Fighting in N Belfast, police fire plastic bullets, republicans shoot back

[PRC-UTE]

Shot fired during Belfast rioting
At least one shot has been fired at police by republicans in north Belfast and there have been other disturbances after Orange Order parades in NI.
At least two police officers have been injured in the city and water cannon have been deployed to disperse rioters.
Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly blamed the Real IRA for the trouble in north Belfast.
In Londonderry there were minor disturbances and there has also been trouble in Rasharkin, County Antrim and Armagh.


PSNI Assistant Chief Constable Alistair Finlay said it was disappointing "isolated outbreaks of violence had marred the day for all communities".
"Right across Northern Ireland there were hundreds of parades that passed off peacefully," he said.
"However, it is very disappointing that there were a minority of people, in north Belfast, Derry, Armagh, Rasharkin and other parts of Northern Ireland who showed total disregard for local communities.
"They displayed the worst possible face of Northern Ireland - a face of bigotry, sectarianism and intolerance that is not representative of the vast majority of people who have moved on and embraced a peaceful future."
Petrol bombs fireworks, stones, and bottles were thrown at police officers in Ardoyne.
Police fired up to 14 baton rounds and water cannon was deployed.
A van was also hijacked and pushed at police lines.
Mr Kelly said a "a small number of dissident republicans from outside Ardoyne" had stoked sectarian tensions and orchestrated the trouble.
"These people want to see sectarian violence on the streets of Ardoyne and north Belfast. They want to see conflict between young people and the PSNI.



"They are content to see the PSNI firing plastic bullets at young nationalists. I am not. The use of plastic bullets is unacceptable."
Earlier a firearm was handed into police after a group of children were found playing with it.
In Rasharkin, officers sustained minor injuries when they were struck by stones and bricks by youths in the village.
Petrol bombs were also thrown. One man has been arrested.
There were disturbances during the return leg of the Twelfth parade in Derry.
There was minor trouble in the Butcher's Gate area where one policeman sustained a slight injury.
Earlier, rival groups taunted each other as Orangemen and a small number of bands made their way through the Diamond area.
Both sides spat at each other and threw missiles. Police separated factions.
Officers remained in the area, and were attacked by nationalists throwing stones and bottles.
Police came under attack with missiles and paint during disturbances in Armagh following a security alert at Friary Road in which a minor explosion occurred.
Four people have been arrested for public order offences following a number of minor disturbances.
A small number of petrol bombs were thrown. At least two cars were also stolen and set alight on Friary Road.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8148955.stm

Published: 2009/07/13 21:05:38 GMT

© BBC MMIX

Follow the link for video as well.

[Redmau5]

"They displayed the worst possible face of Northern Ireland - a face of bigotry, sectarianism and intolerance

I think that sums the Orange Order up perfectly. ;)

Was the trouble actually orchestrated by any group in particular?

[Mindtoaster]

What do they expect? I can't believe Orange Order marches are still legal (actually I can).

If the KKK marched through my neighborhood I'd be throwing petrol bombs

Video footage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8148881.stm


I'm gonna be in northern Ireland on Saturday, will all this have calmed down by then?

[Redmau5]

I'm gonna be in northern Ireland on Saturday, will all this have calmed down by then?

More than likely, though it's not a certainty. Ever since Kevin McDaid was murdered, there has been a steady enough increase in sectarian attacks all across Northern Ireland, particularly against churches, GAA grounds and Orange halls. The incessant raising of loyalist flags on lamp posts in mixed estates has also served to increase tension.

In all honestly I can't see there being any more rioting. Maybe a few sporadic attacks here and there, but nothing major.

[Pogue]

What would happen if there was a blac bloc anarcho march through the middle of Belfast and people raised a few red and black flags everywhere?

[Killfacer]

What would happen if there was a blac bloc anarcho march through the middle of Belfast and people raised a few red and black flags everywhere?

Everyone one would be like "where are our old religious enemies, boohoo this is no good"

[Mindtoaster]

There were some minor explosions in Armagh, followed by a police raid on a housing estate which spawned another riot.

Theres some footage of a masked man with an AK-47 walking around the estate after the PSNI were chased off, taken by a guy at the scene.

Its on youtube already so I guess I may as well go ahead and post it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fM24tYvfzg

[Mindtoaster]

On the explosion


The Twelfth: Blast blamed on dissidents

The Orange Order has blamed dissident republicans for causing a “minor explosion” in Armagh city as major Twelfth celebrations were going on.

No-one was injured in the small blast which went off in the area of Friary Road yesterday afternoon as the Orange Order took part in Northern Ireland biggest demonstration.

Police said an Army bomb disposal team made the device safe after it was discovered.

Chief Inspector Ken Mawhinney said those behind the device had a total disregard for the people of Armagh. “These people do not care about the possible tragic outcome of their criminal activities. They must be isolated,” he said.

He did not comment on the size of the device or who police thought had planted it.

The Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland issued a statement blaming dissident republicans and saying a death could easily have been caused.

“There are clearly republican dissidents in the community who want to cause as much tension as they can and today’s bomb could easily have killed people. As it turned out, fortunately no-one was injured.”

The statement said Orange leaders were calling on the nationalist community “to show respect and tolerance to our culture”.

“The republican dissidents clearly have no intention of respecting our culture and we ask the wider nationalist community to isolate them,” the statement added.

“We also appeal to the Protestant community not to fall into the trap of reprisal attacks. The best people to deal with these thugs is the police and we ask the public to give them any information they have on any of these incidents.”

Armagh mayor Thomas O'Hanlon said that those behind the bomb attack had shown a total disregard for human life.

“It's ironic that these dissident elements choose to plant such a device in what is a predominantly nationalist area,” said the SDLP councillor.


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/the-twelfth-blast-blamed-on-dissidents-14404306.html

[Pogue]

Everyone one would be like "where are our old religious enemies, boohoo this is no good"

i'm up for it if you are

[Salyut]

So whats the deal with these 'Orange Order' folks. They run around celebrating some ancient battle and harassing catholics or something? :huh:

[Mindtoaster]

So whats the deal with these 'Orange Order' folks. They run around celebrating some ancient battle and harassing catholics or something? :huh:

Yeah, they parade through nationalist neighborhoods with union jacks and UDA/other assorted loyalist death squad banners every 12th.

[Agrippa]

Death to the loyalist scum! Solidarity with the Irish Catholics, who are my sisters and brothers in both blood and class!

[Saorsa]

It's not a religious conflict.

[PRC-UTE]

It's not a religious conflict.

right, there's indications that even while sectarianism grows, religious belief is actually declining. This is about power and territory.

And the rioting was mostly between police and locals in Ardoyne. For some reason they didn't appreciate being under what amounted to complete lockdown in their own community, being surrounded on all sides unable to go in or come out.

[PRC-UTE]

The Republican Socialist Youth Movement commends the People of Ardoyne

On Monday the 13th of July once again the seal of British normalization was once again broken by the people of the occupied six counties last night.
In area's such as Ardoyne, Rasharkin, Derry and Armagh the people of these area's against the face of armed RUC/PSNI members, resisted the occupation of these area's.
The Republican Socialist Youth Movement commends the people of these area's for their resistance against attack from numerous elements of the communities of the occupied six counties, including the armed wing of the British state the RUC/PSNI and elements within loyalism.
The Republican Socialist Youth Movement activists from Belfast were on the ground in Ardoyne last night when the events unfolded.
First a Ardoyne residents protest against an Orange Order parade through Ardoyne was attacked by the RUC/PSNI when the protest began to maneuver to its position in Ardoyne, these actions by the RUC/PSNI angered the people of Ardoyne.
Around six o'clock before the loyalist parade had entered Ardoyne on its second run, the RUC/PSNI were attacked by youths from Ardoyne with numerous missiles, the violence continued from youths from that time on, violent reaction began by the RUC/PSNI with its various baton charges, input of water cannons and the firing of plastic bullets on the residents who where present in this situation.
In defiance of these heavy handed tactics and occupation of Ardoyne, the people of Ardoyne resisted all these attempts by RUC/PSNI.
The Republican Socialist Youth Movement commends all those in Ardoyne last night who stood in resistance against the occupation of Ardoyne by the British state's paramilitary the RUC/PSNI and the provocative and sectarian marches the RUC/PSNI protect and force through Nationalist area's.

A Republican Socialist Youth Movement spokesperson Matthew Quinn commented on the events in Ardoyne last night.

''The Ardoyne people over numerous years have felt the full brunt of RUC/PSNI invasions, attacks from loyalism and the killing of people from Ardoyne by British run organizations, the people have simply sent out a message, that Loyalist parading is not welcome in Ardoyne and neither is the RUC/PSNI British paramilitary police.''
'' The Republican Socialist Youth Movement call on leaders of the Protestant/Unionist communities to get real and cease these sectarian marches through Nationalist communities and also the Republican Socialist Youth Movement would like to send a clear cut message to the RUC/PSNI and its British masters, last night you were seen for what you really are, the face of the British occupation in Ireland.''

Republican Socialist Youth Movement
National PRO

Statement ends
14/7/2009 1.56 pm

[Intifadah]

PSFs handwringing today has been cringeworthy. As was the idiot of a priest who claimed the people involved weren't from Ardoyne because he didn't recognize them. They didn't want to be recognized you aul fart, hence the masks and scarves.

[progressive_lefty]

Shows what pathetic individuals the Orange Order are. If the Police Service in Northern Ireland were really serious, they'd ban the Orange Order marches.

[Pogue]

sectarian shit


Fuck the Loyalists, fuck the british state, fuck the republicans, gun touting chauvinistic twats the bunch of them, its high time the working class kicked these parasites out of ireland

[Mindtoaster]

sectarian shit


Fuck the Loyalists, fuck the british state, fuck the republicans, gun touting chauvinistic twats the bunch of them, its high time the working class kicked these parasites out of ireland

So the working class should kick itself out of Ireland?

[ls]

So the working class should kick itself out of Ireland?

So you're saying that most working-class people in northern ireland are republicans?

Interesting.

[Madvillainy]

So you're saying that most working-class people in northern ireland are republicans?

Interesting.

Well yes, most people in NI either support republicanism or loyalism. I would have thought this was obvious.

[PRC-UTE]

So the working class should kick itself out of Ireland?

If only those stupid paddies could be as clever and civilised as the Brits. It's their fault, isn't it.

Material conditions in Ireland have nothing to do with British involvement in Ireland or the backwards economic conditions under British rule; no, the Irish just need to 'fuck off' and problem sorted.

It reveals the reactionary core of the anti-nationalist school of thought. The far left often concludes: 'Irish nationalism bad', and so follows this conclusion back to the reasoning that blaming the Brits for the conditions in the territory they rule is also bad, therefore someone else must be blamed, and that's the Irish working class.

[ls]

It reveals the reactionary core of the anti-nationalist school of thought. The far left often concludes: 'Irish nationalism bad', and so follows this conclusion back to the reasoning that blaming the Brits for the conditions in the territory they rule is also bad, therefore someone else must be blamed, and that's the Irish working class.

Dunno how you came to the conclusion "the far left" blames the Irish working-class and not "the Brits" (I guess that must be the British working-class's fault for the conditions in Ireland instead then).

We can play this game for hours if you want.

[Pogue]

If only those stupid paddies could be as clever and civilised as the Brits. It's their fault, isn't it.

Material conditions in Ireland have nothing to do with British involvement in Ireland or the backwards economic conditions under British rule; no, the Irish just need to 'fuck off' and problem sorted.

It reveals the reactionary core of the anti-nationalist school of thought. The far left often concludes: 'Irish nationalism bad', and so follows this conclusion back to the reasoning that blaming the Brits for the conditions in the territory they rule is also bad, therefore someone else must be blamed, and that's the Irish working class.

Do you have some sort of deeply ingrained sense of personal insecurity that leads to to accusing everyone of xenophobia everytime we criticise republicanism? Are Irish people some how devoid of criticism for reactionary ideology?

The British states occupation of Ireland is bad, loyalism is bad and republicanism is bad. I made this clear in my original post, sadly your politics are so pathetic your only defense for them is accusing anyone who crticises them of xenophobia. Grow up, you stupid little drama queen.

[Mindtoaster]

Do you have some sort of deeply ingrained sense of personal insecurity that leads to to accusing everyone of xenophobia everytime we criticise republicanism? Are Irish people some how devoid of criticism for reactionary ideology?

The British states occupation of Ireland is bad, loyalism is bad and republicanism is bad. I made this clear in my original post, sadly your politics are so pathetic your only defense for them is accusing anyone who crticises them of xenophobia. Grow up, you stupid little drama queen.

Yet sadly you've been unable to convince anyone of anything other then your inability to break away from the doctrine of the British media establishment.

I think the rest of us are quite comfortable taking the side of the oppressed, over your infantile, politically-correct cowardice.

But go on, start crying about how we're all middle-class and have shit politics because we disagree with you like you always seem to :crying:

Since we're all working class it doesn't really hit home anyway

Have fun, liberal.

[Pogue]

Yet sadly you've been unable to convince anyone of anything other then your inability to break away from the doctrine of the British media establishment.

I think the rest of us are quite comfortable taking the side of the oppressed, over your infantile, politically-correct cowardice.

But go on, start crying about how we're all middle-class and have shit politics because we disagree with you like you always seem to :crying:

Since we're all working class it doesn't really hit home anyway

Have fun, liberal.

I think it shows just how much you've let your politics slip through nationalist or pseudo-nationalist support of things such as Irish nationalism that you suddenly believe that wanting working class action against several reactionary groups of people (Loyalists, Republicans and the British State) is anything to be opposed.

I think your politics are typical of your substitutionist and comprimising tendency which has solidly and consistently betrayed the working class throughout history.

[Saorsa]

Justify how socialist Republicanism is a reactionary ideology. Don't go on and on about bomb attacks in the past, don't go slander Republican groups with false allegations of drug dealing, adress the issue - how is socialist Republicanism a reactionary ideology? A proper debate can go from there.

[Pogue]

Justify how socialist Republicanism is a reactionary ideology. Don't go on and on about bomb attacks in the past, don't go slander Republican groups with false allegations of drug dealing, adress the issue - how is socialist Republicanism a reactionary ideology? A proper debate can go from there.

Now you've changed it to socialist Republicanism. I didn't mention the socialist element. My critique of 'socialist' republicanism is different from my critique of 'republicanism'.

[Saorsa]

Offer seperate critiques of both then.

[Pogue]

Offer seperate critiques of both then.

But the controversy here is that I said republicanism should be rejected by workers in Northern Ireland.

[Redmau5]

sectarian shit


Fuck the Loyalists, fuck the british state, fuck the republicans, gun touting chauvinistic twats the bunch of them, its high time the working class kicked these parasites out of ireland

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

[Pogue]

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

I do believe I was saying the working class should reject loyalism, republicanism and the British state and become a force independent of all these things.

Sorry if that doesn't sit down too well on revleft

those fucking proletarians, how dare they reject nationalism!

[Saorsa]

But the controversy here is that I said republicanism should be rejected by workers in Northern Ireland.

Why? We all know you said it, justify your position, with seperate justifications for socialist republicanism and the more purely nationalist variety.

[Redmau5]

I do believe I was saying the working class should reject loyalism, republicanism and the British state and become a force independent of all these things.

Sorry if that doesn't sit down too well on revleft

those fucking proletarians, how dare they reject nationalism!

So you're condemning people in north Belfast for rejecting Orange marches in their area?

[Pogue]

Why? We all know you said it, justify your position, with seperate justifications for socialist republicanism and the more purely nationalist variety.

Purely nationalistic - leads workers down a dead end, stirs sectarian conflict, takes away class conciousness, long history of killing people because they are protestants.

Socialist republicanism - a tactic, national liberation, that has consistently failed. The republican socialists allign with the above reactionary nationalists, thus diluting the interests of the working class down further still. Believe that somehow a Irish capitalist state is better and easier to transform into communism than a British one. Waste of time, waste of effort, and the movement behind it is as bigoted and sectarian as the rest of the nationalist fucks, carrying out sectarian murders of its own kind.

Both movements alienate one particular section of the working class, similar to how Loyalism does the same back, both should be rejected in place of working class unity in the effort to establish class rule.

So oncemore, fuck republicanism, fuck loyalism and fuck the british state. Why? Because I'm a revolutionary.

[Pogue]

So you're condemning people in north Belfast for rejecting Orange marches in their area?

No, and I never said that. I said 'sectarian shit' in response to people talking about the orange order marches, statements by loyalists and republicans and mentions of the involvement of the RIRA. I then said fuck loyalism, republicanism and the british state.

I fully support people resisting the Orange Order, the orange order are anti-working class bigots who need to be kicked off the streets

[Mindtoaster]

There has been sporadic violence in the Ardoyne area of north Belfast.
Groups of rival youths have thrown stones and it is understood that some petrol bombs have been thrown. The police are in the area.
Earlier, detectives investigating a shot being fire at police during rioting in the area on Monday arrested a 28-year-old man and searched homes.
Supporters of the arrested man staged a peaceful protest outside Antrim Road police station.
Trouble in area began on Monday after dissident republicans tried to disrupt a loyalist Twelfth of July parade.
Police were attacked again in Ardoyne on Tuesday night by a crowd throwing petrol bombs and other missiles.
A crowd of up to 100 people rioted at Brompton Park.
The trouble on Tuesday night was described by Sinn Fein as a "continuation" of the previous evening's rioting, which the party blamed on dissident republicans.
On Monday night, the trouble left a total of 21 police officers injured.
Blast bombs, fireworks, stones and other missiles were thrown by republicans during the disturbances.
Officers responded with 18 baton rounds and water cannon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8153109.stm

[progressive_lefty]

I do believe I was saying the working class should reject loyalism, republicanism and the British state and become a force independent of all these things.


