IRA Ideologies

[Sand Castle]

This question might sound dumb to the Irish and British posters out there. What were the socioeconomic ideologies of the various IRA groups? I remember hearing the Provisional IRA were democratic socialists. Is that right? I was watching a Real IRA video yesterday and the man speaking in the video said they have members of all political schools, as long as they are united around the common cause. Is that right? What about CIRA and INLA?

Thanks.

[Vendetta]

I believe INLA is more leftist than the different IRA groups, but I can't be certain.

[Guevaraist Insurgent]

Provos were socialist democrats, RIRA CIRA are reactionaries of the highest degree and the INLA are marxists of the connellyite tradition if i am not mistaken.

[Sand Castle]

Provos were socialist democrats, RIRA CIRA are reactionaries of the highest degree and the INLA are marxists of the connellyite tradition if i am not mistaken.
Please elaborate. I don't mean to be rude.

[Slán_Abhaile]

Firstly, all of the armed groups (apart from the Loyalist ones) state support for a "32 County Democratic Socialist Republic", as far as I'm aware.

Currently the Provisionals are social democratic. There have been a few Marxists through its ranks at one stage or another, and there are still a considerable amount of socialist/radical activists in it and Sinn Fein (the party regarded as its political wing).

The Real IRA are quiet conservative, but claim to support the above objective, however their political wing (the 32 County Soverignty Movement) very rarely mentions it.Their focus is more on getting the Brits out and then worrying about the social and political aspect.

The Continuity IRA are the real traditionalists and elitist (that they are the "one true Sinn Fein" and the "only real republican group", they claim to support the above objective but tend to be very conservative, with the reciting of the rosary at commemorations and a motions opposing immigration (give Irish employment first) at their political wing's (Republican Sinn Fein) Ard Dheis or National Conference in 2008.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Currently the Provisionals are social democratic. There have been a few Marxists through its ranks at one stage or another, and there are still a considerable amount of socialist/radical activists in it and Sinn Fein (the party regarded as its political wing).

I'm not sure it's still fair to call Sinn Fein the political wing of the PIRA. Plus, weren't the Provos born out of a split with the Official IRA because they deemed them to be too Marxist?

[Slán_Abhaile]

I'm not sure it's still fair to call Sinn Fein the political wing of the PIRA. Plus, weren't the Provos born out of a split with the Official IRA because they deemed them to be too Marxist?
I'm only repeating the general media line, I'm a a supporter of Sinn Fein.

Correct. Although I've heard a few people who claim it was the other way around, its generally accepted the Provisionals left, and founded the Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Fein, and dropped the title Provisionals in 1972, as they were widely regarded as the continuity of pre-split Sinn Fein and had the most support.

Both before and after the Adam's leadership came to power, they were pushing a socialist line which became to be accepted by the membership in opposition to the Federalist proposals of the O'Bradaigh leadership (which finally left in '86 to found RSF). It was generally then that the party acquired its Leftist air.

[Che a chara]

I would like to add to what Slán_Abhaile said.

Out of all the Irish republican groups, the Irish Republican Socialist Movement (IRSM), which includes the INLA and their political wing the IRSP, are the most leftist group. Their politics are based on the writings and teachings of James Connolly, Karl Marx and Lenin etc.

Also, it has to be noted that Sinn Fein have now gone down a reformist route and has accepted right-wing policies and acceptance of privatisation and water charges.

As mentioned the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA are more conservative and traditional, but I wouldn't call them right-wing at all, as I would think all republican groups are fighting for a Socialist Republic.

[Guevaraist Insurgent]

as in british "socialism" not actual socialism.
the only true socialist group is the INLA

[Honggweilo]

The only republican marxist groups (correct me if i'm wrong) are the ML'ist Official IRA who is now known the (Sinn Fein) Workers Party of Ireland gave up its armed branch to pursue a tactic of also working amongst the protestant communities to steer them away from unionism and focus on pan-irish class-struggle due to the economic deprevation caused in northern ireland due to neo-liberalism, While the IRSM/INLA still belives militant republicanism against british imperialism and unionism is still the main priority.

[Guevaraist Insurgent]

the Officials refused to defend nationalists communities from prod loyalist mobs because they said to do so would be sectarian.
Fucking morons

[Honggweilo]

I position myself between the IRSM/INLA and the Workers Party+CPI, while i still believe reaproachment with the working-class protestant community should be endorsed, i dont believe giving up armed defence/struggle against loyalist thugs and british imperialism is an option. Although the sectarian (drug related) infighting in the INLA branches are highly disturbing and some recent targets have been "tactically questionable". Maybe its also because i have a both protestant and catholic background.

[Andropov]

The IRSP/INLA is officially Marxist-Leninist.
The provos used to be Social Democrats but are now Neo-Liberal Nationalists.
The reals are just an anti-imperialist group, no left wing political basis in their policies at all.
The contos have some quite reactionary sentiments within them, including some ultra-religious catholics and a certain hostility to immigrants.
The sticks are not Marxist Leninist by any stretch of the imagination, they were a degenerate band of reformists. The reason for the provos split from the sticks was primarily because the sticks refused to defend nationalist communities from Loyalist pogroms because it was deemed "sectarian" to do so. Hence why the provos were born. The sticks were not M-L as they catered to Loyalism in all its disgusting forms, giving the likes of the UVF and UDA safe houses in nationalist areas and letting them drink in their pubs etc, really quite disgusting reformism. Thus the sticks lost all credibility and all support in Nationalist areas in the occupied counties and like any good M-L thinker will tell you exactly why they never made any significat gains in the Protestant working class because they catered to the Reactionary ideology that is Loyalism.
The only Marxist-Leninist Republicans is the IRSP/INLA.

BTW I take exception to the original title, the IRSP/INLA is not any part of the IRA, it is the IRSP/INLA.

[Andropov]

Although the sectarian (drug related) infighting in the INLA branches are highly disturbing and some recent targets have been "tactically questionable".
What infighting is this exactly?
As for the drug dealing allegation well that was down to the OC of the Dublin Brigade Declan Duffy who has been summarily dismissed from the movement.
He was a tout and a degenerate and is lucky to be alive.

[Guevaraist Insurgent]

most brits thinks its over religeon, i hate those people.

[Guevaraist Insurgent]

wasnt bunting and little prods in the INLA

[Brady]

The IRSP/INLA is officially Marxist-Leninist.
The provos used to be Social Democrats but are now Neo-Liberal Nationalists.
The reals are just an anti-imperialist group, no left wing political basis in their policies at all.
The contos have some quite reactionary sentiments within them, including some ultra-religious catholics and a certain hostility to immigrants.
The sticks are not Marxist Leninist by any stretch of the imagination, they were a degenerate band of reformists. The reason for the provos split from the sticks was primarily because the sticks refused to defend nationalist communities from Loyalist pogroms because it was deemed "sectarian" to do so. Hence why the provos were born. The sticks were not M-L as they catered to Loyalism in all its disgusting forms, giving the likes of the UVF and UDA safe houses in nationalist areas and letting them drink in their pubs etc, really quite disgusting reformism. Thus the sticks lost all credibility and all support in Nationalist areas in the occupied counties and like any good M-L thinker will tell you exactly why they never made any significat gains in the Protestant working class because they catered to the Reactionary ideology that is Loyalism.
The only Marxist-Leninist Republicans is the IRSP/INLA.

BTW I take exception to the original title, the IRSP/INLA is not any part of the IRA, it is the IRSP/INLA.

Is that true? Coming from a protestant background I support efforts to build bridges between working class communities but letting loyalist paramilitaries into nationalist areas? Fucking hell....

[Andropov]

wasnt bunting and little prods in the INLA
Yes Ronnie Bunting was from a Protestant background but even more his father was a fairly prominent figure in the British Military if my memory is correct.
And yes Little was protestant also.

[Andropov]

Is that true? Coming from a protestant background I support efforts to build bridges between working class communities but letting loyalist paramilitaries into nationalist areas? Fucking hell....
Yup they would provide safe houses for the UVF and UDA within Nationalist areas and even went as far as letting them drink in the stickys pubs.
You should read the Lost Revolution, its a new book on the sticks and goes into greater detail into how much they really provided for the Loyalists.
Hence why the sticks are now despised by so many Nationalists in the North.
Also it must be pointed out that the INLA and the Provos have had many disagreements and their relationship has been rocky at best but they always had an element of respect for each other that they never had for the sticks because of the underhand deals they did with Loyalists during the course of the Troubles.
According to the sticks warped Marxist-Leninist thought they perceived the Loyalists as a representative of the PUL community as such that is why they catered for them.
While with any other Marxist-Leninist the Loyalists were seen as the reactioanry sectarian degenerates they are.

TBH I would have alot more time for the CPI than the sticks but I do see the CPI's analysis of the good friday agreement as being very very flawed.

[Honggweilo]

What infighting is this exactly?
As for the drug dealing allegation well that was down to the OC of the Dublin Brigade Declan Duffy who has been summarily dismissed from the movement.
He was a tout and a degenerate and is lucky to be alive.
Yeah i heard about that, good riddance. Nothing like a little old hammer to the kneecaps :rolleyes:


Yup they would provide safe houses for the UVF and UDA within Nationalist areas and even went as far as letting them drink in the stickys pubs.
You should read the Lost Revolution, its a new book on the sticks and goes into greater detail into how much they really provided for the Loyalists.
Hence why the sticks are now despised by so many Nationalists in the North.
Also it must be pointed out that the INLA and the Provos have had many disagreements and their relationship has been rocky at best but they always had an element of respect for each other that they never had for the sticks because of the underhand deals they did with Loyalists during the course of the Troubles.
According to the sticks warped Marxist-Leninist thought they perceived the Loyalists as a representative of the PUL community as such that is why they catered for them.
While with any other Marxist-Leninist the Loyalists were seen as the reactioanry sectarian degenerates they are I talked with a representative of the "sticks" (lol) in brussels this spring together with a representative from the PSL. We asked about their view on the INLA and were a bit shocked to hear that what you are saying is not far from the truth, they claimed there were militant trade-unionist in UDA circles and that they needed to build bridges in order to end sectarian violence. They also had mixed feelings on the hungerstrikes and Bobby Sands. Both me and the PSL representative were a bit suprised saying "well that must have cost you alot of support, doing these things are quite a taboo in republican circles", and he agreed.

Also he said that the INLA/IRSM was very much influenced by trotskyism in its tactics, in their lack of positions in the trade-union movement and their dogmatic stance on sectarian violence. can you elaborate on that?

[Guevaraist Insurgent]

Did the INLA allow non irish into its ranks, i would of jumped at the chance to free ireland with irish comrades.
Can a nation that oppresses others be free, no it cannot.
If the INLA did let non irish in i would be gratefull for a link.

[Andropov]

Yeah i heard about that, good riddance. Nothing like a little old hammer to the kneecaps :rolleyes:
Duffy was not kneecapped.

I talked with a representative of the "sticks" (lol) in brussels this spring together with a representative from the PSL. We asked about their view on the INLA and were a bit shocked to hear that what you are saying is not far from the truth, they claimed there were militant trade-unionist in UDA circles and that they needed to build bridges in order to end sectarian violence.
Yes thats there line.
Completely contradictory to Marxist-Leninist learning.
You do not cater to Reactionary Degenerates and the UDA are non existant in Trade Unionist circles.

They also had mixed feelings on the hungerstrikes and Bobby Sands. Both me and the PSL representative were a bit suprised saying "well that must have cost you alot of support, doing these things are quite a taboo in republican circles", and he agreed.
Indeed.
Ive heard from them and the Trots in Ireland that the Hunger Strikers were merely committing suicide etc.
Bizarre to say the least.

Also he said that the INLA/IRSM was very much influenced by trotskyism in its tactics,
Not at all.
I dont know of any Trots in the IRSM.

in their lack of positions in the trade-union movement
Granted the IRSM has not been as active in the trade Union movement as I would like.
But we do have many prominent members in the likes of the IWU and Unite.
But after the Costello Commemoration speech the IRSM is currently in dialogue with ICTU so we shall see where that will lead us.
But traditionally the IRSM has been given the cold shoulder from the trade union leadership because it had an active armed wing.
But to say that the IRSM has abandoned the trade union movement is a falicy, before "Red" Mickey Devine died on hunger strike he was actually calling for a general strike to bring Thatcher to the negotiating table.
How ever it never materialised because of the reformist leadership within the trade unions.

and their dogmatic stance on sectarian violence.
What do you mean by dogmatic stance on sectarian violence?

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

It's sad, I've always been very supportive of the IRSP, but now that the INLA is decommissioning I find my support for them waning. I don't understand why they felt the need to do so- I thought that the "no-first strike" policy was fine.

[Andropov]

Did the INLA allow non irish into its ranks, i would of jumped at the chance to free ireland with irish comrades.
Can a nation that oppresses others be free, no it cannot.
Of course the IRSM allowed "non Irish" into its ranks.
We are not racial supremacists, we are Marxist-Leninists.

If the INLA did let non irish in i would be gratefull for a link.
You actually think there is a recruitment link for the INLA on the internet?
I do not know how the INLA recruit or any member of the INLA and do not talk for the INLA so please dont ask me those kind of questions.

[Andropov]

It's sad, I've always been very supportive of the IRSP, but now that the INLA is decommissioning I find my support for them waning. I don't understand why they felt the need to do so- I thought that the "no-first strike" policy was fine.
The INLA is not decomissioning.

[Guevaraist Insurgent]

LOL no i meant is there any links of incidents of ni=on irish fighting for the INLA, im not that stupid mate, i didnt think the INLA had a site where you can arrange an inerview:)

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

RB:

The INLA is not decomisioning?

Could you show me some links or something since this has got no media attention at all.

[Ravachol]

According to the sticks warped Marxist-Leninist thought they perceived the Loyalists as a representative of the PUL community as such that is why they catered for them.
While with any other Marxist-Leninist the Loyalists were seen as the reactioanry sectarian degenerates they are.


Loyalism is an intrinsically imperialist ideology supportive of a bourgoise state and hence if there is any working-class support for it (which is the case in the north) it is not in the best interest of the working-class. A compromise with Loyalism is a compromise with imperialism.


The IRSP/INLA is officially Marxist-Leninist.
The provos used to be Social Democrats but are now Neo-Liberal Nationalists.


Neo-Liberal is a bit harsh I think. SF (I see SF and the Provo's as part of the same tendency) is simply a Social-Democratic party, which is a shame since they used to be rather promising on socio-economic issues.



The contos have some quite reactionary sentiments within them, including some ultra-religious catholics and a certain hostility to immigrants.


Yeah it saddend me to hear they took the 'irish workers first' policy, I used to have a higher opinion of RSF.



I talked with a representative of the "sticks" (lol) in brussels this spring together with a representative from the PSL. We asked about their view on the INLA and were a bit shocked to hear that what you are saying is not far from the truth, they claimed there were militant trade-unionist in UDA circles and that they needed to build bridges in order to end sectarian violence.


First of all, I consider action against Loyalists not as 'sectarian' but rather as anti-imperialist. Loyalism can never and will never be a working-class ideology. It doesn't matter how many UDA/UVF/LVF/whatever members are active in the trade unions. For that matter, we wouldn't consider collaborating with 'National-Syndicalists' or other fascists posing as trade-unionists now would we? Ideologies hostile to Class Struggle, Anti-Imperialism and the core of radical left-wing thought can never be part of it's struggle and should hence be opposed. This goes as much for imperialist ideologies as Loyalism as it goes for fascist ideologies as National-Syndicalism/National-Bolshevism/etc.

[Andropov]

LOL no i meant is there any links of incidents of ni=on irish fighting for the INLA, im not that stupid mate, i didnt think the INLA had a site where you can arrange an inerview:)
I dont know of any site where it has a list of foreign Volunteers in the INLA.
But ill have a look around and see what I can find.

[Andropov]

Loyalism is an intrinsically imperialist ideology supportive of a bourgoise state and hence if there is any working-class support for it (which is the case in the north) it is not in the best interest of the working-class. A compromise with Loyalism is a compromise with imperialism.
Spot on.

Neo-Liberal is a bit harsh I think. SF (I see SF and the Provo's as part of the same tendency) is simply a Social-Democratic party, which is a shame since they used to be rather promising on socio-economic issues.
Harsh maybe but definetly accurate.
Although they do enjoy esposing radical rehtorric and thier working class credentials but we must judge their politics by their actions.
These actions are firmly neo-liberal, routing on the teachers assistants, introducing water charges, privatising profitable ports, voting for the banker bailout etc etc etc.
They like to wrap themselves in the working class flag but are clearly in bed with big business.

[Andropov]

RB:

The INLA is not decomisioning?

Could you show me some links or something since this has got no media attention at all.
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."

© UTV News

http://new.u.tv/News/No-plans-for-INLA-to-decommission/f83c6c34-6b24-4dbe-971f-3e4b338d04cf

[The Deepest Red]

Not at all. I dont know of any Trots in the IRSM.

Yet at the core of the movement's ideology is the idea that the national and social struggles in Ireland are inseparable. Smells like a hint of Trotskyism to me. Certainly not something "Marxist-Leninists" have traditionally supported anyway.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Awesome! I agree that the material basis is not there for an armed struggle that could seriously lead to an actual socialist revolution in Ireland, and thus such a path would be viable at this moment. However, the fact that they are going to maintain the means to protect the nationalist community by not decomissioning shows they know what's up. I like it.

[Andropov]

Yet at the core of the movement's ideology is the idea that the national and social struggles in Ireland are inseparable. Smells like a hint of Trotskyism to me. Certainly not something "Marxist-Leninists" have traditionally supported anyway.
It could be interpreteted that way.
Or it could be interpreted from a Connollyite perspective that sees the National and Social question inseparable.

[The Deepest Red]

What were the socioeconomic ideologies of the various IRA groups? I remember hearing the Provisional IRA were democratic socialists. Is that right? I was watching a Real IRA video yesterday and the man speaking in the video said they have members of all political schools, as long as they are united around the common cause. Is that right? What about CIRA and INLA?

Thanks.

The Provisional IRA/Sinn Féin is not and never was a "democratic socialist" (what does that even mean?) organisation. Sure it may have paid lip service to some vague notion of 'socialism' or a 'socialist republic' at times but it was never an intrinsic part of the movement's ideology. Their aim was simple: destroy the northern statelet and get the Brits out of Ireland. In their formative years they were quite reactionary producing disgusting anti-socialist, anti-women and anti-sex propaganda in their various publications both here and abroad in places like the United States where their sympathizers supported the US imperialist venture in Indo-China.

