éirÃ*gÃ* Easter Statement

[Conghaileach]

éirígí Easter Statement

04/04/10

Ninety-four years ago, on Easter Monday, April 24 1916, Irish republicans and socialists took armed control of Dublin City and proclaimed the Irish Republic. In doing so, these brave men and women changed the course of history.

As always, the British government reacted to this assertion of social and national rights with a brutal display of force – in the killing of civilians on the streets of Dublin, in the execution of the leadership of the Rising and in the attempted crushing of Irish demands for self-determination. But the risen people who followed in the footsteps of the men and women of Easter Week proved, yet again, that no one can break the will of a people to be free.

This Easter, éirígí, and all Irish republicans and socialists, remember with pride the sacrifice of those who struck that historic blow in 1916 and all those who have given their lives for freedom in the decades since. éirígí extends solidarity to the families of all those who have lost their lives because of their devotion to the republican cause.

The Ireland of today is not the one that was envisaged by the leaders of the Easter Rising when they drafted the Proclamation of the Irish Republic. It is not the one that was envisaged by all those who have given so much in the long years of struggle before and since 1916.

Today, more than half a million people are unemployed in Ireland; tens of thousands more are emigrating. The financial wealth of the Irish people is being used to prop up private banks, while their natural resources are being given away to multinational corporations. The living conditions, wages, rights and entitlements of workers are being attacked daily in an effort to shore up the profits of the business class. Working class communities are deprived of amenities and left to the ravages of poverty and all that flows from it. Partition remains in place and the occupation of the Six Counties is maintained by the armed forces of the British government.

These are the glaring injustices that provide the incentive for unceasing struggle in modern Ireland. In doing so, éirigí is provided with the inspiring example of the revolutionaries of Easter Week, who knew that freedom and rights are never returned willingly by oppressors, but must be taken back forcefully by the oppressed.

The task that lies before Irish revolutionaries in 2010 is the same as that which faced the revolutionaries of 1916 – noting less than the complete removal of Britain from Ireland’s affairs and the radical reordering of the social and economic system.

What began on Easter Monday 1916 was a decolonisation process – Britain’s days in Ireland have been numbered ever since.

To complete this process, another uprising is needed – an uprising of the working people and all those who are exploited and oppressed. It may not happen today or tomorrow or next year, but happen it must and the preparatory work for that rising must begin today.

Four years after its foundation éirígí remains wholeheartedly committed to the struggle for Irish national, social, economic and cultural freedom. This Easter, we encourage republicans and socialists to join us as we honour Ireland’s dead and recommit ourselves to the ideals for which they died.

Ar aghaidh linn le chéile.

http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest040410.html

[The Red Panther Party]

up the RA

[MaoTseHelen]

Gotta love Eirigi.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Run-of-the-mill republican rant from Eirigi - I have to say I am disappointed with the trajectory of Eirigi - they had an opportunity to break out of the normal republican split rut but really are no different from the rest.

[Hoggy_RS]

Run-of-the-mill republican rant from Eirigi - I have to say I am disappointed with the trajectory of Eirigi - they had an opportunity to break out of the normal republican split rut but really are no different from the rest.

Had the opportunity to pander to unionism and ignore the national question is it?

[Palingenisis]

Had the opportunity to pander to unionism and ignore the national question is it?

The Socialist Party in Ireland are basically run by a bunch of English social-Imperialists who supported Thatcher's re-grabbing of the Malvinas. They also basically think that what small amount of independence that Ireland won in thew 26 counties was a bad thing and want to have the union back, of course in a "Socialist" form. They oppose Welsh, Scottish and Cornish national liberation.

Having said all that I just dont trust Eirigi...They seem attention grabbing "media whores", they keep aloof from other Republican organizations and what they mean by "socialism" is pretty undefined. It seems a re-run of the Provies.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The Socialist Party in Ireland are basically run by a bunch of English social-Imperialists who supported Thatcher's re-grabbing of the Malvinas. They also basically think that what small amount of independence that Ireland won in thew 26 counties was a bad thing and want to have the union back, of course in a "Socialist" form. They oppose Welsh, Scottish and Cornish national liberation.

Wow - and you only made six mistakes about Socialist Party/CWI politics in your three line rant.

[Hoggy_RS]

The Socialist Party in Ireland are basically run by a bunch of English social-Imperialists who supported Thatcher's re-grabbing of the Malvinas. They also basically think that what small amount of independence that Ireland won in thew 26 counties was a bad thing and want to have the union back, of course in a "Socialist" form. They oppose Welsh, Scottish and Cornish national liberation.

Having said all that I just dont trust Eirigi...They seem attention grabbing "media whores", they keep aloof from other Republican organizations and what they mean by "socialism" is pretty undefined. It seems a re-run of the Provies.
I would like to see them define the socialism they support, its all a bit vague to be honest.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I would like to see them define the socialism they support, its all a bit vague to be honest.
Knock yourself out -

http://www.socialistparty.net/

[Madvillainy]

Knock yourself out -

http://www.socialistparty.net/

He was talking bout eirigi me thinks.

On topic: I don't think communists should be celebrating nationalist blood sacrifices like the easter rising. It had nothing to do with socialism, didn't have the support of the working class and like I said was nothing but an nationalist insurrection.

It's kind of sad that a great socialist and labour leader like Connolly fell into the trap of nationalism though.

[Hoggy_RS]

Knock yourself out -

http://www.socialistparty.net/

I was talking about Eirigi. I used to be a member of the SP so I know all about it...

[Jolly Red Giant]

I was talking about Eirigi. I used to be a member of the SP so I know all about it...
Apologies for jumping the gun (mathaphorically speaking of course) - maybe you should have edited out the bit about the SP in the quote - and even more sensible you should reconsider jumping to the IRSM.

[Palingenisis]

On topic: I don't think communists should be celebrating nationalist blood sacrifices like the easter rising. It had nothing to do with socialism, didn't have the support of the working class and like I said was nothing but an nationalist insurrection.

It's kind of sad that a great socialist and labour leader like Connolly fell into the trap of nationalism though.

Only the Irish Citizen's Army...the militia of a revolutionary syndicalist union took part in it...So you disagree with your comrades that the British exceution of James Connolly was a good thing?

[Crux]

The Socialist Party in Ireland are basically run by a bunch of English social-Imperialists who supported Thatcher's re-grabbing of the Malvinas. They also basically think that what small amount of independence that Ireland won in thew 26 counties was a bad thing and want to have the union back, of course in a "Socialist" form. They oppose Welsh, Scottish and Cornish national liberation.

Uhm. No. How do you manage being wrong on precisely every statement you've made on the SP in your post? I mean seriously, where do you get this kind of "information" anyway?

