised by Loyalists themselves, they don't want a fight with us.

PRC-UTE

9th June 2009, 18:47

You seem to suggest that national liberation is a prerequisite of socialism? I take it you therefore agree with the "stages" theory of Stalinism/Maoism? I think it is clear enough from the history of the anti-colonial movement in the 20th century that this is a disastrous policy to adopt.

In relation to the original OP: why were these men imprisoned? Let's be frank about this; the IRSP/INLA does not pose a major or even a minor threat to either of the partionist states in Ireland. Also; the INLA is supposed to be on a ceasefire so why are these men active in that capacity?

That's not stageism at all, one of the reason the IRSP was formed is the party's opposition to Stalinist stageism. Stageism would require an alliance with the "progressive bourgeoisie". The IRSP praxis is to mobilise the masses behind the anti-imperialist banner, by taking up social and economic questions and tying them to the resolution of the national question.

PRC-UTE

9th June 2009, 20:16

Note how I said 'etc'. I am saying that the Irish situation is no different to any situation where working class people who are divided into two different bourgeoisie camps along lines of 'race', gender, 'ethnicity', religion etc. The solution is working class solidarity and internationalism.

I wouldn't say it's no different, that really dismisses a lot of the actual history and events.

The Anglo-Irish were the Irish nation until the democratic content of republicanism extended the Irish identity onto the Catholic underclass of peasantry and workers. Once it was clear that republicanism was taken over by the exploited peasants and workers, and the integration of Ireland into the UK subsumed the Anglo-Irish identity into the British political state, class hatred and antagonisms were by necessity expressed through nationality.

btw, bourgeois is the adjective, should say 'bourgeois camps'.

Despite alligning itself to the republican side of the conflict, picking a faction in a bourgeoisie conflict.

This criticism is also weak. Most anti-imperialists in Ireland post-Tan War aren't bourgeois, excepting rural areas, and it's widely recognised that most urban republicanism is left-leaning. The largest republican group still in existence after SF was absorbed into the state is openly leftist. More importantly, no bourgeois faction supports the republicans at this stage in history, thus only republican socialism based on the working class' interests remains viable.

Madvillainy

9th June 2009, 20:50

I can see where your coming from HLVS. But there is a widespread fascist movement in the North. The INLA at times have acted as a vanguard against this. Defending Republican area's etc.

I think saying there is a widespread fascist here is exaggerating a great deal, actually it's just not true at all. And then going on to say the INLA act as a vanguard against this is just priceless.

Hoggy_RS

9th June 2009, 21:59

it amuses me how the ultra left in britian thinks they understand the situation in Ireland and have the cheek to lecture us on the situation. National liberation from an oppresive capitalist empire is hugely important in the establishment of a socialist state in Ireland.

the no borders argument has no relevance here.

Pogue

9th June 2009, 22:30

I love how you think that because you live there somehow you are right. Theres anti-republican socialists in Ireland too so don't try that one.

Hoggy_RS

9th June 2009, 22:46

I love how you think that because you live there somehow you are right. Theres anti-republican socialists in Ireland too so don't try that one.

Indeed, but clearly your understanding of the situation is flawed. Do you believe the working class of the OC6 is better off part of the British Empire? National liberation is a huge step to a socialist state in Ireland. British imperialism has no place in Ireland.

Most socialists in Ireland believe that Ireland would be better of as a 32 county state. However, most of these socialists are full of talk and theory, while republican socialist groups are activley fighting for a socialist 32 county republic.

Seven Stars

10th June 2009, 04:18

If anyone in North America is interested in supporting the POWs and their families, contact IRSCNA http://www.irscna.org

The Deepest Red

10th June 2009, 11:52

That's not stageism at all, one of the reason the IRSP was formed is the party's opposition to Stalinist stageism. Stageism would require an alliance with the "progressive bourgeoisie". The IRSP praxis is to mobilise the masses behind the anti-imperialist banner, by taking up social and economic questions and tying them to the resolution of the national question.

I'm aware of that, it's just RR seemed to suggest national independence should come before a social revolution. Perhaps I misunderstood. I'd still describe 'Traditional Republicanism' as stageist. While groups like Republican Sinn Féin are nominally socialist they still believe "labour must wait" and support petit-bourgeois demands.

PeaderO'Donnell

10th June 2009, 14:49

I think saying there is a widespread fascist here is exaggerating a great deal, actually it's just not true at all. And then going on to say the INLA act as a vanguard against this is just priceless.

The DUP and the Orange order arent wide spread in the occupied six counties?

The UDA,etc are not wide spread in the occupied six counties?

Can you give us examples of anarchist groups acting as a vanguard against loyalist terror?

PeaderO'Donnell

10th June 2009, 14:52

I love how you think that because you live there somehow you are right. Theres anti-republican socialists in Ireland too so don't try that one.

Like who?

Do you mean Organize which is tiny and funded from England whos members make jokes about their fondness for orange-fascist symbolism?

The Deepest Red

10th June 2009, 16:30

The DUP and the Orange order arent wide spread in the occupied six counties?

The UDA,etc are not wide spread in the occupied six counties?

Can you give us examples of anarchist groups acting as a vanguard against loyalist terror?

Who's providing the protection where the INLA have no presence i.e. most of the North? If the INLA does act as deterrent against Loyalist violence in certain areas well and good, but it's hardly a real solution given (as you pointed out) the widespread nature of the threat.

Pogue

10th June 2009, 16:33

Like who?

Do you mean Organize which is tiny and funded from England whos members make jokes about their fondness for orange-fascist symbolism?

WSM, for one, and any given Socialist group on the island, theres quite a few.

PeaderO'Donnell

10th June 2009, 16:39

WSM, for one, and any given Socialist group on the island, theres quite a few.

I would hardly describe the WSM as anti-republican. Infact organize regularly accuses them of being the opposite.

Actually they are trendy lefty cowards who understandablely want to avoid the attentions of the Special Branch and the other Free State forces that intimidate and sometimes even torture republicans. So they steer clear of making to hard a stance against the colonial forces and their fascist allies.

I think they had the old trot line of critical support for the IRA/INLA.

But you are right in that the Socialist Party is rather anti-republican and its probably the biggest left wing group.

The Deepest Red

10th June 2009, 16:42

WSM, for one, and any given Socialist group on the island, theres quite a few.

I wouldn't describe most socialist organisations in Ireland as "anti-Republican" (whatever that means). The Workers Party of Ireland, the Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Irish Republican Socialist Party, éirígí
, the Communist Party of Ireland, the Irish Socialist Network and Socialist Democracy (I'm sure I've left out a few) all want a united 32 County Socialist Republic.

Pogue

10th June 2009, 16:45

I would hardly describe the WSM as anti-republican. Infact organize regularly accuses them of being the opposite.

Actually they are trendy lefty cowards who understandablely want to avoid the attentions of the Special Branch and the other Free State forces that intimidate and sometimes even torture republicans. So they steer clear of making to hard a stance against the colonial forces and their fascist allies.

I think they had the old trot line of critical support for the IRA/INLA.

But you are right in that the Socialist Party is rather anti-republican and its probably the biggest left wing group.

Rather a trendy left coward than a nationalist to be honest.

The Deepest Red

10th June 2009, 16:46

Actually they are trendy lefty cowards who understandablely want to avoid the attentions of the Special Branch and the other Free State forces that intimidate and sometimes even torture republicans. So they steer clear of making to hard a stance against the colonial forces and their fascist allies.

Bullshit. Clearly you don't know anything about the WSM.

I think they had the old trot line of critical support for the IRA/INLA.I don't think so.

But you are right in that the Socialist Party is rather anti-republican and its probably the biggest left wing group.Some of the SP's criticisms of Republicanism are emotionally charged and altogether unMarxist, but I wouldn't necessarily categorize them as "anti-Republican".

The Deepest Red

10th June 2009, 16:50

This thread has become derailed and I apologise to the OP if I contributed to that, which I'm sure he/she will say I did. :lol:

A mod should split off the off-topic posts.

Hoggy_RS

10th June 2009, 18:06

The socialist party has the same line on a unification as other groups. Basically they support it in theory. I wouldn't imagine its very high on their agenda though.

Question for far leftist/anarchists and the likes: Are ye also opposed to Palestines freedom? should imperialist empires be allowed to invade any land they want until we all realise that borders don't exsist?

Andropov

10th June 2009, 19:23

And you think a republican militia is going to do away with that?
No I believe a Republican Socialist Army that smash's Imperialism will.

No, of course its not progressive. Neither is combatting it with your own nationalism.
Seeking Self Determination is not Nationalism.

Sure, military presence makes organising hard. So yeh, fight against an armed enemy supressing you. I don't see why you have to do that along nationalist lines though.
Yet again, seeking Self Determination is not Nationalistic.

Yeh, of course it is. Thats why it has to be combatted with proletarian internationalism, not taking one side of the conflict by calling for 'national liberation'.
Of course im going to take the opposite side of Imperialism in a conflict.

Your essentially taking one of the nationalistic sides of this conflict and applying socialism to it,
Sorry how is seeking self determination Nationalistic?

which is still participating in sectarianism regardless of whether you say you oppose sectarianism.
How is opposing Imperialism sectarian exactly?

I'd rather be on the side of the working class regardless of their position in a bourgeoisie sectarian conflict.
You are not on the side of the working class.
Your continual baseless slurs against working class mobilisations that oppose Imperialism demonstrates what side of the fence you are on.
Such a counter productive attitude merely reinforces Imperialism.

Note how I said 'etc'. I am saying that the Irish situation is no different to any situation where working class people who are divided into two different bourgeoisie camps along lines of 'race', gender, 'ethnicity', religion etc. The solution is working class solidarity and internationalism.
Absolutely.

Despite alligning itself to the republican side of the conflict, picking a faction in a bourgeoisie conflict.
Absolute and utter horseshit.
Republicanism is the struggle for self determination.
The search for autonomy free from foreign interferance is not bourgeois.

I don't think this was pointed out. If I was in the north I'd work entirely on emphasising the position of the class, because I recognise national bounddaries and sectarian conflict are bourgeoisie constructs that need to be broken down.
You have little to no understanding of our struggle.
Firstly we in the IRSP work completely on the issue of class, hence why we are equally despised by the British State aswell as the Free State.
Secondly we do not "recognise national boundaries", we recognise Imperialism and we will strike at that in every way we can. Your failure to recognise the struggle as that of a suppressed people under Imperialism against an Empire shows no understanding of Ireland.
Thirdly we utterly oppose Sectarianism, in fact if you bothered to educate yourself in the RSM you would understand that some of the leading members of our movement were Protestants. You know why? Because we base ourselves in the working class, not in the sectarian divide.
You preach, we practice and our members have payed the price for their commitment throughout the years.

I don't see how you think, by peddling a republican line, your going to win over workers who may at the moment be supportive of the British or loyalism to the socialist cause.
Why would I want people supportive of Britain of Loyalism?
They are a reactionary element that should be treated as such.

Pogue

10th June 2009, 19:36

No I believe a Republican Socialist Army that smash's Imperialism will.

Right.

Seeking Self Determination is not Nationalism.

Yes, it is.

Yet again, seeking Self Determination is not Nationalistic.

See above.

Of course im going to take the opposite side of Imperialism in a conflict.

'Opposite side'. Yes, excactly, you wish to allign yourself with whatever faction oppose simperialism despite having nationalist and anti-working class politics. I think this is a weakness in your politics and should be replaced with support for the working class.

Sorry how is seeking self determination Nationalistic?

It assumes Irish workers will be better off under Irish bosses by virtue of the new bosses being Irish. There you go, nationalism.

How is opposing Imperialism sectarian exactly?

I said your emphasis on the republican side of a bourgeoisie conflict is sectarian.

You are not on the side of the working class.
You continual baseless slurs against working class mobilisations that oppose Imperialism demonstrates what side of the fence you are on.
Such a counter productive attitude merely reinforces Imperialism.

Saying things doesn't make it true chum. Constantly throughout history I would side with the working class in regards to its interests as a class in that particular circumstance. I don't feel a need to prove my anti-Imperialist credentials to you, I have long realised you cling to childish beliefs based on as I have said, nationalism. I oppose bourgeoisie politics of all kinds, which conveniently places me consistently on the side of the working class against boureoisie imperialist facitons and bourgeois anti-imperialist factions. As such I am an internationalist anti-imperialist, you are a nationalis one.

I really my critics can start coming up with more interesting arguments against my positions other than the mindless 'Your a dirty liberal capitalist imperialist', when such things are completely disproved when you actually read my position rather than whining like a child because I criticised your nationalist sentiments.

Absolutely.

Clearly then you do not act upon what you understand because you continue to peddle a bourgeoisie, nationalist line.

Absolute and utter horseshit.
Republicanism is the struggle for self determination.
The search for autonomy free from foreign interferance is not bourgeois.

And here we see the nationalism manifested beautifully. Foreign interferance. This assumes the working class have any national interest. They don't, they only have a class interest, an interest which is the same as the interests of the working class worldwide.

You have little to no understanding of our struggle.
Firstly we in the IRSP work completely on the issue of class, hence why we are equally despised by the British State aswell as the Free State.
Secondly we do not "recognise national boundaries", we recognise Imperialism and we will strike at that in every way we can. Your failure to recognise the struggle as that of a suppressed people under Imperialism against an Empire shows no understanding of Ireland.
Thirdly we utterly oppose Sectarianism, in fact if you bothered to educate yourself in the RSM you would understand that some of the leading members of our movement were Protestants. You know why? Because we base ourselves in the working class, not in the sectarian divide.
You preach, we practice and our members have payed the price for their commitment throughout the years.

Put your violin away, I've heard it before. Naitonalists the world over peddle the old 'Our struggle' line. The working class in Ireland have historically been oppressed in Ireland and still are today, you know that, I know that, and you know I know that. I just recognise nationalism is a dead end in the emancipation of the class, as struggles of 'national liberation' worldwide have proved. The only thing it leads ot is futile sacrifice on the part of brave people.

The Deepest Red

10th June 2009, 20:05

I said your emphasis on the republican side of a bourgeoisie conflict is sectarian.

While the Republican Movement has at times been a vehicle for sectarian violence there is nothing inherently sectarian about the Republicanism of Connolly, which is the political tradition the IRSP, éirígí and others stand in. It is also this political legacy which all Marxists and serious revolutionaries should uphold in relation to the "Irish Question".

As has already been pointed out to you in this thread: the adjective is bourgeois and the noun is bourgeoisie.

I really my critics can start coming up with more interesting arguments against my positions other than the mindless 'Your a dirty liberal capitalist imperialist', when such things are completely disproved when you actually read my position rather than whining like a child because I criticised your nationalist sentiments.But those who are genuinely interested in transforming the world around them cannot afford to hide within ivory towers of ideological purity. Anarchism or Left Communism may appear to be wonderful in theory but in practice they have only ever been abject failures. If you haven't already I suggest you read 'Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder' (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm) by VI Lenin. In it he addresses the important differences between Bolshevism and other Marxist currents regarding the issue of strategy and tactics and the method of applying our revolutionary ideas to real situations in order to realise our objectives.

And here we see the nationalism manifested beautifully. Foreign interferance. This assumes the working class have any national interest. They don't, they only have a class interest, an interest which is the same as the interests of the working class worldwide.But each revolution begins within the national unit. It is pure fantasy to expect a simultaneous global revolution that develops evenly.

I just recognise nationalism is a dead end in the emancipation of the class, as struggles of 'national liberation' worldwide have provedThe treacherous policy of the "popular front" led to this, not genuine Marxism.

Andropov

10th June 2009, 20:30

Yes, it is.
Saying so doesnt make it so.
Prove it.

'Opposite side'. Yes, excactly, you wish to allign yourself with whatever faction oppose simperialism despite having nationalist and anti-working class politics. I think this is a weakness in your politics and should be replaced with support for the working class.
Absurd.
I support the fight against Imperialism because as Marx, Engels, Connolly, Lenin and Costello all recognised that smashing imperialism, even with bourgeois support, was infantly more progressive than remaining bound by imperialism.
'' 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

It assumes Irish workers will be better off under Irish bosses by virtue of the new bosses being Irish. There you go, nationalism.
Absurd conclusion yet again.
Do you understand that Imperialism does not equate to normal social circumstances under Capitalism?
That when you have foreign troops jack booting up your country who are completely divorced to the social context fo the country they occupy that class sympathy and empathy is non existant.
That a Socialist Revolution can only occur simultaneously when you throw those reactionary and divisive forces out of the occupied country.

I said your emphasis on the republican side of a bourgeoisie conflict is sectarian.
How is opposing imperialism sectarian?
Substantiate your arguements.

Saying things doesn't make it true chum. Constantly throughout history I would side with the working class in regards to its interests as a class in that particular circumstance.
You oppose the Self Determination of Ireland.
Therefore you support Imperialism.
Your naive approach to the subject is completely divorced from material context and is really quite irrelevant to the political landscape of Ireland.
Such an approach only works in the interests of Imperialism and works against the working class.

I don't feel a need to prove my anti-Imperialist credentials to you, I have long realised you cling to childish beliefs based on as I have said, nationalism.
Substantiate that Self Determination is Nationalism?

I oppose bourgeoisie politics of all kinds, which conveniently places me consistently on the side of the working class against boureoisie imperialist facitons and bourgeois anti-imperialist factions.
Conveniently being the operative word.
You have no concept of the social context of Ireland.
You use naive and absurd purist positions as a form of self vindication when in reality it is not progressive to our struggle and as stated before that works to the detriment of the Irish Working Class.

As such I am an internationalist anti-imperialist, you are a nationalis one.
Prove that I am a nationalist.
Substantiate your claims.

I really my critics can start coming up with more interesting arguments against my positions other than the mindless 'Your a dirty liberal capitalist imperialist',
Links to where I stated you were a 'dirty liberal capitalist imperialist'?
I merely pointed out the purist position you hold that is based in flawed economism holds no factual context with the situation we find ourselves in Ireland and as such a position is not progressive it serves to sustain the status quo as it is completely irrelevant.
Understand?

when such things are completely disproved when you actually read my position rather than whining like a child because I criticised your nationalist sentiments.
No need for hostility.
I have fully addressed why I pointed out your Imperialist leanings in constructive logic.
So keep it civil at least.

Clearly then you do not act upon what you understand because you continue to peddle a bourgeoisie, nationalist line.
This is getting boring.
Substantiate how self determination is bourgeois?

And here we see the nationalism manifested beautifully. Foreign interferance. This assumes the working class have any national interest. They don't, they only have a class interest, an interest which is the same as the interests of the working class worldwide.
Of course its foreign interferance.
The working class's own domestic interest is in self determination and as such are opposed to foreign troops who are completely divorced from class politics or class consciousness due to their occupation of a foreign country.
There is evidence of this throughout history, hence why the likes of Red Clydeside was crushed by English troops and not Scottish troops.
Your lack of realism in this world is startling, you are completely divorced from material reality where National Consciousness is a reality to all the working class.

Put your violin away, I've heard it before.
Your lack of respect for Republican Socialists who have given so much more than you have ever is sad to see.
You lack maturity.

Naitonalists the world over peddle the old 'Our struggle' line. The working class in Ireland have historically been oppressed in Ireland and still are today, you know that, I know that, and you know I know that.
Of course they are, hence why we oppose both the Free State and British Imperialism.
Just we recognise that the contextual situation is different for both partitioned states.
Something you refuse to recognise and to the detriment of the working class.

I just recognise nationalism is a dead end in the emancipation of the class, as struggles of 'national liberation' worldwide have proved.
Absurd.
Look at Cuba, perfect illustration of what National Liberation can achieve for the working class.

The only thing it leads ot is futile sacrifice on the part of brave people.
Wrong again.
The social gains for the people of Cuba have been enormous, also their very emancipation has lead to both political and economic autonomy.
But im ready for more purist left nonsense of how Cuba isnt really socialist etc etc because lets face it, the majority of ultra leftists arent interested in progressive change, they rather being condescending and irrelevant on internet message boards.

IrishWorker

10th June 2009, 20:40

Right.

Yes, it is.

See above.

'Opposite side'. Yes, excactly, you wish to allign yourself with whatever faction oppose simperialism despite having nationalist and anti-working class politics. I think this is a weakness in your politics and should be replaced with support for the working class.

It assumes Irish workers will be better off under Irish bosses by virtue of the new bosses being Irish. There you go, nationalism.

I said your emphasis on the republican side of a bourgeoisie conflict is sectarian.

Saying things doesn't make it true chum. Constantly throughout history I would side with the working class in regards to its interests as a class in that particular circumstance. I don't feel a need to prove my anti-Imperialist credentials to you, I have long realised you cling to childish beliefs based on as I have said, nationalism. I oppose bourgeoisie politics of all kinds, which conveniently places me consistently on the side of the working class against boureoisie imperialist facitons and bourgeois anti-imperialist factions. As such I am an internationalist anti-imperialist, you are a nationalis one.

I really my critics can start coming up with more interesting arguments against my positions other than the mindless 'Your a dirty liberal capitalist imperialist', when such things are completely disproved when you actually read my position rather than whining like a child because I criticised your nationalist sentiments.

Clearly then you do not act upon what you understand because you continue to peddle a bourgeoisie, nationalist line.

And here we see the nationalism manifested beautifully. Foreign interferance. This assumes the working class have any national interest. They don't, they only have a class interest, an interest which is the same as the interests of the working class worldwide.

Put your violin away, I've heard it before. Naitonalists the world over peddle the old 'Our struggle' line. The working class in Ireland have historically been oppressed in Ireland and still are today, you know that, I know that, and you know I know that. I just recognise nationalism is a dead end in the emancipation of the class, as struggles of 'national liberation' worldwide have proved. The only thing it leads ot is futile sacrifice on the part of brave people.

Your nit picking of Republican Socialist ideology is farcical and shows me you are living in a fantasy world.
Marxist theory will NEVER be implemented in Ireland as long as it is partitioned class structure exists north and south of the Border and the ruling Elite Irish and British control both states.
This classless and Borderless society you proclaim to represent is light years away and can only be achieved when humanity evolves in the next stage of evolution to Communism.
National liberation struggles are a step in the right direction toward eventual Communism oppressed peoples all over the world feel that it is a right to assert there own destiny and your denial of there right honestly makes you a weapon in the Capitalist Arsenal.
For the time being we have to fight the fight in the real world and take on real life challenges with real life consequences and the IRSMs fight for national liberation is a relevant real world struggle.
The main element in any National Liberation struggle is what type of society the revolutionary’s want to exist after liberation and the IRSM want to implement a complete and total Marxist state after reunification what is your problem with that dose our means not justify the end?
You need to reevaluate your own personal ideology.

Pogue

10th June 2009, 20:56

Saying so doesnt make it so.
Prove it.

I explained this in the last post.

Absurd.
I support the fight against Imperialism because as Marx, Engels, Connolly, Lenin and Costello all recognised that smashing imperialism, even with bourgeois support, was infantly more progressive than remaining bound by imperialism.
'' 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

:rolleyes: So basically you support it because four other blokes supported it too. Nice justification :lol:

Absurd conclusion yet again.
Do you understand that Imperialism does not equate to normal social circumstances under Capitalism?
That when you have foreign troops jack booting up your country who are completely divorced to the social context fo the country they occupy that class sympathy and empathy is non existant.
That a Socialist Revolution can only occur simultaneously when you throw those reactionary and divisive forces out of the occupied country.

I don't have to recognise anything. I disagree with you on this issue, deal with it. Its your little theory, that your idols put out. Its also a shit nationalist theory.

How is opposing imperialism sectarian?
Substantiate your arguements.

You siding with one side of the bourgeoisie in this bourgeoisie argument which has given rise to sectarian conflict maintains sectarianism.

You oppose the Self Determination of Ireland.
Therefore you support Imperialism.
Your naive approach to the subject is completely divorced from material context and is really quite irrelevant to the political landscape of Ireland.
Such an approach only works in the interests of Imperialism and works against the working class.

I support the self-determination of the working class in place of nationalism and imperialism. I place no value on bourgeoisie contrsuctions of a 'nation', beccause the working class have no itnerests in nationalism. I also oppose imperialism, it's capitalist aggression and anti-working class. Once more, you resort to your childish delusion that if someone opposes nationalism they neccesarily support imperialism.

Substantiate that Self Determination is Nationalism?

I already did this in my last post and I recognise your moronic repetition is your own childish attempt to rescue an argument your ideology lost in the last century.

Conveniently being the operative word.
You have no concept of the social context of Ireland.
You use naive and absurd purist positions as a form of self vindication when in reality it is not progressive to our struggle and as stated before that works to the detriment of the Irish Working Class.

I have a concept of the context of the world proletariat and the position nationalists like yourself have in relation to them.

