The Decline of Militant Irish Republicanism

[Crux]

The Decline of Militant Irish Republicanism (http://www.revolutionaryireland.com/2009/10/decline-of-militant-republicanism.html)


Ideologies are not issued self-developed and completed into the aether of the idea rather they are generated by the development of specific historic processes in the real world. Ideas are not primary but secondary reflections back into reality through the mediation of the mind. Material reality is primary in the evolution of thought just as it is primary in the wider process of the evolution of the species.

It was primarily this supercession of the German Ideology which underpinned Marxism as a Critique of Philosophy. For Marxists, like Hegelians, the Kantian duality of mind and reality is bridged through Praxis or activity on the part of the knower but for Marxists this activity itself is conditioned by reality.

For Marxists, therefore, the Republican ideals which flowered in France and England in the late 18th Centuries only developed and found wider social resonance because society was not only sufficiently developed to generate them but that it was sufficiently developed to give them a social force. The ideals of equality, fraternity and liberty were the idealistic outworkings of the demand of the rising business class to overturn the power of the traditional aristocratic ruling class and the domination of the church.

If there is a crisis in Irish Republicanism then it reflects changing material realities. This post seeks to identify the causes of this historic decline.

The first thing to note is that there is an undeniable decline. The largest militant republican movement, Sinn Féin, has largely ditched what has been understood as traditional republican values. They participate and work in a system based on the principle of consent (i.e. consent of a majority in the north-eastern six counties), they act as Ministers in a partitionist parliament owing its sovereignty to the British crown and they promote support for a police service which enforces British laws in Ireland. All this when British troops continue to be based in the north.

Now many Republicans will say that this is a strategic compromise akin to De Valera taking the oath to the British King only to establish the Republic and that it may be to them. But De Valera's actions were considered treacherous by traditional comtemporary Republicans just as they are by today's equivalents. Moreover, De Valera wasn't long from swearing that oath to the point of hanging IRA men during the emergency.

Today's Sinn Féin operates in a similar system and with a similar strategy to the SDLP of the past. Gone is its radical socialism instead it has a soft social reformism, which if it has meaning at all in its contact with reality, is largely ineffectual and mostly symbolic.

But there are others within Republicanism who have not gone so far. Traditionally the second biggest group would have been the Irish Republican Socialist Party which has groups in some towns in the North and a scattering of activists in Dublin and other cities in the Republic. The recent announcement (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/11/northern-ireland-republican-group-disband)that the INLA was to disband and engage with General de Chastelain's decommissioning body was unexpected but reflected their analysis that the war was over. The argument justifying this decision to go further than their old cessation is the need to engage in wider left-wing politics through groups such as the People Before Profit Alliance.

This should be seen for what it is: further evidence of the historic decline of militant republicanism.

Traditional Militant Republicanism

The main groups remaining outside this trend are the inappropriately named 'dissident' republicans. These groups really should be termed traditional republicans given their consistency with republican ideological beliefs going back to the 1910s and 1920s. They believe in the achievement of Irish unity through force of arms and reject any form of participation in governmental structures predicated on partition or the principle of consent.

These groups are enjoying something of a renaissance of late. Their attacks on crown-forces and bomb attacks are growing in regularity and they are clearly gaining a hearing with some in grassroots republican communities. The causes of this must be sought in the chronic failure of the mainstream 'republican' political agenda as evidenced by the one-sided government in Stormont and the collapse of a cross-border economy enormously reliant on the construction sector.

In the absence of a strong socialist alternative, traditional republican militants are successfully projecting themselves as the real alternative to Stormont and they are finding it somewhat easier to recruit young nationalists.

The problem for these groups is that they are largely a reaction to the political development that has occurred in the last 20 years in Northern Ireland; the times have changed. Today, for the first time in the history of the northern state, most Nationalists recognise its legitimacy and accept the principle of consent. While many Republicans may have viewed this ideological rubicon as a realpolitick concession to devour the northern state from the inside-out, the reality is that the wider population have now normatized the concept. This will not be easily undone.

There is, thus, a huge barrier standing in the way of the traditional republican militants. They cannot succeed and it is clear that most of them realise this fact but view their resistance as an existentialist refusal to the system. Yet this is always an inadequate justification for revolutionary action. Che did not go to Bolivia considering his actions to have no hope - he believed he would succeed but realised the risk. Connolly went out in 1916 hoping for the best but conscious that it was madness given the odds of defeating the British. Indeed, the secret history of militant republicanism has often been just how close to victory risings were if they only realised at the time the weakness of the British. But there are no such hopes for traditional republican militant struggle.

The Changing Material Conditions

Irish Republicanism was initially a bourgeois nationalist movement; hence, Griffith's attachment to the concept of a monarchy and an Irish empire. The situation in Ireland was complicated by the colonial nature of its relation to Britain. Nationalism, which in the imperialist centres of mainland Europe demonstrated its reactionary nature in the revolutions of 1848, remained objectively progressive in Ireland a situation reinforced by the politically-engineered Great Hunger of 1847/48.

With the coming of the new Free State in 1923, Irish nationalism faced a number of challenges. Not least was the growing demands of the new, progressive, socialist working-class politics developed by the likes of Connolly and Larkin and finding military expression in the ICA. But equally, it was presented with the realities of partial liberation. The Civil War confirmed the dominance of the conservative trend within Irish nationalism south of the border yet north of the border the situation remained complex.

The Irish Catholics living north of the border were oppressed alongside working-class Protestants - both groups were largely denied the vote. Nationalism reflected the legitimate demands of Irish Catholics (in particular its middle-class who felt themselves particularly disadvantaged) but it risked alienating a Protestant working-class who were enticed to support unionism through such hegemonic structures as the Orange Order and the panoply of advantageous arrangements established under the 'Protestant state for a Protestant people'. The Belfast Rates Relief Strike of 1932 held out the opportunity for unity of action for the first time and it is highly instructive how it was put down by the selective targetting of Catholic strikers for murder by the forces of the state.

The growth in a youthful generation educated on the back of the 1948 Education Reform, generated the civil rights campaigns which had the potential to bridge the gap between nationally oppressed Catholics and economically exploited Protestants. But it was not to be - the reaction of the state rekindled militant republicanism - and broke down the ability to develop a more powerful cross-community resistance.

Structural reforms to take off the worst edges of discrimination were implemented in the period of direct rule and the general standard of living rose as the north was more fully integrated into the global economy as an appendage to imperial Britain. The rise of the Celtic Tiger in the historic bargain to big business offered by the Dublin Government(of low taxes in return for employment) resulted in a reduction in the poverty of the Republic and a further consequential erosion in support for militant republicanism.

In these conditions and against the backdrop of a falling level of support for the faltering military campaign of the IRA, the leadership had to look for a way out. They chose a negotiated process which they felt held out the prospect of victory down the road. That this has not transpired or likely to transpire may seem obvious to the casual observer today but it clearly was sufficiently obscure at early stages to hold the entire Republican movement together through the bulk of the process itself.