[Palingenisis]

Uhm. No. How do you manage being wrong on precisely every statement you've made on the SP in your post? I mean seriously, where do you get this kind of "information" anyway?

So you didnt support Britian's claim on the Malvinas?

So you support national liberation for Scotland, Wales and Cornwall?

So you dont call for a "Socialist Federation of the British Isles"?

[Palingenisis]

- and even more sensible you should reconsider jumping to the IRSM.

Why?

The IRSM for all their faults are an outgrowth of actual conditions in Ireland.

[Madvillainy]

Only the Irish Citizen's Army...the militia of a revolutionary syndicalist union took part in it...So you disagree with your comrades that the British exceution of James Connolly was a good thing?

I don't think the fact that the ICA took part makes the whole thing any less nationalist.

I don't know any socialists that supports the execution of Connolly. I think that it is quite bizarre that you think otherwise.

[Palingenisis]

I don't think the fact that the ICA took part makes the whole thing any less nationalist.

I don't know any socialists that supports the execution of Connolly. I think that it is quite bizarre that you think otherwise.

I dont know any Socialists who do either but one of the leading members of an anarchist group in the occupied six counties who Devrim informed us have the same position as the International Communist Current praised the execution of James Connolly on Libcom.

Acknowledging the fact that nations actually exist is considered nationalist by left Communists so it might be silly to get into an actual discussion about the nationalism of the Easter Rising. That said the sacrafice of those brave men awoke Ireland from its slumber to nearly suceeding in driving British Imperialism from our land which I think personally was a good thing (as most Socialists generally have).

[Jolly Red Giant]

Only the Irish Citizen's Army...the militia of a revolutionary syndicalist union took part in it...So you disagree with your comrades that the British exceution of James Connolly was a good thing?
The Easter Rising did not have the support of the working class - the fact that the ICA took part does not change that fact.


So you didnt support Britian's claim on the Malvinas?
Nope


So you support national liberation for Scotland, Wales and Cornwall?
The CWI supports the right of the people of Wales and Scotland to self-determination. Personally I wasn't aware that a 'national liberation' movement was seeking the independence of Cornwall. The CWI does not make abstact pronouncements just to satisfy a crass sectarian.


So you dont call for a "Socialist Federation of the British Isles"?Nope - the CWI calls for a free and voluntary socialist federation of Ireland, England Scotland and Wales as part of a socialist federation of Europe. The nuances of the position may be lost on you.



The IRSM for all their faults are an outgrowth of actual conditions in Ireland.
Bullsh*t - the IRSM are in the main a bunch of sectarian headbangers who have little knowledge of real politics and even less influence on the workers movement.

[Jolly Red Giant]

That said the sacrafice of those brave men awoke Ireland from its slumber to nearly suceeding in driving British Imperialism from our land which I think personally was a good thing (as most Socialists generally have).
I would suggest that it was the stupidity of the Brits in executing the leaders that impacted on the consciousness of the masses in Ireland, rather than the 'sacrifice' of those involved in the rising. And British Imperialism was not 'nearly' driven from the country - it continued to dominate the North politically and militarily and dominate the South economically.

[zimmerwald1915]

Acknowledging the fact that nations actually exist is considered nationalist by left Communists so it might be silly to get into an actual discussion about the nationalism of the Easter Rising. That said the sacrafice of those brave men awoke Ireland from its slumber to nearly suceeding in driving British Imperialism from our land which I think personally was a good thing (as most Socialists generally have).
Misconception alert. Supporting the existence of nations, supporting the defense of one nation or another in an imperialist war between them, and not recognizing that part of the historical task of the proletariat, and the trajectory of its struggle, is to do away with nations is considered nationalist by Left Communists.

Left Communists do not recognize a distinction between imperialist and non-imperialist countries, and you might be thinking of that. But to say that Left Communists do not recognize the existence of nations - and their support by a great number of people at the present time - is absurd.

Also, I believe it was Connolly who said that a simple replacement of the Union Flag by the Green Flag would not accomplish anybody's liberation from anything, and that only socialism, in Dublin, London, and everywhere else, really posed the question of liberation. As if you didn't know, that was HEAVILY paraphrased.

[Madvillainy]

I dont know any Socialists who do either but one of the leading members of an anarchist group in the occupied six counties who Devrim informed us have the same position as the International Communist Current praised the execution of James Connolly on Libcom.


The same position on what? I think organise (I suppose this is the anarchist group you are referring to?) have a fairly good position on the national question, I wouldn't say it is the same as the ICC's though.

Regarding Connolly I think a lot of anarchists have a knee-jerk reaction to people like Connolly, Lenin etc instead of looking at the contributions these people made to the workers movement.

I don't know what the ICC's views are on Connolly though, personally I think he was a revolutionary (he was on the left of the 2nd international) who got dragged into nationalism.

[zimmerwald1915]

I don't know what the ICC's views are on Connolly though, personally I think he was a revolutionary (he was on the left of the 2nd international) who got dragged into nationalism.
A quick search reveals this article (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/292_1916_rising.html) which I have not read but which you might find interesting.

[Madvillainy]

A quick search reveals this article (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/292_1916_rising.html) which I have not read but which you might find interesting.

Yea, I read this a while ago.. I'm gonna give it another read now, but I remember it being spot on. I'd suggest everyone in this thread to give it a read as well.

[The Grey Blur]

Fightback (IMT in Ireland) also published a good Easter statement: http://tinyurl.com/ygfyx6g

I take issue with almost every post in this thread (lol, a good start). I admit I don't have a 100% clear picture on all the groups involved in the debate or their histories and I'm open to correction.

First of all- Palingenesis. I don't think you understand Militant's politics whatsoever and I don't think it's conducive to a (god help me I'll actually write this phrase with regards to revleft) serious political debate to resort to the same old slanders. First of all Militant clearly opposed the Falklands war as an imperialist misadventure on both sides as you can read in this article: http://tinyurl.com/ykvxn66l . Militant's line in the north has always been obvious and far from pandering to unionism - Militant called for the removal of British troops and a cross-community working class movement to carry this out. There was critical support for the defensive activities of the IRA but as marxists they and I would completely reject individual terrorism and the later sectarian activities of the armed republican groups. I come from the family of a former Sinn Féin councillour born and raised in Andersontown so maybe your cries of "English social-imperialists" or (internet provos favourite) "trendy lefties" (there's nothing less trendy than being a lefty nowadays anyway) will ring slightly more hollow now. I don't disagree that Militant probably got things wrong, that today the SP's line isn't 100% in the north. But we can't debate until you drop the childish slagging. Also to describe Éirígí as 'media whores' seems to me also to be symptomatic of the worst elements of republican discourse - everyone is a traitor or a sell-out blah blah. Gerry Ruddy of the IRSP mentioned how useless these childish ad hom attacks are in this article: http://tinyurl.com/y8k6tao

Here's an interesting article marxist.com just put up on their site- it outlines a Trotskyist position in the north in 1943 (during the period of the IRA's border campaign i believe?)- http://tinyurl.com/yhykr9c

The situations of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall are completely different to Ireland. There is no history of imperialism in these parts of Britain, there was no struggle for national liberation of the same kind as there was in Ireland. A 'Socialist Federation of the British Isles' is a completely reasonable demand, whether it is or isn't the official SP outlook. It seems like little more than the republican version of political correctness to demand that they include 'Ireland' in there somewhere. Have you read Eamonn McCann's excellent 'War & an Irish Town'? He rightly slags off this useless nationalism which starts debates over whether someone uses the term occupied six counties or northern ireland. Who gives a shit about such semantics except the nationalists who dry their tears on the flag as Eamonn says and put nation before class?

