Just what is republican socialism? [Archive]

Madvillainy

17th March 2010, 00:10

Well, Irish republican 'socialists' seek to combine national liberation with socialism. I don't believe there is anything socialist about the various republican groups nor do I think national liberation is progressive or even possible. They like to talk about uniting catholic and protestant workers in Northern Ireland but the sectarian nature of these groups means they only pay lip service to working class unity.

Most of the working class see these groups as being filled with sectarian, criminal and all round thuggish behaviour, just an example the largest republican 'socialist' party in Ireland the IRSP, was frequently referred to here as 'I Rob Shops and Post-Offices and their criminal activities are well documented, especially in the south. I think it is very common for nationalist groups in general to degenerate into criminal gangs.

redarmy74

17th March 2010, 13:06

Well i think we know what newspapers you read.Its very obvious your intellect aint of the highest standard if you are one of those people easily brainwashed by anti republican socialist groupings like sf and the newspapers they and the brits run.
Its so easy to label someone as criminals and drug dealers and gangs etc, but to find proof of that is another thing.Name me one individual who was a member of the RSM involved,charged and convicted of such offences.Black propaganda is a powerful tool and sf were masters at it.
Believe it or not, the same group who called the RSM criminals and drug dealers etc were infact so deeply involved in all those criminal activities themselves they had the power to make people turn a blind eye while they threw the same accusations at RSM.
Dont believe everything you read.:confused:

Red Commissar

17th March 2010, 23:42

Is it just a socialist country with a republican government? What is Irish/Scottish Republicanism and how is it socialist?

Republican Socialism is just like you described it. It's a current from socialists who did not support the Marxist thought of a revolutionary socialist state.

As for the Irish Republican Socialism, it's an outgrowth of that. The specifics and such can be debated by other members, but the Republican movement in general was typically popular with national liberation groups, and socialism became a popular concept for Republican politicians who felt liberalism had run its course.

Republican Socialism is typically synonymous with Irish groups because they are the last major remnant of that movement. Back in the late 1800s it was a far more popular concept. I'd say the "Fabian Socialists" advocated for a form of Republican Socialism, and there were individuals like HG Wells who liked a technocratic socialist republic. I would say that even Victor Hugo probably advocated for a form of it.

Unfortunately it's hard to use the term "Republican" nowadays because most governments, even with their bourgeoisie trappings, are some form of a republic. That and it seems when many people hear "Republican", they tend to think of the US political party.

Hoggy_RS

19th March 2010, 15:23

{I'll ignore the ridiculous reply of madvillainy as it is absolute shite and this topic still has the chance to be productive}

Id imagine (Irish)republican socialism would be most compatible with many ideas of marxist-leninists on here(if that helps you understand it a bit more?).

Republican socialists believe that national liberation is an important step on the road to socialism, as it is necessary to free ourselves from the grips of imperialism if we also want to free ourselves from the capitalist system. We reject the ideas of the Irish trotskyites who incorrectly dismiss the idea of national liberation as being a stepping stone to socialism. We also oppose the trots in their attempts to 'unite' the working class of the occupied 6 counties, by simply pandering to unionists(as well as attempting to align themselves with reactionary loyalists such as the PUP) and claiming every action a republican takes is 'sectarian'. We believe that the working class cannot be united while the imperialists continue to divide people along religious lines(hence why national liberation is key). At the same time we vehemently oppose reactionary Irish nationalists, who wish to create a 32 country capitalist free state.

IRSP views on republican socialism(irsm.org contains many more documents):
http://irsm.org/irsp/tirs.html
http://irsm.org/history/leftrepublicanism.html

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 17:01

It sounds like an outdated concept that ignores how the internet allows for direct democracy.

Devrim

19th March 2010, 17:13

Name me one individual who was a member of the RSM involved,charged and convicted of such offences.

The fact that people are not convicted does not mean they didn't do it. If that were not the case why did the INLA feel it was neccesary to remove Declan Duffy from his position of O/C of the Dublin Brigade?

The INLA has stood down its entire Dublin brigade, including leader Declan ‘Wacko’ Duffy, following allegations of criminality and drug dealing.
In a two-page statement given to the Sunday Tribune, the INLA’s national leadership has responded to extensive allegations that it is involved in contract killings, extortion, tiger kidnappings and the drugs trade on both sides of the border.
The INLA denied that as an organisation it was involved in such activities and said no current or past member had ever been convicted of drugs’ offences whilst involved in the movement.

Possibly it was because the gangsterism, which had been continuing for years had gone to far for the INLA even.

Devrim

Hoggy_RS

19th March 2010, 17:18

Dermezel

19th March 2010, 17:26

Anyways, I think it is important to support a progressive regime that wants to separate for purely strategic reasons- it gives leftists one more base where they can conduct free operations.

At the same time, nationalism should be discouraged and a broad proletariat class consciousness encouraged. You make local/national bases for the ultimate goal of international political conquest.

redarmy74

20th March 2010, 15:40

The fact that people are not convicted does not mean they didn't do it. If that were not the case why did the INLA feel it was neccesary to remove Declan Duffy from his position of O/C of the Dublin Brigade?

Possibly it was because the gangsterism, which had been continuing for years had gone to far for the INLA even.

Devrim

Declan Duffy and his unit were stood down while under investigation.Their investigation concluded that Duffy had connections to the criminal world and was unsure to what extent he was connected to them. Because of this they expelled him because of the INLA's stance on this issue.
It was Declan Duffys personal connections, not the INLA's, hence why they expelled him.:rolleyes:

PRC-UTE

21st March 2010, 01:36

Is it just a socialist country with a republican government? What is Irish/Scottish Republicanism and how is it socialist?

It's a mix of various viewpoints that overlap to some extent on the issue of self-determination and the relationship of self-determination to building socialism. It's unique from traditional Irish republicans because we attracted a few Protestant socialists who didn't come from republican backgrounds, but saw the need for self-determination in building socialism. It would include M-Lists, a few Trots, Connollyists, and lots of republicans who aren't completely clear about their ideas on socialism, but do favour an equal and democratic society.

To understand republican socialists it's necessary to understand that we're a product of a specific period of time and struggle, rather than being a sect with a lot of ideas on paper, who then set out to become involved in struggles. As one writer described it, the IRSP was very close to the international spirit of revolt that existed in the 60s and 70s.

We're often read and slandered as nationalists by the rest of the left, but republicanism is not classical or ethnic nationalism. Republican socialists critcise Ireland's division into two ethnic states as inherently undemocratic and a setup that prolongs and gives life to sectarian bigotry. It's more analogous to Tito's project of uniting people of different traditions, languages and cultures into one unified society based on self determination/independence and socialism.

We also share a lot in common with Cuba, if that helps you understand us better, specifically their revolution's goals of national independence and socialism as forces that cannot be seperated. It's not a coincidence that republicans and Cuba have strong ties and admiration for each other.

Weezer

21st March 2010, 01:47

Socialists who don't see the big picture. They focus liberating 5500 square miles of land, rather that every square mile on Earth.

PRC-UTE

21st March 2010, 02:07

Declan Duffy and his unit were stood down while under investigation.Their investigation concluded that Duffy had connections to the criminal world and was unsure to what extent he was connected to them. Because of this they expelled him because of the INLA's stance on this issue.
It was Declan Duffys personal connections, not the INLA's, hence why they expelled him.:rolleyes:

Don't let them wind you up. They'll seize on any example of failure or criminality to tar everyone with the same brush. The fact is, as I'm sure you know, the self serving criminal elements were a small minority within the RSM. (I don't count people who may have expropriated from banks or the state to fund their struggle...and I don't understand the posters above condemning revolutionaries for expropriating from the expropriaters)

The INLA didn't sit back and let criminals do whatever they wanted. Several times in our history they were purged for this behaviour. This isn't really that shocking- all armed bodies are suspectible to criminal elements infiltrating them. All of them, no matter how revolutionary or perfect they seem. The point is that armies are responsible for dealing with them.

I don't know why exactly the Left has bought into this lie first started by the Provos that the irps were criminals, or prone to the most fueds. Most irps I've known don't own much of anything, and the OIRA and PIRA killed far more in their fueds than the irps.

PRC-UTE

21st March 2010, 02:10

Socialists who don't see the big picture. They focus liberating 5500 square miles of land, rather that every square mile on Earth.

So then...why was the IRSM allied with the Angry Brigades in Britain, the Red Army Faction, the PLO, Cuba, Action Direct, why did it carry on friendly relations with leftist parties all over the world from the American SWP to the SSP, AAPRP and WWP today?