Can you really expect nationalists in Northern Ireland to reject any pathway to nationalism given the history? If your not supportive of nationalism in Northern Ireland, then you ARE siding with the loyalists. Would you expect the Palestinians to give up their fight for a homeland? Would you have expected the East Timorese to have stopped fighting for a homeland when they were still part of Indonesia? Are you aware of the reasons why Irish nationalism still exists very strongly? Are you trying to say that the history of British oppression in Ireland doesn't have anything to do with this?

I'll say this quite politely, if you want to make strong comments on an issue such as this one, I suggest you read some books and look into the history first. I'm not accepting your simplistic understanding of the conflict which is, fuck this side, fuck that side, fuck the other one, and then yeah lets just forget about what the conflict was all about.

[Mindtoaster]

Third night of rioting. Video in link


Violence has flared in the Ardoyne area of north Belfast for a third night.
About 100 youths gathered in the Brompton Park area at about 2300 BST. Some threw stones, glass bottles and at least one petrol bomb at police.
At one point, officers in riot gear chased youths who had attacked them with scaffolding poles. Two men aged 17 and 18 were arrested.
Trouble began on Monday after dissident republicans tried to disrupt a loyalist Twelfth of July parade.
North Belfast MLA Gerry Kelly said police warned him on Wednesday night that dissident republicans have made threats against him.
On a third night of disturbances in the Ardoyne, a car was set on fire in the Balholm area, and an attempted hijacking was reported at Balholm Drive at about 0030 BST.
One police officer sustained an injury to his head and foot.


For it to be so sustained and carrying on for so long is very disheartening
Fr Gary Donegan
Local priest
Police said order was restored at about 0130 BST and officers remained in the area all night.
Earlier in the evening, police said there had been sporadic incidents of disorder in the Ligoneil Road area of north Belfast and at Springfield Road in the west of the city.
A police spokeswoman said they were continuing to work closely with the community to end the disturbances.
"No-one wants this kind of disorder and violence in their neighbourhood, preventing members of the community from going about their normal routine and causing damage to homes and businesses in the area," she said.
Father Gary Donegan of Holy Cross Church said he had hoped the area would have calmed down by Wednesday night.
"I certainly was expecting a second night of trouble, but not a third night - for it to be so sustained and carrying on for so long is very disheartening," he said.
Second arrest
Meanwhile, a 30-year-old man arrested on Thursday by detectives investigating a shot fired at police during rioting in the area on Monday has been released unconditionally.
A 28-year-old man arrested on Wednesday remains in custody. Supporters of the arrested man staged a peaceful protest outside Antrim Road police station.
On Tuesday night, police were attacked again in Ardoyne by a crowd throwing petrol bombs and other missiles. The trouble on Tuesday night was described by Sinn Fein as a "continuation" of the previous evening's rioting, which the party blamed on dissident republicans.
On Monday night, the trouble left a total of 21 police officers injured.
Blast bombs, fireworks, stones and other missiles were thrown by republicans during the disturbances.
Officers responded with 18 baton rounds and water cannon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8153109.stm

[Pogue]

Can you really expect nationalists in Northern Ireland to reject any pathway to nationalism given the history? If your not supportive of nationalism in Northern Ireland, then you ARE siding with the loyalists. Would you expect the Palestinians to give up their fight for a homeland? Would you have expected the East Timorese to have stopped fighting for a homeland when they were still part of Indonesia? Are you aware of the reasons why Irish nationalism still exists very strongly? Are you trying to say that the history of British oppression in Ireland doesn't have anything to do with this?

I'll say this quite politely, if you want to make strong comments on an issue such as this one, I suggest you read some books and look into the history first. I'm not accepting your simplistic understanding of the conflict which is, fuck this side, fuck that side, fuck the other one, and then yeah lets just forget about what the conflict was all about.

Its not about what I expect workers to do. Its what I recognise would be best for them to do given that they are workers. I don't believe in purely emotional arguments about 'national history', I think this is part of the whole trap of nationalism and national liberation.

I don't see how rejecting Irish nationalism means supporting Loyalism when I have clearly said I don't support Loyalism either. I support revolutionary working class action.

[PRC-UTE]

Dunno how you came to the conclusion "the far left" blames the Irish working-class and not "the Brits" (I guess that must be the British working-class's fault for the conditions in Ireland instead then).

We can play this game for hours if you want.

did you read Pogue's post? he said all republicans and loyalists should fuck off. Who do you think most loyalists and republicans are?

Only sections of the revisionist anti-nationalist/republican thinking blame the working class... Marxism and Leninism however are firmly rooted in supporting Republican Socialism in Ireland. Marx spent a considerable amount of time attempting to push the English workers movement into backing Fenianism, and his own daughter Jenny Marx financially subscribed to Connolly's Irish Socialist Republican Party. I've also come across more than a few anarchists who recognise that ending british imperialism is necessary.

To be fair, some on the left like the stickies/BICO blamed the Irish bourgeoisie more than the workers...however, the point remains, if you refuse to confront British imperialism, you must point the finger for the six counties problems at some other source.

[PRC-UTE]

Do you have some sort of deeply ingrained sense of personal insecurity that leads to to accusing everyone of xenophobia everytime we criticise republicanism? Are Irish people some how devoid of criticism for reactionary ideology?

The British states occupation of Ireland is bad, loyalism is bad and republicanism is bad. I made this clear in my original post, sadly your politics are so pathetic your only defense for them is accusing anyone who crticises them of xenophobia. Grow up, you stupid little drama queen.

Whether or not I have 'some sort of deeply ingrained sense of personal insecurity' or not is beside the point.

I was criticising your statement that republicans and loyalists should fuck off. Blaming the working class is elitist, yet more importantly it is a false premise, and I was demonstrating why this is so.

If you disagree, try responding directly to my post, and explain why my argument is incorrect.

[khad]

Only sections of the revisionist anti-nationalist/republican thinking blame the working class... Marxism and Leninism however are firmly rooted in supporting Republican Socialism in Ireland. Marx spent a considerable amount of time attempting to push the English workers movement into backing Fenianism, and his own daughter Jenny Marx financially subscribed to Connolly's Irish Socialist Republican Party. I've also come across more than a few anarchists who recognise that ending british imperialism is necessary.
Honestly, I don't where the hell these people are coming from, accusing people of being bourgeois, anti-working class, etc. If one has any dialectical sense of history, one should recognize that social movements are not going to be ideologically "pure"--even the Paris Commune was infused with serious patriotic sentiment. Marx staunchly supported anti-imperialist nationalist movements in his time.

Pogue here is talking about republicans "killing class consciousness." I'm sure that Northern Ireland has a much better chance of becoming socialist with the British state pushing neoliberalism down their throats. The primary contradiction is imperialism, not the reaction to it.

[ls]

Yes but they are both contradictions; neither are fine.

[khad]

Yes but they are both contradictions; neither are fine.
I think you need to revisit your basic terminology.

[ls]

The way you wrote your post made it sound like the reaction to imperialism is in fact a "lesser" contradiction, whether you like it or not. And you're correct, we believe it's still a contradiction and thus we don't support it.

[PRC-UTE]

The way you wrote your post made it sound like the reaction to imperialism is in fact a "lesser" contradiction, whether you like it or not. And you're correct, we believe it's still a contradiction and thus we don't support it.

A primary contradiction spawns other contradictions; some are secondary contradictions (which cannot be resolved without resolved the basic contradiction), and other contradictions are non-antagonistic.

Many of the contradictions created by imperialism will be more or less swept away by the defeat of imperialism itself. I believe this is what khad meant, however he can correct me if that's wrong.

[khad]

A primary contradiction spawns other contradictions; some are secondary contradictions (which cannot be resolved without resolved the basic contradiction), and other contradictions are non-antagonistic.

Many of the contradictions created by imperialism will be more or less swept away by the defeat of imperialism itself. I believe this is what khad meant, however he can correct me if that's wrong.

Yes, you said it more succinctly than I could. It always astounds me how many people declare themselves leftists without even understanding basic dialectical concepts.

ls, what was all that shit you were talking about wanting to get me banned? You have a lot to learn, kid.

[ls]

ls, what was all that shit you were talking about wanting to get me banned? You have a lot to learn, kid.

Because you're a third-worldist idiot, I don't respect the republican viewpoint but I can see that they aren't third-worldists by their views.

It's just that you managed to get yourself tangled up in the conversation that I responded to you, sure you are going to have some agreements on viewpoint with republicans, but you hold poisonous views about first-world workers which are completely incompatible with dialectical materialism.


A primary contradiction spawns other contradictions; some are secondary contradictions (which cannot be resolved without resolved the basic contradiction), and other contradictions are non-antagonistic.

Indeed.

The only way you are going to defeat imperialism is with a mass working-class movement, I think it's fair enough to say as you have, that the SP are doing some good work in this respect, ultimately the WSM don't have as much influence as the SP; but they have the entirely correct viewpoint.

In either case, you are just taking a black-and-white view, unlike what you just said about contradictions, yours is a one-side-or-the-other viewpoint on the conflict - republicanism or loyalism where you should be saying: socialism or barbarism instead.

[khad]

Because you're a third-worldist idiot, I don't respect the republican viewpoint but I can see that they aren't third-worldists by their views.

It's just that you managed to get yourself tangled up in the conversation that I responded to you, sure you are going to have some agreements on viewpoint with republicans, but you hold poisonous views about first-world workers which are completely incompatible with dialectical materialism.
Actually, I've never said that. I've argued for republicanism as movement that has a working class base, and I've had arguments with Avanteredgarde over his complete write-off of the western proletariat. It's only so-called leftists like yourself who drip bourgeois and white bias that I have a problem with, you with your stuck-up, sanctimonious attitude towards peoples who have been caught at the wrong side of history. (oh look! the wogs are fighting back at the agents of capitalist empire! how savage!! how dare they shoot at our lads!)

Don't project your own boogeymen on me.

[ls]

Actually, I've never said that. .. I've had arguments with Avanteredgarde over his complete write-off of the western proletariat.

Show me?

You're talking out of your arse again. You think that soldiers are "not part of the working-class" http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1445366&postcount=252

I noticed your mate Avante shut his face in the end of that thread, it's pretty obvious that the SSS pretty much forces conscription via voluntary slavery.


It's only so-called leftists like yourself who drip bourgeois and white biasWhat possible reason do you have for accusing me of white bias other than the fact you condone white guilt like your comrade Peader.. who got banned for showing us it in the nastiest possible way.

Do you have any foundation for that at all? I mean whatsoever? Being brought up to parents who have white guilt and one who says racist things about white people, white bias is potentially the last thing that I could be accused of, not that I believe I'm biased in any way like that -in fact at times I've had to fight it myself.


Don't project your own boogeymen on me, jackass.Check your profile comments.

[khad]

Show me?

You're talking out of your arse again. You think that soldiers are "not part of the working-class" http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1445366&postcount=252

I noticed your mate Avante shut his face in the end of that thread, it's pretty obvious that the SSS pretty much forces conscription via voluntary slavery.

You clearly have no understanding of the issue. You bring up Selective Service, but there is no draft, so that's pretty irrelevant. For all purposes today (until they start drafting--and btw I do consider conscript armies representative of the working class) we're talking about the modern professional militaries of the west.

Oh look the boy thinks he has dirt on me with a link. You actually think you have a leg to stand on, don't you?
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1443191&postcount=184


The old British Army was a volunteer army filled with lifers (10-20 years of service) and mercenaries; the Russian Army that rebelled was a conscript army and therefore representative of the working class.

Mate, I have friends working with veterans, and I've known many, many veterans over the years. These days, with the huge signing bonuses, financial assistance plans, pensions, etc, the modern "professional" military forms a mercenary group divorced from the purview of public opinion, just as the Pentagon planned. If you've ever lived in a military town, many of these guys can retire at age 40. These guys are not treated like shit--they are not conscripts. As an activist, most of the time you can only work with these "professional" soldiers when they are out of the service and reintegrated into their communities. The ones who turn leftwing in service (like a close friend of mine did) are either drummed out or quit themselves.

I take the same position as Karl Marx on the issue. In his day, the standard term of enlistment in the British army was 12-21 years, essentially making everyone lifers in an exclusive caste. This is why so many leftwing movements in the 19th century, including very much so the socialists, favored mass conscript armies because of the Praetorian Guard stormtrooper nature of state armies filled with lifers and mercenaries (as the destruction of the Paris Commune so aptly illustrated). Now I want you to make a thread calling Marx anti-materialist, anti-worker, and a third worldist idiot.



However infamous the conduct of the Sepoys, it is only the reflex, in a concentrated form, of England’s own conduct in India, not only during the epoch of the foundation of her Eastern Empire, but even during the last ten years of a long-settled rule. To characterize that rule, it suffices to say that torture formed ail organic institution of its financial policy. There is something in human history like retribution: and it is a rule of historical retribution that its instrument be forged not by the offended, but by the offender himself.

The first blow dealt to the French monarchy proceeded from the nobility, not from the peasants. The Indian revolt does not commence with the Ryots, tortured, dishonored and stripped naked by the British, but with the Sepoys, clad, fed, petted, fatted and pampered by them. To find parallels to the Sepoy atrocities, we need not, as some London papers pretend, fall back on the middle ages, not, even wander beyond the history of contemporary England. All we want is to study the first Chinese war, an event, so to say, of yesterday. The English soldiery then committed abominations for the mere fun of it; their passions being neither sanctified by religious fanaticism nor exacerbated by hatred against an overbearing and conquering race, nor provoked by the stern resistance of a heroic enemy. The violations of women, the spittings of children, the roastings of whole villages, were then mere wanton sports, not recorded by Mandarins, but by British officers themselves.


What possible reason do you have for accusing me of white bias other than the fact you condone white guilt like your comrade Peader.. who got banned for showing us it in the nastiest possible way.Some people on this site might benefit from some self-reflection. Just observe in the transsexual thread where dada, who I believe is biracial, has received some of the most ignorant, trivializing comments regarding race I've seen in quite a while. Can't imagine how society will make black person hate himself and want to be white, they say? Laughing my ass off.

[ls]

You clearly have no understanding of the issue. You bring up Selective Service, but there is no draft

It's more complex than that: if you immigrate to the USA from another country you are by law required to sign up for the draft, end of discussion.


so that's pretty irrelevant. For all purposes today (until they start drafting--and btw I do consider conscript armies representative of the working class) we're talking about the modern professional militaries of the west.

Because no other part of the world is imperialist nor ever has been ever.


Oh look the boy thinks he has dirt on me with a link. You actually think you have a leg to stand on, don't you?

No duh.


Mate, I have friends working with veterans, and I've known many, many veterans over the years. These days, with the huge signing bonuses, financial assistance plans, pensions, etc, the modern "professional" military forms a mercenary group divorced from the purview of public opinion, just as the Pentagon planned. If you've ever lived in a military town, many of these guys can retire at age 40. These guys are not treated like shit--they are not conscripts.

You sound just like Avante on his blog "wider imperialist parasitism" "highway construction workers are some of the highest paid people in the world - they aren't exploited!" http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=423 congrats.


I take the same position as Karl Marx on the issue.

No you bloody don't.


Some people on this site might benefit from some self-reflection.

Namely you.


Just observe in the transsexual thread where dada, who I believe is biracial, has received some of the most ignorant, trivializing comments regarding race I've seen in quite a while.

Amazingly you made a decent post in that thread, which was not thanks to your virtue but to someone else's stupidity I'll add, other than that the posts you thanked and posted were actually quite contradictory.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1481786&postcount=22

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1482204&postcount=30

It just follows your nature I guess.

[khad]

It's more complex than that: if you immigrate to the USA from another country you are by law required to sign up for the draft, end of discussion.

There is no draft being carried out, as I have already indicated. Still irrelevant to the discussion of the current nature of the Western professional armed forces. And as I have stated before, conscript armies are necessarily more representative of the working class.



You sound just like Avante on his blog "wider imperialist parasitism" "highway construction workers are some of the highest paid people in the world - they aren't exploited!" http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=423 congrats.

Quit projecting your boogeymen. I see the professional military as necessarily antagonistic towards the working class by virtue of their position as the hammer of the capitalist state. As have most socialists throughout history. Where are your squaddie lads in this picture?

http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/archive/iww-pyramid.gif






Namely you.Wow. With your debating skills, it's little wonder that I have more board rep than you.


Amazingly you made a decent post in that thread, which was not thanks to your virtue but to someone else's stupidity I'll add, other than that the posts you thanked and posted were actually quite contradictory.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1481786&postcount=22

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1482204&postcount=30

It just follows your nature I guess.Oh look, more illiterate jackassery. These statements are not necessarily contradictory. They reach slightly different different conclusions from the same premise--namely, constrictive gender roles in capitalist society as the root problem. TUF was expanding on a premise I laid forth early in the thread. I can appreciate the slightly different conclusions he reached. Maybe because, oh, I understand it's important not to discriminate against transgendered people.


If people were free to perform whatever gender roles suited their desires, there would be little need for sex change surgeries.


Constricting gender norms are the root problem, and we should be working towards a society without those in the long term. Whether or not people would still want sex changes in a society without gender roles is a totally speculative question that we can only guess about.


No you bloody don't.
You sympathize with imperialist squaddies--Karl Marx did not. Clarification. That is to say that he did sympathize with the fact of their deaths, but he definitely didn't quibble when they were ground under the wheel of history. He didn't cry "oh how barbaric those nationalist bourgeois sectarians are!"

[ls]

There is no draft being carried out

Yes there is and it's voluntary slavery.