Jolly Red Giant - do you have to adopt such a kneejerk approach? I wouldn't call the statement marxist but i wouldn't disagree with any of it either. If you're going to reject any leftward trends in republicanism then can you blame them for having the same attitude towards marxists?

Madvillainy: Pearse may have viewed the rising in terms of 'blood sacrifice' but Connolly never did. He entered into it knowing full well the odds were against the ICA and IRB but it was not a defeatist attitude, to my understanding. Your kneejerk reaction of nationalism is as bad as all the others - a nations right to self-determination is a progressive step in the battle against Imperialism as the highest form of capitalism. Of course the leadership of any such struggle should be the working classes and indeed the progressive elements of the war of independence (the limerick soviet for example) were an excellent example of this. Like Palengenesis says though it's fairly useless to debate this with you as a left communist you start from a position of rejecting national liberation struggles.

Anyway, I'm still considering the situation in Ireland north and south, I don't find myself in accordance especially the views of any single group. I'm a former SP member of course and I'll hopefully get along to Socialism when I'm back home, Joe's a great speaker and a good fighter. I don't expect people to renounce their particular ideologies but somehow I still have a vain hope that revleft might be an in someway useful tool for debate and discussion thus it would make things a lot easier if we could begin from a position of serious understanding from all sides rather than the endless cycle of slander.

Oh and I'm not a member of Éirígí or even sympathiser, the name is purely coincidental.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Fightback (IMT in Ireland) also published a good Easter statement: http://tinyurl.com/ygfyx6g (http://tinyurl.com/ygfyx6g [/quote)
Actually the statement starts out with a gross misrepresentation of what the Rising was -
The rising which asserted the national sovereignty of Ireland was in fact an internationalist rising against the First World War around the leadership of James Connolly and the Irish Citizens’ Army (my emphasis)



A 'Socialist Federation of the British Isles' is a completely reasonable demand, whether it is or isn't the official SP outlook.
I will repeat once again - this is not the position of the SP/CWI. The SP/CWI calls for 'a socialist federation of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales on a free and voluntary basis as part of a socialist federation of Europe'



Jolly Red Giant - do you have to adopt such a kneejerk approach? I wouldn't call the statement marxist but i wouldn't disagree with any of it either. If you're going to reject any leftward trends in republicanism then can you blame them for having the same attitude towards marxists?
Far from being a knee-jerk, it was a straight-forward assessment of the statement from Eirigi. The statement could have been written by any of the myriad of republican groups that have existed over the past forty years. When Eirigi was established I spoke to some of the members and clearly outlined to them that at a certain point they would have to make a choice - break with republicanism and adopt a socialist approach or break with socialism and go down the republican route. Unfortunately they have very much chosen the second.


Of course the leadership of any such struggle should be the working classes and indeed the progressive elements of the war of independence (the limerick soviet for example) were an excellent example of this.
Actually the leadership of the Limerick Soviet were far from left-wing. The Soviet was pretty much a spontaneous affair driven primarily by members of the ITGWU which never took a leadership role in the Soviet. The leaders of the Soviet were in the main conservative craftworkers who were swept along by the mood of the workers in the city and failed miserably to escalate the action by calling for solidarity strike action around the country in support of the Soviet. This allowed for the right-wing leaders of the ILPTUC to undermine the Soviet eventually leading to its ending. The workplace soviets in Knocklong, Bruree, Castleconnell, Tipperary, Kilkenny and other places in 1920 and 1921 as well as the Munster Soviets in 1922 were far more politically conscious affairs, driven by a political agenda and largely organised by left-wing ITGWU organisers (many of whom were members of the Revolutionary Socialist Party) and outside the official union structures.

[The Grey Blur]

Thanks for the history lesson ;) I think the point still stands that a national liberation movement consists of various classes and thus various progressive or reactionary trends. As marxists we believe the working class should take the lead in the struggle rather than submit themselves to bourgeois nationalism.

I would call a rising which was an attack on conscription and the war internationalist. Fair points on the CWI line on socialist federation.

And on whether or not it could have been written by 'any republican group of the last 40 years' I fail to see how it couldn't have been written by any socialist group of the last 40 years. What is it exactly that you find so objectionable? And calling the IRSP 'sectarian headbangers' is just pathetic and equal to the folks calling Joe a unionist. Have you read any of Gerry Ruddy's recent stuff? I realise you'll probably slag off the IMT rather than answer that but ah well...c'est la vie.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I think the point still stands that a national liberation movement consists of various classes and thus various progressive or reactionary trends.
Not the case actually - within SF and the IRA during the period 1917-1922 there was relatively little working class involvement and little crossover between union activists and republican activists (even the claim the Robert Burns whose death sparked the Limerick Soviet was a trade unionist is dubious - he was elected a post office union rep but never played any role in the union or the Trades Council). Indeed union activists were deeply distrustful of nationalists (particularly given the fact they were regularly organising strikes against them) and SF/IRA activists were distrustful of the left whom they regarded as untrustworthy in the republican cause. FRom late 1920 to the end of 1921 the leadership of SF were deeply concerned that the nationalist struggle could be superseded by class struggle and consciously organised to undermine it using firstly the republican courts and then attempting to form right-wing Irish unions in an attempt to split workers from the more left-wing British based unions. SF went as far as planning to use the IRA against workers in British unions if they attempted to stop the establishment of the 'Irish' unions. SF themselves acknowledged the fact that the IRA was primarily made up of small farmers (and a small number of farm labourers) and officered by the sons of larger farmers.