Having got to this stage, the material conditions for the success of militant republicanism no longer exist. However, the growth in unemployment and the perception that discrimination continues in the north through more subtle means than before there is a potential for the tradition to attract young recruits. But with no viable strategy it is hard to see where it can go.

From this viewpoint, the move by the IRSM to dismantle its military operation is sensible. They perceive the need to move forwards. They realise that holding a military structure or weaponry will only prejudice that opportunity and warp their own internal democracy. Their voice will be of importance to the left-wing across Ireland although it is imperative for them to resolve their own position in relation to northern Protestants.

The Need for the Left to Engage with Protestants

The greatest failure of Republicanism has been its inability to effectively engage and transcend the divisions 'carefully fostered' with northern Protestants. The revolutionary opportunity heralded by the cross-sectional 1798 Rebellion was never realised in the period after it. Again and again, when individual Republicans have engaged with Protestants they have ditched their own nationalism, Sinn Féin the Worker's Party being the classic example of this trajectory. Republicans should consider just why it is that some of the most capable republicans, some of its most consistent socialists, have moved away from Nationalism after an engagement with Protestants as Unionists as opposed to simply Protestants as other.

Irish nationalism may unify northern Catholic communities against the British but this is insufficient to achieve Irish unity in a context where the principle of consent is embedded in the constitutional standing of the north. The lack of viability of any military strategy to overthrow that constitutional situation should make any traditional Republican militant reconsider what they're about. However, we need at this point to reiterate our opinion that working with unionists as parties at governmental level is even less likely to achieve Irish unity as it ends up reinforcing unionist hegemony in their own communities.

The conclusions from this analysis are that the tradition of Irish Republicanism has often collapsed to the tradition of Irish Nationalism and that Republicans have failed to find common ground with Protestants as a result of their prioritisation of nationalism over socialism.

The risks of Nationalism

Irish Nationalism is often simply collapsed to anti-imperialism in a broad approach akin to that adapted in colonial revolutions elsewhere in the world but the situation in no two contexts is exactly the same. Ireland unlike most colonial states is partitioned and Ireland has a large non-national minority consisting a majority in one of those states. It cannot simply be concluded, therefore, that the same strategic orientation is correct in all cases. That is to fetishise such a strategic orientation. Whilst anti-imperialism is always justified, nationalism is not.

In the concrete case of Ireland, we have to ask how is it advancing anti-imperialism best by retaining nationalism if all that does in reality is to further reinforce the union?

Furthermore, anti-imperialism is meaningful precisely because it is a necessary condition for the self-emancipation of the working class or socialism. As Connolly said merely raising the Green flag is a worthless achievement in and of itself.

Yet, in reifying nationalism (and thereby cementing the union), we are undercutting its logical justification from a Socialist Republican perspective.

The only possible arguments that can be presented to this is that unity cannot be achieved through socialism alone or is required as its pre-requisite. The first argument is a preposition and must be tested. Socialism or Barbarism argues that it is precisely this preposition that must be tested through struggle. It is akin to arguing against socialism on the basis that socialism is not possible. Such specious telelogical arguments are insufficient to justify a course of 'do nothing' particularly when their proponents are often 'doing something' which is demonstrably setting back the cause of socialism.

The second argument is more substantial but we believe that it is precisely this understanding, that national self-determination is a condition for the full realisation of socialism which gives content to the national liberation struggle (if it deserves to have a content at all). So in fact, it is only through actively pursuing socialist demands which fail to be delivered by a London-government that unity can ever gain traction in unionist communities. To the extent that such unity is necessary, that is the extent to which that unity is progressive.

The historic failure of the Republican tradition to engage northern Protestants has been its Achille's heel for 200 years. Nationalism acts as a barrier to unification and acts of traditional republican militancy will only further undermine the ideological validity of republicanism not just with Protestants but with a growing section of northern Catholics. Socialism or Barbarism calls for revolutionary socialists to work together to develop a new vehicle capable of challenging the neo-liberal consensus and finally resolving the nationalist-socialist dialectic.

[Andropov]

Today, for the first time in the history of the northern state, most Nationalists recognise its legitimacy and accept the principle of consent.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...blican-belfast (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/05/ira-ardoyne-republican-belfast)


From this viewpoint, the move by the IRSM to dismantle its military operation is sensible. They perceive the need to move forwards. They realise that holding a military structure or weaponry will only prejudice that opportunity and warp their own internal democracy. Their voice will be of importance to the left-wing across Ireland although it is imperative for them to resolve their own position in relation to northern Protestants.
'No plans' for INLA to decommission
The INLA has said it has no plans to hand over its weapons, despite announcing that its campaign of violence is over.

Monday, 12 October 2009
Tags: paramilitariesLocal News

The group was responsible for some of the most notorious killings of the Troubles, murdering more than 100 people during its 35 year history.

Some of its high profile victims included Conservative politician Airey Neave and loyalist paramilitary leader Billy Wright.

The INLA's political ally, the IRSP, has said there is no longer community support for a continuation of what it calls the "armed struggle".


Article Continues
The organisation used a graveside oration outside Dublin on Sunday to confirm that its "armed struggle is over".

IRSP spokesman Martin McMonagle said on Monday that there has been an assessment of the effectiveness of the campaign: "It is a mission that the armed struggle is not a viable alternative now."

"Suffice to say that armed violence worked in some circumstances and in some circumstances it does not, but I think that the analysis now is that it not working."

There are calls for the INLA to decommission its weapons after Sunday's announcement that it was giving up its armed struggle.

But Mr McMonagle said he has does not believe decommissioning is on the agenda: "I dont think so, in our discussions with the INLA over the last number of years decommissioning has not been mentioned."

Now that we have shown that traditional Republicanism is actually growing in working class Nationalist areas and that the INLA are neither disbanding or decommisioning ill deal with the trendy left politics here.

Again and again, when individual Republicans have engaged with Protestants they have ditched their own nationalism, Sinn Féin the Worker's Party being the classic example of this trajectory. Republicans should consider just why it is that some of the most capable republicans, some of its most consistent socialists, have moved away from Nationalism after an engagement with Protestants as Unionists as opposed to simply Protestants as other.
Thank you for using the sticks as an example, you made my job alot easier.
The sticks are one of the most despised groups in Northern Politics.
They made neither serious inroads into the Protestant Working class through their reformism which did include giving safe houses to the likes of the UDA and UVF in Republican areas and not only that but they also alienated themselves from the whole Nationalist working class as the glaring contradictions in their politics were most evident.
The sticks are a perfect example of where reformist trendy lefts will go in Ireland.
Through not only courting facists and refusing to defend working class nationalist communities from pogroms because it was deemed "sectarian" they lost all credibility in Nationalist communities and failed to make serious inroads into Protestant communities because they attempted to court the reactionary, sectarian ideology of Loyalism as some form of equal.
Gas and water socialists at their best and Mr Connolly would be turning in his grave to see the reformist drivel you have psoted here today with you making referance to him, he ate trendys like this for breakfast.