Prove that I am a nationalist.
Substantiate your claims.

I'll repeat it for clarity - I've already done this, chum.

Links to where I stated you were a 'dirty liberal capitalist imperialist'?
I merely pointed out the purist position you hold that is based in flawed economism holds no factual context with the situation we find ourselves in Ireland and as such a position is not progressive it serves to sustain the status quo as it is completely irrelevant.
Understand?

Me saying critics in the plural being the significant thing here. You've done the whole liberal and imperialist thing yourself in threads before, thread where I demolished your ridiculous position equally as conclusively and you just continued to repeat the same rubbish ad naueseum.

Yeh mate, I understand, I still see you talking a load of shit though. Nice tpying technique though. Did you think maybe I'd read that and suddenly everything woud click for me? :lol:

No need for hostility.
I have fully addressed why I pointed out your Imperialist leanings in constructive logic.
So keep it civil at least.

No, you pointed out that you have no defense for your nationalism other than 'You're an imperialist'. Genius, no wonder the Irish Republican movement has been growing in leaps and bounds.

This is getting boring.

Substantiate how self determination is bourgeois?

Substantiate how self determination is bourgeois?

Substantiate how self determination is bourgeois?

Tell me about it :rolleyes:

Of course its foreign interferance.
The working class's own domestic interest is in self determination and as such are opposed to foreign troops who are completely divorced from class politics or class consciousness due to their occupation of a foreign country.
There is evidence of this throughout history, hence why the likes of Red Clydeside was crushed by English troops and not Scottish troops.
Your lack of realism in this world is startling, you are completely divorced from material reality where National Consciousness is a reality to all the working class.

Heard of a thing called class conciousness?

And the military is a whole seperate organisation in its own right - there are countless examples of national militaries attacking people in their own nations. Your so grounded in nationalism its tragic.

Your lack of respect for Republican Socialists who have given so much more than you have ever is sad to see.
You lack maturity.

Mind blowingly amazing argument, suddenly I feel a tear being shed for all those great nationalists. I respect the sacrifice of James Connolly in acting in defence of the working class, and sure, there were alot of admirable individuals. The politics of national liberation are still shit and bourgeoisie, though. :)

Of course they are, hence why we oppose both the Free State and British Imperialism.
Just we recognise that the contextual situation is different for both partitioned states.
Something you refuse to recognise and to the detriment of the working class.

Yeh, me not wishing for the working class to die for a piece of rock which they are meant to have some alleigance too is rally 'to the detriment of the working class'. And I suppose bombing campaigns and sectarian killings ar ein the interests of the working class, eh?

Absurd.
Look at Cuba, perfect illustration of what National Liberation can achieve for the working class.

:lol: Yeh, nice, Cuba truly is a workers paradise. From your logic we should support social democracy because it can make things a bit nicer for workers. Its still capitalism.

Wrong again.
The social gains for the people of Cuba have been enormous, also their very emancipation has lead to both political and economic autonomy.
But im ready for more purist left nonsense of how Cuba isnt really socialist etc etc because lets face it, the majority of ultra leftists arent interested in progressive change, they rather being condescending and irrelevant on internet message boards.

cool story bro

Pogue

10th June 2009, 20:58

Your nit picking of Republican Socialist ideology is farcical and shows me you are living in a fantasy world.
Marxist theory will NEVER be implemented in Ireland as long as it is partitioned class structure exists north and south of the Border and the ruling Elite Irish and British control both states.
This classless and Borderless society you proclaim to represent is light years away and can only be achieved when humanity evolves in the next stage of evolution to Communism.
National liberation struggles are a step in the right direction toward eventual Communism oppressed peoples all over the world feel that it is a right to assert there own destiny and your denial of there right honestly makes you a weapon in the Capitalist Arsenal.
For the time being we have to fight the fight in the real world and take on real life challenges with real life consequences and the IRSMs fight for national liberation is a relevant real world struggle.
The main element in any National Liberation struggle is what type of society the revolutionary’s want to exist after liberation and the IRSM want to implement a complete and total Marxist state after reunification what is your problem with that dose our means not justify the end?
You need to reevaluate your own personal ideology.

Ooo, I'm a weapon in the 'capitalist arsenal'? I feel really special now, maybe they can pick me up and use me to gun down a picket line or something? :lol:

Aside from that, nice little rant but I've heard it all before.

IrishWorker

10th June 2009, 21:02

Ooo, I'm a weapon in the 'capitalist arsenal'? I feel really special now, maybe they can pick me up and use me to gun down a picket line or something? :lol:

Aside from that, nice little rant but I've heard it all before.

Chara what gives you the right to deny the people of Ireland National Liberation and Socialism?

Pogue

10th June 2009, 21:02

Chara what gives you the right to deny the people of Ireland National Liberation and Socialism?

Who is Chara?

Hoggy_RS

10th June 2009, 21:11

Who is Chara?

its friend as gaeilge(in Irish)

Pogue

10th June 2009, 21:14

Chara what gives you the right to deny the people of Ireland National Liberation and Socialism?

What an absurd question. How can I 'deny' them that?

I can disagree with national liberation because I think its futile, bourgeoisie and counter-productive, as well as destructive.

I want all of the world to have socialism, including Ireland.

Hoggy_RS

10th June 2009, 21:18

What an absurd question. How can I 'deny' them that?

I can disagree with national liberation because I think its futile, bourgeoisie and counter-productive, as well as destructive.

I want all of the world to have socialism, including Ireland.

why would national liberation be counter-productive? Surely theres more chance of socialism when there is no imperialist army present in a country?

Pogue

10th June 2009, 21:20

why would national liberation be counter-productive? Surely theres more chance of socialism when there is no imperialist army present in a country?

I think the workers movement should fight to oust its enemies through its struggle as part of the international fight against capitalism and the state. I don't beleive in 'national liberation' which creates ideas of nationalism amongst workers and channells energy into the establishment of a new 'homegrown' bourgeoisie.

IrishWorker

10th June 2009, 21:31

I think the workers movement should fight to oust its enemies through its struggle as part of the international fight against capitalism and the state. I don't beleive in 'national liberation' which creates ideas of nationalism amongst workers and channells energy into the establishment of a new 'homegrown' bourgeoisie.

So a Marxist Ireland would be "homegrown" bourgeoisie do you ever listen to yourself?
Can I ask you again to reevaluate your ideology toward National Liberation because it is quite simply wrong?

Pogue

10th June 2009, 21:37

So a Marxist Ireland would be "homegrown" bourgeoisie do you ever listen to yourself?
Can I ask you again to reevaluate your ideology toward National Liberation because it is quite simply wrong?

No, its not wrong, and its also a position held by many socialists and many organisations.

What sort of argument is it to say I need to 'reevaluate it' because 'it is quite ismply wrong'?

Thats your opinion. What you are basically saying is 'I don't like the libertarian socialist analysis of national liberation so I am going to say it is wrong without backing up why'.

Stupid argument, its just like suggesting none of us who reject national liberation have ever thought about it, when we clearly have, whole books have been written on the subject.

PeaderO'Donnell

10th June 2009, 21:54

Stupid argument, its just like suggesting none of us who reject national liberation have ever thought about it, when we clearly have, whole books have been written on the subject.

Well when it comes to Ireland the anarkidist labour aristocrats have shown appalling ignorance of its history and seem to just mouth the lies of the capitalist media that it is a sectarian conflict....one of your comrades even suggested that to oppose imperialism was sectarian! Your comrades have stated clearly that they regard the British Army as been made up of basically decent working class lads....

The reality is that organizations such as the Black Panther Party and the IRSM take their starting point as the real situation of the working class communities where they come from and procede accordingly rather than wheeling out what amounts to cliches. That is why they face much more state repression than any group that you would support.

Beir Bua!

Pogue

10th June 2009, 21:58

Well when it comes to Ireland the anarkidist labour aristocrats have shown appalling ignorance of its history and seem to just mouth the lies of the capitalist media that it is a sectarian conflict....one of your comrades even suggested that to oppose imperialism was sectarian! Your comrades have stated clearly that they regard the British Army as been made up of basically decent working class lads....

The reality is that organizations such as the Black Panther Party and the IRSM take their starting point as the real situation of the working class communities where they come from and procede accordingly rather than wheeling out what amounts to cliches. That is why they face much more state repression than any group that you would support.

Beir Bua!

The more you post, the more I get the opinion you have issues. I honestly don't know what the fuck you are on about half the time, but even if I could gather it, I doubt it's really worth a serious response.

reddevil

10th June 2009, 22:03

Pogue

10th June 2009, 22:04

why does this thread have to turn into one big mud slinging contest? can you not just show solidarity with people who, whether you are an INLA supporter or not, were imprisoned not for "terrorism" but simply because their beliefs were rejected by the rotten british establishment?

Any discussion on such a group and if they are worth supporting will ultimately boil down to whether we agree with their ideas and actions.

IrishWorker

10th June 2009, 22:53

No, its not wrong, and its also a position held by many socialists and many organisations.

What sort of argument is it to say I need to 'reevaluate it' because 'it is quite ismply wrong'?

Thats your opinion. What you are basically saying is 'I don't like the libertarian socialist analysis of national liberation so I am going to say it is wrong without backing up why'.

Stupid argument, its just like suggesting none of us who reject national liberation have ever thought about it, when we clearly have, whole books have been written on the subject.

As reddevil put it we have got caught up in the trap of division on this thread chara.
We may disagree on many things as the left do but I’m sure you will agree with me that INLA prisoners deserve support and solidarity from the Left and I would encourage you to send your libertarian socialist politics into the jail and I can guarantee you it will be discussed and analyzed.
And we will let the Political Prisoners decide for themselves

Pogue

10th June 2009, 23:00

As reddevil put it we have got caught up in the trap of division on this thread chara.
We may disagree on many things as the left do but I’m sure you will agree with me that INLA prisoners deserve support and solidarity from the Left and I would encourage you to send your libertarian socialist politics into the jail and I can guarantee you it will be discussed and analyzed.
And we will let the Political Prisoners decide for themselves

What did they actually go down for?

IrishWorker

10th June 2009, 23:35

What did they actually go down for?

Posseion of weapons and INLA membership chara.
In Ireland a Garda Superintendent can walk into a court with absolutely no evidence and convict a person with INLA membership a draconian law that is used to oppress the IRSM.
It is illegal under EU law to convict a person in that way and the bastards pay a 150,000euro fine to the EU every time they do it.
Even the corrupt EU deems it illegal but the Irish ruling class persists in implementing it.

IrishWorker

10th June 2009, 23:37

What did they actually go down for?

Your support would go a long way.

PRC-UTE

11th June 2009, 05:06

PRC-UTE

11th June 2009, 20:11

I've been trying to move the off topic posts for a while, but I get this message:

"You do not have permission to manage deleted threads and posts in the destination forum"

which doesn't make a lot of sense because I've done this action a few times before. I'll keep trying to figure it out.

I dont' know why, but only some of the posts moved, even though I'd selected many more. Here's where the off topic discussion can be continued, anyway: http://www.revleft.com/vb/discussion-inla-and-t110739/index.html

Please stay on topic re the prisoners.

Pogue

11th June 2009, 20:16

This whole thread is in the wrong place. This isn't a workers struggle.

IrishWorker

12th June 2009, 13:13

This whole thread is in the wrong place. This isn't a workers struggle.

How so explain your silly one liner?

Devrim

12th June 2009, 13:27

How so explain your silly one liner?

I don't think that it is a silly one-liner. I don't see how this is in anyway a workers' struggle. Are these people in prison for actions that took place, for example in a strike, or are they in prison as a result of their activities in a nationalist gang?

Devrim

IrishWorker

12th June 2009, 17:05

I don't think that it is a silly one-liner. I don't see how this is in anyway a workers' struggle. Are these people in prison for actions that took place, for example in a strike, or are they in prison as a result of their activities in a nationalist gang?

Devrim

Never was there any one group of people that ever deserved a place on the workers struggle section of this forum than the gallant vols in the INLA.
These are the men who gave there freedom and lives for the cause of Marxism in Ireland who fought against Imperialist forces occupying there country.

Hoggy_RS

12th June 2009, 18:27

Pogue

12th June 2009, 18:36

Nationalist gang it is, then. This needs to be moved, as I have said, it's not a worker's struggle.

IrishWorker

12th June 2009, 19:10

Nationalist gang it is, then. This needs to be moved, as I have said, it's not a worker's struggle.

Your attitude is sickening and insulting to the memories of all who died fighting British Imperialism in Ireland.
I find your "trendy" leftie middle class analysis of the Liberation Struggle in Ireland farcical.

Nationalist gang it is, then.????????
http://irsm.org/fallen/
Wise up!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hoggy_RS

12th June 2009, 19:20

Pirate turtle the 11th

12th June 2009, 19:39

Your attitude is sickening and insulting to the memories of all who died fighting British Imperialism in Ireland.
I find your "trendy" leftie middle class analysis of the Liberation Struggle in Ireland farcical.

Nationalist gang it is, then.????????
http://irsm.org/fallen/
Wise up!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats just accusing HLVS of being a middle class trendy lefty - he is neither btw. Then you have posted a list of dead people as if its a kind of argument its abit like debating with those people who when you say the UK should not be in Iraq/Ireland/Afghanistan etc post a long list of dead troops and act as if it means something other then some body bags got filled.

Then again nationalists using emotional appeals instead of arguing is hardly new.

Pirate turtle the 11th

12th June 2009, 19:42

great post comrade:thumbup1:

If by great post you mean something that reads like something a right wing hack would say shortly after pissing himself after realizing not everyone agrees with pointless wars.

PRC-UTE

12th June 2009, 19:51

Nationalist gang it is, then. This needs to be moved, as I have said, it's not a worker's struggle.

fuck, even one of the prison screws who guarded Bobby Sands recognised that it was a class struggle, openly copying his tactics later in the workplace and citing Bobby Sands MP as his inspiration.

the hunger strikes were carried out by working class political prisoners to improve their conditions. of course that's a workers struggle. do you think that working class lads should just put up with abuse in prison?

there's also that the hunger strikes provoked a huge way of spontaneous strikes across Ireland, from Cork to the capital. There used to be a very good piece on that at the WSM site (can't find it now) where they took a position similar to the irps, lamenting the fact that the hunger strike period was such a great opportunity for more mass struggle but SF/PIRA focused more on winning over conservative allies than pushing strikes.

Hoggy_RS

12th June 2009, 19:56

If by great post you mean something that reads like something a right wing hack would say shortly after pissing himself after realizing not everyone agrees with pointless wars.

il just skip over some of your bizarre ranting there to the end. It was not a pointless war, the British army were oppressing working class Irish people and the people fought back. Sorry if your trendy anarchist bullshit doesen't agree with that but then again when has anarchism ever been in touch with the working class in Ireland?

do you think that ordinary Irish people should of sat back and accepted this oppression? Should they of waited for borders to stop exsisting? Real revolutionaries aren't afraid to fight back while the ultra leftists sit in universities talking shit.

Devrim

12th June 2009, 20:57

the hunger strikes were carried out by working class political prisoners to improve their conditions. of course that's a workers struggle. do you think that working class lads should just put up with abuse in prison?

I think the question is not one of class origin, but more of the nature of the struggle. Can you honestly argue that this is a workers' struggle?

do you think that ordinary Irish people should of sat back and accepted this oppression? Should they of waited for borders to stop exsisting? Real revolutionaries aren't afraid to fight back while the ultra leftists sit in universities talking shit.

It is a bit of a poor argument. Everyone who disagrees with you is a student who knows nothing 'talking shit'.

Personally, I left school at 15, I don't have a university degree, and I lived in Derry through the worst of the 'troubles' in the early seventies, which to be honest I doubt that very many people on here did.

I don't think that this makes me right. I do think though that ideas should be judged on their own merits, and not criticised because the people who may hold them attend university.

Devrim

Pirate turtle the 11th

12th June 2009, 21:08

il just skip over some of your bizarre ranting there to the end. It was not a pointless war, the British army were oppressing working class Irish people and the people fought back.

Well the state was oppressing the working class regardless of nationality and henceforth the need for a revolution not to aid one faction of the bourgeoisie on the other because the irish tri colour makes you jizz yourself.

Sorry if your trendy anarchist bullshit doesen't agree with that but then again when has anarchism ever been in touch with the working class in Ireland?

Historical success is not a measure of weather something is right or not. You will note how the nazi party managed to control most of europe yet we ban supporters of them.

do you think that ordinary Irish people should of sat back and accepted this oppression? Should they of waited for borders to stop exsisting? Real revolutionaries aren't afraid to fight back while the ultra leftists sit in universities talking shit.

No they should fight not for a united Ireland but for a united working class revolution which destroys the class system not replacing one bunch of bastards with another bunch.

Pogue

12th June 2009, 22:18

fuck, even one of the prison screws who guarded Bobby Sands recognised that it was a class struggle, openly copying his tactics later in the workplace and citing Bobby Sands MP as his inspiration.

the hunger strikes were carried out by working class political prisoners to improve their conditions. of course that's a workers struggle. do you think that working class lads should just put up with abuse in prison?

there's also that the hunger strikes provoked a huge way of spontaneous strikes across Ireland, from Cork to the capital. There used to be a very good piece on that at the WSM site (can't find it now) where they took a position similar to the irps, lamenting the fact that the hunger strike period was such a great opportunity for more mass struggle but SF/PIRA focused more on winning over conservative allies than pushing strikes.

No one here is talking about Bobby Sands. I think Sinn Feins mis-use of the class anger just demonstrates the futility of nationalist politics. Am I right in believing that the IRSM work with non socialist republican factions? This sort of comprimise is why I reject nationalist, and bourgeoise, politics.

PeaderO'Donnell

13th June 2009, 01:40

No one here is talking about Bobby Sands. I think Sinn Feins mis-use of the class anger just demonstrates the futility of nationalist politics.
.

If we were talking about Gerry Adams and his clique and their loyal zombies you might have a point....However we are talking about the INLA who have been on cease-fire for a long time now and are dedicated to the defense and liberation of the working class in Ireland regardless of ethnic background...It would be interesting to know how many of these prisoners are actual INLA volunteers and not just Republican Socialists interned for their political beliefs. Maybe if you actually lived in somewhere as oppressive as either the Free State or the occupied Six Counties (thats the "Republic of Ireland" and Northern Ireland in BBC speak of which you all seem so fond) you wouldnt be so glib and smug.

Maybe it might be a good idea to try for a second to try and imagine things from the eyes of these brave men and their lives up to this point.Just a thought....

Your post reminds me of crap about the good IRA of some glorious past and the "murderous thugs" of the present....

I am sure that you support in england social democratic and conversative workers when they strike for better pay within the capitalist system but when workers in Ireland or in the third world take up actual guns against colonial and/or fascist oppression you dont support them because that would be supporting nationalism...what does that say?

PeaderO'Donnell

13th June 2009, 02:00

Thats just accusing HLVS of being a middle class trendy lefty - he is neither btw.

Well he can prove he is neither by showing solidarity with these brave prisoners of class war....so far he has shown only trendy preaching from the belly of the British Imperialist beast that could well come off as offensive.

PeaderO'Donnell

13th June 2009, 02:07

the British army were oppressing working class Irish people and the people fought back

No comrade the civil rights movement was smashed by orange fascists and their state. In 1969 25 per cent of the traditionally nationalist/republican community was burnt out of their houses while people wrote IRA= I Ran Away on the walls...Than people started to really fight back...and than the British army was brought in.

There where regular programs against the nationalist/republican community before than though....the "troubles" was people fighting back against the fascist terror.

Pogue

13th June 2009, 02:09

If we were talking about Gerry Adams and his clique and their loyal zombies you might have a point....However we are talking about the INLA who have been on cease-fire for a long time now and are dedicated to the defense and liberation of the working class in Ireland regardless of ethnic background...It would be interesting to know how many of these prisoners are actual INLA volunteers and not just Republican Socialists interned for their political beliefs. Maybe if you actually lived in somewhere as oppressive as either the Free State or the occupied Six Counties (thats the "Republic of Ireland" and Northern Ireland in BBC speak which you all seem so fond) you wouldnt be so glib and smug.

I rarely ever actually refer to it as Northern Ireland. If I ever have, its probably been for clarity or just to avoid having to give the explanation everytime I use it in an argument.

Regardless, it's well known as Northern Ireland and so many people, even those opposed to the occupation, will refer to it as such rather than speaking in their own political language.

I refer to the Republic of Ireland as such likewise because thats what its called, and thus it would be pointless to call it the 'Free State' and would probably be met with bemusement. I don't think, as you would probably argue, calling something by the name the capitalists have given it is in any way accepting of what they've done, I'd say its just speaking normally. If I didn't want to accept what the capitalists and imperialists have done I wouldn't refer to any nations in the world by their real names, which is just absurd and somewhat immature.

Maybe it might be a good idea to try for a second to try and imagine things from the eyes of these brave men and their lives up to this point.Just a thought....

Here we go again. Brave men, tough lives. Alot of people are brave and have had tough lives. Should I thus refrain from ever criticising anyone who is 'brave'?

Your post reminds me of crap about the good IRA of some glorious past and the "murderous thugs" of the present....

Glad I took you down a nice trip down memory lane chum.

I am sure that you support in england social democratic and conversative workers when they strike for better pay within the capitalist system but when workers in Ireland or in the third world take up actual guns against colonial and/or fascist oppression you dont support them because that would be supporting nationalism...what does that say?

Although I don't really know what you mean by social democratic or conservative demands or what struggle you refer too, I support worker's struggles all over the world. I don't have social democratic or conservative demands, but I do recognise a strike is a manifestation of class conflict and a fertile ground for breeding revolutionary ideas amongst the class, as well as one of the best weapons working class people have against capitalism. I thus give full backing and support to any struggle of the working class, I don't think anyone on the board would disagree with that.

I think your nationalism is shown quite clearly here in how you think I shouldn't support the working class resistance to capitalism over here, but should instead support 'armed resistance', i.e. a dozen lads with rifles in Ireland, which is also a first world country just like England. You put a huge emphasis on the nationality of workers which I simply don't have, so I think this thread is more telling of reactionary ideology within your mind rather than mine.

I don't think a bunch of guys with guns in the occupied north represents the working class struggling against capitalism, and the size of your movement probably shows how much support you actually have. Come back with that argument when the INLA has thousands of members and maybe it'll have more weight. Theres been countless armed groups throughout history claiming to represent the working class. This doesn't mean they've actually done this.

And no, I don't support national liberation struggles, I support working class struggles, whether they are armed or not. There is a difference thus between the INLA, which is essentially a gang of armed republican 'socialists' claiming to fight for the working class, and say, the EZLN, which is a militia made up of the peasants who needed defence and liberation from the fedual system which bound them, fighting on a libertarian platform rather than calling for a new capitalist state but under a different flag.

The clear difference here is between struggles of 'national liberation' which has as its goal 'liberating' a nation, i.e. replacing one set of rulers with another, and an armed working class movement which has its sole aim of overthrowing oppresion, i.e. capitalism and the state. If the INLA were an armed workers militia formed to defend a workers revolution against capitalism and the state they'd have my backing, as it is they are essentially a political gang which are revered by people such as yourself. Good for you.

PeaderO'Donnell

13th June 2009, 02:12

If by great post you mean something that reads like something a right wing hack would say shortly after pissing himself after realizing not everyone agrees with pointless wars.

The struggle for the liberation of the working class in Ireland is not a pointless war....Can we have a list of the Anarchist Federation's fallen in struggle please?

Pogue

13th June 2009, 02:30

The struggle for the liberation of the working class in Ireland is not a pointless war....Can we have a list of the Anarchist Federation's fallen in struggle please?

Since when did we judge how relevant and succesful a movement is by how many of its members have been killed?

I think we can see how weak your support for the INLA is when all it comes down to is 'Loads of them have died so they are better than you.'

PeaderO'Donnell

13th June 2009, 02:38

I think we can see how weak your support for the INLA is when all it comes down to is 'Loads of them have died so they are better than you.'

Why does the Free State pick on Republican Socialists and not intern anarchists without a trial? Can you give me an honest suggestion?

Yeah, loads of fascists and squadies have died have died defending oppression...but we are talking about people who more or less made the ultimate sacrafice knowingly for the working class liberation...Now how many members of the Anarchist Federation or Liberty and Solidarity or the WSM can you say that about?

Another thing Im curious about his what percentage of the Anarchist Federation is white and what percentage is male?

Pogue

13th June 2009, 02:50

Why does the Free State pick on Republican Socialists and not intern anarchists without a trial? Can you give me an honest suggestion?