I would call a rising which was an attack on conscription and the war internationalist.
But the point is that this was not the case - to start with conscription wasn't an issue in Ireland until the begining of 1918 when it was defeated by a general strike - and the only issue relating to the war was that it provided an opportunity for the rising because Britain was distracted - 'Britains difficulty was Ireland's opportunity'. Connolly made a serious (if understandable) error in subjecting the ICA to the control of the IRB. The rising was a nationalist uprising (with a left tinge) that incompassed left-wing elements within its ranks who, unfortunately, did not operate on an independent basis. And there was a basis for this as many of the Volunteers who fought in the rising were actually ICA members who joined the volunteers because of a lack of weapons within the ICA.

[Jolly Red Giant]

And calling the IRSP 'sectarian headbangers' is just pathetic and equal to the folks calling Joe a unionist. Have you read any of Gerry Ruddy's recent stuff? I realise you'll probably slag off the IMT rather than answer that but ah well...c'est la vie.
I know many IRSP/INLA people going back a considerable period of time - and all of them, without exception, were nutjobs who played absolutely no role in the workers movement.

As for the involvement between the IRSP and the IMT - personally I was not surprised - it appears Woods went back to his long lost left-republican roots in an effort to get a foothold in Ireland. Clearly Woods has had some influence on Ruddy but that does not detract from the 'wierd' and unexplained connection between the two groups or whether there still is a connection.

[MaoTseHelen]

The Irish Revolution was one of the few times in the last two centuries of Irish history where the working class in the island have really united and rose up.

It's funny to see people itt spin it as evil for being nationalist. I'm sure Lenin and co. or Fidel weren't nationalist at all, god forbid.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The Irish Revolution was one of the few times in the last two centuries of Irish history where the working class in the island have really united and rose up.
What planet do you live on?

If you want to consider an Irish Revolution where the oppressed masses were really united and rose up then you have to look at the Rockite Rebellion 1820-1824. The Irish Revolution (1919-1922) was a guerrilla movement that had latent support from sections of the Irish working class (they certainly weren't united), was populated in the main by the farming classes and had limited success in its objectives. This movement also connived with the bosses (including unionists) and the Brits to suppress the workers movement and did their best to split the workers movement along nationalist lines.

[Saorsa]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Palingenisis
So you didnt support Britian's claim on the Malvinas?


JRG: Nope

Actually, yes you did.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1982/05/falklands.htm


We must demand a general election now, as a way of bringing down the Tories and returning the Labour Party to power with a socialist programme. The capitalist government has landed us in a mess at home and abroad. This involves advancing our general programme: for the nationalisation of the 200 monopolies with compensation on the basis of proven need; for workers' control and management of industry, and for a socialist plan of production. If necessary, British workers and the Marxists will be willing to wage a war against the Argentine Junta, to help the Argentine workers to take power into their own hands. But only a democratic socialist Britain would have clean hands. A Labour government committed to socialist policies would probably not need to wage war, but could issue a socialist appeal to the Argentine workers to overthrow the monstrous Junta, take power, and then organise a socialist federation of Britain and the Argentine, in conjunction with the Falkland Islands.

You said the war could be continued as long as Labour was in power. At a time when your ruling class was at war, your method of raising consciousness was to go to the workers and say "the war could be ok as long as the second party of capital wins the next election".

Pretty shameful really.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Actually, yes you did.

You said the war could be continued as long as Labour was in power. At a time when your ruling class was at war, your method of raising consciousness was to go to the workers and say "the war could be ok as long as the second party of capital wins the next election".

Pretty shameful really.

It is nice of you to be selective in quoting the document -

The Marxist attitude is determined by irreconcilable opposition to any war waged by the capitalist ruling class. Our attitude to war between Britain and Argentina is determined by which class is waging the war. On both sides it is capitalist powers which are involved, and therefore we are opposed to the war of both Britain and of Argentina.

There are some seriously daft sectarians at the time and since who assume that in order to oppose British Imperialism you have to support a far-right Junta with fascist elements involved in it.

The decisive question is: which class is waging the war and in whose interest? The method of reasoning which starts from who attacked first is completely shallow. There are many cases in history where war has been provoked by one or other power. Our attitude is determined by the class interests of the powers involved in the war.

The ultra-left sects of various descriptions have - quite predictably! - supported Argentina on the grounds that it is a colonial country faced with imperialist aggression. That is nonsense, and shows a completely undialectical approach. Argentina is one of the most highly developed countries in Latin America.

The Junta's claim to the Falklands is purely an imperialist claim for loot in the shape of resources which can be developed, although even this is secondary to their aim of heading off revolution by diverting workers along nationalist lines.

Finally - getting to your baltant attempt to mis-interpret a quote from the document in an attempt to portray the CWI as pro-imperialist.

The document did not state that 'the war could be continued as long as Labour was in power' - in particular you do not address what type of 'Labour' the CWI wanted in power.

Please explain how a Labour government brought to power with a socialist programme involving the nationalisation of the 200 monopolies with compensation on the basis of proven need; for workers' control and management of industry, and for a socialist plan of production and committed, if necessary, to waging a revolutionary war against an imperialist junta in Argentina, can be construed as supporting the right of 'a second party of capital' to continue the war?

[Saorsa]

You mean the kind of Labour that was never going to come to power? As opposed to the kind of labour that would come to power, i.e. a bourgeois party presiding over a bourgeois state?

The Militant, in the article I quoted from, dismissed calls for the troops to be pulled out immediately and for the war to be ended immediately as pacifism.


The demand for the 'withdrawal of the fleet', first put forward by the so-called 'Communist' Party, and then echoed by Tony Benn, Judith Hart and other Labour left wingers, is a meaningless, pacifist gesture. Naturally, the sects enthusiastically follow the Communist Party into this pacifist blind alley. How could the demand for the fleet to be withdrawn be accomplished? By asking Thatcher? She would merely shrug her shoulders and laugh. Throughout history, pacifist demands, to 'stop the war', to halt military mobilisation, or to withdraw the fleet, have never had any effect.

You then go on to say that in the absence of a trade union movement capable of calling a general strike and shutting the war effort down, it was meaningless to call for the fleet to withdraw. By refusing to call for the fleet to withdraw you're obviously suggesting the fleet stay there, and throughout the text Grant talks up the wonderful possibilities this war has for the workers in Argentina and Britain. If the war continues, there could be revolution in Argentina. Hell there could even be a Labour government in Britain!!! Oh boy!

You supported an imperialist war using pseudo-left language to disguise it, as you hoped the war would advance the labour movements in Britain and Argentina.

[Jolly Red Giant]

The Militant, in the article I quoted from, dismissed calls for the troops to be pulled out immediately and for the war to be ended immediately as pacifism.
Once again you selcetive quote the document and then add 2 and 2 together and get 100.