Quit projecting your boogeymen.

http://images.fearnet.com/fearnetImages/imm+Xnz4UTbLMuZ6Ga8lIsFg==.jpg


I see the professional military as necessarily antagonistic towards the working class by virtue of their position as the hammer of the capitalist state. As have most socialists throughout history. Where are your squaddie lads in this picture?

I'm sure you do, except that the term professional military is irrelevant in almos all countries anyway. I notice you used that pic from flag.blackened.net which is usually an anarchist site.


Wow. With your debating skills, it's little wonder that I have more board rep than you.

Unless you are psychic my rep is turned off.


Oh look, more illiterate jackassery. These statements are not necessarily contradictory. They reach slightly different different conclusions from the same premise--namely, constrictive gender roles in capitalist society as the root problem. TUF was expanding on a premise I laid forth early in the thread. I can appreciate the slightly different conclusions he reached. Maybe because, oh, I understand it's important not to discriminate against transgendered people.

No, but you think that (many?) transgender people are selling out in the same way of wanting to be a different colour -- and that capitalist society has made them want to do that. http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1481771&postcount=18

For goodness sake, you even got one of the most unwavering anti-imperialists on here to accuse you of being xenophobic and chauvinist if that isn't enough for you. http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1481775&postcount=19

And he bloody well agrees with Avante's position on imperialism for kicks: http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=18629.


You sympathize with imperialist squaddies

Believe what you want. I sympathise with exploited working-class people.


--Karl Marx did not.

He sympathised with exploited working-class people too, your refusal to believe that is your own loss.


He didn't cry "oh how barbaric those nationalist bourgeois sectarians are!"

No he personally went out and killed whole armies of them. :cool:

[khad]

Yes there is and it's voluntary slavery.

I'm sure you do, except that the term professional military is irrelevant in almos all countries anyway. I notice you used that pic from flag.blackened.net which is usually an anarchist site.

You were talking about the US. Here, let me quote you: "It's more complex than that: if you immigrate to the USA from another country you are by law required to sign up for the draft, end of discussion."

Don't try to weasel your way out of a discussion because you don't have an argument. I've always stated the conscript armies are more representative of the working class, but that the professionalized USUK armed forces are a exclusive guard working against the interests of the working class around the globe. So much talk for the individual stormtroopers being "victims," and yet the working-class people who defend themselves against them are "bourgeois," "anti-worker," "national chauvinist," etc. Give me a fucking break. Karl Marx even went out of his way to explain and downplay the "atrocities" committed against imperialist mercenaries by native insurgents.


Unless you are psychic my rep is turned off.You: Thanked 134 Times in 92 Posts; 491 total posts
Me: Thanked 243 Times in 122 Posts; 377 total posts

Does that mean I am psychic?


No, but you think that (many?) transgender people are selling out in the same way of wanting to be a different colour -- and that capitalist society has made them want to do that. http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1481771&postcount=18

For goodness sake, you even got one of the most unwavering anti-imperialists on here to accuse you of being xenophobic and chauvinist if that isn't enough for you. http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1481775&postcount=19

And he bloody well agrees with Avante's position on imperialism for kicks: http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=18629.And you honesty don't consider how capitalist media promotes body image anxiety? I thought leftists were supposed to understand social forces. So many people hate their bodies because of social and media pressures. I never said this was always the case, but it is a serious factor to consider for anyone undergoing body modification surgery.


Believe what you want. I sympathise with exploited working-class people.

He sympathised with exploited working-class people too, your refusal to believe that is your own loss.Your refusal to read what Marx actually wrote is your loss, you illiterate fuck. Marx was pretty clear that professional mercenary armies had lumpenproletariat tendencies, while conscript armies were more representative of the working class and had potential for organization. If you want to bash my position on the mercenaries of imperialism, you might as well bash Marx. Don't make shit up, and don't be a hypocrite.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm


The chances, however, were in 1849 already pretty poor. Everywhere the bourgeoisie had thrown in its lot with the governments, "culture and property" had hailed and feasted the military moving against the insurrections. The spell of the barricade was broken; the soldier no longer saw behind it "the people," but rebels, agitators, plunderers, levelers, the scum of society; the officer had in the course of time become versed in the tactical forms of street fighting, he no longer marched straight ahead and without cover against the improvised breastwork, but went round it through gardens, yards and houses. And this was now successful, with a little skill, in nine cases out of ten.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/02/27.htm


Only the Municipal Guard struck out, and that with the greatest brutality. The Municipal Guard is a corps consisting in the main of natives of Alsace and Lorraine, that is, men who are half German; they receive three and a half fr a day and look very plump and well-nourished. The Municipal Guard is the basest body of soldiers in existence, worse than the Gendarmerie, worse than the old Swiss Guard; if the people win, things will go badly for it.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch15.htm


The foot soldiers of that period were the mercenaries of princes; they consisted of the most demoralised elements of society, rigorously drilled but quite unreliable and only held together by the rod; they were often hostile prisoners of war who had been pressed into service.

...

The Franco-German War marked a turning-point of entirely new implications... The army has become the main purpose of the state, and an end in itself; the peoples are there only to provide soldiers and feed them. Militarism dominates and is swallowing Europe. But this militarism also bears within itself the seed of its own destruction. Competition among the individual states forces them, on the one hand, to spend more money each year on the army and navy, artillery, etc., thus more and more hastening their financial collapse; and, on the other hand, to resort to universal compulsory military service more and more extensively, thus in the long run making the whole people familiar with the use of arms, and therefore enabling them at a given moment to make their will prevail against the warlords in command. And this moment will arrive as soon as the mass of the people—town and country workers and peasants—will have a will.

[ls]

You were talking about the US. Here, let me quote you: "It's more complex than that: if you immigrate to the USA from another country you are by law required to sign up for the draft, end of discussion."

And do you disagree with what I said?


Don't try to weasel your way out of a discussion because you don't have an argument. I've always stated the conscript armies are more representative of the working class

Then why are you attacking my position on this?


but that the professionalized USUK armed forces are a exclusive guard working against the interests of the working class around the globe.

Voluntary slavery = a professionalised USUK armed force?


So much talk for the individual stormtroopers being "victims," and yet the working-class people who defend themselves against them are "bourgeois," "anti-worker," "national chauvinist," etc.

Where did I ever say that? People defending themselves from soldiers is always fine.


You: Thanked 134 Times in 92 Posts; 491 total posts
Me: Thanked 243 Times in 122 Posts; 377 total posts

Does that mean I am psychic?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=repsystem#faq_whatfactors

Rep-altering power means less posts thanked by people with more altering power will affect your rep more than more "thanks" will.

I don't care for that pointless bullshit myself so I've turned it off. Lots of Che fanboys will receive loads of thanks just for saying cheesy communist slogans.


And you honesty don't consider how capitalist media promotes body image anxiety? I thought leftists were supposed to understand social forces. So many people, aside from transsexuals, hate their bodies because of social and media pressures. I never said this was always the case, but it is a serious factor to consider.

I do consider that. I just think that TUF's post was way more relevant, you shouldn't be attacking transgenderism.


Your refusal to read what Marx actually wrote is your loss, you illiterate fuck. Marx was pretty clear that professional mercenary armies had lumpenproletariat tendencies

Oh right, so immigrants who want to move to the US to have a better prospect in life are lumpens for trying to become legit?


while conscript armies were more representative of the working class and had potential for organization. If you want to bash my position on the mercenaries of imperialism, you might as well bash Marx. Don't make shit up.

Your oudated concepts of what you consider as being conscription and not need to change.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/02/27.htm



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch15.htm

Your point being?

[khad]

And do you disagree with what I said?



Then why are you attacking my position on this?



Voluntary slavery = a professionalised USUK armed force?
How funny, the guy who started ranting about wanting me banned for talking smack about his mercenary lads is now accusing me of starting the argument.

Anyway, you need to revisit your basic terminology to understand what professionalization means in a military context. No one was DRAFTED into the current US military. That's the bottom line. While they are in the professional imperialist army they are agents acting against the working people of the world.

It's exactly as the pentagon planned. They aren't going to risk citizen-soldier insubordination like with all the draftees they had in Vietnam. Troop resistance nowadays is minuscule by comparison.


I don't care for that pointless bullshit myself so I've turned it off. Lots of Che fanboys will receive loads of thanks just for saying cheesy communist slogans.Are you a comedian? First off, I ain't a Che fan because I think focalism is a fundamental misreading of class struggle. Second, look at your cheap-ass slogans and one-liners in this thread. I've already surpassed you by an order of magnitude in this thread when it comes to FACTS and actual informative content.


I do consider that. I just think that TUF's post was way more relevant, you shouldn't be attacking transgenderism.Quit imagining things. I merely introduced body image anxiety and social pressure as a factor to consider. I never once said anything that described transgendered people as unnatural, disgusting, or otherwise, as others in the thread have.


Your oudated concepts of what you consider as being conscription and not need to change.And you need to fill your head with knowledge, not your fanciful imaginings.


Your point being?Leave Marx alone. It's clear you don't know a damn thing about his politics.

[ls]

How funny, the guy who started ranting about wanting me banned for talking smack about his mercenary lads is now accusing me of starting the argument.

:bored: Where did I say you started the argument? And yes you should be restricted or preferably banned.


..No one was DRAFTED into the current US military. That's the bottom line.

Bottomer than that is that immigrants and people who want to receive financial aid for college are forced to sign up for the military draft. That was some informative content shoved elegantly into one-line.

Are you saying that people shouldn't try to immigrate to the US?


While they are in the professional imperialist army they are agents acting against the working people of the world.

Alright cool.


It's exactly as the pentagon planned. They aren't going to risk citizen-soldier insubordination like with all the draftees they had in Vietnam. Troop resistance nowadays is minuscule by comparison.

Cool.


Are you a comedian? First off, I ain't a Che fan

I never said you were, not everything is about you.


Second, look at your cheap-ass slogans and one-liners in this thread.

Slogans? What?


I've already surpassed you by an order of magnitude in this thread when it comes to FACTS and actual informative content.

As much as I like Jacob Richter, he also quotes plenty of informative content, unfortunately it's not always relevant to the conversation. I think your behaviour in this thread is like one of his not-so-great posts (with an added measure of anti-imperialist bollocks sloganeering).


Quit imagining things. I merely introduced body image anxiety and social pressure as a factor to consider. I never once said anything that described transgendered people as unnatural, disgusting, or otherwise, as others in the thread have.

No duh, if you did you would be bloody well restricted right now. You shouldn't be attacking transgenderism though in any way.


And you need to fill your head with knowledge, not your fanciful imaginings.

Cool.


Leave Marx alone. It's clear you don't know a damn thing about his politics.

no u

[khad]

Bottomer than that is that immigrants and people who want to receive financial aid for college are forced to sign up for the military draft. That was some informative content shoved elegantly into one-line.

Signing up for the draft is not the same as being drafted. Just because an immigrant signed up for the selective service doesn't mean that he's issued a rifle and BDU at the INS and ordered to march to Afghanistan. Did you sign up for the SSS? Newsflash: you are NOT a soldier.

While there is a draft system on the backburner, the current composition of the US military is not draftee.

Is there some sort of logical blockage in your head, or are you just incapable of reading? It's just a sentence, and I've even highlighted the most relevant part for you if you only care to read the digest version.


As much as I like Jacob Richter, he also quotes plenty of informative content, unfortunately it's not always relevant to the conversation. I think your behaviour in this thread is like one of his not-so-great postsWell, here's the point. Marx supported Fenianism, as well as all sorts of anti-imperialist movements. He did not sympathize with the imperialist mercenaries. If he were here posting on these boards, you'd want him banned for being a "third-worldist idiot" and anti-worker terrorist, which just shows the absurdity of your position.

[The Deepest Red]

If only those stupid paddies could be as clever and civilised as the Brits. It's their fault, isn't it.

Material conditions in Ireland have nothing to do with British involvement in Ireland or the backwards economic conditions under British rule; no, the Irish just need to 'fuck off' and problem sorted.

It reveals the reactionary core of the anti-nationalist school of thought. The far left often concludes: 'Irish nationalism bad', and so follows this conclusion back to the reasoning that blaming the Brits for the conditions in the territory they rule is also bad, therefore someone else must be blamed, and that's the Irish working class.

But where would we be without condensing shite dripping with British national chauvinism? After all the British left did so much for the Irish working class during "the Troubles"....

[The Deepest Red]

Do you have some sort of deeply ingrained sense of personal insecurity that leads to to accusing everyone of xenophobia everytime we criticise republicanism? Are Irish people some how devoid of criticism for reactionary ideology?

The British states occupation of Ireland is bad, loyalism is bad and republicanism is bad. I made this clear in my original post, sadly your politics are so pathetic your only defense for them is accusing anyone who crticises them of xenophobia. Grow up, you stupid little drama queen.

You're an anarchist and you're telling a Marxist to grow up? That's rich. Republicanism isn't reactionary.

[Mindtoaster]

Indeed, it is very telling that most of the people here speaking out against republicanism are from Britain.

I don't think its so much chauvinism as an inability to break with the indoctrination received from the British bourgeois and media establishment

[redflag32]

Are Irish people some how devoid of criticism for reactionary ideology?

No, sure republicans are always criticising their fellow Protestant Irish citizens for their identification with Loyalism/Unionism.


The British states occupation of Ireland is bad,

Correct


loyalism is bad

Correct



and republicanism is bad

Hold on a minute. Wasn't it Republicans who helped achieve the emancipation of the Catholic people from the institutionalised discrimination which was planned by the British state and carried out by Loyalists?

Catholics were discriminated against in much the same way as black people were in south africa. Republican ideology helped carry them from this position to one were they now sit in government. Discrimination still prevails, in housing in north belfast for instance, but the Catholics now have civil rights. Something they didnt have pre-1969. If republicans had just "fucked off" catholics would still be void of the democratic right to a vote.

[Pogue]

No, sure republicans are always criticising their fellow Protestant Irish citizens for their identification with Loyalism/Unionism.



Correct



Correct




Hold on a minute. Wasn't it Republicans who helped achieve the emancipation of the Catholic people from the institutionalised discrimination which was planned by the British state and carried out by Loyalists?

Catholics were discriminated against in much the same way as black people were in south africa. Republican ideology helped carry them from this position to one were they now sit in government. Discrimination still prevails, in housing in north belfast for instance, but the Catholics now have civil rights. Something they didnt have pre-1969. If republicans had just "fucked off" catholics would still be void of the democratic right to a vote.

I've made it clear I don't think republicanism is the answer to the situation in Northern Ireland, its part of the problem.

[redflag32]

I've made it clear I don't think republicanism is the answer to the situation in Northern Ireland, its part of the problem.

I dont post on here much, so i aint searching all your previous posts.:)

Best if you just deal with the points i made as they are directly related to this thread.

[Pogue]

I dont post on here much, so i aint searching all your previous posts.:)

Best if you just deal with the points i made as they are directly related to this thread.

Well my argument is simply that republicanism is inherently devisive and channels working class anger in the wrong direction so is counter productive to the class.

[redflag32]

Well my argument is simply that republicanism is inherently devisive

True, it does take a 'side'. But all ideologies are the same. Anarchism is divisive between those who identify with the state and those who dont. Marxism is divisive betwen idealists and materialists. Fascism is divisive between racists and non-racists. They all take sides. Thats not a bad thing. The important thing is which side you are on.

"To unite the whole people of Ireland, to abolish the memory of past dissensions, and to substitute the common name of Irishman, in place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter, these were my means."- Theobald Wolf Tone

Irish republicanism is inherently revolutionary and progressive.



and channels working class anger in the wrong direction so is counter productive to the class.

Irish republicanism has as its goal the creation of a democratic united Ireland. This alone is a progressive move. Left republicans struggle for a socialist republic, which is also a progressive move. This is the direction of the republican movement, how can it be "the wrong direction"? It's only the wrong direction if (A) you dont want to upset loyalists, or (B) Your not in favour of a united Ireland.

[Pogue]

True, it does take a 'side'. But all ideologies are the same. Anarchism is divisive between those who identify with the state and those who dont. Marxism is divisive betwen idealists and materialists. Fascism is divisive between racists and non-racists. They all take sides. Thats not a bad thing. The important thing is which side you are on.

"To unite the whole people of Ireland, to abolish the memory of past dissensions, and to substitute the common name of Irishman, in place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter, these were my means."- Theobald Wolf Tone

Irish republicanism is inherently revolutionary and progressive.




Irish republicanism has as its goal the creation of a democratic united Ireland. This alone is a progressive move. Left republicans struggle for a socialist republic, which is also a progressive move. This is the direction of the republican movement, how can it be "the wrong direction"? It's only the wrong direction if (A) you dont want to upset loyalists, or (B) Your not in favour of a united Ireland.

I don't think nationalism is revolutionary at all, which is where we disagree.

[redflag32]

I don't think nationalism is revolutionary at all, which is where we disagree.

But we are talking about republicanism.

[redflag32]

I don't think nationalism is revolutionary at all, which is where we disagree.

So you dont think its progressive for the Irish people to be allowed self-determination? Its more progressive to allow an un-democratic partition remain?

[Pogue]

So you dont think its progressive for the Irish people to be allowed self-determination? Its more progressive to allow an un-democratic partition remain?

I believe in self-determination for the working class. I don't think that the 'Irish people' are a homogenous group of people who thus all have similar needs. I don't believe in either the current state of affairs or a unified Ireland, I believe in Ireland being a worker run society which eradicates the need for artificial divisions. I think national liberation is an awful way to pursue this.

[redflag32]

I don't believe in either the current state of affairs or a unified Ireland, I believe in Ireland being a worker run society which eradicates the need for artificial divisions. I think national liberation is an awful way to pursue this.