Palingenisis

21st March 2010, 02:15

Socialists who don't see the big picture. They focus liberating 5500 square miles of land, rather that every square mile on Earth.

That comment is just plain silly to put it nicely.

Every socialist has to start with the immediate tasks infront of them. Living in Ireland its a bit hard to engage in struggle in Japan.

Palingenisis

21st March 2010, 02:48

It would include M-Lists, a few Trots, Connollyists, and lots of republicans who aren't completely clear about their ideas on socialism, but do favour an equal and democratic society.

What do you mean by Connollyists? Wouldnt all Republican Socialists accept his understanding of Irish history and the national question there?

Would the "Workers' Power" Trot group count as Republican Socialists? Do you have any views on the Official Republican Movement?

PRC-UTE

21st March 2010, 03:22

What do you mean by Connollyists? Wouldnt all Republican Socialists accept his understanding of Irish history and the national question there?

Yes, they'd all agree with his analysis on national liberation and socialism being tied together, but there's other questions of methodology that many would not see eye to eye with Connolly on. Since a lot has happened since Connolly's life, there are more effective models to look at for a revolutionary movement. Seamus Costello saw the IRSP as in Connolly's tradition, but their approach to activism would emphasise the party more than Connolly did, to name one example.

What I meant by Connollyist was very broad- those who had come to socialist politics originally by reading Connolly (like me) rather than those who'd come from a different school of socialist thought before arriving at Connolly's conclusions. Many I know are familiar with Connolly's writing but not so much with other socialist thinkers.

Would the "Workers' Power" Trot group count as Republican Socialists? Do you have any views on the Official Republican Movement?

Yes. And the Trotksyist group called Socialist Democracy.

And I'll have to wait on a reply till I've got round to reading that new book on the Officials, The Lost Revolution.

Palingenisis

21st March 2010, 03:28

And I'll have to wait on a reply till I've got round to reading that new book on the Officials, The Lost Revolution.

No sorry I should have been more clear...By the Official Republican Movement I meant the group that broke from the Workers Party in I think the mid-90s in the occupied six counties who seem to have gone back to Republican Socialism and are opposed to the Good Friday Agreement/St Andrews' Agreement, support political status for Continuity and Real IRA Volunteers, etc.

PRC-UTE

21st March 2010, 03:32

No sorry I should have been more clear...By the Official Republican Movement I meant the group that broke from the Workers Party in I think the mid-90s in the occupied six counties who seem to have gone back to Republican Socialism and are opposed to the Good Friday Agreement/St Andrews' Agreement, support political status for Continuity and Real IRA Volunteers, etc.

O right the Super Sticks. Dont' know much about them. I've just heard rumours.

Palingenisis

21st March 2010, 03:39

O right the Super Sticks. Dont' know much about them. I've just heard rumours.

Why super sticks?

They seem to have moved very much away from the Workers Party as it became in the 1980s.

PRC-UTE

21st March 2010, 05:48

Why super sticks?

They seem to have moved very much away from the Workers Party as it became in the 1980s.

I don't know why they're called that, just the label I first heard for the ORM from Belfast Irps

Philosophical Materialist

21st March 2010, 12:42

Socialists who don't see the big picture. They focus liberating 5500 square miles of land, rather that every square mile on Earth.

You're going to have to explain that. What's wrong with struggling to remove a foreign occupation by an imperialist power? The Vietnamese did the same, did they not see the "big picture" also?

Devrim

21st March 2010, 12:49

So then...why was the IRSM allied with the Angry Brigades in Britain, the Red Army Faction, the PLO, Cuba, Action Direct, why did it carry on friendly relations with leftist parties all over the world from the American SWP to the SSP, AAPRP and WWP today?

It wasn't. You are making this up.

Devrim

Devrim

21st March 2010, 12:53

Palingenisis

21st March 2010, 13:52

It wasn't. You are making this up.

Devrim

The Angry Brigades had connections with the Official Irish Republican Army...The Irish National Liberation Army was the part of that organization that spilt off rather than abandon the struggle to the provies, though they waited three years to do by which time it was basically to late. Hence the mess Ireland is in now. So he isnt that far off.

Palingenisis

21st March 2010, 13:55

Right, so what you are saying is that Declan Duffy was engaging in gangsterism in a personal capacity, not on behalf of the INLA. That is alright then. Obviously you have no connection at all to gangsterism despite the fact that the O/C of your biggest brigade was discovered to be a gangster.

Also when they started their investigation everybody else in Dublin knew that Duffy and the INLA had been involved in this stuff for years.

Devrim

How many of your "current's" militants have starved themselves to death rather than give in and wear the uniform of a criminal? Respect where respect is due.

Devrim

21st March 2010, 14:30

The Angry Brigades had connections with the Official Irish Republican Army...The Irish National Liberation Army was the part of that organization that spilt off rather than abandon the struggle to the provies, though they waited three years to do by which time it was basically to late. Hence the mess Ireland is in now. So he isnt that far off.

The Angry Brigade were imprisoned and all wound up before the IRSP and INLA were formed. He was making it up. They Angry Brigade didn't even exist at the same time as the IRSP.

Devrim

Devrim

21st March 2010, 14:32

How many of your "current's" militants have starved themselves to death rather than give in and wear the uniform of a criminal? Respect where respect is due.

Absolutely none, but I don't see what I am supposed to respect about a couple of INLA men doing it.

Devrim

Palingenisis

21st March 2010, 14:34

The Angry Brigade were imprisoned and all wound up before the IRSP and INLA were formed. He was making it up. They Angry Brigade didn't even exist at the same time as the IRSP.

Devrim

You didnt read my post obviously. I know the IRSP and the INLA didnt exist at that time but the Official IRA did.

The IRSP/INLA are the Officials who didnt sell out.

So in essence he is correct.

Palingenisis

21st March 2010, 14:38

Absolutely none, but I don't see what I am supposed to respect about a couple of INLA men doing it.

Devrim

You dont understand why you should respect men who where prepared to lay down their own lives for their comrades in the cages? What more needs to be said?

Devrim

21st March 2010, 14:49

So in essence he is correct.
No in fact he is wrong, totally. What he claimed wasn't at all true.
Devrim

Devrim

21st March 2010, 14:53

You dont understand why you should respect men who where prepared to lay down their own lives for their comrades in the cages? What more needs to be said?

No, I don't. I don't see why personal bravery in the cause of such reactionary anti-working class organizations deserves my respect. Would you respect a Britsh squady who laid down his life for his comrades on the streets of Belfast?No, neither would I.
Devrim

Palingenisis

21st March 2010, 14:54

No in fact he is wrong, totally. What he claimed wasn't at all true.
Devrim

Wait...Are you saying that the INLA both in terms of membership and politics wasnt the in essence unchanged Official Irish Republican Army? :blink:

Devrim

21st March 2010, 14:58

Wait...Are you saying that the INLA both in terms of membership and politics wasnt the in essence unchanged Official Irish Republican Army? :blink:

I am saying that his statement was factually untrue. It was.

Devrim

Palingenisis

21st March 2010, 15:03

No, I don't. I don't see why personal bravery in the cause of such reactionary anti-working class organizations deserves my respect. Would you respect a Britsh squady who laid down his life for his comrades on the streets of Belfast?No, neither would I.
Devrim

Uh...So even the fact that he laid down his life to improve the brutal conditions his comrades were held in (which included regular doses of torture) because he wasnt mr idealogicaly perfect he is the same as some lumpen scumbag who signs up to kill people in another people's country for a relatively nice pay cheque in your eyes? We are talking about the INLA here not the Provies...Anti-working class? The IRSP supports all workers in their struggles whether they are legal or illegal, black or white, protestant or catholic. Or did that change recently?

Devrim

21st March 2010, 17:51

Uh...So even the fact that he laid down his life to improve the brutal conditions his comrades were held in (which included regular doses of torture) because he wasnt mr idealogicaly perfect he is the same as some lumpen scumbag who signs up to kill people in another people's country for a relatively nice pay cheque in your eyes? We are talking about the INLA here not the Provies...Anti-working class? The IRSP supports all workers in their struggles whether they are legal or illegal, black or white, protestant or catholic. Or did that change recently?
The INLA despite having some left-wing rhetoric is a anti-working class, sectarian Nationalist gang. It has been involved in outright gangsterism in Dublin, bombing pubs, blatant sectarian murders such as the Mountain Lodge killings, murders in it's own political fueding and other gangsterism such as kidnapping a dentist cutting off his fingers and sending them to his family in the post. They have no more to do with socialism than the Provos did, or even the UDA or the British army.