You completely ignore the situation that had developed in Britain with the LP and the TU leadership supporting Thatcher. To simply call for 'withdrawl of the fleet' without any sense of how this could be acheived is to do nothing. Militant adopted a different approach - instead of being pacifist, Militant called for the removal of the Thatcher government - they only way that the fleet could be withdrawn was by the removal of Thatcher. Of course it was also necessary to ensure that the LP government that replaced Thatcher did not simply continue with the same policy. To simply call for a 'withdrawl of the fleet' did nothing to address the real issue - the use by Thatcher to use the Falklands conflict to shore up her collapsing support at the time. The pacifist approach ddin't nothing to combat Thatcher and had little or no impact on the British working class.


By refusing to call for the fleet to withdraw you're obviously suggesting the fleet stay there,
Again adding 2 and 2 and getting a completely wrong answer - Militant went significantly further than calling for a 'withdrawl of the fleet' - Militant put forward a strategy that would force Thatcher from office and replace it with a left-wing government that would then have supported the rights of the Argentinian working class and the inhabitants of the Falklands. It had just as much prospect of succes (in fact more so because of the hatred of Thatcher that had already developed) than any call to 'withdraw the fleet'.


throughout the text Grant talks up the wonderful possibilities this war has for the workers in Argentina and Britain. If the war continues, there could be revolution in Argentina.
Please quote from the document where Grant talks about the 'wonderful' possibilities if the war continued and where it says that continuing war would bring about revolution in Argentina. If you are going to make off the wall claims please at least have the courtesy to provide evidence.

Now I will ask you a question that I would appreciate an answer for - did / do you support the Argentinian junta in the Falklands conflict with Britain?

[Andropov]

I know many IRSP/INLA people going back a considerable period of time - and all of them, without exception, were nutjobs who played absolutely no role in the workers movement.
Give me the names of said people you know because im calling you out on this bullshit.
I fail to see how some middle class yuppy lawyer from Dublin has any contact with vast swathes of INLA/IRSP members since our presence in Dublin is miniscule.
The heartbeat of the movement is in Belfast, Derry and Strabane.

As for the involvement between the IRSP and the IMT - personally I was not surprised - it appears Woods went back to his long lost left-republican roots in an effort to get a foothold in Ireland. Clearly Woods has had some influence on Ruddy but that does not detract from the 'wierd' and unexplained connection between the two groups or whether there still is a connection.
Lets make this clear, the IMT was courting the IRSM in an attempt to get a foothold in Ireland, specifically through Ruddy how ever the IRSM rejected these overtures because of the reformist position the IRSM felt the IMT adopted on many issues.
Hence why the IMT are no sniffing around Eirigi and have dropped the IRSM fetish completely.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I fail to see how some middle class yuppy lawyer from Dublin has any contact with vast swathes of INLA/IRSP members since our presence in Dublin is miniscule.
1. I am not middle class - never have been
2. I am not a lawyer
3. I am not from Dublin
4. I never said I knew 'vast swathes of INLA/IRSP members'
5. To be honest the INLA/IRSP never had vast swathes anyway.
6. Call me out all you want - I have previously indicated to you the details of some of the people I knew and where to find the information.



Lets make this clear, the IMT was courting the IRSM in an attempt to get a foothold in Ireland, specifically through Ruddy how ever the IRSM rejected these overtures because of the reformist position the IRSM felt the IMT adopted on many issues.
Hence why the IMT are no sniffing around Eirigi and have dropped the IRSM fetish completely.
Sounds like Ruddy is in the dog-house.

[Andropov]

1. I am not middle class - never have been
2. I am not a lawyer
3. I am not from Dublin
4. I never said I knew 'vast swathes of INLA/IRSP members'
5. To be honest the INLA/IRSP never had vast swathes anyway.
6. Call me out all you want - I have previously indicated to you the details of some of the people I knew and where to find the information.
No no you didnt.
Give me the names of these "lunatics".
I want names and evidence because you have given me nothing so far.
Im calling you out on your slander and mud slinging.

Sounds like Ruddy is in the dog-house.
Ruddy is gone, do keep up.

[Jolly Red Giant]

No no you didnt.
Yes I did - search back on the last time you brought this up


Give me the names of these "lunatics".
You mean you don't know any of them - I thought you were a member.


I want names and evidence because you have given me nothing so far.
Oh give it a rest - everyone knows the INLA spent more time shooting one another than doing anything else.


Im calling you out on your slander and mud slinging.
I'll meet you outside the school gate after last class - we'll settle it there.


Ruddy is gone, do keep up.
And in the dog-house by the looks of things - given the reputation of the INLA, maybe he should take a few precautions (ho , sorry, I forgot all about the decommissioning stuff - a spare baseball bat maybe).

[Madvillainy]

Madvillainy: Pearse may have viewed the rising in terms of 'blood sacrifice' but Connolly never did. He entered into it knowing full well the odds were against the ICA and IRB but it was not a defeatist attitude, to my understanding.

I have to disagree, the article Zimmerwald posted deals specifically deals with this common myth:


Contemporary Irish
historians, such as his latest biographer Donal Nevan, have gone to some pains
to show that Connolly did not share the vision of Pearse of a blood sacrifice. They
cite the series of articles on “Insurrection and Warfare” which Connolly wrote
in 1915, as proof that he believed that the 1916 rising had a real chance of
success. And indeed, this series represents an important contribution to the
marxist study of military strategy. For instance, in his article on the Moscow
insurrection of 1905, one of the points highlighted is that it was not
militarily defeated, but “melted away as suddenly as it had taken form” as
soon as it became clear that neither the workers in St. Petersburg nor the
peasantry were following its lead. They melted into the protecting proletarian
masses around them.

But in one of the
controversies within the ICA between O’Casey and Connolly before 1916, the
latter defended the opposite viewpoint. This concerned whether or not to
purchase uniforms. Clearly, it was O’Casey who defended the proletarian
standpoint of the Moscow insurrectionists, according to which the combatants
avoid a lost cause battle in order to preserve their forces. “If we flaunt
signs of what we are, and what we do, we’ll get it on the head and round the
neck. As for a uniform – that would be the worst of all…Caught in a dangerous
corner, there would be a chance in your workaday clothes. You could slip among
the throng, carelessly, with few the wiser.” (Quoted in Drums under the
Windows). Indeed, O’Casey challenged Connolly to a public debate, and
submitted an article on the issue – which was never published.


Connolly never once appealed to the
Irish workers to join the Easter Rising, or even to go on strike in sympathy. And
when he led the occupation of the General Post Office on Easter Monday, the
first thing he did was to turn out the employees there at gunpoint. He knew
perfectly well that proletariat of Dublin, still furious about the 1913 events,
would have nothing to do with a nationalist upheaval.


Your kneejerk reaction of nationalism is as bad as all the others - a nations right to self-determination is a progressive step in the battle against Imperialism as the highest form of capitalism.