Irish Nationalism is often simply collapsed to anti-imperialism in a broad approach akin to that adapted in colonial revolutions elsewhere in the world but the situation in no two contexts is exactly the same. Ireland unlike most colonial states is partitioned and Ireland has a large non-national minority consisting a majority in one of those states. It cannot simply be concluded, therefore, that the same strategic orientation is correct in all cases. That is to fetishise such a strategic orientation. Whilst anti-imperialism is always justified, nationalism is not.
Indeed it is not fetishising to conclude that it is an anti-imperial struggle in Ireland.
Marx, Engels, Connolly, Lenin, Connolly and Costello all recognised this.
To refuse to accept it is an anti-imperial struggle is to reject Marxist thought as that is the material context.
Granted that imperialism has retreated to the 6 counties where it si easier to maintain control but it is still imperialism, to suggest otherwise is just rejecting all the major marxist thought on the subject and apply trendy left ideals.

Apologies if I have only selected portions of the text it is just it is quite long.
If you want any particular part of the text addressed ask me, I have chosen certain issues which have jumped up at me.

[Crux]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...blican-belfast (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/05/ira-ardoyne-republican-belfast)
CIRA and RIRA hardly represents the the nationalist community in general.


Now that we have shown that traditional Republicanism is actually growing in working class Nationalist areas and that the INLA are neither disbanding or decommisioning ill deal with the trendy left politics here. SO the authors were wrong in assuming that the INLA are decomissioning? Big deal. Consider the following from the IRSM statement:
The future struggles are political. We urge all comrades, members, volunteers and supporters to join the political struggle ahead with the same vigour, commitment and courage that was evident in our armed struggle against the British State.

The argument made by Socialism or Barbarism stands.




Thank you for using the sticks as an example, you made my job alot easier.
The sticks are one of the most despised groups in Northern Politics.
They made neither serious inroads into the Protestant Working class through their reformism which did include giving safe houses to the likes of the UDA and UVF in Republican areas and not only that but they also alienated themselves from the whole Nationalist working class as the glaring contradictions in their politics were most evident.
The sticks are a perfect example of where reformist trendy lefts will go in Ireland.
Through not only courting facists and refusing to defend working class nationalist communities from pogroms because it was deemed "sectarian" they lost all credibility in Nationalist communities and failed to make serious inroads into Protestant communities because they attempted to court the reactionary, sectarian ideology of Loyalism as some form of equal.
Gas and water socialists at their best and Mr Connolly would be turning in his grave to see the reformist drivel you have psoted here today with you making referance to him, he ate trendys like this for breakfast.
And you obviously are unable to read what they actually said about the Worker's Party and their tactics. I suggest you read again. It is hardly a defense of the WP, quite the contrary.


Indeed it is not fetishising to conclude that it is an anti-imperial struggle in Ireland.
Marx, Engels, Connolly, Lenin, Connolly and Costello all recognised this.
To refuse to accept it is an anti-imperial struggle is to reject Marxist thought as that is the material context.
Granted that imperialism has retreated to the 6 counties where it si easier to maintain control but it is still imperialism, to suggest otherwise is just rejecting all the major marxist thought on the subject and apply trendy left ideals.
I see a lot of big claims but few arguments.

[Andropov]

[/COLOR][/URL]
CIRA and RIRA hardly represents the the nationalist community in general.

Thats an article about Ardoyne.
And how militant Republicans have become so popular that the once PSF heartland is now lost, by their own admission.


SO the authors were wrong in assuming that the INLA are decomissioning? Big deal. Consider the following from the IRSM statement:
The future struggles are political. We urge all comrades, members, volunteers and supporters to join the political struggle ahead with the same vigour, commitment and courage that was evident in our armed struggle against the British State.

Your telling me to consider a statement about my own movement?
No offence but your talking out your arse here.
Saying the INLA are decomissioning and disbanding is a big deal im afraid, its a major ideological leap that reformist socialists like you salavate over.

The argument made by Socialism or Barbarism stands.
Making a statement like that does not make it so.
Explain your point.

And you obviously are unable to read what they actually said about the Worker's Party and their tactics. I suggest you read again. It is hardly a defense of the WP, quite the contrary.
It is suggesting that we all ditch "nationalism", what I refer to as National Liberation and only approach the Protestant working class on a socialist basis.
That is what the sticks did, and look at how it faired for them.
Just as Marx, Engels, Connolly, Lenin and Costello all predicted.

I see a lot of big claims but few arguments.
You have not refuted my arguements what so ever, this is one of the most pathetic rebuttels ive ever had on this forum.
If your going to post trendy drivel like that on the forum, be prepared to defend it.
You have only claimed the article I gave a link to is about only the C/RIRA when its about their existance in the working class context of Ardoyne, you stated its not a big deal that the article claims that the INLA is decomssioning and disbanding, you make a sweeping statement that the point Socialism over barbarism still stands and then you claim I miss interpreted the point on the sticks.
This isnt worth responding to.
Do better next time or will you just not bother responding to my points like you did in the other thread and clinch on admirably to your trendy left fantacism?

[PRC-UTE]

This is a pretty good article, and while I disagree with it in areas and also challenge a few facts and claims, it's nice to read someone that at least sees republicanism as a failed form of resistance rather than 'individual terrorist gangsters murderers' etc. It even sees a role for the IRSP in the future which surprised me.



For Marxists, therefore, the Republican ideals which flowered in France and England in the late 18th Centuries only developed and found wider social resonance because society was not only sufficiently developed to generate them but that it was sufficiently developed to give them a social force. The ideals of equality, fraternity and liberty were the idealistic outworkings of the demand of the rising business class to overturn the power of the traditional aristocratic ruling class and the domination of the church.

If there is a crisis in Irish Republicanism then it reflects changing material realities. This post seeks to identify the causes of this historic decline.

I agree up to a point. There is a decline in republicanism, mostly the non-socialist variety which is unable to in any way point out the path forward or think of any new ideas. They literally recycle the same slogans from the 70's again and again

However, the description I've quoted is a bit inadequate. Republicanism in Ireland was/is something other than the French and other varieties. For one, the first modern republican party, Connolly's ISRP was influenced by Marxism; The EAster Rising and subsequent rebellions got their energies from the international tide of revolution, and even some influence on their politics came from socialism, and this was mroe than once. I think there is still room and purpose for hybrid left-republican formations like eirigi and the IRSP



The first thing to note is that there is an undeniable decline. The largest militant republican movement, Sinn Féin, has largely ditched what has been understood as traditional republican values. They participate and work in a system based on the principle of consent (i.e. consent of a majority in the north-eastern six counties), they act as Ministers in a partitionist parliament owing its sovereignty to the British crown and they promote support for a police service which enforces British laws in Ireland. All this when British troops continue to be based in the north.