Sure this all mellowed out a bit as a younger generation (the "Adams Camp") took control of both Sinn Féin and the PIRA and there was a definite leftist influence coming from the organisation's POWs, but at the same time this new leadership was conducting secret negotiations with the Dublin and London governments with a view to securing an internal settlement short of a united Ireland (never mind socialism!). Since the early 1990s and the end of the PIRA's armed campaign the organisation has been consistently right-wing, even entering into a coalition in the Stormont assembly with Ian Paisley's ultra-reactionary Democratic Unionist Party. Outside of politics the organisation is heavily involved in various forms of organised crime that does nothing but harm working class people.

The "Continuity IRA" and the "Real IRA" are virtually identical to what the Provisional movement used to be, the differences between the groups are merely a consequence of when they chose to break away. In short: they're frozen in time. The "Official IRA" still exists in some capacity. The IRSP/INLA broke away from the Officials in 1974 and its politics are somewhat different to the others mentioned (nominally 'Marxist' and/or 'Leninist', the truth of the matter being the organisation has very little theoretical grounding) but its practices were similar enough to the Provisional movement's c. '69-'97 up until its ceasefire in 1998.

[The Deepest Red]

It could be interpreteted that way.
Or it could be interpreted from a Connollyite perspective that sees the National and Social question inseparable.

So not a Stalinist perspective? I agree. :)

[Andropov]

So not a Stalinist perspective? I agree. :)
Its debatable that Connolly was Trotskyite.
There was a certain degree fo stageism in his analysis.
The fact that he told the ICA to hold onto their guns after the Rising if they were successfull because they might need to use them against their bouegeois Nationalist allys.
Hence he recognising the stageism was a possibility.

[The Deepest Red]

Its debatable that Connolly was Trotskyite.
There was a certain degree fo stageism in his analysis.
The fact that he told the ICA to hold onto their guns after the Rising if they were successfull because they might need to use them against their bouegeois Nationalist allys.
Hence he recognising the stageism was a possibility.

I never claimed Connolly was a "Trotskyite", just that he reached a lot of the same conclusions as Lenin and Trotsky. Where has "stageism" ever been "successful" i.e. led to a genuine workers state? It usually results in a defeat for the working class. Working with nationalists/reformists etc. is not the same as surrendering to their political line as happened in China and Spain and various other places. March separately, strike together and all that. Should the IRSM have allowed the PRM to absorb it during the war?

[Andropov]

I never claimed Connolly was a "Trotskyite", just that he reached a lot of the same conclusions as Lenin and Trotsky. Where has "stageism" ever been "successful" i.e. led to a genuine workers state? It usually results in a defeat for the working class. Working with nationalists/reformists etc. is not the same as surrendering to their political line as happened in China and Spain and various other places. March separately, strike together and all that. Should the IRSM have allowed the PRM to absorb it during the war?
Sorry where did I advocate Stageism?

[The Deepest Red]

Sorry where did I advocate Stageism?

Well you are a 'Marxist-Leninist' are you not?

[Honggweilo]

First of all, I consider action against Loyalists not as 'sectarian' but rather as anti-imperialist. Loyalism can never and will never be a working-class ideology. It doesn't matter how many UDA/UVF/LVF/whatever members are active in the trade unions. For that matter, we wouldn't consider collaborating with 'National-Syndicalists' or other fascists posing as trade-unionists now would we? Ideologies hostile to Class Struggle, Anti-Imperialism and the core of radical left-wing thought can never be part of it's struggle and should hence be opposed. This goes as much for imperialist ideologies as Loyalism as it goes for fascist ideologies as National-Syndicalism/National-Bolshevism/etc. I just summarized the line of the Workers Party, not expressing my personal opinion.

Besides their ridiculous mind-numbing conclusion to work in UDA circles, i dont disagree with the choice to unite the northern ireland workers movement against neo-liberal attacks on both communities. Besides this defaitionist line on the northern irish question and hoping to get something out of working in reactionary circles, they are considered part of international communist movement, and i respect their efforts in union work.

[robbo203]

This question might sound dumb to the Irish and British posters out there. What were the socioeconomic ideologies of the various IRA groups? I remember hearing the Provisional IRA were democratic socialists. Is that right? I was watching a Real IRA video yesterday and the man speaking in the video said they have members of all political schools, as long as they are united around the common cause. Is that right? What about CIRA and INLA?

Thanks.


Its straightforward really. The IRA are nationalist. Ergo they are anti-socialist. That should go without saying but even a passing glance at what they proposed in economic terms bears out the fact that they have got sod all to do with socialism. What they want or wanted is just a reformed capitalism

[Honggweilo]

Its straightforward really. The IRA are nationalist. Ergo they are anti-socialist. That should go without saying but even a passing glance at what they proposed in economic terms bears out the fact that they have got sod all to do with socialism. What they want or wanted is just a reformed capitalism
ffs did you even read the content this topic? or did you just want have your smug drive by argument?

[robbo203]

ffs did you even read the content this topic? or did you just want have your smug drive by argument?

And do you have a reasoned response to the points I made or do you consider your own rather smug riposte to fit the bill?

[Honggweilo]

And do you have a reasoned response to the points I made or do you consider your own rather smug riposte to fit the bill?
Yes, read the content of this topic.

[Sasha]

@ leninballs: dont mis-use pictures of children with down syndrome as an insult its not funny and i think not allowed...

[robbo203]

Yes, read the content of this topic.


I ask you again - do you have a reasoned response to the points I made? Do you think it is acceptable for a socialist to be nationalist? Do you think there was anything in what the IRA advocated that remotely resembled socialism?

And Leninballs for your information I dont criticise everything in Revleft. I am very selective about who or what I criticise. You should know that

[Andropov]

Well you are a 'Marxist-Leninist' are you not?
Im not getting dragged into a debate on Marxist-Leninism which is circular to the point at hand, especially since I know of your political history.

[Ravachol]

Its straightforward really. The IRA are nationalist. Ergo they are anti-socialist. That should go without saying but even a passing glance at what they proposed in economic terms bears out the fact that they have got sod all to do with socialism. What they want or wanted is just a reformed capitalism

Dear mother of God, here we go again on the national question.
First of all, I will state some of my definitions as to avoid a definition-based debate.

Nationalism

In my eyes nationalism is a specific instance of identity politics, organizing around the concept of the 'nation', not necessarily as a whole.

Nation

The nation is a social construct representing an 'imagined community' of which the members claim communal ties through a combination of ethnicity, cultural heritage,shared ancestry, linguistic relations and/or geographic distribution.

National Liberation

A movement of National Liberation is any movement organizing against imperialism and for class struggle alongside National lines.
National Liberation must necessarily support Class Struggle since the only adequate answer to imperialism is Class Struggle. Any movement opposing imperialism but rejecting Class Struggle is not a movement of National Liberation.


Now, for me, there are two main types of Nationalism.

Opressive Nationalism, seeking 'National Unity' along national lines whilst opposing Class Struggle. This type of nationalism is exclusive in nature since it seeks to preserve 'National Unity' against both foreign and internal 'enemies', be it those supporting Class Struggle against bourgoise elements of the same nation or immigrants 'threatening' National Unity

Nationalism of the Opressed, this type of 'Nationalism' arises when some segments of the working class experience class struggle more intense than others due to capitalist mechanics such as imperialism or racism. These mechanics justify and intensify the exploitation of certain segments of the working class, whether they be members of a certain nation suffering under the yoke of imperialism or they be members of a certain ethnic minority suffering under the yoke of racism. These mechanics intensify their exploitation and thus most likely heighten their class consciousness. The collective awareness of this exploitation will most likely arise alongside identity lines (the national identity, the ethnic identity (Eg. Black Liberation), Gender identity (Eg. Feminism)). When these groups organise their Class Struggle alongside these identity lines they usually are non-exclusive in nature. Eg. their nationalism will not mean the exclusion of immigrants, sexual or ethnic minorities,etc and will most likely not include bourgoise members of the same identity (or they would abandon Class Struggle altogether and become reformist identity political organisations).

Instances of Class Struggle organised alongside non-exclusive identity lines, that of the nation included, should be supported as they are expressions of Class Struggle by those experiencing opression harder than other segments of the working class.
Obviously a requirement for this support is non-exclusiveness and dedication to genuine class struggle. If those are present however, I do not see why instances of Class Struggle organised alongside identity lines should not be supported.

Class Conciousness does not grow solemnly from the casual experience of class alone, but it grows from the experiences of Class Struggle through the various mechanics of Capitalism as a whole. Since these mechanics are applied differently to different identities, it is no more than logical that some instances of Class Struggle will organise along identity lines as it is in this common identity that they first gain class conciousness.

Do note however how this differs a bloody hell of a lot from Third-Positionist (read: Fascist) theories (Eg. Nazbols, National-Anarchists, Strasserists,etc) on nation and 'socialism'. These positions are always bent on exclusive identity politics and support class collaboration in order to maintain 'National Unity'. And even if some Third-Positionist tendency would theoretically support 'Class Struggle', it would by it's exclusive nature intrinsically oppose it in practice, as exclusiveness towards members of the working class cannot be combined with Class Struggle.
It is this exclusiveness that is so common in most forms of 'Nationalism' that we struggle against, not the fact that idea of nation is a social construct.
Gender and ethnic roles are social constructs, but that does not mean we should not support black liberation and feminism.

[Honggweilo]

why the need to put "andalucia, spain" in your location, isnt that promoting spanish regionalism? you nationalist":rolleyes:

[robbo203]

Dear mother of God, here we go again on the national question.
First of all, I will state some of my definitions as to avoid a definition-based debate.

Nationalism

In my eyes nationalism is a specific instance of identity politics, organizing around the concept of the 'nation', not necessarily as a whole.

Nation

The nation is a social construct representing an 'imagined community' of which the members claim communal ties through a combination of ethnicity, cultural heritage,shared ancestry, linguistic relations and/or geographic distribution.

National Liberation

A movement of National Liberation is any movement organizing against imperialism and for class struggle alongside National lines.
National Liberation must necessarily support Class Struggle since the only adequate answer to imperialism is Class Struggle. Any movement opposing imperialism but rejecting Class Struggle is not a movement of National Liberation.


Now, for me, there are two main types of Nationalism.

Opressive Nationalism, seeking 'National Unity' along national lines whilst opposing Class Struggle. This type of nationalism is exclusive in nature since it seeks to preserve 'National Unity' against both foreign and internal 'enemies', be it those supporting Class Struggle against bourgoise elements of the same nation or immigrants 'threatening' National Unity

Nationalism of the Opressed, this type of 'Nationalism' arises when some segments of the working class experience class struggle more intense than others due to capitalist mechanics such as imperialism or racism. These mechanics justify and intensify the exploitation of certain segments of the working class, whether they be members of a certain nation suffering under the yoke of imperialism or they be members of a certain ethnic minority suffering under the yoke of racism. These mechanics intensify their exploitation and thus most likely heighten their class consciousness. The collective awareness of this exploitation will most likely arise alongside identity lines (the national identity, the ethnic identity (Eg. Black Liberation), Gender identity (Eg. Feminism)). When these groups organise their Class Struggle alongside these identity lines they usually are non-exclusive in nature. Eg. their nationalism will not mean the exclusion of immigrants, sexual or ethnic minorities,etc and will most likely not include bourgoise members of the same identity (or they would abandon Class Struggle altogether and become reformist identity political organisations).

Instances of Class Struggle organised alongside non-exclusive identity lines, that of the nation included, should be supported as they are expressions of Class Struggle by those experiencing opression harder than other segments of the working class.
Obviously a requirement for this support is non-exclusiveness and dedication to genuine class struggle. If those are present however, I do not see why instances of Class Struggle organised alongside identity lines should not be supported.

Class Conciousness does not grow solemnly from the casual experience of class alone, but it grows from the experiences of Class Struggle through the various mechanics of Capitalism as a whole. Since these mechanics are applied differently to different identities, it is no more than logical that some instances of Class Struggle will organise along identity lines as it is in this common identity that they first gain class conciousness.

Do note however how this differs a bloody hell of a lot from Third-Positionist (read: Fascist) theories (Eg. Nazbols, National-Anarchists, Strasserists,etc) on nation and 'socialism'. These positions are always bent on exclusive identity politics and support class collaboration in order to maintain 'National Unity'. And even if some Third-Positionist tendency would theoretically support 'Class Struggle', it would by it's exclusive nature intrinsically oppose it in practice, as exclusiveness towards members of the working class cannot be combined with Class Struggle.
It is this exclusiveness that is so common in most forms of 'Nationalism' that we struggle against, not the fact that idea of nation is a social construct.
Gender and ethnic roles are social constructs, but that does not mean we should not support black liberation and feminism.

Well sorry but i dont buy this at all. "Nationalism of the oppressed" is yet another example of an attempt to sociologise a way out of a serious theoretical predicament posed by the marxian analysis of class, nation-state and capitalism.

Nationalisim is not the same as ethnic identity, a sense cultural similiarity. Nationalism is a specifically bourgeois ideology which emerged with the rise of capitalism. The nation state is in fact a construct of capitalism. Those who advocate nationalism and so called "national liberation" - that very term has been the excuse for the imposition of many a disgusting regime in the wake of similarly repellent colonising powers - have their political horisons fixed on nothing more than a vision of a world of nation-states within global capitalism of which "their" nation-state is just one of many. National liberation sums up the aspirations of an indigenous comprador burgeoisie. It is a bourgeois wet dream and nothing more.

Worse, it assumes a common identity and a commonality of interests amongst those who live within the artifical boundaries of the "nation". Capitalists and workers alike are bound together as one nation. Even the so called nationalism of the oppressed is nothing but a cover for some aspirant vanguard or elite to perpetuate the oppression of the majority in the name of a putative common identity. While eyes are fixed on the external imperialist power supposedly doing all the oppressing no one notices the stealthy rise of an indigenous oppressing class who ore often than not will end up doing business, and making deals, with the very same imperialist power they vent their spleen upon.

One last thing, fighting racism an sexism is not the same as advocating nationalism. Racism and sexism is divisive of working class unity and obscures the classs struggle. But so does nationalism. Nationalism is every bit as bad as racism and sexism and for this reason no genuine socialist would ever touch it with a bargepole

[Sand Castle]

OK, so I read the posts in this thread, but some things have confused me. Exactly which group was "the sticks" again? I don't believe it was ever directly said. And does or does not the RIRA allow people of all socioeconomic ideologies into their ranks as long as they support the common cause? These weren't addressed directly. If they were, and I just missed or forgot them, then I apologize. I do this sometimes. Thanks for all of your answers everyone.

[Devrim]

OK, so I read the posts in this thread, but some things have confused me. Exactly which group was "the sticks" again?

The stickies are the Workers' Party of Ireland, which used to be 'official' Sinn Fein: http://workerspartyireland.net/

The name refers to how they attached bits of greenery to their jackets.

As Robbo says above though they are all nationalists and as such have nothing to do with socialism. The stickies, hilariously enough, used to be the sort of nationalist who managed to write the name of their party (workers in the wrong gramatical form) on their logo. I presume they have managed to change it now.

Devrim

[Hoggy_RS]

I don't think the topic of whether or not republicans are socialists is worth debating on here anymore. It has been done so many times before and I think the general conclusion is that most marxists(ML's mostly but probably some trots too) accept that a great numberof republicans are leftist while the more obscure tendencies tend to disagree. The 32CSM(RIRA) are not a leftist group though there is some socialists in their ranks. RSF have a mix of left wingers and right winger conservatie types. The IRSM is the only explicitly socialist republican group.(The stickies are not republicans, just reformist).


The stickies, hilariously enough, used to be the sort of nationalist who managed to write the name of their party (workers in the wrong gramatical form) on their logo. I presume they have managed to change it now.

Devrim
They still, as far as I and wikipedia know(:p), use the incorrect gaeilge translation of Pairti Na nOibri instead of the correct version which is Páirtí na nOibrithe

[pastradamus]

I'm only repeating the general media line, I'm a a supporter of Sinn Fein.

Correct. Although I've heard a few people who claim it was the other way around, its generally accepted the Provisionals left, and founded the Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Fein, and dropped the title Provisionals in 1972, as they were widely regarded as the continuity of pre-split Sinn Fein and had the most support.

Both before and after the Adam's leadership came to power, they were pushing a socialist line which became to be accepted by the membership in opposition to the Federalist proposals of the O'Bradaigh leadership (which finally left in '86 to found RSF). It was generally then that the party acquired its Leftist air.

No, It was from the beginning of the Adams era that the Provo's started to push a left-wing agenda. One of the main reasons that the Provo's grew so rapidly is because of the pre-split IRA's Leadership in Cathal Goulding. After Coming out of jail, Goulding acquired a thorough Education in Marxist analysis of the troubles and largely adopted this political viewpoint. The traditional rural and strongly catholic members of the IRA at this point disputed Gouldings analysis and Marxist stance and split to form the Provisional IRA. More Provo accusations made against the Goulding administration of the IRA at this time is said to be the lack of arms procurement, the poor defense of Republican area's and its "broad left" policies.

After this time, Adams emerged as a the Sinn Féin vice president. He presented a serious threat to O'Bradaigh's leadership and officially presented a Marxist/socialist docterine as a means of securing more support from Communist and Leftist groups across Europe. But,today one can only say that Sinn fein is NOT a leftist organisation. Withdrawing from opposition to the Establishment of Water charges in the North says more about them than I ever could.

On the Issue of Republican Sinn Fein (linked closely and see by some as the political wing of the Continuity IRA), this group came about as a result of Sinn Féin removing its policy of abstentionism and began running candidates for Dail Eireann. It Didnt Have anything to do with socialism and it was well before that when Sinn Fein began to push a leftist line - Which just goes to show how much Political persuasion and skill a leader like Gerry Adams has.

[pastradamus]

The stickies are the Workers' Party of Ireland, which used to be 'official' Sinn Fein: http://workerspartyireland.net/

The name refers to how they attached bits of greenery to their jackets.

As Robbo says above though they are all nationalists and as such have nothing to do with socialism. The stickies, hilariously enough, used to be the sort of nationalist who managed to write the name of their party (workers in the wrong gramatical form) on their logo. I presume they have managed to change it now.

Devrim

Its extremely Naive and too broad to simply call the workers party a group of Nationalists and to leave it at that - The Main hub of which is in the Irish Republic and its politicians are strongly Socialist these days with little or no mention of Northern Ireland any more. In my own hometown one candidate by the name of Ted Tynan was elected to the Council. Even members of the Socialist Party admire him for his All-out opposition to right-wing policies and his strong relationship and support of the working class people in his area - thats what they've evolved into. They are however, a very small fish at the moment.