The point you made is that the republican struggle is reactionary and divisive and is counter productive to the class. I showed you that even at its most basic level and most "nationalist" point, Irish republicanism is progressive. It is progressive because it seeks a democratic settlement to the problem in Ireland of the division of the working class through partition.

Yes, a capitalist unified Ireland is something i wouldnt be happy with, but it is a progressive step for the Irish working class. The workers republic is the goal, but that does not mean that anything which comes inbetween is reactionary. Irish traditional nationalism has as its basic aim a democratic settlement to partition. How is that reactionary?

[Pogue]

The point you made is that the republican struggle is reactionary and divisive and is counter productive to the class. I showed you that even at its most basic level and most "nationalist" point, Irish republicanism is progressive. It is progressive because it seeks a democratic settlement to the problem in Ireland of the division of the working class through partition.

Yes, a capitalist unified Ireland is something i wouldnt be happy with, but it is a progressive step for the Irish working class. The workers republic is the goal, but that does not mean that anything which comes inbetween is reactionary. Irish traditional nationalism has as its basic aim a democratic settlement to partition. How is that reactionary?

Could you quote the context in which I used reactionary so I can respond to this please?

[redflag32]

Could you quote the context in which I used reactionary so I can respond to this please?

Do you have some sort of deeply ingrained sense of personal insecurity that leads to to accusing everyone of xenophobia everytime we criticise republicanism? Are Irish people some how devoid of criticism for reactionary ideology?

I think it shows just how much you've let your politics slip through nationalist or pseudo-nationalist support of things such as Irish nationalism that you suddenly believe that wanting working class action against several reactionary groups of people (Loyalists, Republicans and the British State) is anything to be opposed.

[Pogue]

Do you have some sort of deeply ingrained sense of personal insecurity that leads to to accusing everyone of xenophobia everytime we criticise republicanism? Are Irish people some how devoid of criticism for reactionary ideology?

I think it shows just how much you've let your politics slip through nationalist or pseudo-nationalist support of things such as Irish nationalism that you suddenly believe that wanting working class action against several reactionary groups of people (Loyalists, Republicans and the British State) is anything to be opposed.

Well here I'm saying that its reactionary because its anti-working class. I don't know if reactionary is the best term because it wouldn't really be setting things back, it would more change it while keep it worse, but it holds the working class back and is counter-revolutionary.

[Crux]

Well yes, most people in NI either support republicanism or loyalism. I would have thought this was obvious.
This is irony, right?

[redflag32]

Well here I'm saying that its reactionary because its anti-working class. I don't know if reactionary is the best term because it wouldn't really be setting things back, it would more change it while keep it worse, but it holds the working class back and is counter-revolutionary.

Without sounding disrespectful, i dont think you have thought this out fully. Your going around in circles. You havent dealt with any of my points and now your not even sure if republicans are reactionary or not.

Isnt it easy to blame EVERYBODY for the problems in Ireland. That way you dont have to support ANYBODY (because there all to blame). So you advocate instead a third way, but this utopia doesnt exist because it arrives through a computer screen from people who are divorced completely from the situation in Ireland.

Ultra-lefties and Anarchists fear the middle ground between capitalism and communism because its in that epoch that the real work has to be done. Its easy to say that you wont support anything that isnt a pure socialist republic because you know that that utopia aint ever going to be achieved in your life time. The path to the socialist republic is full of peaks and troughs. People have to struggle for small gains along the way. Standing on the sidelines awaiting communism while criticising those actively trying to progress society to the next stage is not admirable or radical. Its cowardly.

[Pogue]

Without sounding disrespectful, i dont think you have thought this out fully. Your going around in circles. You havent dealt with any of my points and now your not even sure if republicans are reactionary or not.

Isnt it easy to blame EVERYBODY for the problems in Ireland. That way you dont have to support ANYBODY (because there all to blame). So you advocate instead a third way, but this utopia doesnt exist because it arrives through a computer screen from people who are divorced completely from the situation in Ireland.

Ultra-lefties and Anarchists fear the middle ground between capitalism and communism because its in that epoch that the real work has to be done. Its easy to say that you wont support anything that isnt a pure socialist republic because you know that that utopia aint ever going to be achieved in your life time. The path to the socialist republic is full of peaks and troughs. People have to struggle for small gains along the way. Standing on the sidelines awaiting communism while criticising those actively trying to progress society to the next stage is not admirable or radical. Its cowardly.

Without giving a shit about sounding disrespectful, I really don't think you have a clue. Anarchism doesn't want to get involved in the middle ground? What does that even mean? Our utopia? Do you even understand what anarchists believe? We want communism, the same 'utopia' as all socialists want. We just don't believe that a 'workers state' is the way to get there. That doesn't believe it will just happen.

I think your hopelessly ignorant of anarchism that you don't realise this, and this is also seen in talking about how its 'cowardly' to do what we do. Its cowardly for Anarchists to struggle against the nationalist ideas of an area and try to forge and independent class position as opposed to doing what 'socialist republicans' do and mindlessly pander to whatever the rhetoric of the people is reagrdless of how anti-working class it is? Whatever.

If you think our position is cowardly then your obviously very ignorant of what we do. I don't think any of my politics (from workplace to community organisation) is cowardly, and I think this is just a pathetic attempt by you to slur our politics. I'm involved in alot of the nitty gritty as are my comrades. We get involved in alot of things, and have been historically and in the present day been persecuted for it. Anyone in the know will recognise this, but I never had you down as particularly well versed in revolutionary theory or history.

[redflag32]

Without giving a shit about sounding disrespectful, I really don't think you have a clue. Anarchism doesn't want to get involved in the middle ground? What does that even mean? Our utopia? Do you even understand what anarchists believe? We want communism, the same 'utopia' as all socialists want. We just don't believe that a 'workers state' is the way to get there. That doesn't believe it will just happen.

I think your hopelessly ignorant of anarchism that you don't realise this, and this is also seen in talking about how its 'cowardly' to do what we do. Its cowardly for Anarchists to struggle against the nationalist ideas of an area and try to forge and independent class position as opposed to doing what 'socialist republicans' do and mindlessly pander to whatever the rhetoric of the people is reagrdless of how anti-working class it is? Whatever.

If you think our position is cowardly then your obviously very ignorant of what we do. I don't think any of my politics (from workplace to community organisation) is cowardly, and I think this is just a pathetic attempt by you to slur our politics. I'm involved in alot of the nitty gritty as are my comrades. We get involved in alot of things, and have been historically and in the present day been persecuted for it. Anyone in the know will recognise this, but I never had you down as particularly well versed in revolutionary theory or history.

ok

[PRC-UTE]

He definitely knows what he's talking about...

Redflag32 is explaining the Marxist analysis in everyday terms, and applying it to Ireland: condemning republican socialism because it's not a 'pure' workers struggle operating in ideal conditions is an otherworldly option, because we don't live in ideal conditions. The most significant and revolutionary examples of mass struggle you can find in Irish history were tied in with the republican struggle.

The position that all forms of republicanism should be rejected or not supported because they are guilty of being 'nationalist' is the kind of worthless abstract argument, divorced from actual conditions that Marx himself struggled against. This view is objectively reactionary, despite whatever is subjectively intended.

[Devrim]

Irish republicanism has as its goal the creation of a democratic united Ireland. This alone is a progressive move.
I think that this is part of the disagreement. Why would a 'democratic united Ireland be progressive? More importantly, is any fraction of the bourgoisie 'progressive' in the imperialist epoch? Would a united Ireland, as Republicans believe end sectarianism?

Isnt it easy to blame EVERYBODY for the problems in Ireland. That way you dont have to support ANYBODY (because there all to blame). So you advocate instead a third way, but this utopia doesnt exist because it arrives through a computer screen from people who are divorced completely from the situation in Ireland.

Ultra-lefties and Anarchists fear the middle ground between capitalism and communism because its in that epoch that the real work has to be done. Its easy to say that you wont support anything that isnt a pure socialist republic because you know that that utopia aint ever going to be achieved in your life time. The path to the socialist republic is full of peaks and troughs. People have to struggle for small gains along the way. Standing on the sidelines awaiting communism while criticising those actively trying to progress society to the next stage is not admirable or radical. Its cowardly.
This is a typical Stalinist staggist argument. It is one that ties the working class to different nationalist factions and that ultimately has lead to disaster whenever it has been applied, the best example being in China in 1927.
Devrim

[redflag32]

I think that this is part of the disagreement. Why would a 'democratic united Ireland be progressive? More importantly, is any fraction of the bourgoisie 'progressive' in the imperialist epoch? Would a united Ireland, as Republicans believe end sectarianism?

Isn't it a given that a democratic settlement is more progressive than one which is based on inequality? To not allow the Irish people the full democratic right of self-determination is an injustice. Surely you agree that it is progressive to allow all of the people of Ireland decide if they want partition or not in a national vote? To uphold the unionist veto is to uphold a sectarian undemocratic policy which helps to divide the working class.

Sectarianism in my view will only totally end once the competitive nature of our society is gone. It is the 'every man for himself' philosophy of capitalism which helps sectarianism and racism exist. Its a case of seeing other people as competitors in the fight for basic needs.

The protestant class in the 6 counties were put in a priviledged position in relation to catholics. Its this priveldged position which they were trying to defend during the pogroms,the same is happening today when they attack imigrants. Anybody who is an outsider is a competitor so they must be attacked into submission.

Of course there is more to it but i think thats basically were it stems from. Once society is based on an equal basis (not promising a minority a priveledged position in relation to the settlement of partition whilst denying the democratic wishes of the majority) and the economy is in the hands of every working man and women, then i believe we will see a decline in sectarianism and racism. You cant expect a society to act in a democratic way if the very system they live under is based on inequality and undemcratic laws.

Racism still exists in the USA but once racism was de-institutionalised it started to subside massively. Racism isnt as institutionalised as it once was in the US so that has had a knock on effect in society. The same would happen in the 6 counties if you de-institutionalised the sectarianism and inequality.


This is a typical Stalinist staggist argument. It is one that ties the working class to different nationalist factions and that ultimately has lead to disaster whenever it has been applied, the best example being in China in 1927.

So the Chinese people are not in a better position today than they were pre 1927?

[Devrim]

Isn't it a given that a democratic settlement is more progressive than one which is based on inequality? To not allow the Irish people the full democratic right of self-determination is an injustice. Surely you agree that it is progressive to allow all of the people of Ireland decide if they want partition or not in a national vote? To uphold the unionist veto is to uphold a sectarian undemocratic policy which helps to divide the working class.

Given by whom? What does all this talk of the 'full democratic right of the Irish people' mean to communists? Capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgoisie. The forms that it takes and the forms that democracy takes in different places depends upon material circumstances. I don't agree that there is anything at all progressive about giving people a 'national vote' on any issue. Nor do I uphold the unionist veto.

The situation in Northern Ireland is one that has ıts roots in British imperialism and its divide and rule policy. That is something that we can agree on.

The idea that the way out of this is to back the Irish nationalist movement is not as in my opinion it is one of the forces that perpetuates that division today.

The only answer to the situation in Northern Ireland today is the working class breaching the sectarian divide and starting to fight together for its own interests. The working class in Northern Ireland though is so weak that I can't see this coming without massive class movements in both the Republic and Britain.


So the Chinese people are not in a better position today than they were pre 1927?

Well the thousands of workers and communists murdered by nationalists using weapons supplied tot hem by 'communists' certainly aren't. They are still dead.

The main point though, typical of all nationalists, is all of this talk about people. What about the working class?

Devrim

[redflag32]

[QUOTE]Given by whom? What does all this talk of the 'full democratic right of the Irish people' mean to communists? Capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgoisie. The forms that it takes and the forms that democracy takes in different places depends upon material circumstances. I don't agree that there is anything at all progressive about giving people a 'national vote' on any issue. Nor do I uphold the unionist veto.

So your not of the opinion that minority rule is an injustice and should be opposed?



The idea that the way out of this is to back the Irish nationalist movement is not as in my opinion it is one of the forces that perpetuates that division today.

With that logic you could also say that the Black Panther party were a perpetuate to racism against blacks.

The Irish national liberation movement opposes partition, loyalism and the presence of the british in Irelands affairs. Explain to me how this is perpetuating the divide that already exists?

Are you saying that any talk of partition will scare away the protestant class from any involvement in a social revolution? Do you think its best to try and win their support through class issues first and then push for socialism?

This is what the stickies tried, and failed.

Loyalism has to be opposed. Imagining that their is a third way towards the workers republic without offending the feelings of some members of the protestant class in the 6 counties is dillusional.


The only answer to the situation in Northern Ireland today is the working class breaching the sectarian divide and starting to fight together for its own interests.

"breaching the sectarian divide", isnt this what the GFA was supposed to do? How many people have been beaten to death by Loyalist mobs since the GFA? Why has sectarianism increased in the 6 counties even though "the war" is over?

Its because the 6 counties are inherently sectarian and the protestant class are mainly a reactionary class who identify with a reactionary ideology. Tip toeing around this fact wont achieve anything. There wont be any "breaching of the sectarian divide" as long as people are afraid to side with the progressives in this conflict.

As i said before, its easy to stand on the side lines and denounce EVERYBODY involved and talk about this imaginary third way. This third way, of the working class "breaching the sectarian divide" is a fairytale because elements of that working class are deeply reactionary and are strongly opposed to anything resembling leftism.Reactionaryism has to be defeated not appeased.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Reactionaryism has to be defeated not appeased.

What? That is exactly what Devrim was advocating by uniting the working class against the reactionary forces.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I refuse to believe that Loyalism is so deeply ingrained in the minds of the working class protestant population of Ireland that there is no oppurtunity for Leftists to organise. Surely not?

[redflag32]

What? That is exactly what Devrim was advocating by uniting the working class against the reactionary forces.

Uniting the working class against the reactionary forces has been a tenet of Irish republicanism since the word go.

"To unite Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter under the common name of Irishmen in order break the connection with England, the never failing source of all our political evils, that was my aim".- Theobald Wolf Tone

What Devrim is advocating is to ignore the progressive republicans who have as their aim to "unite the working class against the forces of reaction" because they might offend some protestants.

[redflag32]

I refuse to believe that Loyalism is so deeply ingrained in the minds of the working class protestant population of Ireland that there is no oppurtunity for Leftists to organise. Surely not?

I will tell you what is a fact which you will have to believe. The only cross community work being done in the 6 counties is being carried out by Republicans, mainly socialist republicans. Not a anarchist or ultra-lefty in sight.

[khad]

I refuse to believe that Loyalism is so deeply ingrained in the minds of the working class protestant population of Ireland that there is no oppurtunity for Leftists to organise. Surely not?
Loyalism is an ideology of imperialism that links up to the most hardcore reactionary groups like the BNP. Republicanism ranges from tepidly left leaning to socialist, but loyalism is all the way on the right. Loyalism as an ideology is more of an obstacle to working class unity than anything on the republican side.

As mentioned before, Irish republican socialists do cross-community work.

The only cross-community work loyalist thugs do is threaten to murder immigrants.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I would definitely agree but Republicanism is not something I am ready to endorse either just because it is the lesser of two evils, it is not a definitively working class movement.

[redflag32]

I would definitely agree but Republicanism is not something I am ready to endorse either just because it is the lesser of two evils, it is not a definitively working class movement.

You wont endorse anything which isnt pure, which results in endorsing nothing, which means no revolution ever.

Also,explain to me how republicanism is the lesser of the two evils?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

You wont endorse anything which isnt pure, which results in endorsing nothing which means no revolution ever.

This is not like other issues. I endorse working within current trade unions. I do not endore supporting a reactionary ideology. What is right for the working class of Ireland is to unite.


Also,explain to me how republicanism is the lesser of the two evils?
It was eloquently explained the difference between Loyalism and Republicanism. Loyalism being a far right ideology of imperialism whilst Republicanism is a vast branch of ideologies, most being left-leaning.

[khad]

This is not like other issues. I endorse working within current trade unions. I do not endore supporting a reactionary ideology. What is right for the working class of Ireland is to unite.

I think it was Khad who eloquently explained the difference between Loyalism and Republicanism. Loyalism being a far right ideology of imperialism whilst Republicanism is a vast branch of ideologies, most being left-leaning.

Personally I don't really see it as lesser evilism; republican socialists are a positive force in the organization of the broad working class.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yes but Republicanism is not defined by Republican socialism, whilst it might be an republican ideology there are several other reactionary viewpoints in the republican movement. My critique lies with these viewpoints.

[redflag32]

This is not like other issues. I endorse working within current trade unions.

The trade unions in the 6 counties are sectarian also. How do you get around that?



I do not endore supporting a reactionary ideology.

Why is irish republicanism reactionary? Ive already stated that it has as its aim a democratic settlement to the conflict, how is that reactionary?



What is right for the working class of Ireland is to unite.

As ive said already, this is a core tenet of irish republicanism. So how can it be reactionary?




I think it was Khad who eloquently explained the difference between Loyalism and Republicanism. Loyalism being a far right ideology of imperialism whilst Republicanism is a vast branch of ideologies, most being left-leaning.

No i wasnt wondering why you thought it was a lesser evil. I wanted to know why you thought it was evil at all? Anyway, evil is an idealist concept. theres no such thing.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The trade unions in the 6 counties are sectarian also. How do you get around that?

A trade union is different. All trade unions have rank and file working class members. Not all political ideologies are revolutionary however. I was merely demonstrating that I don't just endorse anything that is pure.



Why is irish republicanism reactionary? Ive already stated that it has as its aim a democratic settlement to the conflict, how is that reactionary?

In the bourgeois sense of the word democracy.




As ive said already, this is a core tenet of irish republicanism. So how can it be reactionary?

No bourgeois groups want the working class to unite. No matter how much they say it.

[redflag32]

In the bourgeois sense of the word democracy.