Devrim

RadioRaheem84

21st March 2010, 19:02

So it is a specific ideology outside of the Irish struggle?

Palingenisis

21st March 2010, 19:11

The INLA despite having some left-wing rhetoric is a anti-working class, sectarian Nationalist gang. It has been involved in outright gangsterism in Dublin, bombing pubs, blatant sectarian murders such as the Mountain Lodge killings, murders in it's own political fueding and other gangsterism such as kidnapping a dentist cutting off his fingers and sending them to his family in the post. They have no more to do with socialism than the Provos did, or even the UDA or the British army.

Devrim

Id have a lot of criticisms of the IRSM but where to be begin with what you have posted up there...Someone might think you are trying out for a job with Combat or the Daily Mail...If you would bother to read what they say you would see that they dont think consider the any of the capitalist or middle classes in Ireland "progressive" and that they their loyality is exclusively to the working class. Also they are clear that they arent fighting for national liberation and than socialism but see that both have to go together. They are for the destruction of both the Free State and the Orange statelet in order to set up some type of dictatorship of the proletariat (here they start to get unclear about exactly what they are after) across the whole of the country. They have done solidarity work with so-called "illegal immigrants". Their social composition is basically blue collar workers. To make out that they are some type of middle class nationalist rulers in waiting using the odd left wing phrase to play to the masses is either a result of ignorance or is being the deliberate misinformer..

Oh yeah and the lads who carried out that kidnapping were not members of the INLA at that time....But never miss the chance for a sensationalistic smear...Do you work for a tabloid?

Palingenisis

21st March 2010, 19:14

So it is a specific ideology outside of the Irish struggle?

It's Marxism applied to places like Ireland, the Basque country, Corisica, Cornwall, Scotland and Brittany.

Palingenisis

21st March 2010, 19:17

Most of the working class see these groups as being filled with sectarian, criminal and all round thuggish behaviour, just an example the largest republican 'socialist' party in Ireland the IRSP, was frequently referred to here as 'I Rob Shops and Post-Offices and their criminal activities are well documented, especially in the south. I think it is very common for nationalist groups in general to degenerate into criminal gangs.

Have any connection to the oh-so-brave revolutionaries of the Workers Solidarity Movement who wouldnt demonstrate against a baltant and ugly display of British Army triumphalism cause to do so would be "sectarian" (read fenian)?

Zeus the Moose

21st March 2010, 20:24

I don't know why they're called that, just the label I first heard for the ORM from Belfast Irps

My understanding is that referring to the ORM/Workers Part as "Sticks" was in reference to the different types of lily decals that the OIRA/Workers Party and the PIRA/Sinn Fein handed out in the 1970s to commemorate the Easter Rising. The Workers Party ones were more like stickers, whereas the Sinn Fein ones were pins. Apparently this led to the Sinn Fein being called "Pinheads" for a little while, but it didn't catch on nearly as much as "Sticks."

From Wikipedia on the OIRA:

The Officials were known as the "Stickies" because they sold stick-on lilies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_lily) to commemorate the Easter Rising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Rising); the Provisionals, by contrast, were known as "pinnies" (pejoratively "pinheads") because they produced pinned-on lilies. The term Stickies stuck, though pinnies (and pinheads) disappeared, in favour of the nickname "Provos" and for a time, "Provies". The paper-and-pin Easter Lily of the IRA was the traditional commemorative badge of the Easter Rising [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Irish_Republican_Army#cite_note-9), whereas the self-adhesive Easter Lily of the Officials was a novel invention, symbolic of the divergence of opinion between them.

As for republican socialism in general, I'd argue that all Marxist socialism is by definition "republican," at least from the perspective that Marxists should be on the front lines in fights against the power and existence of monarchies. The pre-WWI Social Democratic Party of Germany, for example, argued for the abolition of the Prussian/German monarchy, and drew up demands, such as the replacement of the standing army with a militia and direct legislation by the people, which would have directly attacked the power of the monarchy and Junker aristocracy.

In this way, I'd consider republican socialism to be relevant wherever monarchy still exists today (like the UK and several other Western European countries), as it seems like there are few groups that give much space to a solid critique on the undemocratic powers that the monarchy (or through them, prime ministers) actually has. Even in the US, with its institutions like the presidential veto and the need for a supermajority in the Senate to be able to effectively pass legislation (not to mention the undemocratic nature of the Senate itself), republican agitation seems to have its place along with economic. That said, though, it'd have to be done using different terms in the US than elsewhere, as "republican" unfortunately means something completely different (as has been point out earlier on this thread.)

Hoggy_RS

21st March 2010, 21:25

Palingenisis

21st March 2010, 21:35

The mountain lodge killing was carried out by the Catholic Reaction Force. Though it has been claimed that the killers were INLA members or associates, this killing cannot be blamed on the INLA as it was never sanctioned by the leadership.
.

Ah thats what he was on about! I think one INLA volunteer was involved in it along with two others who had both seen family members killed by the Loyalist death squads however didnt the chief of staff at the time risked coming out of hiding at the time especially to condemn it and wasnt the volunteer involved in it later "dealt with" so to speak? Anyway it call it an INLA action means this guy is either ignorant or deliberately misrepresenting you guys.

Plus if he knew what he was talking about he would know that the leaders of the INLA in its heyday in the 1970s in occupied six counties were both protestant.

Palingenisis

21st March 2010, 21:43

The INLA retaliated to attempts by the OIRA to murder its members. The INLA are not cowardly pacifists, like many leftists, and have defended themselves.
.

He is probably refering to the whole IPLO episode.

It is a sad but true fact that after Seamus Costello, Miriam Daly, Ronnie Bunting and Noel Lyttle were all killed off by pro-British forces in Ireland due to their loss and the sucesses of the Provies "undermine and absorb" policy against INLA/IRSP your movement did suffer a degeneration which led to those unfit for a revolutionary army being allowed in. When these unsavourary elements were expelled they formed the so called Irish People's Liberation Organization and started trying to kill as many of your Volunteers and activists as possible. These scumbags were later completely put out of business by the Provies but at the time they did a lot of damage to your movement.

Devrim

21st March 2010, 23:46

Oh yeah and the lads who carried out that kidnapping were not members of the INLA at that time....But never miss the chance for a sensationalistic smear...Do you work for a tabloid?

Yeah, this is true. I believe that O'Hare had left in disgust at the internal feuding to set up his own gang. It did get pretty bad after all. People were murdering 9-year old girls because they were related to their 'political' opponents. True, the INLA did disassociate itself from the action. It is hardly surprising when O'Hare was ringing the Gardaí and saying that " It's just cost John two of his fingers. Now I'm going to chop him into bits and pieces and send fresh lumps of him every fucking day if I don't get my money fast". No of this caused them any problems when he rejoined though.

The mountain lodge killing was carried out by the Catholic Reaction Force. Though it has been claimed that the killers were INLA members or associates, this killing cannot be blamed on the INLA as it was never sanctioned by the leadership.

Ah thats what he was on about! I think one INLA volunteer was involved in it along with two others who had both seen family members killed by the Loyalist death squads however didnt the chief of staff at the time risked coming out of hiding at the time especially to condemn it and wasnt the volunteer involved in it later "dealt with" so to speak? Anyway it call it an INLA action means this guy is either ignorant or deliberately misrepresenting you guys.

So what actually happened was an INLA member went out and committed a vicious sectarian murder with the INLA's weapons, and the INLA bears no responsibility for this as it 'was sanctioned by the the leadership'.

That is OK then. I am sure it made the families of the bereaved feel much better, and meant that this murder didn't in any way contribute to the heightening sectarian tensions in Northern Ireland.

It now seems so obvious to me that an organisation whose members commit sectarian murders using its weapons is in no way sectarian because it 'was never sanctioned by the the leadership'.

Do you really expect people to believe this?

If any of the above sounds to people like it has more in common with the Mafia than any sort of socialist organisation, that is because it has.

Devrim

PRC-UTE

22nd March 2010, 00:23

So what actually happened was an INLA member went out and committed a vicious sectarian murder with the INLA's weapons, and the INLA bears no responsibility for this as it 'was sanctioned by the the leadership'.

It now seems so obvious to me that an organisation whose members commit sectarian murders using its weapons is in no way sectarian because it 'was never sanctioned by the the leadership'.

Do you really expect people to believe this?

No, the attack 'was never sanctioned by the leadership.' What're you playing at here? There was not a sectarian pattern in the INLA's war.