[Andropov]

OK, so I read the posts in this thread, but some things have confused me. Exactly which group was "the sticks" again? I don't believe it was ever directly said.
As Devrim pointed out they are the Workers Party, or what used to be Official Sinn Fein. Their military wing was the Official IRA.

And does or does not the RIRA allow people of all socioeconomic ideologies into their ranks as long as they support the common cause?
I know of a good few Maoists in the 32CSM and that is allegedly the political wing of the RIRA so if thats anything to go by I would say yes they do allow Leftists into their ranks.

[Andropov]

I ask you again - do you have a reasoned response to the points I made? Do you think it is acceptable for a socialist to be nationalist? Do you think there was anything in what the IRA advocated that remotely resembled socialism?
Ughhh back to this Ultra Leftist drivel, havent seen this on a Republican thread for a while, never the less no point in not refuting this.
Primarily this boils down to National Liberation and whether you see it being progressive in the advancement of a working class under occupation.
Clearly from Marx and Engels perspective they did.
Marx writing in November 1867 stated that, "I used to think the separation of Ireland from England was impossible. Now I think it is inevitable" going on to state, "What the Irish need is...self- government and independence from England.... Agrarian revolution.... Protective tariffs against England."
But the real beauty of Marx's analytical analysis of Ireland under Imperialism was his quote on the British Working class's interpretation of Irelands fight for National Liberation.
"The English working class...will never be able to do anything decisive here in England before they separate their attitude towards Ireland definitively 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 this must be done not out of sympathy with the Irish, but as a demand on the interests of the English proletariat. If not the English proletariat will forever remain bound to the leading strings of the ruling classes, because they will be forced to make a common front with them against Ireland."
All this explicitly deals with the topic of National Liberation and more importantly with exact referances to the struggle in Ireland.
But as you can see from robbo he clearly neglects his Marxist materialistic outlook when analysing Nationalism and failing to differentiate between the Nationalism of an oppressor and the Nationalism of the oppressed.
Marx himself states, "The nationalism of the workers belonging to an oppressor nation binds them to their rulers and only does harm to themselves, while the nationalism of an oppressed nation can lead them to fight back against those rulers."

[Ravachol]

Well sorry but i dont buy this at all. "Nationalism of the oppressed" is yet another example of an attempt to sociologise a way out of a serious theoretical predicament posed by the marxian analysis of class, nation-state and capitalism.


Care to elaborate? I do not see how my analysis conflicts with the interests of the working class as a whole.



Nationalisim is not the same as ethnic identity, a sense cultural similiarity.


I am very well aware of that, as I stated Nationalism isn't really an 'ideology', it is a form of identity politics. The 'Nationalism' you are referring to is the specific instance of nationalism that seeks to establish national unity and opposes Class Struggle, the Nationalism of the opressor.



The nation state is in fact a construct of capitalism.


The state itself is a construct of capitalism. The 'nation state' is nothing more than a state organized along lines of identity, it is no more or less capitalist than a racial, religious or (theoretically lol) gender-based state.
Again, it is the exclusiveness of some instances of identity-politics that we should oppose. Opposition to the state as such is a different dicussion.



Those who advocate nationalism and so called "national liberation" - that very term has been the excuse for the imposition of many a disgusting regime in the wake of similarly repellent colonising powers - have their political horisons fixed on nothing more than a vision of a world of nation-states within global capitalism of which "their" nation-state is just one of many.


I'm sorry to say this, but that's utter bollocks.
I for one, would like to see the Irish situation resolved by carrying on the anti-imperialist struggle and establishing a federation of communes and syndicates based on free association. This is however only possible after the anti-imperialist struggle has been carried through and the bourgoise british regime has been thrown out. This is however no excuse for establishing an 'Irish' bourgoise state, but there is no-one who defends this.



National liberation sums up the aspirations of an indigenous comprador burgeoisie. It is a bourgeois wet dream and nothing more.


Care to elaborate? How is the desire to liberate a community from an opressive force a 'bourgeois wet dream'.



Worse, it assumes a common identity and a commonality of interests amongst those who live within the artifical boundaries of the "nation".
Capitalists and workers alike are bound together as one nation.


Have you even BOTHERED to read my post? As I said, the 'National Bourgoise' has no place in a struggle of national liberation, since a struggle of national liberation HAS to be an instance of Class Struggle organised from a certain identity-based community.



Even the so called nationalism of the oppressed is nothing but a cover for some aspirant vanguard or elite to perpetuate the oppression of the majority in the name of a putative common identity. While eyes are fixed on the external imperialist power supposedly doing all the oppressing no one notices the stealthy rise of an indigenous oppressing class who ore often than not will end up doing business, and making deals, with the very same imperialist power they vent their spleen upon.


How do I advocate this? Surely you would have noticed from my post that I consider the bourgoise as such an enemy, not only 'foreign' bourgoise.



One last thing, fighting racism an sexism is not the same as advocating nationalism. Racism and sexism is divisive of working class unity and obscures the classs struggle.


Black Liberation and Feminism are movements against exploitation and repression, organised along certain identity lines. This is no more than logical, as explained in my previous post. The same goes for a 'national' identity. Similarly, any form of Black Liberation calling for 'unity between the black worker and the black bourgoise' is worthless and reactionary, just as any form of opressive nationalism calling for 'unity between the national worker and national bourgoise'. I see no difference here, both are instances of identity politics.

Read my post and draw your own conclusions.
Nowhere do I call for national unity, in fact I strongly oppose this.
Nowhere do I call for the formation of a 'nation state', in fact I strongly oppose this.
Nowhere do I call for collaboration between the bourgoise and the working class, in fact I consider this treason.

What I call for is support for movements fighting Class Struggle originating from a certain identity. These movements would not incorporate the bourgoise of the same identity because it is a Class War they are fighting.

[fitz]

The statelet of NI was set up to divide the workers
The establishment use sectarianism to 'divide and conquer'
Loyalism is a racial supremacist ideology, tied up in religion and ethnicity, you cannot be a Catholic or Irish loyalist
The Republican movement from its very inception has been about removing divisions between the people
The cause of Labour and the cause of Ireland are one
You cannot acheive socialism when an artificial border is in place separating people
Would you argue that the Black Panthers or the International Brigades were anti-socialist? They both advocated liberation.

[Soldier of life]

This question might sound dumb to the Irish and British posters out there. What were the socioeconomic ideologies of the various IRA groups? I remember hearing the Provisional IRA were democratic socialists. Is that right? I was watching a Real IRA video yesterday and the man speaking in the video said they have members of all political schools, as long as they are united around the common cause. Is that right? What about CIRA and INLA?

Thanks.


Sinn fein/PIRA were and still are petit bourgeois democrats, constitutional nationalists who although often paid lip-service to socialism, it was purely based on opportunism.

RSF/CIRA are a bit of a farce of an organisation. A lot of their membership would be rural and inactive, composed mainly of reactionaries with a backward political outlook. They would have the odd progressive member, and are anti-imperialist, but as far as socio-economics goes, they are reactionary to the core.

The 32csm/RIRA are not much different to this, though they probably have a few more leftists in their ranks, the overriding ideology emanating from the group is quite conservative.

The IRSP/INLA are a marxist/leninist group.

Eirigi have yet to define their politics fully, they claim to be from the same family as the IRSP/INLA, in that they are followers of James Connolly, but so did Sinn Fein after all. I find them opportunist, they have also yet to fully define their politics and nail their colours to the mast, whether they are marxist or not etc

[Che a chara]

It has to be said that in the recent AGM and Ard-Fheis of the 32CSM and RSF, they put forward motions that would hint at a more shift towards the left, such as the use of community councils and use of socialist politics.

It also wouldn't be fair to label the armed groups (RIRA, CIRA & ONH) as right-wing, as nobody knows their idealogical outlook. Surely their combat against colonisation and freedom of the people of the occupied 6 counties and their opposition to the PSNI/RUC police force can't be seen as right-wing ?

But as I said, it does look like groups like the 32CSM and RSF, irrelavant as some may think, are having becoming more sympathetic to socialist politics.

[PRC-UTE]

It has to be said that in the recent AGM and Ard-Fheis of the 32CSM and RSF, they put forward motions that would hint at a more shift towards the left, such as the use of community councils and use of socialist politics.

It also wouldn't be fair to label the armed groups (RIRA, CIRA & ONH) as right-wing, as nobody knows their idealogical outlook. Surely their combat against colonisation and freedom of the people of the occupied 6 counties and their opposition to the PSNI/RUC police force can't be seen as right-wing ?

But as I said, it does look like groups like the 32CSM and RSF, irrelavant as some may think, are having becoming more sympathetic to socialist politics.

it was revealed that members of the 32csm's Italy branch had copy pasted motions from the IRSM...word for word. Further, the Italy members aren't considered full members, and their motions don't actually count. They're merely up for discussion, according to some members of the 32csm I asked about this. So that was a very questionable example of their move to the left.

It was probably inserted rather cynically so that they could pretend they actually care about anything aside from shooting people.

As much as I disagree with RSF's politics and outlook, at least they have their own politics. Last year it was the 32's copying their motions for their AGM. :laugh::blink:

[ls]

Sinn fein/PIRA were and still are petit bourgeois democrats, constitutional nationalists who although often paid lip-service to socialism, it was purely based on opportunism.

This is absolutely correct, republicans should definitely not support SF at all nor be 'sympathetic' to their positions.


Eirigi have yet to define their politics fully, they claim to be from the same family as the IRSP/INLA, in that they are followers of James Connolly, but so did Sinn Fein after all. I find them opportunist, they have also yet to fully define their politics and nail their colours to the mast, whether they are marxist or not etc

In what way do you feel they are opportunist, I have heard the same things but know almost nothing about them could you tell us a bit more about them please?

A bit off-topic as well, but to Ravachol: I always thought you were some kind of 'autonomist' inspired Marxist, you quote Negri in your signature who wrote in Empire about "the poisoned gift of national liberation"? How do you feel your support of national liberation works/can fit within the framework of autonomism.

[pastradamus]

it was revealed that members of the 32csm's Italy branch had copy pasted motions from the IRSM...word for word. Further, the Italy members aren't considered full members, and their motions don't actually count. They're merely up for discussion, according to some members of the 32csm I asked about this. So that was a very questionable example of their move to the left.

It was probably inserted rather cynically so that they could pretend they actually care about anything aside from shooting people.

As much as I disagree with RSF's politics and outlook, at least they have their own politics. Last year it was the 32's copying their motions for their AGM. :laugh::blink:

The 32csm have an Italy branch? What the fuck! They hardly have a Cork Branch ffs.

[Martyrdom Beckons]

Anyone fighting a imperialist force deserves our support, stalin did the same when brit imperialism was being undermined in afghanistan

[Andropov]

In what way do you feel they are opportunist, I have heard the same things but know almost nothing about them could you tell us a bit more about them please?
They refuse to detail what their "socialism" incorporates.
They will not define their political perspective apart from some vague populist speak of being "socialist" and holding Connollys legacy blah blah blah.
Anyone in Republican Circles has heard it all before, unless they do nail their colours to the mast they will continue to be seen as opportunists with populist rehtorric.

[Soldier of life]

The 32csm have an Italy branch? What the fuck! They hardly have a Cork Branch ffs.

They are supposed to have like 25 members in Cork. Their Italy branch is just one twat who posts on the internet and isnt an official member.

An example of the 32csm mindset in Cork, at some trade union march i think it was they turned up in a colour party, with tri colour etcetc in toe. Clueless eejits tbh.

Has their been any more word about their famous anti-drug leaflet threatening to kill dealers, which the constant spelling and grammar mistakes? I heard after that it was discussed a lot on the radio.

[Soldier of life]

This is absolutely correct, republicans should definitely not support SF at all nor be 'sympathetic' to their positions.



In what way do you feel they are opportunist, I have heard the same things but know almost nothing about them could you tell us a bit more about them please?

A bit off-topic as well, but to Ravachol: I always thought you were some kind of 'autonomist' inspired Marxist, you quote Negri in your signature who wrote in Empire about "the poisoned gift of national liberation"? How do you feel your support of national liberation works/can fit within the framework of autonomism.

As 'rite-boi' said, they don't define their politics, they merely claim connollys legacy which basically is an attempt to take in both socialists into the group but also the more conservative traditional types. I think they are afraid if they called themselves marxist they would alienate possible members etc so this shows their blatant opporunism.

Also, they are very soft on republican issues that may not be popular. At the moment they seem to be the darlings of the media as far as republicanism is concerned. The media actually seem to conscientiously give them room to breathe, which is quite strange as I know the IRSP would not be afforded such airtime. eirigi also held hunger strike meetings across a number of towns, and although 3/10 hunger strikers in 1981 were INLA members, eirigi did not invite the IRSM at all, never mind invite a speaker from them to speak about the incident from a socialist perspective. Instead they just invited Sinn Fein, because association with them is a lot more respectable for the middle class.

[Andropov]

They are supposed to have like 25 members in Cork. Their Italy branch is just one twat who posts on the internet and isnt an official member.

An example of the 32csm mindset in Cork, at some trade union march i think it was they turned up in a colour party, with tri colour etcetc in toe. Clueless eejits tbh.

Has their been any more word about their famous anti-drug leaflet threatening to kill dealers, which the constant spelling and grammar mistakes? I heard after that it was discussed a lot on the radio.
Shut your face you degenerate sloth.
Revolution doesnt happen in bed at 6 O'Clock in the evening.

[Soldier of life]

Shut your face you degenerate sloth.
Revolution doesnt happen in bed at 6 O'Clock in the evening.


Moderators, this is an outrageous post, and I demand full satisfaction!!

[RedAnarchist]

Shut your face you degenerate sloth.
Revolution doesnt happen in bed at 6 O'Clock in the evening.

That constitutes flaming. Don't do it again, or you'll be given an infraction. Consider this a verbal warning.

[Andropov]

That constitutes flaming. Don't do it again, or you'll be given an infraction. Consider this a verbal warning.
Apologies, I dont know what came over me.

[Soldier of life]

Apologies, I dont know what came over me.

I'm glad this could be resolved.

[Ravachol]

A bit off-topic as well, but to Ravachol: I always thought you were some kind of 'autonomist' inspired Marxist, you quote Negri in your signature who wrote in Empire about "the poisoned gift of national liberation"? How do you feel your support of national liberation works/can fit within the framework of autonomism.

Well I identify as an Anarcho-Syndicalist but I'm inspired a great deal by Autonomist Marxism yes.

Negri calls 'The Nation-State the poinsoned gift of national liberation'. I disagree with him on this matter due to his rather naive and incomplete analysis of national liberation.

First of all I would like to state that I see any instance of the state, the nation-state included, as inherently bourgoise in nature.

So yes, a struggle of national liberation aiming to establish a state would most likely fail to achieve a classless society (which does not, however, prevent me from supporting them in their anti-imperialist struggle as long as this is combined with Class Struggle).

It should also be obvious that any 'national liberation' movement composed of both the working class and the bourgoise struggling for 'National Sovereignety' and 'National Unity' is inherently counter-productive as far as Class Struggle is concerned.

However, national liberation can aim to establish a democratic, non-exclusive federation of communes and syndicates in a certain geographic area.

To clarify my position on 'national liberation', I refer to my definitions in the previous posts.
I consider national liberation an instance of identity politics, in itself neither revolutionary nor reactionary.
However, when working-class segments of this identity (in this case a 'national' one) experience class struggle more intense due to capitalist mechanics such as racism and imperialism, aimed at intensifying the exploitation of working-class members of this identity, then FROM and within this identity class conciousness will arise. Although the bourgois members of this identity might also experience repression, they will never experience class struggle and hence never experience the repression in it's fullest, due to their nature as bourgoise.

Hence it is very likely (though not impossible) that the struggle that arises from this identity is an expression of class struggle and hence will not ally itself with bourgois members of the same identity, when they do collaborate, it ceases to be class struggle however and hence cannot be considered national 'liberation'.

Now class struggle along identity lines can aim for many things, just as there are many tendencies inside the revolutionary left. It can aim for a democratic socialist sovereign nation-state, when the struggle takes a Marxist-Leninist outlook.
But it can also aim to establish a federation of communes and syndicates, when the struggle takes an Anarcho-Syndicalist/Anarcho-Communist outlook.

I do not see how the establishment of such a federation constitutes a state or a bourgois construct. Negri argues (and I disagree with him there) that national liberation focusses only on 'external repression' but constructs 'internal repression' by aiming to establish a nation-state.
I agree with him that the establishment of a state as such is undesirable, it does not mean all instances of national liberation aim to construct a state.

For example, take CBIL (Coordination Bretagne Indépendate et Libertaire) a Class Struggle anarchist movement seeking regional independence for Brittany. They support and recognize Class Struggle against the bourgoise of Brittany. They are NOT national-anarchists (something that's not even possible actually) since they do not base their national identity on exclusion or 'national unity'. Their concept of nation arises from Class Struggle in Brittany and their concept of 'being a britton is participating in the collective life of the free communes of Brittany', it has nothing to do with ethnicity or monocultural nonsense.

Take the Zapatistas for example, their Class conciousness arises from the repression of a certain identity as well and they struggle from this identity. This does not, as is the same with CBIL, make their concept of this identity exclusive and THAT is what matters.

I support anti-imperialist movements commited to Class Struggle. And although almost all of them seek to establish some sort of state, which I oppose, I do not reject them because of that.
Sure, it's a huge point of criticism but when the alternative is imperialism or a national-bourgois movement taking root, I go for the Class-Strugglist anti-imperialist group, even if that means supporting a movement seeking to establish a state.

And sure, the global capitalist constructs will try to integrate and subjegate this federation to it's logic and violence and might (and most likely will if there is no revolutionary opposition on a global scale) undo our gains.
But this goes for the establishment of any commune, collectivized branch of industry (in the case of syndicalism), socialist country (in the case of Marxism-Leninism) or autonomous space. All these steps are small gains inside the logic and dynamic of the capitalist system and will be assaulted and perhaps vanquished.

But that is what class struggle is, it's struggle. It is in this struggle, at the core of this struggle that we establish and build a new world, here and now. It is in this struggle that we create a new society and eat the old one from the inside out.

Federations of communes liberated from imperialism, collectivized branches of industry, autonomous spaces,etc are all social constructs (perhaps only for a short period) liberated from capital. It is the collaboration and solidarity between these epicentres of resistance that forms a global movement of resistance. Revolution doesn't happen overnight, it's a process of struggle with gains (such as a liberated geographic area or a collectivized branch of industry) and losses (such as a geographic area becoming reformist or reactionary or a strike being broken).