Whats the difference?



No bourgeois groups want the working class to unite. No matter how much they say it.

Why not? if they can achieve a capitalist united Ireland they would want the protestant and catholic people to unite against British imperialism.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Whats the difference?

Well the USA calls itself democratic. Reactionary forces claiming democracy works only in the favour of the capitalist class.



Why not? if they can achieve a capitalist united Ireland they would want the protestant and catholic people to unite against British imperialism.

Who would? The Capitalist class would certainly not wish the protestant and Catholic working class to unite. It is not in their interests.

[pastradamus]

The Orange order exists simply and only for the reason of promoting religious bigotry and nothing else.

[Redmau5]

I will tell you what is a fact which you will have to believe. The only cross community work being done in the 6 counties is being carried out by Republicans, mainly socialist republicans. Not a anarchist or ultra-lefty in sight.

I'm sorry but this is not true.

[redflag32]

Well the USA calls itself democratic.




Reactionary forces claiming democracy works only in the favour of the capitalist class.

Im afriad your taking an all to familar ultra position again. "democracy" is not a static thing you can say a population has or has not. It is a process, it takes time. And by the time the working people have achieved full "democracy" we will probably have invented some other phrase for it. Socialism maybe?:)

You sound like Noam Chomsky saying "well the USA claims to be democratic". The fact is that it is more democratic than the 6 counties. Democracy is a buzz word, but what we are talking about here is the will of the majoirty being suppressed for a minority. To fight against that is progressive, no?



Who would? The Capitalist class would certainly not wish the protestant and Catholic working class to unite. It is not in their interests.

Why not, if it didnt jeopardize private property?

[redflag32]

I'm sorry but this is not true.

Ok,maybe i over stated the point. But the point i was making was that republicans are at the forefront of this particular action.

I'd like to be enlightend though, what other organizations are doing this work in the 6 counties?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Im afriad your taking an all to familar ultra position again. "democracy" is not a static thing you can say a population has or has not. It is a process, it takes time. And by the time the working people have achieved full "democracy" we will probably have invented some other phrase for it. Socialism maybe?:)

You sound like Noam Chomsky saying "well the USA claims to be democratic". The fact is that it is more democratic than the 6 counties. Democracy is a buzz word, but what we are talking about here is the will of the majoirty being suppressed for a minority. To fight against that is progressive, no?

Democracy is a process yes. I have no illusions about this. However I am advocating leftists organise the working class against sectarianism, imperialism and the root of all problems Capitalism.


Why not, if it didnt jeopardize private property?

It does.

[redflag32]

Democracy is a process yes. I have no illusions about this. However I am advocating leftists organise the working class against sectarianism, imperialism and the root of all problems Capitalism.

And republicans advocate the same. You still havent explained to me why republicanism is a reactionary ideology. When i said republicans were being progressive for seeking a democratic settlement to the conflict you tried to debunk democracy,which didnt work. So, if democracy is a process,as you agree,and it is a progressive progress,why are republicans reactionary if they are seeking a democratic answer to the conflict in Ireland?



It does.

How?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

And republicans advocate the same. You still havent explained to me why republicanism is a reactionary ideology. When i said republicans were being progressive for seeking a democratic settlement to the conflict you tried to debunk democracy,which didnt work. So, if democracy is a process,as you agree,and it is a progressive progress,why are republicans reactionary if they are seeking a democratic answer to the conflict in Ireland?

Because the republican bourgeoisie does not wish to see real democracy,they wish to see a liberated, united, capitalist Ireland. Nothing after this. I don't wish to advocate this. This could go on and on all night but it seems you are a fan of National-Liberation movements whilst I am not.


How?

Because a united working class threatens their illegitimate power.

[redflag32]

[QUOTE]Because the republican bourgeoisie does not wish to see real democracy,they wish to see a liberated, united, capitalist Ireland. Nothing after this.

Correct, the bourgeois republicans (Fianna Fail) do want to see a capitalist united Ireland. My point is this, even a united capitalist Ireland is more progressive than an un-democratic partitioned capitalist Ireland. Don't you agree? Most people would, and thats why most people wouldnt call irish republicanism reactionary. The democratic settlement to the conflict is a step forward,even under capitalism,not a step backward. So even at its most "nationalist" point, Irish republicanism is a progressive ideology. But thats not to say that Irish republicanism IS nationalism. There is a very strong working class current there.



I don't wish to advocate this.

Because it isnt pure socialism. We're back to your ulta-leftism again.


.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Correct, the bourgeois republicans (Fianna Fail) do want to see a capitalist united Ireland. My point is this, even a united capitalist Ireland is more progressive than an un-democratic partitioned capitalist Ireland. Don't you agree? Most people would, and thats why most people wouldnt call irish republicanism reactionary. The democratic settlement to the conflict is a step forward,even under capitalism,not a step backward.

Because nothing changes for the working people of Ireland. Supporting National 'Liberation' only serves to weaken our philosophy.



Because it isnt pure socialism. We're back to your ulta-leftism again.


It is not ultra-leftism, it is not wishing to compromise on my beliefs for the emancipation of my class.

[redflag32]

Because nothing changes for the working people of Ireland. Supporting National 'Liberation' only serves to weaken our philosophy.

An awful lot changes. For a start Loyalism does not have the the British state promising its survival. A united Ireland would be a defeat against unionism/loyalism. This is clearly a progressive step. Without the gaurantee of the veto and the political defeat of Unionism the protestant class would be forced to re-asses its position with Loyalism. This is all good for the working class struggle even if it happened under capitalism. Agree or disagree?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

An awful lot changes. For a start Loyalism does not have the the British state promising its survival. A united Ireland would be a defeat against unionism/loyalism.

How would it defeat sectarianism though? The people who were loyalist before Ireland was united would remain that way afterwards. Under Capitalism we will always have inequalities and I cannot see a change if Ireland is united. That is why in the immediate future we must offer a class struggle alternative to both loyalism and republicanism




This is clearly a progressive step. Without the gaurantee of the veto and the political defeat of Unionism the protestant class would be forced to re-asses its position with Loyalism. This is all good for the working class struggle even if it happened under capitalism. Agree or disagree?

As I previously explained I do not see it's relevance to the working class struggle. This is my opinion, you have yours. We could argue about this all day but as an Anarchist this is my belief as has been the belief of all Anarchists for hundreds of years the world over. I accept your position and understand your viewpoint.

[Devrim]

So your not of the opinion that minority rule is an injustice and should be opposed?

But in capitalist societies there is by neccesity minority rule, that of the bourgoise. An Irish republic would be no different. You could equaly say that capitalism is an injustice and should be oppossed.


With that logic you could also say that the Black Panther party were a perpetuate to racism against blacks.

It is not exactly what I said. I would say though that black nationalism, including the Black Panther Party, has played its part in maintaining racial divisions.


The Irish national liberation movement opposes partition, loyalism and the presence of the british in Irelands affairs. Explain to me how this is perpetuating the divide that already exists?

I don't think that the 'national affairs' of a particular nation is really something that should be of concern for communists.

Irish republicanism though has divided the working class by mobilising around national issues and at times behaving like sectarian murder gangs.



Are you saying that any talk of partition will scare away the protestant class from any involvement in a social revolution? Do you think its best to try and win their support through class issues first and then push for socialism?

I don'tthink that social revolution is on the agenda at the moment in Northern Ireland. I believe that social revolution can only be made by the vast majority of the working class, and I also believe that 'class issues' are inextricably linked to the struggle for socialism.


Loyalism has to be opposed. Imagining that their is a third way towards the workers republic without offending the feelings of some members of the protestant class in the 6 counties is dillusional.

Yes, loyalism must be opposed. It is a nationalistic and reactionary as republicanism.



Its because the 6 counties are inherently sectarian and the protestant class are mainly a reactionary class who identify with a reactionary ideology. Tip toeing around this fact wont achieve anything. There wont be any "breaching of the sectarian divide" as long as people are afraid to side with the progressives in this conflict.

AS is the 'catholic' working class. I don't believe there is any progressive side in this conflict.


What Devrim is advocating is to ignore the progressive republicans who have as their aim to "unite the working class against the forces of reaction" because they might offend some protestants.

AS I have already stated, I belive that the republicans are not 'progressive'. I think that they divide the working class not unite it, and that they are one of the 'forces of reaction'.

I don't worry about offending loyalists though.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Im afriad your taking an all to familar ultra position again. "democracy" is not a static thing you can say a population has or has not. It is a process, it takes time. And by the time the working people have achieved full "democracy" we will probably have invented some other phrase for it. Socialism maybe?:)

You sound like Noam Chomsky saying "well the USA claims to be democratic". The fact is that it is more democratic than the 6 counties. Democracy is a buzz word, but what we are talking about here is the will of the majoirty being suppressed for a minority. To fight against that is progressive, no?

Democracy is the system of rule of the capitalist class. Both the US and Northern Ireland are democracies. As is Turkey with the system we had until very recently where you vote for who you want and then the army decided who should govern the country.

The problem is not about being more or less democratic. It is about the balance of power between oppossing classes.

Devrim

[Batman]

The problem is not about being more or less democratic. It is about the balance of power between oppossing classes.

Then surely the extension of democracy is a strategic necessity for the working class.

[PRC-UTE]

How would it defeat sectarianism though? The people who were loyalist before Ireland was united would remain that way afterwards.

a united 32 county republic would put an end to political sectarianism. you don't see protestants and catholics attacking each other in the 26 counties, because the two groups aren't pitted against one another for power, houses, jobs, etc

There is a very serious housing problem for Catholics in the six counties, Belfast especially, due to the fact that housing is still allotted on the basis of sectarian headcounts. Here's a decent blog on the subject: 40 years on housing remains a running sore (http://splinteredsunrise.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/forty-years-on-housing-remains-a-running-sore/).

Are you just saying, well, too bad? Wait until the Protestant workers lead a revolution, since there are slightly more of them in the six counties? That kind of politics is only slightly to the left of mainstream 'big house' Unionism.



Under Capitalism we will always have inequalities and I cannot see a change if Ireland is united. That is why in the immediate future we must offer a class struggle alternative to both loyalism and republicanism

As I previously explained I do not see it's relevance to the working class struggle. This is my opinion, you have yours. We could argue about this all day but as an Anarchist this is my belief as has been the belief of all Anarchists for hundreds of years the world over. I accept your position and understand your viewpoint.

Wait a minute- you don't think the border running through Ireland should be dismantled? what kind of anarchism is that. :confused:

And has been explained many times before, republicans have been part of and led mass working class movements in the class struggle in Ireland, far more than any non-republican leftists in Ireland have. You are creating a false dilemma between class struggle and republicanism in your last post.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Wait a minute- you don't think the border running through Ireland should be dismantled? what kind of anarchism is that. :confused:

I want no borders surrounding Ireland. However I realise to reach this goal the working class of Ireland need to abandon the tendencies of republicanism and loyalism as they only serve to divide them.



And has been explained many times before, republicans have been part of and led mass working class movements in the class struggle in Ireland, far more than any non-republican leftists in Ireland have. You are creating a false dilemma between class struggle and republicanism in your last post.

It is clear the Irish based RevLefters know more on the situation than me. I am no longer gonna deabte this issue because my knowledge of the republican movement is not great enough. Supposedly it is a class struggle movement. I do not want to get drawn into another argument, believe me I understand the situation for Catholics in Ireland which has manifested itslelf for the last 40 years I wish nothing more to see their working class united and free.

[Devrim]

a united 32 county republic would put an end to political sectarianism. you don't see protestants and catholics attacking each other in the 26 counties, because the two groups aren't pitted against one another for power, houses, jobs, etc


I don't believe this assertion. I think the process that could lead to the creation of a thirty two county republic would in itself lead to increased sectarianism, and probably increased sectarian conflict and etnic cleansing within Northern Ireland.

I don't think that the comparison with the Republic is valid as the number of protestant there is much lower than the split in the North. Nevertheless, the years of nationalist struggles, civil war and the establishment of the Free State did lead to a dramatic decrease in their numbers in the South.



And has been explained many times before, republicans have been part of and led mass working class movements in the class struggle in Ireland, far more than any non-republican leftists in Ireland have. You are creating a false dilemma between class struggle and republicanism in your last post.

I suppose that depends what you see as class struggle, and the relationship between political minorities and the class. I would say that possibly the most important class movement in the North in recent years was the postal strike in 2006. Was this led by republicans?

Devrim

[PRC-UTE]

I don't believe this assertion. I think the process that could lead to the creation of a thirty two county republic would in itself lead to increased sectarianism, and probably increased sectarian conflict and etnic cleansing within Northern Ireland.

We might as well give up now I guess. A workers revolution that avoids the national question in every way possible will still provoke a loyalist backlash: any serious threat to the six counties institutions will bring about reactionary violence.



I don't think that the comparison with the Republic is valid as the number of protestant there is much lower than the split in the North. Nevertheless, the years of nationalist struggles, civil war and the establishment of the Free State did lead to a dramatic decrease in their numbers in the South.


Yet Protestants retained significant wealth and influence, especially in Dublin and even parts of Cork where they had ruled as the Ascendancy. The fact is the 26 county state doesn't depend on the kind of divisions the six counties' institutions are more or less built on. And that point remains valid.



I suppose that depends what you see as class struggle, and the relationship between political minorities and the class. I would say that possibly the most important class movement in the North in recent years was the postal strike in 2006. Was this led by republicans?

Devrim

While it was a positive force, it was no serious threat to the capitalists like the rent strikes, or actual confrontations with the state are.

[ls]

Signing up for the draft is not the same as being drafted. Just because an immigrant signed up for the selective service doesn't mean that he's issued a rifle and BDU at the INS and ordered to march to Afghanistan. Did you sign up for the SSS? Newsflash: you are NOT a soldier.

Yes, but also the military in the USA has access to the personal files of people in college. http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:lyYub_Wj_dAJ:www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/ht-10-09-02a.html+military+high+school+student+files+privac y

I recall my time at secondary school when they sent some of them over to try and get people into some pre army camp shit, they managed to eloquently disguise it as a "camping trip", it was all very neat and precise. Funnily enough a military recruitment office was opened recently, that my group directly opposed in a mall. It's brilliant how it's just another commercial, colourful looking shop in a packed urban mall - it even has one of those dune buggy things in side it.. and a battle simulator computer game.

http://eastlondonlocal.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/should-the-army-be-recruiting-in-a-dalston-shopfront/

Hackney is a pretty poor borough, Dalston in particular is not exactly a high-flying area (although selected gentrification runs through a good few backroads).


While there is a draft system on the backburner, the current composition of the US military is not draftee.

It's voluntary slavery; you "volunteer" yourself after you realise you have no money, or have been exploited to think that the USA is a wonderful place and you're fighting for everyone's freedom, or pushed into it by your wonderful flag-waving "proud to have my 10th kid in the army" family or just wandered into it by being convinced by some seemingly nice recruitment officer.


Well, here's the point. Marx supported Fenianism, as well as all sorts of anti-imperialist movements. He did not sympathize with the imperialist mercenaries.

"Professional Mercenaries" who you would write off even if they tried the CO but were refused it? http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=17584

Great position.


If he were here posting on these boards, you'd want him banned for being a "third-worldist idiot" and anti-worker terrorist, which just shows the absurdity of your position.

There are a lot of other people on here with positions much closer to that of Marx, there are some people who have even wilder positions than you on some aspects of anti-imperialism; I don't go around calling them third-worldist idiots who should be banned, that's just you I'm afraid.

Newflash: Marx wouldn't go around denouncing people for being from the west. :rolleyes:

As for the original topic, republicanism, Devrim has made an excellent point.

http://libcom.org/news/article.php/belfast-postal-workers-strike-2006


In fighting against bullying management and a timid union bureaucracy, the Belfast postal workers are standing up for themselves, for each other and for all working people and bring Catholic and Protestant workers together in common struggle. On 7 February even Ireland On Line's Business news stated that the "Communications Workers Union has condemned the wildcat strike, but both Protestant and Catholic postmen are ignoring the union's leadership and standing shoulder-to-shoulder in an otherwise fiercely divided city."

Why can't you encourage more action like that? Trying to get the working-class movement there all running through your oh so wise and knowledgeable republicanist vanguard is pointless.

[Devrim]

We might as well give up now I guess. A workers revolution that avoids the national question in every way possible will still provoke a loyalist backlash: any serious threat to the six counties institutions will bring about reactionary violence.

I think that there can't be a workers' revolution without the involvement of the mass of protestant workers, and not by ignoring the national question, but in opposition to it and all its emenations.

Yes, there will be loyalist backlashes along the way, and in my opinion also republican ones. Of course there will be reactionary violence, from both sides, and in its desperation it will be quite probably more intense than it is now.


While it was a positive force, it was no serious threat to the capitalists like the rent strikes, or actual confrontations with the state are.

I don't believe that the 'actual confrontations with the state' are a serious threat to the capitalists. Neither do I believe that one strike was, yet within it are the germs of that potential threat in a way that there isn't in street confrontaions fulled by nationalist ideology.

Devrim

[progressive_lefty]

a united 32 county republic would put an end to political sectarianism. you don't see protestants and catholics attacking each other in the 26 counties, because the two groups aren't pitted against one another for power, houses, jobs, etc
I don't believe this assertion. I think the process that could lead to the creation of a thirty two county republic would in itself lead to increased sectarianism, and probably increased sectarian conflict and etnic cleansing within Northern Ireland.


Would you have said that before apartheid ended, or before white-rule was toppled in Zimbabwe? Do you share those same views on Israel/Palestine? Are you trying to argue that Irish people are inherently incapable of accepting protestants, discarding the fact that republican protestants do exist?