Now many Republicans will say that this is a strategic compromise akin to De Valera taking the oath to the British King only to establish the Republic and that it may be to them. But De Valera's actions were considered treacherous by traditional comtemporary Republicans just as they are by today's equivalents. Moreover, De Valera wasn't long from swearing that oath to the point of hanging IRA men during the emergency.

Today's Sinn Féin operates in a similar system and with a similar strategy to the SDLP of the past. Gone is its radical socialism instead it has a soft social reformism, which if it has meaning at all in its contact with reality, is largely ineffectual and mostly symbolic.

This description is very accurate, but what it's leaving out is some social history. The recruits who flocked to the republican movements in the late sixties did so basically to get the one party unionist regime off their backs, and/or revenge. Once Stormont was abolished, they weren't quite sure what they were after.

There were long time republican activists ready to step in and guide the movement- people like O Bradaigh and O'Conaill. but there was always a bit of a disconnect between waht the leadership was demanding as conditions for a British withdraw were, and what the republican base would accept- which as we all know now was massive compromise.

Now it's true that roughly half the Volunteers wouldn't accept the sellout of the GFA, but the fact that the other half did says a lot about that movement. As Peader O'Donnell once remarked, the IRA didn't have a brigade in Belfast, it was a brigade of armed Catholics. It's not that there wasn't a significant republican tradition in the north going back hundreds of years; it's just that in the minds of some republicans and probably the bulk of its supporters, defending catholics came first, political questions second. This Catholic Defenderism and republican ideology often existed side by side which blurred the differences.



But there are others within Republicanism who have not gone so far. Traditionally the second biggest group would have been the Irish Republican Socialist Party which has groups in some towns in the North and a scattering of activists in Dublin and other cities in the Republic. The recent announcement (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/11/northern-ireland-republican-group-disband)that the INLA was to disband and engage with General de Chastelain's decommissioning body was unexpected but reflected their analysis that the war was over. The argument justifying this decision to go further than their old cessation is the need to engage in wider left-wing politics through groups such as the People Before Profit Alliance.

This should be seen for what it is: further evidence of the historic decline of militant republicanism.

This is probably the most troublesome part of this article. The INLA claim they will not be decommissioning. the IRSP is still involved in a political unity initiative with other republican "dissidents", and there does not appear to be any desire to end that. Politically the IRSP has not really positioned itself to follow the road of SF and the peace process. It's recent statement didn't say much of anything new, tbh, it basically reaffirmed that the northern state can't be reformed, but arms won't achieve victory any time soon, which is true enough.

As for aligning with PBP, there were some moves by the IRSP back in 2004. Maybe it could come up again, but I don't see us doing it tomorrow, and they've done a few other political projects since last they tried. it would be more likely to see the irps running left republican protest candidates with the assisatanc eof other "dissident" republicans. Not so much for ideological reasons, but geographical ones- irps would be neighbours with other republicans, not other far lefties as much.



Traditional Militant Republicanism

The main groups remaining outside this trend are the inappropriately named 'dissident' republicans. These groups really should be termed traditional republicans given their consistency with republican ideological beliefs going back to the 1910s and 1920s. They believe in the achievement of Irish unity through force of arms and reject any form of participation in governmental structures predicated on partition or the principle of consent.

Well put.



These groups are enjoying something of a renaissance of late. Their attacks on crown-forces and bomb attacks are growing in regularity and they are clearly gaining a hearing with some in grassroots republican communities. The causes of this must be sought in the chronic failure of the mainstream 'republican' political agenda as evidenced by the one-sided government in Stormont and the collapse of a cross-border economy enormously reliant on the construction sector.

In the absence of a strong socialist alternative, traditional republican militants are successfully projecting themselves as the real alternative to Stormont and they are finding it somewhat easier to recruit young nationalists.

The problem for these groups is that they are largely a reaction to the political development that has occurred in the last 20 years in Northern Ireland; the times have changed. Today, for the first time in the history of the northern state, most Nationalists recognise its legitimacy and accept the principle of consent. While many Republicans may have viewed this ideological rubicon as a realpolitick concession to devour the northern state from the inside-out, the reality is that the wider population have now normatized the concept. This will not be easily undone.

This is accurate, but in areas like Fermanagh, Ardoyne, the Short Strand, and south Armagh, the police are very much seen as outsiders. It's significant taht no-one in the border village of Meigh rang the PSNI to let them know a dozen republicans were weilding assault rifes and rockets at a checkpoint.



There is, thus, a huge barrier standing in the way of the traditional republican militants. They cannot succeed and it is clear that most of them realise this fact but view their resistance as an existentialist refusal to the system. Yet this is always an inadequate justification for revolutionary action. Che did not go to Bolivia considering his actions to have no hope - he believed he would succeed but realised the risk. Connolly went out in 1916 hoping for the best but conscious that it was madness given the odds of defeating the British. Indeed, the secret history of militant republicanism has often been just how close to victory risings were if they only realised at the time the weakness of the British. But there are no such hopes for traditional republican militant struggle.

well put again. it's hard to deny that most "dissidents" put their refusal to end armed struggle in essentially existentialist terms.



The historic failure of the Republican tradition to engage northern Protestants has been its Achille's heel for 200 years. Nationalism acts as a barrier to unification and acts of traditional republican militancy will only further undermine the ideological validity of republicanism not just with Protestants but with a growing section of northern Catholics. Socialism or Barbarism calls for revolutionary socialists to work together to develop a new vehicle capable of challenging the neo-liberal consensus and finally resolving the nationalist-socialist dialectic.

This sounds great on paper but isn't very workable. Tell that to the scum that come to kill you because you're Catholic or Romanian. It seems to be contradcited by the earlier, and accurate statement in the text that any brief periods of class unity were broken up when the state unleashed death squads on Catholics.

I do agree with the need to put more effort into engaging with Protestatns. The IRSP has done this and had a bit of success. But I doubt we can win over them em masse as their entire worldview is about keeping catholics out, and maintaining protestant unity across class lines.

[Uncle Ho]

Why is it always foreigners criticizing the Irish resistance?

It's easy to sit in your chair in a nice little Social Democracy talking about how the oppressed peoples of the world should forsake active resistance for vigorous sign waving.

It's a little more difficult when you've seen British soldiers murder your children in cold blood, then sell the guns to Sierra Leone so they could not be prosecuted.

[MaoTseHelen]

Why is it always foreigners criticizing the Irish resistance?

It's easy to sit in your chair in a nice little Social Democracy talking about how the oppressed peoples of the world should forsake active resistance for vigorous sign waving.

It's a little more difficult when you've seen British soldiers murder your children in cold blood, then sell the guns to Sierra Leone so they could not be prosecuted.
Says in much nicer language what I came here to say. If you ask people in the South if nationalism is a Catholic-only position, they'll get angry with you. It's a universal thing, almost everyone in my generation regardless of what our parents believe are all for one nation. It's easy to sit in Sweden and talk about how we need a working class revolution, but few people want to get that political about it. Statehood first, socialism second, as always.