Because you have alot more guns, I'd wager. Or because any anarchists in the area (or for example the WSM in the Republic) are focusing on workplace and community organising rather than fetishsing pulling on a balaclava and going out posing with guns with the boys. Hell, it may be all of these, combined with the fact in the occupied counties there are more republicans than Anarchists.

Yeah, loads of fascists and squadies have died have died defending oppression...but we are talking about people who more or less made the ultimate sacrafice knowingly for the working class liberation...Now how many members of the Anarchist Federation or Liberty and Solidarity or the WSM can you say that about?

I've already mentioned what a stupid arugment this is. Dying for a cause doesn't make it a good cause. This is such a non-argument, its like me arguing that slavery was a wonderful thing because loads of people died for the Confederate side during the American Civil War.

And yes, for all that it matters in assessing the movement, anarchists have died for 'the cause'. There was Brad Wills who was shot dead in Mexico: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Will and another female comrade who died over there. I believe she was raped and then murdered.

Historically too there have been thousands of anarchists who have put their lives on the line, risked and gained imprisonment or death. Unless your ignorant of history you'd recognise that many anarchists died in the Spanish Civil War and afterwards, in Mexico, in the Ukraine and Russia, etc.

We have also had comrades put in prison and a number are still there worldwide. Here are some of them: http://www.antifa.org.uk/pris.htm

What about Joe Hill? Probably one of the more famous ones.

So once more, develop a better line of argument than 'My movement has seen more dead than yours.' Firstly, its not true, secondly, its insignificant. As I said, we don't measure an organisations success by how many members were killed or imprisoned. If an anarchist ran into a police station with a rival and shot 1 of them dead and went to prison, I'd say their a hell of alot less valuable than comrades who spend hours organising communities and workplaces. Since when did we have to get some guns and act like the 'armed liberators of the people' to be of any worth? Its such an absurd line and I think you have realised this, and your mindless repetition of such an argument only hilights how weak the argument for the INLA is in that all you can use to defend them is the fact that some of their members got thrown in the slammer.

pastradamus

13th June 2009, 05:28

Why does the Free State pick on Republican Socialists and not intern anarchists without a trial? Can you give me an honest suggestion?

Yeah, loads of fascists and squadies have died have died defending oppression...but we are talking about people who more or less made the ultimate sacrafice knowingly for the working class liberation...Now how many members of the Anarchist Federation or Liberty and Solidarity or the WSM can you say that about?

Another thing Im curious about his what percentage of the Anarchist Federation is white and what percentage is male?

Peadar, I dont think this is an issue here.

The WSM are not an armed militant organization and generally speaking, are not strongly supported. Any government will lock up and keep political prisoners whom they feel present an obvious threat to the govermental powers that exist or whom they feel are members of progressive movements.

I feel if you look at the Socialist Party's Leader Joe Higgins being placed in Jail for a month simply for protesting you'd firstly recognize how heavy-handed this is and also can you imagine a conservative doing that length in Ireland's toughest prison simply for a protest?

I also dont believe that the White Male thing is an issue here. Most political parties are dominated by white males.

Devrim

13th June 2009, 07:36

No they weren't involved with something as dangerous as a strike, just the armed struggle against an imperialist power.

The question is though whether this 'armed struggle against an imperialist power' is a workers' struggle.

In my opinion, and I think the opinion of other on here, it is not. I would argue that it isn't because firstly I believe that it is opposed to the interests of the working class, and secondly because whatever you believe about that, they are not struggling as workers, but rather as members of a nationalist gang/liberation movement, depending how you would put it.

Devrim

robbo203

13th June 2009, 09:39

il just skip over some of your bizarre ranting there to the end. It was not a pointless war, the British army were oppressing working class Irish people and the people fought back. Sorry if your trendy anarchist bullshit doesen't agree with that but then again when has anarchism ever been in touch with the working class in Ireland?

do you think that ordinary Irish people should of sat back and accepted this oppression? Should they of waited for borders to stop exsisting? Real revolutionaries aren't afraid to fight back while the ultra leftists sit in universities talking shit.

Its not the fighting oppression that is the issue here; its the political objectives of those fighting it. Irish nationalism like British nationalism - like any nationalism - is an utterly reactionary anti-working class ideology

Hoggy_RS

13th June 2009, 09:47

It is a bit of a poor argument. Everyone who disagrees with you is a student who knows nothing 'talking shit'.

Personally, I left school at 15, I don't have a university degree, and I lived in Derry through the worst of the 'troubles' in the early seventies, which to be honest I doubt that very many people on here did.

I don't think that this makes me right. I do think though that ideas should be judged on their own merits, and not criticised because the people who may hold them attend university.

Devrim
My post wasn't aimed at you or any other member.

The question is though whether this 'armed struggle against an imperialist power' is a workers' struggle.

In my opinion, and I think the opinion of other on here, it is not. I would argue that it isn't because firstly I believe that it is opposed to the interests of the working class, and secondly because whatever you believe about that, they are not struggling as workers, but rather as members of a nationalist gang/liberation movement, depending how you would put it.

Devrim

Indeed, perhaps this section was meant only for talk of strikes etc. However, I can't see any more suitable sections for this thread.

IrishWorker

13th June 2009, 12:06

Its not the fighting oppression that is the issue here; its the political objectives of those fighting it. Irish nationalism like British nationalism - like any nationalism - is an utterly reactionary anti-working class ideology

Yes you are correct about Nationalism but when you label the IRSMs ideology as Nationalistic it shows you haven’t the first clue about the IRSM.
The IRSM exists to remove the British Imperialist presence from Ireland to topple the ruling class and establish a Marxist state.
What is Nationalist about that?
Looking down your nose at National Liberation to create a Workers state is arrogant and a typical middle class yuppie attitude.
Quite frankly you are talking out of your arse.

Pogue

13th June 2009, 12:13

IrishWorker

13th June 2009, 12:48

Yeh mate, rejecting national liberation struggles in favours of workers international revolution is such a typical middle class yuppie attitude :rolleyes:

I can see all those peeps driving around in their mercedes in Kensington, off to join the picket line to try and foster class solidarity whilst all the hard working honest proletarians are off at training camp with their AKs practicising how to overthrow, by arms, British rule in the occupied counties :laugh:

Who’s talking about overthrowing anything by arms its a failed strategy. The INLA are on ceasefire since 98.
And yes it is an arrogant wanna be pen pushing yuppie attitude.

IrishWorker

13th June 2009, 12:50

The question is though whether this 'armed struggle against an imperialist power' is a workers' struggle.

In my opinion, and I think the opinion of other on here, it is not. I would argue that it isn't because firstly I believe that it is opposed to the interests of the working class, and secondly because whatever you believe about that, they are not struggling as workers, but rather as members of a nationalist gang/liberation movement, depending how you would put it.

Devrim

There is no armed struggle in Ireland anymore just a few republican fundamentalists getting the odd victory.
The INLA support the peace but not the sectarian Agreement.

Pogue

13th June 2009, 13:07

Who’s talking about overthrowing anything by arms its a failed strategy. The INLA are on ceasefire since 98.
And yes it is an arrogant wanna be pen pushing yuppie attitude.

Once more, I don't see how opposition to national liberation in favour of worldwide proletarian revolution is in anyway

a) Middle class, as the 'middle classes' would likely be opposed in large numbers to a workers revolution

b) Pen pushing, because it involves alot of effort and time dedicated towards organising, demonstrations, etc.

c) Yuppie, as yuppie means a young upcoming proffesional who is seeking to rise up in society.

I don't think there are many left communists or anarchists who oppose national liberation as a means to progress there careers or forward their 'middle class' 'pen pushing' agenda. Therefore I would suggest you don't know what you are talking about and are resorting to name calling because we don't agree with your support for national liberation. This only furhter reinforces the point that you can't really defend your position of support for the INLA.

IrishWorker

13th June 2009, 13:21

Once more, I don't see how opposition to national liberation in favour of worldwide proletarian revolution is in anyway

a) Middle class, as the 'middle classes' would likely be opposed in large numbers to a workers revolution

b) Pen pushing, because it involves alot of effort and time dedicated towards organising, demonstrations, etc.

c) Yuppie, as yuppie means a young upcoming proffesional who is seeking to rise up in society.

I don't think there are many left communists or anarchists who oppose national liberation as a means to progress there careers or forward their 'middle class' 'pen pushing' agenda. Therefore I would suggest you don't know what you are talking about and are resorting to name calling because we don't agree with your support for national liberation. This only furhter reinforces the point that you can't really defend your position of support for the INLA.

We can sit and argue about terminology if you want but you know exactly the type of person I was talking about.
The IRSM is the Socialist alternative to Irish nationalism why you cannot get your head around that I can’t understand.
Do you disagree with a Marxist Ireland?
No one has to defend the INLA they do a good enough job of that themselves.

robbo203

13th June 2009, 13:50

Yes you are correct about Nationalism but when you label the IRSMs ideology as Nationalistic it shows you haven’t the first clue about the IRSM.
The IRSM exists to remove the British Imperialist presence from Ireland to topple the ruling class and establish a Marxist state.
What is Nationalist about that?
Looking down your nose at National Liberation to create a Workers state is arrogant and a typical middle class yuppie attitude.
Quite frankly you are talking out of your arse.

If for once you came off down your high horse and toned down your arrogant pomposity you might just learn something. There is a legitimate argument for rejecting the whole notion of national liberation . How anyone can claim, on the one hand, to reject nationalism and yet support national liberation, on the other, is an utter absurdity. National liberation has as it focus something called "the nation" does it not? And how can promoting the interests of this thing called the nation not be bound up with nationalist ideology? Instead of slavering at the mouth like some demented automaton with a built in playback facility to repeat the requsite slogans again and again , how about coolly and clamly addressing these points, eh? Lets have less of this moronic "you are talking out of your arse" and more rational analysis. Incidentally, I have serious misgiving about the whole idea of a so called "workers state" anyway which to me is a complete contradiction in terms. But when you have suffiently cooled down perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion on the subject

Finally I had to chuckle at your reference to my supposed "typical middle class yuppie attitude". I am a horny-handed proletarian who does gardening for a living in the scorching heat of the Andalucian sun , lives in a tiny cortijo with mould creeping around the ceiling, has no form of state security to fall back on and earns an absolute pittance. I wouldnt mind betting my minuscale savings - no correction, bank overdraft! - on which of us is more likely to be the "middle class yuppie". And it aint me, mate!

ZeroNowhere

13th June 2009, 15:55

Looking down your nose at National Liberation to create a Workers state is arrogant and a typical middle class yuppie attitude.
It would appreciated if you avoided pointless and highly overused slurs.

Instead of slavering at the mouth like some demented automaton with a built in playback facility to repeat the requsite slogans again and again , how about coolly and clamly addressing these points, eh?
You too, though, to be fair, at least you're being creative. Still, insulting people is generally not a good way to get them to address points 'coolly and calmly', speaking from personal experience.

Finally I had to chuckle at your reference to my supposed "typical middle class yuppie attitude". I am a horny-handed proletarian who does gardening for a living in the scorching heat of the Andalucian sun , lives in a tiny cortijo with mould creeping around the ceiling, has no form of state security to fall back on and earns an absolute pittance. I wouldnt mind betting my minuscale savings - no correction, bank overdraft! - on which of us is more likely to be the "middle class yuppie". And it aint me, mate!
You really should have just ignored that comment. It didn't deserve a response, and prolier-than-thou discussions get very annoying very quickly.

Incidentally, I have serious misgiving about the whole idea of a so called "workers state" anyway which to me is a complete contradiction in terms.Haven't we already gone over this?

Indeed, perhaps this section was meant only for talk of strikes etc. However, I can't see any more suitable sections for this thread.Probably 'Politics', that's where I recall most discussion of Irish nat-lib struggles and stuff going.

The Deepest Red

13th June 2009, 17:05

Why does the Free State pick on Republican Socialists and not intern anarchists without a trial? Can you give me an honest suggestion?

The majority of "Republican Socialists" aren't interned by the 'Staters. Those that are arrested or jailed may well be involved in illegal activity or associating with people who are. That doesn't mean the state's motivations aren't political, but let's not pretend like people are just standing on a street corner twiddling their thumbs only to be carted off to prison for their political views.

Yeah, loads of fascists and squadies have died have died defending oppression...but we are talking about people who more or less made the ultimate sacrafice knowingly for the working class liberation...Now how many members of the Anarchist Federation or Liberty and Solidarity or the WSM can you say that about?

You sound like a religious fanatic. Do you really consider that to be a valid argument?

Another thing Im curious about his what percentage of the Anarchist Federation is white and what percentage is male?

:confused:

Devrim

13th June 2009, 19:43

There is no armed struggle in Ireland anymore just a few republican fundamentalists getting the odd victory.

Does 'victory' in this case translate as murdering pizza delivery boys?

And yes it is an arrogant wanna be pen pushing yuppie attitude.

That is a pretty devastating political argument. Personally, I don't know what the majority of people on here do for a living or what sort of background they come from, so I tend to address their ideas as ideas, not on the basis of what I imagine their class background to be.

Personally, I do casual work without any medical insurance and am struggling to get two days a week since the start of the crisis. I am that sort of yuppie.

The point is that it doesn't invalidate my ideas.

Devrim

Pirate turtle the 11th

14th June 2009, 10:30

Well he can prove he is neither by showing solidarity with these brave prisoners of class war....so far he has shown only trendy preaching from the belly of the British Imperialist beast that could well come off as offensive.

1. Yes he is English , no need to shit yourself over it.
2. Not getting overtly emotional about some national libers in jail is hardly proof he strolls into meetings with a joint in one hand wearing a che shirt and twatty indy glasses shortly before declaring that we "need to spread the love".

Pogue

14th June 2009, 12:36

Another thing Im curious about his what percentage of the Anarchist Federation is white and what percentage is male?

Why are you curious about this?

Devrim

14th June 2009, 12:54

Another thing Im curious about his what percentage of the Anarchist Federation is white and what percentage is male? Why are you curious about this?

Surely what matters is political positions of organisations not their demographic make up. I don't really see what this means at all.

For the record though I am happy to speak about our organisation.*

About a third of the membership comes from the Kurdish minority compared with about a fifth of the population. I don't think that this is particularly anomalous as Kurds tend to be overrepresented in the left anyway. I don't think that many people at all belong to the dominant group, 'white Turks'.

Also about a third of the membership is female. Again I don't think that this is a surprise given that women are unrepresented in all aspects of public life.

I also dont believe that the White Male thing is an issue here. Most political parties are dominated by white males.

Actually, I am not sure what colour people in our country are seen to be. Are they 'white' or 'brown'?

Devrim

*Turkish section, I don't have the details for the organisation as a whole.

Demogorgon

14th June 2009, 23:26

Why does the Free State pick on Republican Socialists and not intern anarchists without a trial? Can you give me an honest suggestion?

You do realise the Free State ceased to exist seventy two years ago?

I don't ask this merely to be pedantic, but to see if you are at all grounded in the present day and not just reliving some "glorious past" in your head. The situation in Ireland today is quite different from what it was at the time of partition. Obviously when partition happened it would have been better if the whole island had become independent as one unit, if only because there would have been less oppression of the Catholic minority in the North. After all in the three counties of Ulster that became part of the independent Ireland the substantial Protestant minority faced very little discrimination whereas oppression of Catholics in the six counties retained by Britain was quite appalling.

Today however there is no policy at all that can undo the past and the important question is what benefits people most now. I still support a United Ireland of course, for the simple reason that the faster Britain ceases to exist the better but pragmatism and reality have to lead policy. What would be the benefits to working class people on either side of the border of Northern Ireland transitioning to the Republic's jurisdiction? Transition from one bourgeoisie state to another can hardly be seen as progress unless one of these states can be expected to be less oppressive than the other for some reason and there is no reason to expect the Republic to behave much differently from Britain. So a transfer of sovereignty would be very much treading water.

What it would bring about however is a return to very violent conflict owing to the fact that many could not accept it. What would the working class (or anybody for that matter) gain from a return to particularly brutal violence there? Indeed in practice it would divide Ireland more as the Republic would do all it could to keep the violence contained within the six counties and as a result move them further apart from the rest of the country. Unless you can expect something good to come from this you certainly can't promote it.

Not to mention of course that both the serious conflict of the past (and your future) and the more simmering resentment now does nothing but divide the working class in Northern ireland and hamper the cause of socialism. Most Unionists are working class yet the constant need to divide NI has sent many of them into the arms of Ian Paisley and his ilk. How on Earth does he and his successors benefit working people, Unionist or otherwise? How did the Ulster Unionist Party before him benefit working people? In no way whatsoever is the answer to that. Seeking to increase the conflict only plays into such reactionaries hands.

The question has to be what is most beneficial to working people and to socialism. Is Dublin any friendlier than London? If the answer to that is "no" then why seek to divide working people for the sake of enhancing the power of Dublin? Rather you need to try and move beyond the conflicts of the past and promote Uniting working people across both communities as well as across all of Ireland.

Ireland is best united by people being free to move around it, associate with people on all parts of the island and form Unions and political parties across the whole island. Sacrificing that for the sake of fighting for constitutional unification is foolish at best. You have to wonder incidentally if fighting these days really is about unification. Hurting working people from "the other side" has nothing whatsoever to do with fighting the British Government anyway.

Invader Zim

15th June 2009, 11:44

Looking down your nose at National Liberation to create a Workers state is arrogant and a typical middle class yuppie attitude.

You have just proven to the board at large the weakness of your argument. Good job.

PeaderO'Donnell

15th June 2009, 15:20

I can see all those peeps driving around in their mercedes in Kensington, off to join the picket line to try and foster class solidarity whilst all the hard working honest proletarians are off at training camp with their AKs practicising how to overthrow, by arms, British rule in the occupied counties :laugh:

The IRSP passed a motion a motion in the year 2000 stating that there is no guerilla road to socialism in Ireland because a social revolution requires the active participation of the masses; and therefore a socialist republic can only be established through the mass revolutionary action of the working class in the political, economic, and social spheres.

Republican socialists have always criticized the way that the provisional leadership reduced the masses effectively to cheer leaders for the "boys".

Maybe try learning what people actually believe in before preaching to them from across the water...

Also drug dealers, the Free State, the loyalist death squads and of course the British army are all heavily armed which makes it a good thing that the score is even up in that regard even a little bit.

PeaderO'Donnell

15th June 2009, 15:25

You have just proven to the board at large the weakness of your argument. Good job.

Actually her argument is solid and Marxist if not expressed particurly sophisticatedly...However better someone sane and unsophisticated than sophisticated and insane.

You can learn more about reality from the first.

Invader Zim

15th June 2009, 15:46

Actually her argument is solid and Marxist if not expressed particurly sophisticatedly...However better someone sane and unsophisticated than sophisticated and insane.

You can learn more about reality from the first.

On the contrary, proclaiming that someone who disagrees with your argument must be "arrogant" and hold "a typical middle class yuppie attitude", is purely a red herring. It attempts to dismiss the arguments, not based upon the arguments actual merits but on some irrelevent and (doubtless) erronious judgement of the oppositions character and background. If you need to employ such tactics it is a sure sign that actual argument is lacking. If IrishWorker had a valid agument, presumably s/he would have employed it rather than use the ludicrous red herring.

PeaderO'Donnell

15th June 2009, 17:47

. It attempts to dismiss the arguments, not based upon the arguments actual merits but on some irrelevent and (doubtless) erronious judgement of the oppositions character and background.

This is where you are wrong. People's experiance and postition in the world informs the way they look at things. For instance if you come from a working class background (an actual working class background as opposed to that of the luxury servants of the capitalist eltite) you will most likely to opposed to legalizing or toleratating drugs such as heroin...there is much more chances that you will have a liberatarian attitude to drugs if you come from a middle class/luxury servant background.

If you actually want to understand the point she was making maybe here would be a good place to start...

http://kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/books/raceburn.html

http://kersplebedeb.com/settlers.html

Maybe you might find what that person has to say a little extreme but I hope you are capable of seeing the context that possible extremity arises out of.

The Deepest Red

15th June 2009, 18:25

This is where you are wrong. People's experiance and postition in the world informs the way they look at things. For instance if you come from a working class background (an actual working class background as opposed to that of the luxury servants of the capitalist eltite) you will most likely to opposed to legalizing or toleratating drugs such as heroin...there is much more chances that you will have a liberatarian attitude to drugs if you come from a middle class/luxury servant background.

If you actually want to understand the point she was making maybe here would be a good place to start...

http://kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/books/raceburn.html

http://kersplebedeb.com/settlers.html

Maybe you might find what that person has to say a little extreme but I hope you are capable of seeing the context that possible extremity arises out of.

You're basically admitting that such a view is akin to racism.

Invader Zim

15th June 2009, 18:29

Pogue

15th June 2009, 19:59

Wait, so Irish workers are not the 'luxury servants of the capitalist elite' but British workers are?

PeaderO'Donnell

15th June 2009, 20:10

Wait, so Irish workers are not the 'luxury servants of the capitalist elite' but British workers are?

No...I was refering to journalists, teachers, acedemics, paper shufflers, etc as opposed to miners, welders, cleaners, etc.

Pogue

15th June 2009, 20:13

No...I was refering to journalists, teachers, acedemics, paper shufflers, etc as opposed to miners, welders, cleaners, etc.

Clearly you have no idea of the actual situation in these jobs in relation to pay, then. In many countries, miners are actually considered to be quite well off compared to the rest of the class, whereas many teachers, especially ones in inner city comprehensives, are paid very little and work long hours, just like most working class people.

So, do you thus think that a welder in England is working class, whereas, say, a teacher or nurse is a 'luxury servant of the capitalist elite'?

I think this demonstrates your lack of a coherent analysis.

robbo203

15th June 2009, 20:15

I am probably far more familiar with the ideas of structuralism than you would care to suppose. However the fault here wasn't that IrishWorker attempted to analyse how his/her opponents consciousness' have been shaped by their background. Rather it was an attempt to dismiss their arguments based not on the merits of those arguments, but on aspertions regarding their character and background.

Exactly. And of which Irishworker knows nothing, I might add, since she or he was actually referring to me in stating that I evinced a "yuppie middle class attitude". It is laughable of course given my grim economic circumstances but I guess to be consistent this individual would presumably have us believe that a lumpen prole on a sink estate who expresses racist jingoistic views must be respected for his views because ...well .. he or she is a lumpen prole

PeaderO'Donnell

15th June 2009, 22:37

So, do you thus think that a welder in England is working class, whereas, say, a teacher or nurse is a 'luxury servant of the capitalist elite'?

I think this demonstrates your lack of a coherent analysis.

I accept what you are saying up to a point....I dont think that nurses would fall into that catergory. Office paper shufflers, acedemnics and journalists (who are little better than pigs nearly all of the time) definitely would though.

You are leaving out by focusing on pay however both "social standing" (most middle class parents wouldnt mind their kids become teachers however they wouldnt be to happy about them becoming welders) and relationship to production. Miners, welders, etc are directly involved in production, in the creation of real wealth in the way that an office paper shuffler or even a waiter/waitress isnt.

It is interesting at a time when probably more people than ever before in the first world consider themselves "middle class" that some "liberatarian communists" would present everybody as "working class"...Something is going on here....

PeaderO'Donnell

15th June 2009, 22:47

It is laughable of course given my grim economic circumstances but I guess to be consistent this individual would presumably have us believe that a lumpen prole on a sink estate who expresses racist jingoistic views must be respected for his views because ...well .. he or she is a lumpen prole

Or maybe some "lumpen prole" in Azania expressing "nationalist" views against the settler regieme in the 1980s?

Do you think it is possible that your attitude towards nationalism of any stripe and your dismissal of the reality of the labour aristocracy may be a reaction to certain realities in Azanian (or South African if you really must refer to it as that) history which you have lived through?

IrishWorker is right to say that their is a class basis for this complete dismissal of the reality of national oppression....I wonder do you also dismiss the reality of the gender oppression too?

robbo203

15th June 2009, 23:53

Or maybe some "lumpen prole" in Azania expressing "nationalist" views against the settler regieme in the 1980s?

Do you think it is possible that your attitude towards nationalism of any stripe and your dismissal of the reality of the labour aristocracy may be a reaction to certain realities in Azanian (or South African if you really must refer to it as that) history which you have lived through?

IrishWorker is right to say that their is a class basis for this complete dismissal of the reality of national oppression....I wonder do you also dismiss the reality of the gender oppression too?

My attitude to nationalism changed when I encountered revolutuionary socialist ideas upon emigrating to the UK from South Africa. If anything, what has happened in South Africa since with assumption to power of the capitalist ANC, has solidified my hostility to all forms of nationalism as an anti-working class ideology. This was an outfit that cyncially used nationalist rhetoric to con the workers into giving it electoral support and look at where it has got us.

I consider the labour aristocracy thesis to be theoretically and empirically unsound. There is no convincing evidence at all to show that a section of the working class in the advanced capitalist countries are in any meaningful sense "bribed" with a slice of the "superprpfits" resulting from investments in the Third World. The vast majority of FDIs (foreign direct investment) are from one developed capitalist country to another. If the labour aristocracy thesis had any basis in fact you would expect there to be a close correlation between wage inequalities and capital investment abroad. There isnt.

Finally on the question of gender oppression and national oppression, I think the lumping together of them is inadmissable. Nation's are a socio-cultural construct of capitalism, gender is not. Fighting gender oppression is compatible with revolutuionary socialism in the way that "fighting national oppression" is not. The former alleviates division within the working class where the latter can only exacerbate it. The latter elevates the notion of a mythical nation above that of the class, groups us a workers into national entities that oppose one another and above all, reinforces the delusion that the workers of a given country have common interests and a common identity with the capitalists of said country.

If the working class of a so called oppressed nation are oppressed it does not follow that the capitalists of that that same nation are similarly oppressed. On the contrary it is more often than not the local comprador bourgeoisie and their political representaives in power that are doing the oppressing. In that sense, fighting "national oppression" is only reinforcing the self same taken-for-granted framework within which oppression functions. It is part of the problem, not the solution

Invader Zim

16th June 2009, 10:32

Office paper shufflers, acedemnics and journalists (who are little better than pigs nearly all of the time) definitely would though.

So office clerks, who work long hours for minimum wage are 'little better than pigs'?

Well done, you have just outdone IrishWorker in the contest for the construction of the most ridiculous comment in this thread.

PeaderO'Donnell

16th June 2009, 16:03

So office clerks, who work long hours for minimum wage are 'little better than pigs'?

Well done, you have just outdone IrishWorker in the contest for the construction of the most ridiculous comment in this thread.

No journalists are little than pigs.

In I think 2005 when the working class of Dublin routed the orange fascists and the free state forces protecting them from O'Connell they went out of their way to target journalists (particurly those from RTE, the vicously anti-republican state broadcasting company).

I wonder why?

Invader Zim

16th June 2009, 16:12

No journalists are little than pigs.

I see, my apologies.

Redmau5

16th June 2009, 16:13

Well the state was oppressing the working class regardless of nationality and henceforth the need for a revolution not to aid one faction of the bourgeoisie on the other because the irish tri colour makes you jizz yourself.

Don't be fucking moronic. The British state wasn't "oppressing the working-class regardless of nationality". They were very clearly discriminating against the Irish catholic population in Northern Ireland.

Hoggy_RS

16th June 2009, 18:55

Well the state was oppressing the working class regardless of nationality and henceforth the need for a revolution not to aid one faction of the bourgeoisie on the other because the irish tri colour makes you jizz yourself.

Historical success is not a measure of weather something is right or not. You will note how the nazi party managed to control most of europe yet we ban supporters of them.

No they should fight not for a united Ireland but for a united working class revolution which destroys the class system not replacing one bunch of bastards with another bunch.
Your first point, proves that you know nothing of what has occurred in Ireland over the past 800 years. Working class catholics could not get housing or jobs for years in the 6 counties. Do you really believe that protestants received the same treatment? You are clueless and are clearly just anti-republican judging by your bizarre arguments. Pathetic stuff:rolleyes:

Now to your last point, well done mate, you've just outlined the goal of every republican socialist group that has ever exsisted.

Pogue

16th June 2009, 19:01

I accept what you are saying up to a point....I dont think that nurses would fall into that catergory. Office paper shufflers, acedemnics and journalists (who are little better than pigs nearly all of the time) definitely would though.

You are leaving out by focusing on pay however both "social standing" (most middle class parents wouldnt mind their kids become teachers however they wouldnt be to happy about them becoming welders) and relationship to production. Miners, welders, etc are directly involved in production, in the creation of real wealth in the way that an office paper shuffler or even a waiter/waitress isnt.

It is interesting at a time when probably more people than ever before in the first world consider themselves "middle class" that some "liberatarian communists" would present everybody as "working class"...Something is going on here....

Actually, even by your somewhat confused class 'analysis' I am working class.

I really do think you are confused, I don't think you really know who to focus your anger against.

Hoggy_RS

16th June 2009, 19:04

I don't think we need to turn this into a "i'm more working class than you" thread.

For the record i'm the most working class:lol::lol::lol:

Pirate turtle the 11th

16th June 2009, 19:06

Don't be fucking moronic. The British state wasn't "oppressing the working-class regardless of nationality". They were very clearly discriminating against the Irish catholic population in Northern Ireland.

Communists see things in terms of Class struggle as in the British does oppress both the working classes in mainland Britain or in northern Ireland as a result they are better off uniting to overthrow the oppressing class instead of Irish workers fighting for the creation of larger native ruling class.

That is Nationalism not Communism.

(This is not to say I dont agree with Irish folk from catholic communities fighting against discrimination or using violence if its a tactic that will accompany the situation well, its to say I dont support the creation of a new Capitalist state made on the corpses of workers who died in the national liberation struggle).

Pirate turtle the 11th

16th June 2009, 19:09

Now to your last point, well done mate, you've just outlined the goal of every republican socialist group that has ever exsisted.

Yes but what do you think would happen in reality if the British state was overthrown by a national liberation struggle?

(Hint : Not socialism)

Invader Zim

16th June 2009, 19:18

Don't be fucking moronic. The British state wasn't "oppressing the working-class regardless of nationality". They were very clearly discriminating against the Irish catholic population in Northern Ireland.
Let me get this right, you deny that class played an element in british upper class treatment of the lower classes within the British empire?

Are you sure?

Hoggy_RS

16th June 2009, 19:30

Communists see things in terms of Class struggle as in the British does oppress both the working classes in mainland Britain or in northern Ireland as a result they are better off uniting to overthrow the oppressing class instead of Irish workers fighting for the creation of larger native ruling class.

That is Nationalism not Communism.

(This is not to say I dont agree with Irish folk from catholic communities fighting against discrimination or using violence if its a tactic that will accompany the situation well, its to say I dont support the creation of a new Capitalist state made on the corpses of workers who died in the national liberation struggle).

We all understand communism. You specifically mentioned that the British oppressed the whole working class, protestants did not receive anywhere near the same kind of discrimination. Thats not saying that prods shouldn't be encouraged to join the struggle against british imperialism in Ireland. Surely accepting that catholic working class sufferred more than others isn't nationalism? I think it's common sense.

Redmau5

16th June 2009, 22:27

Let me get this right, you deny that class played an element in british upper class treatment of the lower classes within the British empire?

Are you sure?

Not at all. Comrade Joe made a statement earlier in the thread relating to British state policy in Northern Ireland. He said that the state was oppressing the working-class regardless of nationality, which in the case of Northern Ireland before and during the Troubles is patently untrue.

I am not simply talking about economic exploitation of the working-class, which of course applied to protestant workers in Northern Ireland as well. However, catholic workers were far more likely to be the victims of state repression and discrimination.

I dont support the creation of a new Capitalist state made on the corpses of workers who died in the national liberation struggle

Nor do I.

Pirate turtle the 11th

16th June 2009, 23:03

[QUOTE=Hoggy_RS;1467383aSurely accepting that catholic working class sufferred more than others isn't nationalism? I think it's common sense.[/QUOTE]

But you don't just accept it you use it as an excuse to Separate Workers from Catholic areas from other workers.

robbo203

17th June 2009, 00:03

? You are clueless and are clearly just anti-republican judging by your bizarre arguments. Pathetic stuff:rolleyes:

Now to your last point, well done mate, you've just outlined the goal of every republican socialist group that has ever exsisted.

Comrade Joe said: "No they should fight not for a united Ireland but for a united working class revolution which destroys the class system not replacing one bunch of bastards with another bunch"

Does that mean you are saying every republican socialist group that has ever exited repudiates the goal of a united ireland in favour of united working class revolution to get rid of the class system.

Thats news to me. I had always been under the impresssion that so called "socialist republican groups were just a bunch of nationalists advocating "national liberation" dressed up in socialist sounding rhetoric

Care to elaborate?

Hoggy_RS

17th June 2009, 10:42

But you don't just accept it you use it as an excuse to Separate Workers from Catholic areas from other workers.

When have I ever said anything like that? I don't think i've ever made a statement on here which insinuated that the struggle was only for catholics. In fact many times I have said that the working class on both sides of the sectarian divide should be united.

I think you are being quite petty by trying to make me look nationalist when I have not made any statements that would support that assumption.

The truth is, us republican socialists aren't that different from the rest of ye on the left. In fact we share the same hope to unite the protestant and catholic working classes so they can rise up against British imperialism, as well as against the current capitalist system in the rep of Ireland. We should be working together, not arguing about this. But that can never happen until leftists accept that republican socialism isn't nationalism.

Comrade Joe said: "No they should fight not for a united Ireland but for a united working class revolution which destroys the class system not replacing one bunch of bastards with another bunch"

Does that mean you are saying every republican socialist group that has ever exited repudiates the goal of a united ireland in favour of united working class revolution to get rid of the class system.

Thats news to me. I had always been under the impresssion that so called "socialist republican groups were just a bunch of nationalists advocating "national liberation" dressed up in socialist sounding rhetoric

Care to elaborate?

Any truly republican socialist group has fought towards that goal. Current groups such as the IRSP and Eirigi work by that philosophy. It seems like your impressions were quite wrong. Though you wouldn't be the 1st leftist to be massivley misinformed on our goals.

Philanthropist

17th June 2009, 17:00

But you don't just accept it you use it as an excuse to Separate Workers from Catholic areas from other workers.
How is this been done? My understanding is that ongoing work done by republican socialists is striving to unite the workers against the common enemy of British imperialism and native capitalist structures. There has been great efforts made by republican socialists to engage and communicate with the unionist working class with the aim of uniting both communities and recognising the common enemy of the system of capitalism perpetrated by British imperialism.

Jorge Miguel

22nd June 2009, 17:34

There has been great efforts made by republican socialists to engage and communicate with the unionist working class with the aim of uniting both communities and recognising the common enemy of the system of capitalism perpetrated by British imperialism.Where and how? There are meetings between ex-prisoners which are a requirment under Peace (I, II and III) funding. So despite the IRSP's objection to the Good Friday Agreement, they are part of its structure and the money which exists as a result of the GFA funds all three IRSP offices. As a result, we now have the nonsense coming out of the IRSP about the "PUL community" which nothing more than a Unionist / Loyalist myth. They are all Irish people and identified themselves as such up until partition.

Philanthropist

23rd June 2009, 20:45

Where and how? There are meetings between ex-prisoners which are a requirment under Peace (I, II and III) funding. So despite the IRSP's objection to the Good Friday Agreement, they are part of its structure and the money which exists as a result of the GFA funds all three IRSP offices. As a result, we now have the nonsense coming out of the IRSP about the "PUL community" which nothing more than a Unionist / Loyalist myth. They are all Irish people and identified themselves as such up until partition.
Are you saying that the IRSP meeting with representatives of the loyalist community and ex prisoners is merely to maintain funds? The RSM realise the work that needs to be done with the working class loyalists to firstly try and ease them away from the siege mentality which exists. Secondly to recognise the common enemy of foreign imperialism. The aim of the RSM is to unite the working class without hiding the goal of a united socialist republic and showing the working class the benefits of such.

Therefore meetings with the loyalist community have more substance to them than you give them credit for.

Madvillainy

24th June 2009, 00:39

Are you saying that the IRSP meeting with representatives of the loyalist community and ex prisoners is merely to maintain funds? The RSM realise the work that needs to be done with the working class loyalists to firstly try and ease them away from the siege mentality which exists. Secondly to recognise the common enemy of foreign imperialism. The aim of the RSM is to unite the working class without hiding the goal of a united socialist republic and showing the working class the benefits of such.

Therefore meetings with the loyalist community have more substance to them than you give them credit for.

Nevermind Jorge, he actually doesn't believe a protestant working class exists.

Jorge Miguel

24th June 2009, 04:51

Are you saying that the IRSP meeting with representatives of the loyalist community and ex prisoners is merely to maintain funds?No, but they exist as part of funding which is a consequence of the Good Friday Agreement - depsite the IRSP's opposition they are wedded to the process.

The RSM realise the work that needs to be done with the working class loyalists to firstly try and ease them away from the siege mentality which exists.By what process and how?

Secondly to recognise the common enemy of foreign imperialism.The IRSP is going to unite what is essentially the UDA and UVF in opposition to British imperialism? :confused: I can understand working with ordinary Protestants but these are current and former members of paramilitary organisations by what stretch they will favour a united Ireland is beyond me.

Jorge Miguel

24th June 2009, 04:52

Nevermind Jorge, he actually doesn't believe a protestant working class exists.It exists. Just historically it served the purpose of a labour aristocracy.

Although, If I was you I'd be more worried about Ireland's Anarchists, Left Communists, Hippies, or whatever they call themselves nowadays who believe that British imperialism doesn't exist.

Pogue

24th June 2009, 17:07

Devrim

24th June 2009, 18:30

Although, If I was you I'd be more worried about Ireland's Anarchists, Left Communists, Hippies, or whatever they call themselves nowadays who believe that British imperialism doesn't exist.
I don't think that there are actually any left communists in Ireland, nor do left communists deny that imperialism exists, British or otherwise.

What we do deny is that nationalist gangs can fight against imperialism.

Devrim

Hoggy_RS

24th June 2009, 18:47

I don't think that there are actually any left communists in Ireland, nor do left communists deny that imperialism exists, British or otherwise.

What we do deny is that nationalist gangs can fight against imperialism.

Devrim

Maybe one of the reasons there is no left communists in Ireland is because the Irish people aren't foolish enough to believe the left commies line that republican socialists are nationalists.

Devrim

24th June 2009, 19:31

Maybe one of the reasons there is no left communists in Ireland is because the Irish people aren't foolish enough to believe the left commies line that republican socialists are nationalists.

Maybe the reason that Republican Socialism only has members in Ireland and the Irish dispora is because it's a completly reactionary nationalist ideology.

Actually, we have Irish members. It is just that non of them live in Ireland.

Devrim

Jorge Miguel

25th June 2009, 00:28

I don't think that there are actually any left communists in IrelandHow and why is that the case?

What we do deny is that nationalist gangs can fight against imperialism. Unlike the Left Communist crowd you're a member of... who have done sweet fuck all againist imperialism except lie about their status of legality as if it gives them some sort of credibility.

PRC-UTE

25th June 2009, 09:31

Maybe the reason that Republican Socialism only has members in Ireland and the Irish dispora is because it's a completly reactionary nationalist ideology.

Actually, we have Irish members. It is just that non of them live in Ireland.

Devrim

There's definitely Scottish Republican Socialists.

Devrim

25th June 2009, 10:26

How and why is that the case?

Unlike the Left Communist crowd you're a member of... who have done sweet fuck all againist imperialism except lie about their status of legality as if it gives them some sort of credibility.

I don't really understand the first question. Our organization for example has sections in 15 countries. That means there are over 150 countries in the world where we don't have members.

Nor do I understand the accusations of lying. The ICC is not a legal organisation in Turkey. I don't think that gives us any credibility in any way. Many organizations are not and it nothing specific to us.
If you want to suggest that it is a lie though and produce evidence of registration.
Devrim

Jorge Miguel

25th June 2009, 12:16

Nor do I understand the accusations of lying. The ICC is not a legal organisation in Turkey. I don't think that gives us any credibility in any way. Many organizations are not and it nothing specific to us.
If you want to suggest that it is a lie though and produce evidence of registration.
Devrim
You are saying here it is not legal which means the ICC is illegal. Leo has previously described it as "semi-legal". The fact is its no threat to the state and that despite the legislation existing, including those prohibiting communist parties, it isn't being used. The TKP almost got 100,000 votes in the last election - they could very easily argue that they are "semi-legal" or "illegal" based on technicalities. Likewise with EMEP.

But then again, there are more than two members of the TKP and EMEP.

Leo

25th June 2009, 12:34

Leo has previously described it as "semi-legal". Well, as in there are publications close to its positions which can be sold in bookshops. Of course even the most armed organizations like DHKPC, PKK, MLKP have similar publications, thus also are "semi-legal".

The fact is its no threat to the state :rolleyes: Yeah right, I am sure you are the expert on these things...

The TKP almost got 100,000 votes in the last election - they could very easily argue that they are "semi-legal" or "illegal" based on technicalities.No, they are a legal, registered party, a very nationalist organization, an ardent supporter and defender of the Turkish state and a rabid chauvinist organization against Kurds as well as other ethnic minorities. The TKP is a viciously anti-working class gang of mostly comfortable students coming from the Kemalist elite. The vote they got is barely 0.1%.

Likewise with EMEP.EMEP actually started as the legal wing of an illegal party, but it mostly consumed that party due to wanting to become more active in parliamentarian and trade-union politics. While it did not work in parliamentarian politics and EMEP practically failed on it on every respect, recently starting to merely tail the social democratic Kurdish nationalist parties, they more or less are a minor force in trade-union politics, they are active mostly in Türk-İş, the main, right-wing trade-union confederation in Turkey. I know lots of ex-members of this party, most of them got sick of the party due to the fact that the party have beaten up dissident workers in the branches they controlled. EMEP has been walking the thin line of Turkish nationalism and supporting Kurdish nationalism.

Bitter Ashes

25th June 2009, 12:36

Technically, any move to remove MP's from power, whether for a despot or direct democracy is iillegal, regardless of whether this is achieved by political, violent, or industrial means. It's reffered to subversion and was made illegal in the Security Services Act and MI5 are supposed to be the ones who keep an eye on it.

The reason I mention this is because technically we're all "guilty".

Devrim

25th June 2009, 12:39

You are saying here it is not legal which means the ICC is illegal. Leo has previously described it as "semi-legal". The fact is its no threat to the state and that despite the legislation existing, including those prohibiting communist parties, it isn't being used. The TKP almost got 100,000 votes in the last election - they could very easily argue that they are "semi-legal" or "illegal" based on technicalities. Likewise with EMEP.

But then again, there are more than two members of the TKP and EMEP.

There are more than two members of the ICC in Turkey too. In fact I think that three members of the Turkish ICC have posted here in the last week. One might also stop to think that the only people from our organisation who can post here are those who can speak and are confident about English.

Parties like the TKP, which in my opinion is an openly nationalist party that runs a front organisation called the 'Patriotic Front' and in practical terms verges on open chauvanism on the Kurdish question are legally registered parties, which I think is quite clear from the fact that they run in elections.

Our organisation isn't. Nor is its paper. That doesn't mean that there is no legal left communist voice in Turkey. 'International Outlook', a theoretical left communist journal is an independent publication that argues for position close to those of the ICC.

What it does mean though is that our paper can not be sold legally, and militants could be charged with membeship of an illegal organisation.

Are we tiny? Yes, but that doesn't mean that we aren't growing, and it doesn't mean that the Turkish state doesn't attack tiny organizations.

Devrim

Jorge Miguel

25th June 2009, 12:45

Well, as in it has a publication which can be sold in bookshops. Of course even the most armed organizations like DHKPC, PKK, MLKP have similar publications, thus also are "semi-legal".So which is it, illegal or semi-legal? You say semi-legal and devrim illegal. Make up your minds.

No, they are a legal, registered party, a very nationalist organization, an ardent supporter and defender of the Turkish state and a rabid chauvinist organization against Kurds as well as other ethnic minorities. The TKP is a viciously anti-working class gang of mostly comfortable students coming from the Kemalist elite. The vote they got is barely 0.1%.But Communist organisations remain prohibited in legislation. It's quite simply a technicalty.

Everyone that disagrees with the ICC is a "gang" - doesn't matter who they are - they're a "gang". Shows your level of maturity.

I have lived in Turkey previously and was a member of EMEP and whilst I disagree with the TKP, they are not "mostly students". That's another lie. If this was the case then why don't they join the CHP? There are numerous organisations in Turkey from political, economic, historical, cultural, etc, which could cater for this "Kemalist elite" but then again, this "student Kemalist elite" you've just defined is just a dogmatic assertion. Where is it? How is it defined?

EMEP has been walking the thin line of Turkish nationalism and supporting Kurdish nationalism.No contradiction there eh? EMEP is very clear on what its position on the Kurdish question is. Whilst there is a certain tailing of the DTP, so what? What's the alternative?

due to the fact that the party have beaten up dissident workers in the branches they controlled.Good. Didn't you make this claim againist that other "gang", MLKP?

Leo

25th June 2009, 12:54

So which is it, illegal or semi-legal? You say semi-legal and devrim illegal. Make up your minds.I think you would have gotten the point if you weren't semi-literate.

But Communist organisations remain prohibited in legislation. It's quite simply a technicalty.No it's not.

Everyone that disagrees with the ICC is a "gang" - doesn't matter who they are - they're a "gang". Shows your level of maturity.You are in no place to teach anyone maturity. You are basically doing nothing but talking about an issue you know very little about while you are pretending to know everything in regards to it. It is actually quite comical, and a bit pathetic.

I have lived in Turkey previously and was a member of EMEP and whilst I disagree with the TKP, they are not "mostly students". That's another lie.It's a "lie" which even some of their leaders know to be true and admit.

If this was the case then why don't they join the CHP? Lots of them do after a few years actually.

There are numerous organisations in Turkey from political, economic, historical, cultural, etc, which could cater for this "Kemalist elite" but then again, this "student Kemalist elite" you've just defined is just a dogmatic assertion. Where is it? How is it defined?Well, it obviously means children of the Kemalist elite.

No contradiction there eh? Oh there even is a paradox there, but so is there in tailing both DTP and the Türk-İş leadership at the same time.

Didn't you make this claim againist that other "gang", MLKP? MLKP doesn't really work with trade-unions so no. Doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't other problems regarding them.

Devrim

25th June 2009, 15:40

So which is it, illegal or semi-legal? You say semi-legal and devrim illegal.
I didn't actually use the term illegal. I said not legal. I don't think that it is surprising at all that there is a slight difference in terms when things are translated into another language.

Everyone that disagrees with the ICC is a "gang" - doesn't matter who they are - they're a "gang". Shows your level of maturity.

Not everybody who disagrees with us is a 'gang'. As members of this board will know I have often disagreed with the SWP, but I have never referred to them as a gang. The reason I typify republican socialists as nationalist gangs is because of their behaviour.

Devrim

Jorge Miguel

25th June 2009, 17:20

I didn't actually use the term illegal. I said not legal. I don't think that it is surprising at all that there is a slight difference in terms when things are translated into another language.When something is not legal it is illegal.

Not everybody who disagrees with us is a 'gang'. As members of this board will know I have often disagreed with the SWP, but I have never referred to them as a gang. The reason I typify republican socialists as nationalist gangs is because of their behaviour.EMEP, TKP, MLKP, IRSP, etc = "gangs." according to the boul Devrim here. Why? Because they've actually been in a position to make gains, which ultimatly result in the use of violence.

I cant be bothered to debate with you in all fairness, devrim.

Hoggy_RS

25th June 2009, 17:30

What we do deny is that nationalist gangs can fight against imperialism.

Devrim
In what way do left communists and other members of the far left fight imperialism? Or are ye too busy judging republican socialists and other leftists to actually get off ye're arses and do something?

Jorge Miguel

25th June 2009, 17:31

Pogue

25th June 2009, 18:06

In what way do left communists and other members of the far left fight imperialism? Or are ye too busy judging republican socialists and other leftists to actually get off ye're arses and do something?

I'm not a left communist, but I'm also not actually in a country currently being oppressed by imperialism. However, I suppose you could say my involvement in campaigns to stop the wars and violence + occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan + Palestine is anti-imperialist activity, as much as I could realistically do being where I am.

Beyond that, I support an end to capitalism and the state worldwide, which naturally pre-supposes opposition to imperialism as a specific kind of state and capitalist aggression. So loosely, my involvement in the sturggles of militant workers and ordinary working class people is my involvement in anti-imperialism, as part of the wider struggle against oppresion in general. So as such, I am a non-republican socialist involved in anti-imperialist struggles, yes. I'm also critical of republicanism and nationalism, because I'm an internationalist and don't think nationalists like the IRSM can seriously defeat imperialism, and even if they did, the result would still be capitalism. Rather I see the struggle against imperialism as part of the struggle against capitalism and so organise to this effect. Unlike nationalists I don't believe the colour of the bourgeoisie flag matters.

Devrim

25th June 2009, 19:05

EMEP, TKP, MLKP, IRSP, etc = "gangs." according to the boul Devrim here. Why? Because they've actually been in a position to make gains, which ultimatly result in the use of violence.
I don't think that I have ever called the TKP, or EMEP, or MLKP a gang either, but please don't let facts get in the way of your tirade.

I cant be bothered to debate with you in all fairness, devrim.
No, I am not that interested in debating with you, just in correcting the distortions you make for the benefit of others.

Devrim

Devrim

25th June 2009, 19:12

In what way do left communists and other members of the far left fight imperialism? Or are ye too busy judging republican socialists and other leftists to actually get off ye're arses and do something?
Strangely enough, we believe that only the working class can combat imperialism. Small left wing groups can not do it on their own. To believe so is volountarism of the first order.

On the point of criticising nationalist groups, to the point that it helps to develop an understanding of the anti-working class nature of these organizations, it plays a role however small in developing political understanding.
Devrim

Leo

26th June 2009, 00:32

EMEP, TKP, MLKP, IRSP, etc = "gangs." according to the boul Devrim here.

Actually I was the one who called the TKP a gang. I meant it in a kids gang sort of way, rather than an armed and murderous gang sort of way.

IrishWorker

26th June 2009, 02:25

Strangely enough, we believe that only the working class can combat imperialism. Small left wing groups can not do it on their own. To believe so is volountarism of the first order.

On the point of criticising nationalist groups, to the point that it helps to develop an understanding of the anti-working class nature of these organizations, it plays a role however small in developing political understanding.
Devrim

So if the IRSM are seen by the Irish working class as potential vanguard revolutionaries then we all must refrain from political activism as it might be seen by some twats on the internet at nationalistic counter revoulunoinary reactionary politics?
Really catch yourselves on you twats have no clue about real time struggles you can bang away on your key boards talking crap but it is us here in Ireland that can be interned at the states pleasure on the word of a cop for 5 years.
Yous don’t know the meaning of the word oppression my two good friends might be going to jail next week for 5 to 8 years for what? Trying to organize a support group for ex Marxist combatants in Ireland?
That is oppression. The IRSM face it daily.
So excuse me if I don’t agree with your willy nilly exasperations of Ireland but I support the men and women who strive day in and day out risk there lives and liberty for a Marxist 32 County United Ireland.

Bilan

26th June 2009, 04:55

So if the IRSM are seen by the Irish working class as potential vanguard revolutionaries then we all must refrain from political activism as it might be seen by some twats on the internet at nationalistic counter revoulunoinary reactionary politics?
Really catch yourselves on you twats have no clue about real time struggles you can bang away on your key boards talking crap but it is us here in Ireland that can be interned at the states pleasure on the word of a cop for 5 years.
Yous don’t know the meaning of the word oppression my two good friends might be going to jail next week for 5 to 8 years for what? Trying to organize a support group for ex Marxist combatants in Ireland?
That is oppression. The IRSM face it daily.
So excuse me if I don’t agree with your willy nilly exasperations of Ireland but I support the men and women who strive day in and day out risk there lives and liberty for a Marxist 32 County United Ireland.

The two people you're talking to are from Turkey. Do you have any idea of how baseless your criticisms here are? Not to mention fucking ridiculous?

Secondly, it's not a question of 'some twats' on the internet, but the outcome of your political line and action - whether its liberation or a bloodbath.

Devrim

26th June 2009, 07:07

Really catch yourselves on you twats have no clue about real time struggles you can bang away on your key boards talking crap but it is us here in Ireland that can be interned at the states pleasure on the word of a cop for 5 years.
Yous don’t know the meaning of the word oppression my two good friends might be going to jail next week for 5 to 8 years for what? Trying to organize a support group for ex Marxist combatants in Ireland?
That is oppression. The IRSM face it daily.
So excuse me if I don’t agree with your willy nilly exasperations of Ireland but I support the men and women who strive day in and day out risk there lives and liberty for a Marxist 32 County United Ireland.
It is the abdication of political argument really, throwing insults at people and saying that you don't do anything in real life. The argument does not rest on what we do, but on it's own merits. It is independent of us and our activity.

That said, I think that the nationalist idea is well exemplified by the 'nobody has it as bad as us' attitude which is quite common amongst left nationalists. I think in this case it is probabely due to the very insular parochial attitudes that are fostered within Irish nationalism. Of course, Turkey is a much more oppresive state than the British state in Northern Ireland. The vast majority of members of our organisation have family members who have been imprisoned and or tortured for political reasons.

If you want to look at the two members who post on this board, Leo's mother was tortured after the 1980 coup, and I still have the scare from being tortured in the 90s.

Also before the point comes up about 'not knowing anything about Ireland, I would just like to mention that I lived in Northern Ireland through out the 1970s, and do have a little idea.

None of this makes our argument right. The argument stands on it's own.

Devrim

Jorge Miguel

26th June 2009, 18:05

Devrim

26th June 2009, 21:02

Right, and what do you want? A trophy? The IRSM has been through the same - and worse.

No , I want peole to stick to the arguments instead of moralising.
Devrim

robbo203

27th June 2009, 00:36

It exists. Just historically it served the purpose of a labour aristocracy.

Although, If I was you I'd be more worried about Ireland's Anarchists, Left Communists, Hippies, or whatever they call themselves nowadays who believe that British imperialism doesn't exist.

Every capitalist state is manifestly or latently imperialist. Like all nationalists you are just picky about which one the workers should waste their energies in supporting. Like all bourgeois idealists you want capitalism without the nasty bits. Global capitalism comes as a package, however. Imperialism is part of it. A symptom of the problem but not the basic problem itself

Incidentally I note you quote Mugabe and Kim Sung, apparently approvingly:

"The struggle against imperialism must be fought and fought in the interests of the masses of Zimbabwe". - Robert Mugabe.

"Both the Korean people and the Irish people have a bitter past when they were oppressed and maltreated under the colonial rule of the imperialists, and they are still suffering from national division because of the policy of occupation pursued by outside forces". - Kim Il Sung, 1984.

If the logic of the so called anti imperialist struggle leads us to the likes of these disgusting anti working class dictatorships then that is hardly much of a recommendation is it now?

Soldier of life

27th June 2009, 15:51

Was flicking through this thread and one issue caught my attention. the fact that some equate a national liberation struggle to being by definition, sectarian or nationalistic. What an absolute load of bollox.

With regard to what this thread is about, the INLA, I believe all genuine socialists should offer their full support to their struggle for national liberation and socialism in Ireland. While the trendy left arrange pointless talking shop meetings that 3 people turn up to, the INLA fought one of the largest imperialist oppressors in the world with the ultimate goal in mind being the establishment of socialism in Ireland.

robbo203

27th June 2009, 18:12

Was flicking through this thread and one issue caught my attention. the fact that some equate a national liberation struggle to being by definition, sectarian or nationalistic. What an absolute load of bollox.
.

Apart from just say its a "load of bollox" what is your evidence to back up your claim? It seems to me pretty obvious that national liberation struggle is nationalistic. What is it that national liberation struuglers want to liberate? Why , its something called a "nation" something which they therefore invest with value. Thats nationalism! And of course along with nationalism goes all the other crap. Like the assumption that the workers and capitalists who comprise the so called nation - an invention of capitalism - have a common identity and a common interest in the form of the nation that transcends class

With regard to what this thread is about, the INLA, I believe all genuine socialists should offer their full support to their struggle for national liberation and socialism in Ireland. While the trendy left arrange pointless talking shop meetings that 3 people turn up to, the INLA fought one of the largest imperialist oppressors in the world with the ultimate goal in mind being the establishment of socialism in Ireland.

The INLA know sweet FA about socialism. They are a bunch of pro-state capitalist supporters who like so many on the left abuse the good name of socialism by associating it with state capitalism

Jorge Miguel

27th June 2009, 20:24

Yes indeed. Long live Mugabe!

xtrailbloodx

27th June 2009, 22:42

wait. is republican socialism something specific? because i would hold that they arent exclusive

Pogue

27th June 2009, 22:52

Yes indeed. Long live Mugabe!

lol, how cute, a little kid who supports dicators ot seem controversial :D

Perhaps I can have some degree of respect for people who risk their life in the belief that national liberation will lead to socialism, but for wannabe controversial litlte jokers like you, nah, your the sort of little kid i meet everyday and always leave with a low opinion of. Heres a tip chum, go get your uni degree and fuck off out of revolutionary politics, like a good boy, eh? and mate, nationalism doesn't make you cool :lol:

Jorge Miguel

28th June 2009, 00:19

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9nTItnS3VNk/SZogTLNjwxI/AAAAAAAAtAA/Z1hclmXg6sM/s320/zim+mugabe+w+wife+grace+laugh.jpg

PRC-UTE

28th June 2009, 03:52

It is the abdication of political argument really, throwing insults at people and saying that you don't do anything in real life. The argument does not rest on what we do, but on it's own merits. It is independent of us and our activity.

That said, I think that the nationalist idea is well exemplified by the 'nobody has it as bad as us' attitude which is quite common amongst left nationalists. I think in this case it is probabely due to the very insular parochial attitudes that are fostered within Irish nationalism. Of course, Turkey is a much more oppresive state than the British state in Northern Ireland. The vast majority of members of our organisation have family members who have been imprisoned and or tortured for political reasons.

If you want to look at the two members who post on this board, Leo's mother was tortured after the 1980 coup, and I still have the scare from being tortured in the 90s.

Also before the point comes up about 'not knowing anything about Ireland, I would just like to mention that I lived in Northern Ireland through out the 1970s, and do have a little idea.

None of this makes our argument right. The argument stands on it's own.

Devrim

Re the parochial attitude, I'm a bit surprised to hear you say that. That's what the west brit types always after saying. most republican sociailsts I know care pretty strongly about Palestine, the Basque situation, and many have a strong awareness of the struggles of British workers as well. I doubt any would say they're worse off than the Palestinians. That's true of many republicans in Ireland; as much as I dislike him, at least Gerry Adams went over there to show support after the slaughter in Gaza.

having said that that, it's strange to hear people on this site lecturing republicans. The displacement of Catholics that started the Troubles was the largest forced migration of people in Western Europe since WWII at the time it happened. It was only the guns of the IRA's and INLA that prevented a repeat.

robbo203

28th June 2009, 06:41

Yes indeed. Long live Mugabe!

Presumably, you extend your sick adulatory sentiments for this contemptible capitalist politician to his close buddy, the property tycoon, Nicholas van Hoogstraten, whose has extensive property interests in Zimbabwe and the UK. Van Hoogstraten, the man who called Mugabe "100 per cent decent and incorruptible" is also known for his rough treatment of and forthright views on his numerous tenants calling them "filth" and "scum" People living in council houses are 'worthless and lazy'according to Van Hoogstraten and ramblers are 'nosy perverts'.

They say you can judge a man by his friends and in this case such a judgement would be very apt

Soldier of life

28th June 2009, 11:44

Apart from just say its a "load of bollox" what is your evidence to back up your claim? It seems to me pretty obvious that national liberation struggle is nationalistic. What is it that national liberation struuglers want to liberate? Why , its something called a "nation" something which they therefore invest with value. Thats nationalism! And of course along with nationalism goes all the other crap. Like the assumption that the workers and capitalists who comprise the so called nation - an invention of capitalism - have a common identity and a common interest in the form of the nation that transcends class

A national liberation struggle is not necessarily, by definition, as you seem to suggest, 'nationalistic' in your sense of the term. You say that this nationalistic responce to an invasion bring with it 'all the other crap'. Absolutely not, this is a generalisation that just doesn't cut it. I respect a nations right to self-determination and see a nation which is free from imperialist occupation as a lot more likely to achieve socialism than one with it. Part of my support for Irelands self'determination is the fact that if they achieved a socialist revolution in Ireland, simultaneously uniting the country, well then it would have a huge effect on an international scale and hugely damage one of the biggest imperialist powers in the world,how very nationalistic of me. You may think the IRSP/INLA are nationalists and drag with them whatever you think they drag, but perhaps it is just the case they respect a nations right to self-determination, are anti-imperialist and seek to fight 'all the other crap' imperialisms bring with it aswell as a denying a nation its sovereignty.

The INLA know sweet FA about socialism. They are a bunch of pro-state capitalist supporters who like so many on the left abuse the good name of socialism by associating it with state capitalismWow, thanks for that, I'm glad I have encountered an expert on the INLA.The INLA are a socialist revolutionary army who have fought british imperialism and capitalism for decades. It's very easy to criticise when all you do is read books and type on an internet forum, maybe even attend the odd march. But it's a whole different ball game to go out and risk your life fighting capitalism,putting your money where your mouth is so to speak. It's funny that you would think the likes of seamus costello,ta power, gino gallagher etc were not socialists, good luck with that and the internetzz

robbo203

28th June 2009, 12:36

A national liberation struggle is not necessarily, by definition, as you seem to suggest, 'nationalistic' in your sense of the term. You say that this nationalistic responce to an invasion bring with it 'all the other crap'. Absolutely not, this is a generalisation that just doesn't cut it. I respect a nations right to self-determination and see a nation which is free from imperialist occupation as a lot more likely to achieve socialism than one with it. Part of my support for Irelands self'determination is the fact that if they achieved a socialist revolution in Ireland, simultaneously uniting the country, well then it would have a huge effect on an international scale and hugely damage one of the biggest imperialist powers in the world,how very nationalistic of me. You may think the IRSP/INLA are nationalists and drag with them whatever you think they drag, but perhaps it is just the case they respect a nations right to self-determination, are anti-imperialist and seek to fight 'all the other crap' imperialisms bring with it aswell as a denying a nation its sovereignty."

You say struggling for so called national liberation is not necessarily nationalist. How on earth is it not? I repeat - the focus of such a struggle is something called the nation. It invests this thing called "the nation " with value and that NECESSARILY is nationalism. Your argument completely evades this point

Your rationalisatuion are a dead give away. You say you support Irish self determination becuase "if they achieved a socialist revolution in Ireland, simultaneously uniting the country, well then it would have a huge effect on an international scale and hugely damage one of the biggest imperialist powers in the world,how very nationalistic of me" Exactly! These are your words "uniting the country". Irish capitalists and workers going hand in hand into the sunset with the glorious refrain of the Irelands national anthem ringing in their ears. No socialist worth his or her salt would touch this in class collaborationist garbage with a bargepole. In fact what you advocate is precisely how not to achieve a socialist revolution

Wow, thanks for that, I'm glad I have encountered an expert on the INLA.The INLA are a socialist revolutionary army who have fought british imperialism and capitalism for decades. It's very easy to criticise when all you do is read books and type on an internet forum, maybe even attend the odd march. But it's a whole different ball game to go out and risk your life fighting capitalism,putting your money where your mouth is so to speak. It's funny that you would think the likes of seamus costello,ta power, gino gallagher etc were not socialists, good luck with that and the internetzz

Here is what the IRSP says in its publication on EU. This shows it to be unmistakably a state capitalist organisation which has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism

For us the only real alternative to the E.C. is a Socialist United Irish Republic. Only with the working class in power and a planned economy based on the nationalisation of major industries and the banks etc, and the monopoly of foreign trade by the workers state can there be a future for the Irish people. Such a state will develop through trade agreements, technological exchange etc, entered into with those states and economies independent of the imperialists

There is no sliver of understanding here that socialism is a society in which commodity production , wage labour and the state have ceased to exist. What we have here is just the usual leftist delusion that socialism has something to do with nationalisation

Soldier of life

28th June 2009, 13:07

You say struggling for so called national liberation is not necessarily nationalist. How on earth is it not? I repeat - the focus of such a struggle is something called the nation. It invests this thing called "the nation " with value and that NECESSARILY is nationalism. Your argument completely evades this point

Your rationalisatuion are a dead give away. You say you support Irish self determination becuase "if they achieved a socialist revolution in Ireland, simultaneously uniting the country, well then it would have a huge effect on an international scale and hugely damage one of the biggest imperialist powers in the world,how very nationalistic of me" Exactly! These are your words "uniting the country". Irish capitalists and workers going hand in hand into the sunset with the glorious refrain of the Irelands national anthem ringing in their ears. No socialist worth his or her salt would touch this in class collaborationist garbage with a bargepole. In fact what you advocate is precisely how not to achieve a socialist revolution

Huh, where did I mention any sort of class-collaboration would be part of the strategy for achieving national liberation and socialism. The IRSP's position is quite clear and it is a position you seem to be willfully ignorant of. They advocate the mobilisation of the workers to achieve national liberation and socialism simultaneously, by tying class politics to the national question and solving both struggles in one blow. This has got nothing to do with irish capitalists being involved in anything or indeed the irish national anthem and the nationalist romanticism you try to portray. In fact the IRSP's position is that such class collaboration is doomed to failure. Stupid post.

Here is what the IRSP says in its publication on EU. This shows it to be unmistakably a state capitalist organisation which has nothing whatsoever to do with socialism

For us the only real alternative to the E.C. is a Socialist United Irish Republic. Only with the working class in power and a planned economy based on the nationalisation of major industries and the banks etc, and the monopoly of foreign trade by the workers state can there be a future for the Irish people. Such a state will develop through trade agreements, technological exchange etc, entered into with those states and economies independent of the imperialists

There is no sliver of understanding here that socialism is a society in which commodity production , wage labour and the state have ceased to exist. What we have here is just the usual leftist delusion that socialism has something to do with nationalisation

I agree that wage labour would cease to exist, but how does commodity production and the state cease to exist under socialism? The state does exist, and commodities are produced, it is the relationship of the workers to how these are produced which is changed, they will no longer be produced for the profit of capitalists but for the needs of the workers in a planned economy.

Pogue

28th June 2009, 13:22

robbo203

28th June 2009, 13:58

Huh, where did I mention any sort of class-collaboration would be part of the strategy for achieving national liberation and socialism. The IRSP's position is quite clear and it is a position you seem to be willfully ignorant of. They advocate the mobilisation of the workers to achieve national liberation and socialism simultaneously, by tying class politics to the national question and solving both struggles in one blow. This has got nothing to do with irish capitalists being involved in anything or indeed the irish national anthem and the nationalist romanticism you try to portray. In fact the IRSP's position is that such class collaboration is doomed to failure. Stupid post.
.

You didnt mention that "class-collaboration would be part of the strategy for achieving national liberation" but that is what will INEVITABLY happen as a result of your efforts to achieve so called "national liberation". INEVITABLY and to the extent to that you strive for national liberation you will be drawn away from socialism. Why this is so I have explained very clearly but again you have simply evaded my argument preferring to bury your head in the sand and intone the relevant mantras of the IRSM. It is utterly impossible to tie the national question with class politics. These two things are pulling in totally opposite directions

I agree that wage labour would cease to exist, but how does commodity production and the state cease to exist under socialism? The state does exist, and commodities are produced, it is the relationship of the workers to how these are produced which is changed, they will no longer be produced for the profit of capitalists but for the needs of the workers in a planned economy.

One of the first things anyone upon learning about Marxian economics comes to understand is that labour power is a commodity under capitalism, like any other, and the price of this commodity is the wage that the workers receives. It is ridiculous to claim that you can retain commodity production and diispense with wage labour. Stalin attempted to rationalise this one with his pathetically feeble work Economic Problems of the USSR (1951). In response to Engels' point that with the seizing of the means of production by the workers. commodity production is done away with, Stalin argued that Engels was only referring to a fully developed economy (Britain) where the means of production had been "socialised", not a backward country like Russia where you still had a large non capitalist agricultural sector. It did not seem to occur to Stalin that was precisely why there was no socialism in the USSR - becuase commodity production continued. Equally absurd was his claim that there was no wage labour in the USSR when manifestly workers worked for a wage there (the very thing they needed to earn to buy said commodities) and their relationship to their employer (the state) was no different from that of a worker working for a private (or indeed state) concern in the west.

It is obvious to me that you dont really understand capitalism if you can come out with a statement such as things " will no longer be produced for the profit of capitalists but for the needs of the workers in a planned economy". To talk about the "needs of workers" is obviously to imply the existence of a working class and hence also the existence of capitalist class (as Marx said, wage labour and capital presuppose each other). But a capitalist class can only exist by virtue of exploiting the working class and conversely a working class can only exist by virtue of being exploited by the capitalist class. This is built into the very definition of working class and capitalist class in Marxian terms. In other words, you are implyimng the continuation of capitalism and how on earth you imagine capitalism can operate without prioritising the profits needs of the capitalist class I cannot imagine

Lastly, this reference to the "planned economy". The number of times Ive heard this dumb knee-jerk phrase I cannot tell you. Look , even the most unregulated laissez faire version of capitalism you can possibly think of is FULL OF PLANS. Capitalist enterprises are constantly making plans all the time. The issue is not about the presence of absence of plans but the degree to which they are coordinated or integrated into a larger plan. The point is that there are absolute limits to the extent to which you can centralise and coordinate planning in any society - socialist or capitalist. Naive leftists talk about the central planning system having replaced the market in the USSR. They dont know what they are talking about. Rhetoric aside, the central planners of GOSPLAN had to live constantly with the fact the plans they handed down were little more than a summation of the plans of state enterprises and had to be constantly modifed to fit the changing reality rather than shape reality. In fact there was not a single plan in the history of the USSR that was ever strictly "fulfilled". Output targets were constantly altered, failures to meet them were miraculous transformed into successes by adjusting the figures.

I wish people on the left would stop using this ridiculous phrase "the planned economy". All economies are planned in the sense that all economic acttivities is planned by someone or some organisation. On the other hand, no economy can possibly be planned in the sense that all the millions of individuals plans that are made in the real world can be coordinated and effectively assimilated into one single gigantic society wide plan. Its just a totally daft idea. So what then is the point of using this phrase - the "planned economy"- in the first place?

Soldier of life

28th June 2009, 14:43

You didnt mention that "class-collaboration would be part of the strategy for achieving national liberation" but that is what will INEVITABLY happen as a result of your efforts to achieve so called "national liberation". INEVITABLY and to the extent to that you strive for national liberation you will be drawn away from socialism. Why this is so I have explained very clearly but again you have simply evaded my argument preferring to bury your head in the sand and intone the relevant mantras of the IRSM. It is utterly impossible to tie the national question with class politics. These two things are pulling in totally opposite directions

One of the first things anyone upon learning about Marxian economics comes to understand is that labour power is a commodity under capitalism, like any other, and the price of this commodity is the wage that the workers receives. It is ridiculous to claim that you can retain commodity production and diispense with wage labour. Stalin attempted to rationalise this one with his pathetically feeble work Economic Problems of the USSR (1951). In response to Engels' point that with the seizing of the means of production by the workers. commodity production is done away with, Stalin argued that Engels was only referring to a fully developed economy (Britain) where the means of production had been "socialised", not a backward country like Russia where you still had a large non capitalist agricultural sector. It did not seem to occur to Stalin that was precisely why there was no socialism in the USSR - becuase commodity production continued. Equally absurd was his claim that there was no wage labour in the USSR when manifestly workers worked for a wage there (the very thing they needed to earn to buy said commodities) and their relationship to their employer (the state) was no different from that of a worker working for a private (or indeed state) concern in the west.

It is obvious to me that you dont really understand capitalism if you can come out with a statement such as things " will no longer be produced for the profit of capitalists but for the needs of the workers in a planned economy". To talk about the "needs of workers" is obviously to imply the existence of a working class and hence also the existence of capitalist class (as Marx said, wage labour and capital presuppose each other). But a capitalist class can only exist by virtue of exploiting the working class and conversely a working class can only exist by virtue of being exploited by the capitalist class. This is built into the very definition of working class and capitalist class in Marxian terms. In other words, you are implyimng the continuation of capitalism and how on earth you imagine capitalism can operate without prioritising the profits needs of the capitalist class I cannot imagine

Lastly, this reference to the "planned economy". The number of times Ive heard this dumb knee-jerk phrase I cannot tell you. Look , even the most unregulated laissez faire version of capitalism you can possibly think of is FULL OF PLANS. Capitalist enterprises are constantly making plans all the time. The issue is not about the presence of absence of plans but the degree to which they are coordinated or integrated into a larger plan. The point is that there are absolute limits to the extent to which you can centralise and coordinate planning in any society - socialist or capitalist. Naive leftists talk about the central planning system having replaced the market in the USSR. They dont know what they are talking about. Rhetoric aside, the central planners of GOSPLAN had to live constantly with the fact the plans they handed down were little more than a summation of the plans of state enterprises and had to be constantly modifed to fit the changing reality rather than shape reality. In fact there was not a single plan in the history of the USSR that was ever strictly "fulfilled". Output targets were constantly altered, failures to meet them were miraculous transformed into successes by adjusting the figures.

I wish people on the left would stop using this ridiculous phrase "the planned economy". All economies are planned in the sense that all economic acttivities is planned by someone or some organisation. On the other hand, no economy can possibly be planned in the sense that all the millions of individuals plans that are made in the real world can be coordinated and effectively assimilated into one single gigantic society wide plan. Its just a totally daft idea. So what then is the point of using this phrase - the "planned economy"- in the first place?

No you didn't clearly explain your point on nationalism at all. The IRSM sees the national liberation struggle as a struggle which can only be won by a mobilised working class. Class collaboration is anything but inevitable at this point in the struggle.

You seem to be suggesting that once this nation is established it is some sort of class collaboration, this is not the case at all. The struggle for national liberation and socialism in Ireland are one in the same, they cannot be divorced from each other. A socialist Ireland cannot be established while it is under occupation by an imperialist power, and the national question can only be resolved by a revolutionary,mobilised working class. And what will lead to the mobilisation of the irish workers? An increased class consciousness, an understanding that their economic interests can only be realised in a united socialist republic. I don't believe the national liberation struggle and the struggle for socialism oppose each other at all, I find that ridiculous. Surely it is a basic socialist principal to oppose an imperialist occupation. And you amount resistance to this imperialism as negative to the socialist struggle, simply not the case

PRC-UTE

28th June 2009, 18:38

Why is this sitll in Workers Struggles? I think such a detailed thread with alot of important arguments in it should at least be in the right forum. Whatever you think of this, this is not a worker's struggle.

You're right, you and the other trolls made it off topic from the issue of prisoners struggles and solidarity.

I tried to move all the off topic posts but it only split some of them off.

Pogue

28th June 2009, 19:06

You're right, you and the other trolls made it off topic from the issue of prisoners struggles and solidarity.

I tried to move all the off topic posts but it only split some of them off.

What I am arguing is that fundamentally this is not a worker's struggle. I think the reason why you refuse to really deal with this is because you see accepting that this is not a worker's struggle as somehow the same as agreeing with us that the INLA has nothing to offer the working class. They are not the same thing. If this was a thread about a group of anarchists who had been imprisoned for similar reasons I'd still ask for it to be moved because it's not a worker's struggle. Worker's struggles are strikes, occupations, etc, not the imprisonment of members of a 'socialist' paramilitary.

PRC-UTE

28th June 2009, 20:05

One of the first things anyone upon learning about Marxian economics comes to understand is that labour power is a commodity under capitalism, like any other, and the price of this commodity is the wage that the workers receives. It is ridiculous to claim that you can retain commodity production and diispense with wage labour. Stalin attempted to rationalise this one with his pathetically feeble work Economic Problems of the USSR (1951). In response to Engels' point that with the seizing of the means of production by the workers. commodity production is done away with, Stalin argued that Engels was only referring to a fully developed economy (Britain) where the means of production had been "socialised", not a backward country like Russia where you still had a large non capitalist agricultural sector. It did not seem to occur to Stalin that was precisely why there was no socialism in the USSR - becuase commodity production continued. Equally absurd was his claim that there was no wage labour in the USSR when manifestly workers worked for a wage there (the very thing they needed to earn to buy said commodities) and their relationship to their employer (the state) was no different from that of a worker working for a private (or indeed state) concern in the west

It's been noted by numerous theorists in the Marxist tradition that the dictatorship of the proletariat/lowest stages of socialism will still be a form of capitalism and operate under capitalist laws (negation of the negation, the force destroying capitalism also retains elements of it). Lenin made this point repeatedly in the state and revolution, as did Marx in his correspondence on the Paris Commune- and I'm aware of the critique made by Che and Mandel of the Soviet economic models flaws in not abolishing capital.

It is obvious to me that you dont really understand capitalism if you can come out with a statement such as things " will no longer be produced for the profit of capitalists but for the needs of the workers in a planned economy". To talk about the "needs of workers" is obviously to imply the existence of a working class and hence also the existence of capitalist class (as Marx said, wage labour and capital presuppose each other). But a capitalist class can only exist by virtue of exploiting the working class and conversely a working class can only exist by virtue of being exploited by the capitalist class. This is built into the very definition of working class and capitalist class in Marxian terms. In other words, you are implyimng the continuation of capitalism and how on earth you imagine capitalism can operate without prioritising the profits needs of the capitalist class I cannot imagine

It's obvious that by socialism he meant the lower stage, dictatorship of the proletariat. Your critique there is solely based on his usage of the word socialism, which obviously has more than one meaning.

For example, when you said: 'There is no sliver of understanding here that socialism is a society in which commodity production , wage labour and the state have ceased to exist. What we have here is just the usual leftist delusion that socialism has something to do with nationalisation'

You're obviously not responding to the term socialism in the same context as it was referred to by the IRSP or SOL in this conversation. Quite clearly both the IRSP and SOL meant the transitionary stage of socialism in which there is still a state and classes, and it's suprising you didn't grasp that.

Lastly, this reference to the "planned economy". The number of times Ive heard this dumb knee-jerk phrase I cannot tell you. Look , even the most unregulated laissez faire version of capitalism you can possibly think of is FULL OF PLANS. Capitalist enterprises are constantly making plans all the time. The issue is not about the presence of absence of plans but the degree to which they are coordinated or integrated into a larger plan. The point is that there are absolute limits to the extent to which you can centralise and coordinate planning in any society - socialist or capitalist. Naive leftists talk about the central planning system having replaced the market in the USSR. They dont know what they are talking about. Rhetoric aside, the central planners of GOSPLAN had to live constantly with the fact the plans they handed down were little more than a summation of the plans of state enterprises and had to be constantly modifed to fit the changing reality rather than shape reality. In fact there was not a single plan in the history of the USSR that was ever strictly "fulfilled". Output targets were constantly altered, failures to meet them were miraculous transformed into successes by adjusting the figures.

I wish people on the left would stop using this ridiculous phrase "the planned economy". All economies are planned in the sense that all economic acttivities is planned by someone or some organisation. On the other hand, no economy can possibly be planned in the sense that all the millions of individuals plans that are made in the real world can be coordinated and effectively assimilated into one single gigantic society wide plan. Its just a totally daft idea. So what then is the point of using this phrase - the "planned economy"- in the first place?

The point of using "planned economy" is to distinguish between a command economy and a market-oriented capitalist one. It's an essential topic and your attempt to dismiss it is really ahistorical. For one thing, the reason everyone uses some degree of planning now is because they copied the successful soviet model in some sectors of the economy.

Your argument that a command economy is redundant because all plans are modified anyway is really really missing the point. About as much as one can really, lol. Saying that even capitalist use plans is not much of an insight- the market still determines what they are able to actually do, whereas a planned economy is not hindered by that.

A planned economy is really the only tool available to overcome capitalist underdevelopment, which is essential to deal with the biggest problems on this planet including hunger and lack of clean water to name two of the most pressing examples. A new global society that takes care of all its people will not pop up magically over night (if you have another model available, I'd love to hear it). A command economy is how human consciousness will reshape economies, rather than human economies continuing to be shaped by capital.

Here's a very good topic on this subject, I recommend everyone give it a look: http://www.revleft.com/vb/command-economy-t62485/index.html?t=62485&highlight=command+economy

PRC-UTE

28th June 2009, 20:14

What I am arguing is that fundamentally this is not a worker's struggle. I think the reason why you refuse to really deal with this is because you see accepting that this is not a worker's struggle as somehow the same as agreeing with us that the INLA has nothing to offer the working class. They are not the same thing. If this was a thread about a group of anarchists who had been imprisoned for similar reasons I'd still ask for it to be moved because it's not a worker's struggle. Worker's struggles are strikes, occupations, etc, not the imprisonment of members of a 'socialist' paramilitary.

This is just tired old economism again.

For the record- prisoners are almost always exploited while in prison, either indirectly by making the capitalists money in operating prisons, and/or directly by working in sweatshops inside prisons. Being forced to do work while in prison was one of the hunger striker's demands they died for. Oh I guess they're suddenly not workers, because they contradict the dogma of some small anarchist group in Britain? :laugh:

Despite the dogma from robbo there, the fact is that the largest episodes of mass struggle in Irish history have been around republicanism/national liberation. The two most significant periods of mass struggle in Ireland were the Limerick Soviet and the struggle against internment in the north where rent and rake strikes were common in working class parts of the six counties.

So in other words your positions are counter-factual, and to borrow that wonderful ultra left turn of phrase, have nothing to offer the working class.

Pogue

28th June 2009, 20:16

This is just tired old economism again.

For the record- prisoners are almost always exploited while in prison, either indirectly by making the capitalists money in operating prisons, and/or directly by working in sweatshops inside prisons. Being forced to do work while in prison was one of the hunger striker's demands they died for. Oh I guess they're suddenly not workers, because they contradict the dogma of some small anarchist group in Britain? :laugh:

Despite the dogma from robbo there, the fact is that the largest episodes of mass struggle in Irish history have been around republicanism/national liberation. The two most significant periods of mass struggle in Ireland were the Limerick Soviet and the struggle against internment in the north where rent and rake strikes were common in working class parts of the six counties.

So in other words your positions are counter-factual, and to borrow that wonderful ultra left turn of phrase, have nothing to offer the working class.

This is all irrelevant. This struggle is not a workers struggle. I don't know whether the prisoners here were working class, but its irrelevant. As I have said, this discussion is not on a workers struggle, as INLA members being imprisoned is not a case of a worker's struggle, i.e. a strike, occupation, etc.

robbo203

28th June 2009, 21:10

It's obvious that by socialism he meant the lower stage, dictatorship of the proletariat. Your critique there is solely based on his usage of the word socialism, which obviously has more than one meaning.

What you are referring to is Lenin's use of the word socialism , not Marx's. Lenin also called socialism state capitalism run in the interests of the workers. Marx and Engels used the terms communism and socialism interchangeably- they meant the same thing by these words

The point of using "planned economy" is to distinguish between a command economy and a market-oriented capitalist one. It's an essential topic and your attempt to dismiss it is really ahistorical. For one thing, the reason everyone uses some degree of planning now is because they copied the successful soviet model in some sectors of the economy.

Your argument that a command economy is redundant because all plans are modified anyway is really really missing the point. About as much as one can really, lol. Saying that even capitalist use plans is not much of an insight- the market still determines what they are able to actually do, whereas a planned economy is not hindered by that..

But you miss the larger point that actually in the so called planned economy the market ultimately determines what happens as well. Externally the dependence of the Soviet economy on the global capitalist market makes this obvious but internally too this was case. The planning process had to take into account what the market determined in order to maximise the amount of surplus value that could be extracted from thre working class to fuel capital accumulation. Not to do so would hinder that accumulation. As in the West when states subsidise loss making industiries there was a certain amount of room for manouvre but only a certain amount. The state planners could not ultimately overide the market. Despite what you say, the Soviet model of running capitalism while initially successful in building up heavy industry proved to be increasingly uncompetitve and unreliable in a more complex economy and this was one of the most importantt reasons behind the break up of the Soviet Union itself: the decisionmaking proicess was simply too rigid and inflexible in the context of modern global capitalism. It lead to economic stagnation and decline. This flatly belies your claim that the planned economy was not hindered by what the market determines. It was the needs of the market economy in which the soviet system was embedded that brought that system into disrepute

In any case, state enterprises were obliged to keep profit and loss accounts and pursue proft maximisation under the beady eye of GOSBANK. since the state neeeded to cream off the surplus value produced at the state enterprise level. Relationships between state enterprises were commodity relationships with the state being used as an intermediary While GOSPLAN formulated plans after a process of bargaining with state enterprises, a large part of the decisionmaking proicess was necessarily decentralised e.g. decsions relating to product mix and so on

Paul Craig Roberts describe this rather well

Soviet managers were as autonomous as their market counterparts. They set their own plan targets by disguising their productive capacity and overstating their resource needs. Soviet planners served primarily as supply agents for enterprises, endeavoring to supply the enterprises with sufficient inputs to fulfill their gross output targets. The system of material supply could seldom perform this task, and Soviet factory managers made barter arrangements with one another and produced their own inputs. This activity led me to the conclusion that the Soviet economy, like a market, was organized polycentrically and not hierarchically as a planning system. The "central plan" was little more than the summation of the factory managers’ individual plans ("My Time with Soviet Economics", Paul Craig Roberts, The Independent Review, v.VII, n.2, Fall 2002,pp. 259– 264.)

Bilan

29th June 2009, 13:25

Right, and what do you want? A trophy? The IRSM has been through the same - and worse.

Spare us the crap. You need to learn when you've been proven wrong, and you need to learn when to shut your mouth. The secrecy of the internet might make it easier for you to flex your muscles, but you need to watch your mouth.

Jorge Miguel

29th June 2009, 13:34

Spare us the crap. You need to learn when you've been proven wrong, and you need to learn when to shut your mouth. The secrecy of the internet might make it easier for you to flex your muscles, but you need to watch your mouth.You're the person making threats over the internet.:rolleyes:

Bilan

29th June 2009, 14:17

You're the person making threats over the internet.:rolleyes:

Don't embarrass yourself anymore than you already have. I'm not threatening you (What am I going to do?), I'm giving you some advice that, evidently, you desperately need.

Jorge Miguel

29th June 2009, 17:16

Grow up. Threatening people over the internet doesn't make your internet penis any bigger.

Invader Zim

29th June 2009, 17:29

Wow, Jorge has just made this thread fail. I suggest a mod trashes the previous two contributions (and this post).

The Deepest Red

29th June 2009, 17:30

The amount of absolute garbage being spewed by some posters on this thread. Some criticisms of the IRSM seem to have been inflated into what, by Left Communist standards, must pass as a serious critique of the Irish question. There is a difference between nationalism and national liberation/national revolution. If the IRSP or whoever were proposing that the revolution only extend to a national level and no further then fair enough, they would be nationalists, but that's not what they're proposing and the ultra-lefts on here are deliberately misinterpreting anti-imperialism (as a component of socialist revolution, not a "stage") as national chauvinism.

Bilan

30th June 2009, 05:46

Grow up. Threatening people over the internet doesn't make your internet penis any bigger.

You're an idiot.

Bilan

30th June 2009, 05:52

The amount of absolute garbage being spewed by some posters on this thread. Some criticisms of the IRSM seem to have been inflated into what, by Left Communist standards, must pass as a serious critique of the Irish question.

Are you saying that their shouldn't be a critique of the Irish question? Please elaborate.

There is a difference between nationalism and national liberation/national revolution. If the IRSP or whoever were proposing that the revolution only extend to a national level and no further then fair enough, they would be nationalists, but that's not what they're proposing and the ultra-lefts on here are deliberately misinterpreting anti-imperialism (as a component of socialist revolution, not a "stage") as national chauvinism.How are we doing that exactly?
And now why do you think that national liberation struggles are not linked to nationalism? That is an utterly preposterous thing to say. If the class struggle is undermined by the nation state, and the struggle for a 'free state' (i.e. To put it in the usual lame poetic way, 'shaking off the shackles of imperialism') - what is it called again? the 12 county socialist state or something? [note: I'm not trying to insult it, I've just forgotten the name].

Correct me if I am wrong here, but do you regard the national bourgeoisie (like the Maoists with their new democracy) as potentially revolutionary (as opposed to the international bourgeoisie/imperialist bourgeoisie)?

You seem to imply that proletarian revolution and national liberation only differ because of their geographical application.

Devrim

30th June 2009, 08:55

Re the parochial attitude, I'm a bit surprised to hear you say that. That's what the west brit types always after saying. most republican sociailsts I know care pretty strongly about Palestine, the Basque situation, and many have a strong awareness of the struggles of British workers as well. I doubt any would say they're worse off than the Palestinians. That's true of many republicans in Ireland; as much as I dislike him, at least Gerry Adams went over there to show support after the slaughter in Gaza.

I think that the 'parochial attitude' is really dominant within Irish republicanism. There is also a similar attitude within the Middle East, which see people from the Middle east as the 'great revolutionaries'. I suppose a lot of it is based on Palestine.

I think that it is based on completly mistaken premises. In our opinion the working class in Palestine is probablely the most defeated in the region though Iraq runs it a close second. We also think that the working class in Northern Ireland has suffered terrible defeats. We just don't buy into all of this 'undefeated (insert chosen nationality here) revolution' business. I suppose it really depends on what you see as the revolutionary subject, whether it is the working class acting as a class for itself, or small armed groups.

For us the massive strikes in Egypt last year, or even the small limited strike recently by Iranian car workers against the repression of demonstrators show the potential of the working class. Fireing a rocket from Gaza into Israel, or shooting a few Turkish soldiers in the Kurdish mountains not only offer no way to develop workers' struggles, worse they derail them into a nationalist dead end.

I don't think the fact that Irish nationalist identify with other nationalist struggles really has much to do with anything.

having said that that, it's strange to hear people on this site lecturing republicans. The displacement of Catholics that started the Troubles was the largest forced migration of people in Western Europe since WWII at the time it happened. It was only the guns of the IRA's and INLA that prevented a repeat.

Actually, I think that it is republicans lecturing others, moralisng and trying to imply that the fact that people have suffered makes their arguments right.

Devrim

The Deepest Red

30th June 2009, 15:26

Are you saying that their shouldn't be a critique of the Irish question? Please elaborate.

I'm saying past or present actions of Irish Republicans, however abhorrent or strategically weak they may be, do not in any way alter the need for a united socialist Ireland with a radically different relationship with the UK than exists at present.

How are we doing that exactly?By tossing around slogans like all countries are "latently or manifestly imperialist" and deliberately ignoring the differences between the rabid national chauvinism of a regime like the "Third Reich" and the 'nationalism' of organisations like the IRSP.

And now why do you think that national liberation struggles are not linked to nationalism? That is an utterly preposterous thing to say.They're linked to the national unit, not nationalism.

If the class struggle is undermined by the nation state, and the struggle for a 'free state' (i.e. To put it in the usual lame poetic way, 'shaking off the shackles of imperialism') - what is it called again? the 12 county socialist state or something? [note: I'm not trying to insult it, I've just forgotten the name].Is there a question in there somewhere? The fact that you don't even know that Ireland has 32 counties, not 12, would indicate you know very little about the situation here.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but do you regard the national bourgeoisie (like the Maoists with their new democracy) as potentially revolutionary (as opposed to the international bourgeoisie/imperialist bourgeoisie)?No I do not.

You seem to imply that proletarian revolution and national liberation only differ because of their geographical application.I'm implying that the proletariat should lead the 'democratic' and socialist revolutions in every single country.

Bitter Ashes

30th June 2009, 15:54

Ireland will never embrace socialism until Belfast is under the control of Jerry Adams and the ROI bourgeois!
England will never embrace socialism until Calais is under the control of our Norman and bourgeois overlords!
Canada will never embrace socialism until Alaska is returned to the Canadian goverment!
India will never embrace socialism until Pakistan is absorbed back into the Indian state control!
etc etc etc
Is it just me....?

The Deepest Red

30th June 2009, 16:43

Devrim

30th June 2009, 19:55

Is there a question in there somewhere? The fact that you don't even know that Ireland has 32 counties, not 12, would indicate you know very little about the situation here.
I don't think that it is really the point whether somebody knows a lot or very little about the situation in Ireland. Of course to know the details helps with the argument, but the main point that national liberation struggles are reactionary in the current period is part of a global analyisis. There are no national exceptions. In that sense the details in one particular case are umimportant.

The idea of national exceptions has historically been an argument used to justify opportunism in the workers' movement.

Devrim

Patchd

30th June 2009, 20:56

The fact is its no threat to the state and that despite the legislation existing, including those prohibiting communist parties, it isn't being used.

The "threat to the state" isn't even the important part. The state sees groups like Combat 18, NF and other right wing extremists as a "threat to themselves", does it suddenly mean that they are more of a legitimate organisation because of it? Nope.

What does matter then? Good politics (as well as a fight to spread those politics), something which Nationalism doesn't cater for. :thumbdown:

Luckily for you, and yes, luckily, Irish Republicanism has been engrained in Irish society for a long time now, it already had the base before you joined the movement, other currents like Left Communism, Anarchism, and other 'ultra-left' currents simply don't have that history and thus you'd be hard pressed to find many members in those regions. A group with 3 people will find it much harder to appeal to others (however good - or bad - their politics) than one with a historically large working class base.

Bitter Ashes

30th June 2009, 21:17

Jorge, namecalling is usualy the signal of somebody who has run out of valid points long ago. Since you werent able to respond to the arguement, it just goes further to prove this.

Surely, by giving those examples you see how crazy it is to fuss over borders and claim that they're totaly vital to the progression of socialism. Either that, or you're claiming that the Irish people are somehow different to everyone else who lives in a country that has disputed borders.

Concentrate your efforts on increasing class conciousness and BREAKING DOWN DIVISIONS IN YOUR COMMUNITY, instead. Ireland's borders will be abolished, just like everyone elses' when internationalism is embraced. It doesnt make one bit of difference in the long run whether ROI and NI revolt seperatly, or as a United Ireland. The end result is the same, they'll be united and socialist. There wont be any revolution at all though if you're so determined to reopen divisions, just like the BNP do, in your communities. Seriously Jorge, get over it, just like I have to tell the idiots who have issues with the Polish, or Pakistani immigrants over here. The Loyalists are in the wrong for doing exactly the same thing, but two wrongs do not make a right, but by going after them, all you're doing is giving them excuses to counter.

Seven Stars

1st July 2009, 02:50

Devrim

1st July 2009, 07:18

This thread shows how much of a wank RevLeft has become, it has been taken over by the trendy lefties, who go on and on condemning those who actually fight for socialism instead of just talking about it on the internet.
I think this shows about the entire depth of the nationalist political argument here.

The first point is 'trendy lefties'. It is a very typical response. Actually, trend means modern and fashionable. The communist left has been arguing that national liberation struggles are anti-working class for about 100 years now, so it is not a particulary new idea, nor is it very fashionable. The vast majority of the left support national liberation movements. I can't see much 'trendy' about it*.

The second one is 'condemning those who actually fight for socialism'. I don't think that nationalist organisations are fighting for socialism. I think that they are anti-working class movements which drag workers into acting against their own class interests. There are lots of groups that claim to be socialist. You can even here it from people in the English Labour Party. Do people think that we should take every claim of being 'for socialism' at face value. I think that the Irish nationalists on this thread would agree that there needs to be a critical analyisis. They are just upset that in this case it is being applied to them.

But maybe it is the 'fighting' that is the important point here. It is quite clear from a lot of arguments on here that people completely lose all critical faculties when some sort of nationalist with a gun, even better if it is a pretty young girl, starts waving around a red flag. These days of course, red flags are harder to find than they used to be, and many leftists will happily settle for a green one mixed in with a bit of orientilism. Our opinion is different. We thin that the working class makes revolutions as a class. We dont think that these armed groups have anything to offer it.

The last point is 'just talking about it on the internet'. We UAE the Internet. We are not embarrased about it at all. It is a way to discuss ideas with people. We also publish papers leaflets and magazines and discuss with people in our workplaces and on demonstrations and picket lines. I don't quite see what the problem with using the Internet is. Possibly it is the 'just'. As people who post on here generally don't know each other or whatthey do, I usually presume that this word says more about the posters 'just posting on the Internet' than the people she is accusing. Maybe that is why they worry about it so much.

Devrim

*I think that you are using 'trendy lefty' wrongly even within RSM circles. I always understood that they used of to refer to people who supported nationalist movemnts but objected to some of the outright gangsterism, such as kidnapping dentists cutting off their fingers and sending them to their wives in the post, or shooting dead nine year old girls because you had an argument with their brother, you know, the sort of thing that these type of nationalist do which seem more like something out of a 'Godfather' movie than something that might have any vague connection with socialism. I think that they are the people who you say are 'trendy lefties' because although they agree with your nationalism in principle, they baulk at the gangsterism that goes along with it.

Hoggy_RS

1st July 2009, 15:02

Concentrate your efforts on increasing class conciousness and BREAKING DOWN DIVISIONS IN YOUR COMMUNITY, instead. Ireland's borders will be abolished, just like everyone elses' when internationalism is embraced. It doesnt make one bit of difference in the long run whether ROI and NI revolt seperatly, or as a United Ireland. The end result is the same, they'll be united and socialist. There wont be any revolution at all though if you're so determined to reopen divisions, just like the BNP do, in your communities. Seriously Jorge, get over it, just like I have to tell the idiots who have issues with the Polish, or Pakistani immigrants over here. The Loyalists are in the wrong for doing exactly the same thing, but two wrongs do not make a right, but by going after them, all you're doing is giving them excuses to counter.
In the case of Ireland, I think the quickest way to socialism would be to break off connection with the imperialist British empire and for the island as a whole to rise up against the current capitalist establishment. Basically this country is fucked and we need socialist revolution as soon as possible.

How are we determined to reopen divisions? I can only assume that you are conditioned to assume all republicans are seeking a state than divides catholics and protestants?