I don't think anyone believes that Dominic McGlinchey ordered the attack on Darkley Hall. It's well accepted by writers who are hostile to the IRSM and their political goals that a man whose brother had been murdered by loyalists and was himself their next target got the weapons on loan for the purpose of defending himself, and then went off and shocked everyone including the IRSM leadership by shooting up that chapel.

You can say the INLA is sectarian all you want, but it was at times led by a Protesant and had several Protestant Vols and party members. The Darkley Hall massacre was very much an abberation.

If any of the above sounds to people like it has more in common with the Mafia than any sort of socialist organisation, that is because it has.

Devrim

That would have more effect if like you didn't say that about every revolution. Every revolutionary movement I've seen you comment on has been either been secretly 'capitalist' in nature or led by 'gangsters'.

PRC-UTE

22nd March 2010, 00:26

The Angry Brigade were imprisoned and all wound up before the IRSP and INLA were formed. He was making it up. They Angry Brigade didn't even exist at the same time as the IRSP.

Devrim

Devrim, I don't make things up.

A group called the Angry Brigade's reformed after the original. They released a statement or two and mentioned the IRSM in it. http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/AngryBrigade/Brig_Angry_Again.html

No pasarÃ¡n

22nd March 2010, 00:29

I think Devrim has to admit that he is losing this one, I'd like to see some of his sources too.

Devrim

22nd March 2010, 00:35

Devrim, I don't make things up.

A group called the Angry Brigade's reformed after the original. They released a statement or two and mentioned the IRSM in it. http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/AngryBrigade/Brig_Angry_Again.html

So what you are saying is that you were linked to something refering to itself as 'Angry Brigade II', which nobody has ever heard of.

Devrim

Devrim

22nd March 2010, 00:36

I think Devrim has to admit that he is losing this one, I'd like to see some of his sources too.

What would you like sourced?

Devrim

No pasarÃ¡n

22nd March 2010, 00:40

The INLA despite having some left-wing rhetoric is a anti-working class, sectarian Nationalist gang.

Well where did you pull that one from?

Palingenisis

22nd March 2010, 00:46

"When I say we supported their [Irish] struggle, and continue to do so, without any reservation, I draw a contrast with those who gave it “critical support”. To wage an armed struggle is not a simple matter. There are problems which arise and mistakes which are made. But to carry forward this patriotic struggle has great significance. The British have historically divided many countries. Yet, they made a lot of noise for the re-unification of East and West Germany and shed a lot of crocodile tears. But what about Ireland, which is still divided? The Irish people, by carrying on their struggle, are not recognising this division which is being imposed by imperialism… those who criticise the patriotic movement or the armed struggle from various angles are making a very serious mistake. In my opinion, if you want to criticise them, join them. It is by joining them you can correct them, not by sitting on the sidelines."

Professor Hardial Bains.

Devrim

22nd March 2010, 07:18

Well where did you pull that one from?

That is an opinion, not a fact. Either the evidence convinces you of it, or it doesn't.

Devrim

Devrim

22nd March 2010, 07:40

No, the attack 'was never sanctioned by the leadership.' What're you playing at here?

I don't think it makes any difference at all if the attack was or was not sanctioned by the INLA leadership. That is not the point I am making. Do you really think that the IRSP denying that they had sanctioned the attack did anything to reduce sectarian tension at the time? It was an attack preformed by an INLA member with INLA weapons. It really is an absolutely absurd idea that saying it was not sanctioned absolves the INLA of responsibility for the act. Nor does it stop acts like these from increasing sectarian tension. Nor does it make anybody any less dead.

In these sort of groups there are always attacks that are 'not sanctioned'. It is a consequence of their mode of operation. However, in the real world saying that something wasn't sanctioned doesn't take away your responsibility. Do you think it is OK if your members go out and commit sectarian murders in their time off?

There was not a sectarian pattern in the INLA's war

Again I don't think this is the point. There was a sectarian pattern in the Republican war in Northern Ireland. The INLA played its role in this. I mean it is not as if they were so anti-sectarian that their members didn't go as far as not committing sectarian murders on their days off.

You can say the INLA is sectarian all you want, but it was at times led by a Protesant and had several Protestant Vols and party members. The Darkley Hall massacre was very much an abberation.

However noble the intentions of people may be, it doesn't mean that things turn out as they want them to. Whatever high ideals their leaders have successful armed groups nearly always end up in gangsterism. It is about their mode of operations. Having a protestant member doesn't make you non-sectarian.

Devrim

Devrim

22nd March 2010, 07:47

If any of the above sounds to people like it has more in common with the Mafia than any sort of socialist organisation, that is because it has.
That would have more effect if like you didn't say that about every revolution. Every revolutionary movement I've seen you comment on has been either been secretly 'capitalist' in nature or led by 'gangsters'.

I suppose that depends how you define a revolutionary movement. I don't believe that their are any revolutions happening at the moment. Nor are there any 'revolutionary movements'.

Revolutionary movements are made by classes, not by armed groups acting in their name. At the moment, nowhere in the world is experiencing a revolutionary situation. There are revolutionary political groups, but nowhere is there a class revolutionary movement.

If on the other hand you can see socialism in Nepalese Maoists or Cavistas running capitalist states. Yes, you are right. I denounce them. All communists should.

Devrim

redarmy74

22nd March 2010, 12:12

Devrim

23rd March 2010, 06:07

Its plainly obvious devrim that your opinions on the IRSP and INLA are one that is grown out of years of the black propaganda of the brits, the provo's and the tabloids. Nothing you have said is of a factual nature, rather an opinion based on what you've heard or read.

Actually they are not. My opinions on the IRSP and INLA mostly come from living on the Bogside during the 1970s, and frequent contact with people who still live there. The reason that such diverse voices have the same opinion about the INLA is because they really are a bunch of gangsters.

As was mentioned already, Darkley wasn't sanctioned by the INLA, rather it was an emotionally high and deeply troubled individual who lost family to loyalist attacks and feared attack himself, and so acted in a blind wreckless way.
And you don't think that this is the responsibility of the INLA at all? Where did he get the guns from, the Post Office? The INLA became a part of sectarian violence, however, high-minded its principles.

The INLA's policy on anti sectarianism and criminality is solid and was not tolerated but,
How long did Duffy and the Dublin 'Brigade' go on like that?

Every army throughout the world has these problems so dont pass off the INLA as some sort of monopoly on this problem.
I'd agree here. It is not purely an INLA problem. It happens to all 'succesful' armed political groups. They have a tendency to develop into gangs.

Anti working class???? Where on earth do you get that from?
The INLA plays its role in dividing the working class and increasing the cycle of sectarianism and fear alongside other armed groups.

The INLA was called upon by the people when asked, and only when asked, other than that of defense of its own members from attack from the brits and our very own ministers in stormont. The announcement in Oct last year of a renouncement of violence was in fact a call by the working class and their final decommissioning was in 'fact' a call from the working class.

This is just nonsense. There is no united working class voice in Northern Ireland to make such a call. It is true though that working class people were sick of paramilitaries and gangsterism.

Devrim

Hoggy_RS

23rd March 2010, 11:41

redarmy74

23rd March 2010, 12:34

Actually they are not. My opinions on the IRSP and INLA mostly come from living on the Bogside during the 1970s, and frequent contact with people who still live there. The reason that such diverse voices have the same opinion about the INLA is because they really are a bunch of gangsters.

And you don't think that this is the responsibility of the INLA at all? Where did he get the guns from, the Post Office? The INLA became a part of sectarian violence, however, high-minded its principles.

How long did Duffy and the Dublin 'Brigade' go on like that?

I'd agree here. It is not purely an INLA problem. It happens to all 'succesful' armed political groups. They have a tendency to develop into gangs.

The INLA plays its role in dividing the working class and increasing the cycle of sectarianism and fear alongside other armed groups.

This is just nonsense. There is no united working class voice in Northern Ireland to make such a call. It is true though that working class people were sick of paramilitaries and gangsterism.

Devrim

You lived in the Bogside in the 70's.Well i've lived there from the 80's till present and you are talking the most nonsense and bunch of lies i've ever heard.There is a massive following of the RSM in the bogside.You only have to look at their annual hunger stirke commemorations.And their support is evident in the murals throughout the bogside.After that fabricated lie im reluctant to take anything you say as true.
I grew up in Meenan sq and now live in Limewood st with my wife.Funny how very sf you sound.You may get one opinion from one member of the community and use it to express the views of the whole community. Take it from me bud, the support is massive in the bog, and pretty big in Creggan, actually overall they have great support.

Palingenisis

23rd March 2010, 13:01

Despite being on ceasefire for over a decade and now having decommissioned? The INLA made a concious decision to step down in order to help the uniting of the working class, as the IRSM could see armed struggle was no longer a viable tactic. The IRSM does more to unite the working class than any left communist group or anarchist group does. All the ultra left do is criticise from afar.

Organized Anarchism in Ireland tends to be rabidly anti-Republican and even things especially Irish in general (the language, GAA, traditional music..I guess they believe the vomit of the Anglo-American cultural industry is more "civilized"?) while threading very softly on any issue to do with British Imperialism because they want to appear "non-sectarian". There is though a tendency among Republicans to seperate thought and action which fails to understand that they inform and deepen each other. Just doing stuff for the sake of doing stuff rather than to achieve certain results and if you dont manage to achieve them trying to understand why so in the future you are able to is the curse of a lot of the left. However Devrim's "criticism" doesnt seem aimed at all at winning IRSP supporters over to his organization's positions or bringing the IRSM as whole closer to them, indeed on the contarary they seem deliberately designed to alienate you all. Nor does he offer the rest of us any real insights into the nature of the percieved faults of your organization and how they arose and why...Instead what we here is a barrage of phrases that could be straight out of any capitalist tabloid. You use the term "ultra-left" but I dont see anything left here no mind "ultra" so. Its as if he was talking to fascists or something as opposed to fellow socialists.

No pasarÃ¡n

23rd March 2010, 13:04

Palingenisis

23rd March 2010, 13:06

That said there are anarchists and there are anarchists. A lot of people who call themselves anarchist are decent working class kids.

No pasarÃ¡n

23rd March 2010, 13:11

Organized Anarchism in Ireland tends to be rabidly anti-Republican and even things especially Irish in general (the language, GAA, traditional music..I guess they believe the vomit of the Anglo-American cultural industry is more "civilized"?) while threading very softly on any issue to do with British Imperialism because they want to appear "non-sectarian".

I have experinced that, but the majority of Irish Anarchists I know are actually pro-republican, if not the induvidual parties and armed groups. And most of us 'dropped behind enemy lines' so to speak are definately pro republican.

Groups such as AFA (which of course wasn't an anarchist group, but a united front of left anti-fascist groups, but it did contain a lot of anarchists) stewarded the troops out of northern ireland marches.

Maybe I'm a hypocrite as an anarchist, but I belive ireland should be a free state (er but I'm not a free stater... I still belive the treaty was wrong), with no part ruled by the british goverment.

Palingenisis

23rd March 2010, 13:20

I have experinced that, but the majority of Irish Anarchists I know are actually pro-republican, if not the induvidual parties and armed groups. And most of us 'dropped behind enemy lines' so to speak are definately pro republican.

Groups such as AFA (which of course wasn't an anarchist group, but a united front of left anti-fascist groups, but it did contain a lot of anarchists) stewarded the troops out of northern ireland marches.
.

There are lots of problemns with the individual parties and armed groups.

Wasnt AFA very much tied up with an organization called Red Action which shock horror :blink:were actually "left communist" but also very supportive of the national liberation struggle if too uncritical of the Provisional movement?

redarmy74

23rd March 2010, 13:27

The IRSP has been attacked not only from the brits since its birth but from the OIRA and the provisional IRA and sinn fein. The IRSP proved so politically advanced to sinn fein at that time as they had no political objective, that they used physical and verball attacks on the movement.
This has carried on even to this day.In Liam Clarkes book 'martin mc guinness, from guns to government' he interviews a series of people and they say martin 'hated' the erps (IRSP). Always has and always will. Even his close associate and former hunger striker raymond mc cartney attacked Patsy O'Hara in the Brandywell with a snooker ball in a sock and left Patsy in hospital.This is how the provisionals viewed the IRSP's ideal on the broad front, by attacking them. But little did the provo's realise that the more they attacked the IRSP the more they were determined to stay.And here we are still to this day, stronger.

No pasarÃ¡n

23rd March 2010, 13:58

There are lots of problemns with the individual parties and armed groups.

Wasnt AFA very much tied up with an organization called Red Action which shock horror :blink:were actually "left communist" but also very supportive of the national liberation struggle if too uncritical of the Provisional movement?

AFA was very tied up with Red Action (more socialist than out and out communist) and the the more centre (but still socialist) IWCA (Independent Working Class Association). IWCA has now pretty much absorbed Red Action. But AFA also involved members of Class War and other anarchist groups. Most of whom like Red Action are pro republicanisim. AntiFa, which is a direct descendent of AFA, if much more anarchist leaning organisation is largely unapogeticaly republican. The Irish AFA also has republican links.

Palingenisis

23rd March 2010, 22:51

That is an opinion, not a fact. Either the evidence convinces you of it, or it doesn't.

Devrim

Giving you the benefit of the doubt do you realise that the IRSP was the first party to call for abortion rights and gay liberation publically in Ireland and how radical that was at time? Those are not the actions of reactionary Catholic Nationalists. When they formed they had (and you could say its still true) a pretty confused idea of just what sort of socialism they wanted to see but they were in the vast, vast majiority working class men, women and kids who wanted to see capitalism ended and wanted to fight for their class alone. Seamus Costello said again and again that his alligience was the working class. The Paris Commune which Marx saw as the first example of the dictatorship of the proletariat was set up by radical jacobins and Proudonists...Who werent exactly idealogically 100 per cent pure either, does that mean you are going to also dismiss the struggle and sacrafice of the Communards?

Devrim

24th March 2010, 09:53

Its funny how so much of what you say is recycled lies from the British propaganda machine and tabloid rumours. But i'm sure your sources are not biased at all....

I am not at all sure what you are referring to here. Are we refering to my opinion that the INLA are anti-working class gangsters, or are we referring to the facts.

If it is my opinion, I don't think that the 'British propoganda machine' argues that the INLA are anti-working class very often. Yes, I do do agreee with them that they are gangsters, but then we probably agree on lots of basic facts, such as Monday coming after Sunday for example. This opinion comes from so many different sources, not because they are parroting British propaganda, but because it is true.

If it is the facts, please tell me which one that I have mentioned in this thread that you disagree with;

*THE INLA stood down Declan Duffy and the entire Dublin brigade, the biggest in its organisation because of involvement in gangsterism.
*This involvement in gangsterism had been continuing for a considerable length of time before this.
*The INLA bombed a disco, the Droppin' Well in County Derry killing 6 civilians
*An INLA member committed the Mountain Lodge murders, an absolutely sectarian murder of three people sitting in church, using INLA weapons.
*The INLA killed various people in its own internal political feuding.
*One of the people shot in this feudin was a nine year olf girl, who was shot at close range purely for being somebodies sister.
*An ex-an soon to be readmitted member of the INLA kidnapped a Dublin dentist, cut off two of his fingers and sent to to his family in the post.

Which are you claiming is untrue?

The IRSM does more to unite the working class than any left communist group or anarchist group does.

This is your opinion not a fact. In my opinion republican groups do nothing to unite the working class and play a role in dividing it. If anarchists did nothing they would do less to divide the working class than republicans.

There are no left communist groups in Ireland.

All the ultra left do is criticise from afar.

Well I obviously criticse the INLA from afar. I live in another continent. That is pretty far.

Devrim

Devrim

24th March 2010, 10:08

However Devrim's "criticism" doesnt seem aimed at all at winning IRSP supporters over to his organization's positions or bringing the IRSM as whole closer to them,...

No, I don't think that we will win over many supporters of the INLA in arguments like these. I don't think that many of these people will change there politics for socialist ones outside of the massive class conflict that can start to change those ideas. It is the same with myself. I am middle -aged have held these politics since I was a teenager. I hardly think that I am going to change my ideas now because a few IRPS argue with me on a discussion board. What would be needed to change my politics would be real events that would force me to revaluate them.

I don't write thinking I will win them over. I write for other people who read this.

indeed on the contarary they seem deliberately designed to alienate you all.

The arguments are 'deliberately designed to alienate' so-called 'Republican socialists', but I obviously realise they do.

Nor does he offer the rest of us any real insights into the nature of the percieved faults of your organization and how they arose and why...

We do offer this argument. It is about the nature of armed nationalist groups. I would link to in-depth articles on the nature of national liberation movements here, but the English language section of our website appears to be down.

You use the term "ultra-left" but I dont see anything left here no mind "ultra" so. Its as if he was talking to fascists or something as opposed to fellow socialists

I don't view people who support national liberation movements as socialists, but nationalists.

Devrim

Devrim

24th March 2010, 10:10

To add something into the mix, Devrim, what is your opinion on Sinn Féin, Republican SF, 32 County Sovereignty Movement and armed groups such as PIRA, CIRA and RIRA? After all this is supposed to be a debate on Republican Socialism, not just one party and one group.

I think that all national liberation movements are anti-working class. Some of the aforementioned much more openly so than the IRSP, for example people who shoot pizza delivery boys.

Devrim

Devrim

24th March 2010, 10:11

Wasnt AFA very much tied up with an organization called Red Action which shock horror :blink:were actually "left communist" but also very supportive of the national liberation struggle if too uncritical of the Provisional movement?

'Red Action' were not left communist, they were are split from the English SWP, and so could be described as either Trotskyist or Cliffite depending on your view.

Devrim

Devrim

24th March 2010, 10:19

But AFA also involved members of Class War and other anarchist groups. Most of whom like Red Action are pro republicanisim. AntiFa, which is a direct descendent of AFA, if much more anarchist leaning organisation is largely unapogeticaly republican. The Irish AFA also has republican links.

Anarchism is Ireland and the UK is mostly anti-national liberation movements. The Nothern Irish organise holds a similar position to me. the Irish WSM is considered very uncritical in anarchist circles, but I think would still be called 'anti-republican' by the posters here.

In their 2004 pamphlet 'Crossing the Border' Organise! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organise%21) criticised the WSM for being too influenced by Irish republicanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_republicanism) and of using language that threatened to alienate the northern Irish Protestant (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Protestant&action=edit&redlink=1) working class.

You would have to check them out to form your own opinion:

http://www.wsm.ie/story/804

In the UK, the Anarchist Federation hold a similar position to mine. You are right about Class War though. It did contain people who supported republicanism. It also contained people completely against it. It was a very confused organisation.

Devrim

Devrim

24th March 2010, 10:24

Giving you the benefit of the doubt do you realise that the IRSP was the first party to call for abortion rights and gay liberation publically in Ireland and how radical that was at time? Those are not the actions of reactionary Catholic Nationalists.

I don't think that the nature of the IRSP is determined by its positions on gays and abortion. I think it is determined by its nationalism.

The Paris Commune which Marx saw as the first example of the dictatorship of the proletariat was set up by radical jacobins and Proudonists...Who werent exactly idealogically 100 per cent pure either, does that mean you are going to also dismiss the struggle and sacrafice of the Communards?

There is a difference between the mass movements of classes and small armed groups.

Devrim

redarmy74

24th March 2010, 12:00

If it is my opinion, I don't think that the 'British propoganda machine' argues that the INLA are anti-working class very often. Yes, I do do agreee with them that they are gangsters, but then we probably agree on lots of basic facts, such as Monday coming after Sunday for example. This opinion comes from so many different sources, not because they are parroting British propaganda, but because it is true.

IN MY OPINION, and im alittle closer to home on his subject and in a better position to know this,lies, not truth, but lies.Your opinions are coming from other peoples opinions so how can you say it is true.

*THE INLA stood down Declan Duffy and the entire Dublin brigade, the biggest in its organisation because of involvement in gangsterism.

My god man where are you getting these 'facts' of yours.lol. Ok, we all read the papers when the INLA stood down the Dublin brigade but where on earth did you get the idea that Dublin where the biggest brigade.lol.Reading more tabloids are we, or are you getting this from your 'various' sources' again.lol. FACT! According to a member of the leadership during a commemoration, Derry did in fact have the largest membership with (as he says) approx 180 members, with Belfast close behind.This was during the bray commemoration where the announcement were made.

Oh, by the way, in the 80's where you say you lived in the bog at the time, the INLA had in excess of 300 members.Derry's working class must've wanted gangsters fighting their war as over 50'000 people attended Patsy O'Hara's funeral.

*This involvement in gangsterism had been continuing for a considerable length of time before this.
Where did you get this from? More tabloids?lol

*The INLA bombed a disco, the Droppin' Well in County Derry killing 6 civilians
And 11 british soldiers.

*An INLA member committed the Mountain Lodge murders, an absolutely sectarian murder of three people sitting in church, using INLA weapons.
Not representing the INLA

*The INLA killed various people in its own internal political feuding.
The INLA took an entirely defensive position on its members.When attacked, they defended themselves. Wouldn't you do the same?lol

*One of the people shot in this feudin was a nine year olf girl, who was shot at close range purely for being somebodies sister.

Lol.Seriously, you really need to stop reading these papers.lol

Everything you've mentioned is all tabloid stuff, so we all know where your intelligence comes from.And you might want to tell your 'sources' to stop reading the papers also.lol.:laugh:

Palingenisis

24th March 2010, 12:34

I don't think that the nature of the IRSP is determined by its positions on gays and abortion. I think it is determined by its nationalism.

Its position on those topics in the Ireland of the 1970s whether you want to admit it or not signifies a lot about the nature of the organization. Given that their "nationalism" doesnt get in the way of geniune proletarian internationalism I cant see it as a defining feature of the IRSP in the way it would be of the "National Bholseviks" or the Provies and Republican Sinn Fein. Their "nationalism" seems to come down to not ignoring the elephant in the room (British Imperialism) in order to try and appeal to one of the most reactionary sections of the working class in Europe on narrow economic issues. Funny though that they have had more sucess in winning people over from loyalist backgrounds than the rest of the "Left".

Devrim

24th March 2010, 12:42

IN MY OPINION, and im alittle closer to home on his subject and in a better position to know this,lies, not truth, but lies.Your opinions are coming from other peoples opinions so how can you say it is true.

Opinions are not true or untrue. Let's look at the facts:

My god man where are you getting these 'facts' of yours.lol. Ok, we all read the papers when the INLA stood down the Dublin brigade but where on earth did you get the idea that Dublin where the biggest brigade.lol.Reading more tabloids are we, or are you getting this from your 'various' sources' again.lol. FACT! According to a member of the leadership during a commemoration, Derry did in fact have the largest membership with (as he says) approx 180 members, with Belfast close behind.This was during the bray commemoration where the announcement were made.

Oh, by the way, in the 80's where you say you lived in the bog at the time, the INLA had in excess of 300 members.Derry's working class must've wanted gangsters fighting their war as over 50'000 people attended Patsy O'Hara's funeral.

So you don't deny that Duffy was a gangster, and that this behaving had been continuing for a long time, and that it was so bad the entire brigade had to be stood down. Your only disagreement seems to be about whether it was the biggest brigade or not.

Where did you get this from? More tabloids?lol

The tabloids tend to report on these things because all of Dublin knew that the INLA was involved in gangsterism there. Also that it had been continuing for a long time. IRSP supporters have admitted as much on these boards.

And 11 british soldiers.

Well it is lucky for the Brits that they still have another 149,00 left. What you are saying though is it is OK to murder civilians if you kill a few soldiers along with them. In my opinion all that this does is add to the climate of sectarianism in making protestant people think that 'catholic' gangs see them as legitimate targets.

Not representing the INLA

I don't think that is at all relevant. The fact is that it was an INLA member with INLA weapons and of course it again adds to sectarianism and further divides the working class. You can not divorce yourselves from actions merely by saying later we didn't approve.

The INLA took an entirely defensive position on its members.When attacked, they defended themselves. Wouldn't you do the same?lol

That is your analysis of it. You have to ask though what sort of socialist organisation would settle its internal arguments and splits by shooting each other. The people on both sides were originally in the INLA.

Lol.Seriously, you really need to stop reading these papers.lol

Did the INLA murder Barbra McAlorum or not? How was it done?

Everything you've mentioned is all tabloid stuff, so we all know where your intelligence comes from.And you might want to tell your 'sources' to stop reading the papers also.lol.:laugh:

The idea that this is all tabloid stuff is a laughable excuse to avoid the issues here. None of the examples of INLA gangsterism that I raised have been refuted just sneered at as being 'tabloid stuff'. Unfortunately the tabloids like writing about crime, murders, and gangsters. It would be really surprising if the INLA didn't get written about.

Devrim

redarmy74

24th March 2010, 13:05

Rather than tackle these issues one by one i will just reiterate the whole point im trying to make to you. We can go back and forth on these issues all day but the fact remains that all of your information is coming from newspapers which we all know is an effective tool for the government or political parties of influence to alter information on any group to their own advantage.

Calling a group criminals and drug dealers doesnt make it so, but say it in the press then you leave a long lasting impression on its readers.I personally became a victim of the press knowing everything, and i mean everything to be untrue, so i know how flexible with the truth the press can be.And i know many stories in the press which i knew of and the truth had been twisted so bad you couldn't have made it up if you tried.

So to your statement about tabloids like writing about crime, yes they do.So they pick on a group which they can make up stories on, print it and who's going to come out and say its untrue? Come on Devrim, you have to have some savy.:rolleyes:

No pasarÃ¡n

24th March 2010, 13:19

Anarchism is Ireland and the UK is mostly anti-national liberation movements. The Nothern Irish organise holds a similar position to me. the Irish WSM is considered very uncritical in anarchist circles, but I think would still be called 'anti-republican' by the posters here.

I'm not claimin to speak for the majority of anarchists in the uk, but very few people I have ever spoken to have disagreed with me on the liberation of ireland. This includes friends in Freedom, Wombles, Class War, AFED... the list could go on.

Of course with organisations like AFA and AntiFa there is a republican bias, mostly because a lot of those lads were of direct irish orgin. But these were almost exclusively working class organisations too.

One thing I think you should remain aware of is while you are fully entitled to your opinions (whatever I or anyone thinks) please remember that when we (the irish) talk about organisations such as the IRSP having grassroots working class support its because we have seen this with our own eyes. I have family in Ulster and visit there fairly often. My community there still wants its country back.

Also I'd rather you didn't refer to Ulster as Northern Ireland, that is its british imprealist title. Ulster is exceptable to both sides (though to uses totally differ) as well cos thats been its definition 1000s of years before anyone came up with the title Northern Ireland

Devrim

24th March 2010, 17:06

Rather than tackle these issues one by one i will just reiterate the whole point im trying to make to you. We can go back and forth on these issues all day but the fact remains that all of your information is coming from newspapers which we all know is an effective tool for the government or political parties of influence to alter information on any group to their own advantage.

That's it. Don't tackle the issues. We could ask question like whether you think shooting 9 year old little girls in the head is the proper way for a 'socialist organisation'. We could ask how you expect to build class unity when protestant citizens are considered to be acceptable collateral damage for killing a few soldiers. We could ask many questions.

I think it is better to blame it on the newspapers trying to 'smear' the IRSM instead.

Devrim

Devrim

24th March 2010, 17:17

I'm not claimin to speak for the majority of anarchists in the uk, but very few people I have ever spoken to have disagreed with me on the liberation of ireland. This includes friends in Freedom, Wombles, Class War, AFED... the list could go on.

I am not saying that no Brits who call themselves anarchists support Irish nationalism, but if you look at the organisations the AF doesn't:

4. We are opposed to the ideology of national liberation movements which claims that there is some common interest between native bosses and the working class in face of foreign domination. We do support working class struggles against racism, genocide, ethnocide and political and economic colonialism. We oppose the creation of any new ruling class. We reject all forms of nationalism, as this only serves to redefine divisions in the international working class. The working class has no country and national boundaries must be eliminated. We seek to build an anarchist international to work with other libertarian revolutionaries throughout the world.

So if you met AF member that held that position it was against their own organisations positions. Freedom is just a magazine, not a group. The WOMBLES doesn't exist anymore, but yes, on Class War there was a mix.

One thing I think you should remain aware of is while you are fully entitled to your opinions (whatever I or anyone thinks) please remember that when we (the irish) talk about organisations such as the IRSP having grassroots working class support its because we have seen this with our own eyes. I have family in Ulster and visit there fairly often. My community there still wants its country back.

No, there is no nationalism in these sort of statements at all. Communists don't believe that the working class has a country to get back.

I don't deny that the 'Republican socialists' don't have some support, but also a lot of people think they are gangsters too.

Would it make any difference if I were Irish? Is it just foreigners who aren't allowed to comment?

Also I'd rather you didn't refer to Ulster as Northern Ireland, that is its british imprealist title. Ulster is exceptable to both sides (though to uses totally differ) as well cos thats been its definition 1000s of years before anyone came up with the title Northern Ireland

It is the name of the state. If it offends your nationalist sentiments that is your problem.

Devrim

Palingenisis

24th March 2010, 17:41

Lemme guess the International Communist Current refer to Kurdistan as south-east Turkey? And there is no nationalism there? ;)

Palingenisis

24th March 2010, 17:44

No pasarÃ¡n

24th March 2010, 18:04

I am not saying that no Brits who call themselves anarchists support Irish nationalism, but if you look at the organisations the AF doesn't:

So if you met AF member that held that position it was against their own organisations positions. Freedom is just a magazine, not a group. The WOMBLES doesn't exist anymore, but yes, on Class War there was a mix.

No, there is no nationalism in these sort of statements at all. Communists don't believe that the working class has a country to get back.

I don't deny that the 'Republican socialists' don't have some support, but also a lot of people think they are gangsters too.

Would it make any difference if I were Irish? Is it just foreigners who aren't allowed to comment?

It is the name of the state. If it offends your nationalist sentiments that is your problem.

Devrim

See I'm not an actual IRSP member or full suporter, I just appreciate some of there efforts. As for me being nationalist, well culturally I am irish, I have an irish passport and I have spent much of my life in ireland. I love 'my country' and 'my culture' but I don't think it is any greater than any other country or its peoples and I certainly see the massive flaws in the irish goverment of the free state and many of their actions. I also come from a 'mixed' background so to speak- my dad is a protestant but a republican and my mum is a catholic. Ireland is geographicaly Ireland and I resent the title northern ireland because I associate it with british rule, the idea that britain still has colonies, the imperal goverment and the abuse that has been carried out in the name of britain. I live in england, I don't hate 'brits' just their goverment.

Of course some people view both sides armed groups as gangsters and yes there have been instants of extortion, punishment beatings and robbery. No one is denying this. My own family have been victims of this. But you seem to be placing this mostly at the feet of one organisation?

What is your view on the Progressive Unionist Party, supposedly a socialist party?

You are entitled to your views wether you are irish or not. It's a debate, although the original thread was simply asking for a definition of republican socialisim.

Oh and a side note, the wombles still exist http://www.wombles.org.uk and although freedom is of course a magazine it is also a publishing company and is run by members of several different groups. Of course not everyone would agree with my view there.

redarmy74

24th March 2010, 20:09

I think it is better to blame it on the newspapers trying to 'smear' the IRSM instead.

Devrim

Exactly.

Now i'd love to hear your views on how to sort out Irelands problem as you seem to have all the answers.

Now if you want to talk about real gangsters, lets talk about the IRA, Sinn Fein and the british government.All your focus seems to be on INLA while neglecting the IRA and sf even though their criminal actions are of such a massive scale that if you were to criticise any group it should be them.Personally my fingers would be too sore to go into a debate about their activities.

black magick hustla

24th March 2010, 23:42

Exactly.

Now i'd love to hear your views on how to sort out Irelands problem as you seem to have all the answers.

Now if you want to talk about real gangsters, lets talk about the IRA, Sinn Fein and the british government.All your focus seems to be on INLA while neglecting the IRA and sf even though their criminal actions are of such a massive scale that if you were to criticise any group it should be them.Personally my fingers would be too sore to go into a debate about their activities.

Of course the state is a bigger gangster. They have more money. I think you are missing the point though. His point is that "armed struggle" led by small guerrilla groups tend to descend into criminality. It has nothing to do whether their politics are right or not. It has to do with the idea that armed campaigns, in the sense being talked here, is deeply anticommunist.

Leo

25th March 2010, 00:10

Lemme guess the International Communist Current refer to Kurdistan as south-east Turkey? And there is no nationalism there? ;) http://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/471

For a more recent analysis: http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/10/turkey

I wonder if you are aware that the area referred to as Kurdistan is a bit bigger than "south-east Turkey" anyway though.

Now if you want to talk about real gangsters, lets talk about the IRA, Sinn Fein and the british government.All your focus seems to be on INLA while neglecting the IRA and sf even though their criminal actions are of such a massive scale that if you were to criticise any group it should be them.Surely no one is denying or even neglecting the fact the the IRA, the Sinn Fein and the British Government are gangsters. If anyone claims they aren't, we argue that they are. The reason why there seems to more focus on the IRSP tendency in revleft is simply because there are more illusions about the IRSP here because of the left rhetoric that there are about the IRA, about Sinn Fein and about the British state. Looking at our press on this question, on the other hand, would show that on this question, almost the entire focus is the IRA, Sinn Fein and of course the British state. In fact I don't think we ever did a single article on the IRSP, and I would be surprised if there are more than a few mentions of it.