[Devrim]

Why is it always foreigners criticizing the Irish resistance?

It's easy to sit in your chair in a nice little Social Democracy talking about how the oppressed peoples of the world should forsake active resistance for vigorous sign waving.

It's a little more difficult when you've seen British soldiers murder your children in cold blood, then sell the guns to Sierra Leone so they could not be prosecuted.

Actually there are also people in Northern Ireland who criticise the nationalism of republicanism, the Irish anarchist group, Organise!, for example:


Nationalism

We are opposed to the ideology of nationalism and national liberation movements which claim that there is some common interest between native bosses and the working class in face of foreign domination.

We are opposed to all forms of nationalism, be that the British nationalism of Loyalism and Unionism, Irish nationalism or the Ulster nationalist current evident within Loyalism. All have as central to their ideology the nationalist myth that people in an arbitrarily drawn up nation (be it based on an island, region, language, ‘culture’, or religion, or any combination of these or other elements), have common interests which can be represented by the nation state. The nation state is in effect the government over the majority, the working class, by the wealthy few. The working class and those who hold power, the bosses and their lackeys, have no common interests.

We do support working class struggles against racism, genocide, ethnocide and political and economic colonialism. We oppose the creation of any new ruling class. We reject all forms of nationalism, as they only serve to redefine divisions in the international working class. The working class has no country and national boundaries must be eliminated.

Devrim

[Andropov]

This is a pretty good article, and while I disagree with it in areas and also challenge a few facts and claims, it's nice to read someone that at least sees republicanism as a failed form of resistance rather than 'individual terrorist gangsters murderers' etc. It even sees a role for the IRSP in the future which surprised me.
Thats true, something I should have probably added before I started attacking what I saw as the faults in the article.
Overall it was fairly progressive but with some major faults IMO, which I have pointed out.

[ls]

Actually there are also people in Northern Ireland who criticise the nationalism of republicanism, the Irish anarchist group, Organise!, for example:



Devrim

There is also the Socialist Party and the WSM who do not really advocate nationalist republicanism (nor do they deride it).

The main thing that got the NI working-class together last time (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/sept/belfast-1907) was a mass strike. We've only seen that on a smaller scale in recent times, like yeah the 2006 postal strike.

Ah yes and..
Indeed it is not fetishising to conclude that it is an anti-imperial struggle in Ireland.
Marx, Engels, Connolly, Lenin, Connolly and Costello all recognised this.

Don't you attribute anything to big Jim at all?

[Andropov]

Don't you attribute anything to big Jim at all?
Sorry comrade, I could write a whole paragraph by just naming many renonwed and esteemed Comrades who have that political perception in Ireland.
Leaving out Larkin was not a slight on my part, more trying to restrict the lenght of the post.

[ls]

Sorry comrade, I could write a whole paragraph by just naming many renonwed and esteemed Comrades who have that political perception in Ireland.
Leaving out Larkin was not a slight on my part, more trying to restrict the lenght of the post.

As a matter of fact, I've never seen you mention Jim, not even once. This is odd considering you do speak about the history of the Irish struggle quite frequently.

I'm not saying he was one of the 'great men' or something, but in my mind, he did the most for the Ulster mixed working-class.

[Andropov]

As a matter of fact, I've never seen you mention Jim, not even once. This is odd considering you do speak about the history of the Irish struggle quite frequently.

I'm not saying he was one of the 'great men' or something, but in my mind, he did the most for the Ulster mixed working-class.
I think you'll actually find that my first avatar here was of Big Jim.

[Uncle Ho]

Sorry comrade, I could write a whole paragraph by just naming many renonwed and esteemed Comrades who have that political perception in Ireland.
Leaving out Larkin was not a slight on my part, more trying to restrict the lenght of the post.

Speaking of which, what is the modern Republican opinion of Michael Collins these days?

No one seems to talk about the Big Fellow much anymore. I suppose he was always more of a fighter than a philosipher.

[MaoTseHelen]

Speaking of which, what is the modern Republican opinion of Michael Collins these days?

One of the best things to ever happen to Ireland.

[Crux]

Why is it always foreigners criticizing the Irish resistance?

It's easy to sit in your chair in a nice little Social Democracy talking about how the oppressed peoples of the world should forsake active resistance for vigorous sign waving.

It's a little more difficult when you've seen British soldiers murder your children in cold blood, then sell the guns to Sierra Leone so they could not be prosecuted.
Foreigner? The authors of the article are from the republican community in north ireland. Get your facts straight.

[Crux]

Red revolutionary: I am sorry if I was a bit hostile in my response, comrade. But so was you. The point is your movement are
effectively leaving the armed struggle even if you do not decomission. I think this is a good thing, but this is also a break with the traditional militant irish republican struggle. The article addresses this.
I don't think we disagree as much as it may seem, comrade.
As for the WP, again the article specifically criticize that approach, just as it criticizes Sinn Feins powersharing with the Unionist, which effectively cementing unionist control in protestant areas, cementing the split in the workingclass. And traditional republicanism cannot solve this either, because, increasingly what it falls back to is that national liberation cannot be based on merely communal struggle, it must be based on the workingclass. The goal of socialist republicanism has always been socialism, and I think the IRSP agree and that we are on a possitive trajectory. Kicking to legs off from under the unionists and ending partition can only be done when there exist a force capable of winning the workingclass. But really I am just repeating arguments made much mroe eloquently by the article itself:

The only possible arguments that can be presented to this is that unity cannot be achieved through socialism alone or is required as its pre-requisite. The first argument is a preposition and must be tested. Socialism or Barbarism argues that it is precisely this preposition that must be tested through struggle. It is akin to arguing against socialism on the basis that socialism is not possible. Such specious telelogical arguments are insufficient to justify a course of 'do nothing' particularly when their proponents are often 'doing something' which is demonstrably setting back the cause of socialism.

The second argument is more substantial but we believe that it is precisely this understanding, that national self-determination is a condition for the full realisation of socialism which gives content to the national liberation struggle (if it deserves to have a content at all). So in fact, it is only through actively pursuing socialist demands which fail to be delivered by a London-government that unity can ever gain traction in unionist communities. To the extent that such unity is necessary, that is the extent to which that unity is progressive.

The historic failure of the Republican tradition to engage northern Protestants has been its Achille's heel for 200 years. Nationalism acts as a barrier to unification and acts of traditional republican militancy will only further undermine the ideological validity of republicanism not just with Protestants but with a growing section of northern Catholics. Socialism or Barbarism calls for revolutionary socialists to work together to develop a new vehicle capable of challenging the neo-liberal consensus and finally resolving the nationalist-socialist dialectic.

[Crux]

This sounds great on paper but isn't very workable. Tell that to the scum that come to kill you because you're Catholic or Romanian. It seems to be contradcited by the earlier, and accurate statement in the text that any brief periods of class unity were broken up when the state unleashed death squads on Catholics.

I do agree with the need to put more effort into engaging with Protestatns. The IRSP has done this and had a bit of success. But I doubt we can win over them em masse as their entire worldview is about keeping catholics out, and maintaining protestant unity across class lines.
But, that's the thing. Cutting across the divide is not done by working with Unionists, it is done by creating a viable socialist and working class alternative. Socialism can't wait on a united ireland, in fact as I said I think it is a prerequisite for a united ireland. Even more so what history has shown is that the most sucessfull struggles for national liberation has been done, not only with a workingclassbase in the country to be liberated, but when the rulingclass in the colonial countries themself can't convince their population about the righteousness of the occupation. The struggle is international.

[Crux]

Statehood first, socialism second, as always. And, as always, that has been and continues to be a dead end. Look at Fianna Fail if you don't believe me. Look at any modern national liberation movement not on a socialist basis, or just giving lip service to socialism. Look at south africa. Look anywhere. We can and must do better than that. Those who are ready to put off socialism for national liberation will eventually be ready to put off national liberation aswell. PLO, ANC, Sinn Fein, the list goes on.

[Uncle Ho]

So what then is the solution? Greet the rifles and bombs of the British and their proxies with an indestructible barrier of sandwich board?

If you want to talk about doctrines that are sure to fail, there is none surer than peaceful protest. 100% chance of failure, 100% of the time.

[ls]

So what then is the solution? Greet the rifles and bombs of the British and their proxies with an indestructible barrier of sandwich board?

If you want to talk about doctrines that are sure to fail, there is none surer than peaceful protest. 100% chance of failure, 100% of the time.

I don't think that peace will solve anything.

Armed community-led patrols, militant action directly from the communities affected against drugs and other important issues, mass assemblies and a general culture of proletarian militancy (like we have seen before in the civil rights movement centered in Derry).

Centering around republicanism and only republicanism should be considered a thing of the past, I was talking to a NI protestant earlier who said he actually missed the community patrols, it made the area safer and that he hated the fuck out the PSNI, he went as far as to say most of his mates felt the same way too, he wasn't a republican he was simply a normal working-class lad from lisburn.

You cannot win a revolution with a minority, that is an unfortunate fact.

[MaoTseHelen]

I agree with the entire post, but I think it's inaccurate to call republicans a minority.

[Crux]

So what then is the solution? Greet the rifles and bombs of the British and their proxies with an indestructible barrier of sandwich board?

If you want to talk about doctrines that are sure to fail, there is none surer than peaceful protest. 100% chance of failure, 100% of the time.
Well, I am partial to strengthening the working class and yes arming them for defense purposes. Democratically controlled, cross-community defense groups that I am for and that has always been our line, and also the arming of the unions. We were always an active part in the community defense forces, which you shall see if you check our history and although I will divulge no more information on that we did take other steps aswell.
The revolution does not appear out of nowhere when a small group takes to arms. Peacefull protests are vital in strengthening the confidence of the workingclass.

[Socialist Guy]

It's unfair on the people of Ulster to live in a war zone again. If Northern Ireland does want to stay part of Britain or join the Republic of Ireland then they are welcome to do so by voting in elections and forcing a referendum.

Violence is the last answer.

[Uncle Ho]

It's unfair on the people of Ulster to live in a war zone again. If Northern Ireland does want to stay part of Britain or join the Republic of Ireland then they are welcome to do so by voting in elections and forcing a referendum.

Violence is the last answer.


Too bad that Northern Ireland was gerrymandered specifically for this purpose, making elections basically impossible to win.

[MaoTseHelen]

Too bad that Northern Ireland was gerrymandered specifically for this purpose, making elections basically impossible to win.
It's a shame you'll likely be ignored.

[Socialist Guy]

Too bad that Northern Ireland was gerrymandered specifically for this purpose, making elections basically impossible to win.
If there's enough support for a United Ireland in Ulster then surely the British Government can't just ignore it?

As I said, violence should be the last resort, mass demo's before it.

[Crux]

It's a shame you'll likely be ignored.
It's a shame you do not realize that this does not change the solution. If the ruling class wants to split the working class along communal lines we should not run with it. You're quick to negrep me for it but I suggest you read the original post again.

[ls]

It's unfair on the people of Ulster to live in a war zone again. If Northern Ireland does want to stay part of Britain or join the Republic of Ireland then they are welcome to do so by voting in elections and forcing a referendum.

This is exactly the kind of half-arsed reformist bollocks that I'm against, you're a joke and I hope you realise you belong in with the other reject fake left pieces of shit like Sinn Fein.


Violence is the last answer.

Actually, people from your shit party have done best in the UAF when they have been militant. Most SWP people would actually agree with that, even if not explicitly.


If there's enough support for a United Ireland in Ulster then surely the British Government can't just ignore it?

Have you learnt anything at all from history?


As I said, violence should be the last resort, mass demo's before it.

No it shouldn't be a 'last resort', it should be used only when necessary.


I agree with the entire post, but I think it's inaccurate to call republicans a minority.

Well, they are a significant minority, sure. But please tell me you don't think they are a majority in NI?

There are no statistics for this kind of thing, in the south I find it hard to believe they are a 'majority' either.

Sure, you can say that basically everyone from places such as Derry are republicans if you really want to generalise, but I don't think that's really on. While there was obviously a lot of joining the IRA that went on there just before and after bloody sunday, it clearly wasn't a majority of Derry's working-class that joined, so that much is definitely true, that was arguably the area of the most intensive conflict during the troubles, where the IRA thus had the highest potential to get a large majority directly on its side.

[PRC-UTE]

As a matter of fact, I've never seen you mention Jim, not even once. This is odd considering you do speak about the history of the Irish struggle quite frequently.

I'm not saying he was one of the 'great men' or something, but in my mind, he did the most for the Ulster mixed working-class.

“… he [Larkin] is for ever snarling at me and drawing comparisons between what he accomplished in Belfast in 1907 and what I have done, conveniently ignoring the fact that he was then the secretary of an English organisation, and that as soon as he started an Irish one his union fell to pieces, and he had to leave members to their fate” (S Levenson James Connolly: a biography London 1973, p221).

The pivitol issue of course being that no matter how much Jim Larkin achieved, he wasn't likely to prevent the undoing of his work when the ruling class waved some union jacks and screamed about a papist plot. in that sense, nothing's really changed to-day.

He's also not rated because he was sort of an apolitical type, more like a syndicalist, and that kind of thinking is less popular than what it was 100 years ago. It's for a reason that there are today people who describe themselves as Connollyites, Costelloites, but not Larkinites.

Edit: however the IRSP took part in dedicating a mural to Larkin and the Belfast Dockers strike which was of course a good chance to put forth socialist politics. www.youtube.com/watch?v=miKW_RWJeNk

[Uncle Ho]

If there's enough support for a United Ireland in Ulster then surely the British Government can't just ignore it?

They sure can, and they will.

If the pressure gets too great, they'll just send their Loyalist proxies in to murder some random youths and boy bands.


As I said, violence should be the last resort, mass demo's before it.They tried that 30 years ago.


This was the result:
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/616/bloodysunday1972.jpg (http://img199.imageshack.us/i/bloodysunday1972.jpg/)

[Crux]

They sure can, and they will.

If the pressure gets too great, they'll just send their Loyalist proxies in to murder some random youths and boy bands.

They tried that 30 years ago.


This was the result:
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/616/bloodysunday1972.jpg (http://img199.imageshack.us/i/bloodysunday1972.jpg/)
Oh you mean violence?
On a more serious note our position is not something that we invented after the GFA if you think so. Our position was formed during the Troubles and with very good reason. The IRA failed. Maybe you should ask yourself why. And if you think I am some kind of pacifist I suggest you go back and read my other post. Or even better there are some CWI material readily available if you have further interest.

[Revy]

I agree that Republican Socialists should reach out to Protestants more, that seems to be the gist of the article.

The Irish people have been divided over religious affiliation and for some reason this was exploited to prevent a united Ireland and keep Northern Ireland as a British colony.

[MaoTseHelen]

Oh you mean violence?

The peaceful, bipartisan civil rights movement was met by British paratroopers and live fire. Only then did the IRA gain any real momentum. I suggest you go reread the history you act so high and mighty about; to the point of lecturing others.

[Crux]

The peaceful, bipartisan civil rights movement was met by British paratroopers and live fire. Only then did the IRA gain any real momentum. I suggest you go reread the history you act so high and mighty about; to the point of lecturing others.
No, the IRA gained moment when the cross-community defence groups, the workingclass organizations, failed to lead. That's the real lesson here. We all know how well the IRA military campaign went and what became of the IRA for that matter. Again maybe you ought to read what I say before you assume things, I advocate armed resistance, through cross-community defence organisations and the unions. Not some self appointed army. Believe me, there's quite a lot to be said about some of the armed republican groups. And again, look at history. The IRA failed and now they sit in Stormont, selling out the workingclass. Or, if you see it that way, they have their own miniature "war" with the brittish state, through "revenge shootings". I don't know but I think there's something to be learned from that. Actually I think Socialism or Barbarism addresses that. Maybe it is you who ought to get off your high horses, I am trying to make an argument you are throwing ad hominems.

[ls]

“… he [Larkin] is for ever snarling at me and drawing comparisons between what he accomplished in Belfast in 1907 and what I have done, conveniently ignoring the fact that he was then the secretary of an English organisation, and that as soon as he started an Irish one his union fell to pieces, and he had to leave members to their fate” (S Levenson James Connolly: a biography London 1973, p221).

One can level all kinds of different criticisms at Jim, sure I'm not denying that, but Connolly certainly wasn't perfect either.


The pivitol issue of course being that no matter how much Jim Larkin achieved, he wasn't likely to prevent the undoing of his work when the ruling class waved some union jacks and screamed about a papist plot. in that sense, nothing's really changed to-day.

No one's come closer than he has, you can't really deny that, the second best thing that has happened is of course free derry and the civil rights movement, although the brutal oppression there can't be denied either really.

And as well as it did, it too did not spread far enough and brilliant as it was, did not act as a catalyst for a revolution.


He's also not rated because he was sort of an apolitical type, more like a syndicalist, and that kind of thinking is less popular than what it was 100 years ago. It's for a reason that there are today people who describe themselves as Connollyites, Costelloites, but not Larkinites.

But let me ask you this: has any other strategy come closer? Also, has syndicalism worked since? Sure, it worked for a time in Catalonia, it nearly achieved revolution in the US and at one time in Mexico too. It's not really fair to call syndicalism 'apolitical'.

As a point of interest, I've heard of Connolly referred to as a syndicalist
before. ;)

I don't think syndicalism is at fault as an ideology, there are a number of complex factors, the main one being stagnation and the revolution not being spread enough outside of NI, during the time when it was most heated, of course the working-class not opposing the military with a deadly urgency led to serious decay of the struggle.


Edit: however the IRSP took part in dedicating a mural to Larkin and the Belfast Dockers strike which was of course a good chance to put forth socialist politics. www.youtube.com/watch?v=miKW_RWJeNk

I suppose that's something.

[Philosophical Materialist]

If there's enough support for a United Ireland in Ulster then surely the British Government can't just ignore it?

As I said, violence should be the last resort, mass demo's before it.

I believe the Heath government in the 1970s considered transferring highly-concentrated catholic communities around the border to the jurisdiction of Dublin. They considered this in the eventuality if British forces were in danger of losing control of the six counties.

[Socialist Guy]

This is exactly the kind of half-arsed reformist bollocks that I'm against, you're a joke and I hope you realise you belong in with the other reject fake left pieces of shit like Sinn Fein.

Actually, people from your shit party have done best in the UAF when they have been militant. Most SWP people would actually agree with that, even if not explicitly.

No it shouldn't be a 'last resort', it should be used only when necessary.

I'm a joke? You agree with giving families in Northern Ireland unwanted misery because of your political views? We want world peace, so how hypocritical is going to look if we get it with violence:confused:

I like the UAF, thats sorting out the Nazi's, and isn't giving unwanted misery to families.

Indeed Violence should be a last resort because not everybody wants it.

[ls]

You don't seem to want revolution, you seem more like a reformist.

It's ok, it's the same for a lot of people in the SWP; just New Labour and Stormont supporting liberals.

[Socialist Guy]

You don't seem to want revolution, you seem more like a reformist.

It's ok, it's the same for a lot of people in the SWP; just New Labour and Stormont supporting liberals.
Of course I want a revolution, we just need it to look like Peoples Revolution and not a mad dictator wanting power.

[Crux]

You don't seem to want revolution, you seem more like a reformist.I don't know, the slogan of Peace has led revolutions before. A revolution might very likely ultimately lead to civil war, that doesn't mean it starts that way.

[Pogue]

I think you guys should lay off of Socialist Guy a bit here. Although he is saying things which obviously we disagree with (look at what posts I thanked to know my opinion - everything has already been said) I think he is just having trouble articulating his views and maybe is not as well-read on revolutionary history as other comrades here.

[PRC-UTE]

One can level all kinds of different criticisms at Jim, sure I'm not denying that, but Connolly certainly wasn't perfect either.

No one's come closer than he has, you can't really deny that, the second best thing that has happened is of course free derry and the civil rights movement, although the brutal oppression there can't be denied either really.

And as well as it did, it too did not spread far enough and brilliant as it was, did not act as a catalyst for a revolution.

But let me ask you this: has any other strategy come closer? Also, has syndicalism worked since? Sure, it worked for a time in Catalonia, it nearly achieved revolution in the US and at one time in Mexico too. It's not really fair to call syndicalism 'apolitical'.

As a point of interest, I've heard of Connolly referred to as a syndicalist
before. ;)

I don't think syndicalism is at fault as an ideology, there are a number of complex factors, the main one being stagnation and the revolution not being spread enough outside of NI, during the time when it was most heated, of course the working-class not opposing the military with a deadly urgency led to serious decay of the struggle.


You're definitely correct that Connolly was strongly influenced by syndicalism, and until WWI basically endorsed that kind of strategy- that a workers republic would be built in the aftermath of a successful general strike and uprising. IIRC, in some of his works Connolly described politics as merely a shadow of class struggle, and definitely saw party-building a distant third after union and military struggle.

After the failure of the workers movement to rise up and prevent WWI, Connolly saw the need for some kind of uprising, even if it wasn't a purely workers rising. Unfortunately he didn't leave behind a party or other form of leadership ready to carry on his views- and the nationalists (many of them basically rightist, anti-republicans) exploited that. It wasn't until the Civil War, when it was too late, that communists began to influence the leadership of the IRA and convince them of the need to adopt a revolutionary programme aimed at workers and small farmers. That could've been more than academic- Munster, the southern province was almost completely controlled by the IRA, and the population were mostly pro-republican.

I actually didn't mean that all syndicalists were apolitical, but Jim Larkin was that type. Maybe that's not exactly the correct term. I don't know how to explain it, but like he ignored most questions of revolutionary theory, unlike Connolly.

I can use an anarchist source to explain the faults of syndicalism. As the Friends of Durruti said in their manifesto, it's not that mass strikes and collectivisation aren't essential for revolution, they are. But that's not enough, eventually the state must be overthrown. And that so far hasn't really been effected by syndicalism, some other revolutionary organisation is needed to see it through to the end.

[ls]

You're definitely correct that Connolly was strongly influenced by syndicalism, and until WWI basically endorsed that kind of strategy- that a workers republic would be built in the aftermath of a successful general strike and uprising. IIRC, in some of his works Connolly described politics as merely a shadow of class struggle, and definitely saw party-building a distant third after union and military struggle.

Which is a shame, I sure don't want to sound like a DeLeonist here, but all three of those are good tactics, of course party-building and mass class struggle are much better than syndicalism in my opinion, but nonetheless I don't see it as a terrible tactic. In this epoch, it does seem like a stretch to advocate syndicalism though.


After the failure of the workers movement to rise up and prevent WWI, Connolly saw the need for some kind of uprising, even if it wasn't a purely workers rising. Unfortunately he didn't leave behind a party or other form of leadership ready to carry on his views- and the nationalists (many of them basically rightist, anti-republicans) exploited that. It wasn't until the Civil War, when it was too late, that communists began to influence the leadership of the IRA and convince them of the need to adopt a revolutionary programme aimed at workers and small farmers. That could've been more than academic- Munster, the southern province was almost completely controlled by the IRA, and the population were mostly pro-republican.

It is indeed a shame they didn't form a less reformist and more militant party than the ILP - with each other and much earlier on.

A formal party and programme led along internationalist and secular lines could've secured something very precious for the Irish proletariat, it could've kept going through northern and southern ireland and been the strongest force, the vanguard if you like of all of the uprisings from the dockworkers to the easter uprising to the civil war itself.


I actually didn't mean that all syndicalists were apolitical, but Jim Larkin was that type. Maybe that's not exactly the correct term. I don't know how to explain it, but like he ignored most questions of revolutionary theory, unlike Connolly.

That's true, you put it quite well in fact.

It's a shame Connolly did not play a much bigger part in the dockworkers strike himself, I feel he could've been quite a progressive force within it, as you say, he was quite theoretically sound. If he became gen sec right then at the time, things may been very different. Everyone can agree that he was pretty far-left near the beginning, he even helped organise with the IWW in America very early on didn't he.


I can use an anarchist source to explain the faults of syndicalism. As the Friends of Durruti said in their manifesto, it's not that mass strikes and collectivisation aren't essential for revolution, they are. But that's not enough, eventually the state must be overthrown. And that so far hasn't really been effected by syndicalism, some other revolutionary organisation is needed to see it through to the end.

Yep, that's why if syndicalism is chosen, it should at least have a kind of tendency leading it, a self-propagating vanguard I guess. The friends of durruti despite popping up too late could be considered a bit like that. It's important to influence the confederation/mass party itself, although inroads should have been made in the FAI as well, in those ways lasting change can be made.

Of course, I much prefer mass parties or federations over syndicalist unionist-federalism myself.

[Uncle Ho]

No, the IRA gained moment when the cross-community defence groups, the workingclass organizations, failed to lead.

I don't know about you, but I think I would have significant troubles leading a people's liberation movement after I had been shot and killed by British soldiers.


That's the real lesson here. We all know how well the IRA military campaign went and what became of the IRA for that matter.When you talk about "the" IRA, you are referring to lots of groups, many of which did not get along very well and had large differences in their goals and means of achieving them.

Now, if you were to talk about the Collins era IRA, they are easily one of the most successful revolutionary groups in history, running a brilliant and incredibly efficient campaign against what was at that time the mightiest military power in the world.

The later IRAs met varying degrees of success, the Provos actually did quite well and forced radical change in Northern Ireland. It's not perfect, but when it's not your blood buying these changes, that's easy to say. The other IRAs weren't quite as successful, but they're still better than the Loyalist militias, who used British funding and support to murder pop singers and random citizens.

It really speaks to Britian's determination to hold on to it's last significant colony in that they would fund terrorists to murder their own citizens.


Again maybe you ought to read what I say before you assume things, I advocate armed resistance, through cross-community defence organisations and the unions. Not some self appointed army.And what, then, is a "cross-community defense organization" if not a form of army? Do the semantics really matter that much?

The IRA patrolled their neighborhoods, they supported workers and the common man. You have to consider that they operated in an environment that was so hostile to the Irish that they could not even obtain loans for housing or start businesses.

The IRA protected these people, not just from the Loyalist thugs, but also from their British masters.


Believe me, there's quite a lot to be said about some of the armed republican groups. And again, look at history. The IRA failed and now they sit in Stormont, selling out the workingclass.What should their political parties do, then? Slit the throats of the unionists before bombing the NI parliment, Guy Fawkes style?

I will restate this again, with more emphasis. Northern Ireland is gerrymandered for the sole reason of ensuring that the Irish population can never gain political control. This is the way the British have set things up, and as the Irish cannot gain a majority in the government, they cannot change this

Sinn Fein has not been perfect, but unless they are to take up arms once more and kick the British off their island once and for all, what can we expect?

In that way, I suppose, they have sold out the working class. They should re-arm and continue the struggle. They had Britain on her knees and got only a compromise instead of cocking their fist back for a knockout blow.


Or, if you see it that way, they have their own miniature "war" with the brittish state, through "revenge shootings". I don't know but I think there's something to be learned from that. Actually I think Socialism or Barbarism addresses that. Maybe it is you who ought to get off your high horses, I am trying to make an argument you are throwing ad hominems.What should they do with Loyalists and traitors, if not shoot them?