I don't think my reaction to nationalism is a kneejerk one, I think national liberation or the right to self-determination are nationalist struggles which elevate the 'rights of nations and the people' over that of the working class. Socialists should have nothing to do with any such movements.


Like Palengenesis says though it's fairly useless to debate this with you as a left communist you start from a position of rejecting national liberation struggles.

This is quite silly. Just because you support nationalism doesn't mean I think it's useless to debate the issue of national liberation with you though, this thread and many others would be pretty dull if everyone agreed with each other. I mean this is a forum supposedly dedicated to debate after all.

[Crux]

So you didnt support Britian's claim on the Malvinas?

So you support national liberation for Scotland, Wales and Cornwall?

So you dont call for a "Socialist Federation of the British Isles"?
No we did not support the brittish side in the Malvinas conflict.
I am not sure if we have any official statements specifically on Welsh and Cornish independence, but we are quite clear on Scottish independence. The same reasoning would be applied to Wales and Cornwall.

What is it with you republicans and your inability to understand such words as "socialist" and "voluntary"? We call for a voluntary socialist federation of europe, and ultimately of all the countries of the world.

[PRC-UTE]

I know many IRSP/INLA people going back a considerable period of time - and all of them, without exception, were nutjobs who played absolutely no role in the workers movement.


LOL you said before you used to spend time with Gerry Ruddy of the IRSP, who'd buy your paper off you. You claimed this was the source of your great insights into the IRSM. Gerry Ruddy's well known for being active in the workers movement. Mon, keep your story straight.

So are several of our other leading members, one in Belfast is even well known in Britain- the Weekly worker's Conrad used to gossip about him.

The Party was involved in solidarity with the Green Isle workers just recently- the statements and photos of solidarity work were even posted here http://www.revleft.com/vb/irsp-calls-boycott-t130023/index.html?t=130023


Actually the statement starts out with a gross misrepresentation of what the Rising was -
The rising which asserted the national sovereignty of Ireland was in fact an internationalist rising against the First World War around the leadership of James Connolly and the Irish Citizens’ Army (my emphasis)


but that's exactly what Lenin said...guess he too was a sectarian headbanger.

[Jolly Red Giant]

You claimed this was the source of your great insights into the IRSM. Gerry Ruddy's well known for being active in the workers movement. Mon, keep your story straight.
Never said I knew Gerry Ruddy - never said I sold him a paper - please produce a quote where I said I did.


So are several of our other leading members, one in Belfast is even well known in Britain- the Weekly worker's Conrad used to gossip about him.
Never even claimed to know 'leading' members of the INLA - don't and didn't know the internal structures - do know that of the people I knew some were reasonably prominent and one was in a leadership position (although I knew him only briefly).


The Party was involved in solidarity with the Green Isle workers just recently- the statements and photos of solidarity work were even posted here http://www.revleft.com/vb/irsp-calls-boycott-t130023/index.html?t=130023
Whoop-de-do-de - the IRSP visited a picket line (it such a rare occurance that they even took photos) - do you know how many different picket lines I have visited in the past year - never mind the past 30 years. There have been maybe four or five occasions when I have had dealings with IRSP/INLA members were involved in mass work over 30 years - in all cases they were disruptive, came up with completely off-the-wall proposals and were dismissed by those involved in the campaign out of hand. On the one occasion they managed to gain some influence they wrecked the camapign.



but that's exactly what Lenin said...guess he too was a sectarian headbanger.
Plese produce a quote.

[Andropov]

Yes I did - search back on the last time you brought this up
No you didnt, you didnt give me one name that is verifiable by your old posts.
Now give me a name.

You mean you don't know any of them - I thought you were a member.
Give me names of these "lunatics" you know or we can dismiss out of hand your claims as trumped up slander and mud slinging.

Oh give it a rest - everyone knows the INLA spent more time shooting one another than doing anything else.
Pathetic, truely pathetic.
Every feud was actually orchestrated by external forces outside of the control of the INLA, its a sad fact.
The feud with the sticks was started by the sticks with the killing of Hugh Ferguson as was the feud with IPLO which was started by IPLO.
External forces trying to wipe the IRSM out, but we survived as always and it is to our credit that we have sustained attack after attack from imperial and domestic enemys.


I'll meet you outside the school gate after last class - we'll settle it there.

Are you now withdrawing your slander and bile or is this an attempt at humour?

And in the dog-house by the looks of things
Im not sure I understand what your getting at here?

given the reputation of the INLA, maybe he should take a few precautions (ho , sorry, I forgot all about the decommissioning stuff - a spare baseball bat maybe).
Funny....
Yet again pathetic attempts at humour instead of trying tackle me with some facts and evidence for your claims.
You have yet to provide a single name of an IRSP/INLA member you met and knew?
Quite telling actually.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Now give me a name.
Nope - one of the nutjobs still lives around the corner from me - and bad and all as me knees are, I still value them.



Every feud was actually orchestrated by external forces outside of the control of the INLA, its a sad fact.
It was never your fault - someone else started it - and you attempted to finish it. There is a serious persecution complex coming through all this nonsense. The INLA didn't need external forces to provoke a feud - they were more than capable of starting it themselves. It was the nature of the organisation.



External forces trying to wipe the IRSM out, but we survived as always and it is to our credit that we have sustained attack after attack from imperial and domestic enemys. You survive simply because if any of the feuds went to their logical conclusion there wouldn't have been anyone left in the INLA - the ending of the feuds was necessary to avoid getting shot dead.



Quite telling actually.
I will be quite blunt - I have nothing for contempt for the INLA and adopt little better attitude for the IRSP - neither organisation has contributed anything to working class movement since their inception (except for a short period after its founding by Costello and before it went completely off the rails). Every intervention by existing or former members in any movement/organisation of the working class has been manipulative and subordinated to the armed struggle or for pure personal gain. Not alone that the activities of the INLA have done more to provoke a sectarian civil war than any other paramilitary organisation with the possible exception of a couple of the more lunatic loyalist groups - even the assassination of Billy Wright was crass stupidity.

Fortunately such paramilitary activity has ceased for the moment (I won't say that the INLA has come to their senses - it was simply as a result of pressure from the Catholic community) - undoubtedly it will start up again when the opportunity arises. In the meantime I am sure volunteers will find more than enough to do raising funds for their organisation.

[Palingenisis]

Nope - one of the nutjobs still lives around the corner from me - and bad and all as me knees are, I still value them.
.

If this "nutjob" who you claim lives around the corner actually existed Im sure without you naming him if he was reading this he could guess easily that its him who is been spoken of...Trots will trots though, wont they?