Devrim

25th March 2010, 08:20

Comrade "No Pasaran" was good enough to post this link to a BBC radio programme about how journalists knowingly lied for the British state to aid its war in Ireland. It will give you some idea of where "comrade" Devrim gets his analysis of the situation from.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00rdxm1/Document_22_03_2010/

Of course journalists lie. Of course they slander the political opponents of the state. If that is the case then and the statements I made here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1701704&postcount=68) are untrue, it should be quite easy to point out their falsehood.

People also seem very obsessed with me getting all my information from tabloid-journalism for some strange reason. Actually I haven't read an English language tabloid for over twenty years.

Devrim

Devrim

25th March 2010, 08:29

Lemme guess the International Communist Current refer to Kurdistan as south-east Turkey? And there is no nationalism there? ;)

I refer to the area that Kurdish nationalist call North West Kurdistan as South Eastern Turkey. I don't object to people calling it what they want. It doesn't affect my nationalist sentiments. Are you suggesting I am a Turkish nationalist?

The situation is more complex than that in the Middle East though. The same area could also be referred to be Armenian nationalists as Southern Armenia, or there was even one group that wanted to set up a 'Socialist Republic of Alevistan' there. Which one should we use to avoid upsetting nationalist sensibilities. I tend to use South East Turkey partly because it is the actual name of the state, and also because generally we just refer to the South East, and it is South East from where I live.

Also in the Irish context the historic province of Ulster is not exactly the same as the area covered by the Northern Irish state.

Devrim

Devrim

25th March 2010, 08:33

As for me being nationalist, well culturally I am irish, I have an irish passport and I have spent much of my life in ireland. I love 'my country' and 'my culture' but I don't think it is any greater than any other country or its peoples and I certainly see the massive flaws in the irish goverment of the free state and many of their actions. I also come from a 'mixed' background so to speak- my dad is a protestant but a republican and my mum is a catholic. Ireland is geographicaly Ireland and I resent the title northern ireland because I associate it with british rule, the idea that britain still has colonies, the imperal goverment and the abuse that has been carried out in the name of britain. I live in england, I don't hate 'brits' just their goverment.

This open a whole new question of what culture is and other things. Personally I don't love 'my country', or 'my culture'.

Of course some people view both sides armed groups as gangsters and yes there have been instants of extortion, punishment beatings and robbery. No one is denying this. My own family have been victims of this. But you seem to be placing this mostly at the feet of one organisation?

It is a thread about that organisation.

What is your view on the Progressive Unionist Party, supposedly a socialist party?

They are a nationalist anti-working class political party and the UVF are gangsters.

Oh and a side note, the wombles still exist http://www.wombles.org.uk and although freedom is of course a magazine it is also a publishing company and is run by members of several different groups. Of course not everyone would agree with my view there.

It seems I am wrong on the WOMBLES. I met two of them once in a pub in London. They told me they had disbanded it. My mistake.

Devrim

Devrim

25th March 2010, 08:37

Now i'd love to hear your views on how to sort out Irelands problem as you seem to have all the answers.

I will write about it tonight when I get home from work. It is a big question and needs are more detailed answer than I can give now. I will start a new thread and put a link here.

Now if you want to talk about real gangsters, lets talk about the IRA, Sinn Fein and the british government.All your focus seems to be on INLA while neglecting the IRA and sf even though their criminal actions are of such a massive scale that if you were to criticise any group it should be them.Personally my fingers would be too sore to go into a debate about their activities.

This is a thread about Republican socialism. Sinn Fein and the IRA are also nationalists and certainly engaged in gangsterism whilst the British state is terrorist.

Devrim

redarmy74

26th March 2010, 02:53

This is a thread about Republican socialism. Sinn Fein and the IRA are also nationalists and certainly engaged in gangsterism whilst the British state is terrorist.

Devrim

Well true, at least we agree on this issue.Sin Fein held a false face of republican socialism for years before conning its voters and gently turning its back on republican socialism, so i suppose there is some relevance including them in this thread.

Andropov

8th April 2010, 15:39

The isolated instances of Criminality and Sectarianism in the INLA is merely an indiciton of the Social Context their membership was comprised of.
To think that no criminal element in one of the most socially deprived areas of Europe would ever gain entry to this movment is just pure idealism and lacking in a grasp of reality.
The INLA existed in a context where certain criminal elements did infiltrate the organisation, as they did every organisation that existed in any great numbers in Ireland.
Thus since it was a reality of the socio-economic context that certain criminal elements would grow out of this social context and the INLA was not completely immune to this all we can do is judge the organisation in how it treated these criminal elements when they showed their faces and it did indeed remove them from membership as criminality was not tolerated within the movement.
As for the instances of sectarianism which occasionally occured the exact same reasons and logic are behind their appearance and that is because Ireland was one fo the most divided societys in Europe, possibly one of the most sectarian. Thus in its membership of course it wouldnt be completely immune to occasional sectarian bigots gaining entry but they were purged and removed once they were found out.
The organisation has fought hard to prevent criminality and sectarianism from entering its ranks.
Now if the ICC did exist in Ireland in this social context with the kind of membership the IRSM did then of course you would have the odd social degenerate because of the social context it exists in but the ICC didnt, the ICC does not have these problems because it is irrelevant to the working class of Ireland and is irrelevant to the working class of the world because its membership is so small and influence so dismal that it will continue to maintian its purity with regaurds criminality and say sectarianism but it will continue to be irrelevant.
To be relevant and accept working class membership you will often encounter and absorb some of the socio-economic baggage that class holds such as in Ireland some criminals and bigots but it is how the organisation as a whole reacts to these occurances is what is important.

Devrim

8th April 2010, 16:00

Now if the ICC did exist in Ireland in this social context with the kind of membership the IRSM did then of course you would have the odd social degenerate because of the social context it exists in but the ICC didnt, the ICC does not have these problems because it is irrelevant to the working class of Ireland and is irrelevant to the working class of the world because its membership is so small and influence so dismal that it will continue to maintian its purity with regaurds criminality and say sectarianism but it will continue to be irrelevant.

It is a really interesting approach in that somebody criticises your organisation, and you respond by saying "you are tiny, don't have any people in this country, and are irrelevant".

We know we are tint, we know we don't have any members in Ireland, and we know that at the moment like all revolutionary groups we have minuscule influence within the working class. I don't really get what your point is here.

If what we are saying is valid, it has no relevance at all to the size of our organisation. Nor does it if it is invalid.

The INLA existed in a context where certain criminal elements did infiltrate the organisation, as they did every organisation that existed in any great numbers in Ireland.
Thus since it was a reality of the socio-economic context that certain criminal elements would grow out of this social context and the INLA was not completely immune to this all we can do is judge the organisation in how it treated these criminal elements when they showed their faces and it did indeed remove them from membership as criminality was not tolerated within the movement.
As for the instances of sectarianism which occasionally occured the exact same reasons and logic are behind their appearance and that is because Ireland was one fo the most divided societys in Europe, possibly one of the most sectarian. Thus in its membership of course it wouldnt be completely immune to occasional sectarian bigots gaining entry but they were purged and removed once they were found out.

I absolutely agree with the main point here. It would have been very surprising if the INLA did not attract some people of this nature.

To be relevant and accept working class membership you will often encounter and absorb some of the socio-economic baggage that class holds such as in Ireland some criminals and bigots but it is how the organisation as a whole reacts to these occurances is what is important.

And also in my opinion if an organisation has a mode of operation that allows those sort of elements to operate as armed sectarian killers and gangsters in the first place.

Devrim

Andropov

8th April 2010, 16:16

It is a really interesting approach in that somebody criticises your organisation, and you respond by saying "you are tiny, don't have any people in this country, and are irrelevant".
We know we are tint, we know we don't have any members in Ireland, and we know that at the moment like all revolutionary groups we have minuscule influence within the working class. I don't really get what your point is here.
Dev you totally misinterpreted my point, maybe I could have frazed it better.
I wasnt having a go at the ICC, I was merely making the point that if the ICC had a few hundred members in Ireland for the guts of 40 years then of course it would have instances of criminality and sectarianism within its ranks.
The fact that it is so small means that it can maintain that purity you so value.

If what we are saying is valid, it has no relevance at all to the size of our organisation. Nor does it if it is invalid.
Im not sure what your trying to say here?

I absolutely agree with the main point here. It would have been very surprising if the INLA did not attract some people of this nature.
Indeed.

And also in my opinion if an organisation has a mode of operation that allows those sort of elements to operate as armed sectarian killers and gangsters in the first place.
But Dev the organisation does not allow those sort of elements to operate as armed sectarian killers or gangsters, that is my point.
The few incidents when this did happen in the INLA's history they have been immediately cast out of the movement and in more extreme circumstances they have been severly sanctioned.