News Link (http://libcom.org/news/article.php/belfast-postal-workers-strike-2006)
In fighting against bullying management and a timid union bureaucracy, the Belfast postal workers are standing up for themselves, for each other and for all working people and bring Catholic and Protestant workers together in common struggle. On 7 February even Ireland On Line's Business news stated that the "Communications Workers Union has condemned the wildcat strike, but both Protestant and Catholic postmen are ignoring the union's leadership and standing shoulder-to-shoulder in an otherwise fiercely divided city."Why can't you encourage more action like that? Trying to get the working-class movement there all running through your oh so wise and knowledgeable republicanist vanguard is pointless.

Once again you have to ask yourself, are you prepared to tell the Palestinians to forget about fighting for a state? Would you have told the East Timorese to have given up in their successful pursuit of nationalism that lasted decades and endured many massacres? Are you prepared to side with the loyalists on this issue, despite the historical grievances suffered by the Irish? I'll repeat what I posted earlier, if you oppose Irish nationalism then you are siding with the loyalists.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Would you have said that before apartheid ended, or before white-rule was toppled in Zimbabwe? Do you share those same views on Israel/Palestine? Are you trying to argue that Irish people are inherently incapable of accepting protestants, discarding the fact that republican protestants do exist?

No, what Devrim is saying is that Republicanism is the reason behind this unaccepting attitude and that it is breeding sectarianism amongst the Irish people, therefore it is counter-revolutionary to the class struggle.

[brigadista]

so day to day discrimination in employment, access to housing ,access to justice and policing have nothing to do with what you call "breeding sectarianism" -its all the republicans fault?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

so day to day discrimination in employment, access to housing ,access to justice and policing have nothing to do with what you call "breeding sectarianism" -its all the republicans fault?

Of course not, both loyalism and rebublicanism are both idelogies which divide our class.

[brigadista]

but loyalists control all the institutions leading to the discrimnation i describe, this surely prevents working class organistion across communities? this is not an equal class playing field here- the south african analogy is relevant

[Devrim]

Would you have said that before apartheid ended, or before white-rule was toppled in Zimbabwe? Do you share those same views on Israel/Palestine?

I don't think that the 'Liberation movement' in South Africa had anything to offer the working class. I think that the primary thing to argue for is self-organised workers' struggle for their own interests. The extent to which the working class supported the ANC was a sign that it couldn't act in its own intrests.


Are you trying to argue that Irish people are inherently incapable of accepting protestants, discarding the fact that republican protestants do exist?

I am not arguing that Irish people are 'inherently incapable' of anything. I am arguing that the republican movement for all its fine words is a sectarian movement. The numbers of protestants in it today is so insignificant as to be almost non-existant.


Once again you have to ask yourself, are you prepared to tell the Palestinians to forget about fighting for a state?

Yes, and I have spent a lot of time arguing with Palestinian workers in Lebanon that nationalism has nothing to offer them.


Are you prepared to side with the loyalists on this issue, despite the historical grievances suffered by the Irish? I'll repeat what I posted earlier, if you oppose Irish nationalism then you are siding with the loyalists.

I don't believe that opposing Irish nationalism means supporting the loyalists. You repeating it doesn't make it any more true.

Devrim

[Devrim]

so day to day discrimination in employment, access to housing ,access to justice and policing have nothing to do with what you call "breeding sectarianism" -its all the republicans fault?

What I said is that the root cause of sectarianism is British imperialism in Ireland. That does not mean that republicanism is not one of the forces that perpertuates it.

Devrim

[ls]

Would you have said that before apartheid ended, or before white-rule was toppled in Zimbabwe?

I'm sorry, are you comparing the situation in Northern Ireland now to apartheid?


Do you share those same views on Israel/Palestine?

You mean do you want an ethnocentral Palestinian state.. of course not, I want the proletariat in that region, as in all regions, to liberate itself.


Are you trying to argue that Irish people are inherently incapable of accepting protestants, discarding the fact that republican protestants do exist?

Are you? You certainly seem to believe that only republicans aren't reactionary, I guess that makes the WSM - an anarchist group active in NI and southern Ireland reactionary loyalist scum. :cool:


I'll repeat what I posted earlier, if you oppose Irish nationalism then you are siding with the loyalists.

Yeah, everyone on this thread who doesn't condemn imperialism, promote republicanism and denounce other ideological forces in Ireland.. can be seen on every orange order march through Belfast. :cool:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

but loyalists control all the institutions leading to the discrimnation i describe, this surely prevents working class organistion across communities? this is not an equal class playing field here- the south african analogy is relevant

Totally agree with Devrim, the ANC was not revolutionary and offered nothing to the working class people of South Africa. Working class organisations need to arise now to counter the reaction of republicanism and loyalism. Supporting repbulicanism is counter productive.

[brigadista]

:closedeyes:
Totally agree with Devrim, the ANC was not revolutionary and offered nothing to the working class people of South Africa. Working class organisations need to arise now to counter the reaction of republicanism and loyalism. Supporting repbulicanism is counter productive.



of course the loyalist control over the six counties is as a result of british imperialistic policy of divide and rule in Ireland , however what i dont understand is how leftists equate loyalists and republicans as equal forces ? How are those discriminated against supposed to unite with others who support the discrimination against them ?

I agree that organising on a class interest basis is the way to go however how could this happen when the Loyalist working class do not see it as being in their interest to organise in this way ?

I didnt say that the ANC were revolutionary by the way -

[Pogue]

:closedeyes:



of course the loyalist control over the six counties is as a result of british imperialistic policy of divide and rule in Ireland , however what i dont understand is how leftists equate loyalists and republicans as equal forces ? How are those discriminated against supposed to unite with others who support the discrimination against them ?

I agree that organising on a class interest basis is the way to go however how could this happen when the Loyalist working class do not see it as being in their interest to organise in this way ?

I didnt say that the ANC were revolutionary by the way -

But there have been strikes where the former barriers between workers have broken down. And the point of socialism is to unite workers in there class interests, and part of this is the struggle against false conciousness imbued in nationalism, republicanism, loyalism etc.

[brigadista]

But there have been strikes where the former barriers between workers have broken down. And the point of socialism is to unite workers in there class interests, and part of this is the struggle against false conciousness imbued in nationalism, republicanism, loyalism etc.

which strikes do you refer to?

[Pogue]

which do you refer to?

postal workers strike

[brigadista]

postal workers strike

which year?

[Pogue]

which year?

february of this year: http://libcom.org/news/article.php/belfast-posties-wildcat-strike

[redflag32]

But in capitalist societies there is by neccesity minority rule, that of the bourgoise. An Irish republic would be no different. You could equaly say that capitalism is an injustice and should be oppossed.

Republican Socialists do say that. As ive said before, even a capitalist united Ireland would be good for the working class struggle. It is an extention of democracy, and it is a defeat for Loyalism (which is on par with fascism in its objection to socialism).




It is not exactly what I said.

Ok, then why say this


I would say though that black nationalism, including the Black Panther Party, has played its part in maintaining racial divisions.?



I don't think that the 'national affairs' of a particular nation is really something that should be of concern for communists.

Thats not the question i asked you. I asked.. "The Irish national liberation movement opposes partition, loyalism and the presence of the british in Irelands affairs. Explain to me how this is perpetuating the divide that already exists?"

Just because the crisis happens inside a "nation" doesnt mean that it isnt relevent to the working class struggle. The spanish civil war was a national affair.

So answer me, how is the republican opposition to Loyalism and British imperialism perpetuating sectarianism?



Irish republicanism though has divided the working class by mobilising around national issues and at times behaving like sectarian murder gangs.

Modern Irish republicanism is a direct result of Loyalist pogroms against Catholics. Are you blaming them for thinking that the only way to stop the state sponsored attacks on their community was through a defeat for Loyalism (a united Ireland)?

The republican movement was forced into its position and it mobilised around the national issue because its main aim was to defeat those who were attacking their community,Loyalist and the British state.



I don'tthink that social revolution is on the agenda at the moment in Northern Ireland. I believe that social revolution can only be made by the vast majority of the working class,

This is my point exactly. You criticise EVERYBODY involved in the conflict/struggle as if only you and your sect understand the true way, if only we would listen to you. Then when your asked to give the answers you say that social revolution isnt even on the agenda at the moment. Well isnt that handy:rolleyes:. Its easy to demand that the VAST majority of the working class will have to create the revoltion because you offer no way of achieving that reality. Instead you strenghten the position of the fascist loyalists by criticising those who wish to see a democratic settlement to the conflict.

If you were serious about creating a workers republic in Ireland you would want to atleast try and infiltrate those who you believed would be easier to turn communist. Any half-wit can see that those who oppose facist loyalism and imperialism are those very people who might one day fight for a workers republic. Now i dont accept your analysis for one minute that Irish republicans are sectarian, but even if they were, the fact that they oppose fascist loyalism and British Imperialism is something genuine communists would want to try and exploit to their advantage. Its the same tactic used when genuine commuists try and inflitrate unions which are run by reformists. Your reasoning defies logic. Lets just sit on the fence and debase those who might possibly be on our side one day. This is why i cant take your analysis seriously.



Yes, loyalism must be opposed. It is a nationalistic and reactionary as republicanism.

Do you know even Loyalists wouldnt come out with soetehing like that. They are proud to support imperialism and the BNP and be reactionary. They understand they are fighting against the forces of progression. How this fact passes you by is a mystery.




AS is the 'catholic' working class. I don't believe there is any progressive side in this conflict.

So those opposing Imperialism and Loyalism are not even slightly more progressive than those who are racist and are totally against socialism?



AS I have already stated, I belive that the republicans are not 'progressive'. I think that they divide the working class not unite it, and that they are one of the 'forces of reaction'.

I know what you have said but you havent proven anything.


I don't worry about offending loyalists though.

Well seen as most of your criticisms are fired at republicans i dont see that happening.

[redflag32]

Democracy is the system of rule of the capitalist class. Both the US and Northern Ireland are democracies.

So there is democracy in Zimbabwe? Capitalism does not have to have democracy to function.

Democracy is a good thing, it isnt a capitalist evil. The active involvement of the majoirty in political affairs is progressive. My point was that Irish Republicans wish to see a democratic settlement in the conflict. Whis is progressive. Debasing democracy as some sort of capitalist evil is nuts.

[redflag32]

It is clear the Irish based RevLefters know more on the situation than me. I am no longer gonna deabte this issue because my knowledge of the republican movement is not great enough. Supposedly it is a class struggle movement. I do not want to get drawn into another argument, believe me I understand the situation for Catholics in Ireland which has manifested itslelf for the last 40 years I wish nothing more to see their working class united and free.

Comrade,without sounding patronising, i am glad you understand there is more going on than you are aware of. Thats not your fault.If your genuinely interested in understanding the irish conflict more then pm me and i can advise a few sources. It warms my heart when i see people genuinely taking an interest in a topic and not just repeating what they have been told is correct.

[Redmau5]

I don't think that the 'Liberation movement' in South Africa had anything to offer the working class. I think that the primary thing to argue for is self-organised workers' struggle for their own interests. The extent to which the working class supported the ANC was a sign that it couldn't act in its own intrests.

Well to be honest, the 'Liberation movement' in Northern Ireland in 1970 (the PIRA) had little to offer in terms of uniting the working-class and over-throwing the ruling class in Ireland. What it did offer however was resistance to the rampant bigotry and repression of the Northern Ireland statelet and their overseers in England. Do you think that the nationalist populations of Belfast and Derry, whilst they were being burnt and forced from their homes, should have you united with loyalists simply because they were fellow workers?

[PRC-UTE]

I don't believe that the 'actual confrontations with the state' are a serious threat to the capitalists. Neither do I believe that one strike was, yet within it are the germs of that potential threat in a way that there isn't in street confrontaions fulled by nationalist ideology.

Devrim

Now we get to the source of what is so deeply wrong with the left communist, and depressingly much of the left's abstract and ahistorical analysis of Ireland and the Troubles:

"...in street confrontaions fulled by nationalist ideology."

The Troubles weren't fuelled by nationalist ideology. Not even close. The ranks of the PIRA were filled with recruits who veteran republicans dismissed as "69ers"- people that joined up during the pogroms in the summer of 1969 so they could get weapons to defend their homes and communities under attack. These people were well known for not really having any solid ideology, hence their eventual acceptance of a deal with Britain that didn't advance at all towards a United Ireland, but gave them some assurances of their protection from Unionism.

Ironically their change in consciousness had more to do with reforms in education introduced by Britain, so that they were less willing to "know their place" and the upsurge in civil rights in America, not nationalism as you mean.

the working class cannot be united without championing the rights of those sections of it that are being oppressed. If the workers movement won't defend oppressed people, naturally they turn to nationalism. they won't sit back and be murdered and driven from their homes, jobs, schools, churches in the hopes that one day those carrying out these attacks will one day change their minds and improbably unite with them!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"The more advanced section of the [British] workers took part in the activities of radical organisations and clubs, and campaigned for Irish self-determination." - Engels

"I have become more and more convinced - and the thing now is to drum this conviction into the English working class - that they will never be able to do anything decisive here in England before they separate their attitude towards Ireland quite definitely from that of the ruling classes, and not only make common cause with the Irish, but even take the initiative in dissolving the Union established in 1801, and substituting a free federal relationship for it. And this must be done not out of sympathy for Ireland, but as a demand based on the interests of the English proletariat. If not, the English people will remain bound to the leading-strings of the ruling classes, because they will be forced to make a common front with them against Ireland." - Karl Marx

"The way I shall express the matter next Tuesday is: that, quite apart from all ‘international’ and ‘humane’ phrases about Justice for Ireland - which are taken for granted on the International Council - it is in the direct and absolute interests of the English working class to get rid of their present connexion with Ireland. I am fully convinced of this, for reasons that, in part, I cannot tell the English workers themselves. For a long time I believed it would be possible to overthrow the Irish regime by English working class ascendancy. I always took this viewpoint in the New-York Tribune. Deeper study has now convinced me of the opposite. The English working class will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland. The lever must be applied in Ireland. This is why the Irish question is so important for the social movement in general." - Marx

[Hoggy_RS]

I am not arguing that Irish people are 'inherently incapable' of anything. I am arguing that the republican movement for all its fine words is a sectarian movement. The numbers of protestants in it today is so insignificant as to be almost non-existant.

Just because the movement doesn't have a high number of protestants doesn't mean it's sectarian. This same logic could be used to say that any movement without a large number of minorities is racist.

I have a number of protestant friends who all support Irish unity. I think you want to believe that republicans are an ultra-catholic movement but the reality is that religion has nothing to do with. Republicanism attracts people from all religions, it's just catholics are the majority(as they are the majority of the population).

[redflag32]

Just because the movement doesn't have a high number of protestants doesn't mean it's sectarian. This same logic could be used to say that any movement without a large number of minorities is racist.

I have a number of protestant friends who all support Irish unity. I think you want to believe that republicans are an ultra-catholic movement but the reality is that religion has nothing to do with. Republicanism attracts people from all religions, it's just catholics are the majority(as they are the majority of the population).

Good point.

Anyway Devrims point is flawed. All it shows is the fact that there were more protestants in the IRA during the troubles than there are today. So even during their most active period(and in devrims eyes,most sectarian period) Protestants were actively joining.

[progressive_lefty]

I don't think that the 'Liberation movement' in South Africa had anything to offer the working class. I think that the primary thing to argue for is self-organised workers' struggle for their own interests. The extent to which the working class supported the ANC was a sign that it couldn't act in its own intrests.



Totally agree with Devrim, the ANC was not revolutionary and offered nothing to the working class people of South Africa. Working class organisations need to arise now to counter the reaction of republicanism and loyalism. Supporting repbulicanism is counter productive.

Bit puzzled, as to why there are so many people on here that supported apartheid? You can't deny, if you rejected their struggle (ANC) you are siding with the whites. If you had your way, then apartheid would still be around. No revolutionary nationalist movement is perfect, in the same way many people on here would argue no workers movement is perfect. I get the feeling that most of the people on this thread arguing against Irish unity have no conception of what it would have been like to have lived in East Timor during the Indonesian occupation, or as a black in apartheid South Africa or in the West Bank or Gaza today.
Do you really believe in telling those Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank to forget about statehood and just move on? Could you consider that some of them might be fighting Israel just because its a brutal occupation and they've lost many relatives? Are you prepared to accept continuing brutal acts against Palestinians as they phase out their desires for nationalism? Will the settlements stop when the Palestinians renounce nationalism? Can't that be described appropriately as madness?
Is it best to fight Israel for a workers state, or build a workers state via a nationalist objective that is reasonable and exists because of oppression? Is it wrong to appropriately describe trading nationalism for communism madness? Do you not believe that a country like Bolivia which now has an Indigenous President for the first time is starting to see the concept of a workers state?
Do you think I offer unconditional support for Republicans in Ireland? You don't believe I hold the same standard for republicans as I do for any other movement(eg.Loyalists)? You think that my support for Irish Unity is just based on Irish Unity and nothing else? No sense of social justice or equality for ALL of Ireland's citizens?
What kind of workers state or workers situation are you arguing for when you criticise Irish, South African and Palestinian nationalist movements? Is it realistic? Or is it some imaginary workers utopia created with almost no understanding of the causes of nationalistic feeling amongst oppressed people?

[Devrim]

So there is democracy in Zimbabwe? Capitalism does not have to have democracy to function..

No, capitalism doesn't have to have democracy to function. It can function whether there is democracy or not.


Democracy is a good thing, it isnt a capitalist evil. The active involvement of the majoirty in political affairs is progressive. My point was that Irish Republicans wish to see a democratic settlement in the conflict. Whis is progressive. Debasing democracy as some sort of capitalist evil is nuts.