The Deepest Red

1st July 2009, 15:09

Surely, by giving those examples you see how crazy it is to fuss over borders and claim that they're totaly vital to the progression of socialism. Either that, or you're claiming that the Irish people are somehow different to everyone else who lives in a country that has disputed borders.

Concentrate your efforts on increasing class conciousness and BREAKING DOWN DIVISIONS IN YOUR COMMUNITY, instead. Ireland's borders will be abolished, just like everyone elses' when internationalism is embraced. It doesnt make one bit of difference in the long run whether ROI and NI revolt seperatly, or as a United Ireland. The end result is the same, they'll be united and socialist. There wont be any revolution at all though if you're so determined to reopen divisions, just like the BNP do, in your communities. Seriously Jorge, get over it, just like I have to tell the idiots who have issues with the Polish, or Pakistani immigrants over here. The Loyalists are in the wrong for doing exactly the same thing, but two wrongs do not make a right, but by going after them, all you're doing is giving them excuses to counter.

So now opposition to the reactionary ideology of Unionism is akin to the BNP's hatred of Polish and Pakistani immigrants? Reactionaries never have an excuse to react to anything. Would the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s count as "going after them"? You're not making any sense here.

The Ungovernable Farce

1st July 2009, 16:51

GFTO
What does that stand for? Get Fuck The Out? Your inability to write a four-letter post without screwing up is almost as embarrassing as your inability to tell the difference between progressive politics and nationalism. Almost.

This thread shows how much of a wank RevLeft has become, it has been taken over by the trendy lefties, who go on and on condemning those who actually fight for socialism instead of just talking about it on the internet.
All anyone is going to do on an internet site is talk on the internet. That's inevitable. I could just as easily condemn you for the crime of "talking on the internet".

Would the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s count as "going after them"?
No. But the black nationalism peddled by groups like the Nation of Islam would be condemned as a nationalist dead end, just like Irish nationalism. And how many white people were killed in sectarian attacks by the paramilitaries of the civil rights movement?

The Deepest Red

1st July 2009, 18:51

No. But the black nationalism peddled by groups like the Nation of Islam would be condemned as a nationalist dead end, just like Irish nationalism. And how many white people were killed in sectarian attacks by the paramilitaries of the civil rights movement?

The Nation of Islam peddle racism and religious fanaticism. There's no comparison between them and socialist Republican organisations like the IRSP or éirígí or indeed the majority of socialists in Ireland who support national unification. I was reffering to the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), not the parallel movement in the United States. What do you mean by your last sentence there?

Bitter Ashes

1st July 2009, 20:20

So now opposition to the reactionary ideology of Unionism is akin to the BNP's hatred of Polish and Pakistani immigrants? Reactionaries never have an excuse to react to anything. Would the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s count as "going after them"? You're not making any sense here.
What I'm saying is that both protestants and catholics should be working together as a unified class, to bring revolution. As bad as the Loyalists are, I'm pretty certain they're acting out of hatred for Catholics, not hatred of socialism. That hatred needs to be broken down, as does the Republican hatred for Protestants before any attempt can be made to unite by class. Look at the Visteon action in Ireland and you can see what a unifed protestant and catholic workforce are capable of. They fought the bourgeois and won! Now, THAT is something to be inspired by, not some guys who make it thier mission to kill protestants, because protestants kill catholics, because catholics killed protestants, because protestants killed catholics, etc, etc, etc. If you want a united Ireland, then encourage internationalism, dont support these people who stall the unification of the working class in Northern Ireland.

bellyscratch

1st July 2009, 20:32

http://inlinethumb49.webshots.com/43440/2862940640101688296S600x600Q85.jpg
GFTO

You're obviously just a sexually frustrated retard with a red alert fetish. Now go get a life

The Ungovernable Farce

1st July 2009, 20:43

I was reffering to the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), not the parallel movement in the United States. What do you mean by your last sentence there?
Oh, right. In retrospect, I should've realised that, oops. But my point still stands: people describe the Irish nationalist groups as "going after" Loyalists because they kill people in sectarian attacks. People don't describe NICRA as going after people, because they didn't do that.

Hoggy_RS

1st July 2009, 21:29

What I'm saying is that both protestants and catholics should be working together as a unified class, to bring revolution. As bad as the Loyalists are, I'm pretty certain they're acting out of hatred for Catholics, not hatred of socialism. That hatred needs to be broken down, as does the Republican hatred for Protestants before any attempt can be made to unite by class. Look at the Visteon action in Ireland and you can see what a unifed protestant and catholic workforce are capable of. They fought the bourgeois and won! Now, THAT is something to be inspired by, not some guys who make it thier mission to kill protestants, because protestants kill catholics, because catholics killed protestants, because protestants killed catholics, etc, etc, etc. If you want a united Ireland, then encourage internationalism, dont support these people who stall the unification of the working class in Northern Ireland.
Republicans do not have a hatred for protestants. They have a hatred against the occupation of Ireland by the imperialist british state. You actually have a pretty skewed vision of republicans. We aren't protestant hating terrorists like you might of been told in the past.

In fairness, there is quite a bit of support for white nationalism and fascism amongst loyalists so I imagine they would have a large hatred for socialism. In fact any group who supports the british state would probably be not too fond of socialism.

Bitter Ashes

1st July 2009, 21:50

Be still your racing heart Hoggy, but I agree with most of that!

Republicans do not have a hatred for protestants. They have a hatred against the occupation of Ireland by the imperialist british state. You actually have a pretty skewed vision of republicans. We aren't protestant hating terrorists like you might of been told in the past.
YOU are not, most republicans are not, but these guys who go around bombing packed shopping centres in England and Northern Ireland ARE. What I'm saying is that these guys clearly are not allies to the cause of a united working class and the only critism I have of Republicanism in general is what looks like a support for these individuals.

In fairness, there is quite a bit of support for white nationalism and fascism amongst loyalists so I imagine they would have a large hatred for socialism. In fact any group who supports the british state would probably be not too fond of socialism.
I'm inclined to agree with you there too, to a certain degree, although not wholely. It doesnt change the fact that Loyalists target catholics, not based on whether they're reds or not and the same applies that the attacks on non-republican communities is not some kind of universal Antifa effort. While the IRSP proves that there is a socialist prescense within the Republicans, by no means is it a sign that all Republicans are socialist and targetted for that reason. I think both sides feel like they're on the defensive and that's leading to stuff occuring that is counter-productive to the unification of the working class in Northern Ireland.

Hoggy_RS

1st July 2009, 22:00

Be still your racing heart Hoggy, but I agree with most of that!

YOU are not, most republicans are not, but these guys who go around bombing packed shopping centres in England and Northern Ireland ARE. What I'm saying is that these guys clearly are not allies to the cause of a united working class and the only critism I have of Republicanism in general is what looks like a support for these individuals.

I'm inclined to agree with you there too, to a certain degree, although not wholely. It doesnt change the fact that Loyalists target catholics, not based on whether they're reds or not and the same applies that the attacks on non-republican communities is not some kind of universal Antifa effort. While the IRSP proves that there is a socialist prescense within the Republicans, by no means is it a sign that all Republicans are socialist and targetted for that reason. I think both sides feel like they're on the defensive and that's leading to stuff occuring that is counter-productive to the unification of the working class in Northern Ireland.

Thats a fair post, cheers:thumbup1:

Jorge Miguel

1st July 2009, 22:31

You're obviously just a sexually frustrated retard with a red alert fetish. Now go get a lifewanna winna winna

Redmau5

1st July 2009, 23:29

not some guys who make it thier mission to kill protestants, because protestants kill catholics, because catholics killed protestants, because protestants killed catholics, etc, etc, etc.

Of course, because the whole history of the conflict in Ireland simply boils down to a petty ethnic squabble between two tribal factions.

Honestly. :rolleyes:

The Deepest Red

2nd July 2009, 02:45

What I'm saying is that both protestants and catholics should be working together as a unified class, to bring revolution. As bad as the Loyalists are, I'm pretty certain they're acting out of hatred for Catholics, not hatred of socialism. That hatred needs to be broken down, as does the Republican hatred for Protestants before any attempt can be made to unite by class. Look at the Visteon action in Ireland and you can see what a unifed protestant and catholic workforce are capable of. They fought the bourgeois and won! Now, THAT is something to be inspired by, not some guys who make it thier mission to kill protestants, because protestants kill catholics, because catholics killed protestants, because protestants killed catholics, etc, etc, etc. If you want a united Ireland, then encourage internationalism, dont support these people who stall the unification of the working class in Northern Ireland.

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's interesting that in all your rants you haven't once mentioned the British and Irish bourgeoisie and their role in the conflict. "Republican hatred for Protestants" - the founder of Irish Republicanism was a Presbyterian.

The Deepest Red

2nd July 2009, 02:49

You're obviously just a sexually frustrated retard with a red alert fetish. Now go get a life

You call yourself a communist using disgraceful language like that? It's YOU that needs to get a life.

xtrailbloodx

3rd July 2009, 22:47

There are no national exceptions. In that sense the details in one particular case are umimportant.

The idea of national exceptions has historically been an argument used to justify opportunism in the workers' movement.

Devrim

tell that to the former colonies...

Charles Xavier

3rd July 2009, 23:27

Long live the fight for a united Ireland! A principled working class position which even Karl Marx openly spoke in favour of!

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/ireland/index.htm

I guess Karl Marx was a nationalist thug.

"Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself.

If, on the other hand, the English army and police were to be withdrawn from Ireland tomorrow, you would at once have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. But the downfall of the English aristocracy in Ireland implies and has as a necessary consequence its downfall in England. And this would provide the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England. The destruction of the English landed aristocracy in Ireland is an infinitely easier operation than in England herself, because in Ireland the land question has been up to now the exclusive form of the social question because it is a question of existence, of life and death, for the immense majority of the Irish people, and because it is at the same time inseparable from the national question. Quite apart from the fact that the Irish character is more passionate and revolutionary than that of the English."

Charles Xavier

3rd July 2009, 23:36

I didn't know Karl Marx was in the IRA. Interesting.

"The real intricacies of the Irish land problem — which indeed are not especially Irish — are so great that the only true way to solve it would be to give the Irish Home Rule and thus force them to solve it themselves." - Karl Marx, 1881

Hoggy_RS

4th July 2009, 01:01

Becuase we recognise a difference between nationalist thugs with a clear programme of national liberation acheived through violence and a peple in revolt against a brutal regime yet to reach a coherent ideology.

It seems to me that republican socialist groups such as the IRSP and the eirigi have clearly stated that they wish to achieve a united socialist Ireland through non violent means.

Keep up the good work of making anarchists look incredibly clueless:thumbup1:

Charles Xavier

4th July 2009, 03:39

1) Yes, the majority. To ask the question though; werent the majority of the people killed by the Loyalists, IRA and thier splinters?

What I am certain of though is that the IRA and its splinters have also deliberatly targetted working class civilians during thier campaigns. The attacks, within my own lifetime, of shopping centres such as in Manchester and Warrington are such examples. I know there's a code of deniel regarding Omagh, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, this time, that RIRA felt they had absolutly no idea that they were bieng told to bomb a crowd full of people. You dont have to go much further back too until you hit stuff like the Birmingham pub bombings either. How is this any different to the attacks that the Loyalists make on Catholic communities? Because of the motive? Bullshit. There is no excuse for attacking working class civilians. As they say, "The road to perdition is paved with good intentions".

2) Aye. The attacks on those people dont appear to have been ordered by one of the authoritain order-barker within the IRA, so they're not directly responsible. Then again, these groups do have a history of attacking working class civilians on the mainland for the "crime" of living in England, so they're not totaly guiltless for creating a xenophobic attitude within the youth.

Why are you making broad generalizations about the Republican movement in Ireland, there are nationalists, communists, trade unionists, bourgeoisie politicians, farmers, Catholics, liberals, conservatives, protestants, socialists, racists, pacifists within the Republican movement. It is not an unanimous omnipotent single movement where everyone agrees on tactics and politics.

What is a Republican? A republican is an Irishmen or Irishwomen trying to end British domination and occupation of their nation in their own way.

The peace movement is varied too, some peace advocates are PETA freaks and they go and hold signs saying meat is murder, since you are supportive of peace that means you agree with meat is murder by extension?

Lets not forget that the Provisional IRA had a British secret service man who planned out many of the operations and said who to kill.

I do not believe anyone is saying the Real IRA are the embodiment of the Republican Movement, rather they are like the PETA in the Peace movement.

The Real IRA are apart of the Republican movement, but that does not mean all Republicans support or agree with Real IRA, just like not all Peace Activists agree with PETA.

There was a real reason that Ireland was partitioned by the British and it was to do with dividing and conquering, make the irish fight for their unity.

Bitter Ashes

4th July 2009, 04:25

*facepalm*
It's nearly 4.30 in the morning here and even taking that into account, I do the best I can to ensure I've read what people have posted, in depth. What's your excuse?

Why are you making broad generalizations about the Republican movement in Ireland, there are nationalists, communists, trade unionists, bourgeoisie politicians, farmers, Catholics, liberals, conservatives, protestants, socialists, racists, pacifists within the Republican movement. It is not an unanimous omnipotent single movement where everyone agrees on tactics and politics.
Where have I made any such broad generalisation? I'm speaking about the IRA here, not the Republicans in general and I've made that stance very clear throughout. The thread itself is about a very specific splinter group of the IRA; The INLA. The broad generalisation I've seen though is the assumption that anyone who doesnt see the unification of Ireland to be of a higher priority than anything else, even socialism, is affiliated to the BNP.

Lets not forget that the Provisional IRA had a British secret service man who planned out many of the operations and said who to kill.I already reffered to this in my last post when I was talking about how the IRA chose to accept and comply to those orders, which were clearly wrong. Werent you the one who was having a go at me the last time we did the whole Ireland debate, for me following the orders of British commanders a few years back?

I do not believe anyone is saying the Real IRA are the embodiment of the Republican Movement, rather they are like the PETA in the Peace movement.

The Real IRA are apart of the Republican movement, but that does not mean all Republicans support or agree with Real IRA, just like not all Peace Activists agree with PETA.During our previous debate, there was plenty of people running to the defence of that particular pizza-delivery-boy-shooting gang. We've got a thread here in the defence of the INLA, who were caught employing similar tatics. Do I think all Republicans support these thugs? No, I dont and if there had ever been any doubt about that, I just had to switch on the TV and see McGuinenss condemning them.

Revy

4th July 2009, 10:16

I think the working class should unite regardless of religion or lack thereof, to put it from a religious angle on either perspective is just not rational, we should not be promoting the unity of Christians, we should be promoting the unity of the working class in struggle. It's not so much about uniting Catholics and Protestants as it is tearing down the walls that would divide them and ending any religious based oppression.

I think Northern Ireland being part of the UK is a vestige of British colonialism that should be overturned.

And on that note, I conclude with a Star Trek clip! :)

-8thJJDLang

(btw, I don't think this clip was really banned. But it's interesting....)

robbo203

4th July 2009, 19:33

"The real intricacies of the Irish land problem — which indeed are not especially Irish — are so great that the only true way to solve it would be to give the Irish Home Rule and thus force them to solve it themselves." - Karl Marx, 1881

And what of it? If you interpret this as meaning Marx lending supporting to so called national liberation struggle then it needs to be said loud and clear - on this point Marx was wrong! To his credit, though, he also pointed out that the working class "have no country". Which sits rather uneaslily with your claim that " A republican is an Irishmen or Irishwomen trying to end British domination and occupation of their nation in their own way." Their nation???

Anyone who advocates so called national liberation is ipso facto a nationalist and objectively speaking an opponent of working class emancipation. It is not possible to be a "socialist republican" - the term is an oxymoron. You are either a socialist or a republican

Hoggy_RS

4th July 2009, 20:45

It is not possible to be a "socialist republican" - the term is an oxymoron. You are either a socialist or a republican
Why is this an oxymoron? Do you claim that no one with republican beliefs can also have socialist beliefs? Don't be so stupid. Was James Connolly not a socialist because he was also a republican?

khad

4th July 2009, 20:52

Why is this an oxymoron? Do you claim that no one with republican beliefs can also have socialist beliefs? Don't be so stupid. Was James Connolly not a socialist because he was also a republican?
And especially following ww2, Irish republicans have constantly expressed solidarity and have even given aid to leftwing liberation movements around the globe. That is more tangible internationalism than any sectarian dogma of certain self-proclaimed communists on this board.

IrishWorker

4th July 2009, 21:01

National Liberation Struggle
(IRSP Pamplet Reprint)

http://irsm.org/graphics/starwhit.gif http://irsm.org/graphics/starwhit.gif http://irsm.org/graphics/starwhit.gif http://irsm.org/graphics/starwhit.gif http://irsm.org/graphics/starwhit.gif http://irsm.org/graphics/starwhit.gif http://irsm.org/graphics/starwhit.gif The author and original date of publication of this historical IRSP document is unknown, but it was part of a series of pamphlets produced by the IRSP to give the working class of Ireland a clear vision of the IRSP's policies.

INTRODUCTION
The struggle for national liberation directly raises class questions. Any attempt to isolate the national struggle from class politics will result in failure. We do not have a choice in whether or not we wish to consider the interconnection of the national and class questions: reality forces us to do so.
The I.R.S.P. supports the struggle for national liberation and furthermore believes that it is the duty of all anti-imperialists to further that struggle for national liberation.
We define the national liberation struggle as that struggle which seeks to force a British military withdrawal from the occupied six counties; the destruction of the pro-British loyalist armed forces; the withdrawal of British political influence from all parts of Ireland; the winning back of economic control of our own resources, the recognition of a separate Irish cultural identity and the establishment of revolutionary socialist Republic.

LOYALISM
At no time can there be political concessions to British loyalists. We recognise loyalism as a reactionary, racist and imperialist ideology which has for three hundred years been used as a bridgehead of British imperialism. We distinguish between loyalism and protestantism. We recognise the right of everybody to their private religious beliefs, provided those beliefs are not used in the oppression of others, but we stand totally opposed to the political ideology of loyalism.

NATIONALISM
We recognise the progressive role of nationalism in the Irish struggle. We also recognise that nationalism can play a reactionary role. The national chauvinism of the Tories, National Front, etc. is counter-revolutionary and anathema to socialists. The nationalism of an oppressed country is vastly different from such reaction. In Ireland the progressive nationalism of Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen identified with the most radical movement of their day, the French Revolution, and today progressive nationalists in Ireland identify and support in a genuinely international sense the struggles of oppressed peoples throughout the world and the anti-imperialist socialist states.
We recognise that national liberation struggles can distort and blur class differences. Various class forces make up the national liberation movement. We state unequivocally that only under the leadership of the working class can the Irish liberation struggle achieve the ultimate victory, not only of "Brlts Out" but also the destruction of the capitalist system. Only the working class has the objective interests in the victory of that struggle.

MIDDLE CLASS/BOURGEOISIE
The bourgeois nationalists' only role is as clients of imperialism. Hence their abandonment over the years of the demand for national independence in favour of 'stability', to facilitate the search for profit. They have accepted through the Anglo-Irlsh agreement not only Britain's but also the U.S.A's right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Irish people.
Sections of the small farming class and people engaged in small businesses may support national liberation. However as representatives of the petit-bourgeoisie, they are unable to carry the struggle to victory. They vacillate in the face of imperialism. Property ownership is still at the basis of their economic existence.
One need only look to the past leaders of the Republican movement to see how its petit-bourgeois leaderships constantly betrayed the struggle for national liberation for eg. Griffiths and De Valera.

REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT
We recognise the progressive nature of the Republican movement. We also recognise the limitations of that movement. They are an alliance of nationalists, socialists and republicans who are united in their support for the war against the forces of occupation. In so far as they fight for independence we support them, but as communists, we affirm that mere independence which leaves untouched the class question in Irish society is unacceptable to us. We refuse to accept that an "Assembly of Elected Representatives" is in any way an adequate end goal for the working class in this country.

THE USE OF ARMS
At present the term "national liberation struggle" is generally taken to mean armed struggle. We believe that the use of arms is a tactic to be used wherever and whenever necessary. The use of arms stems from a political analysis of a given situation. As peaceful protest in the six counties wss beaten and shot off the streets, there was no alternative but to fight back in the same vein. We support the armed struggle presently being waged against British imperialism and in particular we support the Irish National Liberation Army. The I.N.L.A. is not merely a smaller alternative to the I.R.A. but it shares our belief that the social and national struggles are inseparable and recognises Connolly's warning to the Irish Citizens Army to the effect that should independence be achieved, the struggle would be far from over and that their arms should not be laid down until the final victory of the working class.
The I.R.S.P. believes that armed struggle alone cannot achieve victory. Only by mobilising the working class north and south, which would include at least a section of the protestant working class, can the goal of national liberation and socialism be achieved.
http://irsm.org/graphics/starwhit.gif http://irsm.org/graphics/starwhit.gif http://irsm.org/graphics/starwhit.gif http://irsm.org/graphics/starwhit.gif http://irsm.org/graphics/starwhit.gif http://irsm.org/graphics/starwhit.gif http://irsm.org/graphics/starwhit.gif
IRSM History Page (http://irsm.org/history/) | IRSM Home Page (http://irsm.org/irsm.html)

robbo203

5th July 2009, 00:20

Why is this an oxymoron? Do you claim that no one with republican beliefs can also have socialist beliefs? Don't be so stupid. Was James Connolly not a socialist because he was also a republican?

It has been explained to you nationalists often enough before. Socialism identifies class as the primary focus; nationalists such as republicans, on the contrary identify "the nation" as primary. In so doing, nationalists assume a common identity and a commality of interests between individuals (irrespective of class) comprising the so called nation. The effect of nationalist ideology is therefore to detract from class conciousness in favour of national consciousness and this is what makes nationalism - all nationalisms including the the nationalism of the absurdly named ISRP - fundamentally anti-socialist. And yes, insofar as Connolly was a nationalist he relinquished all right to be seriously considered a socialist.

IrishWorker

5th July 2009, 01:05

Bitter Ashes

5th July 2009, 02:07

What is the gain to socialism if there's a united Ireland before the revolution rather than after? It's not like the working class protestants cant become class conscious too. If you want to say that, then you're thouraly defeatist as it suggests that within the UK's borders is totaly incapable of having a class conscious population that is capable of revolution. Whether the six counties revolt as part of the UK, ROI, or independantly, it doesnt matter. It can happen in all those situations, so long as the working class unites and chooses to ignore the divisions opposed upon them. You want to talk about utopian pipe dreams? Well, guess what, those dreams can come true, as the whole Visteon thing proved. You just choose to ignore it, because you're far more intrested in dividing the working class in Northern Ireland than uniting them.

The majority of the working class needs to rally behind the red flag, not just the Catholic parts.The only way I think you can ignore this is to literaly purge all the protestants out of Ireland... which I sincerely hope isnt the plan.

You keep going on about Marx too. Has it occurred to you that Marx never even saw partician? He didnt see Bloody Sunday and he didnt see the Manchester Bomb. He didnt see Omagh and he didnt see Warrington. The Easter rising and The good Friday agreement were after his time too.That stuff that Marx is saying was very relevant at the time, but has absolutly nothing to do with Ireland in the 21st, or even 20th century. It's like picking up a report by a 17th century surgeon and stating that the most significant danger to sailors is still scurvy and plague!

IrishWorker

5th July 2009, 02:16

What makes me even more sick is idiots like you who think Spain is the cushy capitalist wet dream you imagine it to be. What a presumptuous plonker! If I had one tenth of the exoribitant income you suppose I have I would count myself lucky. Besides which. what the hell has any of this got to do with argument about nationalism? None of you nationalists seem to be able to deal with the argument put to you but I guess engaging in ad hominen is as good a way of evading it as any

Don’t be under any illusion my last post was not in any way ment to deflect from the tone of the thread or argument but a simple insult.

You’re belittling of Ireland’s greatest Marxist sickened me you’re constant badgering of the struggle is a disgrace the difference between Nationalism and Right wing Nationalism has been spelt out clearly on this thread.
You’re ideology of a Nation less world and a United world working class is brilliant and as socialists that is our end end goal but it is light years away and it is National Liberation struggles and workers revolutions within each world state that will bring about our classless country less communist world order and it is the men and women on the streets the union members the antifas the republicans and socialists the agitators that will make this happen and when it dose you can be safe in the knowledge that you sniped on the internet from the side lines whilst sipping you’re sangria and trying to take some moral left high ground.
Do you even live in the real world?

5th July 2009, 02:19

you can be safe in the knowledge that you sniped on the internet from the side lines whilst sipping you’re sangria and trying to take some moral left high ground.
Do you even live in the real world?

This is clearly xenophobic and the poster should be banned for saying it.

IrishWorker

5th July 2009, 02:21

This is clearly xenophobic and the poster should be banned for saying it.

How so?

5th July 2009, 02:22

I think that is obvious even to you.

Bitter Ashes

5th July 2009, 02:28

Don’t be under any illusion my last post was not in any way ment to deflect from the tone of the thread or argument but a simple insult.
I believe Hitler made similar assusations of the Jews. He was a "Nationalist Socialist" too...

I'm sick and tired of this whole attitude of "You live in x country, so you must be rich!", thereby implying that they're living off the expoitation of workers. The last time we had this whole Ireland debate I was attacked for living in England and then when it emerged that I was in such a dire situation I had to resort to petty crime to pay for a rented room and make sure I rustled enough food to make sure I didnt get anemia again, I was attacked for that too! We cant win can we? You damn us for living in a prosperous country and you damn us for bieng poor within that country! We're told that there's no way we can understand what Ireland is like if we disagree with you, when the majority of Northern Ireland's population disagree even more on key points. If this isnt a xenophobic attitude I dont know what is and I believe you owe Robbo an apoligiy.

IrishWorker

5th July 2009, 02:35

I believe Hitler made similar assusations of the Jews. He was a "Nationalist Socialist" too...

I'm sick and tired of this whole attitude of "You live in x country, so you must be rich!", thereby implying that they're living off the expoitation of workers. The last time we had this whole Ireland debate I was attacked for living in England and then when it emerged that I was in such a dire situation I had to resort to petty crime to pay for a rented room and make sure I rustled enough food to make sure I didnt get anemia again, I was attacked for that too! We cant win can we? You damn us for living in a prosperous country and you damn us for bieng poor within that country! We're told that there's no way we can understand what Ireland is like if we disagree with you, when the majority of Northern Ireland's population disagree even more on key points. If this isnt a xenophobic attitude I dont know what is and I believe you owe Robbo an apoligiy.

? Yawn

robbo203

5th July 2009, 02:55

Don’t be under any illusion my last post was not in any way ment to deflect from the tone of the thread or argument but a simple insult.

You’re belittling of Ireland’s greatest Marxist sickened me you’re constant badgering of the struggle is a disgrace the difference between Nationalism and Right wing Nationalism has been spelt out clearly on this thread.
You’re ideology of a Nation less world and a United world working class is brilliant and as socialists that is our end end goal but it is light years away and it is National Liberation struggles and workers revolutions within each world state that will bring about our classless country less communist world order and it is the men and women on the streets the union members the antifas the republicans and socialists the agitators that will make this happen and when it dose you can be safe in the knowledge that you sniped on the internet from the side lines whilst sipping you’re sangria and trying to take some moral left high ground.
Do you even live in the real world?

Do I live in the real world, he asks. This from the plonker who presumes to describe in detail what I do in the real world - right down to my supposed preference for Sangria - without knowing a single thing about me and then has the audacity to talk of taking the moral high ground.

The stupidity of nationalists and nationalism is evident in the reply you give. You pretend to pay lip service to the communist goal of a world without nations and nationalism but like pro capitalist reformists everywhere wheel out that "in the meantime" argument as your last line of defence. Yes Ive heard it all before. Communism is a nice idea but "in the mean time". we ve got to run with capitalism. A nationless world is a "brilliant idea" but in the meantime we got to support our local national liberation struggle. This is such a pathetic argument . It reminds me of the joke about the guy wanting to strike a blow for pacificism by joining the army.

THe thing that you nationalists need to understand is that the communist world you claim to pay lip srervice is light years away ONLY BECAUSE of the efforts of people like you who constantly maintain that it is more important and pressing to do something else in the meantime that is moreover totally at variance with the communist goal. You cannot for example advocate a nationless world and advocate national liberation struggle. Fundamentally speaking. in this respect there is no real difference between your nationalism and right wing nationalism. You both serve to to prop up capitalism in some shape or form

Oh and sorry for belittling "Irelands greatest marxist". What will that be now - three Hail Mary's and five Our Fathers? Sorry but the man was a tosser for advocating nationalism. You might hero worhip and father figure him but then that says more about you and the iconography of nationalism than it does about anything else

khad

5th July 2009, 03:06

Well, thank you for clarrifying that for me. What it doesnt address though is that you'd far rather that, if given the choice, that they were republicans than socialists. That is a major problem.
There is a far better chance for socialist politics (which are already represented in republican politics) if there were no hand of imperialism forcing thatcherism and fascist BNP politics down people's throats. I side with the side more receptive to leftwing politics, thank you very much. I view the growing disenchantment with Adams and the movement towards a more radical republicanism as a healthy thing. The more leftwing republicans have been increasingly alienated by the direction that SF has been taking for the past decade.

Is it not funny how you yourself use this this rationale (up the people amenable to the left) to support the Iranian protesters, despite the fact that the leader of the opposition, Rafsanjani, is the biggest neoliberal shithead in Iran who alienates workers and peasants by his very presence?

It would be too easy to dig at this double standard with a cheap shot about British nationalism, but I'm not going to go there.

That's a flimsey accusation to make. The man has "WORKERS OF ALL LANDS UNITE!" on his tombstone ffs. I think that makes it very clear what his impression of how Republicanism has degraded into the pit it's been in throughout the 20th century and continued into the 21st. Do you think Marx would have welcomed the Manchester Bomb, or cheered for RIRA as they shot those pizza guys, would he have puffed out his chest in pride at Omagh? Does any of this demonstrate a uniting of all workers of all lands? Dont be daft. Republicanism is totaly different to what it was in the 19th century and saying that Marx supported the modern Republicanism is a total fabrication. Why do you even bother calling yourselves socialists, when your main motivation is clearly far more to do with the same fixation with borders that the Loyalists have?Stop imagining things. The man was explicitly clear during his lifetime--that imperialism and its stormtroopers (ie the British troops and aggressors) deserve whatever is coming to them.

IrishWorker

5th July 2009, 03:11

Do I live in the real world, he asks. This from the plonker who presumes to describe in detail what I do in the real world - right down to my supposed preference for Sangria - without knowing a single thing about me and then has the audacity to talk of taking the moral high ground.

The stupidity of nationalists and nationalism is evident in the reply you give. You pretend to pay lip service to the communist goal of a world without nations and nationalism but like pro capitalist reformists everywhere wheel out that "in the meantime" argument as your last line of defence. Yes Ive heard it all before. Communism is a nice idea but "in the mean time". we ve got to run with capitalism. A nationless world is a "brilliant idea" but in the meantime we got to support our local national liberation struggle. This is such a pathetic argument . It reminds me of the joke about the guy wanting to strike a blow for pacificism by joining the army.

THe thing that you nationalists need to understand is that the communist world you claim to pay lip srervice is light years away ONLY BECAUSE of the efforts of people like you who constantly maintain that it is more important and pressing to do something else in the meantime that is moreover totally at variance with the communist goal. You cannot for example advocate a nationless world and advocate national liberation struggle. Fundamentally speaking. in this respect there is no real difference between your nationalism and right wing nationalism. You both serve to to prop up capitalism in some shape or form

Oh and sorry for belittling "Irelands greatest marxist". What will that be now - three Hail Mary's and five Our Fathers? Sorry but the man was a tosser for advocating nationalism. You might hero worhip and father figure him but then that says more about you and the iconography of nationalism than it does about anything else

Thankfully I’ve hit a sore spot you despot.
Can you comment on the article that was posted on this thread by me from the IRSP please.

khad

5th July 2009, 03:41

Who said I supported the leaders? The limits of my intrest in Iran is to do with the bloggers and such bieng hunted down, attacked, killed, or arrested for maintaining a blog after media was banned. So, dont make assumptions, it'd make your cheap shot even cheaper.
So do you condemn the Iranian protesters' attempt to blow up pilgrims at Khomenei's tomb? What about the MEK (self-proclaimed Marxist) cult serving as US mercenaries in Iraq who are now seeking to exploit the current unrest? What about the British troops blowing up kids around the globe? Where's all the moral indignation? Aren't all sides equally guilty? Why don't you sympathize with the peasants and workers in the people's Basiji militia, then? They have had to suffer the indignities of being beaten by young neoliberal thugs, right?

I'm imagining things? Are you actualy denying that PIRA bombed a packed shopping centre in Manchester in the 90's, that RIRA shot two workers for the "crime" of delivering pizza, that Omagh happened and the kneecappings are rife? Did I just imagine all that stuff?The facts remain. The Troubles, which were by any measure violent, had one of the lowest proportions of civilian casualties (less than half) because the PIRA actually tried to rein in such reprisals. UNLIKE the loyalists. Out of 2057 deaths caused by republicans, there were 709 civilians. For the Loyalists, there were 845 out of 1019.

You are desperately trying to create a moral equivalence where there is none. Just like in Iran where there is no equivalence between the violence that the state is wielding vs the violence the protesters are wielding.

Furthermore, to take the example of Meserene, this year, you're saying that Marx holds the teenage bomb-disposal engineers directly responsible for the actions within his own lifetime, over a century before. Marx did not say that. The quote you came up with was about multilations, tortures and warcrimes, all of which I've given examples above of how Republicanism of the 20th and 21st century is guilty of too. I'm sure if Marx had known what thugs and nationalist mad-bombers you were to become then he would have condemned that too.Of course they are not directly responsible. But Marx certainly would have accepted the fate that the wheel of history would have had in store for them. Loss of life is a consequence of imperial rule, even for the imperialists.

Your talking points are trite and asinine. As if Marx would have ever had sympathy for the stormtroopers who exterminated the Paris Commune, since the soldiers were "working class blokes" too.

PRC-UTE

5th July 2009, 04:12

Maith thu a nikita (I assume you're Irish, but in case you're not, 'good on you, nikita')

Much of the left treats republicans and loyalist as equivalents, but that's not supported by the facts as you just illustrated.

khad

5th July 2009, 04:17

Maith thu a khad (I assume you're Irish, but in case you're not, 'good on you, Khad')

Much of the left treats republicans and loyalist as equivalents, but that's not supported by the facts as you just illustrated.
No I am not, but I greatly respect the Irish republican struggle and the solidarity and support you have given to liberation movements around the world. Perhaps you guys have a different perspective because you, unlike the rest of these folks, have been on the receiving end of imperialism for a damn long time.

Invariance

5th July 2009, 12:37

As if Marx would have ever had sympathy for the stormtroopers who exterminated the Paris Commune, since the soldiers were "working class blokes" too. Well actually, here was what Engels wrote:
It was only after eight days’ fighting that the last defender of the Commune were overwhelmed on the heights of Belleville and Menilmontant; and then the massacre of defenceless men, women, and children, which had been raging all through the week on an increasing scale, reached its zenith. The breechloaders could no longer kill fast enough; the vanquished workers were shot down in hundred by mitrailleuse fire [over 30,000 citizens of Paris were massacred]. The “Wall of the Federals” [aka Wall of the Communards] at the Pere Lachaise cemetery, where the final mass murder was consummated, is still standing today, a mute but eloquent testimony to the savagery of which the ruling class is capable as soon as the working class dares to come out for its rights. Then came the mass arrests [38,000 workers arrested]; when the slaughter of them all proved to be impossible, the shooting of victims arbitrarily selected from the prisoners’ ranks, and the removal of the rest to great camps where they awaited trial by courts-martial. The Prussian troops surrounding the northern half of Paris had orders not to allow any fugitives to pass; but the officers often shut their eyes when the soldiers paid more obedience to the dictates of humanity than to those of the General Staff; particularly, honor is due to the Saxon army corps, which behaved very humanely and let through many workers who were obviously fighters for the Commune.

Hoggy_RS

5th July 2009, 13:05

It has been explained to you nationalists often enough before. Socialism identifies class as the primary focus; nationalists such as republicans, on the contrary identify "the nation" as primary. In so doing, nationalists assume a common identity and a commality of interests between individuals (irrespective of class) comprising the so called nation. The effect of nationalist ideology is therefore to detract from class conciousness in favour of national consciousness and this is what makes nationalism - all nationalisms including the the nationalism of the absurdly named ISRP - fundamentally anti-socialist. And yes, insofar as Connolly was a nationalist he relinquished all right to be seriously considered a socialist.
Thats all I needed to hear. If you can't see that Connolly was a socialist you obviously have no knowledge of republican socialism.

Just because someone doesen't conform to your view of what makes someone a socialist, doesen't give you the right to claim they are a nationalist or anti-working class. The working class in the 6 counties sufferred terribley under the British regime & it was only 'nationalist' & 'anti-working class' groups like the IRSP/INLA who protected them. Where were the fucking anarchists and the rest of the far left? Its easy to criticise republican socialist groups but they were the ones making a difference. I fail to see how they are anti-working class but I guess I wouldn't understand because im such a nationalist.:lol:

Are ye all fundamentally against fighting imperialism? From what I can see, yere theory(which is all you have isn't it?) claims that fighting imperialism in any way makes you a nationalist. Are all those that support the Palestinian cause nationalists?

If being an anti-imperialist means your a nationalist well then i'm a fucking nationalist.

robbo203

5th July 2009, 13:58

Thats all I needed to hear. If you can't see that Connolly was a socialist you obviously have no knowledge of republican socialism.

Just because someone doesen't conform to your view of what makes someone a socialist, doesen't give you the right to claim they are a nationalist or anti-working class. The working class in the 6 counties sufferred terribley under the British regime & it was only 'nationalist' & 'anti-working class' groups like the IRSP/INLA who protected them. Where were the fucking anarchists and the rest of the far left? Its easy to criticise republican socialist groups but they were the ones making a difference. I fail to see how they are anti-working class but I guess I wouldn't understand because im such a nationalist.:lol:

Are ye all fundamentally against fighting imperialism? From what I can see, yere theory(which is all you have isn't it?) claims that fighting imperialism in any way makes you a nationalist. Are all those that support the Palestinian cause nationalists?

If being an anti-imperialist means your a nationalist well then i'm a fucking nationalist.

Yes thats quite right. You are a "fucking nationalist". You said it, not me

As for Connnolly, yes , there was one stage in his life when, through his connections with de leonism, he could be considered a socialist. He gave up the right to be considered a socialist when he became an irish nationalist and a Labourite reformist. Whereas in 1899 he could argue that "the cry for a 'Union of Classes' is in reality an insidious move on the part of our Irish master class to have the powers of government transferred from the hands of the English capitalist government into the hands of an Irish capitalist government" (Workers Republic, 2 September 1899), by 1914 he was proudly at a public meeting to discuss "The Position of the Nation" with regard to the First World War that "he had with him on the platform men drawn from all classes" (Irish Worker, 17 October 1914) and mystically talking mumbo jumbo about the the "soul" of the "Irish Race" . Like all nationalists he had become a class collaborationist and a traitor to socialism

As for so called Irish "socialist" republican groups being the only ones to make any difference in protecting the "working class" in the 6 counties, pull another one. You have a very inflated opinion of your own importance. Some difference, some protection:rolleyes:

I know enough about Irish "socialist" republicanism to recognise it for what it is - the class collaborationist creed of a mere left wing capitalist organisation whose function is to serve the interests of Irish capitalism vis a vis other capitalisms whatever its flambuoyant rhetoric may say to the contrary. The capitalist credentials of the ISRM are indisputable and were pointed out in a previous post

Hoggy_RS

5th July 2009, 14:39

Yes thats quite right. You are a "fucking nationalist". You said it, not me

Actually you did call me a nationalist in the post i quoted.

As for Connnolly, yes , there was one stage in his life when, through his connections with de leonism, he could be considered a socialist. He gave up the right to be considered a socialist when he became an irish nationalist and a Labourite reformist. Whereas in 1899 he could argue that "the cry for a 'Union of Classes' is in reality an insidious move on the part of our Irish master class to have the powers of government transferred from the hands of the English capitalist government into the hands of an Irish capitalist government" (Workers Republic, 2 September 1899), by 1914 he was proudly at a public meeting to discuss "The Position of the Nation" with regard to the First World War that "he had with him on the platform men drawn from all classes" (Irish Worker, 17 October 1914) and mystically talking mumbo jumbo about the the "soul" of the "Irish Race" . Like all nationalists he had become a class collaborationist and a traitor to socialism

Its a pity Connolly never became an inspirational socialist like you. Think of all he could of achieved if he'd done what you and the rest of the far left do: Immerse yourself in theory and shy away from taking any kind of action. Connolly clearly stated he wanted a united socialist Ireland and fought and died for the creation fo such an Ireland. Do nationalists usually die for the creation of a socialist state? If wasn't for the likes of Connolly the entire Ireland could still be under the rule of the imperialist British state. But i'm sure ye'd love that. Better to be oppressed than have any kind of national liberation eh?

As for so called Irish "socialist" republican groups being the only ones to make any difference in protecting the "working class" in the 6 counties, pull another one. You have a very inflated opinion of your own importance. Some difference, some protection

Is your argument purely just to say im wrong? Impressive. I find it baffling that you can deny that republicans protected communities during the troubles. This is fact.

Its funny how Socialist republican groups are out there trying to make a difference when its the very people who are doing nothing that are lecturing us.

khad

5th July 2009, 15:02

Well actually, here was what Engels wrote:
It was only after eight days’ fighting that the last defender of the Commune were overwhelmed on the heights of Belleville and Menilmontant; and then the massacre of defenceless men, women, and children, which had been raging all through the week on an increasing scale, reached its zenith. The breechloaders could no longer kill fast enough; the vanquished workers were shot down in hundred by mitrailleuse fire [over 30,000 citizens of Paris were massacred]. The “Wall of the Federals” [aka Wall of the Communards] at the Pere Lachaise cemetery, where the final mass murder was consummated, is still standing today, a mute but eloquent testimony to the savagery of which the ruling class is capable as soon as the working class dares to come out for its rights. Then came the mass arrests [38,000 workers arrested]; when the slaughter of them all proved to be impossible, the shooting of victims arbitrarily selected from the prisoners’ ranks, and the removal of the rest to great camps where they awaited trial by courts-martial. The Prussian troops surrounding the northern half of Paris had orders not to allow any fugitives to pass; but the officers often shut their eyes when the soldiers paid more obedience to the dictates of humanity than to those of the General Staff; particularly, honor is due to the Saxon army corps, which behaved very humanely and let through many workers who were obviously fighters for the Commune.

Are you intentionally making shit up? I said "the stormtroopers who exterminated the Paris Commune." Did the Prussians do that? Last time I checked, NO. Engels is talking about the Prussians here, not the fucking French troops who murdered the Communards in cold blood. If you think this proves a damn thing, obviously you guys are more desperate than I thought. Or maybe you guys are just that ignorant of history.

And Ranma, quit hiding behind wishful thinking and fanciful "interpretations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XII_(1st_Royal_Saxon)_Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XII_%281st_Royal_Saxon%29_Corps)

The XII (1st Royal Saxon) Army Corps (XII. (1. Königlich Sächsisches) Armeekorps) was a Saxon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Saxony) corps of the Imperial German Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army_%28German_Empire%29). It was formed on April 1, 1867 and was headquartered in Dresden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden), Saxony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxony). During the Franco-Prussian War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War), the corps fought in the Battle of Gravelotte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gravelotte), the Battle of Sedan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sedan),and the Siege of Paris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Paris).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XII_%281st_Royal_Saxon%29_Corps#cite_note-0)

khad

5th July 2009, 15:04

Wait, so you are trying to argue that because the Republicans killed more 'legitimate' targets than the Loyalist thugs, the murder of 709 civillians is some how excusable?
I never said needless civilian deaths were excusable, just that there was no moral equivalence. Take your crocodile tears elsewhere. The PIRA is perhaps among a handful of insurgent armies in history--ever--that tried to reduce the numbers of civilians caught in the crossfire.

Charles Xavier

5th July 2009, 15:27

Comrades, in Palestine, there is crazies who belong to the liberation movement who go and bomb civilians in Israel. So because some factions of a liberation movement who out of desperation use tactics and have philosophy which is horrible, we should condemn the entire movement? Or why don't we examine the complexity of the situation, where there are bad people in a liberation movement and there are good people.

Because some bad apples the whole movement should be condemned and there should no longer be a liberation struggle?

Should have Fidel Castro laid down his arms when some of his rogue men or supporters of the Cuban Revolution stole from and killed civilians. Does the struggle for liberation no longer become progressive because there is the presence of opportunists, adventurists and reactionaries in the midst of a liberation struggle?

Let us no forget that intelligence agencies and hostile governments have also launched smear campaigns against such struggle. They have killed groups of civilians and blamed it on the insurgencies of the world. Let us not forget Colombia where this happens on a regular basis, or in Vietnam where the French and American troops used this tactic.

Or in Basra where British troops where dressed up as insurgents and shot up civilians only to be caught by Iraqi troops and then jailed, only then there were broken free by the British army.

Or the fact that there are bourgeoisie in the world who support progressive struggles in the world every once and awhile for their own interests, does that make the struggle no longer progressive?

And do not paint Marx to be some liberal academic who would go around condemning every revolutionary movement in the world because of bloodshed. or the authoritarian nature of armed struggle. In his own life time he saw revolutions, bourgeoisie and even failed worker revolutions, he criticized some of the tactics as the Anarchist movement usually had a big part in the revolutionary movement of the day and he there pointed out the failure of some of the tactics and of bullshitity of decentralized armed struggle and propaganda of the deed.

Soldier of life

5th July 2009, 15:45

The PIRA is perhaps among a handful of insurgent armies in history--ever--that tried to reduce the numbers of civilians caught in the crossfire.

Absolutely correct.

The PIRA and INLA actively tried to avoid any sort of civilian casualties, although this is not making excuses for civilian casualties these two armies are incomparable to the likes of loyalist para's. Loyalists actively sought to kill as many catholic civilians as possible, they were fiercely sectarian and so many of their 'operations' simply involved looking for vulnerable innocent people to butcher. Republicanism and Loyalism are worlds apart and certainly not reflections of each other.

Redmau5

5th July 2009, 16:29

I'm sure if Marx had known what thugs and nationalist mad-bombers you were to become then he would have condemned that too.

So what do you suppose the republican communities should have done when they were being burned from their homes in 1969 by loyalist mobs and state forces? Do you think these "nationalist mad-bombers" joined the IRA out of some patriotic, zealous love for mother Ireland or because their communities were under attack from the aforementioned loyalists and state forces?

Regardless of what you think of the IRA's actions (some of which were absolutely deplorable, make no mistake), your constant moralising about republicans being fanatical terrorists with a unrelenting hatred of protestants is incredibly tiresome, completely inaccurate and grossly simplistic. Considering you're ex-British Army with, from what I have gathered reading your posts, a continuing soft spot for said Army, I think you need to climb down from your ivory tower and stop painting the conflict in Ireland in simple black and white. It's much more complicated than that.

5th July 2009, 17:43

What do you nationalists say to the people of communities that come out to their own fatal end to fight both sides of nationalist struggles? What about Mcdaid who was murdered by loyalist paramilitaries in NI recently..

It gets turned into disgusting publicity about how the loyalists are evil, without any real lasting compassion for a man who tried his best to unite both sides.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6364252.ece

I guess the fact his wife was protestant makes him a traitor huh?

What about when communities turn out to fight combined gangsterism from the PKK and the more concealed but ever present element of Turkish nationalism from the MHP and the grey wolves as a platform for gangsterism? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/organised-crime-the-godfather-of-green-lanes-476208.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/mar/28/drugsandalcohol.ukcrime

The PKK are clearly fighting "the good fight" against imperialism by terrorising evil reactionary workers who just want a better life.

Hoggy_RS

5th July 2009, 18:32

I think that I have quite an indepth knowledge of 'Republican socialism'. I just don't think that there is anything socialist about it.
You're entitled to your opinion.

I don't believe that armed gangs can fight against imperialism. I don't think that the Irish nationalists are fighting against 'imperialism'. They fight against British imperialism, but that is a different think.

What they do is play there part in dividing the working class, which is the only force that can really fight against imperialism.

But republican socialist groups are no longer fighting as 'armed gangs'. The IRSP & Eirigi both seek a socialist Ireland through more peaceful means. Look at their websites, they clearly state this. Its funny how the IRSP spends so much time meeting with loyalists in an attempt to unite the working class yet they are still apparentley dividing this working class. I guess the IRSP will never be good enough for some on here.

I don't think you are an anti-imperialist, just a nationalist. thats just a bit of silly statement. Don't be saying things you can't back up. Next ye'll be branding me a fascist:lol:

think it is a question of what they are 'out there' doing. We believe that they are playing their part in keeping the working class divided. Personally, I don't do nothing, but I think that doing nothing would be better than doing what they do.
They are, as i've said, attempting to unite the working class by meeting with loyalists. Surely a nationalist group wouldn't do this. It would be as if saying the BNP are meeting with ANTIFA!