I hope that clarified some things :)

[PRC-UTE]

Has their been any more word about their famous anti-drug leaflet threatening to kill dealers, which the constant spelling and grammar mistakes? I heard after that it was discussed a lot on the radio.

:lol:

yeah that's their idea of reaching out to the masses.

that was an amazing piece of literature. it actually said something to the effect of, "can't admit we are from the IRA, but everyone knows we are".

[pastradamus]

They are supposed to have like 25 members in Cork. Their Italy branch is just one twat who posts on the internet and isnt an official member.

An example of the 32csm mindset in Cork, at some trade union march i think it was they turned up in a colour party, with tri colour etcetc in toe. Clueless eejits tbh.

Has their been any more word about their famous anti-drug leaflet threatening to kill dealers, which the constant spelling and grammar mistakes? I heard after that it was discussed a lot on the radio.

Haha, "where is the popular front of judea?" , "he's over there".

Yeah I seen a couple of those wankers around the place alright. The mostly seem to come from the Northside of the city, pasting posters to walls which seem to talk acres of shite.

As for this leaflet and drug-dealer killing frenzy - its non-existant. The big Drug dealers in Cork are far stronger than a couple of fools like the 32csm.

[Soldier of life]

Haha, "where is the popular front of judea?" , "he's over there".

Yeah I seen a couple of those wankers around the place alright. The mostly seem to come from the Northside of the city, pasting posters to walls which seem to talk acres of shite.

As for this leaflet and drug-dealer killing frenzy - its non-existant. The big Drug dealers in Cork are far stronger than a couple of fools like the 32csm.


Well, it's quite obvious you haven't read the leaflet...'all our activists are trained in intelligence':lol:

Oh the irony.

[PRC-UTE]

Apologies, I dont know what came over me.

It takes a big man to apologise. You have regained my respect by engaging in Maoist self-criticism.

[pastradamus]

It takes a big man to apologise. You have regained my respect by engaging in Maoist self-criticism.

Hahahahaha! Ye Erps are crazy fuckers.:lol:

[Andropov]

It takes a big man to apologise. You have regained my respect by engaging in Maoist self-criticism.
Thank you PRC-UTE, I guess I just saw red and my personal differences with SOL took the better of me.
I was in clear breach of the Fifth rule of Liberalism.
But I feel we are all the stronger for it and my bond and comradeship with SOL will only flourish after this minor wobble on the road to fraternity.

[IrishWorker]

Ah Beelzebub it brings a fucking tear to my glass eye and breaks my black heart to see all the young Irps so politically educated and taking on all who dare to question Marxist-Lennist Republican Socialism.
Tiocfaidh ár lá mo charas.

[robbo203]

Care to elaborate? I do not see how my analysis conflicts with the interests of the working class as a whole..


Indeed. I think your whole analysis is hopelessly confused and muddled as I will show



I am very well aware of that, as I stated Nationalism isn't really an 'ideology', it is a form of identity politics. The 'Nationalism' you are referring to is the specific instance of nationalism that seeks to establish national unity and opposes Class Struggle, the Nationalism of the opressor.
..

In the first place nationalism is clearly an ideology which makes certain normative assumptions about the world. It takes as its basic working assumption the existence of the nation-state in a (capitalist) world populated by other nation-states. Of course it is also a form of identity politics which fosters, and seeks to solidify, a putative cultural homogeneity that defines a given "nation" - an imagined community to use Anderson's phrase. It, however, completely blurs over class distinctions and in this respect, by suppressing the class struggle, aids capitalism.



The state itself is a construct of capitalism. The 'nation state' is nothing more than a state organized along lines of identity, it is no more or less capitalist than a racial, religious or (theoretically lol) gender-based state.
Again, it is the exclusiveness of some instances of identity-politics that we should oppose. Opposition to the state as such is a different dicussion.

..

This is plainly nonsense. For starters, the state itself is not a "construct of capitalism". The state existed thousands of years before capitalism. Capitalism developed and adapted the state form as the nation-state. Almost every historian would concur with this. The 19th national uprisings against the old empires were all essentially capitalist in character. Of course, the nation state can involve forms of racial or religious identity. The one thing does not exclude the other, does it now? Indeed, it actually confirms my point. Racial or religious exclusiveness can express itself in the form in which those not of the dominant "race" or religioin can be seen as somehow "alien" to the nation




I'm sorry to say this, but that's utter bollocks.
I for one, would like to see the Irish situation resolved by carrying on the anti-imperialist struggle and establishing a federation of communes and syndicates based on free association. This is however only possible after the anti-imperialist struggle has been carried through and the bourgoise british regime has been thrown out. This is however no excuse for establishing an 'Irish' bourgoise state, but there is no-one who defends this.



Defining the enemy as the "bourgeois British regime" and not capitalism is to succumb the very bourgeois assumptions that underlie nationalism. I couldnt care a stuff about the British bourgeois regime anymore than I do for the Irish bourgeois regime which is all that your nationalist struggle would aid anyway. But in any case all this is so passe. What century do you think we are living in? Jesus Christ, we now live in a world of rapid capital movements and multinational corporations. Who the hell cares about the nationality of the capitalist class? If you claim that you are not interested in wanting to establish an Irish bourgeosie state then why this obsession with ousting the "british" bourgeois state? Why not just oppose the bourgeois state per se. Your argument just does not add up.


Oh, and just in case I get another earful from the resident Irish nationalist lobby on this list, yes I know Marx supported Irish emancipation from Britain. So friggin what! Marx was plainly wrong on this matter. However it needs to be said that Marx's only motivation for taking such an approach was a strategic one - did it advance the development of capitalism within a given country or not? At heart Marx was a cosmopolitan. He looked forward to the end of nationalities. He was not a nationalist as such. I think he made a grievous mistake in his assessent of the Irish situation and Luxemburg views on Poland about which Marx similarly wrote and spoke are superior to Marx's on this matter. Mind you, it has to be said that there were signs by the 1870s that Marx was begining to change his mind on the subject of national liberation and to see it for the bourgeois fraud that it is. Whatever justifiation there might have been for advocating national liberation in Marx's day (to promote capitalism) today there is absolutely no excuse for advocating this deeply reactionary perspective. Capitalism is a global system and to talk of the nationalism of the oppressed is to guarantee the cooption of workers struggles by capitalism itself.



Care to elaborate? How is the desire to liberate a community from an opressive force a 'bourgeois wet dream'.



Because it is couched in terms of national and therefore bourgeois liberation



Have you even BOTHERED to read my post? As I said, the 'National Bourgoise' has no place in a struggle of national liberation, since a struggle of national liberation HAS to be an instance of Class Struggle organised from a certain identity-based community.



This yet again demonstrates your complete confusion on the subject. A nation is a territorially defined unit and includes those who live within this unit - capitalists and workers alike. If you claim that the national bourgeoisie has no place in your struggle then you are using a totally inappropriate terminology - national liberation. National liberation and class liberation are utterly opposed concepts



Black Liberation and Feminism are movements against exploitation and repression, organised along certain identity lines. This is no more than logical, as explained in my previous post. The same goes for a 'national' identity. Similarly, any form of Black Liberation calling for 'unity between the black worker and the black bourgoise' is worthless and reactionary, just as any form of opressive nationalism calling for 'unity between the national worker and national bourgoise'. I see no difference here, both are instances of identity politics.



Like I said the issue is not whether or not these things constitute identity politics. Of course they do. The issue has to do with the functional relationship between nationalist ideology of all kinds and class struggle. Nationalism, even the so called nationalism of the oppressed, is every bit as divisive and pernicious as racism and sexism. It opens up divisions in the global working class rather than points to the communality of working class interests and identity worldwide



Read my post and draw your own conclusions.
Nowhere do I call for national unity, in fact I strongly oppose this.
Nowhere do I call for the formation of a 'nation state', in fact I strongly oppose this.
Nowhere do I call for collaboration between the bourgoise and the working class, in fact I consider this treason.



And yet you chose to use a terminology that invites exactly these conclusions!



What I call for is support for movements fighting Class Struggle originating from a certain identity. These movements would not incorporate the bourgoise of the same identity because it is a Class War they are fighting.


The identity of the working class transcends national bondaries. By arguing for a putative national identity around which workers should wage class struggle you are effectively aiding the disunity of the global working class and the perpetuation of a capitalist world of nation states.

[Ravachol]

In the first place nationalism is clearly an ideology which makes certain normative assumptions about the world. It takes as its basic working assumption the existence of the nation-state in a (capitalist) world populated by other nation-states.


I do not see how this is the case. National Liberation does not need to strive for a world populated by 'nation-states'. I see National Liberation as the expression of class struggle by a group bound by a common identity. I do not see how this struggle would aim to establish a capitalist world.




Of course it is also a form of identity politics which fosters, and seeks to solidify, a putative cultural homogeneity that defines a given "nation" - an imagined community to use Anderson's phrase.


National Liberation by no means has to strive for homogenity. That is a false assumption on your side.
National Liberation originates from a group bound by a common identity but since it is an expression of Class Struggle (due to them experiencing repression more intense due to certain capitalist mechanics) it does not seek to establish a culturally homogenous community. Does a group seeking to remove imperialism and seeking to establish an autonomous socialist/syndicalist federation strive for homogenity? No it does not. It simply originates from within a certain identity, this is by no means proof that this will always lead to the struggle trying to expand this identity or trying to enforce it internally. And it is even more ridiculous to claim that it will always lead to collaboration with the national bourgoise, when that happens it ceases to be national liberation. In the same fashion, class struggle ceases to be class struggle when it becomes reformist and starts collaborating with the bourgoise. But by no means does national liberation always have to be suspectible to this.



It, however, completely blurs over class distinctions and in this respect, by suppressing the class struggle, aids capitalism.


How so? This is only the case when the aim is national unity and the struggle is FOR a common national identity, not when it is class struggle originating from within a common identity. Again, you assume that national liberation is intrinsically homogenity-enforcing and intrinsically strives for national unity.




This is plainly nonsense. For starters, the state itself is not a "construct of capitalism". The state existed thousands of years before capitalism.


My apologies, I should have been more clear here indeed. the state is not a "construct of capitalism" but I do see it as a social construct perpetuating and aiding capitalism. Wrong choice of words here on my part.



Racial or religious exclusiveness can express itself in the form in which those not of the dominant "race" or religioin can be seen as somehow "alien" to the nation


That is only when the aim of a national liberation movement is to establish a community on homogenous grounds. This is by no means necessarily the case.




Defining the enemy as the "bourgeois British regime" and not capitalism is to succumb the very bourgeois assumptions that underlie nationalism.


How does this exclude eachother? The enemy is always capitalism and, by extension, the specific instance of British Imperialism. It is just an instance of capitalism and one that is quite obviously present. Hence struggle against it is struggle against an instance of capitalism. Obviously the fight is not only aimed at 'foreign capitalism', that would just be nonsense. But nowhere am I arguing in favor of that, nor would any genuine national liberation movement do that.



Jesus Christ, we now live in a world of rapid capital movements and multinational corporations. Who the hell cares about the nationality of the capitalist class?


Nobody does, the bourgoise is the bourgoise, whether irish, british or whatever and should be confronted at all times at all places.
That does not make anti-imperialist struggle any less of an attack on capitalism. It is not because that they are 'british' imperialists that they should be confronted, but because they are imperialists. National Liberation does and should not seek to confront imperialism because it's 'foreign capitalism', but because it's a powerfull capitalist mechanic.



If you claim that you are not interested in wanting to establish an Irish bourgeosie state then why this obsession with ousting the "british" bourgeois state? Why not just oppose the bourgeois state per se.


I oppose the bourgeois state in all forms but I do believe that imperialism presents a powerfull capitalist mechanic that needs to be destroyed. I do not seek to establish any bourgeosie state or any state for that matter and neither do I oppose "british" imperialism because it's "british" but because it's imperialism. I would oppose any bourgeois Irish State (such as the current Irish "free state") just as much as I would oppose british occupation. This does not however, prevent me from opposing british imperialism alltogether.




Oh, and just in case I get another earful from the resident Irish nationalist lobby on this list, yes I know Marx supported Irish emancipation from Britain. So friggin what! Marx was plainly wrong on this matter. However it needs to be said that Marx's only motivation for taking such an approach was a strategic one - did it advance the development of capitalism within a given country or not? At heart Marx was a cosmopolitan. He looked forward to the end of nationalities.


And so do I. Does this mean I cannot support fighting imperialism and establishing a free federation of communes in the liberated geographical area? Sure, the struggle originates from a common identity, but as long as the struggle is non-exclusive in nature and the established federation is non-exclusive in nature as well, no homogenity-enforcing 'nation-state' will arise.



Because it is couched in terms of national and therefore bourgeois liberation


I assume you reject 'Black Liberation' and 'Women Liberation' as well because it divides the working class and is couched in terms of identities?
Class Struggle is present throughout the working-class and should be fought by and for the working class and nothing else. But more often than not, very potent sparks of Class Struggle arise within common repressed identities, hence their Class Struggle will be couched in terms of identity as long as this is genuine and dedicated Class Struggle however, this will by no means lead to collaboration with the identitarian bourgoise or homogenity-enforcement. Actually, rejecting any struggle arising from within identities is homogenity-enforcement itself. It rejects any instance of Class Struggle not arising from the working-class as a whole, thus marginalizing the struggles of the most opressed segments of the working-class, who most of the time discover their class conciousness through their marginalization.



It opens up divisions in the global working class rather than points to the communality of working class interests and identity worldwide


These divisions are already present whether you like it or not. Obviously the ideal situation would be the working-class struggling as a whole. But that will most likely not happen all at once. As I said, Class Conciousness usually arises from situations where class struggle is experienced the hardest, this is usually the case within a certain identity. Rejecting struggles (keeping in mind they have to be CLASS struggles, not purely identitarian struggles) arising from within such an identity is the rejection of instances of Class Struggle. I disagree with such an approach.



By arguing for a putative national identity around which workers should wage class struggle you are effectively aiding the disunity of the global working class and the perpetuation of a capitalist world of nation states.

I do not say they SHOULD wage their struggle INSIDE an identity. I am saying that when Class Struggle does arise from WITHIN such an identity it needs to be recognized as such and supported. By no means does class struggle arising from within identities remain limited to these identities only, as becomes obvious from tendencies inside irish republicanism working together with trade unions, community organizers, etc. What you propose is disregarding ANY class struggle not arising purely from the identity of class.

Anyway, although I suspect you might disagree with me again, I recognize this is a difficult (and a times emotional) debate. I enjoy discussing it though :)

[robbo203]

I do not see how this is the case. National Liberation does not need to strive for a world populated by 'nation-states'. I see National Liberation as the expression of class struggle by a group bound by a common identity. I do not see how this struggle would aim to establish a capitalist world.


But can you not see it? The group bound by a "common identity" that you speak of has a national identity not a class identity. It is meaningless to talk of national liberation otherwise. What is being liberated is the "nation" not the class and this is precisely what makes national liberation
diametrically opposed to class struggle. It obscures rather than highlights class struggle and hence entrenches capitalism



National Liberation by no means has to strive for homogenity. That is a false assumption on your side.


Nationalism - and national liberation is grounded in a nationalistic ideology - does indeed strive for cultural uniformity, to foster a sense of comon identity arond soething called the nation. The rise of nation-states was accompanied by attempts to impose linguistic uniformity and the steamrolling of many local traditions and regional variations. A sterotypical national culture arose often deploying invented myths to lend a sense of historical depth to new-found nations



National Liberation originates from a group bound by a common identity but since it is an expression of Class Struggle (due to them experiencing repression more intense due to certain capitalist mechanics) it does not seek to establish a culturally homogenous community.



But we disagree fundamentally on this very point. National liberation is not an expression of class struggle but the suppression of class struggle




Does a group seeking to remove imperialism and seeking to establish an autonomous socialist/syndicalist federation strive for homogenity? No it does not.


Imperialism is but a symptom of capitalism. Capitalism is the real problem not imperialism. For the sake of a parallel you could equally say poverty is a symptom of capitalism. However a group that strove to eliminate poverty within capitalism - like the rather naive but well meaning people behind the "Make Poverty History" project - would inevitably end up being coopted by capitalism because this is where their reformist logic will take them. It is the same with all these lefties who get in a tizz about something called "imperialism". They fight imperialism in the name of national liberation which likewise can only lead them towards one final outcome, their cooption by capitalism. It does not matter on jot that they call what they are striving for "socialism" (actually it invariably ends up as state capitalism)

I dislike imperialism and poverty but I dont propose to tackle these problems separately and in isolation as does the refromist pro-capitalist left. I recognise that they are generated by capitalism and it is capitalism is what needs to be removed in order for these problems to be removed. Many on the left just dont appreciated this point. They are obsessed with the anti-imperialist struggle to the point of being completely blinded by it



It simply originates from within a certain identity, this is by no means proof that this will always lead to the struggle trying to expand this identity or trying to enforce it internally. And it is even more ridiculous to claim that it will always lead to collaboration with the national bourgoise, when that happens it ceases to be national liberation. In the same fashion, class struggle ceases to be class struggle when it becomes reformist and starts collaborating with the bourgoise. But by no means does national liberation always have to be suspectible to this.




You have it exactly the wrong way round. It is when you cease to struggle for so called national liberation that you can begin to effectively wage the class struggle. The former impedes the latter by definition becuase it takes as its focus not our class but the "nation" and so blurs over different classes that comprise this nation. You have still not yet begun to confront this basic critique of nationalism



How so? This is only the case when the aim is national unity and the struggle is FOR a common national identity, not when it is class struggle originating from within a common identity. Again, you assume that national liberation is intrinsically homogenity-enforcing and intrinsically strives for national unity.



Yet again you miss the point. What is this common identity from whence this class struggle supposely originates? To be at all meaningful it is surely the identity of the class not the nation. But nations are not classes. They are something quite different from classes. They involve territorial units which embrace members of every and all classes



My apologies, I should have been more clear here indeed. the state is not a "construct of capitalism" but I do see it as a social construct perpetuating and aiding capitalism. Wrong choice of words here on my part.




Exactly! And what do you think is the goal of national liberation if not for for the nation to aquire its own state (or take over the existing state) and thereby, in your own words, perpetuate and aid capitalism?





How does this exclude eachother? The enemy is always capitalism and, by extension, the specific instance of British Imperialism. It is just an instance of capitalism and one that is quite obviously present. Hence struggle against it is struggle against an instance of capitalism.



No it is not. Any more than the struggle against poverty by refromist means is a struggle against capitalism. It is rather a struggle within capitalism not against capitalism. Big difference! Anti-imperialism is completely compatible with supporting capitalism. The Boers in the Boer war in South Africa (1899-1902) were the archetypal "anti-imperialists" (and were in fact called just this by some on the left who rallied in their support) but do you seriously imagine they were in any way revolutionary communists seeking a communist alternative to capitalism?




Nobody does, the bourgoise is the bourgoise, whether irish, british or whatever and should be confronted at all times at all places.
That does not make anti-imperialist struggle any less of an attack on capitalism. It is not because that they are 'british' imperialists that they should be confronted, but because they are imperialists. National Liberation does and should not seek to confront imperialism because it's 'foreign capitalism', but because it's a powerfull capitalist mechanic.


This is bollocks and you know it. Name me a single instance of a national liberation anywhere that did not seek to advance the interests of its own domestic and national capitalist interests in preference to the interests of foreign capitalists. Invariably national liberation movements, on coming to power, have used the state (which by your own admissions aids and perprtates capitalism) to develop the national economy by such means as import substitution, tariffs, subsidies etc etc



I oppose the bourgeois state in all forms but I do believe that imperialism presents a powerfull capitalist mechanic that needs to be destroyed. I do not seek to establish any bourgeosie state or any state for that matter and neither do I oppose "british" imperialism because it's "british" but because it's imperialism. I would oppose any bourgeois Irish State (such as the current Irish "free state") just as much as I would oppose british occupation. This does not however, prevent me from opposing british imperialism alltogether.



I dont doubt your sincerity but I serious question that you understand at all the implications of what you are saying here. You seem blissfully unware of the all too glaring contradictions in your pro-national liberation stance. Somewhere inside you there is a comunist wanting to come out but cannot come out unless and until you completely jettison the whole garbage of national liberation struggle and the accompanying fetishisation of "anti-imperialism"



I assume you reject 'Black Liberation' and 'Women Liberation' as well because it divides the working class and is couched in terms of identities?

Indeed I do. Black liberation or womens liberation that seeks to promote the interests if one group of workers against the interests of others is just as divisive as nationalism and indeed can also lead to a kind of inverse racism and sexism. The logic of what I am saying here commits me to combating all racism and all sexism and of course all nationalism


Class Struggle is present throughout the working-class and should be fought by and for the working class and nothing else.

And how pray is this remotely possible if in fact you are fighting for something else - namely the liberation of something called the nation which includes individuals not of the working class?

[Conghaileach]

Its straightforward really. The IRA are nationalist. Ergo they are anti-socialist.

Ergo nothing. Irish republicanism has always had a nationalist aspect to it, it has also always had an internationalist aspect to it. This is a natural reaction to colonialism's grip over oppressed peoples.

The nationalism of Irish republicanism is not and have never been chauvinistic, xenophobic or racist in nature (though there have always been fringe elements). Nationalism in Ireland has been an ideology of liberation, of democracy, and eventually with the rise of socialism it became apparent that a national democracy was not enough - that an Irish master was the same or worse than an English master, and that what was needed was a socialist democracy. Socialism cannot be built in Ireland as long as imperialism and colonialism contain to maintain a strangehold over the people.

[Conghaileach]

eirigi also held hunger strike meetings across a number of towns, and although 3/10 hunger strikers in 1981 were INLA members, eirigi did not invite the IRSM at all, never mind invite a speaker from them to speak about the incident from a socialist perspective. Instead they just invited Sinn Fein, because association with them is a lot more respectable for the middle class.

That isn't true. éirígí didn't invite a single Sinn Féin speaker to its hunger strike events. However five of the people who agreed, and at short notice, to participate in the éirígí meetings all around the country - Bernard Fox, Alex McCrory, Tommy McKearney Jake Mac Siacais and Fergus Ó hÍr - are socialist republicans. So I don't know where you're getting your 'no socialist perspective' from. And anyone who had attended the meetings would have seen a diverse political crowd. At the Belfast meeting alone, in terms of republican organisations, there were members of the 32s, the RNU and SF present in the audience along with many politicall non-aligned people. I don't know why the IRSP feels the need to be extended a special invitstion before it'll attend anything.

[Soldier of life]

That isn't true. éirígí didn't invite a single Sinn Féin speaker to its hunger strike events. However five of the people who agreed, and at short notice, to participate in the éirígí meetings all around the country - Bernard Fox, Alex McCrory, Tommy McKearney Jake Mac Siacais and Fergus Ó hÍr - are socialist republicans. So I don't know where you're getting your 'no socialist perspective' from. And anyone who had attended the meetings would have seen a diverse political crowd. At the Belfast meeting alone, in terms of republican organisations, there were members of the 32s, the RNU and SF present in the audience along with many politicall non-aligned people. I don't know why the IRSP feels the need to be extended a special invitstion before it'll attend anything.

My apologies, I meant former members of the provisional movement.

[robbo203]

Ergo nothing. Irish republicanism has always had a nationalist aspect to it, it has also always had an internationalist aspect to it. This is a natural reaction to colonialism's grip over oppressed peoples.

The nationalism of Irish republicanism is not and have never been chauvinistic, xenophobic or racist in nature (though there have always been fringe elements). Nationalism in Ireland has been an ideology of liberation, of democracy, and eventually with the rise of socialism it became apparent that a national democracy was not enough - that an Irish master was the same or worse than an English master, and that what was needed was a socialist democracy. Socialism cannot be built in Ireland as long as imperialism and colonialism contain to maintain a strangehold over the people.

Nationalism does not have to be chauvinistic, xenophobic or racist to be anti-socialist. Simply the fact that it is nationalist, that it focuses on the mythical nation which supposedly transcends class divisions and brings capitalist and worker together in a common national identity is enough to condemn it on socialist grounds. You cannot be a nationalist and a socialist. It has to be one or the other.

If you really interested in seeking the emancipation of the working class then why the focus on imperialism and colonialism (there is very little of actual colonialism in the world today). The real problem is capitalism not imperialism. Imperialism is just a symptom of the system like bad housing, poverty and exploitation. You cannot get rid of these problems by reforms anymore than you can get rid of imperialism within the confines of capitalism. Capitalism without imperialism is a pipedream but by constantly diverting attention away capitalism towards the goal of anti-imperialism you actually reinforce capitalism

One final thing - you cannot build socialism in Ireland any more than you can in any other single country. Socialism (aka communism) has to be global just like capitalism. I suspect what you call socialism is really just state capitalism which is of course quite compatible with your nationalist anti-socialist ideology

[Pogue]

Nationalism does not have to be chauvinistic, xenophobic or racist to be anti-socialist. Simply the fact that it is nationalist, that it focuses on the mythical nation which supposedly transcends class divisions and brings capitalist and worker together in a common national identity is enough to condemn it on socialist grounds. You cannot be a nationalist and a socialist. It has to be one or the other.

If you really interested in seeking the emancipation of the working class then why the focus on imperialism and colonialism (there is very little of actual colonialism in the world today). The real problem is capitalism not imperialism. Imperialism is just a symptom of the system like bad housing, poverty and exploitation. You cannot get rid of these problems by reforms anymore than you can get rid of imperialism within the confines of capitalism. Capitalism without imperialism is a pipedream but by constantly diverting attention away capitalism towards the goal of anti-imperialism you actually reinforce capitalism

One final thing - you cannot build socialism in Ireland any more than you can in any other single country. Socialism (aka communism) has to be global just like capitalism. I suspect what you call socialism is really just state capitalism which is of course quite compatible with your nationalist anti-socialist ideology

So what do you suggest then? That Irish people and Irish socialists just ignore the presence and history of British domination over that territory because 'pure' communist theory tells them so? Somehow they should ignore alot of the conditions of their country and just drive full steam ahead without every criticising imperialism because the criticise it is to 'reinforce capitalism'? They are republican socialists, they have socialism as part of their programme, it seems like a pragmatic attempt to fuse popular opposition to foreign occupation and oppression to the wider social struggle.

Repeating left communist mantra doesn't really help, does it? Nor does calling socialists 'anti socialist'. We've been through that. I think we're all pretty sure the Irps lads here are not just using socialism as a cunning disguise to trick us all. If you want to criticise their strategy, do so, but christs sake, don't do it in moralising rhetoric, pages and pages of that get churned out and they offer nothing at all. I actually agree on principle with what your saying but your just being dogmatic and puritanical.

[robbo203]

So what do you suggest then? That Irish people and Irish socialists just ignore the presence and history of British domination over that territory because 'pure' communist theory tells them so? Somehow they should ignore alot of the conditions of their country and just drive full steam ahead without every criticising imperialism because the criticise it is to 'reinforce capitalism'? They are republican socialists, they have socialism as part of their programme, it seems like a pragmatic attempt to fuse popular opposition to foreign occupation and oppression to the wider social struggle..

I m not suggesting that imperialism be ignored anymore than I am suggesting that poverty be ignored or any of the other ugly aspects of capitalism. The point I am trying to drive home is that imperialism cannot be dealt with in isolation anymore than poverty can be tackled by reformist measures. Its a lost cause. Capitalism without imperialism or poverty is a pipedream. Constantly going on about the need to fight imperialism ignoring that the real problem is capitalism is a futile diversion.

And you are wrong, Pogue. Irish republican socialism is emphatically not about genuine socialism in the main. Ive looked at some of thier literature. These people advocate nationalisation and reformism. They are pro-capitalist leftwingers by and large. If you doubt that here is an excerpt from the IRSP pamphlet on the European Community

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



Repeating left communist mantra doesn't really help, does it? Nor does calling socialists 'anti socialist'. We've been through that. I think we're all pretty sure the Irps lads here are not just using socialism as a cunning disguise to trick us all. If you want to criticise their strategy, do so, but christs sake, don't do it in moralising rhetoric, pages and pages of that get churned out and they offer nothing at all. I actually agree on principle with what your saying but your just being dogmatic and puritanical.

Well, great but you tell me how exactly you propose to get through to them that their nationalistic outlook is actually deepening damaging to the socialist cause. Sometimes you just have to keep plugging away at it until the penny drops despite what you say about repeating left commnist mantra not helping. What is certain is that keeping mum will not help , saying something at least offers the possibility of changing minds on this matter. Im not questioning their sincerity , nor do I believe they are using socialism as cunning ruse to trick us all. I just happen to think their outlook is fundamentally flawed and the ideas they peddle obstruct any real progress towards genuine socialism. If you think that my pointing that out to them is being "dogmatic and puritanical" then so be it. As far as I am concerned its a risk worth taking

[LeninBalls]

Irish republican socialism is emphatically not about genuine socialism in the main. Ive looked at some of thier literature. These people advocate nationalisation and reformism. They are pro-capitalist leftwingers by and large.

Good post A+ would recommend to friends

Care to point out some examples of pro capitalist left wing advocation in Irish republican socialist literature and explain how that IRSP pamphlet is pro capitalist?

[robbo203]

Good post A+ would recommend to friends

Care to point out some examples of pro capitalist left wing advocation in Irish republican socialist literature and explain how that IRSP pamphlet is pro capitalist?

Done. See above - my response to Pogue. It advocates the retention of the state and the market and even banks. That makes its perspective a capitalist one

[LeninBalls]

Done. See above - my response to Pogue. It advocates the retention of the state and the market and even banks. That makes its perspective a capitalist one

Oh ok

[PRC-UTE]

And you are wrong, Pogue. Irish republican socialism is emphatically not about genuine socialism in the main. Ive looked at some of thier literature. These people advocate nationalisation and reformism. They are pro-capitalist leftwingers by and large. If you doubt that here is an excerpt from the IRSP pamphlet on the European Community

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


We get it, you reject the transitionary revolutionary state and want to go straight to global communism overnight. It's alright if you want to be an anarchist. That doesn't make us "anti-socialist" though, anymore than Marx or Connolly who advocated basically the same course.

[Andropov]

I don't know why the IRSP feels the need to be extended a special invitstion before it'll attend anything.
For the likes of Demos or marchs organised by Eirigi they do invite all to rallys but no other organisation is permitted to bring their banner with them. I.E we are allowed to make up Eirigis numbers but god forbid we are recognised as a different organisation.
I do understand where Eirigi is coming from but just dont expect to make friends this way.

[The Deepest Red]

And you are wrong, Pogue. Irish republican socialism is emphatically not about genuine socialism in the main. Ive looked at some of thier literature. These people advocate nationalisation and reformism. They are pro-capitalist leftwingers by and large. If you doubt that here is an excerpt from the IRSP pamphlet on the European Community

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

Perhaps they could have said a united socialist Europe instead, but the rest of that is spot on. Are you opposed to a transitional workers' state? Didn't realise "Left Communists" were that bad. :(

[The Deepest Red]

For the likes of Demos or marchs organised by Eirigi they do invite all to rallys but no other organisation is permitted to bring their banner with them. I.E we are allowed to make up Eirigis numbers but god forbid we are recognised as a different organisation.
I do understand where Eirigi is coming from but just dont expect to make friends this way.

Then they're not really sharing a platform if they won't allow other groups to use their own material. A question though - why not just turn up with banners, posters etc. of your own? They'd hardly tell you to feck off?

[Hoggy_RS]

I m not suggesting that imperialism be ignored anymore than I am suggesting that poverty be ignored or any of the other ugly aspects of capitalism. The point I am trying to drive home is that imperialism cannot be dealt with in isolation anymore than poverty can be tackled by reformist measures. Its a lost cause. Capitalism without imperialism or poverty is a pipedream. Constantly going on about the need to fight imperialism ignoring that the real problem is capitalism is a futile diversion.

And you are wrong, Pogue. Irish republican socialism is emphatically not about genuine socialism in the main. Ive looked at some of thier literature. These people advocate nationalisation and reformism. They are pro-capitalist leftwingers by and large. If you doubt that here is an excerpt from the IRSP pamphlet on the European Community

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

The difference between the IRPS and whatever obscure ideology you follow, is that the IRPS are putting forward a strategy that could actually work in the real world.

[Soldier of life]

Then they're not really sharing a platform if they won't allow other groups to use their own material. A question though - why not just turn up with banners, posters etc. of your own? They'd hardly tell you to feck off?

This happened in belfast a couple months back, and as it happens, members of eirigi told members of the RSYM to put their IRSP banner away. Of course they were told to fuck off and that the banner would remain.

[robbo203]

We get it, you reject the transitionary revolutionary state and want to go straight to global communism overnight. It's alright if you want to be an anarchist. That doesn't make us "anti-socialist" though, anymore than Marx or Connolly who advocated basically the same course.


Nationalism is anti-socialist for the reasons I have explained. Whether that makes you and your buddies in the IRSP "anti-socialist" is not clear. I guess it is possible to be a socialist and yet hold certain anti-socialist views which is why I dont think I have said you are anti-socialist as such (if I have, my apologies) simply that your nationalistic views are anti-socialist.

Whether you are a socialist is another matter. I do not consider the IRSP to be a socialist organisation if it can come out with a statement like the one I posted earlier on this thread. This is just state capitalism, its got nothing to do with socialism and as for Hoggy's claim that the IRSP's (state capitalist) strategy "could actually work in the real world", not a chance!!! But that is the subject of another thread I guess

One final thing . Some people keep on using this expression about global communism being established "overnight". It is meant to be derogatory, to presumably highlight the supposed utopianism of those who want communism without the ridiculous idea of a so called transitional "workers state" . In fact it is quite misleading. Communism will be established not overnight but in the full light of day, metaphorically speaking, by class conscious majority and this will be the culmination of a rather lengthy process of development and communist growth. We do not need to invoke magic wands here

[Andropov]

Robbo why have you refused to address my post in relation to you?
I.E. Marx's position on National Liberation and specifically National Liberation within the Irish Context.

[PRC-UTE]

Nationalism is anti-socialist for the reasons I have explained. Whether that makes you and your buddies in the IRSP "anti-socialist" is not clear. I guess it is possible to be a socialist and yet hold certain anti-socialist views which is why I dont think I have said you are anti-socialist as such (if I have, my apologies) simply that your nationalistic views are anti-socialist.

Yeah, we understand what you mean: the IRSP is too influenced by the actual working class to be really socialist. For better or worse, the IRSP is a product of the nationalist working class revolt of the late sixties/early seventies.

We're unapologetically republican, so was Marx. Remember that he was radicalised by republican revolutions. Same for Engels. That's historically how scientific socialism originated, if you care to recall.

It's so odd how often it is put to us that we should somehow be faulted for actually having a constineuncy whose views we represent. I guess that type of thinking is just inherent to internet communism.



Whether you are a socialist is another matter. I do not consider the IRSP to be a socialist organisation if it can come out with a statement like the one I posted earlier on this thread. This is just state capitalism, its got nothing to do with socialism and as for Hoggy's claim that the IRSP's (state capitalist) strategy "could actually work in the real world", not a chance!!! But that is the subject of another thread I guess

You cherry picked a quote from one policy statement. I could dig through Ard Fheis (congress) motions from the IRSP that would sound ultra leftist. I could do the same and pick out one or two quotes from James Connolly and make him sound like a rabid, apolitical nationalist if I so wanted.



One final thing . Some people keep on using this expression about global communism being established "overnight". It is meant to be derogatory, to presumably highlight the supposed utopianism of those who want communism without the ridiculous idea of a so called transitional "workers state" . In fact it is quite misleading. Communism will be established not overnight but in the full light of day, metaphorically speaking, by class conscious majority and this will be the culmination of a rather lengthy process of development and communist growth. We do not need to invoke magic wands here

To be honest, that's not a very convincing argument. Especially in light of history...reality is much more complex and messy than theory.

For now I'll stick with Marx's theory of higher and lower stages of communism. The lower stage of first defeating the bourgeoisie through suppression and terror; "the first desideratum" to gain time for permanent action, as Marx put it.

[robbo203]

Yeah, we understand what you mean: the IRSP is too influenced by the actual working class to be really socialist. For better or worse, the IRSP is a product of the nationalist working class revolt of the late sixties/early seventies. .

Well you said it yourself , mate, and in so doing condemn yourself out of your own mouth. If you take your political cue from what the working class currently thinks then consider what this means. The vast majority of workers support or at least acquiesce in capitalism. In their droves they vote for capitalist parties to administer capitalism. Do you support that too?



We're unapologetically republican, so was Marx. Remember that he was radicalised by republican revolutions. Same for Engels. That's historically how scientific socialism originated, if you care to recall. .

You know my views on Marx. I think he erred seriously in supporting certain national liberation movements of his day. But I think it is stretching matters to claim Marx was a nationalist. He was a cosmopolitan and wanted to see the end of nationalities. National liberation was merely a means to advance capitalism and hence capitalism's gravedigger, the working class. Marx was very selective in this . He did not support national liberation movements (for example among the Slavs) which he felt would not lead to social progress i.e. advance capitalism in his terms. He only supported national liberation movements as in Poland and Ireland where he felt this could expedite capitalism. By the 1870s in any case he was coming to question this whole approach.

But the main pioint I would make here is that the difference between a nationalist and the approach taken by Marx is that the former sees something called the "nation" as having transcendant value, value in itself. This was not Marxs view



It's so odd how often it is put to us that we should somehow be faulted for actually having a constineuncy whose views we represent. I guess that type of thinking is just inherent to internet communism.
.

But you cant be selective here. If you represent their views on nationalism you represent also their views on capitalism which by and large they go along with



You cherry picked a quote from one policy statement. I could dig through Ard Fheis (congress) motions from the IRSP that would sound ultra leftist. I could do the same and pick out one or two quotes from James Connolly and make him sound like a rabid, apolitical nationalist if I so wanted.
.


So do I take then that that you agree that the policy statement I quoted is an example of state capitalism, not socialism? I would be interested to hear of any motions from the IRSP that call for a genuine socialist (aka communist ) society - the abolition of the wages system in other words. Mind you, even this is not enough. Keir Hardie the "father" of the British Labour once declared his support for the abolition of the wages system and look where the Labour Party is now!



To be honest, that's not a very convincing argument. Especially in light of history...reality is much more complex and messy than theory.
.

This is mushy and doesnt say much. Past examples of revolutions which were in any case bourgeois revolution do not really provide a useful template for the coming communist revolution. Marx and Engels were clear that this latter revolution would be qualitatively different from all preceding revolutions




For now I'll stick with Marx's theory of higher and lower stages of communism. The lower stage of first defeating the bourgeoisie through suppression and terror; "the first desideratum" to gain time for permanent action, as Marx put it.


This is simply not true. Nowhere did Marx suggest that the lower stage of communism would be a period of "defeating the bourgeoise through suppression and terror". You are confusing this with the transitional state another concept on which I part company with Marx

[The Deepest Red]

This happened in belfast a couple months back, and as it happens, members of eirigi told members of the RSYM to put their IRSP banner away. Of course they were told to fuck off and that the banner would remain.

That's disgraceful. What was the event?

[Andropov]

That's disgraceful. What was the event?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jL5LgJmicc
You can see a few RSYM members at around 2 minutes there carrying the IRSP banner as the filth attempt to box them in.

[Pogue]

I m not suggesting that imperialism be ignored anymore than I am suggesting that poverty be ignored or any of the other ugly aspects of capitalism. The point I am trying to drive home is that imperialism cannot be dealt with in isolation anymore than poverty can be tackled by reformist measures. Its a lost cause. Capitalism without imperialism or poverty is a pipedream. Constantly going on about the need to fight imperialism ignoring that the real problem is capitalism is a futile diversion.

And you are wrong, Pogue. Irish republican socialism is emphatically not about genuine socialism in the main. Ive looked at some of thier literature. These people advocate nationalisation and reformism. They are pro-capitalist leftwingers by and large. If you doubt that here is an excerpt from the IRSP pamphlet on the European Community

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



Well, great but you tell me how exactly you propose to get through to them that their nationalistic outlook is actually deepening damaging to the socialist cause. Sometimes you just have to keep plugging away at it until the penny drops despite what you say about repeating left commnist mantra not helping. What is certain is that keeping mum will not help , saying something at least offers the possibility of changing minds on this matter. Im not questioning their sincerity , nor do I believe they are using socialism as cunning ruse to trick us all. I just happen to think their outlook is fundamentally flawed and the ideas they peddle obstruct any real progress towards genuine socialism. If you think that my pointing that out to them is being "dogmatic and puritanical" then so be it. As far as I am concerned its a risk worth taking

But the point is your nto offering anything as a praxis. Your just offering obvious statements, which fail to look at the actual conditions of the country or the movement you are talking about. Thats practising politics divorced from reality, you may as well just have your response to every working class issue 'They should have a revolution'. Your jsut saying the obvious, following pure theory, but the reality of political organising is that it isn't pure.

[The Deepest Red]

_jL5LgJmicc
You can see a few RSYM members at around 2 minutes there carrying the IRSP banner as the filth attempt to box them in.

Thanks. Have you called them out on it?

[Andropov]

But the point is your nto offering anything as a praxis. Your just offering obvious statements, which fail to look at the actual conditions of the country or the movement you are talking about. Thats practising politics divorced from reality, you may as well just have your response to every working class issue 'They should have a revolution'. Your jsut saying the obvious, following pure theory, but the reality of political organising is that it isn't pure.
Ehh what did you do with Pogue?

[Andropov]

Thanks. Have you called them out on it?
Not officially.
In the short to medium term I cant see us working with them, they are elitist and still seem to be infatuated with their former comrades in PSF.

[The Deepest Red]

Not officially.
In the short to medium term I cant see us working with them, they are elitist and still seem to be infatuated with their former comrades in PSF.

It might not be a bad idea to do so, perhaps as part of a wider criticism of their politics and/or practices. If pressed they might be forced to define themselves a little better, or they might just ignore you. :thumbdown:

[Andropov]

It might not be a bad idea to do so, perhaps as part of a wider criticism of their politics and/or practices. If pressed they might be forced to define themselves a little better, or they might just ignore you. :thumbdown:
Its been done before, they do not recognise the "dissidents".
They would not even respond to the RFU's advances to join the RFU.
Granted if they disagreed with it on ideological or practical grounds but they just neglected common courtesy in refusing to even respond to the attempted dialogue.
And do not respond well to criticism of their lukewarm politics.
For now Eirigi are a mixed bag and time will tell.

[Pogue]

That RUC song is mint I like it alot.



Ehh what did you do with Pogue?


Well I've never been a left communist.

[Andropov]

That RUC song is mint I like it alot.
Its by a man called Ciaran Murphy, hes an ex Real IRA POW and now an Anarchist or sympathetic to Anarchism anyway.
Heres his myspace page, some of his songs are class, real political.
http://www.myspace.com/ciaranabc (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.myspace.com/ciaranabc)

[The Deepest Red]

Its been done before, they do not recognise the "dissidents".
They would not even respond to the RFU's advances to join the RFU.
Granted if they disagreed with it on ideological or practical grounds but they just neglected common courtesy in refusing to even respond to the attempted dialogue.
And do not respond well to criticism of their lukewarm politics.
For now Eirigi are a mixed bag and time will tell.

Indeed. It's quite disappointing.

[robbo203]

But the point is your nto offering anything as a praxis. Your just offering obvious statements, which fail to look at the actual conditions of the country or the movement you are talking about. Thats practising politics divorced from reality, you may as well just have your response to every working class issue 'They should have a revolution'. Your jsut saying the obvious, following pure theory, but the reality of political organising is that it isn't pure.

Well this wasnt really a thread about praxis, was it? It was about IRA ideology. If you want to broaden out the discussion into a thread about praxis about how we go about creating the possibility of a genuine socialist revolution then, fair enough, but thats another matter. For my part I was only stating what I take to be socialist response to nationalism, in this case Irish nationalism - that socialists must be hostile to nationalism in any guise.

You say I fail to to "look at the actual conditions of the country or the movement" I am talking about and that this is "practicising politics divorced from reality". Well, thats not quite true even in the context of this particular thread. I did look at the movement I was talking about - the IRSP - and in fact quoted from one of its pamphlets which demonstrated its non-socialist nature. True, I havent gone much into the conditions which have given rise to the nationalist movement in Ireland altough I would be happy to do so. But I am curious as to just what it is you expect to achieve by doing that. And how does doing that alter what needs to be done in the end which you know and I know is the only viable way out of dead end of capitalist politics - advancing the revolutionary alternative to capitalism.

For the sake of a parallel you might equally say we should look into conditions that generate racist ideas and a movement like the BNP which embodies these ideas. OK sure. Then what? Do we change our ideas about racism being the vile ideology it is or try to steal the BNP's thunder by pandering to its supporters. Of course not. Do we perhaps push for the government to do more about the plight of poor white working class families who are particular vulnerable to such ideas and become well meaning reformists. Well, again, no. So what then do we do? I throw the ball back into your court - what will you do? Instead of just we should engage in "praxis" what is your praxis?

You say, finally that I am "just saying the obvious, following pure theory, but the reality of political organising is that it isn't pure" Maybe so. But hey! Dont knock theory! Unless you have sorted out the theory, your practice is almost certainly going to go horribily wrong. You minimise the likelihood of this happening by thinking through thoroughly what needs to be done and equally importantly, what must not be done.


I think you are being just a wee bit oversensitive, Pogue about treading on (some) peoples sensibilities. Look, I was once a pro-capitalist lefty like many of the people on this list . It was only when I encountered the WSM and had the crap beaten out of me in robust debate that I managed to move on and boy am I bloody glad that I did. There is nothing personal about me attacking the likes of Hoggy and PRC-UTE on this list. Im sure in real life away from cyberspace, they are good blokes who you could comfortably have a pint with and a natter down at the Kings Head. Its just that I think their ideas are crap. They can ignore what I say but they have nothing to lose by considering what I say. Who knows - some day they may be thanklful as I am thankful now that there was some one out there to pull themn up sharply and not mince their words

[Pogue]

Well this wasnt really a thread about praxis, was it? It was about IRA ideology. If you want to broaden out the discussion into a thread about praxis about how we go about creating the possibility of a genuine socialist revolution then, fair enough, but thats another matter. For my part I was only stating what I take to be socialist response to nationalism, in this case Irish nationalism - that socialists must be hostile to nationalism in any guise.

You say I fail to to "look at the actual conditions of the country or the movement" I am talking about and that this is "practicising politics divorced from reality". Well, thats not quite true even in the context of this particular thread. I did look at the movement I was talking about - the IRSP - and in fact quoted from one of its pamphlets which demonstrated its non-socialist nature. True, I havent gone much into the conditions which have given rise to the nationalist movement in Ireland altough I would be happy to do so. But I am curious as to just what it is you expect to achieve by doing that. And how does doing that alter what needs to be done in the end which you know and I know is the only viable way out of dead end of capitalist politics - advancing the revolutionary alternative to capitalism.

For the sake of a parallel you might equally say we should look into conditions that generate racist ideas and a movement like the BNP which embodies these ideas. OK sure. Then what? Do we change our ideas about racism being the vile ideology it is or try to steal the BNP's thunder by pandering to its supporters. Of course not. Do we perhaps push for the government to do more about the plight of poor white working class families who are particular vulnerable to such ideas and become well meaning reformists. Well, again, no. So what then do we do? I throw the ball back into your court - what will you do? Instead of just we should engage in "praxis" what is your praxis?

You say, finally that I am "just saying the obvious, following pure theory, but the reality of political organising is that it isn't pure" Maybe so. But hey! Dont knock theory! Unless you have sorted out the theory, your practice is almost certainly going to go horribily wrong. You minimise the likelihood of this happening by thinking through thoroughly what needs to be done and equally importantly, what must not be done.


I think you are being just a wee bit oversensitive, Pogue about treading on (some) peoples sensibilities. Look, I was once a pro-capitalist lefty like many of the people on this list . It was only when I encountered the WSM and had the crap beaten out of me in robust debate that I managed to move on and boy am I bloody glad that I did. There is nothing personal about me attacking the likes of Hoggy and PRC-UTE on this list. Im sure in real life away from cyberspace, they are good blokes who you could comfortably have a pint with and a natter down at the Kings Head. Its just that I think their ideas are crap. They can ignore what I say but they have nothing to lose by considering what I say. Who knows - some day they may be thanklful as I am thankful now that there was some one out there to pull themn up sharply and not mince their words

But we are talking praxis. Your criticising the IRSM's approach to how socialism will be acheived in Ireland, and as I said, you were doing it in dogmatic sloganeering.

Don't compare the IRSP to the BNP. Thats childish and immature. I don't think I need to explain how your analogy fails.

I will knock theory. Theory could say 'Workers should organise themselves and destroy capitalism' - whats a useless statement in its own. Of course we believe that. The point is how do we make it happen.

Why don't you start proposing what you think is an alternatvie to the flawed positions of the IRSP? That means more than useless phrases like 'Reject nationalism!'.

[The Deepest Red]

For the sake of a parallel you might equally say we should look into conditions that generate racist ideas and a movement like the BNP which embodies these ideas. OK sure. Then what? Do we change our ideas about racism being the vile ideology it is or try to steal the BNP's thunder by pandering to its supporters.

An actual comparison would be to look at the kind of people who support any of the Unionist political parties or paramilitaries or Zionists in Israel/occupied Palestine. There you will find strong parallels with the supporters of the BNP, not amongst the Irish nationalist working class.

[Red Dreadnought]

Well, you can't arguee for "national liberation" in the same way that at XIX century. For exemple, a part of Ireland is an "independent" Republic, but you know that there's no possible real independence at global capitalist, unless you consider North Korea or former Albania as "independent". But even they can't avoid living in a world dominated by imperilist capitalism, and thus they are (o were) capitalistic state regims. In the case of North Ireland, if you merely unite it with Eire Republic, nothing really change in the dinamics of imperialism or in the conditions of working class and masses.

It's important for us to make the balance:

http://en.internationalism.org/series/331

And of course, all we condemn that fuking Thatcher when send to death IRA militants, or Argentinian and Brit youngs at Falkland.

[The Deepest Red]

Well, you can't arguee for "national liberation" in the same way that at XIX century. For exemple, a part of Ireland is an "independent" Republic, but you know that there's no possible real independence at global capitalist, unless you consider North Korea or former Albania as "independent". But even they can't avoid living in a world dominated by imperilist capitalism, and thus they are (o were) capitalistic state regims. In the case of North Ireland, if you merely unite it with Eire Republic, nothing really change in the dinamics of imperialism or in the conditions of working class and masses.

Who's advocating a united capitalist Ireland? I'm certainly not and I don't think the IRSM members/supporters posting on here are either.

[Andropov]

Well this wasnt really a thread about praxis, was it? It was about IRA ideology. If you want to broaden out the discussion into a thread about praxis about how we go about creating the possibility of a genuine socialist revolution then, fair enough, but thats another matter. For my part I was only stating what I take to be socialist response to nationalism, in this case Irish nationalism - that socialists must be hostile to nationalism in any guise.

You say I fail to to "look at the actual conditions of the country or the movement" I am talking about and that this is "practicising politics divorced from reality". Well, thats not quite true even in the context of this particular thread. I did look at the movement I was talking about - the IRSP - and in fact quoted from one of its pamphlets which demonstrated its non-socialist nature. True, I havent gone much into the conditions which have given rise to the nationalist movement in Ireland altough I would be happy to do so. But I am curious as to just what it is you expect to achieve by doing that. And how does doing that alter what needs to be done in the end which you know and I know is the only viable way out of dead end of capitalist politics - advancing the revolutionary alternative to capitalism.

For the sake of a parallel you might equally say we should look into conditions that generate racist ideas and a movement like the BNP which embodies these ideas. OK sure. Then what? Do we change our ideas about racism being the vile ideology it is or try to steal the BNP's thunder by pandering to its supporters. Of course not. Do we perhaps push for the government to do more about the plight of poor white working class families who are particular vulnerable to such ideas and become well meaning reformists. Well, again, no. So what then do we do? I throw the ball back into your court - what will you do? Instead of just we should engage in "praxis" what is your praxis?

You say, finally that I am "just saying the obvious, following pure theory, but the reality of political organising is that it isn't pure" Maybe so. But hey! Dont knock theory! Unless you have sorted out the theory, your practice is almost certainly going to go horribily wrong. You minimise the likelihood of this happening by thinking through thoroughly what needs to be done and equally importantly, what must not be done.


I think you are being just a wee bit oversensitive, Pogue about treading on (some) peoples sensibilities. Look, I was once a pro-capitalist lefty like many of the people on this list . It was only when I encountered the WSM and had the crap beaten out of me in robust debate that I managed to move on and boy am I bloody glad that I did. There is nothing personal about me attacking the likes of Hoggy and PRC-UTE on this list. Im sure in real life away from cyberspace, they are good blokes who you could comfortably have a pint with and a natter down at the Kings Head. Its just that I think their ideas are crap. They can ignore what I say but they have nothing to lose by considering what I say. Who knows - some day they may be thanklful as I am thankful now that there was some one out there to pull themn up sharply and not mince their words
Perhaps you could also pull aside Marx and Engels and tell them how their ideas on National Liberation in Ireland were crap also.
Maybe they will be thankfull also.

[Red Dreadnought]

"... Serbia is formally engaged in a national war of defence. But its monarchy and its ruling classes are filled with expansionist desires as are the ruling classes in all the modern states... Thus Serbia is today reaching out towards the Adriatic coast where it is fighting out a real imperialistic conflict with Italy on the backs of the Albanians... But above all this we must not forget: behind Serbian nationalism stands Russian imperialism" (The Junius Pamphlet, Rosa Luxemburg, Chapter VII).

[The Deepest Red]

"... Serbia is formally engaged in a national war of defence. But its monarchy and its ruling classes are filled with expansionist desires as are the ruling classes in all the modern states... Thus Serbia is today reaching out towards the Adriatic coast where it is fighting out a real imperialistic conflict with Italy on the backs of the Albanians... But above all this we must not forget: behind Serbian nationalism stands Russian imperialism" (The Junius Pamphlet, Rosa Luxemburg, Chapter VII).

What imperialist power stands behind Irish nationalism? None that I'm aware of, so is that quote relevant?

[Red Dreadnought]

Who's advocating a united capitalist Ireland? I'm certainly not and I don't think the IRSM members/supporters posting on here are either.

In the basis that there's no possible "in one country socialism", and an a "socialist" Ireland based in the model of Cuba, RPK an so on. And in a socialist society, internationally joined, we don't know the exact form of estructure that world, form local "Worker Council" to whole World, that will be the decission of that workers. Probably, national cultures will go on but in another form, and a new international human culture will develop. We don't know, the concrete territorial estructure of that society.
Its clear that won't be possible all form of opression in bases on culture or nation; nor to irish people, nor for women, etc. But you don't need an territorial STATE at Ireland to end irish people opression.

[Andropov]

"... Serbia is formally engaged in a national war of defence. But its monarchy and its ruling classes are filled with expansionist desires as are the ruling classes in all the modern states... Thus Serbia is today reaching out towards the Adriatic coast where it is fighting out a real imperialistic conflict with Italy on the backs of the Albanians... But above all this we must not forget: behind Serbian nationalism stands Russian imperialism" (The Junius Pamphlet, Rosa Luxemburg, Chapter VII).
Irrelevant quote with regaurds to the Irish Context.
Look in this thread to see some of Marx's quotes with regaurds the Irish question.
He analysed each case on its own individual context free from dogmatic templates.

[Andropov]

In the basis that there's no possible "in one country socialism", and an a "socialist" Ireland based in the model of Cuba, RPK an so on. And in a socialist society, internationally joined, we don't know the exact form of estructure that world, form local "Worker Council" to whole World, that will be the decission of that workers. Probably, national cultures will go on but in another form, and a new international human culture will develop. We don't know, the concrete territorial estructure of that society.
Its clear that won't be possible all form of opression in bases on culture or nation; nor to irish people, nor for women, etc. But you don't need an territorial STATE at Ireland to end irish people opression.
"I used to think the separation of Ireland from England was impossible. Now I think it is inevitable"....... "What the Irish need is...self- government and independence from England.... Agrarian revolution.... Protective tariffs against England." - Karl Marx

[Red Dreadnought]

I have forget to end that phrase:
...and an a "socialist" Ireland based in the model of Cuba, RPK an so on, would be a Capitalism of State, equaly opressive to the irish masses, as you can see at "libered" Vietnam, or Algeria.

[Red Dreadnought]

But at Marx time there was a national democratic burgueois revolution to develop!!!! Capitalism nowadays is not the same of the time of Marx. Ireland nowadays is a capitalist society, and is no possible to do the tasks that burgeoisie couldn't do at limits of capitalism (or state capitalism). Marx or Engels change their prevission during their life, it's not dialecthical arguments based on strict inthelectual authority.

[The Deepest Red]

I have forget to end that phrase:
...and an a "socialist" Ireland based in the model of Cuba, RPK an so on, would be a Capitalism of State, equaly opressive to the irish masses, as you can see at "libered" Vietnam, or Algeria.

Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam and Algeria are not socialist. It wouldn't be "equally oppressive" if the conscious working class held state power and wielded it for the benefit of all and as a defense against counter-revolution. What's the alternative? It's highly unlikely that a world revolution will take place at once, overnight, so?

[Red Dreadnought]

Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam and Algeria are not socialist. It wouldn't be "equally oppressive" if the conscious working class held state power and wielded it for the benefit of all and as a defense against counter-revolution. What's the alternative? It's highly unlikely that a world revolution will take place at once, overnight, so?

Well, we have a "little" work to do PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION. And thus, we are again on the beginning.

[The Deepest Red]

Well, we have a "little" work to do PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION. And thus, we are again on the beginning.

I just said I advocate the proletariat conquering the economy and political power i.e. "PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION". So where's the problem?

[Andropov]

But at Marx time there was a national democratic burgueois revolution to develop!!!! Capitalism nowadays is not the same of the time of Marx. Ireland nowadays is a capitalist society, and is no possible to do the tasks that burgeoisie couldn't do at limits of capitalism (or state capitalism). Marx or Engels change their prevission during their life, it's not dialecthical arguments based on strict inthelectual authority.
I think you will find that Marx and Engels support for the Irish National Liberation struggle remained stead fast.
Hence why they even helped the fenians, not just with intellectual support but with the likes of Engels actually giving sanctuary to a fenian on the run.
Jenny Marx even continued her fathers work in helping and aiding the fenians after her father died.

[robbo203]

But we are talking praxis. Your criticising the IRSM's approach to how socialism will be acheived in Ireland, and as I said, you were doing it in dogmatic sloganeering.

Don't compare the IRSP to the BNP. Thats childish and immature. I don't think I need to explain how your analogy fails..

Dont be dumb, Pogue . I wasnt comparing the IRSP to the BNP in the sense of suggesting one was like the other. I said quite specifically "for the sake of a parallel" that if we are to look into the conditions that give rise to nationalist ideas are we to look into the conditions that give rise to racist ideas too and what we are we to do about that having done this. In other words what exactly is the point of the exercise?. I think we all know reasonably well what the conditions are that give rise to nationalist ideas.

And dont dismiss what I have to say as "dogmatic sloganeering". I have presented arguments to back up my case even if you might not go along with them. Whats the matter with you tonight, eh? Got out of the wrong side of your bed or summat, eh?


I will knock theory. Theory could say 'Workers should organise themselves and destroy capitalism' - whats a useless statement in its own. Of course we believe that. The point is how do we make it happen.
..

Its a useless statement but you believe it. Yeah, thats very convincing as an argument, aint it. Hell, what do you think this whole damn site is about, eh? Its about knocking about ideas, chewing them over and sometimes spitting them out. In short its about T-H-E-O-R-Y . Including if I might say so, a theory of praxis. Youre a fine one to knock theory when you want us to - what was it? - "look at the actual conditions of the country or the movement you are talking about". Thats sound pretty theoretical to me

You forget one or two other things as well . In response to the statement "workers should organise themselves and destroy capitalism" you assert "Of course we believe that". Really? Well fuck me - you could have fooled me. Who is the "we" you are referring to. You know as well as i that many on this site believe that workers did organise and destroy capitalism in the Soviet Union. Which of course they did not. What may be plain obvious to you or me might not be to others on this site. So we cant escape theory. We cant escape the need to clarify terms like capitalism and even working class



Why don't you start proposing what you think is an alternatvie to the flawed positions of the IRSP? That means more than useless phrases like 'Reject nationalism!'.

What the hell are you driving at? You know very well what the alternative is that i have been pushing on this site. I have been arguing tirelessly that people should be organising around and promoting the concept of a genuine socialist alternative to capitalism. I dont just say "reject nationalism". Thats ridiclous! I try to explain WHY we need to reject nationalism - becuase it is a serious impediment to socialism. But maybe yoiu dont feel that it is . Maybe you harbour closet sympathie for the "lads" from the IRSP and their nationalist sentiments. If so, spit it out and say whats on your mind. Because you sure as hell got me confused now

[Andropov]

Maybe you harbour closet sympathie for the "lads" from the IRSP and their nationalist sentiments.
Oooh I love this bit.
Perhaps you should get in contact with your Anarchist comrades in Dublin and tell them to part from the "lads" in Dublin IRSP whom they contacted to walk with them while they leafleted an area of inner city Dublin for protection.
I shit you not.

[ls]

Oooh I love this bit.
Perhaps you should get in contact with your Anarchist comrades in Dublin and tell them to part from the "lads" in Dublin IRSP whom they contacted to walk with them while they leafleted an area of inner city Dublin for protection.
I shit you not.

I think robbo would reject the WSM as fake 'platformist' anarchists and presumably that's the group you are talking about.

[Andropov]

I think robbo would reject the WSM as fake 'platformist' anarchists and presumably that's the group you are talking about.
But he already mentioned them as being the people who educated him in Anarchism.

[ls]

But he already mentioned them as being the people who educated him in Anarchism.

"It was only when I encountered the WSM and had the crap beaten out of me in robust debate that I managed to move on and boy am I bloody glad that I did."

Sorry, I didn't see that before and have just now re-read it, I misunderstood it before editing my post too. Anyway, yep I think he's gotten confused on their positions, they support anti-imperialist Irish national liberation. Perhaps the person he met from WSM didn't follow their general line.

[Andropov]

"It was only when I encountered the WSM and had the crap beaten out of me in robust debate that I managed to move on and boy am I bloody glad that I did."

I took that to mean he disagreed with their principles, which are anti-imperialist support of national liberation in Ireland.
I interpreted it as the WSM were the ones who influenced his current politics.
Its best if robbo answers that question.

[ls]

Sorry once again, I edited my post. :p Yes, it's best if robbo answers this as it's very unclear what he is saying, it's entirely possible though that an anarchist from WSM, had vastly different politics to WSM's main line on irish national liberation.

[PRC-UTE]

But at Marx time there was a national democratic burgueois revolution to develop!!!! Capitalism nowadays is not the same of the time of Marx. Ireland nowadays is a capitalist society, and is no possible to do the tasks that burgeoisie couldn't do at limits of capitalism (or state capitalism). Marx or Engels change their prevission during their life, it's not dialecthical arguments based on strict inthelectual authority.

You're on the same page with us mate. now we're getting to the analysis of Connolly: that only the working class can finish the national liberation struggle because the bourgeoisie are inseperably tied to the current state/s on the islands of Ireland and Britain.

and no revolution ever happens in isolation- look at the radicalisation caused by the Vietnamese Revolution on France and the USA, and even other countries not really involved. A successful socialist republican revolution in Ireland would radicalise our British comrades. This was in fact the hope that Marx held, as did Padraig Pearse, the republican leader who is by tradition viewed as a blood n soil mystic nationalist.

[Coggeh]

A successful socialist republican revolution in Ireland would radicalise our British comrades. This was in fact the hope that Marx held, as did Padraig Pearse, the republican leader who is by tradition viewed as a blood n soil mystic nationalist.
I highly doubt that the English and Prodestant working class would see a republican revolution as a good thing . It forces the English working class to divide from the Irish one along state lines . The republican armed struggle has 0 support in reality among any working class movements in Britain .

An organised revolution based on a united socialist working class mass movement, the only movement which is capable of cutting across the divide of sectarian politics is the only way forward in the north for sucessfully overthrowing the bourgeoise and uniting with the english working class .

Also , Padraig Pearse was an ass.Not sure if your comment was a good comment about him or not but just saying trying to equate marxs analysis and pearses is quite ...silly.

Q: what is the position of the IRSP with regards to unions ?

[PRC-UTE]

Well you said it yourself , mate, and in so doing condemn yourself out of your own mouth. If you take your political cue from what the working class currently thinks then consider what this means. The vast majority of workers support or at least acquiesce in capitalism. In their droves they vote for capitalist parties to administer capitalism. Do you support that too?

When I said it was a nationalist revolt, I meant nationalist by section of the population, not ideology. The ideology that led the revolt of the catholic/nationalist population was driven ironically by some reforms in education from Britain, along with the American Civil Rights movement. If it was an ideology, it was something like a pluralist left-leaning populism. It was explicitly non-republican. That demographic is considered nationalist by default because they were rejected from full citizenship after the founding of the Northern Ireland state in the early 1920's- even a history of British patriotism and service in the British Army did not protect those Catholics from being pogromed.

I thought you knew that; I should have explained that from the beginning. It's an important fact that explains a lot of the Troubles- how it started and how it ended. It throws up more questions than answers for republicans.



You know my views on Marx. I think he erred seriously in supporting certain national liberation movements of his day. But I think it is stretching matters to claim Marx was a nationalist. He was a cosmopolitan and wanted to see the end of nationalities. National liberation was merely a means to advance capitalism and hence capitalism's gravedigger, the working class. Marx was very selective in this . He did not support national liberation movements (for example among the Slavs) which he felt would not lead to social progress i.e. advance capitalism in his terms. He only supported national liberation movements as in Poland and Ireland where he felt this could expedite capitalism. By the 1870s in any case he was coming to question this whole approach.

Yes of course he was taking a tactical approach...as is ours. I want a global socialist federation of free nations as Connolly did.



But the main pioint I would make here is that the difference between a nationalist and the approach taken by Marx is that the former sees something called the "nation" as having transcendant value, value in itself. This was not Marxs view

His view was the same as ours: a nation is a product of history.



But you cant be selective here. If you represent their views on nationalism you represent also their views on capitalism which by and large they go along with

Of course I can be selective. But anyway, the areas where radical anti-capitalist politics runs deepest have always been urban republican areas.



So do I take then that that you agree that the policy statement I quoted is an example of state capitalism, not socialism? I would be interested to hear of any motions from the IRSP that call for a genuine socialist (aka communist ) society - the abolition of the wages system in other words. Mind you, even this is not enough. Keir Hardie the "father" of the British Labour once declared his support for the abolition of the wages system and look where the Labour Party is now!

I don't agree with your analysis of state capitalism, as state capitalism is essentially capital in crisis being rescued and recuperated by the machinery of the state and its resources. You're seriously abusing the term to the point of having no meaning.



This is mushy and doesnt say much. Past examples of revolutions which were in any case bourgeois revolution do not really provide a useful template for the coming communist revolution. Marx and Engels were clear that this latter revolution would be qualitatively different from all preceding revolutions

I'm being mushy to say that reality is more complex than theory and for now I'll stick with Marx's schema for revolutionary stages?

It's almost like you prefer abstract theory to concrete reality. I dont' think I'll be alone in seeing that.



This is simply not true. Nowhere did Marx suggest that the lower stage of communism would be a period of "defeating the bourgeoise through suppression and terror". You are confusing this with the transitional state another concept on which I part company with Marx

'One thing you can be at any rate sure of: a socialist government does not come into power in a country unless conditions are so developed that it can immediately take the necessary measures for intimidating the mass of the bourgeoisie sufficiently to gain time-the first desideratum -for permanent action.'

[An Afterthought on the Paris Commune] Marx to F. Domela-Nieuwenhuis, 1881

[PRC-UTE]

I highly doubt that the English and Prodestant working class would see a republican revolution as a good thing . It forces the English working class to divide from the Irish one along state lines . The republican armed struggle has 0 support in reality among any working class movements in Britain .

While the last line there is undoubtedly correct, the rest is highly speculative and anti-Marxist.

the practical implication is that the section of the working class hostile to imperialism shoudl wait for the rest of the workers to join them in revolution (that will somehow not offend their monarchist sympathies) over strictly economistic campaigns...of course you must also carefully avoid talk about more housing for nationalists, issues of state repression, policing, immigrants...



An organised revolution based on a united socialist working class mass movement, the only movement which is capable of cutting across the divide of sectarian politics is the only way forward in the north for sucessfully overthrowing the bourgeoise and uniting with the english working class .

There's a little thing called imperialism that won't just sit back and watch while you make a revolution.



Also , Padraig Pearse was an ass.Not sure if your comment was a good comment about him or not but just saying trying to equate marxs analysis and pearses is quite ...silly.

I said both hoped the British working class would make a revolution. That's true. In Pearse's words, he hoped that the British workers would rise up and slaughter their masters as the French did in 1798. And that's a significant comment, because iirc, that was well after Connolly had given up on a European working class revolt.

The Rising he led struck a huge blow to the British Empire and forced them to abandon plans to conscript Irishman...we might not be here if he hadn't been such an "ass".

He was active in all the social struggles of his day from education to strike actions. There's a reason he got on better with Connolly towards the end of his life than the bourgeois nationalist MacNeil. If the anti-socialist republicans hadn't turned him into a harmless type of mystic natioanlist there would likely be more appreciation for him. I think it's good to see that at least O'Donnell recognised that he had qualities similar to the Spanish anarchists re education.



Q: what is the position of the IRSP with regards to unions ?


For a fighting union
As republican socialists, we take lesson from battles that have gone before us, in the community and in the workplace. We must reclaim our unions and organise the unorganised. We remain committed to the revolutionary industrial unionism of Larkin and Connolly. As republican socialists we see the creation of a fighting 'rank and file' trade union movement as something that still holds potential and we support the building of a revolutionary shop stewards' movement.


http://irsm.org/irsp/tirs.html

and if you want to know about the IWU ask Rite boi or email our dublin cumann.

[robbo203]

I interpreted it as the WSM were the ones who influenced his current politics.
Its best if robbo answers that question.

Nah , you guys have got it all wrong. Im not talking about the Workers Solidarity Movement in Ireland. I like some of the stuff they have produced particularly their material attacking leninism but I have serious doubts about what Pogue would call their "praxis".

No, I was talking about the World Socialist Movement (www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org)). I have a considerable amount of sympathy and respect for them. In my opinion, they stand head and shoulders above most of the Left in terms of their perepsctive and approach to revolutuionary politics. I was once a member and have my disagreements with some aspects of party policy but they are amongst some of the few groups I would class as genuinely communist in orientation. In that regard I would recommend flks here get hold of a copy of Non Market Socialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (1987 so a bit dated but still highly relevant) edited by Crump and Rubel which discusses the various strands of the contemporary communist movement. It was reveiwed at Libcom http://libcom.org/library/review-non-market-socialism-nineteenth-twentieth-centuries-red-menace and there is an interesting article on the WSM/SPGB by Steve Coleman extracted from the above book which can be found here http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/impossibilism-stephen-coleman-1987/

Talking of Ireland, there was a companion party of the WSM based in Belfast I believe (WSPI) whose offices were apparently reduced to rubble by both the British army AND the IRA!

[robbo203]

Yes of course he was taking a tactical approach...as is ours. I want a global socialist federation of free nations as Connolly did.



Yes but you overlook the point that the rationale for such a tactical approach in supporting nationalist revolts - to advance capitalism and hence its gravedigger, the working class - long ago disappeared. Ireland is a fully capitalist country. If Marx were alive today he would almost certainly be saying the same thing - there is no further reason to support national liberation movements of any kind anywhere in today's global capitalist world. As I said he was already beginning to think along these lines by the 1870s



Of course I can be selective. But anyway, the areas where radical anti-capitalist politics runs deepest have always been urban republican areas.



In this case, I'm sorry but you can't be selective. You made the claim that in being nationalist you were merely reflecting the outlook of some sections of the working class and this is what justified your position. Well if that is the case then the same argument necessarily applies to the other views held by this constituency which you presume to represent - including their overwhelming support for capitalism


I don't agree with your analysis of state capitalism, as state capitalism is essentially capital in crisis being rescued and recuperated by the machinery of the state and its resources. You're seriously abusing the term to the point of having no meaning.


No this is compete nonsense. State capitalism is not restricted in its meaning to endeavours by the state to rescue capital in crisis such as the bailout measures in the USA recently. There is a considerable body of literature which looks at state capitalism in a broader institutional setting as a particular and more persistent variant of capitalism. Hence the analysis of the Soviet Union as a state capitalist regime from the outset which has been endorsed by many marxist and anarchist writers. It is state capitalism becuase it exhibits the core systemic features of capitalism with ownership and control of the means of production being held by the state and hence, the small class who effectively monopolise state power - the state capitalist class




I'm being mushy to say that reality is more complex than theory and for now I'll stick with Marx's schema for revolutionary stages?

It's almost like you prefer abstract theory to concrete reality. I dont' think I'll be alone in seeing that.


Certainly, the reality is invariably more complex than any theory can allow for but you dont understand the point that is being made here. The theory is a necessary simplification of reality which serves to clarify and throw light on what needs to be done. Neither you nor Pogue, it would appear, seem to understand the importance of theoretical clarification or simplification. Far from impeding praxis, it facilitates it. Theory guides practice. If you dont have the theory sorted out first or take the utterly naive position that theory does not matter and all we have to do is immerse ourselves in the complexity of reality, you will simply turn yourself into a weathercock utterly vulnerable to every passing gust of wind that blows throw this capitalist reality. You will be completely overwhelmed and pretty soon thoroughly coopted by capitalism in your wilful desire to abandon the wider picture which you derogatively call "abstract theory"



'One thing you can be at any rate sure of: a socialist government does not come into power in a country unless conditions are so developed that it can immediately take the necessary measures for intimidating the mass of the bourgeoisie sufficiently to gain time-the first desideratum -for permanent action.'

[An Afterthought on the Paris Commune] Marx to F. Domela-Nieuwenhuis, 1881



Yes but this is still not the lower stage of comunism is it now? You are, as I said, confusing th lower stage of communism with the transitional state

[Red Dreadnought]

I just said I advocate the proletariat conquering the economy and political power i.e. "PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION". So where's the problem?

I must complete my argument: well we are at the beginning again, a there's a lot of work to be done, enhacing workers for organize themselves at higuest level (worker councils), enhance them to recover proletarian comunist concience (after the dark night of stalinism and within the democratic mistifications), rebuild a new revolutionary international (party we´d say) with a real influence within the movement, encourage workers to take power in several countries and then internationally,....

And, well, were those "national liberation fights" a help to do this tasks? Or may be an unavoidable step? If the answer is possitive, probably we must acept your possition, and that of trotskism. But I think, the answer is negative, and here we have the deep border beetween "left communnism" and trotskism. Years ago, I supported trots, but historical experience has denied its perpective, first by its possition of supporting "critically" Stalinist Countries, and specting a "political revolution" that never came; second, balance of XX cent has confirmed our position on "national liberation" (see link at another post), specially with former Jugoslavia, or Central Africa "guerrilla". Some trots supported Bosnia, another ones Servia, and finally a part of them were neutral. And many trots internationals exploited cause that difference; "morenism" for instance.:(

Why don't think on this arguments and read the articles?

Amicus Plato sed, sed magis amicus veritas. Or Trotsky instead Plato if you prefer.

Salud.

[Red Dreadnought]

Nah , you guys have got it all wrong. Im not talking about the Workers Solidarity Movement in Ireland. I like some of the stuff they have produced particularly their material attacking leninism but I have serious doubts about what Pogue would call their "praxis".

No, I was talking about the World Socialist Movement (www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org)). I have a considerable amount of sympathy and respect for them. In my opinion, they stand head and shoulders above most of the Left in terms of their perepsctive and approach to revolutuionary politics. I was once a member and have my disagreements with some aspects of party policy but they are amongst some of the few groups I would class as genuinely communist in orientation. In that regard I would recommend flks here get hold of a copy of Non Market Socialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (1987 so a bit dated but still highly relevant) edited by Crump and Rubel which discusses the various strands of the contemporary communist movement. It was reveiwed at Libcom http://libcom.org/library/review-non-market-socialism-nineteenth-twentieth-centuries-red-menace and there is an interesting article on the WSM/SPGB by Steve Coleman extracted from the above book which can be found here http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/impossibilism-stephen-coleman-1987/

Talking of Ireland, there was a companion party of the WSM based in Belfast I believe (WSPI) whose offices were apparently reduced to rubble by both the British army AND the IRA!

A very interesting party, although our differences with them. In fact, that party never treasoned working class, in particular at two (or three if you count "cold"one) world wars.

[The Deepest Red]

I must complete my argument: well we are at the beginning again, a there's a lot of work to be done, enhacing workers for organize themselves at higuest level (worker councils), enhance them to recover proletarian comunist concience (after the dark night of stalinism and within the democratic mistifications), rebuild a new revolutionary international (party we´d say) with a real influence within the movement, encourage workers to take power in several countries and then internationally,....

I agree. We need to re-create the Fourth International. :D

[Honggweilo]

I agree. We need to re-create the Fourth International. :D

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=277

[The Deepest Red]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=277

Thank you for that wonderful contribution.

[Andropov]

Yes but you overlook the point that the rationale for such a tactical approach in supporting nationalist revolts - to advance capitalism and hence its gravedigger, the working class - long ago disappeared. Ireland is a fully capitalist country. If Marx were alive today he would almost certainly be saying the same thing - there is no further reason to support national liberation movements of any kind anywhere in today's global capitalist world. As I said he was already beginning to think along these lines by the 1870s
Link to where he re-states his position on National Liberation?
Because from my knowledge on Marx throughout the 1870s he continued giving support to the fenians in Ireland.
Bit odd that he had this alleged intellectual shift and yet he continued to support a National Liberation movement of its time?

In this case, I'm sorry but you can't be selective. You made the claim that in being nationalist you were merely reflecting the outlook of some sections of the working class and this is what justified your position. Well if that is the case then the same argument necessarily applies to the other views held by this constituency which you presume to represent - including their overwhelming support for capitalism
But to understand their Nationalist symapthies it must be understood in the context of Ireland.
As Marx himself realised there are two different forms of Nationalism, one of the oppressed working class and one of the working class in the oppressing state.
"The nationalism of the workers belonging to an oppressor nation binds them to their rulers and only does harm to themselves, while the nationalism of an oppressed nation can lead them to fight back against those rulers." - Karl Marx
In the context of Ireland this Nationalism is progressive becuase unlike yourself Marx was not a fantacist, he was genuinly interested in making real progressive gains for the Working Class not mounting a pedastel of purity.
Revolution does not occur in a vaccum hence why Marx realised it is necessary to harnass the progressive elements within the general working class.

Certainly, the reality is invariably more complex than any theory can allow for but you dont understand the point that is being made here. The theory is a necessary simplification of reality which serves to clarify and throw light on what needs to be done. Neither you nor Pogue, it would appear, seem to understand the importance of theoretical clarification or simplification. Far from impeding praxis, it facilitates it. Theory guides practice. If you dont have the theory sorted out first or take the utterly naive position that theory does not matter and all we have to do is immerse ourselves in the complexity of reality, you will simply turn yourself into a weathercock utterly vulnerable to every passing gust of wind that blows throw this capitalist reality. You will be completely overwhelmed and pretty soon thoroughly coopted by capitalism in your wilful desire to abandon the wider picture which you derogatively call "abstract theory"
I dont think either Pogue or PRC-UTE were stating that theory is not a requirement.
From my interpretation of their posts and of your posts I would hazard a guess that all your theory is completely devoid of any practice.
You can berate these posters for not having your purist Ivory Tower but in reality they actually bring their politics on the street, you may not see this politics as being 100% Purist but you see Marx didnt choose his allies as being 100% Purist Communists either. The very fact that he worked so much for the likes of the Fenians, which were very much working class in character and aspiration but devoid of little radical theory he still aided and abetted them. He recognised that if Marxists took your approach and mounted that mighty fine pedastel you have there that no real advances in the working class would be achieved as you even stated yourself you fell out with that obscure WSM? TBH your irrelevant to the class struggle, you were made for forums like these because you cannot translate your bastardised Marxism into the working class and even with what you perceive as Pogue and PRC-UTE's "weak politics" I have no doubt that they have contributed more to the class struggle than a mouthpiece devoid of any action.

[Andropov]

Talking of Ireland, there was a companion party of the WSM based in Belfast I believe (WSPI) whose offices were apparently reduced to rubble by both the British army AND the IRA!
:lol:
Yes because the Brits and the Provos saw your irrelevant tendency as a real threat to their dominancy?

[Red Dreadnought]

I highly doubt that the English and Prodestant working class would see a republican revolution as a good thing . It forces the English working class to divide from the Irish one along state lines . The republican armed struggle has 0 support in reality among any working class movements in Britain .

An organised revolution based on a united socialist working class mass movement, the only movement which is capable of cutting across the divide of sectarian politics is the only way forward in the north for sucessfully overthrowing the bourgeoise and uniting with the english working class .


Almost absolutelly agreement. Would you think in the same way in another things!!!

[Red Dreadnought]

:lol:
Yes because the Brits and the Provos saw your irrelevant tendency as a real threat to their dominancy?

Althoght little number of militants, internationalists positions, even if minoritarian are dangerous, both to "clasic" imperialism and stalinism.
For exemple, at Basc Country you could have real problems with ETA supporters, and there internationalist have extremly difficulties to make politics: Batasuna crew can menace you (for exemple, a group of anarchists were beaten for demanding abstention at polls). And, according to special laws against terrorism, every strike can be repressed more brutally.

Remember Zimmerwald, internationalist were a little minority.

[Red Dreadnought]

I agree. We need to re-create the Fourth International. :D

Weeell, but have you read next paragraph? Its about the political basis to build that International. And IV International was created over false basis and a voluntarist method, when cause the deep counter-revolution it was no possible to create one. "Italian left" around Bilan and Prometeo, intended to unite efforts with Trotsky to enforce Communist Left and combat stalinism, but Trotsky was no capable to accept a real debate, and founded the IV International in basis of personal thought, rejecting honest revolutionaries that had political differences.

Later, politics of IV International degenarated more and more...arriving to Pablo or Posadas, quasi-stalinists politics.

Nevertheless, we talk about a World's Communist Party, more than a mere International. This doesn't exist, there are proletarian groups or minorities, and construction of WCP doesn't can be "proclaimed".

[Red Dreadnought]

In fact, the first "IV International" was avant la lettre build by Gorter, Pannekoek and KAPD current at 20`s: the "Workers Communist International".

[Red Dreadnought]

Nevertheless, a very interesting discussion.

[Pogue]

Why is half of the discussion on this thread, especially the argument between robbo and PRC-UTE and Riite Boi, an argument over what marx actually said? Why does it matter what Marx said? How does cohering to what Marx said advance the struggle of the working class in Ireland?

Who cares what marx thought on national liberation. Why not just assess the conditions in Ireland and conclude what tactics/praxis would be best for building the power of the working class?

[Andropov]

Althoght little number of militants, internationalists positions, even if minoritarian are dangerous, both to "clasic" imperialism and stalinism.
For exemple, at Basc Country you could have real problems with ETA supporters, and there internationalist have extremly difficulties to make politics: Batasuna crew can menace you (for exemple, a group of anarchists were beaten for demanding abstention at polls). And, according to special laws against terrorism, every strike can be repressed more brutally.

Remember Zimmerwald, internationalist were a little minority.
Hahahahaha you actually think they were a threat in Ireland?
I actually think you believe it aswell, your grasp of reality is slipping fast.

[Red Dreadnought]

[QUOTE=Pogue;1617441]Why is half of the discussion on this thread, especially the argument between robbo and PRC-UTE and Riite Boi, an argument over what marx actually said? Why does it matter what Marx said? How does cohering to what Marx said advance the struggle of the working class in Ireland?

Who cares what marx thought on national liberation. Why not just assess the conditions in Ireland and conclude what tactics/praxis would be best for building the power of the working class?[/QUOTE

Completly agree. But here we have a problem, cause politics and positions of revolutionary thinkers have a "relative" weight; as they reasoned with a critical-dialectical-scientific method their conclusions are no mere anectdotes. But they can evidently have mistakes, depite their method, or even a possition correct at XIX cent, has no sense nowadays. And thats mistakes can be human limititions or even a reflex or certain prejudices of the dominant ideologics, that inavoidablelly could influence to all of us.

And I have no problem to admit that Marx defended "national liberation" of Poland or Ireland at that time. Was he right, or was he wrong? Well I'm not sure. But well even Einstein admited to be absolutely wrong in one question of cosmology (cosmological constant) and modified. But, nowadays scientist are thinking in retake that "cosmological constant", but evidentlly in a most upper form.

Cause items about methods need to be clarified, in order to avoid that form of "new religion" that created Stalinism.

[pastradamus]

While the last line there is undoubtedly correct, the rest is highly speculative and anti-Marxist.

Whilst I see your point. I fail to see how the Point Coggeh made is Anti-Marxist.


the practical implication is that the section of the working class hostile to imperialism shoudl wait for the rest of the workers to join them in revolution (that will somehow not offend their monarchist sympathies) over strictly economistic campaigns...of course you must also carefully avoid talk about more housing for nationalists, issues of state repression, policing, immigrants...

Well indeed is the programme of any Democratic Socialist Organisation. But that said, Most organisations of this type that I know of Openly stand in Support of Improved Low Income Housing, Cutting down on State Repression and Stand firmly In support of Immigrants and Immigrant rights.


I said both hoped the British working class would make a revolution. That's true. In Pearse's words, he hoped that the British workers would rise up and slaughter their masters as the French did in 1798. And that's a significant comment, because iirc, that was well after Connolly had given up on a European working class revolt.

But Pearse was a firm supporter of the Catholic Church (Maybe the most reactionary element in Irish History) and Used Nationalist slogans such as "blood sacrifice" to which Connolly described him as a "blithering Idiot". Pearse was a leader who appealed to those not in any form or shape a revolutionary Leftist. He appealed to Republican Nationalist Elements.


The Rising he led struck a huge blow to the British Empire and forced them to abandon plans to conscript Irishman...we might not be here if he hadn't been such an "ass".

Spot On.


He was active in all the social struggles of his day from education to strike actions. There's a reason he got on better with Connolly towards the end of his life than the bourgeois nationalist MacNeil. If the anti-socialist republicans hadn't turned him into a harmless type of mystic natioanlist there would likely be more appreciation for him. I think it's good to see that at least O'Donnell recognised that he had qualities similar to the Spanish anarchists re education.

Yes, there was many good things to say and admire about Pearse, but the end product Is not something I totally admired about him to be honest. Pearse was a Nationalist in the end and not a Socialist.






http://irsm.org/irsp/tirs.html

and if you want to know about the IWU ask Rite boi or email our dublin cumann.

On the Union Issue. We reserve the right to support any political candidate, based on his/her perspectives in view to the Improvement of the Working Conditions and we shall support any candidate who stands-by firmly with the Principles of what the IWU believe in. We support selected politicians on the basis of those persons -INDEPENDANTLY. We dont support Whole political parties. But Unofficially the CPI,SP,PBPA and IRSP are all seen as very welcome additions to our Union. :)

[Andropov]

Yes, there was many good things to say and admire about Pearse, but the end product Is not something I totally admired about him to be honest. Pearse was a Nationalist in the end and not a Socialist.
I actually was of the exact same opinion as yourself Pa on Pearse up until 2 weeks ago.
I was at a talk about Pearse and they were reading some of his writings with regaurds Socialism, the Working Class and the social context of Ireland at the time.
He was remarkably progressive when it came to Socialism, fully endorsing a common ownership of property and the means of production and also a really quite brilliant piece of writing absolutely ridiculing the Ruling Class and their treatment of the Irish Working Class.
Granted he was far from a Connolly but he was certainly more left of centre than the likes of Eirigi or other soft leftists and alot more left of centre than contemporary Ireland acknowledges.
Granted some of his poetry on war and the like was fairly disgusting but as they pointed out Pearse did write alot of different poems on alot of different subjects in alot of different styles.
If I had links for some of his writings I would give them to you but unfortunately I just heard all this at a talk.

[Coggeh]

Almost absolutelly agreement. Would you think in the same way in another things!!!
Whats that mean ? :mellow:

[PRC-UTE]

Why is half of the discussion on this thread, especially the argument between robbo and PRC-UTE and Riite Boi, an argument over what marx actually said? Why does it matter what Marx said? How does cohering to what Marx said advance the struggle of the working class in Ireland?

Who cares what marx thought on national liberation. Why not just assess the conditions in Ireland and conclude what tactics/praxis would be best for building the power of the working class?

I've made this point myself in the republican socialist group- that Marx may have been wrong, or conditions may have changed so as to make his opinion no longer valid. Yet the reason I have often brought that up is because are accused of being anti-socialist anti-working class nationalists by the likes of robo, and by mentioning Marx's analysis it shows how clearly deluded this accusation is. We republican socialists are following in Marx's tradition.

[RotStern]

A few were marxist.

[CamiloTorres]

I actually was of the exact same opinion as yourself Pa on Pearse up until 2 weeks ago.
I was at a talk about Pearse and they were reading some of his writings with regaurds Socialism, the Working Class and the social context of Ireland at the time.
He was remarkably progressive when it came to Socialism, fully endorsing a common ownership of property and the means of production and also a really quite brilliant piece of writing absolutely ridiculing the Ruling Class and their treatment of the Irish Working Class.
Granted he was far from a Connolly but he was certainly more left of centre than the likes of Eirigi or other soft leftists and alot more left of centre than contemporary Ireland acknowledges.
Granted some of his poetry on war and the like was fairly disgusting but as they pointed out Pearse did write alot of different poems on alot of different subjects in alot of different styles.
If I had links for some of his writings I would give them to you but unfortunately I just heard all this at a talk.

Great post cara, we also have to remember his radical theories on education.

[CamiloTorres]

I feel I must correct a few of the statements made against RSF in this thread. The party is not a reactionary one, but a progressive movement as illustrated by their policy documents and Ard Fheis motions. As for dismissing them for being "traditionalist," I don't know when sticking to ideals became a bad thing, but I do see what happens to every organisation that does so.

[Andropov]

I feel I must correct a few of the statements made against RSF in this thread. The party is not a reactionary one, but a progressive movement as illustrated by their policy documents and Ard Fheis motions.
Just like their Ard Fheis motions where they called for "Irish jobs for Irish people"?

As for dismissing them for being "traditionalist," I don't know when sticking to ideals became a bad thing, but I do see what happens to every organisation that does so.
Because they are not politically able enough to adapt their politics to the ever changing context of society thus making their politics irrelevant.
Lenins writings on this is quite good, worth a look.

[Woyzeck]

I feel I must correct a few of the statements made against RSF in this thread. The party is not a reactionary one, but a progressive movement as illustrated by their policy documents and Ard Fheis motions. As for dismissing them for being "traditionalist," I don't know when sticking to ideals became a bad thing, but I do see what happens to every organisation that does so.

But if one's "ideals" and tactics are rubbish why should one be praised for sticking to them? Traditionalist Republicanism has been an unmitigated failure throughout the 20th century. Instead of labeling people "traitors" and "sellouts" perhaps the likes of RSF and their ilk should look at why this brand of Republicanism is so easily "betrayed" and leads the movement straight into the arms of the establishment every time.