[Andropov]

Nope - one of the nutjobs still lives around the corner from me
Pathetic, yet more ducking, dodging, weeving and excusing your way out of giving us some evidence.
This pathetic little charade is fooling nobody.

and bad and all as me knees are, I still value them.
Whats this?? Another attempt at comic wit to try and avoid giving us some tnageable evidence, quite obvious really.

It was never your fault - someone else started it - and you attempted to finish it. There is a serious persecution complex coming through all this nonsense.

If you look at the history of the INLA it always attempted to end these feuds by peacefull means and it was always exploited by our enemys, first case and point was the execution of Costello by the sticks after the cease-fire was called then there was the execution of Ta Power when he was travelling under a white flag attempting to discuss a peacefull resolution, then there was the killing of Gino Gallagher who was attempting to end the feud.
All these were instances of the INLA trying to end feuds through dialogue after they were started by outside forces, this is not my opinion or some victim complex these are all matters of historical fact and ones which our enemys dont even dispute.

The INLA didn't need external forces to provoke a feud - they were more than capable of starting it themselves. It was the nature of the organisation.
Whether it was capable or not is a matter for discussion.
What is not up for discussion is the fact that every feud with the INLA was started by external forces attempting to wipe out the IRSM, the INLA merely stood defiantly against such attempts to eradicate its membership.
For that me nor any member of the IRSM will be apologetic for to some yuppy middle class Lawyer.

You survive simply because if any of the feuds went to their logical conclusion there wouldn't have been anyone left in the INLA - the ending of the feuds was necessary to avoid getting shot dead.
What??
The feuds were designed to wipe out party and army membership in our movement.

I will be quite blunt - I have nothing for contempt for the INLA and adopt little better attitude for the IRSP - neither organisation has contributed anything to working class movement since their inception (except for a short period after its founding by Costello and before it went completely off the rails).
I can tell and I think its sad but im sure you have your personal reasons for it.
I still have some friends in the SP and will continue to do so its just unfortunate that it does seem to attract Loyalist symapthising degenerates such as yourself.

Every intervention by existing or former members in any movement/organisation of the working class has been manipulative and subordinated to the armed struggle or for pure personal gain.
That is a deliberate distortion and a blatant lie.
How dare you throw shit like that out, absolute garbage.

Not alone that the activities of the INLA have done more to provoke a sectarian civil war than any other paramilitary organisation with the possible exception of a couple of the more lunatic loyalist groups
Ahh yes trendy leftism at its finest.
Absolute and utter tripe, the INLA never contributed to a civil war.
It fought the agents of Imeprialism and sectarianism and brought the war to them, this does not translate to creating a civil war. Targetting Squadies, Unionists or Loyalists is not a civil war.

even the assassination of Billy Wright was crass stupidity.
Thank you for stating this, shows your true colours.
Billy Wright organised a campaign of systematic sectarian slaughter of Catholics in the Portadown region.
He orchestrated the LVF from his cell in Long Kesh and in the INLA's removal of this tumor in Ireland they killed one of the most ruthless and sectarian men in Ireland. Lets not forget he left the UVF denouncing them as "Communists" because they started using more socialist lingo. The UVF for christ sake.

Fortunately such paramilitary activity has ceased for the moment (I won't say that the INLA has come to their senses - it was simply as a result of pressure from the Catholic community)
Not at all.
Yet again shows you have no idea what public opinion is like in The Nationalist Ghettos.
There is a reason why the PIRA said it has lost all support in the likes of Ardoyne to other Republican Paramilitarys.
If anything in these ghettos armed Republicanism is still wanted and respected.
The INLA decomissioned because in the socio-political context of Ireland today an armed campaign would not and shall not further our political objectives.

undoubtedly it will start up again when the opportunity arises.
If indeed the socio-political context of Ireland does change and armed warfare would further our goals im sure the INLA and the IRSM as a whole would objectively look at such a situation and analyze what position to take.

In the meantime I am sure volunteers will find more than enough to do raising funds for their organisation.
The INLA's decomission will spell the end for the need to fund raise for the organisation.
Now when your ready could you please provide me with names and verifiable evidence of the people you claim to know and live beside who are these "lunatics".

[Devrim]

So you disagree with your comrades that the British exceution of James Connolly was a good thing?
I dont know any Socialists who do either but one of the leading members of an anarchist group in the occupied six counties who Devrim informed us have the same position as the International Communist Current praised the execution of James Connolly on Libcom.

I think you are clutching at straws a bit here. Firstly I think I said similar, not the same though it's not that important. I don't think that our positions are the same though. Second, I don't know which comment you are referring to, but I have got to presume that it is something written by the poster known as 'Revol 68', who I believe is not a leading member of organise, but actually an ex-member. Thirdly I imagine it was something he didn't even believe and was just saying stupidly to wind up republicans.

It is a bit of a tenuous association to smear Madvillany with. He is vaguely sympathetic to a group, one of whose members said have a similar position to another group, one of whose ex-members once said something stupid to wind up republicans on an internet forum.

For the record we don't praise the execution of Connelly, nor do we praise the state's execution of nationalists today however anti-working class we think they might be.

Devrim

[Jolly Red Giant]

If you look at the history of the INLA it always attempted to end these feuds by peacefull means and it was always exploited by our enemys, first case and point was the execution of Costello by the sticks after the cease-fire was called then there was the execution of Ta Power when he was travelling under a white flag attempting to discuss a peacefull resolution, then there was the killing of Gino Gallagher who was attempting to end the feud.
All these were instances of the INLA trying to end feuds through dialogue after they were started by outside forces, this is not my opinion or some victim complex these are all matters of historical fact and ones which our enemys dont even dispute.
Are you seriously that delusional - the INLA spent practically their entire existance splitting and killing one another.



What is not up for discussion is the fact that every feud with the INLA was started by external forces attempting to wipe out the IRSM, the INLA merely stood defiantly against such attempts to eradicate its membership.
Once again seriously delusional


yuppy middle class Lawyer.
As i said before - not a yuppie (too old) - not middle class - definitely not a lawyer.


Loyalist symapthising degenerates such as yourself.
I have just as much contempt (in fact probably a little more) for Loyalist nutjobs as I have for INLA nutjobs.


That is a deliberate distortion and a blatant lie.
Prehaps you could give details of the intervention and influence in the workers movement on the island.



Absolute and utter tripe, the INLA never contributed to a civil war.
It fought the agents of Imeprialism and sectarianism and brought the war to them, this does not translate to creating a civil war. Targetting Squadies, Unionists or Loyalists is not a civil war.
The INLA very responsile for some of the most vicious sectarian killings during the troubles - killings designed to promote sectarian reaction - but of course the INLA now claim that it was all the fault of those splitters and external forces.