Democracy is a form of management of capitalism. I don't see how it can really be described as a good thing for the working class. Democracy can be, when it needs to, just as authoritarian and visciously anti-working class as dictatorship. The Freikorps murdering workers and communists in the german revolution were sent in by democrats, as were the shoot to kill squads in Ireland or modern day Spain, as were those who cleared and burnt Kurdish villages in the South East of Turkey. Moreover, democracy is capable of morhing into dictatorship when the needs of capital demand it, and vice versa.

In the 'struggle for democracy' the working class can only end up by allying itself with different factions of the ruling class, and in doing so giving up any pretence of developing a real independent class movement. All those who advocate this policy effectivly argue against the development of the working class as a class for itself.


Well to be honest, the 'Liberation movement' in Northern Ireland in 1970 (the PIRA) had little to offer in terms of uniting the working-class and over-throwing the ruling class in Ireland. What it did offer however was resistance to the rampant bigotry and repression of the Northern Ireland statelet and their overseers in England. Do you think that the nationalist populations of Belfast and Derry, whilst they were being burnt and forced from their homes, should have you united with loyalists simply because they were fellow workers?

Which really shows the depth of the utter political defeat that the nationalism of both sides had inflicted on the working class in Northern Ireland. When workers can be mobilised to attack other workers on sectarian grounds then the working class hardly exists as a political force.


Just because the movement doesn't have a high number of protestants doesn't mean it's sectarian. This same logic could be used to say that any movement without a large number of minorities is racist.

I have a number of protestant friends who all support Irish unity. I think you want to believe that republicans are an ultra-catholic movement but the reality is that religion has nothing to do with. Republicanism attracts people from all religions, it's just catholics are the majority(as they are the majority of the population).


Anyway Devrims point is flawed. All it shows is the fact that there were more protestants in the IRA during the troubles than there are today. So even during their most active period(and in devrims eyes,most sectarian period) Protestants were actively joining.

There were very few protestants in Northern Ireland who supported the IRA in the early years of the 'troubles' either. Really you have to go back about a century to find significant numbers of protesants attracted to Republicanism. The fact that somebody living in the south may have a few protestant friends who support the idea of a united Ireland does not mean that republicanism in the North does not draw the vast majority of its support from people from 'Catholic' backgrounds.

That does not mean that it is a Catholic movement in any religious terms. I certainly don't believe it to be so. However, it is quite possible to be sectarian without having any deep allegience to religion itself. In my opinion republicanism is.


So those opposing Imperialism and Loyalism are not even slightly more progressive than those who are racist and are totally against socialism?

I think that Irish nationalism is totally opposed to socialism despite the fact that different republican factions may claim alligence to it. What is certain is that Irish republicans have been responsible for more sectarian murders of workers than the English BNP has been responsible for racist ones. I don't see anything progressive in that at all.


Bit puzzled, as to why there are so many people on here that supported apartheid? You can't deny, if you rejected their struggle (ANC) you are siding with the whites.

There were those who argued that the Bolsheviks in 1914 were supporting the Germans. This argument has the same logic.

Devrim

[Hoggy_RS]

I think that Irish nationalism is totally opposed to socialism despite the fact that different republican factions may claim alligence to it.

So all republicans are anti-socialist? You're being ridiculous. On this very forum, there is members who are undeniabley socialist and republican. Just because we don't agree with the views of the ultra-leftists doesn't make us not socialists.

[Devrim]

So all republicans are anti-socialist? You're being ridiculous. On this very forum, there is members who are undeniabley socialist and republican. Just because we don't agree with the views of the ultra-leftists doesn't make us not socialists.

No, I don't think that there is anything at all socialist about nationalist movements whatever leftist slogans they wrap themselves in. I don't think that there is anything at all socialist about any of the Irish nationalists on here. I think it is a thouroughly anti-working class ideology.

Devrim

[Hoggy_RS]

No, I don't think that there is anything at all socialist about nationalist movements whatever leftist slogans they wrap themselves in. I don't think that there is anything at all socialist about any of the Irish nationalists on here. I think it is a thouroughly anti-working class ideology.

Devrim
I think republican socialism has alot more to offer the Irish working class than any of the ultra left ideologies do. I can't understand why an apparentley 'anti-working class ideology' has such support in the Irish working class while the apparent champions of the working class(the ultra-left) have little to no support. Funny that.

[Pogue]

I think republican socialism has alot more to offer the Irish working class than any of the ultra left ideologies do. I can't understand why an apparentley 'anti-working class ideology' has such support in the Irish working class while the apparent champions of the working class(the ultra-left) have little to no support. Funny that.

Following this argument, the Labour Party is not anti-working class because it 'has alot of support in working class areas'.

In fact using your argument we could conclude that Loyalism is a pro-working class ideology because alot of people follow it.

Quite simply, having loads of working class people supporting you does not mean your organisation represents the interests of the working class.

[IrishWorker]

No, I don't think that there is anything at all socialist about nationalist movements whatever leftist slogans they wrap themselves in. I don't think that there is anything at all socialist about any of the Irish nationalists on here. I think it is a thouroughly anti-working class ideology.

Devrim

I am as Ultra-Left as there is I am a Republican Socialist in Ireland who understands that a Borderless Classless world is the end goal and that Republican Socialism is a stepping stone to this goal.
First to achieve this end goal we must have socialism and that is what I am working for day in day out that is what the IRSP are working for we must first end the occupation of Ireland and overthrow the Irish ruling class before we can have socialism in Ireland then spread our revolution internationally.
If you cannot understand the concept and agree with it then you are a bigger moron than I thought you were.


Really you people make me want to puke self righteous wannabes so consumed by you’re own sense of self importance that all else is but a theoretical misinterpretation.
Irish Republican Socialists are in the business of overthrowing the Irish ruling class and ending Brittan’s occupation of our country with and end goal to spread the revolution throughout Europe and the World if you can’t support that then you might as well put the rope up.

[khad]

Really you people make me want to puke self righteous wannabes so consumed by you’re own sense of self importance that all else is but a theoretical misinterpretation.
Irish Republican Socialists are in the business of overthrowing the Irish ruling class and ending Brittan’s occupation of our country with and end goal to spread the revolution throughout Europe and the World if you can’t support that then you might as well put the rope up.
They're just folks who want to cling to some baseline imperial nationalism all the while claiming that it's not the case due to their "working-class" rhetoric. They feel good gushing tears for every imperialist mercenary while condemning those who dare to defend their communities against them as bourgeois reactionaries. Maybe they'll proclaim some outrage for the peoples around the world oppressed by imperialism, but self-defense is absolutely not allowed.

Pity the wogs, but once they get uppity, kill them dead.

[Devrim]

Really you people make me want to puke self righteous wannabes so consumed by you’re own sense of self importance that all else is but a theoretical misinterpretation.
I don't think that it is some sort of 'theoretical misinterpretation'. I don't think that events like Kingsmill or the PKK's campaign of murdering schooling teachers, or the KDP shooting down striking cement factory workers in the streets are some kind of theoretical mistakes.
I think that they are the logical conclusion of anti-working class nationalist politics.
Devrim

[black magick hustla]

The issue here is that when workers can be mobilized so easily to kill each other on nationalist grounds the working class barely exists as an organized force. Nothing to do with pity or anything. Just look at Africa. No socialism at all, even after the so called national liberation, where many of those guerrillas spat marxist rhetoric.

[khad]

The issue here is that when workers can be mobilized so easily to kill each other on nationalist grounds the working class barely exists as an organized force. Nothing to do with pity or anything. Just look at Africa. No socialism at all, even after the so called national liberation, where many of those guerrillas spat marxist rhetoric.
And socialism has even less of a chance of being imposed by an imperialist power. I would choose the side that isn't organizing with the BNP.

An interesting observation about Africa, though you overlook the insane amount of sabotage and reactionary insurgency funded by the first world powers. And the dissolution of the combloc, which forced African nations into development agreements with neoliberal states.


"I have become more and more convinced - and the thing now is to drum this conviction into the English working class - that they will never be able to do anything decisive here in England before they separate their attitude towards Ireland quite definitely from that of the ruling classes, and not only make common cause with the Irish, but even take the initiative in dissolving the Union established in 1801, and substituting a free federal relationship for it. And this must be done not out of sympathy for Ireland, but as a demand based on the interests of the English proletariat. If not, the English people will remain bound to the leading-strings of the ruling classes, because they will be forced to make a common front with them against Ireland."

"The way I shall express the matter next Tuesday is: that, quite apart from all ‘international’ and ‘humane’ phrases about Justice for Ireland - which are taken for granted on the International Council - it is in the direct and absolute interests of the English working class to get rid of their present connexion with Ireland. I am fully convinced of this, for reasons that, in part, I cannot tell the English workers themselves. For a long time I believed it would be possible to overthrow the Irish regime by English working class ascendancy. I always took this viewpoint in the New-York Tribune. Deeper study has now convinced me of the opposite. The English working class will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland. The lever must be applied in Ireland. This is why the Irish question is so important for the social movement in general."

[Devrim]

First to achieve this end goal we must have socialism and that is what I am working for day in day out that is what the IRSP are working for we must first end the occupation of Ireland and overthrow the Irish ruling class before we can have socialism in Ireland then spread our revolution internationally.
...
Irish Republican Socialists are in the business of overthrowing the Irish ruling class and ending Brittan’s occupation of our country with and end goal to spread the revolution throughout Europe and the World if you can’t support that then you might as well put the rope up.
I think that these comments are very typical of Irish left-nationalists. They really do imagine that they are making 'the revolution' in Ireland and it will spread from there to the world. It is a sort of nationalist hubris that is also common in the Middle East, which ignores the fact that these sort of people live in societies where the working class is extremely weak and divided amongst itself.

In our opinion places like Northern Ireland or Palestine are places where the working class is most defeated and where you can not really imagine a revolution breaking out first. It is much more likely that a revolution will spread to Northern iireland from the Republic and Britain than vice versa.

Devrim

[Devrim]

You seem to forget that in your own quasi-third worldist parlance, you are actually the person benefiting from living in the number one imperialist nation whilst I am, in fact, loaded rich rich rich.
Devrim

[pastradamus]

I think that these comments are very typical of Irish left-nationalists. They really do imagine that they are making 'the revolution' in Ireland and it will spread from there to the world. It is a sort of nationalist hubris that is also common in the Middle East, which ignores the fact that these sort of people live in societies where the working class is extremely weak and divided amongst itself.

In our opinion places like Northern Ireland or Palestine are places where the working class is most defeated and where you can not really imagine a revolution breaking out first. It is much more likely that a revolution will spread to Northern iireland from the Republic and Britain than vice versa.

Devrim


The Working class in Northern Ireland were divided by 6 main elements:

1) The Southern government - by Implementing many Pro-Catholic laws and giving the Church a "special position" the protestants in the North Felt alienated and moved to the North in their droves.

2) The British Government - For hundreds of years acted discriminatory towards Catholics in the North, Initially burning them out of their homes and 400 years later Interning them in camps forcing many Northern refugees into the Republic

3) The Orange Order - After is Numbers started to fall hugely around the famine years it reignited itself by Appealing to religious Bigotry in order to divide whole communities and march through Catholic areas in order to promote violence between the two communities.

4) Sectarian Murders - Either side, the IRA and the Loyalist organizations have in the past murdered people purely based on religious grounds.

5) Loyalist Mobs - A regular intrusive presence in Republican Dominated areas who indiscriminately attack people with little or no PSNI protection.

6) Neo-Fascism - A New Occurrence, Loyalist Groups related to the UK Combat 18 have attacked Roma communities in South Belfast forcing many to flee Northern Ireland all together.


I fail to see where the Republican Left Come into the Fore here and also I dont think I ever heard Northern Irish Leftists say that they are going to take the Revolution to the UK. They understand that they must first build on their communities.

[pastradamus]

PSNI Assistant Chief Constable Alistair Finlay said it was disappointing "isolated outbreaks of violence had marred the day for all communities".
"Right across Northern Ireland there were hundreds of parades that passed off peacefully,"

Always good to see the police taking a good "interest" on the anti-sectarianist front.

For Christs sake they're talking about the marches like there was a scuffle after a football match and as if the orange order marches are something for everybody in NI to enjoy.

[Devrim]

I reject the whole idea behined this post though, which is that workers can not talk about events in other countries, and should concentrate on events in their 'own' countries.
It is a very clear response of bourgoies accomadation to nationalism.

[Redmau5]

Which really shows the depth of the utter political defeat that the nationalism of both sides had inflicted on the working class in Northern Ireland. When workers can be mobilised to attack other workers on sectarian grounds then the working class hardly exists as a political force.

Devrim

That doesn't really answer the question though. The fact that the workers movement in the North was crippled by sectarian division meant little to the people who bore the brunt of that division, namely the catholic working-class.

This is by no means an endorsement of nationalism as a solution to the ills in Ireland, or anywhere for that matter. It's simply an understanding of why so many young men and women joined these "nationalist gangs". Of course there were republican ideologues who had been waiting for many years for a fresh chance to strike at Britain, but on a more basic level many people joined because they felt their only chance of a decent life was to break the connection with England.

[pastradamus]

That doesn't really answer the question though. The fact that the workers movement in the North was crippled by sectarian division meant little to the people who bore the brunt of that division, namely the catholic working-class.

This is by no means an endorsement of nationalism as a solution to the ills in Ireland, or anywhere for that matter. It's simply an understanding of why so many young men and women joined these "nationalist gangs". Of course there were republican ideologues who had been waiting for many years for a fresh chance to strike at Britain, but on a more basic level many people joined because they felt their only chance of a decent life was to break the connection with England.

Well cited. The left of Northern Ireland deserve to be looked at in real awe by other leftist groups in the World IMO. Im very, very impressed at the Socialist party's recent activities in Northern Ireland lately. They havent taken any siding and are simply standing up for the human rights of people in the North, in particular the Roma community - Which I've already mentioned in another thread and I feel this is a remarkable show of both anti-sectarianism and class solidarity.

On the issue of people joining the republican paramilitaries all I can say to people here is listen to Christy Moores poem about Margareth Thatcher for an explaination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec82YUtvZNU&videos=q9LgpLaTFEc&playnext_from=TL&playnext=1]

"Her handywork reeked havoc on the Mersey,
Brought Hunger On Teeside and on the Tyne,
There was 10% employment on the Bogside,
5% in Ballymurphy and Ardoyne,
And from these wastelands she created
young men coaxed into regiments,
To train, to main, to kill."

[Devrim]

This is by no means an endorsement of nationalism as a solution to the ills in Ireland, or anywhere for that matter. It's simply an understanding of why so many young men and women joined these "nationalist gangs". Of course there were republican ideologues who had been waiting for many years for a fresh chance to strike at Britain, but on a more basic level many people joined because they felt their only chance of a decent life was to break the connection with England.

There is a difference to understanding why workers were attracted to nationalism and supporting it though. One can understand the events that took place in Northern Ireland during the period and things that pushed workers into the stems of nationalism. That does not mean that it offers any way forward for the working class.

Personally whilst understanding how people from the North were dragged into nationalist ideology and even having a lot of sympathy for them on a personal level, I don't have the same feelings at all for those from the South or even America who have taken up with Irish nationalism.

Devrim

[redflag32]

Democracy is a form of management of capitalism. I don't see how it can really be described as a good thing for the working class.

Democracy is what the capitalists had to settle for in relation to the working classes struggle for social emancipation. The capitalist class did not choose democracy as the best way to rule. It was forced into that position through class struggle. The extension of democracy and the march towards social emancipation are interelated.

Just because capitalism can survive under semi-democracy doesnt debunk democracy as irrelevent to the class struggle.


Democracy can be, when it needs to, just as authoritarian and visciously anti-working class as dictatorship.The Freikorps murdering workers and communists in the german revolution were sent in by democrats, as were the shoot to kill squads in Ireland or modern day Spain, as were those who cleared and burnt Kurdish villages in the South East of Turkey.

There is a difference between "democrats" and democracy. Democrats are the capitalists who have been forced into accepting a form of democracy as a governing system. They are not really for democracy.


Moreover, democracy is capable of morhing into dictatorship when the needs of capital demand it, and vice versa.

Again your confusing democracy with "democrats".


In the 'struggle for democracy' the working class can only end up by allying itself with different factions of the ruling class,

The struggle for total democracy (social end economic emancipation) can ONLY come about if it is led by the working class. It is this fact you seem to ignore. Any aliance with an alternative class that isnt done on the basis that the working class hold a massive majoirty will end in capitulation and failure for the struggle for democracy full. It is the incorruptiblity of the working class which makes it essential for them to lead the revolution if they seek to be successfull.

It isnt the struggle for total democracy which is the problem, it is who leads the struggle. You seem to think that any involvement in the democratic struggle as we know it today means capitulation to the bourgeoisie instantly. We should be aiming to organise the working class to lead this struggle to its correct ending. Sitting outside this struggle and denouncing those involved does nothing for the creation of democratic socialism.



and in doing so giving up any pretence of developing a real independent class movement. All those who advocate this policy effectivly argue against the development of the working class as a class for itself.

A class for itself?

Does this independent class movement cease to be independent if they choose certain people to co-ordinate national and economic affairs of the country? Are they then not "led" by a class of people who might resemble a state?

This independent class nonsense is more ultra-leftism which is irrrelevent to the workers.

You claim that any involvement in the democratic struggle is wrong because (a) Democracy is run by democrats and cant be progressive. and (B) That it means a treacherous aliance with these democrats
which effectively ends any chance of the working class leading the revolution.

Point (A) is debunked because democracy although run by democrats is still a progressive system. Ive already explained this point above.

Point (B) is debunked because it is foolish to think that the working class cant align with an alternative class in struggle whilst also leading that struggle.