Billy Wright organised a campaign of systematic sectarian slaughter of Catholics in the Portadown region.
He orchestrated the LVF from his cell in Long Kesh and in the INLA's removal of this tumor in Ireland they killed one of the most ruthless and sectarian men in Ireland.
Billy Wright was a murdering sectarian scumbag - his assassination made him a martyr and provoked retaliation by loyalist paramilitaries. By the way - are the INLA still denying collusion?



If indeed the socio-political context of Ireland does change and armed warfare would further our goals im sure the INLA and the IRSM as a whole would objectively look at such a situation and analyze what position to take.
Of course you would - and you would make as much progress in furthering your goals as you did for the 20 years you were killing people (including yourselves).


The INLA's decomission will spell the end for the need to fund raise for the organisation.
Pull the other one.

[Andropov]

Are you seriously that delusional - the INLA spent practically their entire existance splitting and killing one another.
Point out what was wrong or innacurate in what I stated there?
Piece by piece please because everything I have stated there is a matter of historical fact.

Once again seriously delusional
Its also recognised as a matter of historical fact that if the INLA never existed then the IRSP would have been wiped out on its birth as the sticks planned.
None of this is delusional, all of this is recognised historical fact.
So unless you have some historical evidence to counter what I stated instead of one line cop outs as in "delusional" or the like then we can dismiss your pathetic bile for what it is.

As i said before - not a yuppie (too old) - not middle class - definitely not a lawyer.
Indeed.

I have just as much contempt (in fact probably a little more) for Loyalist nutjobs as I have for INLA nutjobs.
Absolutely pathetic.
Your failure to differentiate between a National Liberation Army and a Sectarian Death Squad are quite impressive.
No wonder you and your ilke are sucking on the teet of the PUP.

Prehaps you could give details of the intervention and influence in the workers movement on the island.
Ok one of the leading members of the IWU Branch in Dublin is the Dublin secretary of the IRSP, a yorkshire man.
One of the leading members of UNITE in Belfast is a founding member of the IRSP and long time Marxist Leninist.
Indeed some of the leading members in Belfast in the IWU are IRSP members.
One of our strabane members is very influential with ICTU.
I myself am a shop steward for SIPTU.
These are just the people that I know, not to mention the vast community work that is done on the ground in the likes of Shantallow, Galliagh, Short Strand, Ardoyne, Andytown etc.
I suggest have a walk into the Derry office the next time your up there and see how much work is done for the community there.

The INLA very responsile for some of the most vicious sectarian killings during the troubles - killings designed to promote sectarian reaction - but of course the INLA now claim that it was all the fault of those splitters and external forces.
What sectarian attacks are these?
The only one I know of that was attributed to the INLA was the Pentecostal Massacre but that was instantly denounced by the INLA, indeed it was such an appaling attack that the INLA's chief of staff Dominic Mc Glinchy who was then the most wanted man in Ireland acutally came out of hideing to denounce the attack.
So yet again no evidence to substantiate your claims, but what more can we expect from your ilke.

Billy Wright was a murdering sectarian scumbag - his assassination made him a martyr and provoked retaliation by loyalist paramilitaries.
Of course it made him a martyr and of course it ment that there would be retaliations.
Does that mean that we should have let one of the most ruthless and efficient sectarian murderers operate freely? Of course not, the INLA took him out and saved countless lives in the process even though there were retaliations.
The INLA did not create the degenerate nature of Loyalism, it only attempted to try and stop it where as you and your trendy leftist ilke would have obviously capitulated to loyalism and to Billy Wright in this case because of the retaliations to his death.
The very basis for your arguement is a carven replica of those bandied about after Heydrich was assasinated.
You can not accomodate Loyalism just as you cannot accomodate Facism, Loyalism is an ideology that promotes racial supremacey, is misoginistic, is sectarian and is inherently anti-worker.
Your whole two-nationist economist approach which accomodates Loyalism is anti-marxist.

Of course you would - and you would make as much progress in furthering your goals as you did for the 20 years you were killing people (including yourselves).
Granted we failed in our objectives but it must also be recognised that thanks to the sacrafices of many brave Volunteers we no longer have the same level of oppression in Ireland and the same level of Loyalist Hegemony.
It was not the economist two nationist trendy left socialists such as yourself who gained this step forward for the working class it was Volunteers from the PIRA and the INLA who did so.

Pull the other one.
Your about as successfull with your attempted humour as you are with providing factual evidence to back up your claims.
So yet again I ask you who are these "lunatics" you know and live beside?

[Coggeh]

The Socialist Party in Ireland are basically run by a bunch of English social-Imperialists who supported Thatcher's re-grabbing of the Malvinas.
Please take your bullshit elsewhere.


They also basically think that what small amount of independence that Ireland won in thew 26 counties was a bad thing and want to have the union back, of course in a "Socialist" form. They oppose Welsh, Scottish and Cornish national liberation.
Cloak your republicanism with red all you want but your slander of the idea of a united England Scotland Wales and Ireland under socialism is pretty stupid. Take a step back and think of what such a union would mean. It would an international alliance of socialist nations, we also stand for a unites socialist europe and world. That mean we want rule from Brussels or a one world government ? You either support international revolution or you don't and clearly if your opposed to an alliance with an socialist england than you shouldn't be on this site as your nationalism has clouded your judgement.


Having said all that I just dont trust Eirigi...They seem attention grabbing "media whores", they keep aloof from other Republican organizations and what they mean by "socialism" is pretty undefined. It seems a re-run of the Provies.
No problems here:thumbup1:

[Andropov]

Cloak your republicanism with red all you want but your slander of the idea of a united England Scotland Wales and Ireland under socialism is pretty stupid. Take a step back and think of what such a union would mean. It would an international alliance of socialist nations, we also stand for a unites socialist europe and world. That mean we want rule from Brussels or a one world government ? You either support international revolution or you don't and clearly if your opposed to an alliance with an socialist england than you shouldn't be on this site as your nationalism has clouded your judgement.
Your spot on here Coggy, an Independant and isolated Workers Republic would never be able to sustain itself alone.
It would of course require a Socialist Federation of Europe to sustain itself.

[Gravedigger01]

this is our problem.We have no left unity whatsoever.Its just the Republicans,Socialist,Communists and Labour sell outs having a go at eachother all the time

[Andropov]

this is our problem.We have no left unity whatsoever.Its just the Republicans,Socialist,Communists and Labour sell outs having a go at eachother all the time
True but something that is not just confined to Ireland.

[Coggeh]

True but something that is not just confined to Ireland.
Sadly indeed. But just because we discuss and debate topics amongst each other on this site doesn't mean we can't work together(which we can) on a mass workers basis. For example the CWI and the SWP aren't exactly twins on the basis of theory but when it comes to practice in the past we've formed many alliances together.

Its important not to confuse leftist debate as sectarianism as many leftists work together no matter what organisation.