There were very few protestants in Northern Ireland who supported the IRA in the early years of the 'troubles' either.

Dont start shifting the goal posts now Dev:)

The point is still valid. Republicanism has had its fair share of protestant activists so it cant be sectarian in principle. I wonder how many catholics supported the Loyalists in their pogroms against their own community:lol:



Really you have to go back about a century to find significant numbers of protesants attracted to Republicanism.

Who, like wolfe tone? One of the founding fathers of Irish Republicansim. Or maybe Marcivictz and Jack White and Dr. kathleen Lynne of the Irish Citizens Army?(who were the first red army of europe and who fought in 1916 against imperialism) Really we could go on and on. Irish republicanism is in principle an anti-sectarian ideology. How can you say otherwise when it has as its aim to "unite catholic,protestant and dissenter"?

Just because republicans carried out a hand full of sectarian attacks during the 30 year war (troubles) doesnt mean that republicanism is inherently sectarian. These attacks by the IRA were carried out as a response to the random murdering of catholic civilians by loyalist paramilitaries, most notably the Shankil Butchers, who would kill and carve up those they attacked with butchers tools.

The IRA mistakenly thought that the protestant community would put pressure on the Loyalists to cease these random sectarian attacks if the IRA responded by killing members of their community every time Loyalists butchered a catholic. It happned a hand full of times and it certainly wasnt on par with Loyalisms policy of sectarian murder against, what they percieved to be,an inferior race of people.

Your attempt to compare Republicanism with Loyalism is just nonsense.


The fact that somebody living in the south may have a few protestant friends who support the idea of a united Ireland does not mean that republicanism in the North does not draw the vast majority of its support from people from 'Catholic' backgrounds.

So that means its gotta be sectarian? What sort of logic do you use when coming up with your opinions? Of course it was MAINLY catholic, it was the catholic community who were suppressed for years and then attacked by the state and loyalism. My point is that because it wasnt a sectarian struggle it enabled protestants to join. How many joined isnt the issue. The fact that any of them seen it as a progressive struggle is testament to the un-sectarian nature of the struggle.

[progressive_lefty]

I think that these comments are very typical of Irish left-nationalists. They really do imagine that they are making 'the revolution' in Ireland and it will spread from there to the world. It is a sort of nationalist hubris that is also common in the Middle East, which ignores the fact that these sort of people live in societies where the working class is extremely weak and divided amongst itself.

In our opinion places like Northern Ireland or Palestine are places where the working class is most defeated and where you can not really imagine a revolution breaking out first. It is much more likely that a revolution will spread to Northern iireland from the Republic and Britain than vice versa.

Devrim

I think the problem with your comments is what you believe in is not realistic, your trying to argue that its better to remain being oppressed and then fight for a workers state, as opposed to achieving equality or freedom through nationalism. You really think throwing Palestinian nationalism in the bin whilst the settlements continue and the occupation becomes more efficient is in the best interests for creating a better condition for workers? Does that make any sense?

[Devrim]

The arguments about democracy are so weak that they don't really need replying to. This, however, is worth commenting on:
The IRA mistakenly thought that the protestant community would put pressure on the Loyalists to cease these random sectarian attacks if the IRA responded by killing members of their community every time Loyalists butchered a catholic. It happned a hand full of times and it certainly wasnt on par with Loyalisms policy of sectarian murder against, what they percieved to be,an inferior race of people.

It seems to imply that sectarian murders are ok if they are used as a tactic.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I think the problem with your comments is what you believe in is not realistic, your trying to argue that its better to remain being oppressed and then fight for a workers state, as opposed to achieving equality or freedom through nationalism. You really think throwing Palestinian nationalism in the bin whilst the settlements continue and the occupation becomes more efficient is in the best interests for creating a better condition for workers? Does that make any sense?

I am not arguing that it is 'better to remain being oppressed' at all. What I am arguing is that nationalism offers nothing for the working class. The settlements continue despite Palestinian nationalism, and Palestinian nationalism has failed to bring 'equality or freedom'. Nor do I believe it is capable of doing so.

Devrim

[redflag32]

The arguments about democracy are so weak that they don't really need replying to. This, however, is worth commenting on:

I don't claim to have all the answers Dev, i'm also on this forum to learn. Why don't you show me why my arguments are weak instead of just picking out the one piece from my reply which made it easy for you to try and slander Irish Republicans again.



It seems to imply that sectarian murders are ok if they are used as a tactic.

Who's implying, me? Dont wet yourself Dev, i'm not advocating sectarian murder as a tactic.

I was trying to deal with the issue of the IRA targetting protestant civilians open and honestly. Its not surprising that you didnt comment on the reasons i gave why the IRA carried out these hand full of attacks. Instead you tried to twist what i said to mean that republicanism advocates sectarian attacks.

You really have shown your inability to debate honestly on this thread Dev. I wonder is there any way back for you at all at all. Will we ever see the glory days of the great Dev again or has he been shown up for the dogmatic,dishonest coward that he is?:lol:

Dev for president!!!!

[Pogue]

I don't claim to have all the answers Dev, i'm also on this forum to learn. Why don't you show me why my arguments are weak instead of just picking out the one piece from my reply which made it easy for you to try and slander Irish Republicans again.




Who's implying, me? Dont wet yourself Dev, i'm not advocating sectarian murder as a tactic.

I was trying to deal with the issue of the IRA targetting protestant civilians open and honestly. Its not surprising that you didnt comment on the reasons i gave why the IRA carried out these hand full of attacks. Instead you tried to twist what i said to mean that republicanism advocates sectarian attacks.

You really have shown your inability to debate honestly on this thread Dev. I wonder is there any way back for you at all at all. Will we ever see the glory days of the great Dev again or has he been shown up for the dogmatic,dishonest coward that he is?:lol:

Dev for president!!!!

Wow, you really don't have much of worth to offer do you?

[redflag32]

Wow, you really don't have much of worth to offer do you?

What are you, his boyfriend?:lol:

Dev and Pogue up a tree....

Anyway, im not the one who decided that all my points were so silly that they didnt need to be even answered. Sounds to me like someone wants to bail out from this discussion.

[Pogue]

What are you, his boyfriend?:lol:

Dev and Pogue up a tree....

Anyway, im not the one who decided that all my points were so silly that they didnt need to be even answered. Sounds to me like someone wants to bail out from this discussion.

Actually, I think the situation is you've come up against arguably one of the most respected and intelligent members of the forum, Devrim, who consistently maintains sound arguments against people much more intelligent than you, and you've basically realised you wouldn't even know where to begin so you've gone on to this immature shit about people backing down or me and Devrim being in love because I happen to have respect for him.

Grow up please.

[redflag32]

Actually, I think the situation is you've come up against arguably one of the most respected and intelligent members of the forum, Devrim, who consistently maintains sound arguments against people much more intelligent than you, and you've basically realised you wouldn't even know where to begin so you've gone on to this immature shit about people backing down or me and Devrim being in love because I happen to have respect for him.

Grow up please.

Now i am shocked,

Up untill i read that last reply by you i actually thought i was involved in a discussion with an adult. What are you, 12?

"most respected and intelligent member of the forum"?:lol::lol:

And then you try to convince us that your NOT in love with Dev?

[Pogue]

Now i am shocked,

Up untill i read that last reply by you i actually thought i was involved in a discussion with an adult. What are you, 12?

"most respected and intelligent member of the forum"?:lol::lol:

And then you try to convince us that your NOT in love with Dev?

Did mummy and daddy just tell you what a relationship is?

[ls]

The IRA mistakenly thought that the protestant community would put pressure on the Loyalists to cease these random sectarian attacks if the IRA responded by killing members of their community every time Loyalists butchered a catholic. It happned a hand full of times and it certainly wasnt on par with Loyalisms policy of sectarian murder against, what they percieved to be,an inferior race of people.

Please explain exactly what you are trying to say by this post, its overtone is really quite sinister if you ask me.

[redflag32]

Please explain exactly what you are trying to say by this post, its overtone is really quite sinister if you ask me.

Id advise that you read my whole post mate.

[ls]

Fine, if you insist on having me quote the entire passage and establishing my reply's relevance.



Really you have to go back about a century to find significant numbers of protesants attracted to Republicanism.

Who, like wolfe tone? One of the founding fathers of Irish Republicansim. Or maybe Marcivictz and Jack White and Dr. kathleen Lynne of the Irish Citizens Army?(who were the first red army of europe and who fought in 1916 against imperialism) Really we could go on and on. Irish republicanism is in principle an anti-sectarian ideology. How can you say otherwise when it has as its aim to "unite catholic,protestant and dissenter"?

Just because republicans carried out a hand full of sectarian attacks during the 30 year war (troubles) doesnt mean that republicanism is inherently sectarian. These attacks by the IRA were carried out as a response to the random murdering of catholic civilians by loyalist paramilitaries, most notably the Shankil Butchers, who would kill and carve up those they attacked with butchers tools.

The IRA mistakenly thought that the protestant community would put pressure on the Loyalists to cease these random sectarian attacks if the IRA responded by killing members of their community every time Loyalists butchered a catholic. It happned a hand full of times and it certainly wasnt on par with Loyalisms policy of sectarian murder against, what they percieved to be,an inferior race of people.

Your attempt to compare Republicanism with Loyalism is just nonsense.

You are simply apologising for the brutal murdering of innocent Protestant workers and going on "well it's justified because they did it not-quite-as-bad as the Loyalists".

Really, this demonstrates the pretty disgusting rationale behind Republicanism of "an eye for an eye", even if things as extreme as this do not happen anymore, they are still justified by Republicans.

[redflag32]

Fine, if you insist on having me quote the entire passage and establishing my reply's relevance.



You are simply apologising for the brutal murdering of innocent Protestant workers and going on "well it's justified because they did it not-quite-as-bad as the Loyalists".

Really, this demonstrates the pretty disgusting rationale behind Republicanism of "an eye for an eye", even if things as extreme as this do not happen anymore, they are still justified by Republicans.


How was i apologising for it when i said it was a MISTAKEN idea?

The difference between me and you is that i have equal disgust for the murdering of both catholic and protestant people in Ireland. Its just a shame you dont get as upset about the thousands of innocent people who were murdered in this country by the British state and its Loyalist thugs who are on the other side of the fence.

[ls]

How was i apologising for it when i said it was a MISTAKEN idea?

By saying it was "on par with Loyalism" like it's somehow inherently less evil? Like it was justified in some small way? Like it was worth a try as a tactic?


The difference between me and you is that i have equal disgust for the murdering of both catholic and protestant people in Ireland.

Here we go again. Yeah of course, everyone who disagrees with you goes to orange order marches.


Its just a shame you dont get as upset about the thousands of innocent people who were murdered in this country by the British state and its Loyalist thugs who are on the other side of the fence.

Of course it upsets me, I've been one of the only people on the forum attacking Cromwell for doing this, whilst others have argued he was "historically progressive", better luck next time.

[redflag32]

By saying it was "on par with Loyalism" like it's somehow inherently less evil? Like it was justified in some small way? Like it was worth a try as a tactic?

I said it wasnt on par, with loyalisms central poicy of attacking innocent catholics of who they percieved as second class citizens. I admitted that yes the IRA did attack protestants a hand full of times, but that to say thats the same as the loyalists policy of continuious sectarian murder is wrong.

The IRA's attacks on protestants was a response to the loyalists sectarian campaign against their community,it was wrong and disgusting, but it is not the job of socialists to get emotional remember. We must look at the concrete conditions and come up with logical conclusions.

Any logical person can see that when the IRA attacked protestants it was in response to the sectarian campaign of the loyalists against the catholic community. These attacks happened a handfull of times and most of them were not sanctioned by the army council. It was wrong for the IRA to carry out these attacks but to say the IRA and the UVF are similar in their sectarian nature is absolute non-sense.

[ls]

I said it wasnt on par, with loyalisms central poicy of attacking innocent catholics of who they percieved as second class citizens.

I meant wasn't, didn't mean to mess that bit up like that.


I admitted that yes the IRA did attack protestants a hand full of times, but that to say thats the same as the loyalists policy of continuious sectarian murder is wrong.

It comes from the same idea; an eye for an eye no matter what. That idea can never foster a genuine working-class movement.


The IRA's attacks on protestants was a response to the loyalists sectarian campaign against their community,it was wrong and disgusting, but it is not the job of socialists to get emotional remember. We must look at the concrete conditions and come up with logical conclusions.

I don't see any logical conclusion other than completely denouncing the attacks as horrific and wrong on both sides. Don't even try to justify it in a small way, that's the logical conclusion.


Any logical person can see that when the IRA attacked protestants it was in response to the sectarian campaign of the loyalists against the catholic community. These attacks happened a handfull of times and most of them were not sanctioned by the army council. It was wrong for the IRA to carry out these attacks but to say the IRA and the UVF are similar in their sectarian nature is absolute non-sense.

Well, they are far too similar to ever foster a genuine proletarian uprising.

[redflag32]

It comes from the same idea; an eye for an eye no matter what. That idea can never foster a genuine working-class movement.

Nobody said "an eye for an eye no matter what", you did. This policy by the IRA was very very short lived. Actually it wasnt even a policy because it was never sanctioned by the IRA. So your "no matter what" can be ignored as nonsense.

And by the way, an eye for an eye is a perfectly natural human trait. Our law system is based on it. You sound like a liberal.




I don't see any logical conclusion other than completely denouncing the attacks as horrific and wrong on both sides. Don't even try to justify it in a small way, that's the logical conclusion.

I do denounce it,and so does the republican movement. That does not mean we shouldnt be able to see it for what it really is. If a kid who gets bullied day in day out snaps one day and stabs the bully in the neck society is perfectly able to denounce that action but to also see it for what it really is. It seems your not able to do this.

[PRC-UTE]

Most republican volunteers didn't have a desire to attack protestants. they knew that sullied their cause, lost them support at home and around the world, and aided Britain's propaganda line that they were in Ireland to keep peace between the warring factions of irrational, backwards tribes.

Republicans aimed to send Brit soldiers home in bodybags. They wanted to create a war-weariness in Britain. They inflicted a lot of casualties on the British Army with a very sophisticated engineering dept that was able to devise homemade weapons the Brits couldn't defend themselves against such as bombs and mortars that could kill soldiers and policemen inside barracks. Or .50 calibre sniper rifles that could shoot right through body armour from a mile away, and keep going. Or RPG-7's that could make armoured cars death traps. Had they wanted to, they could have killed large numbers of protestants, even carried out real ethnic clensing Balkans-style. But that did not happen.

Whereas the Loyalist military policy was summed up in their own words as "any taig* will do". They tried to terrorise the entire Catholic population into submission.

The two military strategies are night and day.

*catholic

[Devrim]

I don't claim to have all the answers Dev, i'm also on this forum to learn. Why don't you show me why my arguments are weak instead of just picking out the one piece from my reply which made it easy for you to try and slander Irish Republicans again.

I don't try to slander Irish republicans. I just try to explain why I think they are reactionary anti-working class nationalists.

As for the things about the ruling class not really wanting to be democratic, I don't really see why I should bother replying to it. I am here to argue for the things that I want to, not to reply to every comment some nationalist makes, and I don't see a need to reply to what a see as a very confused argument that I don't think will be taken very seriously.

The piece I commented on I did because I found it profoundly disturbing.


I was trying to deal with the issue of the IRA targetting protestant civilians open and honestly. Its not surprising that you didnt comment on the reasons i gave why the IRA carried out these hand full of attacks. Instead you tried to twist what i said to mean that republicanism advocates sectarian attacks.

I don't think that the reasons given are that important. As you have admitted republicans have run sectarian attacks for whatever reasons. To me this is something that socialists should condemn completly, not try to 'understand' or in effect become an apologist for.


What are you, his boyfriend?:lol:

Dev and Pogue up a tree....


As a personal, friendly, word of warning, I wouldn't make comments like this on here as there are people who would want to ban you for it.

I would just say that implying that people are gay is not really a cool insult.

He isn't my boyfriend though. I live in a different continent, he is less than half my age, and I am actually happy in the relationship I have.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Also on another point, to me the impression that people try to paint of the Republican movement on here as being very virtueous and non-sectarian is very different from my impressions of it. I am not claiming that the republicans were 'as bad as' the loyalists, but neither were they the angels that some people seem to be implying they were.

I think there was some pretty viscious sectarianism on the republican side too.

Devrim

[redflag32]

As for the things about the ruling class not really wanting to be democratic, I don't really see why I should bother replying to it. I am here to argue for the things that I want to, not to reply to every comment some nationalist makes, and I don't see a need to reply to what a see as a very confused argument that I don't think will be taken very seriously.

Ok, if you want to get out of the debate by saying my points dont even warrant a reply then thats fine by me:rolleyes:

We can all do that.



The piece I commented on I did because I found it profoundly disturbing.

No, you completely avoided the parts of my thread which were genuine attempts at serious,mature debate and instead you picked out the one sentence which enabled you to non-politically slander republicans again.



I don't think that the reasons given are that important. As you have admitted republicans have run sectarian attacks for whatever reasons. To me this is something that socialists should condemn completly, not try to 'understand' or in effect become an apologist for.

This one quote shows up your ilogical reactionary reasoning perfectly. You make a connection between UNDERSTANDING something and APOLIGISING for it. Which is so un-radical that it really doesnt even merit a reply:cool: (see we can all play that game)





As a personal, friendly, word of warning, I wouldn't make comments like this on here as there are people who would want to ban you for it.

I would just say that implying that people are gay is not really a cool insult.

He isn't my boyfriend though. I live in a different continent, he is less than half my age, and I am actually happy in the relationship I have.

Devrim


Maybe if you replied to my political points i wouldnt feel the need to make non-political comments. You created this world Dev, im just playing the game.:cool: